On State Spying and the Death of Privacy In The Postmodern World

The Truth About My Past "Schizophrenia" (Part Two)

Why did I behave, think and express myself the way I did--often irrationally and so fruitlessly--throughout the last 36 years? And why was there a point of reference in the year 1972? What actually did take place in my life in that year?

I want to establish what certain events did occur to me during that year and subsequently. I'm not interested, as biased postmodern officials of the PAP Government would be, in 'proving' to the public that these certain events meant what prejudiced official representatives of the PAP Government wanted them to mean--in other words, in support of, or favouring, their loaded interpretations of those events!

What were those past attempts, based on my remembrances or memories, by the intelligence and security personnel of the PAP Government, to manufacture and concoct so-called recorded "evidences" (of incidents, escapades and happenings in the course of the last 36 years of my life) that would seem, yes!, to 'prove' my alleged "unsound" or "schizophrenic" mind, and, yes!, to discredit me as a man, human being, and citizen with long-held moral and political principles, convictions, beliefs, ideals, and values?--and, yes, finally, to nullify any cherished ambition and aspiration of mine to be a serious published writer (of quality books and essays) with honest motives and intentions?

Why would the PAP Government, since 1972, want to treat me--yes, to regard me, officially or otherwise--as a spy working covertly or overtly, for the PAP Government? What were its motives, its intentions--in manipulating and turning me into such as unproductive and inefficient spy--in those planned different roles, capacities, guises and ways adopted or undertaken, over the past 36 years, by an aspiring and single-minded writer like me?

I'm trying to reconstruct, as accurately and as completely as possible, the key momemts of my last 36 years in my mind now--probably not in the exact sequences in which they have occurred--and then using such a reconstructed picture or understanding, to provide a definitive selection of such events in my life (which I would eventually reveal in future essays of mine but which I would now use, as the basis of my present attempt to give to the public a rational--in other words, a questioning and probing--account of my life) as a so-called "spy", writer, lover and dissident!

This essay is by an oppositionist--one who rejects postmodernism--like me! And I will not entertain the public by telling stories or interpreting events in a way that contains so much ambiguities, contradictions, inconsistencies and illogicalities. I'm going to give the public a conventional or traditional historical account of my life. It will be based on a self-chosen series of aesthetic and moral choices. It is not going to give readers a multiplicity of viewpoints or interpretations, which the biased PAP Government will hold and interweave into a number of different and conflicting narratives.

I want now to reveal the multiplicity of VOICES purporting to represent the official Party, which has been maintaining lines and tricks of communication with those citizens they have focussed their attention on (from their enclosed base of operation up in the Top Secret location in Singapore)--and concentrating their efforts and energy, second-by-second, minute-by-minute, day-by-day, in their close control and surveillance of such (knowing and unknowing) citizens by telling bizarre stories, sometimes as raving lunatics, sometimes as vulgar, cruel and unmannerly critics, and sometimes in a cunningly and sexually tempting manner!, in their feverish and nightmarish work as official postmodernists, for such a long time now, yes, from mid 20th century to the present moment, early in the 21st century!

And who were -- and still are (!) -- these VOICES? They are from the following (both male and female) members of The Special Top Secret Project (under the Project Director, Military Security Department, MINDEF) a covert operation known to the CORE GROUP of leading power-players in the PEOPLE'S ACTION PARTY, namely: Tan Hong Huat, Ang, David Ong, Phyllis Balakrishnan, Melinda, Nancy, Wendy, Ms Oh, Ms Lum, Ms Heng, Catherine, Irene Fong, (and a host of other masturbating pricks and cunts, unknown to me, yet!).

But for how long can they sustain such "imprisonment" of me--and of each and every one of the other controlled (especially unknowingly) citizens? Till each and every one of them die?

This is my advice to these Party officers or officials: Improve your mind! Cultivate a taste for fine reading! There are certain qualities in a man's being that money and other temptations cannot buy. You know you can't win by reasoned arguments and persuasion. So you people used, instead, threats, force or other cunning (especially linguistic) trickeries in your long-distance communications with us -- the victims of governmental surveillance and control -- to make your points or to achieve your goals. Why? Are you so insecure, so weak, and so deficient?

As often-disrespectful voices from the ministries, you are simply not respecting human rights!

You're abusing your ministerial powers and privileges! If you Party representatives, fucking bastards!, force me into displaying bizarre and purposeless behaviour, don't complain later that I disrespect you! Don't try to dirty, corrupt or contaminate my world--or I'll continue to resist you (the "people" or government of Singapore?) with all my resources -- especially intellectual -- and with all my potency, as a human being, man citizen and writer! Surely, you can't help me--assuming that THAT is indeed your aim! no? --to live a good, productive and satisfying life--by precisely interfering with my life!?

