Wednesday, May 25, 2005

"Truth" or Truth by the State?

This is a brief entry because it is a response piece to one ST Forum letter, "Anarchy if people speak without a care for truth". This article presents an opportunity to scrutinize and deconstruct unhidden assumptions behind voices that support violence to freedom of speech, and not reconceptualize it to emanicipate oppression among the people. The author wrote in regards to Christopher Choo's article "Libel lawsuits may stifle opinion". Incidentally, Hui Chieh also demonstrates how we can critically examine and argue philosophical questions about truth. Instead of leeching off his work, I will state my position succinctly.

Erroneously, though paradoxically, the author states "
I do not think that A*Star's action will have any impact on the issue of freedom of expression in Singapore. It has actually galvanised a healthy debate on what freedom of expression entails. I am encouraged to see more and more young people in our universities taking an interest in commenting on the perceived injustices in our society." No doubt the issue did raise a ruckus, or controversy among the community, but controversies do not ipso facto demonstrate a unhindered sphere of freedom of speech. Rather, one can still, and I think this issue illlustrated very well, judging from the heated discussion the blogosphere has invoked, how distorted and unbalanced the powers of representations are in our communication outlets. Not only has the media misquoted or misrepresented its sources (ST on the blogosphere) but also there is still a lack of hearing from the "outside" or the "other". All too often, the national press is only interested in sanitized, status-quo, pre-defined representations, and not the grave fundamental issues everyone should address. In this case, there is a real issue about freedom of expression in Singapore, and only a blind fool will think otherwise.

However, the crux of the author's stance is this:

"Freedom of expression must be accompanied by a responsibility to have your facts correct, and, if they are proven otherwise, to have the maturity to admit you are wrong, make an unreserved apology and move on.

It will be total anarchy if we have freedom of speech without the need to speak the truth. Every individual has a right to his opinion, but no individual has a right to be wrong in his facts.

In a civil society, it is not necessary to have 'a heated debate and raw engagement with an opponent' for new ideas and ways of thinking to emerge. Nothing lowers the level of conversation more than raising the voice."

In just a few paragraphs above, the author unreservedly states "I am not privy to the exchange between A*Star and Mr Chen, but, from press reports, it appears that he was given an opportunity to make an apology. The initial apology was considered inadequate by A*Star and the threat of a libel lawsuit persuaded him to make an unreserved apology." I think the case can be strongly argued that the press reports don't possess truth. It never did, and neither was the whole truth belted out on the national press. That's "truth" shaped and manipulated by the state press, and not the unequivocal truth one seeks to learn. Indeed, it comes with shame and pity that one is able to argue for an oxymoron that one can speak "truth" without asking himself if s/he even has the "truth". Is it "truth" that we will be in a state of chaos and anarchy if one speaks without in possession of the "truth"? How do we survive since nobody can be said to have access to all-knowing "truth"?

The author shouldn't be concerned about the "raising of voices". Our voices are already far too soft as it is.

Corporate Take-Over

In one remarkable day, you could have a good bird's eye view of the corporate culture hegemony in Singapore. Two articles published on the ST allude to the silent but aggressive agglomeration of neo-liberal economic "cost-benefit" ideology, one that pertains to NGOs (New Body to Help NGOs Stay In Place) and the other to what used to be the services of the state (More Jobs to be Farmed Out by Govt Agencies). No doubt some may view these instances as a positive step, it certainly is portrayed as generally a progressive development but there are some dangers one should be cautious about, some not as intelligible and easily overlooked.

The role of NGOs in any society should be to serve its own interests, and not to pander to a dominant institution that may seek to control and intervene into their operations. While it may seem at first glance that the organization and structure of NGOs could be strengthened to be more efficient, no doubt a benefit all may welcome, the inclusion of a overarching body (Society of Associative Executives) will not only erode the spirit of NGOs but quite possibly prove disasterous to their organisational goals. Let's study the goal of the SAE which is set up to "conduct courses, provide professional certification for staff and organise regional conferences for those in the industry to exchange knowledge" and ensure "these professionals will be neutral, transparent and get the job done at the best cost and time". Some of these initiatives should be beneficial, such as coordinating more regional conferences or conducting courses, but the other objectives are not as benevolent as it sounds. A quick inspection of these objectives on the body's website reveal that not only do they "encourage association executives participation in community service organisations, or governmental commissions" but also to "fully integrate research findings on “best practices” and market needs into products and services" indicates, to a broad degree, how much more bureaucratic and rigid such a compliance would lead, not to mention the implementation of a "market-based" approach to solving community problems. The packaging of community support into "products and services" that serve a "cost-benefit" analysis will grind whatever possible flexibility and autonomy these "not-for-profit" organisations have into oblivation.

