Five men have been charged for the alleged gang rape of a 17-year-old girl in Singapore, The New Paper reported today. The men invited the teen to a house party, where they plied her with alcohol and subsequently took turns forcing themselves sexually on her.

The initial reaction is one of intense disgust: with the despicable act of the five men, who in their sad state of sexual depravity sought to ask girls out because they wanted to have sex. Horny? Get a blowup doll. Visit the whore-houses in Geylang. Throw your head under a bucket of ice. Both heads, if you need. But to scroll through your phone book, start calling all the girls, hope that one eventually agrees to meet you, proceed to get her drunk, and then sleep with her against her will? What is wrong with these people shitheads?

Then again, it’s not as uncommon as it seems. Stretch your imagination by a bit, and you realize it could be the magic ingredient that drives the clubbing industry and the brisk trade of alcohol. Think the hordes of men who ask their female friends out “for a drink”. (How innocent.) Or buy a drink for the ladies at clubs. (How generous.) And the girls actually fall for it all the time. (How naïve!)

Here’s a pointer, girls: there are men who scroll through their phone books, start calling you (and all the other girls), hope that you eventually agree to meet them, proceed to get you drunk, and then hope that your judgment is clouded enough to think that you want to sleep with them. Every once in a while, some of these men try to force it on you, and – hopefully – end up on the dock. Or in the great tabloid as tomorrow’s conversation starter.

At some point of the conversation, some self-righteous bigot jumps out from the corner he’s been lurking and bludgeons you with this gem: “The girl deserves it. What self-respecting girl goes to a house with five other guys? She obviously wanted to have sex!”

Yes, in the same way you obviously want me to stick my boot down your throat because you opened your mouth.

Which prehistoric rock have you just crawled out from? A girl is entitled – as men are – to have friends, and go out with them, if she feels like, when she feels like. She can wear short skirts, and plunging necklines. (The more adventurous men can too, though they wouldn’t look nearly as good!) And if you can’t figure out in that bigoted, chauvinist, primitive brain of yours that a girl who does any – or all – of the above is NOT asking to be raped, then you’re not much better than the five rapists.

And until your brain evolves beyond your Neanderthal thinking, it’s the end of this conversation.

One of the five men accused of rape admitted in a police statement that “he wants to have sex” on the night of the alleged rape.

Muhammad Shafie Ahmad Abdullah, a full-time national serviceman, told his friends to invite girls for a drinking session at his home.

Shafie called co-accused Mohd Sadruddin Azman and invited him, saying he’s out from camp and wanted to have sex.

Another of the five co-accused, Lim Boon Tai, eventually brought a teenage girl to Shafie’s flat, where the five men allegedly raped her.

Lim also suggested that Shafie buy drinks “to get the girl drunk so that we can easily get the girl”, according to police statements.

Source: The New Paper

SINGAPORE, Jan. 22 (AMF) — The verdict is out on Internet regulation in Singapore, but opinions vary on how it will affect the relatively freer space for public discussion on the web.

The state-controlled media trumpeted as a step forward the government’s approval this month of 17 out of 26 recommendations designed to regulate the Internet in the areas of political content, use by minors and engagement with the public.

Netizens, however, paint a grave picture and see these regulations as a death grip.

The film industry and the Internet look set to continue to suffer the brunt of the government’s whip, according to announcements over the media regulation last week.

It all began when the Advisory Council on the Impact of New Media on Society (AIMS), commissioned by the Singapore government in April 2007, released a consultation paper in 2008 to regulate the Internet.

In a nutshell, the study aimed to look into the impact of new media on society and to make recommendations on how best to address regulatory issues regarding the Internet.

On Jan. 9, the government vetoed one-third of the proposals, including the decriminalisation of films by political parties, the removal of a registration requirement for individuals and political parties in generating online political content, and greater leeway for civil servants to voice opinions.

When the AIMS released the paper, the sole dissenting voice came from a group of 13 Singaporean bloggers.

Dubbed ‘Bloggers 13’ by the mainstream media, the hastily formed group cobbled together a counter-proposal for the government to maintain a “light touch” in policing the Internet. But apart from an acknowledgement of receipt, the group has not heard back from the government, said Alex Au, one of the 13 bloggers.

