Reading the Straits Times can be fun when you don’t take it too seriously. In fact, it’s a useful guide for teenagers to learn how their EL Paper One complaint letters should (or should not) be written, or for GP students to practice their logical reasoning skills (the exercises aren’t difficult). But read it too seriously and think it’s some moral guardian or gospel of truth and you risk turning into a mirror image of that newspaper i.e. obedient, craven, mediocre and infantile.
Maybe these images have indeed been proliferating for a while, and the tiny island has turned into one huge reading room of serious Straits Times readers.
But what exactly is so ghastly about it all? Try picking out any ST forum letter and unpick it, go through it with a red pen or something, e.g. and the two letters deserve to FAIL:
ST Forum | Dec 11, 2008
Here are 3 worthy names
I REFER to Mr Tan Ee Kuan's response last Saturday ('We don't need new national 'narrative'') to Professor Kishore Mahbubani's article, 'Get to know Singapore's stars' (Dec 3).
Without wishing to get involved in the debate between the two [But why??? Or, why this… gambit?], I would disagree with Mr Tan's dismissive [Unnecessary value charge.] assertion that 'no Singaporean has approached the acclamation and international stature' of former United Nations secretary-general Kofi Annan.
In the mid-1980s, Professor Tommy Koh's name was making the diplomatic rounds as possible UN chief, but he refused to put himself forward when it became known that Mr Boutros Boutros-Ghali was going to seek re-election. In fact, Mr Boutros Boutros-Ghali specifically requested Prof Koh not to contest. [Mr Annan’s exalted stature was achieved after he completed his helm at the UN. Prof Koh might be a deserving candidate and might even have been an outstanding UN chief, but the fact that he has not been one invalidates the comparison. And to assert that eminence is earned just because Prof Koh’s name proffered but was told not to run seems to me duplicitous.]
A decade later, when Mr Annan was stepping down, Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong's name was put forward. Despite appeals from many quarters, SM Goh decided not to enter the fray. [Invalid comparison, for reasons stated above. Further, each time the UN needs a new chief, numerous names are put forward, and many rejected. SM Goh might just as well have been rejected, no one would know.]
Singaporeans have made their country proud in their capacities at the UN. Ambassador Koh piloted two significant pieces of international legislation: the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (1994), and the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development (1992). Currently, Dr Noeleen Heyzer, Undersecretary-General of the UN and Executive Secretary of the Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific, is making a name for herself and Singapore. [The invalid comparison continues. No one doubts that there are/have been capable Singaporeans at the UN – the fair basis of comparison is to hold up a Singaporean UN chief against other UN chiefs. But the UN chief comparison is only a gambit. The point is whether Prof Koh’s or SM Goh’s or other ‘capable Singaporeans’’ fine achievements are/have been deemed to be of ‘international distinction and acclaim’. Thus, Mr Tan’s initial argument remains unrefuted. It’s also worth reiterating the point Mr Tan was making – that it is no big deal that Singapore has yet a Nobel Laureate or UN chief or such like; if there are deserving names, they shall be duly recognized. But it is another thing to recommend large-scale PR campaigns to embellish that fact.]
K. Kesavapany
Director
Institute of Southeast Asian Studies
Or,
ST Forum | Dec 11, 2008
Mumbai carnage: We must not allow harmony to be shattered by terror
I REFER to Monday's letter by Central Singapore District mayor Zainudin Nordin, 'Mumbai carnage: We must not allow harmony to be shattered by terror', and the report, 'Past terrorist attacks in Singapore'.
Mr Zainudin's comment that 'there will always be those who try to undermine our harmony, with persuasive arguments, purportedly based on religious teachings', and the recollection of past terrorist incidents invoked in me a sense of both security and foreboding. [Why the kneejerk response, unquestioning acceptance of an official’s remark, and the undertone of a guru invoking gloom and impending danger? It's unbecoming of a mature and thinking citizen, especially one from a first-world country like Singapore. The ‘sense of both security and foreboding’ is also a state of mind that is inherently contradictory – one negates the other.]
Security because in the past four decades since 1965, our tiny red dot has evolved from Third World to First despite the terrorist incidents mentioned [Enacts straw man argument and arrives at a logical fallacy – 1. How does a ‘tiny red dot going from third world to first’ provide ‘security’ (it doesn’t)? 2. Terrorist incidents and economic prosperity can go together, as Ireland, Great Britain, South Korea, and Israel have demonstrated. The repeat broadcast of national slogans and fantasmatical rhetoric are also redundant; I find it amazing that Singaporeans 1. never tire of repeating them, and 2 don’t realize the extent of their brainwashing.]
Security because the government machinery is continually fine-tuned to ensure progress, prosperity and stability. [This statement expresses utter naivete and is severely lacking in irony. Governments can create effective policies and favourable conditions for prosperity; they are unable to ‘ensure’ prosperity. Governments, however, especially with their ‘machinery’, can ensure progress and stability by keeping a sophisticated secret police, bankrupting opposition members, engineering an unthinking and docile population, turning the Straits Times into a PAP newsletter, and occasionally waving the Internal Security Act in the afternoon breeze.] For instance, the introduction of Total Defence in 1984, to get Singaporeans to take personal responsibility for, and be involved in, the defence of the motherland, [There’s a difference between 'motherland' and 'fatherland'. The former commonly refers to communist or more socialist-oriented countries, and the latter is reserved for those fascist nations that Hitler and Mussolini fantasized about. Singapore happens to be a country that would’ve made Hitler rather proud.] was a wise decision. [1. Why is this a wise decision? 2. How is this a wise decision? For all the fantasies about Total Defence since 1984, it has thus far remained, like notions of 'racial harmony', 'majulah Singapura', 'regardless of race, language, or religion', empty rhetoric and mere fantasy. We’re no more ‘totally defended’ than any other country that has yet to be tested in a real war. Consequently, we’re no more ‘totally’ defended other than that we keep telling ourselves that we are and we must, but without actually knowing why and what it means.] It was put to the test during the Sars outbreak, and we did well. [Total Defence was hardly activated during the Sars period, any more than putting our borders and hospitals on high alert, adopting repressive measures akin to imprisonment, downplaying the gaffe of calling unfortunate victims ‘superinfectors’, and finally imprinting the entire episode onto the national consciousness via the mass media, national education, and national day celebrations, as yet another one of Singapore’s glorious triumphs against The Insurmountable No-One-Has-Done-It But-Us-Odds. With the able leadership of our A-team of PAP cadres, of course. If anything, the economic downturn and empty shops during the Sars period highlight the failure of Total Defence, one of its objectives was to ensure economic activity continues amidst conflict. If all these are 'Total Defence', then anything can be 'Total Defence'. Very postmodern.]
The recent move to pool the resources of the five community development councils and five self-help groups under a new organisation called OnePeople.sg, under the chairmanship of Mr Zainudin, is a move in the right direction. Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said: 'OnePeople.sg will reflect the ongoing mission to bring Singaporeans together as one people, regardless of race, language or religion.' [How and why is this a right move??? What has Mr Zainudin as chairman got to do with the argument? Why the uncritical acceptance of PM Lee’s statement just because he says so? How in the world does a 'reflection' of an objective contribute to that objective?!? May I recommend that to truly forge a nation that’s ‘regardless of race, language or religion’, Singaporeans have to go beyond bland sloganeering and actually begin to understand one another’s cultures, beliefs, and religion. The first step is to actually talk about these issues openly and freely. The next step is to stop using racial and religious harmony as an excuse for imposing control and censorship. The more one looks at it, the more Singapore's racial and religious policies serve precisely to stultify, to separate and to segregate.]
Why a sense of unease then? [Is there one in the first place? If there is, whose is it?]
Time and again, we read about political or racial upheavals in neighbouring countries and worry about when such incidents will erupt on our doorstep. [Of course you need to be reminded that all these democracy and liberty things are not good for you. Just don’t ask why it’s always Thailand and the Philippines and not other First World nations like France, Britain, the US, Canada etc and etc that can protest and prosper. Thus, constant harping about such neighbouring plights in your daily newspapers will ensure precisely that such incidents will not erupt on our doorstep!]
Another concern is the presence of selfish or fanatical Singaporeans who will not hesitate to pursue their personal agenda at the expense of racial and religious harmony. [Why is this a separate concern - it's exactly the same concern as your earlier concerns! This unnecessary and constant fear-mongering will only create the very same concerns that prompted your letter!]
