Tuesday, January 24, 2006
of fundamental rights
canada had its federal elections today. all across the nation (and i'm talking one fucking huge nation), people dropped in votes for liberals, conservatives, moderates, the ndp, the greens, the marijuanas (yeah, there's a marijuana party) and etc. there was polling booth in totem to cater to students staying on campus. to vote, all you have to be is 18 and above. interestingly, 18 is the legal drinking age here, 19 is the legal clubbing age, but you can vote before you club.
the conservatives have won this federal elections. and it hasn't been a surprise, seeing as it is tt predictions have been weighing the votes in their favour. canada's has been traditionally liberal, and even how it still upholds many of its liberal policies such as tt of a welcoming immigration policy and a view on same-sex marriages, but this time even liberals have voted conservative, not because the liberals suck or have lost their vote of confidence, but because the liberals have been in power for the past 13 years. 13 years is a long long time, and a lot of people feel tt it is not wise to entrench one government in a position of too much power.
in contrast, singapore has had a 1 party rule for the past 41-going-on-42 years. but yes, news of an election is going around. it'll be anytime from this march (after the budget has been announced) to the end of term in 2007, but we won't know exactly when. only the government in power can call for an election date, and till then no one will know when tt will be. i am a singapore citizen, and now tt i am 21 (old enough to have sex, drink, drive, club and watch r21 movies), i have a right to vote. in fact, voting is compulsory, so as an overseas voter, i have to take a flight down to san francisco where my nearest polling booth is (there is none in canada) to cast my vote. but tt is provided tt the district in which i reside will be contested. then again, considering the characteristics and its lack of contestability for the past 12 over years, i doubt i'll be casting anything.
but nonetheless. there has been a furor regarding the wp. this time they have announced their plans to contest 4 grcs: sembawang, ang mo kio, east coast... and damn i can't remember the last one. but tt's pretty mighty news, considering the fact tt since the last elections we've only had 2 opposition members in parliament out of 84 elected mps, and this may bring the promise of a bigger opposition in parliament.
now, i've had someone telling me tt this is not necessarily a good thing. we would need a strong and stable government, and i do not disagree tt we have had tt so far. i appreciate a lot of things in singapore, especially as i am no longer there. and yes, it extends beyond the roti prata. i appreciate the efficient transport system, the banking system, the fact tt people are less singapore-centric and acknowledge the presence and importantce of other countries around. i appreciate tt things can always be found at any time of day at any place, and tt we have so much security tt we more often than not take for granted. and yes, i do not contest tt an opposition will be able to do as good a job (depending on your definition of good) if it were ever to gain power. tt's the rebuttal tt most people put to me: can the opposition govern singapore?
and i have to say at this point in time, of course not. they have not been tried and tested, and there are so few of them right now. and people like j.b. jeyaratname, francis seow; brilliant men, are either not around or do not have the means to enter government anymore, let alone run it. and you have the youngbloods like sylvia lim and james gomez, who as mentioned above are not yet tested and do not have the kind of experience tt you might otherwise have had. and please don't mention dr. chee to me. i acknowledge tt he is probably a brilliant man, and probably has done a lot more than i realise and is more passionate and more reasonable than he is made out to be by the media, but at this point in time i don't know enough of his story to tell otherwise.
can we have a government of opposition? at this point in time, no. but what i do feel is this: we need a stronger opposition. we need a greater majority of opposition members in government. i do not believe tt this will take anything away from the ruling government because i still believe tt the ruling government will win the upcoming elections by a wide margin, simply because there isn't enough opposition to prove a viable threat. but i believe tt with a stronger alternative opposition, more alternative voices may be heard.
like the rationale behind canadians voting conservative instead of liberal, i believe tt there needs to be some shake-ups and changes to government. because no matter how good a government is, what may have worked 41 years ago may no longer work in the phuture (oops. freudian slip), or even now. like how singabloodypore was mentioning, there seems to be an overreliance on regulation tt is a short-cut solution to problems, but poses a lot of long-term issues. i mean, i read about the police issuing warnings to jc girls - fucking 17 and 18 year old teenagers - and people who buy their white elephant t-shirts, tt they will be breaking the law for subversive behaviour, and i feel so embarrassed. do people even remotely consider these t-shirts subsersive? i bet it doesn't even cross their minds. by even mentioning it you guys are planting tt idea into their heads, along with instilling more fear. and what does tt result in?
the same thing tt you are trying to avoid. fear. fear and apathy. it's so hard to care now, so hard to feel. i love singapore, but i'm finding it increasingly harder to love it. i love the food, i love my family and friends, i love the sunny warmth and the familiar sights and smells. but i cannot love the fact tt i feel as though i have no say in my country, as though nothing is funny anymore. i feel like my future company has no sense of humour, tt we only enjoy hunting down ants with ak-47s. how do you expect people to love their country, to develop a sense of belonging, to actually care for their country, if you stifle them or use fear to quell them in the name of security?
singapore has a high standard of living, i will give you tt. but we have a fucking poor quality of life. in terms of quality, places like canada beat us hands-down. voting is something tt people are passionate about. canadian blogs range from liblogs to conservatives to bloggertories; every view point can be actively and passionately discussed. it doesn't matter if you're conservative or liberal, fact remains tt you fucking love your country. tt seems to be something tt we don't seem to get; tt it doesn't matter whether we're pap or wp or sdp or some independent party. tt we all love singapore just the same.
singaporeans, esp my generation and below, so many of us are fucking self-centred. materialistic. all we want to do is study. get good jobs. buy tt fucking house and car. marry the husband/wife of our dreams. have kids. some of us just want to make enough moolah to leave this place. i remember something tt someone said to me before: singaporeans don't know how to fail. kiasu, kiasee, we're always afraid of something. afraid of losing out, afraid of losing face; in canada during my last fundementalism class my tutor was discussing canada and wars. he called the last 2 participations in wwi and wwii "glorious defeats". yes, canada didn't win either war, but they were still something to be proud of, because canadians were willing to fight tooth and nail if they had to, and tt in itself was worth celebrating.
singaporeans in my opinion, tend to be too brittle. we might be hard, we might be tougher (in appearance), but we are brittle.
it's too much restrictions, in my opinion.
anyway the wp launched their 2006 manifesto, and ng eng hen on behalf of the pap called on the wp to rewrite their manifesto as it contained 4 "very dangerous" "time-bombs". included in the "time-bombs" were the wp's call for the abilishment of the grc system and the ep. the pap stand was tt these 2 systems were the "cornerstone" of singapore's existence and could not be removed.
firstly, both the grc system and the ep system are very new. they were introduced around 1990 (give or take a couple of years). singapore has existed and thrived even before from 1965 till then, when there was no grc or ep system. so if both have been cornerstones of singapore's existence, singapore has been balancing on one precarious side pretty well for quite some time.
secondly, i want to make a mention of both the grc system and the ep system. regarding the grc system, the official objective of the grc system is to ensure racial representation in parliament. every team has to consist of one member of each minority race. however, this also means tt when 1 member of the team has been elected into parliament, the rest are in parliament automatically, and not by mandate. only 1 person out of 6 has the full mandate of the people. doesn't tt worry you? secondly, because the ruling party is much larger, more powerful, and due to the timing of election annoucenemtns, usually has more resources and manpower, it is much more able to form teams successfully as compared to a much smaller and weaker opposition. therefore, the grc system also has the effect of entrenching one party in power. thirdly, seriously, can anyone actually name all the members in their grc team? personally, i can never even remember which constituency i belong to because it always changes. one year i was clementi; one year i was ulu pandan; right now i'm not very sure again. and when you can't even remember your constituency, can you name one or more members of your grc, let alone all 6 of them?
if the grc system is vital in preventing chinese from killing indians and indians from killing malays, then singaporeans have sorely been underestimated. ditto with the racial quota for housing. personally, i think tt for a multi-racial society, we are still rather plural. indians still mainly stick to their communities; malays still mainly stick to their communities; chinese still mainly stick to their comminities. but i don't believe tt both the above systems have done all tt much to alleviate the problem. what i feel the main issue is, is in the class-divides. most upper-middle class are chinese; and this class tends to perpetuate itself due to the education system. what we need is a more-inclusive education system, as well as more inter-mingling between the various races. although i agree tt the concept of 1 racial harmony day as proposed by the wp is not a good enough solution, i do believe tt more can be done through schools, through inter-mingling of the races, to encourage social cohesion. for one thing, void deck malay weddings are great fun. :) and everyone loves crossing over to their neighbours' houses for chinese new year and hari raya puasa.
as for the ep, we all understand the rationale behind the ep system. the ep is supposed to be a check and balance to the government. besides veto powers, he is also to safeguard the reserves. in fact, he is so important tt his revised salary stands at $2 million a year. however, due to the very stringent qualities regarding an ep, we haven't had the chance to actually elect our ep in the past 14 years. if we really want an ep tt holds the mandate of the people, we really NEED an ep tt is actually elected. and does not win by walk over. i think tt the criteria for the ep is WAY too stringent, and places too much emphasis on material qualifications. the fact tt he has to be the CEO of a GLC or big company, or a CJ, or an army-general, or something along those lines, is definitely what some might consider a safeguard, coz it means you need some kind of zhainess to get there. and like a friend defended the criteria: we don't want george bush to rule singapore, now do we? yes, i agree tt paper and job qualifications are important. but i find 2 flaws with this argument: 1) there is too much emphasis on paper and job qualifications. just because you were a CEO or an army-general etc etc etc doesn't mean tt you automatically have what it takes to be the president of singapore. some might argue tt this is a surer bet than leaving it entirely in the hands of the people, but this leads in to my 2nd point. 2) the ep is supposed to be elected. as the protector of the people, he is to have the mandate of the people. and what i feel is tt the ep needs to be someone who is in touch with the ground, who understands the majority. if you're always sitting in your ivory tower at the top floor of some high-rise glass-windowed building on shenton way, how much will you know about the life of the man on the street? we've already got enough politicians who are such; we could do with at least one - and the most vital - who is actually in touch with the man on the ground.
if an ep is not elected, if he is unable to fulfil his roles of checking government or safeguarding the reserves (although i don't know to what extent these roles are being fulfilled because there are no reports on them at all from the media, except for the very occasional photos of the ep meeting someone or other somewhere or other, usually around national day or when elections are coming up), then what is the point of having an ep? if we are to have an ep, i think we should at least have more transparency. and we would like to see our protector more often, too.
my last point in this very long entry is this: it seems tt the ruling party has been in power for so long tt it sees itself as being synonymous with the country. any challenge directed towards it seems to be a challenge directed at the country, even though this is not and should not be the case. no matter which party you are in, you are the same country. as such, i find something very very wrong about one party telling another what it should or should not say. as a party, you have no power over another party and you should not try to influence what it has to say as according to your own standards. after all, isn't it all up to the people to decide?
P.S. no, i don't believe i'm treading on dangerous ground. everything here is entirely of my own view and of how i feel about things, and i would like to think tt the modern world does not yet consist of the orwellian thought police. because if thinking dies, then there is no more point to living, now is there. besides, in all graciousness, this enty would be but another testimony tt freedom of expression does exist in my home country. am i not mistaken?
.
.
.
.
.
in other news, on sunday, 13 of us went to chinatown for a very yummy dim sum lunch.
from left to right: tt's me, Ben, Mu Shi, Boon Ping, Siang Sheng, Alvin, Simin, Jo-Ann, Diana, Jillian, Jillian's friend (name unknown), Kelvin and Bang Yao (taking the photo).
it was worth braving the rain for. ah, but i love chinese food now. and chilli and spicy food. and today i went to travel cuts with ben to book our tickets to mexico. how exciting. i am properly excited about mexico. i also went for my psychology and litigation class. the concept is exciting, but dammit if it's a 3 hour seminar, it would be a good idea to give us a break right in the middle (not after over 2 hours) after straight talking, so tt my brain doesn't drain to slumber. but tt said, thank god for lousy but fucking strong coffee. so much for my recovery from caffeine. i'm a caffeine addict again.
now playing: hotel costes - cafe de flor
the conservatives have won this federal elections. and it hasn't been a surprise, seeing as it is tt predictions have been weighing the votes in their favour. canada's has been traditionally liberal, and even how it still upholds many of its liberal policies such as tt of a welcoming immigration policy and a view on same-sex marriages, but this time even liberals have voted conservative, not because the liberals suck or have lost their vote of confidence, but because the liberals have been in power for the past 13 years. 13 years is a long long time, and a lot of people feel tt it is not wise to entrench one government in a position of too much power.
in contrast, singapore has had a 1 party rule for the past 41-going-on-42 years. but yes, news of an election is going around. it'll be anytime from this march (after the budget has been announced) to the end of term in 2007, but we won't know exactly when. only the government in power can call for an election date, and till then no one will know when tt will be. i am a singapore citizen, and now tt i am 21 (old enough to have sex, drink, drive, club and watch r21 movies), i have a right to vote. in fact, voting is compulsory, so as an overseas voter, i have to take a flight down to san francisco where my nearest polling booth is (there is none in canada) to cast my vote. but tt is provided tt the district in which i reside will be contested. then again, considering the characteristics and its lack of contestability for the past 12 over years, i doubt i'll be casting anything.
but nonetheless. there has been a furor regarding the wp. this time they have announced their plans to contest 4 grcs: sembawang, ang mo kio, east coast... and damn i can't remember the last one. but tt's pretty mighty news, considering the fact tt since the last elections we've only had 2 opposition members in parliament out of 84 elected mps, and this may bring the promise of a bigger opposition in parliament.
now, i've had someone telling me tt this is not necessarily a good thing. we would need a strong and stable government, and i do not disagree tt we have had tt so far. i appreciate a lot of things in singapore, especially as i am no longer there. and yes, it extends beyond the roti prata. i appreciate the efficient transport system, the banking system, the fact tt people are less singapore-centric and acknowledge the presence and importantce of other countries around. i appreciate tt things can always be found at any time of day at any place, and tt we have so much security tt we more often than not take for granted. and yes, i do not contest tt an opposition will be able to do as good a job (depending on your definition of good) if it were ever to gain power. tt's the rebuttal tt most people put to me: can the opposition govern singapore?
and i have to say at this point in time, of course not. they have not been tried and tested, and there are so few of them right now. and people like j.b. jeyaratname, francis seow; brilliant men, are either not around or do not have the means to enter government anymore, let alone run it. and you have the youngbloods like sylvia lim and james gomez, who as mentioned above are not yet tested and do not have the kind of experience tt you might otherwise have had. and please don't mention dr. chee to me. i acknowledge tt he is probably a brilliant man, and probably has done a lot more than i realise and is more passionate and more reasonable than he is made out to be by the media, but at this point in time i don't know enough of his story to tell otherwise.
can we have a government of opposition? at this point in time, no. but what i do feel is this: we need a stronger opposition. we need a greater majority of opposition members in government. i do not believe tt this will take anything away from the ruling government because i still believe tt the ruling government will win the upcoming elections by a wide margin, simply because there isn't enough opposition to prove a viable threat. but i believe tt with a stronger alternative opposition, more alternative voices may be heard.
like the rationale behind canadians voting conservative instead of liberal, i believe tt there needs to be some shake-ups and changes to government. because no matter how good a government is, what may have worked 41 years ago may no longer work in the phuture (oops. freudian slip), or even now. like how singabloodypore was mentioning, there seems to be an overreliance on regulation tt is a short-cut solution to problems, but poses a lot of long-term issues. i mean, i read about the police issuing warnings to jc girls - fucking 17 and 18 year old teenagers - and people who buy their white elephant t-shirts, tt they will be breaking the law for subversive behaviour, and i feel so embarrassed. do people even remotely consider these t-shirts subsersive? i bet it doesn't even cross their minds. by even mentioning it you guys are planting tt idea into their heads, along with instilling more fear. and what does tt result in?
the same thing tt you are trying to avoid. fear. fear and apathy. it's so hard to care now, so hard to feel. i love singapore, but i'm finding it increasingly harder to love it. i love the food, i love my family and friends, i love the sunny warmth and the familiar sights and smells. but i cannot love the fact tt i feel as though i have no say in my country, as though nothing is funny anymore. i feel like my future company has no sense of humour, tt we only enjoy hunting down ants with ak-47s. how do you expect people to love their country, to develop a sense of belonging, to actually care for their country, if you stifle them or use fear to quell them in the name of security?
singapore has a high standard of living, i will give you tt. but we have a fucking poor quality of life. in terms of quality, places like canada beat us hands-down. voting is something tt people are passionate about. canadian blogs range from liblogs to conservatives to bloggertories; every view point can be actively and passionately discussed. it doesn't matter if you're conservative or liberal, fact remains tt you fucking love your country. tt seems to be something tt we don't seem to get; tt it doesn't matter whether we're pap or wp or sdp or some independent party. tt we all love singapore just the same.
singaporeans, esp my generation and below, so many of us are fucking self-centred. materialistic. all we want to do is study. get good jobs. buy tt fucking house and car. marry the husband/wife of our dreams. have kids. some of us just want to make enough moolah to leave this place. i remember something tt someone said to me before: singaporeans don't know how to fail. kiasu, kiasee, we're always afraid of something. afraid of losing out, afraid of losing face; in canada during my last fundementalism class my tutor was discussing canada and wars. he called the last 2 participations in wwi and wwii "glorious defeats". yes, canada didn't win either war, but they were still something to be proud of, because canadians were willing to fight tooth and nail if they had to, and tt in itself was worth celebrating.
singaporeans in my opinion, tend to be too brittle. we might be hard, we might be tougher (in appearance), but we are brittle.
it's too much restrictions, in my opinion.
anyway the wp launched their 2006 manifesto, and ng eng hen on behalf of the pap called on the wp to rewrite their manifesto as it contained 4 "very dangerous" "time-bombs". included in the "time-bombs" were the wp's call for the abilishment of the grc system and the ep. the pap stand was tt these 2 systems were the "cornerstone" of singapore's existence and could not be removed.
firstly, both the grc system and the ep system are very new. they were introduced around 1990 (give or take a couple of years). singapore has existed and thrived even before from 1965 till then, when there was no grc or ep system. so if both have been cornerstones of singapore's existence, singapore has been balancing on one precarious side pretty well for quite some time.
secondly, i want to make a mention of both the grc system and the ep system. regarding the grc system, the official objective of the grc system is to ensure racial representation in parliament. every team has to consist of one member of each minority race. however, this also means tt when 1 member of the team has been elected into parliament, the rest are in parliament automatically, and not by mandate. only 1 person out of 6 has the full mandate of the people. doesn't tt worry you? secondly, because the ruling party is much larger, more powerful, and due to the timing of election annoucenemtns, usually has more resources and manpower, it is much more able to form teams successfully as compared to a much smaller and weaker opposition. therefore, the grc system also has the effect of entrenching one party in power. thirdly, seriously, can anyone actually name all the members in their grc team? personally, i can never even remember which constituency i belong to because it always changes. one year i was clementi; one year i was ulu pandan; right now i'm not very sure again. and when you can't even remember your constituency, can you name one or more members of your grc, let alone all 6 of them?
if the grc system is vital in preventing chinese from killing indians and indians from killing malays, then singaporeans have sorely been underestimated. ditto with the racial quota for housing. personally, i think tt for a multi-racial society, we are still rather plural. indians still mainly stick to their communities; malays still mainly stick to their communities; chinese still mainly stick to their comminities. but i don't believe tt both the above systems have done all tt much to alleviate the problem. what i feel the main issue is, is in the class-divides. most upper-middle class are chinese; and this class tends to perpetuate itself due to the education system. what we need is a more-inclusive education system, as well as more inter-mingling between the various races. although i agree tt the concept of 1 racial harmony day as proposed by the wp is not a good enough solution, i do believe tt more can be done through schools, through inter-mingling of the races, to encourage social cohesion. for one thing, void deck malay weddings are great fun. :) and everyone loves crossing over to their neighbours' houses for chinese new year and hari raya puasa.
as for the ep, we all understand the rationale behind the ep system. the ep is supposed to be a check and balance to the government. besides veto powers, he is also to safeguard the reserves. in fact, he is so important tt his revised salary stands at $2 million a year. however, due to the very stringent qualities regarding an ep, we haven't had the chance to actually elect our ep in the past 14 years. if we really want an ep tt holds the mandate of the people, we really NEED an ep tt is actually elected. and does not win by walk over. i think tt the criteria for the ep is WAY too stringent, and places too much emphasis on material qualifications. the fact tt he has to be the CEO of a GLC or big company, or a CJ, or an army-general, or something along those lines, is definitely what some might consider a safeguard, coz it means you need some kind of zhainess to get there. and like a friend defended the criteria: we don't want george bush to rule singapore, now do we? yes, i agree tt paper and job qualifications are important. but i find 2 flaws with this argument: 1) there is too much emphasis on paper and job qualifications. just because you were a CEO or an army-general etc etc etc doesn't mean tt you automatically have what it takes to be the president of singapore. some might argue tt this is a surer bet than leaving it entirely in the hands of the people, but this leads in to my 2nd point. 2) the ep is supposed to be elected. as the protector of the people, he is to have the mandate of the people. and what i feel is tt the ep needs to be someone who is in touch with the ground, who understands the majority. if you're always sitting in your ivory tower at the top floor of some high-rise glass-windowed building on shenton way, how much will you know about the life of the man on the street? we've already got enough politicians who are such; we could do with at least one - and the most vital - who is actually in touch with the man on the ground.
if an ep is not elected, if he is unable to fulfil his roles of checking government or safeguarding the reserves (although i don't know to what extent these roles are being fulfilled because there are no reports on them at all from the media, except for the very occasional photos of the ep meeting someone or other somewhere or other, usually around national day or when elections are coming up), then what is the point of having an ep? if we are to have an ep, i think we should at least have more transparency. and we would like to see our protector more often, too.
my last point in this very long entry is this: it seems tt the ruling party has been in power for so long tt it sees itself as being synonymous with the country. any challenge directed towards it seems to be a challenge directed at the country, even though this is not and should not be the case. no matter which party you are in, you are the same country. as such, i find something very very wrong about one party telling another what it should or should not say. as a party, you have no power over another party and you should not try to influence what it has to say as according to your own standards. after all, isn't it all up to the people to decide?
P.S. no, i don't believe i'm treading on dangerous ground. everything here is entirely of my own view and of how i feel about things, and i would like to think tt the modern world does not yet consist of the orwellian thought police. because if thinking dies, then there is no more point to living, now is there. besides, in all graciousness, this enty would be but another testimony tt freedom of expression does exist in my home country. am i not mistaken?
.
.
.
.
.
in other news, on sunday, 13 of us went to chinatown for a very yummy dim sum lunch.
from left to right: tt's me, Ben, Mu Shi, Boon Ping, Siang Sheng, Alvin, Simin, Jo-Ann, Diana, Jillian, Jillian's friend (name unknown), Kelvin and Bang Yao (taking the photo).
it was worth braving the rain for. ah, but i love chinese food now. and chilli and spicy food. and today i went to travel cuts with ben to book our tickets to mexico. how exciting. i am properly excited about mexico. i also went for my psychology and litigation class. the concept is exciting, but dammit if it's a 3 hour seminar, it would be a good idea to give us a break right in the middle (not after over 2 hours) after straight talking, so tt my brain doesn't drain to slumber. but tt said, thank god for lousy but fucking strong coffee. so much for my recovery from caffeine. i'm a caffeine addict again.
# posted by Kitana @ 1/24/2006 02:00:00 PM 
