To Fix a Mocking Peasant

If the ST is willing to publish nonsense like that in its online forum, what is it not ready to publish?

Oh, non nation-building stuff perhaps?

 

Beating HFMD: Drink water

THE rising number of reported hand, foot and mouth disease cases shows that stepped-up hygiene standards and checks on the young charges are not enough to arrest the crisis.

One way that can help tackle the problem is to be mindful of children's water intake. I am not advocating just drinking lots of water. Water intake should be more specific, in proportion to the child's body weight. The key is to drink it in sufficient quantity and regularity.

The rule of thumb is: Drink at least one ounce of water for every two pounds of the child's body weight. The metric equivalent is: 31.42ml of water for every 1kg of the child's weight. In addition, mix 6/100 (0.06) teaspoon of sea salt (do not use table salt) into every 314.2 ml of water. [And what does that do for children??]

For thousands of years, doctors have successfully treated their patients [suffering from?] with nothing more than plain water and natural salt. Water and natural salt, when combined together, give you everything [!!!!] your body and mind need.

Soong See Choo

1. "Mas Selamat": From Bane to Boon

If the government is at all worried or defensive about Mas Selamat (does that name sound expired already?), it is not because "Mas Selamat" constitutes an issue of defense, not because Mas Selamat might terrorize Singapore, but because he has become an icon of the (supposed) failure of the state machinery. A lot has been said about Mas Selamat, but the focus needs to be shifted to the discourses arising (or so it seems) from Mas Selamat.

Mas Selamat has morphed into a discursive filter through which frustrations old and new are channeled through. Mas Selamat is an assault on the Singapore-Rational^TM that has all along served to bind peasants to positions of grudging conformity. The Singapore Rational: not a universal, transcendental rationality, but a particular one that teaches people to say ever so pragmatically, "We might be unhappy with the government, but it has done a good job of generating economic growth, it has done a great job of managing the country; the opposition is incapable of such feats. Let's just compromise."

This time round, it might have seemed as though rhetoric of good "governance" -  omnipotent controls and regulations that seem to have taken care of us all in managing SARS, in preventing bird flu, etc - fails to persuade. What if the government has failed to perform in the sole and precise area that has been its saving grace in the hearts of the grudgingly conforming Singaporeans? What is the state machinery (the PAP government included) good for if not for controlling everything so impossibly well? (It is ironically not complacency that is the worry, but the sober abandonment of complacency that is the worry for the big politicians.) Mas Selamat is not an immediate security threat in terms of what he could do, but an immediate political threat in terms of what people could possibly do through what he now stands for (whether the signification is valid or not). Perhaps that's why people are so unwilling to let go of Mas Selamat and let him disappear from our horizons like a sun that would never rise again. People are demanding that the mainstream media continue to report on the issue, even in its usual propaganda-infused manner, almost as though it would be really, really difficult for another Mas Selamat to appear in Singapore public discourse any time soon. The dying heart mourns its last days as the Singapore Rational takes over again. (Of course, Mas Selamat isn't a true political scandal. There are actually more worthy political issues than Mas Selamat. It is just that while "Mas Selamat" is not born a political scandal, he is made into one.)

So on the one hand, we have the frenzy of online commentary and rants (the sort of irresponsible blogging for which Molly is notorious), the call for Wong Kan Seng to resign. On the other hand, the state machinery - the government, the pro-"Singapore" media, etc - seems almost to have failed to be more inventive. We have the same old self-serving self-justifications that reeks of complacency; we have the media lambasting bloggers and other "netizens" as though they are a group isolated from the rest of Singapore (though the distinction between the cyber "rants" and the mood of dissatisfaction in the offline world arising from non-Selamat issues such as inflation might not be that great at this moment). No, of course you can't blame Wong Kan Seng or Lee Kuan Yew or whoever when someone neglected to watch Mas Selamat closely. But sound reasoning is not known to exist in the soul of politics. That's where the worry is. What if politics in Singapore becomes political? What if people begin to be swayed by their emotions, instincts and all the nasty stuff that might erode the hegemonic sensibility that has been built into Singaporeans?

So the direction which the gahmen is heading is a return towards Singapore-Rational: Look at how much the ISD has done for you all these years. The basics ARE sound. They ARE. They problem is NOT systemic. It is not. Any problem can be rectified by the presence of our responsible ministers, any situation improved. You cannot ask Wong Kan Seng to resign. It's not the rational thing to do. What we have to do now is to gel as a nation and national cohesiveness means no anti-PAPness is allowed. Don't be naughty and demand for useless things like a truly full report or for the Home Minister to resign. Don't get in our way - we have got problems to solve. (Politics cannot be political because Singapore is Singapore.)

The rhetorical use of responsibility is, however, a double-edged sword. Of course, the government could present itself as the ever-responsible and efficient government that will take immediate and effective steps to problems. However, the counterpart to being responsible is being held responsible. Perhaps that's politics.

But, again, all this is really farcical. Mas Selamat will just become another function of the Singapore-Rational. He will appear in NE textbooks to educate the young on certain important values and the need to be vigilant (non-complacent, that is). He will probably find a direct or indirect presence in Channel 8 drama serials that serve to inculcate social responsibility in the masses. It is not that Mas Selamat has disappeared from public discourse. From what I see, he has just been sent to the spin factory for processing. When the incubation period is over, Mas Selamat will become a signifier of all that have been said to be important to Singapore all this while. Even better if he's caught.

Because . . . Singaporeans do not have the stamina to make politics political for long. Even if they do, their fellowmen will jeer them into retreat.

2. The Responsible Perpetrators of Hate Speech?

We have a whole lot of discourse about responsibility: the government as a responsible government, the Internet as a conglomerate of irresponsible whiners and netizens, the mainstream media as a group of irresponsible (or responsible, depending on who you ask) journalists . . .

Can you be irresponsible in the way you assert responsibility?

The state is responsible for itself. It incorruptly investigates itself and honestly reports itself.

The state is responsible to the citizens. It implements policies to take care of the citizens. It acts, so it seems, for the majority.

The state is responsible for the citizens. No individual escapes definition by the state.

As the state performs its responsibility, it is guilty of irresponsibility - transgressing the very standard of responsibility it expects - demands - from its citizens. And it very irresponsibly gets away with its irresponsibility.

The insinuation that we almost hear every time an issue gets people yelling too much for comfort: Irrational Bloggers & Co. should shut up. Which also means that even if you do not participate in Internet discourse but happen to feel the same way as the insane Irrationals, be ashamed of yourself.

