7for7

flaneurose has seen much less frequent updates starting about 2 years back. This stems partly from blogging fatigue, partly from me giving up on reading the Straits Times, and also in large part due to me working on other personal projects.

Which brings me to today's post. While flaneurose doesn't enjoy a large readership, it's far more established than my other web property, which is why I am promoting my other website here on flaneurose.

I started 7for7, a speed dating project for gay men last year in November. And I can tell you, it's been hard going getting enough participants for events. I'm starting to recall the early days of flaneurose almost 5 years ago when days would go by without anyone reading any of my posts.

While the primary motivation behind 7for7 was to hold events and meet new people, I also wanted to collect and analyze data on speed dating, and perhaps publish some interesting observations on dating dynamics within the gay community. But analytics simply isn't possible without a lot of data, and to collect that data, I need to hold events. And I need participants to hold events.

So, that's why I've decided to publicize the little fact here on my blog that flaneurose and 7for7 are in fact by the same person. Call it a blog cross-over, kind of like TV shows by the same producer.

If you're a reader of my blog, and you know someone for whom 7for7 might just be the ticket to a new relationship, do them and me a favor and tell them about it. I've already been successful at matching up at least one couple from my first event, and I look forward to doing the same for many more singles.

FCBC's Lawrence Khong Comes Out (as the brains behind the petition)

There's a report stating that Pastor Lawrence Khong from Faith Community Baptist Church is behind the petition against the Health Promotion Board's FAQs on sexuality.

The story was carried, appropriately enough given his mug shot (see the first comment by one Chitpol Siddhirvan on the story), in the Gay Star News.

Khong didn't come out as "Aaron", but hey, he could still come out some day. All we need is a Mike Jones to Ted Haggard personality to come forward and FCBC will be holding a whole new kind of press conference.

Jokes aside, I surfed over to FCBC's Facebook page just to have a look see, and a thought occurred to me.

FCBC is violating Facebook's terms of use.

The specific section that is relevant is Section 3:

3. Safety

We do our best to keep Facebook safe, but we cannot guarantee it. We need your help to keep Facebook safe, which includes the following commitments by you:

...

6. You will not bully, intimidate or harass any user.

7. You will not post content that: is hate speech, threatening or pornographic; incites violence; or contains nudity or graphic or gratuitous violence.

...

10. You will not use Facebook to do anything unlawful, misleading, malicious, or discriminatory.

I think starting and publicizing a petition that seeks to intimidate a secular government agency from providing objective information on sexuality that helps to save the lives of at-risk LGBT people is malicious and discriminatory.

That's against Facebook's terms of use. So I reported it to Facebook:

If you feel the same way, do the same. Someone who is enjoying a skiing vacation in the USA should completely understand why hate speech isn't condoned on a website started by people in that country.

Sumptuary Laws - the MOE Edition

“Sumptuary laws (from Latin sumptuariae leges) are laws that attempt to regulate permitted consumption… In the Late Middle Ages, sumptuary laws were instituted as a way for the nobility to cap the conspicuous consumption of the prosperous bourgeoisie of medieval cities, and they continued to be used for these purposes well into the 17th century.“ – Wikipedia entry

The Straits Times ran an article today on funding cuts for six independent schools, as well as requesting that schools moderate fund-raising activities.

I agree with Bertha Harian. The article was poorly reported and instead of informing the reader, left him or her with more questions.

It’s not hard to see where the motivation behind these cuts (and the accompanying loud but incoherent publicity) come from. Income and wealth inequality have become sensitive topics, and the government, in an effort to convince the citizenry that it’s behind the little guy (and hence not lose votes in the next election) is suddenly draping itself in socialist vestments.

Leaving aside how genuine the sentiment behind wanting to narrow inequities is, as opposed to merely a cynical exercise in electioneering, one really must tease apart how effective such measures are in achieving their purported goal. This post also aims to address other peripheral issues.

My thoughts:

1.       Even with official frowning over fund-raising for lavish new swimming pools and tennis courts, “good” schools will always find a way a differentiate themselves, just as the wealthy subverted sumptuary laws in centuries past. Latest example: five star hotels in China seeking to “de-star”themselves (but probably finding some other way to up the luxury ante) so that corrupt Chinese officials can continue to stay there. Gold leaf mooncakes are so passé.

Who knows what elite Singapore schools will spend on, now that conspicuous consumption is out?

