Multimedia message
My first attempt at moblogging.. Pic is of a (very expensive) yummy roasted chicken with high-class mesculun salad. I think that means an assortment of imported veggies and baby greens that adds up to a really yummy mix. Had it at expat central corduroy n finch on a nice red armchair.. Ambience makes a diff, both in your experience and the price
Wit and idiom - does the PAP know either?
There’s a commentary today in Straits Times, main paper, p. 16 under the Review section, on the whole white elephant event. The main gist of the writer is that if the police investigation is stopped, we might encounter a slippery slope… Buangkok mrt today, Raffles Place MRT tomorrow! Which is quite nonsensical and illogical to me.. firstly, slippery slope is plainly a logical fallacy. Allowing white elephants as a creative form of public expression and commentary will not necessarily lead to more violent or “subversive” forms of protest. Also, what is the implication of placing Raffles Place at the end of the slippery slope? Is it more of a security threat to have white elephants in Raffles Place than at Buangkok MRT? Well perhaps the mere fact of elevated human density at Raffles Place means it is a more important and threatened location than Buangkok, which does not have much human habitation and thus does not justify an operational MRT station.
What worries me the most about this police investigation is that it sends out the message that the Singapore government is still not ready to hear from the public what they don’t wish to hear… that all their talk about creating a more liberal and open Singapore only applies to areas which bring in tourists, e.g. the casinos and the Crazy Horse cabaret, but not in the areas of public feedback and dissension with government policy. From my perspective, whoever put up the white elephants at the Buangkok NEL station are concerned citizens who are wittily calling attention to Lee Hsien Loong’s promise that Singapore is not wasting money on white elephants, and who also want greater convenience for the people in their neighborhood. That they show enough concern to make this public comment indicates that they are not truly anti-Singaporean, for if they were, they would abandon Singapore for greener shores as soon as they had the wherewithal, and would not think to risk their necks in putting up cute white cut-outs during what precious free time they have.
In short, the writer in today’s commentary feels it is important to enforce the letter of the law fairly across all sectors of the populace, whether the perpetrators of the great white elephant escapade are grassroot members of the PAP or members of the opposition. However, I move against keeping to the letter of the law in favor of encouraging free-spirited, creative, non-violent and non-destructive forms of public expression and feedback. Any government, however good and well-intentioned, needs checks and balances and constructive criticism, whether it comes from nominated Members of Parliament, opposition party members, or even, just possibly, the man on the street. Responding to the specific circumstances and intentions of the white elephants of Buangkok, rather than worrying and fearing the unlikely possibility of its inspiring future anarchy, would show the PAP to be truly stepping to a more liberal and
relaxed Singapore.
