nikheart

Thought Experiment

Thu, 10 Dec 2009 20:17:10 GMT

I was thinking back on the 377a debates in 2007 and I just want to try out a thought experiment on it. I really need to be corrected if my reasonings are faulty.

What if: the government at that time indeed decided that there was good grounds to repeal the law and they did indeed do so... BUT they say that it will be repealed ONLY for the 2000 or so people who actually signed the petition that was handed in to parliament. For all other persons other than the 2000 or so, the law remains applicable to them.

Question: Is this acceptable?

My answer as it stands now: Yes, it is.

But I need to stand corrected if there are good arguments against its acceptability. Anyone with any thoughts?

The Challenger Defeated

Thu, 10 Dec 2009 18:31:38 GMT

I challenged myself to open myself up to the possibility of traditional naive idealism once more. I am happy to say that the challeger's wager was lost and at long last (it's only been several weeks actually), I can resume comfortably in tackling life with concrete harsh realism without all these naive notions of some mythical ancient traditional utopian state of life. The challenger's wager was to assume dominant control of my psyche should it win, but to accept banishment should it lose. Banishment has been dealt harshly and swiftly and the one true monarch has resumed control of my psyche (ie. concrete harsh realism).

With me now back in complete control of myself, concrete, efficient steps shall be taken to prevent a re-occurence of this unacceptable attempt at usurpation. The challenge should have ideally not taken place at all. I will learn from this mistake to ensure it doesn't ever again.

Phantom of the Opera (Learn to be lonely)

Mon, 30 Nov 2009 13:34:07 GMT

The Paradox of Modernity and the sorry state of the human soul

Mon, 02 Nov 2009 21:04:18 GMT

I find myself losing the ability to write at length. More and more, my writing styles go straight to the point. Unable to express, unable to explain myself in simple language. The only thing stopping me from mercilessly babbling in a tongue comprehensible only to myself is whatever is left of my good humour to work within common cultures of understanding. Having treated culture as something external to myself to be studied for so long, I realize more and more I find myself alienated from it. That's why I say it requires my "good humour" to work within it. But it's not just good humour is it? It's more than that. Don't I need it? I speak as though culture is something for me to manipulate, to be used according to my will at my will's pleasure. But no. Culture is the means to connect to others. After all this time, I hate to admit I still cant exist on my own. So why study culture if it created such trouble for me? Wldn't it be better to just be immersed in it? Answer: no. I will tell u why.

Modernity is a matrix of contradictions. It is riveted with conflicting messages and plagued with confused sound bytes.

1970s was "stop at 2", now it's "3 or more if u can afford it".

Primary school they teach us: shou3 wang4 xiang1 chu3... look out for your neighbours... fuck, I don't even talk to my neighbours: I wouldn't recognize them on the street if I ran into them.

"One people, one nation" "united we stand" "together we make a difference"... but I don't even talk to fellow country(wo)men on the train, much less work together with them, or even know them. National Day is one hell of a bloody spectacle: not to be taken seriously.

Face it: there is no constant. Modernity is so complex that nothing is certain. Today's truths are tomorrow's fairy-tales. Today's fairy-tales can turn out to be tomorrow's reality! Who would have thought in A.G. Bell's day that they'd now have handphones that can make pancakes and rub your balls now? Bombarded constantly by mixed messages, I wonder how does the human psyche cope? "Oh! our leader is a great man! He did this this and that." Next moment, we hear "Oh he's a horrible man! He did that that and this." With society so complex and elaborate, I tell you there is NOTHING any leader can do to please everyone. He becomes both good AND bad at the same time! Talk about paradox that's it man! Forcing 2 complete opposites together is really smthg the human mind can't actually take.

What does all this do to the human psyche? I believe we tend to layer our minds. We have abit of space for everything. Not only that, we compartmentalize. We are X at office, Y at home, and Z in church. No way we can try to synthesize and reconcile every single part of our lives. Unless of course you are a cognitive superhuman. Maybe in the future our minds will be able to take it! Societal development has occurred too fast for our biological evolution to keep up. The great titan gods of sociology have worried about precisely this even as far as a century ago! Durkheim in particular was very worried about what rapid development will do to us. Whatever he said is precisely what's happening now. We have become more specialized - a different persona for a different context in life. Weber talked about bureaucracy and about how all our value systems will be increasingly rationalized. This means that we will no longer so much do things because they are good to do or desirable in its own right, but we do things calculatively, efficiently and for instrumental rather than substantive reasons. This goes hand in hand with Durkheim right? If we are different persons for different contexts, then the WHOLE person configures less significantly right? Emphasis is placed on the position of the OFFICE we hold, not the PERSON. We are to serve certain contextual FUNCTIONS. It's just functions functions functions functions functions!

