18 May 2006

Channel X

No, it's not a podcast. Nor is it a midnight adult channel. This appears to be probably the first real attempt at an amateur video documentary series I've seen on Singaporean politics. "Nathan Chan", as the synthesized voice-over claims to be, admits most of the content probably isn't going to be new to you. Especially if you hang around Singabloodypore alot. Despite the low-resolution, the video clip offers in addition to a narrative, a mix of news footage, slide shows, and original animation that surely deserves some credit. Especially if it's coming from just one guy. I would certainly be interested to see how he carries on with this project...


channel-x.blogspot.com

10 comments:

Calvin aka Yamada Shun 山田駿 said...

They're raising transportation fares in October..

Anonymous said...

Very well done for a debut homemade production with limited resources. Cant wait to watch future episodes. =)

Anonymous said...

I loved it!!!!! Wish to see more episode --- its like taking the blue pill and waking up :)

jOlYnNN said...

wow, that's really cool. Blue pill? My head is shaking non-stop.. :D

Transportation fare? they've been discussing all along. But really wonder wat's the justification for fare hike. It's either they are making a loss and pushing all those losses due to inefficiencies to the consumers. Tat's the problem of monopoly.

Watever policies they pursue, it seems like it's placing a heavier weight on the middle and lower class than the richie. Haiz. So wat's next? salary increase? keke.

Anonymous said...

There is some truth, but instead of criticising, why not offer some economically sound alternatives instead. Also, it is so much easier to take things out of context. Personally, for someone who is against smoking, I'm really ok with high taxes on cigarettes and the clamming down on contrabands.

It is a lot easier to complain. (But wait, isn't that a Singaporean trait?)

- Impassioned Singaporean

clyde said...

So I suppose Americans shouldn't complain about their government, the Bush Administration, the war, illegal immigration, policies to tackle global warming etc? If you ask me, not enough Singaporeans complain at all.

One doesn't neccessarily need to provide feasible solutions to the problem(s) for a fair critique.

Also, how was the comments regarding smoking taken out of context? There is a difference between non-smoking and anti-smoking. As the former, I do believe other people should retain the choice to smoke or not without being robbed in broad daylight by the government. If you are concerned about passive smoking and your own health, then we could impose legislation on public smoking areas instead of taxing smokers and drinkers. I know you didn't mention alcohol, but someone could easily have said the same about it.

The reason why I find Singapore's morality towards narcotics in general so perplexing, is that while they make money off alcohol and tobacco and consider those OK if you can afford it, marajuana which is no more addictive or detrimental to health, warrants the death penalty. Think about it.

Anonymous said...

This fella who say we complain only but got no solution and should therefore shut up...but 'scuse me, who's paid to do the job of transport minister? some more pay higher than uncle Bush and Blair combined. His world class solution to ECP jam? Implement more ERP. Very easy leh. Same solution everytime. Increase. Pay. Pay some more. But congrats Singaporeans. We voted for pap and we have to live with this. Er, maybe carpark charges will also increase.

Anonymous said...

Really cool debut video. Keep on socking them to us. And wake up to reality, S'poreans. For the next four years, many items will cost more, lah. Don't you know the pattern? or are you so young??

Matilah_Singapura said...

To the anonymous "Impassioned Singaporean":

Thank God that people like you exist, because if you didn't, there'd be no content for a video such as this.

The people get the goverment they so richly deserve - as long as you and your ilk go screaming to the govt to police the personal choices of your fellow citizens, and ram your "morality" down our throats through the State, the bigger and stronger; more pervasive and invasive the Govt of Singapore will become.

Keep up the good work "Impassioned Singaporean".

Without you activists would have nothing to do!

Anonymous said...

Been away for long enough. Anyway.

First off to Clyde>

"One doesn't neccessarily need to provide feasible solutions to the problem(s) for a fair critique."

Fair enough, I was taking a more macro perspective on things. I never said that it wasn't a fair critique, I'm just saying it is just plain easier to make criticisms without having to come up with the solutions.

"The reason why I find Singapore's morality towards narcotics in general so perplexing, is that while they make money off alcohol and tobacco and consider those OK if you can afford it, marajuana which is no more addictive or detrimental to health, warrants the death penalty. Think about it."

I agree, and the idealistic me will say that it really stinks when you have policies to "discourage" smoking and alcohol, while at the same time making money off it. Of course the counter argument being that these "funds" will be channelled back to education about the harms of such vices, but one can never be sure.

On another note, while I am not drug specialist, I think marijuana is much more harmful to the body when compared to normal alcohol / cigarettes? Correct me if I'm wrong.

Last of all, lifestyle preferences like consumption of alcohol and smoking should remain as they are - personal preferences. I never said that I was going to play Zeus and ram my morality down anyone's throat (I'll get back to you on that matilah) - that was just the anti-smoking me speaking. Any half-baked economist will also be able to tell you that the social optimum of and good (or bad in this case) is never zero, i.e. if there will always be people smoking and drinking (or both at the same time).

My point in bringing smoking up in the first place, is how the video dedicated a good part to clamming down of contrabands and the high taxes on smoking, when I felt there were other more pertinent issues at hand.

Feel free to comment Clyde.

Now on to matilah> I always enjoy an intellectual discourse, and I do appreciate your thanking higher powers for my existence. Unfortunately for you, I have no higher power to thank.

"The people get the goverment they so richly deserve - as long as you and your ilk go screaming to the govt to police the personal choices of your fellow citizens, and ram your "morality" down our throats through the State, the bigger and stronger; more pervasive and invasive the Govt of Singapore will become."

Now let us look at our brief political history. And again, let us think about this for a moment - Singapore has been a nanny state (which I take to be defined as a government that polices the personal choices of the citizens) for as long as we can remember (perhaps you can remember more clearly than I can); are you against the idea of Singapore having a nanny state now (because you feel that our citizens are now mature and thinking people), or are you against the entire notion of a nanny state? There is a clear difference.

"Without you activists would have nothing to do!"

With all due respect, I don't quite see any activists here at all. AND, nowhere did I mention my approval of governmental actions on the whole. Perhaps, you should be the one that exercises some restraint at jumping at another's throat.

- Impassioned Singapore

On a side note, I have just read "The Economist's Tale" by Peter Griffiths. It is a depressing book indeed about hunger in the Third World. Perhaps there are many more people worth saving out there. Oh wait, who am I to judge whether a Singaporean living under a pseudo-authoritarian but paternalistic government is worse off, or a Sierra Leonian farmer who won't expect to live past the age of 50 (if he even hits the limit of life expectancy, without first dying from infant mortality, malaria, famine etc.)