李叶明在吠什么？

One comment

Sakar 是本地人的俚语。这原自马来文，也可能是马来人在过去和印度、波斯、或者是阿拉伯语商人贸易时学来的。在兴地语、波斯语和阿拉伯语是和甜和糖有关系的，但在本地通常是用来形容一个人在巴结、奉承的行为。由于和福建话 “三脚” 同音所以就译成了 “三脚”。 久而久之 “三脚” 就变成形容一个人在巴结和奉承别人。

这也是不少人对李叶明 2 月 15 日 所发表的 《刘程强在说什么？》 一文的主观看法 – 就是李叶明在 “三脚” 我们的政府。看着大家在面簿 (Facebook) 上批评他的帖子，李叶明在我脑海里的印象犹如一个狗奴才在给他主子磕头，嚷嚷着他是如何的忠诚。我压抑着我的主观看法，随后沉住气在随笔南洋网里读了 《刘程强在说什么？》 一文。读完了那篇似是而非的文章后虽不觉得如此，但却有武侠漫画 《风云》 里一个人物困在 “莫名剑法” 一式 “莫名其妙” 的剑阵里的感觉。因为我看了老半天还弄不清楚他是以一个新加坡人的身份，还是以中华人民共和国的一个国民的身份写的？

文里，李叶明一开始就批评刘程强和工人党的逻辑荒唐，可是他的逻辑又如何不荒唐呢？他写道： “如果一个家庭请女佣，会稀释家庭核心吗？如果本地企业多请几名外劳，会稀释企业核心吗？为什么新加坡允许多一些外劳和女佣，就会稀释新加坡人核心呢？” 那我得告诉李叶明，如果我拿根针在他的身上某处扎一下，那的确是没什么的。痛一下而已嘛！但是如果我在他身上多处老扎针，他未必就会觉得那么舒服了，对吗？他要不信他自己随时可以拿些针扎在手臂上试试看！也就是同样的道理，越来越多的外国人的确让我们新加坡人感觉得不舒服！

还有，李叶明提到新加坡人的祖先也是外来移民。那的确是事实。而且没有当年的移民，也没有今天的新加坡。但是我的祖辈是移民的事实何时成了给当今政府的移民政策背书的借口？战后新加坡可不是上帝应许的 “流奶与蜜之地”，而是个一穷四白的英帝国殖民地。就以我外公来说，是因为太平洋战争结束后没法回国，才留下来继续打拼。原本是来这里挣钱以图日后回国过些好日子，结果是后路断了才留下来继续用苦力去拼搏。我外公和当下想来这里谋生那些所谓的 “外来人材” 可以相比的吗？李叶明，你别自欺欺人、也别侮辱我对我先辈的记忆！

新加坡共和国立国快 48 年，我这一辈的大多数都是土生土长的。我们对国家认同感是随着我们的国家成功才建立起来的。李叶明口口声声说反移民是条 “不归路”，其实不断的引进移民才是。试问，一个国民老是认为自己是移民的国家，如何建立国家的认同感？国民如何凝聚？李叶明说新公民在本地生活的年数会逐年增加，但是在一个地方生活的长久何时成了认同和融入的等号？有个美国人李敦白 (Sidney Rittenberg) 加入了中国共产党多年，并且还在中国住了 35 年 。但是李敦白成了中国人了吗？没有，他最终还是回到了美国。

李叶明说工人党 “煽动排外”，但是我觉得其实真正在煽动的人其实是他。他正在煽动新公民对工人党反感、甚至憎恨。李叶明证明了精神分析学始祖弗洛伊德 (Sigmund Freud) 所说的 “心理防御机制” 里 “投射” (Projection) – 就是将基本上本屬自身一部份某種不快的思緒、動機、慾望、或情感，投射到他人或他物身上。也就是说，就是李叶明本身本来就有煽动的目的，所以才会有 “工人党煽动排外” 之说。这还不是最令人气愤的，是他竟然说是因为刘程强在反驳中说他 “要致工人党于死地”，很多人才被煽动来对他口诛笔伐。

我呸！如此硬拗都可以，硬把黑的说成白的。李叶明你这人真的是个 “俗仔” (台语 – 和瘪三同义)。很没品！李叶明你在第二篇反驳刘程强的文章中可以大条道理的谈经济增长，但是你给我听清楚了 – 如果那经济增长让新加坡人分享得到，那是没有什么人会反对的。但是当外来人口让很多新加坡人的现在的日子都过得辛苦、甚至过不下去，那什么 “经济增长”、 “让曾经为经济发展作出重要贡献的战后婴儿潮一代安享晚年”之类话的都是放屁、也都不再重要！我很好奇，经济的增长、特别是外劳的引进，是否给李叶明个人带来了非常多的利益？而是否工人党建议的冻结方案间接的伤害了他的一些既得利益才令他如此大声的放肆叫嚣？

