SYLVIALOGIC STRIKES...What is that to you?

There arose in the Singapore Cafe resentment against Fabrication About The PAP's post with regards to opposition MP Sylvia Lim's contention of the proposed Family court in parliament.

Resentment against FAP isn't something new nor novel, but this is something which I like to share some thinking but not to get into some meaningless debates with meddlers at the Singapore Cafe.

The contention is FAP strikes Slyvia Lim without giving due consideration to the key context found in the whole of her speech which was reproduced in WP's website http://wp.sg/2014/08/debate-on-family-justice-bill-mp-sylvia-lim/.  There is really no telling whether the FAP admin did or did not read the article in its entire before making the "photoshoped" comment.

The point here is not about defending FAP, reasonable or otherwise.

It is about how we look at context and apply treatment to it.

The bone really is whether the Family Court should be conducted closed door or open itself to the media for public scrutiny.  Is there not a provision for the process to be opened at the court's discretion? 

They key argument that Sylvia Lim and those who bought her story over at The Singapore Cafe relies on is that the Family Court will normally function in closed door unless ordered otherwise is a departure from the open court concept of the other courts.  The supportive argument is that the Juvenile Court allows the presence of news agencies in its hearing of youths in trouble.

Further supportive arguments to push her point, she questioned why shouldn't family matters be opened for public scrutiny.  She believes correct and accurate reporting of such cases would enable the public to have a better understanding of family laws and how the Family Court operates.  At the same time she too acknowledges that there exist media who would also otherwise sensationalize the reporting, though without mentioning what consequences that may bring about nor how to rectify the damage done if rectifying is ever possible,

Thus I am not sure whether Sylvia Lim and those in cohort of this case are arguing as a matter or principle or for the sake of argument.

They have selfishly placed the rigid way of how they think a court should operates above the tender fragility and sensitivity of family affairs, and allow person to person relationships to be rampaged in the open possibly resulting in irreparable hurt and damages to family and children.

It is not that the court has no room to flexibly manouevre where public interest may be a concern, and neither are cases concerning youths in trouble the same as family issues.  Cases of youths in trouble are mainly brought about when a young person committed a crime, and public interest is always present in such cases.  In contrast, family cases are largely civil cases about personal relationships.

So I deemed Sylvia Lim and her cohort are a cruel and selfish lot only out to satisfy their thirst for having their way no matter at what cost to others.

MORE CONTROVERSIES LIKE NLB THE BETTER

We are the majority says people who are against the proliferation of homosexuality in Singapore, and with that majority they are out on a campaign to wipe Singapore clean of its sin and immorality. They are not stopping at just having got rid of the penguins and swans out of the children's corner, but to purge Singapore of its impurities and traits of evil found in every corner of society.  They reminded me of the "red guards" in China during the Cultural Revolution.

It is exciting to see Singaporeans who are so used to keeping their pent up unhappiness to themselves suddenly liberated to a new dimension where they are able to excercised some form of authority or power in telling the authorities what to do. That was exactly how the whole NLB saga got started.

While the climate of people-government relations has changed, fundamentals of society are largely not.  Third and fourth generation Singaporeans are still way behind the kind of liberalism practiced in the western nations even though they may show some form of compromising between the two.

Hence it may still be too early to divide Singapore or Singaporeans into camps of conservatives or liberals. 

For both government and people, it is perfectly opportune time to start finding a new conjunct.  In the past when the people prefers to keep silent, the government can only make intelligent guesses through its machinery of data collection.  Not that the voices now are at all that accurate than the old methods, it offers a test element against its old methods.  The current environment also allows the government to adjust itself, and start reviewing and redefining its processes as continuously its long held principles are being challenged.

Some academics argued that the government will lose more votes than it will gain navigating through the transition and transformation.  That's no more than just a person's opinion. Voting decisions are, more often than not made within the final moments.

In this new environment, the government no longer needs to second guess what unhappy people are talking in their private, and to be caught by surprised when the opposition knew everything that they didn't know about during hustlings.  They probably may even have regretted why they had not allowed themselves to be criticized openly earlier.  Nine days is too short to react, and I believed the government would be more than happy to see more controversies such as the NLB saga emerged before 2016.

The people too is now facing a government which they are not quite familiar with. Some may accuse the government of flip flopping from time to time in the way they do things, the very same term government parliamentarians accused the opposition party of.  Flip flopping is neither good nor bad in itself, and really depending what the flip flopping is for.