In such a climate, existential turmoil becomes endemic. Always there is a tendency to rationalize and simply fulfill what is needed of our roles and that's it! Next! Even in a place where overarching coherence is an emphasis like church, there is also that rationalizing tendency to treat our roles as mere functions. Bureaucracy has not only established itself in social life, but its spirit has enroached even into our very souls.

Who am I? Who the bloody hell am I?? Who can answer that? The individual in modernity has become a living breathing walking paradox. He/She is both X and not X at the same time. And the ancient religions that have worked so well in the past has not really caught up yet. Religion preaches a coherent system to make sense of everything together. Coherence is good for the soul. Alas, they have not been able to account for the paradoxes. I hereby advance a theory of religion: industrializing or newly industrialized societies tend to breed fundamentalism because certainty is needed in an increasingly complex society. Fundamentalism also tends to ignore all evidence to the contrary. Because complexity increases gradually, not abrubtly, these religions still bear relevance. However, as evidenced in Europe, really advanced industrial societies will see a decline in religiosity as single-system coherence religions lose all their relevance. Evidences to the contrary cannot be ignored forever. More relevant secular religions will replace the old ones. The ultimate survival of old religion therefore rests squarely on whether it can update itself fast enough vis-a-vis society, especially economics. But if u're like Marx, you'd say, destroy everything and start over.

Have you ever talked to a friend or a counsellor and find urself having mixed feelings? Or feeling very opposing forces pulling u in different directions? That's probably because today, paradoxes in life are very rampant. If you can decide easily, thats probably because one of the voices in the whirlwind of noisy soundbytes in your psyche is strongest. In a different context though, that strongest voice may not be the strongest anymore. So try and decide which is really you. Maybe you say both are you! But what if they present you a paradox? See eg: saving the environment and yet not being able to stop using shitload of resources! Did you know that the average human being living in today's society consumes way more than he shld be? That's because we HAVE to get to places on time and fast (petrol), we HAVE to satisfy red tape and bureaucracy (paper) and we HAVE to carry on being productive at night too (electricity/light). No tribal society ever needs to use this much! So here we are confronted with environmental degradation with nothing the hell in the world u can do to stop it! Planet earth is doomed unless u can stop and reverse the economic giant from advancing! FAT HOPE! We are headed for hell, and we KNOW it and we can SEE it but there is nothing we can do to STOP it. Talk about dealing with paradoxes in ur head... HA-HA-HA

The complexity of modernity generates so mcuh contradiction. The human soul is therefore left being pulled in many directions, not knowing which way to go. Finally and inevitably, it divides itself and goes in various directions it has to. So that is where we are right now in paradoxical modernity - divided. And I am not just talking about between fellow human beings in society, I am talking about internally - psychologically and spiritually. Of course we are also divided from one another: complex society means that everyone specializes. They turn out differently and they do different jobs. How is it that we can connect with each other despite such differences is a miracle in itself. How do u find common stuff to talk about?? Half the time u are merely just trying to understand the fella. We are alienated from each other, alienated from society, and alienated from ourselves. Triple whammy.

Even at this point where I end my rampage, I note a paradox. I began this essay saying that I find myself no longer able to write long and well. I just contradicted myself. I NEVER did intend this to be an essay (1410 words). Yet, things happen. Life is a complex fuck.

Dedicated to Sociology's 3 Titans

Tue, 20 Oct 2009 08:46:13 GMT

Holy, holy, holy, insight almighty,
Bow we to function, conflict and rationality.
Holy, holy, holy, omniscient and mighty,
Society in 3 persons - blessed trinity.

Emile Durkheim, Max Weber and Karl Marx.