If that didn't seem worrisome enough, the second article presented an affirmation of how the state is dealing with employment. However, it clearly extols the virtue of "neo-liberal" ideology, as the state contracts out its services and amenities to private corporations. Among them include the putting down of stray animals (trust someone else to do the dirty work), searching for AWOL enlisted men and other civil sector jobs. This isn't the place to list down and describe the dangers of private outsourcing of services, but needless to say, it certainly is a more frightening picture that probably deserves introspection and debate which will sadly not surface for time to come.

Wednesday, May 11, 2005

Asian Values Revisited

As expected, after the news report that judges may be given discretion when it comes to capital sentencing (Death Sentence? Let Judge Decide), the national press has set up a poll and published three letters, one that welcomed the change, one that was neutral and one that was dismissive of the move. The importance of studying the negative response is to follow the arguments of relativism, and the notion of human rights, and it is here I will publish snippets of Lim's letter.

First, 'human rights' encompasses a broad umbrella of rights. Even 'cruel and inhuman' is imprecise as a standard - is it measured relative to the evil the perpetrator committed, or against how a member of civilised society should be treated?

More broadly, which single society, or eclectic characteristics of a sample of societies, should be used to define human rights? It is a loose concept and more care is needed in defining the basis and scope of the alleged breach.

The argument that international human rights need to be respected ignores the fact that the values underlying these rights are heavily influenced by the ideals of victorious Western powers following World War II, rather than a global consensus.

More importantly, it says nothing of the efficacy of this proposed move in favour of 'human rights' in relation to the costs to public safety and crime deterrence.


In one sense, Lim isn't wrong when he says that the advocation of human rights has been most aggressively promoted by Western powers. However, he also misses the point that the international declaration of human rights was agreed by several other communities, none of which are Western and belong to other indigenous and Asian societies (edited: a controversial element is mentioned in the comments. I don't think it necessarily demolishes my argument but thats up to the reader to decide). If that is the case, human rights are not at all the sole possession and creation of a single society, but as it should be, a global consensus on the treatment of individual life and liberty. It is not any different from the global consensus on the global warming, hence the need for the Kyoto Protocol (which Singapore, Australia and the United States has yet to ratify).

Regarding the costs of crime deterrence and public safety, let me address that point further down.

Second, the focus on discretion in mandatory death sentences misses the crucial point that statutory calibration has been made within the Penal Code to reflect any extenuating circumstances, thereby reducing the offence to one of culpable homicide.

Further, the distinct provisions reflect society's calibrated response, according to how heinous a killing was. Allowing a convicted murderer to serve the same sentence as another who committed a less blameworthy crime unjustifiably conflates the two.

If, following a conviction, the outcome proves unjust nonetheless, the Penal Code provides for clemency via a presidential pardon.

Therefore it is hard to see how Mr Rajah's proposal provides a less 'cruel and inhuman' alternative simply because that decision is rendered judicially.


A weak argument is one that says, "there's already an avenue to address the problem. And that's enough." That's how social problems get pushed under the carpet because the masses are led to think that particular avenue is adequate in resolving the concern. In this case, one should be critical and intelligent to point out that this so-called "statutory calibration" is not a failsafe mechanism. Many times, clemency has been consistently denied and not to mention the entire procedure is a harbouring, grueling, tedious and painful process. Indeed, the argument goes both ways, let's concede that Lim is right about both routes (whether it is a clemency plea or a discretionary judgment) being identifical, that it becomes instantly obvious the latter is a more efficient, less time-consuming and, one might argue, a more formally powerful statement. It means that even despite due considerations, the judge has no other alternatives but to deliver a death sentence.

There is nothing to suggest that by retaining the mandatory death sentence, Singapore 'will be left out in the cold' as Prof Hor suggests. On the contrary, countries like the United States and Britain which have traditionally championed 'human rights' have considered or adopted anti-terrorism legislation similar to our Internal Security Act, which has also often been described as a breach of 'human rights'.

Draconian policies on road pricing and chewing gum have been similarly considered or adopted because they have proven effective.

In an age where Western-style 'human rights' has given rise to uncontrollable classroom behaviour in Britain and schoolyard murders in the US, the argument for harsher measures can only be stronger, not weaker.

(...)

Ultimately, the worth of any policy must lie in its effectiveness. Singapore's safe environment remains the envy of the world - arguably due to its tough stand on civil and criminal wrongs.

Those who seek legislative change must show convincingly why such a change is desirable, and how the benefits outweigh the costs.


Here is the backbone of Lim's stance. There are two central points he is making here. One is that even in Western countries, like the United States, not every legislation is motivated by "human rights" causes, and sometimes are subversive of them as well. He then juxtaposes the existence of "human rights" as the cause for social harms, such as school shootings andunruly classroom behaviour (quite an absurb statement, but one I will contemplate seriously...for now). The second is, as followed up by the notion of crime deterrence and public safety, legislations must be effective to deliver these results.

Although it is true that no country can be said to be represent a perfect embodiment of fulfilling all the clauses of the international human rights act, it is a mistaken to assume this means it should be an acceptable behaviour to be welcomed by the population. Many Americans are contesting the PATRIOT ACT (and its successors), which should be the core moral lesson that citizens should not accept dubious reasons for state coercion and violence just because the state concocts an imaginery fear that it is for their own good. We already have our own Internal Security Act, which Singaporeans have a good idea how it is truly used, and while some choose to accept that as an inevitable trade-off for security, the discretion for death penalty is nowhere in the same category. In other words, if we choose to enforce state violence, we should be more thorough and conscious of the consequences.

Draconian measures may be effective but there is also the moral imperative a society should consider. It is rather one thing to suggest that a ban on chewing gum weighs the same accord as hanging a man/woman, and another to suggest that the effectiveness of one draconian measure ensures another's guarantee for success. To be clear, all empirical work so far has shown that capital punishment has never been an effective deterrent, and nobody has produced results to the contrary. Singapore's death penalty has never undergone independent research and so far, every argument that purports to demonstrate its effectiveness has been regurgitated by those who accept haphazardly the rhetoric from the state government. Even for those who defend the death penalty rigorously, a moral message has been absent, or it's a moral message of fear.

Which leads to my hypothesis that the national press, and all other institutions supportive of dominant orthodox, has never ever, in the least bit, considered other alternatives, that can be less punitive than death penalty. Arguments about decriminalization (as shocking as some find it) or prisoner-exchange legislations, misconceptions about drug harm, gaps in the current legislation about what constitutes "drug trafficking", all these issues still get shoved off the debate, as not even worthy of entering the scope of discussion. That's how the debate will continue to be manufactured, and that's why any discussion on the death penalty continues to be shallow and supportive of governmental doctrine.

Though Lim is carefully not to advance the bugbear "Asian values", he is still revisiting the same currents that were the foundation of the term. I don't plan to buttress an entire argument here against the term, but rather to say that no doubt, some degree of relativity can be accepted but it is important to bear in mind, societies have the capacity to reach objective standards of justice and ethics. In another letter (Relook sentences), Low stresses that a crucial characteristic of Singaporean society is to "inculcate a more civil and caring society." Rhetoric is fine, everyone is all for the building of a more civil and caring society, the question is who should be pursuing our interests in this case? What some higher authority purportedly says, or our own inner moral convinctions? Because if it is the latter, that will mean a more careful investigation and consideration of what they are and how we choose to exercise them.

Tuesday, May 10, 2005

Rebel & Heroism (A Review of Singapore Rebel)

Much like Convex Set, I have also watched the documentary Singapore Rebel. While I highly respect Mr. See (not to mention being deeply concerned about his affairs), and though I believe this film deserves the right to be screened for the public to watch, I would like to criticize, even if only they are only slight perturbations, and postulate what are certain shortcomings in the film. I don't pretend to think I can make a "better" film, and I think Singaporeans at least should hear the words of Dr. Chee, however I am uncertain as to how the movie was represented and framed. In other words, my review is simply a judgment on asethetics and production of the documentary. As I believe Mr. See will read this, I would like to establish again that I congratulate him for making the film and I enjoyed watching it.

Overall, my general skepticism lies with the homology the documentary shares with a "Michael Moore" film, only in this case, the political bias is blatantly represented and portrayed. My contention is not that Dr. Chee doesn't deserve to speak, but that an entire piece devoted to him could be counterproductive, when others could construe the piece as deliberately sympathizing with a member of opposition. The legitimacy of this piece of work was, in my opinion, unintentionally broken down by what was initially a professional voice-over narrator degenerating into a "comedic goth-rock" type of satire. Perhaps the most dramatic piece of footage was the May Day rally Dr. Chee tried to hold, where he and his colleague was quickly subdued and arrested. However, certain statements by Dr. Chee in the piece, particularly the one where he asserted Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong pointed to his pocket when asked about the loan to Soeharto regime, was antithetical to the recognition of the treatment Dr. Chee shouldn't have received in his public protest rallies.

In other words, I will not be coy and say this blankly. If you are hoping to, as sociologist Weber might posit, construct a "charismatic authority" figure, Dr. Chee was not the right man, though the film certainly came close to building that persona. Embellishing Dr. Chee as a family man was, in my opinion, low-brow, not to say that he deserves the penalties (in fact, I think it was grossly undeserved and over-punitive), but that served very little purpose in this documentary piece. Painting Dr. Chee as a human person is crucial, no doubt but I think more important than that, the ideas Dr. Chee has of Singapore society and governmental polices should be the focus.

Contrary to my unsatisfaction with certain portions of the documentary piece, I don't condemn it but rather insist that viewers should remember Dr. Chee isn't the only rebel in Singapore. I thought Jeyarethnam should have been included, and perhaps many others who not necessarily belonging to a political group, have resisted and dissected the ruling elite's ideology. Dr. Chee is a remarkable individual, though I disagree in his final point that "those who choose to leave Singapore are performing a cowardly act", but I concede that he has demonstrated acts of courage and bravery for his actions.

Finally, I like to relate Convex Set's blog entry regarding heroism in Singapore. This is also where I re-establish my ambiguous feelings for the blogging community. I think the concept of heroism should be overthrown, in the first place, individuals should freely decide what they choose to do or forsake in their lives, despite the differing opinions and judgments on their actions. However, just like Dr. Chee's assertion, some actions are calculated to have unimaginable risks and prove to result in dangerous consequences. Right now, blogging about our subjective experiences is not enough to make a dent in the political process, and only real demonstrable actions will perform such a job. Do not assume that there will be "heroes" who will arise to lead us away from darkness, it wouldn't be any different from how people thought of Lee Kuan Yew and it shouldn't be the case with others. That's not to say we live without "heroes", all of us to some extent have a role model to live up to, but in the real world, we should place it upon ourselves to support our ideals and values with real effort. To sit and rant is too easy, and leaving it up to someone else to do the "dirty work" is irresponsible.

That's perhaps the one important lesson the documentary should preach.

Dangerous Times Ahead

My other upcoming blog entries are still in the writing phrase, so I am not ready to post them up. What I momentarily would like to highlight, is some dangerous episodes which the blogosphere is now facing. The first has to do with Acidflask's unreserved apology to the agency A*Star. The implications of this episode is enormous, which spells that arbitrary judgments on what constitutes as "defamatory" could ride over anybody's blogging content. The other pertains to the maker of the documentary Singapore Rebel being probed by the police. It need not be said that the whole affair could be disasterous for any efforts to create artistic works that carry controversial themes (despite being told that as a media hub and society, we should welcome a diversity of views). Finally, there's the death-row penalty petition circulating here (and here) but also surprisingly, or what can be said to be a historical event (which is not covered in the national press) of a small protest. While we have no idea of how much that would have an impact, I would make a tenuous deduction that it might have an effect on this concomitant event (Death Sentence? Let Judge Decide). While no doubt our goal (the ends) should be the abolishment of the death penalty, just a shift whereby judges are given more discretion to decide on capital punishment is a very significant step. If the pressure keeps up, the methods employed (the means) should lead us closer to our goals.

Finally, there's the new blog portal known as Tomorrow.sg, which has been accused as being set up by a governmental agency (Tomorrow's defense is here). I will spell out the obvious here: it doesn't matter if Tomorrow.sg is truly part of the surveillance collective watching over the blogosphere, we were already watched for some time and will continue to be, regardless if the surveillance entity makes itself known or not. History has shown that intelligence agencies sometimes assign one of their watchdogs to assimilate into the target group to collect information and discover their weak points. If anything, this only means that our fragmented nature may serve as both a strength or a weakness.

Monday, May 02, 2005

Far Away

I have been away for far too long, and though I still frequent the blogs around, I am still behind in catching up on the recent happenings in the blogosphere. Many incidents have occured which I wish I could comment on, but I do not wish to make preconceived judgements without understanding the whole affair.

There have also been recent events in Singapore that I wish to comment on, but I will reserve my writings for now till I have some time to read the information and commentaries available. For now, I will try to update every few days, whenever possible.