60 million died in World War II. The majority of deaths (62%) were civilians, who lived in the wrong time in the wrong place and died as a result of a decisions of a few leaders who wanted more power. War, and any form of violence, does not benefit anyone, except those sitting in the back row pulling the strings for their own gain.
There are many more truly important issues for Singaporeans to get excited and worked up about. Chinese-educated Singaporeans are no longer ‘stuttering’ with their blades hovering overhead, trying to get their message across. The ‘Chinese helicopter’ has landed! Applause! And lighten-up, folks.
So when Singaporeans complain about the potential higher costs of food, lodging and transport needed to afford a maid in the future (when the supply of maids will be drastically reduced while demand remains constant or even increases), perhaps it sheds more light on how Singaporeans have come to need maids more than the maids need us.
There are people who feel Amos Yee needs to be taught a lesson, and it would be foolish to deny that he has stepped on too many toes. Yet the question remains, what kind of society would we devolve into if we cannot even guarantee the safety of a teenage boy when he is assaulted by a much larger assailant in full view of the public?
ELD should do everyone a favour and come out with clarifications for their actions. Or perhaps they would like everyone to think that the rules of Cooling-Off-Day simply mean that no one, nada, zip, nothing, should be published about politics on Cooling-Off-Day, period.
Mr Bilahari’s views on local politicians aside, his lectures on international affairs read like a primer with a realist slant. More significantly, the average Singaporean might do well to understand that this same realist perspective informs foreign policy decision making in Singapore’s MFA, and in the higher echelons of the Singapore government, especially considering how consistent the Singapore government’s foreign policy stance has been between senior leaders (read Lee Kuan Yew’s book on Hard Truths and Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s interview with TIME). Understanding Mr Bilahari’s lectures gives insights into the mind of the MFA diplomat, and for those who seek to challenge his views, provides a foundation on how to approach foreign policy debates from a Singaporean point of view.
We can deduce that the two camps are not going to compromise anytime soon, but what does this mean for Singaporeans? It means that first, we will be seeing movements and counter-movements from both LGBTIQ and conservative communities for some years to come; second, Singapore will come under intense media scrutiny, particularly from an international media that is sympathetic to LGBTIQ causes; and third, Singaporeans will have to live with the messy debates, name-calling and polarised politics that have come to characterise similar LGBTIQ movements in other countries.
Singlish holds a special place in the hearts of most Singaporeans. The off-grammar creole is spoken almost exclusively by inhabitants of our small island-nation and very often prompts strong emotional responses from people when it is challenged or belittled. It is also a source of comfort, according to some, especially when stuck in a foreign land where the only thing you miss most is the sights and sounds of a far away home.
However in a strange turn of events, the focus of the fiercest debates has shone not so much on the merits or demerits of the use of the death penalty in Kho Jabing’s case. The bulk of public interest now seems centred on toxic accusations which have been flung against the lawyers and activists backing Kho Jabing and family, accusing them of delaying the inevitable and putting the family of Kho through unnecessary emotional torture.
Ironically, headlines like these prompted even more questions from netizens about the laws governing minors involved in serious offences – to what extent are minors protected under the laws of Singapore when they are suspected of criminal offences? Should they or should they not be accompanied by an appropriate adult, and who would be considered an “appropriate” adult anyway? More contentiously, should or could schools and parents be given the right to refuse to comply with police directives, and would it be a crime to do so?