PAP does not know how to gain humility points

Sat, 17 Oct 2009 08:31:45 GMT

theonlinecitizen.com/2009/10/wps-sylvia-lim-rebuts-ministrys-reply-on-lift-upgrading/

1. This woman is really sensible.

2. I'll vote for the first time next elections.

3. I hope she contests in Aljunied again.

4. I hope the morons KEEP me under Aljunied.

5. Can't wait to vote Labour.

Suffer and Endure attitude evident in the commonplace

Sat, 17 Oct 2009 08:25:14 GMT

www.asiaone.com/News/AsiaOne%2BNews/Singapore/Story/A1Story20091017-174159.html

1. This is very shocking

2. Because she got away with it for many months

3. It shows Singaporeans respect their elders

4. It shows Singaporeans respect their elders enough to take humiliation, degradation, suffering and lots of pain

5. Singaporeans are masochistic.

6. No wonder we always vote the way we do.

7. I beg to differ

8. I believe respect is earned, not ascribed

9. I would go to great lengths to take you down if I think you're being a power-abusive asshole

10. I would have taken this old lady down on day 1.

The Greatest Equalizer

Mon, 21 Sep 2009 15:25:40 GMT

More potent, more effective, and more certain than any measure aimed at leveling the great divides and injustices of human life - it has to be the greatest equalizer of all: death.

Surely all that mankind labours for would be in vain. And it does not matter whether you have laboured for yourself or for others - all is for naught. Yet we, poor humans, struggle to make meaning of incorporeal temporality. Old religion talks of rebirth, modern religion talks of salvation, atheists might talk about the survival of the human species as a whole rather than individuals. What are these but illusions? What are these but non-falsifiables?

Faith in non-falsifiables has had many harmful effects - depending on who emphasizes what aspect of it. Faith groups go to war, faith groups oppress minorities, faith groups ignore evidences to the contrary. Yet, what is life without faith? Shall one recognize that everything is disenchanted and meaningless and simply take as much as he/she can while yet alive? Surely faith - faith that emphasizes a better world for all, has been able to generate the greatest good in a human being ever seen. Why should one bother caring for others if in the end nothing matters?

Surely then, we need illusions and non-falsifiables. Woe unto humanity if humanity knew everything there is to know.

And yet, the possibility that everything is for naught lingers on. We try but never reach our goals. Pity the poor human who struggles to make meaning for himself/herself. Perhaps then, one might wish to reconsider investing everything in faith, whatever form faith manifests itself in concrete terms: a cause, a goal, the conversion of the world, money, love, power, etc. Perhaps the human shld pay tribute to the greatest of all equalizers at least half the time. Take everything you can, take advantage of people, and detatch from the world. With confidence somewhat, that all labours would ultimately be in vain, we need not try too hard... because this same confidence gives rise to confidence somewhat, that all suffering for all peoples are not forever either. Sweet death, with bony hand outstretched, embraces all. None shall escape.

The Feebleness of the analogy

Fri, 10 Jul 2009 10:59:28 GMT

Now I am tickled=p

If and given that:

- sexuality is a choice. ie. one chooses to be gay. And if this is a reason cited that it is unnatural and therefore certain sexualities can be banned,

Then likewise:

- religion is most certainly a choice, far more obviously than that of sexuality. Therefore, religion is unnatural and certain religions should be banned.

The Key

Mon, 06 Jul 2009 20:00:42 GMT

3 words:

Debt of Mercy

The Burka as a specter of patriarchy?

Sat, 04 Jul 2009 17:54:50 GMT

Consider the burka: covering women, almost completely faceless. The western nations consider it a bastion of patriarchy and oppression of women. They opine, almost with complete certainty, that this robs women of their own freedom of expression, individuality and identity.

But who is to say that the solution is to remove the burka? Why can't equality be achieved by having the men wear burkas too? Allow me therefore to succinctly summarize the virtues of the burka:

- there will be less bashing of others up simply because "i do not like ur face" (therefore, burkas promote harmony)
- probably less motorcycle accidents cuz guys wun need to turn their faces everytime a chick walks past
- i suppose it could double up as umbrellas so we wun need to carry those effing unglam brollies around
- countless manhours saved because we do not need to spend them choosing clothes
- imagine the ease of undressing for sex: dont wear anything under it!

Finally, the burka saves us from one facet of the OPPRESSION OF CAPITALISM. All that choice and fashion is to me, nothing more than a bogus macro-massive scam by capitalists to rob you of your freedom. Who says that without the burka you are more free? There is fashion to conform to. And if I decide to dress up all crazy, head to toe in pink, I do not think pple would be all thrilled rite? There really is no freedom.

Therefore, in conclusion, I am in favour of burkas for everyone. Send fashion to the rubbish. FASHION IS CAPITALISM. CAPITALISM IS EVIL. THEREFORE FASHION IS EVIL.

Adopting and Raising Kids

Wed, 03 Jun 2009 21:27:01 GMT

'Gay penguins' rear adopted chick

Humboldt penguin numbers are declining in the wild (file image)

Two "gay" male penguins have hatched a chick and are now rearing it as its adoptive parents, says a German zoo.

