Scholar under fire: more than just about racism

The story of the PSC scholar making racist remarks blew recently and sparked a flurry of comments about the conduct of Chua Cheng Zhan, a maths scholar at Northwestern University in Illinois USA.

Basically he complained that the Singapore charter in his university was being swamped by Indians and Pinoys and he found dark-skinned people gross.

You can read his (censored) blog at:
http://www.chengzhan.net/main/blog/12157914.html

You can also read an archive of his comments at:
http://ivan.ivanandxia.com/history/2005-04-14/stop-talking-cock/

Naturally the numerous hypocritical netters crawled out of the woodwork and started commenting about how public funding was spent on a racist.

However, it gets more interesting when you read into what he wrote. The thing that obviously jumps out is the alleged racism but his 2nd posting strikes me of elitism. Elitism in its worst sense. Pure arrogance of his perceived high place in society. His comment on comparing Proton Sagas to Jaguars was the most galling and highlights this arrogance.

His family is obviously rich (father is MD of an investment firm) and wealth brings many advantages, including financial support in schooling, the ability to “grease the schooling palms”, hire maids so you don’t have to waste time doing chores and many other perks.

I have never been a fan of MOE’s policies and that includes the PSC. What exactly is the PSC’s commitment to the people regarding public money for scholars? I really question the board’s selection process. Here is a man that has an extremely comfortable background and let’s face it, rich people generally do better in Singapore’s education (tuition, home PCs, internet, etc). Does this man really need a scholarship? Shouldn’t a scholarship be given to NEEDY students? Why are we still giving scholarships to people who see them as merely status symbols to boast during family pow-wows?

Perhaps the PSC board was following the PAP’s stand for fermenting an Elite, where the money stays with the Elite, and that includes public money. What better way to keep public money in your pockets than to give it to the sons and daughters of Elites?

Has the PSC been farming Public Commission White Horses since the beginning?

Many can jump to his defense claiming he wasn’t writing in his own persona. While that might be possible for his racist comments, I believe it isn’t for his 2nd comment. By drawing personal feelings and family members/emotions into his comment, he is drawing from his own psyche.

I for one hope to see this fool’s scholarship withdrawn.

Originally posted at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Sg_Review/message/1633

http://www.newsintercom.org/index.php?itemid=303

Singapore’s stand on One China policy

Anyone know who Lien Chan is? He’s Taiwan’s Kuomintang (KMT) party chairman, opposition to Chen Shui Bian’s Democratic Progressive Party (DPP). Well, it wasn’t reported in the local news, but Lien Chan entered Singapore on 18th April 2005 (Monday this week) on the invite of MM Lee (http://www.chinapost.com.tw/detail.asp?ID=61219&GRP=A).

Lien Chan was to give a speech as the guest of honour at an unofficial dinner at the invitation of the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy. However, at the same time, Lien Chan met Beijing officials to “discuss matters”, just prior to his own visit to China, although Lien Chan denies it.

The KMT and China are having a series of talks with regards to Taiwan President Chen Shui Bian’s move towards democracy. It’s pretty clear that China is wisely using old enemies to fight new enemies. Afterall the enemy of your enemy is your friend. The KMT has also made comments to that effect.

LHL made the maiden speech on Singapore’s stand last year, partly to explain his visit to Taiwan. He stated that Singapore’s stand was One-China. He claimed that Singapore strongly opposed an independent Taiwan.

If this is really so, why the coverup? Was Singapore playing a neutral party in the China-Taiwan debate, offering as a neutral ground for discussions? Singapore played a decisive role here, hosting the KMT and hosting KMT-China discussions. However, all this was done secretly. Was this to deceive the current Taiwanese government? To what aim? Possibly in the hopes of retaining its training rights on Taiwanese soil and other investments?

One wonders if LHL’s speech on Singapore’s stand was double-talk or a faux-stand just to “show face” to China while appeasing Taiwan in the background. Playing two sides might be a profitable venture but onemust be careful lest it backfires.

Originally posted at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Sg_Review/message/1634

http://www.newsintercom.org/index.php?itemid=304

State of the Blog Address

Blogging has become God’s gift to socio-political commentators. WIth the folks at diaryland, blogspot/blogger and co, many have literally come out from the woodwork to all and sundry.

Many of these blogs (I can name many but I suggest you check out TheVoidDeck’s running list). I myself don’t have a blog due to reasons I’ve mentioned before. But for the benefit of those who don’t know I reiterate (hence this article).

Previously political commentary was restricted (for lack of a better word) to websites like TheVoidDeck and Sintercom, discussion forums like sammyboy and mailing lists like Yahoo. What these did was give people a collective avenue for commentary. In the case of forums, the members belonged in this collective and arguments put forth in a way conformed to a particular gripe or peeve. Such topics always centred around the hot topics of the day. Unless moderated, topics and threads were no-holds-barred.

