I would think the deadlines is prejudiced by the hottest issue at the moment. Teo Ser Luck was actually approached because the part he played in the NUS Political Science Society forum. George Yeo was approached over the Meet the People Session in August. <a href="http://theonlinecitizen.com/2009/08/george-yeos-m..." target="_blank">http://theonlinecitizen.com/2009/08/george-yeos-m...

Of course, if the interview candidate takes his time, the hotness of the issue would have blown over by then. For example, we also previously approached Dana Lam of AWARE for an interview over the AWARE saga, but now it's over and people want to move on. Deadline has longed been exceeded. And if we publish her interview, people may think we are flogging the dead horse. Even our interview with Glen Goei on THe Blue Mansion. If he responds after 4 months after movie, a bit too late right?

Of course, some interviews can be about general things and on issues that do not have a deadline, like our interview with Catherine Lim for example.

With regards to approach non-major PAP MPs, it may be a decent idea. We approached Teo also partly because he is helming the young PAP who hopefully wants to engage young Singaporeans online. So we thought it may be an idea to approach him. You may be right that there is no deadline for certain kind of interviews, but I think we should report the truth and state upfront that we did approach PAP MPs (the major ones) for interviews. Deadlines may not apply, but there is this chance that the interviews may not be granted even though there is no deadline factor. If you noticed, we have interviewed Kenneth Jeya, Justin Ong, Sylvia Lim, Chee, and Catherine Lim (who drew the ire of the establishment), and there are people who think (in informal feedbacks I get) that we may be exhibiting some form of bias. Don't get us wrong, we hope that the PAP MPs will engage with their views, but there is this probability that the interview may be turned down. So I guess it is better that we are upfront with the fact that we did approach 2 PAP MPs after all. After all, we have approached the representatives of all the opposition parties, so I thought the approach of the 2 PAP MPs will really balance things up. ANd I hope they will reply.

I do not have a reason to think it so too. There are many reasons why the date is fixed as such. But the fact remains that a GE close to exams is really a deterrent to youth participation.

Actually I was told that bulk of the volunteers aren't students. This is based on the account from someone who was on the ground during Nomination Day.

Sincerely yours

I think one swallow does not really make a summer vivian. Maybe, let's agree to disagree.

Sometime back during the height of the AWARE saga, there are some people who posted comments here that they were embarrassed to come from NUS, and the reason, because Thio Su Mien was a former law dean.

If you check Tan's credentials, he has actually achieved quite a lot with NTUC. So he was a former high-flying figure in the establishment. And he is known figure in the finance industry. By virtue of those background, he could strike one as a candidate that can tackle bread and butter issues. Candidates that are good at tackling bread and butter issues will do well amongst voters. It helps that he was a high-flyer in a finance-related position in the establishment that supports his case. My gut feeling is that the more discerning voters want a candidate that are able to address bread and butter issues.

Sincerely yours

You have a point, Amazed. I will probably disengage from discussing with him. After all, he needs to watch the movie to get to the right conclusions

So on the lighter side, what does your handle Solo Bear means?

<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bear_(gay_culture)" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bear_(gay_culture)

"Bear is LGBT slang for those in the bear communities, a subculture in the gay/bisexual male communities and an emerging subset of LGBT communities with events, codes and culture-specific identity. It also describes a physical type.

Bears tend to have hairy bodies and facial hair; some are heavy-set; some project an image of working-class masculinity in their grooming and appearance, though none of these are requirements or unique indicators. Some bears place importance on presenting a hyper-masculine image and may shun interaction with, and even disdain, men who exhibit effeminacy.[1] The bear concept can function as an identity, an affiliation, and an ideal to live up to, and there is ongoing debate in bear communities about what constitutes a bear, however a consensus exists that inclusion is an important part of the Bear Community [2] [3] . There is also, anecdotally, more acceptance of tattoos and body piercing in the bear community."

