What would you do if you witness a case of abuse?

Oh my, oh my, I was at a complete loss for words when I saw this video. My first thought was “OMG, than man is such a CMI (cannot make it).” Second thought was “OMG, what a bitch”. I have a question for my readers out there, I hope you guys will respond through the comments because I won’t be around at the Chatroll much…

“What will you do if you saw this happening in your neighbourhood?”

a.Ignore them on walk on?
b.Intervene and stop that woman from abusing the guy?
c.Others. (Please elaborate)

Personally, I do not condone physical violence unless the person REALLY deserves it. But I draw a line at humiliation. No matter what that guy did, this woman really crossed the lines of decency when she kept grabbing his balls repeatedly in PUBLIC, no less. Never mind the pain, it’s just downright humiliating. I hope she meets a domineering man who will whack her boobs whenever they quarrel in the middle of a crowded shopping mall.

So what would I do when I see this short of nasty behavior along the streets of Singapore? This is what I would do:
1.Walk up to the couple and tell that woman to stop that disgraceful behavior.
2.Take of my right shoe.
3.Slap that woman for mistreating that guy.
4.Slap that guy for letting that woman treat him like this.
5.Walk away feeling satisfied

Oops, I sounded violent didn’t I? But violence would wake the both of them up than by all mean. Actions do speak louder than words. Sometimes a tight slap works better than starting a verbal fight with people who think with their fists more than their mouths.

Singapore-the Club of Inspiring Elitists who should learn the value of shutting up if they can't do better

Recently, Ris Low came into the spotlight when everyone started critizing her English- "How on EARTH could someone of her calibre represent Singapore?? So MALU!!" Initially, I was nodding my head in full hearted agreement because she wasn't exactly what I would call "beautiful" or "hot" and her English was a monumental tragedy! She was obviously inarticulate and has trouble trying to organize and express her thoughts and feelings. The words that came out of her mouth were jumbled messes that were in a hurry to run out and trip over each other. The words she employed were really simple and weird...

Furthermore, I felt that she just revealed her ignorance with regards to South Africa when answering question about African-inspired fashion. It’s not just about leopard prints and zebras… In fact, most of the African inspired fashion is largely based on traditional tribal designs based on geometric patterns! The emphasis is on clothes that are outdoor look, color and comfort. Leopard prints and feathers are largely a by-product of the imposition of western ideals on a backward nation. The people there rarely wear fur and feathers except for tribal festivities, simply because it’s too damn hot.

This is an example of Safari-inspired Fashion:

I disagree with her idea of how to carry off animal prints without looking trashy, but I won’t go into it beyond the point “less is more” and no “mix and match”. I would also like to add that fashion is NOT about yourself… The opinion of others DO matter, they decide if you look like an ass or elegant. Your personal opinions do not matter in this case. So back to the old girl, is it that embarrassing to have her as a representative of Singapore? I thought of this question overnight and watched this video again. Surprisingly, I found myself reaching some new conclusions.

1.Nervousness
It is possible to attribute her extreme self-centered speech and bad choice of words to her nervousness. It was quite clear from her body language that she was very nervous. But if that’s the case, would she make a suitable representative for Singapore? She might be required to do speeches and rub shoulders with the political/industrial elites, would her nervousness make her look like a terrible village idiot?

2. Long tongue
I would attribute the countless mispronunciations to her long tongue, or at least I think she has a long tongue. She always sounds like she’s slurping her words. So can’t really blame her for that.

3. Ignorance
Singapore is a country with literate people who are both knowledgeable and yet ignorant in their own way. Thanks to our education system, our knowledge of the world is limited to what we can learn from the success of EMDCs and the reasons why ELDCs still cannot make it. Little effort is done to highlight the failures of EMDCs and how ELDCs do achieve successes slowly but ultimately. I’m hardly surprised when most of the Singaporeans I’ve spoke to:

- think that South Africa refers to the entire African continent
- have no idea that Egypt is part of the African continents
- have no idea what Biltong is
- are blissfully unaware that South Africa isn't just full of Savannas, there are deserts and jungles too! (I dunno how Singaporeans pass their geography exams)
- think the all of Africa still practices animalist worship. WRONG, some African cultures/tribes have been practicing Islam and Christianity as well for hundreds of years.
- are completely ignorant the South Africa is one of the MOST dangerous countries in the world (SA makes the US look safe).