新加坡人绝大部分是包容大度的，有怨言也是针对引进外国人的政策，不是外国人。我们从美国这样的移民国家也看得到第一代的移民通常都有融入的问题，也理解只有他们的子孙才会彻底新加坡化。所以我们都很愿意给时间新移民融入我们的社会。但是李叶明这厮的言论只会加深非移民对所有新移民的反感和更加不信任！请李叶明不要再撕裂我的国家, 因为在这样下去只会让非移民新加坡人对新公民更加仇视。

就李叶明个人而言，我永远也不会信任他。不管他的新加坡国民身份证是服了兵役得来，我永远也不会感觉他是我们的一分子。他的吃里扒外已经彻底激怒了很多人，而这些人不分蓝或者白、也不分非移民和新公民。有些人没我那么大度，只是写篇烂文章骂骂就算了！李叶明，你好自为之吧！

Afterthoughts – Say “No” to an overpopulated Singapore

7 comments

I was at Hong Lim Park on Saturday afternoon. I went because the event is symbolic, as Singapore has never seen anything like this since its separation from Malaysia. I also went to be counted to show my revulsion as to how the government is managing the influx of foreigners in all aspects – labour, education and immigration. I didn’t go because I agree with those who spoke or their agenda, and I personally did not pay much attention to what some of tne speakers were saying. In fact, my friends and I were having our own separate discussion on how we felt about the White Paper at our little corner. We even joked that the foreign guests at the Parkroyal Hotel on Pickering Street has the best vantage point.

[portfolio_slideshow]

These few photos were taken around 4:30pm and I took so little because I was more interested in protecting my almost new DSLR from the rain

When I arrive around 4pm there were probably more people than the Reform Party rallies during the Punggol East by-election. Regardless of my reservations about some of the speakers at the event, I was heartened to see the number of people who slowly trickled in and everyone were calm and no one was behaving aggressively. I was also heartened to see no riot police vehicles in the vicinity, nor an excessive deployment of police in contrast to that of the Singapore Democratic Party’s IMF protest in February 2006. I also met another friend who went on his own and he told me there were also a few other familiar faces, and my own estimation was that there were at least 3500 ~ 4000 people by the time I left at around 6pm for dinner. This was in stark contrast to another event called ‘Occupy Raffles Place’ in October 2011 where no one – not even the organisers – showed up. It is of no wonder one of my friends thought the Hong Lim protest was another joke but it is crystal clear to me that we Singaporeans are a rational, law abiding lot who preferred to do things within the strictures of the law.

However, I am saddened to read that someone was scorned for not going because she felt convicted not to participate in the event as she objected to the racial profiling of foreigners in our midst. I have no words to describe the outrage I felt towards those who scorned her, and I could only say that this conjures up images of extremists and loonies of the likes of Mao’s Red Guards in the Cultural Revolution whereby no alternative views are tolerated.

I certainly think a lot of us would be more receptive to the White Paper and the projected population figure for 2030 if the following hasn’t happened, and is still happening –

  1. The daily discomfort experienced when traveling on trains, and the increasing congestions on our roads;

  2. A ‘money no enough’ problem in which many felt the cost of living and housing prices constantly rising while overall salaries not only stagnated, but even depreciated when we consider inflation;

  3. The impression that foreign labour (especially PMETs) made little or no contribution or enhancement to our lives, but instead makes our lives more difficult. In fact, they are often seen as a threat to us not just in terms of employment, but also displacing us in even our own higher institutes of learning?

I am not suggesting that the government has taken no measures since the last General Elections. I don’t have to talk about the transport and housing issues either, because it is utterly meaningless to talk about that if we do not have jobs. So I will focus in particular on point 3 above and talk about whether the measures are focused correctly, or effective at all.

First of all, there appears that there is now a indiscriminate tightening on foreign labour, ostensibly to force workers to raise productivity but some employers have already started to groan. From all the friends who are open with their views on this matter, a lot of them are aware that we need low-skill laborers such as cleaners and construction workers. That’s not forgetting waiters, and I am not saying that is a low skilled job since any service job that requires handling of another human being requires a certain skill set that some of us do not possess. Talking about waiters, I am personally not sure how productivity can be raised here, in spite of an example cited by our Deputy Prime-Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam on more “productive” waiters in US, Europe and Japan are.

The one question that needs to be asked based on the DPM’s example is not only whether they are getting better paid for their alleged “higher productivity”, but also the customer to waiter ratio and also the cultural impression people have of the job. I recalled when a lady friend said she would want to be a barista in Star Bucks everyone told her to drop the idea as if there’s some kind of stigma associated with the job. Anyway, I was at White Dog Cafe in Vivocity the other day, and I clearly think they are understaffed because I saw only two waiters (not including those are the cashier and the kitchen) and they apparently cannot cope. I can thus reasonably understand why the the Restaurant Association of Singapore (RAS) has urged the government to re-assess curbs on the inflow of foreign workers or businesses will face dire consequences. After all, customers will stop patronising a joint when the service is bad and it will only force the joint to cut the number of staff. Needless to say, that which will further aggravate the service standards which ultimately leads to the joint closing down. In other words, the government can stop feeding us biased examples designed that suits the agenda of the day. To talk about increasing productivity as an abstract without providing the specifics is useless.

