Singapore horses around in the Year of the Goat

While we were all still distracted by the recent Lunar New Year celebrations, Singapore got one step closer to being the Monte Carlo of Asia.  Titled the China Equine Cultural Festival Singapore Cup, the event makes no bones about their intended clientele: well-heeled, well-travelled and well-endowed billionaires hailing from the world's second-largest economy of the world.  Looking at the pictures of the event, it's surprising it didn't get much attention in Singapore's mainstream media.

Photo Credit: Yahoo News

Clearly, it's not about the horses. As  Jaipragas reports, the affluent Chinese want to be "known as owners of stallions, owners of internationally renowned stallions".  That, I suppose, was the main point.  For who among those 500 or so Chinese guests - who are minimally "chief executives and above" - would really have a genuine interest in the sport of horse-racing? 

This reminds me of the time I inadvertently found myself seated with a table of civil servants from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, while attending a wedding.  Amidst struggles to find a topic suitable for small talk, I stumbled upon the curious discovery that learnt that the F1 race in Singapore was a for some strange reason a major portfolio item for this ambitious young chap who works at the Vietnam 'Desk'.  I was always under the impression that the F1 race was a Singapore Tourism Board initiative, as portrayed by the mainstream media.  In all honesty, the only people I ever knew who'd ever attended the race were friends who got free tickets, given away by friends of friends of friends who were working for some company which was one of the sponsors for the race.  I've always wondered: Who on earth would pay $8000 per ticket to watch cars zip by?  

But of course, that painful wedding dinner small talk turned out to be much more educational than I expected.  Just like the ridiculously expensive F1 Race, the China Equine Cultural Festival Singapore Cup is, well, not about the Equines.   It's a highly elaborate marketing and tourist revenue-generating machine where political and economic bigwigs rub shoulders and broker future business deals.  From that perspective, this investment taxpayers in Singapore have so unwillingly invested into suddenly makes complete economic sense.

Photo Credit: Reuters, Asiaone

Interestingly though, unlike the Singapore Grand Prix F1 Night Race, the publicity for the horse race has so far been muted and it's not immediately clear how involved the Singapore government really is.  In contrast to the Singapore Grand Prix which seems to target a broad range of international globetrotters, the elite Horse Racing venture is positioned to attract a very select target group.  Check out how they've planned the test-bed this inaugural event!  

Yet, while all this makes sense from an economic and geopolitical point of view, I do think the issue is a lot more complex when domestic political, social and historical factors are considered.

Firstly, how will the local Chinese take to this ostentatious display of Mainland Chinese wealth?  As Tash Aw pointed out in her Lunar New Year reflection in the New York Times, there's already a growing tension arising from the "two-way xenophobia" between Mainland and Local Chinese.  How will local Singapore Chinese take to the success of a group of Chinese they've gotten so used to denigrating as culturally and economically inferior?  How will they respond to the ostentatious counter evidence staring them in the face?  To some extent, I suppose it's a good reality check for most Chinese in Singapore, though I doubt we are yet ready to stomach this incredibly humble pie.

Marina Bay Sands Integrated Resorts

Secondly, how will Singaporeans in general take to the government cozying up with Mainland Chinese wealth?  Admittedly, horse racing, which is one of the few  forms of gambling open to Singaporeans, and which is hugely popular with Local Chinese, will probably be more popular with Singaporeans than the F1 Race would ever be.  Yet, from a racial standpoint, will this provide more fodder for those already worried that Singapore's already becoming increasingly sinicised, possibly raising tensions between the different ethnic communities?  Lets also not forget that as secular as Singapore might seem to the world, religion still plays a very big role in the lives of ordinary Singaporeans.  Just recall the furore caused by religious groups over the government's plans to raise up two gambling-centred Integrated Resorts, which by the way caters primarily to rich wealthy Chinese foreigners.    

Can the Singapore government pull off this new venture while successfully navigating the rising anti-foreigner (particularly against Chinese Mainlanders) in Singapore?   How will the government, which has so far been rather silent about its involvement, pull it off without making it another PR disaster with Singaporeans?  No wonder the media silence over this major event.

Should America do it the Singapore way?

Photo Credit: NY Times

Obama believes that acts of violent extremism, whether ISIS-organised or lone-wolf attacks, are a reflection of both political and economic disenfranchisement.  To paraphrase Obama, if they had a chance at school, got a job and if they were accepted as full and equal members of society, they wouldn't have resort to violent acts of terrorism.  You would think that such a holistic approach to in the war against terrorism would receive widespread support.  But unfortunately for Obama, according to the NY Times article on the speech, his critics abound in within the US and world at large.

