On Freedom

International Media

1.      Freedom in the World 2006 ranked Singapore 5 out of 7 for political freedom, and 4 out of 7 for civil liberties (where 1 is the most free), with an overall ranking of “partly free”.

2.      In August 2006, the government announced a tightening of rules on foreign publications previously exempt from the media code. Newsweek, Time, the Financial Times, the Far Eastern Economic Review and the International Herald Tribune will be required to appoint a publisher’s representative in Singapore who could be sued, and to pay a security deposit of S$200,000. The move comes after FEER published an interview with Singaporean opposition leader Chee Soon Juan. ^[9] On 28 September 2006, FEER was banned for failing to comply with conditions imposed under the Newspaper and Printing Presses Act.^[10]

3.      The Economist and the Far Eastern Economic Review (FEER), have been subjected to defamation suits and/or had their circulations “gazetted” (restricted). The sale of Malaysian newspapers in Singapore is prohibited; a similar ban on the sale of newspapers from
Singapore applies in Malaysia.

4.      In 2005, Singapore ranked 140th out of 167 nations by Reporters Without Borders in the Worldwide Press Freedom Index.

5.      In September 2004, “Economist” magazine paid US$230,000 in damages to President Lee Hsien Loong and his father, Lee Kuan Yew, and apologized “unreservedly” for an August article that noted “a whiff of nepotism” in the appointment of Lee’s wife, Ho Ching, as chief executive of a government investment company.

6.      MM Lee has won libel actions in the past against “The International Herald Tribune”, “Far Eastern Economic Review” and the Bloomberg business news wire. Each paid hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages or out-of-court settlements.

At home

1.      On 30 June 2006, blogger mr brown wrote an article, titled “TODAY: S’poreans are fed, up with progress!”, for his weekly opinion column in Today newspaper concerning the rising costs of living in Singapore. ^[6] Three days later, on July 3, an official from the Ministry of Information, Communication and the Arts published a response letter on the same newspaper calling mr brown a “partisan player” whose views “distort the truth”. ^[7] On July 6, the newspaper suspended his column.^[8] Fellow blogger Mr Miyagi subsequently resigned from his column for Today

2.      Royston Tan’s award-winning 15, a graphic depiction of Singapore’s underbelly, was only allowed after over 20 scenes were cut.

3.      A short documentary called Singapore Rebel by Martyn See, which documented Singapore Democratic Party leader Dr Chee Soon Juan’s acts of civil disobedience, was banned from the 2005 Singapore International Film Festival on the basis that it was a ‘party political film’ and See is being investigated for possible violations of the Films Act.

4.      On the other hand, Channel NewsAsia’s five-part documentary series on Singapore’s PAP ministers in 2005 were not considered a party political film. The government response was that the programme was part of current affairs and thus does not contravene the Films Act.

5.      Since they do not concern the politics of Singapore, films that call out political beliefs of other countries, for example Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 911, are allowed.

Here are some interesting facts for you to start your day. Courtesy of Wikipedia, the free encyclopaedia.

Analyze by Thom Yorke

analyse

a self-fulfilling prophecy of endless possibilty
your warning reams across the screen
in algebra, in algebra

the fences that you cannot climb
the sentences that do not rhyme
in all that you can ever change
the one you’re looking for
it gets you down

there’s no spark
no light in the dark
it gets you down, it gets you down
you travel far
what have you found?
that there’s no time
there’s no time
to analyse
to think things through
to make sense

like candles in the city
you’ll never look so pretty
while powercuts and blackouts
sleeping like babies
it gets you down, it gets you down
you’re just playing a part
you’re playing a part

oh there’s no time
there’s no time
to analyse
analyze

iRead

Everyone’s talking about leaving this place. Quitter, stayer theory. I want to leave too. I want to leave and take off somewhere, not because of the supposed oppression or fear that we are all living under but because:

“Make a list of the places where there are and there have been gifted men, where wit, refinement, malice are a part of happiess, where genius has almost necessarily made its home: they all possess an excellent dry air. Paris, Provence, Florence, Jerusalem, Athens– these names prove something: that genius is conditioned by dry air, clear sky…”

Friedrich Nietzsche, ‘Why I am so wise’.