"Bears On The Run is a tour of four solo Bear musician artists featuring Elijah Black, Matthew Temple, Shannon Grady and Kendall, and hosted by comedian Bobaloo. The tour has travelled to twenty major US cities."

You nick has anything to do with the solo Bear musicians? Highly unlikely right, but the irony is just so uncanny.

BTW, treat this as a light-hearted question. No one is denying that there are more than one interpretations, but interpretations are based on references.

BTW please do not take offense to the Bear part of this comment. But I can't help highlighting the irony of it. Your nick also refers to the entity that you find yourself at odds with.

P.S. I am not alleging you are gay. Your nick could have another source of reference for interpretation for all I know.

And lastly, please don't give the arguement that you are interpreting based on our 2 articles. I have already told you that they are allegorical to a clash between democratic ideals of freedom versus the living epitome of Asian values and patriachism. In short, they don't support your allegations of feminist and gay themes.

Look Solo Bear, I understand the arguements you presented and your interpretation about the movie, but interpretation is also based on evidences. Literature in case you realize has a dimension of evidential proof, and that comes through thorough analysis of the plot and characters. That is why I told you to do a character analysis of the major characters in the plot. I have argued against feminism, but just in case you haven't realized, you HAVE NOT SUBSTANTIATED your arguement about the presence of the feminist theme.

Don't wax lyrical about thinking laterally or out of the box. Just put the money where your mouth is and substantiate the themes. If you are unable to substantiate your arguements, then they remain as they are - strawmen. Do an analysis to substantiate your arguement, then we will talk.

"So tell me what you know about this Wee Bak Chuan character? If you are a parent and you want your kids to be a doctor when your kid wants to be an engineer, and your kid becomes an engineer, is that called shirking responsibility in reference to your kid? >> Me: That's the part I made in my article I linked to my blog, that many Singaporeans can hardly empathize with this kind of family! You ASSUME that every dad has the financial capability to send children to university! Many families have financial problems to even afford tuition for primary and secondary, what more tuition fees for Unis! That's my main point that Blue Mountain is way, way of target, depicting Singapore scene. The more fitting allusion would be Jack Neo's productions." ->Stop being disingenious. You were talking about shirking responsibility. I am doing you a favor to tell you that you are way off, which really justified my point that you are just guessing in the dark.

No, really, you are not in any position to make an intellectual disagreement. Start by backing up your arguements first, with instances from the movie. If you can substantiate your points fine, then let's agree to disagree. But you haven't made the baby steps yet.

Funny how you ask me to open up when you cannot even describe the source of your interpretation from the movie. I am sorry, I just find it absurd that one can interprete the movie without REFERENCES, which have really failed to provide.

Dear Solo Bear:

I think you are being disingenious again.

I am saying that the movie portray a discourse or a competition between the one who epitomizes Asian values and patriachism and democratic ideals. I am not blind to the fact that feminism HAS clashed with patriachism because for the past few posts, I have been telling you that the democratists are also at odds with patriachism and it was what that was highlighted in the movie. You are in essence flogging that dead horse don't know how many times. No one has ever claimed that feminism are not at odds with patriachism. But, you have been presented arguements and evidences from the movie that show that feminism isn't the theme. You can't accept it, then tough. We can't help you.

Who says I finally admitted to the gay theme? To say a movie has gay theme is to allege that gayism is a major part of the movie's plot. No it isn't, and I will tell you that it is allegorical. You may want to check up on the lines behind the theme. Something about the eldest son and the contemporary life in Singapore. Just because I tell you earlier to find your own truth doesn't mean I am conceding the point.

"They turned to drugs and drinking (daughter). They preferred to loaf and shirk responsibility when given work to do (1st son). I find it ironic that although Uni undergrads talk so much about critical, lateral and out of box thinking, they are stuck with just one thought and that one thought only."