Some say Obama's a hypocrite, saying all that and working with so many human rights perpetrators within his international coalition against terrorism.  Some say he's projecting his own political agenda onto the issue.  Some say he's just deliver the usual Obama special: a smooth and savoury feel good speech.  And then of course there are the Republicans spoiling for a fight and calling for a stronger military response against the tyranny of terrorism.

Egyptian Coptic Christians awaiting their grizzly death by execution

But I think beyond the noise of attacks against Obama, a strong force  driving the criticism is really a fatigue for feel good, but ultimately simplistic responses to the threat of terrorism.  Yes, economic disempowerment can make one an easy target for conversion to radicalism.  But there're just as many popular and successful highflyers among the 15,000 converts, as there were alienated and unemployed individuals. And besides, as far as we can tell, ISIS never promised political or economic empowerment.

Interestingly, Singapore's response has been a decidedly communal and religious.  Senior Minister of State for Home Affairs and Foreign Affairs, who was also at the aforesaid Summit, laid the blame squarely on radical Islamic ideology.  Extremists do not have the interests of Singapore at heart and must be dealt with as such, they say.  Apart from stepping up homeland security against organised and lone-wolf terrorists, the state must actively work with moderate muslims in combatting what they regard as false teachings.  This is what a growing voice of concerned critics in the western coalition have been saying all along: radicals breed radicals.  Yes, in the immediate context, it is a (international) security issue.  But as many critics seem to be pointing out in an increasingly loud voice, it is fundamentally an ideological war.

Certainly, the Singapore approach presents a few advantages.  It avoids the homogenisation of the Muslim community, casting them as it were a monolithic entity of disenfranchised immigrants.  It allows the state to tackle radical Islam on the ideological front head on while remaining secular.  This stems from an extremely intelligent division of labour: MUIS, the state-controlled Islamic body monitors any signs of radical ideology and nips it in the bud; the Ministry of Home Affairs uses state machinery like Secret intelligence and the Internal Security Department to hunt down the threats before Singapore (and the world) ever gets to hear of it.  Unless of course they're like Mas Selamat who took a toilet break and became Singapore's most wanted in over a decade, though story probably deserves another blog post of its own;-)

Most certainly, Singapore sits as an unsuitable candidate for Obama's human rights campaign against terrorism.  The Singapore approach does gloss over inequalities which some argue the Muslims do face, and which can fuel a sense of political, social and economic isolation.  The Singapore approach also highhandedly defines good doctrine as largely one that serves the interest of the state.  But Singapore has managed to succeed where the US has failed precisely because it takes liberties with well, human liberty.  

Is it right?  Probably not.  Does it work? Probably.  
Will we regret it in years to come?  You decide.

My response to a NY Times on Hong Kong was identified as one of NYT's Top Pick!

Original NY Times Article: Giving Up on Hong Kong

Hong Kong's Liberal Studies Curriculum: The Battleground for Political Power

Photocredit: SCMP

According to a recent South China Morning Post*, the compulsory Liberal Studies curriculum of the public education system in Hong Kong is under mounting pressure to adopt a more pro-Beijing stance.  Liberal Studies, a subject compulsory students in Hong Kong, advocates the nurturing of knowledge and skills the global citizen of the 21st century needs.  The idea was first mooted in the early 2000s and has since 2009 been one of four compulsory subjects, in the same ranks as Chinese Language and English language.  On any ordinary day, no one would decry the importance of such a subject which aims to help get students future-ready.  And as a response to the much criticised rote-learning mode endemic in the Hong Kong curriculum, it is surely the solution, not the problem.  So why the sudden shift in the Hong Kong Education Department's stance towards Liberal Studies?

  Well actually, not sudden at all.  There's always been a level of criticism from pro-Beijing politicians.  But the political climate in HK has become a minefield, more so since the Umbrella Movement in December 2014 (and Feb 2015).  Priscilla Leung, a hitherto pro-Liberal Studies HK Lawmaker, argues in Foreign Policy that while the subject equips HK youth with an awareness of the issues, the youth lack the necessary maturity and awareness to participate meaningfully in politics.  It has also been said that many Liberal Studies teachers have used the subject to advocate their own (oftentimes anti-Beijing) political beliefs, which defeats the diversity-orientated and balanced approach the curriculum preaches.  That may well be true since quite a number of Liberal Studies teachers were said to have participated in the Umbrella Movement.

