From which Singapore Angle?

Hi everyone,

In the spirit of re-thinking, re-framing, re-looking and re-visualising perspectives, I just thought we might take the agenda of Singapore Angle a little further... so let's have some fun.

Attached is a picture taken in Singapore. Huichieh would probably never guess it because I think this place was recently done up the way it is since he left for Berkeley/Toronto. But for those of you FASA readers out there still based in Singapore, any takers on where this picture might have been taken? [Needless to say, those of you I have discussed this picture with do not qualify for this little game]



I might drop clues every now and then depending on how the situation develops! Oh, and click on the picture if you want to see a larger (800x600) version of it.

Guess away!!!

Knock yourselves out...

Just some links for the insomnaic, otherwise ich habe kein Kommentar...

- Official: link, link (the site looks to be useful).

- Unpopular opinions: link, link, link, link.

- You should know where to find the not unpopular ones.

coda: this looks to be interesting for the academically inclined with access to a library--Michael Hor, "Singapore''s Innovations to Due Process", Criminal Law Forum 12.1 (Mar 2001). Knowledgable and critical. update: lystyl helpfully points to a link (.pdf) of the paper.

update: (Nov 2, 2005)

- Remember the hangman who wants out? Someone wants his job.

- Elsewhere, The Void Deck gets philosophical.

Calling all Singaporean bloggers in North America

Add yourselves to http://www.frappr.com/singaporebloggers, pass the word, let us do our part to fill the earth with our virtual stickies--from sea to shiny sea! (arrow from Kevin of Will Blog for Comments)

Iraq Constitution

From Globe And Mail (Oct 26):

Despite stiff Sunni opposition, a majority of Iraqis voted for the draft constitution, a triumph in the fragile, nation-building process and a rare victory for the American president struggling to shore up slumping public support for his wars to topple tyrants and install democracies. Official results released yesterday showed that 79 per cent of voters backed the charter while 21 per cent, mostly Sunnis, rejected it.

Bush would have given a limb for such numbers.

Not surprisingly, reactions from the region's press is "a mixture of satisfaction and scepticism" (BBC, Oct 26). Reactions from the world at large is favorable (Xihua, Oct 25), though the polarization shown by the polls is worrying (ReliefWeb, Oct 25). With this in mind, it is thus heartening to read this (IHT, Oct 27):

Leaders of three Sunni political parties joined together Wednesday to compete in the Dec. 15th parliamentary elections, in a sign suggesting that the country's embittered Sunni minority might play a more active role in the democratic process.

The slow march to democracy in Iraq takes another step, and it's going to depend on getting all parties on board in the political process, to compete at the polls (and when defeated there, prepare to compete at the next poll) rather than fight.

Meanwhile, a fascinating commentary on Iraq and Vietnam from Melvin R. Laird, Secretary of Defense from 1969 to 1973, Counselor to the President for Domestic Affairs from 1973 to 1974, and a member of the House of Representatives from 1952 to 1969. One bit relevant to the above caught my eye:

Those who call the new Iraqi government Washington's "puppet" don't know what a real puppet government is. The Iraqis are as eager to be on their own as we are to have them succeed. In Vietnam, an American, Ambassador Philip Habib, wrote the constitution in 1967. Elections were choreographed by the United States to empower corrupt, selfish men who were no more than dictators in the garb of statesmen.

Little wonder that the passionate nationalists in the North came off as the group with something to offer. I do not personally believe the Saigon government was fated to fall apart someday through lack of integrity, and apparently the Soviet Union didn't think so either or it would not have pursued the war. But it is true that the U.S. administrations at the time severely underestimated the need for a legitimate government in South Vietnam and instead assumed that a shadow government and military force could win the day. In Iraq, a legitimate government, not window-dressing, must be the primary goal. The factious process of writing the Iraqi constitution has been painful to watch, and the varying factions must be kept on track. But the process is healthy and, more important, homegrown.

Read the whole thing: "Iraq: Learning the Lessons of Vietnam", Foreign Affairs (November/December 2005).

Quick update on the third blogger charged under the Sedition Act

According to the ST "latest news", he will likely be placed under probation (and thus escape a jail term) on account of his age and clean record. He was convicted on two counts under the Sedition Act, with five other similar charges taken into consideration.

update: Mr Wang has much more, including the ST report about mitigation. The nutshell:

...Gan's deep-seated ill feeling towards the Malay community stemmed from the traumatic death of his baby brother 10 years ago, which Gan blamed on a Malay couple. The couple had refused to give up a taxi they had hailed when his mother was trying to rush the infant to hospital.

I don't feel particular competent to judge if this is a valid defense (the judge's job), whether the incident, assuming that it's true, is a plausible explanation for his feelings (the psychologist and counsellors' job). I too, consider the death of Gan's brother tragic --all the more so since it appears avoidable.

I do want to point out something that would have to be presupposed by both a putative justification and an explanation. (Note: the following is about Gan in particular.)

Let's assume that the incident really did happen as recounted, in particular, that the couple was Malay. In order for the object of Gan's subsequent "deep-seated ill feeling" to be "the Malay community", the underlying thought would have to be more than "these two Malays are to be blamed for my baby brother's death". It would have to be something like "these two Malays are to be blamed for my baby brother's death--and their doing what they did that resulted in my baby brother's death has something to do with their being Malay." (In other words, had the couple been Chinese, then Gan would have been led to harbor ill feeling towards "the Chinese community" rather than just the couple in particular.)

That was the more 'essentialist' reading. Alternatively, the last part could also be 'contrastive': "...with their being Malay while I am Chinese", i.e., they did what they did because they perceived that we are from different races.

Either way, I would suggest that the underlying mode of thinking is at the root of racism: people do what they do because belong to a particular race; or people do what they do to me because they are of a different race from me. This is also a more prevalent mode of thinking that we often care to admit.

update: (Nov 23, 2005) The boy escape a jail term after all. The judge placed him on probation for two years, and also slapped hours of community service on him. He will work with Malay welfare organisations such as the Jamiyah Home for the Aged, Pertapis Children's Home and Muhammadiyah Health and Day Care centre for the Aged. A fitting sentence, it seems.

Corporate social responsibility, and two freaky arguments

Reading: "Rethinking the Social Responsibility of Business--A Reason debate featuring Milton Friedman, Whole Foods' John Mackey, and Cypress Semiconductor's T.J. Rodgers", Reason (October 2005). [The background: Milton Friedman, "The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits", The New York Times Magazine (September 13, 1970).]

There's a lot in there. Just one point about "responsibility" and then the "two arguments" referred to in the title (scroll down).

