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