Expression

I’ve always wondered what’s the point of expressing your feelings, especially negative ones when it doesn’t do any good, spreads that negative energy around the space you’re in and anyone within that radii and basically infects the people you’re with? I realised that one needs to do that in order to stay sane, so that the knot in your stomach will go away and that black ball of fury (or assorted other emotions) does not cause you to implode within. It is essential, so that one can get over that feeling and move on to other things. That’s why people need someone to talk to I suppose, they need that outlet to vent.

The futility of feelings, of communicating them when it doesn’t do a whit. The necessity of it nevertheless. The problem with logic is that the force of it is never quite as strong as feelings. One can understand logically, but it won’t cause the feelings to abate. Instead it adds to that sense of frustration, the frustration that one understands the other side but yet can’t help feeling the way one is and feeling smaller as a result. Ahh, the evil that empathy can do to oneself.

a completely superficial look at politics

Everyone knows that China is in trouble over Tibet with the international community. Except possibly China herself. As the up and coming superpower, it treats its sovereignty, rightly, as sovereign. And hence once Tibet is labelled as a national sovereignty issue, that’s it, case closed. The international community can disagree but hey, that’s their problem.

And there you have the whole Olympic torch route thing being changed and Chinese youths who are angry that their country has been treated so badly. They are mad that the one event they’ve been preparing for since the time it was announced 4 years ago is in jeopardy by this Tibet issue. They’ve been cleaning up the streets, building new spanking buildings, all spruced up for the Olympics and now at the eve of the event, there’s international disagreement as to the stance that China should take about Tibet. So the Chinese youths rant and rile on the forums online except that internationally, the impact is softened because the forums are in Chinese and only the Chinese understands.

Firstly, I think it’s strangely funny that the amount of Chinese national rage has been understated internationally due to the unfamiliarity with the Chinese language. But it’s understandable. Chinese is one of the hardest languages to learn and the youths in Singapore will attest to that fact. Especially if they hail from ACS and like-minded schools. But that’s an aside.

The real issue is that China, in its national interests, should have taken a more diplomatic stance than to keep reiterating that it’s an ‘internal / national issue’. The problem is also that the Dalai Lama, being the Dalai Lama, has moral authority on his side. It may not be actual moral authority, but such authority is assumed. He appears on television with his kindly smile and mild mannered nature, donned in his religious robes, a perfect picture of conciliatory discussion. On the other hand, you have a Chinese official, decked out in his military outfit as he speaks to the reporters, a picture of austerity and high handedness. It’s not difficult to understand why the entire world did not even bother trying to see this story from China’s point of view. It became the big bully naturally. And no one questions why. The United States of America, in my humble opinion, should keep quiet(er) about it. Before one points out a speck in her brother’s eye, one should take out the plank in its own eye. Iraq is US plank. So it should shut up about it.

I may be trivialising the issue here. In fact, I know I am. The key point is that a healthy dose of diplomacy never did any country any harm. China should be seen to want to compromise on the issue of Tibet, even if it is not. Although that is form without substance, at least there will be a form. With that form, people can then address complaints and constructive criticisms will bring about the impetus needed for creating substance behind that form. First form, then substance. And no crowds will run amok.

Personal Hygiene (/public health)

Yes, I’m talking about personal hygiene. There I was having my dinner at a coffeeshop at Ang Mo Kio and I see this family of four by the walkway. They stopped and the mother decided to relieve the daughter at this bush. Let’s call it the peeing bush. Well, the daughter did what she was told to do and gladly relieved herself there. All the while I was having this really great porridge. Needless to say, the porridge became less savoury after I witnessed the incident.

I was amazed that such things still happen in Singapore. Singapore, the lauded first world country, Singapore, the clean and green garden city. What’s worse about the incident was how stupid and thoughtless the parents were. I mean, think about it, that girl was about 3 years old. And she’s a girl, so even if she can aim better than the kids her age, the chances are that she’ll make a mess. So although they were near the bush, most of the pee ended up on the walkway, and some of it on the mother’s pants because she was helping her daughter. And the father stands by the side and grins as if it’s all a joke.

I can’t see the funny side of it, and I’m quite appalled at the incident. It seems straight out of one of those horror stories in travel books about backward countries. And I didn’t understand why the parents made the kid pee there. I mean, there was a shopping centre, the vast AMK hub just 100 metres away. They have toilets, which comes with a flush and basins and clean water. And the family was quite well dressed. The kids were decked out in cute outfits and there they have their daughter peeing near the sidewalk.

Well, they walked away as if nothing happened, and there was no passer-bys who were shocked enough to stand and stare and chide them. So it was all fine and dandy. So the rest of the world continues as if nothing happens. You have pretty, dolled up young ladies stepping on the puddle of pee unknowingly, thinking perhaps that it’s just water or something. Oh boy, if they only know.

snippets

There are times when there’s a burst of inspiration and suddenly my fingers start having a life of their own at the keyboard and the words just flow out without me having even thought of them before. These are moments when I bang away at my keyboard and vent of all my frustrations and pent up emotion and let loose on the world exactly what I think about it. Not that it makes a difference to the world, the motive is purely selfish, I just need to say what I need to say.

First up, I think Joseph Heller is a genius. Too bad he died in 1999 because I’d really love to meet him. His books crack me up and the topics he focuses on are topics that are very close to my heart. His wit and humour makes reading on the train slightly embarrassing because there I’d be, in a corner of the train with stony faced people all around me and I’d suddenly start grinning and suppressing my laughter due to something funny I’ve read. Boy, I wish I can write like him. I’m reading God Knows, one of his lesser known books after Catch-22 and Closing Time, the sequel to it. It’s about the story of King David from a first person narrative. Funny as hell. I love all the biblical references and the life he injects into well-known stories.

Kinokuniya and Borders should have his entire collection (preferably all in the same series with similar covers that makes buying books and starting a collection so satisfying).

Ok, actually that’s all I have to say. It’s time to rest. The non-wakening period begins.

NYE

The New Year beckons. A brand new 2008 with no mistakes in it. The proverbial clean slate, and all within the next 24 hours. As you get older, the years slip past and it’s harder to keep track of the days. There are parts of the day when you sleep and then there’s the rest of it when you hustle and bustle it away. One entire life span can be divided in this way, the wakening hours and the non wakening ones.

Right now I want to enter into the non-wakening time zone but am thwarted from my sleep by angry thoughts that bubble to the surface of my already exhausted mind. I want to sleep, I do really, but then, I get so angry thinking about stuff that I can’t sleep. Even though I’ve already made a conscious choice to not think about it. That’s the thing about that in-between state of mind, your brain doesn’t really listen to you.

But yeah, I shouldn’t allow myself to get so mad, I should simply detach and elevate my soul / emotional being into another plane of existence. One where things don’t matter, and I see things through the macro lens of eternity. And then things don’t matter. Lack of money doesn’t matter, lack of clothes doesn’t matter. Polish or rather more accurately, lack of polish does not matter. Time and chance happen to us all.

If one refuses to be a victim, to do something about their lives. One would be infinitely better off, obtain the desired improvement in one’s quality of life and get on with the program. One wouldn’t resent other’s improvement but think that they can do it too. Life’s better for one and all.

Perhaps the next big thing to overcome is insecurity. Insecurity about oneself can make one a cantankerous person that cannot be lived with without exhausting another’s store of patience and kindness. “I know where I come from and where I’m going.” That’s perhaps sums up the way of perfect security, perfect comfort in one’s own skin. To know where you come from and where you’re going solves the better part of life’s problems in my opinion.

studying aids

Sunday. That’s 8 more days to the exams. As I sat at Amk Macs trying to cram the finer details of criminal procedure into my head, I can’t help but notice that about 80% of the people there are mugging. Perhaps we should give Macs a public service award, after all, where would all the students go without good ol’ Macs?

We buy one drink, sit there from morning till night. You might have macs for breakfast, lunch or dinner, or you can just go somewhere else and come back here. We use their toilet facilities, their powerpoint plugs and their free internet service. We sign up online to be members of the macs conglomerate, thereby making our one lone drink at macs cheaper and our studying more economical. Life is as good as it gets, especially when you’re studying.

Study with a friend or study alone. It doesn’t matter. You will be left alone. Making too much noise is fine too. The people studying there needs noise. If not the finer points of economics for instance, would be enough to lull anyone into a peaceful, undisturbed sleep. The noise from the patrons, the radio music that they play, the constant cleaning of the floor and tables are all part of the background cacophony, the sound landscape of macs. It all comes together to form a nice, harmonious hum known as white noise. You shut it out and concentrate what’s on hand (i.e. for instance, that particular point on the Takeover Code, Corporate Acquisitions and the like.)

And so a week passes by. One more week and it’s the grand ol’ exams. Wish me luck, or better yet, divine intervention.

The alternative religious view

This blog post is to offer an alternative religious view of the recent uproar over section 377A, especially with regards to Christianity. It is my opinion that bible-believing Christians have been misdirected in their efforts to keep 377A because the bible makes it very clear that sodomy is wrong.

 

I would like to draw an analogy to what C.S. Lewis wrote about divorce in UK during his time. Below is the relevant extract:

“Before leaving the question of divorce, I should like to distinguish two things which are very often confused.

The Christian conception of marriage is one: the other is the quite different question — how far Christians, if they are voters or Members of Parliament, ought to try to force their views of marriage on the rest of the community by embodying them in the divorce laws. A great many people seem to think that if you are a Christian yourself you should try to make divorce difficult for every one. I do not think that. At least I know I should be very angry if the [Muslims] tried to prevent the rest of us from drinking wine.

My own view is that the Churches should frankly recognize that the majority of the British people are not Christians and, therefore, cannot be expected to live Christian lives. There ought to be two distinct kinds of marriage: one governed by the State with rules enforced on all citizens, the other governed by the Church with rules enforced by her on her own members. The distinction ought to be quite sharp, so that a man knows which couples are married in a Christian sense and which are not.

from Mere Christianity, the chapter on “Christian Marriage”, c 1952, 1980 by C.S. Lewis Pte. Ltd., Harpercollins Edition, 2002, p112)

In the same way, the majority of Singaporeans are not Christians. As such, Christians (myself included) should not impose our views that homosexuality is unnatural and sinful on the community at large. To do so would be to reinforce the view that Christians are judgmental and diverges from the primary message of love and compassion in the New Testament. Just as Jesus spoke kindly to the adulterous woman at the well, so should Christians embody that same love and compassion when they talk about the present issue. Ultimately, a person’s sexuality is their own business, it should not be the prerogative of Members of Parliament, however well-meaning, to regulate it and bring it to the straight and narrow.

 

“For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.” John 3:17

On 377A Penal Code

On 377A Penal Code

And so section 377A will be retained and gay sex continues to be a crime. Sodomy between a male and female is fine, but gay sex remains a crime. In fact, lesbian sex is fine as well, it’s just gay sex that is criminalized. After all we have to keep a balance between conservative society and gays as PM Lee has articulated.

 

I am a proponent of decriminalizing gay sex. I do not see the reasons why it should be criminalized. And the legislation, by excluding females and singling out a specific group of men stinks of pure and blatant discrimination, in the same league as racism.

 

What disturbs me is the debate going on at Parliament. What disturbed me the most was the speech by Professor Thio Li-ann. It absolutely makes no sense at all. She says that the arguments supporting decriminalizing of gay sex are flawed. I quote:

These flawed arguments are marinated with distracting fallacies which obscure what is at stake—repealing 377A is the first step of a radical, political agenda which will subvert social morality, the common good and undermine our liberties.

 

What I don’t understand is how decriminalizing gay sex will do the so-called subverting. Exactly how it will subvert the social morality (together with the common good and our liberties) is something we are not told. It just will. It is as if the floodgates will open once gay sex is decriminalized and something drastic will happen. This tactic is also known as fear-mongering. After all, and I quote her very words, “Debate must be based on substance, and not sound-bites.” Her four arguments are as follows:

 

1. To say a law is archaic is merely chronological snobbery.

 

For the uninitiated, chronological snobbery is one of Prof Thio’s pet phrases. Just because something is modern does not make it good. Similarly, just because something is old does not make it bad. This is something I agree with. However, it is not chronological snobbery to suggest that today’s society should do the correct thing, the non-oppressive thing, to decriminalize gay sex. This is not asking for every Singaporean to embrace homosexuality, to advocate it and to promote it in schools. Who does that? Which country in the world which has decriminalized gay sex intend to promote it or has in fact promoted it? Can one promote heterosexuality? Is it even something promote-able, for lack of a better word?

 

2. You cannot say a law is regressive unless you first identify your ultimate goal. If we seek to copy the sexual libertine ethos of the wild wild West, then repealing Section 377A is progressive.

 

So basically, this tells us that not all things Western should be imitated and followed. This obscures the issue of repealing section 377A. The whole East / West argument, the whole Asian Values thing, is a blanket argument without substance. One cannot and should not simply label something and term it as a conclusive argument in itself. The wild wild West is where we got section 377A in the first place. They were not always wild, apparently.

 

3. To say a law which criminalizes homosexual acts because many find it offensive is merely imposing a ‘prejudice’ or ‘bias’ assumes with justification that no reasonable contrary view exists. This evades debate.

 

Okie, this takes some time to understand. Basically, this law here, s 377A is not prejudicial or bias per se, cos there might be a reasonable contrary view. She goes on with the argument.

 

4. There is no neutral ground, no ‘Switzerland of ambivalence’ when we consider the moral issues related to 377A which require moral judgment of what is right and wrong. Therefore, the demand for objectivity in the 377A debate is intellectually disingenuous.

 

Like many people out there, I’m not sure what the term ‘Switzerland of ambivalence’ means. It’s one of those 10 dollar phrases that I don’t understand. So there’s no objectivity cos where moral standards are concerned, right is right and wrong is wrong. The thing about the argument is that she is so very certain that gay sex is wrong. She reiterates this point:

“[Sexual] Diversity is not licence for perversity. This radical liberal argument is pernicious, a leftist philosophy based on radical individualism and radical egalitarianism. It is unworkable because every viable moral theory has limits to consent.”

 

She calls it perversity. Based on what? The bible? So what if the bible calls it perverse? The bible calls a lot of things perverse, along with sodomy (and the bible was quite fair in its labeling, both male and female gay sex were deemed perverse). But let’s not bring religion into play, it’s a blog post for another day. But yet, there is no reason why she calls it perverse. Gay sex just is. Perhaps she appeals to the instinctive repulsiveness that one reacts with when one first hears about gay sex. But to criminalize it? To actually say that it is a crime? A lot of people who are uncomfortable with adultery would not want to criminalize adultery. Simply because one is uncomfortable with something does not mean that one should criminalize the act.

 

PM Lee has said that abolishing section 377A could send the wrong signal and push gay activists to ask for more, such as changing what is taught in schools and advocating same-sex marriages and parenting.

 

First, I’m not very sure how it would change what is taught in schools. What is taught in schools anyway? Is there an active heterosexual syllabus? I know my tone sounds mocking here, but I’m seriously thinking about where I’ve been taught about my heterosexuality. I’m sure it didn’t come about naturally, something like that must have been taught to me.

 

Second, the repeal of section 377A is a moral issue. It is a moral issue because you make a stand to do what is right to protect the minorities’ liberties. It is cold comfort to retain a law and say that one will not enforce it. If one does not enforce it and do not intend to, then the law should be repealed. There is no reason for the law to stay except to placate the majority, and so as not to offend your constituents. If one simply wants to do the popular thing, then that is also understandable, but one will lose the right to stand on the moral high horse and his or her moral authority.

 

To be honest, I’m not completely comfortable with homosexuality either. But that is different from wanting a law that criminalizes something I’m not comfortable with to stay. The fact that it has remained sends a clear signal of intolerance and certain cowardice, nothing more.

In the words of Theodore Roosevelt:

“It is not the critic who counts: not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood.”

fodder

On the Korean Wave in Singapore: The IHT

and…

Radiohead’s latest album is out: In Rainbows