Judging from such communal ignorance, who are we blame her for being ignorant when her strongest critics often need to look at themselves in the mirror first? I refuse to believe it when people insist they are NOT ignorant- rubbish, you can never know enough.

4. Age
She's only nineteen, some might say she should be mature enough, but I beg to differ. Unless she has a voracious appetite for books, nineteen is still the age of innocence and ignorance. She has yet to achieve the financial and emotional independence to see the world as it truly is. Nineteen is still the age where people think that the world is their piece of cake and opportunites for success are open and equal for everyone. They stil need to learn that whilst everyone is equal in society, there are some who are more equal than others. It is at the age where they still think about themselves first over others, the day they start putting others before themselves is the day where they full achieve maturity.

So is it a tragedy for her to represent Singapore? Are her critics any better than her? I always believed that criticism should be constructive and one should not criticize others unless one can prove to be better. I would openly criticize Ris Low because I believe that I’m way better than her in terms of worldly knowledge, fashion sense and linguistic expression. However, I will admit that I’m chronically shy when it comes to talking in front of a group of people. So fair is fair, I’ll shut up because I lost to her in one field.

Now let me move on to bitch about the other Singaporean critics! The main criticism is leveled at her language. I used to think Singapore was a place where good English was heavily prized. That ideal was smashed when I entered the working world. Based on emails and phone calls with “graduates”, “lowly clerks” and “warehouse guys”, I can safely say “Good English does NOT exist anywhere”. The good English that I see are usually from graduates, who consciously remember to follow grammatical rules and punctuations, and from Caucasians. However, it must be noted that not all Caucasians use good English, I’ve met some with worse English than an average kid from primary 6. So does good English have to be a must have for a representative in Singapore?

If you’ve noticed, Singapore has a culture of over-prizing graduate beauty queens. Our beauty queens- Rachel Kum, Joanne Peh and Felicia Chin are highly popular because of their status as graduates! They are seen as the “smarter breed”. However, is that true? They are as human as anyone of us, are we creating an artificial benchmark for them as well as ourselves to reach? What’s wrong with diploma or NT students representing Singapore? They are not part of the elitist culture, but they ARE part of our Singapore culture aren’t they?

For too long we have been obsessed with the idea that only the best of Singapore would be shown to the world, with the other “undesirable” aspects conveniently being swept under the carpet, away from the curious eyes of “foreign investors and dignitaries”. Should we give them a chance to appear in the limelight for once and accept them as they are? They are integral aspects of the culture after all, and the elitist club members are by no means perfect themselves…

As my friend SH said, such competitions are useless beyond their entertainment value. So what's the point of having such competitions anyway? It is all pointless competition engaging pointless people inviting pointless critics. Shouldn't such resources be channeled to more constructive activities such as saving Taiwanese flood victims? After all, the title of beauty queen is just a temporary crown, temporary fame and unnecessary pressure to create a farcical "virtuous image". I could only shake my head sadly when the public insisted that Rachel Kum be stripped of her status as beauty queen just because of some suggestive pictures of her being posted online. Must the public always pretend to have this moral high ground? I’m sure everyone had their heydays that they would rather not mention to their kids today. It’s just a meaningless competition for an empty crown, there’s no need to hold up their personal flaws against them- nobody is perfect.

Guest Post: SMRT

Response to WK's No Eating or Drinking: Fine $500 post
WRITTEN BY: MING FENG
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2009: SMRT introduces the complete ban on consuming all form of food, including plain water, on all trains.

2011: SMRT bans sleeping on trains, the rationale being "dunno, just for the heck of it." Offenders are fined $500.

2012: The notorious East-West line claims the first victim, who died of dehydration after attempting to ride from Pasir Ris to Joo Koon.

2013: Fine raised from $500 to $5,000.

2013: Fine raised from $5,000 to $50,000.

2013: Fine raised from $50,000 to $500,000.

2014: SMRT bans singing, loud handphones, talking louder than 45 decibels, not keeping to the left on escalators and not giving way to alighting passengers, as part of their motto of "Moving People, Enhancing Lives".