Meanwhile, small and medium enterprises (SMEs) are calling on the government to examine whether there are enough quality jobs for Singaporeans who may have lost job opportunities in the Professionals, Managers, Executives and Technicians (PMET) sector due to the inflow of foreign talent. It is strange that nothing seems to be done here because this is the main peeve of Singaporeans. Why the focus is thus placed on low-skilled foreign labour is beyond me. For the information of the Ministers of Manpower, Singaporeans aren’t daft and we could tell the difference between a so-called “Foreign Talent” with a masters or bachelors degree from “NHU” (Never Heard-of University) displacing Singaporeans and the Bangladeshi worker digging a hole at a construction site. We are quite clear we don’t want dubious “talents” with their rubbish degrees taking up our jobs and we clearly understand we still require cheap low-skilled labourers to do some of the work that we clearly can’t find anyone to do. Furthermore, some of us are also able to see how MNCs satisfy the troublesome unions in their home countries during negotiations by transferring their headcount to Singapore so that they can still meet their headcount reductions and yet satisfy their shareholders on cost reduction. The end result is that Singaporeans lose their jobs because our sham of a union won’t even lift a finger to help us, while these MNCs engaged in an elaborate manpower shell game. If not, an open position which a Singaporean maybe able to fill is instead taken by a foreigner transferred from another location, because he’s kawan-kawan (Malay: friends) with the department head, and they have always ‘worked as a team’. I wouldn’t complain much when a foreigner from the MNC’s home country is the head of a department, but I would certainly frown on such nepotism.

Back to the matter of dubious “talents” with rubbish degrees. A local-born polytechnic diploma holder may thus be disqualified from a jobs simply because a foreigner has a degree of some sort. How is it fair for him to suffer from such qualification discrimination, or to his parents who have struggled to allow him to finish his studies? Faced with the fact that we don’t even have enough universities in the first place, not to mention that some of the positions in our universities are given to so-called “foreign scholars”, how can Singaporeans be not bitter? While there used to be a time someone could start work with a diploma and find a decent job first so they can later finance themselves and take up a part-time course to pursue a part-time degree, it is becoming increasingly hard for them to do so under this context.

It gave me the impression that the government is deliberately mucking things up on foreign labour so that it could justify relaxing the controls later. The lapdog mass media will bombard Singaporeans with the impression that such measures could not be implemented without detrimental – if not disastrous – effects. Unfortunately, the government is mistaken if it believes it can use such a method to hoodwink us, so that we will continue to accept the absurd methods currently used to expand the population.

Simply put, let’s cut all that bullshit about a Singapore identity and keeping a strong Singapore core. It is easy for some of those white-shirted clowns to sit in the comfort of the air-conditioned parliament chambers and give speeches filled with nothing but hot air. But all we Singaporeans want is just a chance to live our lives again. When some of those white-shirted charlatans get off their ivory UFO in cloud nine and look beyond their statistics and GDP figures and see how we are actually surviving – even struggling – and do something about it, then we will all perhaps be more receptive to whatever policies they want to implement.

Afterthoughts – The White Paper on Population

One comment

After five days of intense debate, Parliament on Friday (08-Feb-2013) passed the amended motion to endorse the toilet White Paper on Population with 77 ayes and 13 nays. The results is of no surprise. The fact that the WP MPs voted against it demonstrates the difference between them and PAP backbenchers. Unlike PAP MPs who has no avenue to vote according to their conscience as long as the whip is not lifted, the PAP cannot take it for granted that Workers’ Party MPs will vote in favor of everything it wishes to pass.

A PAP MP can rave about being ‘his own man’ and it is nothing but a sham. They are simply their ‘own man’ apart from the will of the voters. The only avenue for an PAP MPs not to vote for a bill that they have spiritedly spoken against – so that they may not be looked upon as hypocrites and traitors to their constituents – is to be absent on the day when they are required to do so. That should be easy since Mah Bow Tan has been absent for almost half of the 12th Parliament’s sessions so far, and Mr Inderjit Singh was also absent during the vote on the White Paper. If they have an issue taking leave, my suggestion to them is “keng mc”. [“Keng mc” is a term used by National Servicemen for malingering. It means to think (mis-pronounced as ‘keng’) of a way to fabricate symptoms of physical disorders or sickness such that the medical officer would issue the servicemen an official excuse from duty for a certain period of time. The PAP MPs who have served NS can do Janil Puthucheary a favor by advising him what this means.]

