Don't hate

Hate is taxing. It takes energy to hate. Energy that could be better used elsewhere.

More importantly, it consumes. To completely hate something, you must completely identify with it. You have to know it inside and outside (or at least think you do). And when you completely identify with something else/someone else, what becomes of you? You disappear. You get bottled up. You get pushed aside as your hate takes over. Eventually, in your hatred, you become the very thing you hate.

Don't hate.

A quiet type of profiling

I think it's time to end the discrimination against Malays in the SAF. Discrimination against Malays in the SAF was most likely started due to the situation back when National Service first started. And it was quite a situation. There were the Maria Hertogh riots,the Konfrontasi campaign, the Indonesian bombing of the Macdonald House and Singapore was newly separated from Malaysia. At the government was unsure of where the loyalty of the Malay community was at the time, considering the emphasis on community and religion the Malays have. I'm not saying such emphasis is good or bad,just that this was how it was. Such things just contributed to the security situation, and it was dealt with in a manner we are familiar with, for better or for worse.

Now though, I would argue the situation is very different. I'd say the Malays like it here better than Malaysia generally. Not that there are no problems to be dealt with. There is a certain tacit racial discrimination among employers(disguised as a need to be "bilingual", which over here means able to speak Mandarin. Something all us non-Mandarin speakers must deal with.) and the feeling of being the ignored minority in Singapore(I don't particularly agree, but that's for another post). Malaysia has bumiputera policies, true, but the vigour with which the full range of Sharia law is enforced by the religious crowd rather outweighs the former for Singaporean Malays. It's a major restriction on the lifestyle most of them like to have, especially the younger crowd(which would be our NS crowd). And the increasingly vocal and politically song conservative movement would put a lot of them off.

To be blunt, Malays have it pretty good here. They get to be both Malays and Muslims here, and anyone who knows the Malay community here knows that the majority view the two as inextricably intertwined. Islam is accorded a status above other religions here. Singapore is a secular nation that allows Shariah law to run co-currently with it's regular laws in terms of civil matters. Of course, when it comes to criminal cases, the law of the land takes precedence, which is fair. The point I'm making is that his practically unheard of elsewhere in the world. Verily, some countries have their citizens and their politicians so against the so-called "Islamisization" of their respective countries that they even protest against the usage of Halal food. Never mind that it is the same as Kosher food, which is widely accepted. It is Muslim, and therefore it is wrong! It is an attempt to dominate us! But I digress.

The secular nature of the country allows the non-religious Malay-Muslims to live their lives however they want to, without fearing that the state will bring them back in line to the tenets of the religion a la busting down doors on Valentines day and arresting any Muslim who drinks. Granted, the community here polices itself but that's an entirely different thing. The point is, you can find Malays drinking at bars here, going to clubs and dancing with the opposite sex, holding hands, all with no fear of prosecution.

The injustice that comes from the discrimination practised has a high cost that cannot be underestimated. It can cause loyal Singaporean Malays who were once completely content to feel torn and lost. It is akin to being the odd child out in the family. Not the one that is always quiet cos there is not much to talk about, but the one that gets picked on just for being. Most of the time, such children just keep their head down, feeling sad, lost and in constant pain. But some are likely to turn hostile. Think of the mat community, and how extremism normally breeds. It generally stems from discontent and a feeling of displacement. By excluding Malays from the more important posts in the SAF, one not only creates a sense of not belonging, of being unwanted, that will be passed down from generation to generation, one also creates and tacitly endorses the idea that Malays cannot be trusted to hold positions of responsibility and should only be given the more menial tasks. And ultimately it lays the foundation for a victimised, us-vs-them mentality, which is hardly good for nation building or the Malay community itself. I have known of many people who feel there is no point trying too hard because they feel the system is stacked against them, and this form of thinking is passed on to the children.

Ending this discrimination will change that thinking. And exposing the upper ranks to more Malays as peers and not just as subordinates will also change the thinking of people from the other races, as well as increasing their interaction with people from the Malay community, which are steps towards becoming a truly multi-cultural -and inter-cultural!-nation. And such a change will allow the Malay community to feel wanted, to feel like a part of the country. And when people feel wanted, they put in their all for the country. Truly, we can only benefit from such a move. Anyone who argues there is still danger must then answer why such danger does not exist when it comes to PRs who are serving NS to become citizens, or from the Chinese citizens considering that support for the Communists was strong back in the 1960's, or from Indian citizens(now there's a super marginalised group) when there have been cases of Indians funnelling money to movements like the Tamil Tigers. So instead of a blanket policy based on fear, we should become inclusive and deal with people on an individual level. That's the best way forward, and a very good step in our development as a nation.

