Low Thia Khiang is a disappointment

News this morning tells of a landslide win for the Japanese opposition party, which leads me to think about the possibility of a PAP defeat at the polls in Singapore. Then I thought about who would be our new Prime Minister... there is only one likely candidate, but forget about it. Low Thia Khiang is not PM material.

It took me some time to catch up with NMP Viswa Sadasivan's speech in parliament, and I struggled to find anything incendiary. While the Minister Mentor seemed to have grossly overreacted, one has to remember that he is haunted by his long legacy of "pragmatism". Generals are always fighting the last war, and this old general still sees the world through 1950s lenses.

What is genuinely disappointing is Low Thia Khiang's response. At first sign of trouble, he chooses to wash his hands clean. The Pledge should not be brought up in parliamentary debates? Then when should the Pledge be used? In political rallies like he did during the last General Election? How many times have we seen him in parliament, on the verge of asking really piercing questions, only to back away at the last minute? I think he has done an excellent job in Hougang, *if* he thinks his role is just that of a very well paid village elder.

But as an opposition MP in the parliament, he has only done his job with only occasional brilliance, and even then, with great reluctance. Instead, we have to rely on PAP MPs like Tan Soo Khoon to play the role of opposition in the parliament.

If ever Singapore has a freak election, I seriously doubt he will even want to try to be Singapore's PM. I think he will wash his hands as quickly as he did with NMP Viswa's speech, and declare he will have nothing to do with it.

Despite widespread panning of PM Lee's electoral reforms to expand the number of Non Constituency MPs (NCMP), I think it is a constructive and necessary step.

We need new faces at work in parliament to give the electorate options, even if they have to start as powerless NMPs and NCMPs. (After watching Ling How Doong at work in parliament, who will want him to run a town council again?)

If we have to choose between the insipid and disinterested like Mr Low and Mr Chiam See Tong, or radical liberals like the SDP, it simply makes Singaporean democracy a bigger and more frustrating joke than it needs to be.


PS I am not related to any political party and will probably spoil my vote if I am forced to vote today.

What is that?

God works in mysterious ways

Singtel: Singapore's impotent corporate giant

According to this article dated 8th June 2009, Starhub gently twisted BBC's arm last year, and BBC yielded immediately.

Singtel, can you at least be an honest eunuch and dont con subscribers into signing up two year deals with mioTV only to enjoy what they want for only three months? You already knew since LAST YEAR. It's one thing to cheat adults, it's quite another to cheat preschoolers.

Singtel, with your level of competency, why don't you just give up the whole mioTV business? It's inevitable you will be squeezed out, so why make Singaporeans suffer while you live in denial? Waiting for the regulator to intervene and save you from the abusive monopolist?

MDA is too busy funding businesses selling things nobody wants. And rapping, apparently.

Although only just announced, the decision to move from mio TV, which has around 53,000 subscribers, is believed to have been taken up to a year ago.BBC Entertainment's future on StarHub TV looked to be in jeopardy when the channel was omitted from StarHub TV's repackaging at the end of May 2008.

Mid-July 2008 saw the matter resolved and the following explanation issued jointly: "StarHub and BBC Worldwide Channels were finalising terms for the continued carriage of BBC Entertainment on StarHub Digital Cable. Negotiations have recently concluded, and we are pleased to inform viewers in Singapore that BBC Entertainment will continue to be carried by StarHub and is presently available as part of the Lifestyle Basic Upsize Group."

It is thought that BBC Worldwide Channels' commitment to bring BBC Lifestyle, BBC Knowledge and CBeebies to StarHub TV upon the expiration of the two-year exclusive deal with SingTel mioTV may have contributed to ensuring BBC Entertainment's future with StarHub.

I owe Professor Thio an apology

Before my discussions with Fox, I had not directly seen or read Professor's Thio presentation in parliament, having only heard from second hand sources about her "flawed logic", which I assumed is of the same category as whybegay or SoloBear. Now that I have seen it for myself, I have to say I find nothing objectionable in what she said. She did not use the Bible to justify anything, and engaged a secular law in secular terms. She correctly predicted that homosexuals will infiltrate mainstream human rights organisations like AWARE, and try to impose the gay agenda onto our school system. I should have known better than to trust Singapore's "alternative media" to be objective. See it for yourself. She puts forth good arguments. No wonder the Gay Lobby is so terrified of her.

Christians beware: Offend the Gay Lobby at your own peril

The Gay Lobby will not hesitate to abuse humans, in the name of human rights. Free speech is permitted, only when we say what the Gays want to hear.

Nuance, a so-called memo and threats ...
05:55 AM Jul 27, 2009
Letter from Professor Thio Li-ann

I WRITE to clarify a few points in "Former NMP calls off professorship at NYU"(July 24).