I can think of a few ideas. I attended Anglo Chinese School in my salad days years ago on government largesse. I was in the school band for a year, and the set-up in the ACS band then was that new recruits had to sign up (and pay) for a few months of private group lessons with instructors. These lessons were held by section (e.g. clarinets, flutes, trumpets etc.)

The conductor for the band was an active member of the Singapore Symphony Orchestra (he played the trumpet), and the instructors were his colleagues from the SSO. While lessons were mandatory only for the first few months, we were strongly encouraged to continue having them on an ongoing basis to improve our abilities. I doubt any other secondary school band in Singapore back then (and perhaps even now) enjoyed the advantage of having musicians from the SSO as regular instructors for all their band members.

The lessons were paid for by students ($50 per student per month if I recall correctly). So, as far as I know, ACS didn’t finance the extra training. But that’s not to say ACS couldn’t have chosen to do so.

The experience of how the ACS band operated sure put the Singapore Youth Festival into perspective for me. Early on in life as a student, instead of knowing the SYF as a celebration of a well-rounded education, I instead learnt the importance of the role of money behind excellence and achievement. And school rankings needless to say.

(Post script: As a lower middle class student in the GEP paying just $12 a month in school fees, my father found it ridiculous that he had to pay $50 a month for private music lessons when education under the GEP was supposedly subsidized. There were a few ugly scenes in school, and after some wrangling between my parents and my teachers, to save myself embarrassment and long awkward conversations with my teachers, I left the band of my own accord and joined another CCA. On hindsight, this negative experience with money and education probably influenced me signing up for a government scholarship later in life.)

2.       Any curtailment in legacy admissions, which the article highlights as one of the measures to be imposed, is bound to elicit howls of protest or at the very least, grumbling from disgruntled alumni.

Which may not be a bad thing from schools’ perspective. Scarcity goods enjoy a premium. Expect even bigger and fatter donations from alumni parents anxious to get their kids into their alma mater. You know the Chicago song, “When you’re good to Mama…”? Exactly.

All this sort of makes the funding cuts and restrictions on fund-raising moot.

3.       So, what’s to be done if we really want to narrow inequalities in the educational system?

One way is to increase funding to lower ranked schools. One of the ironies in the Singapore educational system is that it is precisely the most advantaged students who receive the most funding, like the Gifted Education Program for instance. Although as a GEP alum I am grateful for the funding, the fact is that even by my time 20 years ago, the majority of the kids in my GEP class in ACS were indistinguishable from the regular ACS kids when it came to socio-economic background. I was one of the rare kids in my class who lived in an HDB flat, something really unusual in ACS. (I was odd in other ways too, such as walking to school and only entering the program in Secondary 1 instead of Primary 4, the so-called ‘supplementary intake’).

The article doesn’t go into specifics as to whether redistributing funding is what MOE is going to do going forward. A related measure is to make ‘bonus’ funding conditional on improving academic outcomes for incoming cohorts of students rather than on absolute achievement. This would favor schools with a lower base of achievement that prove that they can produce improved outcomes.

As for breaking open the “closed circles” that our elite schools have evolved into, encouraging kids from lower income households to apply to higher ranked institutions could be one solution. However, affirmative action or income diversity quotas may have very mixed results. Speaking as a formerlower income student in an elite institution, I can categorically state that psychologically, it’s tough to be a kid from a lower income household in a good school.

And I was one of the top students in my cohort. Without having private tuition which is ubiquitous today. Academics has always been low stress for me (compared to social interactions), but I can imagine that being lower income and struggling academically in an elite institution could be potentially an enormous source of stress.

My preferred strategy for leveling the playing field if I was in charge of setting education policy? Teachers. Sending the best teachers to the most disadvantaged schools.

A conversation with a teacher in my NS platoon during one of our interminably boring ICTs revealed to me that MOE scholars, the crème de la crème of the teaching profession, typically get assigned to the better schools after graduation. Again, this feeds back into the irony that the most advantaged students in our system receive the most and best resources, and you can’t get a better resource than a good teacher.

Ostensibly, the rationale for this is that MOE scholars are being groomed for leadership positions in the educational system and perhaps the larger civil service. So, exposure to opportunities is important for their career development, and what is true for students is just as true for the teachers. Good schools simply have more to offer teachers in terms of resources, interesting projects and resume-building opportunities.

