Framing the Concept of Privilege - The Privilege Level

Privilege continues to be a sore point for many - even among those who do not dispute that groups of people enjoy unearned advantages purely due to the circumstances of their birth. We now understand that Privilege can come in many forms and is contextually situated across several generations, but we seem to be at an intellectual place where debate revolves around "who's privilege is more pronounced". For instance, a white woman and a black man suffer discrimination on a daily basis in America, but generally, many would argue that the black man has it worse. But if the black man was an affluent Wall Street banker while the white woman was a struggling (low-paid) clerk among Wall Street bankers, then a different case can be made as to who is suffering more discrimination.

At the end of the day, we want to define Privilege in definitive terms that can be generalised, but the very nature of Privilege is that it cannot be exact - otherwise we would have been able to counter it by now. What we can do though, is to find a better way to describe the intensity of Privilege as it exists in today's world. Perhaps, then, we can spend less time arguing over who has it worse and focus more on how to check Privilege as it exists in that time and place.

Introducing the Privilege Level

I think we need to start with levels - Level as in "extent or depth" rather than "hierarchy" per se.

A Level 1 Privilege might be where an individual has had to worry about no consequences whatsoever from the moment of conception. We could characterise this as the stereotypical popular culture reference of a white male born into wealth, who has financial investments from two generations ago to last him till two generations after (i.e. more money than available time to spend it).

A Level 2 Privilege might be where an individual doesn't necessarily enjoy a life entirely devoid of worry or consequences but has little reason to worry. There is always the chance that the Privilege they enjoy might be taken away but it is only a remote possibility at best. This level of privilege could include those who have worked their way out of the discrimination either by chance (e.g. won the lottery) or by extraordinary effort (e.g. migrating to a country where the Privilege is in their favour). 

A Level 3 Privilege might be where an individual encounters clear disadvantages or discrimination in some parts of their life while being largely unaffected or unworried in other parts. Depending on their life's developments, the discrimination they face can lessen or worsen, or they can find themselves being exposed to new types of discrimination that they had not expected to experience (i.e. one of the unconscious Privileges they enjoyed has been taken away).

A Level 4 Privilege might be where an individual is born into discrimination and it would take extraordinary circumstances - most of it, beyond any personal effort alone could ever achieve - to prevent the lack of Privilege from subjugating the person. Essentially, this level denotes someone with practically no benefit of Privilege whatsoever in any part of their life.

These levels can account for the different variations (e.g. poor white woman versus rich black man) that exist in reality. For example, while we can point to an elite banker who is a white male and identify to a strong degree of accuracy that he is enjoying Level 1 Privilege, it becomes less clear when we are discussing a rich black man or a poor white woman. Either or both could be at Level 2 or Level 3 Privilege depending on the particular context.

What an understanding of these levels can help us achieve is to stop arguing about whose Privilege is more pronounced and focus on the impact of that Privilege. Many of us would fall into Level 2 or Level 3 or might be moving in and out of both. However, in most cases, the debate is polarised as though a person with Level 4 Privilege is facing off against one with Level 1 Privilege.

Applying the Privilege Level

It is clear that a Level 2 vs Level 3 Privilege debate would be less about absolutes and more about issues as compared to a Level 1 vs Level 4 debate. A good case would be how the Privilege discussion exists in Singapore. The minorities here are nowhere near what can be described as Level 4 Privilege, but clearly exist at Level 3 with many at Level 2. Likewise, the majority race are largely at Level 2 with a considerable number at Level 3. Looking at how Singapore has come to be over the last two centuries, very few can claim to be at Level 1 Privilege - perhaps some from the ruling elite and those from well-established businesses that are family-owned for generations.

However, when Singaporeans discuss Privilege, the majority group gets annoyed because they are nowhere near Level 1 Privilege, yet are being accused of being so. Meanwhile, the minority group gets annoyed because their Level 3 Privilege struggles are dismissed as an overstatement and they are deemed to be at Level 2 instead.

Level-Up the Privilege Discussion

What we need to do in order to meaningfully discuss Privilege in all its forms is to recognise that this dynamic is fluid in nature. These Privilege Levels perhaps help us to make this distinction. Hopefully, we can move away from the minority group having to portray themselves as Level 4 Privilege in order to get their point across and speaking to the majority group in terms of absolutes that paint the latter at Level 1 Privilege. Likewise, this framework of Privilege may help the majority group who are merely at Level 2 Privilege, to see how difficult it might be to fall into Level 3 Privilege.

I propose these Privilege Levels as just the start point and may not yet explain the full dynamics of how Privilege exists in societies at the micro and macro level. It might even need to be expanded on to offer a better reflection of reality. But, I am confident that this will take us in the right direction.

One Man's Marriage Proposal is Everyone's Joke

Recently, the following meme started circulating on social media that pokes fun at the inherent logic-impasse that exists between the atypical method used by the groom and the poetic representation on the card he is holding. Primarily focusing on the fact that using an oxygen tank is the exact contradiction to declaring "I can breathe without oxygen", the meme ridicules the apparent stupidity of the groom.

While it is harsh to call it stupid - in reality, the gesture is indeed quite novel and worthy of a marriage proposal, the irony of the statement he is holding to his situation of having to use underwater breathing equipment is just too good to leave un-ridiculed. Even I decided to capitalise on the momentum and highlight the need for people and business to invest in professional wordsmiths.

Interestingly though, this is the second iteration of a meme on this incident - an earlier version that plays on the same irony seems to have been circulated in 2014. One can only assume that the embarrassment of that news cycle sent the couple into hiding - the bride's Instagram account and Facebook profile appear to have been locked into privacy.

But running away and hiding is not the way forward - simply because 'comedy gold' like this will keep resurfacing. Instead, the strategy would be to 'own it' instead and laugh with the crowd rather than reinforce the fact that you've become the laughing stock.

Course of Action

For this case, my recommendation would be to turn the contradictory phrase "breathe without oxygen" as an inside joke or reference between the couple to refer to how the groom is able to stay underwater for long periods of time (albeit using underwater breathing equipment). Once the narrative is changed in such a way, the focus of the running joke is effectively voided and makes the irony less pronounced.