The zoo, in Bremerhaven, northern Germany, says the adult males - Z and Vielpunkt - were given an egg which was rejected by its biological parents.

It says the couple are now happily rearing the chick, said to have reached four weeks old.

The zoo made headlines in 2005 over plans to "test" the sexual orientation of penguins with homosexual traits.

Three pairs of male penguins had been seen attempting to mate with each other and trying to hatch offspring from stones.

Since the chick arrived, they have been behaving just as you would expect a heterosexual couple to do

Bremerhaven zoo

The zoo flew in four females in a bid to get the endangered birds to reproduce - but quickly abandoned the scheme after causing outrage among gay rights activists, who accused it of interfering in the animals' behaviour.

The six "gay" penguins remain at the zoo, among them Z and Vielpunkt who are now rearing the chick together after being given the rejected egg.

"Z and Vielpunkt, both males, gladly accepted their 'Easter gift' and got straight down to raising it," said a zoo statement.

"Since the chick arrived, they have been behaving just as you would expect a heterosexual couple to do. The two happy fathers spend their days attentively protecting, caring for and feeding their adopted offspring."

Humboldt penguins are normally found in coastal Peru and Chile, but their numbers have been dwindling due to overfishing, reports the AFP news agency.

'Drive to mate'

There have been previous reports of exclusive male-to-male pairings among penguins, some of which have also included the rearing of chicks.

Homosexual behaviour in is well documented in many different animals, but it is not understood in detail, says Professor Stuart West, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Oxford.

Professor West says it has been suggested that homosexual activity could serve various purposes - for instance, it may relate to social bonding and establishment of dominance among bonobo chimps, while in some bird species, females may come together to rear young.

Other animals may simply exhibit a "drive to mate", while others may, like humans, enjoy non-procreative sexual activity.

"Homosexuality is nothing unusual among animals," Bremerhaven zoo said on Wednesday.

"Sex and coupling up in our world do not necessarily have anything to do with reproduction."

A response to DPM Wong's statement

Fri, 15 May 2009 05:04:16 GMT

Today, it was reported in the Straits Times that DPM Wong said that homosexuals ought to accept the informal space they are currently allowed in society to live their private lives. He said this is because that is the current balance point and any aggressive push by gay activists will invite push-backs from other sectors of society.

I disagree strongly.

Firstly, one cannot treat a current balance point as a stagnant and unchanging equilibrium. Balance points are always in flux precisely because there are forces of change acting on it. Forces of change, such as efforts by gay activists, are precisely the things that cause balance points to shift. It becomes a very illogical thing to say that because a balance point is established somewhere, forces of change should be stopped. That is completely arbitrary. I'd rather the balance point be arbitrarily somewhere else rather than where it is now. How can one say a balance point causes forces of change to start or stop? It appears that the DPM, however well-intending, got this logical sequence mixed up.

Secondly, one cannot simply sit by and somehow force a human injustice to appear satisfactory (one cannot make a "human wrong" a "human right" - NMP Thio Li Ann, parliamentary speech 2007). Citizenship should be defined as privileges accorded to citizens which are commensurate with their responsibilities to the nation. If 2 citizens who bear the same responsibilities to the nation are rewarded with different privileges, then that is injustice. As far as I can see, homosexuals contribute to the economy just as heterosexuals do; they take care of their families just as heterosexuals do; many do their part for social welfare and charity as heterosexuals do; they pay their income taxes as heterosexuals do; and for the males, they serve National Service just as heterosexuals do. I wish to ask the government: if they feel it is justified to insist that homosexuals accept a meagerly lot of informal privileges, would they be willing to grant homosexuals a lesser responsibility to the nation? To put it differently, are they willing to accept informal rather than formal responsibilities of homosexuals to the nation? Perhaps pay income tax via intermittent donations to the state coffers rather than mandatory taxation?

If the answer is 'no', then it is time for the whole of Singapore to realize a growing consciousness amongst the gay community - that is to view the issue of human sexuality (homosexuality in particular) in terms of citizenship - the gay community wants rights and privileges that are commensurate with their contributions to society. The very fact that gay activism is very active today is because such an equilibrium is not there. The most pivotal piece of legislature in question is section 377a - nobody who views himself as a responsible contributor to society can ever be expected to be satisfied with being effectively, a technical criminal. In other words, being technical criminals is too much to ask of the gay community to swallow.

