Gosh, this statement by our PM is so full of arrogance that I really have no more respect for him and the party he represents. The way he puts it, it's as if the opposition wards pay taxes towards their ward only. Can the people in opposition wards have their tax dollars channelled to their wards? No and yet, our tax dollars is ONLY for the 'PAP'. This is so bad. So many Singaporeans are so unhappy with this policy since it is a common pool of money that we are drawing from. The gahmen just don't get it, do they?
Furthermore, talking about Australia not allowing Singapore Airlines to have flight routes to USA. Is it due to Australian's way of government or the fact that there are other 'national interest' factors? Has he thought of the fact that most countries do not look that economic benefits as the only way to run a country or create policies? A concept that seems to be lost in our gahmen, where economics is the only driving force in the creation of policies, anything to do with individual rights or freedoms or national interest (at the expense of economic gain) would be placed 'on hold' indefinitely.
Why is it the PAP think that they are the best thing for Singapore and the only party that can run it? Why is it they think that if they don't hold majority of the seats in parliament, Singapore is just going to fall from grace. They have this attitude that it is their divine right to govern.
*sigh*
When can Singapore politics mature? We can never be, until the PAP (or the gahmen in general) can accept constrictive criticisms without thinking it is a personal attack and that their word is not the end all and be all. Their attitude is that if you criticise, it means you think you can run the country better and thus, you should form your own party and stand for elections. But that is such an ill conceived notion and I don't know who started that thought. Criticising a policy doesn't mean that we think the gahmen is doing a bad job. It is our opinion and being Singaporean, it is our right to do that. So what is their problem? I really don't get it.
Other comments:
Lee Hsien Loong not impressed by democracy in Australia
Comical Ah Lee
More Comical Ah Lee
I am no Politician, just an Economist
Political Cyanide, Anyone?
------
Today
21 June 2006
'EXCITING' POLITICS NOT ALWAYS BEST FOR THE PEOPLE: PM LEE
----------------------------------------------------------
Loh Chee Kong in Auckland
cheekong@newstoday.com.sg
HIS visit to Australia and New Zealand has reinforced Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong's belief that the one-party system in Singapore must continue - and the same goes for the policy of placing Opposition-held wards at the end of the lift-upgrading queue.
Over the last nine days, Mr Lee met various leaders from the two countries, including Prime Ministers John Howard (Australia) and Helen Clark (New Zealand), as well as their respective opposition leaders, Mr Kim Beazley and Dr Don Brash.
And after having a more intimate look at their political systems, Mr Lee is convinced that while their no-holds barred arguments make for "more exciting" politics and "compulsively-viewable interviews", they do not necessarily result in more sound policies.
The end-product of rigorous parliamentary debates might not necessarily be for the good of the country, as such "endless debates are seldom about achieving a better grasp of the issue but to score political points", he commented.
Speaking to reporters as he wrapped up his visit, Mr Lee said: "I think when you look at Australia and New Zealand and other countries with two-party systems or parliamentary democracies like us and elections in our politics, you will understand how different and unique the Singapore experience is.
"You look at their politics in Australia between Howard and Beazley. All the time, Howard says something, Beazley says he got it wrong. Beazley says something, (Howard) says: 'You said something different last week or three years ago'.
"So ceaselessly, back and forth, whatever you do, I'll say you've done it wrong. If I can't find some (way) to be different from you, I will look for something else so as to establish my own brand name."
Mr Lee also said that such party politics might lead to policies that are detrimental to the nation. He pointed to the Australian government's decision to deny Singapore Airlines access to the trans-Pacific as an example.
"The National Party (Mr Howard's party's rural-based junior coalition partner) has certain interests - to look after the rural populations, to look after the towns and far-flung outbacks - and one of their interests is to have air services fly to all these places. It's not economical for airlines which provide those air services, (among which) includes Qantas.
"So, when you say you want to open the trans-Pacific route and run an open competition because it is good for Australia, Qantas then says: 'Well, if you do that, we are going to have to cut back on all these non-economic routes. We are doing you a favour, doing national service.'"
But while the system might work for Australia because it is a diverse country with many different interest groups, Singapore's society is more homogeneous, with the Government also having "made sure that all the constituencies are mixed and integrated".
"In Singapore, we have 84 constituencies, but basically they are all more or less the same. You don't have a rural area, a city area. You don't have a very working class area versus a very upmarket area. We have made sure you don't have a Malay area or Indian constituency or Chinese constituency."
Because the People's Action Party (PAP) sees the whole of Singapore as a "natural constituency", it fights for all 84 seats during every election.
But the party's dominance in the political landscape has caused Singaporeans to "lose the perspective that party politics is party politics" - that people vote for a party not just because of national reasons, but because "it benefits himself or his community", said the Prime Minister.
"If we only talk about national interest and put it above party politics, in theory, that is ideal - but in reality, that's impossible," he said. "And that's why you end up having HDB priority (for lift upgrading) and a difference between the PAP and Opposition wards. It's necessary. Without that, the system cannot work.
"Because if we treat everybody the same ... the first thing the Opposition will say and has been saying is: 'It doesn't matter. They'll have to take care of you anyway. Vote for us, you will still have a PAP government' - which was what (Workers' Party candidate) Sylvia Lim said during the elections.
"And that becomes a real problem because if everybody believes that, where are you going to produce that PAP government?"
But what about PAP supporters who stay in Opposition wards?
Said Mr Lee: "We have no choice but to respect the wishes of the majority of the voters. We know that there are PAP supporters in Opposition wards. In PAP wards, there are also Opposition supporters. If you voted for an Opposition MP, you have to depend on him to work for you."
21 June 2006
18 June 2006
T has gone/going overseas
Well, T should be at the airport now (Changi Airport that is). He's going overseas for a conference.
It is so weird, even though we are apart, I still feel a pinge of missing him if he's not in Sg.
It is so weird, even though we are apart, I still feel a pinge of missing him if he's not in Sg.