Curiously, the government has also decided against engaging citizens outside of current government platforms, despite reports in ‘The Straits Times’ in February 2007 that the incumbent People’s Action Party (PAP) government would be “mounting a quiet counter-insurgency against its online critics”. PAP MP Baey Yam Keng had advised that “it was necessary for the PAP to have a voice in cyberspace as there were few in the online community who were pro-establishment”.

Responding to individual blogs and forum postings will require a huge amount of resources and is “extremely difficult”, said Minister for Information, Communications and the Arts Dr Lee Boon Yang. He likened this to “wandering the whole of the Internet just to debunk every single misleading or wrong posting”.

DOUBLE STANDARDS?

In spite of increased hype on citizen engagement, the government has elected to rely chiefly on its feedback unit, REACH, as its online source to engage young Netizens.

“Is the government going to say ‘no, we’re going to ignore them because you didn’t come into my room?’” said Alex Au, prominent Singaporean activist. “The government has to find ways of addressing some of the issues that are raised in other parts of the Internet, even if nobody brings it up within REACH. It could be in the form of a statement within REACH itself that addresses the stuff that is being talked about outside.”

Some six months after its high-profile launch graced by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, REACH’s Facebook group has just over 1,730 members and less than 160 discussion topics, even though the 4.6 million population of this city-state enjoys one of the highest household Internet access rates in the region.

Even as the government’s feedback arm seemingly struggles to attract citizens to discuss national policies on its platforms, lively discussion elsewhere will be curtailed.

Under the freshly spelled-out rules, Singaporeans will be required to register websites with political content with the authorities “to ensure accountability”. Further, those working in the civil service will also be given the gag order, and are barred from voicing any political opinions.

The government will also move to amend the Films Act over the next two months to allow for films by political parties that are factual and objective, and do not dramatise or present a distorted picture.

An independent advisory panel, to be chaired by Richard Magnus, a retired senior district judge and chairman of the Casino Regulatory Authority, will determine if political party films are allowed to be aired.

However, the Ministry for Information, Communications and the Arts (MICA) said it will retain its right to ban films that it finds are against public interest under Section 35 of the Films Act. Under Singapore law, the minister has the right to ban any film – without giving reasons for such action.

GIANT LEAP BACKWARD

Recognising the role of new media, the government had called for a harnessing of the free flow of information on the Internet during the 2006 general elections.

But blogs with political content had to register with authorities, and an outright ban was imposed on political podcasts streamed on the Internet. Notably, the Singapore Democratic Party, attempting to use podcasts to circumvent state-controlled media, suffered the brunt of this ban. Their Internet podcasts – the first time the medium was employed by political parties here – had to be taken off.

The party eventually suffered a drubbing at the polls, garnering a mere 23 percent of voters’ support in the Sembawang constituency in northern Singapore.

As PAP MP Denise Phua noted after the elections, the Internet is “85 percent against the government” and had to be “managed”.

In the aftermath of the elections, the government and the state-controlled Singapore Press Holdings launched an Internet offensive, starting no less than three web portals, buying popular websites for millions of dollars.

But even as the government trumpets the easing of rules with its acceptance of two-thirds of the proposals for regulating the Internet, critics say the noose might well have been tightened around new media in Singapore.

The news that Australia in December 2008 gave the nod to Internet regulation has resurrected the burning question of the necessity – and feasibility – of a similar move in Singapore.

The Australian government announced it will block sites with “pornography and inappropriate material”, but citizens have expressed concern that the country is taking a giant democratic leap backward in joining China on the list of Internet policing countries.

But while more than 2,000 Australians took to the streets to protest the federal Labor government’s plans to censor the Internet on Dec. 13, it has been a different scene in apathetic Singapore. (END/IPSAP/AMF/SJC/LLC/JS/220109)

And that was my first thought when I saw Mr Traffic Policeman harassing some poor guy with an old beat-up car at the road shoulder on my way to work this morning on the Central Expressway (CTE).

“I’d better go get my road tax renewed tomorrow,” I said to myself, almost out loud, as I slowed to keep within the speed limit on the 90km/h highway.

What if I renew my vehicle road tax late?

“Please renew the licence before it expire as it is an offence for anyone to keep or use a vehicle without a valid licence in force for the vehicle.

