Balance… Hmmm. Reminds me so much of Tao Te Ching.

The Tao Te Ching says :
” If a country is governed with tolerance, the people are comfortable and honest. If a country is governed with repression, the people are depressed and crafty.”

Let us be comfortable and honest with ourselves. Let us freely express what we feel, what we think… let us not be full of pretence. For the mark of social harmony is tolerance and understanding.

Many Singaporeans are depressed and some are being crafty. There is repression. Where is the harmony there? This is not in keeping with the Tao.

Social harmony is important. But harmony depends on human rights. If we do not have rights, how do we live in harmony with ourselves and with people around us?

When human rights are respected, harmony shall flourish.

“Those who try to control,who use force to protect their power, go against the direction of the Tao. They take from those who don’t have enough, and give to those who have far too much.”

Not through coercion, but through mutual respect, that we learn to live in harmony. We must express ourselves, and let others express themselves.

Not brute force, but a sense of responsibility between individuals with differing views. We can agree to agree, and agree to disagree, without resorting to blackmail,threats, or other use of force.

Only by so doing, do we understand each other. As we understand, we shall be in harmony.

Human rights and social harmony must be balanced not with each other, but with economic aspirations. Singapore have many economic aspirations but little human rights. That is why there is little social harmony.

Understanding this is key.

The copies were expected to arrive on Thursday, the 8th of December, to faciliate the launch on the 11th. However, all 400 copies have been held back from entering Singapore since Thursday.

The organisers were not privy to the conversation between the book importer and MDA, but understand that the title has attracted MDA’s attention, and approval has not yet been granted to allow passage of the books into Singapore. The organisers were also informed that MDA might be paying bookseller Kinokuniya, who has been selling Singapore Sucks! for the past few months, a visit. The organisers are not dismissing the possibility that Singapore Sucks! may be removed from the shelves.

In Conversation

The event at the DHHF was a sharing session by 2 guests from the US, on their life experiences and the work they have done with the Deaf and Hard of Hearing community there. Unfortunately, I had to leave halfway so I was only able to sit through the sharing session of only one of them. Nevertheless, it was a very eye-opening experience for me.

Isais came from a predominantly deaf family. His great grandmother was deaf, so is his grandmother and mother. When he was about to be born, the doctor told his mother that her son would most likely be handicapped. But when he came out, it was clear that he was not handicapped as the doctor had proclaimed. His mother was overjoyed.

Isais could actually hear when he was young. His grandmother recounted how he would start crying every time he heard something fell. As he was approaching 1 year of age, Isais fell sick and gradually lost his hearing.

He grew up with an older cousin who could sign well.  For him, communication was not a problem in the family.

Isais went to mixed schools. The interpreters were not very good and so he had to depend on notes from hearing classmates. He could not really understand what was going on and had to shift schools.

It was when he was finally in a school for the deaf that he found the freedom to express himself and to communicate with fellow students. The school practised racial segregation though, so whites and colored people were separated into different dorms. However, Isais continued to feel unrestrained in communicating with others, who could really understand him.

Isais related that he was picked on and got into fights with hearing people when he was younger. At one point, he got so fed up that he said “yes,deaf means dumb”. His mother told him “no,deaf is a blessing”. This made him reflect and really helped his self-esteem.

In the US, there was a senator who had a deaf brother. seeing the difficulties his brother faced and feedbacks from the deaf community, the senator called for a law to protect the rights of the deaf and hard of hearing, and people with disabilities in general. That law was passed and is known as the American Disablities Act.

This marked a very important development for the community in the US. The ADA meant the recognition and the protection of the rights of disabled people.

One of the apparent developments, was in the case of clinical consultation. Doctors started getting interpreters for their deaf patients. The patient no longer had to scribble their conversations onto a piece of paper with the doctor, consultation was faster and miscommunications were reduced. Important information like drug prescription are being relayed effectively to the patient.