Photocredit: MOE, Ngee Ann Primary School

Actually, in Singapore, we too have our own version of Liberal Studies.  At the Secondary School level (Sec 3-4), there's Social Studies which seeks to foster an interest in local and regional politics while at the Junior College level (17-18 years) there's General Paper and Project Work.  All are examinable subjects (i.e., taken seriously by Singaporeans), and both aim to foster critical thinking skills, global awareness and in general, prepare Singapore youth to be take their place in the world of tomorrow.  In recent years, Character and Citizen Education, as advocated by Ministry of Education led by Heng Swee Keat, also seeks to promote greater awareness of social and political issues, both locally and globally among Singapore youth.  I've taken a loom at the Liberal Studies curricula and the only real difference seems to be the fact that CCE is ultimately tied to Singapore's economic competitiveness, whereas Liberal Studies, is, well, Liberal Studies.  CCE by MOE was never fundamentally about creating a more politically informed and robust society.  Do you think the same concern would be true for the Singapore Government?  Would the Ministry of Education be worried that the increasing emphasis on 21st Century Core Competencies would politicise the youth of Singapore?  

Well,  in the first place, content in Singapore subjects is highly centralised and constantly regulated by the MOE Headquarters.  Unlike Liberal Studies which leaves a lot to the teacher, Singapore's MOE defines very clearly what the issues are and what the conclusions should be.  Critical deconstruction of racial and religious topics are unashamedly flagged to MOE teachers as too sensitive for classroom talk.  Issues like Human Rights, Political Freedom, Gender and Sexual inequality are rarely discussed.  If at all, Singapore would typically be painted in a positive light.  If negative, geopolitical constraints are usually trotted out to explain critical analysis needs to take a backseat.    I would say that teachers themselves are put through a rigorous selection process, weeding out ones with controversial ideas.  Let's not forget the fact that teachers are bounded by the Instructional Manual for Civil Servants in terms of airing their political views.  The appraisal system itself also seems to reward those who toe the line, with its emphasis on getting teachers to examine how they have contributed to National Education (i.e. officially endorsed views on politics, society and history).  I could go on and on about that...

Of course, I'm simplifying matters.   The explanation for the youth-led Occupy Central movement which brought the financial hub of Asia to its knees, and made the Central Government in Beijing lose so much face, cannot be reduced to the effects of one curriculum subject.  Multiple factors come into play, with geo-political and economic conditions of our milieu intersecting at the right time.  If Liberal Studies were to have taken place during the era of prosperity under British Colonisation, would the same have happened?  While back then, there wasn't necessarily more political autonomy, the British did allow a climate of intellectual freedom and political expression.  For a people who have tasted 'sugar water' how can you expect them to go back to 'untreated water'?  For what compelling reason would they willingly give up their sense of autonomy and agency?


To be sure, the Singapore government's been quite successful in keeping the economic and political impetus for such movements at bay. That's not even considering the legal constraints instituted the system has to prevent organisation or participation in such movements.  Most Singaporeans seem quite comfortable with leaving politics to the 'professionals', choosing  rather to go about their daily lives.  Periodically, Singaporeans are told that they shouldn't be so politically apathetic, but then, when they do they are told they don't understand the issues well.  The politicians from the ruling party may be right - judging by how xenophobic and silly local debates like the CPF issue.  But then, how could they understand when it's never really been openly and unabashedly debated in the first place?  Inevitably political maturity involves letting go of control, but who would want to?  I wouldn't.

But I do wonder.  If anything, at least in the HK situation, we have a sense that the critical thinking curriculum works with the students putting theory into action.  However poorly you think they understood the issues or applied their understanding, at least they did.  But tightly controlled Singapore, MOE and its teachers may never really know if whatever they preach about 21st Century Skills (e.g. critical thinking, awareness of local and global issues, etc) really works beyond the official line defined by civil servants? 

* For some reason, the link to the SCMP seems to be broken.  This alternative link goes to a political blog which saved that article.

Zunar's Cartoons Are No Laughing Matter

Why should we be surprised?  A day after the sodomy ruling against Anwar was upheld, celebrated political cartoonist Zunar is arrested for Sedition (Channel News Asia 'Malaysia cartoonist arrested for criticising Anwar ruling').  It is, of course, hardly a surprise. The cartoonist, famous for his critical stance towards Malaysia's authoritarian regime has a huge following.  To make things worse, not only is he well-loved by the politically conscious within Malaysian, his works have received critical acclaim in the international community.  According to The Online Citizen, he's had exhibitions in places like the US, UK and Sweden and done commissioned work for The Washington Post.  His latest collection was even accepted into the Congress Library’s Collection in Washington, DC.  Judging by the general opinions of political commentators and ordinary netizens alike, the judgment's pretty clear: like the Anwar case, there seems to be little confidence in the fairness and independence of the Malaysian Judiciary.

