I will be watching you

There has been an incredible backlog of commentary and articles that have been posted in the past few days. Although it wouldn't be necessary to wade through everything if readers do constantly visit the network of Singaporean blogs (it is a small community after all), I do think there's one issue that deserves my own introspection.

In discussing the "Police State" paradigm, an important feature that has been extremely crucial has been security. Recently, Molly Meek and Steven McDermott listed two articles of their own on the subject. Molly Meek's entry pertains to the use of closed-circuit television cameras (CCTVs), where the ST had an initial article describing how the police were intending to expand their presence in crime-prone areas. It was a pretty brief report, simply describing how the police wanted to survey crime-prone areas. However, that was only the beginning. A few days later, the ST reported an in-depth report on their influence in the public and private sphere, along with (what I like to call) a "supporting" article justifying their use, namely demonstrating that CCTV assisted in criminal investigation. It is true that CCTV can be used effectively, and that the case studies do illustrate how the police can utilize its powers in their investigations. However, examining the fine details registers, quite remarkably, a startling picture of the CCTV's growing influence. For example, CCTVs are not only used in public areas such as hawker centres and shopping complexes, but includes hotels, businesses, HDB lifts, schools and homes as well. Quoting from the article, in terms of schools, CCTVs (bold my emphasis) "[b]esides monitoring the premises, they act as a deterrent to thieves and help maintain discipline. Last December, Bukit Merah Secondary School installed 16 cameras" and in the context of homes, "[c]ameras are installed to protect property and to keep checks on maids, kids or elderly folk. Vendors say some connect these cameras to the Internet so they can log in 'live'."

There are many more, one might say frightening, statistics in the ST article about the number of CCTVs to be installed island-wide in nearly every domain of public and private life. In addition it is worthwhile to reflect on how Associate Professor Ho Peng Kee, Senior Minister of State for Law and Home Affairs, justified the "proper" use of CCTV as "part of the police arsenal in the battle against crime and terrorism". He continues that "CCTV enables us to complement human skills with the use of relevant technology... especially to cover public areas where people congregate."

It should be of an interesting note to all of us, that we like to regard Singapore as a "safe" city and one that prides itself in having "low crime rates". But along with these appraisals, we should be worried and perplexed that, if such statements were true, then the prevalent use of high-tech security cameras, that now infringe on our own privacy in the home as well, should not be welcomed. Instead, we would like that the primary factors behind our "safe" and "harmonious" society should be maintained and duly fostered (whatever those factors are, none of us can claim security devices are part of them). We should also question what kind "human skills" does Ho Peng Kee wish to complement. Is it the "skills" to intrude, invade and infringe on the privacy of others or do we want the kind of "human skills" that build on people's trust and tolerance for diversity? If one were to always fear the "public areas where people congregate", and to seek the implementation of a watchful eye on every corner, then the lines between the public and private spheres of social life will indeed be crossed and left to blurry remains.

But there's also another issue, one that deals with crime. Indeed, are CCTVs as successful as they appear to be? Studies on CCTVs (countries such as the US, England and Australia) have produced some similar results. Initially, the CCTVs did demonstrate to be effective in reducing crime rates in their areas of surveillance. Unfortunately, they weren't effective in curbing crime in general (or at least the results are still ambigious at this point). The riots, brawl fights, and molestation cases that have been registered on CCTVs have surprisingly been transferred into areas where surveillance weren't available. Now a few possible outcomes can arise from this. Crime would essentially be displaced to more private areas of social life, and this could mean greater difficulty in detection crime (reduction in detection rates). We might also expect to find the burden of proof in criminal cases being reduced, since a new standard of visual proof might be demanded given the ready access to CCTVs. Finally, for those who are truly concerned about crime and social disorder, the installation of a technocractic solution is usually fraught with ambigious reasonings and justifications. Even if one were to accept the wide-spread coverage of CCTVs in a small island-state, it should be a platform to question our lay beliefs about crime and social order, if we are more interested to use reductionist methods or employ an alternative community relations safety programme. That choice will determine the kind of society we choose to live in, one that's either breed on inspection and suspicion or trust and social bonding.

Author's note: If you wish to read up more about CCTV, leave a comment and I can show you some research materials.

Alternative States

As my current hypothesis on Singapore as a "Police State" undergoes further testing and confirmation, there may be the question of what other alternate state paradigms can we consider. In this case, Jeremy Chen has written a short and elaborative manifesto for the Humanist Welfare State. I state ,on unequivocal grounds, that the basic principles of his program should be a common pursuit by all those who are concerned with living life to the fullest emanicipation of freedom, peace and equality, ultimately to live as lives as humanely as possible. It is only possible, in the freedom of human creativity and desire of human compassion, that we question and scrutinize the current systems of authority and domination and seek answers that would expedite our goal for humanity.

On a small note, he also has a commentary on US Spy Chiefs that was featured on the ST. That deserves a reading as well.