Isais also shared his experience while he was travelling to Singapore. In the US, he could travel and fly freely. When he landed in singapore,he was actually on schedule. But when the customs officer realised that he was deaf, she asked him to follow her. Another officer then called out to this officer and then the both of them had, it seemed, a long disagreement on what to do with him. After that, the airport management questioned him on why he was travelling alone.

Isais was stranded at the airport for 10 long hours.

It was the first time in his life that he felt imprisoned. Since 17,he has been travelling all over by himself. He went to the other states in the US, to Europe, to the UK and other places. Being deaf has never impaired his ability to travel.

Some of members of the audience then put across the point that they do face problems when travelling too. Tiger Airways has a policy of not allowing deaf adults to travel alone on their planes. Some of them had to cancel their tickets at the ticket-collection point, after it was learned that they are deaf. Someone pointed out that she was allowed to travel after signing a disability form. It was also revealed that last year, a group of 16 deaf Australians had wanted to travel to Singapore. However, they faced many problems at the airport just because they are deaf. Upon returning to Australia, the media took up their news, highlighting the discrimination they faced.

Slutwalk

When I arrived at Slutwalk, there was already a big crowd at the event. The field was muddy,but that did not deter people from thronging the area and listening to the band. I did not catch the name but I recognised that some of the band members went to the same school as me (yay!).

When the band was done, a statement was read out by Cher. The day’s cause reiterated and solidarity statements from other Slutwalks in other countries were read out. Slutwalk Bangalore have been stopped by pressure from the police, and after some groups have threatened to attack participants.

Other speakers included Surayah, representing the Singapore Democratic Party; Bridget, championing migrant workers rights; Vanessa, founder of the Girls Muay Thai Singapore.

There was a very interesting lineup for the event.

What I have learnt

Upon reflection, these 2 events have made a profound impact on me.

During the talk at SDHHF, the word “Empathy” was brought up.

I feel that this word is very important. To empathise is to feel another person’s joy and suffering as our own. I am not deaf, or hard of hearing. I am not a woman either. But if I put myself in their shoes, and picture myself facing the things they face with everyday, then I can feel their pain too. I think empathy is what humanizes ourselves to others. Those who have dehumanized themselves, have no qualms hurting others because the lack of empathy make them less susceptible to feeling the pain.

Another thing that kept with me for the rest of the day, was the closing line for the statement at Slutwalk.

“One can never be truly free, until each and every one of us, is free”.

How true. As individuals, we can never quite proclaim the self to be free when people around us are suffering. By the fact that empathy makes us feel and understand the burden that others face, so that burden lay upon us too.

Thank you to the people at DHHF and Slutwalk.

This Sunday, December the 4th, will be the SlutWalk Singapore event at Hong Lim Park.

Their demands are:
No to rape
No to victim-blaming
No to slut-shaming

I condemn rape, an act of violence, in every way.

I condemn victim-blaming.

I give you an analogy.

What if you get picked on and beaten up by gangsters one day. You try to seek help and everybody just ask you things like “Why didn’t you call the police then?”,”Why did you offend them?”,”Why didn’t you run away?”, instead of offering help.

Nobody asks “How do we stop them from beating others?”,”How do we protect potentially vulnerable people?”

How would YOU feel?

I condemn slut-shaming.

Slut is a deragotary term used most often against women. It is especially used against women who defy the convention of what a woman should be in a male chauvinist society, ie. docile,meek and gullible. A form of name-calling, it is often used to cast the victim into an undesirable corner of society.

The truth is anybody and everybody can be called a slut.

I stand in solidarity with the demands of SlutWalk Singapore.

No to rape
No to victim-blaming
No to slut-shaming

SlutWalk website, click here

Christian Eliab Ratnam’s problem was because he posted some photo on Facebook,that some individuals thought were putting Islam in a bad light. So somebody called the police on him. I find his action a non-issue and frankly, I do not understand what is the problem.

