Nursing a low skilled job hard to offshore

Posted on February 8, 2013 by gdy2shoez

From ‘ DPM Teo issues correction to Footnote in Population White Paper’, 8 Feb 2013, article in Today online

Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean today issued a corrigendum to the Population White Paper in Parliament to delete a segment of a footnote that classified nursing as a low-skilled job. Mr Teo said, in the Notice of Corrigendum, that he intends to delete the part of Footnote 12 on Page 40 of the White Paper, which said: “Certain low-skilled jobs like personal services, retail, and nursing are hard to offshore. They will still be needed even as the economy upgrades.”

“This classification of low-skilled jobs is not correct. I would like to apologise to those whose professions have been unintentionally misrepresented,” said Mr Teo. He said he was alerted to the matter by “our friends in the nursing profession and unions”.

Adding that he has the “greatest respect” for the nursing profession, the DPM said it is a “noble and caring profession, which all of us and our loved ones depend on and appreciate”.

A ‘corrigendum’ is a fancy term for a ‘correction’, as in ‘Notice of Correction’ according to the White Paper website. It’s the kind of word you use to lessen the impact of a terrible mistake in Scripture, like saying that God made the world in 5 days instead of 6, although it sounds like an unused part of the large intestine. Having a longer word to substitute ‘error’ doesn’t make it any less heinous. It’s like the Emeritus of ‘sorry’.

The footnote now reads: ‘….slower growth in low skilled (e.g caring and cleaning) jobs’. I’m not sure if that was adequately ‘corrigendummed’. Anyone in the business of ‘caring and cleaning’, like a social worker in a hospice for example, would resent being labelled as ‘low skilled’. ‘Skill’ traditionally refers to how one performs a task with his hands. If we still lived in villages, the resident blacksmith would have been among the most ‘skilled’ of the lot. Today, a manager could be described as ‘highly skilled’ without having the slightest clue of how to forward or bcc emails. The difference is that one bangs a hammer to create fine artisan craft. The other bangs tables and chairs to frighten people into doing his bidding.

Changing diapers as social workers/babysitters/caregivers do for a living seems like an example of a proper skill to me, but perhaps all this boils down to a fundamental problem of semantics. We have low-skilled, unskilled and semi-skilled workers, a form of categorisation which replaced the blue-white collar distinction. How have the various scales of skill been defined, if at all? Am I unskilled if my ONLY task is to load and unload wheelbarrows with bricks and move them from one place to another? What if I’m a doorman at a really posh hotel whose only job is to open and close doors for guests? And why protest over nursing only, what about ‘retail’ and this ambiguous ‘PERSONAL SERVICES’? Is this a euphemism for PROSTITUTION? Patrons of sex workers would argue that some of their ‘service providers’ are more ‘skilled’ than their own wives.

And since when did OFFSHORE become a verb? Is this appropriate language for a Population policy paper, or was it edited by a business guru? Are we sending our low skilled workers to the Maldives? As expected, there were no names listed as to who authored or edited the White Paper, just a list of anonymous scribes from various ministries and government bodies who contributed to its publication under the ‘Acknowledgements’ page (like the Bible, perhaps). Among them was the Ministry of Manpower, who could be behind the footnote fiasco being the authority on labour. I wonder what level of skilled workers they got to write this rubbish.

But I don’t want to speculate. Corrigendums seem like hard work. I may have to OFFSHORE my corrective actions to another party.

About these ads

Filed under: 2013, Bureaucrats, Foreign workers, It Should Have Been.., Politicians | 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 »

Keyboard thug apologising to DPM Teo

Posted on June 9, 2012 by gdy2shoez

From ‘JC student apologises to DPM for blog post’, 8 June 2012, article by Stacey Chia and Matthias Chew, ST

Junior college student Reuben Wang was so annoyed by what he heard from a VIP at a seminar that he blogged: ‘F*** you, sir.’ The VIP was Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean, the key speaker at this year’s annual Pre-U Seminar attended by more than 500 students last week.

Reuben’s blog post went viral and he blogged again, unrepentant about his use of the expletive. But on Thursday, the St Andrew’s Junior College (SAJC) student had a change of heart, met Mr Teo at the Ministry of Home Affairs and apologised to him.

