#theyishus

[ellis-ralsei]

1, 2, 3, 4 - I declare a culture war!

It’s not surprising there was a petition against Lambert’s performance in our annual countdown concert.

Another episode in the great grand culture war of Asian (or, Western conservative) values versus Western liberalism happened three days ago with a petition calling for Adam Lambert to be taken off our concert countdown lineup.

Lambert’s flamboyance (well documented, according to Mothership.sg) showed “disregard for the values of a majority of family-centric Singaporeans” who want western liberal ideas out of Singapore, according to the petitioners. The idea here was that Lambert’s actions on stage would display “a flagrant disregard for the sensitivities of his audience” - like the time he kissed his male keyboardist.

Of course, this led to several Christian organisations to weigh in - and this soon turned into yet another angry us vs. them war, a war that has had countless episodes dating back to quite long ago, to the time the Singapore Parliament was reviewing the Penal Code. 

It’s not surprising. Regardless of whether they were fundamentally opposed to Lambert’s flamboyance or Lambert’s sexuality, these were still, the same portion of Singaporeans that claims itself as a moral majority (with support from, um, polls).

They also did these things:

Protested sex education that affirmed homosexuality

In a petition/counter-petition similar to what has transpired with the opposition to Lambert’s performance in Singapore, conservative anti-LGBT blogger Aaron started a petition to bring down an FAQ about homosexuality, published on the Health Promotion Board’s website in Feb 2014, claiming that they were providing ‘made-up, non-clinical hypotheses’.

The Health Promotion Board (HPB), in a daring move, recently published an FAQ about sexuality - which received positive reviews online from the LGBT community over the Chinese New Year weekend. Lauded as forward thinking, ‘objective’ and ‘aligned with globally accepted scientific standards’, the FAQ served as “a one-stop resource to provide factual information on sexuality and STI/HIV prevention from a public health perspective” the HPB was reported by TODAY as saying.

The FAQs have also attracted its detractors - a petition asking the HPB to take down the FAQs was launched by Aaron (notably from Homosexuality and Science).

Attempted to set up an opposing movement to Pink Dot

In May 2014, a group of volunteer welfare organisations associated with  Faith Community Baptist Church pastor Lawrence Khong applied to stage a pro-family event at the Padang on 28 June 2014 - the same day Pink Dot 2014 will be held this year:

The event, #FamFest2014 - originally named Red Dot Family Moment 2014 - was cancelled after approval to use the Padang was rejected. TODAY reported a MSF spokesperson as saying that ‘MSF discussed with TOUCH and suggested alternative sites, but it declined.’ An application to the police to hold a permit for the event was withdrawn by the organiser.

#FamFest 2014 was intended to be a concert in the park event, to honour the Pioneer Generation, renew marriage vows and recite the National Family Pledge. The concert in the park concept seems eerily similar to that of Pink Dot, which has a concert component.

Lawrence Khong questioned the MSF’s move to reject the application for TOUCH to hold the event at Padang. “I am… confused by their (MSF’s) position on family,” he was reported as saying.

Eventually, it was a group of Muslims who succeeded in their protest, and they joined in:

Later in June, a group of Muslims, concerned that Pink Dot was being held on the first evening of the holy month of Ramadan, started the Wear White movement.

With 3,342 likes on its Facebook page, Wear White has had quite a number of followers, including Pastor Lawrence Khong of FCBC. 

“I’m so happy that Singapore’s Muslim community is making a vocal and visual stand for morality and Family,” Khong said in a statement. “I am pleased to partner with them in championing virtue and purity for the good of our nation.”

Successfully pulped And Tango Makes Three, a positive portrayal of same-sex parenting based on a true story - of penguins

A member of “We are against Pinkdot in Singapore” posted an email reply from the National Library Board, celebrating a little victory in their pro-family advocacy: 

The National Library Board decided to pulp And Tango Makes Three, amongst 5 others pulled for its not-so-pro-family nature. When questioned about their ‘pro-family’ stance, NLB only said that it was in accordance to MOE and MSF.

(...) I think, honestly, that most of them try to hide their religious agenda; one of the admins of the famed anti-queer facebook group ‘We are against Pinkdot in Singapore’ is FCBC pastor Lawrence Khong.

