CLAUD

Sunday, April 24, 2011

Polling and Rolling

These few days, besides studying, I've been shuffling back between studying and politics. The youtube videos and online smear campaigns are pretty influential, given how many dislikes, commentary and re-post, re-share, re-tweets they get on Facebook and Twitter.

Jwen spotted something which was blatantly obvious, that we forgot to consider, the influence of social media. I'm not sure if anyone read the newspapers, or remember that quite a few years back, there were cases of cyberbulling which resulted in a teen girl committing suicide. Often, we ignore that is the most taken-for-granted and obvious to us. We forget we are the consumers of a medium and forget the possible impacts we might have felt from it.

With that as a setting, I would like to share my thoughts about the coming election.

As a first-time voter, it is very exciting to be able to participate in a nation-wide event. Indeed, some are speculating that this is going to result in some changes. During this period, even before the videos and 'Notes' started pouring in, I have decided to void my vote. Yes, because I don't believe in the present democratic party system - not PAP - just the entire system of having separate parties. The reasons are very complex, and I'll be posting it on another day.

So back to the main topic, these few days I've undergone a few transformations, it has been quite a whirlwind, from being anti-PAP and all their faults (TPL, CSS) and moving on to be pro-WP, and then pro-Nicole Seah (I still am btw, just not for the reasons people like her for).

My current state of mind has gone back full circle to the beginning - that I will write Fuck You in both boxes to show how I feel.

Somehow this nation has forgotten that the Parliament, is only but one aspect of governance. It is not what a nation is ENTIRELY about. In fact, if you would so recall that somewhere, you must have learnt that the nation is consisting of Legislative Assembly (Parliament, MP, NCNMP, NMP), the Judiciary (Courts, lawyers, police) and the Agencies (your MOE, MOH, MOM, MCYS, M-this, M-that) and lastly, the Cabinet.

Before, I go on, I'm going to draw up a caveat, that my knowledge on political science is limited, and I don't have detailed understanding of the system (another reason why democracy is not in a system of MY beliefs).

The Parliament makes laws/policies based on the issues raised and those issued are raised by the MPs who are voted by the People of the Republic of Singapore. That is, the people whom you are going to vote into Parliament. So, naturally, this already excludes PAP = Mas Salamat escape, PAP=Flooding in Orchard, PAP= Ministry's fault kinda problems, whatever they may be.

However, having said, I'm not protecting the ruling party, I'm just saying that the appropriation of blame, should be fair based on the person's jurisdiction. Can you blame a Central Police Cantonement for a theft in Jurong? You can't right? In fact, I believe the right answer is "I don't know, we need to find out". That is what I'm saying, we don't know enough of the public policy making process, and I believe many Singaporeans don't tune in CNA to listen, because it's very boring, and Korean dramas and MTVs are so much better and more entertaining. I concur. Except that my tastes lie in the Classics and Jazz.

Therefore, what leaves us then? To be fair, the government, like many of us, have their hands tied based on the social circumstances ascribed to them. In plain English, that means they also can't do whatever the hell they want to. But you ask, they are cheng-hu what? They got power and money what you mean they cannot do whatever they want?

Look at the world around you, if you read alternative news sources like New York Times, or Bangkok Post etc, you'll see that everyone is striving for this thing called the "World City/Global City" status. This is the result of the mobility of capital - that is any company will and can move if they find that Singapore is no longer profitable for them. If the main aim of the company is to find a place with the lowest cost of production, and subsequently want to the highest bidders, wouldn't you park your money in Singapore too? Foreign workers depress cost of production, and therefore, allow Singapore's exports to remain price competitive. Then Singaporeans in higher-valued sectors get the payoff while the foreign workers do the work. Of course, there's always a sector of the population, who cannot climb the social ladder fast enough and are doubly marginalised. It is the job of the Ministries to look into that, and for the MPs to highlight the issue from the 'ground'. Which, this coming election, seemed to be the hot topic.

Therefore, the government is bounded within the world system and are constrained by the principles that run the world today. Those principles are principles of neoliberalism.

Neoliberalism is the belief that the free market is the best and most effective way of allocating resources. However, the free market gives power to individuals based on their ability to pay, and this of course excludes people based on economic status. As a result, the allocation resources becomes very effective if you are rich, but shitty if you are poor.