I am also against the White Paper on Population. Whether it was the amended paper or the original that was passed is irrelevant. The statement that it “recognises that the population projections beyond 2020 are for the purpose of land use and infrastructure planning, and not a population target” is nothing more than a sleight of hand. It doesn’t require much gray matter to know that when land use and infrastructure is planned for a projected population figure, then it is certain that at least half of the targeted population increase will be met. Which fool expects the PAP to build ghost towns like Kangbashi on the outskirts of Ordos in Inner Mongolia? After all, when Mah Bow Tan was asked whether it was possible to lower land prices and thus the cost of new HDB flats, he said that would be like “stealing from the reserves”. My friend pointed out that to build empty towns would be blasphemous to PAP’s policy where profit is king. I think it would be more than just blasphemous, the Holy Order of PAP-Mammon would view it as sacrilege.

As far as I am concerned, the desperation in which the PAP needs to ensure that Singapore population keeps growing suggests two main issues, and they are not entirely Singapore’s. We probably won’t see it mention in the white paper, and some reading between the lines is required to identify these issues. The PAP can’t state their agenda upfront, because that would open many other cans of worms. Anyway, the first is mentioned in Lina Chiam’s Parliamentary Speech whereby she said (and I quote),

“The white paper assumes that bringing in more migrants is the solution to our worrying Old Age Support Ratio (OASR), through increased tax revenue collected and so on. But I do not know how this is applicable in Singapore, where the government believes families should be the main source of financial and social support for the elderly, where the state is unabashedly anti-welfare.”

I agree with Mrs Chiam that the state is unabashedly anti-welfare. Yet in spite of that knowledge, she failed to press on to the main point. That is, the OASR in the Singapore context has very little to do with welfare, but more to do with finding people to pay into the CPF to ensure that there will be some money to go about to pay out to those members who have reached the age to withdraw. Whatever infernal schemes that could be imagined had already been implemented to stem the amount of withdrawal from the CPF – for e.g. retaining a minimum sum, CPF Life etc. But stemming the outflow only address one side of the issue and it is not enough. Those who called the CPF a ponzi scheme is thus not very far from the mark. It is not difficult to understand why the PAP is desperate to ensure that there will be enough people around to pay into the CPF. They need to slow down the timer of the ticking time bomb. Depending on which side of the divide you are on, they could be trying to buy time to defuse it, or as Low Thia Khiang (MP, Aljunied GRC) said – they are simply ‘kicking the can down the road’

The next issue can be glimpsed when S. Iwaran spoke against the WP. I quote,

“We would be breaking faith with companies who are already invested here and are in the process of ramping up their operations. It will damage our reputation and severely impair our efforts to attract new and different businesses which can offer precisely the kind of diverse jobs that better educated Singaporeans seek.”

We? Well, I don’t recall having promised anyone anything to get them to invest here. This suggests to me that somewhere, someone over-promised to foreign companies that there will be little, if not zero restrictions in employing all the foreign labour they want. In fact, even for PMETs because it appeared to me any foreigner with a degree would be considered “foreign talents”. (I’ll come back to this later.)

Some may argue that’s not the case, because Singapore has imposed a dependency ratio, which effectively says employers can hire only x foreign workers for every y locals. But with the Total Fertility Rate (TFR) at an all time low of 1.2, things will definitely come to a head when the number of Singaporeans continue to dwindle, probably around 2030. That maybe why the PAP government has been very liberal in converting some of these so-called “foreign talents” into “new Singaporeans”. The other alternative would be to amend the dependency ratio to x+z locals for every y locals, which in any case will still upset Singaporeans. Thus the PAP needs to hoodwink us into accepting immigrants.

In all honestly, I can’t say that these issues which the PAP did not honestly tell us upfront are just the PAP’s problems because on a broader scale it is ours as well. So why am I still against the White Paper?

First of all, it’s not the population figures that upsets me. The Prime Minister said that the government does not have 20/20 foresight and it can only act on what it believes is the best plan for the country. Sadly, years of talking down at the people and telling us they are the best this country has to offer, and being the highest paid in the world, simply means we expect nothing less than 20/20 foresight. The Prime Minister needs to take a closer look at a more serious and fundamental problem, i.e. our civil service – which advised our ministers on the policies to take for the future – may have deteriorated. Asking “What do you think?” no longer suffice. The Prime Minister and his team have to work harder to earn their keep and not take it for granted that their minions have thought through something from all possible angles, before they put their chop on it. No one can have 20/20 foresight but it is oversight that is a greater concern, because Singapore’s well-oiled state machinery may have ran too well in the past years that some civil servants have now taken it for granted.