A late penalty fee will be imposed if you do not renew your license by expiry date. Your vehicle may also be impounded and there will be towing and storage fees will then be payable in addition to the arrears of road tax and penalty fees.”

(source: onemotoring.com.sg)

Morning traffic was not as bad today, and it was enjoyable to just cruise without worrying about another black Camry (or was it a Cefiro?) cutting into my lane and causing me to crash. One thing about cars, they all look the same. Haha.

Do you think about a lot of things when you ride, or drive? I’m not sure if it’s against the law in Singapore – apparently everything is – but I like to think when I ride and have all these nice little thoughts and ideas swirl around in my mind. The wind rushing up to greet you and the asphalt disappearing behind you creates a certain magic, very conducive to creative thoughts. At least a dozen great ideas have been born in the saddle of this wild horse.

Then, suddenly, I saw a flash of light on my left mirror. A glance informed me that Mr. TP was signalling me to pull over.

Damn.

It’s a nice morning, do we have to do this? I turned to look at him, and stared straight into soul-less eyes framed with standard-issue dark glasses. Double damn. Sorry dude, you’re not getting me today.

My stare turned into a nod and a half-grin. I snatched at the clutch lever and snapped down two gears. The front-end of the 250 lifted an inch, the engine roared in wild delight, and the bike exploded off the block. I was sprinting like Ben Johnson on drugs, all the way to Olympic infamy. Behind the shades, I caught a glimpse of Mr. TP’s eyes widen in shock. He wasn’t expecting this, for sure.

By the time he blipped his throttle, I was off like a bat out of hell.

But a largely stock, 250cc 2-stroker does not measure up well against a 750cc, souped-up police motorcycle. Especially not in a country with an expressway that is as straight and unbending as its society. Even as my speedometer needle happily climbed past 230km/h, the White Mothership From Hell was fast gaining on me!

“I have to get out of this,” I thought. “Get into some twisties, I’ll surely lose him there.”

One thing about the Aprilia, it’s not as powerful on the straights. No wait, it is damn bloody knn powerful.

Powerful enough to rip one of those pseudo-racer Subarus to shreds, at least. But just not as powerful when you compare to the rest of the superbikes rolling out of Japanese factories like chocolate from Willy Wonka’s.

But on the bends, there’s nothing quite like an Aprilia. A group of not-too-sane Aprilia riders have taken to saying you could pick a coin off the floor as you bank around a tight corner, no problem. I say i could ride with one hand, dig my nose with the other, and place a nice large piece of booger at the apex of each corner at the famous 99 bends – with my eyes closed.

Yes, I’m exaggerating. But you get my drift: the Aprilia is unbeatable at the corners.

According to the most recent official statistics, there are 1,121 Aprilias in Singapore, as of December 2004.

That accounts for a mere 0.8% of the total bike population here, which comes up to about 137,029 motor-heads on 2 wheels.

One thousand, one hundred, and twenty-one (go buy 4D if you want). And Mr. TP picked the wrong one to flag down.

The CTE turned out to be a short sprint. Hell, at that speed, I could get to KL in two hours, no? By the time I hit the final right-side curve before the Ayer Rajah Expressway (AYE), Mr. TP was almost beside me. Above the roar of our engines, the blare of his sirens filled my helmet, swimming around my head like a poisonous gas, intoxicating and choking me with its skeletal fingers.

Blinded, I hit the brakes hard and dived low, throwing my bike into the Bukit Merah exit.

A part of me hoped that manoeuvre would throw Mr. TP off my tail. It was a very naive part of me, I must add. With special training in riding techniques and a career on 2 wheels, Mr. TP was – like all things Singaporean – very efficient. He replicated my actions without batting an eyelid.

For a split-second, it almost felt like The Rise of the Machines, except this terminator breathing down my neck was more real – and some argue, more ghastly!

But at least I’ve got the tighter corners and smaller roads to my advantage now. And now the gloves were really off: cars in the way didn’t matter, pedestrians promptly dove for cover into the bushes (they deserve it lah, bloody always jay-walking), and traffic signal lights went unheeded.

Yes, I ran some 4 red lights, I think. But in my mind, aiyah, after this go make police report that my bike was stolen, kick up a big fuss, and complain that some young punk ran off with and wrecked my bike. Not I riding what, you can’t arrest me!

