garota: May 2005

random musings of a disparate nomad

Tuesday, May 31, 2005

Returned, I Have - For Now


Gratitude for your patience, young pedawans. Re-emerged I have, for temporary relief from the drudgery of the nark side.

***
I am glad today, partly because of good news on the academic front, and mostly because of a few dear, special friends - old, new, and old-new. You know who you are.

By the way, quote of the day - on IMs, blog comment fields and other such substitutes for actual communication:
    I am tired of half-fuck excuses for keeping in touch, and half-fuck attempts at true friendship, and half-fuck ways of doing anything about it.


[More..]

Wednesday, May 25, 2005

technically speaking


Sorry folks, the problem with the [More..] links has been brought to my attention. I'm not sure I have the time to look into it right now, so try not to let your gentle selves get too frustrated. A kind soul may be helping me out (no promises).

Have fun with the saucy photo crop and new links in the meantime.

ruff muakz
garota


Update: Fixed - I think! It was a post pages issue. Utmost gratitude to Ben.

Btw I should mention that there are problems with the [More..] link on a coupla my previous posts when viewing with Safari. (If you can't see the rest of a post, click on the timestamp.) Conversely some of the <-!span class="hide"> tags aren't working, hence showing entire post and then the [More..] link still. More is less.. bah. Firefox seems best so far. Tips/advice from techpundits welcome.

Aight. Back to my Activism and Public Policy paper.


[More..]

Kristof's hope for a thousand dogs


Ok, I couldn’t help myself. The itch to blog something was too much.

***
A coupla days ago, New York Times op-ed columnist Nicholas Kristof was hopeful about the power of blogs to (eventually) uprise against the CCP.

This was mainly in response to the workings of 李新德 (Li Xinde), self-appointed investigative journo-blogger on China’s official wrongdoings.

[Ed: Btw, if you have a coupla minutes, and broadband, a really cool multimedia special report on this can be found here. (If the link doesn't work, go here and click on Chinese Internet Crusader under Multimedia.) If not for anything else, then to gawk/marvel at Kristof's pronounciation of 李新德.]



Kristof writes:
The Chinese Communist Party survived a brutal civil war with the Nationalists, battles with American forces in Korea and massive pro-democracy demonstrations at Tiananmen Square. But now it may finally have met its match - the Internet.
...
I think the Internet is hastening China along the same path that South Korea, Chile and especially Taiwan pioneered. In each place, a booming economy nurtured a middle class, rising education, increased international contact and a growing squeamishness about torturing dissidents.

President Hu has fulminated in private speeches that foreign "hostile forces" are trying to change China. Yup, count me in - anybody who loves China as I do would be hostile to an empty Mao suit like Mr. Hu. But it's the Chinese leadership itself that is digging the Communist Party's grave, by giving the Chinese people broadband.

Kristof has apparently lived in, and wrote much about, China and its lack of democracy, so it’s a surprise to me that his one finding of 李新德 – the basis of his article – has made him so optimistic. Not that I enjoy raining down on parades, least of all Kristof’s.

单位 (Danwei) hasn’t been quite so kind with their assessment of Kristof’s response.

Interestingly enough, a recent article by Kristof on the powers of China as the World’s Capital - and a caution to American pride – is featured on 新京报 (Beijing News). Then again, considering the ego-stroking content for China, it's as surprising as finding too-obviously pro-PAP propaganda journalism on the Straits Times.

For those interested, 李新德’s website is yuluncn.com
Note that yuluncn.com is unavailable in China, but a mysterious yuluncn.net is.

***
On a separate but related note (ie. grassroots action for democracy), I recently wrote a piece for a POLS class on Peter McMahon’s article Are the world peace marches the start of the rise of global democracy?

Here it is (if you’re really bored).

***
ARGUMENTS

Although the title of Peter McMahon’s piece is “Are the world peace marches the start of the rise of global democracy?”, the crux of his article is really the impact of communications technology on what he envisions to be a grassroots-based global democracy – a “new global political order”. According to McMahon, this may happen entirely by virtue of the availability for anyone with internet access to be a part of such a global political order.

McMahon describes the current potential of the internet to rally large numbers for specific social causes, using specific examples from the last decade, and draws a link from large-scale events within social movements to the formation of global democracy, and thereby global governance.

Significantly, he argues for the importance of such a global democracy in bringing more attention of political leaders to global issues, which he describes as currently subordinate to national issues, in the current global political framework which, according to McMahon, is lacking in global governance.


EVALUATION

In regards to the link between social movement events and global democracy, McMahon’s ideas seem to flow intuitively. However, his argument seems premised on the assumption that the biggest – or perhaps only – factor in global democracy is the events in social movements, with event turnout as the largest indicator of success.

Perhaps other factors need to be considered alongside the success of social movement events. I will outline these as follows:

i) Access to the internet.
It is difficult to make a case for grassroots democracy based on communications technology, when almost all 1.4 billion of the world’s poor – about half the world’s workers – continue to live below the poverty line, and are largely unable to access internet facilities.

ii) Organising a collective voice.
McMahon talks about a growing sense of solidarity in terms of an oppositional voice. If this is the case, then it must be considered that such a voice can only be coherent, the extent to which is determinant upon the skills of like-minded grassroots communities to organise effectively in order to speak credibly, and clearly, to both national and global decision-making powers.

iii) Accountability.
Currently, IGOs such as the UN technically have little power to ensure accountability of the world’s nations, within the existing framework of signatories for any UN convention. Effectively, if a country chooses not to be state party to a particular treaty, it has no obligation to fulfil the obligations rendered by it. Even as it stands, the authority of the UN has been greatly undermined by the decisions of the US in the war in Iraq. This has in turn undermined global responsibility towards peace from all nations. A framework for greater accountability to the international community, then, needs to be considered, for any true sense of a ‘global democracy’.

I found McMahon’s most important point to be the current differential levels of importance conferred to national and global priorities by political leaders, and the potential for participants of a global democracy to reduce these disparities (to a certain extent).

In my view, the value of this argument lies in the implications for the empowerment of the global grassroots community to be realised in policy matters at both national and global levels. If greater responsiveness of political leaders can be realised, through greater accountability measures, or political and economic consequences, or through other mechanisms, then the notion of ‘empowerment’ may not be just a lofty ideal but in fact a direct means for global denizens to effectively participate in such a global democracy.


SOME AFTER-THOUGHTS

In light of the war in Iraq despite UN grounding principles against the use of force, is there a way to bring about greater accountability of countries (powerful, in particular) to act responsibly for the greater peace and stability of the global community? Might there need to be a shift to power politics as a basis for peace rather than ‘goodwill’ and the ‘inherent value’ of peace? Also, what measures might be feasible in order to bring about more even development, such that a greater proportion of the world’s population – which reflects its diversity – may participate on a level playing field in a global democracy?

Technorati: , , ,


[More..]

Tuesday, May 24, 2005

Stagger posting


Working on 2 organisations' constitutions, 1 campaign, 3 uni papers, 1 funding proposal for Scotland, possibly another for Perth, 1 research prep as RSF on the CHR at AMUNC, too little sleep, and other such duties and responsibilities as the Rules, Regulations, National Conference or National Executive may from time to time determine.

***
So yes, I'll be a lot less frequent for about.. 3 weeks. Or until excessive procrastination kicks in.

Feel free to leave comments or email (if you have my addy).

[More..]

Sunday, May 22, 2005

Rebel With A Cost

[Ed: Edits have been made since original time stamp. All information is current, and to the best of my knowledge, as of 230505 0253 AEST.]


There’s been a fair amount of commentary on the Singapore Rebel issue, with particularly informative ones by Akikonomu and Jacob George.



