Padd Solutions

Converted by Falcon Hive


If you've been following world news, you must have learned about the 'controversy' surrounding Barack Obama's citizenship. Simply put, some people contend that he's Kenyan. Fortunately, Obama's official birth certificate has been produced and verified. Unfortunately, some of these people are demanding to see the original long-form certificate, which may or may not exist today, and that he produce various other records that he is not obliged to produce. Worse, someone found his purported Kenyan birth certificate.

If your memory of American politics extends further back to the presidential elections, you'd remember that Obama was also accused of being an Arab and of being a "Muslin".

So who or what is Obama, really? Let's settle this issue for ourselves by looking at his real ultimate birth certificate:


Convinced?

This is America, the famous "melting pot" of the world. And the issue of the president's identity causes such an unnecessary stir, despite proofs that he is indeed American. Perhaps he's not American enough, unless he's white?

Someone asked me a few days ago if I feel a greater identification with my country when I'm overseas. Yes, I do. It's the only thing that identifies me when people ask me where I'm from. Yeah, I wasn't born here and I spent 10 years growing up in another country. I got my citizenship only when I was 21. And, yes, it seems that I have plenty of complaints about Singapore. Heck, I might even want to live elsewhere.

But this is my country. Is there any use in pretending otherwise?

So what exactly is national identity, as many people are looking out for? How do you measure 'Britishness' or 'Frenchness? This seems to be a very relevant question in Europe, where various groups of immigrants have real problems integrating; or perhaps it is the various societies that have problems accommodating the immigrants.

Perhaps the question is, in an age of globalisation, do nation states still hold the same level of significance as before? I wrote some time ago that patriotism should be about solidarity with your countrymen and not about loyalty to the state. But why stop at your countrymen? Is it because of a shared history? Surely things that happened in the country before you were born don't affect your identity directly. Rather, their legacy forms part of the country's culture. Is it then a question of cultural identity?

This is where globalisation complicates things, and where size also matters. The world is both too small and too big. Today, we readily absorb elements of other cultures that the media exposes us to. At the same time, the particularities of the sub-national regions that we come from continue to differentiate us from fellow citizens from another region. Can we pin down what makes us identify ourselves as citizens of a country?

Does essence precede existence? Are people from a country because they share a common identity, or do people share a common identity because they are from a country?

Is it possible for a Singaporean to not be Singaporean enough?

I think many people's gut instincts would be to say "yes". Otherwise, why do they regularly try to whip up some sort of esprit de corps, or why do they disapprove of those who don't have it? Labels like "unpatriotic" and even "ungrateful" testify to some sort of assumption that you have to qualify yourself as a true citizen.

And why do people regularly assume that to be Singaporean you have to be of a similar mind in some things? Do practices, perhaps, confer identity?

What I know is that it suffices that I am from this country. When people ask me where I'm from, I tell them. No embellishments are necessary, and I don't feel obligated to paint my country in a good light. I am Singaporean because I live or lived in Singapore for a good part of my life and I carry a Singapore passport. Is that not enough?

Before the idea of the nation state was born, people were parochial. They identified themselves with the little regions that they lived in. The peculiar practices of a region might have differentiated its people from those who were from another region, but I doubt a lot of them thought much about how they must cultivate regional identities. People belonged to a region simply because they lived there. In these times, I think we should be moving back towards such a picture.

But perhaps we still can't let go of the early 20th century.



I finally glanced at a newspaper today, and the first thing I saw was not encouraging.

According to an article on Today, most Singaporeans are proud to be Singaporean. Here's why:
The high level of national identity is due to the "multi-faceted socialisation process viz the education system, national service and mass media", said Singapore Management University law professor Eugene Tan. "This sense of belonging is further aided by the economic and social success that Singapore has experienced in one generation."
But that's not all the article mentions. Still quoting Prof. Tan, it says that most Singaporeans readily identify themselves as Asian rather than as part of an ethnic group, and that may be because
"... we have portrayed ourselves on the world stage as a microcosm of Asia, and that Western models of governance and way of life are not entirely appropriate to Singapore."
However, the article goes on to say that,
While Singaporeans took their duty to vote seriously, they were not sure how instrumental their votes were. Nearly half of them agreed that "politics and government are so complicated that sometimes (they) don't understand what's happening". Over one in two felt they did not have power to influence Government policy or action, while four in 10 felt Government officials pay little attention to what "citizens like (them)" think.
So we are proud of being Singaporean because we're a successful nation, and we're also happy to identify ourselves as Asian because our nation is successful without having adopted "Western" models of governance. Yet on the subject of our model of governance, a significant number of us think that we have hardly any influence over it. Neither do many of us have the understanding of how it works. So we're proud of being disenfranchised, and of a system we do not even know much about?

I think that the implications of what Prof. Tan said should make us rethink our attitude. And there's no reason to believe that he is completely off the mark. 'Asian values' have often been touted by our leaders as providing a good alternative to 'Western' political philosophy, and we regularly witness proud rejections of Western criticism in the local media, views that hold up the success of our nation as the vindication of our methods.

Amartya Sen has criticised the 'Western' and 'Eastern' (or 'Asian') divide that such a worldview paints as misleading, even though I do think that such a divide has been successfully manufactured in our psyche. He is also a strong critic of the brand of authoritarianism that is an integral part of the 'Asian values' package. And, looking back, I think I've come to agree with him – by summer last year, I had written an article defending democracy (which is unfortunately no longer available on The Straits Times website).

But right here we have the making of a damning critique just on its own. In what kind of society are people proud of a political system they do not comprehend and under which they have little if any influence? I can think of only two kinds: One that is fascist and one that runs on blind faith.

So what sort of model do we have exactly?

This week hasn't been a particularly good week and I haven't had the energy to read the local newspapers. But it did set me thinking about my own world, and I recalled a little detail from years ago.

When I was in junior college, my class went on a field trip to a naval base. On a ship we met a young naval officer, a graduate of the National University of Singapore's Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences (I confess that for some of us its initials are like a bad word). He was a political science major, and he had this to say about his course: It was bullshit.

Unlike wearing uniforms on a metal deck, of course.

I'm not totally certain whether he thought his course was bullshit because of its quality in FASS, or because it was cool to deride 'less tangible' subjects like that as bullshit. If it was the latter, as it seemed in the context of the conversation, I'm afraid I have to say tough luck dude. You relinquished non-conformity when you donned your uniform.

And, anyway, so many people say the same thing that it's about as cool as your grandma's granny undies. Try harder next time.

The simple truth is some people just can't handle the intangible stuff that we learn in the arts and social sciences. It can be hard indeed, and I'm feeling the uncertainty of the future. I'm stressed about that, but I don't wish I had done something else. If you guess that it's because people like me simply love what we are studying, you're right.

But it's not just that.

Being intangible means they don't guarantee straight answers. And, maybe by extension, it also means they don't guarantee straight paths. The things you learn may or may not be applicable in your jobs in the future, but since when is education just about learning technical skills anyway? Whether you make use of what you learn or not is up to you. And I think being enriched by your education in the arts and humanities would mean that you'd be a more complete person. That can get you places, as long as human beings are social creatures and as long as economic production remains a social activity. It might even mean you're flexible enough to fit into a variety of roles because your skills aren't fixed in a given technical area.

So I think there are two issues here. The first is local people's lack of ability to be imaginative and to accept more uncertainty. And the second is local students' and graduates' lack of ability to apply what they've learned in school except where it's pretty obvious (like in exams) – and that will certainly be problematic if your subject is the less tangible sort.

As a consequence, many would choose to take the more convenient path if they could, to do what gives them more certainty. Like joining the navy. And that, my friends, is the proof that uniforms don't prove anything.

What a wuss that guy was.

Nights like this

@ 11:58 , 1 comments


This might seem a little... different.


This time the question is a lot more personal but no less complicated: Why does this place make me feel depressed?

I wrote a while ago that I'm optimistic. I wasn't lying. But there are some days or some nights when I think to myself, "So, what's up?" And the answer seems to be accompanied with the feeling of an inescapable reality crashing down: "Nothing really."

Sometimes, don't you feel that you're just so sick of the properness of it all? You get up in the morning, you go to work or do the same things, come home, maybe say a few words to your family members, have a meal, shower, and finally sleep. Routine is formality, especially where it entails expectations. The expectations of your employers, of 'the society', of your family. The expectation that you come in at 9 in the morning, the expectation that you should always be diligent till 5 in the evening, the expectation that you must come home to your family.

Right now I want to say fuck all of that.

Would spirituality fill the gap? There's a picture of Jesus on my wall that my mom put up because she thought it'd be a nice reminder. "I am your Good Shepherd," it says. That was my parents' job description till a few years ago, actually.

No, it's not nice, and, no, I don't want to be reminded. Stop telling me what's good for me. I know what is – or I just don't care.

Maybe I'd pick up smoking, just because.


Now a very good ancillary question is this: I have routines when I'm studying overseas too, but why don't I feel like this?

Maybe the place makes a big difference. Somehow I don't feel confined there. Maybe this place just brings back memories of a life spent conforming to rigid expectations, or even exceeding them. It brings back the reality of years of living under the religiosity of my family. It reminds me once again just how stifling this island is. You watched the National Day Rally? Well, I don't give a shit about it.

And maybe it's also because of how everyone seems to be walking away, largely to follow the paths that society seems to have set for them. Only a few good people actually want to see me while I'm here. 3 months, and I can probably count with the fingers of my hands how many people I'd end up meeting up with.

Frankly, Singapore sucks.

There, I said it.

Well, maybe I should do a silly roof raise to bring up what crashed down. It's time to be silly. Maybe I'd go out to party in the middle of the night. How or where or with who, I don't know. Maybe I'd take that awful picture down and tell my mom I don't want it there. Maybe it's time to take control of my life, the control that I have when I'm not here. And I guess, in the end, I'll be gone and I'll never really come back.

And maybe it's time for Singaporeans to take control of their lives and be real.

I guess the real point of this entry is for you to know, when you feel like this, that out there someone else feels or at least felt like you. And there you have a friend.



"What is patriotism?" asked Emma Goldman at the beginning of her stinging indictment of 20th century patriotism. And this was the answer she gave: A ploy to win public support for the country's elite, who are either synonymous with the political establishment or the ones whom the politicians serve.

To further refine this point, let's ask ourselves the same question here. I wrote several years ago that patriotism can be a force for good. I still think so. But whether it is hinges on the answer to that question.

So what is patriotism? Is it about flag-waving, military training, having marching bands every year and fireworks with celebratory champagne? Claps on backs saying how great it is to belong to the country? Is it about loyalty to the state?

Singapore just celebrated its day of independence, and here I treat you to some highlights from the festivities:


Pictures from SingaporeVR

Very impressive. The military trains every year for this event, the one community service it performs regularly and with consistent zeal. Fireworks can only entertain us for so long, but such faithful commitment never gets old.

All in the name of the stars and stri moon.

In contrast, the Philippines just observed the passing of one Corazon Aquino. No, not an FHM model, fortunately, but a former president who was a key figure in the popular revolution that ousted dictator Ferdinand Marcos. Yes, that's husband of Imelda Marcos who had that fabulous shoe collection. I'm waiting for her label to appear on the market too.

But, anyway, what was that popular revolt all about besides the usual rowdiness characteristic of Third Wold nations?


No wonder half of them are domestic workers today. Maybe they were protesting the construction of Ion on hallowed ground.

But something in me says that we have to admire the solidarity that these people had. They could have been shot at if things hadn't swung in their favour with defections sweeping through the ranks of the military. Marcos even had his 'finest hour', insisting that force was not to be employed despite the advice he got. But did the people know how it would turn out when they set off to stand up for themselves?

So maybe that's what patriotism is about: Solidarity with your fellowman and the courage to stand up as a people. And not about loyalty to the state, which is liable to be hijacked by special interests. Maybe these people, poor as they might be, know a very important thing about the essence of democracy. What is a nation primarily about after all – the piece of land and the flag, or the people who make it thrive? Maybe amidst our stability and our fortunes we have forgotten something that those people knew on that day.

So who is ‘First World' and who is 'Third World', really?

Well, we all love colourful parades. I enjoyed the ones in Disneyland. 

But I don't think I enjoy this sort much:

 
I'm now on Associated Content, having had the previous entry published there (albeit with minor revisions).


You can check it out here.


But rest assured that any content that I publish there will be put up here first :)

The mania about socialism has gripped America as the Obama administration reveals its true colours – mostly red, of course. A witty poster that has surfaced lately made a brilliant connection:


The Joker and socialism. Who would've thought of that? And Batman is Republican, of course. Heck, he used some crazy tracking device that looked it like it came straight out of the Department of Homeland Security. Commie Joker and holy Repub Batman!

With every Joe Plumber screaming socialism whenever the Obama administration tries to expand federal regulatory powers, I decided to write a piece about socialism and what I think are socialist and what I think are not. Let me begin with an interesting cartoon:

That cartoon is very good because it encapsulates some of the fundamentals of Marxist ideas, which no doubt serve as the spring board for, if not the foundation of, socialism. So keeping it in mind, I shall offer my take on what socialism is about. It is broadly based on my own study of Marx's Capital, which is a key text in Marxist thought.


Marxism is a critique of political economy, and it is a radical one because it demonstrates ad hominem, or the characteristic of being directed towards the human subject. In Marx's words:

Theory is capable of gripping the masses as soon as it demonstrates ad hominem, and it demonstrates ad hominem as soon as it becomes radical. To be radical is to grasp the root of the matter. But, for man, the root is man himself.

Marx argued that the world of political economy is a topsy-turvy world, where economic categories and laws, which are created by man, have enslaved man and replaced him as the foci of socio-economic activity. And instead of the actual use that we have for the things we produce (i.e. focusing on our needs), we are much more concerned by how much they are valued relative to other things (i.e. focusing on the market and its operations).

This is commodification of things. Next comes the commodification of labour. Labour has a use – to produce commodities. It is bought and sold in the labour market. The value by which it goes (the wage) is not the same as the use value that the capitalist who buys it gets. The commodities that a worker produces are usually worth more in the market than the wage that the worker earns for his efforts. This creates surplus value or profit, which the capitalist enjoys.

Now, there are many reasons why this happens, and they are well covered by economics. But I contend that the Marxist critique still holds great truth. We are very focused on the intricate workings of the market, on the value of things when we exchange them, and we often lose sight of the thing behind it all – the man, who has needs, whose labour creates the commodities that are sold on the market. The subject without who nothing at all would matter because we cease to exist, since we are the subject ourselves or, failing that, because without them all economic activity would never have begun.

As I see it, a major contention is then on whether the capitalist plays a necessary role in economic activity. But even if we disagree on that issue, I think there is enough reason to pay attention to the rights of the average worker. What is the human world about but human beings? And the vast majority of human beings are not really capitalists – they still have to sell their labour to earn their wages for a living. And in this huge group of people we must include those who do not even earn wages but who, nevertheless, play important roles in human society: mothers/fathers, stay-home wives/husbands, unpaid social workers, students and children not yet in the workforce, etc.

Another big question is whether capitalism gives more than it takes. No doubt the world has gotten wealthier because of capitalism, despite the economic storms. But that is only to speak of the aggregate amount of wealth. Many people pay a heavy price each time the economy takes a hit due to man-made risks that they didn't personally take or have any control over. I think one of the things capitalism is about is rewarding risk-taking in the name of growth and development. But that should be balanced by the price that common people pay when things go awry. If risks must be taken, there must be something adequate for people to fall back on. Don't forget the common man.

I think that is the fundamental principle of socialism – the return to man. And this is why things such as universal healthcare, free or affordable education and minimum wage laws are pretty solidly socialist. Anything that violates or ignores this principle can hardly be called socialist, and things that are not necessarily based on this principle are not necessarily socialist. As such,
  • Regulation is not necessarily socialist
And, by extension, neither is big government. Plenty of Marxists are libertarian in that they see government and bureaucracy as instruments for the entrenchment of the wealthy minority. They believe in the socialist principle like their statist cousins, but they are very wary of vast and powerful governing apparatuses that can be appropriated by certain interests, and which present a strong resistance to social change from the ground up.

Besides, regulation is also significantly present in regular capitalism, and especially in non-socialist systems that emphasize control, such as Fascism.
  • Taxes are not necessarily socialist.
People all over the world pay taxes no matter what sort of system they live under, provided there is a functioning state and government.
  • High tax rates are not necessarily socialist.
Any system of social organisation can introduce high tax rates or many forms of taxes. For example, popular discontent over excessive taxation was one of the problems feudalistic monarchies had.
  • Labour unions are not necessarily socialist.
This might be more controversial. Labour unions are a very socialist idea, yes, but they can and have been hijacked by vested interests. The funniest ones are those whose leaders are appointed by the businesses whose interests they are supposed to keep in check for the benefit of the workers.
  • Obama is not socialist.
His focus is on Hope and Change, but, from the point of view of socialism, it's not very clear who has the hope or what change is in order. Most socialists would probably not count him as one of them.

I'm sure there are many more things that can be added, but this short list will have to do for this short write up. I hope, however, that I have provided a tool with which one can assess whether a policy could be regarded as socialist.

Last week I wrote about what freedom means. But it might raise some questions in some people's minds. What spurs me to confidently state that freedom doesn't really apply to certain opinions? I brought up the fact that freedoms clash, and that some precede others. Thus, the freedom of speech should not be emphasized over (among others) the right to live and to pursue happiness.

Nevertheless, let's dig around a bit more. Or, rather, let's turn our eyes to the elephant in the room: Truth – as opposed to falsity or ignorance.

In all the discourse about the freedom and the relativism of opinion, we might forget that the elephant sits quietly on one side. Others pointedly ignore it. But it's there. Maybe one needs a shock before one remembers its presence. Maybe some news that would set our alarm bells off, for example – like the recent proposals being considered by the Texas Board of Education.

The conservative-dominated Board appointed six reviewers to propose changes to make to the history curriculum. Two of the three reviewers appointed by conservative board members run conservative Christian organisations, while the three appointed by the moderates and liberals are all professors of history or education at Texas universities.

Here are some recommendations that the conservative reviewers made:


Replace Thurgood Marshall with Harriet Tubman or Sam Houston.


In first grade, students are expected to study the contributions of Americans who have influenced the course of history. Rev. Peter Marshall, a reviewer, calls Thurgood Marshall – who as a lawyer argued Brown v. Board of Education and later became the first black justice on the U.S. Supreme Court – a weak example."

Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka was the case where segregated schools were ruled unconstitutional in the United States.


Delete César Chávez from a list of figures who modeled active participation in the democratic process.


Two reviewers objected to citing Mr. Chávez, who led a strike and boycott to improve working conditions for immigrant farmhands, as an example of citizenship for fifth-graders. "He's hardly the kind of role model that ought to be held up to our children as someone worthy of emulation," Rev. Marshall wrote."

César Chávez was a Mexican American labour leader and civil rights activist who made contributions to the recognition of workers' rights in the United States.


Replace references to America's 'democratic' values with 'republican' values


Reviewer David Barton suggests swapping out 'republican' for 'democratic' in teaching materials. As he explains: "We don't pledge allegiance to the flag and the democracy for which it stands."

Can you see where these recommendations are going?

Now, the question that begs asking is what were these religious leaders doing making official recommendations on school curriculum in the first place? Why were actual educators and experts in the field sharing the table with them? We can infer a sad answer from the examples above, especially the third.

And this, by the way, is the Board that has approved the teaching of creationist critiques of evolution in schools.

Thus, the elephant is forgotten amidst all the politicking. And Thio Li Ann's case is another example. Let's pick just one issue amongst the many it has:


Homosexuality is a gender identity disorder; there are numerous examples of former homosexuals successfully dealing with this. Just this year, two high profile US activists left the homosexual lifestyle, the publisher of Venus, a lesbian magazine, and an editor of Young Gay America. Their stories are available on the net. An article by an ex-gay in the New Statesmen this July identified the roots of his emotional hurts, like a distant father, overbearing mother and sexual abuse by a family friend; after working through his pain, his unwanted same-sex attractions left. While difficult, change is possible and a compassionate society would help those wanting to fulfill their heterosexual potential. There is hope.


- Thio Li Ann

Compare that to the American Psychological Association's (among others) findings:


Sexual orientation has proved to be generally impervious to interventions intended to change it... No scientifically adequate research has shown that such interventions are effective or safe. Moreover, because homosexuality is a normal variant of human sexuality, national mental health organizations do not encourage individuals to try to change their sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual. Therefore, all major national mental health organizations have adopted policy statements cautioning the profession and the public about treatments that purport to change sexual orientation. The statement of the American Psychiatric Association cautions that “[t]he potential risks of ‘reparative therapy’ are great, including depression, anxiety and self-destructive behavior."

And the American Psychiatric Association's findings:


APA affirms its 1973 position that homosexuality per se is not a diagnosable mental disorder... APA recommends that the APA respond quickly and appropriately as a scientific organization when claims that homosexuality is a curable illness are made by political or religious groups.

Who do you trust, scientists and experts or conservative leaders with religious agendas and maybe some sinners to burn?

And, therefore, this is another compelling reason why freedom of speech is quite beside the point here. We want to argue truth, not falsity. We can talk about the freedom to hold and express an opinion all day, but if the opinion is utterly false, then nothing will be accomplished at all. And there might be a heavy price to pay too.

So, are we going to acknowledge the elephant in the room?

Well, I think I know what the Republicans might have done with theirs.