While I understand that there is a master teacher career track for teachers who wish to specialize in *gasp* teaching, I don’t think it’s a terrible leap of imagination to realize that between the management and the teaching track, one track enjoys far greater prestige and money. Ergo, that’s where the talent gravitates to.

Which is why the Equity Project in New York City is so interesting. In this charter school, teachers are paid USD125,000 per year, twice as much as other public school teachers, and the idea is that the quality of the teaching talent will make a real difference in student outcomes These teachers are literally a ‘dream team’ – the Physical Education teacher was Kobe Bryant’s personal trainer. Given the longitudinal nature of educational outcomes, it’s hard to know if this experiment will pan out the way its supporters expect it to. But it certainly bears watching.

Riot in Little India - What could happen next: Considerations and Consequences

I was a little surprised to hear that a riot happened last night in Little India. But not very.

The benefits and necessities of massive immigration have been repeated ad nauseum by the government. In contrast, for years, I have warned of the unintended consequences of immigration, which include erosion of social cohesion and the increased risk of civil unrest.

I do not intend to recap the details of the Little India riot in this post. If you are reading this, you should be well-apprised of the details reported in local media. What I will discuss are perspectives that I think not many people will realize, and what I think will happen next.


That a riot happened is not a surprise. That Singaporeans are genuinely shocked is.

Seriously, with fully 30% of the population here foreign-born, and a large chunk of migrant labor coming from lower educated and poorer countries with more violent histories of protest than Singapore, why should it be a surprise that a riot can occur? Forbes has an article with a similar sentiment as mine.

The police commissioner said that "the incident last night was not the Singapore way".

Indeed. However, one third of the population here is not Singaporean. On balance, looking at the sheer numbers of immigrants, arguing that everyone who lives here should conform to the "Singapore way" is foolhardy at best, and at worst, rings of either naivete or hubris.

As to why foreign workers could be so unhappy as to riot in the streets, I do not know. It could simply be a case of emotions running high after seeing a kinsman fatally knocked down and then escalating into a riot.

What I do know is that based on well-documented incidents by TWC2 of how foreign workers are abused in Singapore, there are plenty of reasons for a foreign worker in Singapore to be less than happy. If later investigations reveal an underlying current of simmering resentment that drove the workers to riot, I would not be surprised to find out.


The government has no good choices of how to respond to this incident. Humpty Dumpty can't be put back together again.

A riot by foreign workers happened last night. Nothing can change that fact.

This raises so many obvious questions among Singapore citizens and residents.

Is it safe in Singapore? Is it safe to go to Little India?
Why did the riot happen?
Will riots happen again?
How should the rioters be dealt with?
What will this do to labor relations with our migrant workers?
What does this mean for our country's immigration policy?

The most damaging consequence of this incident is that it illustrates that Singapore is not immune to civil unrest. The illusion that massive uncontrolled immigration is an unalloyed good has been shattered.

That the riot was caused by foreign workers calls into question the wisdom of our immigration policy AND underscores the importance of how we as citizens and Singaporeans navigate our relationships with the foreigners in our midst.

The government has no good choices as to how to respond to this incident. If they are seen as not prosecuting the arrested to the fullest extent of the law and meting out justice, some Singaporeans, the more xenophobic ones, will perceive this as softness. Already, we can read comments online excoriating the rioters and blaming them for threatening Singapore's stability.

If the government does not exercise restraint in its response however, the consequences could be dire too. A harsh response could be reasoned to have a deterrent effect; yet it could equally have a inflammatory effect and lead to a higher likelihood of more riots and civil disturbances, such as strikes.

Remember, there are thousands of foreign workers here. And even though we think of rioting as irrational behavior, when you are a foreign worker in a foreign land incensed at what you perceive as unfair treatment of your peers, the calculus of what is 'rational' is very different.

Even irrational behavior looks reasonable when you can find enough people to agree with you, and again I remind the reader, we have thousands of foreign workers here.

If I were an employer in the construction industry hiring hundreds of foreign workers, I would be worried.


"With so much chaos, someone will do something stupid."

I'm aware that I'm probably hyperventilating a little here, but let's hope that no one actually does something stupid, either foreigner or Singaporean. Something stupid meaning another incident that could fan the flames of discord and lead to another major civil disturbance.

The quote is from the movie V for Vendetta. It is taken out of context here, but the parallel should be clear. It is right for the government to appeal for calm.

Despite the riot, imposing a curfew, rules on assembly or stricter policing in Little India is asking for trouble.