In the case of mailing lists, it is similar in essense to a forum. However many lists were closed lists in that you had to be a subscriber to read and then post to it, creating secret enclaves of hotse… erm I mean serious discussion. Some lists made their message open but membership private so their message was pubished far and wide but its gripes/peeves/agendas conformed to the list owner(s).

Websites are more clearcut and obvious and the old and reliable guard, so there’s not much that needs to be said there (although I believe TheVoidDeck is kinda new in the game).

The interesting thing about the online socio-political scene was that our commentary was confined and controlled (for lack of better words) in these avenues. This created IMO collective and organised vehicles for disparate chaos. In other words in the chaos of many mailing lists and forums there was still order.

Then blogs came along and this changed the socio-political landscape forever. This awesome gift from the heavens allowed literally Tom Dick and Jane to grab a megaphone and scream from the top of his HDB block. Of course whether you wanted to listen was entirely up to you. However I liken this current scene to hungry hyenas roaming the wilds of Africa. Now note I didn’t say “pack of hyenas”, simply because there is no group dynamic, no order. They were just hungry hyenas. Sometimes if they ran out of victims to hunt they hunt themselves. There is no order. Only chaos.

In the end, it’s just block after HDB block of megaphone-screaming individuals trying to drown each other out by out-shouting each other. In the end all the arguments get drowned out by each other and it just becomes noise. What happens when it’s all noise? It’s ignored. When it’s ignored, people behind the blogs start wondering “Why isn’t anyone reading?” and get demoralised. When they get demoralised they start to wonder why they continue to write. Apathy *resettles in* and that’s what we cannot afford to have.

The number of socio-political blogs seem to be growing. Newest kid in the block is TheOptical’s Your Voice blog. While TheOptical’s blog is more in style with say Sintercom, I believe that there needs to be some order in this chaos. TheVoidDeck’s approach to linking them all together in a step in the right direction. However I do not see a good solution in the horizon. I strongly believe the growth of socio-political blogs will only be to the detriment of our online socio-political commentary. More so when moronic journalists group luminaries like xenoboy, i-am-a-comedian and shianux with fluff like xiaxue and cassandrappg.

PS I *DO NOT* think bloggers are hyenas. It was merely an analogy.

http://www.newsintercom.org/index.php?itemid=293

Casino Debate: Let’s get down to business

Budget Day approaches. That’s when the PAP decides whether to build a casino or not. Ok fellow plebs let’s face facts, it’s gonna be built whether we debate pointlessly on the moral and ethical issues, which IMO are totally missing the trees for the forest.

Come 18th April, the PAP *will* decide to build a casino. So that is fait accompli. We must now look at the *real* issues long and hard. What are the issues involved with having a casino (or integrated resort. Whatever, a rose is a rose) in our land?

One of the biggest problems with having a casino is money laundering. Ok what’s that? Basically it’s a literally a way of washing your dirty cash to make it clean. I’m no criminal mastermind but this is one way to do it: Lackey One brings $10,000 to the casino and exchanges that for chips. He plays a few rounds of blackjack, then cashes the chips back to cash. The money in his hand is now clean, “cash winnings” from the casino. It’s washed.

Now imagine 100 lackeys doing this for a money laundering syndicate. This is a real problem with casinos, not an imagined one. I believe it’s never been mentioned during the casino debate. Frankly I think the PAP is relieved that the public is so preoccupied by the facetious arguments going on now.

How real is this problem? China estimates that roughly US$80 BILLION is laundering out of the country early (http://www.theage.com.au/news/Business/PBL-partner-experienced-in-Chinese-laundering/2005/03/22/1111254024435.html?from=moreStories&oneclick=true).  Much of that comes from Macau. Australia estimates about AUD$4bil is laundered out of the country yearly (http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/stories/s106533.htm). These are big numbers and not to be trivialised.

With money laundering comes bank accounts. Large volumes of cash can seriously hurt our banks’ stability and reputation, especially if these volumes start moving or if such cases get uncovered.

Let’s not forget the syndicates, organised gangs and other illegal activities that will be attracted here, like loansharks. Frankly these issues must be discussed openly. Let’s put aside all the pointless arguments and discuss the real issues like mature adults. I for one eagerly anticipate the upcoming Asian Casinos Expo 2005 held at Suntec Singapore on 21-23 June 2005. In particular I’d like to see what Michael Mainelli, director of Z/Yen Limited (a risk-management firm) has to say about the topic of money laundering (http://www.terrapinn.com/2005/ace_sg/confprog.stm). I hope the PAP opens their eyes and ears.

I support the building of the casino. However we must address the real issues properly. So far we haven’t. A country like Singapore is small enough that an entity like a casino can seriously or even irrepably damage our economy, *if* it’s not planned and managed well.

One upside to this is that the Police Force will have to setup a new unit like say Illegal Gamings Task Force. That means more jobs and that’s what everyone wants rite? Rite?

http://www.newsintercom.org/index.php?itemid=289