Issue 5
The political slant of the previous edition attracted some significant attention; in particular, Victoria’s opinion on Tin Pei Ling. With GE 2011 past us, this edition takes a break from politics and presents a more thoughtful questioning and understanding of what makes a society – and what makes ours what it is.
Crime: Ren Yan addresses rape with precision and philosophy. He examines, in the cover feature, how we as a society apportion responsibility for crime – to the perpetrator and to the victim – and comes to some surprising conclusions.
Conflict: Jiahui finds stark contrast, yet draws lucid similarities, between a harmonious, National Day-celebrating Singapore, and a riot-torn London. Writing in the immediate aftermath of a disaster that has cast an entire nation into self-doubt and despair, he sees a pressing need to rethink some of the longstanding values of Singapore society.
Money: Nigel goes beyond the mainstream view in economics that the sluggish global recovery is a problem of too little (or too much) money. He suggests instead that our world economy is being held hostage to three “fundamental, unresolved tensions”, and argues that saving the world economy means embracing novel solutions.
Language: Yong Sheng diagnoses our society with SAM, or Singapore Acronym Madness. He explores how acronyms came to dominate our everyday conversation – starting from what our grandparents knew as the “PIE” and “MRT” – and how we can identify the symptoms, and stop the abuse, of acronyms.
Problems and Progress: Shi Hang critically examines the “technology myth”: that we can innovate ourselves of any crisis. He does a reality check on the argument that waiting for technological solutions will eventually solve all of the world’s problems.
Leaving: Finally, Shanzhi finds that leaving for studies overseas means staying even more rooted in Singapore, a shared anthem that many of us no doubt can empathise with.
Have a great read.
Enjoy!
Yong Sheng, with Ren Yan and Jiahui
The Editors
—
Issue 4
The response to the 3rd edition was happily overwhelming. Online, VFC was featured on The Singapore Daily, and mentioned byThe Online Citizen as well as Mr Brown. Shi Hang’s article on housing policy went on the The Straits Times’ Review, and we were featured in The New Paper. Your readership has made this possible.
This issue adopts a novel, independent opinion on Singapore’s politics and the General Election 2011. Featuring this time is Jiahui, who investigates the extent of power that Singapore’s Parliament holds on other organs of state, and finds it severely “unchecked and unbalanced”.
Yong Sheng doubts just how beneficial the PAP’s leadership renewal is for Singapore’s future – or is it more of the same? In the same vein Victoria Ting questions if Tin Pei Ling is what the PAP wants for its “new slate” of candidates.
Ren Yan finds that our multi-racialism narrative forces Singaporeans to accept racial identities they have already shed. Fabian takes a uniquely contrarian view and rebukes Singaporeans for the myth of the PAP stranglehold they have created for themselves.
Claire draws from Egypt to explain why the popular revolutions in the Middle East still need leaders. And Rovik convinces us why humans can never resist a good story, with a few of his own.
Enjoy!
Yong Sheng, with Ren Yan and Jiahui
The Editors
—
Issue 3
We are pleased to present our third edition of VFC. Although it’s been only three publications, it has been quite a journey for the edtiors and the contributors.
This is an edition of the strong statement. Featuring this time is Yong Sheng, who deals with the widely controversial topic on homosexuality and Christianity. He finds no possible defence for the Church’s anti-gay discrimination, after a rigorous review of the scriptural and medical evidence, and suggests ways the divided Church can heal. In a back feature brimming with character, Larissa forces us to admit the tragic state of our fashion (“carbon copies”), and advocates a shift of art from arrangement to creation.
This edition also carries local flavour. Ren Yan calls the PAP’s bluff on its Non-Constituency Members of Parliament (NCMP) policy, as an “ingenious policy in all the wrong ways”. Shi Hang rejects “free market is good” orthodoxy in favour of targeted policy, as with Singapore’s HDB housing market.
Jiahui tackles income inequality in Singapore with a subtle critique of current government policy (“not minimum wage, but best wage”), suggesting instead a basic income guarantee that might alleviate our nation’s economic injustice. In the same vein, Joyce deftly uses the fairy tales of Cinderella and Rumpelstiltskin to compare the philosophies of Rawls and Nozick on economic justice.
Enjoy!
Yong Sheng, with Ren Yan and Jiahui
The Editors
—
Issue 2
The response to the first edition of VFC was nothing short of positive, and we’ve all been deeply inspired to make an even better issue here. As the editors came together, what struck us most about this issue was its sheer breadth: everyone had something to say. The contributions this time round have a sparkling quality to them: it’s a nice salad of marvellously new ideas, keen expression, moderate portions of wit, and a genuine trait. Recycled hash have been kept to an absolute minimum. Take your time to enjoy this second edition of VFC.