The books were eventually restored in the Adult section. As of the writing of this post, Khong is no longer admin of We are against Pinkdot In Singapore.

A group of them pledged to wear white until the pink is gone.

Wear White returned for its second year this year, with a sermon at FCBC, and a prayer gathering and talk at HCS Centre. From FCBC’s sermon:

“I want to pray that we will continue to wear white as long as there is pink, and we will wear white until the pink is gone, and even if the pink is gone we will continue to wear white,” Khong said.

Khong added: “My prayer, my dream is that the day will come where in this weekend half or three-quarters of Singapore’s population will be wearing white as a statement of commitment to the family.”

In his sermon, he decried the “homosexual act” as “the greatest blasphemy against the name of God” and said that “a union between a man and woman is the highest expression of the very image of God”.

Documenting the various bits of the culture war we’ve had seems like outlining a conspiracy, which isn’t the purpose of this article. These bits goes to show that this culture war will go on for quite a while, and that peaceful talk - something which I advocated for quite a while ago - will be impossible.

(Illustration derived from Fear, Ignorance mascots, Pink Dot)

Whether you believe that the petition was about Lambert’s flamboyance or something bigger, one thing is for certain: this thing won’t end, for quite a while.

Sure, there is a need for mutual understanding. But given the strong-willed opposition by both sides and the lack of discussion, the only way out for the LGBT community here seems to be one similar to the Supreme Court win over same-sex marriage in the U.S.

But we lost the constitutional fight against 377A:

The Court of Appeal had emphasised that taking on legislative functions would 'efface’ the separation of powers which accords the judiciary its legitimacy. ”(The appellants’) remedy, lies if at all, in the legislative sphere,“ the court was quoted as saying in a Straits Times report.

The petition against Lambert is a little statement that homophobic groups got behind quick - a show of force, to say that ‘you can’t get rid of us, we’re still here’. It’s proof that these arguments and heated tensions can occur not just over a gathering of advocates - but something as simple as artiste and singer choices.

All the LGBT community can do is to fight back - and they only have numbers on their side.

(EDIT: had a friend who pointed out to me that there was one thing I missed: the protest in March 2015 over depictions of family in a NUS Political Association debate on family and family units. Read about it here.)

[ellis-ralsei]

Right, or far right?

The beef with Calvin Cheng’s comment isn’t what was said - it’s who was saying it.

(illustration taken from Calvin Cheng’s facebook)

For a few days now there has been a war of letters against Calvin Cheng, the former NMP turned establishment socio-political blogger, over a Facebook comment - and a subsequent Facebook post - on killing children.

At least that’s what he titles his response to the controversy over the comment, made in the wake of the Paris attacks. The children in particular - Islamic State child soldiers, and the children of Islamic State soldiers.

The original comment, which Cheng later claimed was meant to be “seemingly provocative and outrageous”, was to a mini-essay by former civil servant Devadas Krishnadas - also in response to Paris.

For some context - Krishnadas was talking about the noticeable silence from liberals after the Paris attacks:

There has been a noticeable silence from liberals in the wake of the Paris massacre. We do not hear the usual cry to abolish the Internal Security Act and the concomitant State power to detain without trial, to abandon capital punishment and to champion freedom of expression.

Where have all the liberals gone? Gone to try quiet places with heads turned away from the nasty reality that there are bad people willing and capable of doing bad things. Really bad. And no amount of high flown rhetoric or rational debate will stay their hand.

To which Cheng commented:

The terrorists are not common criminals, it's not about crime punishment and deterrence. 

They are a mortal enemy intent on killing and destroying. 

So you kill them before they kill you. And their children too in case they grow up to take revenge. 

It's as simple as that. Please don't complicate matters.

It’s an odd stance to defend, but Cheng has gone on to claim a certain amount of logic in this:

From the standpoint of self-defense, I think few would argue that one does nothing when confronted with children (and women) trained and intent to kill.

This already moves the majority away from the morally absolute belief that one should never kill children. 

