Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Thursday, November 05, 2009
"Remember, remember the 5th of November"
"Good evening, London. Allow me first to apologise for this interruption. I do, like many of you, appreciate the comforts of the everyday routine, the security of the familiar, the tranquility of repetition. I enjoy them as much as any bloke. But in the spirit of commemoration - whereby those important events of the past, usually associated with someone's death or the end of some awful bloody struggle, are celebrated with a nice holiday - I thought we could mark this November the fifth, a day that is sadly no longer remembered, by taking some time out of our daily lives to sit down and have a little chat.
There are, of course, those who do not want us to speak. I suspect even now orders are being shouted into telephones and men with guns will soon be on their way. Why? Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there?
Cruelty and injustice; intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance, coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those who are more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable. But again, truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror.
I know why you did it. I know you were afraid. Who wouldn't be? War. Terror. Disease. There were a myriad of problems which conspired to corrupt your reason and rob you of your common sense. Fear got the best of you and in your panic, you turned to the now High Chancellor Adam Sutler. He promised you order. He promised you peace. And all he demanded in return was your silent, obedient consent.
Last night, I sought to end that silence. Last night, I destroyed the Old Bailey to remind this country of what it has forgotten. More than four hundred years ago, a great citizen wished to embed the fifth of November forever in our memory. His hope was to remind the world that fairness, justice and freedom are more than words - they are perspectives. So if you've seen nothing, if the crimes of this government remain unknown to you, then I would suggest that you allow the fifth of November to pass unmarked. But if you see what I see, if you feel as I feel, and if you would seek as I seek, then I ask you to stand beside me, one year from tonight, outside the gates of Parliament. And together, we shall give them a fifth of November that shall never, ever, be forgot!"
There are, of course, those who do not want us to speak. I suspect even now orders are being shouted into telephones and men with guns will soon be on their way. Why? Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there?
Cruelty and injustice; intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance, coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those who are more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable. But again, truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror.
I know why you did it. I know you were afraid. Who wouldn't be? War. Terror. Disease. There were a myriad of problems which conspired to corrupt your reason and rob you of your common sense. Fear got the best of you and in your panic, you turned to the now High Chancellor Adam Sutler. He promised you order. He promised you peace. And all he demanded in return was your silent, obedient consent.
Last night, I sought to end that silence. Last night, I destroyed the Old Bailey to remind this country of what it has forgotten. More than four hundred years ago, a great citizen wished to embed the fifth of November forever in our memory. His hope was to remind the world that fairness, justice and freedom are more than words - they are perspectives. So if you've seen nothing, if the crimes of this government remain unknown to you, then I would suggest that you allow the fifth of November to pass unmarked. But if you see what I see, if you feel as I feel, and if you would seek as I seek, then I ask you to stand beside me, one year from tonight, outside the gates of Parliament. And together, we shall give them a fifth of November that shall never, ever, be forgot!"
Tuesday, November 03, 2009
Monday, November 02, 2009
Quick thoughts on PAP Party Convention 2009
If you all have been paying attention to local news, you all should be aware that the People's Action Party (PAP) recently held their 2009 Party Convention.
And to an observer of local politics such as me, one of the most interesting announcements that came out of the Convention would evidently be Prime Minister (PM) Lee Hsien Loong's announcement that the PAP has already identified a slate of new electoral candidates who are mainly in their 30s and 40s and of whom some have the potential to become office-holders or Cabinet ministers.
This announcement by PM Lee is interesting on two levels.
Firstly, in light of how the PAP leaders have repeatedly said that the PAP's next candidate for Prime Minister after PM Lee will ideally be an individual in his/her 30s during the next election, it is highly likely that someone in the abovementioned slate of new candidates will be groomed as the PAP's next candidate for Prime Minister.
Hence, I suppose that when they are revealed to the public, Singaporeans, the media and political observers will again indulge in a guessing game to guess who amongst this slate of new candidates will become the PAP's next candidate for Prime Minister. Of course, I too will most likely participate in such a guessing game when the time comes.