Credit: Zunar.my

It might seem like deja vu for Malaysians, and of course, us Singaporeans who follow the news of our political siblings.  The accusation that UMNO uses the Sedition Act against its political rivals is nothing new, though that doesn't mean we shouldn't take notice of the issue.  If anything, our eyes should open wider than ever.  We should be surprised.  Arresting opposition leaders might not be a new fashion trend in the Malaysian political scene, but the scale of arrests and potential arrests is.  The fact that the police are now planning to investigate another two opposition leaders who made critical tweets in response to the latest Sodomy conviction against Anwar only means that the drama has only just begun.  A new wave of fear is about to sweep across the Malaysian Peninsula.

Can we imagine the same happening in Singapore?  Technically, it's possible since both countries, in spite of their half-a-century long rivalry, share so much judicial heritage.  Both inherited from the British the Sodomy laws and have both maintained that the Sodomy laws would remain in the books.  However, I guess the role the Sodomy law plays in Singapore and Malaysia is somewhat different.  Whereas in Malaysia the Sodomy law's trotted out whenever there seems to be a need to get rid of political  opponents, in Singapore, it's kept on the books to placate religious conservatives in what is allegedly a conservation Asian society.  Whereas Malaysia actually shows that it will use the law, the Singapore judiciary seems to be averse to using it.  Case in point: Prime Minister Lee pointed out the Sodomy law would remain on the books to reflect social mores, but would not use it.  When Tan Eng Hong was charged under S377A for having oral sex with another man in a public toilet and the issue went public, the Attorney General office quickly withdrew the charge and replaced it with a charge on public indecency. 

But it's not that the ruling party in Singapore doesn't make things difficult for alternative voices.  Just look at the whole media circus act that is Aljunied-Hougang Town Council incident.  Prior to that, consider the machinery the state marshalled to deal with the allegations of political blogger like Roy Ngerng.  More recently, M Ravi, the acclaimed human rights lawyer of Singapore Mr M Ravi, got neutered by the Law Society for apparently not being fit to practice law since his bipolar condition was allegedly acting up again (M Ravi told to stop legal practice).  He plans to challenge the ruling of course.

Photocredit: M Ravi, Kampung Boy

I suppose I'm in no position to argue that specifics of the case.  The Singapore government might well be right about all the above mentioned cases.  Returning back to the Malaysia case, it might even be true the Anwar did sodomize his aide and Zunar is deliberately being incendiary to destabilise Malaysian politics.  But then, when the state marshals all the media, legal and political machinery to 'gets things done', one can't help but be left with the impression that there's something to hide.  That perhaps all these opponents might have spoken truth to power, further eroding any public trust in the ruling parties.  As it is, both the UMNO party of Malaysia and the People's Action Party of Singapore, are more than ever facing the prospect of losing electoral support.  

Politics will always be dirty so I'm not about to suggest Anwar's a nice guy and wouldn't have done the same to Najib Razak.  But different times require a different kind of dirty politics.  This I think is even more so for Singapore, as she aspires to be a truly global city mentioned in the same breathe as New York and London.  In the new world order, where voters are increasingly exposed to fairer versions of dirty politics elsewhere, the dirty politics of old is likely to backfire.  And that is definitely no laughing matter!

To Tinder or Not to Tinder

What was dating before smartphone apps like Tinder?  Swipe left to eliminate the creeps and swipe right for well, Mr Right.  And prior to this, using  parameters supplied by you and your Facebook account, Tinder's technology would already have helped you narrow down the potential matches.  The more you swipe, the more Tinder learns, and the more efficiently the technology recommends prospective dates.  The more you use the app, the smarter and more accurate Tinder gets.  But I think the clincher is this: a match only works if both parties have swiped right.   Welcome to the world of digital dating!

 In Molly Wood's New York Times article (Led by Tinder, a Surge in Mobile Dating), the magic of Tinder as opposed to traditional e-dating sites like OkCupid's lies in the idea that it's "easier, faster and more discreet".  With your dating territory expanded to near limitless boundaries and you being able to evaluate potential targets so quickly, surely you'll find a date that much faster.  If dating were in fact a primitive expression of human instinct, then smartphone dating apps like Tinder are a reflection of the cyborg nature of humankind in the new millennia.  Tinder is a product of the zeitgeist if you ask me. 

I would certainly hesitate to decry the usefulness of Tinder though. Contrary to the tales of horror we sometimes hear of e-dating, I do actually have at least two real examples of lady friends meeting really decent dates who then became boyfriends.  Tinder was useful for finding that match, and when dating officially began, their respective relationships started with a Tinder-deleting ceremony.  Which I think is sweet.  What's important to point out is that Tinder aside, both parties took a chance and when it did seem likely, they quickly took the dating into real life.

