Category: Rants

Commentary – The (failed) logic of AWARE

One comment

This was on the Straits Times Forum on the 21st Jan 2010, if I am not wrong.

BAR’S BREAST-FLAUNTING LURE
Wrong to promote women as sex objects
Jan 21, 2010

I REFER to Monday’s report (‘Drinks based on bra size’, Breaking News, ST Online) of a promotion organised by a bar, OverEasy, at One Fullerton. OverEasy is run by Lo & Behold, which also runs Loof and White Rabbit.

The bar invited women to enjoy free alcohol based on the size of their breasts. The event was reportedly well attended and women who had bigger breasts received more ‘free’ drinks.

There is nothing free about letting a room of people gawk at your breasts. Even if a woman is willing to pay the personal price of loss of dignity, there is still a cost suffered by other women.

The women who participated have contributed to the objectification of women, to reducing a woman’s value to her breast size, and have helped reinforce the belief among men that this is not only acceptable, but welcome. Staging this event in itself is extremely distasteful.

Just because sexism is profitable does not make it right. For the organisers to say the event was merely for ‘good fun and not sexist or sleazy’ is insincere. The indignity is suffered only by one gender.

It is unfortunate there are women willing to make this choice so light-heartedly. The individual woman may view her participation as an act of empowerment. Perhaps she feels she should use whatever assets she has to secure favours for herself. In our sex- and youth-obsessed culture, it is not surprising some women would grow to be so cynical.

Yes, women have the right to choose, but individual choices are made in a social context. And in our current social context, women have a much harder time to be esteemed as individuals above and beyond their value as sex objects.

This event perpetuates the notion of women as sex objects and makes it that much more difficult for each woman who wants to be valued for her character and contribution, rather than how she stacks up to a distorted image of the ideal body.

The personal choice (of the participants) and the private choice (of the corporation) has had a detrimental social impact.

Choice works both ways. The organisers may have packed their venue that evening, but they may well have lost future business at OverEasy and their sister establishments.

Dana Lam (Ms)
President
Association of Women for Action and Research (Aware)

This is hilarious. Most of what I have to say about AWARE is summarized in the following:

AWARE Disapprove / Complain! ►►►

◄◄◄ AWARE Disapprove / Complain!

◄◄◄ AWARE Approve! ►►►

A picture tells a thousand words and I am quite sure most would get my message. On top of which, I wonder why AWARE hasn’t picket outside the Victoria Secrets outlet Resort World Sentosa yet, or stop Triumph from producing ‘breast enhancement bras’. After all, their products are instrumental in the so-called ‘objectification of women’. Furthermore, AWARE should stop advertisements of ‘breast enhancement’ and slimming on the papers too.

Perhaps, AWARE didn’t think that a woman enhancing her breasts or slimming to look good is meant to please men (or even their lesbian partners) and thus ‘objectify’ themselves.


Recommended Reads:
Rachel.sg: Now that the dust had settled

[Video] The Singapore Song by Rony Tan

2 comments

Found this while ‘Youtube surfing’. In my personal opinion it is far better than all those ‘patriotic songs’ endorse by the government gahmen and played on National TV / Radio over the past few years.

I have this to say. For Singapore to be the homeland I vow to live and die, there are some things that seriously need to be done. It usually revolves around the 3 things that plagues any affluent society,the 3 mountains on the back of every ‘capitalist society camel’ such as you and I, i.e. Medical Cost, Housing and Education.

For starters – the runaway COV (Cost of Valuation) in flats needs to be fixed, if not the ridiculous pricing of our so-called ‘affordable’ HDB flats. Next, it has come to my attention that some schools actually bought a whole bunch of Macs, and then make it compulsory for students to get one as well. Granted only the parents send kids to these schools but the point I want to make is – who paid for that equipment anyway? If it’s not budget from the Ministry of Education I really don’t give a flying fxxk anyway. As for medical cost, well, I guess a lot of us will soon choose to die in a foreign hospital where we can afford the fees.

While I understand that even any changes made will take time to take effect, a lot of people do not have my patience (and I am not known for my patience!!). There is already a Facebook group calling for the ruling party to be voted out. Looking at the response it has gotten (as of this writing it has 2730 members), it is clearly a easy and quick ‘fix’ acceptable to the people who probably haven’t gave a more serious thought about the proper solutions to some of the problems they listed, and the potential consequences of this ‘fix’.