Mas Selamat's escape is not the fault of the MHA, the Home Minister, the government, the system, the Merlion or the late Ah Meng. How could the Merlion possibly be held responsible if it wasn't the one in charge of guarding Mas Selamat. No, the problem is not systemic. No one is keeping blame down to people of the lowest possible rank. [Complacency isn't systemic?]

The issue has become (if it was ever anything else) who not to blame instead of being who to blame. That's terribly important for any scandal we see here.

Well, if you insist, blame someone. But forgive. We've the divine prerogative to forgiveness.

Forgive the unforgiving. Only one party has the prerogative.

Forgive and hold your peace while more discourses are generated on your unforgiving, spiteful nature. Forgive that as well. Unconditional forgiveness has to be complemented with absolute ingratitude.

Forgive and hold your peace. Otherwise you are being Irrational. There's no room for hatred outside what you are directed to hate.

The MDA fines Starhub and Mediacorp for featuring content that supposedly promoted a homosexual lifestyle. The promotion of something is definitely not just a matter of being neutral towards something, and definitely not just a matter of being tolerant or accepting. To promote a "homosexual lifestyle" (not just homosexuality) is to promote something that even the MDA will not be able to define - at least not responsibly.

But, of course, the MDA is not saying "No homosexuality is to be depicted." It just has the freedom to decide when a particular depiction is considered a promotion and when it is not. In effect, this can be said to mean that any depiction that does not demonize homosexuality and a homosexual "lifestyle" is tantamount to a promotion of homosexuality and a homosexual "lifestyle" which are.  in turn, defined as not just different from the typical and against the typical or mainstream. The commandment is simple: Homosexuals should either be absent and invisible or be monsters. (Of course, there are random occurrences where transgressions seem forgiven, but these only reinforces the MDA's status as an arbiter of acceptability. An arbitrary arbiter.)

The state, through the MDA, perpetrates hate speech.

But isn't that precisely what the state is against? Don't we live on an island with many different kinds of people, so we have to be sensitive when we speak so as not to offend others?

And it deems itself to be in a position to "regulate" speech?

Would you get the most inflammatory bitch in an online forum to a moderator in the forum? Perhaps, but the same sort of thing happens in real life. It is the practice of irresponsibility par excellence. While others could get charged under the Sedition Act for irresponsible speech, the state not only gets away with it, but intensifies its power in so doing.

The state is so responsible that it has earned itself the right to be irresponsible.

3. Et tu, Molly Meek?

Et tu? Molly Meek has claimed to be the premier irresponsible blogger of Singapore, a claim that is itself irresponsible and dubious because it has never been empirically verified. How could she possibly have a right to criticize the irresponsible other than perhaps through an irresponsible pseudo-critique that serves no purpose in particular and then by a confession of her doomed project. (Though isn't that a means of irrationalizing the mandatory Rational? Then again . . . )

Perhaps there is a difference between being irresponsibly responsible and being responsibly irresponsible. And being undecidably (ir)responsible-(ir)rational to mitigate a constantly self-aggrandizing responsibility through constant self-disavowal. If speaking produces no speech, let there not be silence either.

* * * * *

Forgive me for I was delirious.

Molly

Dear Molly,

I'm totally mesmerized by this Ms Jacelyn Chan who wrote to the ST forum. I have no way of contacting her, but please help me declare my love for her. Thanks.

See Nao

-----------------------------------------------

Ms Chan's letter to the ST:

Right decision to fine MediaCorp over gay couple

I REFER to the Media Development Authority (MDA) decision against MediaCorp in the article last Thursday, 'MediaCorp fined for airing show featuring gay couple'.

I agree with and applaud MDA's decision to fine MediaCorp for airing a show featuring a gay couple on television. In airing the show, MediaCorp is tacitly promoting a gay lifestyle. The act of airing such a show which promotes a gay (and alternative) lifestyle is detrimental to the common good, as well as societal values.

The media should not endorsing or promote the gay lifestyle and should not describe a gay couple as a 'family unit'. To do so is irresponsible and may lead to erosion of values and breakdown of the traditional family unit (father, mother and children). MDA must step in to ensure compliance and observance of the law and guidelines, which have been laid down to ensure good values and morals are upheld in society.

Jacelyn Chan (Ms)

-----------------------------------------------

Lee See Nao's love letter-cum-proposal of marriage to Ms. Jacelyn Chan

Dear Ms. Jacelyn Chan,

Allow me to declare my love for you through Molly's blog. I'm absolutely in love with you. (In case you are wondering, I'm male and you are female, so it's heterosexual love.)

Jacelyn dear, I first fell in love with your lovely prose style, which is direct and incisive, reflecting the magnetic personality of its writer. Then I realized that we are of one mind. I share your views and I can't possibly put it across better: "The media should not endorsing or promote the gay lifestyle and should not describe a gay couple as a 'family unit'. To do so is irresponsible and may lead to erosion of values and breakdown of the traditional family unit (father, mother and children)."

Jacelyn, my goddess! My universe! My sun! My moon! Jacelyn, will you please marry me? Let's get married and have children (plural, not singular) so that we can promote the traditional family unit together. Together, we can maintain social mores, be models of morality. Together, we can write to the ST forum and build a great nation out of Singapore.

Let's teach our children to throw stones at gays for brandishing their gay (and alternative) (and therefore bad) lifestyles at us.

Please marry me, Jacelyn!

Yours lovingly,
See Nao
leeseenao@woodbridge.com.sg

-----------------------------------------------
Molly's note to Jacelyn:

Dear Jacelyn,

I'm only publishing See Nao's letter because I'm obsessed with free expression. Please just ignore his insane declarations of love unless it so happens that his love is reciprocated. At the risk of plagiarizing Prince Hamlet's advice to Ophelia, I believe your talents would find better connoisseurs in nunneries rather than in that crass Lee See Nao.

Yours Meekly,
Molly

Dear Molly,

Please publish the following letter in your blog for me. I don't know why the ST forum never publishes my letters although I endorse the same values as the do. Is it because I don't write as well as ex-ISD agents?

Thanks, Molly.

See Nao

MDA's Lapses in Media Development

It is heartening to know that the MDA has fined Starhub for showing two women kissing and MediaCorp for airing a show that featured a gay couple with a baby. This sends across the message that dangerous and unnatural alternative lifestyles are not tolerated by Singaporeans. The program was totally lacking in educational value. What happens if an impressionable child watches the show and start thinking that men could love each other and become pregnant? What happens if children start thinking that gays are normal people like you and me, who can become professors and even head highly-funded research programs?

Despite the MDA's commendable efforts, I find that the MDA is not doing enough. All too often, undesirable lifestyles are depicted by local TV shows.

