Basket.

I have decided to create a new weblog specifically for silly forum letters.

Enjoy!

Once in a while the time-honoured ST Forum gets letters so asinine I am tempted to believe they were written in jest. But I know I'm probably giving my fellow citizens a little too much credit.


Ban cyber-gaming (16 October)

I REFER to the report "They fly into a rage over online games" on Monday.

Gaming is a social ill with far more dire consequences than chewing gum.

Should we not ban cyber-gaming and get our teenagers to take up healthier and more constructive activities instead?

This is an age in which almost all homework is done on the computer. Students also send e-mail and chat online with their friends.

It is impossible to know when they are engaged in such activities and when they are gaming, unless one were to look over their shoulders every minute.

Locking their computers or limiting their gaming time is not feasible.

What do we lose by banning cyber games?


Let's begin by answering the last question: well, no, "we" - you, rather - won't lose anything with such a ban, if you don't mind exposing the severe deficiencies in your reasoning ability with such a high-handed and obviously illogical move. You won't lose anything if you don't mind being derided as a laughing stock only able to think in simplistic generalizations.

The premise of this letter is so patently absurd that tearing it apart feels almost like cheating. I can't read the original article our letter-writer refers to because the Straits Times is being... business-savvy... by charging money for it to be read, but from the title I take it that some people are taking their computer games a little too seriously and getting angry enough to cause notice and inconvenience to others. That, apparently, is enough reason for our letter-writer to call for nobody to be allowed to play computer games again, ever. Is this gaming rage a virus or something?

Personally - I haven't been on this planet very long, but one of the things I've learnt over and over is that human beings, in general, get angry very easily. And can get angry over virtually anything. Why do you think drinks machines usually carry the label - "DO NOT HIT OR TILT MACHINE"? Why do you think there are so many warnings on public transport places that any frustrations should not be taken out on the staff? Why are there numerous anger management courses readily available in virtually every single country in the world? Money has even been made out of specialty restaurants or events where people can take out their anger on things or willing punching-bags.

People get angry. That's the bottom line. A minority of these people get extremely angry and that is known as rage. It is a problem, for sure, but it is a problem that exists in every single discipline. We have road rage. We have air rage. People get abusive when paying their bills, when posting a letter, when calling technical support... you name it. Should we ban all of these things because a few users let their emotions get the better of them? Should we ban all motor vehicles and air travel?

The illogic, however, does not stop there. Our writer goes on to bemoan the fact that it is so difficult to turn one's home into a police state. Again, the point is missed entirely. If you are aiming to prevent your child from gaming for even one second during the day, then obviously the task is Herculean. But what good reason is there to do that? Like any other activity, gaming is only unhealthy when carried to excess. If someone is missing meals or sleep just to game, then he or she ought to be stopped. But an hour or two a day with the rest spent on essential activities? What is the problem with that?

Our writer then further demonstrates that she is, or will be, a lazy parent. She does not want any of her children or future children to play computer games, but rather than being responsible about it, she would like the state to do it for her. Do a bit of parenting please - if you want your child to turn out the way you would like, a bit of effort is obviously necessary.

Honestly, some people.

300 in Mongolian?

I've not looked forward to a movie this much since... well, Watchmen actually. Oops.

But anyway Mongol (yes, imaginative title) is slated to come out in Singapore on 6th August. It was made two years ago, and I saw the trailer then. At last my pleas have been answered. Already it bears shades of 300, but with less heavy metal, shiny chiselled torsos, war rhinos and evil men with swords as arms. It is also in Mongolian, so no danger of Leonidas briefly turning Scottish there. Xerxes' throne was still awesome though.

The subject of this movie is perhaps known better even than Leonidas, for he was the first to truly build a continent-spanning empire. At its greatest extent Genghis Khan's Mongolian empire stretched from Vietnam to Poland; from Korea to Iraq. It was an incredible achievement, and he built it all from nothing - from being fatherless and destitute on the empty steppes to the architect of what is still the largest contiguous land empire in history. It is an amazing story, though like most of history, thoroughly drenched in blood. They simply don't make men like that any more.

