Malaysians protesting at Merlion Park

Posted on May 12, 2013 by gdy2shoez

From ’21 Malaysians arrested at protest’, 12 May 2013, article by Amelia Tan, Sunday Times

Twenty-one Malaysians were arrested yesterday for staging a protest at the Merlion Park against the outcome of last Sunday’s Malaysian general election. The rare police action followed earlier warnings that such gatherings are illegal, and after nine Malaysians were warned for participating in a similar protest last Wednesday.

In a statement last night, the police said that “while foreigners are allowed to work or live here, they have to abide by our laws”. “They should not import their domestic issues from their countries into Singapore and conduct activities which can disturb public order, as there can be groups with opposing views. Those who break the law will be seriously dealt with.”

….Last week, the police warned nine Malaysians for “actively participating” in an illegal gathering at Merlion Park on Wednesday, when about 100 people went to protest against the Malaysian election results.

…Separately, the police also reminded migrant worker rights activist Jolovan Wham of his responsibilities as organiser of a Speakers’ Corner demonstration today, also related to the Malaysian general election. He has been told to take appropriate measures to ensure that the event complies with Singapore laws. The police said they were informed that Mr Wham had posted on Facebook that he was organising the demonstration to show solidarity with Malaysians calling for fair elections and that “he had invited foreigners to observe the event“.

“The Speakers’ Corner is a designated site for Singaporeans to freely speak on issues as long as they do not touch on matters which relate to religion or may cause feelings of enmity, hatred, ill-will or hostility between different racial or religious groups in Singapore. Only Singaporeans and permanent residents of Singapore are allowed to participate in demonstrations held at the Speakers’ Corner,” the police spokesman said.

The terms and conditions of the use of Speakers’ Corner is ambiguous on what constitutes a ‘demonstration’, or if you may be just an ‘observer’ and not a ‘participant’ in the event. In 2001, when public demos were banned from Hong Lim Park, the police described such activities as coming together for a ‘specific cause’, ‘chanting slogans’, ‘displaying placards’ and showing gesticulations such as ‘CLENCHING OF FISTS’. I’m not sure if clapping furiously and going ‘Hear, hear’ in response to a rousing speech constitutes participation, but standing from a distance and folding your arms with an expressionless face may have protesters suspecting that you’re a plainclothes police officer instead of a supporter or observer. You may even get crowd-surfed involuntarily if things get out of hand.

The earlier Merlion Park protest had special appearances from two Mediacorp actors, namely Zhang Yaodong and Shaun Chen, who in the image below, are clearly seen ‘participating’ in an illegal activity. Not sure if it’s stated anywhere in their Mediacorp contract if celebrities (and role models to our ‘impressionable youth’) are allowed to engage in political protests. They may inadvertently get innocent bystanders into serious trouble if screaming fans at the scene who have no idea what ‘Ubah’ or ‘Bersih’ are all about get rounded up by the cops for disrupting public order. You may, however, be part of a campaign to ban shark’s fin soup, though that may upset more people than your political beliefs.

Careful, almost a clenched fist there!

It’s not the first time that our Merlion has seen gatherings of this sort. In 2011, a petition for an SMTown Kpop concert was held in the form of a flash mob. Not sure if a police permit was applied for in this case but amazingly (also unfortunately), it turned out to be successful. These kids with their sick dance moves and placards look dead menacing. Slogans on A4 paper? Amateurs. If you want to get something out of your protesting, choreograph a mass-dance, dammit!

Thanks a lot too, Singa the courtesy lion, for giving Malaysian activists ideas for a venue.

There are other ways to show solidarity for a political cause if you’re a foreigner. You could blackout your Facebook profile for a couple of days before reverting it to a pic of your baby. If you’re a Myanmese you could join fellow countrymen to book entire theatres and watch Rambo viciously gun down junta villains (with permission from the authorities of course). You could even have a sit-down dinner in a nice restaurant with face-paint, sing patriotic songs in unison and get nothing more than dirty looks from diners without having a ring of police surrounding you like a phalanx in a Roman army ready to charge a castle.

Screengrab From Martyn See's 'Speakers Cornered'

Screengrab From Martyn See’s ‘Speakers Cornered’

But if you insist on venting your frustrations on crappy governments outdoors, you could do it ‘picnic’ style, like the Bersih 2.0 get-together in 2011 at Speaker’s Corner, where instead of slogans you could hand out yellow roses as a nod to the days of ‘Flower Power’. Just make sure you keep your friendly neighbourhood Police in the loop so they can send their stakeout/riot police team to defuse an ugly situation in the event you start marching around with burning stakes, flipping cars over and then torching them. Singaporean protesters can do without such police permits having been cowed into submission over generations. It’s the foreigners with their campaigns and balls who’re viewed as potential threats (But our government welcomes them with open arms anyway). I mean just look at them, dressed in matching black garb and holding up what looks suspiciously like secret society code numbers.  My God, our riot police have their work cut out for them!

The 8 is upside down. Maybe that symbolises something. Hmm.

Maybe it’s time we drop the name ‘Speakers’ Corner’ and just call it Hong Lim Park instead, since nobody goes there just to ‘speak’ anymore without some fist-pumping or incitement going on. Maybe we should have a demo at Speaker’s Corner to protest against the name ‘Speaker’s corner’. We could sit in unwashed, loving huddles, have a feast of organic tofu and sway holding hands to a live ukelele rendition of ‘San Francisco (Be Sure to Wear some Flowers in your Hair)’.

Here’s a sample of events which render the title invalid and outdated:

- Pink dot (2009)

- Give Vuikong a Chance (a petition signing event, 2010)

- BRING BACK MY MCDONALDS PIG TOY (2010)

- Slutwalk  (2011)

- M Ravi dancing (for no one) (2012)

And of course, a recent May Day event about some white paper. Wonder what’s all that fuss about.

About these ads

Filed under: 2013, Campaigns/Elections, Complaining, Justice system/Lawsuits, Local actors, Merlion, Violence | Tagged: , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

Workers’ Party flooded with Chinese

Posted on January 28, 2013 by gdy2shoez

From ‘Workers’ Party lacks minority representation’, 28 Jan 2013, ST Forum

(Paul Antony Fernandez):…As a Punggol East resident, I have reservations about whether the decision was the right one – during 10 days of campaigning, I did not see a Malay, Indian or anyone from a minority race among the WP members. I had thought that perhaps such members could not be around due to their work commitments, but at the WP’s victory parade yesterday, there was still no one from a minority race among their number.

The WP was formed primarily to address the concerns of workers across the board, especially low-wage workers. After General Election 2011, I realised that the WP was flooded with Chinese members. During the campaigning, I asked Ms Lee about the representation of the minorities in the WP, but did not get an answer.