A Follow-Up on Patriotism

First off, thanks to Steven McDermott for linking my previous post about "education for the youth" in his blog. There is a glowing sense of appreciation and gratitude to see someone else reading up on your work.

Secondly, I thought that since political apathy and the decline of patriotism has been a growing discussion these days, I decided to put up an article I've read some time ago and recommend giving a browse through. This is an academic essay so there's the presence of academic jargon and technical terms but for the most part, it's pretty layman-friendly and accessible. This can no doubt be attributed to the tongue-in-cheek mock dialogue session set up between the author (Daniel A. Bell) and Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew. The author has concocted this dialogue session to illustrate a relatively fair cross-cultural treatment of political affairs and ideology.

I should make it clear that this article, unlike the blanket critiques from outside observers which some people are displeased about, at least considers the socio-historical traditions and rationalities of different cultures and avoids, at its best, to apply abstract political ideals. Another reason I recommend the article is the position of communitarianism that is being contested against authoritarianism. It is conceivable that most Singaporeans do strive for a communitarian platform, meaning a society that refrains from supporting excessive individual rights and advocating communitaristic relations, so it would certainly give fruit for thought on how a society could fathom the switch from a authoritarian regime into a more communitarian society.

PDF Format

Education for the Youth

Today (21/02/2005), the Straits Times has responded in full force on student activism, especially holding Minister Mentor Lee's comments at the Kent Ridge Forum on Jan 26 in high regards. Monday's ST is usually focused on the education scene among the youths in Singapore, so it acts as a weekly national reminder to them on important issues. For a considerable time period, a central issue has been the political apathy concentrated among the new generation of teenagers and that this would translate to a lack of patriotism in future generations. I've brought this up before, and this social phenomena has been relayed to me by the national press, so there is very little excuse for our top ministers to feign ignorance on the issue. I only speculate on how serious this "malady" truly is.

Nevertheless, the topic of student political apathy is being discussed in three articles. Student Activism- Is it just lip service? is an article written by a first year student in SMU. The writer, Teng Yi Ling basically appeals to youths to take charge, quit complaining, advocate their views and "stop being an empty vessel". Feel passionate about something? Walk the talk is a simple expose on a non-profit youth organization, AFUA, that advocates arts-based activities. There's also discussion about another youth employment organization (YES) and the role of the National Youth Council (NYC). The goals of these youth organizations are certainly worth applauding, though there's also good reason to investigate how these groups are being managed not only within their own intragroup politics but also within the surrounding socio-political context. Then there is Shake off apathy, step to the policy beat, written by an anonymous contributor to YouthInk, who also unequivocally demands that both parties, the government and the apathetic youth, (in his/her own creativity) learn to "tango" in increasing public awareness among youths by promoting youth-based organizations. In other words, the government should take a more intensive role in engaging with the youth.

Most likely, upon first glance, there is apparently nothing insidious about the promotion of youth empowerment and given that all the above articles were written by either head advocates or youths, it seems reasonable to suppose that the government is taking an active role. Recently, the government has not only encouraged youths to learn more about the national press but also produced their own sister newspapers targeted at youths. So by all logical conclusions, these articles are simply spun to only encourage MORE active participation in educating the youth, not that the present involvement is or was, in any way, absent, but simply to get more youths to obey to the tuteledge of governmental ideology and serve governmental power. In order to construct an urgent priority, it then proposes the fear that a apolitical young generation will only spell the end of Singapore.

Some police organizations do rely on the help of youth organizations to strength their resources and facilitate better understanding of the other party (be it deviant groups or the general public). Now this form of policing is refered to as community policing, and in some respects the local police does employ the same techniques. However, there is a strange contradiction here. Community policing was taken to be anatagonist with authoritarian policing, which means a style of controlling the population through the rule of force (physical, legal or other methods of disempowerment and deprivation). However, this kind of mutual exclusivity is not necessarily followed through in social reality, so we are able to witness degrees of polarity in a society such as Singapore.

The point here to make is that the education that is being instructed here, is by no means intended to facilitate understanding of youth culture. Previously, youth groups that have been antagonistic to dominant national ideology have been rooted out (I understand that references are needed for such a claim, but I think we can safely assume youth punk rock groups are not seen as a "friend" of any government position). The education that the national press endorses is conformity to the national government, and for better or worse, thats not political apathy, thats political parochiliasm thats being fostered. The nurturance of a political conscience is not developed by simply linking with a state ideology but to encourage independent thought and inquiry into social matters. There might even be a backlash as youths expect governmental consent before embarking on their own activities and this would only result, what seems more plausible, in engendering the expression of creative or political voices through a bueaucractic system of thought. This is hardly what any sensible person would call "empowerment".

Recommended Articles

I have not yet have the chance to pick on a suitable topic to dicuss and comment. But browsing through a few articles, some of which help point to the implications of a police state, I recommend viewing them and teasing out the values which we cherish and feel threatened by. My comments will come about soon enough.

