good job lah, China

Skype has just admitted that China has been tracking and archiving users that use specific key words such as "Tibet", "Communist Party", "Democracy" and "milk powder" (heh) in their internet chat messages. not only are the messages stored, IP addresses, usernames and "other information" are also tracked, probably sufficient to identify the senders and recipients of such "sensitive" messages. of course Skype denies any wrong-doing, they were only notified of such tracking last week.

the next question: does the Singapore government do this as well?

actually, i don't think so. i highly doubt that our civil service has the resources (or the inclination) to do something like filter and track all "politically sensitive" MSN messages, Facebook wall greetings, and emails. i also don't think MSN, Facebook or Google will be involved with some shady deal with the Singapore government. (then again, i'm not sure how much influence Singtel has....) i remember there was some concern about sms in the past, but i doubt that the government closely tracks that like they probably do in China. (i DO think there is some "loose" scanning of political blogs, forums and related websites though.)

but that's just my opinion. and since when has my opinion been a deterrent for conspiracy theories? so, in a hypothetical conspiracy theory, say the Singapore government does scan our Skype chats, MSN messages, SMS messages and what not, what would be the specific "keywords" they want to look out for?

LKY? LSH? Nepotism? FamiLEE? Lee Regime? Opposition Party? CSJ? JBJ (probably not anymore....)? PAP? WP? MIW? Gahmen? ERP? Ministers' Salaries? S377A? Mr Brown? Mee Siam Mai Hum?

and did i just shoot to the top of their list by listing all the tracked keywords in one paragraph above?

hmmmm....O_o

what does the olympics mean to you?

i haven't written a purple post in close to a year, so i thought that i will say a few things about the Beijing Olympics. (National Day? what National Day?)

for me, most of my attention about the Olympics is focused on basketball. can the NBA-star studded Team USA win back a gold medal on the international stage after humiliating losses in 2002 (finishing 6th), 2004 (losing to Argentina, finishing 3rd) and 2006 (losing to Greece, finishing 3rd)? this year's team is considered the most talented USA team since the "Dream Teams" of 1992 and 1996. the media has called this the "Redeem Team" as it seeks to redeem USA back to basketball glory. however, in the last practice game USA had before the tournament begins, USA barely scratched out a win over Australia, which is not even considered to be a medal contender. how will USA fare? i will follow every game closely.

a good many of us follow soccer. but soccer at the Olympics is not as exciting as it is an under-23 tournament, and most of the big names will not be there. the biggest name there will be the fallen-from-grace Ronaldino (who is not under 23, but each team is allowed 3 players above 23). but perhaps, what everybody is concerned about is not soccer per se, but the "club vs country" debate that has kept Lionel Messi (arguably the most talented player eligible) out of the Olympics so far. fearing injury to their stars, a few clubs are reluctant to release their players for international duty, much to the chagrin of FIFA.

[Addendum 8/8/08: Barcelona has released Lionel Messi at the last minute to play. FIFA president vows never to let this happen again in the next Olympics.]

how about the other events? traditionally, some of the more popular spectator events are those with aesthetic components: diving and gymnastics. we will follow swimming and athletics because we are fascinated by the fastest swimmers and runners of the human race. we will watch weightlifting, because we want to witness the strongest men in the world, but perhaps also because weightlifting brings back the glorious memories of Tan Howe Liang. sailing, table tennis, badminton and shooting would also be prominently featured on TV, since that is where our athletes will be competing in.

talking about Team Singapore, did anybody have as much difficulty as i had in trying to find out who the members of the contingent are? i can't find the names on either the SNOC or the SSC website. in the end, i had to rely on trusty wikipedia for the info. it didn't fail to escape my notice that the SSC website has a "medal tally" and a "our medallists" section (but no "our contingent" section). a little optimistic, don't you think? that is not to say that Team Singapore stands no chance of acquiring medals; Ronaldo Susilo and (the bored) Li Jiawei stand an outside chance at their respective sports but maybe you are more interested in their love life than their chances. (anyone notice how we all got tired and stopped talking their non-local origins?) i think the best medal chance lies not in the Olympics but the Paralympics, where swimmer Theresa Goh previously earned 5th placing in Athens. [i also found it a little ironic that our best medal chance does not even have her own wikipedia page.]

maybe, in an ironic way, the Olympics is not about sports. Singapore's recent (successful) bid for the youth Olympics brought back some memories of Beijing's bid back in 2001. i remembered how disappointed my mother was upon reading that Beijing won the bid. "they will disgrace themselves on the world stage" i remembered her saying. prophetic? we will need to wait and see. sure enough, China currently has to deal with a quagmire of issues surrounding the Olympics, including unfulfilled promises made back in 2001, as well as natural disasters (just another earthquake 2 days ago). (i also find this a little disappointing, especially since Beijing's air quality obviously isn't that great).

but historically, the Olympics have always been political. (and some argue, they should be). maybe Beijing is no different? perhaps after all the noise has been made, people start to watch the actual sporting events, and 2 few weeks later, everyone has forgotten about all the nasty stuff that was said. maybe. but there is a growing concern that the unhappiness over this Olympics may go beyond verbal spats. the Xinjiang explosions just a few days ago unnerved many (some are more sympathetic than others). there has not been any major violence in the Olympics post-9/11 (maybe because there has only been one Olympic Games, Athens, post-9/11), but a repeat of something similar to the Munich Massacre or the Atlanta Centennial Olympic Park bombing would cause very serious damage to China's international reputation.

we are not surprised when the Olympic torch brings out sentiments of nationalism among the Chinese both in and outside of China. however, what i personally find most disturbing is that levels of nationalism are so high that university students are lynching each other (in a school like Duke no less). are these ominous signs of things to come in countries that have a significant PRC population (like a little red dot you know)? Taiwan has been relatively quiet of late, imagine what it would be like if things don't work out well with Taiwan.

what's the Olympics to you? the burden of Kobe Bryant? Lionel Messi's no-show? girls in leotards spinning ribbons? crossing your fingers that Singapore wins a medal? crossing your fingers that no more explosions occur? Tibet, Darfur and Myammar? Chinese chio bu? a brewing storm?

2 weeks after the Olympics are over, would you continue to care?

not unreasonable to ask otto fong to take down letter

I'm tight for time, but I feel really inclined to write something short about all this furor going on about Otto Fong, and his taking down of his open letter. I've been trying to find the official MOE press release about this incident but failed to locate it [can somebody help me?]. I read an excerpt of the press release on a comment in an article on TOC, but that article has been deleted (in view of updated information) so that comment is lost, and also that excerpt of the press release. Here is another excerpt, by Mollymeek, which is from Fridae.

Even though I am somewhat sympathetic to Otto's cause, I think it is not unreasonable for RI, or MOE for that matter, to ask him to take down his letter. There has been some sentiments on the blogosphere about how MOE and RI are gay-hating bigots, and I have no evidence that proves them otherwise. Nevertheless, I think what they have done is not unreasonable. Bear in mind that Otto Fong has not been fired, and I doubt he will be. I have no idea to what extent he has been reprimanded or in other ways punished, which is why I need to look at the official press release.

Here is why I think MOE/RI are not totally unreasonable: this whole incident is creating a lot of unwanted attention on RI and Mr Fong himself, and this in the long run, will hurt his students more than help his students. Please bear in mind that Otto Fong did not write an open letter as a political protest. He wrote his letter, and admirable step of courage no doubt, to "confess" to his friends and his colleagues. Perhaps he was not aware of the online frenzy his blog would cause. I suspect that if he knew, he would not have blogged or he would have blogged differently.

