Or, why I’m now seriously scared of Tony Tan, just like how George Yeo scared the bejesus out of me with his “Christians are less likely to riot” comment.

Why?

1. Watch this video once.
2. Watch the video again from 1:35 onwards, this time paying close attention to the parts of the transcript in bold:
   

   (Transcript from 1:35)

   “T-t-t-terrorism [1] is a fact of life today, and, er, you know, it is with us and I don’t think there is any point in trying to (pause) disguise ah, and it comes in many forms, not only with regard to one sector of… (longer pause) society [2], (pause) but from sectors of society or countries which you never thought this could happen – look at Norway.

   (longer pause)

   Somebody – Anders Breivik, I think – from the Christian far-right, (pause) set off a series of bombs, took a gun, killed over 90 people.

   Would you believe that could happen in Norway? From the Christian far-right [3]?“

3. Refer to the video once more, and answer the corresponding questions that follow:
   1. Based on the earlier portion of Tony Tan’s reply, why does Tony Tan stutter when pronouncing the word “terrorism”? Refer to Yawning Bread if you need assistance.
   2. Which “sector of society” is Tony Tan referring to? What is the significance of his longer pause i.e. what does it reveal about his thoughts and feelings with regard to that “sector of society”?
   3. Why is it hard to “believe” that “the Christian far-right” is not capable of carrying out violence? What is the significance of his use of rhetorical questions?

BONUS: One arbitrarily-chosen winner will win one arbitrarily-chosen prize based on the accuracy of your answers.

Today, before you open the newspaper, turn on the radio or switch on the television, I’d like you to take the time to plough through these two articles:

1. Critical Discourse Analysis
2. Principles of Critical Discourse Analysis

If you are of the TL;DR ilk, here is a quick primer:

• What is Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA)?
  From the first article, CDA is a way of looking at things to “stud[y] the way social power abuse, dominance, and inequality are enacted, reproduced, and resisted by text and talk in the social and political context”.
• Why is a knowledge of CDA necessary?
  Unbeknownst to many, language IS power. He or she who controls the words, controls the minds of they who read what is written, watch what is shown or hear what is said.

  CDA is thus necessary “to understand, expose, and ultimately resist social inequality”.

• What are some examples of an application of CDA?
  • Looking at how pictures are used in, say, a newspaper. Are some pictures of certain people unflattering to them? Why is this so? Was there a larger intention in portraying them as such?
  • Comparing how words are used to describe people e.g. when comparing three people of the same standing, Person X is called “fresh-faced”, Person Y is called “innocent”, while Person Z is called “naive”. All three words are synonyms. However, has Person X been given a more positive image? Why?
  • Assessing coverage, or the quantity of information reporting done on a particular topic or subject. Is one topic or subject given more ‘air-time’ than another? Why?

For those of you who have the time, you may want to, say, practice analysing and evaluating information from articles, reports, etc. that have been published – in print or otherwise – over the last one week or so.

With this knowledge, I hope you are more equipped to deal with any new information that might come your way, today or in the future.

(Just to clarify that I’m neither a military nut nor a fanboy of the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF). I just have a keen interest in SAF-related issues for reasons I will not mention in public.)

I think the Republic of Singapore Air Force (RSAF) has produced a good advertisement that makes use of the principles of literary technique to effectively communicate its message to the viewer.

Take a look at the advertisement here:

(Watch the video in a separate window if you can’t see the embedded video.)

The voiceover text, if you want to read it while the video is being played:

I am the wind.
On land, no blade of grass moves without me.
At sea, every rising wave is touched by me.
Wherever you are, I am high enough to see you
and strong enough to reach out to you	5
and place strength in your hand.
You may not always see me
but you will always feel me
for I am here
for a higher purpose.	10

I won’t discuss the visual semiotics because that isn’t the point of my post.

However, I’ll carry out a bit of literary analysis on the first ‘two’ lines of the text to demonstrate some sense of its literary merit as well as articulate some of the ideas that the advertisement aims to convey to the viewer.

As the “I” in the text represents the entity that is the Republic of Singapore Air Force (RSAF), the “wind” is used as a symbol of the RSAF’s ‘invisibility’ (i.e. how it can operate without being detected by the enemy), its speed, its power, and its versatility at being able to be both strong yet gentle in different times of need.

On one level, the line “no blade of grass moves without me” is an image which evokes ideas of the RSAF’s power – the RSAF has the ability to influence “move[ment]“, especially in inanimate objects that would otherwise not move on their own.

