Tag: TOC

Current Affairs – Short Takes

2 comments

The Ministry of Education [MOE] has drafted a revised Sexuality Education Programme [SEP] to boost emphasis on abstinence over contraception, reported The New Paper [TNP].

Emphasizing on abstinence is placing too much faith in a person’s self control, and self control is one thing that we humans rarely possess. Human beings in general are irresponsible, as evident by the multitude of legislations in place to ensure compliance and acceptable behavior from most members of society.

Sex education, in the secular point of view, is not so much about morality but more about the biological / physical aspect (which deals with procreation and a physical need), and the health aspect (taking care of one’s health and body). I don’t really give a damn if a guy wants to be a “breeding pig” or if a girl wants to be “every men’s convenient store”. However, I am quite sure it is necessary to let teenagers know that everyone has only one body and the failure to take care of it and ruining one’s own life in the process – such as a body harming abortion, an unwanted pregnancy, or sexually transmitted infections – are consequences that only they alone will bear.

Contraceptives such as condoms is thus a “necessary evil” when the craving of one’s crotch overwrites the brain’s higher functions and throws abstinence to the four winds. They maybe the only thing that prevent to a large extent the nasties that might come with a rash decision even though it is not absolute in its protection.

In my opinion, sex education should emphasise on the health aspect – i.e. all of us cannot just discard our body and move on to another when it fails. Knowing all the avenues to prevent harm to our health in a moment of passion is of utmost importance, even if that offends certain fundamentalists who believes that too much emphasis is placed on contraceptives.

– * –

Temasek Junior College student Kwek Jian Qiang is in the spotlight for making a controversial comment on the disparity in expenditure of campus facilities between Junior Colleges [JC] and the Institute of Technical Education [ITE]. In a letter to TODAY he wrote that “there are significant disparities in the quality of learning environments”, and that “our brightest students should get the best facilities in order to excel and grow”.

Singapore’s emphasis in this so-called “meritocracy” has clearly breed nothing more than self important elitists. Should we really blame Kwek Jian Qiang for being an elitist little prick when the system promotes such snobbishness?

From what he has written, I must say Kwek clearly didn’t look too bright and if he thinks the facilities in his JC was bad, he certainly got what he deserved (according to his own measure). If he was any brighter he would have realised that the examples he gave were actually self defeating. He might have a point if the facilities at Anderson or Victoria JC were the result of deteriorating academic capabilities of the students there. Unfortunately, nothing of that sort ever happened and it may even be true that many of students in those JCs actually rank higher than Kwek himself. Regardless of what Kwek thinks, it is the duty of the nation to provide the necessary facilities it can afford to all students regardless of their academic performance, and not only to the best or bourgeois bloatpigs like Kwek. That said, it doesn’t mean that everyone will get equal use of those facilities since they will be limited. Not to mention there will always be disparity in the quality of learning environment depending on the age of the facilities, unless someone could advise MOE on how to keep all education facilities in Singapore up to date at the same time.

Either way, just because a person is damned good and scoring in tests and examinations does not mean he is very bright. Even less so when he thinks lesser of someone simply because that person isn’t in JC!

– * –

While the total recorded rainfall at Orchard Road was 152.8mm, the Public Utilities Board [PUB] said “there was no flooding at Orchard Road”. “However, water ponded at the open area of Liat Towers, the underpass between Lucky Plaza and Ngee Ann City, and the basement of Lucky Plaza due to the sustained heavy downpour,” it added.

Euphemism is not going to change the facts, PUB. Whether a person has died or passed away doesn’t make a damned difference to the fact. Similarly, whether it was flooding or ponding does not change the fact that the water should not even have been there in the first place. At least for many years this didn’t happen so why did the water now not drain away effectively? How bad is 152.8mm compared to the other two times which has also resulted in flooding? Has Orchard Road not experienced similar rainfall previously? And if it has, why didn’t the rainfall back then cause similar flooding? Keeping the public in the dark about these facts merely gives me the impression that this is deliberately not revealed to us to hide failure or incompetence. Using euphemism makes that even worse. This might be the way to work back in ancient China where officials are the Emperor’s representative to rule the people but there hasn’t been an Emperor over all of China for 100 years. Frankly, not even a person in China would take such shit lying down these days when I look at some of the news coming out of some parts of the Guangdong province recently. That’s not forgetting that this is Singapore and not the People’s Republic of China.

– * –

It took SMRT three train breakdowns and four days to create a social media account on Twitter.

I hope there is no PR company or self-claimed “social media guru” advising SMRT on this. That is because the way SMRT is using Twitter is an utter total fail(ure). SMRT might as well not have done this in the first place as it is no better than having an announcement page on its official website. If SMRT really intend to keep up with the times and wants its Twitter account to succeed, it needs to do better in providing prompt information and in interacting with those it hopes to reach. Otherwise it should just consider this a failed experiment and delete its Twitter account immediately.

Prompt information would mean that the information coming from SMRT’s twitter account would be almost as prompt as those from other Twitter users. While I do not expect SMRT to beat my friends in updating everyone about a breakdown, posting about a breakdown which happened around 6:50pm at 8:10pm is ridiculous. How much time does SMRT need to confirm that a train has stalled long enough to warrant an announcement to the public? The details on why it has broken down can come later but informing the commuters within 10 minutes of the incident would have made known to them that the next few trains will be more crowded than usual once service resumes. They can also make a decision using that information, and even re-tweet it so other commuters who do not follow SMRT’s Twitter account can benefit. It is the quick propagation of information on social media platforms such as Twitter that makes it an effective tool of communication.

To exploit this advantage of social media, whoever manning that account must interact with other users on Twitter. While it is almost certain that SMRT will be getting loads of crap from cursing and swearing commuters, that does not mean avoid interaction completely because of these “trolls”. Helping those who are genuinely seeking more information or clarifying their queries will only help to move information along. Not doing so simply allow speculation to fester and even allow false information which is detrimental to SMRT to propagate.

For e.g. a friend posted a photo on her Facebook profile two days ago. Not long after, I directed a query to SMRT on Twitter to find out whether this has anything to do with opening of the remaining 3 Circle Line (CCL) stations. I received no response at all. While few noticed this, the photo could have been passed on in Twitter with negative information which may not be true. Someone may post the same photo with a comment that “CCL is having a problem again” and under the current circumstances, other users might actually believed it and pick that up. All of a suddenly, people will be talking about a problem which does not exists. Those who are not sure might even avoid using the MRT and it won’t to too far fetched to imagine that there will be income loss for SMRT.

Had SMRT replied, at least some of us would be able to help counter any false information or speculation when we see them. Without anything to back us up, we will simply not comment on the other Tweets since everyone is entitled to their own opinion. SMRT obviously didn’t understand enough of this new media platform to make full use of the account it has created.

– * –

The Online Citizen [TOC] started a shit storm with an article titled “MP Seng Han Thong: SMRT’s unpreparedness also due to Malay and Indian staffs English language inefficiency”.

I am not sure if TOC is aware that the title itself is misleading. It gives us the impression that Seng Han Thong made that comment, which isn’t the case when we view the video. For failing to admit that the title is misleading even when it might not be its intention, TOC has shown itself to be no better than the main stream media [MSM] which is often accused to be biased. In fact, the way it reacts to criticism showed that it was hardly any better.

Let me explain. It is hard to assess whether Singapore is matured enough to tackle the issues of racial harmony, but the impression that an MP is “racist” would have been quite a blow to our already fragile racial harmony. The headline made it a matter of racial harmony which should be handled with care. With that title in mind, I was appalled with what was said on my first view of the video, Being biased against the PAP, my initial reaction was: “What a dumb ass PAP man who say things without going through his brains.”

Indeed, I wasn’t even surprised when Halimah Yacob said Seng’s remark was ‘inappropriate and unfair’. I would be surprised if the rest of the non-Chinese PAP MPs remained silent. Seng simply should not have mentioned any race in specific at all. Subsequently, I viewed the same video again several days later when the MSM went full force to present a picture that was some what different from what I understood. I then realized that I had actually ignored what Seng said at the end of those comments: “but I think we accept broken English”. As a result, I have to grudgingly admit Seng was simply pointing out that in that kind of situation (i.e. the MRT breakdown about 2 weeks ago), what really mattered was to communicate information to commuters even if that person does not speak English well. However, I had to disagree that Seng was showing that he strongly disagreed with that comment. To present it that way (as Shammugam did) would be laying it a little thick. It is also meaningless to say that Seng (or the PAP) was trying to deflect the blame to the staff for SMRT’s utterly dismal handling during the breakdown. There is a line to be drawn between speculation or leading the public away from that which has truly transpired.

Anyway, someone must have heard it over the radio when an officer from SMRT said something over the radio which suggested that poor language skills of its drivers were part of the problem in the inadequacy of SMRT’s response. Both the MSM and TOC has not reproduced this in its context for the benefit of the public. Without this piece of evidence it is actually difficult to put this matter to rest. To me, TOC response to Cherian George’s criticism is reminiscent of the petty and childish online squabbles between Xiaxue and Dawn Yang or Steven Lim. Then again, to some celebrity blogger ‘flame wars’ may actually be more entertaining! The saga even reminded me of the fuss made over a packet of food for the YOG volunteers. One photo was all it need to condemn the authorities. No one bothered to check whether all the volunteers were getting equally bad food.

That was exactly the same effect of TOC’s title on Seng. In my opinion, everyone thought Seng is another Choo Wee Khiang, who made a lousy “joke” about Little India in Parliament. Many would have gotten the impression that Seng is a racist while few would have reviewed the video. Thus, Cherian George was right in his criticisms of TOC. If online media such as the TOC wants to be an alternative source of news for the people, its response to Cherian George shows it has a long way to go. While it maybe true all those who oppose the PAP are already biased, failing to even attempt to act objective will only further alienate those with a moderate view. In my view, the TOC page on Facebook (if not the TOC site itself) is going the way of STOMP or that of Temasek Review. It is a noticeable downward slide ever since the Prime Ministers Office [PMO] gazetted TOC as a political organisation.

Current Affairs – TOC Gazetted as Political Association

One comment

On Jan 11, the Prime Ministers Office [PMO] issued a letter informing the ‘blog’ known as ‘The Online Citizen’ [TOC] that “The Prime Minister intends to declare the owners, editorial team, and administrators of The Online Citizen (TOC), by order in the Gazette, to be a political association for the purposes of the Political Donations Act”.

I started reading TOC around late 2008, some time after the financial crisis. I liked the way the TOC provided the poor ‘ah pek ah soh investors’ who have ‘lost their pants’ in Lehman-linked products an avenue to seek redress, even though I do not necessarily have a good opinion of Tan Kin Lian. I felt what was done was meaningful and good, even though I have no self interest in the matter. After all, I had no investment in Lehman-linked products, nor had my parents lost anything in these products.

I then continued to read the TOC on and off – since my friends or acquaintances would post links to TOC articles on Twitter, Plurk or even their own Facebook wall from time to time. From March 2009 onwards all the way until the AWARE EGM in May, I was disillusioned with the seemingly liberal and pro-HBT [Homosexual, Bisexual, Transgendered / Transvestite] agenda. In fact, there was very little difference reading TOC or the Peoples Daily Straits Stooge Times.

It made me question TOC’s agenda. In fact, I removed the link to TOC soon after. When Wayang Party gave itself the new atas name of Terbalik Revue Temasek Review, my experience with TOC put me off the idea of linking it. I had no clue Wayang Party has merely changed its name, and I thought it has simply disappeared. It was fortunately I didn’t, because I would have regretted my decision as I have a very low opinion of the content on Wayang Party all these while.

Even though I have stopped linking TOC, I have not written it off completely. But I am further disillusioned when TOC made a fuss over the death sentence of Yong Vui Kong and championed for the abolition of the death sentence. Every drug trafficker has his own sad story to tell. In fact, some violent criminals maybe a doting father, a loving husband or a filial son. But does that justify the pardoning of their crimes? The entire premise behind the objection to the death sentence seems to be that someone innocent may be sentenced to death, and then it would be too late when proven otherwise. But this implied that our police officers have failed in their due diligence in their investigations. It suggests that our police officers are sloppy in their work. It suggest that our courts simply go through the motion of sentencing people to their deaths and are nothing more than a rubber stamp before people are put to death. (The perhaps sort of explain why Alan Shadrake got into trouble.)

I have since then almost stopped reading TOC. I only read it when I am compelled to by the title of the articles linked. That’s the complete opposite from the Terbalik Revue, which I had ceased reading completely (Their exaggeration of the bad food served during the YOG sealed their fate). Thus, I wasn’t aware TOC held a F2F (Face to Face) where all the local political parties (including the Tali-PAP) was invited until it was too late.

I didn’t really follow the event but it appears that the Tali-PAP declined to attend, and the Workers’ Party was accused by certain quarters for being disrespectful for sending someone else other than their own secretary general or even their chairman. I thought that times have really changed, because I was expecting the government gahmen to find some obscure law to stop the event from happening. I was under the impression something like this would never be allowed to be held in the past, and I was expecting some kind of response from the gahmen, if not the ruling party itself.

So it didn’t really come as a surprise that TOC was subsequently gazetted. A few opposition parties erupted in indignant fury, and the Workers’ Party remained quiet. It wasn’t really unexpected, since I am in the opinion that the Workers’ Party has departed from the way of lofty and meaningless ideology a long time ago. What is the point of endlessly talking about democracy in the first place? It serves no purpose other than to expose some of these opposition parties superficial understanding of democracy being nothing more that ‘participation’ while ignoring the fact that most Singaporeans are generally indifferent, if not uninterested. It never cease to amaze me that some of these political parties attempt to have the electorate align with their agenda, while failing to align themselves to that of the electorate. The bad showing of the Singapore Democratic Party [SDP] in the last few elections is a clear testimony of their lack of understanding of their voters.

Above which, these political parties failed to talk more about the other pillars of democracy. I am not talking about the tripartite institutions of democracy such as the executive, the judiciary and the legislative, but the rule of law, the middle class and nation building. Few could argue there is no rule of law in Singapore, as even a mini$ter had been hauled up by the Corruption Practices Investigation Board [CPIB] and he killed himself while in custody. Opposition members like Chiam See Tong has sued the ruling party and won his case. If I am not wrong, there was even a case in which a Tali-PAP MP who was investigated for breach of trust was asked to resign. Very few Singaporeans would argue our courts were ‘opened by the Tali-PAP’ (法院是行動黨開的) like the Taiwanese used to say about their courts being ‘opened by the Kuomingtang [KMT]’ (法院是國民黨開的).

The middle class is Singapore is more concerned with job security and law and order. Cases of a resurgent triad or secret society, or the fear of losing their jobs and slowly slipping into struggling to make ends meet is of greater concern to them. The dissolution of the true-blue Singaporean middle class, replaced with one that is filled with foreign migrants with different aspirations and indifferent to our values and traditions while true-blue Singaporeans are left with the scraps would be something that would be of greater concern than anything else. As far as I am concerned, the usual few opposition parties who makes the most noise about democracy have been utterly lacking in addressing this. Do I really care about ‘participation’ when I am staring at my bowl of rice that is rapidly getting smaller, and even worrying that it would disappear? I am really more concerned with the cost of living and job security. Only after I can feed myself and feel secure can I start looking at the other levels on Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, yes?

As to nation building, no one can say that the Tali-PAP has no policies for nation building. Municipal wise, one can look at the plans in place for improving our transport system, plans to rejuvenate certain city centers or to move parts of gahmen departments and services out of the CBD. The two Integrated Resorts [IRs], the industries in Tuas or the many industrial parks stand as a testimony to the plans for nation building. Our only complaints about this may simply be that the Tali-PAP gahmen is more interested in building the hardware or the economics more than the software – the people. If there’s anything lacking it would be fostering a sense of belonging to our nation, or to encourage the people to participate and take ownership of the decision and policy making process. This is where TOC could have served as a platform.

It is interesting that in TOC’s response to the Prime Minister’s Office [PMO] and Media Development Authority [MDA] on the PM’s decision to gazette the TOC, it mentioned that ‘our nation-building efforts will be set back by years’. Yet it is short on details on why and how. I dare to hazard a guess that in the end the TOC will have no choice but to register itself as a political association, since few would have cared to take a harder look into the potential of TOC other than a whiners’ platform – even though they could have been ‘whiners’ that make good points at times.

Fortunately, while I am a even worse whiner at times, I have a low readership and too insignificant to gazette… 😛