The JC1 student told The Straits Times later that he realised his post was ‘rash’ after reading his friends’ comments. Mr Teo said: ‘I am glad he has taken the time to reflect, and recognises that what he said, as well as the way he said it, were wrong.

…He accused Mr Teo of dodging difficult questions during the question-and-answer portion of the seminar on May 29, by turning the questions on students instead of answering them himself. They included questions on press freedom and a sense of belonging in Singapore.

Reuben wrote the profanity three times in his 700-word public post. Three days later, he wrote again to say he stood by his remarks, even as he conceded that his use of the swear word was in ‘bad taste’.

‘I  see people asking you questions but you tossed them right back, so I’m like F*** you..ooo-hoo-hoo!’

Just before Reuben had a sudden change of heart and decided to man up and apologise to TCH, someone wrote an article bashing his behavior as the sign of a cowardly, impertinent youth gone wild with no ‘respect for an elder person’, referring to the generation of kids who’re more vocal online than face to face as ‘a generation of keyboard thugs’. Fact is  ‘keyboard thugs’ have always existed, before even blogs or Facebook, and it’s not just irresponsible brats with no experience in the ‘ways of the world’ (unlike ‘elder statesmen’) who’re ‘hiding behind screens’ dishing out the dirt. Reuben doesn’t deserve to be given a name associated with certain gangsta rappers, and anyone who’s an advocate for Internet ‘hygiene’ should himself refrain from calling 17 year olds names as well.

Bone Thugs and Disharmony

If critics are so appalled by the utter disrespect displayed by an otherwise passionate 17 year old like Reuben, they’ll be in for a nasty surprise when they trawl random forums, where one will see anonymous ‘fuck you’s aimed at politicians in general, including the ELDEST politician ever, without even bothering to end it with a ‘SIR’. ‘Lack of respect’ and ‘Asian values’ are also used on plucky journalists who dare to interrupt elder politicians as well, as ‘Why My Vote Matters’ Today reporter Lee Ching Wern would attest in 2006, after calling the PAP ‘arrogant’ before the likes of LKY. ‘Asian values’ which tell you the right way to bow before seniors has no place in healthy political discourse, and even a politician on a ventilator with peripheral neuropathy approaching his 90th birthday shouldn’t deter challengers, as long as you pose your argument like a gentleman.  Of course it’s one’s choice if you decide to use ‘F-U’ is a stat sweetener (hence more attention) for what you write.  It’s probably unfair to generalise our youth as a bunch of gutless, ungrateful, vulgar cyber-whingers. If you equip a kopitiam uncle with the necessary skills, he’d probably slap TCH about with a couple of Hokkien vulgarities as well. And he may even be OLDER than our DPM too.

Before the rather harsh ‘thug’ connotation, bloggers like Reuben were  ‘keyboard warriors’. A derogative term meant to describe anyone whose online bark is worse than their bite, instead of the usual classic virtues of sacrifice, strength and honour associated with the ancient word ‘warrior’. Celebrity model blogger Xuesha used it against people calling her a bimbo for mispronouncing ‘Forbes’. A YOG Cheer contest winner used it against critics of JJ Lin’s ridiculous Oh Yeah Oh Yeah cheer. Before you know it, anyone with an honest OPINION is dubbed a keyboard warrior (which makes me the Braveheart of all keyboard warriors…You can take away my blog, but you can’t take away..MY KEYBOARD!!). It’s only in 2011 when the GE took hold that ‘keyboard warrior’ applied to people expressing their political views online without following up with ‘action’. Yet we know of people who talk  in public all the time with the same end result (NATO:No action Talk Only). Do we call them ‘microphone’ warriors then?

Once were warriors

Last year, the Cyber Wellness Student Ambassadors created a role unfortunately titled ‘Cyber WARRIORS’, where instead of launching online attacks on incompetent teachers as the role suggests, these volunteers are in fact countering ‘cyber-bullies’, who are a vicious subset of ‘keyboard warriors’ more aligned to the ‘thug’ family. To add to the confusion, we also have ‘trolls’ too. Thugs, warriors, bullies, trolls. I think we should rename the Internet  community ‘Middle Earth’, more specifically MORDOR. I guess we know who’s Gandalf the WHITE then.

