Make Your Own Kind of Music

You've got to make your own kind of music
Sing your own special song
Make your own kind of music
Even if nobody else sings along

I was very surprised recently to find myself slandered online. The writer didn't even have his or her facts correct. The cause of the slander was an online article about myself, which the slanderer has referring to. I requested the removal of the article but I was politely rejected, and told I was a public figure and so had to respect the wishes of people who wished to read and write about me (the article itself was not offensive).

I was reminded of this sorry incident recently when I stopped by Xiaxue's blog and read an entry entitled "hahahaha" (give or take a 'ha') about something very similar. She pointed out that no matter what she wrote, no matter how innocuous, or sensible, or how well-meaning, there were people who had made up their minds to dislike her and criticise her. She shared some examples, in her own inimitable wit. I hadn't read her blog in a while but it was a reminder of why she's so popular: she has an excellent ability to express what a lot of people would like to say but can't, and she expresses it in a lingo that is accessible to many people.

I think she's got a very significant point about not letting what other people decide are right and wrong for us dissuade us from making our own choices in life- especially the opinions of faceless strangers who don't have all the facts.

In a related story, I learnt that an op-ed in the Straits Times contrasted my feat with Annabel Chong's. She became famous in 1995 for having sex with 251 men in 10 hours in 1995, then a new world record (since broken). A documentary was later made about her. She became an international superstar, and every Singaporean knew who she was. To the consternation of many, she had attended the top schools in Singapore and was very much part of our academic and intellectual elite, but chose to make herself famous in what many considered a morally reprehensible way.

The coulmnist wrote, "You have to admit, for example, in a tiny country eternally obsessed with punching above its weight, Annabel put Singapore on the world map in a big way.

Just like scaling Mount Everest or swimming across the English Channel, having sex with 251 was a daredevil act that required physical endurance and mental courage in equal measures."

Predictably, this generated furious responses to the forum page of the Straits Times:

"I fail to see how her achievements in the pornography industry can be compared with the achievements of mountaineer David Lim and swimmer Thum Ping Tjin...

Many others have also done acts of the unthinkable- like Adolph Hitler or Pol Pot... to be sure, Ms Chong's deviant act did not take lives or harm people other than perhaps herself and her family.

But to even broach the subject of national heroism in the context of the unthinkable, in the realm of pornography, is something even other liberal countries do not endorse.

I am disturbed that such blatant endorsement is allowed to be published in a main-stream newspaper...

While right-thinking members of society are trying their best to teach teens about sexual abstinence and protection, I am saddened to think that their efforts could be undermined by the glorification of Ms. Chong, and the call for Singaporeans to accept her spirit."

Or:

"We can have the same daring spirit climbing Mount Everest, swimming across the English Channel, flying to Phuket to help disaster victims, but not by performing an undesirable sexual act.

There are many other healthier ways to have a daring and adventurous spirit, to do the unthinkable, and even achieving fame, for that matter....

We already see a more open and promiscuous attitude among youngsters here; we don't need further endorsement."

One letter published did support the columnist's view; the entire article and the letters in response are linked below- click 'more' to read them.

From my point of view, it seems to me that the entire difference between what David or myself did, and what Annabel did, is entirely down to the moral dimension. I don't think we can dispute that what she did indeed require tremendous courage, endurance and mental stamina. Perhaps one difference might be that she didn't really need to train for it, but I wouldn't know. Maybe she did need to train and build up stamina over time. I'm not too concerned about it- to me, it's a feat. I think what people are concerned about, basically, we can celebrate climbing, or swimming; but can we celebrate sex?

As I've said in my speeches and elsewhere, my own view about sex is one of responsibility. It's an act which you have to understand the consequences of. It's potentially life-changing. You could get pregnant; you could get AIDS. But in and of itself, I don't see anything shameful or morally reprehensible about sex, or having frank and open discussions about it. I think it's important for a modern, liberal society to be able to openly discuss these issues and not confine them to private. Ignorance is what leads us into danger; education is liberation. Only be knowing and understanding can we make informed choices, especially about about the risks we are willing to take.

As for Annabel, I think what she did was significant in its own way. Whether she intended to or not, she forced the public's attention toward issues which are important. For example, the question of female sexuality, or sexual liberation. Also, it is later revealed that the organisers lied when they told her that all the men had been screened for diseases (she did it without protection), thus raising important questions about the dangers of promiscuity and the possibility of disease. Equally, as the columnist mentioned, she set an example for bravery and courage.

The fact is, probably more Singaporeans, and definitely more people worldwide, know who she is than who David or I are. And if just a few of them stop to think about the consequences of her actions, and about the issues surrounding what she did, then it's possible that some lives may be changed.

I wouldn't do what she did; and I don't agree that what she did was the best way to go about focusing attention on sexual liberation and other issues. But the fact is, I don't think anyone has the right to judge her on whether she is right or wrong. As I've said before, I believe that, as long as you don't harm anyone else, you can go ahead and do whatever you want. I also believe there is no absolute right and wrong in life, only choices. Annabel made her choice. She decided who she wanted to become. She had the courage to go for it. And I will never, ever condemn someone for that.

