My Bitching Area

What is the PTC for, really.

2007-12-28T14:13:00.000+11:00

After leaving Singapore, I've decided that I have no right to write about Singapore's political system, therefore, there have been nothing to write. But this is something that is not political, per se. And it really got on my nerves.

When the proposal was submitted to the Public Transport Council (PTC) in June, it was rejected because the fare proposed ($1.30 per trip) was not appropriate for a premium bus service, usually priced between $2 to $3 per trip.

Isn't the PTC suppose to be for the people? Isn't that what it is tauted by them (not that we believe them anyway)?

What the heck, if I want to sell my service for this amount, what right has the PTC to insist that I charge a higher price?

If the PTC says that they want to make all services the same. HELLO! Isn't Singapore suppose to be about market forces? Don't we remember how SingTel (during their monopoly) stated that they cannot bring down the cost of overseas calls, mobile phone plans, etc. What happened after M1 and StarHub were given the go ahead? Prices dropped. Isn't that what a free market force is for?

So now you know Singaporeans, PTC is for the "public" (who were know are not public because obscene profits is their goal not the people) transporters and not the people. So really, why bother having them around? To ensure that prices are not raised unfairly? We know how "fair" the PTC is to the public. To ensure that transport operators remain comparative? I don't see how having 2 transport companies dealing with totally different lines can count as competition. To ensure that public transport companies keep their promises? I don't see a change in anything even though we have had price hikes for the past 5 years or so.

So what is the PTC for... really. Can anyone enlightened me?

Take from Today
26 December 2007

ANG MO KIO MP'S PUSH FOR LITTLE GREEN BUSES PAYS OFF

Nazry Bahrawi
nazry@mediacorp.com.sg

THESE little green buses are on trial providing a shuttle service from the Yio Chu Kang MRT station and bus interchange to nearby private housing estates. Despite being concerned over profitability, the Singapore Mass Rapid Transit System (SMRT) Corporation launched the route yesterday.

The new service is the result of some prodding by Ms Lee Bee Wah, MP for Ang Mo Kio GRC and adviser of Nee Soon South grassroots organisations, who managed to convince the transportation company after months of discussions.

As a result, two green air-conditioned minibuses - which can seat 19 people - would now serve some 1,200 households in Springside, Hong Heng, Thong Soon Gardens and Springleaf estates, stopping at five pick-up points in these areas.

Residents there had in the past complained to Ms Lee about the lack of public transport to a nearby MRT station or bus interchange, especially useful to students and the elderly.

It has been an arduous journey. Ms Lee spent about one year trying to convince SBS Transit and SMRT of the need for such a service, but both were concerned about its feasibility.

While SBS Transit rejected the idea because it was "not viable", SMRT decided to give it a trial run after it conducted a feasibility study, said Ms Lee.

But that was not the only hurdle.

When the proposal was submitted to the Public Transport Council (PTC) in June, it was rejected because the fare proposed ($1.30 per trip) was not appropriate for a premium bus service, usually priced between $2 to $3 per trip.

"So I took another six months to talk to the PTC, Land Transport Authority and the Ministry of Transport. Eventually, I managed to get it approved last month," said Ms Lee, who added that she had even approached Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong for help.

Said SMRT's deputy chief executive officer Lee Seng Kee: "We made a projection and based on the population size, we believe that the $1.30 fare is feasible."

When asked what would happen if SMRT does not break even after three months, Mr Lee said: "We are prepared to extend for another four months. At the same time, the committee will talk to residents to use the service.
If that doesn't work, we would look at the numbers again."

Mr Wilson Zhuang, chairman of Springleaf Neighbourhood Committee, said the shuttle service would cut down travel to the nearest MRT by about 10 minutes.

Before the service, residents in the areas would take about 20 minutes to travel to Ang Mo Kio MRT station, which is further away, on bus 169, he said.

But another resident, a retiree in his 50s who declined to be named, said while he appreciate the effort by Ms Lee, he believed it would make better sense if the new shuttle service travels to Chong Pang town centre and Khatib MRT.

He said: "There is no market at Yio Chu Kang MRT station. Housewives would be happier if the service goes to Khatib MRT which is not only nearer but also has grocery shopping facilities."

Hope Concert 2007 in Singapore

2007-11-27T11:19:00.001+11:00

Tickets at $28 and $68 (includes cocktail reception) can be purchased by sending an email to information@oursafehaven.com. Or click on the poster above to go to their website.

Please help a good cause.

A beautiful blog entry

2007-10-25T15:46:00.000+10:00

I just read a beautiful blog entry by a father of 2. This dad shows what it really means to be Singaporean and living the real Singapore dream, a multi-cultural society where justice and equality is for all.

The Irrational Section 377A

I'm sad. Sad that the country that I love, hates me in return for the service (NS and ICTs) I've given to her. I'm a criminal in the eyes of the law and the parliament. My hatred for the PAP has run it course and now I'm just sad.

Good bye, Singapore. We (my partner and I) have decided to divorce you since you hate us so much.

My predictions

2007-10-23T10:26:00.000+10:00

I predict that S377A will be around for the next 50 years. It will survive even after Singapore dies.

I predict that Christians and Christianity will rule Singapore in the end and it will because a Christian country (where laws are biblically based) even though more than 60% of the population will not be Christian.

I predict that Singapore will fall into the same trap as USA now, where Church and State is not separated.

I predict that Singapore's economy will grow strong inspire of discrimination and injustices in the law.

I predict that as more Asian countries because more accepting of the GLBT community, we will leave Singapore and plant our roots overseas.

I predict that even if the whole of Asia (apart from the Muslim countries) allows same-sex unions, Singapore will still have S377A.

I predict that the PAP will never right this wrong because it will never effect Singapore economically.

I predict that even if 70% of the population is neutral (don't care one way or another) or pro-repeal S377A, the PAP will still site the usually,"Singapore is a conservative society..." and keep S377A.

I hope my predictions will never come true, but I'm really doubtful that Singapore will become any better for GLBTs, esp. when the gahmen panders to the fundamentalist christian minority, but having most of them (I think 50%) Christians does make one understand why.

Let's make adultary illegal too

2007-10-18T11:18:00.001+10:00

Sometimes I wonder how stupid the fundamentalist christians think we are. Just because you don't put your religious views into a letter, we don't know where you are coming from?

Take this letter from Renae. My rebuttal is in blue.

Today, Voices
18 October 2007

Most not for gay agenda
by Renae Sim Pei Pei

I AM concerned about the recent petition to Parliament to repeal Section 377A of the Penal Code, which forbids men from having sex with each other in public or private.

I am not against homosexuals; I recognise that they are as human and Singaporean as I am. As citizens, they already enjoy the same rights as the others.

Does this sound familiar? Let me refresh your memory, "Love the sinner, hate the sin". Let me paraphares this, "I am not against homosexuals but I still want them to be criminals". Sound hypercritical?

And what about her fabulous statement, "they already enjoy the same rights as the others". Let me see, the rights that heterosexuals have that we don't
1) Get married
2) Have children (i.e. adopt as a couple)
3) Protected when your spouse dies
4) Being able to put your spouse's name as beneficiary on insurance forms
5) No security (financial or otherwise, i.e. we don't get our partner's CPF, pensions)

Does it look like we have the same rights! Furthermore, to add injury to insult, we have to serve the army, pay taxes AND considered criminals. Does that sound like we have the same rights?

But what they are pushing for now is the Singaporean majority's approval of their behaviour. It is clear the majority does not covet the agenda that gay activists are pushing for. If Parliament repeals Section 377A, we will be unwittingly consenting to such behaviour.

So not have S377A means the gahmen/Singapore is consenting to gay men having sex. So the gahmen/Singapore consents/condones extra marital affairs, pre-martial sex and how about the latest - anal and oral sex between heterosexual couples. These are all condoned by the gahmen/Singapore and I presume (using Renae's assumption) is actively promoting it too. So the gahmen is sending a message to Singaporeans that you should have extra martial affairs (because there is no law against it), that you should have pre-martial sex (because there is no law against it), that you should have oral and anal sex with your spouse (because there is no law against it). Gosh, as a fundamentalist christian, aren't you cringing? Now that you know our laws are for/condoning these things?

Health factors are another reason why Singapore must not repeal Section 377A. Studies in the United States, Australia and Cambodia have shown that men who have sex with men are most vulnerable to HIV.

This really takes the cake. Studies are now sighted. Let me just tell say this, men are going to have sex with other men REGARDLESS of S377A. Just because it is illegal is not going to stop men from having sex with men. Look at the statistics. Men who have sex exclusively with other men are still around, and it has not stopped nor will it every stop, regardless if S337A is there or not.

Studies have also shown that people with multiple sex partners have a higher chance of getting HIV. And it doesn't matter if you are gay or not. How about a law against having multiple sex partners? Yea, like that would put a stop to people having more than 1 sex partner.

Why not have a law that makes men who have foreskins criminals? Studies have shown that circumcised men are less venerable to HIV.

The problem with people like this is that they don't see the bigger picture. If S377A is so useful in preventing HIV transmission (because NO men is having sex with each other) then why is the HIV numbers of men who have sex exclusively with men (MSM) on the rise (which made the gahmen do a double take). If you use her logic, then HIV infection rates for MSM should have fallen or even become zero.

The problem with S377A is this, with it there, the gahmen cannot launch a campaign to educate MSM about the risk of unprotected sex. How can you campaign it when it is actually illegal in the first place. And this is the big problem. The HIV infection rates in Singapore are increasing (not only with MSM but everone) because our education about safer sex is so lacking. Not everyone in the world are like fundamentalist christians, who can withhold sex until marriage or even have sex with only their spouse. They believe the world is "clean and pure" as sex is the biggest taboo in the christian culture. Violence is okay but sex is BAD, BAD, BAD.

I am most unwilling to see society degenerate with the legal approval of homosexual behaviour and fully support the Government's decision to preserve the law.

Let we really see where she's coming from, typical fundamentalist answer. "Do not want to see society degrade...".

Just a note from history, when African-Americans were considered 2nd class citizens (very much like gays in Singapore now), when thinking people started to protest against their unfair treatment, the answers the fundamentalist christians gave were, yup you guessed it, "... do not want to see society degrade..."

Which brings be to the 2nd letter (see below), which is basically the same thing. This is getting so boring, every point that fundamentalist christians bring up have been rebutted and refuted by thinking people. Sad to say, like a broken record, they will keep repeating the same statements over and over again, even when more and more people stop believing in them.

And because they are so worried about morality of society, I'll like to propose the follow laws:

Pre-marital Sex
"Whoever voluntarily has gross indecency before they are married under the law, shell be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 2 years"

Adultery
"Whoever voluntarily has gross indecency besides their spouse with any man or woman, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 2 years"

Orgies (yes, heterosexuals do have orgies too)
"Whoever voluntarily has gross indecency with more than 1 man or woman at the same time, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 2 years"

Toys
"Whoever voluntarily has gross indecency using sexual aids like toys, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 2 years"

Masturbation
"Whoever voluntarily has gross indecency with themselves, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 2 years"

I think with these extra laws to keep the morals of Singaporeans, Singapore will be the most moral and upright nation in the world.

Today, Voices
18 Octobel 2007

The measure of indecency
Charis Lee Ting Li

I refer to Felicia Tan Ying Yi's letter ("Teach youth the spirit of the law, not just its letter", Oct 17). Ms Tan talks about the importance of giving the youth the right tools and attitudes to help them make their own moral decisions, which I fully agree with.

However, I believe the most basic tools take the form of laws, which, beyond being a strict taskmaster, serve to reflect the consensus of the wider population.

Morality is not a black-and-white issue but if Section 377A prohibits "gross indecency", some sort of moral compass is needed here.

The problem is that not many people want to recognise that "gross indecency" is exactly what the term implies.

Now even vegetarians and cat lovers are "contrary to public interest"!

2007-09-26T10:18:00.000+10:00

Do you find this amazing? Do you find this ridiculous? Do you find that the police have no other reasons in their thick skull but "contrary to public interest" therefore have to be banned?

I was reading the article and was so stunned when I read this line

The groups included the Vegetarian Society, the Cat Welfare Society and
two gay support groups Pelangi Pride Centre and Women Who Love Women.

"(We) informed the organisers of our position of not allowing outdoor
events assessed to be contrary to public interest," the police
spokesperson added.

Now their position on the gay support groups is legendary so that comes as no surprise but vegetarians and cat lovers? It seems that now any civil society group can be banned from having a booth or whatever using the legendary phrase "contrary to public interest". I bet you if it was a booth for the ruling party or the YPAP, it wouldn't be "contrary to public interest" because only non-PAP stuff is "contrary to public interest".

And I can bet you that if a lot of noise is made about this issue, the police will issue another statement saying that it was because of safety or traffic problems or whatever in other to "explain" themselves. It is amazing I find that they couldn't give the real reason (we don't want gay groups to have booths to "promote" their cause and since we cannot just ban them, we ban all). Or even a plausible excuse (it wouldn't be real but at least plausible). If these are the "top brains" the PAP is trying to woe into civil service with money......

Today
26 September 2007

A CHANGE OF SCENE
-----------------
Substation event gets police nod after civil society groups excluded

Zul Othman
zul@mediacorp.com.sg

THE police have turned down a request by The Substation to organise an
outdoor flea market that would have included booths run by 19 civil
society groups.

The flea market was supposed to be part of a six-hour event, The Tunnel
Party, last Saturday to mark the 17th anniversary of The Substation,
Singapore's first independent, non-profit, multi-disciplinary arts centre
founded by late theatre doyen Kuo Pao Kun.

It was to have been held next to the Fort Canning Tunnel and also feature
music and arts shows.

A police spokesperson said: "In the Substation's initial application for
the event, the police noted it would include outdoor booths for civil
society groups to promote their cause."

The groups included the Vegetarian Society, the Cat Welfare Society and
two gay support groups Pelangi Pride Centre and Women Who Love Women.

"(We) informed the organisers of our position of not allowing outdoor
events assessed to be contrary to public interest," the police
spokesperson added.

Rather than call off the show, the organisers decided to rebrand it as the
SeptFest Gig and moved it to the pavement area behind the Singapore
Management University (SMU) School of Law and School of Accountancy.

The change was met with approval by the authorities.

The organisers "have done away with the outdoor booths for civil society
groups. As such, the police have approved the application for SeptFest",
said the police spokesperson.

The SeptFest Gig had some 23 outdoor booths, ranging from flea markets
vendors to stalls peddling homemade jewellery. It attracted some 700
visitors.

The Substation's artistic co-director Lee Weng Choy told Today "it was
important for us to continue with the event because we see it as part of
a large process".

The group deems such events as important because if these gatherings are
successful, it said, it sets a positive precedent for engagement between
the arts, civil society and the authorities.

Mr Lee said: "Some of our stakeholders, such as the bands, the commercial
flea market groups and the public, might lose faith in The Substation if
we cancelled an event again."

Last year, the police turned down its application to close down Armenian
Street for a street party, also a collaboration with artists, arts groups
and civil society groups.

Back with bad news

2007-09-24T10:29:00.001+10:00

I just got back from a nice vacation with T. And read that S377A is still around. Am I surprised? No. Is it typical? Yes. Do I want to comment on it and on PM Lee's remarks about it? No. I have said all that I can say. Since the PAP doesn't care two hoots about anything else except their re-election possibilities (amongst other things), there will be no change until their "iron rice bowl" is threatened. That is something I believe will never happen (and they know it too). Maybe I'm being too pessimistic but then again, having a sword of Damocles on me is not something that will make me have any feelings towards the PAP or have any positive things to say about Singapore in general, so pessimism it is. And so far (since I've started this blog), the PAP has never failed to re-enforce my pessimism.

As all have been said, the PAP is always pro-money. Any decision they make, if it doesn't involve money, would not be taken seriously and thus they would used the typical replies that "Singapore is not ready for it".

Do I really care? Not anymore. I'm just glad that I can live in a country where I'm not treated any differently in the eyes of the law (regardless conservative/fundamentalist attitudes) as over here, the individual rights is as important as communal rights.

Good bye Singapore. I'll never be part of you every again.

Bus fares to go up by 1 to 2 cents from Oct 1

2007-09-11T16:29:00.000+10:00

There is nothing to say. All have been said. Another nail in the poor's coffin. Nice "compensation" that MRT fares will not increase.

I somehow feel that the older generation are continually being penalised for being old. For any old person not working, they are seeing their retirement funds decreasing each year, especially in 2007, this year of "plenty". Money that could have lasted them for 10 years can maybe last them for 7 years now. You'll be damned if you ever grow old in Singapore.

I'm so happy that the gahmen cares.

Straits Times 11 Sep 2007
Bus fares to go up by 1 to 2 cents from Oct 1
By Christopher Tan

BUS fares will go up by one to two cents from Oct 1, the Public Transport Council announced on Tuesday.

But there will be no increase in train fares.

Senior citizen concessionary EZ -Link bus fares, which are flat fares pegged to the lowest adult EZ-Link fare band will also increase by 2 cents, up from the current 65 cents.

However, because they are flat fares, the same 67 cents fare will apply regardless of the distance travelled.

'The PTC has to strike a balance between safeguarding commuters' interests and ensuring the financial viability of the public transport operators so that they can continue to improve their services over time and sustain their capital investments,' Chairman of the PTC Gerard Ee said.

The Council said in August that transport operators SBS Transit and SMRT Corp had applied for fare increases - an annual revision exercise governed by a set formula.

This year, the formula caps fare rises at 1.8 per cent - or around three cents per ride.

The last fare increase was in October last year, when costs went up by one to three cents per ride.

Back then, the operators blamed high costs - in particular the high price of fuel and manpower - for the need to raise their fares. They are citing the same reasons this time.

SBS Transit, part of the ComfortDelGro group, for instance, said their costs have gone up significantly.

"Energy costs, for example, rose by 20 per cent or $20.3 million last year - having already increased by 41.2 per cent in 2005," SBS Transit spokesman Tammy Tan said.

"Manpower costs, the company's largest cost component, also increased by about $12.1 million during the year."

SBS also pointed out that it had invested heavily in buses as well as commuter services.

It spent $135 million on new buses in the past two years. And it has rolled out an online bus arrival system, which helps commuters to plan their journeys better.

Lower SMRT earnings
SMRT pointed out that the increase in the goods and services tax as well as the 1.5 percentage point rise in employers' CPF contributions will pull down its earnings by about $11 million a year.

It said the fare increase, if kept to this year's cap of 1.8 per cent, would only partially offset the company's total cost increases.

SBS is proposing to keep children and school student fares as well as concession pass charges unchanged.

SMRT has also said it will not raise fares for children and students, and all bus cash fares.

SMRT is also waiving any increase to the first fare band of its MRT single-trip ticket, which costs 90 cents. It added that it would extend its senior citizen concession hours to match SBS'.

Schemes to help the poor
Both operators said they would come up with schemes to help the poor cope with any fare rise.

'We have tried to keep fare increase small for as many commuters as possible but we know that any fare increase, no matter how small, would still be felt by commuters, especially tho se from needy families,

'Those who need additional help will receive help from the Government?s Public Transport Fund. The public transport four operators will also chip in towards public transport vouchers to help low-income families cope with the fare increase,' Mr Ee said.

The Consumers Association of Singapore (Case) is not entirely convinced that a fare hike is in order.

Case executive director Seah Seng Choon has pointed out that transport companies are enjoying "good returns." For instance, SMRT achieved a 39 per cent rise in net earnings to $37.94 million in the first quarter.

"'With such significant increase in net earnings, commuters would certainly expect it to show clear justifications for any need to hike fares at this point in time,' he said.

Surprise, surprise... NOT!

2007-08-28T09:47:00.000+10:00

Are we actually surprised that this is happening (article by bernama.com, the article has been reproduced below)? It seems that any activity that is not PAP based is considered to have the potential for public disorder and mischief, and may disrupt community life.

And how about this line Ho said the East Coast Park was a recreational park for Singaporeans and their families and not meant to be used by a political party to promote its cause. Doesn't this sound familiar? I wonder where I've read it before.

Pink Picnic
It has come to our attention that People Like Us is planning to hold a series of events under the banner of Indignation 2007. Two of the events - a picnic on 9 August 2007 and a 5 km-run on 11 August 2007 - will be held in the Singapore Botanic Gardens.

As the events are advertised, they are considered organised gatherings. Permission from the National Parks Board will be required to hold them in our parks and gardens.

We have considered the matter carefully, and regret to inform you that the Board cannot allow you to hold your events at the Singapore Botanic Gardens. The Singapore Botanic Gardens is a premier botanical institution. We do not want it to be used as a venue for interest groups to politicise their cause. For that matter, it is our policy to keep such activities out of our parks and gardens.

We seek your cooperation in this matter.

Read the full article Picking on a picnic

The Pink Run
He soon went back to the script and said that he had to inform me that the Pink Run would be against the law -- something about the Miscellaneous Offences Act, to which I replied (to the effect of), "Why are you telling me? I am not the organiser."