Sorry, from what I've learnt, neoliberalism have caused more problems that merits. The implications of neoliberalism takes years of academic research to understand, and at the present moment, I don't think I've touched the tip of the iceberg on its far-reaching effects. I simply, yet again, do not believe in this system.

Singapore, so far, has done pretty well in balancing neoliberalist ideals, and socialist principles. Your house, subsidised education and Growth and Share package are examples of that. We have to give due credit to that. The government has always been a medium between labour and business. The reserves accumulated over the years, through investments of GLC, makes the government independent of the taxes paid by businesses and Singaporeans. I believe it is the largest misconception, that Singaporean's tax-payer money goes into this-that. Sorry hor, Singaporeans' tax-payer money, I think at most can cover the maintenance cost of the day-to-day runnings of the ministry only please.

The sovereign wealth fund, however, makes the government very very very powerful. That is, the money is in their hands and heaven forbid if that is not a call for one to be corrupted. Which is why power needs to be carefully used. That is, as much as we depend on the government, the government's power also very much depend on us. Simple logic really, without the people, they have no legitimacy to rule, and to run their little side business.

So whose fault is it really? That's where I turn Marxist. It's not about being a classless society, it's about looking into the root cause of all the problems we have. Like using the metaphor of a house, we must look at the floor plan, to see what kind of structures the house is made of, and subsequently, use the appropriate materials to build that structure.

The state, is the outcome of this floorplan and everything reacts according to this floor plan. So if the floorplan shifts, everything sitting above will also shift. According to Marx, it is capitalism (the acting of selling for profit). I don't necessarily agree with him on that note, then again, I don't know what to believe. But I buy his basic principles - and mass media, social media, popular cultures, are false consciousness, aimed to delude us into behaving a certain manner. The more influential a source, the more popular the artiste, the more skeptical we should become. Who is saying what, TO what the purpose, and who BENEFITS (at whose expense) from the dissemination of such messages? That's where critical thinking is important. If you realise, you will see pass the cobwebs of false consciouness.

___________________________________________

However, I must point out that the government could, and should have done something that can make a difference. This points out to many contentious issues and represents my point of view - which have been molded and shaped by my education and personal experience.

They are things by which laws can change, where MPs really can do something about it. This IS under the jurisdiction of the Legislative Assembly.

1) Law: Capital Punishment.

I don't believe people should be put to death, for whatever the circumstances. Firstly, what if that person was innocent (as many cases have proven) and couldn't be resurrected like Jesus? Ok, bad Easter Day joke.

More importantly, I think death is an easy way out for people who committed grevious crimes like murder, etc. Hello? Living in despair with no hopes and dreams, is perhaps the worse forms of death.

As an act of deterrence for capital and corporal punishment, well the government cannot for sure prove that punishment have worked to keep crime rates down, for the same reasons how the statisticians cannot prove that Factor A (punishment) caused Factor B (low crime rates). Correlation, is not fucking causation.

2) Sodomy Laws

Frankly, personally, sex is overrated ok? Religion aside (a whole other story for another day), sex is something that is personal, and what you do on your own free time is none of my business. Whether you like leather or lace, top or bottom, outdoors or indoors, frankly, is one's preference. If your religion prohibits sex due to certain dogma, then by all means, I respect their point of view. I don't, however appreciate the state's butting in (no pun intended) into people's bed manners. It's a form of biopolitics

So the state's jurisdiction over section 377a is something of a personal infringement, and has led to the destruction of healthy, good-natured people with well-meaning lives in the 1990s entrapment. It is discrimination. If sex does not have the significance it has in this present state, that is, just another activity, would you mind if the state incarcerates you just become you prefer a Toyota rather than a Proton?

Sodomy = homosexuality. Sorry folks, there are, in a lack of a better word, true findings that straight men do it to ok? Don't be naive already, there's a world out there you haven't explored. I welcome you to the journey to do so.

Sodomy = helps prevent men-men rape. Then why wouldn't they move the Rape laws from the Women's Charter to the Penal code and rewrite it? Doesn't make sense to include 'unnatural sex' as part of 377a, when obviously, rape is not very natural as well.

Sodomy = no procreation, worsen fertility rate. Well, that is fallacious because with IVF (and homosexuals, like us, becoming richer) allows for birth. You only need to read the Times for that. There are homosexual families, with heterosexual children - who are smart and well-educated. That problem, here is acceptance of alternative familial formations.

