This… is… DEMOCRACY!

Sun, 28 Aug 2011
2 min read
Add Comment

CAUTION: This is Sparta!

So after the first round of the Singapore Presidential Election 2011 (PE2011) results came out last night, I posted this status update on Twitter and Facebook:

If there’s gonna be a recount, can I also recast my vote?

Subsequently, I received comments/@replies to do with breast-beating and vote-splitting.

I also had the pleasure of reading similar-sounding status updates around the same time.

To clarify, when I posted that update, I meant it as a tongue-in-cheek critique of the decision to proceed with the recount.

I was fully aware that a recasting of the vote was and is impossible (although I think a run-off vote might be a good idea in the future so that the candidate that is elected goes into office with the support of a clear and distinct majority).

What I meant was: look, if the difference was 100 votes, I’d wholeheartedly say yes to the recount. But if the difference was 7000 votes, how far off could the vote-counters have been?

Was it not a waste of the vote-counters’ and the electorate’s time with a decision that was logical in theory but not in practice?

Many people were complaining about how the vote had been split, and if Tan Jee Say and Tan Kin Lian hadn’t contested, Tan Cheng Bock wouldn’t’ve have had his vote share eroded, and he would’ve become the elected President instead.

I agree that the vote was split in that there were four candidates, so each candidate garnered a share of the vote, however large (or small) it might’ve been.

But to quote a friend on Facebook:

Democracy means I suck thumb and accept this Tan.

There were four candidates; we voted; the Tan of our choice didn’t get in – deal with it.

P.S. To preempt any criticism regarding the picture at the top of my post: yes, I’m also aware that Sparta used to be an oligarchy…

P.P.S. Yawning Bread and Yee Jenn Jong have quite interesting takes on PE2011.

Scumbaggery in the UK.

Sun, 14 Aug 2011
2 min read
2 Comments

Anarchy in the UK.

(NOTE: For the young ‘uns, the title of this post and the image is a reference to a song by the Sex Pistols.)

I’m quite tired of people hijacking the event popularly known as the London ‘riots’ for their own agenda.

Some examples:

  • “This justifies the strict laws against rioting and protesting we have in Singapore”.
  • “This is why we need to love our government, regardless of whoever is in the government”.

I don’t think those two claims are relevant or appropriate to the situation.

The first misses the larger point – this is not a riot, but simply a case of looting and theft carried out by opportunists who have purposefully disregarded social mores and notions of prop(ri)erty.

The second claim entails a blind subservience without moderation or calibration; a one or the other approach seldom makes sense, especially in contexts like these.

In my opinion, the most pertinent issues that seem to have conveniently been forgotten are:

  1. How this scumbaggery has been wrongly labelled a ‘riot’ or a ‘protest.
    This merely legitimises the actions of the looters and thefts and encourages them to be bolder in their impunity.
  2. How everything including the kitchen sink is wrongful fodder for blame with regard to these acts of “feral” scumbaggery.
    When in actual fact, the adage of “Those who criticise [the younger] generation forget who raised it” has never rung truer.

These articles may flesh out my arguments better:

  1. The UK riots and language: ‘rioter’, ‘protester’ or ‘scum’?
    (via Yu-Mei)

  2. Britain’s liberal intelligentsia has smashed virtually every social value.
    (via Andrew)

BTW with regard to the second article, I disagree with the portion on the “destr[uction of] the traditional nuclear family”.

I think the traditional nuclear family is ONE of the ways in which the problem of “a world where the parent is unwilling or incapable of providing the loving and disciplined framework that a child needs in order to thrive” can be resolved.

Also, I’m advocating a moderate approach to parenting/discipline – it’s okay to ‘let children be’, but at times you really have to rein them in.

What is with this excessive tree-pruning obsession?

Sat, 30 Jul 2011
2 min read
Add Comment

The excessive pruning of trees - disapprove.

I’m not against the pruning of trees, because pruning does help at times in terms of improving the aesthetics or safety of a place.

What I’m against is the excessive pruning of trees all over Singapore that takes place on a regular basis.

(At the same time, I do wish more trees could be planted in Singapore, but that’s another battle for another time).

That tree gave some much-needed shade to Pooters – something I appreciate because I hate sitting on an over-heated seat and I hate knowing Pooters is exposed to the elements.

There are other benefits to trees in our urban environment too: carbon sequestration, reduction in ambient temperatures, etc. Read more here.

That’s why trees are especially important in a place like sunny Singapore and in a world stricken by global warming.

However, I’ve always felt that whoever makes decision like these – e.g. to prune trees excessively – do so in the right spirit: to neaten and hence beautify the place, to prevent tree branches from falling and killing people during a gale or a storm, etc.

Unfortunately, these decisions seem to always be made in a vacuum, without consideration of other important factors like the ones I mentioned above: shade, shelter, preventing global warming, etc.

Why?

I think this has to do with encouraging critical thinking and providing these people with an actual knowledge of circumstances in our world today.

And that’s why it has never been more important for us to move away from subjects taught in the traditional curriculum, to teaching slightly more multidisciplinary and ‘real-world’ subjects like biodiversity or environmental ethics now.