And there you have it, just that, will to climate. He’s damn funny lar, that guy. His reasons on why he is so very clever comes down to selectivity in nutriment, selectivity in climate and place and selectivity in one’s kind of recreation. And that’s his nuggets of wisdom contained in 90 pages. It makes for good reading.

In the mean time, let me sing the praises of Bishan Library. Absolutely gorgeous place, with brand new books on white shelves. Four levels of goodness. The smell of a book that hasn’t been touched or its pages flipped. They actually have individual glass encased pods extending from the walls of the building. It’s funny to see people squeezed into that tiny enclosed place, studying and studying and studying somemore. After all, it was built “to serve the needs of the ‘attas’ schools like RJC, RI and Catholic High school“, arranged in order of merit, emphasis mine. The raffles conglomerate has come to stay at Bishan, no wonder its property prices are going up. [Insert smiley emoticon here]

Ok, no more blogging. Back to the assignments that I’ve to churn out in less than a week…

of blogs and more

It’s really nice to have spirited discussions. Especially spirited discussions that, unexpectedly, will get recorded in the blogs that float around cyberspace. I’ve too many liabilities floating around in cyberspace (think petition). Maybe I had it coming but here goes, the extended discussion about IMF/WB in ad verbatim no less by dionysian:

The views of Singaporeans

Singaporeans, good trusty ol’ meritocracy-thumping, scholarship system approving Singaporeans, are confounded why do anyone in the right mind take to the streets? And so I imagine a conversation between Humanoid Interface (HI), and a liberal (L);
 

L, “What do you think about the IMF/World Bank meeting in Singapore?”

HI, “I like the flowers. They are so pretty. The government pulled out all the stops on this one, bending over backwards, so eager to please. But of course, that’s not the point, the point is how Singapore is treating those activists. We banned them.”

L, “So, you think that’s a good thing? That we banned them? These civil activists.”

HI, “Why do we have to bow down so much to them. We’ve already planted flowers. Anyway, why do these people have to take to the streets? “Why? Why? Who are they representing? Who ask them to represent them? Are those people here?”

L, “But surely we must allow for greater freedom if we truly want to be a global city. I mean, to attract more economic investments.”

HI, “You really think global corporations will care. I think they prefer we do not have any protests.”

L, “What about our freedoms? Surely people have the right to speech?”

HI, “Yes, but why can’t they have a roundtable, a discussion. Sit down have an intelligent reasoned conversation. What do you think can be achieved with protests in the streets? This is just lots of angst. And who do you think they are representing?”

L, “Who do you think will sit down with them and pay attention to their concerns? Many are marginalized because they do not have a voice. It is up to concerned global citizens to speak for them at world events like these. NGOs have an important role to play.” 

HI, “Do they really have anything new to say? I mean really. Every year it’s the same thing against globalisation. Tell me what new. And the quality of this speech. You are telling me they can make a reasonable argument on placards?” 

L, “Why should the quality of the speech make any difference to their right to speech? Surely you are not advocating that only important speech is allowed. Who is anyone to say what is important? And more importantly, even the IMF and World Bank agree we have been too autocratic.”

HI, “I think they understand that Singapore will also do more than what is required. And that by choosing Singapore, the activists and the World Bank can actually have a common ground/goal or enemy– Singapore. Thus uniting them when they can never be united. This will then distract them from the issues at hand, be it destroying Starbucks and MacDonald’s outlets. I think it’ll be very shrewd and cunning of them.”

 

And that was my conspiracy theory that was linked in http://thevoiddeck.org/. Yay. Hmm, and that’s the gist of the conversations that the UBC trio has when they go out for late night suppers. And it continued into an analysis of that conversation:  

Despite being logical, HI is not going to see the perspective of L anytime soon. We are not brought up this way. When Jamie Han Li Chou spoke to MM Lee Kuan Yew, the debate that ensued in the ST was not whether Jamie Han made sense; the debate was, as I remember it, whether Jamie Han was rude. The argument was that MM Lee Kuan Yew is a great man and no small fry like Jamie Han should talk to him like that.