Over the years of watching TV, I have seen the following being depicted (either in fiction or not):

1. Couples who divorce

2. Men who have mistresses and even have children with their mistresses

3. Premarital sex

4. Abortions (Murder)

5. Men who castrate themselves and become women after practicing some weird kung fu

6. Rape and Molest

7. Potential romantic love between long-lost siblings (Incest)

8. Liang Po Po (disgusting old drag!), Liang Xi Mei (uncle in drag having two children!), and not to mention the infamous B B Belachan (Transvestitism)

9. Tomboys and effeminate men who are accepted simply because they are not lesbian or gay [Surely Singaporeans are too conservative to accept tomboys and sissies because of their transgressive, unconventional behavior?]

10. Men who look at women lustfully (adultery)

[And I'm not even listing vices such as smoking, drinking and gambling.]

The MDA is right to assume that depiction is equals to promotion, so the disturbing acts and behaviors above should never have been shown on Singapore TV. They show unconventional families, aberrant behavior, and downright illegal acts. By having shows in which women are raped, for instance, MediaCorp must be promoting rape and endorsing it as a social norm. (The only exception is, of course, when a husband have sex with his wife without her consent, i.e. what has been mistakenly called marital rape although it is not rape at all.) This is very dangerous for Singapore because Singapore is a small, vulnerable island with no natural resources and our only resource is our conservatism which makes us socially responsible citizens who work for the good of the Great Nation.

It is, thus, appalling that MediaCorp only gets fined once in a while for depicting homosexuality. I hope the MDA would be more proactive and not only fine MediaCorp more often, but take charge of productions as well. This is not at all ambitious, given that the rap that the MDA produced last year probably attracted more audience than the typical MediaCorp program. By becoming producers, the homely, funky, rapping personnel of the MDA will be able to ensure that only conventional-family-oriented programs will be shown. This will ensure that Singapore's ambition to be a media hub will be realized.

Additionally, I have been shocked to learn that some MediaCorp actors are rumored to be gay. The MDA should tell MediaCorp to sack their gay actors and lesbian actresses since their appearance on TV and even in the public is tantamount to the promotion of gay and lesbian lifestyles.

There has been a lapse in the MDA's functioning all these years. But what to do, it's happened. I do not expect any minister to resign because MediaCorp has not been fined for all the above offenses, but I hope things will improve. We cannot let the fragile heterosexual supremacist social cohesion be undermined.

Mr. Lee See Nao

According to ST, the Health Minister now gets to close shopping centers, take over private hospitals and arrest suspects without warrant when there is a very serious health threat.

Maybe it makes sense to close shopping centers and maybe there is a rationale for taking over private hospitals (maybe the gahmen manages them better?). But health threats and arresting suspects? Maybe I'm being excessively bimbotic again, but what suspects? Viruses and bacteria? Or in the words of some MIW, super infectors? Or terrorist suspects who might be using stuff like anthrax (in which case there's always the ISA)?

But never mind. Trust our ministers. Trust our ministers for whom a single lapse (or perhaps more) MUST be forgiven.

"[T[he minister [Mr. Khaw Boon Wan] promised not to be trigger-happy: 'We know that these are drastic measures and we will use them only when absolutely necessary.'"

Yeah, it's the same old story every time the gahmen takes sweeping measures to increase its powers: we must trust that they will not abuse their power.

"Besides, there are safeguards, he added. A public health emergency can last for only 14 days unless renewed.

The public must be told and the minister has to justify his decision to Parliament, which can annul his order if the House is not convinced.

However, the strongest deterrent, he said, is the fear that crying wolf could damage the ministry's credibility, so people will not react when a real emergency occurs."

Really? Well, if the people don't react, you can always blame them. Just like how you could blame the people for being complacent and thus allowing Mas Selamat to escape. Then you would again have the chance to showcase your exemplary leadership abilities.

Meanwhile, let's just trust the gahmen.

And never forget this: when there's a serious "lapse" in a ministry, ministers must not be told to resign. We know how rare these talents are. If we tell ministers to resign over mistakes, maybe there won't be any left. Maybe the first to go would have to be that one who thought that graduate peasants were more fit to have children than lowly educated peasants.

I didn't start this, but I have been asked to promote it a little.

http://www.petitiononline.com/tvmobile/petition.html

To: SBS Transit

1) TV Mobile on SBS buses intrudes on our right to peace and quiet and should be removed;

2) TV Movile programmes have appalling entertainment value [Molly: Of course. It was never meant to entertain us. It was meant to bombard us with advertisements. Entertainment? Well, if you are a fan of that *** Mark Lee...];

3) It is unclear to the public how, if any, revenue from TV Mobile has contributed to keeping bus fares low [Molly: SBS had justified the TVMobile as a means of keeping fares low. However, I don't know if the profit the SBS makes from it is factored in when the PTC reviews applications for fare hikes. Neither do I know if passengers are paying for the energy consumption and/or maintenance of the TVMobile. But when SBS applies for a fare hike, it would tell sob stories about high operational costs and how the revenue from fares (not including TVMobile?) is not enough to cover operational costs];

4) Instead, bus fares have been rising steadily,

5) with little signs of service improvements in these areas – A) cleanliness of buses; B) politeness of bus drivers; C) shorter waiting times; D) cost-benefit transparency; [Molly: We also do not know how many decibels of noise commuters are exposed to.]

6. We call for a basic commuter’s right: the right to a peaceful bus ride.

Sincerely,

The Undersigned

There is the report. And there are the reports of the reports. So much to read. I'll just summarize:

Hey look! The government is transparent and responsible. Hey look! It's giving a full account!

Hey look! No one was bribed by terrorists!

Oh yes, something went wrong and they can't be free from blame, but hey, let's be balanced when we blame them.

Action will be taken on personnel of the lowest blameable rank.

Even shorter summary:

You can blame us them, but you shouldn't blame us them.

Shortest summary (actually out long ago):

HONEST MISTAKE.

The mainstream media has been working hard on two tasks. The first is to spin political advertisements for the PAP thinly disguised as interviews centering on capability of our ministers. The second is to establish a good image of the ISD, with articles such as:

- JI escape: One blot should not mar good work, says Jaya (ST, 15 April 2008)

- ISD deals with many terror threats, not just JI: Jaya (ST, 15 April)

- What's so special about Whitley Road centre? (ST, 16 April)

- What goes on here...helps S'pore against JI (ST, 16 April)

- 9 Casablanca bombers escaped via toilet tunnel (ST, 16 April) [It can't be that bad if it happens elsewhere too! We're world-class!]