If the government realizes this point, they will also realize that the discourse on maintaining harmony and the aforementioned "balance point" is becoming increasingly irrelevant to the gay community. The returns they are getting are unequal, period. No amount of coaxing can mask the gross inequality. Unequal returns for similar contributions means second-class citizen status. In a world of increasing global mobility, it means that second-class citizens, especially the most talented and resourceful, would be more likely to move elsewhere to a place where they think they will get greater returns on equal contributions to society. It is as simple as that.

No good change of inequalities came without a struggle. This is a cliche example, but it is worth citing again: had Martin Luther King Jr not campaigned aggressively, the black community in the USA would not have made the advances they have made thus far. Imagine if he subscribed to discourses surrounding harmonious balance points and refused to be aggressive? His matyrdom became an even stronger war cry for equal rights for blacks. Positive change entails sacrifice, it may even entail matyrdom. Tomorrow, many will gather at Hong Lim park to make a stand. It coincides with IDAHO (International Day Against Homophobia) on May 17th. It is aggressive by Singapore's standards but by standards elsewhere, it is very tame. I hope the rest of Singapore society will take note of tomorrow's demonstration as a very positive advancement of civil society in Singapore which will ultimately bring good upon injustices many still do not realize exist.

First-hand account, courtesy of a wonderful friend

Sat, 02 May 2009 17:06:49 GMT

Note: I originally wanted this as a private entry, but it was such a hilarious account I felt guilty of denying others the pleasure of reading. So here it is. Thanks XXX for allowing me to reproduce this!

I have more than good news. I can write a whole novel on how we totally kicked the asses of the newbies. The EGM was meant to last from 2-5pm. Due to delays, it started at 3pm and ended around 9.15pm. More details on that later. It was an epic clash of liberal feminists and church crazies that I didn't expect to see even in American soaps.

The opening exchange of warcries was especially amusing. When the newbies spoke at first, there was loud support from the newbies' camp. But every time the newbies tried to speak for themselves, everyone yelled at them to shut up, booed or pointed them out as liars. That was easily 2x as loud as whatever the newbies could drum up. It was a long hard bit of yelling to get them to even turn on the mikes for our speakers to speak for themselves. They even tried calling in their hired security guards to escort the "unruly" members from the auditorium (well, they were yelling 'coz they had no mikes. Durh.) and the old guard stoutly refused to let them be escorted out. It took even more fighting to get the vote of no confidence moved up. The newbie president asked their legal counsel to speak for them, and the lawyer said that ordinarily the vote should take precedence over everything, but in all fairness let the president give the address first. She had three minutes, after which everyone started yelling her down again.

After much more fighting over the details, the president went on to talk about Aware's achievements. Once that was done, the old guard cheerfully grabbed the mike and reassured everyone that the president did indeed speak correctly of Aware's past achievements...which the president and her team had NO part of. By now it was around 4pm.

We then moved on to the vote of no confidence, and the newbies were still stalling for time. We got it through anyway (we beat them 2:1, but more on that later) Shortly after the vote, the newbies' supporters pulled out, leaving their leaders in the lurch. So much for loyal supporters. The time was around 4.30pm

It is my personal opinion that the following hours of grilling were part of a stalling tactic to get multiple recounts. At full count, there were around 2100 votes. No way it could take 3.5h to settle. Then came the deep frying session where people came up one after another to tell about what Aware did for them, their children, their families, their country, and basically how the newbies sucked. Everything was covered from their conduct to their finances (they admitted to squandering 90k even though any monthly expenditure over 20k had to require an EGM for approval), and even this was especially slugged over as volunteer work leaders and even major company bosses came in to state that the newbies could've simply asked for help and much of that money wouldn't have to be spent. They were slugged over their understanding of feminism, their inexperience, their methods, lack of understanding of volunteer welfare org culture, lack of achievements, you name it. They took about 3.5h of slugging while weakly responding (mostly irrelevant, irrational or just plain stupid responses. Sometimes they skirt the issues in most amusing boilerplate speech ways).

The men from COOS did speak out in the newbies' favor, but their arguments were so absurd that I'm forced to conclude that their minds melted from all that brainwashing. One guy came up talking about how the receptionists were so nice, but he felt "harassed" by the "hooligan" women in the auditorium, then was forced down as his 3 mins were up and he kept yelling about women touching him. Another guy asked a minute of silence to enjoy the "peace" addressed the crowd as a "congregation", then as an "assembly" and said some crap I don't remember before being booed off the mike. Yet another came up claiming to be a rational, logical man who talked about rational issues (he never illustrated what that really meant) but not about womens' issues because they are irrational and emotional, then he talked about how rational he was because he was rational...well...you get the idea. Maybe only nutcases stuck behind. Interestingly enough, none of the fundie camp women spoke up. Maybe they do stick to the letting their men speak for them idea.

