NSmen – cheap talk or for real

Hsien Loong paid tribute to NSmen who have protected Singapore for the past 45 years during his trip to Australia. He also visited them in the field.

‘He said, “For them to spend 20-odd days overseas (ICT) continuously like this for the country, I think we owe them something.”’

NSmen should find comfort in the words of the PM for acknowledging their contribution and sacrifice to the country. So, what is this something that the country owes them? The NSmen are training and being prepared to defend this country, to fight and die for it. How many NSmen are left without a home, cannot even buy a HDB flat for all kinds of crappy reasons? And they are supposed to fight and die for this country, defending it, when foreigners are flocking here, turned PRs or citizens the next day and eligible to buy HDB flats that these NSmen are supposed to fight and die for. And the silly NSmen did not even have a roof over their heads.

As long as NSmen are deprived of the right to buy a HDB flat, it is all cheap talk for nothing. The very basic and fundamental needs of a citizen is a roof over his head. And that is the least the country owes him for believing in the duty and obligation to be an NSmen, to fight and die for this country. Without a stake in the country, they might as well emigrate somewhere. What is there to fight and defend for?

‘I think we owe them something.’ Put the money where the mouth is. Get the basics right. Make sure that the citizens, the NSmen, are not disadvantaged and treated worst than PRs and new citizens who have no need to serve NS or as reservists, and to answer the call of the country. Is this too difficult to understand?

What internet standard are we talking about?

Minister for Information, Communications and the Arts, Dr Yaacob Ibrahim, said on 8 Oct in Geneva at a conference that developing codes of practice for the internet is good. He added that industry self-regulation is needed to ensure a high level of credibility and quality in the net.

I think the Minister needs to be more specific when he talks about the internet. Some forum in the net are very similar to a news media and may replace the role of the print media in times to come. But many sectors of the net are actually gossips, personal diaries, or simply kopitiam talks among bloggers. What kind of standard is the Minister talking of, or is there a need for a standard when many are personal and private conversations? Obviously the Yaacob is not expecting facebook or blogs to have the equivalent of the standard of professional media. They don’t have to and need not be. People in kopitiams say whatever they want according to their personal standards.

Can the Minister specify which group or groups in the net that he is referring to that needs to raise their standard and credibility? As far as bloggers are concerned, as long as they don’t get into areas of scandals or inciting troubles among the people, they can say as much nonsense or fiction as they want in the most atrocious or crazy English or Singlish or rojak language as they like. And these will be of no concern to the Minister or his ministry.

You only need standard and credibility when it is a business concern or some institution of recognition. Then again, the internet is in a virtual world, transcending international boundaries. It is a grey area that is beyond any govt. Who is the rightful authority to impose standards and code of conduct on netizens?

What do you think, Minister?

I am no God

Come on lah, don’t ever expect me or anyone to be God. We are just human beans with all the flaws and human weaknesses, and biases. The only difference is that some people are more sensible, sensitive and make an attempt to be decent and not to be offensive. Then there are some that are by nature less amenable and have the urge to be offensive and destructive to others, to society and to themselves. And why blame people when God is also a racist?

The Amy Cheong case has brought out the ugly, the bad and the good in us. Many unconsciously exposed their true self, or at least their intent, and capitalized on this event to advance their causes. Where is the sensibility of adults to jump on it and make a mountain out of a mole hill?

So far the most sensible article posted is in Today, titled ‘The problem of a racialised mind’, by Mohamed Imran Mohamed Taib. Basically he is looking at it from the human point of view and telling everyone to cut out the pretense and face the issue of racism in real life. Everyone has a racist inclination to a matter of degree as there is always the ‘I’ in every one of us. It is how we handle this little dark part of ourselves and how we adapt to the real world and living with people of diverse composition and complexities. All the righteous asses, please hold your farts and stop thinking that you are Gods or angels. Behind that façade of sainthood, I don’t think you are any different or better than Amy Cheong. Only that you are not exposed and have been careful.

Many were agreeable to the actions taken to dismiss Amy Cheong. Such public comments against anyone on race or religion is unacceptable in a multi racial and ethnic society here or anywhere. Everyone has to be restrained and more circumscribed in the mouthing of their opinions and views of others as some assholes will take the opportunity to raise the temperature and create more anger and animosity among the people.

Let me quote Mohamed Imran in his article, ‘While laws such as the Sedition Act and the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act are in place to deal with serious cases of intentional and malicious attempts to sow discord, the judicious use of such legal instruments is necessary to allow the growth of a mature public capable of defeating bad ideas with good ideas – and the ability to tell the difference between the two.’

There is a need to look at each case and deal with it accordingly. Let not the evil doers in the clothes of angels misled the people into a witch hunt and stir up more discord among the people. There is more danger in such ‘righteous’ assholes than in Amy Cheong as an individual that crossed the line. The authority must also exercise its commonsense and deal firmly with people who think making police report is like calling the ambulance for the slightest reason. Otherwise the police would be sent to run around for all the wrong reasons and be at the beck and call of ‘righteous’ people with bad intent.

SMRT making the right move

SMRT has made the right move in appointing Stephen Forshaw, an Australian PR, as its spokesman. As a little rojak country that is still struggling to find its identity and to break free from it colonial heritage, the island finds it very comfortable to have a face that looks like its past colonial master for a sense of security. And the people love it. What ever comes from the west has always been seen as good and of great value. God came from the west as well. Western media is held in high regards for objectivity and unbiased reporting, and of great intelligence.

The recent bad publicity following a series of mishaps by the SMRT makes it a must, a necessity to have a spokesman that can speak with some authority over the natives. Stephen Forshaw is the ideal candidate for such a job. He is good looking, like a movie star, has a natural command of the language that the natives understand. He should be able to talk his way out to restore the blemished image of the SMRT in quick time. When he speaks, the native will listen better than any other locals. He is worth every cent paid to him. The job is cut out for him.

Who shall decide how many people in the island?

The govt has decided that 6m is what our population should be. Does the govt think it should consult or ask the people if this is what the people want? We have a Natcon going on, should this issue be in the con for the people to tell the govt what they really want?

When the people elected a govt, does it mean that it also gives up its right to decide on the issue of the size of the population? At the moment the govt of the day thinks or behaves as if it is the sole arbiter on how many people should be in the island. Is the govt thinking that that is its right, or behaving in an arrogant manner, ignoring the wishes of the people, not listening, does not want to listen, no need to listen?

If this is the case, that the govt so assumes the power to decide on the population, and if the people disagree, what can the people do, or not do anything and allow the population to go on increasing against their interests?