Eventually I believe the people will recognized the government as no more the same guardian gods that stand guard at the doorway for centuries without changing.

The balance and equations will change with social behavior. The people may no longer need to align with the opposition to have their voices heard, even as the government gets more engaged to voices of unhappiness.

As for now, the rearrangement of dynamics looks healthy for both the government and people.

MY DEVIANT FAMILY

THIS IS MY FAMILY : My wife, me and our cat makes a family of three.  By all account, we are a full fledged functional family.  We take walks together, have tea together, watch the world cup finals together among other wholesome family activities.

But we just don't fit in nicely with what this Google image which I downloaded from Facebook defines as a family, nor that of the general public understanding of one.  Perhaps the difference lies in that our cat is adopted and not conceived by us therefore we are not a "Biological Family" as most families are.

But this is not totally true either.  There are other family structures that are not exactly biological and yet are admitted and accepted into mainstream characterization.  Family with adopted children or parent is one that gets to enjoy social protection and benefits like all other Biological Families.

Indignant, I ranted it out to friends and someone showed me the part in Singapore's constitution that makes reference to the definition of a family.  True enough, cats are being discriminated and deliberately left out of Singapore's constitution.  Indeed if my family do not fall categorically within the narrow definition of a biological family, it should at least sympathetically into the definition of an Experiential Family.

Like a smack on the face I have been told that my broad definition of a family as deviant.  But don't you realized that this so call "Deviant Family" may easily make up half of Singaporean families?  Even the normal Biological Family has become deviant if you may, dressing up their dog as a child for their wedding ceremony.  My friend who has a girl and a dog are calling them both daughters.  Many families have taken their animals as very much part of the family, even to sleeping on the same bed as our cat does.

Is it time to challenge the constitution to allow animals to be definitively and categorically stated, even as gender is also not definitively and categorically stated in that part of the constitution my friend showed me?

NLB SAGA & DIVERSITY

The NLB saga continues with several local writers pulling out of events organized by the National Library Board.  Although it was reported that they were unhappy with the pulping of the books in question, the underlying displeasure lies in censorship of books.  The conundrum arise from the reasons given for the books withdrawal, that of pro-family and being guided by community norms.

The notion of "pro-family" had come to the forefront of public discourse lately, and especially so during the run-up to the Pink Dot annual party at Hong Lim Park.

Pro-Family, rightly so Pro-Creation was used to described the government's stand in crafting certain of its polices, most of which have to do with equality of privileges and benefits.

Some examples are the entitlement to public housing policies, where Build To Order flats, which is also classified as subsidised housing, is once only available to parties with a "family nucleus".  Even now, 3-room BTO  flat types are still not open to singles.  Read more on eligibility.

Other examples are related to leave and benefits that married couples and those with child can enjoy.  Read more.  All in all, the government's pro-family policies are largely geared towards better reproduction amongst Singaporeans, such as the "baby bonus scheme".

And these government policies are seen as discriminating singles, straight or otherwise.  The voices of singles had been extremely feeble, but citizens who are LGBTs found support amongst themselves as a community and had been strongly vocal primarily in the repealing of Penal Code 377A, referring to carnal sex with party of the same sex being illegal.

So the term "pro-family" had been broadly taken out of context to mean anti-LGBT, Lesbians, Gays, Bi-Sexuals, and Transgenders.  Is the government anti-LGBT?  PAP founder and former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew thinks that they are born that way and they should be left alone as that.

And that was how the community norm was formed.  For the benefits, LGBT has been generally taken to also mean homosexuals, those who engage in carnal sexual relations with another of the same sex.  Society generally accepts that there are people who engages such relationship, and they have been left alone all along to their own privacy notwithstanding that there are groups who would outwardly decry homosexuality is a sin.

Thus the removal of three titles from the shelves of Singapore's libraries happened only a wink away from controversies surrounding the Red Dot party, was seen as the government's unfairness towards materials that are evocative of LGBT way of life.

But the confrontation this time is not so much on LGBT but that of "freedom of knowledge", "censorship-suppression of diversity", and government's neutral role in the Singaporean life.  