Singapore Needs to Think Outside the Box

Vietnam's House of Virgins

Women Make Poor Leaders, 20-Somethings Make Poor Advisors

There's more of course to explore and read up on, so I will update my posts in the near future.

Experiencing Temporary Disruption

It seems that I forgot my account password for the ST Times, and in attempting to gain it back, the ST has shut me out (it even disabled my original password which I found out later). Kinda frightening when the page informs you that "help has been directed to our AsiaOne Admin HelpDesk" automatically. They must think you are some spy or something.

As I am in a new country, I won't have access to the daily papers so I apologise for some delay in updates. I will resume updating as soon as I retrieve my ST account and a home internet connection.

Just as a small personal blurb, before I left Singapore, my local community gym had installed a fingerprint device for members. There were definitely some hiccups on the first day of testing but that isn't the real issue. What floored me was why a small local community gym (NTUC, to be specific) needs to implement a high-tech sophiscated identity/entrance device for something as minor as entering a gym. If there is one guaranteed purpose in installing such a security device, it will serve to keep people OUT instead of in. Security alarms, entrances and devices are never meant to keep people in, they are designed to warn potential newcomers about the perils of the place. I highly doubt current members feel any safer, nor will any future potential members choose to patron such a place.

Incidentally, there was a fee hike in the membership fee shortly before the device was introduced. Instead of upgrading the gym or the community club, this is where the money went to. It's little moments like this that remind you of the extreme regard for security we have in Singapore.

A Brief Interlude (Anecdotal Accounts)

This post is not about rigour empirical or scientific analysis of the police state but rather a brief anecdotal account which I have the fortune to relate. From presenting this event, I only attempt to show that a few pointers can be learned about how someone can still see the kind of social control mechanisms that the state utilizes to curb freedom of expression or dissent.

It was a strange but not perculiar in the negative sense, rather the unpredicted pleasure to discuss about political affairs of Singapore with a retired senior citizen in a local community club premise. I will refrain from stating the circumstances where we bumped into each other and made our friendship (you should never be surprised the extent the ISA will sought to trace you down), but I will encourage the reader to just open your ears loud enough and you may detect the tone of irony and sacrasm still slightly present in our older generations. In any case, there is one important characteristic about my interlocutor. He was an ex-senior civil servant in the Housing Board Department. It doesn't matter what department was he in charge of but he was retrenched despite his years of hard work and dedication with a sour taste in his mouth.

Disclosing his own private work affairs is not something I will endorse, since the best source is still from the original voice. Needless to say, he was irrate with the type of hypocrisy and autocratic bureaucratic style of work that has, in his own concern, jeopardized many of the home-owners (or soon to be). True, lives were not totally devasted but many mistakes had occured that shouldn't have, and people's troubles exacerbated which were attributed to the responsbility of the department. During our discussion, we eventually hit upon the subject of Jamie Han's speech. With a sarcastic glitter but yet with a tone of sadness, he said that Jamie Han was probably going to be "marked" after this. He doubt that Jamie Han would be able to find any government job or that his employment opportunities may be worse off from hereon (If Jamie is reading this, my apologises if this scares you. But take his comments with a grain of salt).

Then he mentioned something that surprised me, "What's the difference between communism and Singapore now? Yeah, we chased away all the communist parties in the past, but see the way we live now, it is not that different." He then, with swerving analysis and background knowledge, compared MM Lee to Adolf Hitler, juxataposing that both had similiar political ideals and employed similiar strategies to attain their goals. He then recounted how even as civil servants in trying to improve their workplace, by orchestrating a Q&A session, were still screened out. Before the Q&A session, there was a gatekeeper that asked them to write out their questions first, and during the session, filtered the "hardcore" questions from those that could be asked. This was perhaps, I suspect, the most disappointing moment in his career, when a government administration that talks about an "open" and "inclusive" society still treats its own officials and workers as an enemy.

There are a few more such accounts one can hear if one probes their senior citizens regarding the history of Singapore (to be fair and certain, some do endorse the dominant political party and their achievements). I wouldn't illustrate this post with all the accounts I have heard, though the range and degree of skepticism and criticisms would be unusually brash and varied. This particular individual presents for me, an interesting standpoint to focus on.

It is the nature of any institution and organization to indoctrinate its own workers, to get them to conform and internalise its values or philosophy. In this case, we have an elderly man who has worked several years of his life in probably, one of the most important departments of the government administration and likely subjected to the most potent of state indoctrination, in other words, he is "closest to the source". Yet, he still has been able to escape the indoctrination and propogandistic practices and to see through the veneer of hypocrisy involved.

