Millennials spending money on avocado toast

From ‘Reality check for the avocado generation’, 28 May 2017, article by Olivia Ho, ST

Are millennials the avocado generation – expensive, high-maintenance and incapable of surviving in the long term?

Australian millionaire Tim Gurner made the assumption earlier this month, when he slammed millennial spending habits during a news programme and drew outrage from Generation Y worldwide.

“When I was trying to buy my first home, I wasn’t buying smashed avocado for $19 and four coffees at $4 each,” the real estate mogul, 35, told Australian current affairs programme 60 Minutes.

…The price of avocado toast in Singapore can range from $9.50 for the basics at Monument Lifestyle cafe in Duxton Road to $20 with a scoop of ricotta at The LoKal in Neil Road.

Avocado is the Greek Yogurt of fruits. On its own it’s bland as fuck, but mash it with some seasoning and spread it on bread and it becomes a symbol of millennial decadence. Just like how eating sashimi in the 80’s made you stand out as the class epicurean, eating (and snapping) ‘handcrafted’ avocado toast these days is one of the prerequisites for becoming a micro-influencer or trendy food blogger. Alas, there’s nothing groundbreaking about ‘smashed’ avocado. The Aztecs invented a similar dish in the days of conquistadors and smallpox. It’s called guacamole.

Some curious footnotes about this Superfood:

  • Avocado was first cultivated in this region sometime in the late 1920’s, when it was referred to as the ‘avocado pear’. Presumably because it looks like a pear (though that doesn’t explain ‘pineapple’)
  • In 1937, an Avocado Salad recipe called for cantaloupe, vinegar, chopped cucumber and paprika. Yes, that hipster cafe version is at least 70 years old.
  • Thought stuffing seafood in an avocado pit is the hottest culinary trend? Nope. It was done with crab meat. In 1958.

So why don’t cafe owners call a spade a spade and call guacamole guacamole? Simply because when you see guacamole on a menu, nachos come to mind. And nachos aren’t hip or cool. Unless you rename them ‘hand-cut baked corn crisps’ or something.

Random browsing through the #avocadotoast hashtag on Instagram led me to this. The green mother of all avocado toasts. It’s Ciabatta Hulk, with a rooftop garden.

Screen Shot 2017-05-28 at 10.08.27 AM

As unnecessarily ‘atas’ as the avocado toast phenomenon is, it’s probably unfair to lay the blame on this dish as the reason why millennials are being foolish with their money. The reason: nobody eats it EVERY DAY. If there’s one food that exploits the millennial economy, a food that is daylight robbery personified, it’s the morning and tea-break Venti-sized coffee from your friendly neighbourhood Starbucks.

There’s one way, though, to kill this fad and make the Millennials run back to their beloved artisan lattes – When McDonalds’ comes up with its own Avocado Burger (which is really just putting guacamole sauce in a Cheeseburger) and charge you $7.50 for it with fries and avocado mayo sauce. Oh wait. It’s already been done before.

In the meantime, I’ll skip the $20 avocado toast and get my avocado fix from Alexandra Fruit Stall ($2.50 avocado shake), thank you very much.

Singapore needs more naysayers

From ‘Why Singapore needs more naysayers’, 25 Feb 2017, article by Charissa Yong, ST

Singapore needs more people to speak up and challenge authority, said a panel of academics and former senior civil servants yesterday.

They lamented the reluctance of civil servants to pose contrarian views when facing political office-holders, and the reticence of university students in asking questions at conferences.

…Said Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy dean Kishore Mahbubani, 68: “We need more naysayers.” He argued that Singapore cannot take its formulas for success developed over the last 50 years and apply them to the next 50 years, as the world has changed drastically.

“We need to create new formulas, which you can’t until you attack and challenge every sacred cow. Then you can succeed,” he added.

…Above all, Ambassador-at-Large Tommy Koh, 79, felt that differing points of view should be valued.

He said: “When we appoint people to boards, we can also appoint challengers who are subversive and who have alternative points of view. That’s the kind of cultural change we want to see. It makes Singapore stronger, not weaker.”

Interesting choice of words. A ‘naysayer’ is traditionally a vocal, niggling obstacle to something you want to achieve, be it establishing a semi-autocratic society  or pursuing a dream job as a kids’ party magician despite having a medical degree. In any quest for happiness or greatness, one is usually expected to prove people like the naysayers, the skeptics, the keyboard warriors, wrong – but now, experts are telling us otherwise, that having ‘naysayers’ is a good thing.