Read the full article Police declare joggers an "illegal assembly"

It seems we are not the only one that gets the "not meant to be used by a political party to promote its cause" treatment.

So people remember PAP based programs and activities "promote social well-being and a sense of community". Non-PAP based programs and activities "are used by political parties/special interest groups to promote their cause" and "have the potential to disrupt community and family life". What was it that George Orwell wrote... 4 legs good, 2 legs bad? As it is known, only the PAP can be non-partisan (as we can see from the 3 examples above) and all others are always partisan (a good example is mr brown's article on "S'poreans are fed, up with progress!" and the PAP's reaction to it)

It is all so clear to me now.

Bernama.com
27 August 2007

Singapore Police Reject Permit For Opposition Party's Cycling Event

By Jackson Sawatan

SINGAPORE, Aug 27 (Bernama) -- Plans by Singapore's main opposition party, the Workers' Party, to hold a cycling event in conjunction with its 50th anniversary, hit a dead end after its application for a police permit was rejected.

The mass cycling event was to be held on Sept 9 at the East Coast Park, a popular beachside park located along the east coast highway here.

Party chairman Sylvia Lim raised a question over the issue in Parliament today and was told that such activities "have the potential for public disorder and mischief, and may disrupt community life."

"Police requirement is that such party activities be held indoors or within stadiums, so that any law and order problems will be contained. This policy applies to all political parties," Senior Minister of State for Law and Home Affairs Ho Peng Kee said in reply to Lim's question.

Ho said the East Coast Park was a recreational park for Singaporeans and their families and not meant to be used by a political party to promote its cause.

The Workers' Party was set up in 1957 by David Marshall, the first chief minister of Singapore.

It has two representatives in the Singapore parliament, namely its secretary-general, Low Thia Khiang who is MP for Hougang and Lim as the non-constituency member of parliament (NCMP).

NCMPs are appointed from among the best performing opposition losers in a general election.

-- BERNAMA

Laughing Stock

2007-08-23T15:18:00.000+10:00

IndigNation has been over for a week and I think it is time for me to get off my lazy chair and write about it.

Well, I wasn't there and what I know is from reports from the organisers and new papers around the world.

IndigNation this year has been a big controversy. There have been things that were banned because they are either "promoting a homosexual lifestyle" (what the fuck is a homosexual lifestyle, can some heterosexual who uses this pharse explain it to me!) or "for having some political agenda".

I wouldn't write much about it because I think yawningbread covers it very well.

My kissing project, part 3
Bark and crumble
Picking on a picnic
Police declare joggers an "illegal assembly"

One thing I'd like to know are these "bannings" because the current gahmen/cabinate wanted it banned or it is the various mindless government agencies censoring it because they "think" (gosh what a funny thing to say, government agencies thinking) the gahmen/Singaporeans want it banned. Or can it be the vocal fundamentalist christian minority who cased the bannings to happen? We would never really know.

With every banning, international newspapers (e.g. yahoo news and Internation Herald Tribune, I think even the Wall Street Journal picked up on 1 story) picked it up. Not putting Singapore in a good light. This really contrast PM Lee's "we need to have an all inclusive society"

There are two ways for the gahmen to go with this. To totally ban everything GLBT and GLBT related (including all books and shows), which of course will not go down well with other developed nations, making Singapore look more like a nanny/police state and shows that the gahmen is really paying lip service when they say they are not homophobic (and if they can pay lip service to their own citizens what more the rest of the world). The other is to let it be within limits (but what are the limits? I mean judge it this way, if the heterosexuals can do it, then we should be allowed to, that is my "within limits").

What the gahmen is thinking of doing is really anyone's guess but for the GLBT population in Singapore, I really hope that the gahmen really starts opening up and respect it's GLBT members as real human beings and real citizens of a country that they love.

Put away the flags

2007-08-09T09:58:00.000+10:00

As today is National Day. I put up an article by Howard Zinn, it has as much relevance to us as it does to USA.

Let us remember and rejoice in all the hikes that have happened and the hike that is to come. Let us remember and rejoice that there are people in our population who cannot survive on the the pay they get and our gahmen is not lifting a finger to help them. Let us remember and rejoice in a ruling party that believes it is the best and thus deserve to give itself a huge pay increase.

Most of all, let us remember and rejoice that life in Singapore is getting more and more difficult because it is due to our fault and the ruling party is forever held blameless.

Yes, let us remember and rejoice.
Singapore 42nd National Day Parade
National Day Parade 2007

Put away the flags
by Howard Zinn

On this July 4, we would do well to renounce nationalism and all its symbols: its flags, its pledges of allegiance, its anthems, its insistence in song that God must single out America to be blessed.

Is not nationalism -- that devotion to a flag, an anthem, a boundary so fierce it engenders mass murder -- one of the great evils of our time, along with racism, along with religious hatred?

These ways of thinking -- cultivated, nurtured, indoctrinated from childhood on -- have been useful to those in power, and deadly for those out of power.

National spirit can be benign in a country that is small and lacking both in military power and a hunger for expansion (Switzerland, Norway, Costa Rica and many more). But in a nation like ours -- huge, possessing thousands of weapons of mass destruction -- what might have been harmless pride becomes an arrogant nationalism dangerous to others and to ourselves.

Our citizenry has been brought up to see our nation as different from others, an exception in the world, uniquely moral, expanding into other lands in order to bring civilization, liberty, democracy.

That self-deception started early.

When the first English settlers moved into Indian land in Massachusetts Bay and were resisted, the violence escalated into war with the Pequot Indians. The killing of Indians was seen as approved by God, the taking of land as commanded by the Bible. The Puritans cited one of the Psalms, which says: "Ask of me, and I shall give thee, the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the Earth for thy possession."

When the English set fire to a Pequot village and massacred men, women and children, the Puritan theologian Cotton Mather said: "It was supposed that no less than 600 Pequot souls were brought down to hell that day."

On the eve of the Mexican War, an American journalist declared it our "Manifest Destiny to overspread the continent allotted by Providence." After the invasion of Mexico began, The New York Herald announced: "We believe it is a part of our destiny to civilize that beautiful country."

It was always supposedly for benign purposes that our country went to war.

We invaded Cuba in 1898 to liberate the Cubans, and went to war in the Philippines shortly after, as President McKinley put it, "to civilize and Christianize" the Filipino people.

As our armies were committing massacres in the Philippines (at least 600,000 Filipinos died in a few years of conflict), Elihu Root, our secretary of war, was saying: "The American soldier is different from all other soldiers of all other countries since the war began. He is the advance guard of liberty and justice, of law and order, and of peace and happiness."

We see in Iraq that our soldiers are not different. They have, perhaps against their better nature, killed thousands of Iraq civilians. And some soldiers have shown themselves capable of brutality, of torture.

Yet they are victims, too, of our government's lies.

How many times have we heard President Bush tell the troops that if they die, if they return without arms or legs, or blinded, it is for "liberty," for "democracy"?

One of the effects of nationalist thinking is a loss of a sense of proportion. The killing of 2,300 people at Pearl Harbor becomes the justification for killing 240,000 in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The killing of 3,000 people on Sept. 11 becomes the justification for killing tens of thousands of people in Afghanistan and Iraq.

And nationalism is given a special virulence when it is said to be blessed by Providence. Today we have a president, invading two countries in four years, who announced on the campaign trail in 2004 that God speaks through him.

We need to refute the idea that our nation is different from, morally superior to, the other imperial powers of world history.

We need to assert our allegiance to the human race, and not to any one nation.

Howard Zinn, a World War II bombardier, is the author of the best-
selling "A People's History of the United States" (Perennial Classics, 2003, latest edition). This piece was distributed by the Progressive Media Project in 2006.

Haves and have-nots

2007-08-03T09:08:00.000+10:00

I find this article really full of irony (but I'll just pick on one).

Don't you just love this paragraph "Dr Hew also pointed out another economic challenge - the wide income gap between the haves and have-nots in Asean.".

Maybe it is just me? But as my dead maternal grandmother would say, "Tidy up your own home first before you tidy up somebody's home."

Today 02 August 2007

TOUGH CHALLENGES AHEAD FOR S'PORE'S STEWARDSHIP OF ASEAN
--------------------------------------------------------
Nazry Bahrawi
nazry@mediacorp.com.sg

A KEY task for Singapore as Asean's new chairman is to help the grouping meet its deadline of setting up an economic community by 2015.

Singapore's challenge is to ensure that member countries live up to their commitment to implement economic integration initiatives, said Dr Denis Hew of the Institute of South-east Asian Studies (Iseas).

However, the good economic performance of Asean member nations will make it easier for the Republic to push for an economic agenda.

CIMB-GK Research regional economist Song Seng Wun said: "The timing is apt. Singapore may be able to nudge member countries towards reducing trade barriers further or integrating an economic community."

Dr Hew also pointed out another economic challenge - the wide income gap between the haves and have-nots in Asean.

He believes Singapore can help less-developed countries like Myanmar, Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam with their economic reform measures.

While analysts generally agree that Singapore, as Asean chairman, can chart the course in the areas of finance and economy, the Republic may face challenges that are more difficult to overcome on other fronts.

One issue it must tread carefully on is Myanmar, said research fellow Dr Hiro Katsumata from the S Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS).

He said: "If Asean pushes too hard, Myanmar will walk away from the association. It should be noted that Asean needs Myanmar, as much as Myanmar needs Asean. The unity of the association is very important for all the members."

Singapore may also need to tackle a perceived "image problem" to play its role as chairman more effectively.

Mr Song said: "Perhaps, our bureaucrats are seen to be following too much by the book. We are seen as too strict rather than able to take a more flexible approach. To overcome this, we have to hang up the suits and learn to party."

I don't think we are homophobic

2007-08-02T11:46:00.000+10:00

"I don't think we are homophobic" Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said.
The government is not homophobic, the Prime Minister says

Does this statement correlate with the article in the International Herald Tribune?

International Herald Tribune
Singapore bans photo exhibition on gays, lesbians kissing

The Associated Press
Wednesday, August 1, 2007

SINGAPORE: Singapore's censors have banned an exhibition of photographs depicting gay men and women kissing, a gay rights activist said Wednesday, calling the move "absurd."

The city-state's Media Development Authority denied the exhibition's organizers a license on the grounds that the photographs "promote a homosexual lifestyle," Alex Au, founder of a Singapore gay rights group, People Like Us, told The Associated Press.

The exhibition, entitled "Kissing," is a selection of 80 posed shots of same-sex kissing between fully clothed models, said Au, who shot the photographs.

"Kissing" was canceled after organizers received a letter from the Media Development Authority on Monday saying it was rejecting their application for a license to hold the exhibition, Au said.

The media regulator confirmed in an e-mailed statement it rejected Au's application for a license to hold the exhibition.

"Presently, homosexual content is allowed in the appropriate context but it should not be of a promotional or exploitative nature," Amy Tsang, deputy director of media content, said in the statement.

"The proposed exhibition ... which focuses mainly on homosexual kissing is deemed to promote a homosexual lifestyle, and cannot be allowed."

Tsang said, however, that authorities have previously allowed "brief same-sex kissing" in stage plays and adult-rated films.

The exhibition was part of "Indignation," a two-week gay pride series of forums, film screenings, lectures and other events that was scheduled to start later Wednesday.

"It's absurd to think that gay people do not also kiss, and that representation of such a reality would be subversive," Au said. "There is a very stereotypical representation of gays and lesbians as deviants and I think it is important to correct the stereotype."

Au added that in place of the canceled exhibition, organizers have planned a talk to be accompanied by a slideshow of the photographs. Indoor gatherings do not require police permits.

Under Singapore law, gay sex is deemed "an act of gross indecency," punishable by a maximum of two years in jail. Authorities have banned gay festivals and censored gay films, saying homosexuality should not be advocated as a lifestyle choice. Despite the official ban on gay sex, there have been few prosecutions.

___

On the Net:

"Indignation," Singapore gay pride series: http://www.plu.sg/indignation/

The year of plenty...... increases

2007-08-02T11:17:00.000+10:00

Can I say I'm really surprised? Can any of us say that? Justification - oil, labour, etc. prices have gone up. Isn't that the same reasons they gave every year that they want to increase the price? Compare this to - "We need to increase the pay of ____ because there have been a wage freeze for xx years", "we need this amount to attract the brightest" (no prizes for guessing who are the ones that said that).

Notice one thing, that whenever there is an increase in something (GST, salary, fares, etc.), the gahmen is always there to justify it with the "justifications" above. Those are the root of the arguments and everything else is based on it.

The only exception from this is wage increase for us peons. Whenever the argument turns to us, the reason why our pay is low is because of market forces, not skilled workforce c.p. "we need to increase the ___ salaries because they 'deserve' it" (wait, where is the market force argument?), "we need it to attract good people" (good in whose eyes? and can't we say we need to attract good people to the workforce too? hmmm...)

The online citizen has a great article about the fare hikes and it seems that for the past 6 (2000 - 2006) years, fares have increased 5 times, with a very big increase in the net profit of the various companies.

I'm not holding my breath for the outcome?

Add this to the list of increases this year

Taken from Today 01 August 2007

TICKET TO HIKE, PLEASE
----------------------
PTC urged to review fare increase proposals critically

Leong Wee Keat
weekeat@mediacorp.com.sg

Come October, a bus or train trip could cost 1 to 3 cents more on average. Both public transport operators have applied to the Public Transport Council (PTC) for a fare increase.

While no details were given of the proposals submitted yesterday, SBS Transit and SMRT must keep the hikes capped at 1.8 per cent of current fares, as dictated by the PTC's formula.

Both operators cite growing costs as the reason for asking for a fare hike (see box) - though SMRT said the maximum allowed adjustment would only partially mitigate increases in energy costs.

At the same time, the operators are proposing that children, student and concession fares remain unchanged. SMRT added, it would not hike cash fares for adult, child and senior citizens on its buses, and may extend senior citizens' travel concessions during weekday evening peak hours.

Still, the proposed fare increases were criticised by commuters Today spoke to. Auditor Lim Wen Yu said: "Besides service reliability, you need low fares to attract people to switch to public transport."

Public relations consultant Lionnel Lim wondered why fare hikes were being mooted when both operators have been posting profits. "Even a 1-cent increase would hurt the pockets of the lower income," he said.

SBS Transit said it would consider schemes to help this group offset the hike, while SMRT will extend help through the Public Transport Fund.

In the first quarter of this year, SBS Transit posted operating profits of $16.4 million and SMRT Group's bus and rail businesses recorded operating profits of $32.4 million.

While the company remains profitable, SBS Transit said: "A fare adjustment is necessary to ensure that it continues to earn sufficient money to be able to invest in its business, so as to improve its services to serve commuters better."

Mr Cedric Foo, chairman of the Government Parliamentary Committee for transport, urged the PTC to look at the proposed adjustments "critically" - especially at both operators' returns on capital employed and productivity.

Mr Foo told Today: "It is clear that fuel and manpower costs have gone up. But have they gone up to such an extent to dilute the return on capital, as to warrant an increase at this point?"

"If they are found to be affecting returns to a great extent, then the operators would have reasonable cause (to apply for a proposed fare hike)."

Results of the PTC's deliberations may be out next month.

It is only 3%

2007-06-30T09:54:00.000+10:00

I wonder how many of us remember the time when GST was first implemented in Singapore. It was 1 April 1994, yup April's fool, what jokers the gahmen was! At that time, income tax was decreased and doing the calculations back then, you could actually save money if you are not the type that eats at restaurants or buy expensive things often. Most people didn't kick up a full because, I think, our income tax was lowered quite a lot and the fact that we can have more in our savings. And through the mainstream media, we "believed" it was the best thing for us. It might have been back than.

Forward to this year (2007), tomorrow GST is further increased 2% to 7% with no decrease in our income tax or any other thing for that matter. Increase in GST, bus fares, hospital fees, housing, water, electricity... and we are suppose to save for our retirement! What a joke. And to add insult to injury, we have to retire later in order to save enough for retirement and CPF is decreased if we work pass the age of 55 (correct me if I'm wrong).

Do we still remember in 1994, the gahmen stated, it was only 3% now they say it is ONLY 2% more. The same way they stated that bus fares would increase only 2 cents in 2005. The same way their salary increase is ONLY "0.13% of the gahmen's total expenditure or 0.022% of Singapore's GDP" as stated by MM Lee (See They'll never listen will they news paper article) ("Only" seems to be a favourate word of our gahmen). I can bet you if we were give the same type of increase as our ministers (plus pensions, where appropriate) we would not complain about any hikes would we?

ST supports it reporters?

2007-06-28T10:14:00.000+10:00

My only comment to this.

Yea, riiiiight! I so believe you. With the Mainstream media in the pockets of the gahmen, you think they'll still "back reporters who do not reveal sources" if the gahmen breaths down their necks?

Today 28 June 2007

SOURCE OF SUPPORT
-----------------
ST says it will back reporters who do not reveal sources

Ansley Ng
ansley@mediacorp.com.sg

THE Straits Times would have given full support to the reporter who
revealed his source to a court even if the journalist had decided not to
obey the court order and risk going to prison, the newspaper's editor Han
Fook Kwang told media professionals last night.

"If he decides not to disclose the source and will face the full
consequence of the court, we will support him, " said Mr Han at a
Singapore Press Club event. "We will support him legally, financially and
professionally. I think it is a reasonable position for any newspaper to
take."

Mr Han was referring to ST reporter Arthur Poon, who was ordered by a
court to reveal a source in a story last November. Mr Poon, together with
The Business Times reporter Wee Li-En and Reuters reporter Mia Shanley,
was served court papers by two rival broking firms for revealing
confidential information involving the sum of an out-of-court settlement.

After initially resisting, the ST and BT reporters disclosed their
respective sources to the High Court, with both pointed to Huntington
Communications, a public relations firm acting for one of the broking
company.

Ms Shanley, however, held on. At a court hearing on May 17, High Court
judge Justice Andrew Ang agreed with the broking firm's lawyers and
ordered Ms Shanley to reveal her source. The reporter appealed to the
Court of Appeal - Singapore's highest court - but was ordered to reveal
her source. She did so only after her source gave her permission.

In an ST report on the case in late May, Mr Han was quoted as saying: "It
has been our long-standing policy that we will not disclose until we are
compelled to do so by the court and we have no further recourse.
We
fought all the way until the court ordered us to disclose our sources."

At the talk last night, Mr Han said that despite the "setback", ST would
continue to "vigorously resist" attempts to make its reporters reveal
their sources.

Other speakers at last night's forum included senior lawyer Peter Low,
Nanyang Technological University (NTU) media academic Dr Ang Peng Hwa and
ST's former editor-in-chief, Mr Peter Lim.

Speaking to an audience made up mostly of journalism and public relations
professionals, the four men provided different views on the issue of
source confidentiality from the legal and journalistic perspective. Citing
examples in countries such as Australia, the United Kingdom and the United
States, Mr Low said that cases in these countries were generally not
treated differently from what a Singaporean court would do.

"The court has the discretion on whether or not to make the reporter
disclose the source of the information," he said.

The kind of confidentiality a journalist has with his source is like the
one shared by doctors with their patients, or lawyers with their clients,
said Dr Ang, Dean of NTU's Wee Kim Wee School of Communication and
Information. "The journalistic privilege is not an absolute right; it is a
balance" he added.

Veteran newsman Mr Lim, who headed ST for about 20 years, echoed Mr Han's
points when asked by a member of the audience what advice he would have
given Mr Poon had he been in charge. "As the editor, I can't offer to go
to jail for him," he said. "It's up to you. If you go to jail, we'll look
after you."

The best is yet to come

2007-06-21T10:32:00.000+10:00

Coming in to work today, I just realised that July is almost upon us. I need to take this opportunity to document the things our caring gahmen has done to help the citizens.

July 2007 will be remembered in Singapore as the best month ever in our history. Let me recount the things that are going to happen.

1) GST increase (which means everything will increase)
2) NETS increase (which means things have to increase, esp. for small shop owners. Can we blame them?)
3) Electricity increase (can we do without power?)
3) Cable increase (this one, can don't want)
4) Ministers' pay increase (we got say mah?)

And this is the perfect timing too, because our economy is booming and things are really great.

But wait, we seem to have forgotten about the people who didn't get a 60% pay increase. What was the increase in pay of the average Singaporean? 4.2% in 2006. And in 2006 we had the public transport fare increase. From then until now, we had postal increase and polyclinic price increase.

(Am I the only one that realised these increases are happening after the 2006 elections and the beginning of the 5 year term? After this, you'll not see any increase or things happening that can antagonise the people for the next 2-3 years. Doesn't take a genius to guess why. Sometimes I think that we are really stupid, not just uninformed)

How far can that 4.2% go? Lots of Singaporeans (accountants, economist, etc.) have done the math and concluded that even with the increase, the net take home pay of the average Singapore will not cover the increase in everything. This is already before July arrives, after July, the net take home pay of the average Singapore is going to be even less.

It is nice to know the economy is booming (as told by our state controlled main stream media) but how many Singaporeans are actually reaping the benefits of this boom? It would seem that for most people, their net cash flow will decrease even with their increase in pay. And don't get me started on the "hand-out" the gahmen is giving to "soften" the blow. Anyone with primary school math knowledge will realise that the amount given cannot cover the increase in GST for 1 year!

Are we Singaporeans so blind that we cannot see the facts that are laid in front of us. Even the most hard-lined Republicans in US, can see that the current government is not working for the good for the country. Hence, the elections last year showed it. When will we learn that having a single party system is not good for us (or any developed country for that matter) , contrary to what our gahmen tries to tell us.

But I do realise that my rants are going to fall on deaf ears because most Singaporeans are to frightened that if the PAP is not the gahmen anymore, Singapore will be totally destroyed. All companies will immediately pack up and go. Our buildings will immediately turn old and collapse. Our stock market will plunge, thus making our money as strong as Indonesia's. And immediately, we'll revert to a 3rd world country and Singapore will look like a slum in Africa. In fact, if the PAP is not the gahmen anymore, Singapore will immediately look like it has been struck by an atomic bomb and our economy will look like that too.

Are we really so blind as to think that it is only the gahmen that makes the economy boom? Are we so stupid as to think that the part we play is small compared to the gahmen's? We are Singapore, the gahmen doesn't make Singapore Singapore. Listen and take note people, without us the Singapore is NOTHING.

Top Ten Signs You're a Fundamentalist Christian

2007-05-24T14:08:00.000+10:00

It is just so true. :)

10 - You vigorously deny the existence of thousands of gods claimed by other religions, but feel outraged when someone denies the existence of yours.

9 - You feel insulted and "dehumanized" when scientists say that people evolved from other life forms, but you have no problem with the Biblical claim that we were created from dirt.

8 - You laugh at polytheists, but you have no problem believing in a Triune God.

7 - Your face turns purple when you hear of the "atrocities" attributed to Allah, but you don't even flinch when hearing about how God/Jehovah slaughtered all the babies of Egypt in "Exodus" and ordered the elimination of entire ethnic groups in "Joshua" including women, children, and trees!

6 - You laugh at Hindu beliefs that deify humans, and Greek claims about gods sleeping with women, but you have no problem believing that the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary, who then gave birth to a man-god who got killed, came back to life and then ascended into the sky.

5 - You are willing to spend your life looking for little loopholes in the scientifically established age of Earth (few billion years), but you find nothing wrong with believing dates recorded by Bronze Age tribesmen sitting in their tents and guessing that Earth is a few generations old.

4 - You believe that the entire population of this planet with the exception of those who share your beliefs -- though excluding those in all rival sects - will spend Eternity in an infinite Hell of Suffering. And yet consider your religion the most "tolerant" and "loving."

3 - While modern science, history, geology, biology, and physics have failed to convince you otherwise, some idiot rolling around on the floor speaking in "tongues" may be all the evidence you need to "prove" Christianity.

2 - You define 0.01% as a "high success rate" when it comes to answered prayers. You consider that to be evidence that prayer works. And you think that the remaining 99.99% FAILURE was simply the will of God.

1 - You actually know a lot less than many atheists and agnostics do about the Bible, Christianity, and church history - but still call yourself a Christian.

Mouth Diarrhoea

2007-05-23T09:57:00.000+10:00

Our million dollar ministers are sometimes so stupid. I will now proceed to tear apart the points that Mr. Lui stated.

"If Minister of State for Education Lui Tuck Yew has his way, there will be no changes to Section 377A of the Penal Code, which makes homosexual acts a crime here. "I'm not ready to move, and I don't think a major section of society is ready to move," he said."

"The Government will move at the pace at which society "allows us to move", RAdm Lui said."

Did society allow the casinos? Did society allow "Crazy Horse"? Did society allow the R(A) rating? Going by his premise it would seem that society allowed the above 3 things even though "majority" of Singaporeans didn't want it, one must not forget we are a "conservative" society. This is the same thing as the "majority" of Singaporeans don't want to remove S377A from the books. It would seem that heterosexuals having oral and anal sex is acceptable to "majority of Singaporeans" (plans to remove S377) and yet not homosexuals. It would seem that heterosexuality is more superior than homosexuality.

"In response, RAdm Lui said: "Yes, there will be different tension points, maybe what some would characterise conservatives versus liberals. We can't be stiff-necked. We need to be open to ideas but we have to come to our conclusions through the framework in Singapore. That's why it's important to have our own deep convictions and beliefs." "

Let us look at their beliefs.

1) Welfare is a vulgar word. We shouldn't have it because it would make people have crutch mentality.

2) If we don't pay people this amount, then we cannot get good people into politics.

3) Debate over a $30 increase was part of the parliamentary proceedings and yet increasing the pay of ministers was not part of a debate, as Ms. Sylvia Lim said (and I parapharse), "... no vote will be taken. Not one thing said by any MP will change the decision of the government." So there was actually no debate and as most of us would say, what is the point of even "discussing" it in parliament?

Sylvia Lim's statement on the Ministerial pay"

4) The increase in public transport fares (or adjustment as it is known) is due to the rising cost of oil and other things. Do we see prices dropping of oil becomes cheaper? So the millions earned by the public transport vendors is never enough (net profit was 54.55 million in 2006).

Oh now I get it, the belief that homosexuality is a sin condemned by Christians and even though our constitution says every one is equal under the eyes of the law, some people are just more equal than others.

"4 legs good, 2 legs better"

Can we say, "White Horse"? Even though the official statement is there isn't any all of us who have gone through the army know better.

Who are they actually trying to bluff?

While acknowledging Mr Lee's comments on the possible genetics of homosexuality, RAdm Lui said he does not subscribe to the theory that it is a "medical condition".

The same way a lot of fundamentalist Christians in America don't believe global warming is happening even though all scientific articles and peer reviews say it is.

The same way a lot of fundamentalist Christians in America don't believe in evolution because the bible says so even though all scientific articles and peer reviews say it is.

The same way a lot of fundamentalist Christians in America don't believe that homosexuality is biological NOT MEDICAL even though all scientific articles and peer reviews say it is.

The same way a lot of... you get the picture.

Sometimes you wonder how long people can keep their heads in the sand (or ass) before they actually start thinking.

"Do you excuse paedophiles or psychopaths because of a medical condition?" he asked.

No because pedophilia and murder is NOT a victimless crime. Or stalkers for that matter. Or even causing grievous hurt. These are crimes that have VICTIMS! Mr. million-dollar-a-year-because-you-are-the-best man, please put your brain into gear before moving your mouth.

The best thing is this, homosexuality is NOT medical condition but a biological one. Both paedophilia and psychopathy are medical conditions.

He is also not swayed by arguments that homosexuality does not affect others in society, that it is just between two people. "There can be lots of relationships, like between a person and an animal, or a person and another person, but which is incestuous. There are norms in society."

Let me paraphrase this weird and incoherent statement of his.

Bullshit that homosexuality doesn't affect others in society, that it is between 2 people. Incest and bestiality. There are social norms.

WHAT? HUH? If anyone can understand this, please tell me. What has incest and bestiality got to do with this? Number 1, there is NO law against incest. Number 2, bestiality in NOT a victimless crime.

Gosh, does he really understand what's he saying?

I'm not against people who think homosexuality is wrong (the way I not being green is wrong), I mean if you say, "I think homosexuality is wrong and that is my opinion". I can accept it in fact I'd applaud it. Everyone is different and everyone is entitled to their own opinion but to use illogical statements to justify your opinion... especially when illogical statements can be crushed by logical ones. And from last I checked, we live in a logical world.

Furthermore, to justify why we have to retain S377A because of these illogical factors and "conservatism" is discrimination in its purest form. It would seem that in the Singapore context, not everyone is equal, even though it states in our constitution article 12(1) "All persons are equal before the law and entitled to the equal protection of the law". So we homosexuals are NOT equal before the law and are NOT entitled to the equal protection of the law. Maybe we should change the constitution instead?

Taken from Today 23 May 2007

Minister says he is 'not ready to move' on homosexuality

Derrick A Paulo
derrick@mediacorp.com.sg

If Minister of State for Education Lui Tuck Yew has his way, there will be no changes to Section 377A of the Penal Code, which makes homosexual acts a crime here. "I'm not ready to move, and I don't think a major section of society is ready to move," he said.

Rear-Admiral (NS) Lui gave his personal views yesterday at a dialogue session for the annual Pre University Seminar at the Nanyang Technological University. The issue cropped up when a student asked RAdm Lui how the Government will reconcile "ideas and ideologies" that will be increasingly in conflict as Singapore "opens up to the world and becomes more liberal". She was referring to Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew's comments at a forum last month in which he said the Government is not the moral police on the homosexuality issue.

In response, RAdm Lui said: "Yes, there will be different tension points, maybe what some would characterise conservatives versus liberals. We can't be stiff-necked. We need to be open to ideas but we have to come to our conclusions through the framework in Singapore. That's why it's important to have our own deep convictions and beliefs."

While acknowledging Mr Lee's comments on the possible genetics of homosexuality, RAdm Lui said he does not subscribe to the theory that it is a "medical condition".

"Do you excuse paedophiles or psychopaths because of a medical condition?" he asked.

He is also not swayed by arguments that homosexuality does not affect others in society, that it is just between two people. "There can be lots of relationships, like between a person and an animal, or a person and another person, but which is incestuous. There are norms in society."

The Government will move at the pace at which society "allows us to move", RAdm Lui said.

What great PR skills!

2007-04-12T10:05:00.000+10:00

I hope that Singaporeans will not be stupid enough to believe in this PR stunt. Knowing full well that if he doesn't do something to appease the people, in the next elections, things will go very wrong for the PAP (which most of us think, will go very right for Singapore).

Wouldn't it have been easier to just give that increment amount to charity in the first place? Oh yea, you can't do that. If you do that, you can't show that you are a wonderfully generous and caring person. I mean, it is so much easier to show that you are kind and compassionate when you give away your own money (money which you don't need) then if you just put it in the Singapore budget for charity.

But I really doubt Singaporeans will be smart enough to see through this. I really doubt that anything will change in the next elections because for a very simple reason, we are not only stupid but very gullible and the gahmen knows which buttons to press so that we'll vote them in again.

So after the PAP comes into power again in 2011, this will once again happen. We stupid peons will rave and rant about they wanting to increase their pay to 4.5 million, and after they do that, a great PR stunt (like this one) will be done again and we stupid peons will forget everything and believe in the love and compassion of our PM and ministers. And we'll vote them in again.

As my friend believes, we'll never learn.

Further reads:
PM Lee's Sacrifice | New Direction in the Justifications

Today
12 April 2007

THE BUCK STOPS HERE
-------------------
Decision to hike ministerial pay was 'most difficult', but a necessary one to make: PM

Lee U-Wen
u-wen@mediacorp.com.sg

BY PRIME Minister Lee Hsien Loong's own admission, this is not the best of times for the Government to be grappling with an issue as sensitive as a pay hike for ministers and civil servants. Certainly not when the income gap in Singapore is seen to be widening, and not everyone is enjoying the benefits of the returning good times. In fact, some speakers during the three-day parliamentary debate on the issue even wondered whether Mr Lee and his ministers had undermined their moral authority to govern by giving themselves such large pay increases.

So, when Mr Lee took the floor yesterday to wrap up the debate, he decided to address just such concerns: Minutes into his two-hour long speech, Mr Lee said he would freeze his pre-increment salary of $2.5 million for the next five years, promising to donate any increase in pay to charity.

That means a donation of at least $3 million, or a minimum of $600,000 in each of the five years. Under the phased pay revisions announced on Monday, Mr Lee will draw a salary of $3.1 million this year, a 25.5-per-cent jump from what he drew last year.

The Prime Minister said he did not expect other ministers to follow his lead.

"I'm the one carrying the ultimate responsibility ... I know that ministers and MPs already support various worthy causes, but it should not be an ostentatious display of how self-sacrificing they are. That is a private matter for them to decide at their own discretion," said Mr Lee.

While his decision is likely to win applause from many, one MP asked whether some Singaporeans may view it negatively.

Madam Ho Geok Choo (West Coast GRC) said: "I fear that there may be people out there who take his magnanimous gesture as a retreat and a face-saving admission that the policy (on ministers' salaries) is flawed."

Responding, Mr Lee reiterated that it was his personal choice.

In his speech, Mr Lee said he agreed with MPs who had argued that joining the public service required "sacrifice and selflessness".

Still, he added, choosing the right people for the job was "not an auction" to show who was willing to make the bigger financial sacrifice.

In a speech that was at times emotional and peppered with anecdotes from
his own 23-year career in politics, Mr Lee spoke about his fears of
Singapore getting a corrupt premier in the future.

"I'm worried about somebody wanting to be Prime Minister, hoping to be
paid not a single cent but still collect $400 million - under the table
..

"We don't expect ministers to earn as much as top earners in the private
sector, but it must not be too far out of line with what is earned
outside," said Mr Lee, who also shared with the House that he turned 55
this year and has drawn his CPF.

On the timing of the pay hikes - less than three months before the Goods
& Services Tax will be raised by 2 percentage points to 7 per cent - Mr
Lee conceded that the timing could have been better.

But then again, he said, there is "no good time". The last major salary
revision was seven years ago, and there was a growing "urgency" to close
the gap on the private sector benchmarks in order to ensure that the
public sector would continue to attract, and retain, top talent.

"Politically, this is the most difficult decision for me to take ... It
was Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong and Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew who
encouraged me to do it. They know the importance of having good ministers
to help them with their work."

Mr Lee also touched on the link made by many MPs between ministerial
salaries and public assistance payouts for poorer Singaporeans.

"When you make such comparisons, the problem can become very emotional ...
General welfare is something we can promise, it's very easy and popular.
It's like having a God of Fortune giving out money and everyone is happy.
You don't need very capable ministers to do that," he said.

However, if the Government were to tread down this path, it would suffer
"long-term repercussions", he said. "The wiser approach is to grow the
economy, and use the fruits of growth to implement policies that truly
improve the lives of the poor."

Mr Lee also paid tribute to 94 MPs in the House, whose monthly allowances
have each been raised from $11,900 to $13,200. He said the lawmakers here
compare well with parliaments in other countries.

And while Mr Lee had said the buck stops with him when it comes to
donating his salary increment, one MP - Dr Lily Neo (Jalan Besar GRC) -
announced at the end of the session that she would follow his lead.

Be mindful of the affective gap

2007-04-05T13:35:00.000+10:00

I think this article by Catherine Lim is worth noting and "archiving". It basically embodies what we mere peons think. Not as if it is going to make any difference in the outcome.

It is taken from the Straits Times (free internet edition) on 5 April 2007.

April 5, 2007
MINISTERIAL PAY:

Be mindful of the affective gap

By Catherine Lim, For The Straits Times

I HAVE followed with intense interest the current debate on increasing ministerial salaries to match those of the highest earners in the private sector. And I have noted the impassioned arguments from both sides: the Government insisting on its necessity if top talent is to be recruited to ensure good leadership, and the public expressing its reservations, doubts and unhappiness.

I would like to go beyond the emotion and the rhetoric, and see the issue in the larger context of the PAP model of governance, in particular its special brand of pragmatism in solving problems. It is a hard-boiled pragmatism which even the severest critic will concede has contributed greatly to the Singapore success story. And one which, paradoxically, even the strongest supporter will concede is liable to harden into inflexibility.

In the case of ministerial salaries, the PAP leaders' thinking seems to have gone along these lines: Singapore needs a good, strong government if it is to prosper or even survive. Hence, it needs to recruit top talent. Since there is competition for this from the private sector, it has to offer equally attractive salaries. It has to act quickly and decisively, otherwise the country will face a serious crisis of leadership, which can occur in three increasingly dangerous stages:

# Talented people will not be attracted to government service.

# Even if they are, they will soon be enticed away by the private sector.

# But even if they are not enticed away, they will resort to corruption as compensation for their inadequate salaries, and thus bring ruin to society.

Rounding up the austere dialectic is the urgent plea to doubting Singaporeans: Do you want Singapore to go the way of corrupt societies?

I would like to point out, respectfully, a basic flaw in this rationale. In keeping with the overall, hard-nosed realpolitik that has characterised PAP rule, it fails to take into account the affective factor that is present in any relationship, whether between individuals or ruler and ruled.

This factor comprises that special constellation of emotions, moods, attitudes and ideals which somehow elude being quantified and reduced to monetary terms. I first analysed its role in the relationship between the PAP Government and the people over a decade ago in a political commentary titled The Great Affective Divide, noting the emergence of a serious emotional estrangement despite the country's stability and prosperity.

Subsequently, I variously described the conflict in terms of the people's wish to see a greater role for Heart as opposed to Head, EQ as opposed to IQ, Heartware as opposed to Hardware, etc.

The policy regarding ministerial salaries illustrates this conflict. Its definition of the talent that is eagerly sought as ministerial material does not appear to take into account attributes beyond those of intellect. It assumes that what is good for the corporate world must be good for government, and that therefore there is a common target of talent out there, which both will compete fiercely for.

But in reality, the commonality of talent is only in those attributes of mind and personality such as great intelligence, far-sightedness, boldness of vision, creativity, determination of purpose, etc, that are the hallmarks of today's high achiever. Beyond this overlap, the emotional aspect comes into play.

And here, there is a dramatic parting of ways. For while the ideal political leader is imbued with nobility of purpose and altruistic instincts, the ideal CEO is impelled by the very opposite - raw ambition and ruthless drive. The first set of qualities is desirable for a life of public service; the second would be disastrous.

Indeed, a brilliant achiever without the high purpose of service to others would be the worst possible ministerial material. To see a potential prime minister as no different from a potential top lawyer, and likely to be enticed by the same stupendous salary, would be to blur the lines between two very different domains.

Next, the rationale goes against the very spirit of the social contract that it is supposed to protect. There is a compact, largely implicit, that governs the government-people relationship in every mature society in the free world, and it has as much to do with what is felt deeply in the heart as with what is worked out logically in the head.

By this compact, political leadership is less a salaried job and more a vocation, with all that this implies of selflessness and sacrifice on the part of the leaders, and trust, respect and regard on the part of the people. It is this reciprocity that defines a social compact and confers upon it a sort of sacrosanct quality. The ultimate reward for the leaders, whether or not they consciously seek it, is a revered place in the nation's history, in the hearts and minds of future generations. Hence, material reward is only secondary.

Nevertheless, no Singaporean with any practical sense of the real world would want to see a minister denied a salary commensurate with his status and dignity, or living less well than any prosperous Singaporean. If the average Singaporean still aspires to the famous '5Cs' representing the good life, he is only too happy to see a minister already well in possession of these.

But, at the same time, no Singaporean would expect a minister to feel disgruntled if he is paid less than the top CEO. If the disgruntlement actually causes him to leave his job, then he was not cut out for public office in the first place. Thus, to offer him a matching salary to enable him to stay would be to demean that office.

There is clearly a need to balance material needs and public service. The balance, in the view of many Singaporeans, has already been achieved with the existing ministerial salaries, if benchmarked against those of high-earners across a broad range of professions, and also against the salaries of ministers in countries such as Sweden and New Zealand, consistently ranked among the foremost, corruption-free democracies in the world.

The policy of increasing ministerial salaries may have the effect of upsetting this balance and, more seriously, doing away altogether with the compact of trust and respect. It will create a new affective divide, or reinforce any existing one, between the government and the people, and reduce their relationship to a purely impersonal business contract.

Even in a society often described as aggressively materialistic and coldly efficient, there are, fortunately, Singaporeans who believe idealism has a place, and that the fire, passion and commitment of the Old Guard, who saw Singapore through the difficult early years with little hope of financial reward, are still alive in some young Singaporeans.

The policy on ministerial salaries will, at the least, breed weary resignation in Singaporeans: What's the use of giving one's views at all? And, at the worst, give rise to toxic cynicism: What's the use of teaching our young such values as caring and selflessness and sacrifice if each carries a price tag?

Catherine Lim is a freelance writer.

They'll never listen will they?

2007-04-05T12:27:00.000+10:00

MM Lee today spoke up about the pay hike and using the same old (over played) reasons of it. Yes, we know we need "top talent" to lead the country (of course it depends on what "top talent" really means). Yes, we know that Singapore cannot afford to slide ever, or we'll never crawl up again. Yes, the PAP is the best gahmen on the face of this planet. Yes, the ministers sacrifice a lot to "serve" our country therefore we must compensate them...

We all know the tune. We all can sing it before the first note is even played.

The problem is this, the people are not fed-up or angry about the pay hike per se, they are pissed that there was so much controversy in the GST hike and "workfare" for the people. It would seems that just to get a $30 increase for the poorest people in Singapore, there was such a huge debate about not becoming a "welfare" state (which by the way, in the PAP dictionary is a vulgar word, welfare I mean not state). and it was a miserable $30. And yet, here we have MM stating the increase in ministers' salary is only "0.13% of the gahmen's total expenditure or 0.022% of Singapore's GDP" (Singapore's 2005 GDP $110.6 billion, not sure if it is SGD or USD but I'll use SGD). This means that ministers' salary is $2.4 billion a year (I don't think this takes their pension into account).

