is press freedom really important?

When I was younger, I would pester my mom for ridiculous stuff to eat at breakfast, like ice cream, or some cold stuff. Of course, she would always say no. Then I would press my case by citing that Westerners do that (must be the TV). And she would always reply: "Asian stomach is different from Western stomach."

I've been receptive to the idea of press freedom from the time I was first introduced to it. That's a no-brainer because I am an idealist. It is also the reason why I can't agree with my parents on many issues.

In many ways, Singapore has a relatively free press. At least, I don't know of local journalists being killed for being on the wrong side of the fence. That could mean that our journalists don't venture into contentious areas. Which is true because our media mostly covers local news; it isn't an international press. But our papers have been generally open to alternative views held by more radical Singaporeans. We have forums, avenues for arguments against mainstream ideas, etc. Yes, we are quite liberal…except for the things we don't hear.

The way our mass media is is not quite like places where journalists are assassinated for writing about the truth. Our media works in a more subtle way. News are framed in a way that persuades you to think in a certain way and come to a certain conclusion; some information is omitted; and of course, there is the omnipresent threat of libel suits looming somewhere overhead. But as I said, all these do not apply so strikingly to general issues. They come down hard on the opposition. Politics is largely a taboo subject in Singapore. You get flak whichever side of the fence you stand on, just which kind.

Having established that press censorship in Singapore mostly applies only to politics, why is the West so critical of Singapore's position on press freedom? I have to admit that Kishore Mahbubani planted more than just a seed of doubt in my mind about the idea of press freedom. When I was through reading his article (An Asian perspective on human rights), I found my ideals in shambles. He is mainly anti-West, but speaks behind a veil of pluralism in his arguments. I wouldn't normally be receptive to such tones but I find him incessantly persuasive. Also, it probably isn't wise to be swayed by the anecdotal arguments he provides but they are compelling examples, evidences and analogies.

Why are my beliefs shaken? Firstly, I am Asian. No matter how much I've been exposed to Western media and ideologies. I have loyalties that will forever lie with my roots, even if they're not manifest. Secondly, because I am Asian, I have to recognize that in our fight for better lives, we have no one else to depend on. We alone have to decide which ideologies are beneficial to our survival. Because isn't human rights about having better lives ultimately?

Mahbubani has established that human rights and press freedom are Western notions and I don't contest that. These are notions relatively new to us. But if all human beings should be awarded such rights, it does seem to contradict Western ideals when they try to force such notions down our throats. The problem with us blindly accepting such ideals without weighing their benefits is that we may neglect to see the political agenda behind their advocacy. And you know damn right there must be some kind of vested interest involved. But it is perfectly justified, because they too have their own allegiance. What I'm saying is that we shouldn't allow ourselves to be led like merry fools into a situation we may not be able to handle, and let ourselves be sacrificed for their ideological purity.

I find myself agreeing with Mahbubani and our government that we should hold our grounds and decide for ourselves whether or not it will benefit us to subscribe to such ideals. Are we ready for a free press? Superficially, I might say yes, we are literate enough for that. But are we proactive enough to take advantage of that? These are noble ideals. They are the kind of ideals that detractors will find hard to argue against when activists lobby for it. You have to admire LKY for his firm stand because few can ever decry such ideals and come out smelling clean.

The day we take that step towards an unprecedented degree of press freedom, I hope we do it for the right reasons, not just for the sake of it. Can we really stomach these high Western ideals and not suffer a massive tummy-ache?

life and death.

I've been looking for controversial news articles about Singapore politics by news agencies abroad since 530am for the SC2214 midterms. And it just struck me that Chee Soon Juan would be exactly the type of person my parents won't understand. Okay, not that it would take a giant leap of intellect to figure that out but I've never really bothered myself with him until just now. In fact, I recall my parents discussing about him years ago. Hmm frankly...they were puzzling over the discrepancy between his publicized 'antics' and his profession (which in their opinion should warrant more mature behavior). But I wouldn't blame them. Where did they get their news from? Singapore media.

So I should have paid more attention before judging him but I'm apathetic. Now that I've gotten all my information from the correct sources (I hope), I rather admire his ideals. What could have inspired a man to fight so hard for democracy in a place where few others cared? In his words, he would persevere even in the face of a lifetime's bankruptcy. And he's almost a lone warrior in this war. How many of us could claim to join him? I wouldn't. Truthfully. I won't pretend to be noble. If push comes to shove and I really find my ideologies incompatible with what my country has to offer, I would simply pack my bags and leave. 

But I think it is people like him who live a worthy life. Because when we combust into nothingness, what is left of us is all that we have fought for and believed in. We are nothing but our ideals. Don't tell me about all that afterlife, next life, past life stuff. What we have is only here and now and causes we believe in. Chia Thye Poh - exiled for 23 years. We might look at these people and wonder what the hell they were thinking. Why can't they just bite their tongues and pretend to obey? But they might be looking at us, laughing, knowing in their hearts that people like us will live our whole weary lives without ever tasting the passion of a fervent belief. Sometimes, I wish I were a religious zealot just to feel that gusto, or even just that sense of solidarity with like-minded comrades. I would go to Church and cell groups, privately wishing hard to be converted but I can't be convinced.

And then still, there are others who lead lives punctuated with sufferings that culminate in a premature truncation. I don't know what to make of it. Except that it actually pains me. And why do dying people always claim to see people from their past who are already dead? I should probably look for scientific explanations right. Like hallucination, pre-death trauma whatever. But actually, when it comes to your loved ones, it is so much more heartening to use religion to explain things surrounding their deaths. I see why religion holds so much appeal. I mean, I've always known that but... It's an opiate. And I'd rather be stronger than that, I want to.

my disease.

There are a few kinds of people I respect:
1. People who are brilliant at what they do.
2. People who are brave enough to starve for their art or what they believe in.

Umm...okay at the moment, there are two kinds.

I had a heated argument with my dad again today. What else but politics and ideological differences? In short, he supports the ruling party, I don't. I don't claim to know politics and might even lean towards the apathetic but what I know, I don't like. Anyway, to explain my introduction, my dad told me his friend is nearly 60 and spends his time running errands for the opposition. "What for?" my dad says. But I respect his friend. With what little he has left of life, he is trying to make a difference.

My stand in politics is very simple. I don't know enough but I know despotism. I am not saying anything. But my position is always with the minority. I don't dispute the capability of our ruling party except that I feel they have a part to play in our apathy. They have led us well through a time when our people were perhaps ill-equipped to think for themselves but times are changing. What good is education if it isn't put to use? What good is it, locked away behind the bars of ignorance, sloth and selfishness?

I can't say I support the opposition either. Not because I am afraid to step forward but because I don't have that kind of passion in their manifesto (yet?).

Today, I sat through a Worker's Party youth forum. (Frankly, the argument started because my dad cringed when I told him where I was.) Some of it may have fell short of my expectations, but it was insightful nonetheless. Apparently, unwed mothers are being cheated of their rightful privileges like third month maternity leave, baby bonus and so on. Why do we not question things like that? Apathy. And ignorance. I didn't even know of these policies. I'm ashamed. But then again, isn't AWARE supposed to fight for stuff like that?

I wish I felt the burning passion to fight for policy changes. Wish I believed in something so fiercely I would snatch up the picket signs and shout my voice hoarse. And then cry for the victory. Is there a cure for apathy?

is this it?

Singapore Dreaming scares the shit out of me.

My Take on Politics

My uncle's friend once commented: "I don't care if the opposition is blind, crippled or stupid; I'll still vote for them."

To some, this may sound impertinent but even at the risk of seeming naive, I am not afraid to declare that I share the same sentiments. No personal grudges against our current governing party, I am just unwilling to risk possible bigotry should the day come when Singaporeans show unanimous patronage to one political party. I am relieved, though, judging from my own interactions with the people around me and the local political climate, that such a day has almost zero chances of actualizing.

My mom assumes a very compassionate stance when it comes to elections. Her main concern is for the opposition to not lose the deposit they pledged in order to run. Of course, she also has her personal agenda, that is, fear that opposition parties will no longer dare to step forward after repeated defeats. That is probably where I derived my preoccupation with the bigotry. Although if you ask me, I would prefer to say that I came to that conclusion through my own logical deliberation. But such was my more dominant 'political conditioning'.

My dad, on the other hand, demonstrates steadfast loyalty to the PAP, having seen how they had a hand in moulding Singapore into what she is today. I cannot deny that despite all the prevailing issues we face, Singapore's progress against all odds is a testimony to the competence of the PAP. However, come elections period, debates with him are inevitable and almost customary.

To be honest, I am not particularly fascinated with politics anyway. Ask me what my political views are and I will tell you 'apathetic', just like what my Facebook profile shows.


The author hopes she had been politically correct and sensitive because she still badly needs her degree.

Bullying the Elderly

I was looking through political weblogs for my project and chanced upon a post that so incensed me, I felt it was my civic duty to share with everyone around me.

Some of you may have come across this news about 3 Caucasians (Brits, if I’m not wrong) who took a trishaw ride from an old man and then evaded payment upon reaching their destination.

If you have not, here is the link to a blog that also provides a video the 3 Caucasians had the gall to film. In fact, whether you have read the news, please check out the website for the video and reader comments.

http://theonlinecitizen.com/2007/11/01/britons-teasing-elderly-singaporean-trishaw-rider/

One guy actually had the heart to condone the behaviour of the 3 men, concurring that $15 was an unreasonable price to pay for a trishaw ride and basically speaking in defense of the 3 perpetrators. Nothing can justify what they did. Their actions were not only dishonest but a trespass on the rights and dignity of another human being. I do not deny that other forms of transportation could have gotten them to their destination without amounting to $15 but they were not forced to take a trishaw. They chose to take a trishaw out of their own free will and had also agreed to the price before the old man took them on board. And may I also add that this is a tourist attraction so they are paying for the gimmick as well.

What really made me blow my top was their insolence in making fun of and laughing at the old trishaw rider, who was already panting in exhaustion from his exertion on the wheels. Have they no heart? I am thoroughly disappointed in the fact that there are people out there who cannot even spare compassion for the elderly.

The comment, I quote, "as a Singaporean, my attention on this piece of news is, why does a trishaw ride cost S$15?", posted by the previously mentioned reader left me wondering if he has really seen the crux of the matter. Does he have the maturity and sense to recognize that it is the behaviour of the men he should be concerned with?

Repeal Section 377A?

Section 377A of our penal code states:

Any male person who, in public or private, commits, or abets the commission of, or procures or attempts to procure the commission by any male person of, any act of gross indecency with another male person, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 2 years.

With the recent commotion surrounding the issue of repealing S377A, and all the websites sprouting up to propound their manifesto, even I have found it hard to suppress my take on this.

I will be upfront about my view. I cannot rise to support this repeal.

First, let me clarify that I am not homophobic. One could say I am nonchalant. But I am an advocater of rights. Everyone should have their rights, yes, even gays or lesbians. Therefore, I have never ever been intolerant of their presence in society. I just do not see the need to remove this law from our legislation.

My concern, though, is with the unfairness of this stated law. The fact that it only applies to males is a double standard in itself. Why are females exempted from this? I am tempted to think this is due to a mysterious male intolerance of gays and gay behaviour. (It doesn't help that somehow many guys have this thing about lesbianism.)

It may seem senseless to some that the government would claim to abide by the blatant inconsistency that they do not actually prosecute offenders under this law, but this is really the reason behind my contest for the retainment of this law. Admittedly, as MP Hri Kumar argued, this could undermine the credibility of our legal system but come on, what is one more inconsistency in the face of the absurdity of Singapore politics? For once, we could actually have an inconsistency that can be argued to make sense. And my case would be that at least having the law there would serve some form of deterrence. I can hear proponents (of the repeal) screaming that the professed lack of prosecution would already make the law invalid anyway but to take the step to remove it from our penal code is an even more significant promulgation of that admitted invalidity.

Not repealing this section does not make us less tolerant of gays. In fact, I feel that many Singaporeans today are liberal enough to respect the sexual orientation of their fellow countrymen. It is true that sometimes sniggers or excited prattle are generated but none so far as to violently discriminate against them (at least, none that I know of). Our dearly valued equality would not come into question here because as NMP Thio Li-Ann proclaimed in parliament, while all humans are of equal worth, not all human actions are. By 'criminalising' (because I do not see it as really criminalising since the law does not even actually prosecute them) these acts, we are attacking the wrongfulness of the act and seperating the actor from the act, not denouncing them.

I cannot deny that there may be undercurrents of prejudice since I am not an insider and may not feel it first hand, but I believe we can work towards sincerely accepting and integrating them into our society without doing away with the law. I admit that not formalizing this acceptance may already imply our insincerity but I would hate to see the endorsement of homosexuality as being a normal alternative lifestyle that our children could lead if they had so wanted. Homosexuality is a form of socialization and one cannot make the mistake of qualifying it as genetic (save for rare medical cases).

A concluding disclaimer must be added that this author is aware of such views being wholly personal and subjective. She welcomes the comments and opinions of readers, even and especially opposing.

The author further adds that this post is outdated, being that it was written for another avenue before she had a blog, but was not published because of its sensitive nature.