Hmmm… Maybe I can even write letter to my Member of Parliament (MP). For what I don’t know, but everyone seems to write to their MP to complain about this and that, so just write lah. And somemore I live in Marine Parade GRC, under a super-duper powerful, very senior minister. Eh, but MP got so much time reply to so many letters meh? Even Santa Claus has his elves to reply his mail! Hmmm… Oh ya ok, we have mythical creatures too, I guess. Wouldn’t call them elves though. Haha.

Goodness, where have I learnt to digress so much? Let’s cut back to the chase! (pun intended, of course)

Bukit Merah felt like a scene out of Grand Theft Auto. By this time, another TP motorcycle and a patrol car had joined the pursuit. “Bloody hell, I’m going to be late for work again lah,” I cursed, now more upset than ever. “And you think petrol cheap ah?”

Determined to shake off my “escorts”, I hastily drummed up a plan. Taking a sharp left turn very late, I guided my missile into Depot Road. It’s no joke, taking on a 50 km/h road at three times the limit, but I had spent my childhood cycling around the estate at Depot Road, and I knew the place like the wrinkles on my forehead – there are but a few to speak of, but I look at them every day and know them very well.

The little lanes, which by now were filled with cars and people rushing to work, slowed the men in white down a little. Ah, the advantages of a small bike! By the time I hit the end of Depot Road, I was some 30 metres ahead of my pursuers. And just about ready to launch my plan into action. But the timing had to be immaculate.

I said a silent prayer.

At the T-junction to the main road (Alexander Road, I believe. I wasn’t stopping to read road signs, that’s for sure) the traffic light was not in my favour.

Damn.

Prayers do get answered. I ran the light (what do you mean “again”? One more won’t make a difference) and spun unto the main road, hit the brakes, banked hard left, and throttled off again. A black Camry – oh sweet irony – swerved wildly to avoid hitting me, and was promptly rear-ended by a taxi.

The “bang, bang, bang” of a 6-car pile-up in the middle of the yellow box junction never sounded sweeter.

Not daring to look back for more than a half-second, I made one last sharp turn, this time into the old beer garden beside SAJC. Easing off the throttle as the sound of the sirens bated, I brought the now wheezing rs250 to a stop on one of the smaller dirt tracks.

Waving a sad farewell, I walked back to the main road and flagged down a taxi. The driver must have been amused and awfully confused to pick up a passenger with a helmet but no bike, screaming into the phone about a stolen motorcycle, and demanding something be done immediately, or the MP will be notified.

Oh, what a day. Had to dump my bike, waste $10 on a taxi (the bloody jam!), late for work again, and put on a Oscar-winning performance to the police.

Hope they find my bike soon and return it to me.

I still have to renew my road tax tomorrow!
*** THE END ***

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Well, not quite.

The Prologue

My road tax for my Aprilia rs250 expired 3 days ago.

And that was my first thought when I saw Mr. TP was harassing some poor guy with an old beat-up car at the road shoulder on my way to work this morning on the Central Expressway (CTE).

“I’d better go get my road tax renewed tomorrow,” I said to myself, almost out loud, as I slowed to keep within the speed limit on the 90km/h highway.

And before I knew what was going on, Mr. TP pulls up next to me, signalling for me to stop at the road shoulder.

And I do, cursing, but only under my breath.

No chain guard, no mud guard, number plate obscured. Damn.

“Please lah, give chance lah ok?” I plead, still half-asleep.

He books me for the chain guard, which is a breach of safety. Then comes my Oscar performance.

“Road tax?” he asks.

“Huh? What road tax?” I walk to my bike, walk around it, then walk back to his bike which is parked behind mine. “Oh, you want me pass you the whole road tax disk, or just want the number?”

He gives me a blur look.

“There is a number on the road tax I’m supposed to get, is it?” I continue.

“Nevermind,” he shakes his head, thinking what an idiot this rider is, don’t even know what road tax, chain guard and mud guard are.

I now wait for a letter for my chain guard offence.

But at least my bike was not impounded.

I still have to renew my road tax tomorrow!

*** the end, for real***

Absolutely nothing, if you consider the measures already in place.