Here, I put together a pseudo-commentary of a few aspects I think are key to the issue. Note: IANAL, or any other kind of expert whatsoever. Inevitably, you will find a considerable amount of overlap with the aforementioned, since we are covering the same issue. Some new bits you may find useful, or redundant. Nevertheless, here’s my take on it.

[Be warned - it's long.]


REALM OF POWERS

The MDA was formed by a merger of the Singapore Broadcasting Authority, the Films and Publications Department, and the Singapore Film Commission (SFC), on 1 Jan 2003.

However, the Films Act under which the SFC is legislated is current only as of 2002 (1998 revised edition, last amended 2002).

This is why we haven’t seen any reference made to the relationship between, or distribution of powers of, the MDA and Film Censorship Board. Akikonomu has said that The MDA is in charge of the Film Board, and it should know that it has to first classify Mr See's documentary as a political film in order for the Film Act to be thrown at him.

Thing is, there is no legal obligation for the MDA to follow these instinctive ‘natural law’ procedures, even though the Board comes under the purview of the MDA, because of this legislative gap.


LEGALLY ILLIBERAL, OR PLAIN ILLEGAL?

It was indeed peculiar that the MDA lodged their complaint to the police, instead of the Film Censorship Board. After all, it is not the purview of the police to classify films, political or not. (Akikonomu has also raised this point.)

Here’s where it gets a little uncomfortable, presumably for the powers that be. Section 5(1) explicitly states:
Delegation of powers and duties by Board
5. —(1) The Board may, in its discretion, delegate to any Censor, Deputy or Assistant Censor of Films, either generally or in a particular case, all or any of the powers conferred and duties imposed upon it by this Act except the power —

(a) to prohibit the exhibition of a film;
AND Sec. 15 states:
Prohibition and approval of films for exhibition
15. —(1) After the submission of a film for the purpose of censorship, the Board may —

(a) approve the film for exhibition without alteration or excision;
(b) prohibit the exhibition of the film; or
(c) approve the film for exhibition with such alterations or excisions as it may require.

(2) The Board shall, in any case to which subsection (1) (b) or (c) applies, furnish to the owner in writing its reasons for the prohibition or for requiring the alterations or excisions.

Oh dear. It seems that the Board may be in breach of these 2 Sections. Let’s look at the facts:

i) The party calling for the withdrawal of Singapore Rebel (thereby prohibiting the exhibition of the film) was not the Board, but the organiser/s of SIFF.
ii) The Board is not empowered to delegate such prohibitional powers to SIFF.
iii) The owner of the film was not informed in writing its reasons for the prohibition of the film. In fact, neither the Board nor MDA had made any contact with Martyn See.
iv) Neither the police nor the courts are empowered under the Film Act to decide whether a film is a political film.

Are we understanding the implications of these collective counts of (potential) breach?


A BIT OF IRONY

The MDA says that the first aim of the MDA is to ‘promote the growth of the media industry’. Well, with the eyes of the international media on the Singapore Rebel case, they’ve certainly achieved this quite spectacularly.

More ironic, however, is this: The setting up of MDA is in response to the convergence of different media that requires a consistent approach in developing and managing the different forms of media.

Consistent, right.

Like how Singapore Rebel is a party political film, but CNA’s Up Close feature on 6 ruling party Ministers is not. (Next section elaborates.)


SELECTIVE LEGISLATION?

Jacob George has suggested that CNA seems to have a way out, when the Act states that "For the avoidance of doubt, any film which is made solely for the purpose of — reporting of current events.." is "not a party political film".

A problem lies in the vagueness of wording of the Act itself. What can be claimed as ‘pure reportage of current events’ by an investigative journalist such as John Pilger, or film-maker such as Martyn See, may at once be deemed as a ‘party political film’ if the MDA (it should technically be the Film Board) so interprets as such. This applies both ways.

I could, in fact, argue that what seems to be more a profile feature on 6 political leaders of the Powerful Autocratic People rather than ‘coverage of current affairs’ would qualify more as a party political film than Singapore Rebel - but hey. My word is nothing against that of a Man In White, who could probably throw me into an approved warehouse to reflect upon my subversive disturbances to the internal security of Singapore.




SUBMISSION, NOT SUBMISSIVENESS

Contrary to some existing posts on the topic, Martyn See did in fact submit Singapore Rebel to the Board for approval. From Martyn's comment:
    It was a non-finalist entry at the Singapore International Film Festival short film competition and the festival had submitted the film for the purpose of exhibiting it at the Goethe Institute. If passed by the censors, it would have been screened along with all the other non-finalist entries to an audience of about 80 people, and not all of whom would be interested in watching a little self-made video of a lonely opposition figure.

GRAND ARCHITECTS OF THE LAW

The Powerful Autocratic People, of course, are the Grand Architects in our little matrix of existence. See how, in Sec. 3, they have made sure there is no way our fine Asian conservative values could be violated:
Board of Film Censors and appointment of officers
3. —(1) There shall be established a Board of Film Censors consisting of not less than 3 members including a Chairman, all of whom shall be Censors of Films appointed by the Minister.

(2) The Minister may appoint such Deputy and Assistant Censors of Films and such Inspectors of Films as he may think fit.

(3) The Minister may, by notification in the Gazette, appoint an officer to be the Licensing Officer for the purposes of this Act and may similarly appoint such number of Assistant Licensing Officers as may be necessary.

What excellent foresight. Now we can be certain our children will not be exposed to questionable material, or our youth influenced by those ‘western ideas of democracy’, since the Minister himself appoint the censors officers one leh.

Just to show you how robust our model of spick-and-span media is built on an even more robust, spick-and-span model of democracy (in Sec. 4):
Procedure of Board
4. —(1) The Board may act notwithstanding any vacancy in its membership.

(2) The quorum at all meetings of the Board shall be 2 in addition to the Chairman.

(3) The Chairman shall have a casting vote in addition to his deliberative vote.

So, it doesn’t matter even if certain ‘dubious’ members of the Board become Singapore Rebels themselves, and express dissent to the decisions of the Board through their absence; the meeting is still valid. Don’t forget, all you need are 2 more lackeys loyal followers of the Chairman, who, of course, is himself a lackey of appointed by the Minister.


WE ARE ALL CRIMINALS

As Akikonomu has pointed out, what ”film” means in Sec. 2(1) means that any wedding or birthday video is is a ‘film’. May I add that this would also include all videos taken with our cute little mobile phones and fancy cameras. Yes, even that silly 7-second clip of my friend Ah Beng rolling up his yellow Armani pants.

As such, Sec. 21(1) renders us all who have such ‘films’ in our possession, as criminals – no less than Martyn See is, anyway:
Penalty for possession, exhibition or distribution of uncensored films
21. —(1) Any person who —

(a) has in his possession;
(b) exhibits or distributes; or
(c) reproduces,

any film without a valid certificate, approving the exhibition of the film, shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction

Herein lies another problem with the wording of the Act. In the last clause above, the Act declares such a person as described in Sec. 21(1) as guilty of an offence, suggesting the Act is to play the judicial role, not our State's judiciary; or that there is simply no judicial process in such circumstances. It then continues, 'shall be liable on conviction', suggesting a trial in court. What exactly are the implications of sub-clauses (a), (b) or (c) being affirmative again?

May I bring to your attention that conviction without trial is a violation of our Constitution, as per Sec. 9(3):
Liberty of the person
9. —(3) Where a person is arrested, he shall be informed as soon as may be of the grounds of his arrest and shall be allowed to consult and be defended by a legal practitioner of his choice.