Jason Neo’s problem was because he posted a photo on Facebook. He took a photo of school children in a school bus and wrote a caption saying “Bus filled with young terrorists”. Some dude named Firdaus, wrote to 2 MPs asking them to ask Jason to put the picture down. The latter has been kicked out of the Young PAP and has since apologised for his action.

First of all, I am not quite disturbed by the fact that he did what he did. I am more disturbed by the fact that it has become a trend to call the police or invoke the Sedition Act, for such small matters. He was merely expressing what was on his mind. There are a lot of people out there, who have thoughts that run along the same line as him.

Case in point is Lee Kuan Yew. His statements on Malays and Muslims, over the years, were more brutal than the ones Jason and Christian did. Nobody stopped him, except for somebody named Elias who brought charges against him in court last year. What kind of signal does this make?

I do not think that any idea should be made sacrosanct, because the pursuit of free enquiry requires we question and criticize ideas, even of our own self. That is how we form understanding. In authoritarian Singapore, there is no room for free inquiry.

What I am against is the reinforcement of prejudices against any group of people, which would most likely result in discrimination and/or violence against them. Lee Kuan Yew’s speeches influenced many of the government’s policies. A Facebook post here and there, pales in comparison.

Another thing which is important, but is severely lacking in Singapore – mutual respect . People of one religion insulting and making fun of people of other religions, or no religion. Straight people insulting lesbians,gays and transsexual. Singaporeans insulting migrant workers and foreigners. How do we expect someone else to respect us when we do not respect other people? We must learn to respect our similarities and differences.

So, my stand is … free inquiry and mutual respect = understanding. I differ greatly from the government’s shut up and tolerate stance. It is evidently not working. Let us practice free inquiry and mutual respect instead, for a better Singapore… And do not waste so much time on Facebook

P.s : Oh yes, I did not really touch on Donaldson’s case. Well, my opinion is that not only was it a non-issue, it was a complete joke. Donaldson shared the photo on Facebook (sigh,why does it have to be Facebook again?) and said that the photo was a flame-bait.

What does a flame-bait means? It means deliberate flaming, as opposed to flaming as a result of emotional discussions, with the specific intention to incite more flaming.

Apparently some guy, by the name of Amran, who do not understand that level of English, took great offense and called the police, invoking the Sedition Act.

Zely Ariane

The potential in Papua is only limited by imagination – James Moffet, Freeport owner

Solidarity action in front of Freeport office, Jakarta

On 11 October 2011, around 200 people participated in solidarity action for the strikers at PT. Freeport Indonesia. They protested corporate intimidation of the Freeport union and demanded responsibility from the police force for the shooting and violence inflicted upon the Freeport strikers and surrounding native communities. This solidarity action was supported by 25 unions, student, LSM, youth and poverty groups, in Jakarta.

During the strike on 10 October, police attacked the Gorong-gorong terminal in Timika, Papua. Petrus Ayamseba was killed and 8 others injured. At the time of writing, the strike is ongoing, and according to HAM and Papuan anti-corruption activist, Dorus Wakum, Petrus’s body has not yet been buried until Freeport takes responsibility. On the 13th October, solidarity actions were carried out again in Jakarta, by several unions, including the Indonesia Metal Workers Union (SPMI) and Indonesian Workers Union (SPSI). Solidarity actions were also organised in Jayapura, Mojokerto, Jawa Timur and Yogyakarta, by unions and people movements.

The decision to continue striking by Freeport workers, and solidarity from 7 ethnic groups around Freeport, is an extraordinary phenomenon. Against intimidation and death threats to strike leaders, harassments to union members and their families, to the bullets that have persistently been directed at the strikers, this struggle has become one of life and death.