I am not convinced that Mackey and Friedman are completely at odds--both would presumably agree that it would be a mistake to make "corporate social responsibility" a matter of legislation, especially if Mackey is serious about his libertarianism. Consider what he says:

I believe the entrepreneurs, not the current investors in a company's stock, have the right and responsibility to define the purpose of the company. It is the entrepreneurs who create a company, who bring all the factors of production together and coordinate it into viable business. It is the entrepreneurs who set the company strategy and who negotiate the terms of trade with all of the voluntarily cooperating stakeholders-including the investors. At Whole Foods we "hired" our original investors. They didn't hire us...The shareholders of a public company own their stock voluntarily. If they don't agree with the philosophy of the business, they can always sell their investment, just as the customers and employees can exit their relationships with the company if they don't like the terms of trade. If that is unacceptable to them, they always have the legal right to submit a resolution at our annual shareholders meeting to change the company's philanthropic philosophy...

Later on, he will respond to Friedman's response by saying that Friedman has failed to address this "important argument". Actually, Friedman has sort of addressed this argument beforehand--in his 1970 article:

In a free-enterprise, private-property system, a corporate executive is an employee of the owners of the business. He has direct responsibility to his employers. That responsibility is to conduct the business in accordance with their desires, which generally will be to make as much money as possible while conforming to the basic rules of the society, both those embodied in law and those embodied in ethical custom. Of course, in some cases his employers may have a different objective. A group of persons might establish a corporation for an eleemosynary purpose-for example, a hospital or a school. The manager of such a corporation will not have money profit as his objective but the rendering of certain services. In either case, the key point is that, in his capacity as a corporate executive, the manager is the agent of the individuals who own the corporation or establish the eleemosynary institution, and his primary responsibility is to them.

[Note: "eleemosynary" means "relating to charity"] Or put another way, Friedman wouldn't--shouldn't--have a problem with Aravind--despite the fact that the organisation obviously does not have profit maximizing as its sole aim.

But we can push the issue slightly further. In what exact sense is the sort of stuff Mackey is talking about a matter of "responsibility"? In fact, he does spell this out a bit:

That doesn't answer the question of why we give money to the community stakeholder. For that, you should turn to one of the fathers of free-market economics, Adam Smith. The Wealth of Nations was a tremendous achievement, but economists would be well served to read Smith's other great book, The Theory of Moral Sentiments. There he explains that human nature isn't just about self-interest. It also includes sympathy, empathy, friendship, love, and the desire for social approval. As motives for human behavior, these are at least as important as self-interest. For many people, they are more important.

When we are small children we are egocentric, concerned only about our own needs and desires. As we mature, most people grow beyond this egocentrism and begin to care about others-their families, friends, communities, and countries. Our capacity to love can expand even further: to loving people from different races, religions, and countries-potentially to unlimited love for all people and even for other sentient creatures. This is our potential as human beings, to take joy in the flourishing of people everywhere. Whole Foods gives money to our communities because we care about them and feel a responsibility to help them flourish as well as possible.

If I take all this seriously, what Mackey is saying is that he and his company do the things they do (e.g., engage in "socially responsible" practices) because they feel like it--and it is only human nature that they should. Ok, that explains the actions of Mackey and his people. But what about T.J. Rodgers and his people? Mackey has this to say about them:

I will concede that many other businesses, such as T.J. Rodgers' Cypress Semiconductor, have been created by entrepreneurs whose sole purpose for the business is to maximize profits for their investors. Does Cypress therefore have any social responsibility besides maximizing profits if it follows the laws of society? No, it doesn't.

Are they somehow defective? Or is human nature more capricious than suggested by Mackey? Either way, it is interesting that Mackey does not have an in principle objection to T.J. Rodgers' Cypress Semiconductor opting out. He doesn't quite say that Rodgers and co. are being irresponsible; less than visionary, imaginative, etc. perhaps. If this is all the "responsibility" that Mackey is talking about--elective responsibility--then it is doubtful that either Friedman or Rodgers need agree over the principle of it (as opposed to the means).

I'm inclined to agree with Friedman that "The differences between John Mackey and [him] regarding the social responsibility of business are for the most part rhetorical. Strip off the camouflage, and it turns out [they] are in essential agreement."

Now for the two freaky arguments.

One is old--Friedman quotes Adam Smith (the original "Freakonomist"):

By pursuing his own interest [an individual] frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good.

In other words, if we really care about the public good, then given suitable conditions, it may turn out that we should pursue each our own interest rather than the public good because that's actually the best way to bring about the public good.

The other one--from Mackey--is not that new either, but I'm seeing it in the business context for the first time:

In my marriage, my wife's happiness is an end in itself, not merely a means to my own happiness; love leads me to put my wife's happiness first, but in doing so I also make myself happier. Similarly, the most successful businesses put the customer first, ahead of the investors. In the profit-centered business, customer happiness is merely a means to an end: maximizing profits. In the customer-centered business, customer happiness is an end in itself, and will be pursued with greater interest, passion, and empathy than the profit-centered business is capable of.

This is actually a version of the "paradox of egoism": if the egoist is really serious about maximizing his self-interest, then given suitable conditions, it may turn out that he should pursue some non-egoistic goals (as compared to pursing only purely self-interested goals) because that's actually the best way to bring about his own happiness. [For example, assuming that friendship and marriage are goods, then the egoist--if he is serious about enjoying such goods--is better served furthering his egoistic goal by forgetting his egoism and actually enter into a friendship and actually loving his spouse.]

The question is: how exactly do the two freaky arguments interact? Do they supplement or cancel out each other? add note: It would be less interesting if, say, either arguments are unsound. But let's say that conditions in the world are such that both arguments are sound. That is, on the one hand, the public good (within limits) is best achieved through the operations of the invisible hand by private individuals and enterprises pursuing each their own interests--but--it is also the case that the pursuit of one's own interest is best achieved by not caring only and exclusively about one's own interest...what happens then?

Quickstops (Oct 22, 2005)

- Michael Yon reports in detail about the elections in Iraq, from the ground.

- John Mackey, the founder and CEO of Whole Foods, squares off with Milton Friedman on corporate social responsibility, with T.J. Rodgers, the founder and CEO of Cypress Semiconductor chipping in. update: more thoughts in a new post.

- Negative vs. positive freedom meet jam and jelly and camel milk cheese.

- Chinese tourists have an image problem--in the illustrious tradition of the Romans, Britons in the Victorian era, Americans post WW2, Japanese with cameras, and ugly Singaporeans...

- Asia Times gives Singapore's health system a clean bill of health.

- Warwick is concerned, Singapore responds: "not insightful". Since we are in the neighborhood: speculation about the real author behind the bard's plays takes another turn. update: ringisei has more.

- At 4 by 3 nanometers, the smallest car in the world.