Also, look at how it has brilliantly appropriated Singaporeans' satire of the escape using the term "Toilet Break".

 

To help brainwash peasants to condition the public mentally before the release of the full report of Mas Selamat's escape that will not be full anyway, Molly has decided to give the gahmen and the press a helping hand in restoring the good image of the ISD. She invites everyone's favorite Mr. Lee See Nao to pen a letter to the ST.

Here it goes:

__________________________________________________________________________

Public Should Show More Support for ISD

There have been numerous criticisms of the security forces, including the ISD, because Mas Selamat's escape. However, the public should curb any negative sentiments towards the ISD before a full account of the escape is released to the public.

Ministers have already proved to us beyond all doubt that Mas Selamat was able to escape because he had exploited the complacency of Singaporeans, cultivated by the excessive greatness of the government. The least the public could do is to stop its harsh criticisms of the government and the security forces and start to appreciate all that they have done.

As Deputy Prime Minister S. Jayakumar warns us, we cannot let our good impression of the ISD be marred by one unfortunate incident caused by the complacency of Singaporeans. The ISD's performance has always been excellent. It has an excellent track record that dates back to the days before Singapore's independence. Below are but a few examples of the great work of the ISD:

1. Operation Coldstore

The ISD helped Singaporeans eliminate a serious threat to national security even before Singapore became Singapore. If not for the ISD's great performance in arresting dangerous communists like Lim Chin Siong and the members of his Barisan Sosialis. Singapore could have degenerated into a communist state without democratic elections, free press, free expression and human rights. Equally notable is the arrest of Said Zahari, another subversive communist who would have caused instability and widespread violence in Singapore.

2. Detention of Chia Thye Poh

If not for the ISD, Chia Thye Poh would have wreaked havoc in Singapore and our women would be prostitutes in other people's countries now instead of enjoying a high standard of living in Singapore. If Chia Thye Poh had not been arrested, our men would have been sold as slaves to other people's countries and would not even have the simple entitlement of staying in Singapore to serve the country's defense forces.

3. Thwarting a Marxist Conspiracy in Operation Spectrum

This is the most spectacular achievement of the ISD. Credit certainly has to be given to them for their ability to sniff out Marxist conspirators who were not Marxists and getting them to confess their shameful political activities on national TV. Additionally, the arrest of these non-Marxist Marxist conspirators led to the surfacing of the notorious tax-evading lawyer, Francis Seow, who tried to defend the conspirators against the nation. Seow has since run away from Singapore and is unable to do any more damage.

 

Mas Selamat is but a microscopic blemish in the ISD's flawless, glowing record. Without the ISD, the PAP would not have been able to make Singapore what it is today. The ISD is the reason that Singaporeans can sleep in peace, assured that they would be safe because the ISD is taking care of their security.

Do you want to continue pointing fingers at the MHA and the ISD or do you want to be bombed by terrorists? The answer is obvious.

Mr. Lee See Nao

 

Not too long ago, people were criticizing the Prime Minister for his silence regarding Mas Selamat’s escape. But I think I was secretly glad that he had kept quiet. There’s something about him that makes me feel really, really irked whenever he says something.

I mean, hardly anyone else makes Molly roll her eyes and puts her claws on stand-by mode so well.

Maybe it’s just his total lack of charisma with kittens. Maybe he’s surrounded by too many unfriendly hounds.

But what sorts of things does he have to say?

Welfare is dirty. People are engaging in dangerous talk about handouts. Mas Selamat escaped, what to do.

But what really gets Molly hissing is his seeming unawareness that he’s a pot. And he calls the kettle black. And what a condescending, self contradictory pot can he get!

Of course, it is not as if he does not know that he should say politically correct things like this:

“My conclusion is this: If the People's Action Party wants to continue to have the support of the people, it has to maintain an incorruptible and capable government; continue to reflect the wishes of the people; and continue to strive for a better future for Singapore.” (Today)

Of course, you might want to ask him this: if the PAP is incorruptible (which is different from incorrupt), then why is there a need to pay salaries that supposedly help to prevent corruption? But he’s probably going to say that you are nitpicking, just like Mr. Low Thia Khiang. So let’s just forget it. We can’t perhaps assume that he’s using the sales tactic called exaggeration.

Molly is more interested in how his wonderful Eternal Ruling Party (ERP) of Singapore is going to reflect the wishes of the people and to “continue” to do so (especially if it has not really been doing so because it knows better than agree to be manipulated by the people into not increasing the GST or into decriminalizing gay sex). (Oh, which "people of Singapore" is he talking about anyway?)

[Edit: Oops, Molly's bad. Maybe "reflect" is the right word to use. When we put an object in front of the mirror, the mirror reflect the image. The light is not absorbed but is "shot" back to us. So maybe this was what PM Lee meant by "reflecting" the people's wishes?]

And how is he going to reflect the wishes of the people when it comes to regulating the new media? What does he have to say about it? Let’s see:

"We will study if we should relax parts of the regulations but we will look at this issue very carefully, to prevent any adverse effect."

Oh, adverse effect to whom, may the humble bimbo ask? To your party? And what happens if the wishes of the people clash with the whims of your party? Are you going to reflect the wishes of the people or to reflect the wishes of your party?

But Molly cannot comment too much on the regulations. We don’t know what new regulations there are yet. The more disturbing thing is how the regulation of the new media is associated with the elections. (Heck, if you regulate the new media, you regulate the new media. If you keep associating it with the elections, you are already suggesting to people that you are regulating it so that it won’t affect how the elections will turn out for you. Bad move. )

Oh well, we can’t really fault the PAP for wanting to protect its hold on power, can we? But how condescending can it get? How “potty”?

1.      “Besides the difficulty in refuting fallacious statements on cyberspace, Mr Lee noted that the free-for-all Internet environment throws up another potential minefield: How should political advertising be regulated, especially when political parties can post video clips on online platforms such as YouTube?” (Today)

 

Speaking of fallacious statements, maybe someone could do a count and see whether the 82 PAP people in the Parliament have made more of them or the blogosphere has made more of them. Wasn’t it the PM’s own father who said something about Singaporean women becoming maids if ministers are not well-paid? Eh? And he dares to stand on the high ground and talk about people making fallacious statements. And speaking of fallacies, what about his own ad hominem attacks:

 

2.      “But Mr Lee was less approving in his assessment of the performance of the Opposition MPs.

 

"In fact, they seldom engage the Government head-on in Parliamentary debates. Potong Pasir MP Chiam See Tong speaks less nowadays. Non-constituency MP Sylvia Lim's speeches are rather cautious and reserved, which, of course, is a good thing," said Mr Lee.