Unfortunately, it’s not a role that’s welcome with open arms in Parliament. Our rulers view robust debate as slowing down policy implementation, that having a one-party system may benefit Singapore as a whole. We also know what the Government has done to famous political naysayers in the past: sent them into exile, sued their pants off, or put them in jail. LKY labelled trade union shenanigans in the 1950’s as ‘subversive elements‘, the same adjective Tommy Koh uses for ‘challengers’ today.

Which probably explains the ‘reticence’ of students and civil servants in front of politicians. Decades of critic-silencing has ingrained within our society a climate of fear when it comes to freely speaking our mind. Refraining from challenging the status quo has become part of our Singaporean identity, our DNA. It’s not so much that we’re afraid of losing ‘face’, but rather we don’t want to end up with a defamation suit because we’ve grossly undermined the authority of a figurehead. If you present an ‘alternative view’, there’s a chance you may be dismissed outright as a vile fabricator, or sued for harassment by an entity that doesn’t qualify as a ‘person’ (The Government). If a public officer so much as posts about his disdain about a particular MP under the ruling party, he may risk losing his job as well. Silence, especially the Singaporean kind, is Golden.

Ultimately, the Government DECIDES what needs to be challenged and either ignores or , at worst, deals severe punishment to those who transgress predetermined boundaries. If you challenge the anti-gay law you’re not a maverick but a liberalist troublemaker. When civil servants moaned about the impending Internet Separation, the Government adopted it’s ‘Government knows Best’ attitude. Nobody asks about ministers’ salaries because we know this will never be answered, despite it being the biggest elephant in the room. Yes the world has changed drastically, but some conservative circles are still clinging on to obsolete ‘Asian values’ and waxing lyrical about our moral fibre, the sanctity of human life or marriage, but the Government is wary of offending this bunch at the expense of staying relevant on the world stage because VOTES.

So, really, what we need is not MORE naysayers, but a bold incursion into traditionally taboo subjects to naysay about. Let’s talk about the death penalty, medicinal cannabis, gay marriage, poverty, euthanasia, genetic testing. Otherwise all the naysaying in the world will do fuck all to coax the authorities’ head out of the sand.

Israeli diplomat using Singapore flag as a tablecloth

From ‘Israeli embassy apologises for junior diplomat’s misuse of Singapore flag as table cloth’, 30 Dec 15, article in Today

The Embassy of Israel in Singapore has apologised for the behaviour of a junior Israeli diplomat who misused a Singapore flag as a table cloth during an outdoor party. In a press statement, the Embassy said it “was appalled to learn of deplorable behaviour displayed by one of its junior staff members and expresses its sincere apologies”.

“The Director General of Israel’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs has instructed that requisite strong disciplinary procedure will be adopted against the individual after his meeting with the Singapore authorities, reflecting the severity with which Israel views this incident, especially in light of the close and friendly relationship between Singapore and Israel,” added the statement issued tonight (Dec 30).

Photos apparently showing the incident were posted online earlier this week.

TODAY understands that the Israeli Ambassador was summoned in by Singapore’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) after a police report on the incident was made and investigations revealed the identity of the diplomat.

singapore_flag_tablecloth_0-Israeli-diplomat-Israel

When an American rock band who call themselves The Used performed in Singapore, a defaced Singapore flag was displayed as a stage prop. Despite complaints and police investigations, nothing happened to the band, which suggests that some foreigners don’t need to have  ‘diplomatic immunity’ to get away  scot-free with flag misuse. On the other hand, we arrest 13 year old girls if they set the same object on fire.

The fact that an Israeli official was involved is bound to set tongues wagging about preferential treatment. Our country has been described as the ‘Israel of South East Asia’, bearing strong similarities in terms of geographical vulnerability and military might. If not for the Israelis, we would not have an army as mighty as we do today, having sought the help of what the late LKY called ‘Mexicans’ to set up shop here right after independence. Which puts us in a difficult position when it comes to making our stance heard regarding the ‘senseless killing’ of Palestinians in Gaza. Dr Yaacob Ibrahim, for one, openly condemns Israeli aggression, though the Government as a whole is still relatively silent about the atrocities. Israel has its avid supporters, no doubt, none more so than some Christian communities who proudly declare their love for our ‘brother-in-arms’, that they are ‘very vocal in their support of the Jewish state’.

Netizens slam the tablecloth incident as a case of abusing diplomatic immunity, harking back to the hit-and-run saga involving the late Romanian embassy official Dr Silviu Ionesu. In the Ionescu case, the Romanian embassy argued that the accused had been ‘engaging in official duties’ at the time of the crash, citing ‘Article 39.2 of the Vienna Convention’. Official duties here referring to ‘attending a private birthday party of a karaoke hostess’.