Cheng goes on to cite CNN reports that documented the child soldiers of the Islamic State:

An entire generation of children under ISIS including their own, have been ‘brainwashed’ to see anyone not subscribing to their ideology as enemies, and should be killed.  They fight like adults and replace the adults when they are KIA.  This leads to a 20 to 30 year problem, especially since “It takes a significant amount of time and money to rehabilitate child soldiers, experts say”.

In the aftermath, emails were sent to the Media Literacy Council, where Cheng is a member. The Council, ironically, was formed to oppose hate speech and cyber-bullying.

Cheng has since claimed that he was a victim of a hate campaign - and he has since turned it into a moral majority/conservative vs. liberal fight.

It’s odd, because he doesn’t see the complexities of terrorism in the Middle East. In short, ISIS is a problem that is too darn complex to talk about - and there’s a mistake in Cheng’s simple distillation that ‘bad guys - and their families - have to die’.

If Cheng was anybody else - the argument might have ended there. But Cheng holds a board membership on the Media Literacy Council.

And this is worrisome.

Not because we’re afraid that that Cheng would spread his ideology of killing the grass at its roots (斩草除根) to the rest of the MLC - but because Cheng is representative of an intolerant right in this country.

Cheng believes in keeping an echo chamber. He believes that freedom is only available through security, that if we are to survive we are to stand up against extremists that differ from him. Any liberal against his views, anyone that thinks differently from his conservative viewpoint, cannot be tolerated, even if his views aren’t exactly politically correct.

Cheng’s comments were offensive, provocative and outrageous. They were intolerant towards the idea that peace can be brokered without bloodshed.

Of course Cheng is free to say whatever he wants. But as a member of the establishment, someone who has made his presence in Parliament, people listen. This is a matter of political correctness; the reaction activists have had isn’t one of hysteria, but one that serves to eject him from the establishment that he has misrepresented.

Because when a man of that stature preaches intolerance, naturally, people won’t stand for it. 

(EDIT: This post was written before Calvin Cheng announced a radio interview on 938Live slated to air tomorrow at 0730 and 1430. It's unfortunate that the debate has now shifted into the a dichotomy of the liberal aggressor vs. the conservative victim, when Cheng was using his influence to push forward the idea of intolerance, simplifying the complexities that is the Middle East into 'kill everyone, children included. It's hoped that at the very least, the people whom Cheng attacked (for not being patriotic enough when Lee Kuan Yew passed) can get to debate him on air as well.

Also please don't call the police on him. Because calling the police on him is damn embrassing.)

[ellis-ralsei]

If everyone’s so annoyed by rumours, why do they still happen?

Some potential explanations as to why The Real Singapore, All Singapore Stuff and STOMP have remained popular, despite the things they spread online

A study by research firm Penn Schoen Berland (PSB) found that false rumours is the most annoying Internet habit of all.

47 out of 100 Singaporean respondents told PSB in a survey - commissioned by Norwegian telecom Telenor Group - that their top most annoying Internet habit was spreading false rumours. 

Which makes one wonder - why do we still see misinformation going up online, and why did pages like the now-defunct The Real Singapore (TRS), Straits Times Online Mobile Print (or STOMP) and All Singapore Stuff (ASS) thrive?

I’ve long documented the annoying things these sites do to gain traffic, get advertising and earn money - and long advocated for people to turn away from the scum. Here are some reasons why they’re still surviving:

They break real news, and provide user-generated content.

The Real Singapore and All Singapore Stuff are news aggregators - meaning they take and rephrase news articles from other news websites, often without credit. Along with STOMP, which gets its news from more legitimate sister sites like Straits Times and The New Paper, the sites provide a source of real news for readers.

ASS’ invisible staff writers - who often remain anonymous - have learnt to avoid charges of plagiarism by going into the grey zone that is paraphrasing, but it’s quite obvious that these sites do not have any journalists of their own. Their news updates are often short, and provide no quotes. Bylines are often non-existent. 

They also scour the internet for newsworthy social media posts - often by people who have seen these posts first-hand. Often, posts are sent to them by readers who have a grievance to air.

The ‘Dear TRS’ posts and ASS’ user submissions are a good example of this. The complaints are not fact-checked and often pejorative and racist terms in are allowed. The content is often unedited.