I wish to reiterate, the issue that lies in front of us, is not to epitomize him nor to verify his story and generalize it across the board. This anecdotal is neither intended to substantiate the police state thesis nor support it wholely by one account. What instead we should ask is how a otherwise intelligent and average citizen can work in the same organization that manages a very important aspect of the population's lives (namely housing) and routinely continue his activities despite knowing the consequences of the mistakes his own workplace never corrects. There is a good deal to learn from how we have fostered, nurtured and maintained our own apathy in the need to survive on a daily basis. It is also imperative that we should remember that ordinary workers, even those working under the dominant administration, need their own voice, and only if giving them that power, we are able to witness a wider scope of opinions and voices that truly represent a "open" and "inclusive" society. Currently, besides the "malpractice" I stated, civil servants are instructed and abid by the law not to broadcast in any medium, manner or format their opinions, criticisms or suggestions (this includes our beloved Forum section of the national newspapers). Giving them the power and right to freely express their views is therefore probably a goal that the state's citizens should advance.

After all, I think I owed that to him.

State Propoganda

Credits go to New Sintercom and then Steven (there are a few articles one should check which are posted on the 7/2/2005 and 8/2/2005) who pointed to the article in his blog.

Below shows the most crucial bit of the article transcript though you should check the link above for the entire article.

-----------------------------------

Today, I came across a Straits Times article on the fabled exchange at the Kent Ridge Ministerial Forum between MM Lee and Jamie Han. The Straits Times Article published excerpts of the proceedings without indicating what was omitted, as shown in the segment below. I would like to reproduce the actual exchange so it becomes clear that to a large extent, the Straits Times obfuscates the truth and twists it according to the whims of its masters.

ST: Lively Exchanges
Paper: The Straits Times
Section: Singapore
Date published: Wednesday, February 2, 2005
---- [Segment] ----
Student: My name is Jamie Han, history honours student.

I'm not questioning your decisions in the past, I'm sure at those times, there was a need for consensus and stability. But I think we have come to the stage where stability is already here and that, in order to progress, the minority viewpoints have to be heard.

And I'm not saying that the People's Action Party is corrupt or anything now.

The truth of the matter is this: No matter how enlightened a despot is, ultimately, he'll turn into a tyrant if there are no checks and balances in place.

MM Lee: There's nothing to prevent you from advocating that, pushing that strenuously and finally getting a political party to adopt your platform, and we will put it to the vote. That's the democratic way of doing it.
---- [End Segment] ----

Now, I would like to reproduce the actual exchange in full.

---- [Actual Exchange] ----
Student:
Good evening Mr Lee. My name is Jamie Han, and I’m a history honours student at NUS.

I was frankly rather disappointed at your speech, because I thought you have dealt with the historical... Historiographical problems of history, but as a lawyer, I can see that you are not trained for that area. So anyway, my question is this:

You were talking of general principles in history of looking at the past, and you said that in Singapore, one of the general principles is unity. I do not disagree with you that in this multi-racial society we need unity, but what I am against is...

Are you fetishising unity at the cost of plurality? You said that, maybe it is not part of our culture that we need consensus building and stuff like that, but as the sociologists would tell you, culture is always being made. So...

I'm not questioning your decisions in the past, I'm sure at those times, there was a need for consensus and stability. But I think we have come to the stage where stability is already here and that, in order to progress, the minority viewpoints have to be heard.

And in anticipation of your counter argument that there are channels in which the minority can voice their viewpoints, we all know that in reality these channels are either directly or indirectly controlled by the government.

(MM Lee Laughs)

And I'm not saying that the People's Action Party is corrupt or anything now.

The truth of the matter is this: No matter how enlightened a despot is, ultimately, he'll turn into a tyrant if there are no checks and balances in place.

And so I strongly believe that oppressive acts like the printing act and the internal security act should be reviewed. Since, maybe they are no longer relevant, as we have already reached a stage where stability is here. Thank you.

MM Lee: There's nothing to prevent you from advocating that, pushing that strenuously and finally getting a political party to adopt that platform, and we will put it to the vote. That's the democratic way of doing it.
---- [End Actual Exchange] ----

Not to nit pick, I noticed that the Straits Times also misquoted MM Lee (It was “that platform” as opposed to “your platform”). So perhaps one could say it was overall incompetence that resulted in this misrepresentation, and it may well be fair to say that the Straits Times was fair to both parties......

The Straits Times also did not publish the better part of MM Lee’s argument, where he raised the example of spontaneous segregation in our society to support his claim that racial harmony is fragile. He stated a case where a Malay family living in a pre-dominantly Chinese area moved out, and another where a Chinese family living in a pre-dominantly non-Chinese area moved out. He had a point there. (I’m trying to be objective here.)

Also, a later exchange where MM Lee took his turn to be rude may also be of interest.

---- [A Later Exchange] ----
MM Lee:
… you say you are prevented from government controlled channels. Have you ever written anything or said anything that has been surpressed? Have you ever written to the forum page in the Straits Times?

Student:
I have written several articles, but only one managed to get through.

MM Lee:
Articles where to?

Student:
To the forum.

MM Lee:
Forum page. [The second word is not entirely clear.]

Student:
The Straits Times Forum.

MM Lee:
What about?

Student:
Issues ranging from the tsunami, to the issue of education, and as I said, the issue of plurality in society.

MM Lee:
Well, why not start a publication. I mean you’ve got a publication in the University; you’ve got several.

Student:
Because the laws that are in place make it very difficult.

MM Lee:
No no no. You are entitled to register. And have… [This bit was too muffled to be heard]

Student:
Theory and practice are two different things. I do not disagree with you that in theory it is possible but there is such a thing known as…

MM Lee:
No. You have the internet. Put up a website.

(Pause)

MM Lee:
You know how to put up a website? [Short pause.] If you don’t I have friends who can help you.

(Audience laughs and applauds.)

Student:
With all due respect sir, I’ve just two more things to say: One, that you are using the fear of the past in order to prevent progress…

(MM Lee laughs)

Student:
And second, you are picking examples of countries which suit your argument whereby I can raise a dozen others to counter with you. But this is not a philosophical discussion so thank you for your time.

---- [End Later Exchange] ----

-------------------------------------

My comments will be brief, as most readers should not be surprised at the style and type of editing and censorship the national press would resort to portraying the head of the state as right and superior (in fact, if one checks the actual ST article, the vox pop section which asks for the students' comments on the talk are overwhelmingly positive). So nobody should be harping on the fact that this form of censorship and propoganda occurs in the national press.

What should be of concern is our moral obligation to recognise the honesty and ownership of someone's speech. It would be a grave injustice for myself and others to misrepresent MM Lee's comments, just as well as it would be to misrepresent Jamie Han's speech. Instead, we owe to ourselves to recognise the universal principle that honesty to acknowledge and debate with someone's ideas is how sincere and progressive communication flows. Misrepresentation only breeds parochiliasm and ignorance which doesn't help to create the "open" and "progressive" society the current administration wishes to foster.

There's an additional issue at hand. MM Lee suggests that for Jamie Han's voice to be heard, he should broadcast it through a few mediums, one of the dubious being the Forum section. If the above example serves to demonstrate the kind of liberty the editors wish to use, we should be equally skeptical of the representation of the "public's voice" in the newspapers. Through simple logic and rationality, one does not reasonably expect a national newspaper to represent the myraid of views from the citizens. What we would find is that the national press will reduce and decide the framework of content and bias that only serves dominant ideology. Only on rare occasions might we find a letter that may, at first glance, critize dominant orthdoxy, but rhetorical denouncements serve a function to present a "liberal" and "weak" ideology that should be construed as the state's nemesis. There are many analogies one can find, but for the current example, Jamie Han would be construed as a "foolish" and "weak" liberal proponent that MM Lee can easily defeat in a swift paragraph. There will be little analysis, virtually none perhaps, into Jamie Han's words and for that, we might have to do the job ourselves.

Warnings to heed

On the 5th of Feb 2005 , in the Straits Times (the nation's newspaper), there is an interesting juxataposition of two articles. The treatment of the content and its presentation will serve to explain the kind of priorities that's placed on the nation's agenda (since we conclude the ST presents the kind of national agenda we should enforce).

The first is an article on a homosexual teacher who was given a warning by the police, but not arrested hence no criminal record. The authorities have decided to warn his employers about his history and thus raise a potential ethical dilemma. Below is the article.

-----------------------------

TEACHER LET OFF WITH A WARNING
Should the police have told school about his offence?
Police arrested him for a sex offence but freed him with stern warning
By Tracy Sua

IN WHAT lawyers describe as an unusual move, police have sent a letter to a school for disabled children, warning that one of its teachers was once arrested for a sexual offence.
TARGET OF WARNING: Mr Fernandez, who teaches students with learning disabilities, openly admits he is gay, but says that does not make him a paedophile. He is afraid now that the police disclosure will lose him his job.

Even though he was let off with a warning and was not charged, police said they acted because the man, Mr Paul Fernandez, 42, deals with young children at The Centre for Exceptional Children, which teaches students with learning disabilities.

However, Mr Fernandez, while openly admitting that he is gay, said that does not make him a paedophile.

He was arrested on Sept 11, 2003, for committing an act of gross indecency on the public staircase landing of a private block of flats in Klang Lane in Little India. He admits being arrested, but is now afraid that the police disclosure will lose him his job.

Police did not reveal the exact nature of the offence, but said that 'after careful consideration of the facts and circumstances in the case, and in consultation with the Attorney-General's Chambers', it was decided last year that Mr Fernandez would be issued with a stern warning in lieu of prosecution.

In addition, police sent a letter to the school around October last year informing it of the action taken against their teacher.

In response, the school did not sack him, but instructed Mr Fernandez to abide by several rules, including teaching in a classroom with a window so he could be monitored by staff.

Mrs Queenie Tan, the school's principal, said the case would be reviewed at a special meeting on Feb 15, when it would be decided whether Mr Fernandez could keep his job.

She said the decision would be made based on whether he complied with the rules set for him, and on parents' sentiments.

She did add, however, that Mr Fernandez had not complied with certain rules, such as teaching in a classroom with a window.