The nanny-state has closed-circuit television (CCTV) cameras on every public train and bus, and hundreds more stalking street corners. Government-controlled telephone and Internet provider, Singtel, possibly already knows all it needs about Singapore’s 4.6 million inhabitants. In that light, it is almost naive to call the Reach Facebook group a threat to privacy.

An acronym for “Reaching Everyone for Active Citizenry @ Home”, the agency drew ire on the Internet after it launched its Facebook profile on Jun. 27, 2008, to engage Singaporeans by leveraging on platforms with high youth presence.

Singaporean Koh Choon Yoong, on his blog, accused Reach of violating Facebook’s terms of use. Reach Singapore originally signed up for a user account, which is meant for individuals. The site forbids individual users from registering for a user account on behalf of a group or entity.

The agency fixed the problem shortly after, migrating the individual profile to a group page. But users noticed that Reach Singapore’s original profile had been changed to ‘Ho Chee Har’ – the administrator of the organisation’s new Facebook group.

“I was surprised to see such an abrupt change. I’m glad that I didn’t add Reach Singapore as my friend, or else my Facebook personal information would be have been divulged to Ho Chee Har,” IT consultant Lee Sing Chyun was quoted in local media as saying.

Ranging from discussions on costs of living and business woes, to marriage and health, topics on Reach’s Facebook page fall into two broad categories: either a hollow echo of news from the Home section of mainstream media, or complaints from individuals hoping to be heard.

CYBER HELPLINE

Indeed, the site is threatening to turn into a platform for assorted grievances. Facebook user Anna Tek, for example, wrote to complain that she had been awoken at 9.30 a.m. on two consecutive Saturdays by rag-and-bone men making their rounds at her apartment block.

In another thread, user Eric Ko’s protests against hidden costs by Tiger Airways, Singapore’s budget airline. While one of Reach’s Facebook administrators, Shauna Lim, promised to forward his feedback to the relevant authorities, it is the comments left by other Singaporeans that struck a chord.

“Whilst I agree it is good to have a governing body – I feel that in situations like this, individuals should take action by contacting and sorting out the matter with the company themselves first. I personally feel it is a bad habit to bring big brother in like a little boy at the slightest upset,” said Benjamin Chiang.

Reach’s goal of engaging with Singaporeans on government policies and national issues on Facebook does not appear to have taken off. At last count, less than 15 individual discussions have attracted more than 10 replies each.

However, criticism on the government’s Facebook invasion borders on nitpicking. Facebook users have to actively join the group before their profiles are accessible for viewing by the government group.

As critics argue, if privacy is an issue, simply give social networking sites like Facebook the cold shoulder.

HI-TECH SURVEILLANCE

But when it comes to CCTV and telecommunications surveillance, the Orwellian state knows no boundaries.

In 1999, a public uproar erupted after news reports that SingTel had scanned the computers of some 200,000 customers — without their knowledge — and would continue to do so in a bid to protect, according to a SingTel spokesperson, “the interests of [its] customers” from the threat of Internet viruses.

SingTel admitted to the act, but denied that it was an invasion of privacy. It was “a value-added service” to ensure that there were no loopholes in consumers’ systems that hackers could exploit, said company directors, likening it to employing a “policeman patrolling in cyberspace”.

A decade after the initial privacy invasion fiasco, it is unclear if SingTel is still scanning private consumer data. However, given the company’s self-righteous attitude toward its actions and the fact that there have been no statements until now declaring otherwise, consumers can only expect the worst.

Fighting the bogeyman – anything from threats of terrorism and racial riots, to dissenting political voices – is a common strategy used by the government to justify its laws and policies.

In 2008, authorities unveiled 223 new all-weather CCTV cameras, in addition to more than 100 already in operation, in a bid to “deter crime” and combat terrorism.

In an island state measuring just 683 sq km, that works out to approximately one camera every two sq km – not counting thousands of other electronic eyes already used in public trains and buses, “up to 12 cameras” in every school, and countless other privately-owned surveillance devices that the government is given access to by law.

In contrast, the government’s incursion into the Internet, Facebook included, is a softer approach aimed at winning over an increasingly Internet-savvy electorate. According to the Infocomm Development Authority of Singapore’s latest figures, some 74 percent of households had access to the Internet.

The government is “mounting a quiet counter-insurgency against its online critics”, reported ‘The Straits Times’ in 2007. Prior to its latest foray into Facebook, the government – through the Singapore Press Holdings (SPH) group under its control – bought over IT media company Hardware Zone, including its print magazines and online portal, for a whopping 7.1 million Singapore dollars (4.89 million U.S dollars) in 2006.

Joining the fray to win over the Internet, the younger generation of ruling People’s Action Party MPs born after 1965 – dubbed by mainstream media as the Post-65 MPs – have banded together to write on a weblog. The Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports has also started an online portal to engage younger Singaporeans.

With deep pockets and the ability to leverage on traditional print media for publicity, it is difficult to imagine that the government’s Internet offensive will be denied success. Already, web traffic statistics speak for themselves, with SPH websites sweeping top spots in 9 out of the Top 10 Award categories from July to September 2008, according to a study by international online research specialist Hitwise.

But six months after its high-profile launch, graced by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, Reach’s Facebook group has just over 1,730 members and less than 160 discussion topics in total. Interestingly, a group dedicated to the memory of opposition leader J B Jeyaretnam, who passed away in September 2008, boasts more than double that figure with some 3,500 members.

But the ensuing hullabaloo by netizens over Reach’s seemingly minor Facebook gaffe sends an underlying message that the Singapore government’s feedback arm will do well not to miss: Authoritarianism is not welcome on the Internet. (END/2009)

And I do mean awe. How does someone with a name like Manny Pacquiao make it big in boxing? In Singapore’s colloquial slang, Pacquiao is translated literally as “shoot bird”, popularly taken to mean one who is cock-eyed and regularly misses the target. “A lot of misses” is hardly a sound name for a top boxer.

But you don’t make fun of a guy who has been called the best pound-for-pound fighter in the world, even if that term is the most useless piece of information since, well, the last edition of The Straits Times.

Pound-for-pound, a rhinoceros beetle is the strongest creature in the world, capable of supporting up to 850 times its own weight; pound-for-pound, the froghopper spittlebug is the greatest jumper, propelling itself more than 140 times its own height. (The equivalent of me bench-pressing 5 SBS double-decker buses and jumping over the Singapore Flyer with plenty of room to spare.) But no, pound-for-pound is a stupid statistic, as my bug-swatter and I can attest to. But, again, you don’t make fun of a guy who can sweep Oscar de la Hoya aside like he was an insect.

As Pacquiao rained blow after blow on his opponent, I couldn’t help but feel a sense of national pride. Until I remembered I wasn’t Filipino.

Kudos and heartiest congratulations to the Philippines. The archipelago — renowned for its call centres and domestic helpers than sports excellence — has achieved more than Singapore dares to beg Santa Claus for, even with all our money and infrastructural superiority.

And while the Philippines celebrates the victory of Manny Pacquiao, we are left to rue the sorry, cock-eyed state of Singapore sports.

It isn’t for lack of trying: the starting up of the Singapore Sports School, winning the bid to host the Youth Olympics Games 2010, and the first-ever F1 Grand Prix night race at the Marina Bay circuit are a poke in the right direction.

But for the pragmatic state, sports represents a new way of raking in the money. The country earned some $1 billion from sports and related industries last year, local media reported this month.

Yet, Singapore sports is still a bloody mess.

I suspect Minister Mah is still red-faced from his prediction that we would make it to the World Cup in 2010. Again, it’s not like we didn’t try.

Like Manchester City FC, Singapore has deep pockets. And like the English Premier League club, it is learning that money cannot buy you everything. Attempts to raid the international transfer market and “buy” foreign-born talents for its national team have been both farcical and futile.

With close to half the Singapore team bearing unfamiliar names, the Football Association of Singapore has estranged its own supporters. While Kallang roared in the past for local born and bred heroes like Quah Kim Song, Fandi Ahmad, and V Sundramoorthy, there is hardly a whimper around the stadiums as we struggle to pronounce the names of the current crop of footballers donning the national jersey, including John Wilkinson and Daniel Bennett (from England), Shi Jiayi and Qiu Li (China), Mustafic Fahrudin (Serbia), Aleksander Duric (Bosnia), Agu Casmir, Precious Emuejeraye and Itimi Dickson (Nigeria), Egmar Goncalves (Brazil), Mirko Grabovac (Croatia), and Bah Mamadou (Mali). We have an international cast that Arsene Wenger can only envy, and still don’t look like a side capable of making it into the World Cup. The difference now is: with a team we can’t identify with, we don’t even care if we make it.