Interesting accounts came from people expressing how uncomfortable they were with the newbies' leadership, how the newbies actually made them feel threatened and insecure, and basically concluded saying that they had NO CONFIDENCE in these fellas (note that the no confidence vote already passed. This is just grilling the newbies) One Muslim father of 3 daughters said how his religion encouraged questioning and exploration to strengthen their faith, and reiterated how proud he was to let his daughters go through the comprehensive sexual education so they know more about what's out there, and are better equipped to make the right decisions for themselves. Christians came up who claimed to be highly conservative, yet they totally disagreed with the newbies' methods and even with their beliefs. They said that they did not believe in marginalizing homosexuals, or doing the unethical things the newbies did to get into power and hold it. Simply put...they called the newbies unchristian. Then a buddhist fella came up saying how the homosexual discrimination was totally wrong, and that the newbies were wrong for turning aware into an anti-homosexual organization. Academics came up challenging how shallow the newbies' understanding of feminism was, and company heads came up accusing the newbies of squandering money. People even challenged the newbies' view of transsexuals as recognized only by the gender on their ICs, to which an FtM stepped up and said that since he was legally female, he's gona vote no confidence to them!

Then came the outcome: 1400++ voted no confidence. 700++ voted confidence. A clear 2:1 victory. The old guard called the newbies to step down. The newbies flatly rejected. Why? 'coz their legal counsel said that a vote of no confidence did not have real legal power. HOWEVER, he also said that if there was an overwhelming vote of no confidence, the decent thing to do was to step down of their own accord. They repeatedly refused it. Then the old guard said they could take 5 mins to reconsider. At which, the newbies pulled out.

5 minutes passed. 10. Old guard said we'll wait a little longer. At 15, a vote was convened to remove the newbies. It was passed unopposed except for 2 dissenters (see what happens when you walk out on your own leaders?) One of the old guard led the crowd in a laughter session to commemorate world laughter day (though we probably know what we were laughing for) while we were waiting. Then they proceeded to nominate and install the new leaders from the old guard. There's lots of new blood, so most of the old guard didn't actually rejoin the organization as the ex-co. At which point the newbies came in and offered to "graciously resign". Well...give them credit for that, eh? =p At the old guards' behest, everyone gave them a rousing farewell applause.

Ah 'tis a fine day, and one that will go down in Singaporean and feminist history. A true victory for the liberals and moderates in Singapore. Actually probably the conservatives, too, as they're not all church crazies.

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/426519/1/.html News coverage here.

I'm sure I missed out lots of the juicy bits, but you get the gist of it =p

Post-EGM Analysis

Sat, 02 May 2009 16:38:42 GMT

After surveying the comments posted on the online citizen, my mind started turning on digging up exactly what was it that was won here. And what I can come up with for my comment now is 3 things:

1. there were well over 700 voters in support of Josie's exco (that's about one-third of the votes). I would be very very interested in the demographics of these 700. What kind of value systems do they hold such that they overlook the underhanded methods employed by that exco. Are they well-informed? Do they know what is going on? Or blindly voting? Or all of similar religious convictions as Josie and co? If the answer is predominantly the similar religious convictions one, then I want to say that managing a turn out of 700++ speaks alot. It is large. And tetimony to the religious power they are capable of mustering. Understand that mustering 700++ itself is ok. But mustering that amount in the name of religion is far from ok. Until the demographics of the 700 can be confirmed, this remains speculation. But I am saying that if they were rallied under the banner of Christianity, we ought to be worried.

2. Surveying the comments, I get a sentiment and feeling that most Singaporeans actually are secretly thankful for Josie's team's expository on AWARE's sexuality programme. They secretly support her team but in this case are not willing to do so because of i) decency (ie. the manner Josie's team conducted themselves through stealth and secrecy) and ii) the religious-secular space divide. These are what pushed the so-called moderate middle to support the old guard. So, I might say that today's victory was a victory for decency and secularism. It was by no means a victory for genuine inclusivity in terms of more humane treatment of lgbts. Case in point: in 2007, the moderate middle were, if anything at all, against 377a's repeal. The moderates have come down in support of the old guard based on other factors. My personal prediction is that if indeed the old guard were to gain legitimacy with the estranged public, one of the things they might have to do is to moderate its apparent friendly image towards lgbts. But they are seriously going to have to consider this position carefully because their duty as a secular activist group for women is to all women: lesbians and straight women alike. As such, promotion of movies like spider lillies which they have done so before MUST continue under the old guard as such movies promote love and acceptance towards lesbians. There is a difference between promoting lesbianism per se and promoting the love and acceptance of lesbians, including the lesbian's right to live as a lesbian healthily. In my opinion, movies such as spider lillies do the latter which AWARE should do. It is the former point that is an issue of contention between conservatives and progressives but unfortunately, pple tend to confuse the 2. And insofar as homosexuality per se is still an issue of serious disagreement in society, AWARE should stick to the latter and not the former. The old guard has indeed stuck to the latter as far as I am concerned, the now-deposed new exco were the ones who have drummed up alot of smoke against the old guard.

3. Consider Josie's position - defeated, maybe fired later, and brought into disrepute. I believe alot of the fundamentalists involved in the takeover might be even further polarized as a result of this defeat and begin buying even more strongly and fervently into their beliefs. Therefore, watch out now: they have learnt from this defeat. If they mount another attempt like this to turn Singapore into a "God-fearing nation", it will be more sophisticated, it will be more subtle, and it will be with even more pre-meditation. Right-wing ideology is very dangerous. Look at the USA and go figure. Please let us be on our guards.

Swine Flu

Thu, 30 Apr 2009 13:14:28 GMT

Ok, once again I am pissed by this. I argue that the above-mentioned disease is ELITIST and ARROGANT and ultimately a function of POWER. Simple: there are many other diseases that kill countless of poverty-stricken individuals, yet no one cares. But when Swine Flu begins invading Europe and USA, it's suddenly an international disaster requiring lots of concern. Frankly, if I were to be stricken with the disease, I'll do the world a favour and isolate myself and be rather happy to die.

Somehow we start caring only when it affects us or can potentially affect us. Self-interest duh.

The construction of health crises (or any other crisis for that matter) is such that you are made to be dependent on your authorities: further entrenching their power and grip over you. Not that they do not do a good job, but I am saying they will do the job only so far as it serves their legitimacy - do not think for a moment they are doing so because they genuinely care whether you live or die... that is bullshit and rhetoric. Crises can always be leveraged by certain social groups for power. Always remember that please.

We seem to be in a constant "crisis mindset". No wonder fundamentalism flourishes. This world is so screwed.

time dimension

Sun, 26 Apr 2009 14:03:17 GMT

http://mathialee.wordpress.com/2009/04/26/more-than-meets-the-eye/

This blog is good in that the author does a historical analysis of what has been going on. Must not forget to remind myself to look at the time dimension too! It appears that the sexuality education being cast as the main reason for the coup is at the very least suspicious in itself.

Religion and Politics (again)

Sun, 26 Apr 2009 08:01:36 GMT

A friend sent me this link. An overseas observer's commentary. By now, even I am tired of saying it: beware the fundamentalists. A global phenomenon this seems to be.

http://dogemperor.newsvine.com/_news/2009/04/24/2729992-a-steeplejacking-of-a-womens-ngo-in-singapore-a-rare-glimpse-at-how-joels-army-groups-work-in-practice

Christian Activism (AWARE saga)

Sat, 25 Apr 2009 05:49:14 GMT

Pls read Pg 9 of today's issue of TODAY: "don't pretend that Christian activism doesn't exist here". I've been trying to emphasize this for weeks already, here we have this journalist validating EXACTLY what I have been saying. I say again: it's time for us to WAKE UP.

The journalist's concluding comments was that it is high time that moderate and liberal Christians SPEAK UP (and I mean speak up AS CHRISTIANS, NOT as individuals). What can I say? If anyone has been doubting me when I said this was really about religion, pls accept my really loud I TOLD YOU SO! There really isn't many other plains of ideological engagement that can stir up so much shit.

And here's another little piece of additional evidence, remember they sacked the center manager on Thursday nite? Today, the news reported that they appointed a new manager! And there is NO PRIZE for guessing where that new manager is from: CHURCH OF OUR SAVIOUR... DUH!!!!

I'm saying again to engage more and speak up more.... continue ignoring the religious undertones at your own peril. When this place becomes a theocracy I am off to Canada, plain and simple.