$2.4 billion, 0.022% of GDP. How many percent of our GDP is used to help the bottom 10% of the population? Why is it helping people who are in the runt is such a terrible thing and yet giving ministers a $1 million increase is okay? Why is this, that is so wrong morally and goes against Confucius teachings is acceptable in Singapore but really not acceptable to other first world countries?

And the way the ministers put it, we, the peons, have no part to play in the building of Singapore into what it is today. It is all through the blood and sweat (and don't forget sacrifices) of the gahmen only. We, the peons, just sat back and twiddled our thumbs.

Further reads :-
Where’s the check and balance in deciding minsterial salary?
Singapore's 'fat cat' ministers to get fatter
Paternal Nanny: Justifications and the Perpetuation of Paternalism

Today
05 April 2007

A QUESTION OF DOLLARS AND SENSE
-------------------------------
MM Lee: 'Sense of proportion' needed over ministers' pay

Lee U-Wen
u-wen@mediacorp.com.sg

TAKE a step back and look at the bigger picture, as Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew would have Singaporeans do.

To an average family earning, say, $1,500 a month, a minister's annual salary - $1.2 million at entry level - might seem "astronomical".

But what if that paycheque comes with the responsibility for running a $210-billion economy?

Here is another comparison to put things into perspective. Political appointment-holders - from parliamentary secretaries to ministers - take
home $46 million in total a year.

A mind-boggling sum? But it makes up just 0.13 per cent of total Government expenditure, or 0.022 per cent of Singapore's Gross Domestic Product.

On the other hand, if this $46 million was cut to, say, $26 million, the country would save $20 million - but at the risk of jeopardising people's jobs, homes, assets and security.

Speaking for the first time on the issue since Defence Minister Teo Chee Hean last month raised the need for a pay revision, Mr Lee warned of the risk of talented Singaporeans shying away from the public sector, and a disastrous "revolving door" style of government where its top leaders step down every five years.

A country's strong foundation, he said, has to be built on people that stay in the job long enough to gain sufficient experience and become capable ministers.

"This is a system we worked out, it is above board, it's working. If you are going to quarrel about $46 million - up or down another $10 to $20 million - I say you don't have a sense of proportion," he said.

He added: "The cure for all this talk is a really good dose of incompetent government."

Mr Lee - who mooted the idea of formal private sector benchmarks for ministerial salaries in January 1994 - made these comments to the Singapore media in Sydney yesterday, ahead of the civil service pay review in Parliament on Monday.

Noting that his own annual income of $2.7 million was a "fraction" of what the top manager in the Government of Singapore Investment Corporation earns, he said: "For people like me in Government, to deal with the money which we have accumulated by the sweat of our brow over the last 40 years, you have to pay the market rate - or the man will up the stakes and join Morgan Stanley, Lehman Brothers or Goldman Sachs.

"You would have an incompetent man and you would have lost money by the billions."

Asked if political leaders should be ready to sacrifice for the good of the people, the Minister Mentor called it an admirable sentiment.

But he highlighted the difficulty of persuading private sector achievers to sacrifice their lucrative salaries to join politics, "with no guarantee of success". He cited how Manpower Minister Ng Eng Hen, a successful cancer surgeon earning $4.5 million, gave up private practice in 2001 for a job that paid $600,000.

Dr Balaji Sadasivan, now Senior Minister of State for Foreign Affairs, and for Information, Communication and the Arts, was a top neurosurgeon "who took a chance".

Said Mr Lee: "When he was not made a minister in the selection process, (then-Prime Minister) Goh Chok Tong asked if he would like to go back to private practice. He said: 'No, I will do this.'"

Moving on to examples from the sports world, the Minister Mentor spoke of how top tennis players and famous footballers such as Ronaldo and Zinedine Zidane were paid handsomely for their talent. That, he said, was the key to producing champions.

"It's a competitive world in which we live, and if we can't compete we are not going to live well," he said.

Least we forget

2007-04-04T10:39:00.000+10:00

Let us recap what happened after the 2006 elections.

1) Public transport hike

2) GST increase by 2% (disguised as money to help the poor)

3) Continue stagnation/regrassion of pay for the lower/middle income households (even if they have an increase, the average Singaporean's pay didn't increase enough to cover all the other increases)

Nice to know that everything is going up except the take home pay of the average Singaporean. So the amount of money you'll have to spend on necessities goes up but you pay either didn't go up as much or is the same or even worse decreased.

And to add injury to insult

4) Increase in ministers pay by $1 million

Need I say more and about how "caring/ compassionate" the budget is.

Furthermore, Ministers get pensions too.

So our not only have money that they can never finish using but also are set for life, while most of us have to plan for retirement.

Nostalgia

2007-03-14T09:32:00.000+11:00

I was listening to Dave Koz's Cheng Fu (The Dance Alubm) last night. I actually wasn't really playing the album, iTunes was on shuffle mode.

I find this song by Dave Koz very beautiful and romantic. When I close my eyes all I see is T and I holding each other. In the dark, in my room, listening to this song, it just makes me realise how much I miss him and how much I love him, even though he sometimes irritates the hell out of me. But then again, what couple don't have their quarrels.

I realised how safe I feel when I'm in his arms. I realise how much I trust him.

T, my life partner, I love you. :*

Crap from Christians again (what's new?)

2007-03-13T11:09:00.000+11:00

Note: I'm using the general term Christian to mean all followers of Jesus Christ, be they Catholics or Protestants. I know a lot of people think that only Protestants are Christians but by definition it is not.

Christian's don't want truth, they just want their version of the truth. And what more, their version of the truth is the right one (ordained by God herself) and everyone has to subscribe to it, regardless of whether you believe in the Christian God or not.

To shut yourself off like that is no more healthy than a person who believes everything he/she reads or sees (especially in Sg's main stream media) without processing all information that you have and come to your own conclusions.

The Christian's have gone so far as to enact a law (or is it an amendment) to force the park rangers at the grand canyon to NOT say that it took millions of years to form because according to the bible, the earth is only thousands of years old.

So who, we who don't subscribe to stupidity (or Christianity, same difference actually), do we believe, the people who proclaimed that the bible is the end all be all and it explains everything and anything under the sun or people who actually do research on stuff like this. Fair enough the researches don't always get thing right but if you have 100 researchers doing the same type of work and 95 of them say that this is correct and the other 5 say it isn't, who would you believe?

Christian arrogance is really amazing especially when they try to reason out the world in black and white when we living in the real world (Christians don't live in the real world, they are very much like the Muslim extremist) know that most things in this world are grey (or multi-coloured as some of my friends would say) very few (if any) things are black and white. And yet, to Christians, it is so, this is black and that is while, clear cut, no 2 ways about it. Nice to know that the world is so simple. We, living in the real world, must be really stupid to not have known that or even perceived it.

Why am I writing this, well it is just a statement for what the NCCS wrote about the Penal Code. Christ taught love and compassion. Christian Churches in the world teaches hate and intolerance. Which incidentally is exactly what the Pharisees during Jesus' time taught. Talk about white washed walls!

I totally believe that Christians are no different from Pharisees. Let's start calling a spade a spade and not hide behind the framework of love and compassion (whatever your Christian definition is).

further reads: Criminalise lesbianism, say Church leaders

Logic isn't really a Christian's strong point.

P.S. If you are angry from reading this, then you are exactly what I've described about a typical Christian. If you are not, then thank God for some thinking Christians.

------

Penal Code: Proposed changes
'relevant and compassionate'

-- says National Council of Churches of Singapore

THE National Council of Churches of Singapore (NCCS) is of the view that generally speaking, the proposed amendments to the Penal Code (PC) are relevant, timely, compassionate and appear well thought through.

In presenting this feedback, the NCCS is mindful of the role of governing authorities and the Scriptural injunction to Christians on their attitude towards the higher powers (Romans 13:1).

Additionally, in making these comments, the NCCS is aware anecdotally that there are other individuals or groups in society that intend to give appropriate feedback to the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) on some of the proposed amendments to the PC from other perspectives (e.g. criminal justice viewpoints) and may proffer analysis of both the underlying policies of the Government and the legal wording.

Therefore, the NCCS confined itself only to the proposed amendments that are likely to be of concern to Christian churches, groups and individuals in Singapore.
In this regard, the NCCS gave three feedback points:

'(a) the proposed section 298A PC ("Promoting enmity between different groups on ground of religion or race, and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony"). An issue that arises for consideration (quite apart from the legal issue of what is the mens rea [i.e. blameworthy state of mind] involved in this intended offence) is what scenarios are envisaged by the Government as constituting: -
(i) words/signs/visible representations that "[promote] disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different religious … groups or communities" or
(ii) acts that are "prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony between different religious … groups or communities … which disturbs or is likely to disturb the public tranquillity"

The deeper or underlying issue is how these intended PC offences correlate with fundamental rights enshrined in Article 15(1) of the Constitution safeguarding the freedom of religion (i.e. the right to profess, practise and propagate one's religion). Will a Christian who shares his/her faith to a non-Christian trigger off the commission of a criminal offence under this section? This issue may not be unique to Christians alone. It may also impact on devotees of other "missionary" religions such as Islam.

Other examples come to mind. If a Christian narrates his testimony of conversion in his web log or personal website and makes reference to how he failed to find fulfilment and meaning in his former religion and only found the same in Christ, could that constitute promoting disharmony or feelings of ill-will (even if it does not meet the conceivably higher threshold of promoting enmity or hatred) between different religious groups/communities?

Assuming that we have a situation of a Muslim convert that wishes to be baptised in a local church … could the act of baptism performed by the pastor be prejudicial to the maintenance of religious harmony and likely to disturb the public tranquillity?

In this regard, it is interesting to note that the language in the proposed section 298A PC is similar to section 8(1) of the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act (Cap 167A) ("MRHA"). That section allows the Government to make a restraining order against religious leaders where the Minister is satisfied that that person has committed/is attempting to commit acts that cause "feelings of enmity, hatred, ill-will or hostility between different religious groups". As far as we know, no restraining order has been made under the MRHA since that legislation was enacted. However, the present statutory changes envisaged to the PC elevate the commission of such acts to a criminal offence. The danger with this is the possible subjectivity and arbitrariness of the judgment which may be made about which acts transgress the boundaries and which do not. The uncertainty is unsatisfactory.

To remedy the same, one view is that the Government should insert some illustrations and explanatory notes to this statutory provision to clarify what constitutes an offence under this new section and what does not. This approach adheres to the scheme of the PC as originally codified. This will enable the parameters of the criminal offence concerned to be spelt out clearly.

The problem with the approach in the preceding paragraph, however, is that illustrations are not exhaustive. Much will turn on the context and circumstances of the words/acts concerned and an objective analysis of the same. In line with this, the alternative approach to that in the preceding paragraph is therefore to leave it to the courts to be the final arbiters in determining whether a contravention of intended section 298 has taken place or not.

(b) The Explanatory Notes to the Proposed Amendments issued by the MHA state that "The Public Prosecutor is aware that some offenders are of low IQ or mentally deficient. They take this into account in deciding whether or not to charge the offender." This approach by the Public Prosecutor demonstrates compassion towards low IQ offenders and the NCCS commends the same. The question is whether, given the variety of conditions that exist within the spectrum of mental illness, the statutory general exception for unsoundness of mind (section 84 PC) should be amended substantively to reflect the same. This contrasts with the present approach of leaving the same for prosecutorial discretion.

(c) We are aware that the proposed amendment to delete section 377 PC but on the other hand retaining section 377A PC may be controversial in some quarters. Nevertheless, we consider homosexual acts to be sinful, abhorrent and deviant, whether consensual or not. The NCCS commends the Government on taking a clear, unequivocal and bold stand of neither encouraging nor endorsing a homosexual lifestyle and opposing the presentation of the same as part of a mainstream way of life. At the same time, we do not condemn homosexuals as the Bible calls us to hate the sin but love the sinner. Given that section 377A PC criminalises homosexuality whether done private or publicly, we are of the view that a similar prohibition ought to be enacted in respect of lesbianism, considering that lesbianism (like homosexuality) is also abhorrent and deviant, whether consensual or not.'

Arrogance

2007-03-04T09:37:00.000+11:00

Oh my god! What I was thinking really came true!

During the past couple of months, when Indonesia was stopping the sale of sand to us, lots of people have speculated why. Their speculation seems rather logical but I had another idea and this letter to the Jakarta Post really proves it.

I thought that maybe, just maybe, Singapore has become too arrogant and Indonesia is tired of it and is basically reacting to it.

Our arrogance to think that we are better then any of our neighbours just because we are "richer" than them. We have this idea (even my parents do) that just because we have the money, we don't have rely on any 1 country for resources, i.e. we can find other sources because "we rich enough to buy it".

Being out of the country, I have seen this arrogance more and more, sometimes, even our gahmen shows it (like the comment MM Lee made about Malaysia and Indonesia).

The thing Singaporeans have to remember, that we rely on both Malaysia and Indonesia (and even Thailand for that matter) for a lot of things. And they too rely on us. It is a co-dependence that we have. Nobody is better than the other.

This letter to the Jakarta Post really smacks of arrogance, of "we are so much better than you" and that "Indonesia depends on Singapore", not the other way around.

Jakarta Post
04 March 2007

Singapore vs Indonesia

I'm a Singaporean trying to share with you a personal opinion on the recent issue about the sand export ban and Singapore looking down on Indonesia; the sort of things said by the Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI-P).

Well, I'm not going to say much about the sand export ban, but have something to say on the issue of Singapore being too proud and belittling Indonesia.

Let's face it my friends, it is normally those who have an inferiority complex that would feel this way! On the other hand, I'm sure you don't need to be highly educated to be grateful for the fact that Singapore has helped Indonesia, so much so that I would have thought the resources rendered to you could have better used to serve our own people!

No doubt Singapore is tiny, but don't you feel ashamed that Indonesia, being so big, always needs our help?

Last but not least, I think you should appreciate that you are dealing with a government who does thing so gentlemanly; they are very much scholastic, unlike the governments of other nations.

Somehow, I think this whole incident is an insult to the spirit of ASEAN.

BERNARD LIM
Singapore

The raise and fall of my blog

2007-02-07T15:46:00.000+11:00

It has been so long since I've written, gosh my last entry was in November.

It has been a really busy time. I was out of Australia for most of December and a little bit of January. For work as well as play.

Had a lovely time with T in Singapore. Really felt that we have grown closer during my short trip back. Our relationship has stagnated when we were apart and now having been back (even though it was a short time), it has continued and progressed. So it is so great!

After I was back, I didn't get bitten by the writing bug and have been really lazy. So nothing at all, even though there were a lot of issues that I really was rather passionate about. Not only about the gay issues but also about censorship and the sand issue with Indonesia.

But hey that has passed and we cannot live in the past. So I'll forget about it and just continue from where I've stopped. So starting from this month, I just hope that I'll be able to write again. Even though it is just for me and maybe T.

Self-serving gahmen

2006-11-15T11:09:00.000+11:00

I'm so proud of our opposition. In today's Today on the topic of upgrading Mr. Low, Hougang MP said

"The surpluses are generated by the PAP and the people have no part in it?" he asked. "And don't forget, the people in Potong Pasir and Hougang also pay taxes and the Goods and Services Tax. Your justification's logic is selfish and partisan."

This is so true and so right. This has been what people in Singapore have been talking about. The money the gahmen gets, comes from everyone, not just the PAP wards.

But of course, typical PAP answer is given.

"If you go on the Workers' Party's platform, you are not going to have enough money for upgrading, education, healthcare, and so on. When you vote for the PAP, you are not just voting for the goodies, for the package. You are also voting for all the parts of the package that comes together," he said.

I know a lot of people who would agree to this (my dad included) but the problem is this, the opposition cannot offer things like upgrading and such because the money is controlled by the PAP. People continue to vote in Mr. Chiam and Mr. Low because they listen and care (things the PAP doesn't do).

Do you wonder after things like this, why these people from the opposition ward vote for the opposition at increasing rates each year?

Character Assassination

2006-11-12T11:21:00.000+11:00

In USA and in Australia (I have no idea about the other countries), it seems that if you cannot think of good things to say about yourself and your party, be it in terms of policies or positions in issues, you just say bad things about your opponents.

This is the dirty politics that both countries are doing, USA much worse than Australia. The USA media uses the word "character assassination" to describe this.

The sad part is the a lot of people actually believe this character assassination and say that a candidate is bad because he smoked pot in college or he was a womaniser. They don't look at the issues and figure out if this person is the best candidate for this position at a particular point in time. People can never be the best candidate for all times.

Think about this, if I can destroy my opponent's credibility and with a gullible population, why would I bother talking about solutions to problems or policies to implement? It is so much easier to just say a person is bad, liar, cheat... because there is nobody in this world that doesn't have skeletons in their closets and it is so much easier to dig them out than think of good solutions to real problems.

So it would seem that character assassination is here to stay, unless the voting population start taking notice of the candidates and what they and their party stand for and figure out what they themselves want. Then character assassination will have no hold. But sad to say, people are still swayed more by a person's "character" than they are about the issues at hand and the candidate/party's solution.

Are we any better?

Thorn in my side

2006-11-11T01:07:00.000+11:00

I hate the PAP so much now that it has gone overboard. I can't believe a beautiful country like Singapore will ultimately be destroyed by the very people that say they want to help/save it.

We are digging our own grave by allowing the gahmen to do whatever it wants. For them to control everything, from our right to peacefully protest to the silencing anything and everything that doesn't agree with them and their fascist thinking.

I love my country so much but I really hate to see it getting raped over and over again by people who just want to be in power forever. Thinking that they, as gods, are the only thing for Singapore any other form of government is, as they say, "not right for Singapore".

These amendments to the penal code of Singapore is further evidence that the gahmen just wants to please enough people to stay in power, they are not looking out for the good of all or even for the protecting of minorities who are already marginalised by society and law. Harassment by the police (which we all know protects the rights of the gahmen and not the rights of the citizens) of gay-friendly venues is common place. The recent IndigNation launch party is a good example of this (Political apoplexy and police priorities)

There is a lot of fear in the gahmen, fear that Singaporeans will start voting the opposition. Fear that even with media censorship, the good the opposition is doing and has done will come to light. Fear that Singaporeans will start seeing Singapore as Singapore and the gahmen as the gahmen.

I can't remember who said it but this guy (or gal) said that a government that fears its own replacement will seek to control, in order for them to stay in power. How true these words are.

Ever since graduation, I have noticed more and more the lip service the PAP pays to us. It is lip service because from PM Goh's time until now, we have heard that Singapore has to open up, to be more inclusive, but it has never happened. Tokens have been thrown to us but nothing concrete has been done. Our media is still controlled, we cannot talk bad about the gahmen or anything about their policies or we'll be silenced (the mr. brown incident). We cannot talk about our concerns if we don't have any solutions to the problem. In other words, "shut up and just do what we say".

I am getting so tired of this, so tired that I have to learn to love my country. Something that comes naturally to most people, we in Singapore have to learn. Why do we have to learn? Most Singaporeans equate the gahmen with Singapore and that is not right. My proof? Well you'll realise that when you speak against the gahmen, the pro-PAP people would state, "if you so unhappy get out, migrate." What has my hatred for the PAP anything to do with Singapore?

During this current administration in USA (the Bush administration) most USA citizens hate their government, hate George Bush (his approval ratings are below 40%) but they love their country, even when they argue with people they disagree with, nobody tells them to leave the country because in USA, they know it is the difference that matters, in bringing differences to light, we learn and grow and understand. Notice the difference between them and Singapore. Singaporeans tend to have the idea that if you love the country you love the gahmen and vice versa and with the gahmen's help, we believe that disagreements and differences in opinions is bad for the country.

I am the type of person that the gahmen would just hate to have in the country. Not because I can be like Dr. Chee and risk everything for his belief but that I can express my dissatisfaction about the gahmen to everyone I know. Like our taxi drivers. As the saying goes, there is no smoke without fire.

Will still be a criminal

2006-11-09T13:19:00.000+11:00

I am pissed.

Very pissed at the PAP (who is the gahmen) for not wanting to change, for using 3rd world notions to govern a 1st world country, to treat all of us as fools and idiots.

I'm am still a criminal after they amend the law. It is suppose to be decided by parliament in the few months but knowing the gahmen is self-serving and closed minded and most importantly homophobic, the amendment will go through without any problems. So sex between gay men will still be considered illegal but anal/oral sex between straight couples is okay. This shows that discrimination against any citizen is okay. This is so true, they allow discrimination again the old, the poor, the uneducated, the handicap... so what's new? Well, the discrimination against those people are not written in law, whereas discrimination again gay men is.

The gahmen says because Singapore is still conservative even though they are quick to add that consenting gay men have never been prosecuted under the law from having sex. SO WHY THE FUCK DO WE KEEP IT?

To think that we who sacrificed our time in NS and ICT will still be criminals. No matter how they try to say that they are not homophobic. Allowing gay men/lesbians hold top offices in the civil sector doesn't make you less homophobic (how many are anyway? 1 or 2). It just makes the gahmen a hypocrite, a white-washed wall. But then again what is new. the gahmen has always been a hypocrite.

GLBTs exist in all facets of the working environment. We are doctors, engineers, nurses, IT professionals, lecturers, CEOs, etc. To make us all remain as criminals really sucks big time. This really shows the narrow-mindedness of the gahmen and the fact that their opening up is totally NATO.

Conservative, oh please. With STD rates going up for straight teens, I really wonder who this monster "conservative" is. The one that keeps appearing when they want to keep their own self-serving agenda.

So why would I want to return to Sg? Even if I return, why would I want to be Singaporean? Why would I want to be Singaporean if I'm going to be a criminal in the country I was born and raised? Why would I want to be a criminal even though I have not done anything wrong but because of some individuals, who pretend to be open minded when they are not, who decided that I am a criminal.

Why would GLBTs want to still be in Singapore or return to "contribute to society" when time and time again, the gahmen shows that we are not welcomed and not wanted.

I am pissed.

And it seems, I'm not the only one.
MHA is disappointing
Pseudo repeal under cover of smoke?
Partial decriminalisation is not good enough
Media release: Government should repeal both Sections 377 and 377A of the Penal Code
Minority Report

Despotism

2006-11-03T01:20:00.000+11:00

Despotism is defined by

wikipedia as "a form of government by a single authority, either an individual or tightly knit group, which rules with absolute political power". You can read the whole entry here

dictionary.com as
1. the rule of a despot; the exercise of absolute authority.
2. absolute power or control; tyranny.
3. an absolute or autocratic government.
4. a country ruled by a despot.

Why am I writing about despotism. Well, besides bringing a point across I wanted to talk slightly about history.

Germany went from a democratic country to a despotic one, all by the 'power' of 1 man, and WWII was born.

What has this got to do with Singapore, with Singapore being so small? Well, nothing really but you can gather from history a despotic societies, it usually starts off as democratic but slowly, more power is given to the government or 1 person or a small group of people and then rights and freedoms are slowly taken away from the people.

The changes are so small, that nobody notices them it first, then one day, they realised that they are not in a democratic society anymore.

Europe is frightened of that happening again that lots of checks and balances are in place (like transparency in the government, information about things the government does can be asked for and given, where everything the government does can be questioned by the people). These things were almost destroyed in USA during the Bush administration and if you have kept up with USA politics, you'll see how frightening it can be. E.g. People have been detained in jails (with no legal recourse) and tortured, the press was being suppressed, citizens couldn't get information from the government when they request for them...... This is only the tip of the iceberg and this happened within 6 years.

Having elections does not a democratic country make.

LKY apology

2006-10-31T13:11:00.000+11:00

This is an interesting phrase that has been coined in Singapore, an LKY apology. I have read this phrase quite a number of times in a blogs, comments and forums. It seems that Singaporeans (at least the ones that read and participant in blogs and online discussions) are using this as an apology that wasn't.

What do I mean? Well, to know what this means you have to read Mr Lee Kuan Yew's apology to the PM of Malaysia. When he made a the comment "Lee told a public forum two weeks ago that Malaysia and Indonesia, Singapore's predominantly Muslim neighbours, had "systematically marginalised" their Chinese minorities."

As you would know, this is not PC and it doesn't ease relations between Malaysia, Indonesia with Singapore. I really wonder what prompted him to make those remarks because when he speaks he doesn't speak as an individual, he's speaking as a minister of Singapore, a representative of Singapore. What can be worse? But I digress.

If you read the article below (MM Lee writes to Abdullah about those dialogue remarks) you'll realise that Mr Lee never apologised for making those remarks. He didn't apologise for saying something that he shouldn't say. He's apologising for making them (Malaysians and their government) feel uncomfortable (upset). This is akin to telling a person is useless, a cheat or liar and then saying, "I'm sorry that you feel hurt by my remarks but I'm right".

Then recently there was a saga about an 18 year old girl who wrote flaming remarks about a 35 year old man. There was an uproar in cyberspace. I have placed a link to The Intelligent Singapore which has a number of links to the original letter by the 35 year old and the 18 year old and blogs.

The Wee Shu Min Affair

If you read the apology of Mr Wee (Ms Wee's father, who is the Member of Parliament of Ang Mo Kio), you'll realised that he didn't apologise for the elitist remarks his daughter made. Thus, an LKY apology. Apologies that are not.

Saying sorry-the LKY style

Today online
3 October 2006

MM LEE WRITES TO ABDULLAH ABOUT THOSE DIALOGUE REMARKS

(Last week, Malaysian Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi sought to find out why Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew had made certain remarks recently about the state of ethnic Chinese in Malaysia. Yesterday, Mr Lee wrote back to Mr Abdullah, explaining both the context and the reasoning behind what he had said. The following is the text of his letter.)

Dear Prime Minister,

Thank you for your letter of 25 September 2006.

I made the remarks in a free-flowing dialogue session with former US Secretary of Treasury Larry Summers before many foreign delegates attending the IMF/WB meeting.

To put what Reuters reported into context, I set out the transcript of the relevant passage:

"Let me sum it up nicely, why you must have a government in Singapore which is really firm, stout-hearted, subtle and resolute. My neighbours both have problems with their Chinese. They are successful, they are hardworking and, therefore, they are systematically marginalised, even in education. There are quotas to prevent you. So, you've got to make money to go abroad or go to one of the private universities which are being set up. And they want Singapore, to put it simply, to be like their Chinese, compliant. So, every time, we say 'No' to some scheme to knock down the Causeway and build a bridge, he says, 'Oh, you're not cooperative, you're only thinking of yourself'. For no rhyme or reason, we knock down a causeway, nearly 100 years old, which served us well. He wants to build a bridge because it looks pretty and he says ships will sail and his containers can move from the East Coast to the West Coast via this. But we saw no ... So, we said, "All right, if you give us commensurate benefits, we'll agree". But you need a government who'll be able to, not only have the gumption, but the skill to say 'No' in a very quiet, polite way that doesn't provoke them into doing something silly."

On the bridge and the half bridge to remove the Causeway, you made the position of your government clear that Malaysia respects legally binding agreements and acts in accordance with international law. This made unnecessary a reference to ITLOS and the International Court of Justice that would otherwise have been unavoidable. This respect for the law is the basis for sound long-term relations between us.

I was explaining to a liberal audience of westerners who wanted to see a stronger opposition in Singapore why Singapore needs a strong majority government, not a weak coalition that will hamper us in defending our national interests.

Singapore needs a strong government to maintain good relations with Indonesia and Malaysia, and to interact with Indonesian and Malaysian politicians who consider Singapore to be Chinese, and expect Singapore to be 'sensitive' and comply with their requests.

On numerous occasions UMNO leaders, including Dr Mahathir and many others, have publicly warned Malaysian Malays that if they ever lose power, they risk the same fate as Malays in Singapore, whom they allege are marginalised and discriminated against. And from time to time when Malaysian politicians attack Singapore fiercely over some bilateral issue, some of them tell us privately that we should just accept this as part of Malaysian politics and not react to these attacks.

Singapore understands the reality of Malaysian politics. We have never protested at these attacks on our multi-racial system or our policies, except to clarify our own position when necessary. But we have to explain to our people the root cause of these difficulties in our bilateral relations. Otherwise Singaporeans will believe that their own government is doing wrong, either to our own people or to Malaysia.

As for the international audience, with so many foreign embassy staff and foreign correspondents reporting on Singapore and Malaysia, plus tens of thousands of expatriate businessmen working in our two countries, these people will come to their own judgement of the true position regardless of what I say.

I have not said anything more than what I have said many times before. In fact I have said less than what I had written in my memoirs published in 1998. I had no intention to meddle in your politics. Indeed I do not have the power to influence Malaysia's politics or to incite the feelings of the Chinese in Malaysia.

Since you took over as Prime Minister in November 2003, relations between our two countries have much improved. Singaporeans and, I believe, Malaysians too, appreciate this.

I am sorry that what I said has caused you a great deal of discomfort. After a decade of troubled relations with your predecessor, it is the last thing I wanted.

Yours sincerely,

Lee Kuan Yew

PS: The fact that you have written to me is now well publicised. As I have been asked about my reply, I will have to release my letter to the media after you have received it.

He's one to talk

2006-10-07T01:25:00.000+10:00

It is amazing that PM Lee can even utter these words considering the fact that Sg isn't very democratic at all! At least in Thailand, they have freedom for expression and speech, even now with the so called coup. Do we have it here? So which country is more democratic?

The Nation
06 October 2006

Coup is a setback for country and democracy : Singapore

Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said Friday that the power seizure on 19 September was "a setback for Thailand" and its democracy but expressed confidence that the new Thai Prime Minister Surayud Chulanont will live up to his responsibility.

"This is a setback for Thailand, which has been trying to establish a democratic system after a long series of seventeen coups since 1932," Lee said in his keynote speech to a group of journalists from Asia and Europe, in which he was explaining the political systems in Asia.

"But this time there was a political situation and in the end this is how Thailand had resolved it. We accept that. Is it good for Thailand, I think it is a setback for Thailand.

"Did they have to do it? Well, they have to judge," he said.

And instead of waiting for the verdict of voters, which would come with the scheduled election for November, said Lee, the military decided to remove Thaksin Shinawatra through a coup.

Lee said Thailand lacks firmly established democratic institutions and a tradition of civilian rule. However, Westernstyle liberal democracy is not necessary the answer either, according to the premier of the islandstate.

"But it is not a magic formula for success," he said adding that in Asia, Western democracy has not always delivered stable, legitimate and effective government.

Lee told The Nation that he has met the Surayud in the past expressed the wish to work with him. Both of them will be meeting in Nanning on 30-31 Oct to commemorate the 15th anniversary of Asean China summit.

Singapore was one of the first country to send a congratulatory letter to Surayud upon his appointment.

My life

2006-09-27T09:29:00.000+10:00

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

My hero

2006-09-25T11:38:00.000+10:00

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.

mrs budak's lair was suspended

2006-09-22T10:40:00.000+10:00

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.

Nature vs Nature

2006-09-20T17:40:00.000+10:00

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.

Hooray

2006-09-18T21:30:00.000+10:00

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.

We are not in the wrong

2006-09-15T15:30:00.000+10:00

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

The 'infallible' church

2006-09-13T11:09:00.000+10:00

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

History

2006-09-06T23:00:00.000+10:00

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".

Friends indeed!

2006-09-06T13:49:00.000+10:00

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.

The right person?

2006-08-03T11:19:00.000+10:00

I can’t remember what I got this from but it is a very interesting topic. I think, not only married couples think about it, even dating couples and especially monogamous gay or lesbian couples (since ‘marriage’ in the legal sense is not allowed).

DID I MARRY THE RIGHT PERSON?

During one of our seminars, a woman asked a common question. She said, "How do I know if I married the right person?"

I noticed that there was a large man sitting next to her so I said, "It depends. Is that your husband?"
In all seriousness, she answered, "How do you know?"

Let me answer this question because the chances are good that it's weighing on your mind.

EVERY relationship has a cycle. In the beginning, you fell in love with your spouse. You anticipated his call, wanted his touch and liked his idiosyncrasies.

Falling in love with your spouse wasn't hard. In fact, it was a completely natural and spontaneous experience. You didn't have to DO anything. That's why it's called "falling" in love.

People in love sometimes say, "I was swept off my feet." Think about the imagery of that expression. It implies that you were just standing there, doing nothing. Then something came along and happened TO YOU.

Falling is love is easy. It's a passive and spontaneous experience. But after a few years of marriage, the euphoria of love fades. It's the natural cycle of EVERY relationship. Slowly but surely, phone calls become a bother (if they come at all), touch is not always welcome (when it happens) and your spouse's idiosyncrasies, instead of being cute, drive you nuts.

The symptoms of this stage vary with every relationship, but if you think about your marriage, you will notice a dramatic difference between the initial stage when you were in love and a much duller or even angry subsequent stage.

At this point, you and/or your spouse might start asking, "Did I marry the right person?" And as you and your spouse reflect on the euphoria of the love you once had, you may begin to desire that experience with someone else. This is when marriages break down. People blame their spouse for their unhappiness and look outside their marriage for fulfillment.

Extra-marital fulfillment comes in all shapes and sizes. Infidelity is the most obvious. But sometimes people turn to work, church, a hobby, friendship, excessive TV or abusive substances. But the answer to this dilemma does NOT lie outside your marriage. It lies within it. I'm not saying that you couldn't fall in love with someone else. You could. And TEMPORARILY, you'd feel better. But you'd be in the same situation a few years later. Because (listen carefully to this):

THE KEY TO SUCCEEDING IN MARRIAGE IS NOT FINDING THE RIGHT PERSON; IT'S LEARNING TO LOVE THE PERSON YOU FOUND.

SUSTAINING love is not a passive or spontaneous experience. It'll NEVER just happen to you. You can't "find" LASTING love. You have to "make" it day in and day out. That's why we have the expression "the labour of love." Because it takes time, effort and energy. And most importantly, it takes WISDOM. You have to know WHAT TO DO to make your marriage work.

Make no mistake about it. Love is NOT a mystery. There are specific things you can do (with or without your spouse) to succeed with your marriage.

Just as there are physical laws of the universe (such as gravity), there are also laws for relationships. Just as the right diet and exercise program makes you physically stronger, certain habits in your relationship WILL make your marriage stronger. It's a direct cause and effect. If you know and apply the laws, the results are predictable... you can "make" love.

Love in marriage is indeed a "decision"... Not just a feeling.

Patriotism

2006-07-15T17:25:00.000+10:00

Sometimes I wonder what there is in Singapore to pull me back. Seriously, after working in Melbourne for almost a year and reading about the oppression that the Singapore gahmen has been dishing out recently, I’m having 2 minds about wanting to go back, wanting to remain Singaporean. I’m very tempted to actually take up Australian’s citizenship and return to Singapore as a foreign talent. I don’t know if I will do that and it might be due to the fact that I’ve been so disillusioned by the gahmen and in a not so direct way, the Singapore people.

I have tried very hard to separate Singapore from the gahmen (or during this time the People’s Action Party), tried my best to not equate the PAP with Singapore. And by far I have succeeded but time and time again, the PAP tells us that without them there will be no Singapore. So if by change or by some act of god the PAP is no longer the ruling party, Singapore will immediately fall. The Singapore dollar value will fall and our standard of living will deteriorate. Immediately, there will be more jobless people, the buildings will turn old and start to become ruins.

Impossible you say, but the way the PAP says things and the way majority of Singaporeans believe this, you’d think it is Gospel truth. The amazing part about this is that these people have forgotten that it is not the PAP that makes Singapore, Singapore. Singapore was created by the people, you and me. The ones that earn less than 100k a year. The ones who work 8 to 5 or longer to make ends meet. The ones who pay taxes to keep the country running. Without the PAP, we Singaporeans will still survive because we want to survive and thus we will survive. Whereas without the people, the gahmen is nothing.

Is wanting a check and balance system like the other real democratic countries really bad? Does it mean that just because I vote opposition that I’m not ‘filial’? Does it mean that I voice my opinions about something that I’m not happy about that I’m not patriotic? As much as a lot of people keep saying that we owe the success of Singapore to the PAP, but is that enough to just blindly have them take up almost all seats in parliament again and again? Have anybody thought that the success of the gahmen is due to its people. The people who against all odds have risen and built Singapore. As much as I would like to say that the gahmen has no part in it, I know that isn’t true. Any great country is built by the people with the gahmen. We can see that in all the great countries. One cannot take credit for it all. It is a partnership and thus no one part ‘owes their living to the other’.

So being patriotic, it means “feeling, expressing, or inspired by love for one's country” (taken from dictionary.com:patriotic), since the gahmen is NOT Singapore, voting against them or even having different opinions from them doesn’t make us less patriotic for we as a people are looking at the future of Singapore, NOT the future of a particular political party.

Maybe before I die, I might get to see real debates in Singapore’s parliament. Where policies are created not only for economic gain but also for the betterment of the lives of Singaporeans. Where anyone can be an alternative voice and not be clamped down. Where the gahmen really listens and had dialogues (not just paying lip service). It can only came if Singaporeans start to really take interest in the country. To find out different points of view from what the media is dishing out. To be able to think for themselves about things that are happening to fellow Singaporeans due to some policy or environmental factors. At that time, Singaporeans would really own Singapore.

Singapore Minister's Pay

2006-07-12T22:39:00.000+10:00

I just realised today that the lowest ranking minister in Singapore is paid SGD100k+ per month. Gosh, this is more than what 80% of the Singapore population earns in 1 year!

I couldn’t believe it and I was so pissed and so fed up. Pissed because I used to be a person that agreed that ministers should be paid well. I was stupid and not realising how stupid I was. I used to tell others that in Sg at least the ministers get there pay and that is it, there are no perks, whereas in Australia and in fact many developed countries the ministers get perks. I used to argue that with the salaries that these ministers get and also their perks, it would be more that what our ministers are getting in the end. It was so convincing!

The Australia PM earns USD137k a year.
The UK PM earns USD170k a year.
The US president earns USD200k a year.

Source: Asian Wall Street Journal July 10 2000

Think about it, even with their perks, these ministers can never hit the SGD100k per month! It is so ridiculous. Now I have really taken off my rose-coloured glasses.

I was a fool and never anymore. I will research and find things out before I open my big mouth.

P.S. I’m not sure if our ministers get any perks, so don’t quote me.

Work and bosses

2006-07-08T10:55:00.000+10:00

Isn't it interesting when your boss insist that his method of doing something (solving a problem) is right and that you should just follow it. It is doubly interesting when he isn't trained in that field and you are. It is extremely interesting when you have 8 years of experience in doing that thing (solving that problem) and he has none and yet he still insist he is right.

Well that happened to me yesterday. Twice. It was really odd because he doesn't know how it worked, which in turn means he didn't know the simplest solution. He wanted to start the whole process from scratch but I knew there was a simpler way and I did it my way (queue in Frank Sinatra's "I did it my way"). Later when he asked if I started the process, I told him there was a way to fix the problem without starting from scratch. He didn't believe me until I showed him a simple. Even then he wasn't really convinced. Anyhow, the fix was finished in a fraction of the time and I showed it to him. No words came out. Nice to make your boss speechless isn't it. ;)

Apathy

2006-07-07T00:05:00.000+10:00

dictionary.com defines apathy as

Lack of interest or concern, especially regarding matters of general importance or appeal; indifference.

Lack of emotion or feeling; impassiveness.

I never understood about people being apathetic about politics and the gahmen being worried about it until I had a chat with T (just now).

I told him about the mrbrown incident and I got rather agitated because he seemed to have no opinion and, in an indirect way, stated that it doesn't concern him. He said that unless he feels strongly about a topic, he wouldn't bother.

His reasons for not bothering

There are more important things to worry about like family

He is only 1 person what can he do

He has been living with it for so long

I realised that that would be the typical answers to why people are apathetic. So I thought I'd dissect these 3 points.

There are more important things to worry about

Yup, I totally agree with this. If you don't have enough money to feed your family or even have a roof over your head, these things would be the most important things. Then again, it has been the poor and middle class to have made changes in policies throughout the history of the world. I'm not saying that being interested in politics you would make that your first worry and take each and every action by the gahmen as a battle to be fought. No! Being interested in politics would mean that you know about what is happening politically and have an opinion. There is no right and wrong as it is an opinion. Furthermore, it doesn't mean that if you feel strongly about a policy or an action that you should gather up the masses and hold a rally or anything to that extent. Change and political awareness comes with educating. Telling friends and family why a policy or action is not right and listening to their take on it and allowing their points of view to blend in with yours so that you either have a clearer picture why it is wrong or you might change your mind.

Being only 1 person what difference would it make

It is very logical, but the thing is this, if you are a person in a sea of people who believe in the same things you do or at least believe in the same way on a particular topic, you become not just 1 person. Your 1 voice is now much louder. That is the attitude a lot of people take when it comes to voting, “What difference would 1 vote make?” Lots, as countries who have gone though problems would tell you. The easiest example is the US elections. Lots of Americans didn't register to vote because they had the attitude that their 1 vote didn't matter and when these people were polled as to how they would vote if they registered, majority of them (70% if I'm not wrong) said that they would have voted for John Kerry. So in the end, the “1 vote doesn't matter” because hundreds of thousands of votes that mattered.

Also there have been people throughout history who changed the world. Ghandi, Mother Teresa are the 2 most prominent ones of recent times. Just 1 person, changed the world. Oh yea, there is also Hitler. Just 1 person, changed the world, not in a good way though.

We have been living with it

Just because it is in the books doesn't make it right. If women had that attitude, the feminist movement wouldn't have started and women would not share a lot of the same rights as males. If gays and lesbians (GL) had that attitude, they wouldn't have started the campaign of awareness, being visible so that society know they exist and now see where it has gone. Homosexuality is not a mental disorder in any countries (it used to be). Laws against gay sex has been repelled in most progressive countries. Some countries even legalised same sex unions.

I'm not saying that just because you are interested in politics, you have to be an activist or even join a political party. It doesn't mean that but it does mean that you do believe that policies and laws affect people and whether it affects you or not, and you have an opinion about it and maybe just maybe educate others about what it means and its impact on society.

I am Singaporean

2006-07-06T11:00:00.000+10:00

I grew up in a 3 room HDB flat and have been living there all my life.
I have been called kan tang (potato) in the Army because I speak good English.
I lived on my mother's cooking until I went overseas to work.
I left because I got tired of having no rights in Singapore.
I love my country even though I am fed-up with the authorities.
I will return for I believe Singapore is worth fighting for.
I met my boyfriend 4 years back and I still love him very much.
I am considered a pervert, paedophile and etc. just because I am attracted to men.
I am still considered a criminal because of who I sleep with.
I sometimes quarrel with my parents but I still love them.
I miss the food in Singapore especially the curry noodles at Chinatown.
I download TV series because I hate the censorship in Singapore.
I go to church not because I have to but because I want to.
I am looking forward to buying my own HDB apartment and living with my boyfriend.
I bitch about the public transport but still have to use it as cars are not worth it.
I think that the National Day Parade is a big hoo ha about nothing.

I am Wolfgang.
I am Joseph.
I am gay.
I am Singaporean.

So say we all!
So say we all!

Singapore, my country at last

2006-07-06T10:16:00.000+10:00

mr brown and mr miyagi started a new podcast for the coming National Day of Singapore (our independence day to put it another way) called "I am Singaporean".

It is really beautifully done. And this small thing really made me feel proud to be Singaporean (gahmen be damned).

I feel the love for my country (note, country not gahmen) when I listened to these podcasts, something which no national education or song or parades has ever done for me. I never knew how much Singapore means to me until now. I also never know how much this nation means to a lot of Singaporeans until I started reading Singaporeans blogs.

MICA and control

2006-07-04T09:59:00.000+10:00

When I read mr brown's 'voice' I was so impressed. He placed the worries of the average Singaporean in the front. Something which most of us think about, bitch about but know we can do nothing about.

Then on Monday (mr brown's 'voice' was published on Friday) The Ministry of Information, Communications and the Arts (MICA), rebutted him (I have highlighted that reply in red, just scroll down).

It is really amazing on how short sighted gahmen is. Apparently airing our worries in the newspaper is a no-no, the gahmen cannot take criticism.

I was pleasantly surprised that lots of bloggers think the same way I do. Mr Wang Bakes Good Karma (Bhavani & Brown) and mrs budak lair (My unconstructive criticism), sums up what I think. :P Even bloggers can get lazy.

One thing I do want to add, this seems so much like control. The gahmen seems to be going back to the olden days where "citizens are seen but not heard", "we know what is best for you, so don't think and shut up". This mentality is really what made the PAP loose one-third of the votes of half of the island. Not only do they think that Singaporeans are immature but also stupid! Don't you just resent that?

Democracy?

commentary:
GOVERNMENT CRITICISED FOR CONDEMNING "UNCONSTRUCTIVE" ARTICLE
Analyzing Mr Brown's original article
Did Mr Brown distort the truth?
Is it legitimate to explicitly limit our journalists and newspapers as to what they cannot do?
Bhavani & Brown
My unconstructive criticism

S'poreans are fed, up with progress!
Voices TODAY Newspaper
30 June 2006

THINGS are certainly looking up for Singapore again. Up, up, and away.

Household incomes are up, I read. Sure, the bottom third of our country is actually seeing their incomes (or as one newspaper called it, "wages") shrink, but the rest of us purportedly are making more money.

Okay, if you say so.

As sure as Superman Returns, our cost of living is also on the up. Except we are not able to leap over high costs in a single bound.

Cost of watching World Cup is up. Price of electricity is up. Comfort's taxi fares are going up. Oh, sorry, it was called "being revised". Even the prata man at my coffeeshop just raised the price of his prata by 10 cents. He was also revising his prata prices.

So Singaporeans need to try to "up" their incomes, I am sure, in the light of our rising costs. Have you upped yours?

We are very thankful for the timing of all this good news, of course. Just after the elections, for instance. By that I mean that getting the important event out of the way means we can now concentrate on trying to pay our bills.

It would have been too taxing on the brain if those price increases were announced during the election period, thereby affecting our ability to choose wisely.

The other reason I am glad with the timing of the cost of living increases and wages going down, is that we can now deploy our Progress Package to pay for some of these bills.

Wait, what? You spent it all on that fancy pair of shoes on the day you saw your money in your account? Too bad for you then.

As I break into my Progress Package reserves to see if it is enough to pay the bills, I feel an overwhelming sense of progress. I feel like I am really staying together with my fellow Singaporeans and moving forward.

There is even talk of future roads like underground expressways being outsourced to private sector companies to build, so that they, in turn, levy a toll on those of us who use these roads.

I understand the cost of building these roads is high, and the Government is relooking the financing of these big road projects.

Silly me, I thought my road tax and COE was enough to pay for public roads.

Maybe we can start financing all kinds of expensive projects this way in future. We could build upgraded lifts for older HDB blocks, and charge tolls on a per use basis.

You walk into your new lift on the first floor, and the scanner reads the contactless cashcard chip embedded in your forehead. This chip would be part of the recently-announced Intelligent Nation 2015 plan, you know, that initiative to make us a smart nation?

So you, the smart contactless-cashcard-chip-enhanced Singaporean would go into your lift, and when you get off at your floor, the lift would deduct the toll from your chip, and you would hear a beep.

The higher you live, the more expensive the lift toll.

Now you know why I started climbing stairs for exercise, as I mentioned in my last column. I plan to prepare for that day when I have to pay to use my lift. God help you if some kid presses all the lift buttons in the lift, as kids are wont to do. You will be beeping all the way to your flat.

The same chip could be used to pay for supermarket items. You just carry your bags of rice and groceries past the cashierless cashier counter, and the total will be deducted from your contactless cashcard automatically.

You will not even know you just got poorer. And if your contactless cashcard runs out of funds (making it a contactless CASHLESS cashcard), you just cannot use paid services.

The door of the lift won't close, the bus won't stop for you, taxis will automatically display "On Call" when their chip scanners detect you're broke.

Sure, paying bills that only seem to go up is painful, but by Jove, we are going to make sure it is at least convenient.

No more opening your wallet and fiddling with dirty notes and coins. Just stand there and hear your income beeped away. No fuss, no muss! I cannot wait to be a Smart e-Singaporean.

I also found out recently that my first-born daughter's special school fees were going up. This is because of this thing called "Means Testing", where they test your means, then if you are not poor enough, you lose some or all of the subsidy you've been getting for your special child's therapy.

I think I am looking at about a $100 increase, which is a more than a 100 per cent increase, but who's counting, right? We can afford it, but we do know many families who cannot, even those that are making more money than we are, on paper.

But don't worry. Most of you don't have this problem. Your normal kids can go to regular school for very low fees, and I am sure they will not introduce means testing for your cases.

We need your gifted and talented kids to help our country do well economically, so that our kids with special needs can get a little more therapy to help them to walk and talk. And hey, maybe if the country does really well, the special-needs kids will get a little more subsidy.

Like I said, progress.

High-definition televisions, a high-speed broadband wireless network, underground expressways, and contactless cashcard system Â all our signs of progress.

I am happy for progress, of course but I would be just as happy to make ends meet and to see my autistic first-born grow up able to talk and fend for herself in this society when I am gone.

That is something my wife and I will pay all we can pay to see in our lifetimes.

mr brown is the accidental author of a popular website that has been documenting the dysfunctional side of Singapore life since 1997. He enjoys having yet another cashcard, in addition to his un-contactless one and the ez-link one to add to his wallet.

The reply from MICA

Voices, TODAY newspaper, Monday, July 3, 2006:

Distorting the truth, mr brown?

When a columnist becomes a 'partisan player' in politics

Letter from K BHAVANI
Press Secretary to the Minister for Information, Communications and the Arts

Your mr brown column, "S'poreans are fed, up with progress!" (June 30) poured sarcasm on many issues, including the recent General Household Survey, price increases in electricity tariffs and taxi fares, our IT plans, the Progress Package and means testing for special school fees.

The results of the General Household Survey were only available after the General Election. But similar data from the Household Expenditure Survey had been published last year before the election.

There was no reason to suppress the information. It confirmed what we had told Singaporeans all along, that globalisation would stretch out incomes.

mr brown must also know that price increases in electricity tariffs and taxi fares are the inevitable result of higher oil prices.

These were precisely the reasons for the Progress Package Â to help lower income Singaporeans cope with higher costs of living.

Our IT plans are critical to Singapore's competitive position and will improve the job chances of individual Singaporeans. It is wrong of mr brown to make light of them.

As for means testing for special school fees, we understand mr brown's disappointment as the father of an autistic child. However, with means testing, we can devote more resources to families who need more help.

mr brown's views on all these issues distort the truth. They are polemics dressed up as analysis, blaming the Government for all that he is unhappy with. He offers no alternatives or solutions. His piece is calculated to encourage cynicism and despondency, which can only make things worse, not better, for those he professes to sympathise with.

mr brown is entitled to his views. But opinions which are widely circulated in a regular column in a serious newspaper should meet higher standards. Instead of a diatribe mr brown should offer constructive criticism and alternatives. And he should come out from behind his pseudonym to defend his views openly.

It is not the role of journalists or newspapers in Singapore to champion issues, or campaign for or against the Government. If a columnist presents himself as a non-political observer, while exploiting his access to the mass media to undermine the Government's standing with the electorate, then he is no longer a constructive critic, but a partisan player in politics.

STDs

2006-06-30T19:28:00.000+10:00

Was watching TV the other day and they were talking about herpes. An incurable sexually transmitted disease and I realised that I couldn't remember any other except for HIV. So I went to Gay Health to check it up and realised that I REALLY have forgotten a number of STDs.

There are a lot of things that you can catch by having sex with someone. Talk about high risk activity. It seems people (both LG and heterosexuals) seem to forget about the other STDs except HIV. HIV has so much 'air-time' in the media all around the world that the other STDs have been almost forgotten.

I find it really scary that there are STDs out there that you can contact just via touch, it is more scary than getting HIV. So any sexual encounter, even if just touching, can transmit some of the STDs, I do believe that herpes is one of them. And herpes in incurable, you live with it for life. Imagine having the fear that you'll pass it to your partner every time you want to get intimate and intimate in this context is not only about sex, even hugging or kissing might be dangerous.

That is why I wonder if the people (heterosexual or gay) know that there are other diseases you can get via causal contact besides HIV and for some of these STDs, condoms is not a barrier. Hopfully they do and are taking all precautions.

This might be a reason why I'm a one man's man. :P

Chiam's $80M-request rejected

2006-06-29T10:48:00.000+10:00

Am I surprised? Not at all.

As the saying goes, some citizens are more equal than others.

Reference: Good grief!

Today
29 June 2006

CHIAM'S $80M-REQUEST REJECTED

National Development Minister Mah Bow Tan has rejected Mr Chiam See Tong's request for $80 million in upgrading funds for his Potong Pasir ward.

The Potong Pasir Member of Parliament wrote to Mr Mah last Wednesday asking how he could get access to the funds for improvement works.

But in his reply to Mr Chiam, which was copied to the media, Mr Mah explained that the $80-million upgrading package was proposed by People's Action Party candidate Sitoh Yih Pin as his plan for the constituency if he was elected.

Since the majority of Potong Pasir voters rejected Mr Sitoh and his plan, Mr Mah said the issue of funding no longer arises. He added that as Mr Chiam claimed during the election campaign that his Town Council had enough funds to do lift upgrading for all the blocks over the next five years, he should therefore proceed to do so. - Channel NewsAsia

Problems...

2006-06-28T22:50:00.000+10:00

When I woke up this morning, I really wanted to write about the Catholic church and what the world would be like if they were still in power (i.e. controlling the gahmens). I was really excited about it but then I received an email from a close friend of mine telling me about her marital problems.

It was really sad to know about it and my planes to write about the Catholic church was pushed aside and I tried my best to convey my thoughts and support via email.

It is always sad to know that when you friends are having problems, whether money problems, relationship problems, health problem, marriage problems, they all are very sad things. How can you as a friend try to be supportive but not judgmental or critical? It sometimes become even more difficult (if it is a relationship/marriage problem) if you only know one of the parties involved, it becomes doubly difficult if you didn’t like their partners. I don’t know my friend’s husband very well but he’s a nice guy. Friendly and not pretentious. The best part about it, was when I came out to them, he accepted it more easily than she did, but then again maybe it was because she knew me for a longer period.

So I was trying to console her and to tell her that ending the marriage is not an option that should be taken until all avenues to ‘salvage’ the marriage has been exhausted. Not an easy thing to do.

Other than that I can only offer my support in whatever decision she makes and be a 'listening ear' now as she rants and tries to get it out of her system.

God bless her and her husband.

T is back

2006-06-24T10:34:00.000+10:00

Yea, he's back from his trip. It is so nice to chat with him last night. :) Made my day.

Condoms proven to protect against virus

2006-06-22T13:27:00.000+10:00

This is a wonderful proof. But then again, the religious wrongs will think of other ways to counteract this or use the same old tired 'proofs' that condom usage is not effective.

Condoms proven to protect against virus

By LINDA A. JOHNSON, Associated Press Writer Wed Jun 21, 7:28 PM ET

For the first time, scientists have proof that condoms offer women impressive protection against the virus that causes cervical cancer.

A three-year study of female college students "all virgins at the start" found that women whose partners always wore a condom during sex were 70 percent less likely to become infected with the human papilloma virus, or HPV, than those whose partners used protection less than 5 percent of the time.

"That's pretty awesome. There aren't too many times when you can have an intervention that would offer so much protection," said Dr. Patricia Kloser, an infectious-disease specialist at University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey who was not part of the study.

Condoms have been shown convincingly to prevent pregnancy and AIDS. But conservatives who want to see abstinence
taught in schools have long argued that condoms do not protect well against diseases such as HPV, because men can spread the virus to women from sores on their genitals outside the area covered by a condom.

However, the researchers at the University of Washington found that the chances of HPV being spread that way appear to be small.

Human papilloma virus (which can cause cervical cancer, genital warts and vaginal, vulvar, anal and penile cancers) is the most common sexually transmitted disease, infecting about 80 percent of young women within five years of becoming sexually active. An estimated 630 million people worldwide are infected.

The virus is spread during sex from contact with the sores, or lesions, that develop around infected cells.

Often, the virus is killed by the immune system, but in some people HPV can take hold and cause lesions that can turn cancerous years later. Cervical cancer strikes about 10,520 American women and kills about 3,500 each year. Worldwide, about 500,000 women develop cervical cancer and nearly 300,000 die from it every year.

In the HPV study, published in Thursday's New England Journal of Medicine, none of the women who reported that their partners always used condoms developed lesions during the three-year period. Fourteen women whose partners used condoms less regularly got lesions.

Twelve of the 42 women who said their partners always used condoms became infected. Rachel Winer, a researcher in the university's epidemiology department, said it could be that the couples did not use the condoms correctly or had some sexual contact before putting on a condom.

Recent medical advances might someday render the condom debate moot: Earlier this month, the government approved the first vaccine against HPV, and public health officials are urging that girls be routinely vaccinated before they become sexually active.

The study comes as the Food and Drug Administration is revising rules for the claims that manufacturers can make on how well condoms prevent sexually transmitted diseases.

Packages now must state: "If used properly, latex condoms will help to reduce the risk of transmission of HIV infection (AIDS) and many other sexually transmitted diseases." But revisions were ordered by Congress in 2000 amid pressure from conservative groups demanding "medically accurate" claims as to condoms' effectiveness.

Safe-sex advocates warn that changing the wording would undermine public confidence in, and use of, condoms.

At the time, there was solid evidence only on how well condoms prevent pregnancy, HIV and, in men, gonorrhea. Recent research has produced strong evidence condoms protect well against gonorrhea, chlamydia and herpes in both men and women, said Dr. Ward Cates Jr., president of the Institute for Family Health at Family Health International. This study adds HPV to that list, he said.

"This will help clinicians to counsel their patients about the effectiveness of condoms to reduce another of the sexually transmitted infections if condoms are used consistently and correctly," Cates said.

The researchers invited 24,000 female students ages 18 to 22 at the Seattle university to be in the study.Starting in 2001, they followed 82 from before their first vaginal intercourse, testing the women for HPV with swabs of the cervix and other genital areas every four months. The women kept online diaries detailing each act of intercourse, including condom use and whether there was any genital contact without a condom.

Winer said previous HPV studies either showed no protection from condoms or were inconclusive. This one included only virgins and collected more details, and the computer diaries helped women be more honest about condom use than those in studies where people are interviewed about their sexual behavior, she said.

"This is about as ideal a study as you can get," said Dr. Tom Fitch, a San Antonio pediatrician and board chairman at the Medical Institute for Sexual Health, which stresses abstinence and monogamy as the only sure ways to prevent sexually transmitted infections.

Nevertheless, Fitch noted that some consistent condom users still were infected with HPV. Fitch and Kloser also suggested that the results in the real world (say, among poor, inner-city women) might be different from those with college women.

Fitch said several studies have shown that at most, 50 percent of people reported using a condom every time they had sex.

Commitment

2006-06-22T12:51:00.000+10:00

I was introduced to The Reader's Eye not long ago. I like his works. It was so inspiring that I thought I'd share one of my works too, the one that I'm most proud. It's amateur poetry, definitely not as good as Gilbert's.

It is a long winding road
Lots of steep slopes and drops
Hand in hand we looked
Towards the endless horizon
“A journey of a thousand miles
Begins with a single step”
We took the first step
And never looked back

Good grief!

2006-06-21T09:54:00.000+10:00

Gosh, this statement by our PM is so full of arrogance that I really have no more respect for him and the party he represents. The way he puts it, it's as if the opposition wards pay taxes towards their ward only. Can the people in opposition wards have their tax dollars channelled to their wards? No and yet, our tax dollars is ONLY for the 'PAP'. This is so bad. So many Singaporeans are so unhappy with this policy since it is a common pool of money that we are drawing from. The gahmen just don't get it, do they?

Furthermore, talking about Australia not allowing Singapore Airlines to have flight routes to USA. Is it due to Australian's way of government or the fact that there are other 'national interest' factors? Has he thought of the fact that most countries do not look that economic benefits as the only way to run a country or create policies? A concept that seems to be lost in our gahmen, where economics is the only driving force in the creation of policies, anything to do with individual rights or freedoms or national interest (at the expense of economic gain) would be placed 'on hold' indefinitely.

Why is it the PAP think that they are the best thing for Singapore and the only party that can run it? Why is it they think that if they don't hold majority of the seats in parliament, Singapore is just going to fall from grace. They have this attitude that it is their divine right to govern.

*sigh*

When can Singapore politics mature? We can never be, until the PAP (or the gahmen in general) can accept constrictive criticisms without thinking it is a personal attack and that their word is not the end all and be all. Their attitude is that if you criticise, it means you think you can run the country better and thus, you should form your own party and stand for elections. But that is such an ill conceived notion and I don't know who started that thought. Criticising a policy doesn't mean that we think the gahmen is doing a bad job. It is our opinion and being Singaporean, it is our right to do that. So what is their problem? I really don't get it.

Other comments:
Lee Hsien Loong not impressed by democracy in Australia
Comical Ah Lee
More Comical Ah Lee
I am no Politician, just an Economist
Political Cyanide, Anyone?

------

Today
21 June 2006

'EXCITING' POLITICS NOT ALWAYS BEST FOR THE PEOPLE: PM LEE
----------------------------------------------------------
Loh Chee Kong in Auckland
cheekong@newstoday.com.sg

HIS visit to Australia and New Zealand has reinforced Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong's belief that the one-party system in Singapore must continue - and the same goes for the policy of placing Opposition-held wards at the end of the lift-upgrading queue.

Over the last nine days, Mr Lee met various leaders from the two countries, including Prime Ministers John Howard (Australia) and Helen Clark (New Zealand), as well as their respective opposition leaders, Mr Kim Beazley and Dr Don Brash.

And after having a more intimate look at their political systems, Mr Lee is convinced that while their no-holds barred arguments make for "more exciting" politics and "compulsively-viewable interviews", they do not necessarily result in more sound policies.

The end-product of rigorous parliamentary debates might not necessarily be for the good of the country, as such "endless debates are seldom about achieving a better grasp of the issue but to score political points", he commented.

Speaking to reporters as he wrapped up his visit, Mr Lee said: "I think when you look at Australia and New Zealand and other countries with two-party systems or parliamentary democracies like us and elections in our politics, you will understand how different and unique the Singapore experience is.

"You look at their politics in Australia between Howard and Beazley. All the time, Howard says something, Beazley says he got it wrong. Beazley says something, (Howard) says: 'You said something different last week or three years ago'.

"So ceaselessly, back and forth, whatever you do, I'll say you've done it wrong. If I can't find some (way) to be different from you, I will look for something else so as to establish my own brand name."

Mr Lee also said that such party politics might lead to policies that are detrimental to the nation. He pointed to the Australian government's decision to deny Singapore Airlines access to the trans-Pacific as an example.

"The National Party (Mr Howard's party's rural-based junior coalition partner) has certain interests - to look after the rural populations, to look after the towns and far-flung outbacks - and one of their interests is to have air services fly to all these places. It's not economical for airlines which provide those air services, (among which) includes Qantas.

"So, when you say you want to open the trans-Pacific route and run an open competition because it is good for Australia, Qantas then says: 'Well, if you do that, we are going to have to cut back on all these non-economic routes. We are doing you a favour, doing national service.'"

But while the system might work for Australia because it is a diverse country with many different interest groups, Singapore's society is more homogeneous, with the Government also having "made sure that all the constituencies are mixed and integrated".

"In Singapore, we have 84 constituencies, but basically they are all more or less the same. You don't have a rural area, a city area. You don't have a very working class area versus a very upmarket area. We have made sure you don't have a Malay area or Indian constituency or Chinese constituency."

Because the People's Action Party (PAP) sees the whole of Singapore as a "natural constituency", it fights for all 84 seats during every election.

But the party's dominance in the political landscape has caused Singaporeans to "lose the perspective that party politics is party politics" - that people vote for a party not just because of national reasons, but because "it benefits himself or his community", said the Prime Minister.

"If we only talk about national interest and put it above party politics, in theory, that is ideal - but in reality, that's impossible," he said. "And that's why you end up having HDB priority (for lift upgrading) and a difference between the PAP and Opposition wards. It's necessary. Without that, the system cannot work.

"Because if we treat everybody the same ... the first thing the Opposition will say and has been saying is: 'It doesn't matter. They'll have to take care of you anyway. Vote for us, you will still have a PAP government' - which was what (Workers' Party candidate) Sylvia Lim said during the elections.

"And that becomes a real problem because if everybody believes that, where are you going to produce that PAP government?"

But what about PAP supporters who stay in Opposition wards?

Said Mr Lee: "We have no choice but to respect the wishes of the majority of the voters. We know that there are PAP supporters in Opposition wards. In PAP wards, there are also Opposition supporters. If you voted for an Opposition MP, you have to depend on him to work for you."

T has gone/going overseas

2006-06-18T08:06:00.000+10:00

Well, T should be at the airport now (Changi Airport that is). He's going overseas for a conference.

It is so weird, even though we are apart, I still feel a pinge of missing him if he's not in Sg.

Counter

2006-06-16T13:14:00.000+10:00

This is fun, I've just added a counter to this blog. Not that it really matters, I think that nobody reads it, except T.

Aching butt

2006-06-15T22:49:00.000+10:00

My personal trainer killed my yesterday. He made me do leg press with 100kg! And it was using this machine which was already 30kg (or more) before the weights went on, so I was doing 130kg leg presses, 3 sets too. I couldn't believe it. My legs, especially my butt, was aching after I finished 1 set. It is aching today, and knowing my body, it is REALLY going to be sore tomorrow.

But at least I'll have a great butt. :P

Marriage vs Civil Unions

2006-06-14T10:38:00.000+10:00

I had a discussion with T the other day regarding marriage. He asked (via iChat) why I don't like the phrase gay marriage since I do believe that gay couples should have the same rights as heterosexual couples.

I hate the word marriage. It has been hijacked by the religious wrong people and made it into a supernatural phenomenon. Instead of being a union between 2 loving people, it has become a religious word where only the church can use it. Furthermore, the word marriage has been used, in history, for power and wealth, never (or seldom) love. During that time, it was used to bring powerful or rich families together to make them more powerful or/and rich. It is a word so marred with baggage that I believe that we as a new community should never use it. The heterosexual community can keep it and use it all they want, since they just love baggage.

We should use another phrase and I think civil unions is good. We want the legal rights of heterosexual couples, who the hell cares about the ‘religious rights’ if there is should a thing. If unions are between God and the couple then who are the church leaders to dictate who can or cannot be unified? The Church of Christ is a loving Church, the church of the Vatican (notice Church and church) loves power and hate is a word that comes out from them time and time again. All through history, the church have used marriage as a tool to further its selfish cause with no regards for the individual. The good of the church outweighs the good of the individual. And to think that Jesus treated each individual equally and fairly and never once made any individual to conform. To Jesus, his love for the individual is the same as his love for the whole world. Each is loving and precious in his eyes.

We can understand that, too bad the church is so full of itself to realise it.

Tag: gay

Lesbian superhero

2006-06-05T12:50:00.000+10:00

Wow! Found out that DC comics has brough back batwoman and she's a lesbian. This is wonderful, our first lesbian superhero! Yes, yes, yes.

Our first gay superhero was Northstar.

Batwoman returns. as a lesbian
AP
Monday, June 05, 2006

NEW YORK (AP) - Years after she first emerged from the Batcave, Batwoman is coming out of the closet. DC Comics is resurrecting the classic comic book character as a lesbian, unveiling the new Batwoman in July as part of an ongoing weekly series that began this year.

The 5' 10" superhero comes with flowing red hair, knee-high red boots with spiked heels, and a form-fitting black outfit.
"We decided to give her a different point of view," explained Dan DiDio, vice president and executive editor at DC. "We wanted to make her a more unique personality than others in the Bat-family. That's one of the reasons we went in this direction."

The original Batwoman was started in 1956, and killed off in 1979. The new character will share the same name as her original alter ego, Kathy Kane. And the new Batwoman arrives with ties to others in the Gotham City world.

"She's a socialite from Gotham high society," DiDio said. "She has some past connection with Bruce Wayne. And she's also had a past love affair with one of our lead characters, Renee Montoya."

Montoya is a former police detective. Wayne, of course, is Batman's true identity - but he has disappeared, along with Superman and Wonder Woman, leaving Gotham a more dangerous place.

"This is not just about having a gay character," DiDio said. "We're trying for overall diversity in the DC universe. We have strong African-American, Hispanic and Asian characters. We're trying to get a better cross-section of our readership and the world."

The outing of Batwoman created a furore of opinions on websites devoted to DC Comics, ranging from outrage to approval. Others took a more tongue-in-cheek approach: "Wouldn't ugly people as heroes be more ground-breaking?" asked one poster. "You know, 200lb woman, man with horseshoe hair loss pattern, people with cold sores."

DiDio asked that people wait until the new Batwoman appears before they pass judgement. "Judge us by the story and character we create," he said. "We are confident that we are telling a great story with a strong, complex character."

DiDio spent most of the morning fielding phone calls from the media."It's kind of weird," he said. "We had a feeling it would attract some attention, but we're a little surprised it did this much."

Fog

2006-06-05T09:40:00.000+10:00

It is so freezing cold today in Melbourne and it is foggy. You can’t see a thing at all. I’m looking out of my window at I can hardly see the beyond 200m. It wasn’t this bad this morning when I got out of the house. It was just misty.

This is rather cool, for this is the first time (since I’ve been here) that I’ve experience fog. I wonder how long it will last.

Not as fit as a fiddle

2006-05-22T13:48:00.000+10:00

Work up today feeling very bad. Took a day off from work to recover. Hope I'll feel better tomorrow.

I really hate feelings like this, it is the type of not feeling of "about to get sick" and yet not falling sick.

金钟罩铁布衫

2006-05-09T10:01:00.000+10:00

Now of these days whenever I heard the song 金钟罩铁布衫 by S.H.E., I get a feeling like a sense of lost. Odd it might seem but I get the feeling of missing T, which is a lot worse than my usual missing him. I find it really wonderful, that until this day, after being 'separated' for 9 months, I have such deep feelings for him.

When I came over here last July, T came with me (for a vacation) and that was the song he used for his ring tone. Of course it became rather tiring after a few days but it seemed that left an impression on me about him. I love that song too and even when I hum it to myself, I get transported back to when we were still in Singapore together and the great times we had. Thus, increases my wanting to back with him.

Well, this will come to an end, our being apart that is.

Singapore's general elections 2006

2006-05-07T09:14:00.000+10:00

I can't say I'm surprised that no other oppositions won a seat in parliament. What I was surprised about was the fact that in Potong Pasir and Hougang, the number of people that voted opposition increased, even though the People Action Party (PAP) dangled a 'carrot' of upgrading in front of them. Good for them I say.

This really showed that Singaporeans have matured and are looking at politics, not in the same light as what the PAP is looking at it. The PAP has really not kept up with the times, as Singaporeans grew and have become more mature, they have are still stuck in the 1970s, thinking that Singaporeans are still the same bunch of people. And from what I could gather from this far away, was the fact that not only did the younger generation (my generation) voted more for the opposition but the older generation too. Many have stated (the older generation than is) that the PAP has lost touch with their roots and have become arrogant and aloft.

I don't have a political affiliation but I have realised that having a one party system is really not the way to go, no matter how good the current government is. Checks and balances are needed and I’m not naive enough to believe that the PAP will be good for the country (as a one party system) in the long run, contrary to what a number of people believe.

The other shocking thing was the fact that 1 in 3 Singaporeans from the Prime Minister’s ward actually voted for the opposition. This has never happened before in the history of Singapore and it is really surprising. It does show that Singaporeans do want a change.

Never expected it

2006-05-01T21:28:00.000+10:00

Just discovered today (from another friend) that a University friend of mine in HIV+ and is currently under arrest pending an investigation. I have a feeling that he had in possession some party drugs.

It is very weird. It is so surreal. I can’t seem to comprehend it. Imagine a person that you have known and used to be close to, has now a disease that cannot be cured. It is very sad.

The only thing I can do is to pray for him and hope for the best.

Alone again

2006-04-24T14:59:00.000+10:00

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

The Lion King, the musical

2006-04-20T10:43:00.000+10:00

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. :)

Sydney and back

2006-04-19T14:47:00.000+10:00

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.

Post-65ers

2006-04-07T10:53:00.000+10:00

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.

The Singapore gahmen

2006-04-05T10:59:00.000+10:00

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

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*

Remember Pope John Paul II?

2006-04-03T10:44:00.000+10:00

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!

Birthday Time!

2006-03-19T13:28:00.000+11:00

My birthday today and only the people I'm close to remembered it. :) Which is enough. You tend to know which of your friends that think or care about you (when you are away from home). It would have been a different matter if I was back in Sg.

It is a very boring birthday, nothing much happened. What can happen? I'm here without close friends and loved ones. I'm not complaining as I made this move because it would be good for my career (which I really hope so).

Anyhow, happy birthday to me :).

Mom's Genetics Could Produce Gay Sons

2006-03-03T16:47:00.000+11:00

By Ker Than
LiveScience Staff Writer
posted: 24 February 2006
09:22 am ET

The arrangement of a mother's genes could affect the sexual orientation of her son, according to a new study.

The finding, detailed in the February issue of the journal Human Genetics, adds fuel to the decade-long debate about whether so-called "gay genes" might exist.

The researchers examined a phenomenon called "X chromosome inactivation" in 97 mothers of gay sons and 103 mothers whose sons were not gay.

X and Y

Chromosomes are large thread-like molecules that contain an organism's genetic instructions. Humans have 23 chromosome pairs. The X chromosome is one of two sex chromosomes in mammals; the other is the Y chromosome. Females have two X chromosomes and no Y's, while males have one X and one Y.

Even though women have two X chromosomes, only one is functional because the other is inactivated through a process called "methylation."

"It gets wrapped up in a ball and is not used with the exception of a few genes," explained study leader Sven Bocklandt of the University of California, Los Angeles.

If one of the females' X chromosomes is not turned off, then there is too much genetic material, which can lead to a harmful overabundance of proteins. Down syndrome, for example, results from the presence of an extra copy of chromosome 21.

Big difference

Normally, X chromosome inactivation occurs at random: half of the cells in a woman's body will have one X chromosome inactivated, while the other half inactivates the other chromosome.

However, when the researchers in the current study examined cells from the 42 mothers who had at least two gay sons, they found that about a quarter of the women in this group showed something different.

"Every single cell that we looked at in these women inactivated the same X chromosome," Bocklandt told LiveScience. "That's highly unusual."

In contrast, only 4 percent of mothers with no gay sons and 13 percent of those with just one gay son showed this type of extreme skewing.

Bocklandt thinks this suggest that a mother's X chromosomes partly influences whether her son is gay or not.

"We think that there are one or more genes on the X chromosome that have an effect on the sexual orientation of the sons of these mothers, as well as an effect on the cells we were looking at," Bocklandt said.

Other chromosomes implicated

Bocklandt was also involved in an earlier study that looked at the entire human genome of men who had two or more gay brothers. The researchers found identical stretches of DNA on three chromosomes—7, 8 and 10—that were shared by about 60 percent of the gay brothers in the study.

That study also found mothers to have an unusually large role in their son's sexual orientation: the region on chromosome 10 correlated with homosexuality only if it was inherited from the mother.

The results from these two studies suggest that there are multiple genetic factors involved in determining a person's sexual orientation and that it might vary depending on the person.

"We think that there are going to be some gay men who are X chromosome gay men and some who are chromosome 7 gay men or chromosome 10 gay men or some combination," Bocklandt said in a telephone interview.

Most researchers now think that there is no single gay gene that controls whether a person is homosexual or not. Rather, it's the influence of multiple genes, combined with environmental influences, which ultimately determine whether a person is gay.

A touchy subject

Research into the genetics of sexual orientation is controversial. Religious leaders who believe that sexual orientation is a choice argue that such research is an attempt to legitimize homosexuality; others worry that a detailed knowledge of the genetics underlying homosexuality will open the door to genetic engineering that prevents it.

But Bocklandt doesn't think these concerns should prevent scientists from asking the basic question of whether homosexuality has an underlying genetic component to it or not.

"I have no doubt that at some point we'll be able to manipulate all sorts of aspects of our personality and physical appearance," Bocklandt said. "I think if there's ever a time when we can make these changes for sexual orientation, then we will also be able to do it for intelligence or musical skills or certain physical characteristics—but whether or not these things are allowed to happen is something that society as a whole has to decide. It's not a scientific question."

First Major Fight in 2006

2006-02-10T23:14:00.000+11:00

The other day T and I had a fight. Yea, it was over AIM but we did fight. This would be our third major fight in 2 years.

It happened like this, we were discussing about his pending vacation over here and it went from that to his saying that I'm don't seem very enthusiastic about his coming over, to my rebuttal to his statement, etc. It was a rather drawn out affair which most couples (gay or otherwise) would have encountered before. There were a lot of back and forth for 20min before we calmed down and talked about what happened.

It was rather good in a way, I have realised that with every disagreement that we have, we become closer and understand each other better. We have never walked away from a disagreement without understanding each other's “logic”. So instead of being angry with each other and thinking about the worse, we would talk about it, trying to stay calm and collected and I have realised that our fights are always due to miscommunication. Thinking that the other thinks of it this way when it wasn’t so.

It is amazing, coming from my first relationship, where my ex-bf used to do the “lets break up” everytime we have a fight to by previous relationship where we try to understand each other without talking about our displeasure (i.e. keeping everything in), to this, where all unhappiness is aired and talked through. I would like to say that I’ve matured in this aspect but I do think it depends on your partner too. T has been nothing by a calm and patient bf ever since we’ve become serious, and of which I have learnt that from him. Understanding him to a point where I would need to clarify things.

Return to Melbourne

2006-01-11T11:39:00.000+11:00

Sad day today. I'm leaving T and Singapore and returning to Melbourne. I'll be strong and God will bless me with strength.

Child sex tours

2006-01-10T10:08:00.000+11:00

Channel news asia had a special report stating that Singaporeans are going to Batam, Indonesia to have sex with underage girls. It seems that some of them have wives who actually accompany them on these trips.

Is this part of our asian values? What about heterosexual marriages being the pillar of society?

Isn’t it amazing that all people talk about when they talk about gay men and their ‘lifestyles’ they talk about us being immoral promiscuous, etc. So what is this married men having sex with underaged girls about? Isn’t that more immoral? At least gay men have sex with consenting adults (majority anyway). It is amazing the cries of foul play that would be resounded onto the Singapore sphere if this was about gay men. Discrimination is amazing, religious fanatical discrimination against GLBT is even more amazing.

Happy New Year!

2006-01-01T23:42:00.000+11:00

Another great new year. T and I spend the New Year together (as per tradition). We had a hotel room and had a great time together, both sexual and non-sexual. :P

Checked into the hotel about noon and went to Red Star for lunch. It was nice, especially the chicken leg or as T said, "phoenix leg". Red Star has good tim sum, considering the price. Good and cheap. After that, we went to Orchard to shop. And had dinner at Ding Tai Fong, I found that it is not really that special, the taste was more or less like Crystal Jade (their xiao long pau shops), and Ding Tai Fong was more expensive.

That night, we brought food and wine in the room and didn't get to sleep until 3am or so, imagine what time we woke the next day. Breakfast was almost over when we went down so we had to rush through it. T was saying that it is so stupid and that they are so rigid. There were still people arriving after us for breakfast. The management should know that most people would not woke up early this first day of the new year, so why didn't they make provisions and extend the breakfast time.

Christmas Ball and Christmas

2005-12-25T11:20:00.000+11:00

Merry Christmas one and all.

Today's blog is more for what happened last night. It is a yearly event which my dancing friends and I go for. But it seems, we didn't go for one last year. I keep thinking we did. This year's ball was less dancing and more entertainment, as T said, they should call it a "Dinner and Dance" since it wasn't really a ball. We were rather pissed about it. Imagine paying so much and yet didn't get a chance to dance much.

We went to a cafe after that. It was fun, but I was really dead tired and just wanted to go home and sleep.

Got home about 3am...

First Dance

2005-12-23T09:16:00.000+11:00

Tonight will be the first night I have danced since leaving Singapore. O (my best friend) is rather excited about it. We have been dancing (ballroom and Latin) for the past 3 years and ever since I left, she hasn't found anyone else to dance with. So she is (as I am) so looking forward to tonight.

We will be the only ones practicing tonight as the rest of my dancing friends are busy. We have to familiarise ourselves before tomorrow's ball. Can't make too much of a fool of ourselves. :P

Sick!

2005-12-22T21:26:00.000+11:00

I can't believe it. I'm sick, some stomach flu or something. Ever since taking the vitamins and fish oil yesterday, I have been having a bad case of diarrhea. Even taking Imodium didn't help.

In the end, I had to go to a doctor (last night) because I was burning up too. T was so sad because we couldn't meet, so was I, but I didn't plan on falling sick at all.

I'm so pissed with myself. Having studied biology, I should have known better than to take vitamins and fish oil that has been opened for months! Yup, this was the vitamins and fish oil which I forgot to bring over to Melbourne and it was opened and left in Singapore for this whole period, nobody touched it. I believe that it has expired and that is what caused my diarrhea. Little do people realise that the expire date is for unopened bottles. Opened ones should be consumed within 3 months. *sigh*

Spent the whole of today sleeping, just started feeling much better this evening. Even had some porriage. I should be right as rain by tomorrow. I'm so excited about see T again.

Home bound

2005-12-20T12:53:00.000+11:00

I'm going home today. I'm so excited :). T said he'll be picking me up from the airport as he had a car this week. Singapore here I return.

The Front Door's Open, The Backyard's Locked

2005-12-12T14:43:00.000+11:00

A lot of people would agree with this but the vocal 'conservative' people would start crying foul. They would say, what is wrong with staying the same, that the 'western' style democracy/freedom of speech is not for us and that we would have to develop our own. What I don't get is why should democracy or freedom of speech be 'western' style or 'Singapore' style? This is the same way they talk about the 'gay liftstyle', which until now, I'm still trying to figure out what it is.

Today
12 December 2005

THE FRONT DOOR'S OPEN, THE BACKYARD'S LOCKED
--------------------------------------------
To be global, must we rethink our conservative outlook at home? News Comment We set you thinking

Terence Chong

IF Singapore's policy-making style had to be summed up in a phrase, it would be selective globalisation: The conscious effort to encourage certain forms of globalisation and discourage others.

The Government, on one hand, encourages economic globalisation through the synchronisation of local financial regulations and policies with international standards and, on the other, it energetically protects an Asian "conservative" society from the ills of satellite dishes, pornographic magazines and other unwholesome global commodities.

This constant oscillation between being globally open and locally particular has given rise to the Singapore paradox.

The city-state enjoys its status as one of the most globalised countries in terms of migration, global finance and telecommunications. Yet it regularly garners criticism from international human rights institutions for its insistence on its own brand of politics, whereby certain civil liberties are curtailed in view of local multi-ethnic and multi-religious realities.

The practice of selective globalisation expresses the need to remain globally connected for the sake of nothing less than national survival and the desire to retain certain notions of tradition and conservatism that protect specific interests.

For the most part, the Government has succeeded in juggling the often conflicting demands of the local and the global. Nonetheless, three events this year suggest that this may have ramifications for its global city ambitions.

In June, the Government denied fridae.com, a gay portal, the entertainment licence to hold its annual Nation Party. fridae.com responded by moving its annual bash to Phuket. Ordinarily, this would not have been an issue but for the fact that the Government acknowledges there are homosexuals in the civil service, thus making the licence withdrawal look like a step
backwards.

fridae.com's pullout may have mollified the majority of conservative Singaporeans, which was the objective, but it does little to show the international community that the city-state is culturally exciting.

In the words of Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew, if we are only contented with being the cleanest and safest city, then the "with-it" world will pass Singapore by.

There was also an unexpected poke in the eye. In his farewell speech on Oct 11, the out-bound United States Ambassador Frank Lavin mildly criticised the Singapore Government for its repression of political expression. He also recounted his embarrassment at being asked by local police if he wanted to press charges against the demonstrators protesting outside the US embassy over the Iraq war. These remarks were surprising in a post-Clinton era, and are significant in light of the Singapore Government's strong support for the Bush administration's "war on terror" campaign and the Iraq war.

Lastly, but no less surprising, was Warwick University's decision not to set up a campus in Singapore. After months of deliberation and feasibility studies, the British university, renowned for its research excellence, declined the Economic Development Board's invitation, citing its concern over both financial costs and the lack of academic freedom in Singapore.

This marks the first time a potential investor has publicly cited Singapore's famed out-of-bounds markers, its emphasis on
non-confrontational academic analysis and the Government's intolerance for dissent, as reasons for not coming.

These three incidents suggest an important lesson: A nation-state and a global city require a different management ethos. Conventional arguments for cultural and ideological protectionism may sit well with the character of nation-states, but they are increasingly incongruent with the functions of global cities.

And since a global city becomes one only when others recognise it as such, all global cities require cultural legitimacy from the international community of transnational professionals, creative class and international opinion-shapers who have the power to confer it recognition.

The competition to distinguish one's self as a global city is, in reality, the competition to win legitimacy and recognition from this international community.

The fact that Singapore's survival as a nation-state depends on its status as a global city means the Government has little choice but to constantly shift gears between the national and the global when it comes to policy-making, thus compelling it to send mixed signals to this international community.

Casinos are allowed but satellite dishes are not; topless cabaret shows are permitted but civil disobedience is not; and the list goes on. These discrepancies are at the heart of the dilemma facing Singapore at the dawn of the 21st century.

Globalising at one's own pace and terms may be prudent for a small nation-state but how much of this prudence can an aspiring global city afford?

The writer is a Fellow at the Institute of South-east Asian Studies.

Hypocrites!

2005-12-02T14:02:00.000+11:00

In regards to the hanging of Nguyen Tuong Van;

Australia take the speck out of your eye before you take the log out of Singapore's eye.

As stated in my previous posts I'm not for capital punishment (I signed the petition for him) but I think the way the media and gahmen of Australia making Singapore the villain is revolting!

Documents reveal that Australia urged Indonesia to invade East Timor in 1975
East Timor and Australia's oily politics
Australia bullies East Timor over oil and gas

Let's talk about human rights and being barbaric now!

N Korea compares Bush to Hitler

2005-11-23T16:06:00.000+11:00

I so agree with this. What makes George W. Bush (II) so different from Hitler?

Today
23 November 2005

N KOREA COMPARES BUSH TO HITLER
-------------------------------
SEOUL - North Korea's foreign ministry has threatened to multiply its defences a "thousand times" in an angry response to a United Nations vote which expressed serious concern about Pyongyang's human rights record.

The ministry dismissed the UN General Assembly vote as an "absurd attempt" by Washington to topple the Stalinist regime, and compared US President George W Bush to dictator Adolf Hitler.

The UN resolution expressed concern about reports on torture, public executions and the imposition of the death penalty for political reasons, as well as the extensive use of forced labour in communist North Korea.

The ministry statement carried by the Korean Central News Agency (KCNA) said the UN move was "no more than the barking of a dog at the moon."

The state-run KCNA also lashed out at the United States, which prepared the UN report, and called Mr Bush "a wicked man whom the world compares to fascist fanatic Hitler."

The news agency said Mr Bush's advocacy of democracy was a pretext for invading other countries.

"The US admonition for 'freedom' and 'democracy' is to invent pretexts for violating sovereignty of other countries ... and establishing its unchallenged domination over the world," it said.

KCNA also called Mr Bush a "warlike president" who "took the lead in advocating state-sponsored terrorism" and "openly defended murderous torture in prisons" - which it claimed were reminiscent of the Auschwitz concentration camp.

It was referring to the scandal that broke after the Washington Post reported that the US had secret prisons in various parts of the world, including Thailand and Europe. - AGENCIES

Conservative?

2005-11-22T11:29:00.000+11:00

This article really shows that sex education for teenagers is really a must for us. Why is it the 'conservative' and the gahmen believes that just because we teach teenagers sex, they will immediately go out and have sex? Research has shown that with the correct information (both celibacy and also safe sex) teenages do make the right decisions. This would allow them to be informed of STDs and pregnancy.

Why is it the gahmen believe that they don't need sex education for teenages? They should stand firm on this issue instead of trying to please the conservatives.

SEX BEFORE MARRIAGE: 46% OF TEENS SAY YES
------------------------------------------
SEX before marriage is fine with us, say 56 per cent of the young Singaporeans in a recent survey.

And with this paper's readers recently debating whether students are getting adequate sex education, a more disturbing fact is that 46 per cent of those aged 15 to 19 said they would agree to pre-marital sex.

The percent of those who would say yes is highest among those aged 20 to 24, at 73 per cent.

Another surprising thing: More female respondents than males seem to be in favour of it. Out of 100 young people aged between 15 and 29 years old surveyed, 51 per cent of the males would agree to pre-marital sex, while 61 per cent of the females would give their consent.

The survey project is a collaboration between MediaCorp News and Singapore Polytechnic's School of Business, in support of a new news programme, the Channel U Weekend News Club.

Quotations

2005-11-15T14:38:00.000+11:00

Some quotes from famous people in history, which still applies to today's political climate.

For the religious fanatics, fundamentalist Christians (or religious wrongs as I call them) :
Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from a religious conviction.

Blaise Pascal
French mathematician, physicist (1623 - 1662)

For all good people in the world who are silent :
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.

Edmund Burke
Irish orator, philosopher, & politician (1729 - 1797)

For all who discrimiate, whether by sex, religion, race, sexual orientation, etc :
Whenever I hear anyone arguing for slavery, I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on him personally.

Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves.

Abraham Lincoln
16th president of US (1809 - 1865)

Sad to say, the world will never learn from its mistakes.

Remembrance Day

2005-11-12T21:16:00.000+11:00

Yesterday (11 Nov) was remembrance day in Australia and, it seems, a number of countries in the world. It was the day they (we) remembered the people who died in the world wars. At 11am, a moment of silence was given to these great heroes.

It is wonderful that as a Singaporean male, who has to go to war and die for my country when and if the time arrives, I'm still considered a 2nd class citizen and a criminal in the eyes of the law. Nice to know that I'm good enough to die of our "beliefs" but is a criminal when not.

Oppression?

2005-11-11T19:54:00.000+11:00

I was having a chat with my Australian colleague and she asked me, "Isn't Singapore oppressive?". Now I was taken aback by that question because she has never been to Singapore before. So I wondered where she got her information from. It seems that the reports by the paper and even the net doesn't place Singapore in a good light. Her impression was formed by what she has been reading over the years. And she wasn’t the only one, my German colleague also echoed the sentiments.

I wouldn't say much about what I said to them but I did tell them that Singapore wasn't as oppressive as what they think and that it wasn't a "police state" (in fact we get away with quite a lot :P). Even though Singapore doesn't have the ‘freedom of responsible speech’ as Australia, German or even Korea, things have changed in the past 10 years and Singaporeans have started to voice their opinions about policies and even started questioning the gahmen. Not only did the gahmen not clamp down on these people, the actually encouraged it but there are still limits... for now. I told her that things would change and in time to come Singapore would have Australia's responsible speech too.

They were very satisfied with my answer but it did get me thinking. The gahmen wants Singapore to become a city like New York and London but with impressions like this about Singapore hanging around, it cannot. What makes a city cosmopolitan like New York and London is not the gahmen but the people, locals and foreigners. People flock to these cities because they have been know to be open minded, non-discriminatory and accepting of all people (including the dreaded GLBT community). People go there knowing that they are safe and whatever they do or say wouldn’t get them thrown into prison or deported from the country. This isn’t the impression foreigners have about Singapore. I’m talking about the citizens of these countries, the ones that make a city cosmopolitan not the gahmens. If we don’t change our image as a “oppressive” and “police state”, becoming like London or New York will not be possible.

I sometimes wonder if the Singapore gahmen knows this.

Have I said too much?

2005-11-06T00:00:00.000+11:00

After ranting for the past few days, I wonder if the gahmen is going to come down on me for writing things like that, "unpatriotic" things. I wonder if I have crossed their line or are these comments allowed now? Maybe the gahmen just going to ignore me because this blog (and maybe me) is insignificant. Yup, Singaporeans are still worried that the gahmen will come down on them when they speak their minds.

If I do get clamped down, it would show that the gahmen has read this blog and I have touched on topics that are too sensitive. Which would be sad. Meaning that be are back to the dark ages. What would be nice (a dream I know) that they would take the comments of all of us GLBT into consideration and maybe decriminalise us. It would be one of the steps for Singapore to be a cosmopolitan city.

Just a dream.

Battered husbands

2005-11-04T13:08:00.000+11:00

There have been a report and number of letters about battered husbands in Singapore in Today. So I was right in my accessment that 'equality and justice' is NOT for all. Mr Aidan is a battered husband in Singapore.

BULLIED BY 42KG WIFE
--------------------
Women's Charter abused to 'punish' man; time to enshrine protection and
uphold equality

Letter from Aidan L*

--- snap ---

The outmoded Women's Charter, promulgated in the 1960s to protect housewives left high and dry by their spouses in the event of a divorce, should be changed.

Many modern women are educated and their income may equal or even surpass their husbands', but the Act opens a loophole for abuse where a women just has to make a police complaint and the latter will have to act - even if the complaint is frivolous and unsubstantiated.

The men are made to support their spouses even when their wives' earnings exceed theirs. The Women's Charter has been increasingly used to "punish" the man for the marriage breakup - even though, in most cases, both parties are responsible.

We have in recent years witnessed more men seeking PPOs. But are men really protected? Probably, women know that they are unlikely to be punished, or at least punished heavily - hence they continue to launch their verbal or physical assaults.

The Women's Charter should be pro-family instead of skewed in favour of the female gender. It should be viewed as the Family Charter, to take into account changing modern values, and to uphold equity and equality for both sexes. It's time that men's protection be enshrined too.

Why is the Women's Charter not amended? It would seem that our ministers don't believe that this can happen to men. It is a rather chauvinistic point of view but sad to say it seems that is the point of view of a number of our gahmen.

Check out this post which shows up the ministers.

With discriminating attitudes there are in parliment, would we ever see real equality and justice for all Singaporeans?

I don't understand the Singapore pledge

2005-11-03T20:55:00.000+11:00

We, the citizens of Singapore,
pledge ourselves as one united people,
regardless of race, language or religion,
to build a democratic society
based on justice and equality
so as to achieve happiness, prosperity and
progress for our nation

What democracy? What justice and equality?

I don't see it for the GLBT community. If it really is based on justice and equality then things should be done and laws to be changed so that everyone is equal. Not where one sexuality is not more superior than another or women having more advantages than men in a marriage (women's charter).

I can understand that being a small country, we have to be pro-family but if the family breaks up and throws a gay son or lesbian daughter out of the house, is that very pro-family? This is not something that hasn't happen, it is something that is continually happening, families disowning their children because of this. Misconceptions breeds mistrust and hate, wonderful elements for a family.

I can understand we need more babies but the number of couples getting married AND having babies has no relation to the GLBT community.

Just because gay men/lesbians are more visible doesn't mean that there will be more gay men/lesbians in Singapore. It has been shown (in all countries that citizens have equal status) that about 5% or less of the population is gay/lesbian. So regardless of how you try to hide it there will be gay and lesbians around. When a GLBT community is visible, young GLBT people will realise that they are not sick (normal) and are not the only one. Nobody, should have to go through what all I and all of my gay/lesbian friends had to go though in coming to terms with our homosexuality.

I'm don't think that we will get equal status as heterosexuals but knowing that at least we will not be criminalised or considered unwell or deviant would be nice. I’m talking about repelling section 377, is that too much to ask? From the looks of it, yes it is because fundamentalism and homophobia rules Singapore. The truth of being gay/lesbian has always been obscured (by censorship, anything showing homosexuality in a favourable or 'normal' light is not allowed) and because there is no avenue for Singaporeans to know the truth about being gay/lesbian, most Singaporeans will always have a misconception that we are "sick", we "choose" to be homosexual and we "recruit" young people into our "filthy" lifestyle to "increase our numbers" and thus be against us.

As much as I love my country, I'm really unhappy/angry that the gahmen is making me feel like an outcast and a 2nd class citizen. So if every citizen matters, isn’t it time to repel penal code 377? Who are we protecting with 377? Don't we have enough sex laws to protect all people without having 377?

Reference: My musings

10 Reasons Why Gay Marriage is Wrong

2005-11-02T12:42:00.000+11:00

Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning

Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall

Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract

Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal

Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Britany Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed

Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children

Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children

Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America

Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children

Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans

Replace America with Singapore. Is there a difference? Aren't we suppose to be secular? Why would religion come into play for our laws? Isn't the religious beliefs against us against the law (in some way?), where one group's views are forced upon the population and minor group?

But then again, with the GLBT community are not people. We just pay tax and are 2nd class citizens because heterosexuality is more superior.

Hypocrites at work

2005-11-02T11:16:00.000+11:00

I read with disbelief the article on Today (2 Nov 2005) stating that President George Bush is 'concerned' about 'human rights violations in Myanmar'. Gosh, has he looked at his own country. Let me also quote the bible Mr. Bush, "Take the log out of your eye before you take the speck out of your neighbour's eye". America is the biggest hypocrite when it comes to human rights. What rights do the GLBT community? Their rights have been denied them again and again because of religious reasons. If you are so concerned about human rights, then let the GLBT community marry or just grant them equal rights and status as a heterosexual marriage, then I'll say you can talk about human rights.

Today
2 November 2005

COURAGEOUS MS CHARM MEETS BUSH
------------------------------
WASHINGTON - United States President George W Bush, saying he was concerned over human rights violations in Myanmar, met 23-year-old Ms Charm Tong, who is campaigning for the rights of minority groups in the military-ruled state.

Ms Charm Tong, a founding member of the widely respected Shan Women's Action Network, is a "courageous and compassionate" critic of Myanmar's military rulers, said White House spokesman Scott McClellan, adding that she "has dedicated her life to helping those who suffer under the military rule in Rangoon and to exposing the regime's abuses, particularly against women."

Ms Charm Tong was named among "Asia's heroes of 2005" by Time magazine this month. Her Swan group has documented the reported rape of hundreds of women and girls by Myanmar's soldiers.

A refugee from Myanmar's central Shan state, home to the country's biggest ethnic minority, Ms Charm Tong is based along the Thailand-Myanmar border where she runs a school for young Shan.

"I raised with the president our concerns on the human rights violations, especially the military's use of systematic rape of innocent girls and women as a weapon of war," told AFP after the White House meeting, which she said lasted about 50 minutes. "The president said he was very concerned and wanted to know what more can be done to help the people." - AFP

Forget the Bad

2005-10-31T22:37:00.000+11:00

What's the key to a rewarding and lasting relationship?

Some people may tell you that it is to find out each other's weaknesses, understand them, and work through them together as a couple. Although this is feasible to a certain extent, it can become frustrating and exhausting, because there will be problem spots that you won't be able to resolve together.

A woman discovered what loving someone truly involved, when she asked her husband to try out a relationship-building exercise she came across in a magazine.

She approached him and said, "I read in a magazine a while ago, about how we can strengthen our marriage. Each of us will write a list of the things we find a bit annoying about the other person. Then we can talk about how we can fix them together and make our lives happier together."

Her husband agreed, so each of them went into a separate room and thought of all the things that annoyed them about each other. They thought about this for the rest of the day and wrote down what they came up with.

The following morning, at the breakfast table, they decided that they would go over their lists.

"I'll start," offered the wife and took out her list. It had many items on it. Enough to fill three pages in fact. As she started reading the list of little annoyances, she noticed that tears were starting to appear in her husband's eyes.

"What's wrong?" she asked.

"Nothing," her husband replied, "Keep reading your list."

The wife continued to read until she had read all three pages to her husband. She neatly placed her list on the table and folded her hands over it.

"Now, you read your list and then we'll talk about the things on both of our lists," she said happily.

Softly, her husband started, "I don't have anything on my list. I love you the way you are. And I wouldn't want to try and change anything about you." Very often, raising the negative aspects of a relationship can erode its strength rather than reinforce it. When you love someone, it should be in spite of his or her flaws. There will always be things to disappoint, depress and annoy us about our partners. But why dwell on these when there is so much beauty, promise and light as well?

Two simple tips for couples
To make full your loving cup
If you're wrong, admit it
If you're right, shut up

Good advice for couples but you also shouldn't bottle up things that you can't stand about your partner, talking about things that irritate you is good too but it shouldn't be a 'you did this, you did that' it should be a 'I'm not happy when you do this' because the first approach is more of a personal attack and the second is a 'there are things about your behaviour that I don't like'. I learnt that the hard way, not with T but with A, my first boyfriend and D (my second) help me to understand this.

Singapore Clamps Down On Gay Web Sites

2005-10-29T10:39:00.000+10:00

by Peter Hacker 365Gay.com Asia Bureau Chief

Posted: October 28, 2005 11:00 am ET

(Singapore) Singapore dealt another blow to the city-state's LGBT community on Friday banning one gay Web site and fining another.

The government controls the internet through its Media Development Authority. The MDA said that both sites - one based in Singapore, the other overseas - contained offensive material.

It said that it acted after receiving complaints about the two companies. An MDA investigation found what the agency called content "promoting a promiscuous homosexual lifestyle".

Both sites contained information on dating and hookups and had nude photographs. The offshore site, which was not publicly named, was also accused of trying to recruit underage boys for sex - a charge often leveled by the government against gays.

Homosexuality is illegal in Singapore. In addition it bans nude images on the internet.

The government cannot prosecute the offshore company, but the local Web site, identified as "Meet Gay Singapore Friends", was fined $3,000 (US) and warned it would be closed down if it did not remove the offensive material. The company said on Friday it would comply.

Despite the criminalization of homosexuality Singapore's government has made continued statements that it does not discriminate against gays

High-ranking Singapore officials have blamed gay events for rising HIV infections. The country also has banned Asia's largest gay-themed party, Nation '05, from its shores. The event has been moved to Thailand.

In August the The government issued a warning to gays traveling to Singapore that they could face imprisonment if they are caught having gay sex.

©365Gay.com 2005

I'm okay with the gahmen banning pornographic sites, even though it is rather against free will.

This is another example of our non-homophobic gahmen because there is another Singapore website (sammyboy.com) that has porn and such and yet it is still up and running and it seems gahmen is doing nothing. So heterosexual porn is okay but not homosexual porn.

Birthday apart

2005-10-22T23:34:00.000+10:00

Today is T's birthday and for the first time we have been together that I'm not celebrating it with him. :( I really, really hate this. I knew that this will happen when I came over but I didn't know it would make me feel this bad and sad. *sigh*

It didn't really help with me watching the last season of "Sex and the city" again, the one where everything worked out. Charlotte York (Kristin Davis)'s husband Harry Goldenblatt (Evan Handler) is so nice and sweet, reminded me so much of T (character wise). The whole of the last season made me want to be with him even more, to be living with him ASAP.

At last someone she wouldn't kill

2005-10-17T15:13:00.000+10:00

I was so happy to learn that my best friend (O) has found a boyfriend. She even sms'ed me from Singapore to tell me about it. Gosh, never seen her so excited before and it is the first time she has used the b word on a guy. :) Don't know much about him though, she is rather illusive about telling me stuff but then I'll interrogate her when she comes for a visit in December.

I have known O for more than 10 years and this is the first time that she knows a guy whom she can chat with without feeling like she wants to kill him. The other guys she dated (she said went out with but no boyfriend) have all gotten on her nerves after a while, too clingy, too boring, too full of himself... so it is a thrill she can actually find a guy who meets her criteria of being a boyfriend.