Mrs Tan also said his conduct since he was hired in July last year had been deteriorating. On several occasions, she said, he had failed to turn up for class.

Mr Fernandez refutes the charges, claiming that he had not been told about the new rules. He said the school had intended to fire him from the outset and had concocted a story about the rules to cover up its true intentions.

Mrs Tan denied this, insisting that Mr Fernandez had been given a chance 'to prove himself'.

Lawyers said it was unusual for police to inform private sector employers.

'If the person being investigated is a civil servant and if he is convicted, the police will normally inform his employers. If it is a lawyer, they will inform the Law Society. For private sector employers, it is unusual for the police to inform the employer when it is just a warning,' said criminal lawyer Selva K. Naidu.

However, well-known criminal lawyer Subhas Anandan noted that Mr Fernandez had accepted the warning.

'The fact remains that if you have not done anything wrong, you should not accept the warning,' Mr Subhas said. 'Accepting the warning is practically admitting you are guilty of the charge. In some instances, some people will accept the warning even though they feel the law is not fair, to avoid going to trial.'

Police said they had acted in the best interests of the schoolchildren.

'It was deemed necessary to share this information with the school in view of his role as a teacher to young children,' said police media relations officer Rachel Yeo.

Mr Subhas said the issue was 'a delicate matter'.

'The police feel duty bound to tell because of the sensitive nature of his employment and it is quite fair they did this if he accepted the warning and did not deny the charge,' he said.

'The school has given him a chance, but it has a duty to the kids too... I think he should comply with them.'

-----------------------------------------

The second is an article on global warming and how it could affect Singapore. In the print edition, there was a primer section on global warming and its cycle. That was not reproduced in the online electronic edition but heres a link to assist your understanding. Below is the article that relates this calamity with Singapore (Italics my emphasis).

----------------------------

Global warming could affect S'pore Low-lying reclaimed land could be submerged as sea levels rise

By Arnold Gay

RISING sea levels due to climate change are not just a concern in remote areas. Some low-lying parts of Singapore could also be affected if water levels rise, say experts.

'The sea level rise, with a minimum of 10cm and a maximum of 90cm by 2100, will impact Singapore as it's an island nation with a lot of low-lying reclaimed land, ' said Dr Matthias Roth, a climate scientist at the National University of Singapore.

However, short of a complete meltdown in the Arctic and Antarctic, the immediate impact on Singapore's low-lying areas, some barely above sea-level, is unlikely to be dramatic.

Still, Dr Roth's analysis is based on a conservative estimate. In the Armageddon scenario set out by scientists at a recent conference on climate change in Exeter, England, a meltdown of both the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets could see sea levels rise by up to 7m.

All around the world, there is a growing realisation that global warming is now a real problem.

For years, it was a poor relative to trade and globalisation. But the sceptics have come around in the face of signs of nature's backlash.

'The balance of evidence has shifted one way,' said British Prime Minister Tony Blair at Davos during his keynote address. And it may be shifting faster than expected.

Last week, an independent report warned of global warming approaching the point of no return, with a danger of 'abrupt, accelerated, or runaway climate change'.

'World leaders need to recognise that climate change is the single most important long-term issue that the planet faces,' said Mr Stephen Byers, co-chairman of the task force from the Institute for Public Policy Research in Britain, the Centre for American Progress in the United States and the Australia Institute.

Just days later, a World Wildlife Fund Environment Group report said global temperatures could surge by as much as 2 deg C in just 20 years, and not 100 years.

Until now, few scientists have estimated such an early date for a 2 deg C rise; the broad estimate had been a rise of 1.5 deg C to 5.8 deg C by 2100.

Climatologists also differ over what constitutes a 'critical' level.

'Nobody can define 'critical' because we don't know what a safe level is,' said Dr Roth.

The conventional view is that the earth's temperature would rise gradually as more greenhouse gases get trapped in the atmosphere.

The earth's climate system will then gradually adjust in a predictable linear fashion.

But scientists at Exeter said there was a risk of sudden and catastrophic climate changes.

Some climatologists also say extreme events are now more frequent and more intense.

The last 10 years have already been the warmest on record, with four of the hottest years ever between 1998 and last year.

In the last four years, temperatures rose by an estimated 0.58 deg C, and some climatologists believe it has caused some natural disasters and freaky weather.

One is worth highlighting - the first hurricane developed in the South Atlantic Ocean, where conditions were believed unsuitable for such a formation.

But for all the mounting concern, the prospects of controlling global warming are uncertain, without the involvement of the US.

The Kyoto Protocol, a landmark treaty to limit greenhouse gas emissions among industrialised nations, takes effect on Feb 16 without the US.

'In the long run, treaties are only effective if the major greenhouse gas emitting countries have signed up to it and the reduction targets are enforced,' said Dr Roth.

Ironically, it may be high oil prices and businesses that will get the US involved.