Well at least, I was deemed logical. This was more or less the conversation that transpired and conspiracy theories aside, I really do not see the point of allowing people to protest in the streets when other Singaporeans are not allowed to do so. The authorities are obviously in a bind. If they allow the demonstrations to take place, they are almost surely violating the unlawful assembly law. This is the same law that police charge Singaporeans under who want to demonstrate on other occasions, be it for anti-war campaigns and better lunch meat in the cafeterias. One cannot have double standards. So unless the law against unlawful assembly is lifted, it makes sense to me at least why demonstrations should not be allowed be it for IMF/WB or other international events. There doesn’t seem to be a distinction between assembly and demonstrations. Of course, there is the issue of administration, since one can’t possibly arrest all the demonstrators if the demonstration is on a large enough scale. That does not make it less legal in any sense, does it? 

So why not scrape the law? It’s dumb after all, isn’t it?  

I’m all for scraping that law, but come on, to scrape that law just to allow the NGOs to protest in the streets makes a mockery of sovereignty. Those are our laws, Singapore’s laws. And if they want to come to Singapore, then they have to adhere to Singapore’s standard of censorship which through democratic representation symbolizes the society’s standards of censorship. Every society has a qualified freedom of speech. Absolute freedom is theoretical. So by all means, scrape that law, through a law commission who has decided that Singaporeans should have those freedoms, but not because of international pressure.

Evidence

Faced with the ever increasing pile of personal property notes that I have to read by each week, I’ve decided to give it a rest. I do have other modules you know, Yock Lin. Seriously, unless you make this an eight MC course, why drown us in readings every week? It’s no point la. I see it and I get depressed. It’s like trying to catch a train that’s already on its way, there I am running on the platform, and I almost could grab the door rails but you dish out another stack of notes and I’m back to square one. Or maybe the treadmill analogy is more accurate, I’m running on the spot with seemingly no progress.

I shouldn’t complain. I shouldn’t complain. I shouldn’t complain.   Never, never, never, never, never give up.  

But why? Why? Why overload the course? Why have that long, interminable readings? Why? It makes students resentful, you know. This student in particular. I was looking forward to school reopening actually, I have nothing against studying. On certain days, I really do like it. I like studying. NUS has a way of killing it though. Grr. We all take it as it comes.

But there are saving graces. Evidence cases are quite the eye-opener. I’m studying the similar facts rule. This rule states that:

‘Similar fact’ evidence, or evidence of bad character, is not admissible for the purpose of leading to the conclusion that a person, from his criminal conduct or character, is likely to have committed the offence for which he is being held.

Long sentences and too many commas—it’s a common affliction suffered by judges and law-makers. In simple English, previous misconduct by the accused generally cannot be submitted to the court because it is no argument to say that because of the previous misconduct, they are more predisposed to have committed the present crime. In this age of genetics, I’m glad for this rule.

They include sordid cases of incest and the like. Cases of baby-farming, where this sick and twisted couple, Mr and Mrs Makins, took care of a baby, where the baby subsequently died. The issue was whether the evidence of 4 corpses of babies in his backyard should be adduced, i.e. submitted to the court. There was also evidence of 2 corpses in the backyard of the previous residence the couple was staying in. There you have it, your baby-sitters from hell. Sick, sick, sick.

Quotable quotes from various judges include:

On striking similarity per Lord Hailsham:

“For instance, whilst it would certainly not be enough to identify the culprit in a series of burglaries that he climbed in through a ground floor window, the fact that he left the same humorous limerick on the walls of the sitting room, or an esoteric symbol written in lipstick on the mirror, might well be enough.”  (And now you know how Dan Brown got his inspiration from. It was Lord Hailsham all along, that sneaky fella.) 

He continues:  “In a sex case, to adopt an example given in argument in the Court of Appeal, whilst a repeated homosexual act by itself might be quite insufficient to admit the evidence as confirmatory of identity or design, the fact that it was alleged to have been performed wearing the ceremonial head-dress of an Indian chief or other eccentric garb might well in appropriate circumstances suffice.”   

And I shall end with Lord Wilberforce’s take on buggery:

“…the perversions of yesterday may be the routine or the fashion of tomorrow.” 

Singapore Dreaming

I went to watch Singapore Dreaming today with addy and puddy. Heh, they are both kakis from Cedar. Addy had free tickets from MINDS and asked me. I initially had tuition but (and not for the first time), the students were not at home. Only the mother was home, and she wasn’t the one who needs to be tutored. Silently fuming, I left and head for the movie.