Unless, of course, Martyn See is deemed to be such a threat to 'public safety, peace and good order' that the exemption in Sec. 9(6) must be applied:
(6) Nothing in this Section shall invalidate any law —
(a) in force before the commencement of this Constitution which authorises the arrest and detention of any person in the interests of public safety, peace and good order;


Moving back to the Films Act. What truly is the clincher - for our shining model of democracy - is the exemption specified in Sec. 40(1):
Exemptions
40. —(1) This Act shall not apply to —
(a) any film sponsored by the Government;

So yes. Under this, CNA - and all other official Singapore media - would be exempt, if it is true (could it possibly be? *gasp*) that Singapore’s mainstream media is controlled, directly or indirectly, by the Singapore government.

This also means that the ruling party can, (election period or not), broadcast programs about its Ministers, (election candidate or not), whereas anyone else, (opposition party or not), will become a felon in this free and democratic country.


APPEALING THE ARCHITECTS

In this case, because there has been no available documentation of the Board’s classification of Singapore Rebel as a ‘party political film’, Martyn See will not be able to make an appeal under Sec. 24 – since it cannot be proven that this was a decision of the Board to begin with:
Appeals
24. —(1) Any owner of a film aggrieved by any act or decision of the Board may, within 30 days of the date on which he is notified thereof, and on payment of such fee as may be prescribed, appeal to a Committee of Appeal by lodging with the Secretary a written notice of appeal.

***
Therefore, since Martyn See has flagrantly threatened the stability, security and racial harmony of Singapore unilaterally, with the making of the yet-to-be-classified-but-alleged party political film Singapore Rebel, I hereby, by no powers of the Republic of Singapore vested in me, declare Martyn See guilty under Sec. 33 and shall be arrested under Sec. 23, and shall be subject to juducial ruling under Sec. 21, determining:
A fine of not less than $500 for each such film he had exhibited, distributed or reproduced, as the case may be (but not to exceed in the aggregate $40,000) or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or to both.

Because, you know, we must ‘protect core values’ and safeguard the interests of our conservative Party majority.

***
[Ed: Feel free to point out any mistakes I may have made - other than publishing this post, that is. For those who want to keep this for reference, I suggest you copy+paste before this blog gets shut down.]


Technorati: ,

[More..]

Saturday, May 21, 2005

Spurlock, You Rock


I once read a quote that went something like, one of the ways you make a difference is by impacting your society, your culture: get out there, write the music, make the movies, write the books, create the art.

Morgan Spurlock is certainly one of those people making that difference.

***
Straits Times May 19, 2005
Maker of Super Size Me tackles religious bias
[Ed: Whole article here, since brilliant STI now charges for access]



NEW YORK - THE man who made a hit movie out of eating McDonald's fast food for a month has filmed a 'fundamentalist Christian' man living as a Muslim to find out what it is like to face the prejudice that many
Muslims in America deal with since Sept 11.

The experiment is part of Super Size Me director Morgan Spurlock's new reality TV show 30 Days, which places people in a variety of unfamiliar circumstances for 30 days.

Spurlock made his name with the Oscar-nominated documentary Super Size Me about the impact on his health of a month's diet of McDonald's burgers, shakes, chicken nuggets and soda.

In one episode of the new TV show, a conservative straight man tries living with a gay roommate. In another, a mother turns to binge-drinking to send a warning to her daughter. Spurlock puts himself to the test by living on the minimum wage.

'One of my favourite episodes is... what's it like to be a Muslim in
America...who is seen every day as a threat to our freedom simply because of their colour, their race, their religion,' Spurlock said in an interview on Monday.

'(It's) something we deal with every day in America, and we hear about
it with terrorism threats every day,' he said.

'We took a fundamentalist Christian from my home state of West
Virginia, somebody who is very pro-war, pro-'us versus them', that when
you hear Muslim the only thing he thinks of is a guy standing on a mountain with an AK-47.'

The man leaves his wife and children at home and goes to live with a
Muslim family in Dearborn, Michigan, home to one of the largest Muslim populations in the United States.

'He dresses as a Muslim, eats as a Muslim, he prays five time a day, he studies the Quran daily, he learns to speak Arabic, he works with an imam, a Muslim cleric, to learn the history of Islam.

'And the transformation this guy goes through in 30 days is miraculous, it's incredible,' Spurlock said.

The documentary-maker says the show is driven by the desire to make people think about society's problems. – REUTERS


Technorati: , ,

[More..]

Friday, May 20, 2005

Appetite For Deconstruction - Part II


Some people are now very critical of gay because it has often been very sexist, and without listing every other non-heterosexual practice, it has basically made invisible anyone who isn't a white gay boy who likes dance music. Activists who work with queer theory - which is knowing that you can't get rid of identity, but that the next best thing is to make people aware of it - talk about 'queer' and advocate things that blur the boundaries because:

  • It makes people aware of the important things they have in common - like the need to take a piss.
  • It allows participation by everyone that wants to be involved
  • It makes people question their knowledge of issues and not just rely on their own personal experience.
  • It means that the people in power ('straights') can't just say 'I'm not gay, so why should I care'.
  • It demands that straights and everyone, educate themselves to stop reproducing oppressive behaviour that affects not only themselves, but other people.
  • It says that 'just because I’m a woman, doesn't mean I inherently know everything about feminism and how to solve the problem of sexism.'
  • It means that queers always have to question the reasons they do things so they don't fall into traps of stereotyping and excluding/oppressing people.



  • What queers might need to be wary of:

  • Talking like they own an issue
  • Speaking disrespectfully to people and disregarding their experience.
  • Being exclusionary and elitist because someone has chosen to adopt an 'identity'.

    The inevitable 'exclusionary' aspect of queer:
  • It inadvertently forces out people who refuse to question their identity


    The role of biology/bodies in queer:

    People often question what the point is of looking to science to explain any component of queerness. If there is a gay gene or a transsexual gene - should parents be warned so they can abort the foetus or fix it with drugs? If we really want to think about things in terms of biology, why don't we just look at it in terms of the personality of people, and how 'compelled' they are to align their sex with their gender, or how 'compelled' people are to act on their same-sex attraction. Clearly many 'trans'/'gay' people go their whole lives living as how society wants them to, just because for them, it's not perfect but it is tolerable. For other people, they can't, and so in some instances surgery is necessary, or making a point of coming out as 'lesbian' is necessary.

    I personally don't think this is the ideal way things should be. Perhaps a better solution is to promote an acceptance of the different practices that people do and to remove the binaries (like woman/man, white/black etc) that unreasonably oppress the people on 'the bad side': women | black | disabled | gay | etc.

    Like the unfortunate experience of being attracted to members of your own sex - feeling that you are this thing - and being told that you are being dishonest if you don't confess to everyone - so they can tolerate you. Transsexualism is the same. Like all oppression related to sexuality and gender - it wouldn't be an issue if we got rid of the binary gender system. And we have to continually remind ourselves what the point is in having a system of 'sex' or 'gender'.


    Reality kicks in:

    Yeah, we are a long way from the point of getting rid of these HUGE categories, which is why we run campaigns like National Genderf*#k Day and pan toilet stuff. It creates confusion and it promotes discussion. It forces queers to look at their own experience of gender, how they deal with sexism and produce it themselves. It makes us interested enough to read posts like this, so we can be informed when 'straight' people make stupid comments. Or even when we do. And we can help us educate each other so there is one less close-minded bigot in this world.


    Pan toilet campaign:

    People are going to have different opinions about gender | sexuality | queer | essentialism vs constructionism/whatever, the point is that this is a campaign with a pretty broad scope for people to say what they want to say. And people - no matter what their identity/experience - shouldn't feel threatened that they are going to lose anything.

    We are fighting for a pan toilet so in the immediate time frame people have more choice. People can still identity as a man, like they can identify as a woman, like they can identify (or non-identify) as anything else.