 

On Workers' Party's chief Low Thia Khiang, Mr Lee said: "He is very sharp but he seldom debates about the thrust of government policies and the broader issues. It seems like he is more passionate about nitpicking and making the government look bad — which is quite different from the rousing speeches he gave in the election rallies.”

 

He added: "His attitude is that his responsibility is just to criticise government policies, and not to offer alternatives."”

Now, these claims are not necessarily untrue. But may Molly know where the evidence is? What examples does our PM have to prove his attacks on the only opposition politicians in the Parliament?

I can also say that it seems that PM Lee is more interesting in preserving his power than in improving the lives of Singaporean, more passionate about tightening the PAP’s grip on power than on liberating the media, more interested in launching personal attacks on opposition MPs than on seriously debating with them.

 

I can even say that the oppositions MPs have been silenced by the history of defamation suits in Singapore.

 

But surely you would ask me to provide evidence?

 

Oh well, Molly guesses that she’s too stupid to understand the complexities of the PAP’s brilliant policies. So stupid that she would start to think that these policies are adversely affecting her when they are doing her good, when these policies can actually help her prevent wrinkles and make her skin more supple and flawless. Let’s see:

 

3.      “While the Government has been increasing efforts to explain its policies to Singaporeans — due to the rising educational levels and the growing complexity of policies — there would always be criticisms, said Mr Lee, who felt that these critics usually agree with the policies' objectives but disagree on the mechanics.[DUH! If you implement the ERP and claim that the objective is to reduce traffic jam, of course I would agree with the objective. But looking at reality, I would say that the policy is not effective at all.] And some do not understand the policies fully. [And while you definitely understand the policies fully on paper and in theory, I’m afraid you might not understand the ground, and how people are affected practically. Ah, but I don’t have the evidence to prove that. Sorry.]

 

Said Mr Lee: "In fact, if we test people's understanding of policies, I think even news workers and PAP MPs might not pass." [Oh, so you recruit top talents that might not even understand your policies?! Oh well, I guess you only need people to agree, whether they are journalists or MPs

 

Shall I just say that most people do not have a Ph.D in economics, public administration and whatnot and most people will not understand many things completely? But perhaps they do understand things sufficiently to raise question. They might be practically and adversely affected by policies the policies they might not understand and so have a right to criticize and ask for change.

 

Can Molly say that no PAP minister fully understands the complexity of her postmodern bimbotic blogging  and thus the PAP has  no right to respond to the comments she makes about it?

 

Or perhaps this is proof that despite the charade of “consultation” and REACH feedback, the government is still fundamentally sitting on the I-know-best chair. The government will not go wrong and if people disagree, it is only because they are ignorant.

 

Mind you, please remember to check if your chair has four solid legs.

Singaporeans need a wake up call.

As an employer, I am apalled by job seekers whose immediate concerns are whether the job pays well enough. My domestic assistant, Sophia, was much more professional. She was only too happy to take up the job regardless of the pay. Needless to say, Sophia is not Singaporean. Singaporeans I have encountered are fussy about pay and benefits such as sick leave. Apparently, they are already thinking of falling sick even before they have accepted a job offer. Such attitudes are atrocious. Workers should not be bothered about remuneration, medical benefits and leave. As workers, their first and foremost priority is to work. Anything else beyond that is a privilege, not an entitlement.

Singaporeans are becoming more and more complacent. They think that the government will take care of them. They are unable to go through hardship and are unwilling to work 18 hours a day. They are so greedy that they think they are entitled to overtime pay when workers are supposed to do work and not suck money from employers who are kind enough to give them work to do.

Singaporeans need to be re-educated. I urge the Ministry of Education to introduce a compulsory subject to all our students - National Employment Education. The government should teach people to moderate their expectations. They should know how lucky they are that they are not slaves because they are waged workers. They should not be more and more demanding. Instead of just giving vouchers to people, the NTUC should also enhance its function and tell workers to lower their expectations or face unemployment. Singaporeans must learn that there is no job beneath their dignity and no remuneration too low. Otherwise our economy will collapse.

Mr. Lee See Nao

.......................................................

Mr. Lee See Nao's source of inspiration:

MOM, please don't penalise businesses

I REFER to Mr John Ng's letter. I own a Chinese restaurant. Like Mr Ng, I faced huge difficulty finding Singaporeans to employ as waiters. For every 10 who responded to my job advertisement, only one was Singaporean whose first concerns were: 'Pay good or not? Must work weekends or not? Got MC benefits?' Singaporeans are becoming more and more complacent. [Molly: Complacent with what?] Singaporeans just cannot take hardship these days. [Molly: Yeah. It's only right for employers to make employees go through hardship.] It is best portrayed by the Chinese sitcom, Just In Singapore on Channel 8, in which the characters Robert and Mary, live by the precept, 'Why work when the Government will take care of us?' [Molly: If that's the case, why would they care about how much they get paid? They would simply wait for the great government to take care of them.] The Ministry of Manpower (MOM) imposes the workforce levy and quota entitlement to prevent an influx of foreigners, be it to maintain social security or retain jobs for Singaporeans. I agree with the concept, but this is hardly applicable in real life. I urge MOM policy makers to step out of their cosy offices and take a good look at the real world. [Molly: Nonsense! Employers are getting more and more complacent. Now they are expecting the government to take care of them. Employers cannot take hardships nowadays.] If Singaporeans refuse to take lowly jobs. why penalise business owners? I think the authorities should acknowledge this and make necessary adjustments to accommodate business needs. Jerry Lim Hwee Leong

THE MOLLY MEEK CLASSIFIEDS: RECRUITMENT

Looking For: The next Prime Minister Perks: Election Walkover, Blame for mistakes made will be transferred to the people of Singapore Requirements: Perfect academic and CCA records from pre-school to university (at least a 1st Class Honors degree), Must be willing to join the PAP and be co-opted despite current political stance. Proven leadership skills (ability to tell people to shut up and make people able your orders) proven by being a prefect in primary school. Thin-skinned enough to sue others for defamation; thick-skinned enough to praise yourself after a major fiasco (with the help of compliant media) Strictly Optional: Intelligence, Creativity, Flexibility, Popularity

I read with interest Mr. Wang's blog post on the PAP's (supposed) search for political leaders, specifically the next Prime Minister. Mr. Wang has pointed out the silliness of looking at the academic records of potential leaders. Others have also joked about the fact that Singapore is the only democratic (so to speak) country in which the ruling party assumes with hardly any reservation (in fact, none at all) that it will be in power three and more elections down the road. (Such jokes, of course, do not arise out of a belief that the PAP is holding a shaky assumption. Rather people make such jokes precisely because the PAP is right to hold such an assumption.)