2015: SMRT renamed to SMaRT despite their rules being quite on the contrary. SMaRT changes motto to "Moving People, OUR Way".

2016: SMaRT bans inhaling of plain water, after one commuter attempted to justify the ingestion of plain water through the nose as "inhaling, and not drinking, and therefore you can't fine the shit out of me". The man was detained for being a public nuisance.

2018: 172 people died from dehydration while attempting the "Coast to Coast" feat, riding from Pasir Ris to Joo Koon without alighting to drink water. Local adventurer Mr S.C Khoo becomes the first man in the world to succeed in this feat, becoming a national hero once again.

2019: SMaRT caught 783,402 people attempting to drink or inhale plain water on the train, and decided to make smuggling more than 18 grams of plain water into trains a capital offence. In the same year, SMaRT declares a profit of $402 billion, a world record for a public transport company, while denying that fines make up the bulk of their profits.

2019: First person executed for attempting to smuggle a bottle of NeWater into trains.

2021: A commuter with 18kg of plain water strapped to his body, managed run through the water detector gates, evade pursuing station officers, and charged through the ticket gantry without paying. He later disappeared into the peak hour crowd and was last seen distributing water on the platform. The Water Bearer, as he was later affectionately known among commuters, was branded a hero by the people but was never seen attempting the feat again. SMaRT arms their station officers with police-issued MP5 submachine guns after the infamous incident. The SMaRT management deals with the humiliation by likening the Water Bearer's actions to that of "a terrorist, a suicide bomber", and threatens to shoot any commuter attempting to emulate the Water Bearer.

2027: To solve the problem of commuters not giving up seats to the elderly, the pregnant and the handicapped, SMaRT bans the elderly, the pregnant and the handicapped from taking trains. SMaRT buys over SBS Transit.

2030: After a nine-year hunt, the Water Bearer was finally caught and was due to be sentenced to death. However, he escaped through the window inside one of the toilets in a detention facility. The notorious Window was last reinforced in 2008 when a wanted terrorist escaped through it. The Water Bearer was never seen again, despite eye-witnesses reported seeing him swimming in the Straits of Malacca with a flotation device fashioned out of 180 NeWater bottles hours after he was reported missing.

2034: The number of deaths related to the plain water drinking ban exceeds that of the Death Railway, earning SMaRT the nickname of "The Death Transit".

2035: SMaRT successfully monopolises public transport after completing the buyover of ComfortDelgro. The people likened the move to an experience similar to the Japanese Occupation. SMaRT shot down the claim, saying nobody in this generation has ever been through the Japanese Occupation, and therefore there is no basis of comparison. SMaRT ridership at an all-time low.

2036: In a brilliant collaboration with the government, private transport, including bicycles and tricycles, are completely banned from the roads. SMaRT encourages the people to take their world class public transport service. SMaRT ridership at an all-time high. SMaRT embarks on the Great Leap Forward programme, massively and rapidly expanding their transport services.

2038: Taxi flag down rates raised to $24.40. Bus fares increased by 600%.

2048: Taxi flag down rates raised to $96.70. Bus fares increased by 600%.

2086: Great Leap Forward ends. There are now 666 kilometres of train tracks serving every corner of Singapore, including previously inaccessible places like the Live Firing Area, Pulau Brani, Pulau Sudong, Jurong Island, Pulau Ubin and Pulau Tekong. Batam extension opens. There is one taxi for every four people, and one bus for every 12. SMaRT employees make up more than half of the 15 million people in Singapore.

2987: SMaRT celebrates 1000 years of public transport service.

Animal Cruely vs Consumerism

Warning: Disturbing video for animal lovers.

P3ST showed me this video clip about how animal cruelty occurs due to consumer demands.

Thrown, dropped, mutilated, and ground-up alive. This is the disturbing reality faced by hundreds of thousands of chicks each day at the world's largest egg-laying breed hatchery Hy-Line International in Spencer, Iowa.

New hidden camera footage obtained at this facility during a http://www.MercyForAnimals.org undercover investigation gives a disturbing glimpse into the cruel and industrialized reality of modern hatcheries.

