Well, T left and I'm left alone here in Australia. I promised myself that I'll not cry but it isn't easy. I realised that his coming here and leaving is more difficult than when I'm back in Singapore and have to return. Major reason that I can think off is the fact that I don't live with him when I'm in Singapore, so it is physcologically easier to 'leave Singapore' than to have him leave Australia.
But I know I'll survive and things will really work out in the end.
It was a magical 2 weeks and now it is over, back to reality and back to my normal boring life. :P
24 April 2006
20 April 2006
The Lion King, the musical
Went to watch Disney’s “The Lion King” the musical last night with T. It was so good. Even T really enjoyed it. The animation was great but the musical was really fantastic. I even bought a “The Lion King” cap, which had the head of the lion on it (“The Lion King” logo). Really love it. :)
19 April 2006
Sydney and back
Went to Sydney over the Easter weekend (14 to 18 April), got back last night.
It was really fun because T came over and visited me. So we had nice time there. Well, our love for each other didn't diminish but from what I can gather, it actually increased. It is great.
Funny statement to make isn’t it but it actually isn’t. There is the reason. In Jan 2006, I had a discussion with a friend (here in Melbourne, L). I was telling him about T and my plans for the future that we have decided that I’ll return to Sg when my contract ends (which is in 2008).
That was when it started getting terrible, L started telling me that I shouldn’t make plans like that especially I don’t know what is going to happen. He said that love changes and by the time 2008 arrives T and I might have changed and that we might not work out. That since both of us have our own lives now, not really sharing it together, we are not changing together which means that we might change in 2 different directions thus drifting apart. He then went on to tell me a story about 2 of his friends from Perth. They were very close and decided to move over here to Melbourne and one of them came here first. The other arrived 6 months later and after which they broke up. L told me that even when the Perth one came over to visit after 3 months, they felt that something was different.
To say the least after that I became very worried for I didn’t want to loose T at all and I thought that maybe what he said was true and that our love for each other would change. Couldn’t sleep much that night (yes, I’m a worry wart so sue me :P) and the next day, I chatted with my friends (in Sg via instant messenger) about it. I couldn’t talk to T about it because he was busy the night before and didn’t get home on time for us to chat and he’s usually very busy in the office. The time difference was terrible (3 hrs)!
My friends were a great help. At the end of it, I realised how stupid I was. L was talking about love and what talking to my friends allowed me to know that T and I were talking about commitment. Love is a feeling. It can also be nurtured. I have a number of friends who were apart from their partners for years and yet are still in a loving relationship. All of them are no longer living apart from their partners. Why was I so worried when I had so many positive examples about commitment about? Which of course gave me courage.
T was telling me how silly I was when I told him that night. :) I do so love him.
So now T is living with me and we are just loving it.
It was really fun because T came over and visited me. So we had nice time there. Well, our love for each other didn't diminish but from what I can gather, it actually increased. It is great.
Funny statement to make isn’t it but it actually isn’t. There is the reason. In Jan 2006, I had a discussion with a friend (here in Melbourne, L). I was telling him about T and my plans for the future that we have decided that I’ll return to Sg when my contract ends (which is in 2008).
That was when it started getting terrible, L started telling me that I shouldn’t make plans like that especially I don’t know what is going to happen. He said that love changes and by the time 2008 arrives T and I might have changed and that we might not work out. That since both of us have our own lives now, not really sharing it together, we are not changing together which means that we might change in 2 different directions thus drifting apart. He then went on to tell me a story about 2 of his friends from Perth. They were very close and decided to move over here to Melbourne and one of them came here first. The other arrived 6 months later and after which they broke up. L told me that even when the Perth one came over to visit after 3 months, they felt that something was different.
To say the least after that I became very worried for I didn’t want to loose T at all and I thought that maybe what he said was true and that our love for each other would change. Couldn’t sleep much that night (yes, I’m a worry wart so sue me :P) and the next day, I chatted with my friends (in Sg via instant messenger) about it. I couldn’t talk to T about it because he was busy the night before and didn’t get home on time for us to chat and he’s usually very busy in the office. The time difference was terrible (3 hrs)!
My friends were a great help. At the end of it, I realised how stupid I was. L was talking about love and what talking to my friends allowed me to know that T and I were talking about commitment. Love is a feeling. It can also be nurtured. I have a number of friends who were apart from their partners for years and yet are still in a loving relationship. All of them are no longer living apart from their partners. Why was I so worried when I had so many positive examples about commitment about? Which of course gave me courage.
T was telling me how silly I was when I told him that night. :) I do so love him.
So now T is living with me and we are just loving it.
07 April 2006
Post-65ers
Wow, I’m amazed that my generation actually make up more than 50% of the population. How can the gahman say that society is predominantly conservative? I have a feeling that Singapore is predominantly people who don’t really bother, conservative or otherwise (if the ‘post-65ers’ are anything like me and the people I know), this article also sites this fact too.
Taken from Today 07 April 2006.
UNDERSTANDING A PHANTOM GENERATION
----------------------------------
To post-65ers, a majority group in the electorate, material values and
lofty ideals may not be mutually exclusive News Comment: We set you
thinking
Terence Chong
EVER since Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong called on younger Singaporeans
to step forward to make a difference, the term "post-65ers" has never been
far from the limelight. With the general elections looming, post-65ers -
Singaporeans aged 41 and below - will be under greater scrutiny.
The Government has made concrete moves to engage younger Singaporeans. The
Ministry of Community Development and Sports, for example, was renamed the
Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports in September 2004.
Later that year, it embarked on a youth consultation exercise, called
Youth: Creating Our Future, to discuss ideas and aspirations important to
younger generations, and the conclusions reached will shape the framework
for future programmes.
But why this attention to post-65ers? There are more than 1.64 million of
them, or 55 per cent of the population. More than 60 per cent have at
least secondary-school education while their parents had only
primary-school education. At the age of 30, two in three were already
living in four-room or larger HDB flats, or in private property.
One in two holds executive jobs as managers or professionals, while 44 per
cent have higher-skilled jobs than their parents. Those born after 1965
earned an average of $2,600 a month in 2000, higher than the national
average of $2,200.
Nonetheless, these quantitative characteristics of post-65ers would not
have garnered political attention were it not assumed that they are
accompanied by certain ideas and aspirations. The strong belief that
younger Singaporeans differ from their parents in terms of cultural,
social and political values has been a key factor in the People's Action
Party (PAP) Government's concerted effort to turn the post-65ers into a de
facto constituency.
Not only have ministries been reshaped to address their concerns, but
ministers and party candidates, too, have been handpicked to appeal to
this "constituency". Indeed, the need to reflect the interests of this
constituency feeds the PAP's entrenched principle of self-renewal and
sustained relevance.
The PAP's treatment of post-65ers as a coherent constituency may also have
been influenced by the broader scholarship on the shifting values of
"post-materialist" generations. According to Ronald Inglehart, a
post-materialist, the global equivalent of our post-65er is more
interested in citizenry consultation and the concept of a society based on
lofty ideals, rather than in material-based values such as economic
growth, a strong national defence, and law-and-order issues.
Inglehart's argument is that people value most what they were relatively
deprived of in their youth. Hence, those growing up after World War II are
generally more post-materialist than those growing up before the war, as
they did not experience material deprivation.
Inglehart has his critics, most of whom point out that many developed
societies show no clear sign of a post-materialist culture. Many argue
that material interests and post-material concerns are not mutually
exclusive. There is no contradiction between, say, desiring greater
personal wealth and fighting for improved human rights.
Perhaps this is why it has been so hard to identify and define the
interests of Singapore's post-65 constituency.
Are we concerned with liberal democracy or economic pragmatism? Are we
idealists or realists?
Like the three blind men touching different parts of an elephant, you'll
come up with different descriptions, depending on whom you ask. And it is
not sociologically sound to say that only Singaporeans aged 41 and below
are interested in censorship liberalisation, human rights and the
environment.
Other variables such as education, cultural capital and class have to be
considered - thus making the post-65er constituency a somewhat phantom
one.
Indeed, recent newspaper surveys indicate mixed signals from post-65-ers.
In a survey of Singaporeans aged between 21 and 34, 49 per cent said they
were "somewhat interested" in local politics, while 51 per cent were "not
interested". When asked for the issue "likely to influence their voting
decision", they cited cost of living (89 per cent), jobs/unemployment (73
per cent) and housing policy (68 per cent).
Does it surprise us that materialism ranks high for post-65ers?
Perhaps in defining this de facto constituency, the Government has also
been able to socialise it with a certain outlook and priorities. We are
constantly told to keep an eye on global and regional competition, and to
bear in mind that no one owes us a living. It is no wonder that
materialism continues to be the yardstick of both personal and national
success.
And perhaps it is no coincidence that such a yardstick is also an implicit
legitimisation of the Government, which has been so successful in
delivering economic growth.
Nonetheless, even if we accept that the post-65 constituency is an
amorphous one without any signature issue, one cannot escape the sense
that youth, in all its glory, comes with certain desires.
Speak to young Singaporeans about the country they want, and most will
talk about wanting more space to chase dreams and express their
individuality. These are desires our parents do not talk about.
But are these desires enough to influence voting patterns in the
elections? Probably not. They will most likely be diffused by
long-standing concerns such as the job market, employability and rising
living costs.
The writer is a Fellow at the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies. This
is a personal comment.
Taken from Today 07 April 2006.
UNDERSTANDING A PHANTOM GENERATION
----------------------------------
To post-65ers, a majority group in the electorate, material values and
lofty ideals may not be mutually exclusive News Comment: We set you
thinking
Terence Chong
EVER since Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong called on younger Singaporeans
to step forward to make a difference, the term "post-65ers" has never been
far from the limelight. With the general elections looming, post-65ers -
Singaporeans aged 41 and below - will be under greater scrutiny.
The Government has made concrete moves to engage younger Singaporeans. The
Ministry of Community Development and Sports, for example, was renamed the
Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports in September 2004.
Later that year, it embarked on a youth consultation exercise, called
Youth: Creating Our Future, to discuss ideas and aspirations important to
younger generations, and the conclusions reached will shape the framework
for future programmes.
But why this attention to post-65ers? There are more than 1.64 million of
them, or 55 per cent of the population. More than 60 per cent have at
least secondary-school education while their parents had only
primary-school education. At the age of 30, two in three were already
living in four-room or larger HDB flats, or in private property.
One in two holds executive jobs as managers or professionals, while 44 per
cent have higher-skilled jobs than their parents. Those born after 1965
earned an average of $2,600 a month in 2000, higher than the national
average of $2,200.
Nonetheless, these quantitative characteristics of post-65ers would not
have garnered political attention were it not assumed that they are
accompanied by certain ideas and aspirations. The strong belief that
younger Singaporeans differ from their parents in terms of cultural,
social and political values has been a key factor in the People's Action
Party (PAP) Government's concerted effort to turn the post-65ers into a de
facto constituency.
Not only have ministries been reshaped to address their concerns, but
ministers and party candidates, too, have been handpicked to appeal to
this "constituency". Indeed, the need to reflect the interests of this
constituency feeds the PAP's entrenched principle of self-renewal and
sustained relevance.
The PAP's treatment of post-65ers as a coherent constituency may also have
been influenced by the broader scholarship on the shifting values of
"post-materialist" generations. According to Ronald Inglehart, a
post-materialist, the global equivalent of our post-65er is more
interested in citizenry consultation and the concept of a society based on
lofty ideals, rather than in material-based values such as economic
growth, a strong national defence, and law-and-order issues.
Inglehart's argument is that people value most what they were relatively
deprived of in their youth. Hence, those growing up after World War II are
generally more post-materialist than those growing up before the war, as
they did not experience material deprivation.
Inglehart has his critics, most of whom point out that many developed
societies show no clear sign of a post-materialist culture. Many argue
that material interests and post-material concerns are not mutually
exclusive. There is no contradiction between, say, desiring greater
personal wealth and fighting for improved human rights.
Perhaps this is why it has been so hard to identify and define the
interests of Singapore's post-65 constituency.
Are we concerned with liberal democracy or economic pragmatism? Are we
idealists or realists?
Like the three blind men touching different parts of an elephant, you'll
come up with different descriptions, depending on whom you ask. And it is
not sociologically sound to say that only Singaporeans aged 41 and below
are interested in censorship liberalisation, human rights and the
environment.
Other variables such as education, cultural capital and class have to be
considered - thus making the post-65er constituency a somewhat phantom
one.
Indeed, recent newspaper surveys indicate mixed signals from post-65-ers.
In a survey of Singaporeans aged between 21 and 34, 49 per cent said they
were "somewhat interested" in local politics, while 51 per cent were "not
interested". When asked for the issue "likely to influence their voting
decision", they cited cost of living (89 per cent), jobs/unemployment (73
per cent) and housing policy (68 per cent).
Does it surprise us that materialism ranks high for post-65ers?
Perhaps in defining this de facto constituency, the Government has also
been able to socialise it with a certain outlook and priorities. We are
constantly told to keep an eye on global and regional competition, and to
bear in mind that no one owes us a living. It is no wonder that
materialism continues to be the yardstick of both personal and national
success.
And perhaps it is no coincidence that such a yardstick is also an implicit
legitimisation of the Government, which has been so successful in
delivering economic growth.
Nonetheless, even if we accept that the post-65 constituency is an
amorphous one without any signature issue, one cannot escape the sense
that youth, in all its glory, comes with certain desires.
Speak to young Singaporeans about the country they want, and most will
talk about wanting more space to chase dreams and express their
individuality. These are desires our parents do not talk about.
But are these desires enough to influence voting patterns in the
elections? Probably not. They will most likely be diffused by
long-standing concerns such as the job market, employability and rising
living costs.
The writer is a Fellow at the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies. This
is a personal comment.
05 April 2006
The Singapore gahmen
The Singapore's general elections is just around the corner and I'm wondering how many votes the PAP will get.
For a country that doesn't have a good opposition and also where the PAP always wins with a landslide (65% and over votes), a drop in the number of people voting for the PAP will really send a clear message to them that the Singapore population is not happy about the oppression that we are still facing, even though we are suppose to be a 'first world' country.
Some can say that we are still a young nation (40 yrs) and have to slowly 'let go' but then again, if we can reach the status of 'first world' in that short time, why can’t we be more open about rights? There is so little that we really ask of and yet the way the PAP says it, it is as if we are asking for the world. They still don't trust the Singapore people, still believing that we are mere children who cannot think for ourselves.
The rights that I would like to see is
The PAP is so worried about losing the votes of the 'conservatives' in the country but what about the votes of the people who don't fall under that definition. I'm not using liberal because a person who believes in the rights of the people might not consider himself/herself as a liberal.
As more and more Singaporeans become dissatisfied with the ‘oppression’ they are facing, I wonder how long it will take for the PAP to realise that they are loosing the trust and support of the people. Bread and butter issues are important but now we want more and isn’t it time for us to get the jam? I also wonder with more Singaporeans having studied and lived aboard, how many of them would want their rights taken away from them when they return?
Is the PAP really listening? Or are we still being ignored as insignificant (children are meant to be seen and not heard)? *sigh*
For a country that doesn't have a good opposition and also where the PAP always wins with a landslide (65% and over votes), a drop in the number of people voting for the PAP will really send a clear message to them that the Singapore population is not happy about the oppression that we are still facing, even though we are suppose to be a 'first world' country.
Some can say that we are still a young nation (40 yrs) and have to slowly 'let go' but then again, if we can reach the status of 'first world' in that short time, why can’t we be more open about rights? There is so little that we really ask of and yet the way the PAP says it, it is as if we are asking for the world. They still don't trust the Singapore people, still believing that we are mere children who cannot think for ourselves.
The rights that I would like to see is
- No censorship, except for pornography (this I can understand even though I might not agree with it)
- True freedom of speech and the press, where the people of Singapore are also part of the checks and balances of the government
- Repel of section 377, as it really serves no purpose when we have other laws against sex crimes
- An open election system, NO GRCs (to keep the PAP in power) and no such strict criteria for a person to run for president (thrust Singaporeans, god damn it!)
The PAP is so worried about losing the votes of the 'conservatives' in the country but what about the votes of the people who don't fall under that definition. I'm not using liberal because a person who believes in the rights of the people might not consider himself/herself as a liberal.
As more and more Singaporeans become dissatisfied with the ‘oppression’ they are facing, I wonder how long it will take for the PAP to realise that they are loosing the trust and support of the people. Bread and butter issues are important but now we want more and isn’t it time for us to get the jam? I also wonder with more Singaporeans having studied and lived aboard, how many of them would want their rights taken away from them when they return?
Is the PAP really listening? Or are we still being ignored as insignificant (children are meant to be seen and not heard)? *sigh*
03 April 2006
Remember Pope John Paul II?
There are a lot of people who have their death anniversaries daily, what makes this ass-hole so much more special than the others? Lots of people say that he has done good things for the world, that I wouldn't disagree but what about making Catholicism regress 50 years into the past? What about allowing his own prejudices supersede the Holy Spirit's prompting? What a wonderful leader we have.
Who do we need to remember anyone? Aren't we suppose to be Easter (Alleluia) people where death is a joyful occasion? The way the vatican is doing things, it is as if death is the end, what they are preaching is not what they really believe. Having a mass remembrance for anyone, especially the ex-head of the Catholic Church is NOT right!
HIS PHYSICAL BODY IS GONE! GET OVER IT!
After so many centuries, you would expect the vatican to learn from all its mistakes in the past. Nobody there seems to learn anything from history. They are still trying their best to get back the political power that they have lost. They haven’t learn that a separation of church and state is the only way to go. Even Jesus said, “Give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar and give to God what belongs to God” And if you looked at it, Jesus never came to overthrow a government or even to influence it and yet the vatican doesn’t think this way. Isn’t it wonderful to have a bunch of people who think they are doing God’s work when they don’t even follow Jesus’ teachings?
Talk about corruption!
Who do we need to remember anyone? Aren't we suppose to be Easter (Alleluia) people where death is a joyful occasion? The way the vatican is doing things, it is as if death is the end, what they are preaching is not what they really believe. Having a mass remembrance for anyone, especially the ex-head of the Catholic Church is NOT right!
HIS PHYSICAL BODY IS GONE! GET OVER IT!
After so many centuries, you would expect the vatican to learn from all its mistakes in the past. Nobody there seems to learn anything from history. They are still trying their best to get back the political power that they have lost. They haven’t learn that a separation of church and state is the only way to go. Even Jesus said, “Give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar and give to God what belongs to God” And if you looked at it, Jesus never came to overthrow a government or even to influence it and yet the vatican doesn’t think this way. Isn’t it wonderful to have a bunch of people who think they are doing God’s work when they don’t even follow Jesus’ teachings?
Talk about corruption!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
