Music to the ears

Minister Tan Chuan Jin justified legalising online gambling, saying that it is a growing activity and anyway, cannot be stopped entirely. Thus it would make sense to bring a part of this dark activity into the light so that it provides people with a guilt-free and legal avenue to engage in this erstwhile illegal activity. This decriminalising of online gambling in Singapore, with certain controls and conditions, will wipe out a criminal activity in one fell swoop. That's the main argument anyway, not to mention that it will increase government revenue from this once illicit activity. Minister Tan went into quite pedantic detail in an interview regarding this matter with Channel NewsAsia. I will not repeat the points, for by Minister Tan, and against by the Worker's Party and the National Council of Churches.

I would just like to add that the government, by the same argument and logic, should legalise the consumption of marijuana (cannabis) in Singapore. It is underground right now, and attracts draconian penalties when caught. In spite of all efforts to eliminate the trafficking of this drug and its use (if no one uses it, no one will traffic it, right?) remains unabated - the same as online gambling. After all, some countries have decriminalise the possession of the drug, including Australia, Austria and the US (in some States) as have some countries online gambling. But I suspect that the Singapore government will not do so anytime soon (or ever), never mind that the logic behind the easing of restriction on online gambling is exactly the same for consumption of marijuana.

I would suggest that the logic and argument that has been brought to bear on justifying the legalisation of online gambling has been quite selective and convinces no one except those for which it is music to the ears.

The not so real Christmas

Sultan Hassanal Bolkiah has got it right, where, dare I say, many Christians have not. He has banned all celebrations of Christmas in his tiny but very wealthy kingdom. He has banned Santa Claus and any impersonation of the grand old man. His Imams, the Islamic Religious leaders, cannot agree more. To flesh out the ban, they included the display of crosses, lighting of candles, singing religious songs, sending Christmas greetings...all of which, according to these learned people, are "against Islamic faith". Well, they could also add that these have nothing to do with the Christian faith - not the red nose reindeer, the sleigh, the snow, the hats, the bells, the puddings, the turkeys, errmm...the turkeys? When did they come over from Thanksgiving?

Over the years, Christmas has been hijacked by non-Christians and businesses who have converted it to a time to dine, dance and conspicuous consumption. Just today, I passed by a celebratory signboard which featured a Santa Claus in a backdrop of reindeers and snow. In sunny Singapore? And this sizeable poster wasn't even in a church. Nothing can be more fake!

So yes! The Sultan has unwittingly got his understanding of Christmas correct. Its just the cutting off of the hand and the jail time that I can't quite place, though. And how did the imams confuse the new year as being part of the Christmas celebrations? Oh....yes, those un-Christmas of Christmas cards do mention having a happy new year.

All these are superficial as superficial gets, including the ban. 

Cleaning after

Are you going to pick up the crud left
by the previous diner?

Singapore wants its people to clean up after themselves. After so many years, it has become routine that diners at its public dining areas, commonly referred to variously as Foodcourts, Hawker Centres and Coffee Shops, expect cleaners engaged by these Foodcourts to do the dirty work, i.e. clear the dishes and collect the cups from the tables so that it can be occupied by the next diner. After all, doesn't the price of the food already include these cleaning services? Singaporeans, you see, are very pragmatic people, and they can count.

But now, there are increasing calls for diners to do the cleaning up themselves. Some have questioned whether this is fair as the price of the food probably already includes the cleaning services. Paid for or not, another group of people feel that it is gracious for each and every one of us to do the cleaning up. In principle, I agree. But in practice, we are not equipped to do so, much as we want to do so. And I am not trying to give any excuse. Just look at these 2 pictures which I snapped the other day. The previous diner just left the remains of his meal on the table expecting that someone else will clean it up. They didn't bother to pick them up to at least put them into the plate so that it can be cleared quickly, easily and cleanly. I thought it would have been more sensible if they had at least put the remains into the plate or bowl so that the next person can just clear the plate without having to handle the leftover food, if they don't clear the plates themselves, i.e. Restaurants such as McDonalds make it even more convenient for us to do this with the trays and bins. But even then, people just bring their bad habits from the foodcourts to the restaurants.

