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

On the human spirit

“The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.” Mark 14:38

Chel commented sometime ago that it is not the flesh that is weak but the spirit. For if your spirit is willing, usually you’ll get it done. It’s to get the spirit stirred up from its drunken stupor, from its unfocused being, from its comfortable contentment that’s the difficult part. I don’t know why I was thinking about such stuff. Perhaps it’s the service today by Nick Vujicic, a person born without arms or legs. See lariena’s blog. You see him preaching with such heartfelt conviction that I was a bit shaken. He pokes fun at himself easily, and you can feel the indomitable human spirit in him. It’s amazing to behold him physically, to actually see him on a table, so much smaller than I’d have imagined. I have never thought that limbs added so much mass to your body. It’s something I’ve taken for granted, not a thought I’d think about consciously. But seeing him on that podium of his, a man reduced by half, with limitations so evident, so overwhelming, to hear him preaching about the love of God and not judgment, to hear someone like that, it’s a very mixed feeling. Mostly, I felt ashamed of myself somewhat. There he is, and here I am, sitting down and with arms and legs and what have I done. There he is, born with so many limitations and yet his heart is cheerful and he’s smiling all the time, believing in God the Creator. Can you believe that? That God the Creator actually created him this way. But his physicality did not rob him of his human dignity. He carried himself well, confident in who he is, comfortable in his own skin. As he was finishing up, a person came and picked him up off the stage, just like that. Like a bust or a sculpture. I felt a pang of pity at that. I can’t help it. It’s heartwrenching, unbelievably so. But he’s living life to the full and how many of us can say that? I am very much humbled by his life story and amazed at how he overcame the odds.

Perhaps the bible is like that. Perhaps people are people. You interpret the bible as you would, taking the parts that you’ve been inclined towards, for instance the good and inspiring parts and you mould it into a part of you. And vice versa.

But if your eye is bad, your whole body will be full of darkness. If therefore the light that is in you is darkness, how great is that darkness!

Like Eminem says, think about it think about it. If you can’t sleep, then dream about it, if you can’t dream then scream about it. Between doubt and faith is the great divide. Where “Lord, I believe, help my unbelief!” rings hollow in your ears as you speak them.

The Road Not Taken by Robert Frost

Two roads diverged in a yellow wood,
And sorry I could not travel both
And be one traveler, long I stood
And looked down one as far as I could
To where it bent in the undergrowth;

Then took the other, as just as fair,
And having perhaps the better claim,
Because it was grassy and wanted wear;
Though as for that, the passing there
Had worn them really about the same,

And both that morning equally lay
In leaves no step had trodden black.
Oh, I kept the first for another day!
Yet knowing how way leads on to way,
I doubted if I should ever come back.

I shall be telling this with a sigh
Somewhere ages and ages hence:
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I—
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference.

post national day

National Day is over. But apparently, the festivities are not. I still hear the song ‘There’s no place I’d rather be” playing over and over again at Funan Centre where I was having lunch with a friend. It grated on my nerves. My friend was irritated too and he pointed out a pertinent point in the lyrics of the song. I have reproduced the lyrics for the uninitiated below:

 There’s No Place I’d Rather Be

I’ve walked the streets of Cairo and Bombay

I’ve seen the neon signs on ole Broadway

I’ve climbed the Eiffel Tower

The Great Wall in one hour

Experienced sweet and sour but that’s okay

 

Seen Hollywood, the sunsets in LA.

The London Bridge, Big Ben, the Thames, UK

I’ve crossed the River Kwai

Yet still I don’t know why

I think of you each night and every day.

 

There’s no place I’d rather be

You’ll always be a part of me

And even though I’ve roamed the world

It’s still my home I long to see

 

This is where my family 

And my friends grew up with me

So I’ll cross the skies and sail the seas

To be where I wanna be.

 

Cos there’s no place I’d rather be!

Notice the underlying presumption behind this song. It presumes that most Singaporeans are well-heeled and well-traveled and have seen the sights and sounds of most tourist spots. Personally, I’ve only been to Broadway out of the list of things stated above. I get the point of the song though, that Singapore is our Home with a capital H. I might be wrong, but I don’t think the majority of Singaporeans have been to all these places that they’ve said that we’ve been to. The song presumes wealth.

Maybe it’s because my pay cheque for last month is still pending, but I resent the fact that the song presumes that all Singaporeans are wealthy and we are all world weary travellers. My guess is that the song doesn’t connect with most Singaporeans, and maybe they should have re-sung the song ‘Home’ without changing its lyrics. Cos honestly, most people are still in the same economic strata they were 9 years ago.

On a slightly different note, I wonder when the community centre people are going to take down the flags they hung along the corridor outside my house. My estate is flushed with flags.  There’s a gigantic national day poster about 3 metres high complete with night lighting erected along the road. Very impressive but quite an overkill. I like Singapore as much as the next guy, but this is a little too much.

Oh well, whatever works I guess.

fireworks!

This is an interesting post about fat acceptance : angry, sad and true. One of those gems you find on the dashboard before you log in to wordpress. Read it, and sleep on it.

Happy National Day Singapore! I squeezed with the crowds and managed to catch the fireworks display today! It’s the highlight of my day. My friends and I were making our way through the crushing crowds and eventually settled near fullerton hotel. I think the staff there were properly mortified. Their plants have been completely ruined, the crowds have trampled on the grass, flattened the hedges, and all for a glimpse of that 4 minute fireworks display. Well, it’s Fullerton. In view of the national day spirit, they really shouldn’t begrudge the crowds. You have the more well-heeled ones booking rooms at Fullerton, and I could actually see the hotel guests in their air-conditioned rooms, lying on their beds and looking at the window, while the rest of us commoners throng with the crowds, sweat pouring down our faces. And that my friends, is the Great Divide. But nevermind that, the weather was reasonably cool, there was wind if you could find a good spot and the best thing is, we soaked up the atmosphere entirely. The display was awesome, the crowd oohed and ahhed, children cheered and I clapped. Later the crowds heaved towards the MRT and of course, traffic on the roads came to a standstill. At some point in time, the crowds also broke through the barricade set by the police and since there was only a lone policeman at that juncture, there was nothing much he could do. They have stuck it to the Man successfully.

After that it was home sweet home. 42 years old and going strong. Way to go!