The costs of the GRC system.

A Yahoo article on why GRC systems should be abolished.

For years, with relatively little competition, it was a way to bring POTENTIAL ministers and MPs in to the system, to groom them on the fly and to see how they turn out. This year, with unprecedented competition, it turned into a key issue, an idealogical battleground, as the culmination of the peoples frustrations took form in the shape of Tin Pei Ling. The PAP probably saw good reason in wanting to nurture her, but the choice to bring her in the way they did,to nurture her in parliament as opposed to having her stomp the ground as an aide to one of the MPs or ministers, was the primary source of backlash against the GRC system. People had reached the point where they were less willing to vote for a team because they had one star player if they felt the opposition offered a better choice. That's why SM Goh team barely, BARELY won.

And even before that, the constant redrawing of the GRC boundaries with no clear reason why and seemingly with no good reason had been wearing away at the patience of the electorate for a long time. Dividing Aljunied was the straw that broke the camels back there. And the result of that gamble? The loss of three seasoned politicians, including our foreign minister. Unless a procedure is introduced soon to nominate ministers, as someone from SDA alluded to wanting implement(the name eludes me right now), this is one helluva blow that will take quite some time to recover from. Don't get me wrong, I think the WP team that took Aljunied is of extremely high calibre. That does not mean Singapore politics has not suffered a heavy loss.

And then there is Bishan. One of the most beloved symbols of the fight against autocracy, against the use of carrots and upgrading to win votes, one of the bravest men in Singapore politics, right up there with JB Jeyaretnam as a symbol of Singaporeans willing to fight for what they believe in...lost. While the minister who let a terrorist escape on his watch, who never apologised, who never did the right thing by taking full responsibility for what happened, stayed in.
I will be honest, when I saw the result, and how much that fella's team had won by, I cried. It was a body blow to our democracy, to our voice, to the grand scheme of things in Singapore. In putting people like WKS and VB in wards such as Bishan and Holland-Bukit Timah, we essentially protected out worst in our best areas? And our best? We gambled in the most contentious areas. Those two did not win on their own merits. They won because their areas are in good condition and their electorate is comfortable. Not a direct result of them at all.

Some say the real winner in this is Tin Pei Ling. I disagree. She will probably work hard, she may prove herself. She may not. Whatever. There are plenty of nondescript faces in parliament as it is. Even some of the members of the opposition teams were very nondescript, with at least one team relying on the star power of one member. So even if the opposition had gotten in instead of TPL, it would have been one star, and a few people one cannot be entirely certain off as well.
So no.

One the one hand, we can say the real winner was Singaporean Democracy. Everyone had a chance to vote, and while the media was far from ideal(faaaaaaaaaar from it), there was also much more coverage of the alternative parties and their ideas than there has been in a very very long time. And while there were articles blatantly demonising them, they were still a far cry from the kind of thing we saw in the 90's. People became politically aware, more and more people were politically involved, rallies reached a fever pitch in emotion that has not been seen in I-do-not-know-how-long. Many, many victories, in that regard.

But if the GRC system is not discontinued, if we continue relying on a system of politics that has proven itself to be so flawed as to be DANGEROUS to the political well-being of Singapore, then ultimately, all the small victories matter very little, and there is only one loser in the long run.


Singapore.

Whatever happend to freedom of expression and French liberalism?

So France has banned the wearing of the burqa. To be precise, the law bans any full face coverings, but it's been known for a long time that it targets wearers of the burqa.

I think it's a ridiculous law.

I'm not pro-wearing the burqa, and I'm well aware that the wearing of the burqa is a personal choice, and not a must have of the religion. The crux of the matter is about personal choice as long as it does not affect the workings of society. If one pursues a career as a teacher in a secular school..., then obviously there would be some issues as to the wearing of it with regards to communications. And in such circumstance, prohibition of a full body covering would be fine. But otherwise, does it really affect communication? I see no real way in which the wearing of the burqa hampers interaction except in cases where a persons face NEEDS to be seen, in which case the prohibition is fair. So they should balance out on that end. Want to drive a car? Face on license must be exposed, be prepared to show your face when necessary for license checks, etc. But otherwise, no big deal.
Not all barriers in communication are physical, some are entirely mental and self-imposed. If someone was not being genuine or open, was purposely distorting how they were, lying, etc, would those not also be barriers? This is without even going into culture and other forms of noise that affect communication. A physical barrier like a burqa is the smallest problem when it comes to general conversations in civil society. Also, having observed quite a few people in such clothing conversing with each other, or other people, the body language is generally quite clear.