Turning people to poverty,destroying nature

It has been a month since the 8000 or so Freeport workers, from the total 23,000 in the workforce, went on strike. Freedom to unionise, improved work conditions, elimination of discrimination between Papuan and foreign workers, better wages – these are some of the demands that the workers are making, at the risk of life and death. Increment of wages from US$1.5/ hour to US$12/ hour is a conservative demand, as Freeport workers in other countries get between US$30- 50/ hour. In fact, Freeport Indonesia is the biggest and most important gold producer in the world, earning the largest revenue for the Freeport McMoran corporation, as well as the largest revenue for the Indonesian government,to repay its loans. The strike has been slated to continue until 15 November.

In his speech on the 11 October solidarity action, Budi Wardoyo, spokesperson for People’s Liberation Party, said that the wage increment demand was halved to what was previously suggested. The previous demand was maximum US$43/ hour and minimum US$17/ hour. However, the company has only agreed to increase the wages by 25%, which has been rejected by the workers.

This rejection is no folly, as the Freeport workers contribute to 95% of Freeport McMoran’s gold production, including significant percentage of copper production. According to NASDAQ, Freeport has gained exceptionally high profits from the cheap labour of Western Papua, up 60% compared to last year. The profits from increased value of  gold recently, has not been taken into account (New Mathilda).

Grasberg Freeport mine in Western Papua has the highest amount of gold in the world and highest amount of copper ever discovered (Al Jazeera). However, ever since Soeharto awarded operation license in the year 1967, along with contract renewal in 1991 for 30 years and two times renewal of 10 years each, Freeport gold and copper has had no co-relation with increased well-being for Papuans. Papua remains the poorest province in Indonesia, with rising mortality rates and highest number military abuse cases in the whole of Indonesia.

Freeport said that it has lost production of 230,000 tonnes a day in the first week of the strike alone, worth US$6.7 million, that it said, could have been gone into the government’s revenue. Of course this is meant to be losses for the Jakarta office and Freeport stock holders, as the profits have never meant better well-being for the workers and Papuans in general. It has been said that the native communities living around Grasberg would get 1% of the profit from copper extraction, yet the 1% fund have never reached them from the office in Jakarta, instead creating conflict and competition between these groups.

Environmental pollution caused by Grasberg

Everyday, the mine disposes 230,000 tonnes of waste into Aghawagon and other surrounding rivers. Waste by-product that contains limestone (360,000 – 510,000 tonnes are produced per day) have destroyed 2 valleys that span 6.5km. The further exploration of Grasberg will produce 6 million tonnes of industrial waste, and this will continue until there is no more profit left to make (Al Jazeera).

A question of colonialism of the people and the land

For the Papuans in general, the fight for their rights, have long been a struggle of life and death. Whatever that threatens the stability for taking Papuan natural resources, is considered a threat to the Indonesian administration, and is swiftly repressed, killed, imprisoned, kidnapped or disappeared by force. Names like Aristoteles Masoka, Theys Hiyo, Eluay, Opinus Tabuni and Filep Karma, are some who were killed or imprisoned for change in Papua.

In fact, the Papuan fight against Freeport has always been linked to the neo-colonial domination of the Indonesian governement. According to Amnesty International, more than 100,000 people have been killed (New Mathilda). 1,022 Papuans – less than 1% of the total population – under duress by military threat, agreed on a referendum to join Indonesia in 1967. This was after Soeharto had earlier signed the decade long deal with Freeport on Grasbeg. That was the start of Indonesian occupation of Papua.

This has been excarcebrated by authoritarian rule, under influence of Indonesian military, through various military and peace operations. Teminabuan case (1966-67), Kebar incident on 26 July 1965, Manokwari incident on 28 July 2965 dan Military Operation 1965-1969. Later on, the forced disappearance at Sentani 1970, Military Operations in Paniai throughout 1969-1980, Military Operations in Jaya Wijaya and West Wamena on 1970-1985 (Kontras), Operation Tumpas in year 1977 – one of the major operations in which the Indonesian military killed 1000 civilians (Al Jazeera) – and so forth. According to the Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies at the University of Sydney, a “slow genocide” had taken place in West Papua.