From what I've seen above, I think this movie might do a career like that some justice.

This latest letter nearly sneaked right by me. I blame the editors for giving it such an innocuous title. Then again, I blame the editors for even publishing it in the first place. I thought they had improved their standards because no truly out there letters had come in for some time, but then this happens.


Let's reinforce unity of purpose in fighting terrorism
ST Forum, 21 July

WE CAN never overemphasise the need to remain vigilant against the threat of terrorism, as warned by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong in last Sunday's report, 'PM Lee warns of evolving terror threat'.

He warned that the recent bomb explosions at the Ritz-Carlton and JW Marriott hotels in Jakarta showed that terrorists continue to have 'new ways of doing evil, bad deeds'. Schools, religious organisations and the business community need to make a concerted effort to not only condemn the murderous acts of terrorism, but also set the boundaries that define good and evil in society.

Often, the human spirit needs to be rekindled to distinguish between right and wrong behaviour. Religions with good society and family values must take proactive steps to engage the public and schools by upholding godly values and renouncing the evil that destroys the fabric of society. Our children need to learn from religious leaders who demonstrate how their faith can build strong family bonds and create social stability, harmony and security. Where the fault lines of society are shaken, religious leaders are to super-glue the gaps.

Religious leaders in collaboration with the Government should openly reject socially irresponsible behaviour such as racism, religious intolerance, adultery as well as perverse sexual behaviour in society. Moral relativism has no place in a society that treasures and thrives on good, absolute values.

As part of civil defence, schools must be vigilant to teach children strong traditional family values through the covenant of marriage and fidelity to one's spouse.

Insidious and egregious practices such as abuse of human rights and extreme liberalism must be exposed and rejected for what they are. Drug trafficking, use of abortion as a form of contraceptive, polygamy and serial divorce will remain as wrongdoings. Our police force should be held in high regard as they enforce the rules against criminal behaviour.

Children must be encouraged to speak up against evil and not fear being rebuked for doing the right thing. The heathen attack religious people with the phrase: 'Get down from your high horse for we reject your holier-than-thou attitude.'

Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew recently remarked that for 44 years, Singapore still has not yet achieved the ideals of nationhood. Perhaps the next step requires the conviction and partnership of religious and government leaders to take a firm stand against wicked deeds and support those who stand for the truth in nation building. It is time we took serious heed of the axiom: 'Righteousness exalts a nation.'


The only explanation I can give for the publication of this letter is that the ST editors only read the first two paragraphs, and maybe part of the third. Because up to there, it appears to be merely a run-of-the-mill, stating-the-obvious, formulaic admonition that so often appears in the ST Forum. Yes, terrorism is bad. Yes, we should remain vigila- ok, this one can go in. It shows that our citizens understand the value of battling such an insidious menace lalalala etc. Safe as houses.

But no. Beyond that point it takes a complete dive. The first clue of something untoward? This sentence:

"Religions with good society and family values must take proactive steps to engage the public and schools by upholding godly values and renouncing the evil that destroys the fabric of society."

Now whenever I see or hear the phrase "family values" the alarm bells go off in my head. These days it seems this phrase is used largely by those seeking to justify their own prejudices, or to impose their own values on others. Because who can argue against something like "family values"? Families are such a huge part of so many people's lives, and the importance of the family is virtually unquestioned in our society. Not many people are going to be willing to go against the grain and expose the ugly prejudices that are so often cloaked by the (over) usage of these two words.

So it begins. And then it gets worse:

"Religious leaders in collaboration with the Government should openly reject socially irresponsible behaviour such as racism, religious intolerance, adultery as well as perverse sexual behaviour in society. Moral relativism has no place in a society that treasures and thrives on good, absolute values."

There is absolutely no attempt to draw a link between any of the things listed in this paragraph, and the very real and present danger of international terrorism. And in most of them, the link is not there at all. Religious intolerance can cause acts of terror, yes - but adultery? So-called "perverse" sexual behaviour (we can assume homosexuality is meant). What do such things have to do with terrorism? Adultery may be a social problem and people do get hurt by it, but in what way does being vigilant against adultery help us fight terrorism? Will terrorists cease attacking Singapore if we hanged all adulterers? Not likely, I should think.