There's something about the way the PAP is announcing its own renewal concerns to Singaporeans and the rest of the world. Something that does not put one (me?) at ease.

Perhaps the problem has something to do with the question of what constitutes "renewal" in the world of the PAP. The PAP has an obsession with renewal. Everything and everyone--perhaps with the exception of MM Lee--can be, must be, will be replaced. But there is something paradoxical about renewing the PAP. Can the PAP renew itself in such a way that it is no longer the PAP except in name? More importantly, will it?

Or will the PAP obstinately pump new blood into an aging body headed towards inevitable death? There is only so much you can do to prolong the life of a withering flower.

Is it possible for the PAP to transcend its own blind spots or its own myopia in the process of controlled renewal?

On the one hand, the PAP is fervently (feverishly?) renewing itself. On the other hand, the very obsession with renewal arises from a survival instinct that seeks to preserve more than it seeks to change. Perhaps what we have is a postmodern dynasty where the heir is not necessarily a Lee in blood, but is still a Lee in essence, a subject in the image of LKY, tailor-made to suit the designer throne. A Lee descendant not by biology but by governmentality. A Leesecendant. Biology is obsolete.

Of course, no one other than the PAP itself really cares about what kind of renewal it goes through. What people might be concerned about is how its renewal will affect Singapore as a whole.

If we need an equation with which to work, perhaps it is this:

Singapore = LKY X Flux, where LKY is a constant > 0.

There will always be change in Singapore, but changes will always be only located within a locus permitted by the constant.

Can we ever change the constant? (Can Flux ever negate LKY or render it negligible?)

There is no point imagining spectacular changes to Singapore in the form of a female Prime Minister or a minority-race Prime Minister. Whoever it is is a Leescendant. And so any change is no change. Change is not 0 only because 0 change will negate the effects of LKY.

[OK, perhaps this is bad Mathematics. But, hey, since when did Molly claim to be good in Mathematics. She is not even remotely qualified to be a Leescendant.]

Maybe it all does not matter. Molly envisions that Singapore will eventually be renewed into a disturbing utopia where those who are unhappy with the LKY constant will either die off or leave Singapore, leaving it with only those who love the LKY constant and the highly acclimatized strugglers who are only against the constant to the degree permitted by the constant.

Which means that there will be no more errant bloggers.

Or perhaps, one day, long in the distant future lifetimes after many Mollys, the renewal will have hiccups and cell division in the aged body will finally develop a cancerous tumor. Perhaps the old body will die and the soul--if there is any--will find a new home. But meanwhile, let's not hope for anything. Let's lose hope so as not to fall into the trap of hoping.

This is such an adamant refusal to address the issue the it's funny, so hilariously absurd that you might feel like slapping someone.

TVMobile is mindful of sound levels on buses

I REFER to the letter 'Tune out TVMobile, please' by Mr Tan Shao Yi on Saturday. TVMobile is mindful of the audio level on buses.

We conduct regular checks on the prescribed audio level during our regular maintenance programme. Proactive action is also taken to rectify any discrepancy with the audio loudness setting. We wish to also assure all passengers that the TVMobile audio level on buses is calibrated for everyone's comfortable listening pleasure.

We thank Mr Tan for his feedback.

Yong Han Beng
Senior Engineer, TVMobile
MediaCorp TV Singapore

Dear Mr. Yong,

Even if you check the _prescribed_ loudness/volume ("audio level") ten times a day, it is not going to help make commuters more comfortable if your prescribed volume is around 100dB. In fact, if you perform maintenance regularly, TVMobiles that are to "soft" will be adjusted so that they will be loud enough. The real issue that the prescribed volume is too loud. DUH.

And if your TVMobile volume suits "EVERYONE'S" comfortable listening level, then why is someone complaining? Complainers don't belong to your definition of "everyone"?

I thank Mr. Yong for his forum space wasting reply.

Molly Meek

Senior Bimbo

Important to De-complacentize Singaporeans

I refer to MP Lee Wee Kiak's comment that Singaporeans might have become complacent because they have a government that is too good. I fully agree with Mr. Lee. Mas Selamat escaped because Singaporeans were complacent and the people are blaming the Government because they are complacent. This is an atrocity against the top talents of the world that make up our Government.

In fact, the Government is so good that it is the probably the only government in the world that is able to remain totally unscathed after a virtual Mission-Impossible kind of terrorist escape. In fact, the Singapore Government is so good that people have started to believe that nothing can go wrong in Singapore with the PAP around. This is abominable.

One might ask: if the Government were so good, why was it able to prevent the people from becoming complacent? Action needs to be taken immediately to remedy the problem of rampant complacency.

One of the first critical steps to take is for the Government to stop being so good. In order for such a great Government to stop being so good, incompetent people are needed. This can be done through electoral reforms that will allow the none too credible opposition candidates will seats in the Parliament. For example, we should abolish the GRC system and make it a politician's constitutional right to defame the PAP.

Incompetent opposition politicians in the Parliament will serve as a balance to the excessively good PAP. The result will be a Government that is good without being excessively so. Given that the PAP is so unbelievably good, we probably need to have the opposition winning about 80 seats in the Parliament before the excesses could be neutralized.

Another step to take is to ensure that our nation-building media plays its part. I have to say that the excessively good Government has been accompanied by an excessively good and responsible media that will report on how great the Government is. After years of such excessive goodness, people begin to become complacent and think that nothing will ever go wrong as long as MM Lee Kuan Yew and the other PAP politicians are around to set things right? (For a start, MM Lee should disavow his claim that he would return from the grave to set things right even after he dies. This has certainly made people complacent.) What the media needs to do is to activate its spinning machine and start featuring news about the Government's deficiencies. For instance, instead of constantly assuring the people that the GST hike is to help the poor, it could critique the GST as a regressive tax that burdens the poor. Instead of featuring news articles about the amazing number of jobs, it could focus on how most of the jobs are not going to Singapore citizens and how the latter are affected by structural underemployment. This will help to tackle the problem of complacency.

Of course, Singaporeans must also not be complacent and leave all the de-complacentizing to the Government. They should start demonstrating against all the problems in Singapore instead of thinking that Singapore is so wonderful and perfect.

Or perhaps Singaporeans are complacent because some people do want them to be complacent while reserving their right to accuse Singaporeans of being complacent. Who's afraid of Mas Selamat?

Lee See Nao

Singapore is a pirate's heaven. Not the sort of pirates living in ships with a parrot or pirates stealing entertainment such as movies and selling them, but more sophisticated pirates.

