Basket.

After briefly rallying from the brink of death, former Indonesian president Suharto has finally kicked the bucket.

I believe I have said enough about his legacy. I now find great amusement in observing the Straits Times' valiant attempts to skirt the atrocities committed during his time in power ("questionable human rights record" - now, that's an early contender for understatement of the year) and to fete him as the man who turned ASEAN into an "internationally recognised" regional body. Not that ASEAN isn't internationally recognised, mind - unfortunately, it is internationally recognised for all the wrong reasons, most recently for standing by and doing absolutely nothing (bland verbal rebukes do not count) while the Burmese government brutally shot and beat pro-democracy protestors in the streets of Yangon. Following which a human rights charter was signed, with Myanmar one of the signatories, and hailed as a progressive step forward by all ASEAN governments, their pliant state media agencies and... just about nobody else.

Honestly, ASEAN has gone from completely useless to being a complete farce. The only thing funnier than this tragicomic state of affairs is how the Straits Times has to keep plying unheededly positive rhetoric about an organisation that never ever had much going for it, and barring miracles on a thermodynamic scale, never will.

Rest in peace, anyway, Suharto.

A Wrong Turn has finally returned, with a new article on Gates of Fire, which I consider one of the finest works of historical fiction ever created. Please check it out at the link, available at the very bottom of this page.

I am aware that both this space and A Wrong Turn have suffered prolonged inability since October. Initially it was due to approaching exams, which was replaced by an incredibly good (read: historical and unbelievably fun) computer game modification for the next 2 months or so. Now that I've played it enough to finally take a break from it, I can get back to writing. Ironically, just after school has begun again. Let's hope I find no more excuses for hiatuses.

Also, my recent posts all seem to be about forum letters and what rubbish the ST Forum publishes. I assure you that this is not because I am a grouch (although god knows, I sure can be one) but rather because that is amazingly fertile material for a good, solid thrashing, which I enjoy. Although one of them netted me a very unpleasant encounter with someone who absolutely has to learn not to take criticism personally, but that's the Internet for you.

So anyway, expect more wacky hijinks from NUS this term, because I now go to fewer lectures alone and there isn't a wackier bunch than our dear old A01C.

Noble of MM to visit Suharto in hospital

I WAS touched by the report, 'MM Lee flies to Jakarta to visit Suharto in hospital' (ST, Jan 14). The visit must have been a heartwarming one for the Suharto family.

Everybody loves a winner and I am sure that in the 30 years that Mr Suharto was President of the Republic of Indonesia, he had countless friends from around the world. However, when he faded into the sunset and his health deteriorated, his circle of friends must have shrunk.

It is indeed laudable and noble of Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew to take time off his busy schedule to fly to Jakarta to visit a critically-ill old friend. His visit must have been very comforting to Mr Suharto and his family.

The praises that MM Lee sang of the former leader when calling upon the Indonesian government not to be oblivious to the great contribution that Mr Suharto made to Indonesia and Asean were certainly words from his heart.

Although I was not there, I could visualise the expression and passion with which MM Lee urged the Indonesian government to honour Mr Suharto appropriately.

I am sure that all Singaporeans who had experienced Sukarno's Konfrontasi would agree with MM Lee that Mr Suharto deserves to be honoured.

He was responsible for overthrowing the Sukarno regime and the Partai Komunis Indonesia, thus ending the Konfrontasi and restoring peace and stability to the region. I know because I was serving in the police force during that turbulent period.

By visiting Mr Suharto in a Jakarta hospital, MM Lee has shown that he is no fair-weather friend.


Suharto deserves credit for Indonesia's economic progress

MINISTER Mentor Lee Kuan Yew said of former Indonesian former president Suharto:

'Yes, there was corruption. Yes, he gave favours to his family and his friends. But there was real growth, real progress.'

When I heard MM Lee say this on television, I was deeply touched. I believe many Indonesians and non-Indonesians feel the same.

Finally, MM Lee's words broke the silence. Many people who feel the same as him will be happy that his words expressed their thoughts and that he spoke openly. Pak Suharto deserves great credit for Indonesia's economic progress and development.

In my job in the hotel industry, I have some interaction with local businessmen who depend on the high spending power of their Indonesian business partners. I came to realise that Indonesia, besides being one of the top tourist arrivals to Singapore, is also a major trading partner. Should the Indonesian economy collapse, it would impact on our country.