Issues about homosexuality are complicated. Or at least I think so. A good deal of Singaporeans, perhaps even the majority, are still not too receptive to the idea of homosexuality. [All the more reason why there should be more gay activism? Perhaps. But Otto Fong wasn't trying to be an activist. Or so I believe.] So what happens when you say "I am gay, and I teach in RI." in this backdrop? There will be a public outcry. Parents will call the school and demand an explanation. Maybe some parents will threaten to take their kids out of the school. Colleagues will be harassed by their own peers. The 12-16 year old students, even though more mature and probably more liberal minded than their peers, will be confused and pulled in different directions. End-of-year exams and O levels are coming up in just weeks, and this happens to them.

I think like any true educator, Otto Fong places the interests of his students first, and he realizes that the controversy he has created may probably harm students more than help them. I think that was why he was convinced to take down the letter, to minimize the damage caused. There are other ways to educate the young about tolerance, discrimination, human rights and gay rights as a teacher. I just think putting up a blog and saying "I am gay and I teach in RI" isn't the best way to do so. I think he thinks so too. Read what he says carefully.

[addendum: Singapore Kopi Tok seems to have some inside info that Otto Fong's letter was intended to be political after all.]

(for own reference) significant events in past 3 months

I went on a 3 month hiatus from May to July, and during that time I hardly read anything from the blogosphere. This article is an attempt to catalogue the significant events that during my time of absence for my own reference, as well as to comment briefly on each event. If I missed any events which you think are significant, do let me know and I'll fill it in.

1) Concern over State of the Blogosphere
Elia Diodati first brought up the view that the plogosphere is in some state of decline, especially after the prominent exits of Gayle Goh, Ben and Kitana. Mr Wang disagreed with Elia [he also had a run in with the brotherhood in that particular article], as did Aaron. BL writes about how social-political bloggers have unrealistic expectations about their influence, and also noted that it is controversies which stimulates the blogosphere into activity.

this in itself is probably not considered a significant event. mollymeek said that nobody else other than bloggers care anyway. however, as FO, i am usually more interested in the state of the blogosphere than issues itself, so this is a significant conversation for me to note. of particular interest is the comment left by RSE on aaron's article, which said that aggregators (in particular, IS) has a large role to play in this apparent perception. in the past netizens used to browse around, but now IS is the one-stop center of the plogosphere. this is a good thing of course and InSpir3d is doing a great job, but it is still a one-man-show, and many obscure entrances to the plogosphere are missed, and in the same fashion, prominent exits are highlighted.

2) Homosexuality
As expected, Yawning Bread is the forefront of gay rights on the blogosphere. The catalyst for a sudden surge in talking about homosexuality was the talk given by MM Lee at St James Power Station, which generated plenty of replies and counter-replies. The debate rages on till today, and in all likelihood, will not cease soon. Some important events which add to this discussion include the ban of Alex Au's kissing project, a gay-affirming speech by ex-Methodist Bishop, Rev Dr Yap Kim Hao, denial of Rev Dr Yap by the Methodist Church in Singapore, call for repeal by MP Baey Yam Keng on P65 blog, Nicholas Lazarus's infamous article on Young PAP Blog, a video by Ian McKellen, and the recent denial of permit for a lecture by Douglas Sanders.

this has been a controversial issue for the longest time, and will continue to be controversial issue for a long time. although "gay rights" seem like a simple concept, the factors involved are complicated, and they always are when you religion right at the middle of the debate. for the Singapore case however, it is important to note that it is not just a moral issue but also a issue of law (by now, all of us are familiar with the numbers "377A"). Although the Christian right has been the most vocal opposition, it is important to note that many non-Christians in Singapore also hold views that similarly oppose the gay movement, and could quite possibly be the majority voice. On the plogosphere however, it is overwhelmingly pro-gay, and now that whybegay has been driven into exile, there is no real opposing voice (unless one counts Nicholaz Lazarus). Of some interest to me is how Simply Jean, herself a Christian, argues for repeal by attempting to distinguish decriminalization from legalization.

3) The Perils of National Service
On 11th May 2007, a Taiwanese F5 jet crashed into a Taiwanese base. 2 SAF soldiers who happened to be stationed in that base were killed on the spot and a 3rd SAF soldier died in hospital later. Not unexpectedly, the SAF was much criticized in the blogosphere, and much of the attention is focused on the story of Lawrence Leow who suffered from heat stroke while he was serving his nation, and ended up incapacitated for life. Critics of the SAF included Mr Wang, Insane Polygon and Aaron. Meanwhile, Defector, an SAF officer (or ex-officer), argued against the views of Mr Wang and Insane Polygon. More views by Mr Wang, mrbiao, mollymeek and Jimmy Mun.

the relationship between the SAF and the general public has never been great, despite recent attempts to improve their image (L.I.V.E.). that said, there is something to be said about how it is only the males who voice their passionate disapproval towards the SAF and especially on issues about NS. although most females do not go through NS, it is not difficult for them to read the arguments for themselves. i think it is largely true that guys who have been through NS usually end up quite unhappy with SAF and Mindef, and we carry this chip on our shoulders unto our blogs.

4) University of New South Wales closes down
This was such big news practically all bloggers had something to say about this issue. After only 3 months after it was opened, UNSW closes down citing insufficient enrollment as the reason. In the ensuing weeks, UNSW and EDB will attempt to blame the other party on how they failed to prevent this from happening.

i actually have not much to comment on this event. there are probably millions of dollars of taxpayers money lost here, and some people's heads will roll (if not rolled already). this is a lose-lose situation for all involved (except maybe the students who got scholarships to go study in Australia) and i think unless you are really in-the-know, it is practically impossible to point the finger and find the real person at fault.

5) Termination of Alfian Sa'at
Alfian Sa'at is most famous in the plogosphere for his quote: "If you care too much about Singapore, first it will break your spirit, then it will break your heart." Other than that he is a nationally celebrated playwright and poet, as well as an outspoken critic of the government as well as an active proponent of gay rights. According to his blog, he was working as a relief teacher in East View Secondary School, but his appointment was suddenly terminated by a phone call from MOE. He sent an inquiry to MOE and received a response, which Alfian found unhelpful. Yawning Bread speculated that it could either be his anti-establishment views, or his being gay. Views also by Mr Wang, Xenoboy, TOC, and an interesting one (especially the comments) by Blogger Samurai.

it is quite understandable why there would be a reaction by the blogosphere. Alfian Sa'at is easily enshrined as a hero in the hearts of many, and this looks just like the evil gahmen coming down to make the life of one dissident difficult, a la CSJ. i don't know the details, and again it takes someone in-the-know, like the principal of East View Sec, or someone in MOE, to really know what is going on. nevertheless i admit, this termination is highly unorthodox, so it does seem like there is something fishy going on.

6) Local University Admissions
This huge firestorm started off by a letter written by Mr Ong Tong It to the ST forums asking for local universities to allocate more places for local students over foreigners, especially now that the dragon year cohort is entering university. Aaron and then Bart both blogged a reply to this letter, claiming that such a view is protectionist (or over-protectionist) and will hurt rather than help Singaporeans in the long run. Mr Wang disagrees with both of them, and argues that of course, priority must go to the tax-paying Singaporeans. Others who added to the discussion include KTM, Clarence, and mollymeek. [A few weeks later, during parliamentary debates, there was a wrong quotation of figures about the number of foreign students in local universities, sparking further criticisms.]

i remember talking to aaron and how frustrated he felt about his debate with mr wang. (do note how long the comments thread is on mr wang's blog.) to me, this is reminiscent of the SAF issue. it appears to me that many participants in debate had many strong emotions about foreigners in local universities, i suspect, due to negative personal experiences. i personally thought this debate was a good study in civil and rational discourse (or lack thereof) in the plogosphere, and also the intricacies and complexities involved in policy making (economics vs protecting citizens, managing reactions).

7) Issue of Blood
This actually came out on the mainstream media first; the original news clip can be found on Lucky Tan's blog. A mother giving birth to twins met up with complications and needed a blood transfusion. The hospital reportedly told the husband that she required so much blood that the hospital needed additional authorization to access the blood from the blood bank. In addition to that, the husband was told to top up the blood bank with their own blood donations. Frantic that his wife's life was on the line, he gathered 200 donors to appear at the blood bank, but eventually the mother still passed away. Stressed teacher predicted that there will probably be a scapegoat without a formal apology, and eventually, the hospital gave a press release which denied any lack of blood, and that the husband had been misinformed.

i found this event very interesting, but unfortunately, not many bloggers paid much attention to it as it was overshadowed by the last event on this list. there is obviously some cock-up here, especially since this made it to prime-time news. but the question is, what is the exact nature of the cock-up? how did the husband get misinformed? was he intensionally misinformed? Lucky Tan has an interesting hypothesis about hospitals making it regular practice to ask family members to top up blood supplies. the last we heard about what really happened is that it is still "under investigation". perhaps the hospital got lucky, because people soon forgot this issue as they were all preoccupied with...

8) The Li Hongyi Incident
By now, we should have all heard about the Li Hongyi incident. 2LT Li Hongyi, the son of PM Lee, broke the chain-of-command by mass-emailing a letter to his entire battalion as well as up the entire command chain including the Minister of Defense, and was formally charged by SAF for doing so. The purpose of the email was to blow the whistle on two of his superior officers, one for AWOL, and the other for failing to duly punish the AWOL officer. The email, edited to omit names, is available on most blogs, including Rockson's, who returned from retirement just to blog on this issue.

if we use the amount of traffic in the blogosphere as an indicator, the Li Hongyi incident seems to be the most significant event of 2007. i heard that the traffic was tenfold that of last year's Wee Shu Min incident. this story has all the right elements of a sensational scandal, but if you break it down there are actually several different issues and it is not just a simple case of for-or-against. there is the issue of the white horse (would Li Hongyi be punished differently if he had a different father?), the issue of silencing whistle-blowers (is the SAF using "breaching chain of command" as a tool to cover up?), the issue of an incompetent SAF (how often do officers get away with AWOL? are there really sufficient avenues to seek redress?) the issue of elitism, (was Li Hongyi disrespectful of authority because he grew up an "elite"?) and lastly, the issue of fear among netizens (why was the original story on hardwarezone deleted?). it is also important to note that the leaking the email to the public is a violation of the Official Secrets Act, and is a criminal offense, but it seems like the perpetrator has not been uncovered yet.

neutral and objective (part 1)

In the recent interview of Ephraim Loy by TOC (very interesting in its own right), this comment by Sarek_home drew my attention:

“An eye for an eye leaves everybody blind.” Mahatma Ghandi

Fighting “Partisan” organisations with “Partisan” organisations will blind the society collectively with partisan also. We need to set an example and evolve beyond partisan politic.

Readers who distaste MSM biased reporting at one end of the spectrum do not want another online biased reporting at the other end of the spectrum.

The best way to defeat and balance off MSM biased reporting is to be neutral and objective.

Well I do not disagree in the general spirit of her comment, her last 3 words got me thinking about these questions: What do we mean by being "neutral" and "objective"? What does being "partisan" or "non-partisan" got to do with being "neutral and objective"?

Part 1: Non-Partisanship as an Indicator of Neutrality

In the context of the Singaporean plogosphere, whether a blogger is partisan or not simply refers to the whether or not a blogger is affiliated with any political party. [I guess it may not be so straight forward for an ex-member; is Goh Meng Seng (ex-WP member) partisan or non-partisan?] What beef do we have with partisan bloggers? Are they in some way inferior to non-partisan bloggers?

The concern, it seems, has got to do with neutrality. Perhaps one might think: a blogger who is affiliated with the PAP may very likely blog something which is "pro-PAP", and hence is "not neutral". Conversely, a blogger affiliated to WP is likely not to be neutral, because he is likely to blog something "pro-WP". Before I go on to talk about what is wrong with this line of thinking, it is worth noting that many partisan bloggers seem to blog about views which disagree with the views of their affiliated party. Read the interview with Ephraim, as well as this P65 article by Baey Yam Keng (both on Section 377A). I have previously noted examples in the Young PAP blog as well.

If we choose to define "a neutral blogger" to be "not affiliated with any political party", then partisan bloggers are, by definition, not neutral. In other words, the follow 6 statements are all tautologies (grammatically correct, but have no meaning):

1. A partisan blogger is not a neutral blogger.
2. A non-partisan blogger is a neutral blogger.
3. A neutral blogger is a neutral blogger.
4. A non-neutral blogger is not a neutral blogger.
5. A partisan blogger is a partisan blogger.
6. A non-partisan blogger is not a partisan blogger.

I believe most people will claim that the first two sentences are not tautologies, i.e. they are more meaningful than sentences 3-6. If you believe so, then the definition that "neutrality = non-partisan " cannot work. Here is an alternative definition of neutral: "free from influence from any political party". This makes sense to some people, because it is linked to the idea of biasness. If you are influenced by something, that makes you more biased.

However, ask yourself, have you ever listened to the views of politicians? Were you ever influenced by them? If say, you agreed with a certain view of Low Thia Kiang's, does this not mean you were influenced by him? Does that then make you not neutral? Maybe you heard or read from source A, which was influenced by source B, which was influenced by source C, which in turn was influenced by a politician. Does not that make you also (indirectly) influenced by the politician? Does that mean you are not neutral? With such a narrow definition of "neutral", it is hard to imagine any blogger being able to fit the description of "neutral", regardless if partisan or not.

I have a third proposition for the definition of neutral. A neutral blogger is a blogger that honestly blogs his or her own personal views, and not just the representative views of his or her affiliated political party. By this definition, all non-partisan bloggers must be neutral, since they do not have an affiliated political party. But now begs the question: how do we tell if a partisan blogger is being neutral (i.e. personally honest and not just being party's mouthpiece), or not?

One might say: just see what he/she blogs, and if it looks just like the political party's official stand, then it is not neutral. Perhaps so, but this begs another question. How do we know what is the political party's stand? Do we know what is a party's stand by what their politicians say? If so then consider this:

1) Politician ABC says Statement X.
2) Therefore Statement X is the party's stand.
3) Politician ABC is also a blogger (i.e. Partisan Blogger ABC)
4) Partisan Blogger ABC blogs Statement X.
5) Since Statement X is the party's stand (2), and since Partisan Blogger blogs Statement X (4), then Partisan Blogger ABC is not neutral.

This is of course circular reasoning, or another tautology at best. The example becomes even more ridiculous if you allow "what ABC blogs" = "what ABC says". In which it will become:

1) ABC blogs Statement X.
2) Therefore Statement X is the party's stand.
3) Since Statement X is the party's stand, and since ABC blogs Statement X, ABC is not neutral.

In reality, it is hard to see anyone falling for such obvious circular logic. Nevertheless, it does highlight a certain problem when it comes to judging neutrality: it is not that straight forward to decipher whether a partisan blogger is "being a mouthpiece" or really saying what he/she feels. After all, it is very likely that the individual happens to believe in the political party's views, which could be precisely why he or she choose to be affiliated with the party in the first place. What the party's views are may very well coincide with the individual's personal views as well. When your personal views coincides with your party's, does that make you non-neutral?

I think among most of us (especially those who are bloggers ourselves), we have developed a sense of when someone is blogging in a "forced manner" or someone is blogging "naturally". I personally find this the best way to tell if some blog is a "mouthpiece" or not. Nevertheless, this mode of discernment is more of an art than a science, and a blogger with a really good command of English may still fool many a reader.

Even among non-partisan bloggers, we often classify ourselves as "pro-establishment" and "anti-establishment". Many have objected to such a sweeping classification. Nevertheless, if you openly identify yourself to be "pro-PAP" or "pro-opposition", even if you are non-partisan, does it seem that you are neutral? Can you be "pro-opposition" and "neutral" at the same time? I think our intuitions differ on this question.

I only have one point to make here. When we use the word "neutral" (or rather "not neutral") to criticize one blogger or another, it can mean one out of many meanings, and not all of us may mean the same thing when we say the same word. Some meanings, as seen by the tautologies, totally don't work. Whatever the case, it appears to me that using non-partisanship as an indicator of "neutrality" seems sketchy at best. I am also not convinced if "neutrality" is really a virtue for a social-political blogger.

Part 2 (forthcoming): The Problem of Objectivity

moving pebbles

[This is a much belated tribute to Kitana. It took longer than expected to come out because I had to scrap a previous few versions that I didn't quite like.]

[On terminology. "Plogosphere" refers to the subset of the blogosphere which talks about local social, political and economic issues. See here for more details.]

I can't make a difference.

This is a not uncommon sentiment in the plogosphere. Many bloggers cite this reason for feeling bitter, tired or jaded, and for quitting. I would beg to differ. I think bloggers can and do make a difference. The relevance of blogging about social/political issues lies in increasing awareness.

We might forget this if we spend too much time on the plogosphere, but generally Singaporeans, and especially young people, are highly politically ignorant or apathetic. I suspect that the man on the street just shrugs off most political issues as "not my problem". Even when they hear of the GST hike, or the ministerial salaries raise, they might spend two seconds to kao peh, but then they put the issue behind them and carry on with their lives unaffected. I was just like that 7 months ago.

In the past, it may be that it is structurally difficult for an individual to become politically conscious and aware in Singapore, but Web 2.0 has changed all of that. A politically ignorant teenager, out of sheer boredom, may google "Wee Shu Min", "GST hike", "Ministerial Salaries", "Gayle Goh", (heck, or even "Kway Teow") stumble upon a blog or two in the plogosphere, and his/her life (and his/her perception to politics) may be changed instantly. That was how I started blogging.

But how does that change anything? The government is still the same, the ruling party is still the same. Many bloggers carry unrealistic expectations about how much change they can evoke. The PAP is not going to change their mind just because they came across your blog and say "hey, you're right." But that doesn't mean that blogging (and increasing awareness) is worthless.

Power lies in the voting population. Many people treat the government's promise of opening up as a direction that they are advocating, and get disappointed when they don't see much progress in the form of public policy. They way I see it, the "opening up" of the government is not an indicator of what the ruling party wants to do, but what they have no choice but to do, given the way the population is changing in their attitudes and their values. At the end of the day, the voting population will get more liberal and less conservative, and public policy has to reflect that, or the government will risk losing its influence or even its mandate.

That the population gets more liberal and less conservative, is going to happen because the youth of today, more influenced by "western" concepts of democracy and civil liberties than "asian values", will become the major demographic group of the future. The relative affluence (and increased standard of living) of the youth today, compared to the youth of the past, also means that they will probably worry less about bread and butter issues compared to the voting population of today. This is going to happen whether you blog or not. But blogging may help to speed up the process.

This occurs on two fronts. The first, already mentioned above, is creating awareness among politically ignorant individuals. The second front is in changing and influencing minds, even among those who are politically aware. The second front is trickier than it seems, because the plogosphere is not unanimous on issues. There are people who agree and disagree with each other, but each view has the potential to influence others. The most susceptible to influence are the (often forgotten) silent readers who neither blog nor leave comments [commentors and and bloggers are usually quite decided in their opinions and hence their minds are not easily changed].

We all know that there are different ways to blog on the plogosphere. Satire (Mollymeek and Lucky Tan) is a more powerful tool than many realize. I have previously argued that narratives and anecdotes are important tools of argumentation (recently, I find Yawning Bread very good at using anecdotes). But I think there is a line to be drawn between blogging to convince other people to agree with you, and blogging so that you present the reader with alternative points of view for the reader to decide for themselves. Some spats occur in the blogosphere when bloggers accuse each other of doing the former and "misleading" the readers with "rhetoric". Although I personally think it is important that we respect our readers to make their own rational decisions, often the line between what is rhetoric or not is a blurred one. But that is material for another post.

Increasing the number of politically aware individuals does not just have an effect when it comes to electoral concerns. By creating a platform where like-minded individuals come together and share ideas, seeds may be planted for civil societies, which might or might not bear influence in the future. We might be skeptical about the influence of ThinkCenter, Sintercom and RoundTable when it comes to influencing the politics of yesterday and today, but tomorrow it may be a totally different ball game. Singapore Angle, in its own way, is not unlike a civil society at all. SA's influence is probably negligible when it comes to the voting population in general, and it is tiny among the entire blogosphere, but I suspect that it is potentially one of the most influential voices in the plogosphere. When considered as a percentage of politically aware individuals, that is significant influence indeed.

Many times, as bloggers we get discouraged when we find ourselves talking about the same issues over and over again, without any sign of progress. Often, it is a struggle to find something original to say, as everything seems to have already been said before. While that is true, it is important to continually keep the engagement going (what likely is going to happen is that blogs close and new blogs are created and fill in the void), because there are new people who read the plogosphere, maybe everyday. Current material, as opposed to archived material, is much more accessible (and appealing) to the new plogosphere explorer, and that is why repeated engagement, even if but rehashed arguments, is relevant and important. Singapore is still getting more wired, and more and more people (especially the young) will take to the internet in the future. It is important to still stay active if you want to influence these individuals. The best evidence of the plogosphere's increasing influence is the government's attempts to engage the blogosphere (i.e. we are no longer insignificant).

As an individual, you can also carry your influence outside of the blogosphere. You can talk to people within your sphere of influence: your family, friends, colleagues, neighbors, taxi drivers and kopi-tiam uncles. Can you convince them to move away from a self-centered lifestyle into thinking about issues which affect not only them, but their fellow Singaporeans? Can you convince them to want to understand what they are really voting for or against, in the next elections?

Lastly, I feel that it is important to guard yourself against cynicism. When I was younger, I thought it was hip to be cynical. Being cynical means I could go around labeling others as "idealistic" or "naive", and made me feel as if I was more enlightened. Cynicism is dangerous in the plogosphere because it is infectious, and if more and more bloggers feel that what they do cannot make a difference, then not only are you missing out in influencing the new readers who enter the plogosphere everyday, but instead you instill in them a sense of hopelessness, and that social/political issues of Singapore are ultimately not bothering with. Someone once said fear was the ultimate paralyzer. I think cynicism paralyzes more than fear, because you can overcome fear with courage, but when you are a cynic, you already have no hope.

Kitana was surprised by the number of individuals who responded to the closing of her blog. It is easy to underestimate your influence, because it is hard to gauge how many silent readers are reading your blog and being influenced by your views. As bloggers, it is important to realize that while we cannot move mountains, we can move pebbles. Often, we don't realize when we move pebbles, there are others observing us, and a few of them will be inspired to move pebbles of their own. And in turn, these individuals inspire others to move their own pebbles. Over time, the first blogger might look over her shoulder and be surprised that a small hill has been moved.

We may not seem like we're helping to cause any immediate change. But we're influencing minds, and each convinced individual may in turn influence others. That is a very promising and exciting reason for hope. But that is also a very heavy responsibility. Our opinions influence others. Do you respect others enough that you have seriously thought through your opinions before you start influencing others?

Kitana once wrote that the Internet is the most powerful voice we have. It was actually the first Kitana post I ever read. I don't agree with what she said, but I think it is true. The internet is the most powerful way of influencing change for us, even if it is not in the way Kitana imagined it to be.

10 more thoughts on the ministerial pay hike

Much has been already been said about the issue, but as I read through the blogs, they all seem to make the same points over and over again. Here are 10 thoughts (not all original) that are perhaps, not so commonly found in other blogs:


1) Progress or Regress?

Like Aaron and KTM, I found the various issues raised to be unoriginal, recycled and boring. Blogs all say the same thing until I became quite sian to read another blog post on ministerial salaries (two notable exceptions). Why are they boring? Because we have talked and THOUGHT about such issues before, and this recent commotion offers little, if any, new insight. Hence boring.

Yet, the others do not seem to be as bored. If bloggers are bored, they wouldn't be blogging so much about the issue, and there would not be such an uproar. In fact, Inspir3d (of Intelligent Singaporean) claim this is the first time the blogosphere has reacted so strongly, and hence it is a sign of progress towards further liberalization of the political scene of Singapore. This issue is also enshrined in IS as a major blogosphere event, just like the WSM affair.

Why are others not bored? In fact, they seem excited even. I would like to suggest a hypothesis: the blogosphere at large is not really thinking about the issue. What most of us are doing, is mere cow-beh-cow-bu. If you got a gripe against something, do you get bored complaining about it? I know I don't. Now, I think there is nothing wrong against voicing disagreement. In fact, I think it is good and necessary to do so. What I think is not so good is the that perhaps in being so eager to voice discontent, we fail to think. And when there is mass-unthinking on the plogosphere, this is not progress, but regress.


2) Good Articles in Mass Media

There has been little or no mention of two articles written by the traditional media which I thought were quite good. The first is an article by Chua Mui Hoong in the Straits Times on Saturday March 24th, "Beyond knee-jerk reactions, hard issues remain". Ms Chua criticized knee-jerk reactions (rightfully, in my opinion) but also stated that there are "hard issues" which need to be answered, such as the appropriateness of the formula used to calculate salaries, as well as the KPIs of ministers. The second article was by PN Baliji in TODAY, and again talked about KPIs. Baliji was willing to grant that our ministers do a good job, but unless they can produce some tangible and transparent KPIs, they cannot hope to convince the general population.

I thought the two articles were worth mentioning not just because they made valid points and contributed to the discussion, but also because the blogosphere often holds the perception that the traditional media does not have a mind of its own and never criticizes the government.


3) Separating Politicians from Civil Servants

In Yawning Bread's article, Alex Au drew a distinction which I thought was quite important. Ministers are political office holders, and strictly speaking they are not civil servants, yet they are on the same pay scale. [Civil servants are apolitical, they cannot be affiliated to any political party.] This current pay hike will affect both ministers and senior civil service officers. However, the jobs of both are quite different. I personally think that the pay hike is slightly more justifiable for senior civil servants than for ministers. Does having justifiable reasons for raising the salary of senior civil servants justify raising the salaries of ministers also? So perhaps there is a need to de-conflate the salary scales of these two groups.


4) Why Be Minister?

I wondered aloud in my previous article if there were people whom the PAP approached but rejected the offer to enter politics. To my surprise, WANG replied to that, but on Kitana's blog instead. I thought he made a good case why being a minister (in Singapore) might not be an attractive option, and here are his points, paraphrased:

a) Being paid a large yet highly scrutinized salary upfront results in much negative publicity Take this current commotion over minister pay hikes. Are prospective politicians more or less likely to enter politics now? (Ironically, the whole idea of increasing pay was to attract talent, but the uproar might just cause the opposite effect.)

b) Being under constant scrutiny and public attention, and that means constant criticism. True for all politicians (and celebrities), but perhaps especially true in Singapore's case.

c) Success in other vocations and careers is better recognized, and more greatly "praised", than doing a good job as a minister. When is the last time someone, other than the press (or young PAP), praises a minister for anything at all?

d) The burden of being responsible for the welfare and the lives of over 4 million people. This compared to the burden of being responsible to only the bottom line of a company.

e) Engaging in philanthropy is praiseworthy for a non-politician, but the same act for a politician is doubted of its sincerity. Your character gets doubted, by virtue of the fact that you are a politcian.


5) The Most Charitable Case

Very few bloggers explored what the most charitable scenario for the government would be (in trying to justify the ministerial pay hikes). This is my attempt (see also my previous article):

There is a great shortage of talent in the higher echelons of the civil service, including the pool of politicians, and there is a constant leak of talent into the private sector. Higher salaries is found to be a major reason why civil servants (and politicians) leave the service and enter the private sector. The current talent pool in the civil service is so depleted that there will be projected problems in the governance of Singapore of the future, and the panic button is being pushed. After examining what are other ways to attract talent back to the civil service, they found that the only easily adjustable parameter is salaries, and increasing the salaries was the only route to take. In other words, there is no choice. If we don't increase the salaries now, talented people are not willing to take up our leadership positions, so we are stuck with crappy leaders to lead Singapore through a potentially dangerous era ahead. This spells disaster for everyone in Singapore.

This is the most charitable case for the government that I can come up with, and I have to admit that IF this is truly the scenario, then I do think that the raise is salary is quite justified. However, there is little evidence that the situation is indeed as dire as this scenario. Furthermore, if such is indeed the scenario, why doesn't the government just come out and say "look, we don't have any more good talent left. If we don't try to attract them back, we're all screwed"? Or perhaps they have tried to say that in their politically correct ways, but their PR is just not good enough? Or is such a statement too politically costly to make bluntly? More politically costly than the current attempts at justification for the pay hike?


6) Necessity and Fairness

Consider my most charitable case mentioned above. I mentioned that I think the pay hike would be justified in the most charitable scenario. But I never said that it was fair. Many bloggers have mentioned that ministers do not deserve such a high pay, and that it was unfair to receive a salary which is intuitively more than they deserve. I have intuitive sentiments along the same line. However, I admit that if the most charitable scenario is true, then it is necessary to give the ministers such pay (although some might disagree about the necessity part).

The question to ask here is, just because an action is necessary, does it make it fair? I suspect some of us will say yes, some will say no. I think this is the distinction between consequentialist and deontological conceptions of ethics [yes, again]. If you think what makes something right or fair is the consequences, then you probably think that it is fair to raise the salaries, despite the obscene amount. If you think necessity and fairness are two different issues altogether, then you are probably a deontologist. But if so, it might be useful to note that criticisms on deontological grounds carry little weight if the government is going to make a decision on consequentialist grounds, especially where the potential consequences are very grave.


7) Gahmen VS Bloggers

Ben laments that he cannot find one, not even one, supporter of the pay hike. This is not exactly true, since in some ways (see point 5 above), I can be considered rather sympathetic towards the reasons for the pay hike. Nevertheless, it is true that practically everyone in the blogosphere is against such a move. On IS, Inspir3d categorized the views as "The Government's Case" and "The Blogosphere's Reply". It is as though the blogosphere was in total agreement as a whole, and stands in unified objection to the government. The truth is probably that there is a variety of views on both sides (but perhaps the opposing views within government ranks are silenced by the party whip).

But rightly or wrongly, there is clearly a perception of "us" against "them". Again, this appears to be yet another manifestation of the famous "great affective divide". That the "gahmen" just cannot identity with the rest of the general populace, and is simply clueless about the ground. I agree that communication between the government and the ground leaves much to be desired, and the government has much room for improvement, especially in the PR department. Nevertheless, I think many may people fail to see the symmetry of the divide: the gap in understanding may not just be the fault of the government failing to understand the ground, but also the ground failing to understand the government.


8) Emergence of Young PAP Blog

There is one notable exception to the blogosphere's united objection to the ministerial raise, and that is the Young PAP Blog. Due to the work of a spammer, apparently unrelated to Young PAP, the blog shot from obscurity to become one of the most visited blogs overnight. I had previously mentioned that I welcome the Young PAP Blog into the blogosphere. In fact, I think the emergence of this blog is pretty much the only sign of any progress being made in the blogosphere (see point 1) during this period of time.

I have actually been rather impressed by Ms Elaina Oliver Chong, one of the primary bloggers behind the Young PAP Blog, although she had made some very careless mistakes which perhaps, betrayed her n00b-ness to blogging. For example, when giving examples of what kind of sacrifices a minister makes for his country, she listed carrying babies. Any of the points I already mentioned in point 4 above would probably have been better. In a reply to a comment, she pasted a whole ST article ("What's this place worth to you?" by Paul Jacob), which was generally an eloquently articulated piece of rhetoric, and will hardly be convincing to her detractors, who would (and did) accuse her of just repeating government propaganda. Chua Mui Hoong's article, (see point 2), located just next to Paul Jacob's one, would have been a slightly better choice, if she wanted to quote an article.

Boo-boos aside, I am quite eager to see how the Young PAP Blog develops and continues to engage the rest of the blogosphere from now onwards.


9) Just like GST?

Many bloggers, including myself, noted that the announcement of the salary hike was very close to the announcement of the GST raise. Some bloggers, cynically postulated that the real rational for raising the GST was to line the pockets of ministers. Myself, and others like KTM, noted that announcing so close to each other is politically costly. Ms Elaina Olivia Chong, on the Young PAP Blog, quite cleverly argues that the GST hike helps to stimulate economy, and actually makes the ministerial raise more justifiable.

There is another sense which I think the GST hike and raising ministerial salaries are linked. They way they were announced is very similar. The GST hike was originally announced last October, and promised to reveal an offset package during Budget (in February this year). Note that this announcement was made 4 months before the Budget and the revealing of the offset package, and 9 months before the actual implementation of the GST hike (this July). Why was the announcement broken up into two parts (the first part, the announcement and the justification, and the second part, the actual facts and figures) which were announced 4 months apart? Similarly, it is only now announced that the salaries will go up and why, but by how much, that will be announced later. Why did they break up the announcement into two parts again? Will we wait 4 months before they give the actual figures?

I am not very sure why they break up such "bitter pill" announcements into two parts, but my guess is that this is a PR related move, and has something to do with helping to dissipate negative opinion. True enough, when the GST hike was announced in October, there was a huge commotion in the blogosphere. But when the offset package was revealed during budget debate this Feburary, there is much less noise heard. Have bloggers, and the general populace, simply got bored of the issue because they ranted enough about it 4 months ago? Are discontenting views that easily pacified?


10) The Peculiar Nature of our Domestic Politics

How would this situation look like if it occurred in another country, where instead of a single dominant party, there are two strongly contending parties? No doubt, the opposing party would be taking full advantage of this negative publicity to try and deconstruct the ruling party as much as possible. Yet, our opposition MPs have been largely quiet, except for NCMP Sylvia Lim, who criticized the "insensitive timing" of the announcement.

Usually for democracies, the mandate of rule is determined by vote. This means that if we find our leaders lacking, such as being corrupt or self-serving, we can vote them out and replace them with their competitors. Because there are opposing parties, politicians will try their best to convince the voting population of their sincerity and the honesty of their servitude. Although technically we voted in the ruling party, and hence we are a democracy, this model differs slightly for Singapore. Our opposition parties are just too weak to be considered a serious check and balance against corrupt or self-serving policies. As a result, anti-corruption measures need to be built into the parliamentary system (tough anti-corruption laws, independent investigative body which reports directly to the PM Office, etc), perhaps so as to convince the voting population that a single ruling dominant party can still be free from corruption, and unquestionable in character.

I am not criticizing the fact that our government has belonged to a single dominant party since independence. In fact, much of our progress and achievements today would not be possible otherwise. Nevertheless, the fact that you a single dominant party and there is a lack of a strong and credible opposition, sometimes means that it is difficult job to convince the population that you are not in a carte blanche situation. That really, you are not increasing your own salary just because you can, but because you have no choice. Just how are you going to convince the population when there really isn't any real check and balance against you? This is a difficult task, but such is the rules of the game when you are a single dominant party. I do think however, that the PAP have dug themselves this hole, so they probably will not receive much sympathy in this area.

[I thank Cognitive Dissonance, for much of these ideas were formed and shaped during a recent conversation we had over coffee. I also thank KTM for being the inspiration behind some of these thoughts. Lastly, if you have not done so, do drop by Perspective Unlimited to congratulate Bart and his wife on the birth of their first child =)]

welcome to the fold: you are in hostile territory

recently, there has been some "spamming" going around the plogosphere on posts related to ministerial salaries (Dr Huang, Ben, Kitana, Lucky Tan, Ian, etc), and they all come in the form of two comments. the first is a cut and paste of this blog article, left by a pseudonym of "Young PAP". the second goes: "Ms Elaina Olivia Chong is the Vice Chairperson of Young PAP Women committee ok! U should show your respect." left by the pseudonym of "I love PAP".

because of the consistency of how the first comment never fails to be followed by the second comment, it is safe to assume that "Young PAP" and "I love PAP" are the same individual, or two individuals working together. i am of the impression that the original author, Ms Elaina Olivia Chong, is not the one behind this spamming of comments (although i could be wrong). it is quite possible that this "I love PAP" chap could be an over-enthusiastic pro-PAP netizen who wanted to use Ms Chong's article to rebut the views espoused in the aforementioned blog posts. it is also not an impossibility that this spamming was actually done by an anti-PAP netizen, to draw overwhelming attention to the Young PAP Blog (currently over 115 comments on their latest blog post) as well as to destroy street cred (the second comment by "I love PAP").

whatever the case, well or ill-intentioned, our attention has now been drawn to the Young PAP Blog, which i believe, had been escaping plogosphere attention since its inception in late February (interestingly, about 3 weeks after the announcement of PAPAnons). i recommend, for those who haven't, to go read the entire blog (only 16 posts so far). with one notable exception, i actually find the blog rather well-written. I may not agree with all the views, but i have to admit that it is, for the most part, intelligently and coherently articulated.

i am particularly impressed that there are actual written criticisms on the government on issues pertaining to the GST hike, anti-protectionism of SMEs and the current CPF schemes. and Ms Elaina Olivia Chong, regardless if you hold her vice-chairpersonship in high regard or not, seems to be a pretty good blogger. (she also responds to comments, and seems rather respectful). i think this helps to dispel previous fears that PAP-affiliated bloggers have no room for individual opinions and are forced to trumpet the official views of the ruling party, i.e. nothing but mouthpieces of propaganda. i think it may still be too early to judge, but the indications are healthy.

i for one, welcome the PAP into the blogosphere. even if they are nothing but propaganda, this is hostile territory, and to be anything but anti-establishment is to go against the grain. if they are still willing to wear their allegiance on their sleeves (unlike one other blog which has partisan roots but chooses not to disclose that fact), and yet manage to respectfully and sensibly engage the views of their detractors, they just might succeed in their agenda in convincing the blogosphere that the ruling party isn't that horrible after all. or they might not. but i applaud them for trying.

[a separate issue: go read the full transcript of Dr Vivian Balakrishnan's speech to the foreign correspondence association, also found on the Young PAP blog. i think the term "ceremonial censorship" may have been quoted out of context, leading to criticisms by several bloggers. the example used in the speech was of the censorship of 100 pornographic sites, even though thousands others are available, which is old news. he might not be talking about blog censorship. if so, perhaps it is the CNA article which is to blame for this, and earlier today i criticized CNA too.]

unimportant omission?

my attention was just drawn to this article on CNA.

the article was about a recent email exchange between Mr Philip Yeo and a blogger, and Mr Yeo invited the blogger to tea. the blogger agreed but wanted another party to be present and also wanted to record their conversation and put it up on his blog. Mr Yeo refused, saying he did not want to be "interrogated" in presence of a "witness". the article also mentioned about the issue of "how the young should speak to an older person", and the article concluded with Mr Yeo's views about the young generation perhaps not having a value system and if so, that will spell "no future".

this is not news for those of us who have been following this, this and this. i have nothing to say regarding Elia's conditions for Mr Yeo's invitation to tea. i also have nothing to say about Mr Yeo's reasons to decline, or even Mr Yeo's comments in the article. [although i suspect some other bloggers might find Mr Yeo's comment about young people being "worse than mercenaries" somewhat ironic in light of the recent debate on ministerial salaries]

i do, however, have something to say about the fact that CNA failed to mention that the blogger mentioned in the article is the exact same blogger who was threatened a lawsuit for defamation by Mr Philip Yeo in 2005. did CNA think this was unimportant and irrelevant information in the context of the article, and hence okay to omit? [did CNA think this wouldn't be noticed?] would all the insinuations about the above mentioned blogger (and all young people) being disrespectful and lacking values still be the same, if such information was given in the article?

somewhat disappointing journalistic standards, to say the least.

[related: the recent Sunday Times also published an article on the "spat" between Elia and Mr Yeo (including details about the 2005 issue). see here and here.]

talent, salaries and a greater cause for concern?

As expected, the announcement of the increase in ministerial salaries caused much commotion in the plogosphere. Many bloggers talked about if we use higher salaries to attract people into public service, we might attract self-serving individuals. Others might have talked about the formula used to peg the salaries and asked if that was the appropriate formula. These are important issues that need to be thought through, but I will not be talking about such issues in this discussion. Instead, drawing from the views of MM Lee and Ben, I want to first discuss the issue of "talent".

Let this following view be called "Assumption T":

"Talented individuals are those individuals who possess great intelligence, critical thinking and decision making skills. Possible manifestations of talent include good business acumen, success in professions such as law and investment banking (and perhaps engineering, medicine, and scientific research). One metric of identifying talented individuals at a young age is academic success."

Assumption T (or similar versions) seem to be the main view of "talent" when SM Goh was talking about Singapore "leaking talent". Some bloggers questioned if Assumption T was elitist and claimed that it ought to be debunked altogether. When talking about justifying ministerial salaries, what constitutes "talent" comes into question again. Not just mere "talent", we are talking about the very "top talent" or "the best". Again, assumption T seems to be called into play here, and some bloggers are already starting to question if "intelligence and brilliance" alone makes up "talent" for the case of ministers, if certain "values" are found lacking.

The purpose of this post is not to debate Assumption T. Personally, I am not certain about what makes a good minister or a good policy maker, and for the purposes of this discussion, I'm willing to accept that talented (Assumption T) individuals make good ministers and civil servants. And we don't just want a "good" minister, we want the "best". In fact, according to the views of the young-PAP bloggers (currently running amok all over the plogosphere), because Singapore is so difficult to govern, we need nothing short of the VERY BEST to do the job, or else we are screwed. I personally think part of the reason why Singapore is so difficult to govern is due to both internal and external forces, and part of the internal forces could possibly be blamed on the government for trying to have their cake and eat it. Nevertheless, I'm willing to buy the argument that the future of Singapore (think aging population, competition from China and India, etc) does not look quite as rosy and hence we want really really smart people at the helm at such a difficult time.

Given so, does this justify raising the salary of ministers who are already earning $1.2 million per annum? I personally think it is difficult to make the case, but something else caught my attention: the timing of such an announcement. Why is this announced so close to the GST hike, which already cost the government much political capital? Is this not political suicide? Why could they not wait, and announce it, say, one year later? What did they have to lose if they did that? Cynics might say: implementing one year earlier is one more million dollars earned (or whatever the raise in salary is), and the money grubbing ministers are just being greedy in implementing it now. Maybe the government is confident in its ability to manage public opinion, and hence see no need to delay the salary raise. But perhaps this is a sign of something else, which could be a greater cause for concern that even the millions involved in raising ministerial salaries.

What I'm thinking about is that there could be a problem in successorship, not just for ministers and politicians, but also for important positions in the civil service. I suspect that the civil service is facing a huge HR problem (or projecting a HR problem in the near future) in the leadership echelons and is, heh, leaking talent into the private sector and overseas. Incidentally, the bond-breaking problem is related to this. Our most talented (using Assumption T) individuals are lured to the public sector via scholarships, but some break their bonds and leak away. Even if they serve out their bonds, many leave the public sector once the bond ends because they can earn much more being financial bankers, or if they work for Google or Microsoft.

I think the situation might be dire enough that the debate is no longer about "can we find talented people with the right values to be civil servants", but "can we find ANY talented people at all to be civil servants". Keeping in mind that 20 years down the road, we really want the very best, top talent, to lead Singapore through difficult times, and just "quite talented" may not be good enough. (Not to forget that MM Lee will (probably) not be around anymore then.) Other indicators which point to this could be the disappointing showing of MP backbenchers in the budget debates. Perhaps it is the ministers themselves who are the most embarrassed when the Straits Times criticized the backbenchers for only being cheerleaders.

If there is a serious HR problem, then this raise in salaries could be seen as an attempt to try and rectify that. There might be a neglected sector of talented (Assumption T) individuals who might have the desire (and the "correct heart") to be civil servants, just that they find the job prospects of Google or private practice much too attractive in comparison. Raising salaries might attract such individuals back to the public sector. [One question: how large is this sector of individuals?] Nevertheless, raising ministerial salaries seems like a clumsy move, which looks like it will cost much political capital. Perhaps a less clumsy move will be to raise public sector salaries, but NOT the salaries of MPs and ministers.

This leads me to suspect that maybe the PAP has already asked several individuals to drink tea and they have all replied "I am flattered but I would rather remain a lawyer/CEO/doctor, because I get better pay and perks". And of course we're not not going to hear about these individuals because they might change their mind in the future, but if information that these folks rejected the offer was leaked out, then they will be much less willing to enter politics in the future. And if these folks are really talented (Assumption T), then perhaps Singapore loses out.

I believe ministerial salaries is a cause for concern, especially since the raise in salary is probably not an insignificant amount, and perhaps could be better spent in say, workfare. But if there really is a talent shortage in the leadership (or future leadership) of the public sector, and for the nation, then perhaps this is a greater cause for concern.

this is not a book review

i just finished reading Thinking allowed? (politics, fear and change in Singapore) by Warren Fernandez (currently foreign editor of straits times), and i have 3 thoughts to share:

firstly, this had got to do with a subjective perspective lens. the first time i came across this book was several months ago, shortly after i first started blogging. during that time, i was still relatively influenced by anti-establishment views on the blogosphere, including this report on the resignation of Mano Subnani from TODAY. because of this report, i was very wary of Fernandez, and was highly skeptical and suspicious of his book, believing it to be but disguised propaganda. [back then, i was also too fearful to borrow any books authored by Chee Soon Juan or James Gomez (even though they were openly available for borrowing in the national library) for fear that the gahmen will track me down using my library records.]

i re-borrowed Fernandez's book recently as i remembered that i have not finished reading it several months ago. quite surprisingly, i actually found myself agreeing with much he had to say, which would have been unthinkable several months ago. i still thought he was too fervently patriotic in some of his articles, but i find that he was generally very well-reasoned and moderate in most of his views, something which i definitely would have disagreed with the first time i read the book. now of course, the book was the exact same book which i read several months ago, so the only factor why i have such different views of his book has entirely to do with my own predispositions. in particular, i am currently not as anti-establishment as i was several months ago, and this affects the way i judge the reasoning of other people, Fernandez in this case.

secondly,i found it almost uncanny that the issues which are discussed by Fernandez are exactly the same issues being dicussed in the plogosphere today (such as ageing population, the education system, immigration, bilateral relations with neighbours, ethnic sensitivities and OB markers). this is noteworthy because some of the articles compiled in the book, are written as far back as 1989. in fact, Fernandez noted that former DPM Dr Goh Keng Swee criticized Singaporeans for being too obsessed with examination results, way back in 1967.

why are such issues so "timeless"? (Fernandez calls them "old chestnuts"). the fact that we are still discussing the same issues as 10 or 20 years ago, does this mean that we have not solved old problems and we have not progressed? will we still be discussing such issues 10, 20 years from now? to be fair, i think different issues have different reaons for lasting so long. issues such bilateral relations will probably always be existent due to the nature of foreign affairs.

the issue of an ageing population, and the related issue of not having sufficient retirement funds are "time bomb" issues. they might be recognized over a decade ago, but the full effect of such issues won't be felt until a decade or two in the future. nevertheless, the nature of such issues require action to taken way in advance (like now) to prevent a real crisis from happening in the future. the increasing competition from China and India might be a similar "time bomb" issue.

some issues, such as criticisms of the government being too paternalistic, not open to feedback, and too restrictive on freedom of speech, sound exactly the same 10 years ago as they do now. one might easily accuse the gahmen to be stubbornly refusing to change or are simply not interested to change, and that continual existence of such criticisms are proof of their unwillingness to listen to feedback. this is however, a more complicated issue than meets the eye. one factor to consider is that blogs and the internet are nowhere as proliferated ten years ago as they are now, thus resulting in what appears to be more vocal criticisms, which may not be an accurate reflection of the actual number or the actual percentage of the populace who hold such critical views. are more and more people becoming critical of the gahmen, the same people, or less and less people? the nature of blogs and the internet makes it hard to gauge.

lastly, more than once during reading this book i was lead to contemplate the possibility of me starting to blog about politics. if you have been observant, you'll notice that i don't blog anything at all about political or policy issues. i have 3 fears of blogging about politics or policy: fear of being guity of claptrap, fear of attracting flak, and and fear of gahmen scrutiny. as time passed and the more i blogged, i feel less and less of the last 2 fears. i am however, still quite fearful, being someone who only 6 months ago was a completely apathetic young singaporean, that when i open my mouth i don't know what i'm talking about, and i spout nonsense.

however, i am feeling the increasing sense that should not matter as much on the plogosphere. blogging ought to be more about expressing my own (carefully thought out) views. people are free to engage and disagree, and quite possibly i may be persuaded to change my views when i come across a better argument. at the end of the day we are all better off because we had the opportunity to engage in a dialogue and learn from each other, even if we cannot agree, or even if we turn out to be wrong.

perhaps it is time for me to be a little less fearfully but a little more opinionated?

Yao Ming, Kobe Bryant and bond-breakers

[This is my second attempt to use basketball analogies to desribe apparent disagreements over the blogosphere. Some knowledge of NBA's system of drafting and trading players may be required to fully comprehend this analogy, and I apologize if anyone finds my analogy incomprehensible.]

In 2004, Kobe Bryant was in the final year of his contract with the Los Angeles Lakers, the only team he had ever played for (for 8 years) and the team he had won 3 championships with. Despite later proclamations that he wanted to be a "Laker for life", he did not sign an extension of his contract which was earlier offered to him. Why not? Being a bona fide NBA star, Kobe Bryant would be the hottest commodity in the NBA trade market when his contract expires. Beside the Lakers, several other NBA teams would also make offers to Bryant, hoping that he will sign on with them. The Lakers, not wanting to lose out, will offer an even more lucrative contract to Bryant, to lure him away from the other competing teams. Rejecting the initial contract extension would mean that he would get offered a even more lucrative contract later, so obviously it makes sense to reject the extension, even if it was the team you wanted to play with anyway. Such was the mentality of Kobe Bryant, and such was the mentality of probably all NBA players, and when NBA teams propose contracts to NBA players, they know this full well. At the end of the day, NBA players look after their own interests first.

Another celebrity NBA player, Yao Ming's contract with the Houston Rockets was expiring in 2007, making him probably the hottest commodity of that year. Yao Ming is considered by many to be the best player in the center position in the NBA, and many teams, including the LA Lakers, will be interested in signing Yao Ming. However, before his contract expired and before he could be offered different contract proposals from different teams and choose the most lucrative, Yao signed a contract extension with Houston, in a move totally opposite to what Kobe Bryant did a year ago. Why did he do so? Did he not know that if he waited until his contract expired, he would probably be offered better deals by other teams and Houston? One of the reasons Yao Ming gave was that his "heart is always in Houston", and that he is deeply grateful to the organization for helping him overcome the various obstacles preventing him from being an NBA player several years ago. Unlike Bryant (and probably every other NBA player), self-interest was not the only issue in his mind when deciding which contract to sign, but also loyalty, honor and gratitude. This was somewhat an oddity, because no one really expects Yao to be loyal to Houston, and it is quite difficult to make the claim that Yao was obliged to be loyal. NBA players just do not function that way.

***

There is currently a long discussion going on in Aaron's blog about scholarship bond-breakers. Aside from the fact that I didn't know such a diverse group comment on his blog, I also realized that regarding the ethics of bond-breaking, there were distinctively two camps of views. One camp, which I shall call the "Yao Ming" camp, came to regard scholarships as not just a legal contract, but something like an agreement between gentlemen. There is a promise involved, and it is on your honour not to break such a promise. If a scholar does not feel so, then he/she should, for such is a nature of a scholarship. The other camp, the "Kobe Bryant" camp, just believes that a scholarship is but a legal contract. There is no implication of being immoral if a scholar breaks his contract, but still pays up the liquidated damages as described in the contract.

Of course I am not the only one who realizes this dichotomy, and that the basis of such a difference of views lies in a gap in our fundamental beliefs of the nature of scholarships. But perhaps what is interesting (or pointless) about this debate, is the realization that it is quite impossible for a Yao Ming to argue by deductive reasoning alone, that a Kobe Bryant is wrong, and vice versa. Lucky Tan uses the analogy of one person liking blue shoes, and another liking green shoes, and we argue about which colour of shoes is better. Although that may be an accurate description of differing worldviews, typically a blue shoe lover does not accuse the green shoe lover of being immoral in choosing a green shoe over a blue shoe.

I think this is an interesting case study in differing worldviews (fundamental beliefs), since it unlike the other usual case studies (abortion, homosexuality etc ), religion does not come into the picture here. Aaron, and perhaps other Yao Mings, do not just say that "oh, if the scholars are fellow Yao Mings then they are immoral for breaking bonds, but if they are Kobe Bryants, then it is okay". Aaron believes that all bond-breakers, regardless if they are Yao Mings or Kobe Bryants, are being immoral for breaking the bond (ie, moral permissibility of bond-breaking is not agent-relative, to some extent). And probably, even if the scholarship bodies themselves realize that most scholars are Kobe Bryants (which I personally believe to be the case), and they actually prepare and design the scholarships with the Kobe Bryants in mind, that still does not deter the fact that bond-breakers ought to be regarded as immoral.

I personally am a Kobe Bryant. My reasons for being so are experiential. I have several friends who are scholars, and I know a couple of bond-breakers myself, I generally sympathize with their plight and feel that labeling them as immoral seems unfair. I wonder if Aaron (and other Yao Mings) got to know such friends of mine and listen to their stories, would they still believe that bond-breaking is immoral? Or perhaps, if myself (and other Kobe Bryants) listened to Mr Philip Yeo and how bond-breakers create all sorts of problems for the organization and the nation, then maybe we might change our minds? Although it has come under criticism of late (in Parliament!), I still believe that "anecdotal evidence", is often the most persuasive evidence we have when it comes to issues which cannot be easily agreed upon by reason alone.

[My thanks to Cognitive Dissonance for her helpful input in a recent discussion we had on the issue of bond-breaking]