AIM at a terse exchange

The AIM saga finally came to Parliament for a cleansing. And the debate between the two sides strayed from just about the correctness and propriety of the process to personal agenda and motivation. The second part is best summarized by what Boon Wan said, ‘This is self righteous and – pardon me for saying so – arrogant’. I will deal with this later.

The first part of the argument is all about how correct were the procedure and processes of running town councils and the implications arising from the sale of AIM to a $2 company owned by PAP members. The facts are well known to the public. There were suggestions that many more things can be done to improve the current system. The Review Committee also did make recommendations for changes, of course for the better.

The WP are not happy with the existing system and suggested that there were ‘foul play’ akin to fixing the opposition parties or trying to make life difficult for them at the expense of the residents who ended up as collateral to a political bickering which in the words of Boon Wan, are petty.

Boon Wan stood up to defend PAP’s position that all that was done was for the good of the residents, for efficiency and continuity. The residents’ interest is all the PAP was concerned and the system was designed with that in mind. And this is acquitted by the findings of the Review Committee that everything was in order and no one made money out of the deal.

So we have two conflicting positions and some will agree with one and some with the other. Lina Cheam was quoted to disagree that no one made money out of the sale of AIM. But looking at the righteousness of the $2 company, set up to take care of the residents’ interest, making money out of the deal must be the last thing in their mind. They did it as a public service, not to make money.

Who is right or wrong, maybe there is no right or wrong but a matter of perception of who is uglier and who is prettier, is very subjective. The Review Committee had found nothing wrong and the Govt had accepted that finding. So there is nothing wrong officially. But other parties and the masses may have different views and different judgement. Does it matter?

The part about being righteous and arrogant is like someone’s raw nerve being exposed. It hurts, and the exchange was not very pleasant, quite personal I would say, pardon me. There were questions of who is whiter than white, who is more arrogant and who is a patriot. If the debate continues this way, soon they will be wrestling in the longkangs, with gloves removed and nails out scratching.

Is the whole AIM debate about righteousness or arrogance? Is it about fixing or undermining the opponent? Can such an issue be depoliticized? The call for depoliticizing institutions like Town Councils and other public institutions became a sore point. The politicizing of these institutions is, in the eyes of the public unacceptable and undesirable. But would righteous people and arrogant people think otherwise, that politicizing these institutions are part and parcel of politics? Or can these institutions be depoliticized or they should not?

Whatever the recommendations and the eventual character of Town Councils and other public institutions, it is likely to be decided by righteous and arrogant politicians. And the people to judge about who is more righteous and more arrogant must definitely be the people watching the show.

What do you think?

Race and racism continue to be the thinking in Malaysian politics

One week after the GE, after BN survived a close shave, losing the majority in popular votes but still winning the election to form the next govt, the UMNO controlled media, Utusan Malaysia, is still attacking the Chinese minority for voting along racial lines. What happened in the election was that many Chinese votes went to DAP instead of MCA. So this is unacceptable voting along racist line.

What happens if the Chinese votes go to MCA instead? Would this be voting along racist lines too? What is the difference? MCA is part of a Malay majority BN, so voting for MCA is not racist as MCA supports BN’s Malay dominance govt?

The DAP supports a coalition PR that in a way is also a Malay dominant party with Anwar as the leader and the potential PM. And PKR and PAS are mainly Malay parties. DAP is thus a small component of PR, supporting two Malay parties, one a staunch Islamic party. So why is voting for DAP racist and voting for MCA not racist?

The playing up of the race card by Utusan Malaysia may be more than meets the eye. If this stirring of racial emotion is not stopped, it can turn into a fire. While Najib is talking about a reconciliation, the tone and issues highlighted in Utusan is taking a different direction. Who is in control of Utusan Malaysia to dictate the direction it should take? Is Najib in control and allowing this trend of argument to perpetuate and driving a dividing wedge along racial lines in Malaysian politics? Or someone is taking control of the media and running it differently from Najib’s line and the direction he wants to take?

Whatever, for whatever purposes, hopefully the race card is taken out of the picture fast. Allowing it to foment and to simmer is not healthy.

The lame Taiwanese Govt

This Govt is used to sabre rattle with China thinking that it could fight or defend against a Chinese attack. The reality is that China could walk over and taken Taiwan in a day. China is allowing Taiwan to act tough and behave like the old KMT but knowing very well that the return of Taiwan to the mainland is only a matter of time and there is no need for bloodshed and fighting between the two Chinese people.

While Taiwan always want to appear tough and strong against China, its actions and behavior against the Japanese in Diaoyu Islands and against the Philippines is down right lame. It has been constantly and repeatedly humiliated by the two countries. The Philippines see the Taiwanese fishermen as easy prey for robbery, ransom and killing and the Taiwanese Govt has been living with this shame, like a little country, for so many years. There are still Taiwanese fishing boats in the Philippines waiting for the payment of ransom for their release.

Now this latest brutal killing, and the Taiwanese Govt only reacted after the media and the Taiwanese fiercely attacked the inaction of the Govt. If they did not protest, the Taiwanese Govt could continue to ignore the plight of the fishermen and allow the Philippines to continue to bully, rob and kill them at will.

So, after public pressure, what did this lame Govt do? It made four ‘solemn requests’ for apology, compensation, trial of the killers, and negotiation for fishing agreement. What about all the past cases of piracy and killings and the fishing boats still in the Philippines? And one thing, after so many years under Japanese rule, they did not learn a single thing from the Japanese except submissiveness.

If the Philippines were to attack and kill Japanese fishermen, the Japanese would not be making requests, polite or solemn. At times like this, what is this shit called ‘request’? The Taiwanese Govt is treating this as a friendly baseball game ya? The Japanese will make demands for justice, compensation and the repatriation of the killers to Japan for trial. That is a strong nation and knowing how to deal with pesky little countries like the Philippines and Taiwan. And it even did that to China for centuries and still doing the same. This is another issue that will hit back squarely on their faces in times to come.

The Taiwanese should show some pride and backbone and demand that the killers be brought to justice, trial in Taiwan or else…. Stop behaving like a weak and lame nation. By doing so, Taiwanese fishermen will continue to be harassed, robbed and killed by the Filipino pirates in the uniform of coast guards. If they find it difficult to learn from the Japanese, at least learn from how the Chinese dealt with the Pinoys in Scarborough Shoal.

Stand up Taiwan and show you got balls between your legs. If they can’t even handle the Pinoys, how to take on China? The truth is ugly and painful.

Yale NUS tie up in pursuit of academic excellence

The setting up of this Yale NUS College must have cost quite a bomb financially. The object must be academic excellence, if not the product ie graduates, must be a college of bright professors living here to show the world we have the brightest talents money can buy. Its existence should take NUS or Singapore tertiary education up a notch, not the kind splashed across the media in rankings here and there. It must be real substance, either in producing great thinking graduates or great academics sharing their great thoughts on this little island, the merits of the latter is like pasting someone’s backside on our face. The former should be more desirable and the latter would be more like having more foreign table tennis players to show the world that we are also great in table tennis, great as long as money can buy greatness.

Yale has a great history and tradition in liberal arts and humanities, must be or we would not be inviting them here. This must have been brought about by the academic freedom, freedom of speech and thoughts in America, that make Yale a great university. And this can become a problem as academic freedom, freedom of the mind and thinking process are crucial ingredients to producing great thinking minds and great thoughts. And there has been a big tussle on this with some in Yale calling for a curtailment of this association. Singapore is just not the place for academic freedom in liberal arts and the teaching of humanities. They must have their points and beliefs to put up such a strong resistance.

While the college is ready to take in students in August, the debate is still going on and the intensity is not letting up. Now they have recommended a panel of Yale and NUS academics and administrators ‘to advise the new liberal arts college on issues that may arise, including academic freedom and discrimination’. This must be another first to have such a panel to advise and police a liberal arts college on academic freedom. And this is no joke. Hopefully the presence of this eminent panel of freedom guardians would not add to the cost of this expensive set up and raise tuition fees or increase govt grants to the college. And there is no further need to set up another committee of foreign dignitaries and academics to oversee this panel.

I wonder if it would be cheaper to send out students to Yale directly, with govt subsidies than to set up the college here? I also wonder if the environment here will be conducive or equivalent to that in Yale for the teaching of liberal arts or would it be money spent all for nothing but a fish? What is this Yale NUS model meant to be or to achieve? Is this the pathfinder for a more liberal Singapore or a more liberal academic environment for the fermenting and formenting of contrarian views and thoughts that may not be embraced by the authority? Is Singapore attempting to take the slow boat to freedom of expression, academic freedom and the American way?

How much is all this going to cost or already spent? Why are NUS and the other local universities not good enough? Would Yale NUS make a difference?

Gang rape by Democracy

Bishan-Toa Payoh GRC PAP MP Zainudin Nordin stirs up a storm with "gang rape" quote from an American writer

Democracy in and of itself is not necessarily good. Gang rape, after all, is democracy in action. This statement by Zainudin is causing a big storm in a tea cup. Many bloggers are asking him to apologise. Apologise for what, and to who when he was just saying the plain truth? And this is not even a Freudian slip. Democracy is the rule of the majority in theory but tyranny of the minority that have been elected to rule over the majority in practice.

Now, what truth is he saying? Who kena gang raped in our democracy? The women? Come off it lah. Seriously, the women are not being gang raped by our democracy. No one is being gang raped lah. If there are they should be screaming out in pain right. How can that be? Anaesthesia in the anus or too much KY lubricant? That could take off the pain when being raped. But according to an Indonesian judge, the rapist and the victims both had a good time. The hysteria and screaming in this kind of thinking must be fake. This must be a learned judge.

Isn’t it strange that in a land where people are so ecstatic with just a BJ and would risk everything because of it, rape just could not happen unless committed by foreigners?  It does not make sense. Incongruent. Maybe figuratively speaking ya? More likely many people are blowing to get a little advantage and got raped happily.

And don’t miss the most important part. Democracy in itself is not necessarily good. It must be complimented by a dose of a caring and paternalistic govt that will take good care of the people from cradle to grave, making sure that the people got enough money to pay for affordable housing, to pay for world class medicare, to pay for a good retirement with no fear of high inflation and high cost of living. This part is just my observation.

And good jobs too. Anyone care to be hawkers or drive taxis? You may need a degree, a genuine one from the world class local universities to get into these prized occupations. Can this be considered as being raped? Does the 69 thing got anything to do with being raped? Or the money paid to CPF as akin to being raped?

Sorry, am I missing something? What is this gang rape thing?

Thanks for revealing a state secret.

For the record, Zainudin has clarified that he was only quoting Terry Goodkind. It is not right for the bloggers to put the blame on him.