Hence, during the 1997 financial crisis, it was a wise decision for the Singapore Government to offer Indonesia a loan of $5 billion.

Working in the hotel industry, I tend to interact with hotel guests and casually exchange views. I enjoy hearing from them to understand their culture and thinking. On many occasions, I asked Indonesian guests questions like how they feel with Pak Suharto no longer at the helm. Most say they miss the days when Pak Suharto was their president.


Both letters are from today's ST Forum.

In case any of you have been living under a rock, former Indonesian president Suharto is currently in critical condition and is likely to pass on soon. He ruled Indonesia for 32 years, and left a mixed legacy, to say the least. While Indonesia did see tremendous economic growth during his time in power, and while it can be argued that he curbed the communist "menace" (this point is not something I agree with), he was also responsible, directly or indirectly, for millions of deaths - the chaos that led to his seizure of power in 1965, the invasion of East Timor in 1975 and (quite ironically), the near-collapse of the Indonesian economy during the Asian Financial Crisis of 1997, with attendant social chaos and ethnic violence that arguably stemmed from his misguided policies to sweep all conflicts under the rug rather than actively work to resolve them.

Which is why I find the stream of tributes in the Singapore media, and as you can see above, even common Singapore citizens, sickening. Not only do our media and countrymen display an almost wholesale ignorance of modern Southeast Asian history, they also showcase astonishing naivete. As is to be expected, the current focus is on MM Lee's visit to Suharto, which has been called "noble", and the tributes paid to Suharto emphasize his economic achievements.

Now, economic growth is all well and good, but it is not the be-all and end-all criterion of assessment for a leader's legacy. Suharto did take a failing Indonesian economy and turn it around spectacularly; however, this widely-trumpeted achievement should be put into perspective. Firstly, the Indonesian economy at the time he took over was in really dire straits. It would have been exceedingly difficult not to turn it around.

Secondly, Suharto might have promoted economic growth; he signally failed, however, to ensure economic equity. During his time in power, the rich-poor income divide in Indonesia was immense, and vast swathes of the population continued to live in abject poverty. Part of economic success is ensuring a reasonable degree of equity; in this, he failed.

Thirdly, at what cost did he achieve economic growth? Corruption during his time in power was endemic. MM Lee's quote above is a severe understatement. An overwhelmingly corrupt government is not a properly-functioning government, and so Suharto failed to create one. Instead, he perpetuated it by granting family and friends high government posts regardless of ability, and likely helped himself to the till as well, though there is no evidence for that. How can this be considered a success? How can Indonesia's economic transformation under Suharto then be considered an unqualified success?

But the most glaring condemnation of Suharto's rule comes from history itself. When the 1997 Asian Economic Crisis hit, Suharto's economic system proved unable to withstand the shock. The Indonesian economic fell into deep crisis and the country disintegrated into chaos and violence, so serious that the strongman himself was forced out of power. Obviously, he had not built a resilient enough structure, and the chaos and violence that accompanied the collapse must be a damning indictment of the social policies he enacted during his rule.

Let us next examine Suharto's rise to power. The assertion that Suharto saved Indonesia (some even say, the region) from Communism is shaky at best. First off, Sukarno was no communist, although it is true that the PKI played a very prominent role during his administration. However, the PKI was counterbalanced by the army, in which Suharto was a general, and the Islamic groups. To say that Suharto saved Indonesia from Communism is to say that Indonesia was in danger of falling to Communism in the first place - which it was not. Neither the anti-communist elements within the army nor the Muslim groups would have allowed that to happen, and they were certainly sufficiently powerful to prevent it - as, officially, they supposedly did anyway.

Which brings us to the alleged attempted Communist coup of 30 September 1965. The official version of events is all we have to go on, but it must be stressed that the event is still shrouded in mystery. Whether it was an actual coup attempt or a conspiracy to exterminate the communists is unclear at best. It should not be portrayed as definitely being a communist takeover attempt, and that Suharto the hero halted this attempt.

I would also have thought that, sixteen years after the Cold War ended, people would have stopped seeing things in terms of being better dead than red, and accept that Communism cannot necessarily be thought of as evil.

We must also, of course, bear in mind that half a million people died after the coup was crushed; a bloodbath of incredible proportions that is conveniently not mentioned by our local media. Is this a worthy price for "crushing" communism?