 So long as these bad habits persist, it is going to be a tough sell to get people to clean up the tables.

Clearly building return trays and pumping out messages isn't going to be enough. The problems really lies with ourselves. It is a habit of the mind. Do we ever really think of the person who will next occupy our seats? If they did, they wouldn't have left all that crap behind. Do they ever think that the mostly elderly cleaners can do with a little bit of help with less messy eating habits on our part, never mind that they are paid to do the cleaning? What if that elderly cleaner were your mother, or father?

So a first step towards cleaning after yourself and thus being more gracious is to get people to leave their tables in a more "cleanable" state. Fine if you want to leave something for the cleaners to clean so that they won't lose their jobs. It just doesn't take us a  lot to have cleaner eating habits, does it? In fact, for such a highly educated people that Singaporeans generally are, it is surprising that they do not already practise these sensible, tidy, clean yet simple habits. Maybe what it take is to set a compulsory exam question in primary school around this. This will ensure that parents take the effort and time to teach their young so that they can 'score' in these types of questions. Hopefully, parents also learn in the process of teaching these gracious habits.

The right stuff

I had a very bad experience when I visited Beijing some years ago. You see, my friend used a public toilet. We were in a place where tourists go to. I just can't recall which one that was. Anyway, she exited the toilet looking choked and on the verge of spilling her guts outs. What was the reason for this? The toilet. It was damned  damned damned (pardon the word and the emphasis) smelly. It looked ok from the outside though. I may not have used the toilet myself, but I believed her 100% when I saw the 'pain' she was in.

So toilets, dirty, messy and stinking ones, are not the preserve of Singapore. Yes, we do have them, and in a First World country that we have become, now for more than 10 years, we are damned ashamed of it. Truth be told, there are probably well kept toilets for every dirty stinky ones. In fact there are probably more than a 1:1 ratio. I would hazard that for every stinking ones, there are probably 2 well maintained ones. If you lived in Singapore, like me, you might not agree. Perhaps I don't visit public toilets all that often nowadays, at least not those in our hawker centres. I'd use the ones in the shopping malls, which if you consider the prices that shops there charge for their merchandise, you sort of expect better treatment in their loos.

Now Singapore is considering building more hawkers centres that will not be parceled out to commercial operators such as Kopitiam and Koufu to operate. Hooray! Lower prices of food, but I hope that the toilets would be 21st century quality also. Or are our designers of our new generation hawkers centres going to retain this aspect of our dirty toilets, for nostalgia's sake? Nooo, social enterprises will be running these places, surely they are more socially conscious and will have a heart not to cause a person to retch upon existing that most essential of places?

But who know? There's nothing like nostalgia.

The Young and Old Ones

I am now sitting in a cafe restaurant having a late afternoon lunch. In the background, on the loudspeakers, I hear Cliff Richard singing "The Young Ones" - a song recorded in 1962, ohh,,,47 years ago. The lighting is somewhat dim, giving you a cosy feeling as you await lunch that your significant other is getting. There are a smattering of youngsters hunched over their books and notes, no doubt preparing for their exams. These exams are held around this time of the year. Never mind, the restaurant has many unfilled seats. Better to look somewhat filled than have an empty restaurant. It is, after all, 3pm. The lunch crowd has thinned and the dinner crowd is not due till 6pm, or later.

I wondered how many in the restaurant knew Cliff Richard, or how old this song really is. It probably pre-dates the year that many in the restaurant were born. It certainly pre-dates mine, if only by a year. Certainly those young people behind the service counters also fall into this group. Has the young really changed all these many years since, the so called Gen Y? They seem to be enjoying this tune, the same tune that their parents danced to in their youth. I don't know what Cliff Richard's generation is called. They represented the baby boomer generation after World War II. Gen A perhaps? Much has been made of how the Gen Y are a different breed today, the incessant connectedness on Facebook, Twitter, Blogs and, of course, their SMS via Handphones. These gadgets weren't there for the Gen As, perhaps for the Gen X, but not as pervasive as today's youth. However the change, "The Young Ones" remains evergreen.