But foreign imports are not exclusive to Singapore football. Singapore’s Olympic flag-bearer and table-tennis star Li Jiawei is from China (as are the rest of her teammates and coaches), and admitted in a TV interview that she was keen to do well at the Beijing Olympics Games in 2008 “as a Beijinger, and a Chinese national, Beijing is my home ground and I hope to do well”. Did I forget to mention that she was Singapore’s flag bearer?

The only Singaporean of note associated with the table-tennis team is the STTA president and PAP MP Lee Bee Wah, whose ill-timed comments about bringing coaches to task for a dismal performance at the Games sparked threats of an en masse walkout and culminated in her public apology.

Or perhaps Sean Lee, who is still on the run from an angry mob of ruggers waiting to maul him, after absconding with some $500,000 from the Singapore Rugby Union in 2005.

In that light, perhaps it’s not all a bad thing that Singaporeans stopped being involved in our own sports after all.

After a long day chasing stories in the desert heat of Karachi, I was hardly in the mood to be drawn into a long ideological debate. “I believe in journalism,” I quipped.

Thankfully, it worked. He smiled, and went off to bug the next person in line at the balcony overlooking the venue, who was, like me, trying desperately to catch a wisp of the miserly sea breeze.

Fast foward to the present, in the comfort of my airconditioned workspace.

Socialism? Capitalism? How many Singaporeans can actually claim to know what these mean? Feudalism? “What? Huh?” Communism? “Oh, yes, that one is bad. China, USSR, Vietnam. Bad, very bad!”

Welcome to the reality of a brainwashed society.

I’m currently tutoring a distant relative, who arrived last year from China, and was struggling with his Secondary 3 studies. And as I flip through his Social Studies textbook, I struggle with it too — for a whole different reason: what ——- rubbish! History is written by the victors, some wise guy said, but this is completely absurd.

If we’re going to teach our 15-year-olds — and have them subsequently regurgitate — the “terror” of communism and communists in Singapore, something is seriously wrong with our education system. Wait, before you haul me up to spend 20 years in Sentosa for some Marxist conspiracy, I have to clarify: I am no communist. And i’m not a communist sympathiser either. I am, at worst, a socialism-biased journalist. But I take issue with the way our history books are written.

Is it any wonder, then, that Singaporeans are widely regarded in the region and beyond as socio-political retards who are too astigmatic to see beyond the zeroes in their bank accounts?

“So, what do you think of communism?” I asked the boy.

“It’s not good,” he replied matter-of-factly.

“But you’re from China, and this is what your country believes in! Why do you think it’s bad?” I pressed.

“Because this book says so,” he answered.

And that is precisely what we learn. From that young, impressionable age, it would take many years before we hear of the writings of classical sociologist Karl Marx.

Marx described stages in the development of a state, from primative socialism, to feudalism, to capitalism (where we are now!), to socialism, and then communism, which he describes as the ideal state closest to a utopian society.

The problem is: 1) if you knew this, you’re probably in the minority, perhaps 10 percent, of the population who has even heard of this, and 2) by the time you know this, you have already been brainwashed by the education you received to that point, as well as the America-centric North-to-South information flow that taints the picture with their own set of colour-contact lenses.

Either way, you reject this notion of communism as the ideal sociological state, and continue to think of communists as the scourge of the world.

I’m NOT advocating we start calling each other “comrades”. And I’m not suggesting that you believe everything I say either. On the contrary, what I am is urging you not to believe everything you read, or hear, or see.

All I’m asking is you think. Critically. For your self.

So, what do you believe in?

With a sweeping Nov. 5 victory at the polls, Barack Obama became the first black U.S. president in history. And Singapore is likely to follow suit.

“In America, there was George Bush, then Clinton, followed by Bush’s son, George W. Bush. In Singapore, we have the same thing! Lee Kwan Yew, then Goh Chok Tong, followed by Lee junior. Just a coincidence? Think again,” said Mr. See Peh Chun, a master soothsayer at Wayoff Geomancy.