There are those who thinks that the government should be responsible enough to ensure young children are protected, and there are others who feel that young children should be free to experiment and learn, and then we have the government taking a stand to protect rather that expose.  Naturally when two against one, the odd one out would feel that the government is siding.  When it is about lives of little children, there is no two way for the government.

It is therefore unfair of many parties who champions freedom of knowledge & information and that of a diverse society to blame the government to take a cautious stand in protecting children who may not reach maturity to digest and understand the information they are consuming.

It is also extremely disappointing that certain Singapore writers had decided to boycott National Library Board.  It only shows the lack of broad consideration by these writers who chose to pivot on the proliferation of literature and disregard due care for little lives.

THERE IS SECTORAL INTEREST IN HERE

When blogger Roy Ngerng started blogging about CPF, nobody quite paid attention to what he wrote.  I asked around those who professed to be pro-government and pro-PAP if anyone follows or try to digest what he was writing, none say they did.  It was only supposed to be a 10-part series accompanied by video presentation.  

It went on beyond that to what he later claimed to be 400 articles on the same subject, and a personal appearance at the Hong Lim Park saw only a handful of no more than 20 people in attendance.

When Roy made the unmistakable reference to Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong for misappropriating CPF money, the excitement suddenly heats up.  Rightly or wrongly, Roy Ngerng became a poster boy overnight.  But of course, partly the hype was also churned up by his truly, for he needed lots of media attention as a possible shield, especially the foreign ones.

When certain prominent bloggers began to make references to Roy in their writings, I asked the why, beyond the why not.  Of course the why not is what's wrong with writing about something that is hot.  Bloggers always do that.  But at the same time I am also wondering if the crowd in Singapore is that small, or the support attention that comes from them is so limited.  Are they frightened of being overshadowed?  To this I will not conclude.  If I do, I commit the same mistake as another who concluded that when two professors agreed to some of his ideas, but refusing to go on record for fear of professional consequences.  It is unfair accusation of the bloggers as people with no substance.

What discomforts me was all unanimously distant themselves from the truthfulness of Roy Ngerng's writings about the CPF, and even calling them specious yet they were in one voice supporting that Roy should not be punished for what he did.  The unequivalent standing between a Prime Minister and an ordinary blogger, state intolerance of dissent or diverse opinions were among the strongest arguments despite all agreeing that the Prime Minister has the right to sue.

How do we perceive this?  Are they saying that the Prime Minister's rights as a citizen, rights to protect the sanctity of a state leader should be stripped in favour of citizen's rights to voice?  Given that both rights are equal, does it mean that a person who is richer and more influential must surrender his rights to justice because his challenger is inferior?  Tell me, what justice is this when no two persons can stand before the law as equals?

Why is having differing voices so important to Singapore?  Look, I am not saying that it is not important, but surely it is not that important that everything else must come after it.  There are many tell tale signs that it boils down to sectoral interest, furthering the interest of academics, writers in a highly competitive and challenging marketplace for readership.  Much as the contents are about building a better Singapore, and the arguments were so very convincing, the ultimate quest is.....really?  

Other social and business sectors too demand that theirs is more important than anything else.  The LGBT lobbies that only when they are officially accepted only will social discrimination achieve improvement.  Pro-Family lobbies believed that as long as the establishment allows LGBT lifestyle to permeate society, the decadence of the family unit will surely follows.  The executives believes secrecy gives them the strategic advantage as well as security, but there will always be lobbies trying to pry open every secret in the name of transparency.

They are all important whichever lobby you lean on, but we only have this number of people and that number of hours to commit.  We just have to make our choice, not much of Hard Choices if we learn to be wiser.  Still we need to thank each sector for their efforts in making a vibrant Singapore.

WHO CAN UNITE SINGAPORE?

During the election campaigning for Singapore's Presidency, Dr Tony Tan said that he wants to unite Singapore.

The foremost thought I had when I read that was, how is he going to get that done?   What an odd statement at the oddest of time.  The PAP just lost Aljunied GRC, and gone were cabinet ministers George Yeo and Lim Hwee Hua.

He was not wrong to say that nor had he fail to understand his role as President.  As President to all Singaporeans, he is to be a unifying figure that is above partisan politics.  But his background as former DPM in the PAP cabinet made his declaration unattainable, not in the "New Normal" a term he coined reflecting the current political climate.