The warm, comforting, and protective wings of these newly hatched chicks' mothers have been replaced with massive machines, quickly moving conveyor belts, harsh handling, and distressing noise. These young animals are sorted, discarded, and handled like mere cogs in a machine.

For the nearly 150,000 male chicks who hatch every 24 hours at this Hy-Line facility, their lives begin and end the same day. Grabbed by their fragile wings by workers known as "sexers," who separate males from females, these young animals are callously thrown into chutes and hauled away to their deaths. They are destined to die on day one because they cannot produce eggs and do not grow large or fast enough to be raised profitably for meat. Their lives are cut short when they are dropped into a grinding machine tossed around by a spinning auger before being torn to pieces by a high-pressure macerator.

Over 21 million male chicks meet their fate this way each year at this facility.

For the surviving females, this is the beginning of a life of cruelty and confinement at the hands of the egg industry. Before even leaving the hatchery they will be snapped by their heads into a spinning debeaker a portion of their sensitive beaks removed by a laser. Workers toss and rummage through them before they are placed 100 per crowded box and shipped across the country.

The callous disregard for animal welfare at this facility is not isolated. In fact, the conditions documented during this investigation are completely standard and acceptable within the commercial egg industry. Referred to by Hy-Line corporate leaders as mere "genetic products," these chicks are treated just as they are viewed as inanimate objects, rather than the sentient creatures they are.

Driven by consumer demand, the egg industry will continue to exploit, abuse, and kill day-old animals as long as doing so remains profitable. Empowered consumers can put their ethics on the table by choosing kindness over cruelty at each meal by adopting an animal-friendly vegan diet.

Would you call this evil? To me, I still think chickens are prey animals, so they are meant to be eaten. WK was horrified at the sight of the make chicks being ground up ALIVE. But to me, I found myself suprisingly at ease with this because they die almost instantaneously. Their entire nervous system has been ground up, the true death would have been instant. In contrast, breaking the male chick's neck may not always result in death! Beheading takes about 30 seconds for true death to occur.

Actually, I was more disturbed at the sight of the chicks' beaks being lasered off. If you're wondering why, I would liken that action to removing a teenager's teeth off and leaving him/her toothless for the rest of their miserable existence.

I think this video is also too biased against meat eaters. Chicken meat is a primary source of protein for most people. And given the monumental increase in human population the past 200 years, farming practices have to move on with time in order to meet the demands of the meat consumers. Ask any meat farmer, they don't have any affection for their lifestock! To love your animal would mean not being able to kill it. So should mega-farmers like Hy-Line be presecuted for mass-producing meat in the most efficient manner they could come up with?

As for rough handling of chicks, one must bear in mind that these are our food, not pets. Tender loving care requires time and effort, and it usually breed emotional attachment. This is something that all lifestock farmers avoid. These animals are a means of income, they are FOOD. Plain and simple, its just a matter of when and how they die. So to me, I think lasering off their beaks would be a greater cause of agitation, simply because it is making them suffer throughout the durations of their pathetic little lives. At least the males died quickly.

Another point to note is that asking everyone to turn vegetarian would be impractical either, this is due to a shortage of landspace for farming. Another cute thing is, this is the first time I've heard of males being killed off in the favor of females. ^^ So much so for zhong4 nan2 qing1 nu3. =P

The Political Opposition

From The Blue Sweater, posted 4 September 2009

Ok, before I begin, the disclaimer:

First, this essay is about politics, but aims only to reflect on the realities of political opposition in Singapore.

Second, this is NOT a Political Science essay. So for any of my PS friends reading this, please don’t take it so seriously...

Alright, now I can start... though I seriously wonder whether those disclaimers are necessary in the first place.

There has been much news about opposition parties in general recently. Japan had a historic change in its politics, when the opposition Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ) ended the 55-year rule of the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP).

In Singapore, the opposition party PKMS hit the headlines (and made a fool of themselves) after fights broke out due to power struggles within the party. All these events made the discussion with a friend of mine today all the more meaningful.

A friend of mine took a module on politics in Singapore, and I was approached for ideas, as I took the same module during Special Semester.

I was given this question, which is not strictly a political science question, but nevertheless is related somewhat to the topic of Singapore politics: “I know some people who vote opposition, but when asked why, they didn’t have a real reason, other than ‘I just don’t like the PAP.’ How does it make sense?”

