Return to Melbourne

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

Child sex tours

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

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

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

Happy New Year!

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

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

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

Christmas Ball and Christmas

Merry Christmas one and all.

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

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

Got home about 3am...

First Dance

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

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

Sick!

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

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

I'm so pissed with myself. Having studied biology, I should have known better than to take vitamins and fish oil that has been opened for months! Yup, this was the vitamins and fish oil which I forgot to bring over to Melbourne and it was opened and left in Singapore for this whole period, nobody touched it. I believe that it has expired and that is what caused my diarrhea. Little do people realise that the expire date is for unopened bottles. Opened ones should be consumed within 3 months. *sigh*

Spent the whole of today sleeping, just started feeling much better this evening. Even had some porriage. I should be right as rain by tomorrow. I'm so excited about see T again.

Home bound

I'm going home today. I'm so excited :). T said he'll be picking me up from the airport as he had a car this week. Singapore here I return.

The Front Door's Open, The Backyard's Locked

A lot of people would agree with this but the vocal 'conservative' people would start crying foul. They would say, what is wrong with staying the same, that the 'western' style democracy/freedom of speech is not for us and that we would have to develop our own. What I don't get is why should democracy or freedom of speech be 'western' style or 'Singapore' style? This is the same way they talk about the 'gay liftstyle', which until now, I'm still trying to figure out what it is.


Today
12 December 2005

THE FRONT DOOR'S OPEN, THE BACKYARD'S LOCKED
--------------------------------------------
To be global, must we rethink our conservative outlook at home? News Comment We set you thinking

Terence Chong

IF Singapore's policy-making style had to be summed up in a phrase, it would be selective globalisation: The conscious effort to encourage certain forms of globalisation and discourage others.

The Government, on one hand, encourages economic globalisation through the synchronisation of local financial regulations and policies with international standards and, on the other, it energetically protects an Asian "conservative" society from the ills of satellite dishes, pornographic magazines and other unwholesome global commodities.

This constant oscillation between being globally open and locally particular has given rise to the Singapore paradox.

The city-state enjoys its status as one of the most globalised countries in terms of migration, global finance and telecommunications. Yet it regularly garners criticism from international human rights institutions for its insistence on its own brand of politics, whereby certain civil liberties are curtailed in view of local multi-ethnic and multi-religious realities.

The practice of selective globalisation expresses the need to remain globally connected for the sake of nothing less than national survival and the desire to retain certain notions of tradition and conservatism that protect specific interests.

For the most part, the Government has succeeded in juggling the often conflicting demands of the local and the global. Nonetheless, three events this year suggest that this may have ramifications for its global city ambitions.

In June, the Government denied fridae.com, a gay portal, the entertainment licence to hold its annual Nation Party. fridae.com responded by moving its annual bash to Phuket. Ordinarily, this would not have been an issue but for the fact that the Government acknowledges there are homosexuals in the civil service, thus making the licence withdrawal look like a step
backwards.

fridae.com's pullout may have mollified the majority of conservative Singaporeans, which was the objective, but it does little to show the international community that the city-state is culturally exciting.

In the words of Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew, if we are only contented with being the cleanest and safest city, then the "with-it" world will pass Singapore by.

There was also an unexpected poke in the eye. In his farewell speech on Oct 11, the out-bound United States Ambassador Frank Lavin mildly criticised the Singapore Government for its repression of political expression. He also recounted his embarrassment at being asked by local police if he wanted to press charges against the demonstrators protesting outside the US embassy over the Iraq war. These remarks were surprising in a post-Clinton era, and are significant in light of the Singapore Government's strong support for the Bush administration's "war on terror" campaign and the Iraq war.

Lastly, but no less surprising, was Warwick University's decision not to set up a campus in Singapore. After months of deliberation and feasibility studies, the British university, renowned for its research excellence, declined the Economic Development Board's invitation, citing its concern over both financial costs and the lack of academic freedom in Singapore.

This marks the first time a potential investor has publicly cited Singapore's famed out-of-bounds markers, its emphasis on
non-confrontational academic analysis and the Government's intolerance for dissent, as reasons for not coming.

These three incidents suggest an important lesson: A nation-state and a global city require a different management ethos. Conventional arguments for cultural and ideological protectionism may sit well with the character of nation-states, but they are increasingly incongruent with the functions of global cities.

And since a global city becomes one only when others recognise it as such, all global cities require cultural legitimacy from the international community of transnational professionals, creative class and international opinion-shapers who have the power to confer it recognition.

The competition to distinguish one's self as a global city is, in reality, the competition to win legitimacy and recognition from this international community.

The fact that Singapore's survival as a nation-state depends on its status as a global city means the Government has little choice but to constantly shift gears between the national and the global when it comes to policy-making, thus compelling it to send mixed signals to this international community.

Casinos are allowed but satellite dishes are not; topless cabaret shows are permitted but civil disobedience is not; and the list goes on. These discrepancies are at the heart of the dilemma facing Singapore at the dawn of the 21st century.

Globalising at one's own pace and terms may be prudent for a small nation-state but how much of this prudence can an aspiring global city afford?

The writer is a Fellow at the Institute of South-east Asian Studies.

Hypocrites!

In regards to the hanging of Nguyen Tuong Van;

Australia take the speck out of your eye before you take the log out of Singapore's eye.

As stated in my previous posts I'm not for capital punishment (I signed the petition for him) but I think the way the media and gahmen of Australia making Singapore the villain is revolting!

Documents reveal that Australia urged Indonesia to invade East Timor in 1975
East Timor and Australia's oily politics
Australia bullies East Timor over oil and gas

Let's talk about human rights and being barbaric now!

N Korea compares Bush to Hitler

I so agree with this. What makes George W. Bush (II) so different from Hitler?


Today
23 November 2005

N KOREA COMPARES BUSH TO HITLER
-------------------------------
SEOUL - North Korea's foreign ministry has threatened to multiply its defences a "thousand times" in an angry response to a United Nations vote which expressed serious concern about Pyongyang's human rights record.

The ministry dismissed the UN General Assembly vote as an "absurd attempt" by Washington to topple the Stalinist regime, and compared US President George W Bush to dictator Adolf Hitler.

The UN resolution expressed concern about reports on torture, public executions and the imposition of the death penalty for political reasons, as well as the extensive use of forced labour in communist North Korea.

The ministry statement carried by the Korean Central News Agency (KCNA) said the UN move was "no more than the barking of a dog at the moon."

The state-run KCNA also lashed out at the United States, which prepared the UN report, and called Mr Bush "a wicked man whom the world compares to fascist fanatic Hitler."

The news agency said Mr Bush's advocacy of democracy was a pretext for invading other countries.

"The US admonition for 'freedom' and 'democracy' is to invent pretexts for violating sovereignty of other countries ... and establishing its unchallenged domination over the world," it said.

KCNA also called Mr Bush a "warlike president" who "took the lead in advocating state-sponsored terrorism" and "openly defended murderous torture in prisons" - which it claimed were reminiscent of the Auschwitz concentration camp.

It was referring to the scandal that broke after the Washington Post reported that the US had secret prisons in various parts of the world, including Thailand and Europe. - AGENCIES

Conservative?

This article really shows that sex education for teenagers is really a must for us. Why is it the 'conservative' and the gahmen believes that just because we teach teenagers sex, they will immediately go out and have sex? Research has shown that with the correct information (both celibacy and also safe sex) teenages do make the right decisions. This would allow them to be informed of STDs and pregnancy.

Why is it the gahmen believe that they don't need sex education for teenages? They should stand firm on this issue instead of trying to please the conservatives.


SEX BEFORE MARRIAGE: 46% OF TEENS SAY YES
------------------------------------------
SEX before marriage is fine with us, say 56 per cent of the young Singaporeans in a recent survey.

And with this paper's readers recently debating whether students are getting adequate sex education, a more disturbing fact is that 46 per cent of those aged 15 to 19 said they would agree to pre-marital sex.

The percent of those who would say yes is highest among those aged 20 to 24, at 73 per cent.

Another surprising thing: More female respondents than males seem to be in favour of it. Out of 100 young people aged between 15 and 29 years old surveyed, 51 per cent of the males would agree to pre-marital sex, while 61 per cent of the females would give their consent.

The survey project is a collaboration between MediaCorp News and Singapore Polytechnic's School of Business, in support of a new news programme, the Channel U Weekend News Club.

Quotations

Some quotes from famous people in history, which still applies to today's political climate.

For the religious fanatics, fundamentalist Christians (or religious wrongs as I call them) :
Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from a religious conviction.

Blaise Pascal
French mathematician, physicist (1623 - 1662)

For all good people in the world who are silent :
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.

Edmund Burke
Irish orator, philosopher, & politician (1729 - 1797)

For all who discrimiate, whether by sex, religion, race, sexual orientation, etc :
Whenever I hear anyone arguing for slavery, I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on him personally.

Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves.

Abraham Lincoln
16th president of US (1809 - 1865)

Sad to say, the world will never learn from its mistakes.

Remembrance Day

Yesterday (11 Nov) was remembrance day in Australia and, it seems, a number of countries in the world. It was the day they (we) remembered the people who died in the world wars. At 11am, a moment of silence was given to these great heroes.

It is wonderful that as a Singaporean male, who has to go to war and die for my country when and if the time arrives, I'm still considered a 2nd class citizen and a criminal in the eyes of the law. Nice to know that I'm good enough to die of our "beliefs" but is a criminal when not.

Oppression?

I was having a chat with my Australian colleague and she asked me, "Isn't Singapore oppressive?". Now I was taken aback by that question because she has never been to Singapore before. So I wondered where she got her information from. It seems that the reports by the paper and even the net doesn't place Singapore in a good light. Her impression was formed by what she has been reading over the years. And she wasn’t the only one, my German colleague also echoed the sentiments.

I wouldn't say much about what I said to them but I did tell them that Singapore wasn't as oppressive as what they think and that it wasn't a "police state" (in fact we get away with quite a lot :P). Even though Singapore doesn't have the ‘freedom of responsible speech’ as Australia, German or even Korea, things have changed in the past 10 years and Singaporeans have started to voice their opinions about policies and even started questioning the gahmen. Not only did the gahmen not clamp down on these people, the actually encouraged it but there are still limits... for now. I told her that things would change and in time to come Singapore would have Australia's responsible speech too.

They were very satisfied with my answer but it did get me thinking. The gahmen wants Singapore to become a city like New York and London but with impressions like this about Singapore hanging around, it cannot. What makes a city cosmopolitan like New York and London is not the gahmen but the people, locals and foreigners. People flock to these cities because they have been know to be open minded, non-discriminatory and accepting of all people (including the dreaded GLBT community). People go there knowing that they are safe and whatever they do or say wouldn’t get them thrown into prison or deported from the country. This isn’t the impression foreigners have about Singapore. I’m talking about the citizens of these countries, the ones that make a city cosmopolitan not the gahmens. If we don’t change our image as a “oppressive” and “police state”, becoming like London or New York will not be possible.

I sometimes wonder if the Singapore gahmen knows this.

Have I said too much?

After ranting for the past few days, I wonder if the gahmen is going to come down on me for writing things like that, "unpatriotic" things. I wonder if I have crossed their line or are these comments allowed now? Maybe the gahmen just going to ignore me because this blog (and maybe me) is insignificant. Yup, Singaporeans are still worried that the gahmen will come down on them when they speak their minds.

If I do get clamped down, it would show that the gahmen has read this blog and I have touched on topics that are too sensitive. Which would be sad. Meaning that be are back to the dark ages. What would be nice (a dream I know) that they would take the comments of all of us GLBT into consideration and maybe decriminalise us. It would be one of the steps for Singapore to be a cosmopolitan city.

Just a dream.

Battered husbands

There have been a report and number of letters about battered husbands in Singapore in Today. So I was right in my accessment that 'equality and justice' is NOT for all. Mr Aidan is a battered husband in Singapore.

BULLIED BY 42KG WIFE
--------------------
Women's Charter abused to 'punish' man; time to enshrine protection and
uphold equality

Letter from Aidan L*

--- snap ---

The outmoded Women's Charter, promulgated in the 1960s to protect housewives left high and dry by their spouses in the event of a divorce, should be changed.

Many modern women are educated and their income may equal or even surpass their husbands', but the Act opens a loophole for abuse where a women just has to make a police complaint and the latter will have to act - even if the complaint is frivolous and unsubstantiated.

The men are made to support their spouses even when their wives' earnings exceed theirs. The Women's Charter has been increasingly used to "punish" the man for the marriage breakup - even though, in most cases, both parties are responsible.

We have in recent years witnessed more men seeking PPOs. But are men really protected? Probably, women know that they are unlikely to be punished, or at least punished heavily - hence they continue to launch their verbal or physical assaults.

The Women's Charter should be pro-family instead of skewed in favour of the female gender. It should be viewed as the Family Charter, to take into account changing modern values, and to uphold equity and equality for both sexes. It's time that men's protection be enshrined too.


Why is the Women's Charter not amended? It would seem that our ministers don't believe that this can happen to men. It is a rather chauvinistic point of view but sad to say it seems that is the point of view of a number of our gahmen.

Check out this post which shows up the ministers.

With discriminating attitudes there are in parliment, would we ever see real equality and justice for all Singaporeans?

I don't understand the Singapore pledge

We, the citizens of Singapore,
pledge ourselves as one united people,
regardless of race, language or religion,
to build a democratic society
based on justice and equality
so as to achieve happiness, prosperity and
progress for our nation


What democracy? What justice and equality?

I don't see it for the GLBT community. If it really is based on justice and equality then things should be done and laws to be changed so that everyone is equal. Not where one sexuality is not more superior than another or women having more advantages than men in a marriage (women's charter).

I can understand that being a small country, we have to be pro-family but if the family breaks up and throws a gay son or lesbian daughter out of the house, is that very pro-family? This is not something that hasn't happen, it is something that is continually happening, families disowning their children because of this. Misconceptions breeds mistrust and hate, wonderful elements for a family.

I can understand we need more babies but the number of couples getting married AND having babies has no relation to the GLBT community.

Just because gay men/lesbians are more visible doesn't mean that there will be more gay men/lesbians in Singapore. It has been shown (in all countries that citizens have equal status) that about 5% or less of the population is gay/lesbian. So regardless of how you try to hide it there will be gay and lesbians around. When a GLBT community is visible, young GLBT people will realise that they are not sick (normal) and are not the only one. Nobody, should have to go through what all I and all of my gay/lesbian friends had to go though in coming to terms with our homosexuality.

I'm don't think that we will get equal status as heterosexuals but knowing that at least we will not be criminalised or considered unwell or deviant would be nice. I’m talking about repelling section 377, is that too much to ask? From the looks of it, yes it is because fundamentalism and homophobia rules Singapore. The truth of being gay/lesbian has always been obscured (by censorship, anything showing homosexuality in a favourable or 'normal' light is not allowed) and because there is no avenue for Singaporeans to know the truth about being gay/lesbian, most Singaporeans will always have a misconception that we are "sick", we "choose" to be homosexual and we "recruit" young people into our "filthy" lifestyle to "increase our numbers" and thus be against us.

As much as I love my country, I'm really unhappy/angry that the gahmen is making me feel like an outcast and a 2nd class citizen. So if every citizen matters, isn’t it time to repel penal code 377? Who are we protecting with 377? Don't we have enough sex laws to protect all people without having 377?

Reference: My musings

10 Reasons Why Gay Marriage is Wrong

1. Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning



2. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall



3. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract



4. Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal



5. Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Britany Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed



6. Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children



7. Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children



8. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America



9. Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children



10. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans

Replace America with Singapore. Is there a difference? Aren't we suppose to be secular? Why would religion come into play for our laws? Isn't the religious beliefs against us against the law (in some way?), where one group's views are forced upon the population and minor group?

But then again, with the GLBT community are not people. We just pay tax and are 2nd class citizens because heterosexuality is more superior.

Hypocrites at work

I read with disbelief the article on Today (2 Nov 2005) stating that President George Bush is 'concerned' about 'human rights violations in Myanmar'. Gosh, has he looked at his own country. Let me also quote the bible Mr. Bush, "Take the log out of your eye before you take the speck out of your neighbour's eye". America is the biggest hypocrite when it comes to human rights. What rights do the GLBT community? Their rights have been denied them again and again because of religious reasons. If you are so concerned about human rights, then let the GLBT community marry or just grant them equal rights and status as a heterosexual marriage, then I'll say you can talk about human rights.


Today
2 November 2005

COURAGEOUS MS CHARM MEETS BUSH
------------------------------
WASHINGTON - United States President George W Bush, saying he was concerned over human rights violations in Myanmar, met 23-year-old Ms Charm Tong, who is campaigning for the rights of minority groups in the military-ruled state.

Ms Charm Tong, a founding member of the widely respected Shan Women's Action Network, is a "courageous and compassionate" critic of Myanmar's military rulers, said White House spokesman Scott McClellan, adding that she "has dedicated her life to helping those who suffer under the military rule in Rangoon and to exposing the regime's abuses, particularly against women."

Ms Charm Tong was named among "Asia's heroes of 2005" by Time magazine this month. Her Swan group has documented the reported rape of hundreds of women and girls by Myanmar's soldiers.

A refugee from Myanmar's central Shan state, home to the country's biggest ethnic minority, Ms Charm Tong is based along the Thailand-Myanmar border where she runs a school for young Shan.

"I raised with the president our concerns on the human rights violations, especially the military's use of systematic rape of innocent girls and women as a weapon of war," told AFP after the White House meeting, which she said lasted about 50 minutes. "The president said he was very concerned and wanted to know what more can be done to help the people." - AFP

Forget the Bad

What's the key to a rewarding and lasting relationship?

Some people may tell you that it is to find out each other's weaknesses, understand them, and work through them together as a couple. Although this is feasible to a certain extent, it can become frustrating and exhausting, because there will be problem spots that you won't be able to resolve together.

A woman discovered what loving someone truly involved, when she asked her husband to try out a relationship-building exercise she came across in a magazine.

She approached him and said, "I read in a magazine a while ago, about how we can strengthen our marriage. Each of us will write a list of the things we find a bit annoying about the other person. Then we can talk about how we can fix them together and make our lives happier together."

Her husband agreed, so each of them went into a separate room and thought of all the things that annoyed them about each other. They thought about this for the rest of the day and wrote down what they came up with.

The following morning, at the breakfast table, they decided that they would go over their lists.

"I'll start," offered the wife and took out her list. It had many items on it. Enough to fill three pages in fact. As she started reading the list of little annoyances, she noticed that tears were starting to appear in her husband's eyes.

"What's wrong?" she asked.

"Nothing," her husband replied, "Keep reading your list."

The wife continued to read until she had read all three pages to her husband. She neatly placed her list on the table and folded her hands over it.

"Now, you read your list and then we'll talk about the things on both of our lists," she said happily.

Softly, her husband started, "I don't have anything on my list. I love you the way you are. And I wouldn't want to try and change anything about you." Very often, raising the negative aspects of a relationship can erode its strength rather than reinforce it. When you love someone, it should be in spite of his or her flaws. There will always be things to disappoint, depress and annoy us about our partners. But why dwell on these when there is so much beauty, promise and light as well?

Two simple tips for couples
To make full your loving cup
If you're wrong, admit it
If you're right, shut up


Good advice for couples but you also shouldn't bottle up things that you can't stand about your partner, talking about things that irritate you is good too but it shouldn't be a 'you did this, you did that' it should be a 'I'm not happy when you do this' because the first approach is more of a personal attack and the second is a 'there are things about your behaviour that I don't like'. I learnt that the hard way, not with T but with A, my first boyfriend and D (my second) help me to understand this.