We have bootleg democracy, synthetic cosmopolitanism, simulated multiculturalism. We are the perfect blend of the good old days and the brave new world dawning upon the globe. We are Confucian Asian capitalists who bow not to whimsical notions of freedom and welfare.

We plunder from reality as much as we can until it is lost to us forever while those who vaguely remember it hanker after it almost tearfully.

And we now are even homophobically gay-friendly. And of course, we have to place a century-old (almost) minister on a disgusting pedestal for that. (Don't blame me if his bones shatter after a vicious fall for I didn't put him there.)

So, it's a triumph for no-we-are-not-homophobic (we-just-call-ourselves-conservative) Singapore that a certain gay professor has naively (or so it might seem to those uninitiated to the national propaganda press) decided to come to Singapore's NTU because his partner is allowed to come too. (Why not? This is Singapore. When it comes to foreign talent, the rule is simply "The more, the merrier".) A pity he is not a Law Professor. Otherwise it would be interesting for him to have that Prof Thio as a colleague. I can almost see someone launching a campaign to ban straws in the canteen in the name of environmental friendliness, lest they end up in the wrong orifices.

It's a triumph for Singapore, of course. Except that most of us are, unfortunately, not Singapore. But we are supposed to be happy. Wow. now THE PROGRESS of "SINGAPORE" is not impeded by our supposed traditional Asian-valued sensitively religious homophobia. Great. Now we don't have to worry about whether we should repeal stupid laws like 377A or not. After all, it is not supposed to affect the economy, the growth of which does not seem to benefit anyone except for the richest of the richest anyway. (That's to add on the the absurdity of the absurd space otherwise known as the Joke Called Singapore.)

So we are meant to live a double lie. The first lie being that official but feigned openness is enough and latent homophobia will not affect Singapore's talent concentration in any way. The second like being that we are Singapore is really open.

The third lie being that the old man who now looks like a speck of dust because he's too high up on the pedestal and too far from the wretched ground has once again led Singapore into a golden age. OK, make it a triple lie then. (What to do, I'm bimbotic.)

"WTF. Molly is being viciously acerbic and totally unconstructive again. Why can't she just she down and calmly analyze the issue like any self-respecting Singaporean blogger? How could we ever hope to change the results of the 2011 General Elections a la this year's Malaysian elections if bloggers keep behaving like stupid porcupine bimbos who takes a dig at all that Singapore is proud - and not proud - of. Waste of time?"

But what if the Singaporean Absurd transcends all attempts at rational analysis, critique and all the highly-valued modes of (non-)thought?

"WTF? What's that again?"

Oh never mind. Let's get back to the issue.

OK, what was the issue? Oh yes, I remember. Something about gays and Singapore's openness, isn't it? Or was it something about the lack of openness? After all, something is deemed newsworthy only if it is something rare enough--certainly not an everyday phenomenon. Just like the poor man's son who managed to become a PSC scholar and get a chance of joining the Eternal Ruling Party (ERP) of Singapore if he holds the right political views (which really amount to holding none) or if he is willing to be co-opted.

But Molly is digressing again, isn't she? Why can't she just talk about how far Singapore has come since its early days of paranoid homophobia? And let everyone believe that change is possible without change. Well, she could. But why should she? She's bimbotic and one shouldn't expect her to be level-headed.

In fact, Molly is going to talk about exploitative openness. Feigning openness is like faking an orgasm. The other party might not have satisfied you, but you pretend to be satisfied anyway. Get it over and done with. There are more important things to do. (So Molly isn't the only digressive person around.)

There are more important things to do, such as making money for ---. So Singapore must fake openness and Singaporeans feign orgasms. We welcome gays, of course. They are good for the economy. But then they must continue to be willing to be technical criminals, even if not convicted ones. It's the basic Singapore Principle: every person is only as good as his inevitably transient use value and is hence not a person.

Exceptions apply.

An old man's words can be treated as an imperial fiat that transcends law and reality.

"But the words of Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew changed his mind.

Though the male homosexual sex remains a crime in Singapore, MM Lee had said in an interview last year that while Singapore wanted to maintain its social norms, the Government should not pry on consenting adults."

On the eighth day, god said, "Let there be openness." So there was openness.

[On Molly's part, she could well say that bloggers must consider the goodness of the Eternal Ruling Party (ERP) of Singapore and still continue to scratch it ever so unfairly with each blog entry.]

Of course, the Exalted one on the Pedestal could shout down and be echoed, "no public purpose is served by interfering in their private lives." But haven't you rendered the private public by so speaking? Hey look! He has sex with men (but we are open enough to let him exist amongst us)!

To sum it up: let's turn that faggot into an icon of a uniquely Singaporean talent attraction.

(He can stick his straw up someone's nose while we offer him to our one and only god on the altar.)

An economic commodity that moonlights as a manufacturer of cultural simulacra. What else? An unwitting tool of discipline.

They are tools of mind discipline as their willingness to be subjugated to the absurd Singopenness is insidiously held up as exemplary  behavior that one might wish to emulate.

Prof Sieh: "I'm no crusader, but I'm going to be myself."

How peaceable.

Molly: I'm not a crusader, but I'm not going to let myself be.

How utterly subversive! Why don't you, Molly Meek, ask the stupid question of whether Singapore is ready for an Indian female Prime Minister?

Molly: Is Singapore ready for a lesbian Indian female Prime Minister not from the Eternal Ruling Party (ERP) of Singapore?

No, that's not right. Ask the right questions and get the rightly stupid answers, you bloody Irrational.

Molly: Irrationality is the most underrated virtue in Singapore. And I'm pretty virtuous.

I read with alarm Dr. Robert Kiltgaard's claim that Singapore will be hit by a new wave of corruption. His claim contains certain baseless assumptions that our government needs to robustly refute.

Firstly, the idea of a "new" wave of corruption means that there was an "old wave", so to speak, of corruption. This is totally untrue for we know that Singapore is virtually corruption free. The people who are most likely to be corrupt are paid so well that they won't be corrupt.

Secondly, Dr. Kiltgaard's definition of corruption is baffling. He said, "There's a kind of post-modern corruption coming with property rights problems – copying; you take my design when it was me who invented it. I think Singapore is going to be challenged as we are in America by this new way of corruption." This is ridiculous. It sounds like intellectual theft to me and intellectual theft is intellectual theft. What's so postmodern and corrupt about it?

In any case, copying may not be a bad thing. Look at what the Chinese did with Suzhou Industrial Park.