TRS’ successor, ASS, has only once apologised for their editorial mistakes - but only after others called them out on it.  

And though it may be run by anonymous amateurs, it makes some pretty questionable choices (like running a pornographic stereotype of nurses on an op-ed about Singaporeans refusing to be nurses) 

They break weird news

Weird seems to be STOMP’s primary tactic today, with the site moving away from anonymous user content from STOMPers. 

STOMP has cleaned up its work a bit after several controversies, and a widely-shared petition to shut it down. But it still engages in writing Daily Mail-like headlines and user-generated content. Unlike ASS, STOMP relies on journalists from the tabloids for news; these journalists often take the steps to investigate themselves.

For one, the site has its own Citizen Journalism Awards, which incentivises citizens who come across stories to report to them. Netizens vote on a poll on the website on the story they deem should receive the award.

Weird news is also often the staple of ASS’ work - though, as outlined above, it often relies on user-generated content to attract readers.

People simply can’t tell what rumours are

I hate suggesting that people are dumb, but this really seems to be the case, as the number of people who spread the rumour that Singapore will be on a national security lockdown suggests. 

Fact is - rumours don’t announce themselves as rumours; they sometimes package themselves as facts and quotes from believable sources. Take our viral misquote of Putin yesterday for example: people widely believed it due to Russian state media’s constant portrayal of their leader as strong and masculine, leading everyone to believe that he was that badass.

The national security lockdown rumour was also based on the fact that Singapore was on ISIS’ target list and that our security really was tightened after Paris. Thus it was believable that we would have a lockdown of sorts.

Misinformation is thus spread very easily. When theonlinecitizen reported in 2013 that prize-winning film Ilo Ilo had been refused MDA grants, people lapped up the misinformation, as most of TOC’s readers had a strong belief that the government was up to no good. Similarly, outrage from now-defunct TRS’ rumours about Filipinos starting a scuffle at this year’s Thaipusam led to the claim going viral. 

We only know after the rumour has been spread that we’ve been tricked. Perhaps this is why people hate rumours so much - we can’t tell if we’ve been tricked into sharing something false.

Well, what now?

It’s important to understand the reasons why sites spread rumours without checking. For ASS and TRS, the end-goal was often to make people outraged about what the government was doing, and to destabilise the current hegemony, as I wrote in a blog post this year:

Literary critic Gwee Li Sui - who fervently warned about The Real Singapore when it was alive - recounted an online conversation he had with a supporter of the Temasek Times.

“(…) A commenter soon responded by saying that I had misunderstood their goal. Hate, he pointed out, needed to be fanned so that the Gahmen would bother to listen to Singaporeans.

What he then went on to say was chilling. He argued that, to reach that end, some people would always need to be blamed and, for that blame to stick, lies would have to be told. He explained that, while he was no xenophobe, yet the end justified the means, and he was truly sorry to those he would scapegoat.”

STOMP’s reasons can be arguably simple - simple economics would suggest that outrage pays. This is something I understand as an online writer - outrage brings in the bacon, as people become so angry they have to say something about it.

We should harness our hatred of rumours - and rumour-mongers - by perhaps committing to unfollow and blog people who share trash, and educating readers to be more critical and discerning. 

If you hate rumours, up your media literacy.

[ellis-ralsei]

Is it that difficult to keep our cool in cases of animal abuse?

Can’t we just stop doxxing and let the facts come first?

Last week was a terrible week for our urban wildlife. First, there was the young otter being hooked by an angler. Then there was the two young cats found in a zipped bag in Ang Mo Kio - and just today, wildlife photographers were filmed stuffing styrofoam into fish so that endangered eagles would be baited.

And of course, there were the chorus of netizens, baying for blood. 

It isn’t that difficult to get outraged over visions of animal abuse. Neither was this the first instance of people hurting animals. But we have continually brandished our pitchforks each time an instance of abuse is amplified through social media.

Don’t get me wrong - I’m not saying we shouldn’t get angry at the torture, mutilation and abuse of animals. We should.

But we cannot begin to ruin people’s lives just because the justice system isn’t working up to our standards. 