Has WP leader Low Thia Khiang forgotten our national pledge where we pledged equality regardless of race or creed?

Just truckin'

Just truckin’

You’d have to worry for the electoral process if you have people like Fernandez here basing their vote on how multi-racial a party is rather than whether their candidate could do her job well. Since the exit of Michael Palmer, the PAP too has been lacking in minority race representation, that of the EURASIAN (Other than Christopher De Souza). Why isn’t Fernandez chiding the PAP for not fielding a Eurasian candidate as a one-for-one replacement instead of a Chinese colorectal surgeon? What, then, would be Fernandez’s ideal quota of minority race in any party, 1 minority for every 3 Chinese? Would a high-ranking Malay or Indian who calls the shots in a predominantly Chinese party be considered adequate ‘representation’? What did Fernandez have to say about the 4 TANS in the last Presidential election? Was that election, like the recent WP Punggol campaign, erm, RACIST too?

It’s easier for the ruling party having the strength and numbers to make their team as diverse as possible. The GRC system also practically ensures that the PAP is sufficiently multiracial, nevermind its sneaker motives. In 1988, Ling How Doong and Chiam See Tong from the SDP were challenged by Goh Chok Tong on how the party could claim to be multi-racial when they in fact fielded an all-Chinese team for the 1984 GE.  Goh then suggested that such a selection could lead to an ‘all-Chinese Parliament’. Chiam was also against the ‘Team MP’ concept which was ‘racialist’ and challenged the ability of minority races to get into politics ‘by their own merit’. At the time, it was assumed that a Chinese voter was more likely to support a Chinese candidate, more so if the latter spoke their dialect. Fernandez’s concern about racial equality is a relic of an era when people tended to vote emotionally and communally, rather than as the educated, savvy, mature voter who thinks of his representative as a SINGAPOREAN first rather than a Chinese/Malay/Indian. In fact even after a decade (2008) since the SDP race scuffle, the Prime Minister himself didn’t think the country was ready for a non-Chinese Leader.

Opposition parties do not have the luxury to be multi-racial and multi-gender just for the sake of it, when they really need the best possible candidates regardless of race or sex from a limited pool to challenge the PAP. In spite of its small number, the executive council of WP already has its fair share of (two) Malays and (one) Indian, which makes Fernandez’s snap judgement about WP’s make-up rather petty and unfair considering the overall demographics of Singapore. With such strong preconceptions about race in politics, one is prone to selectively zooming in on images of Chinese faces and ignoring the few seconds worth of ‘minority representation’. The deception would be magnified if Fernandez wasn’t in fact following the parade truck on the ground from start to finish (Pritam Singh and Faisal Manap were on board), but watching it on TV. It’s uncertain if he was paying any attention to WP’s activities since the GE 2011, or was just basing his conclusions of WP ‘Sinocentricity’ on the blue-collar vibe of the typical ‘Huat’-hooting WP audience.

And I don’t remember there being a single mention of the word CREED in our Pledge. Maybe Fernandez imagined it, like how he imagined the ‘flood’ of Chinese faces in WP.

Filed under: 1980s, 2013, Campaigns/Elections, Politicians, Racism | Tagged: , , , , , , | 4 Comments »

PAP blaming Punggol East loss on ‘by-election effect’

Posted on January 27, 2013 by gdy2shoez

From ‘PAP leaders expected contest to be difficult’ 27 Jan 2013, article by Rachel Chang, Sunday Times

In the wake of its defeat in Punggol East, People’s Action Party leaders yesterday said it was always going to be a difficult contest for the ruling party because of the “by-election effect”. The Government’s candidate always has a tougher fight in a by-election because voters see the contest as one to choose an MP, not a government, said Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong in a statement last night.

Opposition parties, he added, encourage this line of thinking. Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean said the loss was precipitated by the by-election effect, the circumstances that triggered the by-election – former Speaker of Parliament Michael Palmer’s resignation after admitting to an extramarital affair – and a host of unresolved local issues. As an example, he pointed to the upgrading works at Rivervale Plaza, which stalled due to the contractor going bust, and apologised that the situation has been an “irritant” to residents.

Speaking at the PAP’s Punggol East branch among a shocked and downcast activist corps, Mr Teo said “we always knew it was going to be difficult because this is a by-election”…”There were circumstances already as we came into this by-election. And of course there were local issues as well. So we knew it was going to be a difficult fight.”

The ‘by-election effect’ can be summed up as: ‘Voting 1 more Opposition member into Parliament won’t hurt the ruling party, so why not?’. The PAP has a dismal record with snap polls ever since the shocking ‘watershed’ 1981 Anson by-election which brought JBJ into Parliament, and it seems convenient to attribute the loss to voters simply wanting greater representation of an alternative voice. I doubt that’s all there is to it. Perhaps the PAP should reflect deeper, and not just on the ‘local issues’ surrounding Punggol. Maybe Punggol residents voted to send a stern signal that something is not right with the ruling party, that sending a fresh-faced Lee Li Lian into Parliament would knock some sense into them, or as WP chief Low Thia Khiang would bellow: ‘Slap the driver’ when he’s sleeping. Except that the driver, now awake, has started to blame the map rather than his own sense of direction. This isn’t just about Rivervale Plaza or straying politicians, but about the people seizing the rare opportunity to give the PAP demerit points for overall substandard performance on a national scale, without really seeking to overthrow it. All the National Conversations in the world won’t jolt PAP into action as much as a single seat in Parliament usurped by a member of Opposition.

It’s not just a case of swinging percentages. It appears the media also swung wildly in its bid to predict the winner of this election. Basing their analysis on an informal (illegal?) poll of Punggol residents, ST called this as an ‘uphill battle’ for the Opposition. In a piece by Robin Chan, political correspondent ( ‘Vote swing among highest in history’, 27 Jan 2013, Sunday Times), ‘the fall of Punggol East is therefore perhaps NO SURPRISE’. Ah, the magic of hindsight.  Some may argue that PAP simply lost this game of wits, that they chose the WRONG candidate to run for election. Newbie in the field aside, the Son of Punggol was initially reluctant to run as candidate, having been hand-picked and summoned to PM Lee’s office for a ‘tea session’. Li Lian, on the other hand, is a veteran in comparison. In the pivotal 1981 by-election, PAP similarly attempted to pit a new face (i.e a nobody) in the form of Pang Kim Hin against JBJ . It was like Paris Hilton’s chihuahua squaring off against a pitbull on steroids. This was what Lee Kuan Yew had to say about the shock result in his memoirs, having left the campaign under the charge of then Minister for Trade and Industry Goh Chok Tong.