In 1956, diplomatic immunity was invoked by a German vice-consul in defence against inconsiderate driving. According to his lawyer, such a status shielded one against more serious charges, even murder. In 1988, the same legal protection spared American diplomat E.Mason Hendrickson from being charged under the ISA for supposedly encouraging Francis Seow to join opposition politics. The US embassy defended their mission delegate, that he was just doing his job as an envoy. Hendrickson was expelled nonetheless and LKY refused to apologise to the US, referring the case to international arbitration. If you could get booted out for interfering in local politics, abusing the state flag should be no exception.

According to Kishore Mahbubani, this power was never intended to protect one against local laws, that it was invented centuries ago to enable diplomats to talk to leaders of enemy states without fear of getting killed. So theoretically, you’re not supposed to enjoy immunity if you’re engaging in any activity ‘outside of official duty’, condo parties included. I, for one, haven’t the slightest clue what diplomats do when they’re not in ‘working mode’ other than sleeping, pissing and shitting. Disciplinary action is in order, though expulsion seems rather unlikely. As for the flag in question, let’s hope it’s washed down with tender loving care rather than ending up in the dumpster. Or how about a discount on our next Protector purchase as compensation perhaps?

National Stadium a white elephant paraded for profit

From ‘Privatisation of Sports Hub not financially feasible’, 19 Dec 2015, Voices, Today

(Quek Soo Beng): The report “High costs ‘a new reality’ with new National Stadium” (Dec 17) about the stadium’s high rental costs is a wake-up call that is not unexpected. As with renting an office space, rental costs vary with capacity. Return on capital and net profitability are realities of any commercial enterprise, as they are in the way the Sports Hub is set up.

It seems the pricing problem has more to do with the public-private arrangement than with the Sports Hub’s management. In a small country, privatisation is often not financially feasible. We’ve seen that with the MRT system, and now the Sports Hub.

…Singapore can justify only one huge sports stadium. Switching it back and forth for concerts and other non-sporting purposes, while necessary to increase usage and revenue, is fuelling operating and management costs and, ultimately, pricing problems.

Any solution that is not financially viable or prudent will not do. Otherwise, under persistent public and government pressure, the demise of the Sports Hub organisation, as it is now modelled, will be only a matter of time.

We cannot have our cake and eat it. The National Stadium is an iconic asset. Let it not become a white elephant to be paraded for profit.

The $1.33 billion Sports Hub costs nearly as much as the Gardens by the Bay, and since the NDP impasse people are already wondering if this behemoth is turning out to be a stupendous waste of money. Already 2 senior management staff have been given the boot over contract disagreements, following in the footsteps of stadia pitch expert Greg Gillin in 2014. Even before a single event was staged, we had problems with its ‘sandy turf’, which threatened to make the stadium not just a white elephant, but probably the most expensive artificial beach in the world.

But maybe it’s not just an issue of rental costs. The original National Stadium had its attendance woes too. In 1958, Financial Secretary T. M Hart, a cricket-loving Scotsman,  slammed the idea of building a ‘white elephant, full every 4 years‘, that Jalan Besar stadium would be good enough at the time. Come the 70’s, despite it being the ‘golden age’ of Singapore soccer, we had to bring in English league teams to draw the crowds, with the SSC boss then continuing to defend the charges that the National Stadium wasn’t making money. More than 10 years ago we saw a dip in confidence filling up seats for tournaments such as the Asian Cup. Dreams of a ‘Malaysia Cup’ resurgence recently died when our Lions were kicked out of the Malaysian Super League. Today, we merely encased that same beast in a shiny dome, gave it a new name, and baptised it with superstars like Jay Chou (whose concert some fans described as a total washout)

The hallmark of any advanced civilisation is that you can afford to build a state-of-the-art Colosseum for the ages. Singapore’s vanity project is no different.  Other mega-structures like the Singapore Flyer, for instance, have already fallen into disuse, but it remains an indispensable fixture of our world-renown skyline. Our billion-dollar dome will remain iconic for decades to come no doubt, but if nothing is done about its management or our general waning interest in sports, it will become, as one ang mo skeptic prophesised half a century ago, ‘full only every 4 years’, an empty shell containing nothing but distant echoes of its once glorious past, making ends meet only when Jay Chou comes to town.