So tell me what you know about this Wee Bak Chuan character? If you are a parent and you want your kids to be a doctor when your kid wants to be an engineer, and your kid becomes an engineer, is that called shirking responsibility in reference to your kid? And if your daughter wants to marry someone from another race, will you oppose it?

Think as a father before you even come and argue your point about "shirking responsibility". Anyway, your extrapolations has become a parabola.

Funny how you wax lyrical about critical thinking abilities of undergrads when critical thinking is applied to evaluating your comments. Yes, don't find it surprising that you get other critical thinkers who highlight that your arguements are not tenable because 1) They are extrapolation of themes that are far away from the movie 2) They are not based on thorough character analysis.

Tell you what. Do a character analysis of Wee Bak Chuan and what he represents even in the allegorical sense, and then come back with what you have found out so far. Do the same for the three children.

You said you know a bit about literature right? OK, start off from the base of a character analysis first. To even allege gay and feminist themes without a thorough knowledge of the characters is like hitting in the dark.

Now you are accusing me of building a strawman? Aw come on! You were the one who is barking up the "only feminists will make an issue of patriachism" tree in the first place. I was trying to put it across that the movie wasn't about feminism, but rather the polemic fight between democratic ideals and patriachism. I have sufficiently showed you why there wasn't a hint of feminism involved - the female characters didn't carry themselves in a fashion typical of a feminist fight against Wee Bak Chuan. I have shown you evidence why your arguement is not valid. If you do not accept this line of evidence, I can't help you. Anyhow, there is no need to demolish your arguement because of the very BASIC FACT that you HAVE NOT PROVEN it. No need to demolish a strawman arguement when a puff of wind can blow it away.

Now you are finally on to something, and I am glad that after engaging you for soooo long, you are seeing the allegorical lines behind our articles.

Glen Goei mentioned this in our interview: Singapore has promoted this order as part of the Asian Values that it celebrates in contrast to Western Values. The film explores patriarchy with the family as a metaphor for Asian societies, and it questions that order as well as the high cost to individuals and the constraints on their ability to live the lives they choose.

And the title of our review: "Of Asian values and patriachism:.."

So what we and Glen have in common is that we mention Asian values and patriachism in the same breath. Wee Bak Chuan epitomizes this, and if you are hardworking enough and use your Google, you will know who in actual reality epitomizes Asian values and patriachism...

The reason why we use allegorical terms like "Asian values and patriachism" is because we do not really to achieve a spoiler effect. You must remember that the date of the articles are written before the opening of the film. We cannot obviously be so direct with the allegories, to really expose the what the film really represents, right?

There is a difference between "Of Asian values and Patriachism" and "Of Patriachism (alone)", and we intentionally described "asian values" and "patriachism" together. Thus, if you have been able to read behind the lines like the commentators who did before you, they immediately know what we are driving at. But it's not fair to compare you with other commentators because they watched the movie and they know we mean. Thus, what we are driving at is really the polemic battle between democratic ideals and the one that epitomizes "Asian values" and "patriachism".

Which brings us to the last point. Now that you realize the allegorical nature of the articles, do you regret using our 2 articles to justify your point that The Blue Mansion has a feminist message? You finally understand why our articles are titled as such, do you? I suggest if you still want to bark up the "Blue Mansion has a feminist message tree", you are better off using other forms of sources other than our 2 articles. They do not in actual fact support your case. I have wanted to tell you this a long time ago, but I was hoping you will pick on the Asian values part. We also do not want to provide so much of a spoiler here.

It is good that you started arguing:"Since when has suing, bankrupting others been an "Asian value"? Whatever "Asian value" is", that particular proponent is still promoting Asian values though, and even talks about it as though the label "Asian value" is stuck to him. At least you understand now what we are driving at.

About the homophobic part, I take it that ST has a different view. Okay, fair enough then. It's up to you who you want to believe. We have said our bit, you have said your bit. It is up to you how you want evaluate these information and come to your own conclusions.