<p>
</p>
<p>That’s what I thought – well, I’m going to jump in and get the ball rolling … I’ll start with the 500 word essay, though the other two I felt were very “me”. It includes my errors (the ones that are omissions or redundancies will be marked with arrow brackets).</p>
<hr>
<p>“Topic: You have completed your 300-page autobiography. Please submit page 217.” (yes, I took them up on their invitation and submitted my optional essay for Penn for my last UVA essay.) </p>
<p>I recalled what I had written in my own blog in response to the Straits Times article on political blogging. “I spit in their face for mentioning this,” I had written in typical fourteen-year-old rebelliousness, after reading that people would have to register with the Singaporean Government if they wanted to discuss “political or racial issues” in their blogs. Now that I proudly remembered it, I had the urge to shoot back some witty repartee, not at all agreeing with the spirit of their questions.</p>
<p>I glanced at my mother seated beside me, and noted her disquiet countenance. Not wishing to antagonise her, I nodded and feebly mumbled an acknowledgment instead. I watched as they rifled through their files of what must have been every instant messaging conversation I had ever made online. Unlike blog entries, those had been supposed to be truly private.</p>
<p>“Well, anyway, we only want to close the case,” the older officer chimed in. “Anyway <<>>, remember that you have to be responsible for your speech. Singapore is a multi-religious and multi-racial society, and thus we have laws to protect the delicate harmony of our society. We’re not going to take any action against you. We just want to remind you that you can’t say whatever you want online–”</p>
<p>“What I wrote did not at all disrupt the harmony of society.”</p>
<p>“But you might also remember,” the older officer continued, “what Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said in the last National Day Rally speech about the OOB policy. In order to ensure stability, some topics are out-of-bounds when it comes to public discussion.”</p>
<p>Groan. Not that National Day Rally speech – it was the one I hated the most. In trying to kiss up to the PRC – after having offended it by visiting Taiwan – Lee Hsien Loong had said on national television that if Taiwan declared formal independence, no country would recognise it and any ensuing war would be totally its fault. This was despite the fact that it would be the PRC which would be launching the invasion.</p>
<p>“Who dictates what is out-of-bounds? You can’t just forbid all provocative and uncomfortable speech the Government doesn’t like. In order to serve its role in a true democratic society, speech, especially political speech, must be uninhibited as a matter of principle–”</p>
<p>“We only want to close the case,” the younger officer reminded me, looking hopefully at my mother to try to get me to take the hint.</p>
<p>I eventually left the meeting unsatisfied, but most importantly, unprosecuted. “I got interrogated by the Internal Security Department for four hours!” I later boasted to my Singaporean friends, in a rather “I stuck it to the Man!” sort of way. For a few months I did not tell them that it was I who had caused the meeting <<to>> last that long, having been smug enough in all my fourteen-year-old arrogance to have seriously believed myself capable of ‘converting’ my questioners. </to></p>
<hr>
<p>Stuff I didn’t like about this essay:</p>
<p>I dropped the required “to” between “meeting” and “last” [in the last paragraph] – this was the most flagrant error. Apparently, it was tolerated. </p>
<p>The redundant “anyway” I gave to the older officer in the dialogue – it made him seem more mindless than he really was.</p>
<p>I included my mother (who was a participant in the conversation) but reduced her role in the affair to a passive observer (she didn’t have any dialogue in my essay) – this was really unfair to her. She originally had a greater role, but I cut her dialogue out when I was trimming my essay from my Penn app to the UVA app. </p>
<p>I didn’t really get to contrast the two different officers in the final version, two people who I thought was representative of two different types of people in the “Singapore Establishment” – one seemed more cynical and world-weary, the other being younger was hoping to move up and be promoted. I forgot to thus give other qualifiers other than “younger” or “older,” because they didn’t really have any meaning in the final cropped version of my essay.</p>
<p>Stuff I liked:</p>
<p>It hints at my desire to reform the politics of my birth country, which is what I hoped to convey, and I wanted more people to realise the nature of political repression in Singapore – it’s not like how it’s commonly portrayed in the international media. </p>
<p>It sort of hints at how I’ve changed since then (e.g. I no longer seek to clash with “stick it to the man” for its own sake). </p>
<p>Singapore is part of my core identity, so I felt it helped to bring that part out in me.</p>