gdp's Comments

the kent ridge common : The Idealist's stand on pluralistic engagement

Thu, 29 Oct 2009 02:19:10 +0000

I would think the deadlines is prejudiced by the hottest issue at the moment. Teo Ser Luck was actually approached because the part he played in the NUS Political Science Society forum. George Yeo was approached over the Meet the People Session in August. http://theonlinecitizen.com/2009/08/george-yeos-m... Of course, if the interview candidate takes his time, the hotness of the issue would have blown over by then. For example, we also previously approached Dana Lam of AWARE for an interview over the AWARE saga, but now it's over and people want to move on. Deadline has longed been exceeded. And if we publish her interview, people may think we are flogging the dead horse. Even our interview with Glen Goei on THe Blue Mansion. If he responds after 4 months after movie, a bit too late right? Of course, some interviews can be about general things and on issues that do not have a deadline, like our interview with Catherine Lim for example. With regards to approach non-major PAP MPs, it may be a decent idea. We approached Teo also partly because he is helming the young PAP who hopefully wants to engage young Singaporeans online. So we thought it may be an idea to approach him. You may be right that there is no deadline for certain kind of interviews, but I think we should report the truth and state upfront that we did approach PAP MPs (the major ones) for interviews. Deadlines may not apply, but there is this chance that the interviews may not be granted even though there is no deadline factor. If you noticed, we have interviewed Kenneth Jeya, Justin Ong, Sylvia Lim, Chee, and Catherine Lim (who drew the ire of the establishment), and there are people who think (in informal feedbacks I get) that we may be exhibiting some form of bias. Don't get us wrong, we hope that the PAP MPs will engage with their views, but there is this probability that the interview may be turned down. So I guess it is better that we are upfront with the fact that we did approach 2 PAP MPs after all. After all, we have approached the representatives of all the opposition parties, so I thought the approach of the 2 PAP MPs will really balance things up. ANd I hope they will reply.

the kent ridge common : Current election dates a deterrent to youth participation

Tue, 27 Oct 2009 15:14:31 +0000

I do not have a reason to think it so too. There are many reasons why the date is fixed as such. But the fact remains that a GE close to exams is really a deterrent to youth participation. Actually I was told that bulk of the volunteers aren't students. This is based on the account from someone who was on the ground during Nomination Day. Sincerely yours

the kent ridge common : Infidelity

Tue, 27 Oct 2009 12:30:45 +0000

I think one swallow does not really make a summer vivian. Maybe, let's agree to disagree. Sometime back during the height of the AWARE saga, there are some people who posted comments here that they were embarrassed to come from NUS, and the reason, because Thio Su Mien was a former law dean.

the kent ridge common : The candidate that does substantial damages at the polls

Mon, 26 Oct 2009 01:58:35 +0000

If you check Tan's credentials, he has actually achieved quite a lot with NTUC. So he was a former high-flying figure in the establishment. And he is known figure in the finance industry. By virtue of those background, he could strike one as a candidate that can tackle bread and butter issues. Candidates that are good at tackling bread and butter issues will do well amongst voters. It helps that he was a high-flyer in a finance-related position in the establishment that supports his case. My gut feeling is that the more discerning voters want a candidate that are able to address bread and butter issues. Sincerely yours

the kent ridge common : Of Asian values and patriachism: A review of The Blue Mansion by Glen Goei

Sun, 25 Oct 2009 13:36:37 +0000

You have a point, Amazed. I will probably disengage from discussing with him. After all, he needs to watch the movie to get to the right conclusions

the kent ridge common : Of Asian values and patriachism: A review of The Blue Mansion by Glen Goei