 

It is the highlight of my day, that movie. My social activists/commentaries friends have expounded at length about the movie , and truly it is a show that evokes emotions whether you like it or not.

 

It was quite difficult to watch. Honestly, the show hits too close to home. I could see my family members reflected in those characters. The setting, everything. My aunt (I hope she doesn’t read this) can be reflected in the overbearing mother at the lift, whose face you don’t even see, yes, the one who’s not satisfied that her son got 95 marks instead of 100 marks like the neighbour’s son. Seriously, she’s like that. I guess it’s a typical parenting style of mothers—constantly comparing you with your siblings, cousins, neighbours and other assorted persons living within a 100 metre radius of your house and whoever remotely related. I have to say I never suffered from this, my mother is satisfied as long as I pass (and seems surprised that I do that every single time), but yeah, it’s a story that’s very common in
Singapore.

 

Lim Yu Beng, the man plagued with self-doubt, stuck at the job he hates, not good enough to strike out at the dream he wants, ordered around at home, indecisive, seemingly without a mind of his own, or backbone. I felt for him. The china girl who listens to him dished out some good ol’ advice for 100 bucks. It did change his life, made him steer his life in the direction he wants. No longer asking people whether he should take the PIE or AYE. Directions. We all need that at one time or another. Well, my take is that the hundred bucks was worth it. You seriously cannot cheapen friendship ties by selling them insurance, it makes people cynical and suspicious whenever an old good friend calls. That’s just wrong. Leave it to the telemarketers, at least you can hate them heartily without holding back. I love the way he releases that angst he had—after swallowing the insults that his father-in-law had thrown at him, and knowing full well that the father-in-law absolutely hates pee in the lift, he gamely decided to take out his anger on the lift and peed in it. It made me laugh.

 

And the stories go on. I like the tension that runs throughout the script. The constant nagging by the mother, the verbal insults by the father, the lack of affirmation, the empty dreaming that Singaporeans do, to get rich, buy a bloody condo and a car.

 

Screw the house, really. Screw the condo. My personal view is that people should just live in tents, go back to nomadic times. Stop spending half your life, the whole of your life, paying off the cost of your abode. Make it truly humble, pitch a tent. Don’t like it, pack up and go to Sentosa. But seriously la, you can’t eat that designer sofa or that water bed. They are just four walls. Don’t buy things you don’t need to impress the people you don’t like with the money you don’t have.

 

Respect. It all boils down to that. We all deserve a little respect, not judged by the money we make, the house we live in or the car we drive. Not judged by these things. These so-called accomplishments that wither and fade away, till you’re left with brokenness around you. And I feel that in a way it is a person’s fault, after all I do firmly believe in Eleanor Roosevelt’s quote that no one can make you feel inferior without your consent. And that’s the key thing. It’s not empty consumerism that’s driving Singaporeans crazy or to depression or whatever. It’s respect. People want a taste of that, a taste of respect that accompanies success, and success being necessarily defined as what you have, material goods and all. Hence you have the qualifier for respect:

 

Of course I respect you. You just have to work harder.

 

It made my stomach churn. It’s just so wrong. Like my insolvency professor says, ‘Singaporeans know the price of everything but the value of nothing.’ The value of respect is priceless. Of course, one has to earn that respect, but not measured according to the amount of money one has in his bank account. You’re not the money in your bank account, you’re not your wallet, you’re not the house you live, the car you drive, the DKNY shoes you have.

 

The ending is a relatively happy one. The mother eventually decides to pursue her own dreams of traveling the world. She concluded that she wasn’t strong for herself. Maybe that’s it. One needs to be better to herself, to pursue her own dreams, to live her own life, so that all the sacrifice done in the name of community or family doesn’t get pressed down to a deep, dark corner of your soul, festering to become a brooding resentment that spreads to all your relationships and the people around you. And sometimes it’s not a pure sacrifice either, sometimes, perhaps you’re just afraid to pursue the dream on your own, for fear of failure, and you’re just using that someone as a convenient excuse not to do it. Either way, life is short, there’s no time for self-doubt, failure hurts but it ain’t fatal, unless you want to live a life that is akin to the waking dead. When you don’t do something you truly want to do, it’s my personal belief that something inside you dies. It dies. So stop killing yourself and get on with it. Don’t sell out.

