Tag: Andrew Loh

  • Andrew Loh: Forget Presidency, Why Has There Never Been Malay DPM?

    Andrew Loh: Forget Presidency, Why Has There Never Been Malay DPM?

    With the government expressing concerns that we may not have a minority-race Elected President if the current election laws are not tweaked, here is another similar concern – but this time regarding the position of deputy prime minister.

    In post-Independence Singapore, we have had 11 DPMs.

    And here is the interesting thing, the 11 have been:

    8 Chinese.
    3 Indians.
    0 Malay.
    0 Eurasian.

    Lee Kuan Yew’s Cabinet had one Indian DPM – S Rajaratnam.

    Goh Chok Tong’s Cabinet had no minority-race DPM.

    Lee Hsien Loong’s Cabinet has had 2 Indian DPMs – S Jayakumar and Tharman Shanmugaratnam.

    But all have not had any Malay as DPM.

    Is it a concern? Should it be a concern?

    In this era, it seems race and religion have taken on more prominence, and perhaps also more importance.

    While the PAP itself may rationalise its way out of why Singapore is not ready for a non-Chinese Prime Minister, how about a Malay DPM?

    Or has there never been a Malay minister deemed capable enough to be DPM – in all of our 51 years?

    Maybe something to think about?

     

    Source: Andrew Loh

  • Andrew Loh: What Will Happen If Chan Chun Sing Becomes PM?

    Andrew Loh: What Will Happen If Chan Chun Sing Becomes PM?

    Just making an observation.

    1. Rear Admiral Minister suddenly announced he won’t be standing for election, after numerous criticisms for train breakdowns and failures.

    2. Another Rear Admiral suddenly steps down at LTA after less than 2 years, after recent controversy over purchases of 26 faulty trains.

    3. Lieutenant General at NOL fails to keep company afloat. Sells NOL to a foreign company.

    4. Another Lieutenant General at SMRT struggles to solve train problems. SMRT taken over by Temasek.

    5. Major General in the running to be next PM.

    I’m just saying.

     

    Source: Andrew Loh

  • Andrew Loh: Governement Is Hypocritical In Its Handling of Singlish

    Andrew Loh: Governement Is Hypocritical In Its Handling of Singlish

    I don’t understand how the Prime Minister himself can dissuade Singaporeans from speaking Singlish, and his press secretary even finding it necessary to write to a foreign publication to disabuse a fellow Singaporean poet for being supportive of Singlish – and at the same time, the government have its Tourism Board spend taxpayers’ money to create a slick 3-minute video using that same Singlish to attract tourists.

    And in your “Little Black Book” publication, a guide for tourists, you describe Singlish as “Singapore’s unique gift to the English-speaking world.”

    A gift to the world but Singaporeans themselves should not speak or support it?

    How does that work?

    I hate to say this but this is really hypocritical.

    You tell Singaporeans not to speak the language but you glamourise it on a national stage at the National Day Parade 2015, and you also use it to attract tourists, and your MPs and ministers use Singlish during election rallies to portray themselves as ordinary citizens like the rest of us.

    But Singaporeans should not use Singlish because not all of us have PhDs and are thus unable to “code switch”?

    What lousy double standards you have.

     

    Source: Andrew Loh

  • Andrew Loh: Calvin Cheng’s Behaviour Not Befitting Of Media Literacy Council Member

    Andrew Loh: Calvin Cheng’s Behaviour Not Befitting Of Media Literacy Council Member

    Calvin Cheng is an acquaintance of mine. I even had him on my Facebook “friends” list. But not anymore. I removed him after his latest Facebook posting which insinuated that the writings or work of playwright Alfian Sa’at were such a potential threat that “the Government should watch commentators” like Alfian “closely”.

    He then accused Alfian of “irresponsible rhetoric”, and likened Alfian to “domestic agitators”.

    Read in context, these unsubstantiated claims and their insinuations are obvious.

    Many have taken Calvin Cheng to task, and I shall not go into arguing against the points in his posting.

    They are clearly pure nonsense.

    What I am more interested in is Calvin Cheng’s membership in the Media Literacy Council (MLC), a government-appointed outfit which advises the Government on “research, trends and developments pertaining to the Internet and media, and appropriate policy responses.”

    The MLC also “[develops] public awareness and education programmes relating to media literacy and cyber wellness”, and it seeks “to promote an astute and responsible participatory culture.”

    “Through our work, we aim to… encourage users to be more reflective about the ethical choices they make as participants and communicators and the impact they have on others,” the MLC website says.

    The MLC consists of 26 members, headed by professor Tan Cheng Han of the Centre for Law and Business, Faculty of Law, National University of Singapore .

    Calvin Cheng is a council member. (See here.)

    On the council’s “Media Literacy Council Core Values” page, the council states several “key areas” which it “seeks to address”.

    These include “uncivil behaviours online” which, the council says, “refers to behaviours that are anti-social, offensive, irresponsible or simply mean.”

    Do note the last word – “mean” – which the council considers as undesirable “uncivil behaviour”.