I would imagine in the city state of Singapore, known to have the highest smartphone penetration rate in the world, most singles would probably have used, are using or plan to use Tinder.  For the aspiring smart nation of the world, digital dating could plausibly be something to push for.  Tinder like apps do seem to resolve the problem of young Singaporeans simply not having the time to date, and of course, get married and make babies.  Perhaps the Singapore Development Network should consider developing its own customised version of the app for Singaporeans!

Having said that, I do wonder what all this means for society at large.  In the Tinder-fied dating universe, what changes about the way romantic hearts relate?  And, to what extent are these changes desirable?  While I do find the idea of never having to deal with rejection a very attractive proposition, I also recognise that that also makes acceptance that much more precious.  There is definitely something to be said of seeing what you want and having the courage to take full ownership of one's desires by acting on it.  True, one acts on desire by swiping, but that isn't quite the same as walking up and engaging in the time honoured old art of seduction.

Then again, is it all that bad?  All perspectives are spoken from some vantage point and that is certainly true of the New York Times article I cited earlier.  If you think about it, dating has never been a indigenous concept in Asian cultures anyway, even though now it appears to be the universal norm.  For Chinese families up till the early part of the 20th century, the tedium of dating was usually  outsourced to professional matchmakers (and of course the parents who were the ones who made the decision).  Up till today, it is still common in some ethnic communities in Singapore for parents to arrange one's marriage.  If anything, Tinder's just doing what matchmakers and parents in Asia have been doing for centuries.    Dating itself is an alien concept.

Learning Chinese the Candy Crush Way

Speaking as a recovering Candy Crush addict, I will be the first to vouch for the allure of a Chinese Language Learning App promising to teach the language in a way that borrows Candy Crush's addictive magic formula of challenge and reward.  Welcome to the world of gamification, where the scientific principles of game psychology could turn the dullest experience into something you can't stop doing. 

Photocredit: AFP, Channelnewsasia

That's exactly what Chinese language apps like Memrise, Chineseskill and Skritter are trying to do.  Using the standard formula of challenge, praise and reward, they hope to make learning the language easy for working professionals hoping to get acquainted with the language, and more importantly perhaps, get access into the growing Chinese economy by first being able to speak the language.   For many professionals working in Hong Kong and China, this must be a God send.

While Singapore's Chinese majority's mother tongue is purportedly Mandarin, I think the truth is nowhere near.  In an asiaone report in 2009, Ministry of Education reported that 3 out of 5 Primary One children come from homes that speak predominantly English.  And with Chinese Language tuition centres like Berries World enjoying such phenomenal success, I certainly think the Chinese Language app originally designed for our 'Ang Moh' counterparts might have many willing parents and (hopefully) willing children signing up too.  Singapore's smartphone penetration rate is one of the highest in the world, so there is definitely a market.

Screenshot of Berries World Website

Having said that, I think anyone who thinks these Chinese Language apps will in any observable way ameliorate our Chinese language woes is probably having a really wet dream.  In the first place, unlike westerners in China and Hong Kong, there aren't many places kids in Singapore can practice whatever they learn.   What many Singaporean Chinese lack is an authentic language learning environment.  Ironically, westerners in Hong Kong and China have a greater chance of benefitting!

Chinese is cool - we hope!

But I think the biggest challenge is a socio-cultural thing.  Mandarin Chinese was never the language of the local Chinese to begin with, so there is little emotional attachment to it.  If anything, there is resentment, it being forced upon them, and it being made out to a conduit by state sanctioned social and nationalistic values.  Having said that, many Singaporean Chinese have bought into the China story.  So to sum it up, these smartphone Chinese language learning apps probably won't make a dent, but at least it might be a good start.

Word of the Day: Gerontophobia

In Anne Karpf's NY Times article (The Liberation of Growing Old), she makes the point that whatever we believe about old age is not a given.  Instead, what we think old is, what we think we will be and what we think it entails is a social construct.  We are socialised into old age.  It is true that one's cognitive and physical  agility reduces with age, but the extent to which it is true has been grossly exaggerated.  The fact that increasing numbers of seniors remain economically productive into their golden years while more young people are experiencing prolonged periods of unemployment makes the point.  Yet, rampant ageism is on the rise, so much so that "gerontophobia" is now the new buzz word.

While I wouldn't say Singapore's been immune to "gerontophobia", I would say the government's definitely been at the forefront of combating its ill effects what with the Ministry of Health-led 'Council for Third Age' and the Agency for Integrated Care led 'Singapore Silver Age' both of which offer a holistic set of services from healthcare to workplace opportunities for the elderly.    It wasn't that the "dependency ratio" or "age quake" (or "silver tsunami") wasn't a major driving force behind the government's concerns.  Policy considerations in Singapore will always be driven by dollars and cents/sense, but I think credit should be given where credit is due.  The policy approach adopted by the government is holistic.  To successfully embrace a major elderly population as part of Singapore's future, policy provisions for the integrated of a significant senior population needs to be holistic and integrated.  That means more than just providing elderly healthcare services.  It requires an entirely transformation of what old age means and how we respond to it as a whole society.