Sun, 25 Oct 2009 08:47:51 +0000

So on the lighter side, what does your handle Solo Bear means? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bear_(gay_culture) "Bear is LGBT slang for those in the bear communities, a subculture in the gay/bisexual male communities and an emerging subset of LGBT communities with events, codes and culture-specific identity. It also describes a physical type. Bears tend to have hairy bodies and facial hair; some are heavy-set; some project an image of working-class masculinity in their grooming and appearance, though none of these are requirements or unique indicators. Some bears place importance on presenting a hyper-masculine image and may shun interaction with, and even disdain, men who exhibit effeminacy.[1] The bear concept can function as an identity, an affiliation, and an ideal to live up to, and there is ongoing debate in bear communities about what constitutes a bear, however a consensus exists that inclusion is an important part of the Bear Community [2] [3] . There is also, anecdotally, more acceptance of tattoos and body piercing in the bear community." "Bears On The Run is a tour of four solo Bear musician artists featuring Elijah Black, Matthew Temple, Shannon Grady and Kendall, and hosted by comedian Bobaloo. The tour has travelled to twenty major US cities." You nick has anything to do with the solo Bear musicians? Highly unlikely right, but the irony is just so uncanny. BTW, treat this as a light-hearted question. No one is denying that there are more than one interpretations, but interpretations are based on references. BTW please do not take offense to the Bear part of this comment. But I can't help highlighting the irony of it. Your nick also refers to the entity that you find yourself at odds with. P.S. I am not alleging you are gay. Your nick could have another source of reference for interpretation for all I know.

the kent ridge common : Of Asian values and patriachism: A review of The Blue Mansion by Glen Goei

Sun, 25 Oct 2009 08:28:32 +0000

And lastly, please don't give the arguement that you are interpreting based on our 2 articles. I have already told you that they are allegorical to a clash between democratic ideals of freedom versus the living epitome of Asian values and patriachism. In short, they don't support your allegations of feminist and gay themes.

the kent ridge common : Of Asian values and patriachism: A review of The Blue Mansion by Glen Goei

Sun, 25 Oct 2009 08:24:50 +0000

Look Solo Bear, I understand the arguements you presented and your interpretation about the movie, but interpretation is also based on evidences. Literature in case you realize has a dimension of evidential proof, and that comes through thorough analysis of the plot and characters. That is why I told you to do a character analysis of the major characters in the plot. I have argued against feminism, but just in case you haven't realized, you HAVE NOT SUBSTANTIATED your arguement about the presence of the feminist theme. Don't wax lyrical about thinking laterally or out of the box. Just put the money where your mouth is and substantiate the themes. If you are unable to substantiate your arguements, then they remain as they are - strawmen. Do an analysis to substantiate your arguement, then we will talk. "So tell me what you know about this Wee Bak Chuan character? If you are a parent and you want your kids to be a doctor when your kid wants to be an engineer, and your kid becomes an engineer, is that called shirking responsibility in reference to your kid? >> Me: That's the part I made in my article I linked to my blog, that many Singaporeans can hardly empathize with this kind of family! You ASSUME that every dad has the financial capability to send children to university! Many families have financial problems to even afford tuition for primary and secondary, what more tuition fees for Unis! That's my main point that Blue Mountain is way, way of target, depicting Singapore scene. The more fitting allusion would be Jack Neo's productions." ->Stop being disingenious. You were talking about shirking responsibility. I am doing you a favor to tell you that you are way off, which really justified my point that you are just guessing in the dark. No, really, you are not in any position to make an intellectual disagreement. Start by backing up your arguements first, with instances from the movie. If you can substantiate your points fine, then let's agree to disagree. But you haven't made the baby steps yet. Funny how you ask me to open up when you cannot even describe the source of your interpretation from the movie. I am sorry, I just find it absurd that one can interprete the movie without REFERENCES, which have really failed to provide.

the kent ridge common : Of Asian values and patriachism: A review of The Blue Mansion by Glen Goei