Various brutal shooting incidences by state apparatus took place, from July to August 2011. Kontras has listed down a total of 8 such cases. This is not inclusive of the various bloody incidences that had never had closure : Wasior and Wamena, Abepura case ( attack on student hostel by Brimob), torture at Puncak Jaya, to name a few. Following these tragedies, there have been an increase of territorial commando armies in Papua, organic and inorganic troops at areas that are the main source of profits for capitalists. The sub-national administrations of Papua through special autonomy, is a way of dividing the people of Papua.

When we look into historical accountability, the shooting of Petrus Ayamseba and the ongoing violence of state apparatus that are ongoing in Papua, is the manifestation of the oppression and colonialism on the part of the Indonesian government and international capitalists towards the people of Papua. It does not make sense, that the natural riches of Papua have only meant poverty,disease and backwardness for the majority of Papuans. Only in colonialism does this situation make sense.

We, Indonesian citizens suffer the same thing as the Papuans: the colonization by capitalists and international corporations as well as their representatives in government; we both become slaves in our own country. However, differing from Indonesians in other provinces, Papuans are the poorest, and any demands for their rights get branded as separatists and are recklessly killed by the Indonesian army. Papuans have the least medical care, schools, media coverage, young professional workforce, and the worst opportunity on Indonesian soil. In fact, Papuan students in Java cannot find proper accomodation, experience restricted travel and receive the constant surveillance from the public and military. So on and so forth.

Why are Papuans being discriminated in their own country? Is that not colonization?

***
References:
1.  http://kprm-prd-english.blogspot.com/2011/10/on-struggle-of-freeport-indonesias.html
2.  http://www.kontras.org/index.php?hal=siaran_pers&id=1294
3.  http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/08/2011823133628702154.html
4.  http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/08/201182814172453998.html

In a statement (Annex) read out at the gathering, it was reiterated that the death penalty “is an ultimate form of cruel, inhuman and degrading form of punishment and it fundamentally goes against Article 3 of the Universal Declarations of Human Rights that states “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person”.” The Singapore Government however, guards it’s ‘right’ to impose the death penalty and had been the leading opposition voice in the United Nations against calls for a moratorium on death penalty. Most recently it rejected recommendations to abolish or to impose a moratorium made during Singapore’s Universal Periodic Review at the Human Rights Council (6 May 2011).

Today the world is increasingly moving away from accepting the use of death penalty with two thirds of the world’s countries having already abolished the death penalty in law or in practice. Concerned Singaporeans continues to urge the Singapore Government to rethink it’s current stance on the death penalty and impose a moratorium to create the time and space for society to explore alternate sentencing options and to work ultimately towards its abolishment.

For media enquires, contact following spokespersons:
Rachel Zeng, SADPC (rachelabsinthe@gmail.com)
Sinapan Samydorai, Think Centre (thinkcentre@hotmail.com)

Annex

Statement delivered on 4.30pm, 9 October 2011, Speakers’ Corner, Hong Lim Park, Singapore

1.      Dear Friends,

2.      We are here today to commemorate the World Day Against the Death Penalty.  We would like to once again express our solidarity, with groups and individuals all over the world, in calling for a worldwide end to the use of the death penalty on this day. We believe that the abolition of the death penalty contributes to enhancement of human dignity and progressive development of human rights.

3.      The death penalty is an ultimate form of cruel, inhuman and degrading form of punishment and it fundamentally goes against Article 3 of the Universal Declarations of Human Rights that states “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person”.

4.      To date, two thirds of the world’s countries have already abolished the death penalty in law or in practice.  This is confirmed by the increase in the number of states supporting a UN General Assembly’s resolution calling for a moratorium on the use of the death penalty with a view to abolishing it since 2007. Efforts made by activists and organizations all over the world who have worked for years to persuade their governments to abolish this form of punishment have also contributed greatly to this development.