I have rejected -- not completely though --postmodernism and unthinking subordination to those who are out to reduce me to a mere abject subject -- without any compelling individuality of my own! I'd rather be, and die, like a poor man -- if I can't compell you, Party officers and officials, to respect me, on my own conditions and terms !

I'll never give up fighting against the Party and insisting on asserting my rights as a man, human being, citizen and writer! I want to have a say in running and leading my own life. Is that too much to ask for in a democratic society?

Are the Party officers' and officials' motives (and intentions) beyond reproach? Why must I be controlled and regarded as a subversive "government agent"--as implied by their usage of the term "implantee" when refering to me (as in: "A man has been implanted as an agent--thus, "implantee"!--in a targetted organization to spy on its personnel?")?

What did I mean by claiming that I'd been put under such close surveillance by the PAP Government? Well, the answer is simple: The People's Action Party -- through its lackeys and toadies working in the Singapore Government -- have been "implanting" its authoritarian and autocratic ideology, beliefs and attitudes -- subtly, cleverly, incrementally, stealthily, and diligently -- since those early days in 1972, into the BRAIN of a helpless, poor, and unfortunate citizen (namely: yours truly, David Chua Chuan Seah) whose own rights, personal beliefs and attitudes had been patiently, dutifully, cunningly and cruelly put under "observation", "examination" and "judgment" by the surveillance authorities in the wards of the Medical Centre at SAFTI, after he had returned from a few days out as an AWOL offender in 1972.

Who (in Singapore or elsewhere) can help me resolve my conflict -- both personal and public -- with these fucking PAP lackeys and toadies -- mostly nameless and faceless "voices", whose identities have been the subject of my investigations and which I've had some inkling of, intermittently, throughout the past 36 years, during which I, by forcing these PAP toadies to "expose" themselves as unprincipled, inept, greedy, power-mad and lazy governmental "controllers" with annoying, irritating, insulting and disrespectful methods and techniques of communications, finally earn my "respect" at last! For they have come to terms, finally, with my insistent determination and persistent efforts to set things right -- yes, to clean up the messiness, dirtiness and sinfulness (like my "schizophrenia", my "subversiveness", my "criminality", my "perversions", and my "immorality") that "I" had created or caused in my life during the past 36 years!

To emphasize, I'm not interested in the PAP Government's viewpoints and interpretations on those certain events in my life during the past 36 years. I want, instead, to establish the historical facts -- the actual events or occurrences in my controlled life, based on my memories (and from documentary "evidences" or official records of such events which have come into my knowledge)!

It matters a lot to my self-respect--that my personal life-history can be understood, examined and accurately, if not comprehensively, recorded with honesty, seriousness and graciousness. I want my leaders NOT to insult my dignity and intelligence any more--from now onwards!

FOREVER IN MY HEART: Postmodernist PAP Female Neo-Conservative Censors and Monitors Over The Last 36 Years

Dedicated To The Loves of

My Lifetime:

Those "Feminine",

"Truthful", "Magnanimous",

"Broad-minded", "Open-minded",

"Liberated" and "Honest"

Women!

(Which I Have Been "Meeting" --

Yes! Oh Dear! --

Through Electronic

Inter-Connections

and Telecommunications

With Them Over The Past

36 Years In Our

Postmodern Surveillance Society)


Of Women's Ugliness, Stupidity, and Sadness:
The Ageing Cunts, Drooping Tits, and Misshapen Bodies of "The Loves of My Lifetime"!


Introduction:

Not many postmodernist PAP female censors, spies and monitors -- working for the Singapore government as surveillance agents -- can qualify as femme fatales! Not even in those early youthful years! How many postmodernist PAP female censors, spies and monitors can be charmers, enchantresses, seductresses, sirens, temptresses or vamps? How do they look -- in terms of facial and physical appearance? Even when they were young, they were hardly beautiful, happy or intelligent! Physically, and facially, they were not even attractive! Now that they are already old, do they still look stupid, ugly, and sad -- as when they ere young?


Questions For These Romantic Women:

Are they still really THAT old-fashioned, still THAT prudish, still THAT overmodest, still THAT narrow-minded, still THAT old-maidish, still THAT priggish, still THAT puritanical, still THAT stuffy, still THAT ultra-virtuous, still THATprim, still THAT prissy, still THAT proper, still THAT squeamish, still THAT square, still THAT strait-laced, still THAT Victorian? And, yet, still so utterly lacking in basic humanity, honesty, feminity, and truthfulness -- not to mention basic human courtesy!