Sun, 25 Oct 2009 07:24:21 +0000

Dear Solo Bear: I think you are being disingenious again. I am saying that the movie portray a discourse or a competition between the one who epitomizes Asian values and patriachism and democratic ideals. I am not blind to the fact that feminism HAS clashed with patriachism because for the past few posts, I have been telling you that the democratists are also at odds with patriachism and it was what that was highlighted in the movie. You are in essence flogging that dead horse don't know how many times. No one has ever claimed that feminism are not at odds with patriachism. But, you have been presented arguements and evidences from the movie that show that feminism isn't the theme. You can't accept it, then tough. We can't help you. Who says I finally admitted to the gay theme? To say a movie has gay theme is to allege that gayism is a major part of the movie's plot. No it isn't, and I will tell you that it is allegorical. You may want to check up on the lines behind the theme. Something about the eldest son and the contemporary life in Singapore. Just because I tell you earlier to find your own truth doesn't mean I am conceding the point. "They turned to drugs and drinking (daughter). They preferred to loaf and shirk responsibility when given work to do (1st son). I find it ironic that although Uni undergrads talk so much about critical, lateral and out of box thinking, they are stuck with just one thought and that one thought only." So tell me what you know about this Wee Bak Chuan character? If you are a parent and you want your kids to be a doctor when your kid wants to be an engineer, and your kid becomes an engineer, is that called shirking responsibility in reference to your kid? And if your daughter wants to marry someone from another race, will you oppose it? Think as a father before you even come and argue your point about "shirking responsibility". Anyway, your extrapolations has become a parabola. Funny how you wax lyrical about critical thinking abilities of undergrads when critical thinking is applied to evaluating your comments. Yes, don't find it surprising that you get other critical thinkers who highlight that your arguements are not tenable because 1) They are extrapolation of themes that are far away from the movie 2) They are not based on thorough character analysis. Tell you what. Do a character analysis of Wee Bak Chuan and what he represents even in the allegorical sense, and then come back with what you have found out so far. Do the same for the three children. You said you know a bit about literature right? OK, start off from the base of a character analysis first. To even allege gay and feminist themes without a thorough knowledge of the characters is like hitting in the dark.

the kent ridge common : Of Asian values and patriachism: A review of The Blue Mansion by Glen Goei

Fri, 23 Oct 2009 13:40:45 +0000

Now you are accusing me of building a strawman? Aw come on! You were the one who is barking up the "only feminists will make an issue of patriachism" tree in the first place. I was trying to put it across that the movie wasn't about feminism, but rather the polemic fight between democratic ideals and patriachism. I have sufficiently showed you why there wasn't a hint of feminism involved - the female characters didn't carry themselves in a fashion typical of a feminist fight against Wee Bak Chuan. I have shown you evidence why your arguement is not valid. If you do not accept this line of evidence, I can't help you. Anyhow, there is no need to demolish your arguement because of the very BASIC FACT that you HAVE NOT PROVEN it. No need to demolish a strawman arguement when a puff of wind can blow it away. Now you are finally on to something, and I am glad that after engaging you for soooo long, you are seeing the allegorical lines behind our articles. Glen Goei mentioned this in our interview: Singapore has promoted this order as part of the Asian Values that it celebrates in contrast to Western Values. The film explores patriarchy with the family as a metaphor for Asian societies, and it questions that order as well as the high cost to individuals and the constraints on their ability to live the lives they choose. And the title of our review: "Of Asian values and patriachism:.." So what we and Glen have in common is that we mention Asian values and patriachism in the same breath. Wee Bak Chuan epitomizes this, and if you are hardworking enough and use your Google, you will know who in actual reality epitomizes Asian values and patriachism... The reason why we use allegorical terms like "Asian values and patriachism" is because we do not really to achieve a spoiler effect. You must remember that the date of the articles are written before the opening of the film. We cannot obviously be so direct with the allegories, to really expose the what the film really represents, right? There is a difference between "Of Asian values and Patriachism" and "Of Patriachism (alone)", and we intentionally described "asian values" and "patriachism" together. Thus, if you have been able to read behind the lines like the commentators who did before you, they immediately know what we are driving at. But it's not fair to compare you with other commentators because they watched the movie and they know we mean. Thus, what we are driving at is really the polemic battle between democratic ideals and the one that epitomizes "Asian values" and "patriachism". Which brings us to the last point. Now that you realize the allegorical nature of the articles, do you regret using our 2 articles to justify your point that The Blue Mansion has a feminist message? You finally understand why our articles are titled as such, do you? I suggest if you still want to bark up the "Blue Mansion has a feminist message tree", you are better off using other forms of sources other than our 2 articles. They do not in actual fact support your case. I have wanted to tell you this a long time ago, but I was hoping you will pick on the Asian values part. We also do not want to provide so much of a spoiler here. It is good that you started arguing:"Since when has suing, bankrupting others been an "Asian value"? Whatever "Asian value" is", that particular proponent is still promoting Asian values though, and even talks about it as though the label "Asian value" is stuck to him. At least you understand now what we are driving at. About the homophobic part, I take it that ST has a different view. Okay, fair enough then. It's up to you who you want to believe. We have said our bit, you have said your bit. It is up to you how you want evaluate these information and come to your own conclusions.