'The business community is somewhat more receptive to the fact that the climate is changing, ... they are the first to feel a loss in revenue or sense business opportunities,' said Dr Roth.

Here too, small states like Singapore can play their part.

As one of the highest per capita producers of carbon dioxide and a wealthy nation, it has the added responsibility of putting the issue on the agenda. Singapore has not ratified the Kyoto Protocol.

'Singapore's main contribution could come from the development of alternative, fuel-saving technologies. It has the infrastructure and brainpower, and money can be made because I feel this will be one of the future growth industries,' said Dr Roth.

-----------------------------------------------------------

There was a difference in how both articles were treated in the newspapers. The first article was posted as Prime news occupying half of the page, while the second article was posted as part of the World news occupying only 1/4 of the page or less. However, the primer article occupied a large space with pictures, colour and graphs hence we can conclude that global warming is indeed a matter we should consider seriously.

My contention, as this example would show, is that the state is more concerned about enforcing its own laws within its own legislation (the criminalising of homosexuals) than playing on active role in scrutinizing its own apathy in following a serious global protocol. As stated, the nation press adopts its own agenda in framing issues that are consistent with state ideology, one of which being to represent homosexuals as "dangerous", "paedophile" or "born criminals". Concerns with the outside world are deemed as less important, our own country's failure to ratify the Kyoto Protocol is given a passing remark and instead glossed over with a plausible, but yet not effective, recommendation by a national university professor. The message is clear: Care more about your local homosexual than the advent of rising sea levels, raising temperatures and possibly more nature disasters.

I believe that there are many possible reasons to explain Singapore's failure to ratify the Kyoto Protocol (for now, my intuition leads to two main hypotheses: a reflexive obedience to US's decision, or a conscious drive to generate more industrial economic wealth despite the costs). This maxim is unacceptable if Singapore, as postulated by President S.R. Nathan in his recent speech, chooses to be a "global citizen". The state must hold itself accountable to contributing to the health of the planet, without any wishy washy debilitation on the matter. Climate warning is a phenomena most scientists have held a firm general consensus over (and one should be skeptical of those who disagree otherwise) and demands a morally responsible decision as resident of the planet we should take. This moral responsibility is no different regardless of the status, size or geography of the country.

The Head of State Speaks

Some might choose to call it despotism vs democracy but I refrain from using these broad strokes.

A few days ago, at a ministerial forum at NUS (the nation's first university, where the "best" and "brightest" are presumed to be groomed), an honours history student, Jamie Han questioned Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew on his political tactics and strategy. This is a particularly salient event for you have what the government may choose to call "the post 65" generation or the "politically-charged" younger generation of Singaporeans who wish to have a say in political matters speaking out against what one could call the "grandfather" of Singapore. Speaking to the "top architect" of the nation state is a rare opportunity and warrants some introspection into his response. Here is the full transcript first (link). The first two exchanges are perhaps the most perturbing, while the third presents a humble mentor who encourages people to move on.

To witness how significant MM Lee's comments are, I suggest the following articles to be read first: 1)Mr Brown 2) Molly Meek 3) Au WaiPeng 4) SDP . Their responses, whatever you choose to think of them, provide some englightment on why MM Lee's answer cannot be taken at point blank. He may seem to be providing legitimate pointers but we must inspect on the legitimacy of his points. A head of state will give lessons that he may have learned from his time but prove to be incompatabile with the times of today.

For what it is worth, in my view, I am largely skeptical of his innocuous reply to the first student. Back in 1997, Health Minister and Minister for Information and the Arts George Yeo lamented that Singapore is like a "five star hotel" where residents treat it as a location to reap economic benefits but rebuke at staying for a lifetime. So it is surprising that MM Lee would describe this "malady" as a phenomeon he is not familiar with. While he does reasonably see that more citizens wish to participate in the political process, he is quick to quip that not everyone is going to be in charge. We would ask who are those that are not entitled to be in charge and we would even further ask if "everybody will have a chance to give his input".

The most poignant suggestion we should consider though is his advice to form a political party. Even the simplest of citizens know a political party does not obtain power easily. There are considerable obstacles that confront our little protege, begining with a massive concentration of power from a dominating party, with almost the entire country's resources at its control. No sensible person would allow its own party to be dissolved, broken or teared down by a third party, and this would include MM Lee's own PAP party. In fact, MM Lee's slogan to "break conventions" and align oneself with a "political party" comes with a heavy price that he should acknowledge.

How would this little session support a thesis of a police state? Well, consider how a head of a police organization would respond if he was questioned about his, supposedly, brutal tactics in reinforcing the law. He would assert that the only real challenge to his power would be another party, namely either a more efficient police force (but since he is the head of a national force, it's very unlikely another opponent can be of equal challenge) or an illegal organized force such as the mafia or a secret society. Now since Singapore only harbours either small secret societies or a clandestine diffused illegal organization, they cannot be seen as legitimate opponents. But what if there is the local population? How would we expect the elite police leader to respond to an uprising of local dissent, perhaps spurred by unsatisfactory feelings towards his methods and approach to social control? Would we consider them just another illegal force or a serious trend among the local population to be treated with seriousness and utmost discussion?