Why are there so many foreign workers in Little India anyway?

It should not be hard to empathize and understand why. Because Little India feels like home to many foreign workers. And for a few hours at least, a foreign worker can pretend that he is not far away from family and a life he understands and instead in a cold metropolis of glass and steel.

So, why do I think that imposing heavier rules and policing in Little India is a bad idea?

Here's a passage from The Front Runner by Patricia Nell Warren, possibly the most celebrated gay love story ever. The passage is from the protagonist's recollection of the Stonewall riots and I reproduce it here to illustrate what might happen when law enforcement encroaches into a space occupied by a marginalized minority:

"The street was full of cops and flashing red lights.But what was more amazing, the street was full of hundreds of gays, and they were fighting the cops. For years they...submitted to harassments and arrest...But the night of Stonewall, they made the instant visceral decision that they had had enough. They were throwing rocks and bottles...They were fighting New York's Finest with their bare hands.

I watched with growing anger and sorrow. I didn't drink, but those bars were about the only public places where gays could be themselves. No straight could understand how precious they were to us. I had always believed in law and order, supported the police. But those cops were busting me...They were riding over me with their big horses and shoving me into vans handcuffed...

Then an amazing thing happened. I had a rock in my hand, and I threw it."

A enlarged police presence in Little India will likely have the effect of fueling resentment and ironically, may lead to a higher risk for future riots. Yet, some may feel that the government needs to make a show of force to demonstrate it takes public order seriously. I am neither for one or the other. Again, I reiterate. There are no good choices here. Humpty Dumpty lies broken and in pieces.

With what has happened last night, we can only hope that such an incident is a one-off and Singaporeans can put it behind us.

Yet, the disquietude persists.

Book List Refreshed 1/10/2013

I have removed:

Without Conscience by Robert D. Hare

A Memory of Light by Robert Jordan and Brandon Sanderson

The Race for What's Left by Michael T. Klare

OB Marker by Cheong Yip Seng

I have added:

Full Planet, Empty Plates by Lester R. Brown

The First Muslim by Lesley Hazleton

The End of the Suburbs by Leigh Gallagher

Reinventing Collapse by Dmitry Orlov

Diversity in the Top Echelons of the Public Sector

Eddie Teo wrote another open letter on PSC scholarships a few days ago. It was on *The Value of Diversity*. 

You may find it here. 

I commented on his previous letter here, and I will comment on his latest one here in this post.

My first reaction on reading his letter? Rolling my eyes inwardly, with the word "tosh" appearing in my mind.

It's all well and good that the PSC is actively soliciting scholars from less selective schools.

Unfortunately, it's a long distance from budding scholar to head honcho policymaker. And guess what? The head honchos today are the products of yesterday's scholar selection process, which means that while today's scholarship recipient may have a slightly lower probability of coming from Raffles JC or Hwa Chong, s/he almost certainly will be working under someone who did.

And who gets promoted faster? Not the mavericks, misfits or outlier types who come from non-pedigreed backgrounds, that's for sure.

"Those aspiring to be public servants should realise that their performance will often be enhanced if they can bring a new perspective to help tackle a public policy issue, gained by their stint in a “non-traditional” university or “non-traditional” country."

Oh, originality and imagination certainly get you brownie points, but Singapore's favorite kind of innovation has always been the kind that comes in a nice, neat box with a bow tied on top.

Science and engineering research? Only if there's a financial return on investment.

Arts and culture? Only if it's pretty and non-controversial, and preferably can be marketed as a tourist attraction.

Family values? Yes, certainly. No problems with keeping Section 377A on the statutes, but steamroll the casinos into Singapore over the protests. Sometimes, I really wish they did condone spousal rape and would sentence people to death for adultery here. At least it would be consistently medieval here and we would all be treated equally as serfs.

Scholars fresh out of university, who have had good grades throughout school and the same sparkling CCA records, are the most vulnerable to craving external validation. I should know: I was a scholar once upon a time too.

Your unconventional scholars with non-traditional perspectives are going to adapt to innovate within a tightly circumscribed space, drinking the Kool-Aid as it were, which will render them indistinguishable from their more pedigreed peers, or they will exit the system out of sheer frustration. 

We also do not care what schools they come from when deciding on whether or not to award a scholarship. Several of this year’s President’s Scholars came from neighbourhood primary schools [Emphasis mine].