This tired tactic of ‘questioning the questioner’, despite its intention to ‘provoke thought’ instead of spoon-feeding kids with answers, should be used sparingly, lest it be seen as an unlimited ‘Get out of Jail card ‘when one DOESN’T have the answer himself. DPMs can’t afford to say ‘I don’t know’ in front of the bright-eyed future of Singapore, and we can’t expect them to have the answers ALL the time.  As a public figure, in fact for any public speaker with subject expertise in my opinion, you need to at least show some mettle and set an example through wisdom and confidence. You need to inspire instead of being seen as a ‘good listener’. You need to hold the handles on your child’s training bike and give direction before letting it go. You want your audience to occasionally nod in unison instead of sitting slack-jawed and dumbfounded feeling like this ‘dialogue’ was an utter waste of time.  You need to deliver a ‘take-home message’ not ‘homework’. Otherwise it’s not so much Q n A but rather Q n Q. Or you can totally dominate your quizzers like the consumate lawyer-politician that is LKY.

Perhaps our history of political stifling and fear indoctrination have rendered our youths mute in the face of politicians, which explains our pent-up hostility online. LKY once complained why no Singaporean spoke up at a NTU student forum. Vivian Balakrishnan had a tough time engaging youths in 2008, with one attendee saying that ‘you can’t anyhow say what you want to a minister…in case the minister shoots a question back at you’. Asking the questioner questions back isn’t the only thing deterring aspiring youths from confronting ministers. Some would even pry into your private life and ask you to to weigh your priorities between a pHD and having a boyfriend. It’s also not surprising that some conspiracy theorists would see this a calculated ploy to boost TCH’s ratings after his own WP bullying. A rascal says ‘fuck you’ to him and he not only tolerates it but entertains a face-to-face apology cum getting-to-know-you session, which gives the impression of a leader who not only encourages the youth to ‘think for themselves’ but is magnanimous and obliging as well. The government’s PR unit must be wetting their beds in ecstasy.

Filed under: 2000s, 2010, 2012, Bloggers, Foul language, Kids, Politicians | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments »

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 »

Food court named after Khmer Rouge killing field

Posted on November 23, 2011 by gdy2shoez

From ‘Foodcourt chain’s name, S21, is undesirable’, 23 Nov 2011, ST Forum

(Siew Heng Keong)…I have noticed there is a popular foodcourt chain in Singapore named S21. S-21 is a former high school in Cambodia which was used as the notorious Security Prison 21 (S-21) by the Khmer Rouge communist regime from its rise to power in 1975 to its fall in 1979. It was an urban killing field of the Khmer Rouge. If anything, S-21 holds a greater notoriety for Singaporeans by geography and regional association as Cambodia is an Asean member.

I wonder if the owners are aware of the implications of the name of their foodcourt chain. I am also puzzled why the name S21 was allowed by the Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority (Acra) in the first place. Acra said it would not endorse any name of business that is ‘undesirable’. I think S21 is very undesirable.

This was written in response to media coverage of a bar with a name similar to Nazi concentration camp Auschwitz. The S21 food outlets also appear to be a sequelae to the more established S11 chain, which even has its own Facebook page. Not sure if there ever was a S11 Khmer Rouge camp, but I’ve written enough about how people are forgetting about our very own Changi prison atrocities whilst making smug reference to global genocides in the earlier post on Aushwitz (the bar).  Seems like ACRA needs to hire expert historians to name-check every massacre site known to man before registering businesses, otherwise we can’t eat at these places with such haunting names without losing our appetite thinking of heads impaled on sticks. At this rate, every diner’s signboard will end up looking like Toys R Us or Kiddyland, if not Big or Fat something because it’s OK to use a politically-incorrect word like FAT, but not even hint at a murder site with at least one black -and-white documentary filmed after it.

Naming FnB outlets after S21 and Auschwitz may be deemed ‘in bad taste’ because they refer to exact death camp locations, but there would also be a matter of INTENT. A bar owner who denies alluding to Auschwitz by dropping a single ‘c’ would be harder to believe than a food court magnate giving a seemingly random alphanumeric , and ‘undesirably’ bland, title to his business while mistaking ‘Khmer Rouge’ for a trendy line of cosmetics or a dance club instead of a militant killing machine.  The writer is probably also aware of the notorious Unit 731 as well, an Imperial Japanese army research group specialising in horrific human experimentation, which, by the same argument, makes the presence of many ‘unit-731s’ in apartments or shop floors very ‘undesirable’ indeed. But that would be just ridiculous.

The best argument to expose the silliness of it all is that S21 also happens to be ‘Singapore 21′, the government’s vision for Singapore in the 21st century launched almost a decade ago, espousing ‘key ideas’ like ‘Every Singaporean Matters’ and ‘The Singapore Heartbeat’. The brainchild of Goh Chok Tong himself circa 1997,  the S21 committee was headed by then Minister of Defence Teo Chee Hean, who should have known better than play along with a murderous name for his task force. But perhaps there are similarities after all; instead of bodies being flogged here it’s weary platitudes like ‘vision’, ‘home’, ‘heartbeat’, ‘worth dying for’ and the ghastly ‘personal rainbows’, which makes S21- Singapore version- not so much a masterplan (where is it at now anyway?), but more useful as a lyric cheat sheet for lazy National Day songwriters,  or a rhetoric equivalent of Microsoft Office Clipart for rally speeches.

Filed under: 2000s, 2011, Funerals/Death, Hawkers, Local food, Names, Violence | Tagged: , , , , | 5 Comments »

Chan Chun Sing:Don’t plant stakes in the ground

Posted on September 4, 2011 by gdy2shoez

From ‘Divide between religious and non-religious a key challenge’, 4 Sept 2011, article by Joanne Chan, Today

Singapore is not “immune” to the growing rift between those who are becoming increasingly religious and those who are the opposite. And more will need to be done to “enlarge and defend the common space” for Singaporeans, said Acting Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports Chan Chun Sing.

Noting that the world is “seeing greater religiosity on one end of the spectrum and non-religiosity on the other end”, Major-General (NS) Chan said that such forces threaten to pull society in opposite directions.

“The fast pace of development will inevitably mean that many will seek to find their anchor in race or religion,” he said.

“However, we hope that as people become more conscious of one’s race and religion, they will not turn inward or become more exclusive towards others of different races or religions.”

And those who do not subscribe to any religion should continue to be open and receptive to those who do, he added.

“We must remember to not plant stakes on the ground to circumscribe other’s actions. But on the other hand, we must constantly work to enlarge and defend the common space that we all enjoy today,” he said.

The use of the word ‘religiosity’ in political rhetoric is relatively recent, and may be viewed by some as a euphemism for ‘fanaticism’, especially pertaining to the rise of Islamic zealotry in the 9/11 era. For the record, both ‘religiosity’ and ‘fanatic’ were used by LKY himself in the same article (Drift to terror, 1 June 2002, Today) in response to the threat of infiltration of the country by terrorist cells like Jemaah Islamiyah (JI)

(SM Lee): My original concern was over the growing separateness of our Muslim community, as Singaporean Muslims tended to centre their social and extra-mural activities in their mosques instead of in multi-racial community clubs.

What came as a shock was that this heightened religiosity facilitated Muslim terror groups linked to Al Qaeda to recruit Singaporean Muslims into their network.

…These (JI members) are religious fanatics.

A little more than a year later, it was up to his son, then DPM Lee Hsien Loong to piggyback on the same buzzword by calling on MUIS to keep an eye on the community (Muis must guide religiosity, says DPM, 25 Nov 2003, Today) in light of ‘increased religiosity’ among Muslims in Singapore and elsewhere, using the tudung saga as an example. Typical of our PM and unlike his paranoid father, Lee Hsien Loong was careful not to tread on F-words like ‘fundamentalism’ and ‘fanatic’, but it’s clear by now which ethnic group would be under the Government’s watchful eye, and ‘religiosity’ would be viewed as a precursor to radical Islam, and hence begins the use of fear-mongering rhetoric to keep one’s multiracial flock from straying off the path of our ‘common spaces’.

The escape of Mas Selamat in 2008 ignited another round of anti-religiosity talk from Lee Hsien Loong when he became PM, losing none of the nervous steam he inherited from the father. Speaking at the ‘closed-door’ ISD 60th Anniversary dinner (Old threats and new, 9 Sept 2008, Today):

(Lee Hsien Loong): The apparent effortlessness of our racial harmony is deceptive. It requires constant tending behind the scenes…especially so at a time when religiosity is growing.

…The most crucial and delicate relationship currently is that between the Muslim and non-Muslim communities.

One would expect a ISD Dinner and Dance to be as enchanting as a night at a funeral wake, but here is our PM giving his private army a pep-talk and a thumbs up for their nabbing of suspect terrorists, and again spreading the warning about rising religiosity like it was a viral plague. At this point, you can’t be any further convinced  that ‘religiosity’ in politico-speak has and always will be linked to Muslims. Not to feel left out, former PM Goh Chok Tong had to enter to fray (SM:Guard against religious enclaves, 3 Aug 2009), fresh from the wake of violent clashes between Uighur Muslims and Han Chinese in Xinjiang:

…Mr Goh pointed out that the Government sees religion as a positive force in society, giving ‘spiritual guidance to help us cope with a fast-changing world’.

However, rising religiosity may lead people, unwittingly, to form religious enclaves, unless a conscious effort is made to continue socialising with people of other faiths, he said.

If such religiosity ‘encroaches on our common secular space, or worse, the practice of other religions, (it) must result in a push-back by others’.

In the same year, DPM Wong Kan Seng also spoke on the above ethnic clashes (Be mindful of racial, religious fault-lines, 2 Aug 2009, ST), though he should have been more ‘mindful’ on domestic matters like keeping his detainees behind bars after Mas Selamat’s escape a year earlier.

We must not let increased religiosity or religious practices among our people create fault lines that will disrupt our social stability, especially when race and religion are closely intertwined in Singapore.

He added that the Government’s key approach towards managing race and religion matters is to build common spaces in schools, communities, workplaces and national service. These common spaces must remain secular, he said.

Why is Major Chan Chun Sing bringing this up all of a sudden? Has the ISD brought any ‘fanatics’ to justice recently? Has a bomb attempt at Yishun MRT been thwarted? Why rev up an old thorny nugget and make everyone fidget uncomfortably in their seats just when President Tony Tan has sworn to ‘unify’ all Singaporeans? What in heaven’s name is ‘non-religiosity’? Do you mean atheists, or people who are religious but don’t overdo it? This statement, a commendable cut-n-paste job from previous speeches (‘stakes’ instead of fault-lines/enclaves), is like announcing how chickens are slaughtered in the middle of a BBQ party. If religiosity has been ‘rising’ for the past 10 years, why haven’t we succumbed to civil war by now? Does the PAP have to drill into our heads about the threats to religious harmony every single time violence erupts in the Muslim World? Why the relative silence on right wing Christian fundamentalism (can I use the word ‘religiosity’?)  in the wake of the brutal Norway attacks then? DPM Teo Chee Hean referred to it as ‘extremism’, which is a far cry from religiosity though synonymous with JI’s activities, but tactfully avoiding any reference, or maybe even pooh-poohing the remote possibility of any zealot gun-totting Christians in our midst.

Maybe Major Chan has been hanging around the Lees a bit too much lately, and taking advantage of the upcoming 10th year anniversary of 9/11 to gently remind Singaporeans who the murderers were on that fateful day, at the same time hopeful that educating us on ‘religiosity’ would resonate happily with our PM, his father and the Emeritus so that they won’t have to unleash another  anti-terrorism package again this year.   With current and former DPMs and PMs speaking out on religious tensions to date, perhaps Chan, barely a year-old politician, is venturing into shoes too big for him to fill too soon. Thank you for your concern, Major, but tell us something we don’t already know.Time to Sing a different tune, dude.

Filed under: 2000s, 2011, Politicians, Religion, Violence | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 170 other followers