PAP posters displayed next to Taoist altar

From ‘Mini PAP posters taken down after queries from SDP:ELD’, 5 Sept 2015, article by Koh Swee Fang Valerie in Today

A day after Singapore Democratic Party chief Chee Soon Juan cried foul over miniature posters promoting the People’s Action Party’s team for Holland-Bukit Timah GRC being plastered around Ghim Moh Market and Food Centre, the posters have been taken down.

In response to queries from TODAY, the ELD said that it understands these posters had been put up by the merchant association in the area.

“The association has since taken the posters down,” said an ELD spokesperson. “ELD would like to remind everyone, including candidates and members of the public, that the display of election posters and banners must abide by the rules set out in the Parliamentary Elections (Election Advertising) Regulations.”

During an election, the Returning Officer authorises candidates and their election agents to display election posters and banners for campaigning. “No person shall display or cause to be displayed in any public place during the campaign period any poster or banner without the authorisation of the Returning Officer,” added the spokesperson.

In a Facebook post yesterday, Dr Chee said that his team – which is also contesting Holland-Bukit Timah GRC – had alerted the ELD to these miniature posters, after coming across them on a walkabout at the food centre.

“We… saw miniature posters of the PAP Holland-Bukit Timah team pasted all over the food centre – even at an Taoist altar,” he said. “The SDP team is also campaigning for every vote but, please, let’s have some decency and not paste our photos where people worship.”

Eat, Pray, Vote

There is a specific list of places where you’re not allowed to stick posters in the Election Handbook. These include on an ERP gantry, traffic sign boards and stalls within a hawker centre. Not in this list are places of worship, between the grills of your front gate, or behind public toilet cubicle doors so you can ruminate on your party of choice while taking a shit.

So technically, millionaire pastor Kong Hee and his ilk could flash PM Lee’s face all over the megachurch premises without committing an actual offence. You could be queuing up at the ATM and have a group of MPs on a poster smiling at you by the side while you withdraw your cash from the machine. You could be buying groceries and have someone covertly slipping a mini handout into your bags at the cashier. You could be out jogging on a windy day and one of these discarded flyers could be blown smack into your face. The PAP, as our PM Lee promised, will be ‘For you, With you’. Every single day. Everywhere. Like an overprotective girlfriend who refuses to leave you alone.

Some posters are already stuck on traffic signs as we speak, and the police should really clamp down on these as they pose quite a distraction to motorists. Imagine cruising along the streets and seeing one of the Opposition’s placards asking hard questions about government investments and CPF, or getting awestruck by our PM’s warm glowing face everywhere you turn.  That may be enough to prevent you from checking your blind spot, or spotting an old auntie pushing cardboard against the red light. I wonder if any of the PAP’s posters were placed on U-TURN signs, though.

It’s ironic that as an anchor minister with the Environment portfolio, the Holland-Bukit Timah GRC team leader would endorse such indulgent paper consumption, as if the SG50 flags and paraphernalia still flying about weren’t enough. ‘Poster wars’ between political parties and random vandals have led to the ‘disfigurement’ of the city ever since 1955, where lamp posts, trees and even longkangs (culverts) are not spared from party propaganda.  Up till today, we have people messing up banners or stealing them as collectibles. Maybe we should be thankful to these thieves for relieving us of a serious eyesore. Or maybe it’s the ghost of Yusok, I mean Yusof, Ishak at work.

As for the Holland ward, I saw with my own eyes Vivian Balakrishnan and gang’s faces stuck on the wall between stalls while ordering food at Ghim Moh Temp Hawker centre some days back. Which means PAP has, indirectly, already flouted one of the election guidelines set up by the ELD, merchant association or not. While fashioning PAP candidates as deities next to a religious shrine comes across as a show of disrespect (though not illegal), that didn’t stop contestants from physically entering places of worship during their walkabouts during the last election. Politics and religion shouldn’t mix, of course. That includes holding rallies in conjunction with getais. Neither should politics be mixed with basic necessities like Lunch or Dinner.

Workers’ party a bunch of arrogant nomads

From ‘Opposition parties come and go like nomads: ESM Goh’, 27 Aug 2015, article in CNA

…OPPOSITION ARE LIKE “NOMADS”

“Opposition parties come and go like nomads. Nomads will not have an interest in the people’s welfare. A new tribe is coming – do they really have interest in Marine Parade’s welfare?

“Having spent forty years there, the residents know me. I will leave it to them to decide whether I’ve done a good job or not.

“The opposition will be there just throwing all kinds of distractions.