Hard GDP or the macro view of things is no longer the only thing that young Singaporeans care about. The gahmen must take a hard look at the micro level of things and see how a lot of these people think certain things could be / must be done or made better. Despite the previous growth our nation has enjoyed, there is certainly a view that there is a disparity between that and our quality of life. Whether the gahmen felt those views are erroneous or not is not the main issue, the main issue is clearly a disconnect between the decisions (or policy) makers and the people who are affected by their decisions. Or would the gahmen prefer that Singaporeans actually vote them out to see if things might actually be better?

Recommended Reads:
Cloudywind: 7 ways that Kyoto beats Singapore

Random Discourse – Alternative Media?

Leave a comment

Met up with some buddies recently to do some catching up. These are the same buddies who I spent 6 ~ 12 months together in Taiwan between 1993 – 1994. For some of us, the last time we met was on probably more than a decade and a half ago and we recently ‘found’ one another again on Facebook. During the meet up, we talked a little about what we currently do for a living.

One of them who is working for the Central Narcotics Board, told us he could not divulge much about his work, but he did say this:

你不要相信他们，那些吸毒的人是不能相信的｡

This simply meant: You do not trust them, those drug takers / addicts simply could not be trusted. This is the same statement made by a drug lord played by Andy Lau in the movie Protégé. Knowing that we will protest his prejudice, he explained that because the CNB arrest so many narcotics offenders regularly, he has heard too many creative and imaginative stories from suspects trying to protest their their innocence. Unfortunately for these suspects, the evidence (such as a urine test) would disprove whatever prize winning (sometimes believable) fiction they spun.

He went on to say that the profile of the drug addicts have changed as Singapore society becomes more affluent. These days it is no longer the lowly educated laborer but professionals, sons and daughters of rich people and those with connections in high places. (He was also glad that even so, none of the powerful people has attempted anything to allow these people to escape justice.)

He mentioned that whenever they take the suspect home to perform a search, or even inform their family members to come and take them out on bail, the main reaction from the parents is often disbelief. Very often, they have to calm a tearful mother claiming that the suspect has been such a good kid at home and how the suspect must have being led astray or ‘forced into it’ by some ‘very bad people’.

This buddy further pointed out this scenario with parents is common even with suspects who have committed any kind of offense as his colleagues in other departments can attest when they swap stories at work. Furthermore, it is almost the same kind of reaction when they deal with the news of the death of their kids. No matter how detailed and thorough the police investigations maybe, the truth is often met with disbelief. Worse of it all, is when mere friends and acquaintances, who are usually not privy to the facts, start making a big fuss over the write-up on the papers on the issue, and aroused public interest in the matter that either hinders an ongoing investigation. Yet, few of us stop to ask just how close are these people really to the people they presume to speak for.

The conversation with this buddy was still fresh on my mind when I noticed a Google Alert email in my Gmail the next day informing me of this article. This alert was set up so I would be informed of any article containing references to the case of the NTU student David Widjaja, who jumped to his death in the campus.

What got my attention was this statement made in the article: The Singapore media has the knack of propagating wild speculations about such suicide cases.

I am no fan of the Singapore media, especially Straits Stooge Times for how it handles coverage for the opposition during the elections and that AWARE matter. No one in his sane mind would argue that the local media has lived up to what is traditionally expected of the Fourth Estate.

However, regardless whether the Singapore media has made ‘wild speculations’ or not, it is clear to me that most of the time family would dispute or reject any negative reporting of the case. In the case of Huang Na, Took Leng How’s parents believed he was not guilty in spite of the investigations. In the case of David Widjaja, his parents believed he did not commit suicide. Thus, I must ask what is the objective of the ‘alternative media’ such as The Temasek Review in reporting the subjective and perhaps emotionally charged opinion of friends and join the chorus of disputes?

If the objective was to showed that our local media is not truthful in their reports, then neither has The Temasek Review nor the blog post(s) in question reveal anything else substantial or important. In fact, by doing so this merely reinforce the division in opinion and no one is any the wiser. If the objective was to point out that the police has not been diligent in their investigations, The Temasek Review nor the blog post(s) in question also failed to inform the people what was really amiss. In my opinion, other than screaming that this is not the truth, it has failed to make the people more informed as to what the truth is. That’s not mentioning one of the blogs referenced requires an invite before they can review what has been written. How does that help in providing the masses with the truth?