Which raises the question, that at heart, are the Gen Y really different? The last General Election seems to suggest that the government needs to engage the young ones more, that more young people are needed in politics and government. The disaster for them, of course, is to find someone as young as Ms Tin Pei Ling , only 27 years old, keyed into the consumer-oriented culture of the young, such as hugging a Kate Spade bag. She stood for the General Elections and won, albeit through a back door. There was immediate calls for her to be sacked because many people felt that she is undeserving. But are these young ones all the same? Not really. One doesn't need to look far. Nicole Seah, only 24, spoke with conviction and maturity well beyond her years, and consigned her team mates to playing second fiddle to her, people old enough to be her parents.

So it is not the young ones. Rather, its is the conviction, the imagination and the creativity, young or old, Nicole Seah and George Yeo, that really matters. Let's not swing from a lost end to solely the young generation, only to lose the older generation, in time to come. Surely MM Lee and SM Goh's admonition to "always have in mind the interest of the older generation...the generation who has contributed to Singapore must be well-looked after" bears remembering. For after all that is said and done, we are one big family, young or old, Gen A or Gen Y.

Encore!

A time and a season

Eat with Your Family Day. I hadn't notice there there is such as day, even though, from what I read, this started out in 2003. And it isn't because I wasn't a father 7 years ago. I was one and still am. But perhaps it hadn't been publicized enough to catch my attention all these years. But now that it has, I am disturbed.

What does the existence of such as day tell us about life in Singapore? Isn't having at least one meal everyday together with the family a given? You mean to tell me that having dinner with the family during the weekdays has become a rare occasion, so rare that it has to be celebrated once a year? What are we all doing during the weekdays that a family cannot sit together, particularly in the evenings, to enjoy a meal as a family? It should be a routine, so much so that it isn't anything to remark about, and certainly not something that you would think of designating a day in the year to celebrate. Yes, you celebrate birthdays, anniversaries, etc., but celebrating when a family has a meal together? Its unbelievable, and this probably can only be found in Singapore. A Google search of the term "Eat with your family day" returns only Singapore related websites! (But of course, Singapore probably wasn't where it originated).

It appears that in Singapore, this is the price we pay for our unrelenting search for progress and creature comforts. In the process, we seem to have put our families on the back burner (that's where the number of kids issue comes in - see my last post). So OK, some say that's a fact of life, but can't we even spend one weekday having a meal together as a family? If the answer is yes, then this "Eat with Your Family Day" (EWYFD) is superfluous. Probably good for the restaurant business, but superfluous. If not, we have lost the meaning of life and love. Some would say, we have lost our souls. We have become nothing more than a production line worker churning out the next productivity statistic.

People talk about Work-Life balance. Going by the mere existence of EWYFD, we know that its basically all talk. Surely the proponents of Work-Life balance did not have EWYFD in mine as an objective?

My call to all Singaporeans is this: when the clocks strikes 6pm (or whenever your stated end of the day working hour may be), leave the office promptly and head home immediately. If the boss casts a disapproving  eye at you, wave goodbye in return. And if your colleagues look perturbed, show them the clock and remind them that they have an equally, if not more, important obligation to the family. Better yet, time the air-conditioner to shut off  at the end of the workday hour. Any boss that penalizes sensible action should be hung out as bad examples. We shouldn't want to celebrate organisations that are family-friendly. It is more important to highlight those that are anti-social family-unfriendly, if only to show them the error of their ways. There is no end to making money. But, like wise King Solomon said, there is a time and season for everything.