But having got warmed up, our writer is certainly not about to stop:

As part of civil defence, schools must be vigilant to teach children strong traditional family values through the covenant of marriage and fidelity to one's spouse.

Insidious and egregious practices such as abuse of human rights and extreme liberalism must be exposed and rejected for what they are. Drug trafficking, use of abortion as a form of contraceptive, polygamy and serial divorce will remain as wrongdoings. Our police force should be held in high regard as they enforce the rules against criminal behaviour.

Better and better. Vigilance against terrorism must now include criminalization of adultery, rejection of "extreme liberalism", and even abortion. How...? I mean, what, seriously - hang all adulterers, shoot all abortion doctors, ban divorce, contraception and polygamy and suddenly this magic protective force-field will materialize around Singapore and prevent us from ever being penetrated by terror networks? What is the reasoning here? What does any of this have to do with terrorism? There is entirely no effort to explain.

Yet this lack of clarity of thought does not halt our moral crusader. He goes for the irreligious next (or so I assume, because I don't think anyone prays to Baal or a Golden Calf anymore):

"Children must be encouraged to speak up against evil and not fear being rebuked for doing the right thing. The heathen attack religious people with the phrase: 'Get down from your high horse for we reject your holier-than-thou attitude.'"

He is right about one thing here, however. I certainly reject his holier-than-thou attitude, and I believe he should get down from his high horse.

This letter is incredible. It's like the writer decided to sit down and write a relatively formulaic admonition to all Singaporeans to be on their guard against terrorism, which would be boring but sensible, but somehow got carried away after the first two paragraphs and inserted a huge moralistic religious rant in the middle before coming back to end on a relatively commonsensical note. And then the ST Forum editors looked at it, and decided it was worthy of publication despite its serious failings. No one comes off looking good when a letter like that makes it into the press.

I mean, I don't think I even need to say much. This letter pretty much speaks for itself. Don't hide behind the facade of a very real and pertinent global danger in order to promote your own agenda. Don't seek to demonize what you consider vices by associating them with such a relevant problem. If you have an opinion - express it, and engage with the people who disagree in an open and aboveboard manner. There is no need to try to sneak your opinions through like that.

Before we go on to the latest blinkered letter, a couple of things:

1. Pine cone.

2. Yes, I had dog meat in China. No, it was in no way accidental. It was delicious, and I would have it again in a heartbeat. Now you may proceed to call me "murderer", "gross" or simply scrunch up you face and keep saying "eeee" over and over. Or all of the above, but the third reaction is my favourite.

Seriously, though, I see no good reason why dogs are special. Most of us eat pork, chicken, beef, fish or squid without a second thought. But when it comes to consuming canines it seems child molesters might get a freer pass from many people.

I believe there should be only two criteria for refusing to consume an edible animal, assuming it is prepared in a hygienic and humane manner:

1) You do not like the taste, or are prohibited by your personal and religious beliefs from consuming that animal

2) That animal is rare and must be preserved.

Eating dog meat is not prohibited for most major religions, and dogs are most definitely not rare. So is there any rational reason at all not to treat dogs like pigs, which are slaughtered and consumed by the vast majority of the world and Singapore population without a second thought? Because dogs are smarter? No, they aren't - pigs are very intelligent as well. Heck, some fish are capable of recognising their owners, and octopi are amongst the smartest animals in nature. However they get served up at Japanese restaurants and no one appears to object.

So ultimately it's an emotive response, which is understandable given how many people keep dogs as pets. In that case I will say that no one is about to hold a metaphorical gun to anybody's metaphorical heads and force them to consume dog flesh. If you personally won't eat it, fine, it's your choice. But if anyone who isn't a vegetarian tries to stop the consumption of dog meat or rails against it, that person is a hypocrite. Pure and simple.

Your pork chops are equal to my spicy braised dog, and don't try to use your heart to rule my head.


