CNY not here yet sick already

This is the third day of my bout of flu. I want my nose back.

In today's ST, there is an article about Jack Neo's films supposed lack of artistic direction. I suppose it is true to a certain extent that his films have not been able to encompass asethetics of the sophisticated sort, but I thought it is rather limiting to say that just because his films tend to be arranged in skits characteristic of his TV shows, they are not artistically valuable. It's a, shall we say, somewhat snobbish view on the art of expression, a view that is very clearly derived from comparison of local films to international cinema that has a much longer history than ours and is thus taken as the benchmark for cinematic excellence. Whatever happened to personal signature, creativity, originality? Does films have to be art-housety like Eric Khoo's in order to qualify as good ones? Rubbish. It only goes to show how conditioned we are to cinema other than our own so much so that whatever we see that is not what we see elsewhere, we say it's no good.

The skits, I feel, are actually interesting means of narration for local films. It has its origins embedded in local media history and practice, which makes for interesting study into the development of this particular local narrative style. Contained skits when well-filmed and arranged can be just as narratively effective as other means of cinematic presentation. There's no reason why it should be deemed inferior to other narrative styles. Unless, of course, when it's badly done.

Having said that, I have to concur that the melodrama in Neo's films is sometime a little too much. Heavy-handed and almost embarrassing. But all in all, I think he does a decent job for his films and his narrative is substantial enough to compensate for his lack of artistic edge. Let's take for example, Homerun, which I enjoyed immensely and think has the potential to be a spiffy film if only Neo had cut out the long and unnecessary boy-running-through-the-field part (towards the end of the film) with that melodramatic SBC soundtrack. It's about the only scene that gave me the goosebumps. But other than that, Homerun is good. I like.

***

And that whole business with the WP manifesto as 'time-bombs'. See, the tendency towards melodrama is not exclusive to local mainstream cinema. Our politicians also liddat! Cultural phenomenon! Singapore politics dramatised in daily meow fights in ST, except, things ain't very subtle in reporting terms. Very obvious which side ST's allegiance lies. The specially-designed and capitalised headlines (yellow, red, white, how striking) ... and weekend paper somemore! Tsktsktsk.

Among the gems of dramatics:

"The four time bombs within WP's manifesto will weaken and tear Singapore apart," he [Dr Ng Eng Hen] cautioned.

"The cohesive society that we have carefully nurtured and kept together for 40 years will be fractured. Racial harmony will be destroyed. Whether or not WP intends for this to happen, this will be the tragic result if they implement these ideas."

Aiyah, I don't know if anyone wrote the lines for him or what, but it's all too drama for my taste. I even had a sexist thought if they were written by a woman. People should really refrain from using adjectives of exaggeration to pepper their speech. I don't know about you, but I find hyperbolic rhetoric very, very tacky unless used in casual humour. And after Hitler, everyone should have learnt to be wary of over-the-top oratorical rhetoric. It is, in other words, very passe.

Back to the main issues though, I do find the WP's manifesto pretty weak, except perhaps for the abolition of the elected presidency.

Prior to the release of the WP's manifesto, I have been pondering about the way election is done around here. You know how we are being divided into different zones the way big countries divide their lands into states for easier governing? I see the point of that in big big countries where a centralised government would be counter-effective, but I don't see the point of it in Singapore since we are effectively governed by a central body. So why are we carrying out election to vote for people in our district to represent us when in effect the parliament represents all of us? I don't know about you, but I don't particularly care who represent my Sembawang GRC, certainly not more than who eventually ends up in Parliament. On that note, theoretically, it then makes more sense if we just elect the best people into government irregardless of geographical representation instead of voting the best among a group of contenders because there is no guarantee of quality among the group, if you get my drift. Someone who is not as capable as an unelected candidate from another battle zone may get elected because there is little or no competition in his or her own zone. Then we are not getting the best people in government, just second or third best, which is a waste. Not to say that it must be the case, but that's a possibility, and therefore, a flaw in our electoral system.

If one were to argue that we need representatives in districts to facilitate policies, to pass on feedback from grassroots level and coordinate aids and the like, I think having public administrative officers to do that would be just the same.

And about proportionate racial representation, just take the top Chinese, Malay, Indian, Others, worked out according to the percentages, if numbers are that important.

In a nutshell, I just don't see the importance of representation by geographical locations. Racial and, more importantly, quality representation is more important for me.