    The  Media Literacy Core Values “encompasses a set of values and skills that … are indispensable to conducive and positive living especially in the digital age,” the MLC says.

    “The Media Literacy Core Values will underpin the Council’s public education and outreach programmes.”

    If you turn to the “Best Practices” page on the MLC website, you see a tab titled “Values and Social Norms”.

    What are these?

    They are four sets of advice which, the MLC says, will help you keep your friends and not make enemies.

    One of the ways to achieve this is to “win people over with your objective arguments and logic” because “hysterics will not get you anywhere.”

    “There is no need to make personal attacks as everyone is entitled to their own views,” the MLC says. “Make out your case politely and objectively. You might find that you will get a few converts instead of enemies.”

    It also urges participants to reject and report “bad or bullying behaviour”, as this means “you are helping to create a better cyber space by propagating positive social norms.”

    The MLC uses words such as “empathy and graciousness”, “respect”, “responsibility and integrity” as values and social norms it champions.

    So there. The MLC has laid out, basically, what is good online behaviour which will foster a positive environment for everyone.

    What then of those, especially those in positions of influence (no matter how limited), who behave in ways which run against what the MLC is promoting?

    Indeed, what if the behaviour of MLC members themselves betrays the MLC’s very own core values and best practices?

    Insinuating that someone is responsible for some misguided terrorist group’s potentially harmful actions in Singapore because one raises concerns about minority race issues is just plain irresponsible itself, no?

    And accusing someone of being a “domestic agitator” in that context is not only devious, it is also highly dangerous, for it plays up the racial and religious faultlines here.

    Additionally, if behaviours such as Calvin Cheng’s are allowed to propagate, they may have the effect of silencing those in the minority races from speaking up about genuine grievances.

    So, one would not object if the Internal Security Department (ISD) invites Calvin Cheng for an interview about his posting.

    It is also not unknown that Calvin Cheng also engages in online challenges, such as a recent one where he challenged a poster to meet him and slap him, and also engages in baiting others, such as calling them “ball-less” when challenges are not taken up.

    bait

    Indeed, he is also known and seen as a troll in some quarters.

    “Trolls want to create discord by purposely baiting people to react,” the MLC website says.

    One just needs to peruse his Facebook postings to see the tone of his exchanges with others over any issue.

    To be sure, Calvin Cheng is not alone in engaging in this less than desirable behaviour.

    There is also the other pro-PAP cesspool Facebook page which spews non-stop bile online everyday.

    And it seems that this cesspool is the only site which is supportive of Calvin Cheng’s behaviour – and that says a lot: if all you have is a cesspit to stand on or stand with, you should realise your credibility is in deep shit.

    I wish Calvin Cheng, being a former Nominated Member of Parliament (NMP) – which comes with a certain level of expected public responsibility and decorum – would not resort to such hateful behaviour towards others.

    There are certainly better ways to get your points across than to resort to attempts in dragging someone’s name through the mud.

    Ironically, in 2013, Calvin Cheng wrote – in a letter to the Straits Times Forum page:

    “If there is a terrorist attack or a viral outbreak, and people turn to the Internet for conspiracy theories and advice instead of listening to and trusting the Government, the consequences could be unimaginable.”

    Yes, ironic indeed that he is the one now spewing exactly such conspiracy theories.

    So, I ask myself: what do the MLC members think of this sort of behaviour?

    But personally, I have a deeper, more troubling question, and it is this:

    What kind of person would cause another person more pain at a time when the latter is also grieving over the recent death of his mother?

    I cannot fathom the depths of depravity which would make anyone do such a thing.

    Alfian’s mother had just passed away last week, and Alfian is still in mourning.

    The very fact that Calvin Cheng saw it fit to launch his baseless and unsubstantiated attacks on Alfian at this time speaks of his (Calvin Cheng’s) mental make-up and of how truly oblivious he is.

    Pity, Calvin, that you find it apt to do this to Alfian at this time and betray everything that the MLC stands for.

    I think the MLC, funded by public money, seriously needs to look into the online behaviour of its member.

     

    Source: https://andrewlohhp.wordpress.com

  • Amos Yee: Critique Is To Spur Positive Change

    Amos Yee: Critique Is To Spur Positive Change

    16-year old blogger Amos Yee explained in court documents that his intention in critiquing Christianity and Lee Kuan Yew is to open discussions on what he saw as “problems” with the faith and Singapore.

    The teenager said that he was aware his critique would lead some people to take offence, but that this promoted discussion, which, he added, “was healthy for positive change to take place in future.”

    Amos Yee is being charged for remarks he made in a video on the death of the late Lee Kuan Yew, Singapore’s former prime minister.

    The authorities say the video “contained remarks against Christianity, with the deliberate intention of wounding the religious feelings of Christians in general”.

    He is also being charged for a caricature of Mr Lee and the late British prime minister, Margaret Thatcher, which the authorities say is an offence under Singapore’s obscenity laws.

    After his video on Mr Lee was uploaded, Amos Yee said there were positive and negative comments from the public, and that he was “pleased that my video had opened up a bigger avenue to look at religion objectively, instead of mere blind faith.”