5.      In Singapore, it seems that we still remain in the dark ages keeping company with other countries that  continues to uphold this abhorrent practice.  Locally, the application of the death penalty is problematic as it is rendered as mandatory sentencing, for categories of crimes such as drug trafficking, murder, kidnapping, treason and certain firearms offences.

6.      The majority of publicly known capital cases are related to drug trafficking and related offenses. This is largely due to the Misuse of Drugs Act (MDA) whereby anyone found carrying the stipulated amount of controlled drugs listed in Section 17 of the Act, shall be presumed to be in possession for the purpose of drug trafficking unless proven otherwise. This meant the presumption of innocence is not guaranteed and the burden of proof shifted to the accused. When convicted, the accused persons are almost guaranteed to meet the hangman unless his clemency plea is accepted by the President of Singapore – of which, not a single appeal has succeeded in the last 12 years.

7.      It has been repeatedly pointed out that the mandatory death penalty (MDP), effectively ties the judges’ hands and deny them of the discretion to look into the mitigating factors. For example, outside of drug-related offences the MDP is also applied against crimes of passion such as murders committed in the spur of the moment when emotions are running high, as well as offenders of unsound mind or sub-par intellect. Such instances only fails to prove the much vaulted deterrence factor of the death penalty that is often purported by the State, and there is always the risk of error in applying the death penalty.

8.      The death penalty has been reduced to an exercise in administrative expediency, with the government withholding crucial statistical figures on the State’s use of the death penalty from the public sphere. Without the necessary facts and figures corroborating the efficacy of the death penalty as a deterrent, the government cannot continue to insist anecdotally that the death penalty is effective in curbing specific crimes.

9.      A conflicting message is also being sent out to our society: we do not condone murder nor do we allow euthanasia, and persons who attempts suicide are committing a crime but yet we allow the Government the liberty of prescribing death and execute premeditated killings, even for non-violent and non-heinous crimes.  At what cost to the sanctity of life do we want to maintain peace  and security for our society?

10.  We call for a paradigm shift in our judicial system and principles, a shift away from the emphasis on retributive justice as can be seen with the State pre-occupation with the death penalty, towards the emphasis on restorative aspects of justice.

11.  Thank You.

Source: Rachel Zeng’s Blog

as loud shots ring in Burma,

a blast in Gaza,

genocide in Darfur.

The truncheons raised,

battering workers in Iran,

minorities in Russia,

students in Argentina,

farmers in Korea.

Harassment, intimidation, incarceration,

against human rights defenders,

in Washington,

Singapore,

in China,

as in El Salvador.

Beneath whichever banner,

colour or tongue,

there is the two:

tyrants and the oppressed!

=======================================================

In dedication to people all over the world. Who sees and experience the violence, injustice and unfairness around them and seek to change all that,in their own ways.

I hope in the near future, this poem and its content would be nothing more than a retrospective brooding of the past.

In solidarity, to a peaceful, just and equitable future.

Does education emphasize upon the individual’s enrichment or the benefit of the market ?

All the while through primary and secondary schools, a certain message has always been fed into our minds.  We were told to study hard, so that one day we could be that successful lawyer, doctor, ( insert any other seemingly high paying jobs here ). It would become ingrained within us, that the eventual aspiration to a good education is the attainment of a good job.

As we pass through the quota system of streaming, we come upon what many consider a major crossroad of our lives. We face the choice of going into a polytechnic or to a junior college and university. A less-paying diploma or a specialised degree. A shorter and more definite way to getting that “true” job or a longer path, but which would land us higher up in the corporate ladder.

It is at this juncture that the idealistic notion of getting that dream job, goes head on against reality. At this juncture too, those who did not fare well in the quota system end up in technical schools.

Every year, the intake requirement for every course of tertiary studies changes. When the electronics sector was perceived to be blooming, more people were able to take up that study. When it was perceived that there was more demand in the healthcare industry, the intake requirement for nursing studies was relaxed.