    We are fighting for a pan toilet so in the long term, we bring people to a point where they are accepting of difference.

    ***
    And if you still haven't had enough links:
  • Review of Peniston's (no, this is not a pun) Pederasts and Others: Urban Culture and Sexual Identity in Nineteenth-Century Paris
  • Review and review of Graham Robb's Strangers: Homosexual Love in the Nineteenth Century


    Technorati: , , ,

    [More..]

  • Ettling: Appetite For Deconstruction - Part I

    [Ed: I just had to break this one up; it was too damn long.]


    I think the pan toilet campaign is a good campaign.

    It's generated a degree of interest in queer issues and activism on campus that I haven't seen for a long time. It doesn't require much to get involved in this issue. Take some stickers and put them up on toilet doors, and just be involved in the discussion that comes from it.

    It's important to be open-minded and listen to the experiences that people have had. At the same time, I think it's important to avoid what is called identity politics. This is what the queer movement intended to get rid of. Just because you are gay | black | disabled | transsexual | bi | white | whatever, doesn't mean that you have can be a spokesperson for everyone that is placed into those categories.

    In academia, queer came out of post-structuralism, which had the main aim of getting us to question what is 'natural' or 'normal'. People pointed out how the experience of those who did same-sex fucking was very different according to the culture/time in history that these people lived in. It finally culminated in the stage in the mid 1800s when the conception of the homosexual came to be. This is linked to the time when doctors started pathologising 'same-sex attractedness' and these people were eventually enforced an identity which became known as gay.

    In the early 1970s amidst a time of great social change this 'gay' identity was used to gain a whole raft of rights for people who either chose this category or were forced into it. Other gays told same-sex attracted people to 'come out', be gay, so the rest of society knew that there were lots of people like it who weren't all deviants and monsters.

    After a while though, people realised the limitations of what being part of this identity could give same-sex attracted people. Gay ended up being a stereotype that excluded lots of people, it was used to sell a liberation, but only to those that could afford it or lived in cities where there were enough gays to make money. It also put same-sex attracted people in a neat, little box so they could be understood, but then ignored by the rest of society. In the end, gay became as much of a problem as it initially was a great solution.


    Technorati: , , ,

    [More..]

    PAN 101


    PAN TOILETS

    What are pan toilets?

    A toilet facility that welcomes everyone regardless of gender or sex. A pan toilet is open to people who identify as woman or man, as well as anyone who is in between, has transitioned from one gender to another, has 'fluid' gender, is genderqueer, or rejects the gender system.



    Why have pan toilets?

    They provide more choice for people by providing a toilet space that doesn't enforce the gender binary (man/woman). This is of potential benefit to trans, intersex and genderqueer people. Pan spaces also create an awareness that this binary is a social construction and not a natural or inherent fact of our existence. We use the creation of a new space - and the unfamiliar term 'pan' - to inform people about the inequities that result from categorising people into rigid boxes.

    What can I do to help?

  • Find out what your queer, Women's, Equity and Welfare Departments are doing to get pan toilets on campus.
  • Take part in National Genderf*#k Day or create your own festival
  • Claim an existing toilet as 'pan' for the day and give out information.
  • With your union, lobby the university to implement a plan to create a pan toilet option in every building on campus.
  • Bring up the pan toilets in a conversation with your friends, workmates or family. Ask them to question some of the assumptions they have about gender.


    THE BROADER ISSUES

    Is there anyone against 'pan'?

    Creating a pan space undermines the man/woman gender binary. This system is inherently sexist because it dictates certain behaviours as normal to each gender. There are a variety of different attitudes as to who benefits from sexism. At the moment our gender system encourages women to do the majority of unpaid domestic work, and it encourages men to work long hours because of their duty to support a family.

    Some people say that this arrangement is of particular benefit to the owners and managers that are making a lot of money in our society. Sexism means they don't have to pay for the full cost of childcare. When men are too afraid to lose their job because they are soley responsible for feeding their family, it means that the bosses don't have to deal with workers demanding better conditions in the workplace from the profits being made. This group of people who are referred to as 'the ruling class' are considered by some to be the creators and reproducers of racism, sexism, queerphobia and other forms of prejudice. They use these ideas - often aligning them with religious 'facts' and threats of damnation - to distract people's attention from the real source of their problems.


    Is gender different from sex?

    There are a variety of different responses to this question. It seems extreme to say that sex isn't an important category. I mean, isn't it obvious that you need a penis and a vagina to create a baby, and surely the reproduction of our species is an important thing. However, we can challenge certain assumptions about sex by bringing to light the existence of intersex people, infertility, people with 'unformed' genitalia, IVF and turkey basters, genetic engineering etc.

    Some people like to say that sex and gender is in between the ears and not in between the legs. We all have different personalities, and we all interact differently with our socialisation into gender. Some people believe that gender and sex is a total social construction, other people believe that genetics play an important part in determining who we are. At the end of the day, it might be helpful to agree on one thing. Regardless of the formation of gender and sexuality, we should all be given the right to be who we want to be - if it isn't hurting anyone else that is.


    What happens to sexuality if we get rid of gender?

    For some people, the only way to liberate people from sexism and queerphobia is to get rid of the gender system. If we don't have a rigid concept that you are a man or a woman, then there can be no fixed sexuality - either homosexual or heterosexual - to go with it. It will open up a greater degree of choice for everyone. There will still be 'men' who will want to have relationships with 'women', but it will be like having a preference for blondes or people with broad shoulders.

    The idea is that people will get to do what they want to do. There will be no painful 'coming out' processes because there will be no 'in'. Relationships will be negotiated, rather than assuming that a partner has a duty to perform a certain role. Questions that might be asked are: Do we want to be monogamous? Is it alright if I have purely sexual relationships with others if you are my primary partner? Will I do most of the housework, whilst you earn a wage? Will we take it in turns with who goes out to work? Will we have a roster to manage our time evenly? It's about giving ourselves more choice, whilst also being aware of our social obligations like raising children in supportive environments, looking after the sick etc.


    A NEW WAY OF BATTLING SEXISM

    Blurring the boundaries of gender is considered by some to be a new and radical way of combating sexism. For both conservative people with a stake in the system and some schools of feminism - it is perceived as a threat. 'Woman', 'lesbian', 'gayboy' etc.; are identities that are undervalued in society. It is usually a long and painful struggle to accept one's place in the subordinate category that society places us into. For some people, their method of changing the system is to get the people that they feel fit into their category to feel a sense of power within it, and then to argue that their category is just as good as the other ones. This is called identity politics.

    Post-structuralists believe that the category itself plays a part in causing the oppression. They believe that continuing to participate in the category is to contribute to the reproduction of that oppression. It is acknowledged that you can't escape identity (because other people will place you in the categories even if you don't), however some believe that repeatedly questioning them has great value in undermining stereotypes. People can do this by exaggeratedly 'performing' an identity - communicating through clothes, hair, make-up, writing, art, music etc. By continually challenging people's assumptions of identities by 'performing' them rather than 'being' them, it allows less certainty about who can be part of 'the club' or not i.e. it prevents queerbobia in women's groups, transphobia in queer groups, it leaves room for et hnic and cultural diversity etc.


    Sex is politics? Please Explain?

    There is often a question of 'so what?' when it comes to critiquing identities and the structures of society. Even if we are constantly undermining the production of oppressive categories, it still doesn't change major things like making sure everyone on the planet has enough to eat. Some post-structuralists look for other theories to complete their analysis of why things are. Some have even gone away from their previous rejection of progress to again look at narratives that may help to solve life's big problems. The major ideologies that are in circulation today include Marxism, liberalism, anarcho-syndicalism and the 'third way'. It's up to you to find out what you think of all of these.


    Isn't this all a bit unrealistic?