However, if we also imagine the “blade of grass” to be a metaphor for the infantry soldier, which is a symbol of the Army, then the line is also meant to convey an idea of the superiority of the RSAF in the SAF’s war-fighting capabilities: it is at the forefront of military operations in terms of intelligence gathering efforts and attack manoeuvers, to say the least. {This is reinforced in the “sea” imagery used in line 3, which I will not discuss now for want of time/space.) At the same time, the combined image of objects “on land” and “at sea” moving with the assistance of the “wind” also conveys ideas of the interconnectedness of the three arms in war-fighting operations.

Okay, I know this is somewhat wankerish and some people might think I am stretching the limits of plausibility with my analysis, but do me a favour: assume that I am right for the time being.

Now that we’re all on the same page i.e. my analysis is right, what’s the significance of this advertisement in the larger scheme of things?

A well-wrought out advertisement like this can achieve many aims. Besides its primary aim of enticing people to sign on with the RSAF, the advertisement:

• Instils a sense of national pride in the SAF, from the point of view of the citizenry, thereby increasing national confidence etc., and
• Acts as one form of deterrence (among other deterrence strategies that the SAF uses) to ward off would-be aggressors, from an external point of view.

So one doesn’t need to know literary devices or techniques in order to consciously or unconsciously receive the implied messages that are sent to the recipient i.e. the person watching the advertisement.

But one would need to have some sense of literary technique in order to be able to create an advertisement as good as this one to achieve said aims I mentioned earlier.

And that, my friends, is another reason why there’s a point in learning literature as a point of departure toward doing other things in life.

P.S. I know I said I wouldn’t discuss the visual semiotics of the ad. But seriously – jogging girl is pretty cute.

This is from Learn Something Everyday, a new site I discovered from I forgot where.

Anyway, while the site is an interesting and innovative initiative, and the fact in itself is interesting too, my biggest grouse is – how do I verify the authenticity of what’s being said?

I tried searching for the information online but the quote always turns up on its own, without any sources or studies to back it up.

I’m probably not looking hard enough – the last time this happened was when I was working on my research paper and I found this quote about Alfian Sa’at’s One Fierce Hour and how the Straits Times lauded it as “truly a landmark for poetry [in Singapore]“.

Every source I found about the book had the same line, but I couldn’t find the exact article with those words. I remember searching for days on end and wondering if this was one of those things that become truth when you repeat it often enough.

(Who said that line about repeated lies becoming truths, anyway?)

Well, suffice to say, I managed to find the article on RedNano (proved to me that the damn site was good for something), and in case anyone is curious, it was Lee Tzu Pheng who said it in a book review.

So yes – I’m probably not looking hard enough, so if anyone can point me to the actual source where the information about being able to guess someone’s sex from smelling their breath can be found, I’d be very grateful.

Anyway, some tangential information on the Big Lie to sum up what I’ve been thinking about information and credible sources.

It’s highly unlikely that it’ll be published next Sunday, because it was meant to be used as publicity for Own Time Own Target, and the run for Own Time Own Target ends this coming Saturday.

Anyway, since Mr Wang has very kindly reviewed Own Time Own Target and helped to plug it as well, I think I’ll just put what I have to say about his book up here.

In essence, I think Two Baby Hands is very good. Go read it, especially if you don’t read poetry normally. IMHO, it provides a very good primer/introduction to Singapore society and literature in general too.

But before you read on, I think I must say a few things here about why I am not very happy that my contribution wasn’t published.

1. The non-publication of the piece is a let-down for me because I had to take time off to write the piece. I put quite a bit of thought and effort into it, and I think the editor of Sunday Lifestyle could’ve been courteous enough to at least say, “Thank you for your contributions but we’re sorry we cannot publish your piece.” That is only fair.
2. It is also a let-down for me and other people because the publishers of Two Baby Hands very kindly agreed to let me purchase a copy of the book in advance of the launch because I really wanted to write about it in the Bookends piece. I think we all expected the piece to appear because we never thought the contrary would happen.
3. That the contrary did happen i.e. the piece wasn’t published might be saying something too, because I believe that silences, or the things that aren’t talked about, are equally, if not, more important than the things that are discussed in public. I can only speculate, but I think it might’ve been that the other two books I wrote about didn’t exactly make for very ‘acceptable’ conversation – but ‘acceptable’ by whose standards, I’m not too sure. Nevertheless, I leave the reader to make her/his own conclusions.
   

~

1. What books are you reading now?
   I’m reading three books.The first: Two Baby Hands by Gilbert Koh. I’m quite fond of the poems so far because Koh discusses subjects – like education and National Service – that are close to my heart. Moreover, he deals with these subjects in a straightforward manner without using obscure language.