Secondly, although the next election can be held latest by 2012, this announcement by PM Lee regarding a slate of new candidates can arguably be interpreted as a suggestion that the next election may be held earlier than 2012.
Indeed, combining this announcement by PM Lee together with his remark about PAP party activists having to be prepared for more contests during the next election, it does appear as though an election will be occurring soon and the PAP is already getting ready for it.
Hence, seen in this light, the prominent utilisation of the new media during the Convention can arguably be interpreted as a "dress rehearsal" by the PAP to employ the new media as part of their campaign strategy during the next election.
[Aside: Talking about the PAP's use of new media, I must say that while I acknowledge the effort put in by the Young PAP team to produce their recruitment video, the video still nonetheless, in my opinion, seem to be an unimpressive adaptation, if not mimicking, of the original video.]
Finally, PM Lee's remark about the "symbiotic" relationship between the PAP and the NTUC, as reported in this 《联合早报》/Lianhe Zaobao article, also got me raising my eyebrows as I read it, especially since I have doing some reading up on state-union relations in Singapore for a term paper I have been working on.
Specifically, in translation, this was what PM Lee reportedly said:
"If one closes one eyes, it is virtually impossible to distinguish between whether it is NTUC delegates or PAP members who are speaking. This is because the PAP and NTUC speak in one voice."
"A lot of those who are in the PAP are also in NTUC. Eventually, many of those who are in NTUC will also become PAP members."
[Note: In his original remarks, PM Lee referred to NTUC delegates as "those wearing 'U' polo tees", with 'U' being the logo of NTUC, and PAP members as "those wearing all white attire", with an all white ensemble being the standard "uniform" of the PAP.]
Evidently, while the above remarks by PM Lee may be benignly interpreted as just PM Lee enthusing about the closeness of relationship between the PAP and NTUC, I cannot help but wonder if it is healthy that one cannot differentiate between the voice of the PAP and NTUC if one closes one's eyes...
And to an observer of local politics such as me, one of the most interesting announcements that came out of the Convention would evidently be Prime Minister (PM) Lee Hsien Loong's announcement that the PAP has already identified a slate of new electoral candidates who are mainly in their 30s and 40s and of whom some have the potential to become office-holders or Cabinet ministers.
This announcement by PM Lee is interesting on two levels.
Firstly, in light of how the PAP leaders have repeatedly said that the PAP's next candidate for Prime Minister after PM Lee will ideally be an individual in his/her 30s during the next election, it is highly likely that someone in the abovementioned slate of new candidates will be groomed as the PAP's next candidate for Prime Minister.
Hence, I suppose that when they are revealed to the public, Singaporeans, the media and political observers will again indulge in a guessing game to guess who amongst this slate of new candidates will become the PAP's next candidate for Prime Minister. Of course, I too will most likely participate in such a guessing game when the time comes.
Secondly, although the next election can be held latest by 2012, this announcement by PM Lee regarding a slate of new candidates can arguably be interpreted as a suggestion that the next election may be held earlier than 2012.
Indeed, combining this announcement by PM Lee together with his remark about PAP party activists having to be prepared for more contests during the next election, it does appear as though an election will be occurring soon and the PAP is already getting ready for it.
Hence, seen in this light, the prominent utilisation of the new media during the Convention can arguably be interpreted as a "dress rehearsal" by the PAP to employ the new media as part of their campaign strategy during the next election.
[Aside: Talking about the PAP's use of new media, I must say that while I acknowledge the effort put in by the Young PAP team to produce their recruitment video, the video still nonetheless, in my opinion, seem to be an unimpressive adaptation, if not mimicking, of the original video.]
Finally, PM Lee's remark about the "symbiotic" relationship between the PAP and the NTUC, as reported in this 《联合早报》/Lianhe Zaobao article, also got me raising my eyebrows as I read it, especially since I have doing some reading up on state-union relations in Singapore for a term paper I have been working on.