What can we do to ensure that our hard-earned peace and harmony are not shattered by undesirable elements? [Why do you assume that Singapore's ‘peace and harmony’ is hard-earned? What exactly have Singaporeans done? But I can recommend some things that Singaporeans can do: 1. Cease support for Bush’s dodgy ‘war on terror’, nevermind that Singapore’d be left out of lucrative oil contracts in the Middle East, Singapore will also be left out of being one of Al-Qaeda's prime targets. 2. Lobby the US against exacerbating tensions in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that is the contemporary root of ‘Islamic terrorism’. While we're at it, try not to shoot our mouths off criticizing our neighbours ever so often that'd only further encourage ‘undesirable elements’.]
Every Singaporean must play his part by being ever vigilant and learning what Total Defence is all about. We must never be lulled into complacency. The Mas Selamat Kastari incident is a case in point [Logical fallacies – 1. Total Defence and vigilance are not the only things that Singaporeans must or can do, especially if Singaporeans don’t know what they mean or entail, and especially if none of the underlying problems would be resolved. 2. Refer to recommendations above. 3. Singaporeans are hardly complacent – they’re perpetually reminded that they’re not good enough, not bright enough, not employable enough, not grateful enough, and that it’s always all their fault. This is inevitably accompanied by constant rebukes and hectoring by the A-team ministers, and followed up by increasing the CPF withdrawal age limit, decreasing Union support, increasing the number of foreign talents, increasing courtesy/language campaigns, increasing GST, conservancy and utilities and transport rates, all at the same time… 4. It wasn’t complacent Singaporeans that led to Mr Mas Selamat’s escape – no one really knows who’s to blame, or what exact crime he committed – but Singaporeans do know he escaped from a detention centre. 'But how???' is in the minds of every Singaporean, who incidentally, spent weeks combing through the sprawling island for the missing man].
The media can provide more coverage on Total Defence and open up more opportunities for discussion. We must not forget that our state of well-being and harmony did not come by chance, but through years of able leadership, and the hard work and resilience of Singaporeans from all walks of life. [Any more coverage and discussion and Total Defence will become Total Indoctrination.]
Mr W. G.
[Mr W.G.'s letter can be summed up into two contradictions and one irrelevance - 1. If harmony truly exists in Singapore, no act of terrorism will be able to destroy it. The word 'truly' being operative. In fact, it might even serve to rally a people and unite the country (This is of course not a wish for terrorismt incidents to take place in Singapore, or to happen to Singaporeans).
2. If the Singaporean government is as capable as Mr W.G. makes it out to be, all of his concerns would have automatically been made redundant, along with the list of poor reasoning, logical fallacies, dodgy examples, half-baked ideas, and gratuitous reiteration of propaganda. The point I am making is that no government is perfect, incorruptible, or infallible - the more a government tells you it is, the more disbelieving you must be. 'Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?' (Who guards the guardians?) is the question; and only true citizens have the answer.
3. Finally, Mumbai's terrorist attack is a result of the longstanding political and military tensions between India and Pakistan. It has nothing to do with fostering or destroying racial and religious harmony in Singapore.]
___
Cherian George pointed out in a recent essay that this state of affairs will persist because it is profitable; because essentially, media bosses (headed by former ministers and civil servants) and editors and journalists (seconded from our spy agencies) are more interested in profits and salaries than in news freedom. Or freedom for that matter – since corporations desire the monopoly of markets just as power craves for the control of society. That is why Singapore is such a happy family… it’s such sunny news everyday.
But if the media abdicates (or is compelled to) its fiduciary duty of being the fourth estate, and becomes merely a propaganda platform for the government, the majority of the citizens, being either indoctrinated or inured to such an extent, naturally become, or choose to become, an inarticulate and unthinking mass. It is this point that I fault Cherian on two counts, one academic and one intellectual. First, profits and advocacy are not mutually exclusive - there are numerous examples of independent media that are profit-seeking and profitable and that fulfill their public duty. That none of them is found in Singapore is indicative of the real problem - i.e. the assertive web of legislation and the complicity of mercenary newspeople that lead to this current abysmal situation. Second, his conclusion is intellectually untenable. Pecuniary interests should never be a justification for authoritarian control, much less when the object in question is a medium of and for public conscience (and consciousness), much less for the ghastly picture of Singaporean society that has been wrought. Cherian’s logical extension would be to critique this state of affairs; it may be unfair to ask this of him, for to do so would be to risk becoming a mendicant professor, subsequently invoking the triumph of the will. But this is in itself an acknowledgment of the government’s totalitarian impulse, which, again, returns one to an intellectual/moral objection to it.
Posts