Unfortunately, our "Dear Leader" has decided on his style. And it is one that we are led to think the "only one" that works.

The Police State: Basic 101

Below is a post I first entered in my livejournal blog which is now disabled. I decided to start our journey into The Police State with it. This should give the basic gist of the key points I would follow through later.

------------------------

When one is present in a new environment, one is reminded again of his/her origins. One's own idiosyncratic identity is reinforced and salient in novel surroundings, and one must then purge the etiology of his own beliefs and upbringings.

There is a place, and I shall dub it the "Police State" for now. Why this label or perhaps epithet? This place has been labelled other unique names, such as the "air-conditioned island", "benign authoritarian" but I think the "police state" is of the best fit. Because we are dealing with a place, where I belonged, which will evolve sooner or later into the perfect epitome of a rigidly-structured, closely surveillant island that will micro-manage every aspect of its citizens' lives. Note that this is not a extremist view, its one meekly accepted by its own citizens, in fact perfectly acceptable, because there is no other options, no remotely fathomable alternative than to capitulate to the status quo, authority and power just to cage the "chaos" citizens themselves are afraid to risk. The "Policed-State" doesn't care about salvagable options, it doesn't concern itself with petty emotions and humanity, it expects results. Thats how the "Police-State" runs, and as movie taglines say "Failure is never an option".

What particular characteristics do we expect from a modern "police state"? What can this unique state offer to tell us about future, modernity, technology, morals, tradition, culture, humanity and most importantly, social life? A lot because if we expect individual autonomy to be subscribed to the norms of state's institutions, and never anything less or otherwise, we expect the fine mechanics of a well-oiled machine. A perfect machine, one might say, churned by input and output, knowing no other duty. Below are some of the features we should find:

1) Authority is unquestioned, unrepentable, unrefutable and unapologetic. It makes no mistake, because authoritarianism doesn't allow any other form of power, except its own. There will be no discourse or current of power, because it will dissemble any collective effort to modify it. Contrast with the police agency, they also are assigned power to be used, and to overcome any other power that runs counter to it. Neither does the police question its own power, they simply must enforce it.

2) Loss of individual autonomy. When one observes a social group (e.g. a group of friends), one will find shared effort to achieve goals. But there's also one important element for such dynamics to be shared. Individual autonomy is still retained in such projects, and perhaps encouraged because harmonous social groups will attend to the needs of its members and engender a solution accepted by most. A policed social group will elevate a goal to its top priority, while rendering other interests obsolete, possibly crashing with other reasonable expediency. When we expect the police to act, we expect the same cursory vacuity, that loss of autonomy to make decisions not of your own but prescribed by rules (e.g. the law, proper conduct, etc). The "police state" would expect its citizens to follow this protocol.

3) Discreet Surveillance. The police do not watch over your every step, move nor breath, but that doesn't mean they aren't able to. In fact, the "police state" will never be able to manage such a ambitious tumultous task, but since it can't overtly watch over everyone, it will do so covertly. Readers of George Orwell's 'Big Brother' forget that the individuals in the totalitarian society are aware of their invasion of privacy, but to fund such a flagrant inclement project is impossible without rebukement from the citizens. Thus, surveillance is best met by discreet practices, while clandestine activities are mobile.

4) Potent Indoctrination. This deleterious side-effect produces itself, while not incipient within the process, it systematically presents itself. It is is germane to the process of institutionalization and militates the individuals caught up in it. However, the system is widely cast to every micro-aspect of social life, thus individuals are inevitably annexed into the process. The police and any other orderly organizations can't function without some degree of indoctrination of norms and rules, even if it is a iota of concedence to the dogma.

5) Progress is the top priority. There need not be any explanation, nothing else matters but progress. But progress is confined to specific discourses or fields, and here we meet abysmal goals. Avarice remains the key word to describe such behaviour, while the balderdash of morals and values are wont to their capricious manipulation. Which leaves the last important feature, the crux of the dynamic process:

6) Manufactured Consent (Copyright: This term was used by Noam Chomsky in his critique of the Western corporate media which seemingly is construed as "liberal" and "truth-finding". Noam Chomsky, fortunately, credits the term to its originator, Walter Lippman. While Chomsky has a harder time convincing his audience of his views, I think this term can be easily applied to my context.)

In the course of time, I will reveal the intricacies of this social-political process. While I understand that I made some prejudgmental statements on my own country, I am not impugning nor vilifying the place. There are trade-offs, and positive outcomes have emerged from such a system. My question is how far do we pay for these benfits, are they unattainable from other forms of action and how much do we wish to give up for the "perfect" parismonious tutelage of a 21st century modernistic home? Because this place is no longer an ostensible stationary, numb and insipid environment, but become the very concotment of a very breathing robotic metaphysical entity that may be virulent in us all.