News

Ancient Greek gods' new believers Followers of the 12 Greek Gods, who, according to mythology, ruled the Ancient World from Mount Olympus, have cast a thunderbolt at their Orthodox opponents.

This was inexplicably amusing to me. Well, not exactly inexplicably. Amusing largely because I've heard the example of 'pagan' worship used in polemics against Christianity so many times (you have 'faith' in your God, but these Greeks, guess what? they had 'faith' too!), it's sort of funny to know they're still around, alive and (kicking and stepping on people's toes).

BlogTV.sg
blogtv.sg is a programme where the blogosphere is transported onto the television screen. Different discussion topics each week are derived from the latest buzz in blogs - be it podcasts, video clips or pictures. Guest bloggers and experts from Singapore and around the world (it could be you!) come onto the show; have chats with our hosts through web cams and even 3G phones.

I should watch TV more often. There've already been 13 episodes on CNA (Channel News Asia, for those not in the know), and I've only just discovered (while surfing, not watching tv, of course).

As far as I can tell from the write-ups on each episode, they tend to focus on social (as opposed to political - again, the separation in Singaporean discourse between 'social' and 'political'. Sorry, I'm Singaporean after all.) issues, except for Ep.12: Big Boys Blogging, which just might cross the line into politics. Of course I wouldn't know how far they went, unless I bother downloading and watching the episode myself.

I find it really interesting though, that if you go to any of the BlogTV.sg pages, there's a column on 'Blogosphere News', much like the 'Business News' or 'Financial News' columns you see on other sites. The idea of a 'Singapore Blogosphere', I think, is gaining currency, and the reinforcement from the MSM will only transfer the idea to more non-bloggers.

Funny how I tend to see non-bloggers as the 'non-'/'different' now.

Work

I need to start thinking about work. Seriously. So I'll combine work and blogging as usual.

I need to write a paper showing that ASEAN is an international society, and it'll probably be more difficult than I initially thought. I'll need to take on realism, constructivism (especially constructivism!) and I'll have to say a word or two on regime theory. The thing is, I have to distinguish between arguing for the merits of the English School and arguing that ASEAN is an international society. I'm so used to arguing the first that I've to be very careful not to mix up the 2 arguments (even though they obviously overlap). So... I know that regime theory is different from ES theories - but the question is, is a regime different from an international society?

Assuming I'm able to do that, I've got to look at the 'meat' of international society theory. What does it mean when you say a group of states form an international society? Since I'm adopting the Hedley Bull approach, I'll probably split it into rules and institutions. So I'll be looking at constitutive, coexistence and cooperative rules, and here I'll have to go back to the formal documents + the 'ASEAN Way'. I'll have to look at instances where these rules came into effect. I'll also have to look at balance of power as the primary primary institution, and see if balance of power in ASEAN fits Bull's framework. And then obviously I'll have to deal with the rest of the institutions. War, especially, stands out, and I'll have to deal with the difference between 'classical' ES theory and practice in ASEAN. Throughout this I'll probably have to keep mentioning common interests and values, and how these common interests and values led states to agree on common rules & institutions.

I suspect (especially when talking about bop) that I'll be borrowing a lot from my lecturer's own work. Which I don't like. I don't know how I can bring anything new, and I'd like to at least put up a small defence (however feeble) against my lecturer's arguments. So I should probably take a close look at his book (haha. sighz).

I can probably take issue with Narine's idea of Southeast Asian international society. (assuming the quote I have is representative of his work)

Note to self: when dealing with Constructivism I should also look at ASEAN-6 vs the rest, and then adopt Narine's point about identity not being a precondition for cooperation.

2nd note to self: I'll have to deal with the changes in the international society throughout ASEAN's history. ASEAN expansion would be a problem in terms of organization of the paper.

I'm writing another paper on performance legitimacy in Singapore, and how it has been shaped by discourses.

Surprisingly, I find that I'm more interested during discussions of Singapore politics than discussions about anything else.

For this one I want to narrow down what I mean by 'shaping' performance legitimacy. 'Shape' in what way?

I have to do more theoretical work on 'performance legitimacy'.

I'm also concerned about sources and causal links. So even though there's stuff in the secondary literature to back me up, I'll want to look at more recent official statements etc.

Hopelessly sleepy. Argh.

Neurosis

Today in school I saw a girl wearing a familiar t-shirt. It turned out to be the GEP 20th anniversary shirt. My first reaction was utter disgust, cos who goes around wearing a GEP shirt? Your primary school shirt, no problem. I walked around in a 1993 Teochew clan association t-shirt inherited from my cousin (who probably got it for free) until I finally decided to dump it in 2005. Do the maths yourself. I've got saucy t-shirts that amuse my friends to no end and have raised a few eyebrows (eg. at the Student Affairs Office today). But a GEP t-shirt is plain bad taste.

Ah... the neurosis. Golden Rule: Never let anyone know you're a gepper unless under torture or insistent questioning. If you break this rule you're an arrogant show-off. Geppers should be aware of the dirtiness of their past and should be properly defensive and secretive about that bloody period of their lives. (it's like being an ex-Nazi in Israel. You don't exactly go around sporting Hitler memorabilia.) This rule does not apply if you're blogging.

It also seems as if geppers combine an overweening, arrogant sense of destiny with a neurotic (that word again!) but similarly arrogant inferiority complex. Geppers are supposed to achieve everything, and if they haven't, they wander about all day wondering why they haven't become the 1st Singaporean to become the President of the United States yet and angsting about whether this means that they're actually (I can't even say this without an existential fear gripping my being {haha}) dumb.

Geppers also like to blame their disastrous lives, lack of social skills, poor grades, emotional breakdowns, relationship problems, lack of direction, inability to finish work on time, even their successes that are actually failures (omg why did I get an A when I actually wanted a B?) on GEP. Geppers are therefore sincerely apologetic for not being grateful enough for the unfair advantages conferred upon them by the use of taxpayers' money.

Note: pls ignore all generalizations made in this post.

Back from failing the exams!

A government for all its intelligence, is nothing if it lacks empathy.

I think that the reason why we don’t seem to have much of a heart, is because our current administration is, apart from the grassroots, highly divorced from the ground. The scholars are the best of the best, the brightest of the brightest; with degrees from Oxbridge or the Ivy Leagues, and who have near perfect GPAs and CCA records. But how many of our administrators can see things from the other side? Do we actually go and visit a 2 room flat infested with bed bugs and talk to the people living there? When we talk about a “world-class” transport system, do our reviewers actually get onto the buses during peak hours and experience for themselves what it is like to be all squished up with every single other person around? I even remember someone telling me, that one of the new P65 MPs had actually said that before he joined the grassroots, he didn’t know that developed countries still had poor people.

Yep, I'm done with my exams! The first went off the richter scale in terms of damage done, and today's paper, compared to the first, was not too bad. I solemnly swear I shall not misread the question and lose 25% of my grade ever again. I also solemnly swear I shall never again be unmotivated and lazy, or else I shall be forced to repeat this same oath.

On to the essays!

SDU

Woohoo I now have SDU membership. Watch out, all you single, eligible male graduates (since SDU doesn't care about non-graduates), I'm here to flirt your socks off!

SDU's personalised/exclusive services are "[for] the completely confident member who wants total control." [emph mine]

Uh-huh. Right. There's never such a thing as trying too hard right.

Despondency and Cynicism

Post from one of my now favourite blogs.

More convulsions of outrage

More rants.

I'm disturbed by all those ads for the handicapped pleading with 'society' to let them contribute, because they're all useful people. I can't remember the exact wording of the ads, but it goes something to the effect of 'I can contribute too.'

When I was in my final year of undergrad, I went to ICA in a futile attempt to apply for citizenship. I shall ignore the misinformation that led to me going to ICA twice. On my 2nd visit, I was trying to pin down the eligibility criteria (which I couldn't find on online) by interrogating (yes, I was miffed that I filled in all those forms and went down twice) the counter staff. I suppose the lady was so frustrated with me, she finally said it didn't matter even if I got my degree, because "as long as you don't have a job, you don't have any value."

When the lady at the counter said that, I was shell-shocked. My mother (who was with me at that time) told me later that I looked as if I was going to cry.

It is a bitterness and sense of betrayal I've not quite let go of. I've lived here all my life. I love this place. Unlike many of my Singaporean friends, I do not want to emigrate. I love Singapore more than many Singaporeans, and I love it, not because of National Day Parades or standards of living. I love Singapore because of the memories and the people. I know about the economic rationality that seems to underlie government policy here. However, this is the first time I've personally confronted it in its most blatant, undisguised form. I am Singaporean, but the state does not recognise me as such because I don't have a job.

I know that at some point in my life, I will be able to apply successfully. This is not about a failed application attempt. It is about the way the state (or rather, the government) perceives us, its people.

I know every country does this, but there is something fundamentally wrong with seeing people in terms of the economic utility 'society' can get from them. There is something profoundly disturbing about the way the Singapore government (and perhaps, other governments) treat people as commodities, units of labour, for example, in their pro-family policy (increase the amount of future labour) and their education policies (improve the quality of labour).

People are not units of labour to be used, moved around, redesigned, discarded for the welfare of society and state. The state exists for the benefit of individuals. The government is not meant to rule us. It is meant to serve us.

The Singapore PRs, the foreigners, the handicapped, the homosexuals, the unemployed, the elderly... these are not true 'members' of society, they are not to be acknowledged as true members of society unless they can prove themselves 'useful'. And even then, acceptance might only be fleeting and superficial. How can the marginalised be accepted? The marginalised have to prostrate themselves before the altar of economic rationality, and beg to be used.

Liberal democracy

I once went for a job interview with the civil service (I won't say which ministry) that involved job applicants having a little 'discussion' on an assigned topic. One topic was the Prophet cartoons and the huge row they made elsewhere. The topic was initially left open-ended (ie. discuss the cartoons), so we could focus on any aspect of the issue. Halfway through the discussion, however, the facilitator suggested we talk about why there was no such ruckus in Singapore.

After a few suggestions were thrown out, the facilitator stepped in again, and 'suggested' that 'perhaps' the reason there was no unhappiness in Singapore was the success of the government's multi-racial, multi-religious policies.

The facilitator asked us whether we thought it was important for Singapore to maintain its multi-racial policies... and there was a whole chorus of vehement, ringing 'yes'. (and I mean this literally. I kid you not.) We're all Made in Singapore after all. No, I didn't act any differently.

And that section of the discussion ended there. (the other topic we had to discuss was how to get graduates to marry each other and reproduce... and no, we didn't discuss if this was something the government should do.)

Ok, maybe since it was a job interview, people felt compelled to go along with the facilitator. I certainly felt that way. Nevertheless, the way the agenda for the discussion was set by the facilitator, and the way we had our opinions spoon-fed to us was really disappointing.

I wonder if the facilitators or organizers thought about the fact that while they're evaluating us for the job, we're also evaluating them as potential employers. It could be that they thought the prestige (and salary) that went with the job was enough to buy anyone over. It also makes you wonder what kind of people eventually end up in the high levels of the civil service, if such people are picked through selections like this.

During a class discussion, a student who worked for some time in the civil service commented that it was not fair for the Western liberal democracies to tell countries like Singapore to 'liberalize' since they don't know what is best for us. Funny, isn't that usually the argument for liberal democracy? That the government does not, cannot know what is best for the people?

I'm not saying there're no liberal or dissenting voices within the civil service. I'm just wondering if these unorthodox voices are ignored. Perhaps those of you in the civil service will know the situation better. As for myself, I'm pretty discouraged by my 'encounters of the third kind'.

There will be some of you who'll tell me that each company has its own orthodoxies that employees have to follow. I agree entirely. However, politics is a different ballgame altogether. A government is not a company. You can leave a company if you want to, even risking a period of unemployment. You don't have an emotional attachment to the company the way you might have to your country. Your company doesn't permeate all areas of your life, from your marriage, to your entertainment on tv, to your utility bills. I hope. Politics is emotional, it is about the things we value the most - life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

I'm supposed to be studying now! But you see, ever since I stopped being apathetic, I've been so consumed by regular bouts of outrage that I've stopped being productive as well.

Weapons of Mass Disruption

I just attended a seminar on potential terrorist attacks using non-conventional weapons. A large part of the argument was centered around the idea of weapons of mass disruption as opposed to weapons of mass destruction - attacks where the psychological damage is disproportionate to the direct material damage done. Hmmm.

My Suggestion for a Terrorist Attack on Singapore:

Agent and Delivery Method:
Load film of Ronald MacDonald capering around, wearing nothing but his face paint and big red shoes on those big video-screens in your family-friendly heartland mall and along Orchard Road. For maximum effect, make Ronald dance to 'I Will Survive'.

Projected Effects:
Along the road, parents will be simultaneously closing their eyes, and attempting to cover their children's eyes, thus causing traffic gridlock and one or two accidents along the main tourist destination and shopping district of Singapore.

In the heartland malls, families will trample each other in an attempt to escape. The choice of the location of the attacks - civilian shopping areas - is meant to maximize psychological damage done to a broad cross-section of the population, as well as economic disruption (the malls will be closed for weeks).

Long-term social and economic damage to the country will result, as unsupervised teenagers and children stare transfixed at the images, thus corrupting them, and making them gay, decadent, dumb, or all of the above. This will result in a projected decline (approx. 24.6%) in Singapore's social cohesion, Asian values, birth rates, and economic productivity by the year 2012. The attack could also lower Singaporeans' resistance to political leaders dressed in colours other than white (eg. red and yellow), thus putting the state in grave danger of being invaded by (unspecified) neighbouring countries.

The attack will also strike a blow at MacDonald's Corporation, the heart of American capitalism and neo-imperialism. At the very least, they'll have to get rid of that tasteless mascot.

PS. pls mention justareed.blogspot.com in the closing credits of the film

Alternatively, terrorists can take over Singapore's radio stations and broadcast the feature story in Iss.61 of @NTU.

Feature Story - Feisty Freshmen: They pack a punch!
"Teeming with ideas, our irrepressible freshmen from the Class of 2010 are busy hatching dreams, with energy to spare. We find out how some of them are putting more zing into their already full lives - with the help of NTU, of course."

... okay.

Note: this mode of attack has the benefit of being a suicide attack, as the terrorist reading the article will be martyred in a horrendous manner.

FEER

Hohoho check out FEER's rather indignant and outraged response to its ban.

Testimony

Taken off BBC's In Pictures feature on Bulgaria's EU membership. For some reason this is sad.

Ivan Serafimov
Magazine editor, 62

"I am glad Bulgaria is becoming an EU member but that will not change anything in my life. It's too late for me.

I am disappointed by the political and economic transition during the last 16 years because everything was engineered from above.

No-one is telling the truth and no-one cares any more."

Singapore, take note.