Featuring in this edition are Ashish and Joyce, who subvert Roald Dahl’s famous tale “Charlie and the Chocolate Factory” into a parable of caramel capitalism. They expose Willy Wonka’s hidden genius, weaving a tale of exploitation, economies of scale and economic efficiency. In the back feature, Jiahui takes a unique stance on propaganda in Singapore, approaching it as legitimate public policy instead and evaluating its effectiveness.
Robyn seeks to understand why conspiracy theories persist with an interesting thesis. Yifei makes a declarative statement on marriage and its role in our changed society. Stephanie relooks Asean identity and finds the label “Singaporean” far more suitable.
Leon contemplates the 21st century literature, giving voice to the dominance of new genres and concerns of our age. Also on media, Weng Keong relooks our threshold level of film consumption, proposing instead that we should look to meaning and message over mindless malarkey.
Yong Sheng questions the entire foundation of miracles with a thought experiment, and ultimately finds them logically unworkable. Ren Yan lays similar doubt on democracy in our world, concluding that the system is really just a “fetish” we obsess over.
Shanzhi takes a calm-headed historic approach to why our national policy to sport fails, while Abel and Sean force us to reconsider our fear of the cockroach, adding new perspective to bugs. Equally provoking is Cheng Xun’s examination of Singapore’s real gains from trade imbalances between the US and China, something that is otherwise seldom analysed in much detail.
Enjoy!
Yong Sheng, with Ren Yan and Jiahui
The Editors
—
Issue 1
We have Lisa Phua as the cover feature, who writes “In Defence of Fashion”. She finds stunning parallels between the fashion and real worlds.
Cheriel Neo, for an easy-to-read article on what she calls the “Faith Argument” based on the Chronicles of Narnia; ; Yoong Ren Yan for his unflinchingly intelligent piece “On Understanding”. Joyce Ong and Hou Shi Hang have a lively Economist-style debate on the merits of austerity, clashing aon many levels.
Meanwhile, Joel Lim ruminates on FIFA’10′s ending with “Fifalisation”. Zhang Yifan asks how much we should trust public opinion in politics. John Choo also questions why we are giving not-too-serious people such serious power. Rokhini Prabhu finds that this “global village” we live in isn’t so global after all, without a crucial globalisation in governance.
Victoria Ting questions the state of fashion very fashionably. Adding to that we have Xiao Yi Fei, who writes a brilliant review on Tim Crouch’s rendition of Malvolio, the Shakespeare character. Hou Shi Hang and Crystal Ang handle The Pussification of Hamlet with some equally intelligent discussion on Hamlet’s predecessor, Amleth.
Wong Yong Sheng writes on celebrities, commerce and the church, clearing the air after the messy City Harvest and Sun Ho scandal. Michele Koh handles the sensitive ideas of sex and sexuality, with some interesting conclusions. We end off nice and easy with Sean Yap and Abel Ang, who earnestly ask for some consideration for our environment. Their beautiful self-taken photos end off the issue nicely.
We hope you enjoy this very first edition of VFC!
Yong Sheng, with Ren Yan and Jiahui
The Editors
—
Foreword to the First Issue
We are extremely proud to present the very first edition of Very Fine Commentary. It is a collection of strong, sharp, sensitive commentary written by fine writers from 4 JCs, brimming with new ideas and opinion.
The journal is written by and for Singapore’s JC (or higher) students. It is entirely student-run, student-written and student-published. This is the age where we are at our most impressionable: our opinions are like hot wax, moulded into forms that persistently shape our thinking in future years. And yet, for all the rhetoric about new learning, we get few opportunities, in or out of school, to actually express ourselves. Even when we do, thought is sanctioned and creativity is institutionalised.
We are a society that mocks genuine creativity, a culture that sneers at cultural-intellectual nutrition. It is not unfair to say that intellectual expression is almost always met with some degree of derision and even jeering at its perceived “high-brow” nature. The Malay term “atas” captures this treatment perfectly: it literally means “upstairs”, and here, it means “high-class”.
This journal is our response. We wanted something that would circulate and share talent in its many forms, where opinions matter and knowledge becomes accessible. This means that it would have to be neither “atas” nor abstruse. We aspire toward something that people will read, learn, and go “wait I didn’t think of that” – something anyone could write and contribute, out of their own volition. There was to be none of the typical essay-writing that has inspired the intellectual aboulia we find in Singapore’s young generations. We were tired of wearing a straightjacket of particular topics or essay prescriptions used to death.
In place of that was an entirely free style of writing that was engagingly clear, and clearly engaging. We were born from this circumstance, but we are not about to repeat it. In contrast, we aim to be as intellectually rigorous as possible. And above all, we seek to make ideas engaging and intellect inclusive.
The first edition has been a pleasure to edit. You’ll find commentary on practically any topic imaginable: from politics to philosophy, from society to fashion. We hope it’s a pleasure to read as well.
Yong Sheng
Chief Editor