I started blogging in February 2003 and have made it habit to blog almost everyday. This page is where I note down my thoughts, opinions and critique of almost everything. Please note that this is an adult blog and would require the reader to be thick-skinned. Oh, and some of the stuff here may be gay related so proceed at your own risk. No refund given for offence taken.
...thrills, spills & flatliners
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
WEBLOGS I READ
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
While waiting for dinner this evening, I was checking my Twitter app on my trusty little Nokia when I came across several disturbing tweets with links to news articles, "One church in KL attacked last night". Later it was three churches attacked. My heart and stomach sank. It couldn't have come to this has it? The right to use the name of God has spilled over to open violence? Is this the prelude to the Balkanisation of Malaysia?
I didn't know what to think except to go straight into my usual anti-religion rhetoric, about how all religions, or Abrahamic religions specifically, despite claims to the contrary has been the cause of so much wars, oppression and brutality throughout history.
I have to clarify that I see "religion" as a human institution created in the name of a deity and dedicated to its worship.
So in this case, it seems the cause of the problem is not so much god who does not even intervene or communicate directly to its most pious adherents. The root of the problem is therefore humans.
We are an interesting species. We are capable of the most beautiful art and selfless acts of love and kindness. Yet, we are also capable of the most despicable acts of depravity and cruelty. Consequently, we can unite together for the cause of a greater and noble good. Yet often, in our pursuit of a greater and holier goal, we sink to depths of evil that even Satan would approve.
We humans have an innate destructive ability to fuck up whatever that is good or divine.
This is not the monopoly of religion even though countless wars, inquisitions and violence were committed in the name of god and orthodoxy.
Karl Marx famously said that "religion is the opiate of the masses". And ironically, in the communists' effort to rescue humans from this feudal and backward superstition while freeing them from oppression by the monied and landed classes unleashed waves of execution, torture and imprisonment thus becoming the monsters they fought.
Likewise the French revolution that overthrew the oppressive ancien regime and the subsequent bloody "reign of terror" with its infamous guillotine.
Fortunately, brutalities in the name of ideology do draw to a close when people see the light, are proven wrong or when logic prevails.
But what if it's for the sake of religion? One where everything has to be accepted by faith as the truth and the ancient, timeless and immutable word of god? How do you convince violent maniacs gathering under a holy banner and who believe that by being extreme can one be more pious and holier, that all sacrifices and acts no matter how dastardl or brutal are for the sake of the afterlife, and where time is not measured in decades or from election to election but for eternity?
In the case of Malaysia where the Islamic identity is conflated with their racial identity, things get more complicated. It's not just the use of the name of god but the perceived encroachment on their political dominance and identity, their exclusive concept of Ketuanan Melayu.
I guess UMNO kind of brought this upon themselves when they tried to out-Islamise PAS after the latter's initial state electoral victory in 1999.
The country is still in the midst of their watershed moment. Whether it comes out of this for the better or the worse is anyone's guess. But what is heartening is the numbers of Malaysian Muslims who came out against last night's attack and their efforts to come up with ideas to counter the extremists' actions and hate. I honestly hope they will succeed.
I've always believe that religion should be a private affair and should never be allowed any room in politics and common social spaces. It causes too much harm than good. And when you look at last night's events and our own AWARE saga earlier last year, I'm sure you can understand why.
Perhaps I am being hopeful. But maybe these attacks might become the catalyst that will bring all Malaysians regardless of race and religion together in unity and say, "Enough is enough. Not in our name and certainly not in our country."
Note:
I kind of stole the above title from the opening of Art Harun's emotional and moving post "Our Failings" about last night's events that is a must-read. "And as the flames climbed high into the night; To light the sacrificial rite; I saw Satan laughing with delight; The day the music died." American Pie - Don McLean.
"People never do evil so cheerfully or completely as when they do it from religious conviction"
No particular moving reason for this post. The above is just a comment I read on a BBC News blog recently and which came to mind when I read this article on the NYT.
It's sad, but everyone will have to go one day. And Joshua Benjamin Jeyaretnam (JBJ as he is popularly known) passed away this morning from heart failure at the age of 82.
This man who was much maligned and attacked by LKY and PAP never gave up the fight for his belief in a more just and equitable Singapore.
He first won a seat in parliament in 1981 and broke PAP's monopoly on power. But trust LKY to find ways to unseat an opponent and this he did in 1986 when JBJ was found guilty of making a false declaration of his party's accounts and fined. This saw him removed from parliament under existing laws. And on top of that, he was also barred from practising law. Well I'm sure most Singaporeans learnt the true meaning of the word "vindictiveness" from this sordid affair. You not only remove your political opponent but remove his means of earning a living.
His second term in parliament was as a non-constituency MP from 1997 to 2001. But this tenure saw him sued by Goh Chok Tong and ten others for defamation. This action broke him financially and he was declared a bankrupt and hence ineligible for parliament.
But trust JBJ not to lie down and go away with a whimper. He continued speaking out and working to clear his bankruptcy, which he did in 2007. As of 2008 this year, he helped form the Reform Party and vowed to return to parliament by the next election.
Unfortunately for him and Singapore, he never got the chance to. He left us with the memory of a man who fought the good fight and never gave up despite the animosity of his political opponents and the general apathy of most Singaporeans.
I think it takes a special breed of people to be able to do that and not succumb to all the negativity, convictions, bankruptcy, etc. I am sure most people would rather have the fawning sycophancy that LKY gets.
Rest in peace JBJ and my thoughts are with your family.
Hopefully someone might be brave enough (or some would say foolhardy enough) to take up your standard and continue your mission. Singapore sure needs it.
Of that generation of politicians, it seems LKY and Chiam See Tong are the only ones left. And Chiam is younger than LKY. Who's next?
...A seminar on Syariah Law review wants non-Muslims found committing khalwat (close proximity) with Muslims to also be held liable.
This was among the proposals made at the two-day seminar organised by the Islamic Institute of Understanding Malaysia (Ikim) and the Syariah Judiciary Department Malaysia.
Syariah Court of Appeal Judge Datuk Mohd Asri Abdullah said the seminar had proposed that non-Muslims committing khalwat with Muslims should also be sentenced accordingly, but in the civil courts...
This is not all; they have also proposed increasing the penalty (including whipping) on a range of "moral" crimes like prostitution, consuming alcohol and involvement in gambling activities. And on top of that, they would like to set up a rehab centre for those convicted of offences such as prostitution and effeminate men.
Rehab centre for effeminate men??!!! And how do they intend to butch-ify them? Put them through deportment classes to teach how to swagger like cowboys? Electric shock therapy to wean them off colour coordination and accessorisations? Duh...
And do you know what makes this even more interesting? The jokers above are NOT from PAS. Ikim and the Syariah Judiciary Department of Malaysia are government institutions and agencies created by and operating under the auspices of the UMNO-led government.
I can go on and on about it, but I think Farish and Marina Mahathir have done a good job commenting and criticising the above so I shall not add anymore to it.
Anyway, while I was reading Farish's posting, I came across an earlier article attacking the destruction of Hindu temples in Malaysia. Even though this was written in 2006, the destruction is still happening and hence the article is still current. In this piece, he argues that these are not Indian Hindu temples being demolished, but rather Malaysian temples that belong as much to the Malaysian cultural, historical and religious landscape as mosques, churches and Buddhist and Taoist temples. As such, the destruction should not be just a concern of Malaysian Indian Hindus but all Malaysians regardless of religion. And lest we forget, Hindu predates Islam in the peninsula and the larger archipelago by centuries.
And for something slightly off tangent and funny, check out Karipanas' post on fun things to do in a "Guided Democracy", some can be applicable in Singapore too. Number 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 9 and 10 cracked me up badly!
Well, the Malaysian general election has come and gone. The results have sunk in and the country is now in the dawn of a new era. Whether it will last till the next election or longer is anyone's guess.
But now that the country is slowly starting to return to normalcy after the euphoria of the past few days, the opposition parties have a huge task ahead of them.
First and foremost is to form a good working relationship with each other. This to me is the most important task if they are to succeed. After all, the three different parties have their own ideologies and agendas. So they will really need to find a common ground and either compromise or chuck out those that stand in their way.
To me, the wild card is the pan-Islamic PAS. Being an Islamic political party, it's natural that their interest is the promotion of Islam. But one of the biggest issues (I gather) facing Malaysia now is the balancing of Islamic interest with that of the other religions.
There have been too many cases where unproven (or claimed by third parties) conversion to Islam has been used to rule against the family who are adherents of other religions. And of course, we also have the civil courts refusing to rule against or get involved in cases where the Islamic courts have jurisdiction in, thus giving primacy to these courts and their rulings.
I am not criticising or attacking PAS, but I really cannot see how they can divorce their politics from Islam. I mean if they do it, wouldn't they be betraying the very religion that they based their existence on? But if they don't, then how will the alternative coalition formulate policies that are equitable to all.
Tough call. But it will be interesting to see how it will all work out for next four to five years. Will they out-perform BN or will they go for each other's throat and implode?
Personally, I really want them to succeed and out-perform BN. And in the process, help the country move away from the parochial race-based politics that has created more divisions than unity and has exceeded its shelf life by years.
Maybe UMNO (United Malays National Organisation) can learn from this and surprise us all by transforming itself from just the United Malays National Organisation to the United Malaysians Organisation.
Barisan Nasional (BN) of Malaysia loses its two thirds majority in the Dewan Rakyat (the lower house of the federal parliament) and has only managed to cling on with a small margin.
The Malaysian Indian Congress (a component party of BN) president Samy Vellu lost to his opponent. Tragically, the day of the election and his resultant electoral loss is also his birthday. As a result, he will lose his ministerial seat which he has held for three decades. Unless of course he gets appointed to the senate and reappointed as the federal works minister as a senator, but I'm not too sure if the Malaysian constitution allows that route.
Meanwhile, Anwar Ibrahim's wife has successfully defended her seat and his daughter won her first election, both on Keadilan's slate for the federal Dewan Rakyat. Out of all the opposition parties running for the federal parliament, Keadilan has won the most seats. And in the state polls, the opposition has increased its control of state governments from one (Kelantan) from the previous election to five (Kedah, Penang, Perak, Selangor and of course Kelantan).
Wow! After five decades of BN dominance, the entire political landscape has changed. Of course BN will still form the new government but they will have a more powerful opposition to deal with in parliament.
Analysts say that this time, it wasn't just the Chinese and Indian voters who abandoned BN, but Malays as well. So will we see a repeat of post-electoral violence and death like the one that happened in 1969? I hope not. If things remain peaceful and transfer of state governments are smooth, then Malaysia and Malaysians have acquired a political maturity that does them great credit.
You know what would be even better? That the opposition comprising DAP, Keadilan and PAS can ditch the racial politics of BN and forge a new all-inclusive opposition coalition that really represents the interest of all Malaysians regardless of race. To expect them to merge and form one party would be too much of a fantasy lah. First, they will need to heal the recent racial and religious fissure that has erupted across the country. Once they have dealt with that successfully, then maybe a merger would be more possible.
Like the Nehru-Gandhi family of India, the Bhuttos is another tragic political dynasty in the sub-continent. Her father, a former prime minister of Pakistan during the rare times when the country was not run by the army, was accused of murder and then executed by Gen Zia ul-Haq in 1979. Then her two brothers (also politically active) were killed in mysterious circumstances. And today, it was Benazir's turn.
Looks like the country is going to the dogs. Political killings, assassinations, suicide bombings, military coups, repressing the independence of the judiciary, etc. Another "failed state" in the making? Scary thought considering they have the nukes too.
Enraged employees then locked them up pending an apology from the minister, which of course was not forthcoming.
In the end, commandos had to be called in to resolve the standoff and he was finally allowed to leave with red and pink paint splattered on him and jeers from the journalists.
"If my action is considered as a wrong act, I would like to apologise to the employees," said Mr Silva in front of cameras.
Now this would have been quite a sight, bully politician getting a taste of his on medicine. Oh! The humiliation of it.
Incidentally in 2005, his son and his son's bodyguard pulled out pistols on the police when they went to a club to conduct a drug raid.
Ezra directed me to this video by a Fahmi Reza of Malaysia entitled "Sepuluh Tahun Sebelum Merdeka" (10 years before independence). Looking at the current state of affairs and relations between the races in Malaysia (what with the recent protest in KL by Malaysian Indians), this show strikes me as rather sad. Sad, because of what might have been.
On one hand, you had the (then) somewhat pro-British UMNO with a rather limited constitution for the Malayan Federation (enforced in 1948) that saw Malaya continuing as a British protectorate with not much political rights. And on the other, you have the People's Constitution drafted by a group of left-leaning parties under the banner of PUTERA-AMCJA that was so much more progressive.
Not only did this constitution demanded independence, it gave everyone equal political rights and equal citizenship, provided for an inter-racial council that was tasked to screen and filter out racially discriminating laws and policies, and surprisingly, created a new nationality called "Melayu" that would apply to everyone regardless of race. This last bit was whole-heartedly endorsed and accepted by Tan Cheng Lock (representing the Chinese community) with no questions asked.
I really wonder what Malaysia (or maybe even Malaya) would be like today if PUTERA-AMCJA had succeeded in getting through their constitution.
But as anyone can tell, the People's Constitution was unfortunately consigned to the wastebasket of history. And not only that, the British jailed or banished members of the PUTERA-AMCJA under the pretext of fighting communism.
There's so much that could be said about what could have been, but I guess it's too late for that now. And perhaps, I guess HINDRAF has a point when they wanted to sue the British government for their historical complicity in the present plight of the Malaysian Indians.
Anyway, if you have the time, do watch the show below. It has been very enlightening for me, even as a Singaporean.
Wah lao... This Chavez is really one fucked up bugger. He's the rude and brutish one, and now he accuses the King of Spain for being arrogant (see post on original incident here). This guy is so unbelievably pathetic!
Here you have it folks, the face of a hooligan and recalcitrant joke of a president. Sooner of later, he is going to fuck up his country so bad they wished they had never believe his rhetoric and elected him to power.
And as a joke and an object of derision, I guess you can lump in the same league as Thio Li-Ann.
Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez says, "But I think it's imprudent for a king to shout at a president to shut up. Mr King, we are not going to shut up."
Pot calling the kettle black? Chavez, you're the imprudent one. Why don't you watch the video clip of your own imprudent behaviour? Not only are you imprudent, you are rude and brutish as well. I think some of your citizens have more courtesy than you.
So anyway, there was this Ibero-American summit in Chile that ended yesterday.
During the closing meeting, Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez levelled insults on the previous conservative prime minister of Spain, Jose Maria Aznar, calling him a fascist and added that "fascists are not human. A snake is more human."
While Aznar was noted for his strong support of Bush and is the political opposite of the left-leaning socialist current Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, that didn't stop Zapatero from defending his predecessor in a speech that drew applause from some participants during his turn at the microphone.
"Former Prime Minister Aznar was democratically elected by the Spanish people and was a legitimate representative of the Spanish people."
"I want to express to you President Hugo Chavez that in a forum where there are democratic governments ... one of the essential principles is respect."
"You can disagree radically, without being disrespectful."
However Chavez being his usual uncouth self tried a few times to interrupt Zapatero's speech even though his microphone was not on.
In the end, I guess he pissed some people off royally (unsurprising) because King Juan Carlos of Spain, who was seated next to Zapatero, leaned forward and exclaimed angrily to Chavez, "Why don't you shut up!" ("Por qué no te callas!" in Spanish) before leaving.
Chavez did not immediately respond, but later used time given to him by his close ally Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega to answer Zapatero's speech.
"The Venezuelan government reserves the right to respond to any aggression, anywhere, in any space and in any manner."
Hmmm... Even when you're the cause of the outburst? *tsk tsk tsk*
Gosh, Chavez really comes across as a spoilt, petulant and unrepentant child more than an elected representative of a country. And when a president is the head of state and government of a country, his behaviour really reflects badly on Venezuela and its people.
By now, the news about Alfian's "abusive" email to Thio Li-Ann is known by practically everyone who reads the English papers. Contrary to what some people assume, that email was written months before the repeal 377a campaign was even initiated. And from what I read, it may be rude but I won't consider it harassment. After all, "fucked up" is a general term that has been used by all and sundry to describe someone (either in the first or third person) as dysfunctional or messed up in the head.
To play it out further, she has taken on the role of the aggrieved victim who is above such things. However instead of ending it there, she wrote and had her letter published on the Straits Times with Alfian's e-mail address, obviously intending to make him the target for her lobby group.
Considering the impolite and slanderous terms and accusations she levelled at all gay men, it is rather artful of her to demand civility in the debate when she was the one who launched the first salvo.
"When the Religious Right (and this includes Thio) are out to bludgeon me psychologically, socially and politically, they don't deserve respect or civility from me. Nor from Alfian and thousands, thousands more."
And if one can't take the heat, then one should get the hell out of the kitchen. One shouldn't launch attacks on others and then cry foul when a return volley comes your way.
Anyway, what's the big deal about someone pissing on your grave? When they bury you after you are well and truly dead, it is usually with earth that has been mixed with manure (as fertiliser). And as we all know, manure is generally made from cow faeces. I would think urine is the lesser of the "evil". And furthermore, you can consider it a favour as it will help the surrounding vegetation grow better so as to beautify your final resting place.
Interestingly enough, Thio had the audacity to bring up the spectre of a defamation suit against Alfian. In law, defamation is the communication of a statement that makes a false claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may harm the reputation of an individual, business, product, group, government or nation (as quoted from Wikipedia). I think she brought more disrepute on herself without the assistance of Alfian. "Hatemongering" and "vicious crusades against sexual minorities"? Guilty as charged. No need Alfian's email to tell us that.
I did a trawl through the blogosphere today, and I noted with great interest that all post which mentioned her by name is nothing but negative. And mind you, a lot of them are written by straight people and some are... how shall I say it... not nice at all. Not only was her speech in parliament criticised, but her views and her actions thus far.
One post that caught my eye is by a Mollymeek who sees the hypocrisy of Thio's hope that the "House joins" her "in deploring these malicious attacks which also assault academic freedom". (underscore is mine)
Anyway, true to form, Talkingcock has come up with a hilariously interesting and productive way to put piss on her grave to a better and more environmentally friendly use. Click on the picture below for the full story. FUNNY!
On the same topic, a "La nausée" has written a post that shows up the ridiculousness of her sensitivity to such emails. But more important than that, he has highlighted something that has escaped almost everyone's attention: the clear and present danger of Thio's assertion "that religion should not be excluded from public policy debates, and that to do so would be undemocratic".
Now why is it dangerous?
Along with the penal code overhaul, section 298 (which makes it a crime to speak ill of any religion) was beefed up.
Of course the intent of this (as stated by Senior Minister of State Ho Peng Kee on 22nd October 2007) is to "criminalize the deliberate promotion by someone of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different racial and religious groups on grounds of race or religion".
So is there any other implication?
Yes. To put it simply, the playing field is not level. While religious groups can hide behind this act and use their perceived religious righteousness to attack secular beliefs, ideals, or policies. No one can attack their views because to do so is an offence which might see you in jail.
Let's use the campaign to repeal section 377a as an example. They can assert publicly that all homosexuals are the same as paedophiles, necrophiles, zoophiles, etc. But that law prevents us from attacking their religious views that's fundamental to these fallacious beliefs. They may rant and rave in parliament that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice and that all homosexuals can change "with the grace of god". But if we were to say that their views are erroneous and most homosexual did not choose to be one, they can very well claim we are "wounding" their religious views and thus guilty according to that section.
So if we are not allowed to criticise them or their religious views, then it is only fair that they are not allowed to publicly air those same views and criticisms of government policies and other people's "lifestyle" be they straight or gay. Because if things go the way Thio wants it, then she and her cabal can very well attempt to hijack public policy debates and no one can say anything in dissent.
Now this is the real slippery slope if you ask me. But it will be interesting to see how our government manages this, especially when there are a few competing religious lobby groups trying to influence public policies.
Before I end this post, I would like to bring your attention to yet another straight person (a female) writing on the 377a issue. Though I disagree with her view that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice (probably heard it too many times from the likes of Thio that she thinks it is), I do like the line of reasoning she took on the "we are not ready" excuse. Hers is the first I've read on this issue. Check it out on "absolute-ly missy".
This is a personal story by the son of man who was very much involved in politics during the period of the expulsion of Singapore from the Malayan (then known) federation. Perhaps this might help remind our leaders, especially LKY, why a lot of Singaporeans choose to remain silent.
There is this theory that force of habit somehow becomes part of the genetic makeup of the future generations. Hence, affecting how they behave instinctively. Maybe our forefathers' force of habit is now the instinctive behaviour of our current batches of local undergraduates. Of course we cannot forget upbringing, academic and learning culture, and the possible cost (material, emotional and mental) factor.
This post is more than just about politics back then. It's also a loving memorial to a man's father who had just passed on, a father who despite all semblances of calmness and equanimity hides a secret past; a past that his son should be proud of. Though it's sad to see his father's fire eventually extinguished by political expediency at a cost to the state of Singapore's current and possibly future generations.
My friend brought my attention to two rather interesting things to read on the web today.
One is an article in the New York Times about how the conservative evangelical churches and lobby group in the US seem to be changing directions. Among some of the reasons put forward is the retirement or passing on of the politically inclined leaders like Falwell and Dobson, while at the same time the evangelical congregants have grown tired of the endless political tirade of their spiritual leaders at the expense of their personal faith and growth.
...In the past, Hybels has scrupulously avoided criticizing conservative Christian political figures like Falwell or Dobson. But in my talk with him, he argued that the leaders of the conservative Christian political movement had lost touch with their base. "The Indians are saying to the chiefs, 'We are interested in more than your two or three issues,' " Hybels said. "We are interested in the poor, in racial reconciliation, in global poverty and AIDS, in the plight of women in the developing world"...
..."I thought in my enthusiasm," he (Rev. Gene Carlson) told me with a smile, "that somehow we could band together and change things politically and everything will be fine." But the closing of Dr. Tiller's clinic was fleeting. Electing Christian politicians never seemed to change much. "When you mix politics and religion," Carlson said, "you get politics."
In more recent battles, Carlson has hung back. On the Sunday before the referendum on a state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, Carlson reminded his congregation that homosexuality was hardly the only form of sex the Bible condemned. Any extramarital sex is a sin, he told his congregation, so they should not point fingers.
"We wouldn't want to exclude some group because we thought their sin was worse than ours," Carlson told me with a laugh...
It's a pretty long article, but worth the read to get a sense of how the religious-political landscape of the US is changing. And though some might argue otherwise, it also has possible political ramifications in Singapore considering how some churches here seem to be aping the political stance of their co-religionists in the US.
Another article (or rather a blog post) I read is this "Reverse Redacting Thio Li Ann" which attempts to draw parallels between her speech in parliament and her article in the Straits Times with "The Homosexual Rights Agenda: Reframing the Debate" published on "The Road to Emmaus: A School of Judeo-Christian Apologetics".
Pretty interesting I must say. I think it helps people see where she is coming from and where she gets (or who she shares) some of her ideas (with).
Which brings to mind what I wrote about her in my post dated 19 January 2007:
..."There're a whole myriad of factors, from the treatment of maids to education issues, to political liberalisation, free speech issues, human rights and women's rights."
Promote human and women's rights but deny equal treatment to gays and lesbians? How schizophrenic is that. Or has reactionary and conservative religion contaminated her more progressive and liberal views towards such basic rights as equality of everyone regardless of sex, age, race, sexuality, religion, economic class, etc.
I wouldn't be surprised if she'll use this new platform to sprout and pursue her homophobic agenda. Or maybe that was the PAP's idea when they selected her as a new NMP. Then again, those who make the loudest noise usually have something to hide. Remember the former Pastor Ted Haggard from the Nov 2006 scandal?...
Thank god for people like NMP Siew Kum Hong and the PAP MPs who spoke up against the retention of 377a. At least there's some people in the house who could speak in opposition to her.
I don't know, but maybe I might have been wrong about it being PAP's idea to have her chosen as an NMP because of her homophobia. Then again, that was pure speculation on my part.
I think one of the more interesting things about the recent campaign to repeal Section 377a is the amount of pro-repeal blog posts and articles written not just by gays, but by straight people who are not personally affected (so I assume) by this piece of archaic British colonial-era law.
Not only are these writings personal, but some are pretty analytical in demolishing some of the arguments of the retain 377a group and that of their spokesperson Thio Li-Ann. Here are some I have read and found interesting enough to direct all of you to.
The first one (which I happen to like a lot) is written by a heterosexual father of two kids who live in the "conservative" heartlands and who also happen to have a gay couple as neighbours. Read what he feels in his post "The Irrational Section 377A". The "conservative" heartland? I think the diverse and non-monolithic heartland is closer to the truth when I consider the above post along many others written by fellow heartlanders, gay or straight.
Then there is this amusing one written by a straight male Singaporean who claims the reason why 377a is retained is because "Singaporeans are scared sh*tless by gay people". Hmm... I guess there is some truth in it. After all, we usually fear what we do not know or understand. And a lot of Singaporeans either do not know any gay people or even if they do, do not understand them.
Getting nation-wide publicity and readership is the senior Straits Times correspondent Janadas Devan who picked apart Thio Li-Ann's logic in his Saturday "Thinking Aloud" column. An online version is found here.
And adding his voice to his former colleague's thoughts is the former journalist and now division head at NTU's Wee Kim Wee School of Communication and Information Asst Prof Cherian George (husband of journalist Zuraidah Ibrahim) in his post "ST's Janadas Devan exposes Li-Ann's Thiology".
There are too many out there to search out and list. But I think the above four should suffice for now.
Read it at your own leisure and enlightenment.
Meanwhile, like what PM Lee Hsien Loong said in parliament, Singapore will follow (maybe a few decades behind) but not lead in this issue. Hence, Singapore will be the only Chinese-majority country in the world where homosexual male sex is still illegal. China, Hong Kong and Taiwan have already done away with it. So much for progressiveness.
I guess the difference between those countries and Singapore is the amount of credence and clout they allow some religious groups, and of course the percentage of adherents of those same religion in relation to the general population.
And on that note, I would like to direct you to a infamous speech/essay written by the famous British philosopher Bertrand Russell, the 3rd Earl Russell of Kingston Russell in the County of Dorset. Please scroll down and read the section entitled "The Emotional Factor". Of course whether you agree with it or not is entirely your prerogative.
***
Addendum 30 Oct 2007:
I would like to include belatedly "Sam's Thoughts". Gosh this straight guy has written so much about repealing 377a and refuting the views and logic of the anti-gay lobby that it puts me, a gay man to shame. But considering the amount of stuff written by gay writers, it's refreshing to let the straight ones take the centre stage and make it known that there are straight people who think likewise.
I like his latest post "The plants in the garden" which attacks the ridiculous fallacy of the so-called "gay lifestyle". I mean like what the hell is the "gay lifestyle"? It's a label coined by the you-know-whos to dump all gays under. Makes it easier for them to target and attack I suppose.
And just in case I gave the impression that NMP Siew was the only one speaking for the repeal, I have to state here that the PAP MP Hri Kumar also lent his legal opinion on the inconsistency of this law.
Text of his speech and others are available at the links below:
To be honest, I have not read Thio's speech and I am not going to. I get pretty frustrated and infuriated by the amount of falsehoods and bigotry she spews all the time on this issue. And unsurprisingly, her speech in parliament today followed the same trend.
Anyway, she has a history of creating lies and assumptions about the "gay agenda" and of tarring all gay men with the same brush which she no doubt obtained from the US conservatives. There is no way to talk sense to this person, much like there is no way to talk sense to an Al-Qaeda suicide bomber who is motivated by the rightness of his or her religious "calling".
Besides NMP Siew Kum Hong and PAP MP Hri Kumar, two other PAP MPs, newbie Baey Yam Keng and senior backbencher Charles Chong, also spoke in support of repealing this section. Unfortunately, I can't find the text to their speeches but here's a video clip of excerpts from it.
I've just finished reading the text of NMP Siew Kum Hong's speech in parliament yesterday and I have to say that I am very very grateful to him for sticking by his principles and making a stand on this issue. He is indeed brave for daring to go against the grain even though he is a heterosexual male who should have no vested interest in this "gay" issue.
The speech may be long, but it brought his point across clearly and calmly. But what really moved me were some comments left by some signatories of the online open letter.
...Sir, let me share with this House, the pain voiced by some signatories of the online open letter.
Madam Mak is a 69-year-old mother of a gay 40-something son. He and his partner have lived with her for over 13 years. She called them "the best things" that had happened to her, in her 69 years in Singapore. She wrote:
"Please tell me, Mr. PM, why are you teaching me to be ashamed of them? If this country doesn't want them, where can they go? Please tell me."
Madam K, a civil servant, wrote:
"my son is gay. He came out to me when he was 22. And I was upset and i blamed myself why is my son gay... i blamed myself all the time. But he is my son. He has not changed since the first day i gave birth to him or the person he is today. I love him for who he is, for what he is. It sickens me that people think suggests that just because he is gay, our family isnt what it is. We are a family. what people do in their private lives shouldnt be an issue to anyone as long as it doesnt harm anyone else. He doesnt know i am doing this but I support this repeal. he is my son and he is not a criminal. if i can accept him, his mother who gave birth to him, who these people who so quickly judge him and condemn him?"...
...And then there are those who leave. If we truly believe that every Singaporean counts, and surely we must when people are our only natural resource, then have we counted the cost of all those who have lost? I will cite only one example, to show how heavy the cost to Singapore can be.
Mr Alex Liang e-mailed me a few months back. He is a former Singaporean who renounced his citizenship and is now a UK citizen. By all objective measures, Mr Liang is someone who would have served the country very well.
We had invested heavily in him. He received a sports award for 3 years running, and was also a humanities scholar. He represented the nation in gymnastics, receiving generous training allowances. He speaks 8 languages, and had excellent academic results.
But the moment he completed National Service, he left for Europe and he stayed there. He had long decided to leave Singapore, as he did not see a viable future for himself in Singapore as a gay man.
Sir, I ask again: what price, this effort to "sign-post" the views of the majority?...
Thank you Mr Siew. Whether the petition moves minds or not, you have my utmost respect and gratitude. As far as I am concern, you have performed your job as a nominated member of parliament as per the NMP's mandate admirably.
An 18-yr old student emailed organisers and pleaded to have the Sunday deadline extended by a day, as she wanted to get her schoolmates to sign when classes resumed on Monday. She brought in 70 signatures. A 53-yr old Eurasian woman, currently living in Johor Bahru, made her way through customs and immigration, just so she could make her submission. A Singaporean living in Hong Kong had his signed petition couriered to Singapore overnight. Law students from a local university canvassed over the weekend for signatures at popular nightspots.
All in all, 2,519 people from all walks of life regardless of sexual orientation signed in support of the Parliamentary Petition to urge the repeal of Penal Code Section 377A over 3 days...
I heard about this essay written by Thant Myint-U (grandson of former UN Secretary-General U Thant) from the papers today.
With all the furore about Burma now, I think it is a timely explanation of the roots of the present problems of the country and the possible solutions ahead. It doesn't look too promising though it is not entirely hopeless. Click on the link below for the article in its entirety.
And it seems that I am not the only one with the same view on what can bring about a change in the country (as expressed in my post yesterday):
...The outside world makes the mistake of assuming that the junta is amenable to negotiation on what we regard as common values: democracy, respect for human rights, protection from the arbitrary exercise of power.
This is simply not the case. The junta can only understand the street demonstrations by monks and people as subversion fomented by (unnamed but baleful) "foreign powers".
Their perceived duty is to suppress the democracy movement, whatever the cost in human suffering, for the greater good of the nation.
In their own eyes, and encouraged by their astrologers, this is a virtuous action...
...The democratic movement is defenceless in the face of 300,000 soldiers, and its only hope, now as in 1988, is that enough troops might be so sickened by what they have had to do that they are prepared to disobey orders.
From personal experience my wife and I know that in the final stages of the 41-day uprising in 1988, democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi privately admitted that a split in the army seemed the only remaining hope of overthrowing the dictatorship...
...All the embassies in Rangoon have military attaches, and one can only hope that part of their duties include identifying and discreetly supporting dissidents in the Burmese armed forces.
Likewise, the world's democracies should mobilise the resources of their intelligence agencies, rather than soothing their consciences by imposing further useless economic sanctions (unless these can be extended to China, India and Asean, when they really would have an effect)...
(Tom White, former UK's cultural attaché in Burma during the 1988 protests and bloody crackdown writing for BBC News - "Viewpoint: Burma ruled by numbers")
Meanwhile, monks are trying to escape Yangon (Rangoon).
Reuters today published a photo of Ibrahim Gambari shaking hands with Aung San Suu Kyi when he was in Myanmar for talks. He has since left and should be on the way back to the UN via Singapore.
This is the first photo of her in years. Gosh... She has aged so much. And yes, she, like the rest of the civilians and monks of Myanmar, has also suffered much.
I don't know if Gambari's visit will help much. This is a regime that is so insular that it is never bothered with what the world thinks.
I guess the only way things are going to change is (1) a new leader in the likes of Mikhail Gorbachev or FW de Klerk comes into power and start to dismantle the system, or (2) the US makes their sanctions even tougher and penalise countries and foreign companies that does business with Myanmar by imposing the same type of punitive embargoes on them, or (3) the common soldiers have enough of killing their own people and turn against the junta.
If not, things will just remain the same and go into a cycle. Uprising, brutal crackdown, repressed silence and repeat a decade or so later.
Meanwhile, Nyan Win, the junta's foreign minister (Comical Ali of Myanmar) in a typical show of delusion has accused "neo-colonialism", "political opportunist" and "powerful countries" for stirring up trouble. It's definitely not the language of people tuned into the reality of their own country and given to reason. How in the world do you negotiate and reason with such deluded thugs?
At last! This is the sort of public leadership on an international stage I expect from my country's political leaders. Fuck ASEAN's policy of "non-interference in the internal affairs of one another". In this day and age, we cannot stand idly by and let such brutality go without (at the very least) an admonishment. Since we accepted them as members of ASEAN, it's time we spoke up for their citizens and take our fellow member to task.
SINGAPORE : Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong has stressed that ASEAN cannot credibly remain silent or uninvolved in what's happening in Myanmar.
Mr Lee highlighted this when he called the leaders of six ASEAN countries on Thursday to "express Singapore's deep concern over the very grave situation in Myanmar".
Mr Lee called ASEAN leaders Sultan Hassanal Bolkiah of Brunei, Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, Malaysian Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi, Philippine President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, Thai Prime Minister Surayud Chulanont and Vietnamese Prime Minister Nguyen Tan Dung.
The leaders agreed with Mr Lee that ASEAN should put out a clear statement urging the Myanmarese authorities to exercise restraint.
They also urged Myanmar to find a political solution for national reconciliation without resorting to violence.
Singapore, as Chairman of the ASEAN Standing Committee, has been consulting the other ASEAN countries on the situation in Myanmar.
Mr Lee told the six ASEAN leaders that the current confrontation in Myanmar would have implications for ASEAN and the whole region.
According to the Foreign Affairs Ministry, the other ASEAN leaders have expressed similar concerns. They also agreed on the importance of the mission to Myanmar by the UN Secretary-General's Special Envoy Ibrahim Gambari.
They also concurred that the Myanmar regime should accept Mr Gambari's visit and cooperate with the UN to find a peaceful solution.
In New York, where the UN General Assembly is currently in session, Foreign Affairs Minister George Yeo is consulting with his ASEAN counterparts on a coordinated ASEAN response. - CNA /ls
I feel for the Burmese working in Singapore. Since they don't get much from their country's tightly controlled papers, their only recourse for information is centred on the internet. Unfortunately, internet and most telecommunications link into that country have been cut off by their government leaving them unable to talk to their families and loved ones; probably fearing the worst. Here's a video clip from the Straits Times where some of them spoke on camera with Imelda Saad at "Little Burma" (Peninsula Plaza).
Meanwhile, a Singaporean working in Yangon has been shot and injured but nevertheless managed to live to tell his story online.
The latest rumour I've read is that the Junta has reportedly ordered some monk's robes from a factory, and have told army units to shave their heads. This could be a sign that they are preparing to use their old tactics of infiltrating the monks and framing them by causing violence.
I guess some people would have been wondering why I have been keeping silent on Myanmar considering the fact that I have written so much about it before.
I guess I have been waiting to see what else is going to happen before putting thoughts to keyboard. There have been so many false starts that were efficiently suppressed by the military government that any hope for change died before news grew stale.
This time round, it seems that things are going to happen in a big way. And last Saturday, I was quite moved to read that Aung San Suu Kyi appeared in tears at the front of her house where she has been kept a virtual prisoner with two other ladies and prayed with the monks who surprisingly were allowed to march pass. This was one of her rare appearances and I have just read that she has been moved to the notorious Insein prison, possibly to prevent her from giving any form of tacit encouragement.
Perhaps the economic situation has gotten so bad that the people have decided that they really have nothing more to lose except their lives.
Looking at past history, one can more or less figure out what is going to happen next - a repeat of the brutal crackdown on the pro-democracy 8888 uprising (8 August 1988). And though I wish it wouldn't be so, I guess the roads of the country will soon flow as red as the robes of the monks.
I am sure the Sangha knew what they were getting into when they started this; their own deaths must not be far from their minds. Given the odds against them and the fact that scores or even thousands of them are going to die from the possible repercussion, I guess they've decided that they have no other choice but to make this stand.
I think what bothers me the most is that our governments - the governments of ASEAN - have been mollycoddling the military regime all this while. And even to the extent of accepting the country as a member of ASEAN in 1997. Granted their purported aim is to engage the military and through that encourage change in the country. But after a decade, the only thing that has changed is that the military government has gotten richer from trade with us while the people are still impoverished and disenfranchised.
So what has ASEAN achieved from this engagement? Perhaps more trade and raw materials while looking like an ineffectual grouping that has neither bark nor bite.
Then again, I doubt if some countries of ASEAN or even China (Myanmar's closest friend) can really criticise them without looking like hypocrites.
Even though I do not agree with China's stance on the current situation, I have to agree that this is an internal matter; though not from the same perspective of China.
Change in government really has to come from within the country and the people. Though I wish it was not so and dread to think of the human cost and lives that will be lost, it is a fight that only they can wage. As we have learned from Iraq, no country can sweep in and deliver democracy to them.
The only thing our governments can do is to exert pressure on them. And if we are not willing to do that, then the least we can do is sever all relations with the junta lest we become complicit in their brutality.
I am no expert, but I think the only way they can effect change is to convince the ordinary soldiers to move over to their cause. They are the ones who follow the generals' orders and they are the ones who man the weapons. Perhaps they can be convinced that the very people they are attacking are their very own compatriots and loved ones. Maybe then they can see that the only possible end of the current state is the death of their own people and the only alternative way forward for the country is one without the generals.
But if the generals were smart, they would probably not post soldiers within their own provinces and move them far away where they have no emotional ties and will not hesitate to act with needed brutality.
Even if the military regime does buckle, things will not improve overnight. It will just be the first of many more difficult steps to bring the country forward. The first is to ensure that there will be an orderly transition of power and a way to hold all the different ethnic groups together amicably.
Meanwhile, all we can do is watch, wait and pray as the Sangha marches with civilians while other folks form human shields around them or give them aid and water. So far, three protestors have died.
I just saw this report on BBC news about the Chinese PRC government and the selection of the next Dalai Lama.
..."No outside organisation or individual will influence or control the reincarnation of living Buddhas [eminent monks]," states one article of the new regulations.
They also say that any reincarnation has to be approved by various levels of government.
In the case of the most pre-eminent monks, who would include the Dalai Lama, China's cabinet has to give its seal of approval...
This is so effing hilarious! What... now the commie heads are going to decide on who can reincarnate as whom?
Okay folks, maybe you can use this to your advantage. Just write in to the PRC's State Administration for Religious Affairs to request for your choice of reincarnated being.
Hmmm... I think I will request to be reincarnated as a tall, tanned, hunky and drop-dead gorgeous East Asian (Japanese, Chinese, etc) model-type of gay man.
I was having dinner last night with my friend when the topic veered towards religion. He is administratively Christian but he quoted something that I thought was rather interesting:
"When one man believes in something unproven (or does not exist), it is delusion. When many people believe in it, it is religion."
But regardless of whether you believe in a greater deity or not, the fact that political theology is reasserting itself again is a fact we cannot deny.
Just when we thought we have moved out of the dark ages of religious warfare and political control because of divine right into the enlightened era when God (and its accompanying acts of irrationality by men who profess divine guidance) has been removed from the public and political sphere, we find ourselves coming back full circle.
It is undeniable that religion and faith is an intrinsic part of the human existence. We have always depended on the "existence" of a greater being to explain things beyond our understanding and will continue to do so. And hence, no matter how much we wish otherwise, political theology will always exist.
The only question is to what degree and damage.
In the light of all that has happened in recent years, Mark Lilla has written a very interesting and timely essay (based on his upcoming book, "The Stillborn God: Religion, Politics and the Modern West") that tries to shed light on this resurgent phenomena.
When 9/11 happened, it was convenient to explain it by using convenient catchphrase like "They hate our freedom", etc. etc.
But what liberal democracy failed to realise and understand is that Islam and the Islamic world operates on a completely different system of logic and rationale. The act of those hijackers and Al-Qaeda cannot just be diluted to poverty, oppression and opposition to American foreign policy. Yes, they may contribute to some of the reasons, but it is way too simplistic to believe that it's only that.
In "The Politics of God", Mark tries to remind us all that almost everyone in the world is a part of that same tradition. And it is to our detriment if we ignore it or fail to understand and engage it in its own language.
We should also not make the mistake of thinking that this is only an issue with the Islamic world. As we sit and ponder, Christian political theology is making its presence strongly felt in the US. While here at home, we have people of "influence" using Christianity and the bible as justification to pursue a certain agenda and shape policies that affect the shared public sphere.
And lest we be mistaken, this is not only confined to the two great monotheistic faiths of Christianity and Islam. For example, we see it resurging in India through the pantheistic Hindu Bharatiya Janata Party.
There is no way for us to ignore it and wish it away. In the whole history of mankind, 99% of it has seen religion (and the belief in god's divine revelation as a way to live our life) intertwined with politics in a way that affects both the public as well as private individual sphere. It is only in recent history that man has somewhat successfully (depends on how you see it) separate religion from politics.
To assume that we are successful and that's the way things are going to be from now on is plain folly.
After all, we are atavistic creatures who often depend on the divine when we exhaust our intellectual cache.
The Stillborn God: Religion, Politics, and the Modern West (by Mark Lilla) Editorial Reviews - From Publishers Weekly:
Starred Review. This searching history of western thinking about the relationship between religion and politics was inspired not by 9/11, but by Nazi Germany, where, says University of Chicago professor Lilla (The Reckless Mind), politics and religion were horrifyingly intertwined. To explain the emergence of Nazism's political theology, Lilla reaches back to the early modern era, when thinkers like Locke and Hume began to suggest that religion and politics should be separate enterprises. Some theorists, convinced that Christianity bred violence, argued that government must be totally detached from religion. Others, who believed that rightly practiced religion could contribute to modern life, promoted a liberal theology, which sought to articulate Christianity and Judaism in the idiom of reason. (Lilla's reading of liberal Jewish thinker Hermann Cohen is especially arresting.) Liberal theologians, Lilla says, credulously assumed human society was progressive and never dreamed that fanaticism could capture the imaginations of modern people-assumptions that were proven wrong by Hitler. If Lilla castigates liberal theology for its naïveté, he also praises America and Western Europe for simultaneously separating religion from politics, creating space for religion, and staving off sectarian violence and theocracy. Lilla's work, which will influence discussions of politics and theology for the next generation, makes clear how remarkable an accomplishment that is. (Sept. 14)
There have been a few historical events in recent history that were of such immense significance that I wished I was there either as a witness or participant.
The fall and physical demolition of the Berlin Wall was one. The other was something that completely slipped my mind until I saw it on Wikipedia recently:
During the period of Gorbachev's Perestroika and Glasnost, the people of the three Baltic countries (Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia) held a series of protest against the secret protocol within the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact of 1939 that saw the independent countries of Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Romania divided into two spheres of interest (German and Soviet), and which led to the occupation of the three Baltic countries by the USSR since WWII.
From 1987 to 1990, people from the three states started gathering to sing national songs that were strictly banned by the Soviet authorities. In time, thousands of people gathered to sing. Of course Moscow did not sit idly by and did respond physically.
In 1989, about 1.2 million people from all three countries put their hands together to form the longest human chain ever in history - 600 km over three countries. Their aim was to bring the world's attention to the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.
All these protest and demonstrations were peaceful and non-violent on the part of the demonstrators. However, there were some injuries and deaths, especially in the case of Lithuania when Soviet assault troops and tanks tried to take control of Vilnius Television Tower and the Parliament. In this "Bloody Sunday", 14 non-violent protestors died and hundreds were injured.
About a decade and half has passed since these momentous events took place. And over time, a kind of romanticism develops.
But we have to realise that all the people who took part were ordinary folks. Yes, there were some who felt a strong calling to rise and lead. But it was the ordinary folks who took the risk and made the stand.
Were they afraid? Of course they were. The standard Soviet response is always the same: military force.
Any sign of opposition, "BAM!" the police arrives and hauls people away. Visible opposition gets even bigger, the tanks roll in.
So it took a lot of balls on the part of the few to make the initial stand. And just as much balls for the millions of ordinary citizens to swallow their fears and join the few, knowing at the back of their mind that tanks and assault troops can blitz through anytime and kill them all. After all, courage is not the absence of fear but acting in spite of fear. And that my friend takes lotsa balls!
Most of the time, freedom and liberty is not given freely. People usually have to demand or fight for it. And thankfully for the Baltic people, they were successful: Lithuania in 1990 and Estonia and Latvia in 1991.
Do remember that all three countries had been previously independent, which ended when the Soviets rolled in.
I wish I was there. It must have been a most amazing and moving time to be living in those countries.
Last Saturday, I was chatting with my friend who is a Malaysian Indian doctor practising in Singapore about politics and current issues in Malaysia when he mentioned a certain Perak prince and heir apparent creating quite a stir. Of course the first name that came to my mind was Raja Nazrin Shah, the Raja Muda or Perak. But my friend disagreed. Anyway, that's beside the point. The point, or rather the stir, is what the Raja Muda has been saying publicly about the state of the federation.
Now I am not writing this to gloat about what is happening in Malaysia. But rather, to highlight the fact that this prince, a Malay Muslim who most probably has more interest to defend the status quo has taken a stand to defend the rights and status of all Malaysians regardless of race or religion. This to me is rather impressive and speaks a lot about him.
First, he refused the offer of state funds for his royal wedding a few months ago and politely insisted that businesses donate their money to charity instead of paying large sums for advertisements to celebrate the royal wedding. And now this.
Will he be a leading voice that will bring Malaysians to a new level of acceptance and unity? I sure hope so. And given his royal pedigree and privileged position, I think he is in a good position to make use of his background to help realise the dream of Malaysia's founding fathers.
...In paying tribute to Dr Ismail and the past leaders, the prince said:
"They took responsibility to voice out and defend the needy and the people. This is the spirit which enabled this country to be stable politically and economically prosperous."
He said while Dr Ismail was known to be a Malay nationalist, he was not a racist and did not practise racism
"Tun Dr Ismail envisaged a Malaysia for all without colour lines, without ethnic borders and without any one group feeling a sense of inferiority," Raja Nazrin said.
And in other news: Malaysia's Conference of Rulers has rejected the government's choice for the position of Chief Judge of Malaya. This is one of the rare times when the rulers refused to endorse a government's decision. I guess this could be in retaliation for Mahathir and UMNO stripping away whatever powers they have. And in this area where they still have some constitutional powers, they have decided to reassert themselves.
Interesting times indeed for the 50th anniversary of the Malaysian federation.
Now why is a Singaporean like me writing about, or being even remotely concerned about Malaysia? My link to that country is rather tenuous - through my mother who was born and raised in Perak. Other than that, I should have no interest whatsoever except for the times when they lash out against us.
I guess I would like to see Malaysia becoming a beacon of true plurality, both racial and political. Where everyone regardless of ethnicity and religion is not just tolerated but truly accepted and respected. And in the process, possibly teaching us a thing or two.
Oh my gosh, don't you think President Nursultan Nazarbayev of Kazakhstan looks like a slightly younger version of our Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew? It's almost like a splitting image.
Interestingly, Kazakhstan has a bit of similarity with Singapore: rich country with political power concentrated in one party and one person. But one visible difference is that we don't have portraits of LKY or LHL plastered at every street corner.
According to Transparency International's Corruption Perception Index 2006 ranking, Kazakhstan ranks 111th amongst 163 countries for corruption with a score of 2.6 (0 indicating highly corrupt state and 10 least corrupt). Nursultan Nazarbayev is believed to have transferred at least US$1 billion worth of oil revenues to his private bank accounts in other countries.
As for his family, one of his three daughters (Nursultan only has daughters) Dariga is thought to be groomed for future leadership. But their relationship seems to have soured recently, in part due to her criticism of her father's administration.
Drama? This family has that too. Dariga's husband Rakhat Mukhtaruly Aliyev who was a diplomat was accused of an alleged kidnapping and forcibly divorced by Dariga when he accused his father-in-law of vote rigging. But many believe that this incident is more about money and power rather than democratic principles.
From Wikipedia's post:
..."Today I received the information where it says I am divorced," Aliyev said Monday. "They stuck a fax with the information through the fence at my home at a quarter past midnight. ... They even falsified my signature on the document."
Aliyev has three children with Nazarbayev's eldest daughter, Dariga. "I spoke to my wife on the telephone," Aliyev said, showing papers saying his wife had asked for the divorce. "She said: 'My father pressured me very much,' and she couldn't do anything"...
And interestingly, one son-in-law is a First Deputy Chairman of the national holding company Samruk which manages several state-owned companies.
This is the country to watch for potential future political dramas of soap opera proportion.
Since Malaysia's 50th birthday is coming up on the 31st of August, I thought it would be a good time to see what was on the minds of their founding fathers when they drafted the constitution with the Reid Commission. So if you're interested in what's happening religiously up north, I would like to direct your attention to this very interesting article. It gives a historical perspective on the current issue/controversy about the country being an Islamic state even though the constitution says otherwise.
The first and third PM of Malaysia say "secular", then the fourth and the fifth's DPM say "Islamic". So when did it change? I think it was during the tenure of the fourth when he tried to out-islamise PAS.
Well, looks like Rupert Murdoch, the arch-conservative world media baron has gotten his hangs on Dow Jones; and with it, the Wall Street Journal (WSJ). Murdoch also owns the ultra-conservative liberal bashing Fox News.
Even though he has said he will respect the editorial independence of WSJ, I am not sure his respect will last that long. After all, he is known for his "interventionist" style of management and his penchant of hiring like-minded (read: conservative or republican) managers and editors to head the different publications that he owns.
Anyway, while the deal is being finalised and papers signed, the Wall Street Journal is working on a story that is closer to home: the impact of continued criminalisation of gay sex on the economy of Singapore and its ability to attract and retain talents.
Read more below. And if you have any experience or know of anyone who do, please click on the picture to contact the person who's working on it now. Let your voice and stories be heard.
There were two articles I read recently that got my attention.
The first one was written by Theresa Tan of the Straits Times and was part of a multi-page feature on China's (notably Hainan in this feature) preoccupation of having male progenies over female. Story after story spoke of the desperate measures some couples resort to get a son or a village full of bachelors who are bearing the brunt of an ever decreasing pool of potential brides.
However, the bright spark was the story of the Yao couple, two peasants who are practically living hand to mouth. But what set them apart from their peers is that they have been accepting unwanted and discarded baby girls and have brought them up with hardly any outside help. Sometimes, even going by with only two meals a day, usually plain noodles or buns, but the girls would get three meals of rice and other cooked dishes.
In time, some friends and relatives chipped in by either adopting some of the girls or helping to take care of them.
"Boys and girls are the same. Both are lives".
The other is an op-ed that was written by Uzodinma Iweala for the New York Post entitled "Stop Trying To 'Save' Africa".
It is an interesting and different perspective of the whole "Save Africa" cause célèbre that is currently all the rage in first-world western nations.
His contention is that there seems to be a certain throwback to the old colonial days when missionaries were sent to Africa to introduce them to education, Jesus Christ and "civilisation."
No doubt such help is appreciated by those receiving it, but the imbalance inherent of such a programme seems rather obvious. You have the spot light cast on Bono, Madonna, Angelina Jolie or some other celebrity while Africans regardless of the amount of work they do for their brethrens are cast either as props or supporting actors.
I have to admit that my image of Africa has been coloured by the very campaigns and programmes that were set up by well-intentioned celebrities or political personalities to alleviate some of the problems they face. To me, it seems Africa is a helpless continent that needs external intervention to save them from themselves.
Yes, I, an Asian who is a descendant of the very people who were once the subject races of "well-intentioned" British colonialist have unknowingly bought into this neo-colonial belief of western superiority over the backward and infighting tribes of Africa.
And I believe that it is this very idea of western cultural and intellectual superiority that colours a lot of their views and foreign policies regarding Asia, Africa and the Middle-East. The IMF and the World Bank are prime examples.
This leads to the question of whether colonialism as we know it in history is really over. Are our minds, ideas, cultures, beliefs and perspective still colonised by the west. It seems the answer is a resounding "yes".
Then this would bring up the next few questions that remain to be answered: Is it for the better? Will the world be forever divided inequitably between the west and the rest? And is Uzodinma Iweala too unrealistic for his own good?
I am sure by now most Singaporean bloggers or blog readers would have heard about Sir Ian McKellen's famous interview on Channel NewsAsia (see end of post). Unknown to some (including me), he had also said something "controversial" (to use his own words on Channel NewsAsia) on Class 95 FM (as reported on Fridae's feature) and on page 3 of Wednesday's Life! section of the Straits Times.
If you're still unsure, yes, Sir Ian McKellen is gay and a veteran activist who's involved with a few LGBT (Lesbian-Gay-Bi-Trans) organisations and charities in the UK. So it's natural that he's cued in to what's been happening here recently over the debate on repealing Section 377A - "those dreadful laws that we British left behind," says Sir Ian.
I think what's interesting about all this is the timing.
First, you have the statements made a few months ago (and also recently) by MM LKY on the need to progress and in time, decriminalise homosexuality in Singapore. Then you have the moving (as reported by friends and strangers who have seen it) new play by Alfian Sa'at entitled "Happy Endings - Asian Boys Vol 3" which also addresses some of these issues. And just last Sunday, the forum that was organised as part of the play to addressed the issue of repealing Section 377A where one PAP backbencher (Baey Yam Keng, MP for Tangjong Pagar GRC), one NMP (Siew Kum Hong) and a retired former Bishop of the Methodist Church for Malaysia and Singapore (Rev Dr Yap Kim Hao) sat as part of the panel (see previous post).
And now, we have Sir Ian adding his weight and fame to the issue in a very public way. Which I think is sorely needed as no one has either addressed these issues on the broadcast media or been allowed to do so.
Of course some smartass might have a fit and rebuke him for "daring" to meddle with local politics while forgetting that we have the proxies of American evangelical fundamentalists trying to hijack the local agenda here.
But you know what? The issue of public acceptance of homosexuality that has always been used as a reason by the government to retain that law has not changed much.
Of course the term "majority" or "public" is rather vague as no one has really quantified this segment of the population. It's up to different people to draw their own conclusions about the size of this group in a way that suits their agendas. To me, this seemingly "huge" segment of the population is just a very vocal Christian minority that makes the loudest noise. So who's right? That's another topic altogether.
Anyway, while I was having coffee with a friend in Jurong West just now, he brought up a very salient point about the artfulness or stupidity (depending on how you look at it) of this government.
On one hand, you have the "public" not being accepting. And on the other, you have the government (through MICA, home of the censorship board) refusing to allow anything that seemingly portrays "homosexuals" and the "homosexual lifestyle" in a positive light - I'm using the quotation marks here because these are the official terms used by the government and not something I necessarily agree with (especially the all-encompassing term of ignorance, "homosexual lifestyle").
So if all they allow are negative portrayals on broadcast media and ignorant generalisations by civil servants and their mouthpieces, how can the "public" (as if tax-paying and NS-serving gays exist outside this sphere) progress to a point where decriminalisation is not a controversial issue anymore.
Or perhaps repeal is not even part of the plan and the whole exercise of MM LKY's pronouncement and the attendance of MP Baey is just a public relations exercise to show the world that hey! Surprising Singapore is indeed moving forward after bar top dancing *yawn* and Integrated Resort (read: casino).
As long as this government refuses to allow any sort of positive portrayals of gays and allow the very vocal Christian fundamentalist minority to commandeer the debate and agenda, this society is never going to be ready for progress.
But then again, is society's readiness for progress and acceptance really the issue here? The integrated resorts (not one, but TWO casinos might I remind you) was unacceptable to the seemingly large and very vocal segment of the population. And regardless of that, construction works are progressing at full speed in Marina Bay and Sentosa despite our "unreadiness".
I guess it's all a very "chicken and egg" question. Which comes first? In the case of repealing Section 377A, you have the chicken waiting for the egg to be laid before it could be hatch and the egg waiting for the chicken to lay it.
But for the integrated resorts, one of them said "fuck it" and made the first move.
So really, is it all PR or is it the real McCoy?
The interview of Sir Ian McKellen (if you haven't seen it) below:
Yes, I was at the "Peculiar Legislation: 377(A)--Symbol or Statute?" forum organised by Wild Rice in conjunction with their latest play "Happy Endings: Asian Boys Vol. 3".
The panel was made up of the usual people like Rev Dr Yap Kim Hao, Stuart Koe and Alex Au. But what was surprising was the presence of a PAP backbencher Baey Yam Keng who is the MP for Tanjong Pagar GRC (probably kena arrowed by his senior parliamentary colleagues) and NMP Siew Kum Hong.
For those not in the know, Siew has written quite a number of times in support of the repeal and has spoken about it in parliament. (See his conveniently unpublished by Straits Times reply to Andy Ho's article here)
But I was hoping for the likes of NMP and Prof Thio Li-Ann or maybe Asst Prof Yvonne Lee (both from NUS's law faculty), who are both known for their opposition to the repeal of section 377(a), to air their opinions on the issue. At least we would be able to hear both sides of the argument and especially that of religious conservatives (Li-Ann being one of the more out-spoken ones).
Actually I heard that apparently Yvonne was invited and seemed to be keen on attending till she said she had an overseas trip to make and hence could not be there.
Hmmm... fear of lynch mob? =)
Anyway, I was late so I didn't get to catch the earlier part of it but there were a lot of opinions voiced and some insights into how the government makes policy and legislative decisions. So since I was late and there have been quite a few write-ups on it, I will just point you to the various articles.
CURRENT
TOP
It's sad, but everyone will have to go one day. And Joshua Benjamin Jeyaretnam (JBJ as he is popularly known) passed away this morning from heart failure at the age of 82.
I guess some people would have been wondering why I have been keeping silent on Myanmar considering the fact that I have written so much about it before.
I am sure the 