Will Singapore do better than the US? Yes and no.  I suppose unlike the US, Singapore's a small nation-state with power more or less in the hands of a single ruling party, so that means it is relatively easy to push through much needed reforms like anti-ageist policies which attempt to reconfigure and revalue the place of the elderly in a society.  It also helps that traditional 'asian values' (whatever that means) is said to accord a fair amount of respect for the elderly, which might make it less difficult to justify pro-elderly policies e.g. the Pioneer Generation Package, which provides various subsidies for those who can't support themselves.  There were no detractors on that I think partly because there's a broad level of societal support for caring for our seniors.

What is more a problem is the idea of workplace integration (i.e., workplace discrimination).  Culturally, from the perspective of the seniors themselves, there is a lot of 'face' to be loss working well into one's old age. The fact that most job positions open to seniors today seem to be of the blue-collar variety, sends out the message that our seniors can only do 'those kinds of jobs'.  The real test of whether Singapore's succeeded in combatting ageism is really the level of integration and acceptance they get in all occupations, which includes the white-collar, mid-level executive positions as well.   

The Ministry of Manpower runs the Tripartite Committee on Employability of Older Workers (aka a government controlled labour union) to safeguard the interests of senior workers.  The legal provisions are definitely an important step.  Workplace discrimination, which is social in nature, and where both the young and old have to take responsibility for, is a much more insidious and hard to combat.   But if what Anne Karpf says it's true, that discrimination against the elderly is fundamentally social in nature, then at least there's hope for a better tomorrow.

Let the Music Move You...

How frustrating it must be for the authorities: Here is the mainstream media trying to cast the Thaipusam Incident (Exercise Calm and Restraint over Thaipusam) as a public disorder issue.  It's probably a result of alcohol they say, which only goes to show the wisdom of the recently proposed regulations to severely restrict the drinking of alcohol in public around Singapore.  But it seems like the Singapore public has gone in a completely differently direction much to the chagrin of the authorities.

Photocredit: Channelnewsasia

Some point out the policy inconsistency, citing the example of the insanely noisy and rambunctious Getai performances during the Hungry Ghost Festival.  Others point out the inanity of sticking to a policy decision simply because it was decided decades ago.  Then there are others who question why Thaipusam isn't a public holiday, only to receive the even more shocking (an satire worthy) come back from the authorities that Vesak Day's (celebrated primarily by the Chinese Buddhists in Singapore) count as a Indian festival for which a public holiday's been granted.

Photo credit: Yahoo Singapore

I can't speak for the Singapore authorities, though I think I can sympathise with the predicament of the civil servants and policymakers.  One of the biggest taboos in the civil service is to admit that a policy is flawed, hence the official line repeated ad nasuem that this was the way it's been since the decision was made in 1973 (with the implication being that since no issue was raised for decades, Singapore had given her tacit agreement).  To do a U-turn on a policy, either to now allow a range of musical instruments, or allow for rowdy music, or to declare Vesak day a Chinese Buddhist holiday instead doesn't actually cause any immediate damage to social order.  But it does mean admitting you've been wrong.  It'll also send out the message that the government will bend other public pressure.  

How can a strong and stable government do that?  I suppose it depends on whose perspective you're taking.  From the pioneer generation perspective, it makes sense.  But for an increasingly globalised younger generation, a strong and stable government is precisely one responds honestly and meaningfully to public debate, and does the right thing.  And of course, sometimes the right thing to do is to simply admit you could have made a mistake.  Even if the authorities stick with their original decision (i.e. the ban on music, or not declaring Thaipusam a public holiday), we will go some way in building public confidence in our leaders.

Transitioning to a Trans-Gender Singapore

For transgender folks in the LGBT community, the term ‘transitioning’ holds a special meaning.  More than just a surgical process of aligning one’s biological gender with one’s identified gender, it is a profoundly socio-emotional process of integrating into society and fully coming to terms with oneself.  For the brave few who find that it is their calling to be more than just a ‘normal’ man or woman, they come out.  Danielle Piergallini, who holds a senior position at American Airlines is one of them.