Desire

There are many objects of desire nowadays. Witness the crowds at Electronics and Computer shows. It is common for these shows to take up 3 - 4 levels of a convention centre, specifically the Suntec City. Chief among these objects of desire is the cousin of the wildly successful Apple iPhone - the iPad. It is not available  yet, commercially, in Singapore but a friend of mine had brought it in and I had my first touch and feel of the device yesterday. My immediate impression was that, like all Apple products, it was beautiful. There is only one colour - white. Add in the gloss and the contours and you have a winner on your hands. No wonder Apple has sold a million of these devices within a month of its launch. It felt heavy at first lift and your arms will tire after some time. This is probably more pronounced for the fairer sex. 

There was free wifi signals around and the iPad just took to it, without any fuss on set up. Actually when the device was handed to me for a spin, it was already on wifi. I was surfing the web as if it was the most natural thing for this device. I didn't test how long the battery would last, but was told that it had a pretty good use-time.

Text characters were big enough to read an e-Book very comfortably. It had a useful zoom function to enlarge or reduce the size of what you are reading, with all the intuitive touch-screen navigation that is the hallmarrk of Apple products, and in particular the iPhone. Actually, the iPad is a bigger version, size-wise, of the iPhone - the same styling, the same feel, the same user interface, the same touch interface, the same buttons (there is only one). So if you have not laid your hands on a iPad, but you have and iPhone, just imagine your iPhone with a bigger screen, a heavier feel and probably longer battery life. Everything else is the same, except you can't talk through an iPad, not yet in these first version devices. 

Hmmm, as Will Smith would say, I must get me one of these. But I was told to wait for the next generation 3-G version. But truth be told, the one I had on my hands was probably good enough. But it isn't cheap. I was told that it is going for S$1,500 now in Singapore, and maybe even more depending on how much you are willing to pay. Compare that to the US$499 price of a basic iPad in the US...

OK, I'll wait.

Do your math

I am alarmed to read in MyPaper (22 April 2010) that some of our local undergraduates are taking anti-sleep pills to force themselves to stay awake. Why are they doing this? Well, according to the report, these undergraduates need the time not only to study, but they also need it to attend to businesses that they are running at the same time. The report doesn't say what these businesses are, but the impression given is that these businesses are not part time pursuits meant to defray livings costs and school fees, etc., something which is quite common in tertiary level education. Rather, the impression is that these businesses are serious enough to be careers in the making. The focus appears to be to build a business that will generate a steady income (lots of it too) by the time these young people turn 30. That's when they say they will stop the sleep-reducing drug and lead a more normal life, while enjoying the fruits of the sleep-deprived labour.

It isn't wrong to have ambitions early in life, and it isn't wrong to want the good material things in life early either. But when that is the overriding consideration, at the risk of long term damage to one's health, then you really need to reflect on what you are doing. Young people, they always think they can live forever and they throw caution to the wind. They should remember what a wise man once said. Paraphrasing him, "What does it profit a man if he should gain the whole world and loses his own life/health?"

Young man, there is yet time to 'make it', but don't die making it now. The Mathematics just doesn't add up.

Toss of Fortune

Today is yuan xiao, the last day of the Chinese Lunar New Year celebrations. The Chinese put aside 15 days of every year to celebrate its New Year, and it is universally practiced, wherever the Chinese are.

And in true Chinese fashion, food figures extensively in these celebrations. In Singapores, droves of Chinese families, including mine, headed for our favourite dining haunts, whether it is to a traditional Chinese restaurant, or to a Western restaurant servings potatoes and steaks, or to a Japanese sushi joint, or even an Italian restaurant. You name it, in Singapore, we have it.  The Chinese in Singapore is a cosmopolitan lot.

But what marred the evening for me was the unending stream of people who came by the particular restaurant I was queueing up at buying take-away yusheng, that Chinese salad mix of raw fish, syrup, nuts and possibly 8 types of vegetables. I was about to say 'herbs and spices' but there really isn't much of it in this concoction, except Chinese pepper powder. The restaurant was kept so busy that I had to wait about 45 minutes before I could get a seat in the restaurant. I warned my partner not to order the dish as I knew that she was a salad junkie, even at $38.80 a pop!

Truth be told, this salad concoction is anything but traditional. It only became fashionable (yes, that's the right word to use) in the last 10 years or so, and in keeping with the occasion, it goes for $18.88 to $1,888 (and then some) depending on the serving size, and I suppose the type of fish and the brand name. The Chinese believe that taking this salad-like concoction will bring them good luck, good fortune, good health, etc. etc. when you, together with the family and friends, 'toss' the salad and mix in the raw fish, communal fashion, and chant 'God of Fortune, bring good wealth, good health, good fortune, money money money...' (you can sing the money part to the tune made famous by ABBA). The Chinese, they are crazy, about money!

Well, to me, the only people this concoction benefit are the sellers. The sellees, uh, buyers, are the fools. When ever has the toss of salad and fish ever brought anything good each year? Establishing the correlation is, at best, pseudo-science, at worse, it is no more than shamanism. Ok, I am mixing up culture and language, but you get what I mean, right? And yet, however shrewed the Chinese are reputed to be when it comes to making a buck, they just burn up their money, very willingly I assure you, at the very next turn that yusheng is sold. Really, only one type of people (and it need not be Chinese) who are assured of a fortune in plying this dish are the restaurants, who just cannot keep up with the orders from the long queues that do not stop forming up outside their shops. It is at these time that one dreams of owning a restaurant, preferably a Chinese restaurant. The money is so easy when you have an army of gullible and foolish queuees in front of your restaurant. Heck, even the Supermarkets have jumped on the bandwagon and hawk these concoctions, making tonnes of money in the process.

For the rest of us, may what we have tossed for come true. If not, there is always the next Chinese New Year to toss again. You did ask to live at least another year in your toss, didn't you?

I hope then to be the seller, not the sellee.

The voices of the few

If there is one thing about Singapore above all else, it must be the raw efficiency of the place, and I don't mean that in a positive manner. Take for example the night market in Changi Village. It has reportedly ceased operations from 19th December 2009, after being there for well over a year. And the reasons given for the forced closure?

1. Visitors' vehicles are parked indiscriminately along the short and narrow roads, thus contributing to congestion. The question is, how come it took all of 18 months to effect the solution (i.e. close the night market). Was the problem that serious? And I thought the obvious solution rather is to issue parking tickets, not close the market? You'd apply ointment to a wounded finger, not chop it off? But the local Singapore authorities can be ruthless and efficient, if a little late. Just chop off the damn thing!

2. Shopkeepers complain that businesses is being taken away from them. Question: ditto above. How come it took all of 18 months to bleed business before the solution (i.e. close the night market) was implemented? (NB: Shopkeepers that the press spoke to insist that the night market has actually been GOOD for their businesses, having driven human traffic to that sleepy corner of the island.) So who/which businesses complained? How many of them?

So the one big mystery that is begging an answer: Why was the night market shut down? What exactly was the complaint? What has been done in the last one year to address the complaints before it was decided that this drastic action was the only solution? 

Transparency on this island? Hardly.

I used to visit this part of the island. Sadly, there is one less reason to do so now.

Ballshit

Here we go again. This time, the really big one, the mother of all ball games - the 2010 Fifa World Cup South Africa next year, no less. (Sheesh, that phrase is trademarked). What event can be bigger than that for a world crazy about 11x2 (minus the occasional red carded) people kicking an inflated rubber ball around a rectangular field?

And to fit the size of the event, Fifa, the world football governing body, has seen fit to extract that pound of flesh from the very people that give life to this activity. In Singapore, the main broadcast providers, Singtel and Starhub, have very sensibly colluded to get the best deal they can from the licensing people in Fifa. Yet even this collusion might not guarantee a sensible price at which armchair footballers might be willing to cough up. I hear that Fifa is expecting everyone to serve up an arm and a leg for the rights to broadcast the World Cup matches. Talk about profiteering. The price for watching club football in Britain's EPL is bad enough. They routinely also extract that pound of flesh for broadcast rights, which football crazy fans so willingly offer on the altar of the mother of all balls. I suppose Fifa has wised up to the game and wants in too. The colour of money excites more than balls, stupid! What they will do with that money is beyond me. Maybe fly first class to any and all meetings around the world to start with. They say money corrupts. Are we witnessing the beginning of the fall of soccer once the greed sets into every part (read: people) of the game? Well, ok, they did SAY they will donate the proceeds, but when you cause pain to countless so that you can appear generous to some...I am not so sure where the charitable spirit lies...(Hmmm...I wonder if Fifa's accounts are audited, and if so, by whom?)