But the bloodbath Suharto is most famous for is not that one, but rather the invasion and occupation of East Timor from 1975 to 1999. Originally a Portuguese colony, East Timor declared its independence in 1975, only to almost immediately suffer a brutal and unprovoked invasion by the Indonesian army, which then proceeded to rule the territory with an iron fist for the next two decades. Up to 200,000 East Timorese may have died during that time (Amnesty International estimates); a full one-third of the island's population. Again, our media has neglected to mention this historical event at all.

This is all of course not to say that Suharto made no contributions during his time in power. He restored stability to the country after the precarious balancing act of the Sukarno era, ended Konfrontasi, nursed the Indonesian economy back to health and worked towards regional integration through ASEAN. But his legacy is most definitely not all positive, and it would be a grave injustice to the countless victims of his rule to see it that way. History is never that simple, though sometimes we might like it to be.

And thus, while remembering and honouring Suharto's contributions towards Indonesia in particular and Southeast Asia in general, we must also bear in mind the less savoury things he did. It is only fair to Suharto's victims, and Suharto himself, that we remember him this way.

Well, tommorrow ends a month of idleness, as it is finally back to school for us all.

I always have mixed feelings about new school years, because on the one hand there is something to do at last, and on the other... there is something to do at last.

Hope everyone has a good semester ahead.

Singaporean man believes he has discovered the meaning of life

And believes he can describe it - a topic he personally says has "puzzled and troubled" countless through the ages - in a book that is less than 100 pages thick. So he is either the greatest philosopher ever to live, or is deluded into believing that he is the greatest philosopher ever to live.

I think I'll go with the latter description.

I mean, look at his writing (his introduction is available in the link above, and I assure you the rest of his book is not a magical improvement). It is absolutely terrible.

I posted a comment to that effect. You can find it under the comments on his latest post. Surprisingly, he allowed it, but had this to say:



Chun Wee,

do you have statistics that prove only terrible writers use vanity press to publish books and all traditional publishing writers are great writers?

Are you implying that Virginia Woolf who used vanity press to be a terrible writer?

If you think I'm a terrible writer, then do state what of my writing is terrible and how to improve it. Otherwise, it is just your opinion and not a fact to make the accusations. :)


I thoughtlessly pasted over my reply, which is now awaiting his approval for publication on his site, but here is the gist of what I said.

Basically, he missed the point completely. Nowhere did I say or even imply that all writers who use vanity presses are terrible, nor that all writers who use actual publishing houses are great writers. But think about this: a vanity press is a publisher that accepts money to publish. A publishing house is an organisation that pays writers to publish their works. Which do you think is more concerned about quality? Which do you think has a better chance of producing good quality work? Obviously the publishing houses, because they are spending money in the hope of making a profit. Of course they would be more stringent about the quality of manuscripts they received. Vanity presses, on the other hand, are paid by writers to publish. Do you think they will be as concerned about quality? The money's already in their pockets.

Undeniably, publishing houses have produced dreadful works as well, and it would be quite the generalisation to condemn as worthless all texts produced by vanity presses. However, since publishing houses definitely have more stringent criteria of acceptance, it must be concluded that any texts produced by them are likely to be of higher quality than any produced by vanity presses.

It would also be interesting to know whether the author took his manuscript to any publishing houses? If he did, how many? Was a vanity press his last resort or did he simply decide not to take his chances with the publishing houses, knowing they would not accept his drivel?

I would also like him to present me with evidence that Virginia Woolf ever used vanity presses. But it really isn't important; just a historical tidbit, because that isn't the point, as I never stated or implied anywhere that every single person who uses vanity presses is a poor writer.

He, however, is one, and that ought to be clear enough just from the introduction he posted on his website.

Let us begin with the first sentence.

The topic of the meaning of life is undoubtedly the most discussed as well as the most profound that has left countless people puzzled and troubled across the ages.

That is a horrible sentence. Clumsy, convoluted and poorly punctuated (that is, not), it is a mouthful for any reader. I suggest:

The question of the true meaning of life has intrigued and perplexed humanity down the ages.

Original: 29 words.
My version: 15 words.
Says: Exactly the same thing.