16 June 2006
Counter
This is fun, I've just added a counter to this blog. Not that it really matters, I think that nobody reads it, except T.
15 June 2006
Aching butt
My personal trainer killed my yesterday. He made me do leg press with 100kg! And it was using this machine which was already 30kg (or more) before the weights went on, so I was doing 130kg leg presses, 3 sets too. I couldn't believe it. My legs, especially my butt, was aching after I finished 1 set. It is aching today, and knowing my body, it is REALLY going to be sore tomorrow.
But at least I'll have a great butt. :P
But at least I'll have a great butt. :P
14 June 2006
Marriage vs Civil Unions
I had a discussion with T the other day regarding marriage. He asked (via iChat) why I don't like the phrase gay marriage since I do believe that gay couples should have the same rights as heterosexual couples.
I hate the word marriage. It has been hijacked by the religious wrong people and made it into a supernatural phenomenon. Instead of being a union between 2 loving people, it has become a religious word where only the church can use it. Furthermore, the word marriage has been used, in history, for power and wealth, never (or seldom) love. During that time, it was used to bring powerful or rich families together to make them more powerful or/and rich. It is a word so marred with baggage that I believe that we as a new community should never use it. The heterosexual community can keep it and use it all they want, since they just love baggage.
We should use another phrase and I think civil unions is good. We want the legal rights of heterosexual couples, who the hell cares about the ‘religious rights’ if there is should a thing. If unions are between God and the couple then who are the church leaders to dictate who can or cannot be unified? The Church of Christ is a loving Church, the church of the Vatican (notice Church and church) loves power and hate is a word that comes out from them time and time again. All through history, the church have used marriage as a tool to further its selfish cause with no regards for the individual. The good of the church outweighs the good of the individual. And to think that Jesus treated each individual equally and fairly and never once made any individual to conform. To Jesus, his love for the individual is the same as his love for the whole world. Each is loving and precious in his eyes.
We can understand that, too bad the church is so full of itself to realise it.
Tag: gay
I hate the word marriage. It has been hijacked by the religious wrong people and made it into a supernatural phenomenon. Instead of being a union between 2 loving people, it has become a religious word where only the church can use it. Furthermore, the word marriage has been used, in history, for power and wealth, never (or seldom) love. During that time, it was used to bring powerful or rich families together to make them more powerful or/and rich. It is a word so marred with baggage that I believe that we as a new community should never use it. The heterosexual community can keep it and use it all they want, since they just love baggage.
We should use another phrase and I think civil unions is good. We want the legal rights of heterosexual couples, who the hell cares about the ‘religious rights’ if there is should a thing. If unions are between God and the couple then who are the church leaders to dictate who can or cannot be unified? The Church of Christ is a loving Church, the church of the Vatican (notice Church and church) loves power and hate is a word that comes out from them time and time again. All through history, the church have used marriage as a tool to further its selfish cause with no regards for the individual. The good of the church outweighs the good of the individual. And to think that Jesus treated each individual equally and fairly and never once made any individual to conform. To Jesus, his love for the individual is the same as his love for the whole world. Each is loving and precious in his eyes.
We can understand that, too bad the church is so full of itself to realise it.
Tag: gay
05 June 2006
Lesbian superhero
Wow! Found out that DC comics has brough back batwoman and she's a lesbian. This is wonderful, our first lesbian superhero! Yes, yes, yes.
Our first gay superhero was Northstar.
Batwoman returns. as a lesbian
AP
Monday, June 05, 2006
NEW YORK (AP) - Years after she first emerged from the Batcave, Batwoman is coming out of the closet. DC Comics is resurrecting the classic comic book character as a lesbian, unveiling the new Batwoman in July as part of an ongoing weekly series that began this year.
The 5' 10" superhero comes with flowing red hair, knee-high red boots with spiked heels, and a form-fitting black outfit.
"We decided to give her a different point of view," explained Dan DiDio, vice president and executive editor at DC. "We wanted to make her a more unique personality than others in the Bat-family. That's one of the reasons we went in this direction."
The original Batwoman was started in 1956, and killed off in 1979. The new character will share the same name as her original alter ego, Kathy Kane. And the new Batwoman arrives with ties to others in the Gotham City world.
"She's a socialite from Gotham high society," DiDio said. "She has some past connection with Bruce Wayne. And she's also had a past love affair with one of our lead characters, Renee Montoya."
Montoya is a former police detective. Wayne, of course, is Batman's true identity - but he has disappeared, along with Superman and Wonder Woman, leaving Gotham a more dangerous place.
"This is not just about having a gay character," DiDio said. "We're trying for overall diversity in the DC universe. We have strong African-American, Hispanic and Asian characters. We're trying to get a better cross-section of our readership and the world."
The outing of Batwoman created a furore of opinions on websites devoted to DC Comics, ranging from outrage to approval. Others took a more tongue-in-cheek approach: "Wouldn't ugly people as heroes be more ground-breaking?" asked one poster. "You know, 200lb woman, man with horseshoe hair loss pattern, people with cold sores."
DiDio asked that people wait until the new Batwoman appears before they pass judgement. "Judge us by the story and character we create," he said. "We are confident that we are telling a great story with a strong, complex character."
DiDio spent most of the morning fielding phone calls from the media."It's kind of weird," he said. "We had a feeling it would attract some attention, but we're a little surprised it did this much."
Our first gay superhero was Northstar.
Batwoman returns. as a lesbian
AP
Monday, June 05, 2006
NEW YORK (AP) - Years after she first emerged from the Batcave, Batwoman is coming out of the closet. DC Comics is resurrecting the classic comic book character as a lesbian, unveiling the new Batwoman in July as part of an ongoing weekly series that began this year.
The 5' 10" superhero comes with flowing red hair, knee-high red boots with spiked heels, and a form-fitting black outfit.