“You know the fable of the rooster that crows when the sunrises? The rooster goes around claiming that it’s the crow causing the sun to rise. So that’s what they’re doing.”

“A CERTAIN ARROGANCE” ABOUT WP

“Strength is relative. They (WP) are stronger than NSP (National Solidarity Party) – there’s no doubt about it – but there is a certain arrogance about them.

“With that arrogance will they be able to replace me and my team? Let them try. “Are we worried that WP is coming to MP? Look at the way they run their Town Council’s finances and look at the way we run (ours).

“You decide – who do you want to manage your town council?”

There’s a fine line between being arrogant and being confident, and you would expect one to swing to another in politics when showboating is necessary to get people to listen. When ESM Goh says WP are being ‘arrogant’ when they decided to send a team to challenge the MParader himself, he really means ‘You have the ‘cheek’ to challenge my 40 year old legacy.’ He also said that the PAP Government was ‘its own check’, without the need for Opposition ‘distractions’. This isn’t cock-sure confidence or boasting, it’s plain delusional. It’s like a drunkard saying he’s ‘not drunk’. This lecture on arrogance coming from someone who previously mocked the NSP as a ‘No Substance Party‘ during the last election. Someone who’s, obviously, no ‘spring chicken’ anymore.

If the WP were roaming nomads without a home to call their own, such talk makes the MParader himself sound more like an old man of the mountain, living in his ivory tower watching his subjects collect and transport cardboard for entertainment. With such lofty self-assurance, surely there’s no need for the Audit-General, the President, or even the need for public feedback because the PAP has been doing so well ‘checking themselves’, anal warts and all. Where’s the check when ex-MP Phey Yew Kok disappeared for almost 40 years after being charged for corruption? Did it wander off somewhere like a nomad?

If there’s anyone accused of arrogance it’s usually the ruling party itself, even ever since its inception. In 1959, Minister of Culture S Rajaratnam launched a scathing insult at the Opposition, calling them ‘comic opera parties‘, and that they belong to the ‘ice age’ of Singapore politics. Not a very ‘cultured’ remark, perhaps. Goh Keng Swee was also guilty of it, haranguing the English press for smearing the PAP.  LKY was also labelled as the ‘master of arrogance’.  You could say arrogance was built into the party’s DNA, at a time when hard knocks called for a hard head, that such blatant display of cockiness was, well, earned.

Nonetheless LKY and his ‘Old Guard’ were still well regarded by old folk in the 80’s and up till today, who yearned for the founding members’ never-say-die attitude instead of that displayed by their ‘arrogant’ younger successors. This generation includes types who make fun of another politician’s hearing disability, (Lim Wee Kiak on Low Thia Khiang), those who compensate for their not doing NS by invoking superhero nobility  (I spent the last 10 years saving kids’ lives – Janil Puthucheary) and those who brag about how politics is really a calling and how bad their pay cut was (Grace Fu – When I made the decision…).

Even PAP MPs themselves are aware of their own bloated sense of self-worth. In 2006, Indranee Rajah urged the PAP to ‘overhaul its arrogant image’. To be fair, the PAP by and large has softened since the 2011 GE, perhaps now fully aware that the people will not stand for strong-arm tactics and a holier-than-thou attitude much longer. Retired generals act like your everyman on the street, swapping their rugged camouflage kits for the squeaky clean all-whites. Lawyers dabble in Singlish and eat hawker food. Doctors like ‘nomadic’ candidate Koh Poh Khoon pick up leaf litter from drains. Baey Yam Keng and Tin Peiling handle sanitary pads and soiled diapers. They literally had their hands and feet on the ground. This could herald the new era of PAP MPs who you could actually relate to, while the old elitist breed stomp grudgingly into their twilight years, refusing to give up their knuckle-dusters and continue to bang on the Opposition, seething behind their wobbly dentures till their dying breath.

It’s interesting how ESM Goh mentioned the analogy of a poultry here, because while one kampong chicken claims credit for the sun rising, another prized specimen struts around thinking it owns the coop, unaware of the farmer sharpening his cleaver. Or in this case, a sturdy hammer.

Pappy washing powder video is a political film

From ‘MDA reminds parties to not contravene Films Act ahead of General Election’, 17 Aug 15, article by Faris Mokhtar, CNA

The Media Development Authority (MDA) on Monday (Aug 17) said it will not be taking action against the Opposition Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) for releasing a political film, which contravenes the Films Act.

The SDP uploaded two videos as part of its online campaign for the coming General Election. One focused on the local education system, suggesting that the system is stressful and has affected students’ well-being.