Take the otter incident for example - the angler’s face was splashed all over social media, leading to name-calling. Some called the angler a drug addict; others called him uncivilised; and others even wrote pretty palpable threats - like ”I will throw you into the river and use you as bait” - on Facebook.

And then there was the group of wildlife photographers - two of whom got doxxed: 

There’s a simple reason why vigilante action is rampant when it comes to animal abuse - the police just isn’t acting as quickly and as efficiently as they would regular crime.

Perpertrators often get away as authorities don’t have concrete evidence to charge and convict them for cat abuse. Missing cat cases are treated as minor cases, like how people treat a cat stuck in a tree.

And the cat welfare community has gotten tired. In an interview with The Middle Ground, Cat Welfare Society President Joanne Ng said that some people who find abused cats just don’t want to call the police:

Ms Ng also said that these numbers weren’t completely accurate in reflecting the total number of cat abuse cases in Singapore, as many cases of cat abuse are not reported or investigated. “Sometimes the person who found the abused cat doesn’t want to make a police report or call AVA,” she said. “Plus a lot of the time, most of these cat owners just want to let it go. They don’t want their cat to be cut up for post-mortem tests, and they just want to give their beloved a proper burial.”

I speak from experience; many who have come before me lament the lack of action from the powers that be.

That was the case for NTU Cat Management Network - which saw a hit and run and a case of cat mutilation last year.

In the case of the hit-and-run, we opted not to send the cat for an autopsy, but instead disposed of the cat on campus grounds. (I buried the cat myself.)

Making a request to view campus security tapes would have required a police report - and we figured nothing would have come of that either.

It’s difficult to fathom this - but this has become a fact of life, at least, to cat lovers in Singapore. We give up on the police.

This resignation, along with a certain sense of wariness, has led to websites (like the above) exploiting our sympathies. 

Culprits are stereotyped - and by extension, so are irresponsible pet owners and people who abandon pets. We see these travesties and we refuse to believe that it was done by one of our own - after all, it seems plausible, with so many reporting that people with weird Mainlander accents are approaching our cats.

Replace cat with any other animal and you’ll get this: 

As I would advise my peers: 

It is key to remember that in any social media posts we produce about operational matters, facts must come first… Do not make uninformed accusations or assumptions about certain issues, especially in cases of abuse. Do not make uninformed accusations about campus or hall administration, or residents.

If you witness an animal that is clearly abused:

A. Take photos of the perpetrator. Take note of where the abuse was at – the mode of abuse, and a description of the perpetrator. Interfere only after you have taken photos of the perpetrator. Take down details of his matric card and IC, and unit of residency.

B. Take photos of the animal and take note of its location.

C. Make a police report.

D. In addition, make a report to the AVA and SPCA. Furnish relevant documents, such as the vet’s written report.

According to CWS: “Police and authorised officers from the AVA have the duty to investigate and the power subsequently to arrest, enter and search any premises with reasonable cause. The SPCA conducts animal cruelty investigation as its core function and thus provides checks and balances to the authorities’ investigations.” 

CWS adds in its website: “When you make a report, get a case number. Also ask which officer is going to be in charge so you can follow up with him or her. Bear in mind, only a witness can make the report - so if someone tells you that they saw a cat abused, only that someone can make the report.”

The writer’s views do not represent NTU Cat Management Network or the organisations he works with.

[ellis-ralsei]

The Red, White and Blue

The Red, The White and The Blue by Yi Shu on Exposure

[ellis-ralsei]

On the current hiatus

You can expect time at theyishus to remain stopped for quite a while

I was expecting to write a lot more about the General Election, but instead, I produced two photostories and a short Facebook post about how I was going to vote.

Read about The Red, White and Blue here

Read about Crossing the Line here

Of course, there was an entire body of work I did for Mothership.sg, which is probably too long to be listed here.

I have been too engrossed with my work, both at school, at Mothership.sg and at NTU Cat Management Network, to look up at the world. But today, I read something that disgusted me so much, I had to write something.

(I write when I’m predominantly disgusted.)

Stay tuned - it should be short.