Sodomy = not natural = ban. Refer to the above on sex being the business of people. If they found a way to do it, and enjoy doing it. I don't deny that they are very creative at that. If the act of sodomy is inherently bad, why do women also take it up the arse and some men actually find that erotic? Natural? Well, dyed hair, fake eyelashes and plastic surgery is also not natural, so why do it? Compared to plastic surgery, I think my odds of dying during sex (not including SM) are far lesser.

3) Gender discrimination

I think not many people know this, but in our constitution (the very thing that declares what our country is about, in case you don't the importance of where this is coming from) it says in Article 12(1)

Except as expressly authorised by this Constitution, there shall be no discrimination against citizens of Singapore on the ground only of religion, race, descent or place of birth in any law or in the appointment to any office or employment under a public authority or in the administration of any law relating to the acquisition, holding or disposition of property or the establishing or carrying on of any trade, business, profession, vocation or employment.

Realise there's no gender (or disability for that matter) in there? It means if an employer were to sack you on basis of gender, they actually can get away with it? Or worse yet, if an employer were to NOT hire you based on your gender? So what if a man wants to work in a salon, but can't because he's not a woman. Or a woman who wants to work in construction, but can't because she is a woman?

The government has the ability to create structures that will influence people's individual decisions.

4) Freedom of Speech and the ISA

This is a dicey one. I think it's not about removing the ISA, but changing the ISA into something that is more forgiving. Then again, this act protects the status quo. So unlikely that this will be removed any time soon.

I do think that a little slack could go into protests, I mean seriously, not all protests are violent and given how we don't have guns in Singapore. The right to protest is something that is important in making our society fairer. It gives both sides a chance to air their views. It gets people's attention, make them sympathetic, however as I said, it is also very heart-drawn and can make us blinded at times. Instead of curbing speech, because people are just gonna take their views somewhere else, and this is not going to solve the problem anyway.

So what is the solution?

I feel, we need to be able to grow a freaking thinking-nation, that is skeptical yet at the same time fair and sympathetic. We cannot be taught what to think, but taught HOW to think. Through this calorie-free and healthy exercise of thinking, bantering, people can decide for themselves how they want to be part of society.

_______________________________________

So, this brings me to my closing point (ah, finally will she stop talking already?).

I believe that all party has its merits in their respective manifesto. Therefore, to cook soup, I cannot possibly just buy pork ribs, and not the sichuan vegetable to go with it. I cannot choose one, while forsaking the other. It is not about a matter of prioritising your interests, it is a system and a system requires people to work in tandem, where the sum of its parts are changed due to their interaction with one another. You cannot change social laws without affecting the economy, neither can you change the economy, without any impact on the social.

Democracy party system is forcing a choice on me, and it is a choice I cannot make on behalf of the nation. I do not love this country. I, in fact, do not even believe in the ideology of a country. Have you ever wondered where the idea of a country even came about? There weren't countries during the Jurassic period.

It is a 18th century historical nationalistic European artefact and with people being more mobile, the idea of multiple citizenships, makes countries look quite ridiculous don't you think? IN FACT, modern 18th Century idea of citizenship and the nation, was created by a bunch of (sexist) intellectuals. We have them to thank for it, and therefore, just comes to show how education-driven thinking have a profound effect on changing systems (from Feudalism to Republic voting system, of course to them, it was men and middle-classes only thankyouverymuch).

However, I do love my friends, my family, my neighbours and whatever comforts wealth can bring (hey, don't judge me, don't you want to eat too?). In a sense, I'm micro that way, that people ought to make choices that are suitable for their course of lives, and since our lives are presently so diverse, it is only logically that our choices become more, inflated as well as multiple.

Hence, as a great believer in education (not schools, please don't get me started on my $500 budget concert already), I do sincerely believe in critical thinking, in fair presentation of facts and being able to present an argument based on sound assumptions (you'll be surprised how rarely those come by) and wonderful logical thinking.

Having said, I'm only a small fry, in not so small body with limited consciousness and knowledgeS. I hope the parties running, can also claim to be so.

THAT is why I am against TPL and CSS, they claim too much too soon, with no critical thinking and no justification to prove coupled with false assumptions - and those kind of people have no place in the parliament.

A note of caution: The more we expect the state to do things for us, the more power it gives them OVER us, the more we subject ourselves to their power. If one day, we become too reliant (we certainly are now) and dependent on them, they might one day, realise they don't need us anymore. Then you can tell me, if it's their fault if you keep giving them responsibilities to what is inherently your own life.

08:26