 

The sad thing about the movie was that it was your typical Singaporean family, and it is already dysfunctional on so many levels.

IMF/World Bank Production

Yes, we all know that IMF/World Bank is going to hold its annual meeting in Singapore. We’ve been told to smile, the drivers in cabs I’ve been in this week or so seem generally more conversational and friendly. All that motivational speak did work after all. They’ll still cut 3 lanes to get to their destination, but hey, it may be to your favour. Lariena and I took a spin in chel’s car after sending marycherry home last saturday. We decided to cruise around at the town area, to see the flowers that were purposely planted by the roads and highways to show that we truly live up to our name as a Garden City. There were sunflowers, chrysanthemums, the works. The govt definitely pulled out all the stops on this one, bending over backwards, so eager to please. But of course, that’s not the point, the point is how Singapore is treating those activists. We’ve banned them, designated places for them to wave their placards– no more hot and sweaty streets for you, the streets are for the good honest people of Singapore who subscribes to capitalism, the activists can go and protest in an air-conditioned environment somewhere at suntec city. Unless you want to go to Batam to join the other group of supporters offering moral support of such protests overseas.

Singapore has been made to look like the the usually paranoid, insecure single-party state it has been portrayed as in international media. Fair enough, I personally think that a lot of things about the paranoia, insecurity and single-party part is true. But the thing is IMF knows this, the World Bank knows this. My take on these things is that they actually chose Singapore for its high level security, so that the protests don’t get out of hand. And seriously, I think they understand that Singapore will also do more than what is required. And that by choosing Singapore, the activists and the World Bank can actually have a common ground/goal or enemy– Singapore. Thus uniting them when they can never be united. This will then distract them from the issues at hand, be it destroying Starbucks and MacDonald’s outlets. I think it’ll be very shrewd and cunning of them. Of course this is just speculative, my little conspiracy theories, but think on it. IMF/World Bank will be able to be the good guys on this one, Sg will be the bad cop. This has never happened. They are almost, always never the good guys in this respect. By trying to grant activists their space, trying to cajole the govt into giving them seats at the table, they get on the good side of the activists. One starts to think maybe they’re not so bad after all. One shouldn’t bite the hand that gave you that seat in the conference. Either way, it’s a wayang. The audience smiles in the mean time, taken for a ride.

For more details: http://i-speak.blogdrive.com/

Post production

I went to watch the annual play that every batch of year 4 law students put up. It was… interesting. Occasionally funny but rather lacklustre in my personal opinion. It was odd, cos after the play, I was quite pissed off with the whole conclusion. It’s so typical. Law students whining about their problems, caused by boyfriends, family (brothers and fathers), the male figures in your life. The gender discrimination was so contrived. The sentence, ‘just because I’m a girl!’ has been used umpteen times la. I know it’s not wise to slam the production on this public sphere, but come on, something’s gotta give at the end of 3 hours. It’s not that I hated the play, I find the effort put into the play commendable. It’s just the utter lack of substance and depth. That, plus the themes that went through was just a little … I don’t know how to put it, but I’d like to say juvenile.

First, you have the high-flying high flier whose father thinks that she cannot make it because he wants to protect her from being a blood sucking monster, i.e. a lawyer. And you have arguments on the long hours that lawyers make and how interns are at the bottom of the legal foodchain. I felt like saying, get over it already. If you can’t handle it, don’t like it, then quit. You know the hours are long, you entered into this so-called contract with your eyes wide open, so it’s no defence to say that you didn’t know when you applied. And if you’re applying because your parents told you to apply, and you really wanted something else, I mean like screw you. Then do something else. It’s not as if you can’t think for yourself, at age what? 18?

Grr. It makes me mad, and the thing is I don’t even know exactly why I am so mad about this kind of stuff. I’m not saying that their problems are not real, it’s just that there is a ready solution.