I am saying this because I have lost all confidence in the city planners of this country, regardless whether there will be new MRT lines and housing estates in the pipeline. How am I to have confidence when I am told that the cause of the CCL’s breakdown is due to water getting into the power cabling? The CCL is a almost brand new line running underground! Compare that to large tracts of the oldest North-South (NSL) & East-West Lines (EWL) which are exposed to the elements! And even the North-East Line (NEL), which has been in operation for far less time than the NSL & EWL has suffered as many major breakdowns, if not more! Even maintenance of our infrastructure has fallen short, as I start to notice small puddles of water that failed to drain away at road junctions after a downpour.

On the same day when the White Paper is endorsed in Parliament, a coffee shop at Clementi, and a large area around Commonwealth Avenue near the Commonwealth MRT station were flooded due to heavy rainfall. The city planners who planned for new amenities in the vicinity of the affected area have clearly failed to take into consideration their impact on the surrounding drainage system. It is of no surprise that places that have seen drastic landscape changes – such as Orchard Road, the old Clementi MRT bus interchange, the pristine HDB ‘sky scrappers’ at Tanglin Halt – is now prone to flooding during a heavy downpour. The failure to anticipate may still be forgivable, but a lack of willingness to tackle the issues is not. For e.g. a minister first calling it a once-in-fifty year problem, and then another blaming it on climate change, while a third tell us that no amount of engineering can deal with it is unacceptable. How does the government expects us to accept a bigger population when things are not even kept in proper conditions with the current one? At the very least, the people expects someone to exercise some hindsight, apologise and get it fixed.

Next, let me touch again on the matter of “foreign talents”, and in extension immigration. New immigrants congregating among themselves and perhaps lacking identification to their new national identity as Singaporeans is understandable because first generation immigrants may never truly integrate. The only hope is in their descendants. What really pisses me off, is a lack on verification the qualifications of some PMETs which were generally those granted citizenship.

It requires little imagination to know that countries like India and China have far more universities than Singapore, not to mention Singapore is not the top destination for the really talented. Thus, the problem is whether the degrees from some of those universities are even worth the paper it’s printed on in most other parts of the world. Are these – which I would consider riffraff – what Singapore considered “foreign talents”? Furthermore, all too often many of us have encountered a “foreign talent” who clearly isn’t even capable of “tying his own shoelaces” when performing his daily duties. The influx of these foreigners had made it even harder for a young local diploma holder to start work first and study part-time for a degree later. Singapore already does not have enough universities while other countries may be producing graduates in truck loads. And as if that’s not bad enough, Singapore even reserved certain amount of vacancies in our universities for those so-called “foreign scholars”.

The above is enough for Singaporeans to object to more foreigners without even ranting about how they might be depressing wages. Has the Ministry of Manpower any system in place for some of these so-called “foreign talents” to prove their proficiency? Or did MOM simply expect the corporate human resource departments to do so, while all they do may simply be obtaining the hard copy of their degree from any Tom, Dick or Harry for photo-copying? What avenue is there for locals to raise an alarm against those who have puffed up their CV, or worst still, got their jobs using a fake degree?

As for the matter of TFR, I don’t think any more incentives are going to help. Not even the image of a 55-year old man taking his 80 year-old wheelchair-bound parent to the hospital is going to scare anyone into thinking otherwise. It may simply be more fruitful to just keep the cost of living in check. And perhaps, the government can start doing so by doing something about the cost of land. Making housing affordable again is only one part of the equation. Keeping rentals to a more manageable level may not have a great impact on big corporates, but it would certainly help the small-time businessman running a small enterprise and even the hawkers. Hopefully, that would give us some breathing space in return, and then those of us who are married can then consider having kids again.

The government has to take its pick between increasing the national reserves through land sales, and Singaporeans having babies. If the government insist on having the cake and eat it, then 2016 may perhaps be a new historical reference for a new generation of Singaporeans.

Afterthoughts – Punggol East By-Election

Leave a comment

Finally found some time to put my thoughts down…

“Take me to the magic of the moment
On a glory night
Where the children of tomorrow dream away
in the wind of change”

– Excerpts, Winds of Change
(by Scorpions)

As the Workers’ Party did not have an assembly center and gathering point last Saturday (26 Jan 2013), a friend and I made our way to the unofficial one at the coffee shop in Blk 322, Hougang Avenue 5. We met at Hougang MRT station, and had our dinner at Hougang Mall. On hindsight, we should just have eaten at that coffee shop instead since we might have gotten a table in front of the TV. When I was on my way, another friend has asked me in sms why I am wasting my time to go to Hougang (from Jurong), and I told him I just want to be there to witness a historical moment – regardless whether the WP win or not. A part of the Winds of Change lyrics basically summarizes what I thought. Ya, I know I am very corny, even lame.