Bets are already on for who will triumph in the race to become Singapore’s Barack Obama, the first person from the minority race to lead the country.

Frontrunners for the post include Dr. Vivian Balakrishnan, Mr. Tharman Shanmugan, and even outsider Mr. James Gomez.

Balakrishnan, the Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports, is the bright young hope for the future, but one who faces the greatest challenge — his first name, Vivian, is a common female name shared by thousand of women around the world.

The U.S. Presidential race has shown a persistent gender bias. Balakrishnan is likely to suffer the same fate as Hilary Clinton and Sarah Palin, who failed in their bids to enter the White House. Even though he is a man (and a rather good-looking one at that), sexual prejudice might prevail to ensure he never becomes prime minister.

But political analysts are calling Master See’s preditions “absurd” and “greatly improbable”.

“It’s possible (for a non-Chinese PM in Singapore),” current prime minister, Lee Hsien Loong, was quoted by local newspapers as saying on Nov. 9, but added: “Will it happen soon? I don’t think so”.

PM Lee, commentators believe, will be unlikely to give up the throne of power, which has seen the Lee family rule Singapore for more than 40 years.

“Nonsense!” countered Master See. “Just mark my words. I said the next prime minister will be Indian, but I never said the Lees will no longer be in charge.”

“How could this be? Simple. The next PM will be Bengali. Benga-Lee!” he said.

“The threat of extinction is real. Over the last three centuries, 153 bird species are believed to have been lost forever. Three species have vanished since 2000 alone,” said Dr Leon Bennun, director of science, policy and information at UK-based NGO Birdlife International. The organisation which released the results of its study on Thursday, at the IUCN World Conservation Congress, highlighted some 180 species facing “an imminent risk of extinction” – the highest risk categorisation level.

It could get worse. Usually the mass extinction of species occurs some years after the wholesale destruction of habitats. Studies in Kenya and parts of South-East Asia show that the current predictions of impending doom are underestimated. In Singapore, for example, where forest cover is now less than five per cent of its original area, 61 of the territory’s 91 forest-dependent bird species have disappeared since 1923.

The threat to some of these bird species, experts say, could have immense impact on the ecological system and humans. India’s White-rumped Vultures, for instance, are an integral part of the natural system, disposing of livestock carcasses. With less than 0.1 per cent of the species now remaining, wiped off due to lethal exposures to veterinary drugs through the livestock carcasses that the vultures survived on, the chances of the spread of diseases has increased.

“Global change in biodiversity is hard to measure and effective indicators are still in short supply,” said Alison Stattersfield, head of science, Birdlife International. “Birds provide an accurate and easy-to-read environmental barometer, allowing us to see clearly the pressures our current way of life are exerting on the world’s biodiversity,” she added.

Stattersfield also attributes “more than 90 per cent of the threat of extinction to birds” to human activity. Expanding networks of overhead powerlines in Europe, for example, are ruffling the feathers of bird conservationists. Close to 95 Italian bird species get killed, through electrocution or collision, with up to 87 birds dying annually per km of powerlines. Conservative estimates suggest that at least four million birds are killed in North America each year by collisions with the mushrooming of radio, television and mobile phone towers.

“Overall, the rate of deterioration has been speeding up since our last global assessment in 2004,” said Stattersfield. “The accelerating decline in relatively common and widespread birds is especially alarming and can be linked to ever-increasing pressures on natural habitats. Our data suggests that recent policy changes such as the drive towards producing biofuels are damaging biodiversity and seriously undermining efforts to meet the 2010 target,” she added.

The 2010 Biodiversity Indicators Partnership is a global initiative to further develop and promote indicators for the consistent monitoring and assessment of biodiversity, and to achieve a significant reduction in the rate of biodiversity. The NGO’s study shows that, far from slowing down, biodiversity loss is still occurring at an alarming rate.

The IUCN Red List Index for birds, based on the number and status of threatened species, shows that bird species are slipping faster than ever toward extinction.

“It is clear that conservation action can and does work,” said Bennun. “What we need is commitment, from decision-makers and not just conservationists. It’s time to recognise the real value of biodiversity and for governments to honour the commitments they have made to invest in its conservation,” he added.

(TerraViva)