His New Normal sees those who would normally vote anything PAP doing otherwise.  If it had not been Dr Tan Cheng Bock, the Presidency could have landed in the hands to Tan Jee Say.  As it is, the anti-PAP camp can now stop blaming Tan Kin Lien for spoiling Tan Cheng Bock's chance of becoming President for it was Tan Cheng Bock who is the one spoiling Tan Jee Say's chance.

The New Normal is so unpredictable, senseless most of the time, and aggressive at times.  Suddenly Singaporeans find themselves sucked into a world where one has to decide "are you for them or for us?" atmosphere.  The most ridiculous stories are retold by people who are supposed to have gone through good education and when you ask them if Singapore's education system is good, they readily and assertively says NO!.

So I guessed uniting Singaporeans is just being indeterminate.  Getting back to life normalcy is probably what Singaporeans are yearning for.  Returning to "Peace" was probably what former remiser and now super rich man Peter Lim had in mind when he put forth $3million for Peace Studies.  It is just too noisy.

Ironically it is the opposition in parliament that can unite Singapore or bring Singapore back to normalcy, albeit a new normalcy.  The ruling PAP may have done a great deal since 2013 after losing the Punggol East by election, but when people continue to believe that all good things done by the government are entitlement for taxes paid, nothing can ever earn it due appreciation.

This is also one of the reasons why the PAP got so frustrated with the Workers Party for not making a stand for or against the government.  The WP holds the card to uniting Singapore and bringing Singaporeans back to life normalcy, done with noisy quarrels.

The WP with the highest probability of being the next government can and should stand up to matters where the law is broken or where matters that affects all citizens as in the case of CPF.  After all, if it indeed becomes government, it will continue to uphold law and order and will not allow the vandalizing of public properties go unpunished.  But it had chose to remain silent allowing anti-PAP elements to undermine law and order by cheering such acts.

The WP could have picked up public uneasiness about CPF transparency in parliament forcing the government to respond in all completeness and accuracy.  But it chose to allow Roy Ngerng to continue publishing disparaging articles of the CPF by showing disinterest in an institution that is created in the very parliament for which the WP is being part of.

If only the Workers Party would do what is expected of an honourable opposition, Singaporeans will be more than grateful for its magnanimity for acting above politics for the good of all Singaporeans.  Friends don't have to see each other with suspicion as to who are you aligned to.

We want a peaceful, friendly Singapore, not one preoccupied with petty quarrels about things that many a times are fabricated.

Who can unite Singapore and bring us back to normalcy.

SURFING IN THE POLITICAL SEA

Was googling for JBJ and chance upon anyhowhamtam's tribute of the man.  There were some rather interesting anecdotes than comes refreshing to me.

Was pondering over the incident of Hri Kumar's open dialogue on CPF that caused a ruckus online, what LKY said years ago surfaces.  LKY said he is going to throw them (new MPs and ministers) into the sea and let them swim, and this was in conjunction of an earlier statement that he made wanting to sit back and watch how they click..

Putting anyhowhamtam's anecdotes and this together, it dawns upon me that indeed over the years there weren't that many occasions that PAP's MPs had to struggle in the sea of real politics.  Not until now.  Challenges to the government's day to day operations aplenty, Michael Faye,  Asian financial meltdown, SARS, Global financial crisis and others.

So when I thought about Hri Kumar, I thought these days we do have some some very great waves to better our surfing skills. When to go against the tide, when to let loose with the flow, when to be fierce and when to smile.

I've been waiting for decades to see how PAP MPs swim with the sharks, and I feel blessed to be able to see it happens before I get too tired for politics.  As a spectator, I too get to enjoy the ripples and splashes and have my fair share of fun analyzing the game like a good football fan this season.

What is now happening.....Roy Ngerng vs Pm on CPF, Catherine Lim's lost trust, Hri Kumar's dialogue auntyt, Nicole Seah's middle road statement, and I bet more will emerged are all good for Singapore, and the PAP as well.

PAP already possesses the administrative and executive expertise that no oppositions has. There are a number of likeable faces among its ranks like DPM Tharman, Tan Chuan Jin, Heng Swee Kiat, and of course PM himself are all excellent in the game of charm offensive.  What is short are skillful warriors with the ability to understand terrain and warfare.  Hri Kumar being the visibly first.