This ban is exceedingly general, affecting people in their regular public life. Granted, terrorists could use it as a disguise(there have been such cases), but then again, they could use anything as a disguise and find other ways to do what they need to do. It's not as if the 9/11 crew were wearing burqas when they boarded the planes, took their flight lessons, etc. The 7/7 bombers were also clad in regular clothing, and their bombs were in backpacks. Should we outlaw all backpacks on that basis? Or do we just target people of a certain look and colour when checking backpacks?
The closest official estimate is that two thousand people wear it, in a country of five to six million Muslims. And most estimates say that a large number of those who wear it are converts. And the entire Muslim population makes up only 10% of the French population. So. 2000 out of 6000000 people. That would be 0.15% of the Muslim population. Which means it's 0.015% of the total population, right? Maths is not my strong suit, so if I'm wrong please tell me. The police are hardly going to have to go up to thousands of people wearing them each day. AAnd going back to the above argument about regular garb, if an officer approaches someone who is a suicide bomber, chances are they would be blown up before they could react properly. They are trained to do react in such a way, if they feel they cannot reach the target objective. This ban is therefore akin to Switzerland banning minarets, although they only have four of them. All this talk about security is moot anyway. It was never raised by the French parliament, and the police are not going to be working very hard to enforce it anyway.

This ban is more a reaction to a sign of conservative Muslims, to the growing presence of Islam, than it is about security, or it not fitting in with their views on how women should be treated, as Sarkozy himself said. It's not a Sharia-related thing, it's a populist measure to get votes by an unpopular leader. If anything, this could potentially worsen the situation, as it solidifies the mentality that there is a war being waged on Islam itself. "SEE! THEY SAY PEOPLE SHOULD HAVE FREEDOM TO WORSHIP HOW THEY WANT, THEY SAY PEOPLE SHOULD BE GIVEN FREEDOM TO BE THEMSELVES, BUT SEE WHAT THEY DO?! FREEDOM FOR ALL EXCEPT MUSLIMS! INFIDELS!" I can completely imagine someone saying that. And, sadly, people believing that. Worse possible move ever. Alienate the evolutionists, cause moderates to regress, cause conservatives that were open to change to fall back to the fundamentals and ultimately setting the country up as one of the big enemies of Islam, as the terrorist propaganda would say....yeah. Worse possible move.

Now some will argue that France is a secular country governed by civil law and not Sharia law, so why condone such clothing. Firstly, I want to say that the two are not incompatible. Singapore is a secular country governed by civic law that has its roots in the Bible, like most Western countries. What Sharia law we have for the Muslim population applies more to matters on running of household, setting up of will, marriage(and even on that count, not so much) But you don't see us banning the burqa, although there are quite a number of wearers, and we live in a region with high extremist sentiment. Secondly, and this is more important, when you trumpet how you allow people religious freedoms, and talk about equality and freedom of speech, stepping in and banning people from following their religion in a way they feel comfortable, which harms no one else, is exceedingly hypocritical. You say you dislike it, that it is a sign of oppression or repression and does not fit in with the values of your country, and human dignity. But is what you are doing any different from those who force women to wear it? Not all women wear it because they are forced to, in France and in other parts of the world. There ARE women who are forced too, and I support the provision in the law that punishes those who force women to dress like that. But aren't the women who voluntary wear it being punished and oppressed for the actions of others? Others who aren't even of the same gender as them? Ironic law, is it not?

I'm all for balancing individual rights against the needs of a society. I don't believe it should all be too much one way or another. That's why I don't think abolishing the ISA is a good idea, though how it is used must be regulated, and there must be monitoring of it when used. And I think that while freedom of speech is all well and good, there must be limits to it, at least in line with common sense responsibilities, not like how America does it.
But at the same time, telling people they cannot practice their religion in a manner they feel comfortable, when it does not harm anything or anyone else, is going too far.

One other argument raised against it also is that if the wearing of the burqa is all allowed, then maybe we should all go around wearing masks. See how long society works when that happens. As for that, who knows? Society has a tendency to judge people based on how they look and what colour their skin is, it would level the playing field a lot and teach people to look at the internal as opposed to the external. And if people had to work harder to make their intent and meaning known, and if people had to actually listen for the meaning of the words instead of just taking things at face value, reacting because of how a person may look, etc, well, it may actually lead to a more civil discourse. It's one of the reasons given by those who wear the burqa voluntarily, that they are not treated differently as women based on their looks, when they don such. Not in countries used to it, at least.
As it is, societies are rather dysfunctional without the wearing of the masks and all. How many relatives are wearing something over their head when they kill each other? How many people who've abused kids were wearing something as they hit that person?
Of course, again, we're focusing on physical, actual masks here. Almost everyone has a few masks they wear, at different places, in different situations, with different people. I think those masks are the ones more likely to cause problems then this one.

Democracy is such that you can voice your displeasure at the idea, no problem, but actively shutting down the source of your displeasure(a small one at that) like this is authoritarian territory. For just as how you are entitled to voice your displeasure in a democracy, so are those that displease allowed to do, or wear, whatever they want as long as it does not hurt any one. France would do well to remember that.

I wonder, does this mean people will not be allowed to cover their faces on Halloween too? This law is supposed to ban all full face coverings right?

Home is where the heart is.

Coveting Singapore's public housing system - USATODAY.com

"People keep asking for housing that is cheaper, faster and better. "

Firstly, how cute of the guy to quote that stupid line. Secondly, we do want cheaper housing because it is insanely expensive. I long ago decided that CPF was not meant to be a retirement fund, but money for my housing. But the way prices are now, I doubt I can ever pay it all off. And should I ever buy on the resale market, the high COV is upfront. So yes, we want cheaper cos otherwise you are going to have a massive homeless situation. And yes we want it faster. It's because of you dumbasses not building when there was a massive influx of people that we don't have enough homes. Which, incidentally is a reason why the prices rose! DUH....if build it faster, you settle a lot of the discontent brewing in the country. Plus, you should have started building pre-emptively, forecasting the population, instead of building re-actively, the complaint and demand would not exist, would it? As for better, well, when we see our mature estates, and how large the flats are, and we see how small the current ones are, well, of course we go, "Say what?" And when you refuse to release the cost of creating the housing, while prices are rising exceedingly fast over a small period of time, you once again had best be prepared to deal with public discontent over the lack of transparency.

Now, don't get me wrong. I think we have a pretty comprehensive public housing system, but I also feel it has rather lost it's way over time. I mean, a public housing facility focusing on building condominium structures? It's definitely part of why things are so expensive. And arguing that the market set the prices is disingenuous, considering they can intervene with the price of food when market prices get out of hand.

I'm not saying we should do things like how they were. I like the idea of Treelodge@Punggol(but why, why, do we use @ in so many signs for so many places? So fucking stupid!), and would love to have more places like that. So I do think that we definitely have to progress, but there should be adjustment of policies over time as well. And stop-gap reactive measures don't count.They should also lower the age limit for singles. That was for the country at a different time, when it was a different place. With the families much smaller then they were before, the support network for singles is gone. Also, there is less of a stigma in a person staying alone at a younger age in the country, and more people want to spread their wings while young. So change it. Bring it down to age 25-27, for smaller units like the 1 and 2 room flats. And if we want to keep building designer housing under public housing, then it should come under a completely separate cost bracket. Public housing should be fully subsidised, as it was before (If it is now, show us the figures. It certainly feels like it is not, and arguments about market forces just reinforce that feeling). If full subsidy is too much, then something can be worked out. People are not unreasonable. But don't push us.

Enough is enough

There is a 30% increase in the estimated wages of political appointees this year.

Thirty percent.

THIRTY PERCENT!

They already claim wages far beyond the norm for politicians. Our Prime Minister's pay is the equivalent of the top 6 other world leaders salaries combined.

And based on improvements in the private sector, it's time to dish out a huge increment! Remember, they did not claim any bonus over the pass 2 years, when it was a recession. Never mind that neither did many people. Never mind that bonuses are extras, not part of your annual pay, and their assessment of having had a reduced annual pay over the past two years is flawed due to that very simple fact. The money is coming in, and we have another excuse to party!

This increase is coming from the same people who exhort the citizens of Singapore to be "Better, Faster, Cheaper." And our ministers are better then who? Not older politicians, seeing as how they have yet to come up with a policy that can equal some of our foundational policies. Not the opposition, considering they dare not let them into parliament to show how much better they are. And have the media run anti-opposition style articles and shows, casting them as bumbling buffoons and nitwits while exalting the PAP. Faster? They take forever to implement policies, having to spend forever debating them. When something happens, it takes them at least a day to react and comment. The only thing they are fast at, it seems, is proclaiming how awesomely world-class we are(note: World-class is not the same as First-class), and suing people whom they feel have defamed them(ie: Disagreed with them, and did it well). Cheaper? Just look at the link.

The same people who are behind HDB and high rise housing, who go on and on about land scarcity, but live in gigantic mansions. Not terrace homes, not semi-ds, not bungalows, but bloody palatial mansions. The same people who talk racial harmony, but won't get rid of a completely outdated, unnecessary and absolutely discriminatory practice in the military service.

My worse fear is that they truly see no harm in their payscale, and the pay hikes. That they feel it completely acceptable. Then it's not corruption of a normal sort we are dealing with. It's the corruption of the mind from absolute power and control.

They don't know what the ma on the ground is experiencing. How can one be a servant of the public, when one is lording over the public?

They have no idea what the ground is like now, beyond the few people they talk to and the RC people who tell them what they want to hear, or what said RC people FEEL they should say.
They are disconnected with Singaporeans. They need to learn this. We need to show them we are fed up and sick of all this.

Elections are coming.
Enough is enough.

HUAT AH, SPF!

It is 11.32pm, as I type this. There is a lion dance going on at the void deck. Staying in Changi Village, our void deck is made up of a lot of shops,and on my end, it's all KTV style pubs. You know the type. So, in light of what happened with Thaipusam, as well as based on existing laws, I called the police on them. I'm not normally a police botherer for this kinda thing, but bloody hell, it's damn late ah. It was bad enough when there was a lion dance going on the other day at 8pm, but this is ridiculous. And at the same time, this is - according to my nephew - the 6th lion dance. Making allowance for a miscount, it's still a lot for one day. Oh, and it has been going on for half an hour at this point.

I'd been told before that the police will not respond to such calls. But I held faith that times have changed, especially considering Thaipusam this year. After all, if they chose not to respond, then they have to defend themselves against allegations of racial bias, sooo....they have no choice but to respond. And respond they did. They went the long way to park, instead of right by the road, which is the normal area of parking and would have gotten them to the dance that much sooner. What I mean by the long way is they came down Changi Village Rd, past my block, turned back onto the main road to park in the car park behind my block. Very slowly. Then the two officers eventually walked over to the performance. Again taking the long way by going around the block AWAY from the pub side, when they parked at the staircase from the carpark to my block that was NEAR the pub side. (Inspirational, how they wasted time. Mayhap they were hoping the dance would finish before getting there.) So they finally reach. And approach the lion dance troupe with less authority then teachers with recalcitrant students. And the organiser is identified. They talk to him, taking his details down and all. (I saw all this because I was watching. I was curious about how this would play out.) Then they walk off. And before they reach their car, the dance starts up again.

The dance starts up again.

So....the police came down, talked to them a bit, took their details, and left. Nothing more. No order to stop the noise, despite the fact that it was 11pm, and we have laws prohibiting loud noises/music, etc, in residential areas at night. A law was broken, and all that was done was the taking of names. Then resumption of breaking the law was allowed. I did not realise that the point of the police had changed. Must have happened while I was busy trying to teach kids about racial harmony, respect for other cultures, obeying the rules, that laws exist for a reason and all that jazz.

So I say, HUAT AH SPF! BAIK SIA! DAMN STEADY AH, THE WAY YOU ALL WORK! POWER to the GEDEGA LA MIKE! (Maybe I should scrap the last part, since they crack down on the Indian cultural stuff. Hmm.) In fact, I so appreciated what they did, I let them know on the SPF Facebook page. Here's what I said.

Hey SPF. Just wanna commend you guys on a job well done. Between the effective crackdown on Thaipusam, and the essential closing of one eye to a Lion Dance I reported, which was performing in a residential area at 11pm and, I have to say I am really impressed!"

I think it sums it up.
What am I supposed to teach kids, again? Especially my NPCC kids?

It is 11.50. It finally ended. Almost an hour after it started. Almost an hour during which the law was flagrantly flaunted. Lovely, is it not?