The next step would be to openly link this clarification to all instances of a related meme turning up so that whenever a web search is made, the results will invariably list that information as one of the results. The link to the new narrative can be in the form of a blogpost that can be updated with links to the different memes as they appear, or a Facebook or Twitter post referencing the latest meme and adding the context each time. In fact, turning the periodic web traffic that will occur to their advantage, the couple could use the strategy to draw attention to any business endeavour they might be involved in or simply discuss any particular advocacy they might be interested in.

In any case, the negative attention should be used to redefine a more robust - if not, positive - profile of themselves rather than the current state of proving the criticism by going underground. I've made attempts to touch base with the couple through the friend who first wrote about the proposal but unfortunately, I haven't heard back from them or the friend.

In today's digital highway, anything can go viral, and worse, even insignificant indiscretions can be repackaged to go viral. If you find yourself in such an enviable position, don't suffer in silence. Be empowered to control the situation to your advantage. Remember, while you can't control what the beast that is the internet will do, you can certainly exercise control on how badly this beast hurts you.

Reach out to me if you need help managing your social media presence.

Marginalisation of Tamil Culture: Do Something or STFU

In recent days, many in the Tamil community have had their panties in a bunch because some shopping centres and even Changi Airport have started putting up Christmas decor even though Deepavali is right around the corner - in other words, not a single F was given for this festive occasion. While there is good reason to feel marginalised by this callous attitude in multiracial Singapore that champions racial harmony - complete with a special day each year to wear 'costumes' and 'celebrate', I am surprised that anyone is surprised by this.

நான் இந்த விளையாட்டுக்கு வரவில்லை

As a second class citizen myself, I'm sure there are many Tamils who have grown accustomed to this and some of those would have even followed Halloween traditions more closely than their own cultural protocols. And I'm certain that the very people who now 'cry mother, cry father' on social media will tomorrow visit these same establishments "because they have the best deals", "because it is my _____'s birthday", "because it's just this one time", because... a thousand irrelevant reasons.

I am pretty confident too that close to 70% of those fuming at this (with 99% confidence in those venting online) don't have the passion and commitment to their culture to turn all this grumbling into real, concrete action. None of them will truly boycott these establishments to show their stand against being marginalised. In reality, these people are just making a mockery of the Indian culture and the Tamil community by being whiny little b**ches online - complain about marginalisation but 'ownself damage' the standing of the community through inaction and apathy.

வாயை மூடிகிட்டுச் சும்மா இருங்கடா

Many of these 'deeply aggrieved' Indians will no doubt conveniently overlook WHY the shopping centres and even Changi Airport didn't bother to recognise the festive holiday linked to one of the four official languages in Singapore. It's obvious that these people don't see the irony of now demanding tokenism be practised by commercial entities - which would just continue to trivialise the larger issues of importance. Once again, this subset of Singaporeans fights over the scraps instead of climbing up to the table to demand a share of the real deal.

As much as you would like to believe otherwise, the larger community is not going to understand what the furor is about because they haven't felt the pain of being scheduled for some unnecessary thing (that could have been done earlier or later) during their important festive period. Deadlines almost never fall on Chinese New Year eve and assignments are hardly made due on any of the first fifteen days.

அவனை நிறுத்தச் சொல், நான் நிறுத்துகிறேன்

The point is that if all those who now make so much noise had actually bothered to stand up during all these occasions (and I guarantee you every working Tamil in Singapore has suffered such an experience), we wouldn't have to embarrass ourselves with this petty behaviour. There is no point being indignant about a practical consequence, really. Nobody cares about your culture because YOU don't care about your culture. You are not willing to get your hands dirty to fight, so why are you now surprised that they couldn't be bothered about what you believe in?

So please, STFU and live with it quietly. Or... get up and do something about the indiscretions that happen everyday around you, at work, with your non-Indian friends, in your everyday lives. And if you start to think that this sounds quite inconvenient - well, that's precisely what a cultural struggle looks like, not your Facebook posts about the decor at Metro.

Burning Down the Columbarium - The Power of Citizen Journalism

Anyone in Singapore knows that the business-government relationship is stronger than any marriage can ever be, and it is seldom the case that the government backs down on big-ticket deals related to infrastructure. For example, the casinos Integrated Resorts (IRs) faced a severe backlash from many Singaporeans who grew up with the notion that gambling was the devil's work. Since our government doesn't practice having a referendum on such major decisions, the deal was already signed even before the backlash took form. And in spite of everything that was said and done by the people of Singapore, the IRs became a reality and today, have become part and parcel of our life.

Having such strong bonds between business venture and government support, it has always traditionally been difficult to get the government to call off deals that appears to be to the people's detriment, primarily because it feels that it has made the best decision but also perhaps a little over-confidence that it wouldn't make major mistakes.

Citizen Journalism in Action

And thus the Sengkang Columbarium Saga happened, where a site next to a new housing estate was revealed to be won through tender by a private company that intended to build a columbarium facility there. When the news broke in late December, it understandably sent homebuyers into a frenzied state of anger and panic as they sought clarification and details.

Following this sizeable backlash, a dialogue session was held on 4 January 2015 between the affected homebuyers, the developer, the authorities (HDB and URA) and the MP of the constituency where assurances were made that HDB and URA would look into the concerns of these soon-to-be residents of the estate.

However, just two days later, on 6 January 2015, a joint press release was issued by the authorities to affirm that there would be no change to the situation and that the private company would be allowed to carry on with its plan for the site.

Over that same period, I had started looking closely at the company involved and its background, and discovered that the company had a very dubious layout. Using publicly available information from various sources, I pieced together the convoluted money trail and established just how far the rabbit hole went insofar as this company that won the tender was concerned. The article I prepared was then published on The Online Citizen on 9 January 2015.

And then subsequently, there was little activity on the mainstream media about this issue until it was announced in parliament by Dr Khaw Boon Wan on 29 January 2015 that the tender had been revoked.

My take is that the obvious negative outlook of the company on account of its layout and funding sources made it too unsavoury for the government to be involved with. I would even go far as to suggest that if not for my article spelling out just how questionable it was, I don't think the tender would have been revoked.

Truth Prevails

Now, the naysayers will naturally say that I am just full of it and that it was all just coincidence, not causation. Yes, that is surely a possibility. But, can you really say with definitive authority that the article did not force the government's hand in any way at all? 

The fact is many members of the mainstream media follow The Online Citizen (TOC) and the article was extensively shared on many other platforms. It is therefore hard to imagine that no decision-maker involved had been informed of the findings in my article.

And that's the point I'm driving at. As long as the possibility is there, we must continue to believe that our efforts to unearth the truth will bring about justice - even in a place as squeaky clean as Singapore. Instead of making blanket statements based on half-truths, choose an issue you believe in and tear it down with evidence and established facts.

If you're not good with words, you can still pass on the information to sites like TOC which are committed to getting reliable information out to the people. If that too isn't an option for you, then support those who are actually putting in the effort in seeking the truth. You've seen these people and have benefited from them, but have you actually recognised their efforts well?

Donate money, share their work and refer people who can contribute information to them - do something. Because citizen journalism is a movement, not just pockets of individuals. And everyone can be part of this movement towards truth.

Apparently Town Councils are Political, and PA is not

An interesting exchange happened this week as I met up with a Youth Executive Committee member of a Constituency Club (CC) located in an opposition ward. The meeting itself was with regard to a school project that I am undertaking but as we discussed the possibilities, he mentioned that using services and venues that come under the purview of the Town Council would be problematic. While he admitted that the Town Council would largely accede to the request, it was not with the same frequency and almost-hassle-free manner in which it could be done under a PAP Town Council.

To this gentleman, the People's Association was non-partisan and focuses on community engagement, while the Town Council was an extension of the political party controlling the institution. He shared that PAP Town Councils work closely with the People's Association and offer many privileges such as the complimentary use of venues like void decks, or at a nominal fee.

source: Singapore Infopedia

It was amusing to me because of two realities. One, the People's Association has a much more closer relationship to the PAP than Town Councils. And two, Town Councils are municipal services that ought to be part of the government machinery - even if it is through an elected representative from the opposition party.

In fact, I would even go as far to say that it is precisely BECAUSE the Town Council is non-political, that there is no preferential treatment for services offered to the People's Association. The Town Council's primary role is to address the residents' basic needs in terms of their living space and manage the services provided properly. To me it makes sense to allow residents more leeway in paying their conservancy fees than to offer nominal fees to community engagement activities.

To use an analogy, if one business charges the same rate to strangers and friends alike while another charges a lower rate for those it considers friends, which would you consider was being professional in its dealings? The friends enjoying the preferential rate would of course describe the other flat-pricing business not as good, but in the larger picture, who is really being fair?

source: CIA

In another observation as the friendly conversation progressed, the gentleman took pains to clarify that the Meet-the-People Sessions (MPS) were conducted near a block of flats across the road from the CC, and not within the CC itself - "because the MPS is political". I nearly laughed out loud at that because a Member of Parliament meeting the constituents he or she is representing to address their issues is anything but political. The fact that the MP belongs to one political party or another is merely a statement of fact, not implication.

I have no doubt the people volunteering their time through the People's Association have the best intentions to serve the community - after all, I was part of this at one point in my life, not long ago. But to buy into this propaganda that the People's Association is non-partisan in practice and that Town Councils are politically motivated is really sad.

Yes, the political rhetoric can be twisted to suit each party's agenda, but the proof is in the pudding. Who are the ones being invited to People's Association events without fail? And who are the ones NOT being invited - even to the extent of being actively avoided? Who are being appointed as advisers - sometimes with the oversight that supersedes the power entrusted to the parliamentary representative elected by the people?

As I've said many times before - and something in which I believe very strongly - once the elections are over, everyone in parliament becomes the government and should work towards progress for the nation, betterment of society and improvement in the citizens' lives. Some citizens getting penalised for their choice of parliamentary representative is deplorable and is a very dark stain on Singapore's reputation.

I Could Have Stopped The Riot

As many of you might know, I was an officer with the Singapore Police Force (SPF) for ten years and spent quite an amount of that time plying my trade in Little India. I left the force in 2005 for a several reasons, one of which was the way the SPF was turning out to be. With so much documentation and miscellaneous duties, policing became too much about following procedures rather than fighting crime - and worse, victims, perpetrators and every human being in the process became just another inanimate feature of each case.

When I first heard about rumours of a riot in Little India, I expected it to be an exaggeration of some accident scene because of the crowd that had gathered. But as the story unfolded, it quite sounded like mob mentality had resulted in wanton public violence.

However, as the details eventually become established, it looks more and more like a typical incident that spiralled out of control. In my time as a police officer attending cases in the vicinity of Little India, coming across accidents on a crowded Sunday evening is not something new - as is coming across disputes, thefts and even robberies. In this case, (possibly) careless driving led to a pedestrian (or disembarking passenger, as some eye witness testimonies suggest) being run over.

Naturally, as anyone who has been to Little India will tell you, a large crowd formed at the scene of the accident and fellow countrymen of the injured person started to panic and look at ways to extricate him from the situation. However, the bus driver (perhaps out of fear) chose to remain inside and not move the vehicle, which only served to exacerbate the situation. The distraught bystanders who were trying to help then became desperate and tried to break into the bus in order to move it (notice the lack of aggression or violence in the video below).

As one can expect, dustbins and random pieces of equipment would not be able to break the tempered glass of the windows or doors and so, the desperation merely escalated. Eventually, the Police arrived at the scene and (probably) projected aloofness, which gave the impression that the officers didn't care about the injured person or the despairing bystanders. By addressing the needs of the bus driver (who must have looked like the victim under the circumstances) the bystanders and others watching on the sidelines would have felt incredibly marginalised.

This is probably what infuriated others not directly involved with trying to rescue the injured person, and here is where the mob mentality truly set in, not any earlier. Having reached this tipping point, the bystanders would have reacted angrily and started attacking the Police vehicles and - by extension - the rescue vehicles (and personnel).

What I Would Have Done

After learning of these details I was actually surprised, because I have encountered similar elements and circumstances in other incidents while I was an officer myself. In fact I have brought things under control in similarly escalating situations before.

Basically, it is all about perception and a crowd of Indian workers expect sympathy and some concern for a fellow countryman who has been injured (or killed). Even with most of the situation already unfolding at the point when the Police arrived, I am fairly confident it could have been brought under control. I presume the situation to be a small crowd of distraught workers panicking and trying to gain access into the bus so that it can be moved to aid the rescue of the injured/dead person, surrounded by a larger crowd of onlookers (this has been corroborated by the description given in the letter from the Singapore High Commissioner to India).

Thus, upon reaching, the main persons to be addressed would have been the bus driver, the injured person and the group of distraught workers. Simply empathising with the distraught workers and letting them know that you are there to help the injured person would have actually calmed them down significantly and secured their cooperation (as opposed to unilaterally instructing them to stop their perceived aggression). By keeping the focus of this distraught group on rescuing the injured person (or his body), attention could have been diverted away from the driver inside the bus.

Next, getting the cooperation of the bus driver to move the bus or allow another officer to enter the bus to assist/direct the next course of action could have given control over to the officers at the scene since the crowd's objectives (gaining access to the bus to move it and aiding the injured person) would have been met. The watching bystanders would have had no reason to get angry and would have been satisfied that the authorities were being fair to the situation.

Depending on how heated the atmosphere was at the time, the bystanders could even have been co-opted to help console and reason with the distraught group, which would have diverted focus of this larger group onto the injured person and the affected workers rather than deliberate on the cause of the accident.

With the crowd thus under control and basically responsive to the police officers at the scene, medical aid could have been rendered without much interference and any hostility. Even with the injured person being pronounced dead, the crowd reaction could have been limited to just the grief by discussing the deceased's family instead of the cause of death (i.e. the accident) or about seeking justice. At this point, the bystanders could be asked to disperse or move back so that emergency vehicles and personnel can do the necessary. Once this space and distance has been created, the bus driver could be whisked away from the scene to further dissipate any tension at the point of accident.

All this could have been executed without the need for too many officers on duty and with no necessity for the SOC (i.e. 'riot police') being activated or for the need to recall all the off-duty officers of two police stations (which is what happened on Sunday night). While this is being portrayed as a major incident with all manner of pointless initiatives being rolled out as a knee-jerk reaction - not to mention the inevitable additional workload that awaits the already-overworked police officers of the area, in reality it all stems from a routine circumstance that has happened many, many times in various parts of Little India over the years.

This is why I am particularly saddened by this incident - an accident aftermath that was allowed to escalate into something so serious, and it is the first time since I left the SPF 8 years ago that I feel a tinge of regret - because had I not resigned, this riot may very well not even have happened.

_________________

Interestingly, I have covered the basics of this sort of situation in Chapter 3 (Handling Disputes) of my book which I published in 2008. If you're interested, feel free to click the button below to get it in ebook format.

ST's Rachel Chang Misinforms Public On Election Process

The comedy of the Elections Department mucking up the one job they really have (I created a meme on this - see below) was a source of great fun. How else can I rationalise the authority on the matter going to the Police instead of explaining to the public and the PM sending a proxy to explain the matter which is clearly under his purview.

But the funniest thing really has to be a 'political writer' from the main broadsheet in Singapore describing the election process so erroneously. I had to do a double-take when I first read the paragraph "...after the close of polling, ballots are transferred into different boxes which are sealed and escorted to counting centres, and the empty boxes left behind..." I actually had to check and make sure I hadn't understood the most basic of the voting process wrongly all these years (after all, we are given to believe the Straits Times is the holy grail of journalism).

Ballot boxes are checked, sealed and guarded before the votes are cast and they remain so until they are ready for counting - which happens at counting centres. So the process is --> ballot box sealed at voting centre --> votes are cast into said sealed box --> voting closes --> ballot box transported under Police security to counting centre (source: Elections Department). This essentially is the chain of custody that ensures no tampering and it makes no sense to meddle with the sealed box at the voting centre.

It's amazing that dear Rachel doesn't even understand the election process - it obviously isn't a typo but conceptual fallacy. The editor too - whoever it is (and I couldn't be bothered to check) - obviously doesn't respect himself/herself enough to proofread and check the facts. So this is what the "right thing" is all about huh, Minister Yaacob Ibrahim?

No matter how many awards you bestow on yourself or how much the government paints a lovely picture of you, it is ultimately the quality of your content that determines how good you really are, Straits Times. I'd spend more time upgrading the quality of your reporting instead of hounding ordinary citizens like a shameless bully to pay licensing fees for reproducing articles online which they themselves are featured in.

Cease & Desist What, Mr Zainudin Nordin? Discussion?

On Wednesday (8 May 2013) morning, I was looking through my Facebook news feeds during a break when I chanced upon a post on The Rice Bowl page which mentioned that a Member of Parliament representing the Bishan-Toa Payoh Group Representation Constituency, Zainudin Nordin, had made some rather controversial comments on his public Facebook page.

I was perplexed at this assertion, what with him having directly benefited from the democratic process to become a member of parliament in Singapore - one of the highest paid politicians in the world. The issue of why an MP would use gang rape to explain the concept of democracy continued to bug me and so I decided create the following meme and share it on my facebook page to ask whether he had seriously said such a thing.

My friends and I had some discussion on the matter and soon after, someone pointed me to a screenshot (below) of the statement made by Zainudin. It was actually a quotation from Terry Goodkind, an author, and the entire quotation in its entirety emphasises that democracy should not come at the price of the individual's rights (Goodkind was referring to America's attempts to install a democracy in Iraq during an interview).

I duly added this information that night to the meme that had been posted itself but still continued to wonder what the MP was implying by posting that quotation on his Facebook page. Could it be that he felt the Singapore government was infringing upon the individual's rights here? Or did he hold a dim view of democracy altogether? More questions seemed to arise from a better understanding of the post as it appeared on the MP's Facebook page than before I had that information.

Imagine my surprise when I saw an email from 'zainudinnordin@gmail.com' in my email inbox the next morning, and at first I was quite impressed that the MP had sought me out personally to discuss and clarify his position. Alas, this happy moment was shortlived when the text read:

Dear Mr Gangasudhan,

You have posted a picture of me together with a quote “Gang rape, after all, is democracy in action”, which you have attributed to me.   This is a statement by Terry Goodkind, and not me.   Your post is therefore mischievous and highly defamatory of me, and calculated to embarrass me and cause me damage.   I therefore demand that you remove your post immediately, failing which I will have no option but to take the appropriate legal action against you. All my rights are reserved.

Thank you.
Zainudin Nordin

Honestly, it was quite upsetting to see an MP resort to hostility when open discussion and honest debate could have clarified the matter. I felt unduly persecuted by a person of authority when all I had done was pose a question. At first, I just wanted to delete the meme and be over with it, never again to trust Zainudin Nordin, but after some thought, I felt it would be more constructive to use this opportunity to engage the MP and understand his stand on the concept of democracy and gain insight as to why he would endorse Terry Goodkind's statement. I thus sent the following reply to him, in the hopes that he will refrain from a hostile approach and adopt a more inclusive attitude, befitting an elected official in a democratic institution:

Dear sir, I am puzzled as to why you might feel embarrassed by the combination of your image and a reproduction of what you posted publically on your Facebook page. But more importantly, as a voting member of the public, I am very disturbed by what seems to be your endorsement of this opinion that democracy can be explained away using a heinous crime such as gang rape.

Generally, I do not bother with politicians’ Facebook pages but when I chanced upon a Facebook posting elsewhere on Wednesday morning (https://www.facebook.com/sonofadud/posts/505031336210687) that described the post you had made regarding democracy, I was shocked – to say the least. I thus reproduced the statement attributed to you together with your picture to ask my friends why a politician receiving $192,000 of taxpayer dollars would even think to say such a thing. The picture is to identify the person who said it and the quote is a verbatim reproduction, thus I do not see what there is to be embarrassed about nor how could this be interpreted as mischievous intent. In fact, this was merely an act of free speech in posing a legitimate question to my friends – how could a highly-paid elected official who has taken office to represent the people through a democratic process imply that the very same process was akin to gang rape? 

Subsequently, through the responses from my friends, I was able to find a screen-capture of the posting as it appeared on your Facebook page (https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=523797831010442) and noticed that you had actually reproduced a quote from someone else and not directly made the statement yourself, thus I added the relevant information to reflect this new information on Wednesday night (see screen-capture below).

 

Looking at the quotation you reproduced on your Facebook page in full though, I am no more reassured by your position on the issue of democracy. The statement by Terry Goodkind suggests that the rights of the individual should not be infringed in the name of democracy, so are you saying that the Singapore government – a democratically elected institution - does not recognise the rights of the individual?

At best, the reproduction of Terry Goodkind’s statement demonstrates poor taste in discussing the concept of democracy – not to mention makes light of the very serious crime of rape (what more, with the world reeling from the news of the many brutal rape cases in India). As an ethnic Indian, I am actually offended at the insinuation that I would use the issue of gang rape to be “mischievous” in any way.

I am also disappointed that as an elected member of parliament who purports to represent the interests of your constituents, you have taken issue with a meme meant to invite discussion – i.e. instead of engaging in discussion and clarifying your position, you have attempted to remove the discussion altogether. This is not at all what I would expect from an elected representative of the people and I have somewhat lost faith in your ability to represent the best interests of the community of Singaporeans you serve.

I therefore hope that you will use this opportunity to engage in discussion and reassure me, a citizen of Singapore, rather than continue with what appears to be an exercise to silence me, thank you. In the meanwhile, I will share this exchange with my friends through my personal blog so that others can better understand the context of the meme I created as well as your thoughts on the matter, take care.

Ganga

| www.gangasudhan.com 

| www.gangasudhan.com/blog 

| +65-90602206

I now await the reply from Zainudin Nordin and will decide what to do next depending on his reply. Hopefully, this will be just a misunderstanding from which we can come out with an insight into his opinions and philosophy on democracy and civil rights. Whatever it is, I shall update the developments here.

UPDATE 10/05/2013 @ 2345HRS

MP Zainudin Nordin replied at around 4.30pm with the following email message:

Dear Mr Gangasudhan, 

It is clear from your initial posting that it was your intention to ridicule me, and not to debate issues. To do that, you deliberately and mischievously attributed Terry Goodkind’s quote to me and even extracted, without context, part of that quote. Your motives were plain and your response, contrived. You had no choice but to correct this egregious error, but I note there is no hint of an apology from you.  

I think it is important to have open, honest debates on issues of the day. It is responses such as yours which in fact stifle honest debate and discourage people from sharing their views. 

Thank you.
Zainudin Nordin
Sent from my iPhone

Coloionalism 2.0

So, the balding prince and commoner princess have come to Singapore for a visit. What's the big deal, people? Last I checked, we were no longer a British colony and are instead a sovereign nation that has no affiliation to the crown.

The excitement these past few days has been similar to that reserved for celebrities, but the British-flag-waving and lining the streets is a tad too much. Yes, the English do that for THEIR queen/king/prince/whoever but what has that got to do with us? Yes, we should accord the respect we honour all visiting dignitaries with, but to treat them as if we are beholden to them is cheesy at best and insulting to the people at worst.

There has been no end to the dramatics, with casual strolls here and there to wave to 'peasants' and press coverage as if some form of god's gift was walking the island - mind you, we don't even extend this sort of proselytising to even The Godfather of Singapore (no prizes for guessing who).

Jumping on the bandwagon are the opportunistic businesses (some of whom have but the remotest of relation to the British royalty) with their over-the-top advertisements. This morning, I came across this gem of a conundrum which I could make no head or tail.

To me, it appears like the stewardess is serving teh-tarik as it is found in Malaysia, not in Singapore. Tell me, where do they pack teh-tarik-to-go like this anymore here? Doesn't it typically look more like this below? And even that is not extremely common, with the 'industry standard' being styrofoam cups.

According to the 'visionaries' who came up with this ridiculous concept (BBH Asia Pacific) , the imagery supposedly "offers a twist on the much-loved English tradition of a ‘cuppa’.... (showing) a British Airways cabin staffer offering up the favourite local choice of tea, ‘teh tarik’, complete with plastic bag and straws, but served from a silver platter more befitting royalty."

First of all, this is not the impression created by this image because who on earth would serve a plastic packet of drink on a platter? Secondly, it is a stretch to call teh-tarik our "favourite local choice of tea" because it is only one of different versions (i.e. Chinese-styled coffeeshops have their version which is also pretty common). Not to mention, the fact that it is - hands down - more prevalent in Malaysia than it ever can be in Singapore, shoots that assertion right out of the water.

British Airways is obviously trying way too hard for its own good to ride the royalty-craze of these 3 days - and it shows. Personally, I am just sick and tired of this meaningless nonsense and will be glad when they finally leave.

At least then, we can get back to the usual wayang that we're accustomed to.

The Most Cock Piece of 'Reporting' Yet

I was at the dialogue session yesterday where dolphin activist Ric O'Barry shared his thoughts with an audience of over 500 at the Grand Copthorne Hotel, in Singapore. He said a great many things and his thoughts on several related issues were sought by members of the audience. He was honest and passionate, and it was no secret that everyone in the ballroom was of the opinion that releasing the dolphins instead of including them as an item of Resorts World Sands Sentosa (RWS) is the way to go.

But Esther Ng of TODAY was at a different event apparently. She saw a crowd gathered because a celebrity "who starred in the Academy Award-winning documentary film The Cove" called Ric O'Barry was appearing. She saw only "teachers, students and young adult professionals and a few Caucasians" and declared that "the public debate was a one-sided affair with nary a soul speaking up in support of the captivity and display of dolphins". She also excitedly titled her atrocious piece 'Dolphin catcher-turned-activist nets audience of 500' - as if the point of the dialogue session was to see how big a crowd Ric O'Barry could attract.

The only way one can forgive this report for ever seeing the light of day is if Esther Ng is a secondary school student attached to TODAY. The 500 people were there to see Ric O'Barry in the context of how we can work together to get RWS to change their stubborn decision to keep wild-caught dolphins in captivity. Also, there were 1,000 people at the Save the Dolphins Concert a few weeks ago - where Ric O'Barry was not present - which makes the crowd-size an irrelevant observation altogether. And in a cosmopolitan country such as Singapore, where 1 in 4 persons is a foreigner, seeing a few - or many - Caucasians has nothing to do with anything at all.

As for the dialogue session being a "public debate", it could only have been a debate had the other party agreed to come - RWS had in fact been invited and had declined to attend and address the issues in person, and there was never an illusion that this would be anything other than a dialogues session. In fact, from the outset, it was framed that all of the people gathered at the session were there to find out how we could work together - and not to discuss, debate or deliberate on the merits of whether the dolphins about to be installed at RWS should be kept in captivity or released.

I have no idea what Esther Ng's agenda is (fast-track her career by pleasing corporate interests?) or how the TODAY editors saw fit to allow such shoddy reporting to be carried in print (incompetent, ignorant, disingenuous?), but her account is such a perverted version of a minute part of the 2-hour session that it is truly laughable.

GE2011 Conspiracy Theories

I noticed that everything the PAP has been doing with regard to the expected General Elections has been - to put it mildly - an utter and complete disaster. From what-looks-like-nepotism, or otherwise called 'leadership renewal', to I-know-someone-who-knows-someone, also known as the Tin Pei Ling Effect, to hahaha-suck-on-it-if-you-are-not-white-on-white, quite popularly regarded as an insult to graduate students and Singaporeans alike, there has been no limit to the indignation heaped onto Singaporeans who love Singapore.

Never underestimate a good conspiracy theory

Never in the history of Singapore since its independence has the PAP had so many spectacular failures. Thus the question of why and how come a multi-million dollar cabinet can trip over its own feet every step of the way becomes quite a curious assignment. Assuming that no established political party can be THAT stupid and assuming also that the Singapore Flyer's orientation has nothing to do with the cosmic elements surrounding the PAP's ability to govern, might I propose some interesting possibilities.

a) Internal Strife: Could there be an internal divide within the PAP where one side comprises loyalists to the age-old philosophies that transformed Singapore from the 50's to the 80's, and the other counts those who favour a more modern and open approach? This might explain an intentional rubbishing and sabotaging of the processes - throwing up ridiculous candidates whilst a few current politicians resign. And perhaps this political divide manifested in Lee Hsien Loong's 'academic discussion' of the hypothetical Two PAP System?

b) Flawed System Finally Fails: Perhaps the system that was all along based on a flawed principle finally ran out of the magic additive that kept it seemingly in perfect condition. When this system was established, everyone feared Lee Kuan Yew and so, from the second top man to the man-in-the-street, it was important not to allow favouritism to affect any choice. It was in fact a case for reverse favouritism - if you were going to choose someone because you liked them, then it was prudent for you to just choose the other guy and CYA.

But that mythical fear has eroded dramatically over time and now the younger politicians could be using the system sans the 'magic additive'. This means that meritocracy no longer needs to be in the black-and-white terms of 'scholar', 'stellar grades' or 'demonstrated achievements' but can be justified by the subjective 'experience', 'good work at grassroots level' and even as arbitrarily as 'bilingual and able to connect well with people of different ages'.

While the initial manifestation of the system demanded that only the best be sought out with serious repercussions should someone better be found to have slipped through the cracks, it is now simply a case of 'choose the best from what we see in front of us can already'. Hence the situation of 'every mother son' turning up as a candidate.

c) Give Singapore a Dose of Bad Government: Remember Lee Kuan Yew's chiding of 'whiny Singaporeans' with a "the cure for all this talk is really a good dose of incompetent government"? Maybe that's what's happening - a strategic push towards favouring the opposition, getting them into parliament whilst PAP holds on to a reasonable minority. The idea would be to allow the new government to run the show for 5 years (or even less, should the opposition falter too much and give up) before coming in strongly back into control.

Why now? Because the opposition is reasonably strong and credible enough to challenge in the political arena but (possibly) not established enough to form a credible government yet. By giving the reigns over temporarily to a team that has yet to peak, the objective may be to sow enough doubt to ensure a longer period of power subsequently - the lack of confidence in the opposition would prevent the current active generation from voting them in again for a decade or so, at least.

d) Time To Close Shop: It has been a close knit endeavour for the PAP this past half-century and only death seems to separate the core players from relinquishing their involvement in politics. Perhaps seeing as to how the global economy has become so intertwined with the local economy, and having no tangible Singapore Identity to speak of, the backbone of the PAP may have collectively decided to hang up their proverbial white trousers and finally retire because Singapore is a lost cause with no more money to be made.

The closest thing to a Singapore Identity?

Therefore, in order to make a clean escape, they may have allowed the younger politicians to run amok with random ideas with the full knowledge that these 'new faces' having been yes-men and yes-women all heir adult lives would not have the gumption to actually survive in a real democratic political arena. The plan would be to let the PAP lose through these novices, then blame them and leave the country for better pastures. With many of them having children based overseas, it would not be hard at all to resettle and even use the opportunity to go on speaking tours and book-writing.

While there is no way to ascertain whether there is any truth to these theories, the fact that we do not have enough information to dismiss them outright is a cause for concern. The question to ask is whether the government has been demonstrating any tangible benefit to the people (as opposed to just lip service) or has it only been making more money all along - be it from the people and/or from the processes it puts in place.

Ezycash - forget it ever happened

Some time ago I mentioned the EzyCash advertisement that came in my mailbox - purportedly offering a loan deal that would essentially cause the borrower to pay more than they needed to. When I referenced it at the time, I believe I actually sent an email to the good people at Singpost to see their reaction. Of course, them being steeped in bureaucratic history, they ignored my email and pretended it never happened.

Well, last week, I noticed a similar advertisement flyer in my mailbox and was tickled to note that it now reflects the figures for a $8,000 and $10,000 loan, omitting the $6,000 loan that had the anomaly in the original flyer (see comparison below).

EzyCash Advertisement received in August 2010

EzyCash Advertisement received in April 2010

Seeing as how they've left out the figure instead of correcting it in the new version of the flyer, I suspect that the confluence of loan amount and interest may be creating a monthly installment that is higher under the 'special offer'. If that is the case, then I really feel sorry for those who took up the $6,000 loan offer without realising that the monthly installment would be more and hope that they do pursue the matter with Singpost - God knows the corporation is certainly not going to come out to apologise and make restitution.

Ezycash - enabling you to pay more than necessary

I have been receiving spam from SingPost for the longest time and mostly, it's almost always about this ezycash thing they offer together with GE. Not content with delivering mail, SingPost has long since jumped onto the bandwagon of ripping people off offering loans (and we all KNOW it's a highly lucrative business from how the Wall Street executives either get paid huge bonuses for doing great work, or get paid huge bonuses so that they will stay and fix the mess they created in the first place).

Whilst it is inevitable that there will always be people willing or naive enough to pay a whopping 1/3 of a loan in interest (e.g. borrow $6,000 and pay back a total of $9,000), my gripe has always been the opportunistic manner in which leading establishments in Singapore feed on this need for materialism among Singaporeans.

In any case, this week I saw yet another pamphlet proclaiming that I could take a 36-month loan and not have to pay the last installment amount. Out of curiosity, I wanted calculate what this 'amazing' difference would be and looked closely at the illustrative figures.

Well, I laughed out when I spotted the Freudian Slip (see below). Perhaps the fact that they are charging exorbitant interest for their unsecured loans led them to unconsciously reflect the fact that borrowers pay way more than they need to?

Just for your information, whilst the monthly installment of $238 for a $6,000 loan may sound reasonable, $238 x 35 months (even without having to pay the last installment) is $8,330 - that's a 38% premium of the loan itself! In other words, you spend the first 10 months servicing the interest of your loan.

Also, for any loan, take note that the last installment will likely be less than the monthly amount (being the balance). If you're lucky, it will be close to the monthly amount but if you're not, it could very well be just a few dollars - enabling the good people managing ezycash to laugh (even more) all the way to the bank!

ST's Rachel Chang accuses Singapore government of being polarised

A friend forwarded me the text of an opinion piece that I hear from another friend appears on Page 2 of today's paper - since I no longer subscribe to the paper, I have no idea.

The reporter, Rachel Chang, was apparently tasked to trawl online through forums and blogs that speak ill of the Singapore government to search for news fodder. Well, I must say that the reporter seems to appreciate the dire nature of the Singapore political landscape.

In her article, off the bat she refers to the Singapore government as the proverbial bogeyman and goes on to compliment how “people who oppose the Government have become scary in their own right” – justification that the balancing power of the internet has been able to stand up to this bogeyman of sorts.

Pointing to the recent incident where the boastful Mr Sear Hock Rong, chairman of the Eunos Community Centre's Youth Executive Committee (YEC), had indicated on his website that his clients included Residents' Committees (RCs) in Eunos, she went a step further to actually confirm these very allegations that he had in fact used “his grassroots connections to drum up business for his events management company” - the Eunos constituency office revealed to her that he had indeed taken on “jobs as master of ceremonies at grassroots events”.

Then, using clever comparisons with Malaysia, she contrasts how “the blogosphere in Singapore seems so much more mean, vicious and illogical” and squarely points the finger at the government by declaring this situation “the natural result of a political landscape that has been long dominated by one party”. She also sadly admits that Singaporeans who are “faced with a government-influenced media, have no recourse but to go online”, and with the media not doing its part, she laments how this “distrust of the ruling party and the media often reaches the point of paranoia”.

The reporter then goes on to attack the PAP government outright by pointing to studies done by one American scholar on the American media. Although the almost-extreme opposites of the American and Singapore media climate make the application of American research findings to the Singapore context well-nigh impossible, she nevertheless draws out the fundamental argument of the findings to bring to bear on the PAP leaders.

Defining the situation within the PAP government so succinctly, she states “when people interact with others who share the same views, they tend to become more extreme - in other words, polarised”, and added the stark contrast where “the opposite is also true: people who interact with people who disagree with them often emerge with their views moderated to some degree” – an obvious nod to the fact that more opposition members were necessary within the Singapore government.

And before ending her stinging critique, she candidly admits that “the mainstream media self-censors” and the fact that Singaporeans have “no mainstream channel through which they can criticise the Government freely”. She warns that “the Internet has become an increasingly influential player in politics” and calls on “the online community in Singapore to build up websites that are credible and respected, and pry control of the Web away from the ones who dominate it now”, much like how sites like The Online Citizen (TOC) have been working diligently to break down the barriers put up by the system.

I think it is quite bold of Rachel Chang to condemn the government like this and speak of the truth so openly. It is also commendable that she used a lot of hard data to back up her arguments. I do hope that her career is not unduly affected by her controversial article.

Power of the Net to polarise

There is a need to build up credible and respected websites

By Rachel Chang

THERE is a cliched warning parents like to use with their kids to discourage wrongdoing: 'You better not do xx, or the police will come after you.'

The Singaporean version of this replaces 'police' with 'the Government', an indication of how the Government is larger than life here.

But that is not the only bogey in Singapore. The people who oppose the Government have become scary in their own right.

Virulently anti-People's Action Party personages on the Internet have claimed victims of their own, including members of the PAP's youth wing, Young PAP.

In recent weeks, one of my assignments has been to cover the public spats such members have had with netizens.

Mr Sear Hock Rong is one.

The chairman of the Eunos Community Centre's Youth Club had boasted on his website that his clients included Eunos residents' committees. Netizens seized on the link, accusing him of using his grassroots connections to drum up business for his events management company.

A check with the Eunos constituency office revealed that his business dealings with it amounted to no more than a few jobs as master of ceremonies at grassroots events.

The vitriol one might face on the Internet is just politics, one might say. By advertising their political affiliations, Young PAP members were asking for their views to be challenged.

But are the actions of some overzealous netizens - doctoring pictures of Mr Sear to look like an animal and a eunuch - challenging his politics?

And what about when netizens attack someone who is in no way an affiliate of the ruling party?

One such victim is Ms Gayle Goh, a former Anglo-Chinese Junior College student who ran a well-written political blog until 2007. Her pieces contained sharply critical observations of Singapore society and politics.

She stopped writing, in large part because of the harassment and abuse she was subjected to by some netizens.

The World Wide Web can be a scary place. It is a no-holds-barred arena, and its denizens have little care for decorum and personal space - or facts, for that matter.

Part of this is the result of the boldness that anonymity bestows. Like driving carefully on Singapore roads but speeding on Malaysian highways, Singaporeans seem to relish lawlessness when they find themselves outside their accustomed boundaries.

The few, such as Ms Goh, who have dared to identify themselves on the Net, have been scarred into retreat. When announcing the closure of her blog, she said that she still had much to say, but she would perhaps now say it anonymously.

A newsroom colleague who hails from Malaysia observed the other day that the blogosphere in Singapore seems so much more mean, vicious and illogical than in Malaysia.

Some say the online vitriol is the natural result of a political landscape that has been long dominated by one party. Dissenters, faced with a government-influenced media, have no recourse but to go online, they say.

Whether or not that is true, it does not justify the malice often displayed on the Net. The distrust of the ruling party and the media often reaches the point of paranoia on political websites and forums.

To be sure, the level of discourse online may have much to do with the nature of the medium itself.

Mr Cass Sunstein, an American legal scholar who now heads the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, has written about the phenomenon of 'cyber polarisation'.

Quite simply, when people interact with others who share the same views, they tend to become more extreme - in other words, polarised. Racists, for example, become more racist if they are surrounded by other racists.

The opposite is also true: people who interact with people who disagree with them often emerge with their views moderated to some degree.

The Internet - in making it easy to find people who share your views, and to interact with them with greater frequency - brings polarisation to a new level, Mr Sunstein theorises.

For example, in a 2006 study of political websites, he found that four-fifths linked only to websites that shared the same political slant. It is becoming possible to interact only with people who share, reaffirm and enlarge your ideas, rather than challenge them.

And the same is happening online in Singapore. The political forums and blogs, embittered and united in their detest of the ruling party, egg one another on to mow down minnows like Mr Sear and Ms Goh. It's the cyber equivalent of a witch-hunt, and they are the virtual scapegoats.

Does it matter? The Internet is what it is, some might say; enter at your own risk. Cyberpolarisation happens in all countries; why should Singapore be different?

But I cannot help wondering if the political landscape has contributed to the situation.

Dissent in Singapore through channels such as political parties and the media is seen as weak. Some Singaporeans believe that they can only find fearless discussion of policy issues online. They believe the mainstream media self-censors.

The other extreme, a lack of self-censorship, prevails in cyberspace. In some forums, ugly impulses like a blanket racism towards all foreigners have become de rigueur.

So long as a segment of Singaporeans feel there is no mainstream channel through which they can criticise the Government freely, more will gravitate towards the Net. And once there, they may forever be beyond the reach of the ruling party.

The Internet has become an increasingly influential player in politics everywhere. With a 'mini election fever' in the air as Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong noted recently, it is time to ponder its power.

The urgent task for the online community in Singapore is to build up websites that are credible and respected, and pry control of the Web away from the ones who dominate it now - the ones who hide behind nicknames and prefer personal attacks to policy discussion.

The same ones who will probably shoot me nasty, unsigned e-mail messages after reading this column.

source (login required):
http://www.straitstimes.com/PrimeNews/Story/STIStory_486041.html