The other video is a tongue-in-cheek commercial featuring a made-up washing detergent brand called “Pappy White“. It shows a woman putting clothes printed with words like “transparency” and “democracy” into a washing machine. MDA has classified the video as a political film.

However, the authority said it will not be taking action against the SDP, noting that this is the first such incident. MDA added that parties may not have been fully aware of what is contained in the Films Act.

The authority reminded parties and candidates that they need to ensure that their political films do not contravene the Films Act. MDA also said it will not hesitate to enforce the law should they continue to publish such films.

The Films Act bans the making, import, distribution or screening of “party political films”. However, some films which meet certain criteria can be exempted. These include factual documentaries and manifestos of political parties produced by or on behalf of a political party.

The first ever political film to be shown to public is likely to be 1959’s ‘newsreel’ about PAP electioneering. Opposition parties complained that this was biased towards only one party. Ironically, the same ruling party that came up with the ban decades later could themselves have been breaching the said regulations when they first started out.

SDP’s Pappy washing powder creation has an unlikely connection with Forrest Gump. In 1998, BG George Yeo, then head of the Ministry of Information and the Arts, passed an Amendment which disallowed the distribution and exhibition of ‘political films’. He was convinced that opposition parties had sufficient avenues to disseminate their views. Fellow ‘pappie’ Jacob (Yaacob?) Ibrahim was concerned about the ‘danger’ of digital technology creating false images, as depicted in the movie ‘Forrest Gump’ when Tom Hanks’ titular hero was morphed into a scene with JFK.

Which means you can forget about recreating LKY’s CG clone for a future film after all those actors worthy enough to portray him have died.

Today, our dear George is lauded as PAP’s Internet ‘maverick’, and the Films Act has since been ‘clarified’ to exclude certain types of content from the ban. For example, a film that is a live recording of any event (performance, assembly etc) which does not depict the event, person or situation in a ‘DRAMATIC’ way. An classic example of how this apparent ‘relaxation’ of legislation took effect was the decision to unban Martyn See’s ‘Singapore Rebel’. From the video on Youtube, you see scenes of Chee Soon Juan mobbed to fever pitch by the police and bystanders rabble-rousing. Nope, not the least ‘dramatic’ at all. Another of See’s films, Speakers Cornered, also features CSJ, but was passed uncut with an NC-16 rating because the MDA decrees that you need ‘maturity to discern the intent and message of the film’. No such luck for Tan Pin Pin’s ‘To Singapore With Love’. All the maturity in the world can’t offer you a glimpse of the banned, allegedly manipulative documentary.

Even without ‘dramatic elements’ or ‘animation’, an unedited video of someone telling his life story would still fall afoul of the censors if it ‘undermines public confidence in the Government’, as what happened to another Martyn See work starring ‘ex-leftist’ Lim Hock Siew. Vague terms like ‘dramatic’ or ‘factual’ have no place in the Law when the Authority, or its ‘independent panels’, have the wherewithal to decide what is ‘non-partisan’ and what is ‘political’ regardless of what the Act says. Undermining public confidence in the PAP is exactly what the Pappy washing powder implies, though the MDA failed to point this out as a ‘political’ element for some reason.

We’re so used to Mediacorp ‘current affairs’ programmes featuring Cabinet ministers, such as 2005’s ‘Up Close’, that we forget that these too may potentially breach the Films Act. And there are so many other ‘films’ out there with hidden political ‘agendas’ that get off scot-free. Like a cringeworthy, totally non-partisan Young PAP recruitment video about ‘re-igniting a passion for servant leadership’, which was spared because it did not have ‘animation or dramatic elements’. Others that inevitably fall out of MDA’s radar, including those with song, dance and animation, include:

  1. A homemade tribute video on the PAP’s 60th annivesary, with a soundtrack that wouldn’t be out of place in a Tarantino Western. Pappy Unchained?

2. A Steven Lim monologue urging you to vote PAP. Which the PAP may decide to ban for an entirely different reason.

3. This Taiwanese animation on Chee Soon Juan getting jailed.

4. This multimedia presentation that climaxes with a PAP logo next to a thumbs up. With cool retro 8-bit music.

5. This ‘Friday parody of how wonderful Election Day is.

6. Mr Brown parody on our ‘One Party’ leadership.

Which goes to show how archaic our laws are when it comes to catching up with new media. MDA’s ticking off aside, the Pappy video remains online as we speak, and in the meantime, if you need some legal ‘political’ entertainment, there’s this: