The Functions of Apologies in Singapore

In Singapore, apologies are an indicator of power—or the lack thereof. Publicized apologies, whether they are uttered by the powerful voluntarily or extorted from the disempowered with self-righteousness derived from privilege, are equally insincere because sincerity is secondary, if it is even significant. Nevertheless, apologies are a tool for the powerful to declare their non-existent sincerity and a tool for the disempowered to prove wrong the unsettling truths they have uttered.

A number of years back, a blogger was made to apologize “unreservedly”—and publicly through the blog itself—to Philip Yeo of A*Star as though the declaration of an unreserved apology was the same as a truly unreserved apology. As long as he sounded abjectly remorseful, no one cared if he was apologetic either.  Obviously, no one was stupid enough to believe that the blogger was truly apologetic The necessary and expected referent of the apology was thus its own existence in public space and no longer contriteness from the heart. A private apology would not suffice for it was devoid of meaning insofar as the powerful one was concerned. The apology could only be meaningful if there was empirical proof of its utterance.

More recently, the Prime Minister of Singapore himself fed Singaporeans an apology a few days before the General Election to minimize vote loss, won the elections, and forgot all about the apology as Singaporeans defecated the apology together with the other junk food they eat. (I, too, will not hesitate to apologize unreservedly should this claim happen to be false. As everyone knows, bloggers are known for not verifying their claims, unlike Straits Times reporters who use the most advanced PAP truth-check software to verify all their information.) Whereas a disempowered blogger’s apology to a powerful figure had to be unreserved, a prime minister’s apology could be conditional and non-committal: “if we didn’t quite get it right, I’m sorry, but we will try to do better the next time” (italics mine). It could also amount to self-praise: “we’re sorry we didn’t get it exactly right” (italics mine, source for both quotes here). In other words, they got it largely right and they are sorry they are, so understandably, like everyone else, not perfect. It was a declaration that the blamable was blameless, one that violently exploited the apology as a signifier only to empty it entirely.

When the now infamous delinquent/famous victim Reuben Wang made an apology to Teo Chee Hean after writing a blog article now tragically known more for containing expletives than any political point, anyone vaguely familiar with how Singapore works would speculate that that the apology was extracted via institutionalized extortion.

A mild defense of the use of expletives should first be made to show how trivial the matter really is. An expletive is just another word. Any word can be an expletive as long as enough people decide that is should be forbidden in polite language. Comparing an aforementioned politician’s self-aggrandizing “sorry” and Wang’s expletive, the former is markedly more vulgar to me. Perhaps I should politely request for an apology as a Singaporean citizen and start an unending cycle of apologies. There will come a day when “sorry” acquires the status of an expletive vulgar enough to make whores blush. Expletives also have transgressive potential simply because it is forbidden. The use of an expletive could be an indication of insolence, but it could also be used for illustrative purposes—to indicate a speaker’s emotions, for instance. This is not a defense of rude behavior but a defense of legitimate expression although they may not be mutually exclusive. While Wang need not have used expletives, his use of expletives serves to indicate intensity of his anger and frustration of his encounter with Teo at the Pre-U Seminar. It is one thing to hurl vulgarities at the person you are communicating directly with, and another thing to use vulgarities in one’s communication. If you show a friend an article about how Wang had to apologize to Teo and your friend goes “WTF,” it would be unreasonable of you to accuse your friend of being rude to you although everyone knows that WTF is an acronym for an expletive-containing expression.

As I read Wang’s article, it does not strike me that he was being rude to Teo. Why Wang was supposed to apologize to Teo, and Teo specifically, remains the greatest mystery in the history of well-publicized Singaporean apologies.

Lest we forget, Wang did not hurl expletives at Teo at the Pre-U Seminar where both of them were present. Neither did he send Teo a letter or email rudely sprinkled with his expletives. He wrote a blog post that was not addressed to Teo.  There are instances where “Fuck you” is not said to or for “you”. (Yes, that word came out without being censored by silly asterisks. If you think I am being rude to anyone or that I am being indiscreet with my use of language, go get a life—it comes with a complimentary brain which you would certainly find useful.) Even if you do not like the expression, you could still understand that it shows how angry I am when I use it in my reference to another person. In the case of Wang, he was expressing his views and feelings to his audience. Some may even criticize him for not having enough guts as he had restrained himself when he had the chance to address Teo directly, but only performed an expression of his anger towards Teo in front of a wide but different audience online. It is justifiable for someone to be critical of how Wang had expressed himself, but it would be wrong to say that he was rude to Teo or that he was rude solely to Teo. Why, then, should Teo have the privilege of receiving an apology as though Wang had verbally abused him in his face?

Given that what Wang wrote was posted online and set as public before it was deleted, we may say that his audience is the general public of which Teo is a member, but merely one of many. If readers had found his language offensive, he should have apologized to his readers or to the general public, which would include Teo. If his school had believed that his inelegant use of language had tarnished the reputation of the school, he should have apologized to the school for the impact of his writing and not to Teo. The only way Teo can distinguished from the rest of the audience lies in the fact that the article was critical of him. In other words, the real contention was with the content, not the manners. Singaporeans may already be accustomed to experiencing the bizarre as the quotidian, but the series of events following Wang’s publication of his article highlights certain troubling facets of Singapore.

Wang’s brush with Singapore’s institutions and politicians brings to mind the perennial debate about online anonymity. Netizens are often challenged to be accountable and credible by putting their name to their comments, as though credibility comes naturally to those who reveal the names on their NRIC when they blog. (According to this theory, Xiaxue is one of the most credible bloggers around whereas Molly is amongst the most irresponsible. Molly ought to be ashamed of herself.) It is as though how responsible and credible one is depends on how easily traceable one is to the government. Yet, various state institutions would collude to perform a disciplinary function if you step on powerful toes and tracked down. You are not silenced, but are made to silence yourself, delete your online existence and can only re-emerge anonymously only to subject yourself to the same old asinine claims about anonymity.

It will become clear once you are tracked down why the authorities would like to be able to track you down. According to a ChannelNewsAsia report, Wang “wrote to Mr Teo . . . to apologise for being “too rash and too harsh in using the expletives.”” If the wording of the report is to be trusted, it would seem that Wang was not made to realize that the use of expletives was to be faulted in itself; rather he was made to realize (if this phrase did not seem ridiculous the first time round, I hope it does not) that he was wrong because he was too harsh. If he had substituted the expletive with “marshmallow” and sounded equally harsh in his criticism of Teo, he would still have to apologize. On the other hand, we may also say that if he had been praising Teo but had randomly sprinkled his post with expletives, it would have been deemed more acceptable since the main problem was with how harsh he was. This is truly a learning experience, though perhaps in a different way from what the mainstream media would make it out to be. It would be interesting, though, to know if Wang had worded the apology himself or if the educators in his school had vetted the apology or advised him on the wording with their delicate, disciplinarian-nurturing rhetoric.

If I may be allowed to speculate based on my understanding of how things work in Singapore, I would say that committees are probably now formed in schools or in the Ministry of Education itself to look into coming up with a code of conduct for students attending the Pre-U Seminar next year. Students may be trained to frame their questions and objections in sanctioned templates. There may even be injunctions for students to not blog about it at all. “Character education” teachers and “cyber etiquette” teachers may be rubbing their hands in glee, glad to have found another example to include in their lesson plans so that Singaporean kids can grow up to become active and responsible citizens who are politically engaged but never harsh in their criticisms of the ruling elite—if they even have to criticize. These are just wild, satirical speculations, are they not? Well, one MOE spokesperson has said: “We hope to turn this into a teachable moment for both the student blogger and students in general.”

If the way a single article by a single blogger could result in nationwide social engineering efforts is not exactly disturbing because we are already used to it, the irony of the whole saga may be more disturbing: Student rants about how Teo, who represents the ruling elite, is failing at engaging the people. Student is made to participate in a charade of reconciliation by the forces of the state. Charade is taken as the reality; the original rant is forgotten. Happy ending: Ruling elite has engaged the people. This is not altogether new either. We are a nation repetitively interpellated into the absurd script written by the PAP. The script is scripture and the nation has to dare to burn it if it does not want the perpetually remain as disempowered players.

I have to confess at this point that I have made assumptions about Reuben Wang in my writing. I should be careful not exploit Reuben Wang for my purposes. Perhaps he really is remorseful about using expletives. Perhaps he truly understands the PAP now. Perhaps the state has managed to re-educate him. Perhaps, but I certainly hope not. Perhaps I will never find out—the state has an uncanny power to make people disappear as they continue living their lives as though nothing has changed.

Reuben: I hope you are old enough to vote when the next General Election comes.

Advertisements

56 Responses

  1. WTF I thoroughly enjoyed your very thought provoking piece.

    Written in the style of Art Buchwald too!

    • Oops, I’ve never heard of Buchwald. Molly bimbo lah.

      • An American writer -humorist.
        Type his name in wiki for some details. By the way, his column used to appear in the ST before it became the Shitty Times!

        • Didn’t know about that! There was a time when ST wasn’t the Shitty Times?

          • That time was before the law was passed that effectively subjugated the MSM under the PAP.

            As an aside:
            Even longer ago than that was a ST report with picture, titled: ‘A comedy of errors!’ on the then new govt initiative to discourage cars from the CBD by building ‘fringe carparks’ where drivers can leave their cars for a bus ride to town a la places in the UK, e.g. It became a ‘comedy’ when hardly anybody would drive his/her car from home only to leave it in fringe carparks to hitch a few km bus ride into town.

            As an afterthought, had the fringe carparks been taken more seriously by motorists, we possibly wouldn’t be saddled with the montrosities known as the COE and ERP. As an afterthought of an afterthought, the govt should still consider other ways to discourage driving on weekdays such as allowing car buyers to opt for a much cheaper (say -90%) COE that cannot be driven into any areas ‘protected’ by ERP gantries! LoL. Just rambling! :))

            • But how are they going to suck $ away without COE and ERP?

              • I think the sucking started only after it discovered how easy it is to take lollies from Singaporeans whose desire (demand) for 4 wheels is almost as inelastic as for rice. When Singapore the country metamorphosed into Singapore Inc.

  2. I hope the majority of Sporean students can see beyond the Q and A with dpmTeo, and start to question why their parents’ hard earned tax money should go towards paying ministers who are good for nothing, bearing in mind they are the highest paid on the planet by a humongous margin.

    Sporean students who feel even more pissed-off than Reuben because their parents have been badly f**ked by govt policies can be said to be filial sons and daughters.

    And those students who show solidarity with classmates whose parents have been marginalised by govt policies can be said to be true friends.

    Having said the above, it is now up to all Sporean students to remember this when they reach 21

  3. […] – Journalism.SG: Yes, It’s Time For An Internet Code Of Conduct – For Readers – Molitics: The Functions of Apologies in Singapore – The Idea Cauldron: cyber-bullying: live by the sword, die by the […]

  4. you forgot to add in the last line to reuben. Shift to Pasir Ris/Punggol

  5. Interesting read n while agree that most public apologies are indeed insincere.. I do think Reuben in this case was being rude to DPM… If I am not mistaken, the title of his article was something like “F*** you, DPM Teo”. That is not the language I would want my son to use if I would like him to be a polite boy who respects his elders;) but of course, I feel it’s great he realized that he has crossed the line but it’s sad that they did not allow him to stand by the content he wrote.. After all, that’s the point.. Poor boy must have been given lots of pressure…

    • I guess not everyone will agree on whether Reuben was being rude or not. Even if we assume that he was rude, I don’t think we can really say that he was rude to the minister. As I explained, his “fuck you, sir” was not told to the minister even though “sir” referred to the minister. It was told to his readers in general. This is why I said that if an apology is necessary, he should apologize to his readers in general and not specifically to Teo since Teo may not even have read his blog posting.

      Would it have made a difference if the same blog article was posted by someone of the minister’s age or older but who happened to be present at the Pre-U Seminar too? Do we see treat the same utterance with multiple standards?

      • I’m sorry, I just don’t get why his “fuck you, sir” being posted online should be any different from it being said to the minister’s face. How is it meant to be less rude? Why should the audience not comprising of the minister be the ones who get the apology? The insult isn’t directed at them at all. I get that this is all speculation, but invoking authorial intent to defend Reuben and dismissing the same for DPM Teo in the same blog post doesn’t strike me as consistent.

        I should preface that my stand is that anything that a person stamps his name on online should be something he can stand by in real life. His ideas and his insults. It’s something that Xiaxue proved ridiculously well.

        As to the rest of your article, I mostly agree. Reuben was obviously smart enough to be a threat (Badly written Facebook posts don’t tend to go viral) and not worldly enough to keep himself on the moral high ground. He could stand to learn from Alex Au.

        • The difference is not whether it is online or offline. I can only be rude to you if I say something to you directly, e.g. tell it to your face, send you a rude email/snail mail, facebook message, etc. However, if I don’t say it to you, why should I be apologizing to you? If I say, “Screw you, Michelle” to a group of people, I may apologize to this group of people if they find it in bad taste that I should use impolite language.

          Anything a person puts his name to should be something he can stand by. When Osama was still alive, he put his name to many things and stood by them. Was he credible and responsible? The point I was making was that some people choose to reveal the names given on their identification documents, others don’t. Those who do can be accountable, but they can also be irresponsible. The same goes for those who don’t. So we shouldn’t judge a comment based on whether it is anonymous or not.

          • Thanks. I think I’m more clear on your thought process. You’re arguing that so long as an insult is not directed at someone in a way that this person is unable to avoid, that the insult is not insulting. And as such, any offense taken rests solely on the person taking offence at this oblique insult. So, insulting someone on his Facebook page is an insult. Telling him to “get out of my elite uncaring face” on a personal blog in a way that might eventually accidentally reach him, is not. Have I got that right? It’s fascinating. My thoughts turn to the case of Tyler Clementi and Dharun Ravi, where a tweet that Dharun Ravi made about Tyler Clementi that was never made directly to Tyler led to Tyler jumping off a bridge. I’d say there’s power in online insults that should temper their usage by people who choose to wield them. Which is why I maintain that you should be able to stand by everything you say online in real life too, direct or indirect. But yes, you have a point.

            I agree with your second point that people can choose to be irresponsible, whether or not they choose to be accountable. However, when one’s identity is public, the specter of being flamed or unfairly targeted in real life is a good inducement for responsibility. One psychology article discussed how putting up a Big Brother-like poster of a face looming over a canteen led to people doing a better job with returning their trays and not messing up the canteen. The inference drawn was that people subconsciously felt like they were being watched. I think we can definitely judge an anonymous comment or blog post based on whether the poster has good reason to hide his identity. And by good reason, I mean the poster is being a rude troll. My response to irrelevant insults is generally to dismiss the writer as incapable of contributing good ideas to a discussion a) because I don’t really want to attribute anything good to him and b) if one can disagree in an articulate fashion, one can disagree without being insulting.

            I apologise for writing so long long. I leave you with this entertaining article which describes the gist of my stand on internet communication. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/mar/28/charlie-brooker-rebecca-black-friday

            • I think you may have somewhat mistaken what I was saying. If Reuben had told an audience that Teo Chee Hean looked like Cthlhu or spread baseless rumors about Teo being a genetically modified dog, he should jolly well apologize to Teo. But “Fuck you, sir” really doesn’t mean anything. It’s like using an exclamation mark or shouting. Since Reuben isn’t “shouting” at Teo directly, I don’t seem any reason to apologize to Teo directly. What we should concern ourselves with is what it is that he is supposed to have done wrong. The case of Clementi and Ravi is very different from the case of Reuben and Teo. If Ravi had simply said “Fuck you, faggot Clementi” to people online, he should be made to apologize to gays for using a discriminatory terms. He should also be asked to apologize to Clementi, but for revealing to the world his sexual orientation instead of for using the f-word or for using the word faggot.

              As for the second point, I don’t think we can judge an anonymous comment based on whether the poster has good reason to hide his identity. In the first place, we may not even know the reason. Secondly, assuming we do know the reason, a comment should be judged on its own merit. Even if we assume that there is a greater tendency for those who do put their identification down to exercise greater discretion on their part, we should never assume that those who do not put their names down are not saying what they say responsibly. Neither should we expect everyone to comment online only after putting their names down.

              Just because you are not willing to be persecuted for what you are saying, it does not mean that you are irresponsible or not credible. I do not know if Michelle is your real name, and if it is your real name, what is your full name? Is it the name in you NRIC or passport? And it does not matter to me. I don’t think you are any less credible or responsible because I can’t tell whether you can be tracked down.

  6. hoo yeah… in 3 years I will be in Pasir Ris/Punggol! wow.. you just reminded me Adrian Foo! I can do something about it! Wow!

  7. No citizen may utter a single “fuck” even when the PAP fucks the citizens over again and again

  8. […] Photo courtesy of the Straits Times. This article was first published at Mollitics […]

  9. Wonderfully written, insightful, witty & sarcastic. Thank you for writing this!

  10. Since he’s 17 now, he’ll be 21 in 4 years.

    • They may call for elections before 2016 and it depends on when his birthday is too, I think.

      • Not forgetting, they will rezone the area and make it a sure win for them. Its being done before every election.

  11. My Granson asked me if I still had sex with hi Granny. I replied yes but only oral!
    Whats Oral Grandad ? he asked I said well it goes like this, I say

    Fuck you! & she replies Fuck you too!

    Should I apologise?

    • You get your grandson to apologize because he’s younger and must respect elders.

    • @DustyP, that’s a good one and I had a good laugh.
      @Molly, this is the 1st time I read your article, I never have patient for long article but this one is good and I finished reading it. Thank you for that. As for me, I certainly know who to vote for, not big bully of course 🙂

    • Well, I use oral contraceptives instead. When my wife asks for sex, I just say “no”.

  12. The SAJC student’s surname is WONG not WANG

  13. Holly Molly. By pure logic, you have shown us that “sorry” can be more vulgar than “fuck you”.

    And through sheer logic, Reuben’s “fuck you” can only be topped by a “sorry”.

    In true-blue Singlish, “sorry-ah, I fuck you” has from today connotes a new found meaning for me.

    Thank you.

  14. […] The function of apologies: the Reuben Wang ‘saga’ […]

  15. I propose that ‘rubbing wang’ be henceforth used as term to denote any apology extracted purely for the self-satisfaction of the recipient. Also known, in short, as a ‘Rueben’ in short.

    Used in a sentence:

    I’m going to have to be ‘rubbing wang’ after the sales team messed up, just to keep the client happy.

    The boss made me ‘Rueben’ him in front of everyone, even though it was clearly his mistake in the first place.

  16. Well said.

  17. Hi Molly, thanks for writing this! i thought singapore had no good writers left:) I understand that this article is about the nature and need for apologies in singapore and whether it was right for the kid to apologize. generally, you adopt the poise of an arch-libertarian, free speech, non-conformist, somewhat radical. I respect that and even emphatize. But as a 26 year old teacher-to-be, my fears upon reading the rant were of a different nature. Let me just share them.

    My ‘horror’ with the kid’s approach lay in the fact that it was a poorly thought out, completely immature, wholly unsubstantiated rant. unfortunately i no longer have access to the text but as i recall it reeked of the heady arrogance and bluster of a youth who didnt know what he wanted to say other then the now fashionable ‘ministers are bad etc etc”. if you’ve met IP kids, or most teenagers in a school for that matter, they are possessed by political trends as easily and as mindlessly as fashion ones, with as little substance both times. being anti-establishment is symptomatic of that age, as we know, and Reuben indulged in it with completely pointless vigour.

    I am thus arguing that Reuben’s pathetic content allied with his unnecessarily petulant language merited some sort of reprimand. not necessary for an unconditional apology to anyone, or for an apology of any sort. but if this is the best our system can produced we as a country are in for a torrid time if such examples are not used to teach others how to contribute in more useful and powerful ways. this is an enormous problem to me. if people want to be contrarian and polemicists then the standard ought to be raised greatly if the discourse is to prove useful. i do not see heightened political and civil discourse as a self-apparent good. People ought to prove that they have a case worth listening to.

    another point where you may or may not agree is that political debates are no realm for 17 year olds. that such a notion was entertained at Pre-U sem was laughable. they simply dont have the depth of experience or maturity or research-based critical perspective to churn out original ideas, or even original complaints, worth listening to. the problem with something like the Pre-U sem is that it puts these students on a pedestal to begin with. I remember when i attended some 8 years ago. the minister in attendance told us unreservedly that we were the future leaders of SIngapore, that it was a statistical fact. what a load of delicious tripe for eager ego-laden JC students to lap up. It is that kind of press which leads to the type of mindlessness that reuben wang displayed. it needs to be set right.

    • I think, first of all, there is nothing wrong with ranting. One hopes that it does not constitute everything a person has to offer, but there is nothing wrong with ranting in itself. It would be strange to have people who constantly speak as though they are writing GP essays. A rant is an expression of an opinion, of feelings, and there is no obligation on the part of the ranter to substantiate points or make arguments.

      We may, of course, object to the language used in a rant. Personally, I am not really bothered by the fact that Reuben used expletives (especially when he did post other articles in the blog that were totally different), but I won’t disagree with you with regard to the point reprimanding him for genuine educational purposes. This is best left to the educators in his school. I lament, however, the way the school is reacting so strongly because a PAP guy is involved. If you were his teacher and you had reprimanded him your way, I would have no issue with it.

      • Hi Molly, you’re right. completely overlooked ur point the first time around that this was a rant on a private blog (albeit in a public space) and as such did not need to meet the needs of responsible public discourse.

  18. I have to disagree with you. Singapore needs more serious political discourse, and indeed government leaders do not sue/threaten blogs which rationally criticise government policies.

    On the other hand, idiots who simply lie, slander and spew hatred devoid of meaning deserve to be slammed, and possibly sued. Squeezing a public apology from these people is already a mercy.

    And at times when the aforementioned idiots happen to slander a group that includes me, I am delighted that the “ruling elites” give them what they deserve, because I am in no position to.

  19. Great post Molly! As for the incident, talk about a storm in a teacup. A teenager does the equivalent of a fart on his blog, and then has to apologize for it, not once but twice, and to crown it all, accompanied by his parents and teacher! I should know better but it still never fails to amaze me how these ministers really have no sense of proportion – except when it comes to their self-importance which then assumes gigantic proportions. The way they carry on, one would think they were underappreciated volunteers, instead of a damn well-paid bunch who think they deserve respect and demand it.

  20. WTF! Such a f***ing beautiful cat! Oh, I’m sorry. I shouldn’t have been quite so explicit.

  21. The word is “indiscreet” and not “indiscrete.” Please fix. Thanks.

  22. Molly, just in case you haven’t seen this below – the word “fuck” is truly versatile…

    The Fucking Disclaimer

    If you are offended by the use of bad language fuck off now! Don’t read all of this page and then say it annoys you.

    Uses of the word Fuck

    FUCK is an international word. It doesn’t matter where you are in the world, everyone knows exactly what you mean when you say “Fuck Off”.

    It’s the atmosphere it creates, that’s why you will never read something like: “Fuck off”, he hinted.

    Grammatical Usage

    In language, “fuck” falls into many grammatical categories, making it one of the most versatile words in the English language.

    It can be used as a verb, both transitive (John fucked Jane) and intransitive (John and Jane fucked). It can be an active verb (John fucked Jane) or a passive verb (Jane was fucked by John). Or an adverb (Jane is a fucking bastard) and a noun (Jane is a terrific fuck). It can be used as an adjective (Jane is fucking beautiful). It may also be inserted into other words (abso-fucking-lutely).

    http://justin.com.au/rudestuff/uses-of-the-word-fuck.html

  23. Hi Molly, interesting post. Very humorous perspective.

    The point about the use of expletives and generally ‘ranting’ reminds me of a debate on a blog I frequent ‘Three Pound Brain’ run by one of my favorite authors R Scott Bakker.

    Bakker gets alot of hate from both the extreme left and right on the themes in his books (epic fantasy – if ‘genre’ really means anything but really multi-themed in terms feminism, human cognition, etc.). He has never asked for apologies, but the debate centers around whether the use of extreme language is conducive to discussion and cross-fertilization of ideas.

    On the one hand, from a human behavioral and cognitive perspective, you can argue that extreme language turns people off. You then start grouping yourself into ‘camps’ of thinking and there is then little room for ‘rational’ discussion. On the other hand, you can argue that extreme language brings a point out strongly enough to get people’s attention on a certain topic.

    It’s all very interesting… I have mixed feelings. I do think that extreme language will often obscure content discussion but I also agree that it does generate debate. My personal thinking in this episode is that there is no need for an apology since people will think what they are already pre-conditioned / prejudiced towards thinking – a ‘manufactured’ apology simply creates further fuel for each side to stoke their fires upon!

  24. For fark sake, Reuban is only a 17 years old boy.

    There seems to be so many people who are so eager to suppress or judge him, but more so, to tell him how to feel, to think and to speak “correctly” the way they deem appropriate to their sense of ‘decency’.

    For fark sake, if the scholar Sun Xu can say insults to Singaporeans, and his parents are not having to genuflect in front of MOE Minster, Heng Swee Keat, why should DPM Teo get all supremacy just because he cannot handle the brutal truth (ahem..to quote Wee Siew Kim)?

    The mainstream media can continue to promote Xia Xue as the shining example, the one that goes on video and ‘suggestive’ to her readers/viewers to give plenty of blow jobs, we will see more fellatio scandals coming out from our various Ministries soon. I say she keeps blowing the trumpet!

    Here’s a farking great video on the use of the word ‘fuck’ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6D7rWLzloOI

  25. […] Molly Meek – The functions of apologies in Singapore [2012]  […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: