I'm rather bored with work. No it isn't because I have nothing to do, in fact I have tons of things to do. I just so tried of work now.
I have only taken 2 days leave this year. Saving it up to go back to Singapore. Will try to be back for the whole of Dec and maybe the 1st week of January. Hmmm... have to plan when I intend to return to Melbourne.
So, this year is almost up and next year would be the last year I'll be here. T really wants me back and I did promise that I'll stay for at least 2 years here and by the end of next year (Dec 2007) I'd be here for 2.5 years.
Will I miss it here. I will, that I know. I love the freedom you have here. Where almost everything that is not allowed is Sg, you can do over here. I'm not talking about sex here :P. The other side is that T is in Sg and also all my close friends. My very busy life will return when I return to Sg, that is what I really miss, not the TV shows, not the oppression (like anyone would miss that). Just T, friends and FOOD.
Hahaha... so typical Singaporean, can't be far from food. I'm rather tired of having to cook even when I'm tried and don't feel like it. In Sg I can just go to the nearest hawker centre and get a SGD3 meal. Over here, unless I take instant noodles, a meal would cost me at least AUD6.50. So eating out is not a common option for me. Yea, surprisingly I have become very penny pinching after coming here and I have been saving so much more money than I've ever had when I'm in Sg. Even though things here and taxes here is more than what I pay in Sg but then again with no life, no money is needed. :P
27 September 2006
25 September 2006
My hero
Archbishop Desmond Tutu has been a very long time hero of mine. He's such a great, kind and loving man. So very much what Christ would be like. He speaks out against the injustices in the world, even if it "contridicts" the bible.
OHANNESBURG, South Africa Archbishop Desmond Tutu said he was ashamed of his Anglican Church's conservative position that rejected gay priests.
In his biography, "Rabble-rouser for Peace" the Nobel peace laureate said he was deeply saddened at the furor caused by the appointment in 2003 of New Hampshire Espiscopal Bishop Gene Robinson.
The retired archbishop was critical of Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams for bowing on the gay priest issue to conservative elements in the 77-million member Anglican Church that includes Episcopalians in the United States.
As archbishop, Tutu criticized but could not change a policy in South Africa that said gay priests would be tolerated as long as they remained celibate. He did approve church blessings for gay and lesbian relationships, without calling them marriage.
OHANNESBURG, South Africa Archbishop Desmond Tutu said he was ashamed of his Anglican Church's conservative position that rejected gay priests.
In his biography, "Rabble-rouser for Peace" the Nobel peace laureate said he was deeply saddened at the furor caused by the appointment in 2003 of New Hampshire Espiscopal Bishop Gene Robinson.
The retired archbishop was critical of Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams for bowing on the gay priest issue to conservative elements in the 77-million member Anglican Church that includes Episcopalians in the United States.
As archbishop, Tutu criticized but could not change a policy in South Africa that said gay priests would be tolerated as long as they remained celibate. He did approve church blessings for gay and lesbian relationships, without calling them marriage.
22 September 2006
mrs budak's lair was suspended
As a reader of mrs budak's lair I was surprised that it was suspended by LiveJournal. It wasn't until today, I realised why. She was suspended because some stupid pre-NUS student didn't like his letter to be reproduced and her rebuttal. This of course is pure speculation but read the letter and rebuttal yourself and see if you come to the same conclusion.
I'm reproducing what mrs budak can't.
the letter to the Straits Times:
Why can’t I get subsidy for university education?
I am a student of the National University of Singapore and have just matriculated two months ago. What is very displeasing to me are the subsidies and the financial aid to help me pay my school fees.
My family’s income is only $1,000 a month and paying $3,000 for each semester (there are eight semesters) is totally impossible for me.
SINDA did not help me when I approached it for financial assistance. SINDA told me there is no policy for Indian tertiary students to receive financial help.
It is very unfair because two of my Muslim friends who approached Mendaki for help have had their entire education fees sponsored. The full amount comes close to $25,000.
All their school fees have been taken care of, and unlike me their families’ incomes are below $2,000 but well above $1,000.
How can I swallow that? Well, I decided to take a loan from NUS. But taking the loan is not solving the root cause of my problem. It is just piling up the debts with the bank when I graduate.
Why do I deserve to be put in this situation when other students can receive financial aid so easily?
The few bursaries that I had applied for in NUS did not get any attention. The Registar’s office kept telling me the results would only be known at a ‘certain date’, and when I called to ask, it pushed the date further back.
As an eye opener to those who are unaware of it, the bursaries are only $1,500 a year and they don’t cover me for each semester. So that is really not much of a help.
Worse still, the bursaries are not given throughout the course of study but only once. What’s the point then?
How is this situation affecting me? Simple. It is literally impossible for me to concentrate on my studies when deep down inside, I feel I am being deprived of any help at all.
I and my family are making sacrifices to make ends meet.
NUS is among the top 20 universities in the world. But there is nothing to brag about when you can’t even help your own students realise their dreams.
Girish s/o Ahsin Thannabal, Sept 30, 2005, ST Forum
--------------------------------------------------------
[info]mrsbudak's post:
Student says: Why no free education for meeeeeee??????
Fact: University school fees are expensive.
Fact: Financial assistance to students is limited.
Fact: Many university students come from poor families.
Fact: These students are able to complete their education in the university.
Another one of those “I’ve been there” posts. When I received the acceptance package from NUS, one of the first things we did was to discuss how to manage the finances of a university education. My mom was prepared to give me a lump sum pocket allowance every year, from the money she painstakedly guarded for 10 years. However, it was clear that I’d have to take up a Tuition Fee Loan and apply for all sorts of grants and bursaries.
The bursaries and grants will not help you defray 100% of the costs; they’re not meant to. These are no-bond grants given out based on need, and are actually a lifeline for students struggling to manage their financial situation. The Tuition Fee Loan also does not cover 100% of the fees; it covers up to a maximum of 85% (I think), so you’ll still have to pay the remainder in cash. But don’t forget - it’s interest-free during your studies and for one year after graduation. If you pay off the loan within one year of graduating, you don’t pay interest! Where else can you find such a loan? It’s a sibeh good deal!
So I applied for the POSB loan, applied for the bursaries, and applied for anything basically. I got the loan and the grant for the first year.
I also got to work on campus, and earned about $200 per month as a computer lab assistant. There’re actually several employment opportunities on campus. Otherwise, there’s the usual private tuition route, which actually pays very well. I also worked during the vacation for some additional pocket money. It did mean that activities such as overseas attachment were out for me, but that was fine.
So your family can be poor, but you will still be able to afford a university education - if you’re willing to put in the work. But what I’m reading here is this student expects his university expenses to be sponsored 100%. He’s complaining that he doesn’t get “any help” at all.
Wait a minute:
1) Bond-free grant of $1,500 per year;
2) Tuition Fee Loan which settles 85% of your fees and on which no interest is charged as long as you are still studying;
3) On and off-campus part-time employment opportunities.
I think he’s blinded by his sense of entitlement. He says he can’t concentrate, because his friends got full subsidy but he has to take up a loan and end up in debt. Well buddy - SO DO MANY OTHER STUDENTS! My loan was almost $10K; budak’s was about $15K (one extra year plus foreign student rate). We paid off our respective loans within four years of graduation.
So because you must actually fork out money for an education, you feel so buay song (unhappy) that you cannot concentrate?
Sorry, my sympathies are not with you.
I'm reproducing what mrs budak can't.
the letter to the Straits Times:
Why can’t I get subsidy for university education?
I am a student of the National University of Singapore and have just matriculated two months ago. What is very displeasing to me are the subsidies and the financial aid to help me pay my school fees.
My family’s income is only $1,000 a month and paying $3,000 for each semester (there are eight semesters) is totally impossible for me.
SINDA did not help me when I approached it for financial assistance. SINDA told me there is no policy for Indian tertiary students to receive financial help.
It is very unfair because two of my Muslim friends who approached Mendaki for help have had their entire education fees sponsored. The full amount comes close to $25,000.
All their school fees have been taken care of, and unlike me their families’ incomes are below $2,000 but well above $1,000.
How can I swallow that? Well, I decided to take a loan from NUS. But taking the loan is not solving the root cause of my problem. It is just piling up the debts with the bank when I graduate.
Why do I deserve to be put in this situation when other students can receive financial aid so easily?
The few bursaries that I had applied for in NUS did not get any attention. The Registar’s office kept telling me the results would only be known at a ‘certain date’, and when I called to ask, it pushed the date further back.
As an eye opener to those who are unaware of it, the bursaries are only $1,500 a year and they don’t cover me for each semester. So that is really not much of a help.
Worse still, the bursaries are not given throughout the course of study but only once. What’s the point then?
How is this situation affecting me? Simple. It is literally impossible for me to concentrate on my studies when deep down inside, I feel I am being deprived of any help at all.
I and my family are making sacrifices to make ends meet.
NUS is among the top 20 universities in the world. But there is nothing to brag about when you can’t even help your own students realise their dreams.
Girish s/o Ahsin Thannabal, Sept 30, 2005, ST Forum
--------------------------------------------------------
[info]mrsbudak's post:
Student says: Why no free education for meeeeeee??????
Fact: University school fees are expensive.
Fact: Financial assistance to students is limited.
Fact: Many university students come from poor families.
Fact: These students are able to complete their education in the university.
Another one of those “I’ve been there” posts. When I received the acceptance package from NUS, one of the first things we did was to discuss how to manage the finances of a university education. My mom was prepared to give me a lump sum pocket allowance every year, from the money she painstakedly guarded for 10 years. However, it was clear that I’d have to take up a Tuition Fee Loan and apply for all sorts of grants and bursaries.
The bursaries and grants will not help you defray 100% of the costs; they’re not meant to. These are no-bond grants given out based on need, and are actually a lifeline for students struggling to manage their financial situation. The Tuition Fee Loan also does not cover 100% of the fees; it covers up to a maximum of 85% (I think), so you’ll still have to pay the remainder in cash. But don’t forget - it’s interest-free during your studies and for one year after graduation. If you pay off the loan within one year of graduating, you don’t pay interest! Where else can you find such a loan? It’s a sibeh good deal!
So I applied for the POSB loan, applied for the bursaries, and applied for anything basically. I got the loan and the grant for the first year.
I also got to work on campus, and earned about $200 per month as a computer lab assistant. There’re actually several employment opportunities on campus. Otherwise, there’s the usual private tuition route, which actually pays very well. I also worked during the vacation for some additional pocket money. It did mean that activities such as overseas attachment were out for me, but that was fine.
So your family can be poor, but you will still be able to afford a university education - if you’re willing to put in the work. But what I’m reading here is this student expects his university expenses to be sponsored 100%. He’s complaining that he doesn’t get “any help” at all.
Wait a minute:
1) Bond-free grant of $1,500 per year;
2) Tuition Fee Loan which settles 85% of your fees and on which no interest is charged as long as you are still studying;
3) On and off-campus part-time employment opportunities.
I think he’s blinded by his sense of entitlement. He says he can’t concentrate, because his friends got full subsidy but he has to take up a loan and end up in debt. Well buddy - SO DO MANY OTHER STUDENTS! My loan was almost $10K; budak’s was about $15K (one extra year plus foreign student rate). We paid off our respective loans within four years of graduation.
So because you must actually fork out money for an education, you feel so buay song (unhappy) that you cannot concentrate?
Sorry, my sympathies are not with you.
20 September 2006
Nature vs Nature
This is such a beautiful summary of the research done being gay "nature vs nature".
Sifting through divergent theories
Stefanie Frith
The Desert Sun
September 21, 2006
Nature versus nurture.
Biology versus environment.
Scientific studies have led to many divergent theories about what makes people gay, including the announcement in 1993 that there is a "gay gene."
But none of these biologists, psychologists and academics have a concrete answer.
Organizers of the Love Won Out conference, to be held Indian Wells on Saturday, say they can change homosexuality.
Others say this is simply impossible.
The following are some of the studies and theories that claim to support the two major theories:
American Psychiatric Association It took the APA until 1973 to remove "homosexuality"
from its manual of mental disorders.
Today, the group remains opposed to psychiatric treatment to "cure" homosexuality, such as
"reparative" or conversion therapy, which is based on the assumption that homosexuality is a mental
disorder.
The APA's handbook on homosexuality says the following:
"There are numerous theories about the origins of a person's sexual orientation. ... There is also
considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a
significant role in a person's sexuality ... there are probably many reasons for a person's sexual
orientation and the reasons may be different for different people."
American Medical Association In its official statement concerning homosexuality,
the American Medical Association includes the following:
"(The AMA) opposes the use of 'reparative' or 'conversion' therapy that is based on the assumption
that homosexuality per se is a mental disorder or based upon a prior assumption that the patient should
change his/her homosexual orientation."
First Biological Test
In 1957, Karen Hooker conducted the first psychological test for biological determination on a
grant from the National Institute of Mental Health.
Looking at both homosexuals and heterosexuals, Hooker conducted three psychological tests. The results
yielded no significant differences in answers to the tests. Because both groups had similar scores, Hooker
concluded a zero correlation between social determination of sexuality.
As a result of her study, the APA removed homosexuality from its list of mental disorders.
1990 Brain Size Study
D.F. Swabb was the first to document a physiological difference in the anatomical structure of gay men's
brains.
In a post-mortem examination of homosexual males' brains that a portion of the brain believed to control
sexual behavior was structurally different than a heterosexual brain, a small portion of the hypothalamus was twice the size of a heterosexual's.
At the same time, another scientist, Laura S. Allen, also made a similar discovery that the hypothalamus
was larger in homosexuals' brains.
1991 Brain Size Study
San Diego-based neuroscientist Simon LeVay said in 1991 he had found a key difference between the brains
of homosexual and heterosexual men he had studied. A tiny group of neurons of a part of the brain believed
to control sexual behavior was, on average, more than twice the size in straight men than gay men.
A limitation, however, is that the clumps could have changed size because of homosexual behavior.
A Twin Study
Boston University psychiatrist Richard Pillard and Northwestern University psychologist announced in 1991
that, in identical twins, if one twin was gay, the other had about a 50 percent chance of also being gay.
In fraternal twins, the rate was about 20 percent.
Since identical twins share their genetic makeup and fraternal twins only half, the researchers believed
genes were the explanation. The more closely genetically linked a pair is, the more likely they are
to exhibit gay or straight tendencies.
Still, twin studies remain a highly debated area of experimentation.
Gay Gene Study
Harvard-trained Dean Hamer announced the biggest news in 1993 with his discovery of the "gay gene." The
National Cancer Institute researcher found that gay brothers shared a specific region of the X chromosome
at a higher rate than gay men shared with straight brothers.
Hamer took 40 DNA samples from homosexual men and genetically examined them. He found there was a
remarkable link for five genetic markers on a section of the X chromosome called Xq28.
Hamer hypothesized after examining the family trees of the same men that on each of the subjects' mother's
side, there were higher numbers of homosexual men.
Parental Manipulation Theory
This 1974 theory from Richard Alexander says that one or both parents are able to neuter and control
offspring to promote their (the parent's) evolutionary fitness, which passes the genes into the next
generation. If heterosexuality is the only acceptable practice, parents are then attempting to promote their
passage of genes.
Kin-Selection Theory
This 1963 theory from William Hamilton states that it doesn't matter how genes are passed to the next
generation, as long as they are passed along. For example, regardless of a homosexual outcome, the
similar genetic makeup of siblings will still allow family genetics to be passed to the next generation.
Planophysical Theory
Freudian psychologist David Halperin believed homosexuality is a freak of nature, an error.
He said that a weak father and strong mother with an unresolved Oedipus complex will lead to a weak, then
homosexual son because the mother has a strong image. Other psychologists have argued the opposite, however. A stronger son who is compensating for his weak father.
Homosexuality Unequal
Social theorist Jean Foucault believes homosexuality was created 100 years ago, after a German neologism
came up with the term 20 years later.
According to John Thorp's "The Social Construction of Homosexuality," Foucault believes that homosexuality
appeared as one form of sexuality, only "after it was transposed from the practice of sodomy into a kind of
interior androgyny, a hermaphrodism of the soul."
The Ex-Gay Study
In 2001, Robert Spitzer, a professor of psychiatry at Columbia University, discovered that some highly
motivational people can change people from gay to straight.
He conducted 200 telephone interviews with people who had already changed their sexual orientation.
About 66 percent of men and 44 percent of women he interviewed had, over the course of a few years,
achieved a level of "good heterosexual functioning."
There were limitations, though. For example, there was no way to tell if the subjects were telling the truth.
Also, many of his subjects were religious figures who said they had changed.
Opposite Sex Twin Study
In 2002, Peter Bearman from Columbia University and Hannah Bruckner from Yale studied factors related to
same-sex attraction in a group of 20,745 adolescents.
They found that males with an opposite-sex twin were more than twice as likely to report same-sex
attraction compared to males with a male or female non-twin sibling.
Unlike studies looking at the fraternal birth order effect (FBOE) that state the more older biological
brothers one has, the more likely one is to be gay, no FBOE was found in this study.
Instead, Bearman and Bruckner found the opposite-sex twin effect was eliminated by the presence of an older
brother. Furthermore, they found no evidence for genetic or pre-natal effects. For example, the
presence of a twin sister with no older brother could push family and peer life away from male-gendered
activities.
Sweat and Urine Study
Last year, Swedish researchers reported finding differences in how the brains of straight men and gay
men responded to women's urine and male sweat, both believed to be pheromones (scent-related chemicals
that are key to sexual arousal in animals).
When straight men smelled the female urine compound, their hypothalamus lit up. Not so with the gay men.
Instead, their brains lit up when they smelled the male sweat compound.
Fruit Fly Study
In 2005, scientists in Vienna isolated a master genetic switch for sexual orientation in fruit flies.
When they flipped the switch, the genetically altered females ignored advances from males and attempted to
mate with females, even doing to the courting dance and song that males use.
Gay Brothers Study
A five-year genetic study of gay brothers is now under way in North America. A sample of 1,000 gay brother
pairs will be used, as well as the latest in genetic screening. The study aims to bring clarity to what role genes play in homosexuality.
Sources: American Medical Association, American
Psychological Association, Boston.com, allpsych.com,
wikipedia.com, narth.com, family.org, glad.org.
Sifting through divergent theories
Stefanie Frith
The Desert Sun
September 21, 2006
Nature versus nurture.
Biology versus environment.
Scientific studies have led to many divergent theories about what makes people gay, including the announcement in 1993 that there is a "gay gene."
But none of these biologists, psychologists and academics have a concrete answer.
Organizers of the Love Won Out conference, to be held Indian Wells on Saturday, say they can change homosexuality.
Others say this is simply impossible.
The following are some of the studies and theories that claim to support the two major theories:
American Psychiatric Association It took the APA until 1973 to remove "homosexuality"
from its manual of mental disorders.
Today, the group remains opposed to psychiatric treatment to "cure" homosexuality, such as
"reparative" or conversion therapy, which is based on the assumption that homosexuality is a mental
disorder.
The APA's handbook on homosexuality says the following:
"There are numerous theories about the origins of a person's sexual orientation. ... There is also
considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a
significant role in a person's sexuality ... there are probably many reasons for a person's sexual
orientation and the reasons may be different for different people."
American Medical Association In its official statement concerning homosexuality,
the American Medical Association includes the following:
"(The AMA) opposes the use of 'reparative' or 'conversion' therapy that is based on the assumption
that homosexuality per se is a mental disorder or based upon a prior assumption that the patient should
change his/her homosexual orientation."
First Biological Test
In 1957, Karen Hooker conducted the first psychological test for biological determination on a
grant from the National Institute of Mental Health.
Looking at both homosexuals and heterosexuals, Hooker conducted three psychological tests. The results
yielded no significant differences in answers to the tests. Because both groups had similar scores, Hooker
concluded a zero correlation between social determination of sexuality.
As a result of her study, the APA removed homosexuality from its list of mental disorders.
1990 Brain Size Study
D.F. Swabb was the first to document a physiological difference in the anatomical structure of gay men's
brains.
In a post-mortem examination of homosexual males' brains that a portion of the brain believed to control
sexual behavior was structurally different than a heterosexual brain, a small portion of the hypothalamus was twice the size of a heterosexual's.
At the same time, another scientist, Laura S. Allen, also made a similar discovery that the hypothalamus
was larger in homosexuals' brains.
1991 Brain Size Study
San Diego-based neuroscientist Simon LeVay said in 1991 he had found a key difference between the brains
of homosexual and heterosexual men he had studied. A tiny group of neurons of a part of the brain believed
to control sexual behavior was, on average, more than twice the size in straight men than gay men.
A limitation, however, is that the clumps could have changed size because of homosexual behavior.
A Twin Study
Boston University psychiatrist Richard Pillard and Northwestern University psychologist announced in 1991
that, in identical twins, if one twin was gay, the other had about a 50 percent chance of also being gay.
In fraternal twins, the rate was about 20 percent.
Since identical twins share their genetic makeup and fraternal twins only half, the researchers believed
genes were the explanation. The more closely genetically linked a pair is, the more likely they are
to exhibit gay or straight tendencies.
Still, twin studies remain a highly debated area of experimentation.
Gay Gene Study
Harvard-trained Dean Hamer announced the biggest news in 1993 with his discovery of the "gay gene." The
National Cancer Institute researcher found that gay brothers shared a specific region of the X chromosome
at a higher rate than gay men shared with straight brothers.
Hamer took 40 DNA samples from homosexual men and genetically examined them. He found there was a
remarkable link for five genetic markers on a section of the X chromosome called Xq28.
Hamer hypothesized after examining the family trees of the same men that on each of the subjects' mother's
side, there were higher numbers of homosexual men.
Parental Manipulation Theory
This 1974 theory from Richard Alexander says that one or both parents are able to neuter and control
offspring to promote their (the parent's) evolutionary fitness, which passes the genes into the next
generation. If heterosexuality is the only acceptable practice, parents are then attempting to promote their
passage of genes.
Kin-Selection Theory
This 1963 theory from William Hamilton states that it doesn't matter how genes are passed to the next
generation, as long as they are passed along. For example, regardless of a homosexual outcome, the
similar genetic makeup of siblings will still allow family genetics to be passed to the next generation.
Planophysical Theory
Freudian psychologist David Halperin believed homosexuality is a freak of nature, an error.
He said that a weak father and strong mother with an unresolved Oedipus complex will lead to a weak, then
homosexual son because the mother has a strong image. Other psychologists have argued the opposite, however. A stronger son who is compensating for his weak father.
Homosexuality Unequal
Social theorist Jean Foucault believes homosexuality was created 100 years ago, after a German neologism
came up with the term 20 years later.
According to John Thorp's "The Social Construction of Homosexuality," Foucault believes that homosexuality
appeared as one form of sexuality, only "after it was transposed from the practice of sodomy into a kind of
interior androgyny, a hermaphrodism of the soul."
The Ex-Gay Study
In 2001, Robert Spitzer, a professor of psychiatry at Columbia University, discovered that some highly
motivational people can change people from gay to straight.
He conducted 200 telephone interviews with people who had already changed their sexual orientation.
About 66 percent of men and 44 percent of women he interviewed had, over the course of a few years,
achieved a level of "good heterosexual functioning."
There were limitations, though. For example, there was no way to tell if the subjects were telling the truth.
Also, many of his subjects were religious figures who said they had changed.
Opposite Sex Twin Study
In 2002, Peter Bearman from Columbia University and Hannah Bruckner from Yale studied factors related to
same-sex attraction in a group of 20,745 adolescents.
They found that males with an opposite-sex twin were more than twice as likely to report same-sex
attraction compared to males with a male or female non-twin sibling.
Unlike studies looking at the fraternal birth order effect (FBOE) that state the more older biological
brothers one has, the more likely one is to be gay, no FBOE was found in this study.
Instead, Bearman and Bruckner found the opposite-sex twin effect was eliminated by the presence of an older
brother. Furthermore, they found no evidence for genetic or pre-natal effects. For example, the
presence of a twin sister with no older brother could push family and peer life away from male-gendered
activities.
Sweat and Urine Study
Last year, Swedish researchers reported finding differences in how the brains of straight men and gay
men responded to women's urine and male sweat, both believed to be pheromones (scent-related chemicals
that are key to sexual arousal in animals).
When straight men smelled the female urine compound, their hypothalamus lit up. Not so with the gay men.
Instead, their brains lit up when they smelled the male sweat compound.
Fruit Fly Study
In 2005, scientists in Vienna isolated a master genetic switch for sexual orientation in fruit flies.
When they flipped the switch, the genetically altered females ignored advances from males and attempted to
mate with females, even doing to the courting dance and song that males use.
Gay Brothers Study
A five-year genetic study of gay brothers is now under way in North America. A sample of 1,000 gay brother
pairs will be used, as well as the latest in genetic screening. The study aims to bring clarity to what role genes play in homosexuality.
Sources: American Medical Association, American
Psychological Association, Boston.com, allpsych.com,
wikipedia.com, narth.com, family.org, glad.org.
18 September 2006
Hooray
I'm so happy today! I can officially drive! Yes, I've passed my driving test. This is so nice but then again it doesn't really make a difference since I'm not planning to buy a car here.
If I have been in Sg, I wouldn't have bothered getting it, it cost so much to get your diving licence in Sg. It only cost me about AUD900 or less. It is so neat. Furthermore, I wouldn't have the chance to drive in Sg since I will never buy a car (it really cost too much, I believe).
Anyhow, it is a milestone in my life.
If I have been in Sg, I wouldn't have bothered getting it, it cost so much to get your diving licence in Sg. It only cost me about AUD900 or less. It is so neat. Furthermore, I wouldn't have the chance to drive in Sg since I will never buy a car (it really cost too much, I believe).
Anyhow, it is a milestone in my life.
15 September 2006
We are not in the wrong
I always find it amazing that the local media usually try to write that Singapore's gahmen has done the right thing. The champions for the gahmen, the non-partisan newspaper that we are so proud of, since they NEVER take sides and only report the truth and never sensationalise.
It is funny because in this IMF/World Bank summit all the media in the world (the ones that have freedom of speech) have hyped of Singapore being ridged and authoritarian.
Intelligent Singaporean has a number of the links to it.
And yet our local news network (Channel News Asia (CNA)) seems to be the only one that reports that "S2006 organising committee says it has not breached agreement with IMF/World Bank". Who are they trying to convince? Singaporeans? It is odd, when the only thing that we ever hear about this summit is how 'bad' Singapore is as a host country. This report by CNA will go un-noticed by the world at large but then again we don't care what the world thinks about us as our Second Minister for Information, Communications and the Arts, Dr Vivian Balakrishnan said, "I am not at all concerned at all about what the foreign media thinks." (taken from Dairy of a Singaporean Mind)
So this article is just to convince the 4 million people on the island that the gahmen has done the right thing.
S2006 organising committee says it has not breached agreement with IMF/World Bank
By Rita Zahara, Channel NewsAsia | Posted: 14 September 2006 1852 hrs
SINGAPORE: The Singapore 2006 organising committee says it is aware of its obligations to an agreement signed with the IMF/World Bank three years ago, and will continue to honour them.
This comes after leaders of the two institutions claimed that Singapore had gone back on its word.
The IMF and World Bank have spoken up against Singapore objecting to the accreditation of 27 civil society activists for the meetings.
"I certainly hope their opinions are not the reason they're being excluded. If their opinions are critical of our institutions, it's all the more critical for us to hear them. If this is censorship based on alleged views of people, then it's an even more serious problem," said Paul Wolfowitz, World Bank President.
"We believe that all the organisations that have been accredited by us should be here. We will make all our efforts to make sure they can participate in the dialogue," said Rodrigo de Rato, International Monetary Fund Chief.
The IMF and World Bank leaders have reinforced the importance for civil society organisations to be engaged in this high-level dialogue.
That is because it is the civil society groups which will communicate to the beneficiaries on how they will receive help from the IMF and World Bank.
Responding, the Singapore 2006 organising committee says it takes its duty as HOST country seriously.
The memorandum of understanding with the IMF-World Bank obliges Singapore to take all necessary measures to ensure the safety of delegates.
It also explained that Singapore highlighted concerns about 27 out of the 500 activists, because of law and order concerns.
Some of the affected activists were previously involved in violent activities at other international meetings.
One had broken into the World Bank headquarters in Washington DC to steal confidential papers. On another occasion, he had taken over a Consulate in San Francisco.
The IMF/World Bank have asked the government to allow in the 27 activists.
Singapore has said that if they do travel here, they will be assessed at entry, whether they pose a security risk.
If the risk is acceptable, that person will be let in, but Singapore cannot guarantee that all 27 activists will be admitted.
In fact the number of such activists has dropped from 28 to 27, because one has been dropped from the list after security considerations. - CNA /dt
It is funny because in this IMF/World Bank summit all the media in the world (the ones that have freedom of speech) have hyped of Singapore being ridged and authoritarian.
Intelligent Singaporean has a number of the links to it.
And yet our local news network (Channel News Asia (CNA)) seems to be the only one that reports that "S2006 organising committee says it has not breached agreement with IMF/World Bank". Who are they trying to convince? Singaporeans? It is odd, when the only thing that we ever hear about this summit is how 'bad' Singapore is as a host country. This report by CNA will go un-noticed by the world at large but then again we don't care what the world thinks about us as our Second Minister for Information, Communications and the Arts, Dr Vivian Balakrishnan said, "I am not at all concerned at all about what the foreign media thinks." (taken from Dairy of a Singaporean Mind)
So this article is just to convince the 4 million people on the island that the gahmen has done the right thing.
S2006 organising committee says it has not breached agreement with IMF/World Bank
By Rita Zahara, Channel NewsAsia | Posted: 14 September 2006 1852 hrs
SINGAPORE: The Singapore 2006 organising committee says it is aware of its obligations to an agreement signed with the IMF/World Bank three years ago, and will continue to honour them.
This comes after leaders of the two institutions claimed that Singapore had gone back on its word.
The IMF and World Bank have spoken up against Singapore objecting to the accreditation of 27 civil society activists for the meetings.
"I certainly hope their opinions are not the reason they're being excluded. If their opinions are critical of our institutions, it's all the more critical for us to hear them. If this is censorship based on alleged views of people, then it's an even more serious problem," said Paul Wolfowitz, World Bank President.
"We believe that all the organisations that have been accredited by us should be here. We will make all our efforts to make sure they can participate in the dialogue," said Rodrigo de Rato, International Monetary Fund Chief.
The IMF and World Bank leaders have reinforced the importance for civil society organisations to be engaged in this high-level dialogue.
That is because it is the civil society groups which will communicate to the beneficiaries on how they will receive help from the IMF and World Bank.
Responding, the Singapore 2006 organising committee says it takes its duty as HOST country seriously.
The memorandum of understanding with the IMF-World Bank obliges Singapore to take all necessary measures to ensure the safety of delegates.
It also explained that Singapore highlighted concerns about 27 out of the 500 activists, because of law and order concerns.
Some of the affected activists were previously involved in violent activities at other international meetings.
One had broken into the World Bank headquarters in Washington DC to steal confidential papers. On another occasion, he had taken over a Consulate in San Francisco.
The IMF/World Bank have asked the government to allow in the 27 activists.
Singapore has said that if they do travel here, they will be assessed at entry, whether they pose a security risk.
If the risk is acceptable, that person will be let in, but Singapore cannot guarantee that all 27 activists will be admitted.
In fact the number of such activists has dropped from 28 to 27, because one has been dropped from the list after security considerations. - CNA /dt
13 September 2006
The 'infallible' church
It is so expected and somewhat typical that the Pope says the wrong things. What can you expected from a bigoted and self-rightous person like him? He has official offended a lot of people with his statement. I love the way Islam seems to be portrayed as a violent religion. If you know about Europe's history, you'll know that the Catholic Church brought about conversion by the sword, i.e. believe or die.
And the Vatican tries to tell people that they are the "peaceful ones". Oh please, spare me the hypocrisy.
Here is the story
And the Vatican tries to tell people that they are the "peaceful ones". Oh please, spare me the hypocrisy.
Here is the story
06 September 2006
History
Truly Frank Herbert (of the Dune series) said correctly, "history is written by the victors". So can we trust it?
I never realised this about Singapore's "2nd University", rather interesting to know that the 'official' historical facts are so different from the ones that the graduates remember.
Taken from NTU's incredible lies about history of Nantah
Written by jon.sherwin (pen name I think)
I found the following paragraphs on NTU's website:
"The university has a distinguished lineage with roots that go back to 1955. We began as Nanyang University (Nantah), the first Chinese-language university in Southeast Asia, through donations from all walks of life, with the Yunnan Garden campus donated by the Singapore Hokkien Huay Kuan.
Nanyang Technological Institute was reborn on the same campus in 1981 with government funding to educate practice-oriented engineers for the burgeoning Singapore economy. In 1991 we became Nanyang Technological University with the absorption of the National Institute of Education."
source: http://www.ntu.edu.sg/publicportal/...+us/history.htm
Anyone with a sense of history can tell you Nantah was founded by late Tan Lark Sye in 1953 but unfortunately closed down by Lee Kuan Yew in 1980. (PAP supporters among Nantah alumni always insist that Nantah was "merged" with Singapore University to form the NUS -- make it more palatable to public perception). On the other hand, NTU was founded by Lee Kuan Yew in Nantah's old campus as NTI in 1982 initially and upgraded to NTU in 1992.
And don't forget that Nantah was a real CHINESE university (the only Chinese university outside of China and Taiwan so far) while NTU is an English university with a non-significant "Department of Chinese". (NUS has one too, nowadays, which decent university in the world does not have a Chinese Department?).
So you see, other than sharing the same premise, the two universities have no commonality AT ALL, what "lineage with roots" are they talking about ?
The fact of the matter is this: the property of now defunct Nanyang University was confiscated and given to NTU, the whole campus was ransacked and almost demolished, the old buildings torn down and replaced by new ones, the beloved Nantah Gate was defaced and cut off from the campus by the highway (They wanted to tear down the Gate but no contractors dared to take the contract).
After Nantah was closed down in 1980, no one heard about Nantah or Tan Lark Sye on media until 1989 when someone in PAP sensed that China was going to be reckoned with as another powerful country on earth. They started to see the economical value of Nantah's name (which they hastenly discarded in 1980) in pursuing the Chinese business, but the regime had been most unkind to Nantah and Tan Lark Sye, the big question was how could they erase this thorny historical blackmark in people's mind ? The whole PAP propaganda machinery with the help from media has been working on this single idea ever since. They seemed to have found the solution to their problem, namely, to modify and distort the history of Nantah and NTU ...
First they changed the Chinese abbreviation of NTU from LiDa to NanDa (i.e. Nantah) on Chinese media which created an illusion on the mind of Chinese readers and audience as if Nantah was still alive. Later, Dr. Su Guaning started to push renaming of NTU's official name to "Nanyang University" which naturally met opposition from silent Chinese community in Singapore and Nantah alumni. Consequently the idea was dropped in 2004 (the rumor has it that Lee Kuan Yew was annoyed by comments made by oppositions of renaming and requests by some supporters of renaming to rehabitate his most despised enemy Tan Lark Sye) while they were planning a huge ceremony to be held in June of 2005.
With name-change or no name-change, now they just want you to sincerely believe that this angmo NTU is the same Nantah built in 1953 by Tan Lark Sye with the help from Chinese people of southeast Asia, and it has been operating since 1955, as if nothing had happened in the year of 1980 ("No, no, no, we never closd down Nantah, what happened in 1980 was just your imagination, honey").
My friend gave me a metaphor to compare with what is going on here: "Someone killed your poor Chinese mother and confiscated your little atap hut. A twenty-ish Angmo woman comes along and moves in the hut. they now tell you in straight-face that this "50 years" old angmo jarbo is your old mother you missed so many years and she really never get killed!"
How can people believe such shameless fabrication and distortion of history? (Don't tell me Singaporeans are so gullible and stupid to put up with such nonsense. Are they?)
Personally, I have to say I was ignorant of this and now I have been enlightened (yet again). "History is written by victors".
I never realised this about Singapore's "2nd University", rather interesting to know that the 'official' historical facts are so different from the ones that the graduates remember.
Taken from NTU's incredible lies about history of Nantah
Written by jon.sherwin (pen name I think)
I found the following paragraphs on NTU's website:
"The university has a distinguished lineage with roots that go back to 1955. We began as Nanyang University (Nantah), the first Chinese-language university in Southeast Asia, through donations from all walks of life, with the Yunnan Garden campus donated by the Singapore Hokkien Huay Kuan.
Nanyang Technological Institute was reborn on the same campus in 1981 with government funding to educate practice-oriented engineers for the burgeoning Singapore economy. In 1991 we became Nanyang Technological University with the absorption of the National Institute of Education."
source: http://www.ntu.edu.sg/publicportal/...+us/history.htm
Anyone with a sense of history can tell you Nantah was founded by late Tan Lark Sye in 1953 but unfortunately closed down by Lee Kuan Yew in 1980. (PAP supporters among Nantah alumni always insist that Nantah was "merged" with Singapore University to form the NUS -- make it more palatable to public perception). On the other hand, NTU was founded by Lee Kuan Yew in Nantah's old campus as NTI in 1982 initially and upgraded to NTU in 1992.
And don't forget that Nantah was a real CHINESE university (the only Chinese university outside of China and Taiwan so far) while NTU is an English university with a non-significant "Department of Chinese". (NUS has one too, nowadays, which decent university in the world does not have a Chinese Department?).
So you see, other than sharing the same premise, the two universities have no commonality AT ALL, what "lineage with roots" are they talking about ?
The fact of the matter is this: the property of now defunct Nanyang University was confiscated and given to NTU, the whole campus was ransacked and almost demolished, the old buildings torn down and replaced by new ones, the beloved Nantah Gate was defaced and cut off from the campus by the highway (They wanted to tear down the Gate but no contractors dared to take the contract).
After Nantah was closed down in 1980, no one heard about Nantah or Tan Lark Sye on media until 1989 when someone in PAP sensed that China was going to be reckoned with as another powerful country on earth. They started to see the economical value of Nantah's name (which they hastenly discarded in 1980) in pursuing the Chinese business, but the regime had been most unkind to Nantah and Tan Lark Sye, the big question was how could they erase this thorny historical blackmark in people's mind ? The whole PAP propaganda machinery with the help from media has been working on this single idea ever since. They seemed to have found the solution to their problem, namely, to modify and distort the history of Nantah and NTU ...
First they changed the Chinese abbreviation of NTU from LiDa to NanDa (i.e. Nantah) on Chinese media which created an illusion on the mind of Chinese readers and audience as if Nantah was still alive. Later, Dr. Su Guaning started to push renaming of NTU's official name to "Nanyang University" which naturally met opposition from silent Chinese community in Singapore and Nantah alumni. Consequently the idea was dropped in 2004 (the rumor has it that Lee Kuan Yew was annoyed by comments made by oppositions of renaming and requests by some supporters of renaming to rehabitate his most despised enemy Tan Lark Sye) while they were planning a huge ceremony to be held in June of 2005.
With name-change or no name-change, now they just want you to sincerely believe that this angmo NTU is the same Nantah built in 1953 by Tan Lark Sye with the help from Chinese people of southeast Asia, and it has been operating since 1955, as if nothing had happened in the year of 1980 ("No, no, no, we never closd down Nantah, what happened in 1980 was just your imagination, honey").
My friend gave me a metaphor to compare with what is going on here: "Someone killed your poor Chinese mother and confiscated your little atap hut. A twenty-ish Angmo woman comes along and moves in the hut. they now tell you in straight-face that this "50 years" old angmo jarbo is your old mother you missed so many years and she really never get killed!"
How can people believe such shameless fabrication and distortion of history? (Don't tell me Singaporeans are so gullible and stupid to put up with such nonsense. Are they?)
Personally, I have to say I was ignorant of this and now I have been enlightened (yet again). "History is written by victors".
Friends indeed!
I have realised that by my being here in Melbourne, I have weeded out the people who are not really friends. I have 2 close friends who I meet rather regularly when I was back in Singapore. These 2 were my University mates and both of them know I’m gay. One of them is my best friend (female) and the other is a very close male friend. I mean you don’t come out to a person you are not close to.
Well I heard from another friend of mind that this male University mate of mine was married last weekend! And I didn’t even know about it! No e-mails, no letters, no nothing to tell me about it. I don’t mind if I’m not invited or given an invitation because I’m here but at least inform me about it.
Out of sight, out of mind.
Friends who I’ve made a few years back are telling me things about their lives, major things that is (like buying an apartment, having a new boyfriend or girlfriend, etc.), via e-mail, instant messenger, etc. these people only know me for a few years, unlike this guy who know me for at least 10+ years.
It does show doesn’t it who your real friends are.
Well I heard from another friend of mind that this male University mate of mine was married last weekend! And I didn’t even know about it! No e-mails, no letters, no nothing to tell me about it. I don’t mind if I’m not invited or given an invitation because I’m here but at least inform me about it.
Out of sight, out of mind.
Friends who I’ve made a few years back are telling me things about their lives, major things that is (like buying an apartment, having a new boyfriend or girlfriend, etc.), via e-mail, instant messenger, etc. these people only know me for a few years, unlike this guy who know me for at least 10+ years.
It does show doesn’t it who your real friends are.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