As we were having dinner, my friend and I discussed much, and on one occasion we spoke about the reasons why the other two candidates (i.e. Kenneth Jeyaretnam and Desmond Lim) insisted on contesting even when most felt it would be futile. I said it was purely foolishness and they did so for personal glory. My friend pointed out that he doesn’t see it that way. He explained that even really intelligent people at times are blind to the fact that there are just things that they are incapable of. If not, then some capable people just do not realise they aren’t cut out for some roles. He has a good point, because the PAP has too often made us believe that academic qualifications not only equate to capabilities, but capabilities in everything. Unfortunately, qualifications and capabilities are really very different things. Academic qualifications is used to gauge a person’s capabilities simply because there are no better yardsticks.

On the other hand, being very capable in some of things you do doesn’t mean diddly-squat for the role of an MP as well. So all that talk about one’s success in other fields (whether you are the top hedge fund manager or the best colorectal surgeon), or what one has done in another town council is rather irrelevant. In fact, self-understanding – as in having the knowledge of what one is not cut out to do – is important. I understand that many gurus will say I am wrong because if people just simply give up when they fail then no one would have ever made it. It is understandable, since they need to justify that success story they are trying to sell everyone. To put it in a simple analogy, you can try using your teeth to chew on a piece of steel to get it into the shape you want, and die trying. But the knowledge that a diamond cutter would do the job and your jaws just can’t is another matter entirely.


The WP “Party Herald”

Anyway, we arrived at the unofficial “assembly center and gathering point” slightly after 7pm. When we arrived, there was no indication that any Workers’ Party [WP] supporters are around. Even though I can count at most 4 to 5 people in light blue shirts, it’s hard to tell whether they were there to support WP. It remained that way until 8 plus, after polling closed and the polling boxes were underway to the counting centers that the “Party Herald” – that chap with the drum and trumpet – showed up. Suddenly the coffee shop erupted into cheers for the “Workers’ Party!!!” and we knew we are at the right place – the unofficial ‘Workers’ Party Canteen’.

More people start filing in after that. People with cameras at first, then members of the press (I saw a guy with a CNA camera). Though I couldn’t tell how many people there were from my position, I told my friend that times have indeed changed because I suspect in the past the riot police would probably have showed up and disperse the crowd standing around the coffee shop. By 11pm, there were actually enough people there for a successful political rally and all of us have probably violated the public gathering laws more times than we can count with our fingers.

The atmosphere was electrifying. People broke into Hokkien songs, cheers for the Workers’ Party and its candidate Lee Lilian from time to time. While I have often felt that Singaporeans are far less passionate about elections in the past, my impression completely changed at that coffee shop. The crowd was generally orderly, since they would make way for people who just simply want to be on their way without much a fuss. The only thing that I really dislike would be when they boo’ed and jeered at the other candidates when they appeared on TV. Incidentally, that reminded me of one of the WP speakers who had made fun of Dr Koh’s name. I simply felt we can be above that, in spite of our frustration and prejudices. Perhaps I was expecting too much, since there’s simply still a long way for democratic ideals to grow and take root after so many years of one-party rule.

While that was a low point, there was also a high. At one point, just a few minutes before the results were announced, the crowd even broke out singing the National Anthem. For a moment it was like we won the Malaysian Cup, and the patriotism almost brought tears to my eyes. To me, I felt we turned out that night not just for our displeasure (or even dislike) of the PAP, but rather for a common belief that there can be alternatives to make our country better.

That reminds me of a memorable conversation with one of the supporters at the coffee shop. As the crowd sings and more people filed in, my friend told me that slowly and surely the blue sky (the Workers’ Party) is melting away the white glaciers (the PAP). A Workers Party volunteer who has been chit-chatting with us, heard him and turned around and told us she understood the analogy. She told us she does not wish to see the PAP go in a bang, but would rather it goes like the polar ice cap or glaciers melt away. The reason is that the PAP has sunken its roots into many aspects in Singapore, both economically and socially. No one would expect that tree to be suddenly uprooted. That resonates our thoughts as well, and I dare say that is the typical profile of the WP supporter – rational and thoughtful. None of us are loonies, and in fact we do not want to see the PAP go abruptly even when some of us feel it is inevitable it will lose its grip on political domination.

Anyway, we went there without expecting a WP win that night. Rumors were flying fast and furious by 9:30pm, when one chap put his beer on our table and told us that a WP victory is confirmed and that Lilian has won 16000 votes. We though the chap was drunk so we ignored him. After that there were rumors that the PAP was leading by 2% and vice versa. By 10pm, we were sort of convinced that the WP has won because I recalled that the results for Hougang’s by-election was out way earlier and we were speculating that the votes are so close that a recount is underway. I failed to noticed that another friend who was a counting agent had sent me a Whatsapp message saying that there isn’t a recount. I suspect by then he was already released from the counting center and was free to text anyone. The wait dragged on and the crowd begin to chant the name of the returning officer – Mr Yam Ah Mee. I was prepared to hunker down for a long night when another friend who has just arrived called to ask us where we are.

It wasn’t long after he made his way through the crowd to our table that the results were released. The crowd literally exploded, and even cars driving past were honking in sync with the whistles and chanting of “Workers’ Party”. It was almost as if the country has emerged victorious from a long war.

The crowd stayed on in jubilant celebration as my friends and I hastily made our way to the MRT station while the trains are still in service. We pondered upon some of the reasons why the PAP has lost. Other than the fact that this is a by-election and everyone knew for sure it wouldn’t seriously impact the government, the PAP faces a rather serious problem. That is, it is seen as a party that is elitist and that it no longer cared. That has made it doubly hard for Dr Koh to connect with voters. The repeated emphasis on Dr Koh’s success story only served to distance him further from the voters. On the other hand, I met Lee Lilian more than half a decade ago at the WP HQ and she gives me the impression of being an approachable, affable person. She was the first person to not only welcome me, but made me feel at home, even introducing me to some of the other party members as if she has known me for a long time. There are just certain things a person cannot fake and her personality, plus her life story on how she worked her way to her degree would have endeared her to the voters. If Dr Koh is the Son of Punggol, then Lee Lilian is our sister, if not the people’s daughter. Even though this by-election is no indication of how Singaporeans will vote in the future, the PAP has an uphill battle to fight to earn the hearts and minds of Singaporeans again. In light of recent failures and oversight, the PAP should realise that its image as the ‘political party of the elite’ is already bankrupt. The electorate wants a person to serve and deal with their problems, and has very little respect for credentials.

As for the Workers’ Party, do not be proud. The electorate has given you the fourth chance to prove yourself. When we would only scrutinise the WP closely in the past, now we will be scrutinising it even closer with a magnifying glass. The Singapore Democratic Party [SDP] had its time of glory back in 1991, and it was subsequently found to be wanting. By the next election, all of its MPs were swept out of Parliament.

The will of the people is as fickle as the weather. As an ancient Chinese minister Wei Zheng (魏徵) once told the Emperor Taizong of the Tang Dynasty (唐太宗) in a discussion: “The will of the people is like water. Water can carry a boat as well as it can capsize it.”

The WP should also expect underhanded attacks from supporters of other parties, if not the other political parties themselves. After all, everyone has the same objective and none of these parties will sit back and watch the WP grow stronger, regardless whether it is at their expense or that of the ruling party. In fact, there was already one such attack just a few days ago in which a writer to the Straits Times forum tried to smear WP as a Chinese-only party. It is utterly deplorable that the Straits Times even allowed that letter to be published in spite of the fact that WP has won a Group Representative Constituency [GRC] when no party can even contest one without a minority candidate. That seditious piece and racial politics simply have no place in Singapore.

Advertisement:



Random Discourse – Section 377A Revisited

Pastor Lawrence Khong of the Faith Community Baptist Church made a direct appeal to the ex-Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong against the repeal of Section 377A of the Penal Code. Any Christian who read the Scriptures in its context will understand why the Pastor did so, because it is upholding of God’s moral laws. For a Christian to support the repeal of Section 377A would mean more than just tolerance, it would mean the affirmation and endorsement of homosexuality. From events that has transpired in the United States, Christians are also clear that homosexual activism will not end with the repeal of Section 377A. I will not speculate on where homosexual activists will be taking it in Singapore, because there will always be that person who calls it a red herring, and then accused me of the slippery slope fallacy.

Because of this, Christians often end up being accused of imposing our morality upon others, and even worse labeled as intolerant and bigoted. But we Christians are not alone in our objection of homosexuality. Some might not realised that there is also a harsh punishment for homosexuals under the Shariah Law, but I will not go into the details of what the punishment is, lest I be accused of instigating hate. Furthermore, this is not a blog post to defend or justify the Christian position. I am also not attempting to point out that Christians are right because we are not alone. Numbers doesn’t mean right. The intention of this blog post is for non-Christians who are neutral in the matter to take a better look at Section 377A and consider the matter objectively, and also to examine those notions in favor of homosexuality. Let me present my case on for non-Christians to consider why Section 377A should not be repealed.


Sections 375 ~ 377D in the Penal Code

For starters, what is Section 377A? It is a section in the Penal Code which criminalises sex between men. Anyone can look it up in the statutes, and see that it is lumped together under ‘Sexual Offences’ in the Penal Code. It starts at Section 375, and ends at 377D. Apart from Section 377A, the other sections criminalise rape, sex with minors under 16, paid sex with minors under 18 (where a whole lot of men were recently charged and subsequently convicted in a high profile case), sex with dead bodies, incest, bestiality (i.e. sex with animals) and also the interpretation of some of the legal terms used. Without any intention to prejudice the audience with regard to Section 377A, I believe most would agree that some of these sexual offenses, in particular bestiality, necrophilia and pedophilia, are repulsive and disgusting.