Photo credit: New York Times

Coming out is, of course, more than just about oneself. Piergallini didn’t just come out to her MBA class for herself.  She came out to make a statement, and for better or worse, pave the way for many more to live more authentically in the old boys club of the elite business community.  Coming out is a self-sacrifice, not for one's self but those who would come after you.  The article itself rightly puts it when it said that business schools are a “microcosm of corporate America”.  What changes in school could potentially change society.  It’s definitely heartening to know the overwhelmingly positive response Piergallini received from her classmates - people who would one day rule corporate America, and to some extent the world.

The article avoids idealistic optimism, noting that openly lesbian and gay senior executives are few and far between.  Even many of those who were out in school learn to hide their sexuality once they enter the ‘real’ corporate world.  For transgender folks who are a minority within a minority, what are the chances of acceptance?  The article itself admits that even in LGBT groups, it’s predominantly white (gay) male dominant.  This is compounded by the fact that transgender folks have a particularly unique problem - for many, they DO see themselves as ‘normal’ men and women.  There is a pointlessness in coming out, which further explains their absence within the LGBT movement I think.  I do think this is changing of course, and lesbian and gay folks will need to work harder to form this political family of choice.

In Singapore, this is hardly even an issue - the idea of being openly gay or lesbian (let alone transgender) is but a distant dream.  When Lawrence Wee recently launched his case against workplace discrimination against his sexuality as a gay man, it was unfortunate that the case didn’t quite gain traction.  I think a large part of it had to do with the fact that most gay and lesbians in Singapore weren’t ready for the idea.  However enlightened an organization is, and how well the workplace protects LGBT folks against discrimination, gay and lesbian Singaporeans still need to face the daily prejudice (intentionally or otherwise) of simply being who they are.

Christopher Khor, who's putting together a documentary titled "Some Assembly Required"

But of course I’m assuming too much.  No one said that the attainment of lesbian and gay rights must precede equality for transgender folks. To assume that is to reinforce a sexual hierarchy within the LGBT community which plays into unhealthy power politics that leads to further problems down the road.  In Singapore, there have been a few names that have stood up in ways that gays and lesbians never had, e.g. Leona Lo, ex-HCI humanities scholar.  More recently Christopher Khor came out publicly as a FTM.  He’s now putting together a video titled ‘Some Assembly Required” to document the transitioning process in a positive way.  I think this certainly challenges my initial assumptions about the LGBT community.

STEMming the Tide of the Brain Drain Singapore Style

So it is the case that the Ministry of Education (MOE) recently announced its plans to boost the research talent pool in Singapore by offering research-oriented undergraduate and post-graduate scholarships for Singaporeans.  Actually to be precise, MOE is starting the MOE-Autonomous University Scholarship, a undergraduate level scholarship (with the option of pursuing graduate studies) and will be co-funding existing graduate scholarships offered by the Autonomous Universities (i.e., NUS, NTU and SMU).   The only new kid on the block is really just the MOE-AU scholarship.  And all this was driven by what Minister Heng stresses as the need to develop a "Singaporean core" to push the frontiers of knowledge.  

Photo Credit: Mediacorp, Channelnewsasia

At the moment, it's still a little hard to know what this is REALLY all about.  But at least based on official media reports, MOE sees a pressing need to develop more Singaporean researchers.  Interestingly, Minister Heng doesn't specify which industry the scholarship would fund so technically a research talent in any subject area, however obscure, can apply for the scholarship.  

Of course, chances are, to justify the public funding of the MOE-AU, they will have to lean towards research that can generate Singapore-owned patents, particularly in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM), which Heng has identified in numerous speeches to be a major area of lack in Singapore.     There is this sense that we can't be importing STEAM (STEM + Arts)  talents in the long run, we need to grow our own pool of STEAM talents.  There should be at least a token Arts and Social Science recipient of course, and I would imagine the Social Science (especially Economics) student would be a prime candidate.  

But I think saying all that puts the cart before the horse.  In the first place, what's actually driving the Higher Education Branch (HED) of MOE efforts to develop this scholarship?  Is it that there are no Singaporeans pushing the frontiers of knowledge in research? Or, in  all likelihood, they ARE pushing the frontiers (e.g. Andrew Ng of Stanford University), but just not in Singapore?  And if the latter were true, from the point of view of the civil service, I can see why setting up another scholarship seems like the obvious solution.  The MOE-AU bond lasts a maximum of 6 years.  By the time these talents complete their bonds, they'll be approximately 28 or 30 years old depending on your gender.

The real danger with locking in the talents is that it cleanly resolves the immediate brain drain problem but fails spectacularly in addressing what could be the more fundamental problems.  Why aren't research talents staying here in the first place?  What is it about the local research environment that does (or more likely does not) allow them to thrive?  Why are all the research 'whales' leaving?  Even if we can lock in these little Singaporean whales who would one day morph into a world renown research whale, will the scholarship terms clip their wings (or flippers LOL!)?  Minister Heng himself says we need a Singaporean core to push the boundaries of knowledge.  But can scholarship recipients, subject to all the terms and obligations of an MOE scholarship (and there are a lot, coming from an ex-scholar), freely push those boundaries?