Commentary:

Postmodernist PAP women -- as censors, monitors and spies -- have been, and are still, all expressing themselves in an affected, feigned, hypocritical, hypercritical, hysterical, artificial, assumed, counterfeit, fabricated, fake, false, imitative, insincere, opinionated, pseudo, sham, simulated and spurious manner!


Are they, perhaps, now really "schizophrenic" themselves? (After all these years spent working in a MADHOUSE -- manipulating, humiliating and controlling (scientific and technological) "schizophrenics"?)


Conclusion:

I have absolutely no interest -- especially in a sexual (and certainly not in any romantic sense) --in associating with such misleading, self-interested and dishonest (not to mention ugly, sad and stupid) story-telling postmodernist PAP female spies, monitors and censors! What else is there for a knowing, knowledgeable and self-aware writer like me -- truthful, articulate and honest(not to mention still happy, intelligent and good-looking) who, as also a law-abiding citizen and human being, faces conflicts and pressures generated by his attempt to come to terms with his discovery of a world which has now become totally different from what he has always known, or thought he knew (even after his "implantation" in that significant year 1972) -- to say?



Decision:

It's your decision!

-- Ms HO CHING
(Prominent Member of The Government and The
Establishment; Wife of PM Lee Hsien Loong;
and, Arguably, The Most Powerful Woman in Singapore!)


They -- all these surveillance officers (male or female) -- all know my important name and flat number; but there will be no more extension of their "telecommunication lines" to my assertive, resurgent and bold being -- as a man, human, and citizen! And also even more as a writer, I might -- just might -- "HAVE" them! That's how I'd solved the long-standing and outstanding problem of trying to have "REAL" sexual relations with these ugly, sad and stupid female members of the most powerful and highest authority of this country -- as a presently FINANCIALLY destitute and dissident writer (who is despersately seeking FINANCIAL assistance from the great welfare agency)!

They will always be women to me! (But are they -- these moral and religious fanatics -- AHEAD of -- or BEHIND -- the time?)


PERSONAL REMINDER:

From now onwards, as these PAP/SGwomen don't -- and can't -- respond positively and respectfully to my higher intellectual and moral level of discourse, debate, discussion and conversation, I'll just have to hit their soft, sensitive, insecure, vulnerable and weak spots or areas -- in other words, their sense or image of their own facial and physical appearances! Yes, it's a matter of tit-for-tat! And an eye for an eye! But didn't they ask for it? Serve them right!

Finally, I'm trying to avoid being affected by the TOXIC atmosphere existing in their Control Room -- on their side! Or to put it differently: I want to avoid being infected by the viruses from their side!

Telling Stories (Part Two)

THE TRUTH ABOUT

MY STORY-TELLING:

PART TWO OF MY LIFE (2009 -- )


On Postmodernism, Relativism,

Nonsense and Frivolities



To postmodernists, truths exist only in relation to specific discourses. There are no absolute or universal facts--only stories that "work" at particular times for their particular "speakers". Pragmatism in philosophy puts forward a similar argument. Structuralists, poststructuralists and new historicists argue that it is impossible to access reality except through texts.

Discourse theorists suggests that it is NOT truth that counts, but who defines it, and what uses they put it to; KNOWLEDGE IS USED IN THE EXERCISE OF POWER:

1. Observers are never neutral or disinterested. Truth-claims serve specific interests;
2. You can only look at an object of enquiry from a particular viewpoint, and through a specific set of expectations and requirements;
3. No account of historical reality is free of narrative--because you can't reconstruct the past as it "really" happened, you can only tell stories about it.

This can be seen as a relativist outlook. It can lead to a critical engagement with history. It enables new histories to be written that reveal the significance of previously neglected groups, or which challenge dominant but biased accounts; feminist histories or Marxist histories would be two examples of this. [But is there any guarantee such re-writing of history will not be subjected to biased outlook and misleading interpretations of their own -- reflecting considerable vested interests invested into such "histories"-- rendering such "histories" totally unacceptable to traditional historians (and to someone like me?)].

Since all histories are stories, historians needn't worry about evidence, accuracy or validation--as they can be all simulated or manufactured! Does all this not open the door to irresponsible, even dangerous, revisions of history? And give itself no grounds on which to dispute them? Are there not clear boundaries between history and fiction? Do we not need to believe that there are such things as undeniable, objective facts? If we don't tell it like it is, we'll all be mad!

Postmodernists can defend their position by claiming that it is not about choosing between pure facts and fantasy. (You can tell that one account is truer than another--without assuming that your knowledge is perfect or that new facts won't come to light.)