First, the online petition asserting I was an "opponent of human rights" over-simplistically assumes "gay rights are human rights".

Certain countries legally recognise the controversial idea of "gay rights", but this is not a universally accepted human right. Further, the idea of "gay rights" may cover anything from prohibiting workplace discrimination (which I support) to same-sex marriage (which I oppose).

Nuance is needed; simplification is sensationalistic.

Can a capitalist teach Marxism? Could someone who supports the death penalty (which many at New York University disagree with) teach human rights?

There is no settled theory of the source of human rights; many competing interpretations exist. There are core (prohibiting torture) and contested (same-sex marriage, euthanasia) rights.

Second, no 18-page rebuttal was sent to the NYU law faculty. I do not know who posted the so-called "18-point memo" circulating online. This was an internal email I wrote in response to a non-law NYU staffer's email copied to the Dean (who made no response) and others, strongly criticising my appointment.

This was just one of the hostile, often vulgar messages I received, some insulting my intellect, gender, ethnicity and country.

I sought to clarify misrepresentations and rebut potentially defamatory allegations made to personnel involved in the Global Faculty programme which invited my visit.

It is disappointing the NYU law dean would label my response "offensive" and "hurtful", while ignoring the offensive, hurtful and even threatening messages directed against me.

To say I was "disappointed by the hostility" minimises the virulence of the attacks I received. A cursory glance at the invective online explains why many friends worried for my safety.

An American NYU alumnus wrote to the NYU law dean (copied to me), saying he had the impression the dean was "not troubled by the kind of atmosphere" that I was "expected to endure" had I decided to teach at NYU.

Some NYU faculty, staff and students also sent supportive emails; a gay New Yorker apologised for the bullying tactics of certain activists who did not represent him.

Academic freedom dissipates in a hostile environment - by this I do not mean mere viewpoint disputation. Why prejudicially assume I would create "an unwelcoming atmosphere" in class, as opposed to politicking students or frosty faculty members?

Why assume I would not permit free discussion when it is "political correctness" which chills free debate? An email from a Harvard law graduate noted of this affair: "Things just got a little bit darker down at NYU."

MDA encourages Starhub to screw preschoolers

Many years ago, I used to be a happy cable TV subscriber with Starhub. I loved the soccer coverage. Then the soccer subscription charges became ridiculous, so I thought, I opt out. But I still subscribe to cable TV because my son loved Disney Playhouse. Then one fine day, scrolling words on the TV told me that I will no longer get Disney Playhouse on my analogue set top box, and I must pay two bucks RANSOM a month just to watch that same channel. It was right at this time Singtel mioTV jumped into my lap, and although it took some getting used to I think CBeebies is better than Disney Playhouse.

With nothing left to interest me on Starhub, I returned the set top box and bid them saynonara. 18 months into mioTV, I thought, everything's working out fine. It's time for some commitment to take advantage of the discounts, so here I signed up a two year contract with Singtel for mioTV.

Three months into the contract, another set of scrolling words says CBeebies will no longer be offered on mioTV. I subscribe to mioTV for CBeebies and CBeebies alone. What I am going to do with the remaining 21 months of contract? If I want to pay up the RANSOM, it is going to cost me at least 25 bucks a month MORE to get that ONE CHANNEL on Starhub.
EDIT: I'm so behind times. Minimum ransom to get CBeebies on StarHub is THIRTY FIVE DOLLARS. I'm sure some of it will go into MDA CEO's bonus.

Yes, this is clearly an abuse of monopolistic power by Starhub. I'm pissed with Singtel for letting this happen. Whatever happened to the clout of this powerful regional company? If it was BBC that screwed them, why dont they show some fangs? Singtel built the reputation of CBeebies from zero to a reasonable popularity. In fact, one could even say it was subzero, since the only programme I have heard of prior to signing up was Teletubbies, and that alone nearly convinced me not to touch CBeebies with a hundred foot long pole. But feeling blackmailed by Starhub prodded me forward.

Oh, I see how they are going to screw BBC, by offering TWO NEW BBC Channels that Starhub is not interested to carry. That will teach BBC a lesson. I'm sure there is no possibility that a few months into these new channels, they too will get popular and move to Starhub and leave mioTV subscribers high and dry.

But the people I am most bloody pissed with are the idiots from the Media Destruction Authority. You guys are supposed to set the rules of the game. The players are having drunken orgies on the pitch. What do you do? Hire external consultants to make decisions so no blame can be directed at you?

It's one thing to blackmail football fans. It's quite another to screw preschoolers, and their parents. MDA is so profoundly stupid and incompetent, it is no wonder they produced crap like this:



I dont know what is MDA's KPI, but it seems to have nothing to do with the needs of Singaporean pay TV subscribers.