February 2006

Conservative Society? What Crazy Horse Shit!

Ooh, look! The Sunday Times’ big splash of news and ads about Crazy Horse – the first “beautiful artistic nude show” from Paris – arriving in Singapore on Dec 6, 05. What a ‘wild’ new development in our oft-touted ‘conservative society’! (Y’mean you expect me to sit back and say nothing like the rest of the dodo Singaporeans?) Predictably, The New Paper tabloid had to come up with a sensationalistic ‘atonement’ of our contradictory turnaround. Its big headline poser was: “Has it become hip to be raunchy in Singapore?” The answer?  Yes -- they win, no -- you lose. Know a win-win question when you see one?

One should really marvel at the shameless transparency of agenda-propping on these shores that points the public to only one perspective – the System’s! Elsewhere, they’d call it shameless dogmatism. But this is Singapore, we only call it what the institutionalized press-refugees call it at the order of our all-encompassing nation-building agenda. All-encompassing, cos it often sidesteps intelligence and rationality. Besides, the masses here don’t know the word dogmatism (unless you explain to them, lor.) And those of us who do still have to rely on the one-&-only national press to tell us how to think in the socially acceptable way. Social sanctions all firmly in place, lurve.

So we are still a conservative society? How so with the Crazy Horse-titties show and what’s the real issue behind that New Paper question? Simple. We have to remain economically competitive in this people-empowering age of the Internet. So conservative society or no, it’s all for economic and industrial peace! Well, step aside, Asian family values when Big Brother has some other pressing needs at hand. No worries, in Singapore, we don’t really ask questions anyway. How can we? Except for yours truly. And no, I don’t consider the national press’ big alarming questions as questions when there’s no real answer sought and it’s all about spinning a thousand yarn of self-serving justifications. That, or it’s about diverting you from the real issue with shameless half-truths in tow.

On Singapore and entrpreneurship, our Minister Mentor told Time magazine: “Free enterprise was not working (for us) because we did not have enough entrepreneurs… We had traders, not manufacturers… Why did the Govt. start a shipping line? Because we didn’t have a Y.K. Pao or a C.Y. Tung, as in Hong Kong. The same with Singapore Airlines, and so with an iron and steel mill… Have we got a Li Ka-shing?” (ST, Dec 5, 05). 

Of course, that explanation assumes that we don’t need to wonder why we haven’t got enough remarkable entrepreneurs in the first place. And don’t you dare argue! Who dares? Does us no good to wonder about those real reasons anyway. Alright, no one would have the guts to say this, so let me: If we had a Li Ka-shing, he would have disappeared up someone’s ka-ching somewhere back in 1979. Yes, do grant yourself the liberty to think of all the implications behind that off-color indictment, why don’t you. C’mon, we do want daring entrepreneurs. Contradictions, notwithstanding. I do love all of our urgent Remaking Singapore agendas, for reasons uniquely… me, you can well imagine.

On truths not halved… You can always rely on the estimable Koh Buck Song for more than what’s expected of national-press writers. It was he who boldly declared -- we were “once repressed” and that Singapore is the only country that can have its cake and eat it!

On Dec 9, 05, he wrote in the essay Discovering The Future History Of Singapore: “Once, speaking at a forum overseas, I tried to suggest that Singapore should do more to nurture the arts. But a senior government representative who was also on the panel attacked this point, saying ‘we can’t all become poets, or Singapore will go down the drain’. I never said ‘everyone’ should become poets, only there should be just a little more understanding of what the arts can contribute. But the big problem with the engineering mindset is the tendency to see things in terms of zero or 100 per cent, all or nothing.”

Let’s call a spade a spade and not just call it ‘engineering mindset’. Surely, in the context of what’s revealed, that term qualifies as ‘dogmatism’, no? (Now, we just need the Chua sisters to come on and say how a little dogmatism is good for nationalism! Reining in the minds is such a piece of cake in Singapore, and as transparent too!)

On more half-truths… “Singaporean Muslim men prefer a Vietnamese bride to local women” was the front-page headline of The New Paper on Jan 1, 06, explaining that they don’t need to pay high dowries. Oh yeah? Just the high agency fee, yah?! I do like the feature. It’s a subtle way to say, hey, those bride-buying agencies in Singapore don’t just cater to the Chinese. Not that Singaporeans ever think about it. Nor the notion that bride-buying in Singapore is really a legalized form of human trade. Who dares? By the way who dares to ponder how social problems might arise from such economically-arranged marriages officially endorsed to balance population demographics. As the famous Singapore saying goes, we’ll cross the bridge when we get to it.

Just the day before, also in The New Paper’s front page: “Viet bride-for-sex scam victim (says) I still want a Singapore hubby” and “thanks, Singapore, for jailing him (the con-man).” So now, the wrongdoing is smartly focused on the conman. See how well a little scam serves to distract from the whole moral issue of bride-buying? And the marvelous part is – no one is asking the pertinent humanitarian questions.  -- X’ Ho