- Penny on her tummy:

What Patricia Herbold actually said

First, the outgoing US ambassador Frank Lavin was said to have "slapped" or "slammed" the Singapore Government--when frankly, what he did was to offered some frank advise as a friend. Then there's been talk about how the incoming ambassador Patricia Herbold has been suggesting that "the Bush administration might be preparing to take a tougher line on Singapore's human rights record." Well, I just took a closer look at what she actually said today and what I can find is:

On the political side, we share an interest in strengthening regional institutions, in particular the role of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Forum (APEC), the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), and the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF). These organizations, in addition to building regional stability, also support trade and investment liberalization. The United States and Singapore believe that future cooperation among countries in the region should be open, transparent, and inclusive.

Singapore, due to its port and strategic location, can also play a constructive role in issues of national security concern: non-proliferation, immigration, customs, trafficking in persons, money laundering, terrorist finance, and piracy.

Also on the political side, we maintain a dialogue with the Singapore government concerning the openness and structure of Singapore society and its political system. If confirmed, I look forward to highlighting the advantages of free expression and assembly for continued political and economic development.

If confirmed, I believe I could play an important role in promoting our interests and our values...

Now that's "tough" alright... And this is after a whole chunk about the strong "security relationship" between Singapore and the US.

We tend to see what we want to see...

update: (Oct 21, 2005) this is even more bizzare. I cracks me up that both the detractors and defenders of the regime are taking Mr. Lavin's comment...oh so seriously.

Homemade Gongbao Chicken

Still busy, so I don't really expect to post anything heavy duty, not especially after spending the last half hour blogging about what I cooked for dinner tonight:



In the meantime, a discussion is slowly brewing on topics that are close to heart.

No blogging...

...so as to get some work done.

Quickstops (Oct 12, 2005)

- Some words about Singapore from Frank Lavin, outgoing United States Ambassador (via Wayne Soon). As to Wayne's comment--I think Mr. Lavin was being more polite (i.e., diplomatic) than genuinely surprised. update: the full text of Mr. Lavin's speech is available here; more analysis from ringisei. Incidentally, all this talk about "slapping" (Financial Times) and "slamming"; (Reuters) seems rather excessive, considering what Mr. Lavin actually said:

As part of Singapore’s success is its strong international links, it is surprising to find constraints on discussions here. In my view, governments will pay an increasing price for not allowing full participation of their citizens.

which is immediately followed by

I know Singapore will sort through these challenges, for Singaporeans are not known for resting on their laurels.

And this is set in the much larger context of a very warm appraisal of US-Singapore relations. No one need be offended by the frankness of a friend--the man ended his speech with "Majulah Singapura"! Rather, it should be an occasion for reflection and improvement. more: reflections from Singapore Classics (who claims that he doesn't see the connection) and lzydata at Singapore Ink (who agrees with Mr. Lavin about the "clash of civilisation"--or lack thereof).

- Chris Choo is pleasantly surprised about ST offering more free content. I'm definitely in the "knowing smile" group, though I paid for my STI subscription.

- Agagooga wonders if the 369 gang might have an interest in the "offence principle", and my (partial) response: there are difference senses to "offence" and not all of them are relevant to a sane formulation of the "offence principle".

- The Void Deck and Singapore Watch talk about the CPF. Elsewhere, Singapore Classics considers the arguments for and against Age Discrimination Legislation.

- Wows of Singapore Ink meditates on gullibility, critical compassion and the role that blogs can play in all that. But of course, he can't be right--after all, blogs still "a medium in search of a role" (Mr. Wang).

- Discussions of the exchange between Dr. Cherian George and the PMO; with some musings on the mandate of Heaven thrown in. (Sigh: haven't really had the chance to get into this one...) update: Dr. George has a response in today's ST (Oct 13), "Govt shouldn't equate analysis with advocacy". Highlight:

However, I am saddened that the Government has chosen to cast my article in partisan terms. Worse, it claims that I 'commended' the strategy of civil disobedience. This is not just a misrepresentation of my views. It is also a serious accusation, as it suggests that I was inciting readers to break the law.

I did not. I tried to explain Dr Chee Soon Juan's strategy, not champion it. Unfortunately, Mr Chen has chosen to equate analysis with advocacy. By this token, a historian who studies the rise of communism must be a communist himself. The terrorism expert who explains the motivations of Al-Qaeda operatives must be siding with terrorists. And a sociologist analysing Stefanie Sun's international appeal must be a groupie. Such labelling would make much academic research untenable.

Indeed. By the way, you do know that he blogs, right? And he has started another one: New Media, Politics and the Law. update: the PM's press sec has replied to Dr. George's reply in today's (Oct 14) forum page entitled, "Don wasn't non-partisan in his analysis".

- And in the broader region, Taiwanese democracy at work, complete with MPs in Taekwando gear on one side, and others in rented military garb in other, and the mandatory bleeding assembly man carried out by paramedics. ESWN has the lowdown and many photos.

- A blogging professor's own words came back to haunt him (thanks Tym for pointing this one to me). Earlier related post.

- Fascinating: An intercepted letter from al Qaeda second-in-command Ayman al-Zawahiri, to Iraqi insurgent leader Abu Musab Zarqawi, dated July 9, 2005. Analysis from the Timesonline. update: looks like al Qaeda has denied the authenticity of the letter (Reuters). Here's the problem: Do we know if the rejection is authentic? How did Reuters know that this is really from "al Qaeda's wing in Iraq"? Assuming that the rejection is authentic--it is nevertheless consistent both with the authenticity and the inauthenticity of the original letter--in the former case, as damage control, in the latter case, as damage control.

A bevy of Forum Page letters on l'affair sedition

Related previous posts: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.

All from the Oct 12 edition of the ST.

1. Some bloggers are wont to talk about "big brother keeping tabs on the blogosphere" and "policing the internet". For some, only tongue in cheek; while others have visions of men in white lab coats monitoring the ebb and flow of cyberspace from secured underground bunkers equiped with giant computer screens (perhaps like the one in MIB). But today, I discover that among my fellow countrymen are those who think that this is a good idea--from "Why didn't the authorities detect racist remarks?" by Retnam Thillainathan. He first refers to Kalin as a "brave, concerned citizen", saying that "we need more people like her." He then continues:

The whole outrageous saga started when a reader wrote to this Forum about an uncaged dog being transported in a taxi, and that Muslims were forbidden to touch the saliva of a dog. I understand pets are not allowed on public transport. Has the rule been relaxed? If not, why was the taxi driver not traced? He is the culprit who started the chain of events.

Now, as far as I know, while pets are not allowed on the MRT or Buses are allowed on taxis. In fact, the (linked) dog owner's website says that under LTA Rules & Regulations, "Taxis Driver cannot refuse to carry a passenger with a dog unless with good reasonable reason"--for example, "if it is a fierce and unmuzzled dog or ("A fine of $500 can be impose on us regardless if the pet is crated or not") due to religious objection." Nevertheless, the dog owners are urged to be sensitive, i.e., it is suggested that they book Taxis in advance and inform the driver beforehand about one's canine companion--which appears eminently sensible. In any case, Retnam may need to find out more about the rules. It is refreshing, however, to see him point a finger at someone else other than the seditious duo (or Mdm Zuraiman, whose modest letter to ST only inquired about whether whether dogs are allowed on taxis. Now, her inquiry was surely motivated by religious concerns, but the fact remains that she did not actually voiced those concerns, nor did she make demands about allowing or not allowing dogs on taxis. So far as I can tell, the entire "saga" only snowballed because of the heated exchange in the forum). Finger pointing, that most Singaporean of past times. Anyway, Retnam continues:

The authorities did not act fast enough to nab the taxi driver, to drive home the point that it is illegal to transport pets using public transport. The authorities were also not vigilant enough to detect the bloggers' racist remarks. I urge the authorities to be more vigilant.

The first point is moot, since the taxi driver, if he did ferry a pet, was not doing so illegally. The second point, however, brings me full circle to where I began...and I shall leave it to the readers to draw his or her own conclusions.

2. As far as I can tell, the most important reason for charging and convicting the seditious duo ultimately has to do with the perceived fraility of racial and religious harmony in Singapore. Not that the races are openly at odds in Singapore, but that we should never take what harmony we have achieved for granted. That's been the consistent message. And the argument goes by way of history: it has happened in the past before, therefore, we should always be vigilent. Now I personally happened to take this message quite seriously, which is partly why the following letter raised a small chuckle, and a sigh--"Focus on how we are alike instead" by Rhazaly Noentil:

I feel sad seeing two young men go to jail, even for a day. I dare say that they are the product of our education system. Unless and until we take a good look at our system, the cherished dream of having 'One people, one nation, one Singapore' is hard to come by. In my good old kampung days, I did not even know that I had Chinese or Indian friends. They were all my friends. And mind you, some came from purely Chinese schools. We played and fought, but we never identified ourselves by the colour of our skin and the religion we belonged to. The generation which I belong to is asking: 'Where has this nation gone wrong?'

"Good old kampung days". Would that be the time when the British modus operandi of "divide and rule" still applied, or perhaps the generation that gave us the May 13 incident? Make no mistake, the entire point of the national education message is precisely that there were no good old kampund days--none that was for real, none that did not harbor the potential for violent inter-racial conflict. And I happened to take this quite seriously. And don't just take my word for it. The very next forum page letter I am considering (below) has this to say: "Singapore has a history of ethnic riots which put a premium on order and strong government."

Otherwise, I am deeply sympathetic to the sentiment of the letter's conclusion: "We are living in trying times. Instead of always focusing on what makes us so different, we should concentrate on how we are alike."

3. The longest one of the lot, "Take united stand against irresponsible individuals" by Chong Yew Mun. His main concern--with regards to the jailing of the seditious duo--is whether "there is a larger problem that has yet to be addressed by more than just fines and jail terms":

Singapore has a history of ethnic riots which put a premium on order and strong government. This being so, there was a need for laws to be drafted in order to prevent people from making discriminatory remarks which would damage our social fabric. Our social stability is built on our ability to respect other races and religions, without which we would not be able to enjoy the peace and security we take for granted.

Singapore's education system emphasises the importance of racial harmony in our multiracial context, drawing on history to further bring home this point. Most Singaporeans, if not all, can therefore tell why racial harmony is so important. Yet if it is so important to us, what are we doing to preserve this harmony? We have laws to prevent people from making seditious remarks. Besides this safety net, are there other means of punishing individuals who harbour such opinions?

Just a small nitpick--the focus on "punishing" rather than "educating" seems rather at odds with the tenor of the letter as a whole. After all, the the contrast is supposed to be between the "safety net" of law and regulation, and something else. In any case, the balance of the letter is mostly about "educating":

...does imposing deterrent sentences simply prohibit people from airing their feelings and thoughts, without addressing why they would have these thoughts in the first place? Moreover, if such remarks can damage the fabric of our society, shouldn't we as Singaporeans feel a collective responsibility to take a united stand against these irresponsible individuals? Shouldn't readers of the highly inflammatory remarks posted on Benjamin Koh's blog feel offended and warn him against doing so? Shouldn't users of the forum feel offended as well and expel him from the forum, if necessary?

I feel that our education system needs not only to educate young Singaporeans on the importance of racial harmony but also compel them to act when they feel that the fabric of our society is threatened by a few 'callous, reckless' individuals. While suppression has helped in the past to maintain law and order in our multiracial society, Singaporeans need to be civic-conscious and proactive in preserving our racial harmony.

These appear to be good points. The questions about the reader's of Koh's blog and the users and administrators of the forum that Lim frequented are cogent. I reckon that there must have been much in the 200+ comments left on Koh's blog that took serious umbrage at his remarks, and that there must have been many forumners who spoke out against Lim. Nevertheless, the objecting commenters obviously failed to persuade Koh and Lim to desist. But that aside, I wonder now if the earlier use of the word "punishing" was not a mistake after all...

Quickstops (Oct 10, 2005)

- Continuing from this; the AP reports: "The quake shook the border region of
Afghanistan and Pakistan, where bin Laden is believed to be hiding. However, authorities at this point have no information indicating he's been injured or killed, said a U.S. official who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the information's sensitivity." (Olorin)

- Continuing on a theme: "But an endeavor as ambitious as ending African poverty demands a little humility in the face of the task. We must recognize history, and understand the continent as it is, not as we wish it to be. To worry about corruption and misrule is to amplify the concerns of Africans I've met all over the continent, whose greatest anger is inevitably reserved for those leaders who have misspent so much in their names. Their voices should be heard, too, over the din of the rock concerts" (The Nation).

- Related: an earlier piece critiquing the "Make Poverty History" campaign: "Click, click, click. If only saving half the world from poverty were so simple--This campaign is so misguided you might think Kate Moss had thought it up herself" (Timesonline).

- The death toll for Pakistan may be as high as 40,000 (Guardian), with the number of deaths among young people could rise to 15,000 (Telegraph).

- From their website: "The Singapore Red Cross' emergency medical relief team have left for Islamabad this afternoon with the C-130 from the Paya Lebar Airbase. The 3-men assessment and medical relief team comprise of 1 Singapore Red Cross staff and 2 volunteers from the Raffles Medical Group. They will arrive in Islamabad tomorrow, together with the Singapore Civil Defence Force's 44-men DART team, who were also on the same flight." There is also an appeal for donation.

- Elsewhere, reconstruction continues in Aceh.

More details about l'affair sedition from ST

Related previous posts: 1, 2, 3, 4.

And here am I still chewing on the harm principle and the offence principle in relation to Judge Magnus's ruling (scroll down). This sort of thing take time--thinking about how I might articulate my misgivings about the offence principle. (Meanwhile, Singapore Classics "vents his apparent frustration".) But new information has just been made available by The Sunday Times (Oct 9; which also sort of gave me a clue as to a possible motivation to the the "offence" angle in the court ruling).