"We decided to give her a different point of view," explained Dan DiDio, vice president and executive editor at DC. "We wanted to make her a more unique personality than others in the Bat-family. That's one of the reasons we went in this direction."
The original Batwoman was started in 1956, and killed off in 1979. The new character will share the same name as her original alter ego, Kathy Kane. And the new Batwoman arrives with ties to others in the Gotham City world.
"She's a socialite from Gotham high society," DiDio said. "She has some past connection with Bruce Wayne. And she's also had a past love affair with one of our lead characters, Renee Montoya."
Montoya is a former police detective. Wayne, of course, is Batman's true identity - but he has disappeared, along with Superman and Wonder Woman, leaving Gotham a more dangerous place.
"This is not just about having a gay character," DiDio said. "We're trying for overall diversity in the DC universe. We have strong African-American, Hispanic and Asian characters. We're trying to get a better cross-section of our readership and the world."
The outing of Batwoman created a furore of opinions on websites devoted to DC Comics, ranging from outrage to approval. Others took a more tongue-in-cheek approach: "Wouldn't ugly people as heroes be more ground-breaking?" asked one poster. "You know, 200lb woman, man with horseshoe hair loss pattern, people with cold sores."
DiDio asked that people wait until the new Batwoman appears before they pass judgement. "Judge us by the story and character we create," he said. "We are confident that we are telling a great story with a strong, complex character."
DiDio spent most of the morning fielding phone calls from the media."It's kind of weird," he said. "We had a feeling it would attract some attention, but we're a little surprised it did this much."
Fog
It is so freezing cold today in Melbourne and it is foggy. You can’t see a thing at all. I’m looking out of my window at I can hardly see the beyond 200m. It wasn’t this bad this morning when I got out of the house. It was just misty.
This is rather cool, for this is the first time (since I’ve been here) that I’ve experience fog. I wonder how long it will last.
This is rather cool, for this is the first time (since I’ve been here) that I’ve experience fog. I wonder how long it will last.
22 May 2006
Not as fit as a fiddle
Work up today feeling very bad. Took a day off from work to recover. Hope I'll feel better tomorrow.
I really hate feelings like this, it is the type of not feeling of "about to get sick" and yet not falling sick.
I really hate feelings like this, it is the type of not feeling of "about to get sick" and yet not falling sick.
09 May 2006
金钟罩铁布衫
Now of these days whenever I heard the song 金钟罩铁布衫 by S.H.E., I get a feeling like a sense of lost. Odd it might seem but I get the feeling of missing T, which is a lot worse than my usual missing him. I find it really wonderful, that until this day, after being 'separated' for 9 months, I have such deep feelings for him.
When I came over here last July, T came with me (for a vacation) and that was the song he used for his ring tone. Of course it became rather tiring after a few days but it seemed that left an impression on me about him. I love that song too and even when I hum it to myself, I get transported back to when we were still in Singapore together and the great times we had. Thus, increases my wanting to back with him.
Well, this will come to an end, our being apart that is.
When I came over here last July, T came with me (for a vacation) and that was the song he used for his ring tone. Of course it became rather tiring after a few days but it seemed that left an impression on me about him. I love that song too and even when I hum it to myself, I get transported back to when we were still in Singapore together and the great times we had. Thus, increases my wanting to back with him.
Well, this will come to an end, our being apart that is.
07 May 2006
Singapore's general elections 2006
I can't say I'm surprised that no other oppositions won a seat in parliament. What I was surprised about was the fact that in Potong Pasir and Hougang, the number of people that voted opposition increased, even though the People Action Party (PAP) dangled a 'carrot' of upgrading in front of them. Good for them I say.
This really showed that Singaporeans have matured and are looking at politics, not in the same light as what the PAP is looking at it. The PAP has really not kept up with the times, as Singaporeans grew and have become more mature, they have are still stuck in the 1970s, thinking that Singaporeans are still the same bunch of people. And from what I could gather from this far away, was the fact that not only did the younger generation (my generation) voted more for the opposition but the older generation too. Many have stated (the older generation than is) that the PAP has lost touch with their roots and have become arrogant and aloft.
I don't have a political affiliation but I have realised that having a one party system is really not the way to go, no matter how good the current government is. Checks and balances are needed and I’m not naive enough to believe that the PAP will be good for the country (as a one party system) in the long run, contrary to what a number of people believe.
The other shocking thing was the fact that 1 in 3 Singaporeans from the Prime Minister’s ward actually voted for the opposition. This has never happened before in the history of Singapore and it is really surprising. It does show that Singaporeans do want a change.
This really showed that Singaporeans have matured and are looking at politics, not in the same light as what the PAP is looking at it. The PAP has really not kept up with the times, as Singaporeans grew and have become more mature, they have are still stuck in the 1970s, thinking that Singaporeans are still the same bunch of people. And from what I could gather from this far away, was the fact that not only did the younger generation (my generation) voted more for the opposition but the older generation too. Many have stated (the older generation than is) that the PAP has lost touch with their roots and have become arrogant and aloft.
I don't have a political affiliation but I have realised that having a one party system is really not the way to go, no matter how good the current government is. Checks and balances are needed and I’m not naive enough to believe that the PAP will be good for the country (as a one party system) in the long run, contrary to what a number of people believe.
The other shocking thing was the fact that 1 in 3 Singaporeans from the Prime Minister’s ward actually voted for the opposition. This has never happened before in the history of Singapore and it is really surprising. It does show that Singaporeans do want a change.
01 May 2006
Never expected it
Just discovered today (from another friend) that a University friend of mine in HIV+ and is currently under arrest pending an investigation. I have a feeling that he had in possession some party drugs.
It is very weird. It is so surreal. I can’t seem to comprehend it. Imagine a person that you have known and used to be close to, has now a disease that cannot be cured. It is very sad.
The only thing I can do is to pray for him and hope for the best.
It is very weird. It is so surreal. I can’t seem to comprehend it. Imagine a person that you have known and used to be close to, has now a disease that cannot be cured. It is very sad.