Next, you have a student who is gifted in physics and the sciences generally but decided to choose law to rebel against the mold that she was put in. Lalalala. Well, i think it’s the hardest role to play for a law student to sprout all those scientific mumbo jumbo. It’s impressive. She must have had a hard time memorising the script. Anyway, her problem is that she has a brother who wants her to do what she’s not sure of doing– science/electronic engineering. Yeah, so she’s conflicted and torn. Ladida. Okie, firstly, I’m bored by this plot. The element of choice seems so contrived as well. So you can choose other things, so…? Your point being..? Oh right, that of choice. Haiz, I just think it was quite obvious that people have a choice, always. I mean, you’re not some nuah being, being tossed around by the waves of people’s opinions. You have a mind, a good one, it’s not exactly hard to work out that people have a choice. Ahh well, nvm that. Let’s move on.

To be clear, I’m not dismissing that an identity crisis is frivolous and a non-issue. It’s just that to discuss an identity crisis in this context doesn’t really show the identity struggle at all. Not to me at least. 

Last story. You have the dreamy girl who wants to be a lawyer but is scared of the hours that it entails, prefering to put family and future children first. Granted. Actually, I think the ending should be that she gave up her dream for a better one. I mean, if you’re going to talk about how love and relationships are more impt than career and money, then make that girl be a stay at home mom. Be comfortable with that. If not, don’t come to the conclusion that love conquers all and money is second in priority. Grrr.. Too many happy endings do not maketh a good play. You can’t have your cake and eat it too.

So here are my grouses and there it ends. Why am I so upset by the play? I’ve no idea. It eats away at me, these imaginary problems by these children. I feel like saying at the end of it, so these are your problems? No, seriously? And that’s my 2 cents worth.

random ramblings

Woke up this morning and spent an hour and a half preparing to go to school. I was stoned at the various stages of preparation of going to school, staring into my wardrobe with a frozen gaze. It’s as if your gaze solidifies and you’re on standby mode. Or maybe the air around you has thickened into a gooey mass and you’re using all your effort to make all the customary things that one has to do and discover that it’s taking an immense effort and has little effect. Ok, so I think it’s established that I’m not a morning person. Still, I made it to school.

But before I get too cheerful, I was quite happy today on my way to school. The humidity is nuts but it was one of those better days. I can’t really explain why, perhaps it was the lack of classes and the thought that I can spend one whole day on one thing, instead of running from pt A to pt B doing Thing C and Thing D.

I’ve been thinking. Maybe I should acquire a cheerful disposition. I know disposition and acquiring doesn’t quite go together. But yeah, it’d be helpful. A little artificial, but like I said, helpful. Look at the glass and see it as half full, look at the stars and think that it’s dancing? The latter came from The Barnyard. The stars literally dancing in the shape of cows, intertwined together and living happily ever after. Ahh, the power of caricatures and symbolic (possession) happiness. I think the audience they’re catering to are younger kids ba… We all need to reinvent ourselves. To ensure that the cement that makes us who we are hasn’t solidified and became immutable. All hail the power of positive thinking.

The subsequent post

Wow. I have to say I’m quite surprised at the level of debate going on at the comments page. So this being the subsequent post, I racked my brains about what more should I write. Should I continue in the vein of Theology vs Science debate? Should I bring an insightful, thoughtful conclusion to the discussion? Oh well, honestly, I think to each their own. So yeah, I shan’t claim to have the cornerstone on Truth with a capital T. So I have my opinions and take on things and I won’t apologise for them. It’s not like I need people to agree with me in order to validate my faith or beliefs, it’s just that it’s something quite close to my heart. And so I respond and react accordingly. Science and religion shouldn’t be anathema to one another. Both are in the pursuit of truth, are they not? One relates to the physical world, the other to the spiritual side. Just because something cannot be seen, quantifiable or empirically proven doesn’t make it less real, does it?

Rhetorical questions. I guess we’ll all find out when we see ourselves moving towards that dazzling light at the end of the tunnel towards the end of our lives. And there will be peace.

I was reading South of the Border, West of the Sun, a book by Haruki Murakami. He’s quite an author, I feel transported to another world in his book and his prose are simple yet poetic, his characters always kind of spooky, the world where they live in slightly unreal or surreal. And it’s always slightly bizarre, hence spooky. I guess that’s what you get for plumbing the depths of the human soul. It’s captivating.