The Importance of UNITY amongst secular bases of power

Tue, 21 Apr 2009 17:23:07 GMT

I was considering this: would DBS bank sack Josie Lau even if it wanted to? The consequences of such an action would prove disastrous for them. She is a powerful woman with powerful connections, what she stands for is also supported by many, and her power base has got $$$... precisely what drives power in this society. Additionally, many religious conservatives have bank accounts with DBS bank too!

To the above I would add that even if it was JUSTIFIED that she be sacked, they would not. This reminded me of how doctors were punished for giving out loads of subutex compared to how a working class mother was punished for trafficking just ONE tablet. JUSTICE is defined by the powerful and only the powerful. If you are powerful with a wide base of supporters with lotsa $$$, your crimes are rendered invisible and less serious. Josie Lau's power base wld render her protected to a large extent.

I would move to suggest that even if the government DOES see christian fundamentalism as a threat to national security, the ISA might hesitate to take action against any force that is TOO powerful. I may be wrong in this. I may also be overestimating the power of christian fundamentalism. BUT, I AM VERY SURE that if christian fundamentalism grows TOO powerful, no action will be taken against them if there is no equally powerful opposing force to it. If there is an equally opposing powerful force to christian fundamentalism, then should the government take action against them, they can do so legitimately with the support of an equally powerful segment of society. As for those in between the opposing forces, they probably will be happy to just go along with the usual discourse of "threat to national security" and support the government.

The problem becomes this: if hypothetically speaking, fundamentalist christianity becomes the single most powerful non-governmental force in society, ISA will probably not do anything even if they were a threat to others. Because to the government, it becomes a threat only under certain conditions: if the economy is threatened in some way or the other, or if there is potential to incite social unrest or riots or wadever. These are some of the main reasons. Now, if there is no equally credibly powerful force opposing them, ie. all other forces in society are disunited and will therefore contain grievances individually and disparately, there is NO THREAT to national security to begin with!

Hence, my analysis is clear: if they are powerful, we must be powerful too, not least because it is thru that that the government will listen to us telling them that we perceive them as a threat. I propose some form of an alliance between secular organizations to galvanize around the discourse of inclusivity. They should have certain ideas about sectarianism entering the public sphere. The chief advantage of an alliance like that would be it can generate a more united voice amongst the disparate civil societies and would therefore be a more powerful voice agaist future threats that the AWARE saga presented. We HAVE to do this. We CANNOT depend on the government or large corporations like DBS for protection because they MUST bow to power bases and our opponents do have VAST power bases and they are much more UNITED than us.

Get our act together, or perish eventually.

Battle Hymn of the Reformation

Tue, 21 Apr 2009 11:58:49 GMT

Martin Luther wrote this in th 15th century when protestants broke away from an oppressive catholic church. Today, I can't help but feel the same song could serve as a rallying cry against fundamentalism:

A mighty fortress is our God, a bulwark never failing;
Our helper He, amid the flood of mortal ills prevailing:
For still our ancient foe doth seek to work us woe;
His craft and power are great, and, armed with cruel hate,
On earth is not his equal.

Did we in our own strength confide, our striving would be losing;
Were not the right Man on our side, the Man of God’s own choosing:
Dost ask who that may be? Christ Jesus, it is He;
Lord Sabaoth, His Name, from age to age the same,
And He must win the battle.

And though this world, with devils filled, should threaten to undo us,
We will not fear, for God hath willed His truth to triumph through us:
The Prince of Darkness grim, we tremble not for him;
His rage we can endure, for lo, his doom is sure,
One little word shall fell him.

That word above all earthly powers, no thanks to them, abideth;
The Spirit and the gifts are ours through Him Who with us sideth:
Let goods and kindred go, this mortal life also;
The body they may kill: God’s truth abideth still,
His kingdom is forever.

Daniel Pirie on Britain's Got Talent 2008

Fri, 17 Apr 2009 22:41:44 GMT

I really really like this

Anya Sparks - Britains got talent 2008 ( fat lady dancing )

Fri, 17 Apr 2009 22:40:40 GMT

Observe Simon's behaviour!

Britains Got Talent 2009 - Susan Boyle

Thu, 16 Apr 2009 13:16:17 GMT

Life Under Totalitarian Capitalism

Thu, 16 Apr 2009 13:01:19 GMT

Thinking about Marx - is global capitalism responsible for increasing authoritarianism? A friend of mine suggested the following: that Marx got it wrong. The proletariat did not rise up against the bourgeousie like he predicted, instead the proletariat rose up against the lowest of the proletariat... one just needs to consider right wing fundamentalism and wonder.