Well, my initial thought was that it simply doesn’t make sense. I was initially inclined to say that these voters are simply irrational, but then again, I personally felt that wasn’t really answering the question.

So I adopted a different approach to the question, that is, I wanted to address the question “Why do people vote opposition in the first place”.

I thought of three possible reasons.

First, there are people who simply do not support the PAP as it is. People might be dissatisfied with its elitism, the conservatism, or the political ideology of the party.

Second, there are people who sincerely believe that there should be more space and opportunities for the opposition. This is because of the belief that a true democracy is one in which ruling and opposition parties can compete on an equal basis, which is a situation that does not happen in Singapore. In addition, there is the desire for the greater presence of opposition in parliament, so that there is more debate and alternative voices in parliament.

Of course, one might rebut by arguing the role of the Nominated MPs in parliament, but the problem is, though NMPs are non-partisan by nature, they are screened by a PAP-dominated panel, which affects the neutrality of the NMPs.

Third, and more importantly, there are people who do not benefit, or are even marginalised by PAP policy. PAP policies and schemes might not have benefited them, and there are important structural contradictions in some of the government’s policy, such as the contradiction between cosmopolitanism and building national identity, between embracing globalisation and coping with the problems and challenges associated with it, such as the “digital divide”, which marginalises the older generation who lack the IT skills necessary in the digitised job market.

Though there are issues, it is ultimately important to note that these factors are ultimately inconsequential. Political opposition in Singapore is ultimately too weak, for a variety of reasons, to effectively challenge the PAP government (I won’t get to the reasons, one can write an entire essay out of these reasons, which I decline, having already done so just last semester). We are very unlikely, in the foreseeable future, to see the situation in Japan, when a long-ruling party is simply brought to its knees.

Nevertheless, I feel there is an important lesson for the PAP. The ineffective handling of national problems and issues can lead to public disillusionment. The PAP will not see the situation as that in Japan, but public dissatisfaction is easily manifested in the electoral swings, as evident in the PAP’s troubled years of 1980 and 1984.

The Sciences or the Humanities?

From The Blue Sweater, posted 31 August 2009

This is one of the great debates in academia. For a very long time intellectuals and thinkers have been thinking of the differences between the natural sciences, the humanities, and the social sciences, and the debate is still ongoing.

I’m no academic authority, but I do have some thoughts of my own based on my (albeit limited) experience and knowledge of the differences between the sciences and the humanities.

It was a pretty ordinary after-lesson chat (and lunch), and a friend and I discussed the issues between the humanities and the sciences (among other somewhat unrelated topics), and how these differences relate to us.

Actually, there are similarities. Both make use of systematic methods in the process of generating knowledge and understanding.
But then, what are the differences?

I think the most important difference is that the sciences seek knowledge that is absolute, that is universal in nature, while the humanities look for the general in the particular, since the nature of the subject matter – humans – are difficult to predict and are changeable over time.

This brings me to my thought for today: are the differences between the sciences and the humanities critical? Are there costs if one made the switch from one to the other?

In the chat with my friend today, the answer seemed to be: “Maybe”.

I was a science student in secondary school. I took double pure science (physics and chemistry), along with double math (Additional and Elementary). It’s a combination that prepared me for a track in science education at the post secondary level.

But when my O level results came, I decided to make the switch. Instead of opting for the Science stream in JC, I’ve decided to go to Arts instead. The reason? Sheer realism (well, my math was horrible though I did fine for my sciences, but it was my Combined Humanities score that made the crucial difference). I remembered my teachers were quite flabbergasted at my decision, but looking at my humanities grade, they (kind of) let me be.

What my friend felt about the switch was that it would be difficult if one did not have the foundations in language. The humanities require a certain command of language since it’s reading and writing intensive. Being well-read and having a strong ability to express oneself is essential for a good performance in the Arts stream.

I thought: “You have a point”. After all, I do realize that I still have some weaknesses in this respect (since my friend told me I was the first ex-debater she’s out-debated, but, well, that’s beside the point. Anyway, debaters debate and get out-debated all the time).