As such, it would appear to me that there is only one objective of the article – to further discredit the local media which already did not enjoy much of a reputation among the cynical, liberal and pro-opposition camps in cyberspace. If all the ‘alternative media’ does is to show us just how rotten the traditional media and prop itself up, then it is my slowly building opinion that this media is not any better in providing us the necessary information to make an informed decision or opinion on a matter. Just because traditional media is terrible really doesn’t make them any better. Someone once made this enlightened comment when he was talking about politicians in Taiwan: 除了比烂，还会什么？[Translation: Other than comparing who is worse, what else do they know?] The same can be said about some of the ‘alternative media’ in Singapore.

Again and again, ‘alternative media’ and liberals would raise the specter of George Orwell’s ‘1984’, yet at the same time they flood the general public with irrelevance. Very often it is no better than an online gossip column / tabloid, an alternative avenue for people to pursue their own personal agenda / make complaints, or just simply fighting cocks for opposing opinion camps tearing at one another.

It would be important for us to note that the future portrayed in George Orwell’s ‘1984’ is not the only future that we should fear, but also the alternate future suggested by Aldous Huxley which is equally chilling.

Orwell warns that we will be overcome by an externally imposed oppression. But in Huxley’s vision, no Big Brother is required to deprive people of their autonomy, maturity and history. As he saw it, people will come to love their oppression, to adore the technologies that undo their capacities to think. Orwell feared there will those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one. Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism. Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from us. Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance. Orwell feared we would become a captive culture. Huxley feared we would become a trivial culture, preoccupied with some equivalent of the feelies, the orgy porgy, and the centrifugal bumblepuppy.[1]

In Orwell’s ‘1984’, people are controlled by inflicting pain. In Huxley’s vision, they are controlled by inflicting pleasure. In short, Orwell feared that what we hate will ruin us. Huxley feared that what we love will ruin us. Unlike the people in some of the most totalitarian and repressive countries in the world, the people of the Free World stand at the threshold of a new world in which Huxley’s fear (and not Orwell’s) would come true. Perhaps we do not even realise it, because we simply want to be allowed to do we want to do without being required to be responsible for our actions.

In the end, when things become out of control, will we then be screaming for a Big Brother to bring into reality Orwell’s ‘1984’? After all, we humans do want some semblance of order and stability instead of perpetual chaos.

Recommended Reads:
Global Voices – China: Bloggers’ Reviews of Avatar
Growing your tree of prosperity – So Singapore is not good enough for Singaporeans. Now what ?
Growing your tree of prosperity – Zorba the Greek and our perception of time
Growing your tree of prosperity: – Love and politics – Singapore style !

Random Discourse – Vote the PAP Out?

3 comments

Found this group on Facebook called: “Vote The PAP Out”. While I am no fan of the Tali-PAP (aka the People’s Action Party [PAP], which I called the political mullahs of Singapore Politics), I am not joining this group either.

I’ll admit there used to be times when I would be gnashing my teeth and showing a irrational hatred of the Tali-PAP. But getting older caused me to mellow down on political issues which I am certainly not an adept nor do I have a full grasp. Furthermore, as time goes by I slowly learn to look at things from a wider perspective and gather more opinions which in turn has caused me to ‘drift’ more towards the ‘political middle’ rather than towards the opposition. Rest assured however, that ageing ‘the process of dying’ won’t make me a pro-government pro-gahmen or a Tali-PAP lackey / apologist yet.

While I may object to how certain things are done by the Tali-PAP, I will not be party with elements of so-called non-partisan self-proclaimed ‘pro-Singapore’ opposition movement that will put in power another political faction which I perceived will work against my personal beliefs one way or another. I will have nothing to do with the so-called liberal and pro-opposition elements within this movement which I perceived to have an anti-Christian agenda. That’s not mentioning any group that is unified by their common hatred of the Tali-PAP, is nothing more than an ‘alliance of convenience’ which failed to recognise the often self-conflicting agendas and self-interests among its members. Assuming that they were to take the Tali-PAP down, internal squabbling among them will pull the nation in many different directions and rip it apart. I would rather be party with a group which not only has the goal of overthrowing the Tali-PAP, but also a plan on what the do when the Tali-PAP is gone (and not just because of their common hatred).

Some might want to ask what has my Christian beliefs got anything to do with politics since the matter of Church and State should always been separated. The truth of the matter is, Christians have always been in the forefront of politics. The martyrdom of many early Christians ultimately turned Christianity into the state religion of the Roman Empire. When the Western Roman Empire collapsed, Christians found that kings of successor states have too much power and then sought to curtail it through the religious leadership – i.e. the Pope and Bishops. When there was too much corruption from within the clergy of the Roman Church, Christians step forth to call for reform from within. When that failed, they did so from without as Protestants. Subsequently, when Christians felt that the English Monarchy has corrupted Protestant Christianity, the Puritans left for America in ships. Simply put, separating Church from State doesn’t cut just one way. While the State tells Christians not to enforce their morality on State matters, the State should not decide for Christians what they should or should not believe in.

It is the moral obligation of any Christian to at least ensure their religious freedom is not taken away under such a pretense. Thus, if a group of people want to put in a gahmen with the intention of curtailing the Christian belief so that certain forms of immorality and warped view of religious tolerance will be considered as liberal, progressive and acceptable, then I will have nothing to do with this movement as much as possible. After all, I would hate the irony of finding out at the end of the day I prepared the very rope to hang myself on. It doesn’t matter that I might actually agree with some of the points put forth by the group.

Personally speaking, some of the points raised in the description of the group I do agree with. I will address them individually.

  • Over-influx of foreigners – There are 2 parts in this problem.

    First, employment. This would breakdown into the employment of cheap foreign labour for jobs that Singaporeans won’t do, and employment of foreign labour to fill positions which Singapore does not have enough manpower to provide. I have mentioned previously that I understand the need to take it foreign labour to bring investments to Singapore, and I have also mentioned that jobs that Singaporeans won’t take up has something to do with the cost of living. I must ask this, if we are to throw all the foreigners out, or at the very least put in some kind of limits to their numbers, how do we realistically achieve that without serious impact to our economy and society? Some of us have one parent who is a PR.

    Next, foreign students. 2nd generation PRs or children of expatriates who will compete with us for positions in primary schools to universities. As a matter of fact, the Tali-PAP has begun to give more priorities to citizens with regard to education. If this isn’t enough, what else is needed here?

  • NS disadvantages – I will admit that the Singaporean male is disadvantaged by National Service [NS]. We spent 2 years in the army while some of us lose employment opportunities (and even girlfriends) to foreigners. Furthermore, 2 years away from what we learn makes everything ‘rusty’. I have known some cases in which some of us can’t even put to good use what we have learn in school, because the rapid shift in the focus of the economy has made those skills obsolete. The only upside of NS is nothing gives you a bigger network than a stint as a reservist soldier. I would also agree that women should do NS, in non-combat roles such as nursing, or even logistical positions in the SAF to address the imbalance that is current aggravated by the Women’s Charter. There is no real equal rights without equal responsibilities. But I doubt any gahmen, not even a non Tali-PAP one would want to venture anywhere near this.

  • Skyrocket property prices – I have called this a form or modern slavery. I don’t really give a damn about private housing if it’s out of my reach. But why should we slog through 30 years of our useful life for a so-called ‘affordable’ HDB pigeon hole which prices are derived by some arcane formula that none of us understand? Above which, I had also previously raised the point that we don’t really have subsidies to our housing but rather just discounts.

  • High Medical Costs – Yes. Getting old and getting sick is a fearful prospect for Singaporeans. We’ll rather be dead than sick or old here. While the basic Medishield cover may indeed ‘cover no shit’, we can get better coverage from private insurers at a higher cost. That being said, I would prefer that I can use my Medisave to cover any amount for my medical insurance (and also that of my parents), and not be capped at a certain amount like $800 or so and then have to pay the rest by cash.

  • Low dispensable income – A yes for the low income earners. Anyone earning less than $2000 a month will have only a take home pay of $1600 after CPF deduction. If he wants to get medical insurance cover and pay his bills he would be working hand to mouth. It will be a life of all work and no play. Not to mention that according to some statistics, Singaporeans probably have one of the lowest wages in developed countries even for those who earn more that $2000 a month.

  • Low CPF Interest rate – This is something you shouldn’t be complaining about if you are still servicing your HDB mortgage loan. This is also something you shouldn’t be complaining about if you have used your CPF to pay for your property. Remember, when you sell your house, the money from the sale will first be return to the CPF and that includes accrued interest. Higher CPF interest rate means less profits when you sell your house. But you won’t be complaining about what’s next if you can sell your house.