Specifically, in translation, this was what PM Lee reportedly said:
"If one closes one eyes, it is virtually impossible to distinguish between whether it is NTUC delegates or PAP members who are speaking. This is because the PAP and NTUC speak in one voice."
"A lot of those who are in the PAP are also in NTUC. Eventually, many of those who are in NTUC will also become PAP members."
[Note: In his original remarks, PM Lee referred to NTUC delegates as "those wearing 'U' polo tees", with 'U' being the logo of NTUC, and PAP members as "those wearing all white attire", with an all white ensemble being the standard "uniform" of the PAP.]
Evidently, while the above remarks by PM Lee may be benignly interpreted as just PM Lee enthusing about the closeness of relationship between the PAP and NTUC, I cannot help but wonder if it is healthy that one cannot differentiate between the voice of the PAP and NTUC if one closes one's eyes...
Friday, October 30, 2009
A short documentary film about food and poverty -- "Chicken a la Carte"
A JC friend of mine shared the following video on her Facebook page and I thought it was necessary for me to share it with a larger audience.
In the end, as my Human Rights lecturer from two semesters ago would have pointed out: it's not an issue of there being not enough food, it's about there being an unequal distribution of food resources.
Relevant posts:
i) Post No. 66: “谁知盘中餐，粒粒皆辛苦?”
ii) Highlights from "NUS Stand Up Against Poverty"
iii) Post No. 85a: Imagine A World Without Poverty (I)
iv) Post No. 85b: Imagine A World Without Poverty (II)
Relevant posts:
i) Post No. 66: “谁知盘中餐，粒粒皆辛苦?”
ii) Highlights from "NUS Stand Up Against Poverty"
iii) Post No. 85a: Imagine A World Without Poverty (I)
iv) Post No. 85b: Imagine A World Without Poverty (II)
Monday, October 26, 2009
NUS PSSoc: Partisan or Not?
I am not sure how many of you all are aware of this but it would seem that there is an ongoing tussle between the NUS Political Science Society (PSSoc) and the readers of The Online Citizen (TOC).
Essentially, this tussle began when TOC published an article reporting/reviewing the "Straight Talk: Is Singapore = PAP?" forum that the NUS PSSoc recently organised. In this article, the author appears to have implicitly portrayed the NUS PSSoc as being partisan (in favour of the PAP) because the Society invited only PAP members and NUS academics to speak at the forum but not members of the opposition. This portrayal was picked up by the readers of the article and in the comments section, comments echoed the perception of the NUS PSSoc being partisan in favour of the PAP.
Recognising that such a perception of the NUS PSSoc was being spread on TOC, members of the current executive committee (exco) of the Society stepped in to clarify matters. And as far as I can see, the main points they wanted to clarify include but are not limited to the following:
i) That the forum was not intended to be a partisan event
ii) That although there may be members of the Young PAP within the Society and within its exco, the Society is on the whole non-partisan
iii) That this forum is only the first event organised by the current exco and in future events, opposition members and/or critics of the political status quo will be invited
iv) That the Society has, in the past, organised events in which opposition members and/or critics of the political status quo have been invited to speak
Of course, it will seem to me that despite the clarification, the general sentiment remains that the NUS PSSoc is not totally non-partisan.
What do I think about all this?
Well, before I say anything else, let me first state that although I have been an ordinary member of the NUS PSSoc (i.e. I have never been part of its exco) for the first two years of my undergraduate life at NUS and have helped out at two of its major events, I am no longer associated with it (my membership lapsed and I didn't have time to renew it).I say this lest any of you all dig up my previous links with NUS PSSoc and cast aspersions upon my objectivity in writing this post.
In addition, what I am going to say below is entirely based only on information which is available in the public sphere. Hence, I will concede that there may be things going on behind the scenes which I am not aware of.