the kent ridge common : Of Asian values and patriachism: A review of The Blue Mansion by Glen Goei

Fri, 23 Oct 2009 04:08:41 +0000

I have already addressed your point about "none other than feminists" who make an issue of patriachism. ANd you said you didn't disagree that democratic values are at odds with patriachism. Do you really want to deny the fact that even the field of economics do not overlap with the likes of patriachal capitalism? Yes, it is even an economics issue. You decide for yourself which side is the one The Blue Mansion is more focused on:Opposition to LKY's iron hand or opposition to the patriachal family.. I am choosing the former because of the movie's allegorical nature and the known fact that democratic idealists have always been at odds with our very own patriach with disastrous consequences (sued bankrupt, exiled). Besides, in no way did the female characters in the movies ever acted out feminist-related ideals. In fact, you are the only one who insisted on a feminist theme, when you have not watched the movie. We say it wasn't about gay theme, the ST said it was, so it is up to you to critically examine the info and the first step is to go watch the movie. Period. BTW, I couldn't find that ST article, you can paste it here if you like.

the kent ridge common : Of Asian values and patriachism: A review of The Blue Mansion by Glen Goei

Fri, 23 Oct 2009 03:54:51 +0000

Dear Solo Bear: Please again do not be disingenious by reverting back to the movie. You were earlier alluding to the fact that feminists in Singapore has a lot of beef with our very own patriach, and I brought up the democracy examples to show you the democratic ideals clash with patriachism. So do not be disingenious by saying how does is that related to the movie. But I will take you up on that point. So you now ask, which other group is against patriachism? My answer to you, democratic idealist/democratic fighters. Since THe Blue Mansion is allegorical with its political undertones, the highlight of the constraints and costs to individuals refers to the clash with democratic ideals. Remember, besides being gay, the eldest son wants to pursue other goals, he is considering and thinking of reviving his musical career. The daughter wants to settle with her lover. So in a certain sense, there is a clash with democratic ideals. Since you do not deny the democratic ideology fight with patriachism, will you take it from us now that The Blue Mansion's highlight of patriachism is really to demonstrate the polemic fight between democratic ideology and patriachism? And does it strike you that democratic fighters like JBJ and Dr Chee has fallen foul of our patriach. Which feminist has fallen foul to the same extent as JBJ and Chee? NONE. I am sorry, but your arguement about no one other than feminist who talks about patriachism is not built on firm grounds. Many media publications referred to LKY as Singapore's patriach and talk about the social costs, but the arguements are on democratic grounds. Yes, there is NO feminist theme in The Blue Mansion. You cannot offer instances/evidences of the theme because you haven't watch the movie and your stand is really a flimsy one. About the institutionalization of gay ideology, I cannot see how that will deconstruct the family unit. You need to prove that gayism or widespread information access to gayism is contagious and influence everyone. If you cannot prove that, your arguements rest on flimsy grounds. And 377A repeal is about gay sex, so if you are perfectly fine with casual sex among gays, why are you waxing lyrical about 377A, a law that criminalizes the kinda sex that gays are involved in?

the kent ridge common : Of Asian values and patriachism: A review of The Blue Mansion by Glen Goei

Thu, 22 Oct 2009 05:40:55 +0000

Solo Bear:

I am not in dreamland. I live in Singapore and I pretty well know who are the ones who have the most angst against our patriach. Now you said you are not interested in feminist issues...

So who are the ones who have fallen foul of our patriach..(Tang Liang Hong, Francis Seow, Dr Chee Soon Juan, Said Zahari, JBJ, and many more), are they feminists? Maybe you should get realistic. You admitted you don't know much of feminism yet you have reasons to believe that feminists are really at it with the government, or rather our patriach.

I have told you that the reaction against patriachism is not totally confined to feminism. Even those adhering to democratic values can be said to be at odds with patriachism.

www.archive.org/stream/waysspiritandot00hedggoog/...
"The civil and political life of na-
tions, so long as they preserve their independence,
assumes successively four different forms of gov-
ernment. The theocratic age produces domestio
monarchy (patriarchism). The heroic produces
aristocracy, or the government of the city, limit-
ing the abuse of power. Then comes democracy,
founded on the idea of natural equality."