In the opposition camp, they are supposed to be better in street politics but there weren't that many super politicians in reality.  Chee soon Juan, Low Thia Khiang, Sylvia Lim, Nicole Seah, and if you may also want to add Roy Ngerng to the list.  Some may not have surfaced yet, but what we have seen so far are more disappointment than excitement.

Singaporeans, we are in an exciting era of politics, and eventually we will all be inside the sea, like it or not.  That is the arrival of a mature state of the nation after almost 50 years of plain sailing.

Evergreen Bamboo

Between the rest of the world and me, we share one common estate, or perhaps fascination too....BAMBOO.


It's just nice to know that in a world so incensed with disagreements and differences, we can still get to share and enjoy somethings common together.



Behind the humble bamboo a wealth of priceless information is awaiting to be discovered.  I'll just share one that I love, and leave the rest to future encounters.

What I really loved about the evergreen bamboo is its lifespan is almost eternal, and its substance bears unlimited forms only limited by one's imagination.  If you dare to imagine, it will be there.

I am just too humbled to say I wish to invite, but can only wish that friends and strangers who chance upon this space can share a moment with me to discover more things common amongst mankind and to wish the disagreements and differences away.

OPEN RESPONSE TO DR CATHERINE LIM'S OPEN LETTER TO PM

Dear Dr Catherine Lim,

I have something to say about what you told PM in your open letter that we Singaporeans are not trusting the government anymore and the government stops caring. I have a completely different take from you and my story don't come from some dramatic events or over social media.  It comes straight from our daily life.

Trust in the government is written all over Singapore.  No further than the corner of our very own home, trust is there.  We just trust that the the lights will come on and the taps will run, no questions asked.  Anybody doubted the government on this?  Life is just too spontaneous for all things mundane.

Look into our fridges and cabinets of groceries, did we fear there will be no rice, cooking oil, vegetables or even infant formula milk powder?  Singaporeans have no doubt whatsoever that these daily necessities will always be readily available in our supermarkets.  Singaporeans just trusted, but many didn't know why. Had the government not cared, and there was no policy thinkers who saw the need to break beyond traditional sources of food and essentials, we would have risk supplies or been strangled by exporting countries for whatever reasons.

Look no further out of the window, parents & domestic helpers sending kids to school.  Do they ever doubt that the teachers will just walk out one day and go on strike for not getting paid?  Thousands of people in the civil service just turn up for work everyday just trusting that their pay check will automatically be deposited into their account, and that goes for their CPF as well.

Talking about CPF, even as a few thousand protesters gathered at Hong Lim Park under the banner of "Return Our CPF", was there a long queue outside CPF building the following working day demanding their money to be returned because they believed the government had gone bankrupt?  Singaporeans just trusted that their CPF is safe notwithstanding the sowing of doubts and fear.

Singaporeans still head for work each day using the MRT despite possible breakdowns and congestion or even a terrorist attack.  Criticism abound, do we see Singaporeans avoiding the MRT due to mistrust?  Not at all.  We just trust it will be there to bring us to where we want.

Do Singaporeans not know that the queue is long for hospital admission, but trust in that after a long wait comes comfort and absolute professional care.  Compared to the highly visible long wait for admission, the sporadic departures of people discharging after successful surgery and treatment is almost invisible to the public eye, but these form the basis that Singaporeans still trust our doctors and nurses and the entire healthcare system.

Something more common and familiar, our usual pastime of eating at hawker centres.  It is so normal to just order our food and wait for it to come.  Do we question if the food is sufficiently hygienic or fit for consumption?  Lest we forget the Indian rojak stall that resulted in death, still Singaporeans trusted the government to ensure that chai tow kuay stalls and the likes are kept in check so that we don't get food poisoning.

Such deep trust will not be there without decades of continuous improvement and ground breaking ideas from people within the system.  No question asked, we know our sky radar are manned by responsible people that in event of an unidentified aircraft intrusion, it will not come near without being escorted or shot down.

Much talks about Singapore's vulnerability being a social construct, and these talks had belittled the dedication of our men and women watching over our boundaries and skies.  We sleep in peace without a thought that some enemy forces is going to barge in through our door or bombings happening in the neighbourhood.  Our peace comes from our preparedness and not the absence of vulnerability.

I can go on with these nitty gritty things that you will not find in high society cocktail functions nor emotionally charged forums.  However with this, I hope the common man's heartbeat can be heard by people claiming proprietary to our existence.