The only thing I can do is to pray for him and hope for the best.
24 April 2006
Alone again
Well, T left and I'm left alone here in Australia. I promised myself that I'll not cry but it isn't easy. I realised that his coming here and leaving is more difficult than when I'm back in Singapore and have to return. Major reason that I can think off is the fact that I don't live with him when I'm in Singapore, so it is physcologically easier to 'leave Singapore' than to have him leave Australia.
But I know I'll survive and things will really work out in the end.
It was a magical 2 weeks and now it is over, back to reality and back to my normal boring life. :P
But I know I'll survive and things will really work out in the end.
It was a magical 2 weeks and now it is over, back to reality and back to my normal boring life. :P
20 April 2006
The Lion King, the musical
Went to watch Disney’s “The Lion King” the musical last night with T. It was so good. Even T really enjoyed it. The animation was great but the musical was really fantastic. I even bought a “The Lion King” cap, which had the head of the lion on it (“The Lion King” logo). Really love it. :)
19 April 2006
Sydney and back
Went to Sydney over the Easter weekend (14 to 18 April), got back last night.
It was really fun because T came over and visited me. So we had nice time there. Well, our love for each other didn't diminish but from what I can gather, it actually increased. It is great.
Funny statement to make isn’t it but it actually isn’t. There is the reason. In Jan 2006, I had a discussion with a friend (here in Melbourne, L). I was telling him about T and my plans for the future that we have decided that I’ll return to Sg when my contract ends (which is in 2008).
That was when it started getting terrible, L started telling me that I shouldn’t make plans like that especially I don’t know what is going to happen. He said that love changes and by the time 2008 arrives T and I might have changed and that we might not work out. That since both of us have our own lives now, not really sharing it together, we are not changing together which means that we might change in 2 different directions thus drifting apart. He then went on to tell me a story about 2 of his friends from Perth. They were very close and decided to move over here to Melbourne and one of them came here first. The other arrived 6 months later and after which they broke up. L told me that even when the Perth one came over to visit after 3 months, they felt that something was different.
To say the least after that I became very worried for I didn’t want to loose T at all and I thought that maybe what he said was true and that our love for each other would change. Couldn’t sleep much that night (yes, I’m a worry wart so sue me :P) and the next day, I chatted with my friends (in Sg via instant messenger) about it. I couldn’t talk to T about it because he was busy the night before and didn’t get home on time for us to chat and he’s usually very busy in the office. The time difference was terrible (3 hrs)!
My friends were a great help. At the end of it, I realised how stupid I was. L was talking about love and what talking to my friends allowed me to know that T and I were talking about commitment. Love is a feeling. It can also be nurtured. I have a number of friends who were apart from their partners for years and yet are still in a loving relationship. All of them are no longer living apart from their partners. Why was I so worried when I had so many positive examples about commitment about? Which of course gave me courage.
T was telling me how silly I was when I told him that night. :) I do so love him.
So now T is living with me and we are just loving it.
It was really fun because T came over and visited me. So we had nice time there. Well, our love for each other didn't diminish but from what I can gather, it actually increased. It is great.
Funny statement to make isn’t it but it actually isn’t. There is the reason. In Jan 2006, I had a discussion with a friend (here in Melbourne, L). I was telling him about T and my plans for the future that we have decided that I’ll return to Sg when my contract ends (which is in 2008).
That was when it started getting terrible, L started telling me that I shouldn’t make plans like that especially I don’t know what is going to happen. He said that love changes and by the time 2008 arrives T and I might have changed and that we might not work out. That since both of us have our own lives now, not really sharing it together, we are not changing together which means that we might change in 2 different directions thus drifting apart. He then went on to tell me a story about 2 of his friends from Perth. They were very close and decided to move over here to Melbourne and one of them came here first. The other arrived 6 months later and after which they broke up. L told me that even when the Perth one came over to visit after 3 months, they felt that something was different.
To say the least after that I became very worried for I didn’t want to loose T at all and I thought that maybe what he said was true and that our love for each other would change. Couldn’t sleep much that night (yes, I’m a worry wart so sue me :P) and the next day, I chatted with my friends (in Sg via instant messenger) about it. I couldn’t talk to T about it because he was busy the night before and didn’t get home on time for us to chat and he’s usually very busy in the office. The time difference was terrible (3 hrs)!
My friends were a great help. At the end of it, I realised how stupid I was. L was talking about love and what talking to my friends allowed me to know that T and I were talking about commitment. Love is a feeling. It can also be nurtured. I have a number of friends who were apart from their partners for years and yet are still in a loving relationship. All of them are no longer living apart from their partners. Why was I so worried when I had so many positive examples about commitment about? Which of course gave me courage.
T was telling me how silly I was when I told him that night. :) I do so love him.
So now T is living with me and we are just loving it.
07 April 2006
Post-65ers
Wow, I’m amazed that my generation actually make up more than 50% of the population. How can the gahman say that society is predominantly conservative? I have a feeling that Singapore is predominantly people who don’t really bother, conservative or otherwise (if the ‘post-65ers’ are anything like me and the people I know), this article also sites this fact too.
Taken from Today 07 April 2006.
UNDERSTANDING A PHANTOM GENERATION
----------------------------------
To post-65ers, a majority group in the electorate, material values and
lofty ideals may not be mutually exclusive News Comment: We set you
thinking
Terence Chong
EVER since Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong called on younger Singaporeans
to step forward to make a difference, the term "post-65ers" has never been
far from the limelight. With the general elections looming, post-65ers -
Singaporeans aged 41 and below - will be under greater scrutiny.
The Government has made concrete moves to engage younger Singaporeans. The
Ministry of Community Development and Sports, for example, was renamed the
Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports in September 2004.
Later that year, it embarked on a youth consultation exercise, called
Youth: Creating Our Future, to discuss ideas and aspirations important to
younger generations, and the conclusions reached will shape the framework
for future programmes.
But why this attention to post-65ers? There are more than 1.64 million of
them, or 55 per cent of the population. More than 60 per cent have at
least secondary-school education while their parents had only
primary-school education. At the age of 30, two in three were already
living in four-room or larger HDB flats, or in private property.
One in two holds executive jobs as managers or professionals, while 44 per
cent have higher-skilled jobs than their parents. Those born after 1965
earned an average of $2,600 a month in 2000, higher than the national
average of $2,200.
Nonetheless, these quantitative characteristics of post-65ers would not
have garnered political attention were it not assumed that they are
accompanied by certain ideas and aspirations. The strong belief that
younger Singaporeans differ from their parents in terms of cultural,
social and political values has been a key factor in the People's Action
Party (PAP) Government's concerted effort to turn the post-65ers into a de
facto constituency.
Not only have ministries been reshaped to address their concerns, but
ministers and party candidates, too, have been handpicked to appeal to
this "constituency". Indeed, the need to reflect the interests of this
constituency feeds the PAP's entrenched principle of self-renewal and
sustained relevance.
The PAP's treatment of post-65ers as a coherent constituency may also have
been influenced by the broader scholarship on the shifting values of
"post-materialist" generations. According to Ronald Inglehart, a
post-materialist, the global equivalent of our post-65er is more
interested in citizenry consultation and the concept of a society based on
lofty ideals, rather than in material-based values such as economic
growth, a strong national defence, and law-and-order issues.
Inglehart's argument is that people value most what they were relatively
deprived of in their youth. Hence, those growing up after World War II are
generally more post-materialist than those growing up before the war, as
they did not experience material deprivation.
Inglehart has his critics, most of whom point out that many developed
societies show no clear sign of a post-materialist culture. Many argue
that material interests and post-material concerns are not mutually
exclusive. There is no contradiction between, say, desiring greater
personal wealth and fighting for improved human rights.
Perhaps this is why it has been so hard to identify and define the
interests of Singapore's post-65 constituency.
Are we concerned with liberal democracy or economic pragmatism? Are we
idealists or realists?
Like the three blind men touching different parts of an elephant, you'll
come up with different descriptions, depending on whom you ask. And it is
not sociologically sound to say that only Singaporeans aged 41 and below
are interested in censorship liberalisation, human rights and the
environment.
Other variables such as education, cultural capital and class have to be
considered - thus making the post-65er constituency a somewhat phantom
one.
Indeed, recent newspaper surveys indicate mixed signals from post-65-ers.
In a survey of Singaporeans aged between 21 and 34, 49 per cent said they
were "somewhat interested" in local politics, while 51 per cent were "not
interested". When asked for the issue "likely to influence their voting
decision", they cited cost of living (89 per cent), jobs/unemployment (73
per cent) and housing policy (68 per cent).
Does it surprise us that materialism ranks high for post-65ers?
Perhaps in defining this de facto constituency, the Government has also
been able to socialise it with a certain outlook and priorities. We are
constantly told to keep an eye on global and regional competition, and to
bear in mind that no one owes us a living. It is no wonder that
materialism continues to be the yardstick of both personal and national
success.
And perhaps it is no coincidence that such a yardstick is also an implicit
legitimisation of the Government, which has been so successful in
delivering economic growth.
Nonetheless, even if we accept that the post-65 constituency is an
amorphous one without any signature issue, one cannot escape the sense
that youth, in all its glory, comes with certain desires.
Speak to young Singaporeans about the country they want, and most will
talk about wanting more space to chase dreams and express their
individuality. These are desires our parents do not talk about.
But are these desires enough to influence voting patterns in the
elections? Probably not. They will most likely be diffused by
long-standing concerns such as the job market, employability and rising
living costs.
The writer is a Fellow at the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies. This
is a personal comment.
Taken from Today 07 April 2006.
UNDERSTANDING A PHANTOM GENERATION
----------------------------------
To post-65ers, a majority group in the electorate, material values and
lofty ideals may not be mutually exclusive News Comment: We set you
thinking
Terence Chong
EVER since Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong called on younger Singaporeans
to step forward to make a difference, the term "post-65ers" has never been
far from the limelight. With the general elections looming, post-65ers -
Singaporeans aged 41 and below - will be under greater scrutiny.
The Government has made concrete moves to engage younger Singaporeans. The
Ministry of Community Development and Sports, for example, was renamed the
Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports in September 2004.
Later that year, it embarked on a youth consultation exercise, called
Youth: Creating Our Future, to discuss ideas and aspirations important to
younger generations, and the conclusions reached will shape the framework
for future programmes.
But why this attention to post-65ers? There are more than 1.64 million of
them, or 55 per cent of the population. More than 60 per cent have at
least secondary-school education while their parents had only
primary-school education. At the age of 30, two in three were already
living in four-room or larger HDB flats, or in private property.
One in two holds executive jobs as managers or professionals, while 44 per
cent have higher-skilled jobs than their parents. Those born after 1965
earned an average of $2,600 a month in 2000, higher than the national
average of $2,200.
Nonetheless, these quantitative characteristics of post-65ers would not
have garnered political attention were it not assumed that they are
accompanied by certain ideas and aspirations. The strong belief that
younger Singaporeans differ from their parents in terms of cultural,
social and political values has been a key factor in the People's Action
Party (PAP) Government's concerted effort to turn the post-65ers into a de
facto constituency.
Not only have ministries been reshaped to address their concerns, but
ministers and party candidates, too, have been handpicked to appeal to
this "constituency". Indeed, the need to reflect the interests of this
constituency feeds the PAP's entrenched principle of self-renewal and
sustained relevance.
The PAP's treatment of post-65ers as a coherent constituency may also have
been influenced by the broader scholarship on the shifting values of
"post-materialist" generations. According to Ronald Inglehart, a
post-materialist, the global equivalent of our post-65er is more
interested in citizenry consultation and the concept of a society based on
lofty ideals, rather than in material-based values such as economic
growth, a strong national defence, and law-and-order issues.
Inglehart's argument is that people value most what they were relatively
deprived of in their youth. Hence, those growing up after World War II are
generally more post-materialist than those growing up before the war, as
they did not experience material deprivation.
Inglehart has his critics, most of whom point out that many developed
societies show no clear sign of a post-materialist culture. Many argue
that material interests and post-material concerns are not mutually
exclusive. There is no contradiction between, say, desiring greater
personal wealth and fighting for improved human rights.
Perhaps this is why it has been so hard to identify and define the
interests of Singapore's post-65 constituency.
Are we concerned with liberal democracy or economic pragmatism? Are we
idealists or realists?
Like the three blind men touching different parts of an elephant, you'll
come up with different descriptions, depending on whom you ask. And it is
not sociologically sound to say that only Singaporeans aged 41 and below
are interested in censorship liberalisation, human rights and the
environment.
Other variables such as education, cultural capital and class have to be
considered - thus making the post-65er constituency a somewhat phantom
one.
Indeed, recent newspaper surveys indicate mixed signals from post-65-ers.
In a survey of Singaporeans aged between 21 and 34, 49 per cent said they
were "somewhat interested" in local politics, while 51 per cent were "not
interested". When asked for the issue "likely to influence their voting
decision", they cited cost of living (89 per cent), jobs/unemployment (73
per cent) and housing policy (68 per cent).
Does it surprise us that materialism ranks high for post-65ers?
Perhaps in defining this de facto constituency, the Government has also
been able to socialise it with a certain outlook and priorities. We are
constantly told to keep an eye on global and regional competition, and to
bear in mind that no one owes us a living. It is no wonder that
materialism continues to be the yardstick of both personal and national
success.
And perhaps it is no coincidence that such a yardstick is also an implicit
legitimisation of the Government, which has been so successful in
delivering economic growth.
Nonetheless, even if we accept that the post-65 constituency is an
amorphous one without any signature issue, one cannot escape the sense
that youth, in all its glory, comes with certain desires.
Speak to young Singaporeans about the country they want, and most will
talk about wanting more space to chase dreams and express their
individuality. These are desires our parents do not talk about.
But are these desires enough to influence voting patterns in the
elections? Probably not. They will most likely be diffused by
long-standing concerns such as the job market, employability and rising
living costs.
The writer is a Fellow at the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies. This
is a personal comment.
05 April 2006
The Singapore gahmen
The Singapore's general elections is just around the corner and I'm wondering how many votes the PAP will get.
For a country that doesn't have a good opposition and also where the PAP always wins with a landslide (65% and over votes), a drop in the number of people voting for the PAP will really send a clear message to them that the Singapore population is not happy about the oppression that we are still facing, even though we are suppose to be a 'first world' country.
Some can say that we are still a young nation (40 yrs) and have to slowly 'let go' but then again, if we can reach the status of 'first world' in that short time, why can’t we be more open about rights? There is so little that we really ask of and yet the way the PAP says it, it is as if we are asking for the world. They still don't trust the Singapore people, still believing that we are mere children who cannot think for ourselves.
The rights that I would like to see is
The PAP is so worried about losing the votes of the 'conservatives' in the country but what about the votes of the people who don't fall under that definition. I'm not using liberal because a person who believes in the rights of the people might not consider himself/herself as a liberal.
As more and more Singaporeans become dissatisfied with the ‘oppression’ they are facing, I wonder how long it will take for the PAP to realise that they are loosing the trust and support of the people. Bread and butter issues are important but now we want more and isn’t it time for us to get the jam? I also wonder with more Singaporeans having studied and lived aboard, how many of them would want their rights taken away from them when they return?
Is the PAP really listening? Or are we still being ignored as insignificant (children are meant to be seen and not heard)? *sigh*
For a country that doesn't have a good opposition and also where the PAP always wins with a landslide (65% and over votes), a drop in the number of people voting for the PAP will really send a clear message to them that the Singapore population is not happy about the oppression that we are still facing, even though we are suppose to be a 'first world' country.
Some can say that we are still a young nation (40 yrs) and have to slowly 'let go' but then again, if we can reach the status of 'first world' in that short time, why can’t we be more open about rights? There is so little that we really ask of and yet the way the PAP says it, it is as if we are asking for the world. They still don't trust the Singapore people, still believing that we are mere children who cannot think for ourselves.
The rights that I would like to see is
- No censorship, except for pornography (this I can understand even though I might not agree with it)
- True freedom of speech and the press, where the people of Singapore are also part of the checks and balances of the government
- Repel of section 377, as it really serves no purpose when we have other laws against sex crimes
- An open election system, NO GRCs (to keep the PAP in power) and no such strict criteria for a person to run for president (thrust Singaporeans, god damn it!)
The PAP is so worried about losing the votes of the 'conservatives' in the country but what about the votes of the people who don't fall under that definition. I'm not using liberal because a person who believes in the rights of the people might not consider himself/herself as a liberal.
As more and more Singaporeans become dissatisfied with the ‘oppression’ they are facing, I wonder how long it will take for the PAP to realise that they are loosing the trust and support of the people. Bread and butter issues are important but now we want more and isn’t it time for us to get the jam? I also wonder with more Singaporeans having studied and lived aboard, how many of them would want their rights taken away from them when they return?
Is the PAP really listening? Or are we still being ignored as insignificant (children are meant to be seen and not heard)? *sigh*
03 April 2006
Remember Pope John Paul II?
There are a lot of people who have their death anniversaries daily, what makes this ass-hole so much more special than the others? Lots of people say that he has done good things for the world, that I wouldn't disagree but what about making Catholicism regress 50 years into the past? What about allowing his own prejudices supersede the Holy Spirit's prompting? What a wonderful leader we have.
Who do we need to remember anyone? Aren't we suppose to be Easter (Alleluia) people where death is a joyful occasion? The way the vatican is doing things, it is as if death is the end, what they are preaching is not what they really believe. Having a mass remembrance for anyone, especially the ex-head of the Catholic Church is NOT right!
HIS PHYSICAL BODY IS GONE! GET OVER IT!
After so many centuries, you would expect the vatican to learn from all its mistakes in the past. Nobody there seems to learn anything from history. They are still trying their best to get back the political power that they have lost. They haven’t learn that a separation of church and state is the only way to go. Even Jesus said, “Give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar and give to God what belongs to God” And if you looked at it, Jesus never came to overthrow a government or even to influence it and yet the vatican doesn’t think this way. Isn’t it wonderful to have a bunch of people who think they are doing God’s work when they don’t even follow Jesus’ teachings?
Talk about corruption!
Who do we need to remember anyone? Aren't we suppose to be Easter (Alleluia) people where death is a joyful occasion? The way the vatican is doing things, it is as if death is the end, what they are preaching is not what they really believe. Having a mass remembrance for anyone, especially the ex-head of the Catholic Church is NOT right!
HIS PHYSICAL BODY IS GONE! GET OVER IT!
After so many centuries, you would expect the vatican to learn from all its mistakes in the past. Nobody there seems to learn anything from history. They are still trying their best to get back the political power that they have lost. They haven’t learn that a separation of church and state is the only way to go. Even Jesus said, “Give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar and give to God what belongs to God” And if you looked at it, Jesus never came to overthrow a government or even to influence it and yet the vatican doesn’t think this way. Isn’t it wonderful to have a bunch of people who think they are doing God’s work when they don’t even follow Jesus’ teachings?
Talk about corruption!
19 March 2006
Birthday Time!
My birthday today and only the people I'm close to remembered it. :) Which is enough. You tend to know which of your friends that think or care about you (when you are away from home). It would have been a different matter if I was back in Sg.
It is a very boring birthday, nothing much happened. What can happen? I'm here without close friends and loved ones. I'm not complaining as I made this move because it would be good for my career (which I really hope so).
Anyhow, happy birthday to me :).
It is a very boring birthday, nothing much happened. What can happen? I'm here without close friends and loved ones. I'm not complaining as I made this move because it would be good for my career (which I really hope so).
Anyhow, happy birthday to me :).
03 March 2006
Mom's Genetics Could Produce Gay Sons
By Ker Than
LiveScience Staff Writer
posted: 24 February 2006
09:22 am ET
The arrangement of a mother's genes could affect the sexual orientation of her son, according to a new study.
The finding, detailed in the February issue of the journal Human Genetics, adds fuel to the decade-long debate about whether so-called "gay genes" might exist.
The researchers examined a phenomenon called "X chromosome inactivation" in 97 mothers of gay sons and 103 mothers whose sons were not gay.
X and Y
Chromosomes are large thread-like molecules that contain an organism's genetic instructions. Humans have 23 chromosome pairs. The X chromosome is one of two sex chromosomes in mammals; the other is the Y chromosome. Females have two X chromosomes and no Y's, while males have one X and one Y.
Even though women have two X chromosomes, only one is functional because the other is inactivated through a process called "methylation."
"It gets wrapped up in a ball and is not used with the exception of a few genes," explained study leader Sven Bocklandt of the University of California, Los Angeles.
If one of the females' X chromosomes is not turned off, then there is too much genetic material, which can lead to a harmful overabundance of proteins. Down syndrome, for example, results from the presence of an extra copy of chromosome 21.
Big difference
Normally, X chromosome inactivation occurs at random: half of the cells in a woman's body will have one X chromosome inactivated, while the other half inactivates the other chromosome.
However, when the researchers in the current study examined cells from the 42 mothers who had at least two gay sons, they found that about a quarter of the women in this group showed something different.
"Every single cell that we looked at in these women inactivated the same X chromosome," Bocklandt told LiveScience. "That's highly unusual."
In contrast, only 4 percent of mothers with no gay sons and 13 percent of those with just one gay son showed this type of extreme skewing.
Bocklandt thinks this suggest that a mother's X chromosomes partly influences whether her son is gay or not.
"We think that there are one or more genes on the X chromosome that have an effect on the sexual orientation of the sons of these mothers, as well as an effect on the cells we were looking at," Bocklandt said.
Other chromosomes implicated
Bocklandt was also involved in an earlier study that looked at the entire human genome of men who had two or more gay brothers. The researchers found identical stretches of DNA on three chromosomes—7, 8 and 10—that were shared by about 60 percent of the gay brothers in the study.
That study also found mothers to have an unusually large role in their son's sexual orientation: the region on chromosome 10 correlated with homosexuality only if it was inherited from the mother.
The results from these two studies suggest that there are multiple genetic factors involved in determining a person's sexual orientation and that it might vary depending on the person.
"We think that there are going to be some gay men who are X chromosome gay men and some who are chromosome 7 gay men or chromosome 10 gay men or some combination," Bocklandt said in a telephone interview.
Most researchers now think that there is no single gay gene that controls whether a person is homosexual or not. Rather, it's the influence of multiple genes, combined with environmental influences, which ultimately determine whether a person is gay.
A touchy subject
Research into the genetics of sexual orientation is controversial. Religious leaders who believe that sexual orientation is a choice argue that such research is an attempt to legitimize homosexuality; others worry that a detailed knowledge of the genetics underlying homosexuality will open the door to genetic engineering that prevents it.
But Bocklandt doesn't think these concerns should prevent scientists from asking the basic question of whether homosexuality has an underlying genetic component to it or not.
"I have no doubt that at some point we'll be able to manipulate all sorts of aspects of our personality and physical appearance," Bocklandt said. "I think if there's ever a time when we can make these changes for sexual orientation, then we will also be able to do it for intelligence or musical skills or certain physical characteristics—but whether or not these things are allowed to happen is something that society as a whole has to decide. It's not a scientific question."
LiveScience Staff Writer
posted: 24 February 2006
09:22 am ET
The arrangement of a mother's genes could affect the sexual orientation of her son, according to a new study.
The finding, detailed in the February issue of the journal Human Genetics, adds fuel to the decade-long debate about whether so-called "gay genes" might exist.
The researchers examined a phenomenon called "X chromosome inactivation" in 97 mothers of gay sons and 103 mothers whose sons were not gay.
X and Y
Chromosomes are large thread-like molecules that contain an organism's genetic instructions. Humans have 23 chromosome pairs. The X chromosome is one of two sex chromosomes in mammals; the other is the Y chromosome. Females have two X chromosomes and no Y's, while males have one X and one Y.
Even though women have two X chromosomes, only one is functional because the other is inactivated through a process called "methylation."
"It gets wrapped up in a ball and is not used with the exception of a few genes," explained study leader Sven Bocklandt of the University of California, Los Angeles.
If one of the females' X chromosomes is not turned off, then there is too much genetic material, which can lead to a harmful overabundance of proteins. Down syndrome, for example, results from the presence of an extra copy of chromosome 21.
Big difference
Normally, X chromosome inactivation occurs at random: half of the cells in a woman's body will have one X chromosome inactivated, while the other half inactivates the other chromosome.
However, when the researchers in the current study examined cells from the 42 mothers who had at least two gay sons, they found that about a quarter of the women in this group showed something different.
"Every single cell that we looked at in these women inactivated the same X chromosome," Bocklandt told LiveScience. "That's highly unusual."
In contrast, only 4 percent of mothers with no gay sons and 13 percent of those with just one gay son showed this type of extreme skewing.
Bocklandt thinks this suggest that a mother's X chromosomes partly influences whether her son is gay or not.
"We think that there are one or more genes on the X chromosome that have an effect on the sexual orientation of the sons of these mothers, as well as an effect on the cells we were looking at," Bocklandt said.
Other chromosomes implicated
Bocklandt was also involved in an earlier study that looked at the entire human genome of men who had two or more gay brothers. The researchers found identical stretches of DNA on three chromosomes—7, 8 and 10—that were shared by about 60 percent of the gay brothers in the study.
That study also found mothers to have an unusually large role in their son's sexual orientation: the region on chromosome 10 correlated with homosexuality only if it was inherited from the mother.
The results from these two studies suggest that there are multiple genetic factors involved in determining a person's sexual orientation and that it might vary depending on the person.
"We think that there are going to be some gay men who are X chromosome gay men and some who are chromosome 7 gay men or chromosome 10 gay men or some combination," Bocklandt said in a telephone interview.
Most researchers now think that there is no single gay gene that controls whether a person is homosexual or not. Rather, it's the influence of multiple genes, combined with environmental influences, which ultimately determine whether a person is gay.
A touchy subject
Research into the genetics of sexual orientation is controversial. Religious leaders who believe that sexual orientation is a choice argue that such research is an attempt to legitimize homosexuality; others worry that a detailed knowledge of the genetics underlying homosexuality will open the door to genetic engineering that prevents it.
But Bocklandt doesn't think these concerns should prevent scientists from asking the basic question of whether homosexuality has an underlying genetic component to it or not.
"I have no doubt that at some point we'll be able to manipulate all sorts of aspects of our personality and physical appearance," Bocklandt said. "I think if there's ever a time when we can make these changes for sexual orientation, then we will also be able to do it for intelligence or musical skills or certain physical characteristics—but whether or not these things are allowed to happen is something that society as a whole has to decide. It's not a scientific question."
10 February 2006
First Major Fight in 2006
The other day T and I had a fight. Yea, it was over AIM but we did fight. This would be our third major fight in 2 years.
It happened like this, we were discussing about his pending vacation over here and it went from that to his saying that I'm don't seem very enthusiastic about his coming over, to my rebuttal to his statement, etc. It was a rather drawn out affair which most couples (gay or otherwise) would have encountered before. There were a lot of back and forth for 20min before we calmed down and talked about what happened.
It was rather good in a way, I have realised that with every disagreement that we have, we become closer and understand each other better. We have never walked away from a disagreement without understanding each other's “logic”. So instead of being angry with each other and thinking about the worse, we would talk about it, trying to stay calm and collected and I have realised that our fights are always due to miscommunication. Thinking that the other thinks of it this way when it wasn’t so.
It is amazing, coming from my first relationship, where my ex-bf used to do the “lets break up” everytime we have a fight to by previous relationship where we try to understand each other without talking about our displeasure (i.e. keeping everything in), to this, where all unhappiness is aired and talked through. I would like to say that I’ve matured in this aspect but I do think it depends on your partner too. T has been nothing by a calm and patient bf ever since we’ve become serious, and of which I have learnt that from him. Understanding him to a point where I would need to clarify things.
It happened like this, we were discussing about his pending vacation over here and it went from that to his saying that I'm don't seem very enthusiastic about his coming over, to my rebuttal to his statement, etc. It was a rather drawn out affair which most couples (gay or otherwise) would have encountered before. There were a lot of back and forth for 20min before we calmed down and talked about what happened.
It was rather good in a way, I have realised that with every disagreement that we have, we become closer and understand each other better. We have never walked away from a disagreement without understanding each other's “logic”. So instead of being angry with each other and thinking about the worse, we would talk about it, trying to stay calm and collected and I have realised that our fights are always due to miscommunication. Thinking that the other thinks of it this way when it wasn’t so.
It is amazing, coming from my first relationship, where my ex-bf used to do the “lets break up” everytime we have a fight to by previous relationship where we try to understand each other without talking about our displeasure (i.e. keeping everything in), to this, where all unhappiness is aired and talked through. I would like to say that I’ve matured in this aspect but I do think it depends on your partner too. T has been nothing by a calm and patient bf ever since we’ve become serious, and of which I have learnt that from him. Understanding him to a point where I would need to clarify things.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