  • CPF unable to provide retirement – Can’t have my cake and eat it. On top of which, this whole thing including skyrocketing property prices, low CPF interest rates and CPF being unable to provide for retirement are all part of a ‘Gordian Knot’. I’ll leave it to a wise guy to provide a ‘Alexander the Great solution’ to this.

  • Inflation due to GST 7% – I have heard this argument often, and in fact have used it myself. For e.g. hawkers raising the price of a plate of Char Siew Rice from $3 to $3.50. That would have been way more than the operation overheads hawkers have to bear as a result of the increase in GST. However it would be hard to argue directly that GST is the real cause behind all the inflation. Coffee shops have raised the price of coffee by 10cents when the price of sugar goes up, and it will never come down after that.

  • Singaporeans unemployment rate not declared – Well, I do think it is higher regardless whether PRs are included in that figure or not. After all, if you leave employment for further studies (or take up further studies when you are unemployed), you wouldn’t be part of the unemployment figures anymore. Neither are homemakers. Furthermore, I have always considered some ‘self-employed’ taxi drivers to be a part of the unemployment figures as some of these drivers have no other skills to make them employable.

  • GIC and Temasek Losses – Yes. Definitely some heads should roll for this. They can use a Wakazishi and the Padang for cutting their bellies as part of their final atonement. And while we are at this, even those who approved ridiculous large bonus packages for town council staff, and those who lost millions in town council sinking funds should be made accountable.

  • Heavy shortage of subsidized university places for qualified Singapore students – Ok, define qualified. If the ‘shortage’ has something to do with those who just didn’t quite make the mark to qualify, don’t try and blame foreigners for taking up those positions at all! Even if this is true, I really don’t expect much of a solution to this anyway. The danger of setting a quota for foreign students would make us like Malaysia – where there are places in the universities but they can’t be given out because of the quota. The next best thing the gahmen can do would be to raise the fees of foreign students. But the fees cannot be make so prohibitive that foreign students stop coming. And seriously, while I would prefer some of these foreign ingrates to be thrown out of our universities (and our country, along with certain foreigners working here) for their not so flattering view of our country, I wasn’t aware that we have run out of subsidised university places because foreigners have taken them.

All in all, what I want to say is this: While I agree that all of the above are problems that need to be addressed, are they reasons enough to actually vote the Tali-PAP out of power entirely? Deny them a 2/3 majority to wake them up so they take us more seriously, definitely! To vote them out when there isn’t yet a political power ready to take up the reins? Please, spare this old man here the drastic changes and the chaos that will follow there after. Unlike some of the young punks who think they have nothing to lose other than their PSP or iPhones, or even a few nights of clubbing at St. James or Zouk, there’s really much more at stake for me here.

Anyway, while none of us are paid millions like our mini$ter$ to come up with solutions, and there is certainly no obligations for anyone to do so, I would really like someone to talk about hypothetical solutions to all of the problems above. Getting rid of the Tali-PAP is not the solution to it all. Thank you very much.

Recommended Reads:
Growing your tree of prosperity: Why foreign talent will trounce your asses.

后感: 哥本哈根气候会谈

One comment

简单来说，这是一个大家都在电梯里放屁，然后觉得臭了就认为大家再放屁就会死人的一场讨论。 不但如此，在规定大家只能放多少屁的时候，之前放屁最多的口头上虽然承认大家都有责任控制放屁，但却不对自己的过去的行为负责。除此以外，虽然不完全禁止放屁，但却限制别人不可像自己那样般放屁。为了实现不可乱放屁的目标，他们认为那些未来可能吃和他们一样的多的人，要让他们来检查屁眼。而且只能几时才能放和允许放多少的屁才为负责任都要以他们的标准来衡量和约束。在这样苛刻的条件下，竟然还厚颜无耻的说如果要花钱检查是别人自家的事。但在集体抗议后，才反过来说如果要他们出钱的话就必须接受他们的条件，要不然门都没有！而那些还没放屁，或者放屁最少的，就嚷着说之前放过屁的那些人的屁是最臭的，已经放了很多屁的人应该担当更大的责任。

试想，有哪个笨蛋会接受如此的狗屁道理喔？！难怪谈了他妈的整整半个月，都谈不拢啦！

1 … 29 30 31 32 33 … 99