Following that, let us look at this particular paragraph:

The topic of my first book was intended to be on consciousness and its enhancement. I researched on consciousness so that I could help people enhance their consciousness, better navigate through their lives and avoid many of life's problems. I theorised that there is a consciousness mechanism in the mind that I self-named as 'CMech' that leads to our interpretation and awareness of our reality. Before I could finish up my manuscript on the topic I was overwhelmed by the many books dealing with the meaning of life and happiness topics in the bookstores I visited. The interest of people to understand the meaning of life and to find happiness in these books were so great I felt I had to provide my own contribution towards their understanding.

This is an absolutely terrible paragraph. Mr Tang seems not to understand that good writing is about keeping things simple. Simple phrasing, cool, clear expression and short, easy sentences. He also seems to love the word "consciousness", maybe because it strokes his ego to use such a "big" and "deep" word. Anyway, let us see how we can make it all better:

I intended the topic of my first book to be the enhancement of consciousness. I researched on consciousness so I could help people out in this regard, aiding them in navigating through life and its many obstacles. I theorise that there is a mechanism in the mind, which I will term "CMech", that controls our awareness and interpretation of reality. While conducting my research for this book, I was overwhelmed by the sheer number of works dealing with the topic at hand. I was inspired by this fascination with the meaning of life, and felt that I had to add my contribution towards the subject.

Written on the fly, not very good, but still a lot better than the original, I believe. This is just picking at his expression; it's not even criticising his writing style. Notice how his sentences have a tendency to switch topics entirely; one sentence he speaks of this mechanism in our minds, and the very next he is talking about how intriguing this topic is and how that is an inspiration to him. His paragraph is thusly incoherent and lacks focus. That is very poor writing.

I am obviously not going to spend any more time to correct his awful work. Just read it though, and you will probably be able to understand why he needs a vanity press. No sane publisher is going to give him an advance for that pile of drivel.

My advice to Mr Tang: spare the world your pseudo-intellectual claptrap. Go ahead and believe yourself to be a great writer and philosopher if you want to, but do it in private.

Gifted scheme: survey or report will not be an accurate measure of system's triumphs and failures - ST Online Forum, Jan 4

I REFER to Ms Maria Loh Mun Foong's letter, 'Has gifted scheme benefited society?' (ST, Jan 2).

It is unclear how Ms Loh and her allies would be satisfied by the 'examples of how society has benefited from the GEP' that she suggests the Ministry of Education (MOE) and parents of GEP graduates provide.
Indeed, The Straits Times has periodically published reports of how selected GEP alumni have led their lives since graduation. The GEP's longstanding detractors will wearily point out that these few anecdotes are hardly reflective of the GEP's success at cultivating a 'strong social conscience' overall, and may not adequately justify the 'lavish educational investment' on thousands of students.

Parents would be a clearly unreliable source of objective information, and few parents would be caught writing a less-than-humble Forum letter extolling their child's GEP-inspired virtues in a conservative Singaporean society well known for bashing its elite.

One may suggest that the MOE conduct a written survey of all GEP graduates assessing their 'social conscience' and 'moral values'. Such a study might shed more light on general majority trends among the GEP graduates. However, critics may accuse GEP graduates of being less forthcoming, especially if told that such a survey would eventually quantify the GEP's success, given the 'formidable intellectual prowess' GEP graduates are known for and their fierce loyalty towards the programme.

The GEP's influences on its graduates may be too complex and varied for a mere survey or centrefold report to measure its triumphs and failures, and political correctness will always limit the extent to which such information is made public. Ms Loh may have to content herself with sourcing for answers on her own. Happily, she will not have to look far, as many GEP graduates will gladly stand out and tell her their story.


I think I know this guy. Someone please take a look and confirm for me whether he is whom I think he is.

Anyway, the new year has seen a re-ignition of a very old debate: namely, the usefulness of the Gifted Education Programme, which I have of course addressed on more than one occasion previously. Few of the letters merited a response, but this one certainly does, if only for how abysmally written it is.

Let's have a look, shall we?


Indeed, The Straits Times has periodically published reports of how selected GEP alumni have led their lives since graduation. The GEP's longstanding detractors will wearily point out that these few anecdotes are hardly reflective of the GEP's success at cultivating a 'strong social conscience' overall, and may not adequately justify the 'lavish educational investment' on thousands of students.

Yes, you're absolutely right - but what is your reply to that? How, indeed, does a few isolated case studies show that the system as a whole has been successful? It is a longstanding argument, which you might find weary, but until a satisfactory response has been formulated by those on the other side of the fence, it is a very valid point. Why bring it up and deride it without providing such a response? What is the point you are making?


Parents would be a clearly unreliable source of objective information, and few parents would be caught writing a less-than-humble Forum letter extolling their child's GEP-inspired virtues in a conservative Singaporean society well known for bashing its elite.

He's right on the first point, but completely wrong on the second. I would have thought that people who write in to the ST Forum actually read the ST Forum. It seems not. Of such letters there have been a couple published within a week, and I'm willing to wager a number more that the august editor of our national broadsheet did not deem fit for publication. There's even one alongside our correspondent's letter today! I can assure our writer, if he has any concerns, that these letters have been considerably less than humble.

Additionally, the paragraph contains a barely-disguised disdain for "conservative Singaporean society", which is apparently "well known for bashing its elite." I don't know, I always thought Singaporean society was for the elite anyway? In any case, our letter writer seems to believe that the elite here are the victims - which is completely ridiculous. I will also not hesitate to point out that the GEP is meant to create socially responsible individuals, and our writer here certainly is not living up to such an ideal - assuming he is who I think he is, and was in fact from the programme himself.

People are obviously going to question a programme that has seemingly provided little benefit for much taxpayer dollars over more than 2 decades of existence. There's a name for that, and it isn't "elite bashing" - it's democracy. It's a demand for accountability. It is something that should be encouraged, and instead of playing the victim, perhaps the elite should show why they deserve to be the elite in the first place. If this letter writer is a member of the said elite, he's certainly not showing it with his poorly conceived, poorly written piece here.


One may suggest that the MOE conduct a written survey of all GEP graduates assessing their 'social conscience' and 'moral values'. Such a study might shed more light on general majority trends among the GEP graduates. However, critics may accuse GEP graduates of being less forthcoming, especially if told that such a survey would eventually quantify the GEP's success, given the 'formidable intellectual prowess' GEP graduates are known for and their fierce loyalty towards the programme.

There is a fine line between anticipating the arguments of the opposition, and setting up strawmen to triumphantly knock down. Our writer, unfortunately, falls squarely on the latter side of the line. The fact is, no such public survey has been conducted. How is the writer so sure that critics will be ready to rip it to shreds? Does he have this little confidence in Singaporean society? Is this the behaviour expected of a socially responsible individual?


The GEP's influences on its graduates may be too complex and varied for a mere survey or centrefold report to measure its triumphs and failures, and political correctness will always limit the extent to which such information is made public. Ms Loh may have to content herself with sourcing for answers on her own. Happily, she will not have to look far, as many GEP graduates will gladly stand out and tell her their story.

The conclusion that wasn't. Looking at the title and beginning of the letter, I expected that the writer would provide us with some sort of alternative towards measuring the results, the good, that the GEP has done for Singapore. But no - apparently his conclusion is that there can be no good way to measure the GEP's effects on society! Rubbish letter, rubbish ending, I suppose. But it also ensures that this letter is utterly pointless. I mean, alright, criticise the means suggested; fair enough. But not to go on to suggest any proper alternatives to what has been derided as unsuitable is just leaving things hanging. It is not a at all good practice in expository writing. It just makes you, the writer, appear to be bitching angstily about a problem without the smarts to suggest something to rectify it. That's not intelligent writing. That's not the kind of standard expected from the most basic expository O Level essays, let alone from somebody gifted.

As for why there has to be a measure of the GEP's effectiveness and success, the answer is simple: money. Taxpayer dollars. The GEP was set up and funded with money from the people of Singapore. It is meant to benefit the people and the Republic of Singapore, so there has to be a time when its results have to be assessed, to examine whether this aim is actually being met. To imply that no assessment need take place because there is no ideal format of assessment is ludicrous. Nothing is perfect or ideal in this world; we just have to find the best way. And apparently our "gifted" writer can't. I don't think that reflects very well on his intelligence.

So, GEP student, allegedly gifted, writes terrible letter to Straits Times. Sadly, that's not a new phenomenon. Perhaps, if we want to continue with the GEP, we should devise new methods of assessment, because the current ones don't seem to be netting us the "gifted" at all.

Happy 2008, everyone. Once again, best wishes to all. May the hope of a whole new year not turn out to be a false hope.