    He said he had concerns about the Christian faith and that the “the only way to rectify the problem is to criticize the problems head-on.”

    He explained that while he “was aware that critiquing these problems (with the Christian faith) would promote ill-will”, he saw this as “a natural consequence”, and that “promoting ill-will is a prerogative for positive change to happen in society, especially if the issue at hand were initially controversial.”

    The teen said he was born into a Catholic family and was raised a Catholic.

    However, in 2013, when he was about to be confirmed as a Catholic (which is a practice in the Church known as “Confirmation”), he “started to question the implications” of it.

    He then began to conduct his own research into the faith by watching online videos on Youtube and reading blog posts.

    His finding, from these, and other “emotional catalysts” such as being “kicked out” of the altar boys group for swearing, resulted in him disengaging from the Church altogether in 2013, he said.

    Earlier this year, he observed that “there was huge outpouring of grief online and in the mainstream media” when Mr Lee passed away.

    He said this “piqued” his interest and he decided to conduct more research on Mr Lee. He visited blogger Roy Ngerng’s website, had discussions with supporters of the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP), and read Mr Lee’s book, “Lee Kuan Yew: The Man And His Ideas”, which he had borrowed from Toa Payoh library.

    “After my research, I realised that he was a horrible man and that some of his policies were inane,” Amos Yee said.

    Subsequently, he decided to make a video on Mr Lee’s death, in which he also drew comparisons between Mr Lee and Jesus Christ.

    Amos Yee said he has been making videos since he was 12-years old.

    He had also won two awards – Best Actor and Best Short Film – for one of his films, “Jan”, three years ago in The New Paper’s first film award competition, beating 160 other entries.

    In the 8-minute video on Mr Lee, titled “Lee Kuan Yew is finally dead!”, where he spoke some 1,200 words, Amos Yee mentioned “Jesus Christ” once, and “Christian” twice.

    Before uploading the video online, he asked two of his friends if the video would be legal, but both gave him inconclusive answers.

    He then looked up the Sedition Act to see if his video would contravene the law.

    “However, after reading through the Act, I remained unsure as to the legality of my video,” he said in the court documents.

    Nonetheless, he said he “was aware that the contents of the video were seditious in nature” but he was unsure if his actions would land him in jail.

    He decided to go ahead and upload the video after he saw how others “whose opinions were published online and promoted a lot of ill-will, continued to publish these opinions of theirs and were not charged under the Sedition Act.”

    He thus did not think that his actions (in uploading the video online) would be deemed illegal.

    After the video became public, the teenager said he noticed that the majority of online comments in reaction to it were “hate-filled messages”.

    But he said he expected this “as the content was meant to be controversial.”

    There were also, he noted, “a noticeable amount of people who agreed with my views and supported my stance.”

    The video has thus far been viewed more than a million times on Youtube.

    Amos Yee also revealed in his court documents that he “began receiving death threats and hate messages online and on my mobile phone.”

    He said he was “not overly concerned” by these as he felt most of them were baseless and were “not steeped in logic.”

    “Besides, despite the hatred and ill-will generated from my video, it opened up a larger avenue for critical discussion towards Lee Kuan Yew, thus raising awareness to the inherent problems of Singapore,” he said.

    Amos Yee was assaulted outside the State Court about a week ago as he made his way to a pre-trial conference.

    A 49-year old man is reported to have been arrested for the assault since, and police say investigations are ongoing.

    As for the caricature of Mr Lee and Mrs Thatcher portrayed in an unflattering manner, Amos Yee said he came up with the image after learning that Mrs Thatcher had once said Mr Lee “was always right.”

    The teenager felt that this was an “overgeneralisation” and “too sweeping to be objectively true.”

    His intention in making the image was thus to make fun of Mrs Thatcher’s claim, and to encourage more people to “openly criticise and make fun of their political leaders.”

    This, he said, “opens up a larger avenue for critical analysis and positive change in Singapore.”

    Amos Yee said he refuses to remove any of the videos he has made, or the post about Mr Lee and Mrs Thatcher, “because it would not appease the public”, and also it would suggest that he was sorry for the videos and the blog post, which he is in fact not sorry for.

    He explained that he was not remorseful for his actions because while he knows that they are offensive, “that is an aspect for freedom of speech and positive change to occur.”

    Amos Yee had ended his video expressing hope that Singapore would see positive changes, especially with a general election expected to be called soon.

    “[There] is  high chance that us, citizens of Singapore, things can finally change for the better,” he said in the video. “Let’s all hope for change, for good change, for every possible kind.”

    After the hearing on Wednesday, the teenager’s lawyer, Alfred Dodwell, said his client was in good spirits.

    “He believes that he’s done nothing wrong, stands by what he says, and this is the very reason why he is in remand, because he refuses to be gagged,” Mr Dodwell said.

    The parents of the 16-year old were in court to lend support to their son yesterday, along with friends and supporters of Amos Yee.

    The two-day trial, presided by District Judge Jasvendar Kaur, continues on Friday afternoon.

    Read also: “Amos Yee pleads not guilty, in good spirits”.

     

    Source: www.theonlinecitizen.com