Innumerabilis

The No U-Turn Syndrome

Most people would understand the above-mentioned topic at the metaphorical level, that is, the syndrome where people are reluctant to backtrack. This is the case in Singapore, where, perhaps influenced by the Chinese and Confucianist thinking, people are reluctant to backtrack, and to a certain extent, to admit that they were wrong in the first place. This can be attributed, perhaps, to the heavy weightage by which the Chinese place “face” on. Admitting that they were wrong equates to “losing face”, and sometimes they’d do some pretty ridiculous and petty things in order to avoid acknowledging their failure.

This problem, perhaps, afflicts almost every race and every one in the world, though to a varying extent. Nobody likes to admit that they were wrong and be embarrassed, do they?

The problem in Singapore, however, is that the topic can also be taken literally. Simply put, vehicles cannot do a U-turn on a road junction unless there is a U-turn sign. Contrast that with countries where drivers can make a U-turn at road junctions unless there is a U-turn sign. So what does this show? Another patriarchal manifestation of our beloved government, another apron string firmly lashing the people back from committing mistakes?

Sometimes, you’ve got to set your child free. Having so many tiny rules make keep him safe, but he will never grow up if you do so. Singapore is 40 years old this year. 40 years from independance and the government is still so parent-like. Will we ever progress as a society, where no governmental influence is needed to keep peace and harmony in the society?

More importantly, will creativity, entrepreneurship and the laissez-faire spirit so typical of truly megapolitan cities ever come to us? Sure, we delight in our ever-so-low crime rate, but sometimes I think of this: How many Singaporeans can survive outside the country? Are we too reliant on the safety cocoon generated by our government?

There is a selfish reason as to why I chose this topic. You see, I want to go out, taste the world, explore new things. I want to seek new heights, push new limits, and see every crook and crany of this world. I worry, though, that I am just too conditioned by the rules and safeness in Singapore to survive out there. Just like a protected bird never learning to fly.

Elections versus selection: the pseudo-democracy of the one party rule.

Some date in August 2005 was earmarked to be a date for Singapore’s Presidential elections, the August office elected by a simple majority by the people. I cannot remember which day, since the election did not, afterall, materialise. This system of Elected Presidency was implemented in 1991; prior to that, the presidential system was a Presidency selected by the ruling government.

This change was made to “safeguard” Singapore should a rogue government come into power. That is, the president had the power to veto any use of the singapore’s monetary reserves. Thus began the transition of the presidency from a largely ceremonial position, to one that actually has some use.

Unfortunately, this ideal situation has regressed into one resembling the old system. Recently, the Presidential election committee was set up to vet the Presidential candidates. The argument was that, as head of State, even if only on paper, the candidate must have an impeccable record.

Furthermore, a plethora of rules, regulations and requirements were implemented for any aspiring president to fulfill. For example, he has to be an ex-chief justice, cabinet minister or be ceo of a company with a paid up capital of S$100 million. So how many people in Singapore can fulfil this rule? It can be safely said that all the past Presidents of Singapore would not qualify for election under this regulation, yet they proved to be highly popular Presidents. In short, our elected presidency has degenerated into a selected presidency, where the ability to run for the office is decided by a three-man committee and the fortuity of having been some bigwig either politically or economically.

The forseeable result for this election was that the former President, S R Nathan, had another walkover, while the other three candidates were duly disqualified. Can a president claim to be the people’s president without a popular mandate? Can an elected presidency claim to be so when, for two terms, there has only been one government-endorsed contender? I do not think so, but the People’s Action Party (PAP), singapore’s ruling party for a generation, thinks otherwise. Minister after minister have come out with speeches extolling the positive traits of Nathan, and beseeching the people not to have an election for the sake of an election.

That, to me, is an insult. It is akin to saying that Singaporeans are not mature enough to elect a President suitable to lead the state. It is insinuating that only the government knows best, and at one stroke it proves what the Western media had been commenting on Singapore all this long: authoritarian, patriochial, draconian; a nanny state to the extreme. Really, sometimes the polticians ought to have more trust in its people. Then again, if Iran can get away with a dictatorship, I suppose Singapore’s PAP can get away with anything.

Adding insult to the injury, the ministers have a penchant for criticising the youth of singapore, imploring us to be less apathetic and more politically active. Well, after seeing the smear campaign against those audacious enough to run against the government endorsed candidate, who will dare to step forward? Is it a culture of lackadaisical apathy, as the government constantly bemoans? Or is it simply a blend of fear, pragmatism and self preservation?

It doesn’t really matter, and since the government’s “official policy” does not tally with its actions, I will keep by the sideline and watch the show. Just don’t call the selected president elected.

I am the girl kicked out of her home because I confided in my mother that I am a lesbian.

I am the prostitute working the streets because nobody will hire a transsexual woman.

I am the sister who holds her gay brother tight through the painful, tear-filled nights.

We are the parents who buried our daughter long before her time.

I am the man who died alone in the hospital because they would not let my partner of twenty-seven years into the room.

I am the foster child who wakes up with nightmares of being taken away
from the two fathers who are the only loving family I have ever had. I
wish they could adopt me.

I am one of the lucky ones, I guess. I
survived the attack that left me in a coma for three weeks, and in
another year I will probably be able to walk again.

I am not one of the lucky ones. I killed myself just weeks before graduating high school. It was simply too much to bear.

We are the couple who had the realtor hang up on us when she found out we wanted to rent a one-bedroom for two men.

I am the person who never knows which bathroom I should use if I want to avoid getting the management called on me.

I am the mother who is not allowed to even visit the children I bore,
nursed, and raised. The court says I am an unfit mother because I now
live with another woman.

I am the domestic-violence survivor who
found the support system grow suddenly cold and distant when they found
out my abusive partner is also a woman.

I am the domestic-violence survivor who has no support system to turn to because I am male.

I am the father who has never hugged his son because I grew up afraid to show affection to other men.

I am the home-economics teacher who always wanted to teach gym until someone told me that only lesbians do that.

I am the man who died when the paramedics stopped treating me as soon as they realized I was transsexual.

I am the person who feels guilty because I think I could be a much better
person if I didn’t have to always deal with society hating me.

I am the man who stopped attending church, not because I don’t believe, but because they closed their doors to my kind.

I am the person who has to hide what this world needs most, love.

***Repost this if you believe that homophobia is wrong!***
From http://www.livejournal.com/users/clafairy_wally/53095.html?view=26727#t26727

Some thought provoking thoughts here…