“I was disturbed, not by the defeat, but because I had no signal from Goh that we might lose..”

Like any wounded predator in battle, the first thoughts of any dominant party unfamiliar with defeat are always about getting back on their feet to ‘even the odds’. The PAP seems to be spending more time sharpening their claws than licking their wounds.

In a scathing ST review which was unusual at the time, Pang was criticised for being a political lightweight, lacking ‘physical stature’ and coming from a ‘wealthy background’. Even his occupation as an officer in the army was picked on as a reason for failure. By pitching a ‘small boy’ against JBJ, some residents felt that the PAP wasn’t taking the constituency seriously. There were even whispers of nepotism as Pang was also the nephew of ex Minister Lim Kin San. The PAP persists in its rigid faith and protection of their losing candidates; Lee Kuan Yew stood by Pang after defeat, and his son as PM continues the tradition with fresh incumbent Dr Koh, even if everyone knows by now from the Palmer incident that the selection process and its machinery is not all that reliable as it’s hyped to be. No one is going to admit that they chose the wrong man for the job, especially the Prime Minister; that would be an admission of lack of ‘foresight’, which is almost as heinous for a politician as confessing to an affair.

So, what did Punggol residents make of a colorectal surgeon who was ‘arrowed’ for the job, or the PAP for treating the by-election as a sparring contest and rite of passage for new blood, knowing full well their track record of losses in the past? Did the PAP put the greenhorn Dr Koh on the spot because they could ‘afford’ to lose Punggol East, and they were just afraid of slotting a more experienced and valuable candidate against WP? How bad, really, did the PAP want Punggol East? Was Koh mere ‘sacrificial lamb’, part of the PAP masterplan, that the loss would prepare the Pawn of Punggol for an easier fight when he returns with a vengeance as part of a team of PAP old dogs in a future GRC?

Without knowing what’s really up PAP’s sleeve, perhaps this celebration of a ‘political awakening’ and predictions of WP shares going up is somewhat premature. If they were intent on making Dr Koh a PAP man, this by-election would benefit him win or lose. Teo Chee Hean himself was inducted via a GRC by-election under the helm of none other than Goh Chok Tong. By taking a strictly strategic view of such polls without reflecting and asking the more important questions (like whether PAP-owned companies should sell software to town councils) the real losers in the end are still us Singaporeans, no matter how many blue umbrellas we flood our stadiums with.

Filed under: 1980s, 2013, Campaigns/Elections, Politicians | Tagged: , , | 5 Comments »

Son of Punggol doesn’t need your sympathy vote

Posted on January 14, 2013 by gdy2shoez

From ‘I’m not seeking sympathy: Koh’, 14 Jan 2013, article by Amanda Lee, Today online

Sharing his hard-knock story was aimed at getting residents to understand him better and “not about garnering sympathy votes“, said Dr Koh Poh Koon, the People’s Action Party (PAP) candidate for the Punggol East by-election.

…At his introduction as a PAP candidate last week, Dr Koh shared how he was born to a bus driver, did odd jobs to help support his family of seven and studied medicine on a student loan. When he and his doctor wife bought their Housing and Development Board (HDB) flat in 1998, they had to borrow money from a relative and were left with just S$11.50 in their bank account.

This led to some criticism that Dr Koh was “milking for sympathy votes“. Asked about this yesterday, he said: “It’s inevitable that people will think that way. But the way I look at it is that there is no better way for people to know me without understanding where I come from, where I started, because this is me.“

‘THIS IS ME’ happens to be Dr Koh’s campaign message, a slogan that pitches down-to-earth openness and honesty, but is also a statement embraced by people asserting their identity in the face of prejudice, like transgenders or homosexuals for example. ‘This is Me’ is about being ‘true to yourself’ no matter what others say, even if it means walking down Orchard Road in bikini and jeans like Ris Low. As with any election candidate one should reserve a tinge of healthy skepticism when he delivers a moving rag-to-riches story as his selling point. Humility is a virtue that should be in every politician’s toolkit when appealing to the ‘everyman’, but one also shouldn’t brag about ‘hard-knocks’ childhood poverty like it’s a major career achievement in your CV before it cuts too close to the plot of Slumdog Millionaire.

If taken at face value, Koh’s story of triumph over adversity and making it big as a surgeon despite being a humble ‘kampung’ boy is somewhat admirable, but it’s unlikely that anyone would ‘sympathise’ because that’s all in the past. What matters is you have a HDB flat now, a car each for yourself and your wife, and in the noble and lucrative business of fixing people’s intestines. Nobody’s going to vote you in out of sympathy even if your daddy kicked you out on the streets to make a living selling fish hooks handcrafted out of discarded paper clips. Besides, nobody knows for certain if you’re not merely exaggerating your personal history, especially if you’re an unfamiliar face. It’s what you can do for us, NOW, that makes the difference between voting you in vs the more experienced guys in the blue, red and yellow shirts contesting for Punggol East.

A sympathy vote is usually cast when a recent event, usually a misfortune, is witnessed leading up to elections, because people generally tend to forget or ignore what happened to you years before. If your wife left you because of your commitments in ‘pounding the streets’, I may give you a chance because you paid the ultimate price for serving the country. If you said ‘sorry’ for letting the nation down just before polling, I may be swayed by your earnestness. If you severed your arm rescuing a kitten during a walkabout I may vote you in without even thinking. But telling me about how you once had less than $12 in your bank account doesn’t do it for me, because it’s not a sacrifice or a heavy cost that has anything to do with your passion for politics. Still, if all else fails you could resort to CRYING on stage and national TV. This is how you do it:

Nicole Seah. Tears of an Angel

Lim Boon Heng. Now that’s what I call a real Man.

Khaw Boon Wan. Someone give the man a handkerchief for God’s sake!

So, son of Punggol, you don’t have to worry about sympathy votes because you’re not getting any from me (if I were a Punggol voter). But that’s just ME.

Filed under: 2013, Campaigns/Elections, Money, Politicians | Tagged: , , | 1 Comment »

Police investigating Straits Times’ Punggol East by-election poll

Posted on January 13, 2013 by gdy2shoez

From ‘Police looking into ST publication of by-election poll’, 13 Jan 2013, article in Today online.

The police is looking into the Straits Times’ publication of the findings of a poll on the Punggol East by-election, said the Elections Department today. The article, published on Jan 10, polled 50 Punggol East residents on which party they were rooting for in the by-election.