Homosexual activists at times would call anyone a bigot for merely even bringing up the fact that Section 377A sits between the clauses criminalising necrophilia and bestiality. Less aggressive ones would point out that it stigmatise homosexual males and indirectly the rest of the LGBT. They want everyone to believe that Section 377A in particular “discriminates” against male homosexuals and it should not be there with the other sexual offences.

But is it so? Let us consider Section 376A and 376B, which respectively made it an offence to have sex with a person under 16, or paid to have sex with a person under 18. The definition of ‘minors’ (sometimes also known as ‘the age of consent’) in some countries varies so what is perfectly legal to a foreigner may not even legal in Singapore. So, even when it is perfectly legal in another country like Japan to have sex with a girl above 13 year-old, it is not legal to do so in Singapore. Does the law thus “discriminate” a Japanese person?

Next consider the preceding Section 377 itself, which made it an offence to have sex with a corpse. If I recalled correctly, Egypt allegedly planned to allow men to have sex with the dead bodies of their wives up to a certain number of hours. Considering how that outraged most of the world, I can safely conclude that even if something can be legalised, it doesn’t really legitimise (i.e. to make morally right or reasonable) it. In comparison, that also explains why some of us are rather indignant about the entire AIM-affair as well, even when the PAP want us to believe that it is right by showing that everything done was above the board and within the law.

Thus, the attempt to repeal Section 377A has only one main objective – i.e. to justify that sex between men must be “ok” because it is not illegal under the eyes of the law. Because the attempt to legitimately strike down this piece of law during the review in 2007 has failed, the only avenue left is to strike it down legally through wordings in the law, which explains why certain people have taken it to the courts to argue it is “discriminative” against a certain group of people under the Singapore Constitution.

It is very clear that only males are specified in some of these sexual offenses. For example, Section 375, 376, 376G, 377 and 377A all contained “Any man who…” in the wording. If we were to repeal Section 377A on the grounds that it is discriminative, why then do we retain Sections 377 and 377B as well? I am not not suggesting that some one will one day argue for repealing Sections 377 and 377B after Section 377A is repealed. But rather, I am asking why is it, and what is so much more offensive for a man to have sex with a dead body or an animal that we should keep those laws in place? I would like to listen to why the same does not apply for Section 377A. If it is said that human beings are not supposed to have sex with dead bodies or animals, please explain why males are “supposed to have sex” with males. Love? Let me get to that part in a short while.

Of course, in the case of necrophilia, pedophilia and bestiality, the element that is glaringly missing is that of consent. I agree, because it is obvious that the victims are either in no position or have no capacity to object. That is why there is also Section 376F to protect those who are mentality disabled. But is that good enough reason to repeal Section 377A? Is all sex between males necessarily be under mutual consent? It is often argued that Section 375 (which criminalises rape) can be expanded or modified to cover cases of non-consensual sex between males, but my point is simply why we should make consensual sex between males legal in the eyes of the law at all when there isn’t a part on the male body that is actually meant for sex with another male?

As my friend rightly pointed out – the mouth is for eating and the anus is for shitting. The mouth and anus can act as a substitute, and so does the hand for sexual gratification, but so can a hole in the wall. I know some would argue that Section 377A discriminates against male homosexuals because it is not an offence for a woman to have consensual oral and anal sex with a man, but the point is that Section 377A will also target bisexual males and transvestites. Interestingly, homosexual activists wants everyone to believe that Section 377A has also something to do with stigmatizing all LGBT persons when it has nothing to do with lesbians at all. I have to say it is ingenious but it also made all that talk about love in any male-to-male sexual relationship to justify repealing Section 377A a red herring. True love often includes commitment, and a male in bisexual relation would actually show the lack thereof, or else a polygamous relationship would be justifiable. Sex with a transvestite is also often transactional, which is also clear that it has nothing to with love. Not all sex is love either, or else sex with a prostitute or a fling would also be love. While there is no dispute that two men can love one another, whether there is love involved is irrelevant and immaterial in the argument for repealing Section 377A. Section 377A is a law about sexual misconduct, and not about love and the right to love. All this talk about love is nothing more than a sleight of hand, to hoodwink people so they will not consider Section 377A objectively. It is intended to mislead the public into believing that Section 377A “discriminates” against a certain group of loving people, which is why the cases are now heard in Court.

And to round it up, I understand that some will be asked then what is going to happen to those men who truly loves one another and need to have sex. My answer is this: There are many types of love, and there is only one kind of love that should involve sex – the kind of love between a husband and a wife. In short, there is really no reason for a man to have sex with another man, regardless whether it is consensual or not. That is why I also believe there is no reason for the state to repeal Section 377A just to make special concession for a particular group of people who insist in doing so.

Advertisement:



1 … 6 7 8 9 10 … 186