Right, let's get to the latest gem from the ST Forum, then.

Horrified by many profanities in matinee show on NS life (ST Forum, 14 July)

I ATTENDED the matinee show Own Time Own Target at the Drama Centre in the National Library building over the weekend. One magazine lauded it as a 'laugh out loud, rediscovery of zany side of national service'. I presumed this meant it was a family-type show and took my two teenage sons, aged 16 and 14, to the show on the premise of a MediaCorp-owned magazine review.

To my horror, I was cringing uncomfortably in my seat the whole show, highly disturbed by the language used. I do not have a problem that the language was coarse and in dialects. But it was offensive when every sentence and curse uttered by the officers (rightly or wrongly, provoked or otherwise) at the NS boys in the drama was a profanity of the female genitals.

The show was a full house, with young and old, males and females equally represented. I am sure I was not the only one who was disturbed by the excessive cursing and swearing by the officers at the recruits. My observation was that people laughed out loud not at the clumsiness of the recruits but mostly because they felt uncomfortable with the profanities.

As a mother, I find it hard to imagine that after years of sheltered school life where students are taught values, to be gentlemanly and polite and respect their elders, these boys have to do NS run by officers who do not blink an eye when they curse their mother, sister, girlfriend and the whole female population by way of conversation.

My boys were shocked to realise that NS is a rite of passage where they will be officially subjected to bullying, shouting and cursing - nothing gentlemanly at all.

If this is a light-hearted look at life of NS boys during basic military training, I fear to know what my boys will face in their real-life situation when they enlist. Please, someone, assure me this is not so.


I don't think this is a necessarily terrible letter. It's more of an incredibly blinkered opinion. It is perfectly natural for mothers to want to protect and shield their children from some of the more unsavoury aspects of life, but - and this is not exactly a new lesson, is it - they can't do that forever.

The first thing everyone has to understand is that there is an enormous amount of swearing in the SAF. Depending on your unit, anywhere between an overwhelming percentage to a slightly less overwhelming percentage of it will be in Hokkien and will refer to the private bits of female human beings. It's inescapable, and trying to pretend beyond a certain point that this word does not exist and is not used in the military is just foolish.

I would be more understanding, for instance, if the sons in question were 4 and 6 years old respectively. But they are 14 and 16. Not exactly all that young, and certainly old enough, I think, to be exposed to this fact of military life. It might be letting them down easier if they know to expect being sworn at, or coming across such profanity, in their term of service. The alternative is entering the SAF completely ignorant of the sort of people you might meet and the sort of things they might say. Not a good idea, is that? It's not like you can ask the more earthy members of society you will inevitably meet in the armed forces to keep quiet or change the way they talk.

NS is not full of gentlemen. Your sons' schools might have been, but NS is a completely different ball game. It is better for you and your children to realise that now, rather than on Tekong after the parents leave.

Going to school getting to be like checking into a resort (ST Forum, 29 June)

I REFER to last Monday's report, 'Every student is a customer at this school'.

I find this headline disturbing, and the text makes me wonder about institutions of higher learning today. Going to school is like checking into a holiday resort.

When I was at polytechnic some 30 years ago, academic lessons and social conduct were of paramount importance. Niceties like personal convenience and comfort took a back seat. We were not allowed long hair, singlets, shorts or slippers.

Attendance was strictly enforced and students could be barred from taking examinations if they did not meet a certain percentage. Assignments and projects had to be completed on time or we would have failed, even before the start of the exams. Disciplinary actions ranged from suspension from classes to termination of study. Most lecturers and administrators were strict and serious. The diplomas we received were of substance.

All of this will have to go or be acutely compromised if and when polytechnics are run like a holiday resort. Is this progress? What kind of graduates will we produce in future?

Will we go the way of some other countries - where everyone who can afford it has a degree or diploma; but in practice does not know much and, worse still, thinks he is the 'most-wanted customer' wherever he goes?