Under the Parliamentary Elections Act, publishing the results of any election survey from the day the writ of election is issued until the close of all polling stations on polling day is not allowed. The writ of election was issued on Jan 9. In a statement today, the Elections Department said: “In response to media queries about the poll on the Punggol East By-Election published in the Straits Times on 10 January 2013, the case is currently being looked into by the Police.”

Since the article was published, netizens have questioned the legality of the report in online forums and social media.

Screen Shot 2013-01-13 at 9.33.09 PM

The Jan 10 article in question was titled ‘ST poll: More rooting for PAP’, which is misleading because out of the 50 Punggol residents surveyed, 19 supported PAP vs 10 for Opposition, and the remainder were ‘UNDECIDED’. It seems rather premature to say anything about the Punggol sentiment on the ground from such results, in particular something like ‘the EDGE that the ruling party appears to hold may be a reflection of  the incumbency advantage it has always held in a middle-class, traditionally PAP-leaning ward’. No details were given from the article on how the poll was conducted, but it appears that it was done through interviews of random residents. ST Editor Warren Fernandez confirmed my suspicions:

“Our reporters spoke with residents in Punggol East to get their comments and a sense of the ground for our election reports. This was not a full-scale survey, or scientific poll, by any means.

One would question the bias inherent in such straw polls where participants have to respond to a team of ST reporters who’re more than happy to publish your name and your OPINION for the whole country to see. It would be interesting, if it weren’t illegal, to see instead how Punggol residents would vote anonymously, through an online poll rather than having someone from a government-endorsed national paper approach you with a notepad and stuffing an audio recorder in your face. Maybe the 21 people weren’t ‘undecided’. They just didn’t feel comfortable, or afraid even. It’s as scientific as having Ah Long San going around asking what you think of graffiti. But that’s not quite the point is it? Does a straw poll have to be ‘full-scale’ and statistically rigorous before it is considered illegal? Here’s see what the Law says:

Blackout period for election survey results 78C.

—(1)  No person shall publish or permit or cause to be published the results of any election survey during the period beginning with the day the writ of election is issued for an election and ending with the close of all polling stations on polling day at the election.

[31/2001]
(2)  Any person who contravenes subsection (1) shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $1,500 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to both.
[31/2001; 10/2010]

(2A)  The offence under subsection (2) shall be an arrestable offence within the meaning of the Criminal Procedure Code 2010.

[10/2010]

(3)  In this section, “election survey” means an opinion survey of how electors will vote at an election or of the preferences of electors respecting any candidate or group of candidates or any political party or issue with which an identifiable candidate or group of candidates is associated at an election.

Nowhere in this section of the Parliamentary Elections Act does it specify how thorough a survey must be before it’s allowed. But if you generate absolute numbers as to how many ‘rooted’ for PAP or Opposition, that sounds more than just an ‘opinion’ to me. You’re saying 19 people will vote PAP vs 10 for anyone else, clearly a statement of voter preference.

Such tightening of election laws was imposed in 2001 by Minister of Information and the Arts Lee Yock Suan, in response to the Internet facilitating such polls and this ‘crystal ball gazing’ having the potential to ‘sway voters’ or even influence election results.  In the last GE, Temasek Review’s Dr Ong Chor Teck was ARRESTED for conducting an exit poll on Polling Day. No idea what happened to him since. I doubt this was a ‘full scale’ or ‘scientific’ poll either, but I wonder what would have happened if he wasn’t behind a ‘socio-political’ PAP-bashing website, but from ST or Mediacorp instead.

What exactly is so dangerous or subversive about publishing pre-election polls? How is this more illegal than posting a personal opinion or how you voted on your Facebook page or blog, especially if you’re someone influential with a large following, a celebrity for example? Xiaxue is an unabashed PAP supporter, should we allow her to gush about her favourite political party during and after elections? So what if the ST thinks the PAP has an ‘advantage’ based on a crappy survey; don’t we ALL know that already? Not only is a ST pre-election poll illegal, it is also redundant in my opinion. If I want to know what Punggol residents think of the rising ‘son of Punggol’ or ‘unity candidates’, I’d access forums or eavesdrop on uncles at kopitiams, not scour the ST for anything remotely insightful. If the ST were let off with a mere warning on a technicality of ‘scientific rigour’, imagine the floodgates opening for the online random polls that would follow. If the premier mainstream paper can get away with it, what’s stopping me from publishing an informal poll on my Facebook, this blog, or via email to family and friends?

There were a trio of reporters responsible behind the article, a team consisting of Elgin Toh (who also wrote a breaking follow up ST article hours after this titled ‘Elections Department says police looking into ST report‘), Lim Yi Han and Chia Yi Min. But it’s senior management who needs to step into the firing line ( if anything even comes out of this) for allowing it to go to print. In the spirit of colorectal surgeon butt jokes, may the police PROBE sufficiently into this poll so that justice is served, and let’s hope some otherwise decent journalists don’t get their asses fried over this fiasco.

Filed under: 2011, 2013, Campaigns/Elections, Police officers | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

Png Eng Huat’s character assassinated by PAP

Posted on May 27, 2012 by gdy2shoez

From ‘Low Thia Khiang slams baseless attacks at WP’, 27 May 2012, article by Elizabeth Soh and Lim Wenjian, Sg Yahoo News.

“Baseless attacks” and “character assassinations” were what characterised the Hougang by-election, said the Worker’s Party (WP) Secretary General Low Thia Khiang on Saturday night.  Speaking at the WP’s post-win press conference at the party’s Syed Alwi road headquarters, he said that there had been “several calculated moves” to “discredit” candidate Png Eng Huat by the People’s Action Party (PAP), and accused them of using the “carrot and stick” approach to “coerce voters from… freedom of choice.”

“PAP said this is an honorable fight, but… they used tactics to smear our reputation,” Low charged. He was referring to a war of words that erupted, during campaigning last week, between the WP and Deputy Prime Minister (DPM) Teo Chee Hean over a copy of leaked WP meeting minutes.

The minutes, which was sent anonymously to the media, showed Png in the running for his party’s vote for the Non-Constituency MP (NCMP) seat after the General Election (GE) last year. This, after Png had said in an interview that he had taken his name out of the ballot. …Following that, DPM Teo accused Png of having integrity issues and repeatedly suggested that he was not the WP’s best choice or candidate.  During the press conference, Low took aim at mainstream media outlets, saying that they had been used as a “political tool” in the PAP’s campaign….Low referred to a photo run by The Straits Times that showed Png standing behind Low and WP Chairman Sylvia Lim in an unflatteringly subservient position.

…In response to Low’s assassination comments, DPM Teo also said that he welcomed the MP for Aljunied GRC and the WP to take legal action against him. “It all came from contradictions within his own party,” added DPM Teo, who nonetheless congratulated Png on his win.

Huat’s up with this, ST?

Well, to be fair, Desmond Choo was also put in a rather ‘unflattering’ light in another ST shot below. Though that didn’t stop more than 37% of Hougang residents from giving a 34 year old man who needs the PM to chaperone him on visits a fighting chance.

PM wants you to know how ‘guai’ Desmond Choo is

ST aside, the New Paper came up with this surprisingly rockin’ shot of Png Eng Huat being drenched in the rain looking like the album cover of a K-pop superstar. He could cut an entire album in Teochew/Hokkien and still sell more records than Nat Ho.

P.E.H

The former REAR-Admiral TCH has stopped short of calling Png an outright ‘liar’, using terms like ‘have not been upfront/honest/may not be the best man for the job/contradictions’, though the PAP banked its ‘smear’ strategy on what is itself a scoundrelly move by a ‘Secret Squirrel’ within the WP ranks. Though Low doesn’t see the need to expose his traitor for now, you could expect PAP to launch a million dollar smear campaign within a smear campaign to smoke out a similar insider in their midst and deny all leaked allegations if given a chance. Then again, who needs moles and squirrels when you have the Temasek Review/Revealed/Times folks exposing your dirty laundry for you.

Smiley Squirrel has lots to smile about

Png was victorious by 62% nonetheless, mole (or squirrel?) or no mole, which means Hougang residents are either resistant to change, loyal devotees of the Low Thia Khiang ‘brand’, or have become immune to one PAP back-handed sucker punch after another. TCH calls Hougang elections ‘special’ and that the WP stronghold ‘is not representative of Singapore necessarily’.  I wonder what brand of grapes he has been eating that he has forgotten that Hougang residents are SINGAPOREANS first. So much for an ‘inclusive’ society. This calls for a timely reminder that TCH himself was propelled into office via a 1992 Marine Parade GRC by-election called by then PM Goh Chok Tong, which makes him ‘representative’ of how PAP MPs come into power. You may question what right does one have running down an opponent like Png when one never really fought the way Desmond ‘I’m my own MAN’ Choo fought for Parliament all these years. Sometimes you got to wonder if brandishing sneaky, unverified, leaked emails to gun down your opponents and using Choo as a proxy for warmongering makes one even A MAN at all. Instead of shooting one’s mouth off with nothing to lose, how about leaving Pasir Ris Punggol GRC and going man0-a-mano with WP in Hougang the next GE then? I think that would be a worthier challenge than sueing you for defamation, and one WP would gladly accept.

You guys are not ‘representative’

PAP’s trademark ‘assassination’ tactics against opponents began from their early days in power in the 60′s, when  ex-Chief Minister Tun Lim Yew Hock of the Singapore People’s Alliance was accused by none other than LKY for ‘selling planes to the Federation Government’.  Former National Development Minister Ong Eng Guan was called a ‘liar and a scoundrel’ and had ‘no character’ to be assassinated, this after someone dug out that he had a ‘multiplicity of wives’. In 2006, Low Thia Khiang was implicated in the James Gomez incident; while Wong Kan Seng and LKY were busy discrediting Gomez as a ‘liar’, LKY proceeded to comment that ‘Low had lower standards of integrity’ than Chiam See Tong.  LKY then dared the WP to ‘sue him’ for his harsh allegations (Gomez a liar, so sue us: MM Lee, 3 May 2006, Today). Just last year, the SDP was questioned if they were pursuing a ‘gay agenda’ after the PAP (namely Vivian Balakrishnan)  got hold of a Youtube video of Dr Vincent Wijeysingha speaking at a gay forum. In a nutshell, this is how PAP works when it has desperately run out of ideas to sell itself; Identify a target. Unleash your ‘research’ bots to scour Youtube, CCTVs, invoices, marriage certs, leaked emails. Bombard the media with cunning accusations on someone’s integrity, ability and personal life, sexuality if need be. Add the disclaimer ‘If you not happy, sue me lor’. Which is like the Hulk telling the birthday boy to kick him out  a party for squashing the cake. It has all the pathological signs of a high-functioning, confrontational bully with plenty of lawyer henchmen at their disposal. Finally, after 40 over years in the assassination business, the people (or the majority of Hougang at least) are no longer buying it.

Perhaps the PAP should stop thinking of Hougang as some impenetrable fortress helmed by stubborn slum-dwelling berserkers and make it their core mission to thwart the WP by hitting them where it hurts, below the belt and behind the back if necessary. So despite the PAP and ST seemingly ganging up on the Opposition, a disgraced Yaw Shin Leong apologising to remind residents of his sudden abandonment, some last minute party pooper posing as a back-up candidate, or some two-timing double-agent who knows how to tickle the PAP smear machine to orgasm, the WP still got the last laugh.

And then, there’s this, a clip that captures the essence of the 37%’s enthusiasm perfectly.

Congratulations, Png Eng Huat and WP, and may these internal shenanigans serve as rough but fruitful lessons for better governance during your reign.

Filed under: 1960s, 2000s, 2011, 2012, Campaigns/Elections, Politicians | Tagged: , , , , | 1 Comment »

Zeng Guoyuan’s bird abusing the police

Posted on May 16, 2012 by gdy2shoez

From ‘Zeng Guoyuan not contesting Hougang by-election’, 16 May 2012, article in Today online

Retired acupuncturist Zeng Guoyuan, who collected the political donation certificate, is not contesting the Hougang by-election. According to Mr Zeng, he was disqualified because he was fined in 2008 for a public offence. It involved the use of vulgarities when police officers entered a shophouse he was in.

Mr Zeng said it was his parrot’s “friendly, understanding, caring, kind” words that earned him a S$2,500 fine. Officials from the Election Department later clarified that Mr Zeng did not file his nomination papers. Mr Zeng tried, and failed, to contest as an independent candidate in the last General Election in May last year.

That’s PROFESSOR Zeng to you. It’s a pity that the Election Department doesn’t allow nutjobs to contest, not even solely only for sheer entertainment. I would attend the Prof’s rallies for sure, just to have a feel of what a new-age cult gathering feels like. He does fit the politician bill in some aspects though, a mastery of blame-shifting, an unwavering determination despite embarrassing himself, and the ability to wiggle his way out of wrongdoing in the calm, collected manner of a sermon like he was preaching to lesser beings.

According to his Vegetable Shampoo blog, he has an affiliation with the Medicina Alternativa Institute of Sri Lanka, which is linked to the Open International University for Complementary Medicines (U.S.S R). U.S.S.R! That alone explains everything. He addresses himself as Sen. Prof. Dr SIR Zeng Guoyuan MD, DSc, PhD in a newspaper ad featuring his 99 year old Grandfather. Yet in this 1987 article where he was fined for putting up ads claiming treatment for pain and piles, he was reported to possess only a Higher School Certificate.

He also bears an faint resemblance to Shoko Asahara from Aum Shinryoko sect, so maybe it’s not his past brushes with the law that’s preventing him from running for MP. Rather how the government is afraid that he would enslave Hougang residents through Soviet-trained brainwashing sorcery and make everyone worship a foul-mouthed parrot as a deity. He’s to politics and pseudoscience as Steven Lim is to entertainment.

In 1991, he did in fact run as a Opposition candidate for WP in Bukit Timah (Zeng Guoyuan pays up for his limo, 7 Dec 1991, ST), before getting himself charged for molesting a customer in his clinic (Former WP candidate faces molest charges, 14 April 1996). While in prison he complained of mistreatment after developing rashes on his rectum (I was mistreated in police lock-up, says acupuncturist, 29 Aug 1996, ST). In his defence, he claimed he was a ‘knight’ of St John (Accused cries in court, saying again he was set up, 4 Sept 1996, ST). Zeng eventually got jail and 4 strokes of the cane (Acupuncturist guilty, gets jail and four strokes, 14 Sept 1996, ST), though that didn’t stop him from coming out to sell more snake oil and make the ‘independent candidate’ position the turf of wacky millionaires again.

In 2009, he opened a centre in Toa Payoh, putting up Mas Selamat banners as ‘sunshades’ (and was fined) and FCUK posters (friendly, caring, understanding and kind?), where he beat African drums, sang, danced, and boxed when he’s not selling bogus shampoos. In the last GE, he turned up on Nomination Day declaring himself a ‘Muslim convert’ and that his name was ‘Mohammed Ali’, and then proceeed to rip his form to pieces. I admire the journalists for stifling their laughter.

A pantheistic guru like Zeng would probably be more successful polling in Inner Mongolia than here, where few would have the tolerance for a bizarre leader who could say ‘fuck’ is a ‘good’ word with a straight face, and then praises Allah. In fact, it’s how he defended the expletive so matter-of-factedly that makes it funny. For a by-election harangued by rumours of dissension and racism, Zeng and his vulgar parrot is a welcome dose of zany comic relief. He could talk about housing woes one moment and then time travel and reincarnation the next. Still, anyone with a parrot on his shoulder and an unpredictable streak is way more interesting to watch than a candidate  with nothing but white on his collar whose slogan you could see coming light years away.

Here’s a picture of the Professor and his feathered friend.

Filed under: 1980s, 1990s, 2000s, 2011, 2012, Advertisements, Campaigns/Elections, Foul language, Justice system/Lawsuits, Pesky animals, Politicians | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments »

MCYS ad labelling amputees as hopeless

Posted on February 28, 2012 by gdy2shoez

From ‘Some netizens slam new ad for social workers’, 28 Feb 2012, article in insing.com

Some netizens are outraged over an ad for social workers that appears to label the disabled as “Hopeless”. The ad features a social worker helping amputees to play ball, and is captioned with the word “Hopeless” in large font, followed by the words, “if not for Ruth Lim, a Professional Social Worker”.

The offending ad has since gone viral on the internet, with some slamming it for being “rude”, “thoughtless”, “distasteful”, “insensitive” and “downright insulting”, among other things. One outraged netizen, ‘Ingrid Wee’, said, “They could have put it in so many other angles but they chose the most juvenile and insensitive one. Shame on you MCYS!”

…Another netizen, ‘Lissa Johari’, found it to be condescending, and asked whether the ad meant that the disabled had no dignity.

…The ad is part of a campaign launched on 20 Feb by the Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports (MCYS), and was launched by its acting minister Mr Chan Chun Sing.

Ad crippled by complaints

The other catchwords in the social worker series include ‘Ruined’, ‘Abandoned’ and ‘Future Destroyed’, pretty harsh words in this age of self-help and empowerment. ‘Hopeless’ in this context was intended to mean ‘without hope’, but the term is more commonly used to describe utter and complete ‘failure’ or ‘incompetence’, as in ‘hopeless case’ or ‘a hopeless state of affairs’. Hopelessness is a natural emotional phase that anyone afflicted with a sudden disability would experience, just that our social climate of political correctness has imbued the infirmed with the potential to overcome insurmountable odds and achieve extraordinary, unimaginable feats. We have removed words like ‘handicapped’, ‘cripple’, ‘blind’ and ‘vegetable’ from our vocabulary, while celebrating men and women without limbs or deficient in certain faculties who write bestselling books, swim across channels, cycle cross-country, climb mountains or pull heavy loads with their teeth. Most disabled, like the one featured in the help above, can barely juggle a ball with their remaining foot.

Awe and respect for the disabled as equals or beyond has undermined the traditional milk of human kindness, or worse, SYMPATHY, that we usually express when we encounter someone with a lifelong handicap who isn’t a Special Olympics gold medal champion . The stark truth is that most do need assistance getting a foothold (no pun intended) on society let alone just getting by, whether in terms of mobility, rehabilitation or counselling, otherwise there wouldn’t be a need to promote social work  in the first place. This isn’t the first time that the MCYS has drawn flak of  their ‘insensitive’ campaigns. The YOG committee had to resort to pulling heartstrings in collaborative promo with MCYS to launch the Games in 2010. In the eighties, ads created by the Community Chest to appeal for funds using real life examples of the handicapped were deemed as ‘wretched’, ‘gross and tantamount to begging’.Today, we have celebrities, not people in wheelchairs looking miserable,  to do the ‘begging’ on their behalf.

Downplaying the dignity of the disabled and emotional manipulation aside, using the image of wheelchair confinement as a scare tactic to sell a vaccine has also been viewed as a cheap, below-the-belt shot, causing ‘unfair generalisation and stigmatisation of disabled people’, according to this forum writer in 2006 on a Wyeth campaign for a pneumococcal shot for children. The wheelchair is a marketing device to visually capture the consequences of preventable disease without boring consumers, in this case, parents, with a slew pneumococcal disease symptom jargon. Here, the writer, an executive director for the Society for the Physically Disabled, referred to this portrayal as a ‘very depressing and introverted’ view of disabled people, without realising that in his defence of the disabled he has inadvertently suggested that there’s something wrong with being ‘introverted’ as well, disabled or otherwise.

Disabled and introverted

 If I were to have my legs lopped off, aiming to slam dunk or race for charity would be one of the last things on my mind. I would naturally be depressed, needy, vulnerable and the only manual activity that I would consider doing with my still functioning arms is to dig a grave for myself if I didn’t have someone, be it a family member or social worker getting my act together and salvaging whatever dignity, or HOPE,  I have remaining.

Filed under: 1980s, 2000s, 2010, 2012, Advertisements, Bureaucrats, Campaigns/Elections | Tagged: , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

PAP taking their time to call for by-election

Posted on February 25, 2012 by gdy2shoez

From ‘No automatic by-election in our model of parliamentary democracy’, 24 Feb 2012, Voices, Today

(Hri Kumar Nair, PAP MP for Bishan-Toa Payoh): Assistant Professor Eugene Tan’s commentary “The value of a by-election” (Feb 20) argued that the Prime Minister does not have an unfettered discretion in deciding when to call a by-election and that the “default” position should be that a by-election should be automatic.

Those two claims ignore the law and the reason behind the law. There is a reason the Singapore Constitution does not prescribe any time limit to call a by-election.

Our parliamentary democracy is based on the principle that elections are fundamentally about voters choosing between different political parties to lead the country, rather than between individual candidates standing in a constituency. In general elections, the issue is which party should form the government.

Hence, under our system, if any Member of Parliament (MP) resigns or is expelled from his party, he loses his seat because voters had elected him as a representative of his party. Therefore, when a seat falls vacant, there is no requirement to call an immediate by-election, unless the vacancy affects the Government’s mandate.

Nor should an MP’s resignation or expulsion force the Government to put aside more important national issues to focus on a by-election. This model enables the Government to focus on governing Singapore well and improving the lives of Singaporeans. It has resulted in stability and progress for Singapore for half a century.

Some things on the ‘national agenda’ obviously require more urgent tending to than the residents of Hougang, like issuing lawyer’s letters to clear your name after accusations of nepotism, for example. God knows how long the government will dawdle on the empty Hougang seat since WP’s Yaw Shin Leong got sacked for alleged affairs, whether it’s stalling for time to plan its conquest strategy or deliberately playing mind games before calling for Nomination Day and catching the Opposition when they’re least prepared. A ‘party-centred’ system doesn’t adequately explain why there’s no deadline to call for a by-election, since this constitutional dilly-dallying seems to work solely towards the ruling party’s advantage. It’s like a teacher waiting to spring a pop-quiz but not telling you when, only to do it on the eve of school holidays. It’s not clear what our government’s ‘mandate’ is that its importance overrides replacing an MP. We would expect a more satisfactory response than ‘there are many other issues on the national agenda right now’.

History may explain why the ruling party is taking its own sweet time when it comes to throwing dice in a by-election. In particular, a landmark Anson one in 1981 which was won by a certain JB Jeyaretnam (from WP), called rather unexpectedly when the seat was left vacant by Devan Nair ascending to presidency. The PAP’s reasoning for calling it was that ‘the people of Anson should not be without an MP, not when the impending elevation of Mr Nair to the presidency is an event that the party can, and indeed plan for – unlike say the sudden demise of an incumbent.’ i.e the PAP took responsibility for plucking an MP out of the ward and a by-election, though risky, appeared to be a fair course of action to take. The outcome of that decision (JBJ being the first Opposition MP) will go down the annals of history, wedge its way up the anus of PAP’s conscience till this day, but will never be documented in our social studies textbooks.

4 years later JBJ lost his seat after being imprisoned for allegedly falsifying WP accounts and was barred from standing for elections. Then DPM Goh Chok Tong declared that there was no need for an immediate by-election, citing his primary concern as ‘getting the economic recession out of the way’. In 1992, however, Goh Chok Tong, then PM, called for a by-election on his own accord, to ‘inject new blood into the PAP’s ranks’ for Marine Parade GRC. It was also a token gesture to allow JBJ to contest after his ban, but only after the Aug 31 1991 general elections were pushed forward to seemingly avoid having JBJ fight in it. 1992, the last time we had a by-election, was a window-dressing campaign that PAP won by a landslide margin, for rather obvious reasons since the PM had to RESIGN to contest in it.  It was also a vulnerable position for the PAP since announcing that both DPMs Ong Teng Cheong and Lee Hsien Loong were down with lympathic cancer (Both Deputy Prime Ministers have cancer, 17 Nov 1992), which suggested that if GCT were kicked out Singaporeans would have no one to lead them.  As PM, then, one has the liberty of calling for by-elections for the functional purpose of replacing an MP (which hasn’t been done since Anson), pulling in promising foot soldiers like Teo Chee Hean, or to prove your mettle to the Opposition like a seasoned boxer putting his championship title up for grabs by sparring with midgets.

In 1999, a call for a Jalan Besar GRC by-election was rejected again by PM Goh as it would distract the country from its ‘efforts to recover from the economic crisis’.  The reason for the vacant Jalan Besar seat was the shameful departure of a certain MP named Choo Wei Khiang, who was jailed for cheating. The GRC mechanism and ‘economic crises’ made sure that PAP continued to reign, despite the team at JB seemingly ‘letting down’ voters by harbouring a crook in their midst all this time, just like WP putting a serial philanderer on the pedestal.  It’s tempting to draw parallels between Choo and Yaw here; The former went on to become Table Tennis Chief despite his jail record. Nobody knows if we’ll ever hear of Yaw again, and all he presumably did was cheat on his wife, and not, you know, BREAK the law or something.

In 2008, the by-election issue was raised again by JBJ, who demanded that the constitution be more specific on when this could be held (within 3 months). This followed the sudden death of MP Ong Chit Chung of Jurong GRC. Sadly, JBJ himself died shortly after filing a request to the judiciary to explain why the constitution was so irritatingly silent on the timeline to call for by-election. The writer of the letter above Hri Kumar Nair was himself vocal in a parliamentary debate over the fate of Jurong GRC back then, saying that it was ‘sensible to keep things flexible’ and not ‘tie the PM’s hands’. That would mean, of course, that he could drag it all the way till the next GE if he wanted to if it was not in national interest to hold a by-election. An online poll, however, indicated that a slight majority of residents were in favour of a by-election then, but with the GRC’s back-up MP system and a dusty old book to justify the lack of urgency and allow buying time to stock up campaign inventory , what does it matter what the people think? What happened to ‘The people of so-and-so should not be without an MP?’ If the PM believes that 4 MPs can do the work of 5 following the death of Dr Balaji in 2010, why have 5 MPs in Cheng San-Seletar GRC at all? If an MP in a SINGLE ward mysteriously disappears or dies,  what happens then? If residents can do without a representative, as what this lack of urgency is telling us, why should we even bother voting one in the first place?

Filed under: 1980s, 1990s, 2000s, 2012, Campaigns/Elections, Justice system/Lawsuits, Politicians | Tagged: , , , , | 1 Comment »

Singaporeans suffering from litter campaign fatigue

Posted on October 30, 2011 by gdy2shoez

From ‘Add garbage bins, chuck banners’, 30 Oct 2011, article by Grace Chua, Sunday Times

…The ‘dustbin test’ carried out at four town centres was part of a sociological study conducted by the National Environment Agency, with experts from the National University of Singapore led by sociologist Paulin Straughan.

…Its key findings: 62.6 per cent of the 4,500 people surveyed say they never litter; 1.2 per cent are hardcore litterbugs who admit to dropping their trash most of the time; and 36.2 per cent do it out of convenience.

Smokers insisted that it was culturally acceptable to flick their cigarette butts away after smoking, and students and young people were more likely to litter. To cut down littering, the researchers tested four different litter-control methods at four town centres: more bins; banners encouraging binning; having more uniformed NEA officers around; and stationing volunteers to spread environmental messages.

They found that having more bins cut littering most at Tampines while using volunteers cut littering in Bedok by about 30 per cent. Banners, generally, failed to have an effect. ‘Singaporeans may be suffering from campaign fatigue, being tired of being told what they should do as good citizens,’ the study suggested.

Paradoxically, having enforcement officers around reinforced the idea that littering was okay. Singaporeans do tend to litter and the presence of enforcement officers only serves to remind them that this is the fact, the study suggested.

According to the report, the researchers used a ‘drop-off pick-up methodology for data collection’ to ‘alleviate the effects of social desirability’. Even if this meant that the subjects were anonymous, I have my doubts about the high rate of ‘obedient’ results i.e I NEVER Litter because i) it’s socially unacceptable to litter and subjects may be pressured into lying ii) The results do not reflect the state of cleanliness today (otherwise there’s no need for this survey in the first place), and iii) Nobody wants to admit that they are ‘hardcore litterbugs’ (aside from the 1.2%). It’s like asking people if they watch bestiality porn on the Internet. A similar question was posed to subjects in a Kindness survey some months back, whereby 88% self-proclaimed graciousness. It would be interesting to combine these indicators to see how many ‘kind’ people actually litter.

But what’s troubling is the list of lazy excuses people cite for littering, which include ‘lack of litter bins’, ‘acceptable to litter in places that are already dirty’ and the absurdly ironic ‘lack of REMINDERS’, especially since results show that campaigning had absolutely no impact on cleanliness. Everybody KNOWS it’s wrong to litter, and the campaigns, no matter how creatively one pitches the disincentives for littering (CWO, fines etc),  somehow lack the necessary nudge to get our act together. Having more bins and volunteers improving the state of litter, i.e SPOILING Singaporeans, also doesn’t do anything about improving our ‘civic consciousness’. It’s the same rate of people throwing stuff away, just an increased rate of ‘clearance’ (and more work for cleaners) giving the illusion that there’s ‘less littering”.

Maybe the problem lies in the ‘everyone is doing it and they don’t get caught’ mentality, exemplified by the statistic that ’52.1%’ of subjects felt that ‘leaving an empty Coke bottle by the side of a full bin‘ is NOT considered littering.  It exposes our ‘maid mentality’ and over-reliance on not just bins, but people to pick up after us. Singaporeans also don’t have a ‘bring your trash home’ mentality, which could be the result of a certain expectation of dustbins being available wherever we go, which, ironically is a product of our ‘clean and green’ campaigning being ‘too successful’; a case of the law of unintended consequences at work. One should also look at how much FOOD we allow to go to waste (or what I would term ‘preventable’ trash), a symptom of ‘affluenza’ and over-consumption which is much harder to treat or enforce.

Somehow the oft-used analogy of treating our public spaces as we would our ‘homes’ doesn’t work, simply because everyone else doesn’t feel the same way and we see other people’s trash as ‘their problem’.  Which is perfectly normal; there’s simply no pay-off for a thankless sacrifice which few would care to emulate. It’s easy to put this to the test:  Plant a relatively sterile piece of litter, a flyer perhaps, on the floor of a busy MRT station. See how long it takes before someone picks it up. Chances are that person is a SMRT staff. If we suffer from the ‘bystander effect’ every time a human being lays sprawled motionless on the floor, what more a piece of paper?

We could say the social cost of littering is insufficient to overcome the ‘convenience’ of littering. People make quick risk  calculations everytime they decide to drop a load, especially for ‘less obvious’ forms of litter like dog pee or faeces, pocket lint, dried mucus, pastry crumbs, parking coupon debris etc, and we give ourselves excuses for our act (It will fertilise the plants, it will decompose, the birds will eat it etc). A certain degree of inconsideration has somehow become a norm, and probability theory tells us that the more people subscribing to a ‘norm’, the less likely you’ll get penalised for it. You can teach a Singaporean how to step on a foot lever to dump his trash, but you can never change his habits or teach EMPATHY, which to me, is what’s really missing here. Littering wouldn’t happen if people simply CARED enough. Increasing the number of bins is simplistic, and we would do well to study relatively ‘bin-less’ societies like Japan before implementing this ‘solution’ lock, stock and barrel.

If campaigns, enforcement, habitual changes and population control  are useless and placing bins all over the place is impractical (maybe even counter-productive), what then can we do to curb littering? I would propose for the sake of argument , ignoring all the ethical difficulties involved,  a combination of public shaming and ‘mercenary’ active citizenry as a drastic measure, which is like plainclothes officers and CCTVs except cheaper and with greater reach. Which means dumping the various ‘soft approaches’, and acknowledging that a filthy Singapore is a serious problem that justifies a slight breach of human rights.  Catch someone in the act via photo or video, post it uncensored online anonymously and get paid for it (In case you’re thinking we already have ‘citizen journalism’, most littering isn’t sensational enough to warrant a Stomp publication). It’s like the reward in a Wanted poster, graded according to the heinousness of the crime . Such clandestine ‘hired spying’ would serve as a much better deterrent to the litterbug (knowing there are greedy eyes out there watching him), while serving as a incentive to those desperate for a quick buck. Think of it as a contest with a draconian twist. So instead of installing dustbins for lazy people every 50 metres and paying cleaners for overtime, which merely treats the SYMPTOM of littering, put a price on the litterbug’s head instead and play with simple incentives  (avoidance of humiliation, greed, ‘busybody-ness’) which any Singaporean would respond to. Only then will the 62% of civic-minded citizens be taken seriously.

Filed under: 2011, Campaigns/Elections, Environment, Fines | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Next Page »
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 170 other followers