Eng Kai Er: Disgruntled A*STAR Scholar who runs naked through the busy streets of Holland Village

As cliched as it sounds, the world is changing.  Already it is a fact that talent is geographically mobile and this is only more so in this  age of globalisation.  The last thing you want is an exceptionally gifted and talented kid who at 17 only sees the prestige of the scholarship, and not the little fish bowl he or she might have to live in years down the road.  Now that would be a waste of talent.

Scholarships keep bodies, but not the soul.

Is Fear the Fuel for Terrorism?

I don't want to diminish the horror that was the beheading of Kenji Goto and Haruna Yukawa.  It was, as Anne Applebaum clarified "grotesque" and "terrifying" (The Washington Post: Europe has survived terrorist attacks before), reminding me of latent darkness of the human heart, the kind of senseless cruelty it's capable of, and the crippling fear the international community now lives under.  However, Applebaum's main point really is this: Even as we struggle to find a response that befits the actions of Jihadist terrorists, let's not play into the hands of the terrorists by responding to attempts to strike fear with actions that speak of fear. Let's be like the French, who marched in defiant unity.

Would Singapore have done the same?  Looking back at all that's happened with regard to internal national security, I would say Singapore's probably the paragon of overreaction.  Just consider what happened the last time the alleged terrorist Mas Selamat escaped from the Internal Security Department Whitley Detention Centre?  Suddenly Home Affairs and Defence went into overdrive, and just to be sure, every other Ministry made sure they did something.  Even the Ministry of Education started factoring in terrorist threats into school-based emergency exercise drills! (I should know - I played the role of a nosey Straits Times reporter during one of our exercises @ National Junior College!).

Could Singapore have done otherwise?  Well, the national narrative of being constantly under threat since Independence in 1965, whether of a social, economic or political nature, has meant that the national psyche instinctively operates on a siege mentality. Or in more colloquial terms, "kiasi" and "kiasu" (i.e., scare to die and scared to lose out), which translates into pulling all stops to make sure you nip any problem in the bud.  No qualms about killing an ant with a sledgehammer in Singapore, just in case the ant morphs into a Godzillaesque monster.  No issue with histrionics.

What Would Singapore Do?  I am trying to imagine Singaporeans stoically refusing to be intimidated.  But I can't. 

Money Money Money, in a Rich (Singaporean) Man's World!

Should single mothers receive equal state support?  This was the naughty question Nominated Member of Parliament Kuik Shiao Yin asked Minister of Social and Family development Chan Chun Sing on 19 Jan 2015.  Currently, single mothers only receive half the number of weeks for maternity leave, and do not receive state subsidies (e.g., Child development account, Baby Bonus, Working Mother's relief scheme) often used to support young families who have headed the state's call to the National Service of baby making.

By the way, she IS married. Got my vote!

This isn't really a new question - local feminist academics have been asking this for the longest time.  But of course, how many of them make it to parliament where it's hard to ignore them?  Shiao Yin kept it on the agenda, thankfully.  Turns out that she's also the Director of the hugely successful School of Thought (CV-Shiao Yin), the one tuition centre that I genuinely have a lot of respect for given their commitment to social justice.  We need more voices like that in parliament.  

But back to the point of single mothers.  The only thing more interesting about the question was the answer Chan Chun Sing gave, or rather, gave on behalf of his ministry.  So it goes that the worry's that providing equal benefits to single mothers sends out the 'wrong' message that the state's promoting alternative family structures, dis-incentivising marriage (i.e., monogamous heterosexual marriage that is), and the idea that children can develop well outside the context of a traditional (read: patriarchal) marriage.

But the idea of treating single mothers equally raises too many questions.   Are heterosexual Singaporeans flocking to the Registry of Marriage because of these incentives?  To what extent have marriage couples ever truly been incentivised to perform the act of baby making for Baby Bonus benefits and what not?  How does he know that the mothers were single because they wilfully chose to raise their own child?  If single mothers are to be punished (and that's a BIG if ) then what about punishing the father?  Frankly if you ask me, it should be that bloke who should be punished for not being around to take care of the child! And should the mother have chosen to be single due to an abusive marriage, how would the child have been any healthier had she or he grown up in a psychologically damaging environment?

I think the REAL message the Ministry fears is this: that women can choose, that they have agency, that women are equals, that women no longer need men so much that they have to sacrifice their dignity and power.

Single Mothers are humans too! :(