Postmodernist relativism makes us aware of the rules and conventions under which claims are made--i.e., we must "play" by the agreed rules--applying, in other words, the standards of the historical community. We must be "in" the history language game; we must be historians! (Yes, but what kind of historians?)

The Challenging Practices of Everyday Life

THOSE "LITTLE" ACTS OF

ANTI-ESTABLISHMENT DISOBEDIENCE --

AS PRACTISED BY INDIVIDUALISTS

IN THEIR EVERYDAY LIFE


In order to understand the present way of life, you should attend less to a total picture of society as a whole and more to the seemingly insignificant details of how people go about living their lives.

By doing so, you'll find in contemporary life not some falsely unified spirit of the age, but a complex mass of interweaving and contradictory desires, concerns and stories.


Everyday life is creative. Everyday life is full of such acts of "poaching, tricking, speaking, strolling, desiring". We are not passive victims of consumer society. We make our material conditions bearable and make sense of the world we live in. Every day, we engage in the creative production of our own power struggles, pleasures, and acts of disobedience -- AS INDIVIDUALISTS (YES, AND CERTAINLY, SORRY, NOT AS SUBJECTS, WHO ARE ALL ALREADY DEFEATED, COMPROMISED AND SUBMISSIVE AGENTS OF THE SYSTEM, NO LESS!).

In doing so, we CREATE IMPORTANT CRACKS IN THE MONOLITH OF THE DOMINANT ECONOMIC ORDER!

We may not be able to change the world, but at least, we can migrate across the cultural environment, taking bits we need from whatever products and experiences are available. (Hey, hey, hey!) In short, day-to-day life is about making do against the system!

Postmodern Politics

Postmodernists maintain that society is incoherent and that no single perspective can grasp the complexity and fluidity of current conditions.

Society, to them, has fragmented into so many conflicting knowledges, identities, needs, and views--it is not possible or desirable to see the human race as "one big fmily"!

This situation arises out of the fact that socieites arebecoming multi-cultural and our lifestyles are becoming cosmopolitan. It also means that there is no agreement about what is worth believing (or knowing) any more! That social conditions are in a frightening state of disrepair! Postmodernists--some of them--see it as far more constructive to push the fragmentation as far as it will go--and use it to your advantage!

diversity and disagreement are part of political discourse. To generate new ideas and experiences, postmodernists--many of them, yes!--propose that we should activitate the differences between people and between the cultural spaces they inhabit.

Possibilities for creativity are contained in this activation. (It also contains the potential for violent conflict; some postmodern thinkers would rather see violence than flabby tolerance. But it is our responsibility to ensure that the activation will only encourage possibilities for creativity--and nothing violent, conflicting, flabby or tolerant!)

Individual Identity and Society in the Postmodern Capitalist System

Subjects, Totalitarianism, Mass Culture,

Capitalism and Modern Societies

The postmodern position on individual identity and society (as an early statement): the world is fragmented and in a flux--in which individuals are liberated from any "repressive" notions about the rationality, unity, or stability of the self.

The modernity's capitalist system, in which repression and dominance are lived by the people, shows up the power relationship between modern society and individual desire!

Subjects and their pleasures are defined and controlled by the institutions of the modern state (unless or except if you're still individualists!). Capitalism has infiltrated all of existence. It has taken away from people -- except and excluding all those who are still individualists -- the possibility of experiencing genuine freedom, expression and satisfasction. All desires under capitalism are "fake", "mediated" desires. (For those who are still NOT yet SUBJECTS in the system, this is not necessarily true!)

Modernity has expanded communication technologies and consumerism into our lives--which are central to an insidious kind of totalitarianism. Thus totalitarianism produces "false needs" and seeks to penetrate consciousness itself--neutralizing all voices of dissent, and turning us all into interchangeable components of the capitalist machine -- except yours truly, whose voice of conscience and dissent remains clear, strong, vibrant, loud and still uncompromised -- after all these years -- by the Capitalist system!

Even in democratic societies, mass culture acts as an authoritarian force which reduces people to passive social conformity. It injects the capitalist status quo into people's unconscious--making its victims lose their individuality, and persuades them (its victims) to willingly accept mass culture's values!

Five Facts On Modernism

There and Then

1. Modernism adopted adversarial stance toeards the postmodern world by making powerful critical statements about postmodern society;
2. Modernism achieved genuine quality--as in avant-garde literature--by aiming for the highest order (of purity and autonomy) in writing and self=expression;
3. Modernist literature opposed capitalism;
4. The so-called "death of the author" in literature was regarded by modernism as excessively anti-historical and asocial;
5. The proper understanding of a text is impossible without knowing something about the "who, where, and when" of it.