First, "POLICE are investigating another blogger for promoting hostility and ill-will among different races on his blog." A quick search using blogsearch.google reveals that there are two blogs by one "Chinapore": one called "China Pork", the other "Gan Huai Shi". The former is now returning a blank. As for the latter:

The site reproduces posts by 17-year-old private school student Gan Huai Shi, who was the third person after Koh and Lim to be charged with making seditious comments on his blog, The Second Holocaust. Although Gan has since shut down his blog, Chinapore said he decided to re-post Gan's articles 'for others to express themselves here'.

More interestingly, there is an interview with the concerned citizen--alias "Kalin"--whose complaint to the police first started the investigations into Benjamin Koh and Nicholas Lim Yew ("Why should I keep quiet about it?" by Ben Nadarajan). It was also Kalin who brought the police's attention to Chinapore.

Kalin first came across Koh's blog (via links from her friends' blogs) "at 3AM one Sunday morning in June". It was an encounter that "jolted her out of her seat." The 21-year old was so angry after reading Koh's blog (which also linked to Lim's forum postings) that she was unable to sleep that night.

She picked up her phone and called the police on 999. That call led to two men being jailed on Friday for making seditious comments on the Internet - the first time in almost 40 years that this law has been used.

Apparently, she did not quite anticipate that the case will conclude the way it did. She told ST that when she first made the policy report, she was asked what she wanted the outcome of her complaint to be:

'I said I thought the bloggers would get a stern warning. I had no idea that the two men would be charged and even jailed.' She does not regret what she has done though.

The next bit is intriguing:

[Though angry after reading Koh's posts] she did not do what others might have done - post a reply to his message - which was what some 200 others who had seen his comments did. 'I felt it was childish to post any reply. What he said was very disturbing and I could feel the hatred emanating from his post and the replies to it,' the media executive said. 'I didn't want to add to the hatred. Otherwise, I would just be like one of them.' A subsequent message by Koh saying he wasn't scared of making those comments spurred her to make the call.

Though I was aware of the hoohah back then (it was tomorrow'ed, no?) I've never actually visited Koh's blog or seen Lim's forum postings. But judging from previous experience, it is not hard to imagine that in the 200+ comments generated, there will be much that is...shall we say...nasty. Nevertheless, I am a little ambivalent about how Kalin proceeded. For the first time, a netizen called 999 instead of leaving an objecting comment, or email, or for that matter, a threat to call 999 unless the blogger retracts. I am not saying that Kalin did wrong--I just don't know enough to make that kind of call, and what I have seen before on the internet forums and comments sections inclines me to give her the benefit of doubt. (In fact, since the court did find the duo guilty of breaking the law, she must have done something right!) Nevertheless, it is striking that, one, the police report should be the first resort; and two, that Kalin should find the entire notion of posting objecting comments "childish". Responding to hatred with hatred is one thing. But what happened to the reasoned response? Is that hatred too? Or necessarily childish? Or is the very notion of a reasoned response to unreason such a rare flower in the jungle of the internet? --destined only to be trampled by hatred on one side, and criminal sanction on the other? But I digress.

While Koh and Lim are the first two to be convicted of making seditious remarks online, it seemed as if it was also the first time the police operator had received a call reporting a blog. With a chuckle, Kalin said: 'I told the officer I wanted to report a blog. He asked me which block I was at and if there was a fight going on there. 'It took me about a minute to explain to him that I meant a blog and not a block.'

Bloggers sometimes talk about the government cracking down on freedom of expression on the internet (just for the record, I don't quite buy this line of thinking); but that's really too simplistic. It was a bottom-up affair from the beginning (exactly as was the case with the CZ affair).

The article also said a bit more about Kalin's background. Apparently she has her encounters with racism before, even from lecturers in class (one "muttered that Malays were 'slow' and 'stupid'" when Kalin asked her a question). And this is apparently not the first time she dialed 999--"Earlier this year, she had also called the cops about a website which mocked and ridiculed Indians.":

Kalin said: 'It's like seeing someone rob another person. Of course we need to report it to the police and not keep quiet about it. Otherwise, society will suffer. 'If the person was taking away someone's dignity, why should I keep quiet about it?'

The last bits drew a sigh:

She told her parents, both retirees, what she had done only after the two men were charged last month. She is the youngest of six children. 'My father was very worried for me,' she said. 'He was scared that those who were not happy with what I had done would hurt me.' For now, only her family members know. She has not told even her close friends. 'After some time, when all the hoo-ha over this case is over, maybe I'll tell them,' she said.

She is glad she made that call to the police though. 'Now bloggers know there is a limit to what they can say on their blogs,' she said. 'Those who complain about restrictions on freedom of speech are missing the point and the bigger issue - that racism has no place in our society.'

Indeed--racism has not place in our society. But the question is not quite that. The question has always been how best it might be dealt with.

With that, I will now return to my meditation on the two principles limiting the freedom of speech.

coda: A further thought about harm and offence--I think that what motivated Kalin to call 999 was probably her being greatly offended by what she read on Koh's blog. But what eventually led the relevant authorities to file charges under the Sedition Act would more likely be considerations of potential harm. I don't think that 'mere offence' would have driven the case to this particular conclusion (and especially the form of the ruling). The connecting link is not difficult to imagine as well: what was posted was perceived to have a tendency to deeply offend a certain segment of the population to such a degree as to harbor a potential for inter-racial distrust. (add: Singapore Classics left some very cogent comments on this issue.)

while I'm at it: This is from the conclusion of an article I'm reading:

The need to accommodate diverse and sometimes inconsistent styles of life, which may depend for their success on being socially accepted, militates in favor of a "thick skin" approach to the regulation of expressive acts, even where those acts are offensive to others. Friction is a characteristic of social interaction, at least in a pluralistic society. Such societies require of their members a certain robustness of sensibility, so that incivility is sometimes tolerated for the sake of social discourse. But this, it seems to us, is no bad thing.

This is from A.P. Simester and Andrew von Hirsch, "Rethinking the Offense Principle", Legal Theory, 8 (2002), 269–295. The classic formulation of the offence principle is still Joel Feinberg, Offense to Others: The Moral Limits of the Criminal Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1985).

international press reactions: Reuters, AP, AFP, Xinhua.

finally: Singapore Classics explains in detail why both the Sedition Act and Judge Magnus's ruling must be basied on the "harm principle"--and only that principle (and not the "offence principle"). This is something with which I agree--but he has the legal training to explain how exactly so. He does warn, however, that this being a very long post, you should read only if you are really interested.

Earthquake in Pakistan

From the New York Times (Oct 8):

A powerful earthquake centered in the Hindu Kush mountains of Pakistan on Saturday morning sent tremors across South Asia, flattening villages in remote northern Pakistan, killing hundreds across both sides of disputed Kashmir and shaking houses and high-rises throughout the region.

No firm numbers of casualties were available, but the Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz of Pakistan said that the death toll "could cross 1,000." Details are not expected to emerge until the military reaches the far-flung villages in the North West Frontier Province, where the quake was centered. Three schools collapsed in the province, killing an estimated 650 children.

Olorin asked an interesting question (which I'm sure he won't mind me repeating here): "Wondering if all that quake affected Al-Qaeda operations and hideouts..."

Along came a spider

First sighted on MilitaryNuts: "Singapore Technologies Kinetics' (ST Kinetics) Spider Light Strike Vehicle (LSV) has been named one of 23 finalists selected for the prestigious US Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) Grand Challenge." The Grand Challenge:

Build a car that can drive itself across 175 miles of desert with unpaved roads, ditches, berms, sandy ground, standing water, rocks and boulders, narrow underpasses, construction equipment, concrete safety rails, power line towers, barbed wire fences, cattle guards and maybe even tank traps.

The ST Kinetics/Spider connection:

Cornell is entering the competition for the first time this year and has been selected as one of 43 semifinalists based on its technical specifications and a site visit...

The Cornell team started with one of the most rugged off-road vehicles available, a Spider Light Strike Vehicle, manufactured and donated by Singapore Technologies. The all-terrain vehicle is built to military specifications and tested in combat, so it is much better able to cope with off-road conditions than an ordinary SUV or truck. The team figures that even if their sophisticated control system can't avoid an obstacle, the Spider might just be able to drive over it.

(Apart from the Spider Vehicle, "Team Cornell also relied on a TSC-750M ruggedised laptop from ST Kinetics' sister company, VT Miltope, to develop algorithms under high shock and vibration conditions in the field.") There's some serious equipment on this critter:

The vehicle navigates using an on-board Global Positioning System (GPS) unit accurate to within 10 centimeters, inertial and attitude sensors, stereoscopic vision and three LIDAR (light detection and ranging) sensors. They all feed into an elaborate artificial intelligence (AI) decision system that creates a small map of the immediate area around the vehicle, decides what path to follow and relays commands to controllers operating the engine, transmission and brakes. The AI not only can avoid obstacles, but also executes three-point turns and finds its way out of dead ends. The AI incorporates several different decision-making algorithms for different situations, ranging from high-speed driving over open country to careful navigation around obstacles.

In order to complete the course in 10 hours, the vehicle will have to average 17.5 mph. But since it may spend part of its journey moving very slowly over rough terrain, it will sometimes have to hit 35 to 40 mph. Thanks to powerful AMD Opteron server computers, also donated, the AI can think faster than the vehicle can move. It also monitors vehicle health with sensors reporting engine and transmission temperatures and can detect failure of any of the vehicle's sensors.

Read full article on the team here. Team Cornell has its own blog as well.

From the Grand Challenge's official website, under "NQE Results", Team Cornell is running a very close second in the National Qualification Event, just behind Team Stanford (fielding a modified Diese-powered Volkswagen Touareq R5): 50 gates and 4 obstacles cleared, 10m 38s vs. 49 gates and 4 obstacles cleared, 10m 41s (the team coming in third clocked 49 gates and 4 obstancles cleared, 21m 3s).

update: Sigh... I think Team Cornell got eliminated. I'm keeping my fingers crossed that it's not because of the Spider. The three that successfully completed the race are: Stanford Racing Team (8h 48m; based on a Volkswagen Touareg R5), Red Team Too (8h 46m; based on a 1991 H1 Hummer) and Red Team (8 h 53m; based on a 1986 HMMWV).

more from the Popular Mechanics blog.

Two jailed for racist remarks online

The background: part 1, 2, 3. ST "latest news" (Oct 7) has the outcome: Koh was sentenced to jail for a month, and Lim was sentenced to jail for a day and fined S$5,000. (The max either could have gotten is up to three years jail and and a fine of $5,000.) Also from ST:

During sentencing, senior district judge Richard Magnus said Koh's comments, which contained vulgarities, were 'particularly vile'. He said it was necessary for the court 'to make it clear that such an offense will be met, upon conviction, with a sentence of general deterrence.'

Warning young Singaporeans about the dangers of such comments, the judge said: 'Racial and religious hostility feeds on itself. Young Singaporeans ... must realise that callous and reckless remarks on racial or religious subjects have the potential to cause social disorder, in whatever medium or forum they are expressed.'

Reuters has also picked up the story; and so has Global Voices Online.

More analysis from Mr. Wang, who notes that though neither got anywhere near the max, "there is considerable disparity between Koh's and Lim's respective sentences"--indicating that although they committed similar offences, one "made much more extreme remarks and therefore received a heavier sentence." On the racist remarks themselves:

The Straits Times did not tell us what Koh and Lim actually wrote. In a way, this is a pity, because if bloggers knew what Koh and Lim actually wrote, then bloggers themselves would know what they should not write. As it is, these two cases will produce some unnecessary "chilling effect" on bloggers erring grossly on the side of caution. On the other hand, the Straits Times probably made a considered decision not to report the specifics of Koh's and Lim's remarks, as these remarks are offensive to begin with, and probably contain words not generally considered polite enought to be printed in a newspaper.

Elsewhere, Libertas doesn't think much of the deterent effect of a one day jail sentence:

...jailing person for a single day would seems to have little or no deterrent effect on the individual. If he had the temerity to post such racist remarks online, would spending one day in a cell force a mindset change? "Sentence of general deterence"? The government should work on why he would say such things rather than view this as an open and shut case. Its definitely symptomatic of a larger problem, one which will go undetected until it tears the very fabric of our multireligous multiracial society.

Perhaps. But if he does it again, there will at least be grounds for imposing a harsher punishment for a repeat offence. (update: This is what the judge said in his ruling: "The quantum of sentence on each of the accused persons, therefore, varies according to their level of blameworthiness. The court will not hesitate to impose appropriate salutary and stiffer sentences in future cases.'")

Interestingly, Shaun, who thinks that the "best way to deal with the problem is not through the criminal system", something "that should only reserved for advocation of violence" is calling for extending the use of the Sedition Act:

I figure maybe it's better to go with the flow and propose the following legislative change instead. So I propose we extend the protection of the court to other minority groups and use it to protect society from the potential of social discord. Since women have the Women's Charter and maids have s. 73 of the penal code (basically increases the penalty by 1.5 times), I say we use the Sedition Act against homophobes.

...as they come in...

update: More links available from tomorrow.sg. Meanwhile, everyone's favorite mainstream newspaper also has more stuff out today (ST Oct 8), including a "feel good" one ("Bloggers say they have many Muslim friends", by Ben Nadarajan) that recounts how Benjamin Koh and Nicholas Lim have Muslim friends who are forgiving. Just one bit:

Lim submitted his own letter to the court, apologising for his conduct... [He] said he has many close Muslim friends and had the 'privilege of enjoying their hospitality during festive and family occasions'.

He said he realises his actions have hurt these friends' feelings. 'I have asked, and have been fortunate to receive, their understanding and forgiveness since.'

Lim also recounted a conversation he had with a friend, who asked if he felt even more prejudiced towards Muslims after he was charged. 'I was taken aback at first, but after some soul searching, I realised I harbour none of such feelings at all,' he wrote. 'If anything, this episode has shown me the true depth of understanding, acceptance and capacity for forgiveness that the Islam faith and all other good religions practise.'

They call this a "teachable moment". (TODAY has a similar report; see also Libertas.)

More importantly: ST also reproduced District Judge Richard Magnus's "landmark ruling", which contains an explanation as to "why the Act was used, for the first time in nearly 40 years". Mr. Wang has the lowdown (a must read); and he highlights the significant fact that the principle of offence was rather explicitly invoked in the ruling:

The right to propagate an opinion on the Internet is not, and cannot be, an unfettered right. The right of one person's freedom of expression must always be balanced by the right of another's freedom from offence, and tampered by wider public interest considerations.

This recalls an earlier (but brief) discussion we had (see this, scroll down; and also in the comments). In brief, there are two recognized limitations to freedom of expression--to prevent harm, or to prevent offence (for a full discussion of the "harm principle" and "offence principle" in the context of the freedom of speech, see this), with the latter being more controversial than the former.

When the three were first charged, I was under the impression--given the pronouncements of various ministers who commented--that it is primarily the potential for causing harm, i.e., the possibility of stirring inter-racial hatred, creating distrust and animosity between the races, inciting conflict and hostility, etc., that motivated the charges against the plantiffs. I was thus mildly surprised at the explicit mentioning of "offence" as a factor. Not that the issue of harm is not present--in fact, it is quite prominent in the ruling. Consider what the Judge said (I've highlighted the parts that relate more to issues of "harm" in red, and those that related more to issues of offence in black):

Young Singaporeans, like the accused persons before this court, may have short memories that race and religion are sensitive issues. They must realise that callous and reckless remarks on racial or religious subjects have the potential to cause social disorder, in whatever medium or forum they are expressed...

The right to propagate an opinion on the Internet is not, and cannot be, an unfettered right. The right of one person's freedom of expression must always be balanced by the right of another's freedom from offence, and tampered by wider public interest considerations.

It is only appropriate social behaviour, independent of any legal duty, of every Singapore citizen and resident to respect the other races in view of our multiracial society.

Each individual living here, irrespective of his racial origin, owes it to himself and to the country to see that nothing is said or done which might incite the people and plunge the country into racial strife and violence. These are basic ground rules...the Sedition Act delineates this red line on the ground. The two accused persons have crossed the red line by wantonly breaching these ground rules.

Looking at the whole passage, it does seem to be me that harm is still the more important driving factor. The wording of the ruling suggests that "offence" is meant to relate specifically to peculiar conditions in "our multiracial society" in which "race and religion are sensitive issues". In particular, the mentioning of the plantiffs' "short memories" appears to be a way of saying: do keep in mind that people have shed blood in this country over race and religion before--and in that specific sense, these are "sensitive issues". I am no lawyer--so any correction would be most welcomed--but it does seem to me that the ruling need not be read as endorsing a full fledge "principle of offence" as a limitation of the freedom of speech; rather, we are in the region of something that is quite historical-context sensitive here (see also the comments section).

Ex-RSAF Skyhawks given to four tertiary institutions

Read this under "latest news" in ST (Oct 5). The RSAF has some 20 decommissioned A-4SU Super Skyhawk fighter jets and they are giving them to institutions of learning. One has already go to Singapore Polytechnic, while three others are slated to go to Temasek Polytechnic, Ngee Ann Polytechnic and Nanyang Technological University (NTU). According to the report, "the planes will be used to help teach the aeronautical engineering courses and lecturers from the schools say students would undoubtedly gain from having a real plane to look at." Cool. Now let's hope I'll get to see one on the NUS campus eventually as well--given that MINDEF "has not ruled out giving more to other universities and polytechnics."

Related: "The Singapore Skyhawk Story" by Mike Yeo of Horizon ModelTech; on the last flight of the Skyhawks.

The Blogosphere as a Carnival of Ideas

Good article recommended by Elia Diodati.

Sciences and humanities, one harder than the other?

Wayne Soon has a piece in CNA (originally TODAY) in which he discusses the ongoing efforts to "create a 'thinking school, learning nation'" (I've always disliked that slogan, but whatever...)--focusing on "the 'software' of the education system, especially at the secondary school and pre-university levels." He proposes a "two-pronged approach to facilitate critical thinking skills among young Singaporeans": (1) remove "arbitrary barriers to curriculum choices"; and (2) "introduce subjects that inherently encourage and teach thinking skills"--including social science and humanities subjects such as sociology, religion, politics and economics.

Now I'll leave the readers to make his or her own judgments about these proposals, but in arguing for the first proposals Wayne made some interesting points that bear highlighting. Focusing on the existing "grade criteria for students who want to take a subject combination known as "triple science" in secondary school or who intend to enter the science stream in junior college", Wayne asks three questions:

(a) Is there statistical evidence to prove that higher pre-qualifications are needed to succeed in a "science" stream as compared to in an "arts" stream?

(b) Does this reinforce innate biases that students who study the sciences are "smarter" than those who study the humanities and social sciences? / Does such a policy create the perception among students and parents that those interested in such subjects as history, geography and literature are "less intelligent" as their counterparts taking "hard" sciences?

(c) Ultimately, are subjects such as literature - deemed by many Singaporeans as "fluffy" - easier compared to the hard science of, say, biology?

It would be interesting to see if anyone has any thoughts on these questions. For myself, I don't really have any data on the basis of which (a) can be attacked on any meaningful basis. For (b) and (c), on the other hand, I have to say that there are definitely humanities and social science subjects that are widely considered in some way "less practical" or "useful" than the hard sciences, but nevertheless hard to do well in. I've ran into my share of science or engineering students who confessed that they find the argumentative essays required in arts and humanities courses a considerable challenge to write ("show me an equation; but to argue in words?..."). This might suggest that the perception and bias angle may not be as one sided as might be suggested. But this is mostly at the undergraduate level. Even back in JC days, I though the folks in both the triple sciences and in the hard core humanities were pretty cool (I doubt that you would guess what I took then, unless you knew me).

Any thoughts would be appreciated.

update: just came back from choir practice to notice the extensive comments--thank you everyone for dropping by. In fact, the discussion has so moved Singapore Classics that he "cannot fall asleep", prompting him to blog in response.

I should be clear about something though. I think the original questions as posed by Wayne were meant to be applied to the study of the various subjects at the, say, JC level (I added the university level as well). In other words, the question is whether it is harder to read science as opposed to arts/humanities subjects (at roughly the 'A' levels) and to do well (i.e., get good grades) in them. The discussion seems to have become broader--e.g., the "sciences" or "the arts" in general. Not that I mind, but the difference should be kept in mind. I should have more later but it will be in the comments section. See you there.

Teachers

"Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, knowing that as such we will incur a stricter judgment" (James 3:1).

This discussion is somewhat related (see especially the comments).

more related stuff from ST Forum Page (a continuation of this). Some highlights. First, an earlier one (Sep 30), by one Ben Leong Wing Lup:

I believe that it is good for students to learn that they can and should have an opinion. Some youngsters may have wrong or misguided opinions, but a wrong opinion is better than none at all. If a teacher should feel that her students are wrong in believing that she is a prude, then perhaps she should figure out why she's being labelled a prude and work on it. Talk to the students. Yes, talk, not berate.

Students will not be won over by being suspended from school. Suspending the students seems more punitive than rehabilitative, and is aimed more at appeasing an irate teacher. It may be asking for a wee bit too much, but I hope that teachers can learn to 'take the heat'.

Predictably, that last will eventually call forth a rejoiner, which came today (Oct 5). Writing in support of the schools approach in dealing with the problem, Siow Jia Rui says:

As these are not isolated incidents, I believe that a deterrent approach must be taken to nip the problem in the bud.

It is simply bad taste to justify such offensive remarks as a way of 'learning that they can and should have an opinion'. There are surely more constructive ways to encourage our students to become more opinionated, instead of doing it at a teacher's expense.

I question the students' intentions in posting such remarks on their blogs. More often than not, students' hurtful remarks centre on a teacher's looks, dressing or the way he/she carries himself/herself, and not the way he/she conducts a class. It is ludicrous to justify these as constructive feedback that requires the teacher to 'work on it'.

Why go behind the teacher's back to post remarks on student blogs where everybody gets to read them? To me, this smacks of a certain maliciousness on the students' part. If a student is sincere about providing constructive feedback to a teacher, a more direct and effective route would be to approach the teacher personally and articulate his/her opinions clearly.

This method is just as effective in helping students to form opinions about the things they encounter around them and to articulate these opinions clearly and responsibly.

I think not many are really interested in defending the substance of the students' blog--even legitimate criticisms can be voiced in better and worse ways. But I think the unhappiness is over the threat of lawsuits, and perhaps, to a lesser degree, suspending the students.

The next one, however, goes to the heart of the discussion over at Mr. Wang's (above). Tan Juanhe, a secondary school student writes that he has while he has "witnessed many instances of rude behaviour towards teachers, directly and behind their backs", neverthelesless, "such conduct is usually not without reason". In a nutshell (to anticipate somewhat):

This is the root of the problem of decreasing respect in schools. On one hand, students are overly critical of what their teachers say, nitpicking every minute fault, while on the other hand, teachers aren't exactly helping matters by setting double standards for themselves and the students.

There is an example of what is meant by the last bit:

A good example would be queue-cutting in the canteen, especially during recess and lunchtime. Teachers are usually given priority, jumping straight to the front of the queue to purchase their food, regardless of how many students are waiting in line for their turn. This phenomenon can be observed in most schools, and most students are unhappy about this, viewing it as abuse of power.

Certainly, teachers do have a higher status than students, but does this allow them to openly flout what I believe is a school rule in many schools? After all, in our society, people in authority are expected to set a good example and abide by rules. What makes a school any different? Besides, teachers tend to have more free periods than students during which they could buy their food. Why contend with hungry students?

Good questions, actually--though I am not familiar with the practices in the schools (anyone has comments?). Now while I am still undecided as to whether this is really a legitimate grouse (is there such a rule?), Juanhe's underlying point is clear enough. The fact is, the days when "students treated teachers with unwavering deference"--not just in terms of "absorbing uncritically whatever they were told"--but also in terms of how they relate to each other outside the classroom (the formal greetings and bows, treating teachers as one might one's elders and parents, etc.) are long gone. Whether or not this deference is (or was) a good thing, it can't seriously be revitalised in any easy way. Nor is its value really all that unambiguous--to say the least, its excesses are definitely contrary to the cultivation of a mature and free democratic citizenry.

The question today is nothing as exalted as whether traditional deference is a good thing, but the simpler one of how we are to make do with the hand we are dealt. Juanhe proposes two things that "must be done":

Firstly, the conceptual line on how much basic respect all students ought to have for their teachers must be redefined clearly. Teachers devote their lives to imparting essential knowledge to students, and in return we should treat them with a certain amount of gratitude. Just how much the minimum should be in today's society, so vastly different from the past, is an issue, but it must be dealt with so that students would understand the basic expectations of them.

Secondly, teachers have a part to play too. They must work on their image and not do anything that might harm it, since this diminishes students' respect for them. There must be a standardised guideline that all teachers follow, so that students can finally look up to them as their role models. After all, respect must be earned.

Again, I should emphasise: I wouldn't be too quick to 'take the side of the students against the teachers'. Juanhe's comments are cogent, well articulated and deserve serious consideration. But it is hardly obvious to me that every case of disrespect toward the teacher is explainable in the terms proposed; nor is it obvious that even if explainable, they are also justifiable. In any case, it is possible that some could well be immature enough to "flame" their teachers for no good reasons at all--and what Juanhe's observations contribute will be no more than casuistry in their case. Furthermore, not all respect is a matter of earning. Respect--in the sense of civil behavior and speech--is always called for simply in virtue of the fact that we are or at least aspire to be civilised people who are able to deal with each other in a civil manner--no matter what one might think of the other's abilities or even morals.

More thoughts from the Cap'n Intrepid, who is more direct than I have been.

update: Terz left some excellent comments in response to Tan Juanhe's letter which should be read in full.

related post by lzydata at Singapore Ink.

Quickstops (Oct 2, 2005)

- Three of the four protesters at the CPF Building filed a motion in the High Court against the Home Affairs Minister and Commissioner of Police (analysis by Mr. Wang).

- The Philippines decommissions the last of its 40-year-old F-5 fighter jets, leaving the country without any aerial defence aircraft (AFP via Militarynuts.com).

- On how the politicians and media combined to create a disastrous coverage of Katrina (The San Diego Union-Tribune).

- The ideal place to be writing about imperial Rome is in New York (Village Voice).

- A freakonomical style solution to the management of doggy-poo (NYTimes).

- Interesting read recommended by a reader: on the emotional dog and its rational tail--an interview with Social and moral psychologist Jonathan Haidt (The Believer); the more technical paper is also available from his own website (.pdf).

- On the growing bond between the US and Iraqi soldiers and the sports competitions that are adding to it (NYTimes).

- A blast from the past (2004): The USS Clueless answers a letter from Singapore; contains much that is relevant to more recent events.

No peace in our time: Bali bombed again

Link. More analyses from the Counterterrorism Blog. More from ringisei and Singapore Classics.