Scan of the original column (part 1)

Scan of the original column (part 2)

Letters to the Forum page (part 1)

Letters to the Forum page (part 2)

Graduate Student Life

"Let's meet up tomorrow evening," suggested a friend to the group as we were on our way out of Soul Night (the MCR's funktastic 70s party).

"Great!" chirped another friend, "Why don't we meet up after dinner and study together?"

Cue complete and utter shocked silence from the rest of us. Then:

"You're joking."

"On Sunday evening?"

"That's so dorky!"

"Hell, no!" I chimed in, "Let's go to the pub!"

That got general approval. Us graduate students have our priorities right.

You see, we're not studying. We're researching. We're not trying to learn things which have already been discovered; we're trying to learn things which have yet to be discovered. That's the difference: when you research, it is vitally important to take a step back and reflect and review all the material you've dug up and analysed, and to discuss this with your friends and colleagues to give you fresh perspective. It just so happens that around here the most convenient place to do that is in the pub, over a pint of bitter. That's why doctoral research takes so long. You need to devote time to introspection and reflection, and also to discussion and exchange.

After all, we're paying for the University for the right to hang out and research here. Unlike in the USA, we don't get stipends. Us humanities researchers don't get classes, tutorials, officies or facilities. We get a) access to the library (which many of us could easily get anyway- for example, if you have a BA from Oxford you can get access); b) seminars (most of which are in unrelated areas, since all our individual areas of research are so specific); and c) a meeting once a week with your supervisor (if you are lucky; some of them disappear for ages and you never meet them). So I'll be damned if anyone is going to pressure me into studying on my day off! I am beholden to no one here. I am a paying customer and not an employee.

I guess in my friend's defence, she's on a one year taught Master's and she left behind a professional music career in New York to come do this, so she feels the pinch and the pressure to learn her stuff quickly and go back to making a living.

Today's moment in the life of a graduate student brought to you by PhD Comics, one of my favourite comics, not least because it is so painfully true to life.

Young Activism

What has persistently surprised me in my research is just how lively and virbrant Singapore's civil society was in the period between World War II and self-government. It's portrayed today as a time of riots and uncertainty- but as Machiavelli noted, riots are a sign that civil society is strong and active. What I find terribly exciting is just how there is a palpable sense of purpose in this period- how many people felt like they actually had a stake in the country, and how their actions would help determine the future direction of the country. Many of thse people were dock workers, bus drivers, taxi drivers, clerical staff- in other words, the labouring classes- and many were students as well.

The roots of working class discontent in this period is often portrayed as economic. Dissatisfaction with economic conditions in this period fed the trades union movement. However, it looks to me that major agitation was over by 1948, because strikes in the post-war period were so effective in addressing worker concerns that labour support for continued trades union activism ebbed. It's possible that this potential loss of support was a major contributing factor to the Emergency.

Students, on the other hand, are often seen as being victims of communist propaganda and agitation, with communist agents from China infiltrating the Chinese-education schools. Yet there is also a tradition of the educated Chinese-speaking elite accepting the responsibility of leadership for their community. It stands to reason that people who were smart enough to get into Chinese High and Nanuang University felt the same way.

The point is, the excitement, vibrancy and mission of that era has been lost since the achievement of self-government, because the PAP recognised that in order for it to cling to power it had to cut away at civil society, since it formed the basis of support for the Barisan Sosialis. Fair play to the PAP- it wanted to stay in power and it did what it had to do- but the repression of the multitude of voices is what has resulted in our political environment in Singapore today.

I attended a book reading today. A friend has just released a new book, filled with letters writted by young activists from America. He's one of the editors and contributed to the book himself. Despite there being some frustration at the current state of events in his country, I found myself listening intently and envying him slightly for just being able to be in a position where he can freely articulate his concerns openly and attempt to effect change through extra-governmental channels and associational action.

I started wondering what one needed to do to effect change in Singapore. With civil society systematically channelled into approved fora, controlled and watched over, what do I, as a young Singaporean need to do in order to effectively promote change and to articulate my vision of a future Singapore?

I would suggest that a young activist in Singapore has to necessarily work within the system for change to occur. Living in a more conservative society, any young activist today has to burnish their credentials with the badges of accepted authority and achievement to reassure those in control of the system that your motives are pure. At least, that's from a purely pragmatic standpoint.

Anyway, I highly recommend the book. The poor chap is going out of pocket to promote his book, so I would suggest picking up a copy. At the very least, the thoughtfulness and the energy are inspiring.

National Pride

A recent article in The Australian newspaper revealed the identity of Singapore's official executioner, 73-year-old Darshan Singh, who has conducted virtually every single hanging in Singapore for the past 46 years. He's hung over 850 men and women, and is credited with being the only executioner in the world to single-handedly hang 18 men in one day -- "three at a time", all for murder, in 1963. But he's not just built for endurance- no! When it's necessary, he can turn on the speed, too! Just a few years later, he hung 7 men within 90 minutes, also for murder.

When you think about it, he's the top man in the world for both endurance capital punishment and for speed capital punishment. This, combined with the recent United Nations Secretary-General's quinquennial report on capital punishment, which indicates that the highest per capita use of the death penalty is in Singapore, with a rate of 13.57 executions per one million population for the period of 1994 to 1999, means that once again:

We're #1!! Woo-hoo!! Majulah Singapura!!!!

Something for every Singaporean to be extremely proud of.