Furthermore, Dr. Kiltgaard's suggestion that there is a need to reduce monopoly by enhancing competition simply does not work for Singapore. In Singapore, monopolies or virtual monopolies are necessary so that enterprises can make money at the expense of disgruntled whiners.

To prevent corruption, we should use tried and tested methods, including paying the potentially corrupt a high salaries. For the potentially corrupt but non-elite who don't deserve high salaries, we can also come up with a corruption tax, i.e. all those who enter positions or situations in which they could possibly perform a corrupt act will have to pay a price. These steps will ensure that Singapore will remain virtually corruption free.

Finally, if we make certain practices that might be considered corruption legal, then these practices will no longer be corrupt practices. We should deal with postmodern corruption in a postmodern way. For instance, we could make all original ideas public property so that the copying of ideas would not be illegal or corrupt. It's all a matter of definition.

I hope Dr. Kiltgaard understands that Singapore is a small and unique country that will not pander to Western notions of democracy, free expression, corruption, etc.

Lee See Nao

"I don't speak for you. I can't. I speak to you." (I, 2008 - )

Not too long ago, but already quite forgotten, someone spoke--spoke up for himself, so to speak. Spoke against how he was treated--or perhaps not treated if you are thinking of the medical sense of the word. Or maybe I should say that he spoke about it but, it is rumored, was nevertheless interpreted having spoken against and was thus deemed to have defiled the sanctity of an institution that can simultaneously (and perhaps paradoxically; who knows?) arouse much resentment and patriotism. 

This post is dedicated to you and to all who have been rendered invisible by the most damning commandment of all: the state and all its institutions and supporting entities shalt be protected from blasphemy, which is defined as any form of private or public expression that the state deems potentially damaging to itself and its good name, the existence of which need not be scientifically or otherwise verifiable or proven.


 

* * * * *

Occasionally (often, in fact), people produce and give out gases. 

If it happens when you are in a big soccer field and a noisy plane happens to be passing by when you break wind, no one gives a damn even if you are dying of Irritable Bowel Syndrome. But sometimes one's bodily functions might express themselves in a crowded lift. Or perhaps it really isn't you who pass gas, but if someone covers his nose and looks at you, the rest will follow suit. If you happen to be sharing a lift with your obnoxious boss, then you are in a very awkward position indeed. 

Why, though, is Molly indulging in such gaseous talk? Has Molly finally fallen into the No Man's Eden of Nonspeak? Flatulence is, after all, just flatulence. You make a sound that lasts no more than a few seconds no matter how good your Qigong is. But, of course, the smell lasts longer than the sound, particularly in stuffy, stifling environments such as lifts. Someone might try to cover up the smell using some cheapskate lemon-scented air freshener bought from NTUC. But most people who are trapped in the lift, will not be able to get past the odor that has etched itself in their hearts and minds. 

What lessons can we learn from the above fictional exposition on flatulence(certainly, Molly is perhaps being paradoxical again)? Note that Molly is really obliged to talk about learning lessons because she is a Singaporean kitten and Singaporeans must be constructive. Otherwise they will incur the wrath of the Big Fat Cats, the Bullies of our dystopian neighborhood. (Of course, it's another thing to be de|con|structively constructive, but let Molly not give out any more gas.] Let's start with a few FAQs.

* * * * *

Frequently Asked Questions About the Production and Exhibition of Flatulence

Q1. Why does flatulence exist?

You give out gas because you've got shit. You've got shit because you are born as the wrong living thing. In other words, you have flatulence because you have got shit because you are not a vegetable.

Q2: Why do people try to suppress the gas in their own bodies?

Trust me, most people don't want to do that. Everyone knows how comfortable it feels to give out the gas down there instead of withholding it there indefinitely till it bursts out in one alarming explosion. People only suppress the gas in their own bodies because they are told to do so, directly or indirectly. In other words, because they are told that it's wrong. And there is always a price to pay when you do something wrong. For instance, people will point their fingers at you until you start feeling like you no longer have a face to face anyone and no longer have eyes to see. You will be made to feel so bad that you wish you have never existed.

Q3: Why do some people use cheapskate air fresheners to cover up the odor of flatulence?

This is a very complex issue. To sum it up first, let's just say that these people are just trying to prove that the odor does not originate from them. Perhaps they had force-fed the apparent culprit a bucket of beans, but they do not want to be held responsible for the odor, so the use of air fresheners can be said to boil down to sheer irresponsibility. Why cheapskate air fresheners? Because they sting your nose. The seeming defensive is actually an offensive. You have to respect such a brilliant military tactic.

Additionally, these people see the need to prevent any spin-offs. If I release the gas in my body, someone else might be inspired to do the same. And if I had force-fed each person in the lift a bucket of beans, the last thing I want is to have every single one of them releasing their gas in the lift. Even if I have an impaired sense of smell, it isn't pleasant to hear all the noise.

Finally, these air-freshening people have a terribly warped sense of entitlement. The truth is that they are really fans of flatulence. Their hobby is really to give out gas for their asses. However, they want this hobby to be the sole entitlement of the privileged few with air fresheners.

Q4: Is there such a thing as the right to release bodily gases, i.e. with all the sounds and smells?

By rights, there is such a thing. However, whether you can exercise your right or not depends on where you are. Nowadays the right can only be exercised in designated places called the Gas Releasing Corner. In Singapore, I think you can find such a corner at an obscure park, the name of which I have forgotten. (Yes, it's surprising, isn't it, that such a huge shithole has only one place designated for flatulence-releasing.)

Note though that you need to get a Flatulence Permit before you can release your gases at the Gas Releasing Corner. Otherwise you will be attacked by a pack of wolves and be crucified for sins that you have never committed.

I hope the FAQ section above has cleared your doubts. Now let's move on, like all respectable people.

* * * * *

But where do we go from here? For if I were to really break wind here, wouldn't the gas, too, be drowned by the ever-fresh fake lemon scent? Wouldn't I be deemed to have broken The Commandment and be invisibilized? 

I. A born failure condemned to perpetual trying. A word that has become obsolete, but will forever continue to exist as such. An amnesiac novel lost in the tangled tendrils of its own plot. A file deleted from the Recycle Bin before it could bid goodbye to a teardrop fallen off the face, forgotten by the sadness that mothered her. What could I do with this painful paralysis? 

I can't help it that I can't help, but I can't help it.

I try to remember, navigating through deformed caches, challenging endorsed lemon-stenched archives, excavating fear only to find it replenished. I depart. I refuse. I absurdize. run out of verbs.

So sometimes, I, too, fart.

Sometimes, I, too fart.

  --> Oh it did? You suck. Here's one more for you.