What are the factors that influence the numbers on the quota?

First of all, the market trend shifts. The government perceives this change and puts out its estimates onto the labour market, estimates on how many manpower would be needed in the affected industries. These estimates are then reflected upon the quota system for schools.

Some times, the estimates are made quite accurately, as in the case for nursing. Some times, the estimates are not, as in the case for bio engineering, electronics and medicine.

In summary, the individual goes to school, spending the average 18-20 years of her life, for the final purpose of going into the labour market. That seems to be the reason of our existence.

Is this the true purpose of a good education? Should education be for the development of the individual or should it be for the profits of the market?

I did not vote for you. So, you would have to prove your worth to myself and the other 60% of Singaporeans who had voted the other candidates. All the best and may you succeed.

In retrospect, I think the Presidential Election (PE) was done in a hurried manner. C’mon, 9 days of campaigning and only 1 rally per candidate? How am I supposed to really know the candidates in that short amount of time? Without really knowing them, how can I then make a truly informed choice on who to vote for?

Sure, there were the newspaper reports and interviews. But the problem is, I do not believe the media here. They are ranked number 136 of the Press Freedom Index, you know. 136 is below Iraq (130) and even Zimbabwe (123). Anyway, it was quite obvious that they were trying very hard to bring Tony Tan up as the prime choice for President. Suddenly, he was given the most spotlight as though he had turned into a superhero overnight. Tan Cheng Bock was given less limelight, albeit mostly positive appraisals too. Tan Jee Say was given the worse treatment of being made into a rabble-rouser of some sort and Tan Kin Lian was mostly ignored.

It seemed to me that the media had their own interest to serve, and was religiously following that course. This only led to a biased coverage of the candidates.

In this case, I applaud the TOC for organising the Face 2 Face Forum for the candidates on which there was a robust,unbiased discussion between the candidates and participants.

Despite the fact that the traditional media was biased in its coverage, it is interesting to note that there was a close fight between the candidates Jee Say, Cheng Bock and Tony Tan. The latter two eventually went neck to neck at the concluding stage. In the end, Tony Tan won with only the support of around 30% of the population.

Kin Lian admitted defeat earlier on, but did it in a gracious and admirable way. Got to salute him for that.

Actually, at the 11th hour, I was still undecided between voting for Jee Say or Kin Lian. Tony Tan is too closely attached to the PAP , despite all the hooha. Plus, if the media starts to endorse somebody as zealously as that, it is something to be suspicious about.

I wanted to go to Cheng Bock’s, Jee Say’s and Kin Lian’s rally to hear what they had to say. However, I was kind of turned off when I found out that Cheng Bock was holding his rally indoor and it was not really for the public. The media quoted him as saying that the reason was that, a President must conduct himself in a dignified manner. I thought that was rather arrogant and atas attitude. I mean, what is so degrading to go to the stadium and see your supporters and the public? It is kind of funny that he then had his celebration at a stadium, the day the results were announced.

I went to Jee Say’s rally and I liked his ideas. I liked the fact that he took a stand on various issues like the ISA and death penalty. I also liked his insistence of being independent and of using moral authority as President. A President should be that,I think. Someone like Ong Teng Cheong (man, I respect that guy) . If his job is to only count money, might as well change the title to accountant, or model (for the wayang and show).

I went to Kin Lian’s rally too. But sad to say, I was not convinced on why I should vote for him over Jee Say. Other than being independent, there was no other pulling point. He spoke of being a voice of the people, but I was clueless of his ideas and vision of how to achieve that.

Anyway, congratulations to the candidates and kudos to Jee Say and Kin Lian for persevering on.

I think the PE was a clear signal to the incumbent government that they cannot shove their ways down our throat anymore. I think they were looking for a strong mandate, but they were wrong. And to those people who are saying this or that candidate stole from the other and whatnot, come on la, everybody make their own votes. We vote for whoever we want to. Duh!