   
   Another book: Our Thoughts are Free: Poems and Prose on Imprisonment and Exile, edited by Tan Jing Quee, Teo Soh Lung and Koh Kay Yew. I like how it uses creative writing as a means to discuss a difficult portion of Singapore’s history. This makes the issues more accessible to readers like me, since most of us have lived in relative freedom all our lives.

   
   The third book is That We May Dream Again, edited by Fong Hoe Fang. This has accounts of some of the people involved in the so-called ‘Marxist conspiracy’ of 1987. What has struck me most thus far: the detainees’ passion for wanting to help the less fortunate in Singapore, along with how their lives and perspectives have changed after their detention.

   

2. If your house was burning down which book would you save and why?
   It’s a toss-up between Jurassic Park by Michael Crichton and Ender’s Game by Orson Scott Card. Both books speculate on issues like ethics, technology and human communication in ways that are appealing and endearing – the former has dinosaurs running amok, while the latter uses a militaristic backdrop to tell its tale.

The whole comparison to water usage is a deliberate attempt to mislead.

The standard telecom contract for data services has been based on bandwidth provided since the invention of data circuits. Indeed, the ISP’s price their services based on the bandwidth to which one subscribes. If I have subscribed for an 8Mb/sec service, how can I be a “bandwidth hog” for using 8Mb/sec of bandwidth? I paid for it, and I have the right to use it.

– Waleed Hanafi, Singapore – ISP’s to customers – “You are evil”

It’s an old article but I think it’s a very good example about how language and the media have the power to shape public opinion, and the media having a responsibility to report the news in an objective way. But if that doesn’t happen, then readers have to develop media literacy and critical thinking skills in order to separate the wheat from the chaff in terms of information and data processing.

To herald the new and bid farewell to the old, I’ve drawn up a list of artsy people based in and/or from Singapore, singling them out for being interesting, independent and (thus far) a little unrecognised.

It’s a personal response to the front-page article of Straits Times Life! at the end of last year (“FEEL THE POWER”, Thursday, 4 December 2008).

I like it because it presents an alternative, which is what I think we need more of.

From: Ashiq Idris <ashiq@triathlonsingapore.org>
Date: February 6, 2009 11:37:30 AM GMT+08:00
To: Laremy Lee
Subject: Response to your Email
Reply-To: ashiq@triathlonsingapore.org

Dear Laremy,

I am writing to you in response to your email to the Association dated 2 Feb 2009.  Here I would like to clarify on behalf of the Association that the Association had commissioned an independent Panel of Inquiry to look into the case.  Upon completing their inquiry they have submitted their report to the Association which includes their recommendation on the punishment to be imposed.  The TAS Management Committee agreed to adopt the recommendation and subsequently the two athletes were notified on the decision.

I would also like to clarify that the infringement was “Disobeying instruction of the coach” and the punishment given was imposed on the said infringement.  Disobeying instruction is something the Association see very seriously and for that matter most other National Sports Associations.

I hope I have clarify the reason why they were being punished in contrary to what had been reported in the local media and speculated out of proportion.

I would like to thank you for your comments.

Regards,
Ashiq Idris
AGM

Is the case closed? I don’t know, but I still remain firm on my stand: although rules must be followed, this ‘rule’ in particular is archaic and has no place in our day and age. Also, some points to be clarified:

• This isn’t about sex, or indecency, by the way, although many people have mistaken it to be so. Please do not be misled. It’s about jurisprudence, I think, but please let me know if I am using the term wrongly.
• The media did not blow the matter out of proportion. The Straits Times merely reported on the truth, and they did a good job, might I add. The only thing that has been blown out of proportion is the nature and the severity of the punishment – if one is needed at all.
• I think the above two points merely go to show that Singaporeans need a very good grounding in media literacy, and I’m glad the education system is making an attempt to bridge this gap.

In any case, I hope Dinah and Ying Ren keep on training. It would be nice to see them on the global stage someday, because these are two Singaporeans I’d be very proud to support and cheer my lungs out for.

On the subject of protecting the young on the Internet, Frontline’s documentary Growing Up Online tries to explore the Internet teen culture and the gap between parents and teens in the US. If you are interested in these issues, I recommend you watch it. Some thoughts after watching it…

Read On…

– g, Daily SG: 10 Sep 2008.

An interesting read which I thought this tied in very well with what we’ve been learning so far about online literacy in terms of educating and creating awareness in students about the Internet.