That said, I must say that on the whole, my stance towards this tussle between the NUS PSSoc and TOC readers is basically the same as the one I expressed in this earlier blog post of mine.
Specifically, I will say that it strikes me as somewhat unfair, if not fallacious, to label the NUS PSSoc as being partisan in favour of the PAP just based on one event they organised and because they have Young PAP members within the Society and its exco.
Also, I find it somewhat odd that some of the comments on TOC expressed the sentiment that the NUS PSSoc should be more "oppositional" in nature. Hmm... So being partisan in favour of the PAP is to be censured but partisan in favour of the opposition is okay, if not to be lauded?
And we should keep in mind that the fact that NUS PSSoc is just a students' society catering to mainly Political Science undergraduates in NUS, it is not a opposition party or a lobby group. It is thus perhaps unfair to expect or demand that the Society to act as something it is not.
Finally, as I said above, I am not aware of anything that may have gone on behind the scenes with regards to the organisation of the forum. But if indeed things occurred behind the scenes that prevented members of the opposition and/or critics of the political status quo to attend and speak at the forum, the question will then be "who is doing the preventing?". If it was not NUS PSSoc itself which was doing the preventing but some "higher authority", then perhaps we should not lay the blame entirely at the feet of the Society.
In the end, I do not know about you all but I will be keeping an eye to see how things evolve with regards to this affair.
P.S. 27/10/2009
I have been looking through the comments made on TOC in response to the article in question and I think I have two more points which I like to express.
One, it would appear to me that perhaps members of the current NUS PSSoc exco may need to improve on their strategic communication skills.
I say this because while I think it was necessary that they clarified matters regarding the forum with/on TOC, it was perhaps not that wise a move for them to step into the fray and attempt to clarify through posting comments as their clarifications would most likely be drowned out by the cacophony of other comments. If I am not wrong, since the exco had already sent in a statement/clarification through email to the TOC editorial board, it would perhaps be better if the exco had waited till that statement was published on TOC before they made any further comments. And even if TOC delayed or declined publishing the statement, the exco could have released the statement on the NUS PSSoc's own website (and provide a link in the comments section of TOC to the website).
It also did not help that there seem to be at least three members of the exco who were trying to post comments to clarify NUS PSSoc's stance. This was perhaps somewhat confusing. And at times, it was not entirely clear whether those members were speaking in their own capacity or on behalf of the entire exco. The language and tone utilised in the exco members' comments could perhaps also be better chosen; it would seem that several comments were made on the spur of the moment and by individuals who were quite caught up emotionally in the fray.
If any of the exco members are reading this post, allow me to say I mean well with what I have said above.
Secondly, I must say that I am rather saddened by how several comments on TOC used language and tones which were much less than civil. Some of the comments may even be construed as personal attacks. On that note, I cannot help but wonder about if the moderators at TOC have been paying full attention to the comments being made in response to the article in question.
I find it particularly saddening that the author of the article has been dragged into the fray, in light of the comments which appear to be casting aspersions upon her character and state of mind.
Essentially, this tussle began when TOC published an article reporting/reviewing the "Straight Talk: Is Singapore = PAP?" forum that the NUS PSSoc recently organised. In this article, the author appears to have implicitly portrayed the NUS PSSoc as being partisan (in favour of the PAP) because the Society invited only PAP members and NUS academics to speak at the forum but not members of the opposition. This portrayal was picked up by the readers of the article and in the comments section, comments echoed the perception of the NUS PSSoc being partisan in favour of the PAP.
Recognising that such a perception of the NUS PSSoc was being spread on TOC, members of the current executive committee (exco) of the Society stepped in to clarify matters. And as far as I can see, the main points they wanted to clarify include but are not limited to the following:
i) That the forum was not intended to be a partisan event
ii) That although there may be members of the Young PAP within the Society and within its exco, the Society is on the whole non-partisan
iii) That this forum is only the first event organised by the current exco and in future events, opposition members and/or critics of the political status quo will be invited
iv) That the Society has, in the past, organised events in which opposition members and/or critics of the political status quo have been invited to speak
Of course, it will seem to me that despite the clarification, the general sentiment remains that the NUS PSSoc is not totally non-partisan.
What do I think about all this?
Well, before I say anything else, let me first state that although I have been an ordinary member of the NUS PSSoc (i.e. I have never been part of its exco) for the first two years of my undergraduate life at NUS and have helped out at two of its major events, I am no longer associated with it (my membership lapsed and I didn't have time to renew it).I say this lest any of you all dig up my previous links with NUS PSSoc and cast aspersions upon my objectivity in writing this post.
In addition, what I am going to say below is entirely based only on information which is available in the public sphere. Hence, I will concede that there may be things going on behind the scenes which I am not aware of.
That said, I must say that on the whole, my stance towards this tussle between the NUS PSSoc and TOC readers is basically the same as the one I expressed in this earlier blog post of mine.
Specifically, I will say that it strikes me as somewhat unfair, if not fallacious, to label the NUS PSSoc as being partisan in favour of the PAP just based on one event they organised and because they have Young PAP members within the Society and its exco.
Also, I find it somewhat odd that some of the comments on TOC expressed the sentiment that the NUS PSSoc should be more "oppositional" in nature. Hmm... So being partisan in favour of the PAP is to be censured but partisan in favour of the opposition is okay, if not to be lauded?
And we should keep in mind that the fact that NUS PSSoc is just a students' society catering to mainly Political Science undergraduates in NUS, it is not a opposition party or a lobby group. It is thus perhaps unfair to expect or demand that the Society to act as something it is not.
Finally, as I said above, I am not aware of anything that may have gone on behind the scenes with regards to the organisation of the forum. But if indeed things occurred behind the scenes that prevented members of the opposition and/or critics of the political status quo to attend and speak at the forum, the question will then be "who is doing the preventing?". If it was not NUS PSSoc itself which was doing the preventing but some "higher authority", then perhaps we should not lay the blame entirely at the feet of the Society.
In the end, I do not know about you all but I will be keeping an eye to see how things evolve with regards to this affair.
P.S. 27/10/2009
I have been looking through the comments made on TOC in response to the article in question and I think I have two more points which I like to express.
One, it would appear to me that perhaps members of the current NUS PSSoc exco may need to improve on their strategic communication skills.
I say this because while I think it was necessary that they clarified matters regarding the forum with/on TOC, it was perhaps not that wise a move for them to step into the fray and attempt to clarify through posting comments as their clarifications would most likely be drowned out by the cacophony of other comments. If I am not wrong, since the exco had already sent in a statement/clarification through email to the TOC editorial board, it would perhaps be better if the exco had waited till that statement was published on TOC before they made any further comments. And even if TOC delayed or declined publishing the statement, the exco could have released the statement on the NUS PSSoc's own website (and provide a link in the comments section of TOC to the website).
It also did not help that there seem to be at least three members of the exco who were trying to post comments to clarify NUS PSSoc's stance. This was perhaps somewhat confusing. And at times, it was not entirely clear whether those members were speaking in their own capacity or on behalf of the entire exco. The language and tone utilised in the exco members' comments could perhaps also be better chosen; it would seem that several comments were made on the spur of the moment and by individuals who were quite caught up emotionally in the fray.
If any of the exco members are reading this post, allow me to say I mean well with what I have said above.
Secondly, I must say that I am rather saddened by how several comments on TOC used language and tones which were much less than civil. Some of the comments may even be construed as personal attacks. On that note, I cannot help but wonder about if the moderators at TOC have been paying full attention to the comments being made in response to the article in question.
I find it particularly saddening that the author of the article has been dragged into the fray, in light of the comments which appear to be casting aspersions upon her character and state of mind.
Friday, October 23, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