    As unrealistic as a GST was in 1995. Perhaps as unrealistic as the prospect in 1960, of a black woman controlling US foreign policy. People have achieved their ends (both good and bad) in short periods of time under seemingly insurmountable odds. But you can only create change if you get involved. Progressive, left-wing students are sick of unintelligent, money-conscious and conservative people making all the decisions.

    We want the students, the downtrodden and ordinary working people to be able to have more of a say. Thinking that you can't make a difference - or thinking that there's too many intellectual contradictions to do anything - plays into the hands of the people who are happy to keep things just the way they are. Fighting for a pan toilet on your campus isn't going to get rid of sexism over night. But it's providing an important service in the here and now, it's a fun campaign to get involved in and it's a really good start to getting other people think critically about the world they live in.


    Technorati: , , ,

    [More..]

  • Wednesday, May 18, 2005

    embargo May 18th


    STUDENTS SEIZE TOILETS TO FIGHT PREJUDICE
    [Quotes from MUSU queer officer Alex Ettling]



    University students from all around Australia will seize a boy’s toilet today in a radical attempt to get people questioning the role gender plays in modern Australian society.



    ‘As part of a national campaign to see the introduction of ‘pan’ toilets, students regardless of their gender, will be occupying and partying in cubicles together.’ It is all part of a bid to get university administrations to provide permanent non-gender specific toilet spaces.

    The toilets we demand are called ‘pan’ rather than ‘unisex’ because we want to get the message across that gender is moveable and not fixed to our biological sex, as is commonly thought.

    ‘The pan toilets are open to girls, boys, people who are in-between, and people who even reject the whole gender system.’

    Seizing the toilet is part of a day of events run through National Genderf*#k Day. University students will also enjoy non-phallic bbqs, attend trans awareness seminars, drag king workshops, with the days events culminating in all universities partying at Abode, Melbourne’s first pansexual nightclub.

    Organisation of the events has run through queer Departments in university student unions. queer organising has taken a radical shift since the days of gay liberation. We now emphasise the role of socialisation in how everybody, including heterosexuals, view their gender and sexuality. We like to say it’s in between the ears, not between the legs.

    ‘We deliberately spell queer without the capital ‘Q’, because queer is a label that rejects all fixed identities – from gay, to straight, to man, to woman. We are more than the boxes that society places us into, so we encourage everyone to mess around with them a little – just to remind us all.’

    queer Departments around the country are focussing on the many varieties of gender and sexuality in an attempt to highlight the particular disadvantage that trans, intersex and genderqueer people still experience in Australian society. According to the Victorian Gay and Lesbian Rights Lobby, 38% of trans people experience abuse in the education system.

    ‘It’s a figure that is way too high. We want to see the government doing something about this appalling discrimination. The first thing they can do is to provide safe toilets for everyone who wants to get an education. The second thing they can do is to amend anti-vilification laws to fully include trans people.’

    Genderf*#k Day is only the start of an effort by student unions to put a new form of feminism back on to the Australian social agenda. It is part of the build up to the annual ‘queer Collaborations’ this year being held in Perth during July. Students are mobilising for the largest queer student conference in Australian history with the belief that it is likely to be the last conference if the federal government passes Voluntary Student Unionism. The legislation has the result of limiting the funding that supports queer Departments and other student activities.

    ***
    [Ed: Just heard back again from the Harvard collective - they're running a fair bit of publicity on GenderF*#k! Also they're seeing some (very) recent positive changes in the way of training on trans issues at some of the units on campus. Won't say more as I've been advised this hasn't even been officially released yet. Still - how rad is that!]


    Technorati: , , ,

    [More..]

    Tuesday, May 17, 2005

    F#*king With Gender

    [Ed: Expect blog-diarrhoea on GenderF*#k in the next 48 hours or so.]

    Tomorrow is GenderF*#k Day 2005.



    For the past two months, we’ve organised lots on this: campaign strategy, pan toilet female safety issues, feminist debates, constructionist debates, identity debates, endless, endless emails, press releases, editorials, putting together brochures | info kits | posters | logos, getting special GLBTIQ speakers, media coverage, even getting the queer collectives at Harvard and UCLA on board.

    Tomorrow will be the culmination of all our efforts, across the country.

    Moral (oh, how I hate the word) of the story/ Message of the campaign:

    Gender is a constructed binary.

    To Genderfuck is to deliberately send mixed messages about ones sex, usually through dress. ... The purpose is to raise discussion and awareness surrounding Gender, Intersex and Trans issues. Most importantly it is to educate individuals of the sheer complexity of what gender can mean from one person to the next.

    Genderf*#k Day May 18th is an opportunity to involve more than just queer students. The aim is to involve entire universities and the community nationally, even internationally as the National Union of Students have begun to inform others in the UK and US. It is a day of action that deals with some tough, challenging and confronting concepts surrounding gender. When you add cultural implications of what gender can be and start deconstructing gender binaries, things start to get really interesting.

    As Genderf*#K Day is an action organised by a collective, what happens on the day will depend upon each body of individuals around the country and across the sea who take up the challenge. All student guilds and unions have been invited to take part, not just the queer departments. The original developers of the idea have provided a basic format for people to follow if they wish, encouraging people to provide Pan (non-gender specific) Toilets, hold forums and sell pink and blue ribbons.

    Pan Toilets allow us to say, ‘Nup, I don’t have a gender or (sex)’, I mean what are those categories of man and woman good for anyway? They limit our choices, and stereotype people. Bah!’ It has been suggested that universities hold public forums and workshops leading up to the day, inviting guest speakers from various organisation and backgrounds. Melbourne University has held their first forum on April 18th with much success. Queer Departments will be selling Pink and Blue ribbons for people to show their support (funds raised go towards QC in Perth this year). And of course the recommended dress code for the day is Genderfuck

    To quote Alex Ettling, a Melbourne university Queer officer, ‘[Genderf*#k Day] gives activists something tangible to focus on and provides a visible reminder of what can be achieved when people work together collectively.’ It is also a way of non-queers joining with queers for a day to discuss issues that go beyond sexuality and affect us all. With reference to Kinsey’s sexuality scale we will be developing people's understanding that gender binaries are not for everyone.

    Binaries are misleading and do not include the whole community as a society.

    Technorati: , , ,

    [More..]

    Monday, May 16, 2005

    Originally Aboriginal

    [Ed: This is a continuation of this. Also, the terms Aboriginal and Indigenous have been used interchangeably. Click on timestamp for complete post.]

    The meeting at the Aboriginal Tent Embassy was quite an experience. It was my first visit there, and I was all riled from hearing Sarah speak about the Indigenous injustice in Australia earlier this week, and was eager to learn all I could about it.



    The Aboriginal Elder we met with talked about the history of the Tent Embassy, the various departments that run under it, and the myriad of issues facing (and continuing to marginalise) the Indigenous people: Lake Cowal and other sacred land threats; lack of education and health provisions; land rights and forced incapacity for self-determination; police violence on Aboriginal people, and - the clincher - the stolen generation.

    I wanted to share this bit from then-PM Paul Keating’s 1992 Redfern Speech:
      It begins, I think, with the act of recognition. Recognition that it was we who did the dispossessing. We took the traditional lands and smashed the traditional way of life. We brought the disasters. The alcohol. We committed the murders. We took the children from their mothers. We practiced discrimination and exclusion.

      It was our ignorance and our prejudice. And our failure to imagine these things being done to us. With some noble exceptions, we failed to make the most basic human response and enter into their hearts and minds. We failed to ask - how would I feel if this were done to me?

      As a consequence, we failed to see that what we were doing degraded all of us.
    The idea of the stolen generation, in particular, filled me with a convulsive stew of guilt and repulsion. The fact that it was actual government policy to sanction acts like these:
      The Australian government literally kidnapped these children from their parents as a matter of policy. White welfare officers, often supported by police, would descend on Aboriginal camps, round up all the children, separate the ones with light-colored skin, bundle them into trucks and take them away. If their parents protested, they were held at bay by the police.

      Sometimes, to avoid harrowing scenes of parents clinging to the sides of the trucks, and to frustrate attempts to hide the children when the trucks drove into the camp, the authorities resorted to subterfuge. They would fit out the back of a truck with a wire cage and a spring door -- like an animal trap. Then they would park the truck a short distance from the camp and lure the children into the cage with sweets scattered on its door. When enough children were in the cage, they would spring the trap door and drive rapidly away.
    Sarah was telling the bunch of us that when she was dealing with many Indigenous youths in her youth worker days, she was immersed in such a strong sense of guilt that she didn’t really know what to do with it. I will always remember the response of the Indigenous Elder she confided this to:

    Don’t be guilty; be angry.

    ***


    Listening to the Elder speak, I remained standing on the dry, grainy dirt plain, feeling the slight burn on my cheeks from the unusually intense rays of an afternoon autumn sun. There was something that felt profoundly symbolic about holding - almost humbly cusping - a sprig of eucalyptus with both hands, standing in a circle surrounding the ceremonial fire of peace and justice.

    As I looked straight at the flaming symbol of the undying Aboriginal spirit in the centre, and all that it has come to represent, I could not help but feel an oddly deep respect for the strength, tenacity, and sheer determination of the Indigenous peoples of this land - to continue fighting against more than 200 years of dispossession and injustice by other people, on the very land that had always been their own.


    For the keen:
  • Amazing pictorial history of the Embassy
  • Guardian, 19 Aug 02: Raising the sovereignty stakes
  • Australians for Native Title and Reconciliation


    Technorati: , ,

    [More..]

  • Sunday, May 15, 2005

    Something From Kate


    Yesterday a bunch of us from UNSW went with Sarah Maddison, one of my favourite activists of all time, to Parliament House in Canberra. We were going to have an informal discussion with Senator for ACT Kate Lundy of Labor and meet up with an indigenous representative at the Aboriginal tent embassy.



    Kate Lundy was more personable than I had imagined, although that was probably more from actually meeting her than from anything I'd read about her.

    The discussion was open and candid. Kate answered questions on a myriad of topics, from the IT industry to the Australia-US FTA to VSU to abortion to Labor caucus politics.

    What I appreciated most, however, was Kate's honesty about Labor's treatment of the Marriage Act Amendment. Labor had been placed in a particularly precarious position (how's that for alliteration) by Howard's circus of wedge politics, and many (including myself) were extremely disappointed by Labor's support of the Bill.

    It had been clear that the Labor Party was particularly (and spectacularly) divided on the issue, and Kate shed a little more light on the messy internal conflict that eventually saw Labor abandoning the interests of the LGBT community. Kate's response elicited some of my sympathy for the Labor Left, though I cannot deny the permanent damage of my trust in Labor (what there was of it to begin with) to stand up for social justice and the interests of the marginalised.

    Well, before arriving in Canberra, I had thought about also using the meeting (yes yes, all these agendas) as a springboard for building more momentum for the anti-VSU campaign. Thing is, Jenny Macklin (opposition education spokersperson) has already declared that Labor will oppose the legislation, but with the Senate change in June - and Liberal gaining majority - the numbers of any opposition will be just not be enough to stand up against Howard's legislative bulldozing.

    What happened to checks and balances - what happened to accountability?

    The gloom is hard, for me, to bear.

    ***
    Aight. I wanted to talk about the tent embassy visit, but this post has gone on for too long. Maybe later.


    Technorati: , ,

    [More..]

    Friday, May 13, 2005

    Southern Baptists - Contenders for Ministry of Worship Education


    Ah, I see the anti-gay witch-hunt has reached new levels. A resolution to investigate the "influence of the homosexual agenda in the nation's public schools" will be heard at the 2005 Southern Baptist Convention in Nashville.

    I wasn't sure whether to laugh, or to hurl:
      This resolution is an effort to shine the light of truth in the dark corners of our schools and force our brethren to take a long, hard, honest look at what we have tolerated for far too long.
    The bit that caught my attention most, however, was the denouncing of any link between GLBT activism and the civil rights movement (below).
    (Goodness, what are you talking about?! Gay rights is like, like, paedophilia, or incest - how dare you compare it to the social movement our noble ancestors have fought for centuries to achieve! Sacrilegious!)

    It's at the end of this other para I'm going to risk your eyes bleeding for (as I did mine):
      ..the resolution encourages every church in the SBC to determine if any schools in their local school district have either a homosexual club or any curriculum or program that "attempts to influence children to accept homosexual behavior as a legitimate lifestyle." If such clubs or material are found, Southern Baptist churches would be urged to let parents in the community know, and to encourage them to remove their children from the district's school immediately.

      The Baucham-Shorrt resolution also commends Christians who are currently working in the public school system, encourages Southern Baptists to support educational alternatives to government schools, calls for Baptists to pray for homosexuals, and rebukes homosexual activists for "slandering" minorities by claiming that homosexual behavior has any authentic connection with the civil rights movement.

    You've got to check out this brew. I'm curious if it'd make you laugh, or spew.


    Technorati: , , ,

    [More..]

    Thursday, May 12, 2005

    真理的防守者


    Chinese journalist 程益中 (Cheng Yizhong) was awarded the 2005 UNESCO/Guillermo Cano World Press Freedom Prize last week.



    Cheng, editor of 南方都市报 (Southern Metropolis Daily), broke new ground in Chinese journalism for coverage of SARS and breaking the disquieting story of the murder of 27-year-old Sun Zhigang, in Guangzhou police custody. It was no surprise, then, that he was spidered* by the CCP and thrown into the dungeons himself.

    The Prize comes nearly a year after being released from prison and barred from reporting in China. “I continue to be grateful for the caring I received from outside China,” Cheng told Radio Free Asia.

    China’s Foreign Ministry refused to comment on the award. (But of course.)

    Cheng has been hailed as a beacon of “Chinese journalism at its best; he speaks out for the weak and checks the strong. His courageous outspokenness has contributed to raising public awareness in China.”

    Cheng gave an inspiring acceptance speech. Thanks to EastSouthWestNorth for an excellent translation, for the monolingual anglophiles among us.

    Here, an excerpt that I just could not not include in this post:

    美丽世界!是的,我们需要一个美丽世界。

    猪圈不是美丽世界,哪怕是丰衣足食的猪圈。人不应生活在对人权、人道、人性和人味都充满敌意的境遇之中。人必须恢复对人类的认同。

    用常识为武器,我们必将摧毁恐怖和谎言编织的梦魇。不要和常识作对。不要和良心作对。警惕卑鄙无耻的政客用真理的名义打击真相,以政治正确之名泻一己之愤谋一己之利。我们要分享各自的人生经验,分享人类文明的成果。

    对于我们来说,当务之急是扩大公众知情权、提高政治能见度。这是中国新闻从业人员义不容辞的责任,也是“无权势者的力量”。作为新闻从业人员,你有不说话的权力,但没有讲假话的权力。讲真话不是新闻从业人员的最高准则,而是底线。然而极其可悲,现在这是一条高压线。
    ...
    请我们从现在起就要对这样的局面感到可耻!
    借此机会,我呼吁:让真话回到我们的生活,就像让大地回到我们的脚下!

    ***
    *The term is usually used in this context, but I’ve taken the liberty of extending its application here. So there.


    Technorati: , , ,


    [More..]

    Wednesday, May 11, 2005

    Oblogtuary, and a last word

    Reuters, 9 May: Singaporean shuts blog, apologises after libel threat

    I could not help but notice this glaring bit:
      On Sunday he posted the new apology on his "Caustic Soda" blog, saying "I unreservedly apologise to A*STAR, its Chairman Mr. Philip Yeo, and its executive officers for the distress and embarrassment caused to them."

      "They sent me an e-mail with these words," Chen Jiahao told Reuters on Monday by telephone from the United States, where he studies chemical physics at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
    Unbelievable.

    ***
    Rest in peace, caustic.soda. I'll be looking forward to AcidFlask's next blog.

    [More..]

    Tuesday, May 10, 2005

    A Singapore To Behold

    An effort to put the AcidFlask issue into the broader context of national identity.

    This letter by Bernise Ang was sent to ST, CNA and Today on 10 May; in full as follows.

    Let's not hold our breath.

    ***
    I am writing in response to the recent issue of libel threats between A*Star and a Singaporean student over the latter’s personal weblog. (http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/146040/1/.html)

    Relevant as issues of freedom of expression (as raised by Reporters Without Borders) as well as the right to protect one’s reputation (as raised by SM Goh and MM Lee) may be, it is all too easy to get caught up in a blame game between Mr Yeo/A*Star and Mr Chen, and reduce this entire issue to a finger-pointing exercise.

    I am writing from the perspective of national identity.

    During my involvement with the recent MCYS youth workgroup initiative to explore building national identity (among others), I realised that eventually, it is not the physical or tangible that will form the basis of a Singaporean identity.

    Indeed, is Singapore just about nasi lemak, our every-changing city-scape, and the Great Singapore Sale?

    What, then, is Singapore - and being Singaporean - truly all about?

    Many in civil service have lamented the increasing number of ‘quitters’ in this country. In recent years, many youth initiatives have attempted to ‘link’ overseas Singaporeans back to the nation, so as not to ‘lose our roots’.

    These exercises, coupled with the advent of internet communications, has resulted in a greater expression of diverse views - political or otherwise - manifested in the form of online forums, weblogs, editorial letters and more. Many have embraced this phenomenon as a reflection of Singaporeans taking greater ownership of our nation.

    The practice of litigation against detractors by politicians has cultivated a society that does not encourage alternative opinions. Many overseas Singaporeans, such as the late Grace Chow, have lamented the lack of freedom to express unconventional views for fear of threats such as those facing Chen Jiahao. The migration option, then, is often the last ditch effort by the disenfranchised individuals to find another place they can call home, without fear of litigation for the expression of an alternative political opinion or the political censorship of media and the arts.

    The question is, at a time when managing diverse opinion has become high on the national political agenda, when libel threats are now being directed not at opposition leaders but our young students - what is most important for us as Singaporeans?

    Is it being able to prove that we can have a peaceful and stable society, even if at the cost of intolerance for plurality in the broadest sense? Or that, as Singaporeans - Singaporeans of any belief or persuasion - we can partake, as equals, in the discussion of national issues that matter to us?

    It is one thing to put in place (and in practice) measures to ensure social harmony and internal security, and quite another to (perhaps inadvertently) reinforce the silencing culture of fear and apathy that ultimately denies our country of the vibrance and progress that could otherwise be.

    Eventually, what it is that captures our roots - our national identity - will be the realisation of a country that we not only call home, but one in which we can feel a legitimate sense of belonging. A place where we need not fear denigration for - and can in fact be confident of - our views, our sexual orientation, our education levels, our material wealth, our social standing.

    ***
    I know that the idea of Singapore worth dreaming about - and fighting for - is out there. I only wish to witness, and be a part of, that positive change that I hope will happen - within this lifetime.


    [More..]

    Monday, May 09, 2005

    Microsoft Back

    PlanetOut Network, 6 May: In reversal, Microsoft backs gay rights bill
      After two weeks of gay community outrage, public relations headaches and employee rancor, Microsoft has reinstated its support for a Washington state gay rights bill that it quietly bailed on last month.

    All I can say is, yay.

    Technorati: , ,


    [More..]

    Sunday, May 08, 2005

    No Fanfare for Blair

    Sydney Morning Herald, 8 May: Blair cuts deals and reshuffles his pack

    As a deliberate (temporary) distraction from the AcidFlask furor back home, I decided to glance yonder west.

    So Blair has been re-elected for a third term.

    This time, though, it wasn't as much of a landslide as it was in 1997 and 2001.

    Analysts say it's because of the people's anger over Britain's participation in the war in Iraq. Apparently, it had to do with the very coincidental timing, in the weeks leading up to elections, of a leak in classified documents challenging the legality of the war. This shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone though, least of all Blair.

    What I find interesting - actually, impressive - is the extent to which the British people are expressing their dissatisfaction with Blair's alignment of foreign policy with the US. The poll results, suffice to say, have humbled Blair enough to (promise to) heed their very clear message and focus more on domestic issues instead.

    However, I cannot say that his proposed policies look promising: new controls on immigration, national ID cards 'to control terrorism' (yay to the next police state, only after China and Singapore, of course), and - get this - further privatisation of UK's health and education. Interesting, coming from a 'centre left' leader.

    At least, this now means Blair won't be able to touch Iran and Syria, even if a relief operation in Darfur goes ahead.

    Also, Michael Howard from the Conservative Party has indicated stepping down. Good decision. One Howard down, one more to go.

    The best thing to come out of all this, I think, is the effectiveness of the Brits in collectively telling Blair to stop kissing Bush's blood-smeared ass. An electoral social movement, if I could say so.

    Hurrah for democracy.


    Technorati: , , ,


    [More..]

    Note to Uncle Yeo

    Uncle Yeo, Uncle Yeo, why got people saying mean things about you?

    Today I overhear some big che che and kor kor talking about you. They say that you were being a bully to some boy who say something about you that you don’t like. They say you tell his school principal to kick him out of school for saying those things.

    But, Uncle Yeo, you are not a bully.

    You are one of the nicest uncles I know. Also mummy tell me the people at your workplace like you also because you are good boss.

    So.. what the boy do that make you angry? Did he say something mean about you? ‘Cos, if he said things just to be mean to you, then I think he’s in the wrong. Then he should say sorry to you. Was he just being mean, Uncle Yeo?

    ’Cos Uncle Yeo is not a bully.

    Also, Uncle Yeo got let him know what he say that upset you? So he know what he should say sorry for. If Uncle Yeo got tell him, and he still say those things, then he really very bad lor. But I’m sure you got say right, Uncle Yeo.

    ’Cos Uncle Yeo is not a bully.

    Also, Uncle Yeo got tell the boy the facts that he got mixed up? If that stupid boy dunno what he saying, then Uncle Yeo can correct him. So he will know, so everybody will know. Then other people won’t say bad things about you. But I’m sure Uncle Yeo already say.

    ’Cos Uncle Yeo is not a bully.

    Oh.. Uncle Yeo.. you didn't really tell his school principal to kick him out of school, right? Whatever he say, he is still little boy like me. Got other ways to teach this boy properly right. But I'm sure Uncle Yeo didn't do that right, so scary.

    ’Cos Uncle Yeo is not a bully.


    ***
    Technorati: , ,

    [More..]

    Saturday, May 07, 2005

    For 学源, My Friend

    You are SO gonna hate me for doing this. But I'm gonna do it anyway..

    ***
    It’s been, what, almost 4 years. In this time, I’ve learnt a lot from you, a lot about you, and even more about myself.

    You know what’s so special about you?

    Many would say it’s your energy, your humility, your creativity, your passion.

    For me -

    What's special about you is.. how real, and how human, you are. The little things, the bigger things, the everything. But I'm not sure that a string of words could fully articulate the complexities and simplicities that are, simultaneously, you. (That I want to say, anyway.) Being greater than the sum of the parts is probably a cliché, but perhaps, at least in this case, it applies for a reason.

    (Of course, I know how much you love hearing all this; besides, I've flattered you enough already.)

    So, today, I write this post for you. If not as a declaration of my undying love for you (I’m sorry, I couldn’t resist. :P), then at least for some record of what I’m feeling at this moment, before I lose it to dementia or Alzheimer’s.

    Thank you for the laughter, the tears, learning lessons, sharing fears. Thank you for your passion for life. (It’s infectious.) For your art. For your honesty. For not minding my damage, and for sharing yours. For caring. For how much we’ve both grown. Thank you for your friendship.

    Most of all, thank you - for you.

    ***
    I never showed you this, but here, the final words of my NQO report which was presented to the conference floor at NLCAC last year.
      ..and Xue Yuan, for first igniting this spark, teaching me more than I’ve ever learnt from school, believing in me when I didn’t, and for continuing to inspire me everyday.

    Only because it says what I feel now, once more, and I’m too damn lazy to type it all out again.

    [More..]

    Friday, May 06, 2005

    媒体自由?

    Just when I was lamenting the state of internet freedom in Singapore..

    It’s an open secret that censorship of internet content not agreeable to Chinese authorities has been happening throughout the country for a while, but it seems that they are now blocking specific word searches on Google.

    Blocked content apparently included - in English and Mandarin - 法轮功/Falun Gong and 西藏独立/Tibetan independence, but now even Google searches on words such as 民主/Democracy and 自由/Liberty return ‘unavailable’ sites.

    A collaborative study by UToronto, Harvard and Cambridge has just been released 3 weeks ago: China is the world's leading censor of the Internet, filtering web sites, blogs, e-mail, and online forums for sensitive political content.

    I didn’t read the study proper, for sure, but what I did see was enough to make me nauseous. There’s also a comprehensive list of the whole lot that is now effectively banned from the Chinese people. Be forewarned - it’s long.

    The way the communications infrastructure has been set up is apparently extremely central and therefore extremely facilitative to content regulation (everything has to go through the 4 or 5 hubs nationally?). Still, there have been some holes in the blocking technology the authorities use, as well as activists overseas who help send proxy addresses and set up new ones to replace those that shut down.

    Probably the most devious method the Chinese government has used, however, is to place the responsibility of (self)censorship on net service firms, and even users themselves. According to this article, more than 47, 000 internet cafes were shut down for not complying last year alone.

    While I go froth, I leave you with the original news summary and a PDF version of aforementioned study.

    TGIF - yay for more time to do yet more work on my (overdue) political theory essay on liberalism and democracy. The irony kills me.

    ***
    ps. This brings back recollections of a conversation I had with 魏京生 (Wei Jing Sheng), after his inspiring plenary speech at the IS|FiT conference in Norway earlier this year. I might write more on that at a later stage.


    Technorati: , , ,


    [More..]

    Tuesday, May 03, 2005

    Coming of Age

    With the arrival of yet another milestone, it seemed fitting to talk about the passage of time, and the wisdoms that would have been presumably acquired along with it.

    (This was by no measure reflective, of course, of the mock-anger I directed at younger well-wishing friends while I bemoaned the demise of my youth. -- Oh, I love them so. (I hate them, too, but that’s just pettiness, and there’s plenty of room under the rug.))

    Studying abroad, I found that the longer I have stayed overseas - curiously - the more salient my Singaporean identity has grown, and with it my attachment to the associations of ‘home’ that the island conjures in my mind. In fact, my long deliberation on the painful choice I had to make between my Aussie and Singapore citizenship - I was born in Melbourne, bred in Singapore - had steadily tipped from the former to the latter rather dramatically, in the last four years.

    Some time back, I had been pleasantly surprised by (then) PM Goh’s statement concerning the acceptance of homosexual individuals in the civil service. More (relatively) recently, I was particularly encouraged by Lee Jr’s call to a more ‘open society’.
    Could it be - Singapore, a more progressive society?

    Certain recent events, however, have compelled me to reconsider the assumed correlation between the passage of time - the ‘coming of age’ - and progress.

    Such as the coerced withdrawal of Martyn See's Singapore Rebel, a short doco-turned-'party political film' on Chee Soon Juan.

    Such as the coerced shutdown of a Singapore student’s blog, as a result of libel threats from head of A*Star following criticisms of the institution.

    There’s more, for sure.

    Things like debate, discussion, consultation, have been a large part of the ‘opening Singapore’ rhetoric for a while now. Yet when input comes in the form of criticism, it is deemed defamation. As for the arts, Singaporeans have been encouraged to be more creative (ostensibly with further economic development as a primary impetus) - but only within the confinements of the (pin)head size of Powerful Autocratic People.

    We get mixed messages from our leaders. We are called upon to 'speak up even if it jars' and to 'step forward to make a difference to the community and country'. Yet when we speak out on human rights and political wrongs in Singapore, we are told to join political parties - it is the only way to ’be political’ in this country. That applies, of course, only if you have not already received libel threats, been sued for defamation or crushed for being a ‘subversive disturbance to the public order’ and - peculiarly - for seeking to achieve particular political ends.

    One wonders why the powers that be are baffled about the numbers of (young, particularly) Singaporeans giving up, and taking off. There’s a label for them, too - ‘quitters’. It’s especially the case that these young (and not-so-young) Singaporeans must be getting frustrated because of all these ‘western ideas’ from living overseas for too long, or too much access to media (which we should limit, lah!).

    What should we do, then - what hope do we have for our little lives? Get a 9-5 job, get a 3-room HDB, car if lucky, settle down with a partner (of the opposite sex only, please), and produce 2.3 babies?

    Indeed, why would anyone want to go? We have the best airport, best economy, best education system, best public transport system, best shopping centres, and now, 2 casinos integrated resorts. We have strong Asian values, work ethic, ‘family values’ (remember, homosexual rights are against the public interest).

    In this country, we can relax because we don’t have to fight for our rights. The government has kept them safely in a vault - that not even the UN can touch - and will dispense them according to their discretion. Unless, of course, you happen to have 1kg of marijuana on you - in which case, I’m sorry but your most fundamental right to life will have to be forfeited.

    ***
    A quote from Alfian encapsulates the sentiment I fear to embody in the not-so-distant future:
      If you care too much about Singapore, first it'll break your spirit, and finally it will break your heart.

    It’s hard to swim to the surface when a rope that was there for safety is instead a chain pulling you to the bottom - but I don’t want to give in to fatigue, gravity, and most of all, the chain itself.

    I don’t want to give up on this country.

    I don’t want to give up on Home.

    ***
    [Ed: I feel like there is more to be said. I’ll think about it. Meanwhile, I pay my last respects to Dr Wee Kim Wee as he moves on.]

    [Ed again: Apologies for the malfunctioning links. Curiously, some work while some don't, despite me using the same coding method throughout. I'm trying to figure it out. Suggestions welcome.]
    [Ed once more: Figured it out - wonky "quotation" marks.]


    ***
    Technorati: ,


    [More..]

    Sunday, May 01, 2005

    The whole one-panema thing just felt too lame..

    .. so from May 2nd, we will scooch over to garotaipanema.blogspot.com

    For those of you who asked, the choice of date was not a coincidence.
    And thank you. :)

    Watch this space.

    ps. Somebody tell me how to do the [More..] thing selectively, so that the link doesn't appear on every single post including the short ones I don't need it for. I would be extremely grateful, and suitably humbled.
    [Ed: Muchas gracias to Ben for helping me figure this out.
    You're a whiz.]


    [More..]

     

    garota productions 2005