Translation:

Yes, because of the angst-filled and heart attack-inducing process of primary one registration (just ask young parents), we know that getting into a name brand primary school is a complete crapshoot. So, obviously, we won't hold it against you.

Now, secondary schools on the other hand...

What is not said is sometimes more important than what is said...

Just as the government is changing the way it governs Singapore, Public Service leaders are learning how to manage a new generation of younger public servants, who want greater participation and more voice. The PSC’s effort to bring diversity into the Public Service will come to nought if divergent views are discouraged within the system and those who dare to question assumptions and have a non-conventional perspective are not valued and appreciated.

Eddie's thinking here is that by recruiting these non-traditional scholars from non-traditional backgrounds, they will be the leading edge of the Public Service's transformation into a more diverse and dynamic civil service.

My problem with this view is that these non-traditional scholars will either exit the system before they attain leadership positions, or they will be assimilated by the system they were meant to change from within.

Do we have evidence for the latter? Of course we do. 

While it does not follow that only those with a less fortunate background can empathize with the poor,...

...Yes, there are a few scholar public servants who lack humility and have forgotten that they are where they are because of the support and help from those around them.

The converse is not necessarily true either. The kicker is that sometimes, it is precisely the people who rose up from the bottom who turn out to the least sympathetic ones of all. Mah Bow "affordable" Tan and Ng Eng Hen came from supposedly humble backgrounds, but look at how sensitive they are to the lower strata of Singapore society. See here for instance.

Groupthink already exists in the public sector. We know this because our government willfully sticks its fingers in its ears and went "la, la, la" when we told it years ago that current immigration policy is unsustainable, and that housing and public transportation is badly in need of new investment. 

Groupthink by its very nature perpetuates itself. Thank you Eddie, for striving to put new wine in old bottles. Personally, I would do something about the bottles instead, but good on you for trying.

On the Parliament Vote to Endorse the Population White Paper - Redux: Who didn't vote?

As promised in a previous post, I kept a close watch on the release of the votes and proceedings of the parliamentary vote held on 8 February to endorse the controversial population white paper.

You may find the proceedings here. Naturally, I saved a copy to my hard drive. Even with legislation that compels the government to release this information, I have zero trust in the PAP in such matters.

And given the compromised nature of the mainstream media in reporting political news, you will never hear the specifics of the proceedings in the Straits Times, so if you find this blog post enlightening, please disseminate this as far as possible. Our citizenry need to be informed citizenry if we are to have influence in charting the course of this nation of ours.

Given the short attention spans of most people, I would not be surprised if many Singaporeans have forgotten about the specifics of who voted for what. And this was probably something that the PAP was counting on.

This post will serve as a reminder of the voting record on that fateful day.

From the parliamentary proceedings, in the matter of endorsing the population white paper, there were 77 ayes, 13 noes, and 1 abstention. There were 5 absentees on that day.

All opposition party MPs voted no.

All non-constituency MPs voted no.

Of the nominated MPs, Eugene Tan abstained, as is well known. Janice Koh, Faizah Jamal and Laurence Lien all voted against the motion, as is also known.

What was not stated in the mainstream media was that of the remaining five nominated MPs, Tan Su Shan was absent, while the remaining four voted aye.

These four, whose names were not mentioned in the media, are Nicholas Fang, Mary Liew, Ramy Dhinakaran and Teo Siong Seng.

Remember these nominated MP names. When the time comes to re-appoint the nominated MPs, it will be interesting to see who gets the nod for re-appointment, and who doesn't, and see how the re-appointment reconciles with this voting record.

Now, the most interesting part of this post.

There are 99 MPs in parliament. With 77 ayes, 13 noes, 1 abstention and 5 absentees, that still leaves 3 MPs unaccounted for.

It was known that Inderjit Singh absented himself during the vote, and well he did, given the misgivings he voiced out prior to the taking of the vote.

But who were the other two?

The answer is: Indranee Rajah and Ng Eng Hen. 

Read into that what you will. Myself? I would note that Ng Eng Hen is a Cabinet Minister, while Indranee Rajah is a Senior Minister of State, unlike Inderjit Singh who is just a regular MP. It's bad form for people that high up in the PAP hierarchy to absent themselves from a vote as widely watched as this one.

I do not have information on how or why they absented themselves. And our mainstream media doesn't seem to either, or doesn't want to tell us, or just plain doesn't want to know.


*Remember, if you found this post noteworthy, please disseminate.  As citizens, all of us need more information.