What I do agree with, is that it does take a bit to adapt to the “switch”, if I can call it this way. It did take me a while to master the reading and writing skills necessary.

Since I was from a science background in secondary school, taking on Arts meant taking on a different set of reading material, adopting a different mode of thinking, and to be able to express my case. To be honest, it was difficult at times.

What happened next? I joined the debate society in JC. Debate taught me how to read, how to write, and most important, how to think in the Arts and Social Sciences way.

So to be out-debated was, well, quite expected really, since I knew I was the “late-bloomer” in debate, plus the fact that my JC didn’t have a strong debating culture in the first place.

But then again, since I did survive (or I wouldn’t have made it to NUS), that means there is no real cost in making the switch. It’s “maybe” for this reason. It’s good to start early, but there seems to be no real difference between early and late.

What could it be then? Maybe it’s the attitude, the willingness to put in more. Maybe it’s the training I had in debate, which taught me the skills and stimulated my mind.

So, the sciences or the humanities? I say: “Follow your heart (or your grades).” I know my heart’s with the humanities.

On Freedom of Speech

From the The Blue Sweater, posted 30 August, 2009

“To speak or not to speak?”

That is the question, and the answer to which has persistently eluded me from time to time. Here I share my thoughts on what the freedom of speech is, and what it means for me.

I mentioned in ContemplAsian I had this horrible experience where I invoked the anger of someone while, exercising the freedom of speech, if you will, with a friend. The full story is in ContemplAsian, but long story short, I was chatting with a friend on a bus about school, and as we chatted we got someone we didn’t know angry, and it was a somewhat disturbing experience.

I had several thoughts after the incident, but it’s mainly about the other person, so here I’ll talk more about my own self-reflection.

Well, the problem might not have been as complicated as my friend and I thought. Maybe I was just too loud (after all, I’m aware of this bad habit of mine, where I lose myself during a conversation).

But then again, was it simply a matter of volume, or was there something more fundamental?

This brings me to my topic for today. What is the “freedom of speech”?

I feel that the freedom of speech simply means the ability to say what one thinks without the fear of suppression. Of course, there are important things to recognise, such as issues that are clearly “out-of-bounds”, like comments that threaten racial and religious harmony, and slanderous remarks. But putting those aside, there is freedom of speech in Singapore, at the very least, in principle.

But based on my experience that day, I think there are other issues to consider that are just as important.

First, if what is being said has the potential to cause public anger (like the things my friend and I discussed that day, which, to be quite honest, are quite cynical in nature), would that right still apply? It is certainly true that the freedom of expression should never compromise peace and harmony among people.

But then it begs the question: how would we know whether what we say could offend a person? My friend and I didn’t know we angered that particular person, and then again, the rest of the bus didn’t react in any way that meant displeasure (of course, there is a possibility they feel we were right, or they just can’t be bothered), and if we didn’t mention any names, or any specific institution, where was the need for the person to respond in the way he did? This was the question my friend and I never quite came to terms with.

Or just to quote my friend: “I think that’s his own problem.”

In other words, should we keep quiet simply because of the potential fear of someone getting angry, or should we keep quiet despite being as politically correct as we could? Either way it looks like we are better off quiet, but then, where is the freedom of expression then?

So maybe I was too loud. Maybe if I whispered to my friend this incident would have a different outcome, or would never have taken place.
This brings me to my second point. Is the freedom of speech conditioned not by what we say, but how we say it? This is a very plausible case. Since the point is to minimise disturbance or distress amongst others, it would help if the contents of the conversation is limited to just, say, my friend and I.

But then again, putting it into perspective, does it mean we can whisper to each other about how a certain race or religion is (whatever)? Certainly not.

Besides, if that person still managed to hear us, and still got angry, it’s still our responsibility, since the conversation has already spread beyond the two of us.

The bus, as an example of public space, shows indeed how the issue of free speech can be so complex.

To be honest, as I’ve said in ContemplAsian, I would apologise for making that person so angry, but I would not apologise for what I said, because I feel I have the right to talk about the issues regardless of my standing.

It was regrettable that what we said has caused the breach of peace, if I could put it that way, but ultimately, the balance between peace and free speech was never an easy one to strike in the first place.