As far as bad forum letters go, I think this is one of the worst I've seen in terms of faulty reasoning. It also helps that it is written in an astonishingly haughty, moralistic tone. For fuck's sake why waste so many words? One sentence is enough: "Kids these days... are inferior to the disciplined, flawless specimen I was at their age, and they can but aspire (if only the incomparably lax system of the present could teach them to have aspirations!) to reach the pinnacle I did."

I mean there are stupid letters, and there are stupid and offensive letters. This falls squarely into the latter category. The writer's sense of smug superiority is palpable throughout; unfortunately for him, so is his skill at defective reasoning. Let's take his leaps of logic together.

When I was at polytechnic some 30 years ago, academic lessons and social conduct were of paramount importance. Niceties like personal convenience and comfort took a back seat. We were not allowed long hair, singlets, shorts or slippers.

Okay. So...

1) Academic lessons were of paramount importance at polytechnics 30 years ago... but it is implied that they aren't now because students have a greater degree of personal choice consistent with their growth and development into mature adults.

2) "Social conduct" (what a stupidly vague term) was emphasized then but it isn't now because students can exercise their personal freedom to keep long hair and wear comfortable clothes of their own choosing to polytechnic classes.

3) Students should not be allowed to be comfortable at school for some reason. I mean people learn best when they are strapped into cold metal chairs and whipped with spiked whips at regular intervals.

It's bad enough, but then he continues:

Attendance was strictly enforced and students could be barred from taking examinations if they did not meet a certain percentage. Assignments and projects had to be completed on time or we would have failed, even before the start of the exams. Disciplinary actions ranged from suspension from classes to termination of study. Most lecturers and administrators were strict and serious. The diplomas we received were of substance.

1) Attendance is vital. If you get a good result without a certain arbitrary percentage of attendance, your diploma lacks substance.

2) Deadlines are no longer assigned in polytechnics these days? News to me.

3) Lecturers and administrators must always be strict and serious, otherwise your diploma lacks substance. What they teach does not even matter, what matters is that they are strict and serious.

Enough unreasonable leaps of logic yet? Well, he isn't done.

Will we go the way of some other countries - where everyone who can afford it has a degree or diploma; but in practice does not know much and, worse still, thinks he is the 'most-wanted customer' wherever he goes?

Apparently, if a tertiary institution allows its students personal choice in how to dress, does not tightly control them with outdated disciplinary measures and arbitrary attendance numbers, and most importantly does not possess lecturers who are eternally strict and serious, the students will leave said institution lacking knowledge. And their diplomas will lack substance.

What, exactly, is the primary purpose of education? Is it to impart knowledge and skills, or to discipline the fuck out of students? Obviously we need a bit of discipline in any given educational institution, but to insist that discipline must play an overarching role in education - at a tertiary institution, no less - is ridiculous. Why bother about attendance percentages? These are completely arbitrary. If a student turns up only on the day of the exam and does well, it means he has understood and is able to properly apply the source material. Isn't that what matters?

Why insist on a strict dress code? Does it torment your soul to know that students are attending classes in the attire they find most comfortable? Will it blind you to confront such a sight? What matters is that they are there, and they are learning. Don't tell me people can't learn in a t-shirt and shorts. But I've dealt with this particular one multiple times, I think.

Why the insistence on lecturers being strict and serious? This has got to be the silliest one, especially as it directly precedes the line implying that diplomas have no substance unless acquired in this way. The best lecturers I've had, I daresay, are those who aren't strict and serious. In fact I haven't met one who really is. I will say that if I run into one that is strict to the point of treating tertiary students like children, I will walk out of the lecture hall. Because if you want to be a tinpot tyrant like that, go teach in the secondary school. I'm there to learn, not to see your clenched fist of a face.

If our polytechnic students are not learning, then we have to be concerned. If our polytechnic students are being allowed a greater degree of personal freedom and choice, it does not follow that they are not learning. It's the same judging a book by its cover attitude that a lot of moralistic snobs like to adopt with student attire. They don't look to you like they are ready to learn - but they are (most of them anyway), so what exactly is the issue here? Don't deride others just because they don't fit your own perceptions of the ideal.

Just a few days after I bitched them out, the ST Forum throws me a bone. So here we are: My children are not my personal responsibility, Part X.


Ban teen parties that go on past midnight

ONE of the best things about living in Singapore is the knowledge that it is a very safe city. Low crime rates have led to us developing a casual take on certain matters. However, as the adage goes: 'Low crime does not mean no crime'. I sometimes wonder if Singaporeans are basking in a false sense of security, taking their personal and property safety for granted.

What is particularly alarming is the fact that nightspots like Zouk and Play in Tanjong Pagar are organising non-alcoholic parties for teenagers under the legal drinking age of 18. These establishments point to the fact that they are not breaking any laws because they do not serve alcohol at these parties.

However, as a father of a 16-year-old girl, I find it irresponsible for such establishments to encourage teenagers who are yet of a responsible and mature age to engage in a 'late-night' lifestyle. These parties may not serve alcohol, but they carry on well into the early morning. My daughter recently attended a party on March 15 that lasted until 4am.

Singapore's streets are relatively safe, compared to those in other countries. However, as a parent, I cannot help but worry when my teenage daughter is out roaming the streets after a party.

I understand the establishments want to cultivate new business and are not seen to be breaking the law as long as they ensure that no alcohol is served.

However, responsible businesses need to run on a moral obligation to society as well, especially when youth and children are concerned.

I am all for my daughter having a social life. But I want her to be safe, and one of the best ways to be sure of that is for her to come back at a reasonable hour. Parties like the one she went to should end no later than midnight.

Perhaps establishments like Zouk, and even government bodies such as the Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports, should look into developing guidelines regulating the conduct of these parties with youth participation. Parents, businesses and the Government should work hand in hand to cultivate healthy and responsible lifestyle habits among youth.


The first thing you ought to notice is that the first paragraph is almost completely irrelevant to the rest of the letter. From reading the rest of the letter, this individual is obviously a concerned parent who wishes that his daughter will not stay out so late. Understandably, he is worried about her safety. I do not, however, see how such worries necessitate a haughtily moralistic admonishment of Singaporeans for being complacent on crime. He could have replaced it with something more relevant and a lot less nauseatingly moralistic. But then again being moralistic is a distinct hallmark of Singaporeans.

What is unfortunately also a distinct hallmark of Singaporeans (or, to be fairer, humanity in general, but this island seems to have a particular affection for this affliction) is a tendency to blame and question others with regards to matters of personal responsibility. Hence the yearly ritual of parental complaints about exams being too hard, or children not being able to enter NUS, that sort of thing. What we have got here is an identical concept - the abdication of personal responsibility, in this case personal responsibility for the safety, well-being and general upbringing of one's own offspring.

Our letter-writer here, as mentioned earlier, is concerned as his teenaged daughter has been coming home very late from parties. However, he appears to believe that the fault does not lie with him as a parent, but rather with the clubs that conduct such parties. He goes on to admonish the clubs for even daring to conceive such events of undoubtedly Bacchanalian decadence, and suggests that in order to get his daughter to come home at a more earthly hour, they should cut their events short. Somehow, of course, not one thing in the letter is any of his fault. Never mind that this is his daughter, his own flesh-and-blood, we are talking about here; and no matter that he as a father has the ultimate responsibility - along with his wife, if he has one - for his child.

I mean, isn't it the responsibility of parents to nurture and discipline children? Is not one aspect of this discipline the ability to set rules and get children to follow them? Obviously it's easier said than done, but look: if you can't get your daughter to listen to a word you say then you've got bigger problems than her being out all night at non-alcoholic parties. Our author apparently either has not thought of this, or does not agree. The clubs are responsible and they should be punished and regulated instead. He is effectively asking the state to do his parenting for him, and that is thoroughly ridiculous.

At least he was smart enough to hastily put in that last sentence about parents, the state and businesses working together, so that his abdication of parental responsibilities doesn't seem too obvious. But it's a mere fig leaf for his indefensible position. Bottom line: you want your daughter safe in bed at a time you desire, achieve it by acting like a responsible parent. Can't do that? You have bigger problems than a complaint letter can solve.