In Singapore, the biggest fight against the patriach unfortunately comes from democratic quarters. What did Chee Soon Juan and JBJ lived for? Feminism? NO, it is democracy. Maybe you should ask yourself whether democracy ideals will in a way clash with patriachism...

www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/49691/fareed-zaka...
This is Fared Zakaria's take on Singapore's patriach, note he used the term patriach.

"More than economics, more than politics, a nation's culture will determine its fate. So says the man who built Singapore, Lee Kuan Yew. Lee is not optimistic that other nations can replicate East Asia's staggering growth. He is critical of the social breakdown that he sees in America: "The expansion of the rights of the individual has come at the expense of orderly society." East Asia is changing in the face of rapid growth, but Lee doubts that American-style individualism will ever catch on there. While critical of American social order, Lee strongly supports America's role as a balancer in East Asia. If it withdraws, other powers, notably Japan, would go their own way. And that would unsettle the region's peace."

I actually don't see how singlehood is part of a traditional family, or whether it has anything to do with it. How does gay sex in any way deconstruct the traditional family? When I mentioned a single gay, I was referring to a gay who lives alone, doesn't co-habit. He has a sex partner yes, but he doesn't cohabit. He can be one of those that typically go home to his parents but occassionally have his sex with his partner but still goes home to his parents. It is the same as a single male or female who wants to remain single but have his occassional sex partner, but still goes home to his/her parents. What you are arguing in essence is that a ubiquitous gay partnership decontructs the family, I don't dismiss the merits to such an arguement, but to say that the sexual act deconstructs is a different kettle of fish. Gay sex is different from a ubiquitous gay couple. Hope you can differentiate the two.

You can wax lyrical all you like, but I am not backing down from my arguements. I always encourage in the spirit of critical thinking and writing not to take contents for the gospel truth. The reason why we wrote the review is really to encourage readers to think critically and really reflect. We don't believe in spoonfeeding, if you believe that Kent Ridge Common is a place to spoonfeed, I am sorry you are wrong.

No one is cutting off your view about the movie containing 'feminist' and 'gay' message. The truth is that no one is going to take you seriously because you said that you have not watched the movie.

Lastly, no one doubts your literary abilities, but even the field of literature itself as they say is in some ways similar to science in which the actual evidence is explored. However, you do not have actual evidential source on hand in the sense that you never watched the movie.

the kent ridge common : Of Asian values and patriachism: A review of The Blue Mansion by Glen Goei

Thu, 22 Oct 2009 05:09:45 +0000

The research about capitalism with patriachism can be found in many academic sources.
sp.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/jxp011v1

Or patriachal capitalism. The Wee business empire is a shining example of patriachal capitalism, but that is just calling it like it is. Don't ask to be spoonfed with examples if 1) You are extrapolating from the movie 2) You are alleging issues (feminism) that was never part of the movie. GO watch the movie.

By your logic, anyone that talks about patriachism is a feminist. Patriachism have appeared in our post many times, but does that make us feminist? Your pre-judgement of Glen's movie as feminist arises from the fact that he talks about patriachism. You and I were talking about patriachism all along, so we are pro-feminism based on your logic?

Patriachism itself although is a topic among feminist is also a subject of study among economists, go google patriachal capitalism + economists.
search.barnesandnoble.com/Patriarchy-and-Economic-Development/Valentine-M-Maghadam/e/9780198290230

I hope you do not get disingenious by reverting to the fact that patriachism is discussed among feminists, when your point of contention as you posted in your blog was that Glen's movie has feminist theme. The fallacy of your logic was that you are also a feminist, you highlighted and talked about patriachism just like Glen did.

the kent ridge common : A Visit to the Raffles Museum of Biodiversity Research (RMBR)

Thu, 22 Oct 2009 03:25:31 +0000

Hy Siva, you got nice pics that you would like to showcase down here. Thinking of creating a photo album to go along with Christel article. Sincerely yours

the kent ridge common : Of Asian values and patriachism: A review of The Blue Mansion by Glen Goei

Wed, 21 Oct 2009 21:18:42 +0000

To get you started, maybe you can always bear this question in mind when you watch the movie - Who are the usual detractors of Singapore's patriarch, Mr Lee Kuan Yew? If your answer is feminists, I think I just rest my case lar

the kent ridge common : Of Asian values and patriachism: A review of The Blue Mansion by Glen Goei

Wed, 21 Oct 2009 21:12:32 +0000

You somehow have a narrow view that an exploration of patriachy theme is only limited to feminism. I can't help you with it. But the truth is that patriachy is intertwined with capitalism. I am not sure if you have heard of this term "patriachal capitalism". It was a theme highlighted in the film, but in no way did Glen ever attacked this concept. The daughter of Wee never craved the hotseat in her father's empire, but rather it was the second son. You can argue that if there was a sign of antagonism towards this concept of "patriachal capitalism", then you may infer some form of feminist agenda. But nowhere did the female characters ever desired the hotseat. The female characters hoped that their husbands will take the hotseat, which in a sense is a celebration of "patriachal capitalism". There is no feminist agenda in the movie. Glen Goei's exploration of "patriachal capitalism" doesn't mean it has feminism written all over it. It's the same as a professor who writes a treatise on patriachal capitalism, but does not advocate feminism. It is just calling it like it is. Because the Blue Mansion has an allegorical nature. Maybe you can answer this question. Are you a believer of democratic process over patriachism in Singapore politics? What is your view of PM LHL in the current hot seat as PM? This can get you started. And in Singapore's context, you can be dammmmmmmmmmn sure that feminists are not the one who have a problem with "patriachism" in our politics. It was never an issue and the feminists in general are cool over this. I can't say the same for the opposition though.

the kent ridge common : Of Asian values and patriachism: A review of The Blue Mansion by Glen Goei

Wed, 21 Oct 2009 10:37:55 +0000

Sorry the Korea journal link is
www.ekoreajournal.net/upload/html/HTML42411.html

the kent ridge common : Of Asian values and patriachism: A review of The Blue Mansion by Glen Goei

Wed, 21 Oct 2009 10:37:08 +0000

The reason why I showed you Prof Alexius research is because you were alluding to cohabitation, gay sex and other alternative life style that lead to the deconstruction of the family unit. His research disproves that theory of yours because it shows the belief system in the traditional family unit among the youths are intact. You are being disingenious in saying that I am attempting it to The Blue Mansion, no I am no, I am addressing your allegations on alternative lifestyle.

And I would advise against equating the long standing fight against patriachism to feminism. Allow me an academic source, the Korea Journal. You should read it as it discusses Asian values at length. There is this description of liberal Calvinist who are at odds with patriachal authoritarianism which led to the spark of capitalism.

http://www.ekoreajournal.net/upload/html/HTML4241...
"Weber links early Calvinism and capitalist development in a causal relationship ─ he terms this an "elective affinity," not an inevitable connection. There's much research that shows that early orthodox Calvinism and Puritanism hindered capitalist development, much less helped it.[2] Bound by patriarchal authority, early Calvinists opposed free profit-seeking activities. Liberal Calvinists or liberal Puritans emerged from the struggle with orthodox Calvinism in the Netherlands and England in the 17th century. They rejected authoritarian patriarchism and the existing kinship order to build modern affectionate family units, and become actors of capitalistic profit-making and entrepreneurial activities. The early orthodox Calvinism which caught Weber's attention only served to impede capitalistic development. It was after the defeat of early orthodox Calvinism by liberal Puritans that full-scale capitalism developed (Cox 1959)."

Anyway, just a personal question for you, what do you have against feminism?

Please do not rely on secondary sources, like that someone who mentioned homophobia. Fact is the film is NOT selling any gay message whatsoever. You have been given enough hints. You should be taking secondary sources which includes us with a pinch of salt and skepticism. You should gather your own conclusion by watching the movie yourself.

And now that you have admitted that you have not watched the movie, whatever you post down here about the movie is not going to sound very credible. Common sense right, who will take a 'movie reviewer's'" words for real, especially one who has not watched the movie. No one is going to take you seriously, believe me. Go watch the movie and then review it based on the new info you gathered.

the kent ridge common : Of Asian values and patriachism: A review of The Blue Mansion by Glen Goei

Tue, 20 Oct 2009 10:39:21 +0000

My bad, a typo it should be Prof Alexius research still showed that youths believed in the traditional unit of the family. Sincerely yours