[ellis-ralsei]

Bowing out

A case of lack of solidarity? Or an ugly side to a maturing democracy?

Steve Chia bows to the audience after the NUSS political dialogue.

Singaporeans were treated to ugly scandals yesterday (Aug 22) - in the latest episode of political drama in the embattled National Solidarity Party, two websites detailing past scandals of two of the party’s key figures - its president, Sebastian Teo, and potential candidate Steve Chia - went viral on the internet. 

“The trolls have won,” declared Steve Chia, who promptly bowed out of the party’s three-cornered fight between the Workers’ Party and the People’s Action Party in MacPherson SMC. His online presence has been all but gone. 

Solidarity with Steve Chia was strong in the opposition ranks. The People’s Power Party, led by Goh Meng Seng, put out a statement on Facebook strongly decrying the smear campaigns, while the Reform Party’s Kenneth Jeyaretnam tweeted that online abuse was a reason to not withdraw, citing the ‘cyber-terrorism’ that his family has faced. 

Yet there were others who claimed that the smear campaigns were orchestrated by the Workers’ Party, the other opposition party on the ballot. One blog post shared by the pro-PAP Fabrications About The PAP page concluded that the attacks were by WP supporters. 

“The timed online reprisals point towards the direction of WP supporters. Do WP IBs (Internet Brigades) exist? Occam’s Razor suggest that they most certainly do,” the blog, oddly named The Thoughts of Real Singaporeans, reads.

Boy, their knees must be sore from jumping to conclusions.

The fact of the matter is that the kitchen is hot, sweaty and grimy; people inevitably get scalded or flamed over choices that they have made.

The past - which these politicians desperately want people to forget - have come back into the forefront. It happens - this was the same thing that occurred to PAP MP Tin Pei Ling with her Kate Spade handbag (now sold for charity).

Yet, blaming people who bow out because they couldn’t stand online harassment seems odd. It’s like victim-blaming. Public figures do know this: stand on the podium, and you’ll have eggs thrown at you, somehow.

To pin this as a characteristic of a maturing democracy seems odd, too. Do we simply accept these instances of ridicule? Or do we call them out?

And then there are the questions the electorate has to ask about mistakes politicians have made. Do we still trust them after they have paid their dues? Where is the line to be drawn? Would a former alcoholic turned lawyer be trusted? What about a ex-convict turned businessman?

I suppose all democracies have to ask themselves these questions, somehow. We cannot forget some mistakes; we cannot forgive some of them, but we can’t constantly look at someone’s past.

[ellis-ralsei]

Reflections on National Day: the anti-establishment supporter’s version

Love your country. Support the other party.

What do you think of when you think of Singapore in the future?

We talk about the future in many forms - dreams, wishes, imaginations, fantasies… We picture people with foresight and think of them as great.

The party currently in rule no longer has the foresight for the people. It doesn’t matter what they have done for our current generation; we really need to get them out of Parliament. 

Like now.

(Not literally now. I mean when Parliament dissolves.)

It’s really clear - our runaway population growth (not from birth rates, but a loose immigration policy) has led to our trains to break down and me going home late more often. It’s incredible how our Transport Minister can look at this situation and say that he’s just ‘extremely concerned’.

It’s incredulous how our Minister for Social and Family Development can say that the elderly who are on the streets trying to collect cardboard to survive are just doing it for the exercise.

They’re exercising... to survive. Just like how I exercise to survive my IPPT.

These people - overpaid, who do nothing to improve our current situation (like, say, review benefits for single mothers) - deserve to be voted out.

Our founding father would probably deserve to be voted out too.

In the opposition parties I see people fighting; ordinary Singaporeans trying to fight for our CPF, to fight for answers; ordinary Singaporeans who are trying to fight for equality at the workplace, to not be outmoded by foreign workers; ordinary Singaporeans who are simply fighting for their own livelihoods, for the right to say whatever they want.

And the system represses them. 

In this 50th Jubilee year, we need to enact and act for change in the future.

Vote for the opposition; even if the other person is literally a cat.

(I don’t know how people put cats on the ballot, but that happens sometimes.)

Reflections on National Day: the pro-establishment supporter version Reflections on National Day: the cynic's version