Many say soccer is the beautiful game. Well, I agree. Its a beautifully 'green' game, and I don't mean environmentally friendly. I can see where some people can spot the beauty in the game. Soon the officials will be so swamp with the cash that they wouldn't even care what a ball looks like, or care if it is made of bullshit, much less what to do with it (handle it? - yeah this is accepted in FOOTball nowadays - the rote has set in, led by some of the world's best footballers like Diego Maradona and Thierry Henri, who win matches with their hands, whether sanctioned by God or not).

So when this happens, people will be knocked to their senses to see how they have been fooled all these many years into coughing up blood money to people who just kick a ball (and handle it once a while) and people who just organise these kicking ballfests.

Have the rest of us humans become so dumb that we willlingly let others swindle us in broad daylight? Yeah, blame the balls.

Home on the net

This posting is not about life in Singapore. Its about life not in Singapore and the contrasts that it brought, at least as far as accessing the internet is concerned. You see, I have been away for slightly less than 2 weeks in Shanghai, and had thought that I could be connected to the internet and blogging and all, just like what I do in Singapore. I had been to Shanghai 2 years ago, and know for a fact that most hotels provide free broadband internet access. What's more, there is my spanking new netbook that will make the whole thing effortless, especially when it comes to lugging it around in my carry-on luggage.

So, yes, I was connected. All I had to do was to plug in the network cable into my computer and wallah, I am connected, or so I thought. The problem with China, even now, with its liberal capitalist approach in big cities such as Shanghai, is that it censors internet access to websites with a heavy hand. Popular websites such as Facebook and Blogspot cannot be accessed at all in China, or at least using the hotel broadbands in both hotels that I stayed in. Yes, I could not access any of my blogspot blogs!

Mercifully, though, I could access e-mail websites such as Yahoo, Gmail and Microsoft's Live.com. Otherwise, I would have been cut off from the rest of the world while in China, which had been the case before the 1980s, before Deng Xiaoping instituted his Black-cat-White-cat brand of pragmatism that has propelled its economy in leaps and bounds over the last 30 years. On the other hand, any website with the .cn country domain name (i.e. China for those of you who are clueless), such as baidu.com.cn, loaded extremely fast, with zero or near zero latency. Talk about favouritism!

So here I was, missing all the blogs and blogging and thus cut off from life in Singaore. My schedule was busy, and I didn't have ready access to printed news of Singapore, except perhaps to todayonline.com, Today's online newspaper, which I had delivered to my e-mail account. Curiously though, I never opened it up to read. I was more interested in chatting with people back home and then hitting the sack, so tired I was after a day's activities.

Happily though, I experienced no withdrawal symptoms with the limited access to many internet websites I frequent back in Singapore. And so I had a semi-voluntary news blackout for this period. Now that I am back in Singapore, the latest news appears to be Ms Singapore World, and yes, the F1 too. But the former makes for more interesting reading, though.

Glad to be back in Singapore.

Castle in the air

It was James Otis who first said that a "man's house is his castle; and whilst he is quiet, he is as well guarded as a prince in his castle...". Well, I am sad to observe that in Singapore, even the Law acknowledges that this is not necessarily true. There was a recent case where 2 people sued a man for not being dressed at all while he was in his house's kitchen. The inside of this kitchen faced a public area, and as the newspaper account went, these 2 women were walking pass it when they saw the man of the house all naked sitting in his kitchen. Their modesty was so outraged that they sued the man. The Courts agreed with the women and fined the man $2,000 for the indecent exposure and a follow-up act of agression against the same.

So now, I am very careful about being decently dressed while I am at home. All the more so as many public, and might I say also private, apartments face public wakways and other apartments' windows. I once observed that in Hong Kong apartments, you could just reach out with your hands to touch your neighbours' window. Such was the congestion and design of their houses. Nowadays you can say the same about Singapore. At least you could see clearly into someone else's apartment.

Why would anyone move around in his/her apartment dressed to the zeros (as opposed to nines, i.e.?) Well, given Singapore's hot and humid climate, this would be the most sensible thing to do, actually. Nowadays, I sweat even when I remain still, sitting on my sofa chair in the living room. Sometimes, I take off my shirt and go around the house in nothing more than a pair of shorts. How short is my shorts? Well, that is my business. But that is exactly the issue. How much or how little must you have on before you offend the modesty of some prudish women (or men for that matter) and land up in court on the opposite side of the law? Nobody is forcing anyone to look into somebody's castle...err house. You are not forced to be a kay-poh. You choose to be one. If you take a look and see a naked man or woman in the house and am offended by what you see, that is your problem. You shouldn't even contemplate taking the owner of the house to court for exposing whatever. We talk of being tolerant when religion is concerned, but we must be equally tolerant of what the master of the house chooses to do, short of committing a crime. An act of indecency you say? What is indecent to you may be common sense to another, so long as it is done in his castle.

Public love

Singaporeans, they can take things a bit too far. So when the word went out about fines beings dished out to people who were caught eating on the subway trains, I insisted that it be done on buses as well. Then people protested that drinking water should be allowed and yet others say: have pity on the babies - let them be fed (milk from a bottel, I suppose) on trains and buses.

Now there is a swing the other way. Somebody suggested that amorous behaviour on these public transport vehicles be banned. Yes, it is not uncommon to find couples smooching away on public transport nowadays, hugging, kissing, dozing of each other's shoulders, if not the chest in broad daylight with the bus/train engine at full blast, as if there are no private spaces for them to do so. But hey, why discourage the behaviour? Taxpayers have had to throw millions of dollars to get people to be amorous behind closed doors in order to up the population numbers. Why don't we just let people go about their courting habits in full public view? It's their choice, really. If they don't mind being watched, I don't mind watching either.

Well, its an Asian thing, some say. Not very prim and proper. Some people are very sensitive to these things. Well, let me say that unless you are the parent, you have no business stopping them, unless they begin to take their clothes off in the process of their smooching. Otherwise, what is so bad about seeing two people expressing affection for each other? There's hope for mankind yet when there is love, whether its in the privacy of their spaces or in the publicity of the bus.

So boys and girls, keep doing it. God knows how life is so stressful nowadays without somebody telling us to sit straight and not even hold your partners' hands while you sit side by side on the bus, or the train.

A fine society

Eating on the MRT (subway trains) and be fined $30? I say, fine them $500 - the amount that is applied ever since I was a kid. Don't you fine it ironic that 30 years ago, it was $500 and today, when Singaporeans are more affluent, you fine them as measly $30? It would solve the problem immediately. Otherwise, it'll be like the case of the guy, who was fined $1,500 recently, retorting that it was JUST ONLY that amount, that he could afford it, that it was no big deal. And why just only the MRT? Just the other day, there was a whiff of ham and cheesey smell when I was on a bus travelling home. Lo and behold, the teenage girl sitting just in front of my seat was eating away, oblivious of the aroma. Well, ok, the food smelled good, but what of noses that are less appreciative of the smell of ham and cheese, or what if she was eating something more, err, exotic? And this isn't the first time. Slightly more than two years ago, I captured on my HP camera a picture of a teenager eating away on a subway train and blogged how I noticed more and more people eating away on MRT trains. Well, it about time SMRT did something about this anti-social behaviour.

Yes, Singaporeans have become more affluent, and with it has gone the social graces that we lament about nowadays. I don't know if it is due to the lifestyle - that we need to fill in every waking hour of the day doing something besides looking out the window of life passing by on a bus or a train. But there is a good reason why food and drinks are not allowed, just as it is forbidden in offices and some other places, except canteens and restaurants. Food left behind in these places, whether intentionally or unintentionally, attracts creepy crawly vermints that can destroy things, besides scaring some people, especially the fairer sex, out of their wits. I know because I have to prepare to carry my wife when such creatures appear.

There are certain things that were done better in the past than now. How about it - lets up the fine to $500. That'll not only stop the littering, but the bugs will also stop appearing. Ahhh....heaven on earth.

RIP

The die has been recast, and the new has become the old and the old the new. AWARE members, many of whom just joined, voted collectively that they want the old AWARE back. The former new have bowed to the will of the majority who voted. Hopefully, we will see the end of this saga which has gripped the nation, young and old, male and female. It was perhaps a good distraction from the constant flow of bad news about the economy. Perhaps it is also timely because we now have to face a potentially deadly enemy - the Influenza A (H1N1) virus, which Singapore is trying its hardest to deny entry to our shores.

Unfortunately, there are hints of the continuing feud amid the threat of a lawsuite, as if the threat against people's lives earlier is not enough. I applaud the new old AWARE committee members, who were brave enough to take up a cause they believed in. Nobody can take that away from them. One may disagree vehemently with their way of going about the whole thing, but through it all, I think they succeeded in drawing much attention to the issue of homosexuality education in Singapore schools. The MOE is looking into this. They may find nothing wrong with AWARE's programme (why would they want to be found with pies on their faces?), but these programmes will face greater scrutiny now from the public, not only from Christians, but from the conservatives among us. And these include Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists and even the religiously non-committed, especially those with school-going kids. No one can ever be neutral on this matter.

The Other Page

The AWARE saga has been a long-running one, often characterised, not by women against women, but by sex against sex. For some, it is secularists against Christianity, although there are people of other religions who are just as concerned by the issues - specifically, homosexuality, raised by this group of Christians who now form the core committee of AWARE.

For more than 4 weeks (the whole thing started on 28 March 2009), the issues and personalities have hee'd-and-haw'd. The wounded party - the old guard raising the most voice, if only because the new guard has been inexplicably silent most of the time. This has given occasion for diverse parties to cast aspersions on the valiant new guard who were willing to take action according to their convictions. Even the government has weighed in, warning off would-be religionists (aka Christians) mixing religion with politics.

The wonder of it all is that the voice of the majority has been deafeningly silent. Take a poll and you would probably find that more people in Singapore are against homosexual practices, yet it is the supporters of homosexuality, the old guard of AWARE, for example, that seem to be speaking for the majority. Yes, perhaps people are offended by the way the new guard 'took over' AWARE. If it hasn't been noticed, it was done democratically, according to the rules that the State (the ROC /ACRA ) stipulates, cuts no ice. I can understand. When a rug is pulled under you, you wouldn't stretch out a hand to the 'pullees'. The press hasn't helped either. It is repeatedly using emotive words like 'takeover', "a coup", 'militants', ad-nauseam.

Now religious figures have appeared too, in spite of the point made repeatedly for religions to stay out. But well, I suppose some people think that religion is important in the whole scheme of things. But of course, religious figures are trying to moderate the fight, but in doing so, I wonder if they are not taking a stand themselves?

For me, I don't even have to bring religion into this whole thing in order to express an opinion. Homosexuality is wrong, period. Many people seem to have forgotten how AIDS came about. AIDS is still with us, and it is still incurable, and it is still transmitted via unsafe and unnatural sex practices. Now I believe that any behaviour that puts at risk another's life is wrong, just as you would haul a person to court for trafficking in narcotics. Singapore law even mandates the dead penalty for such people. You may agree or disagree with the death penalty, but in Singapore, it would appear that more rather than less agree with it. And it does seem to be the case that more disagree with homosexuality than those that do, at least in Singapore.

So why are we lambasting those ladies who have the courage of their convictions?

A coin has two sides

The blogging community started the buzz, the mainstream print media picked it up and it went all the way to Parliament. This is really a reversal of rolls. Usually, news starts with what is said in Parliament, gets reported in the print and/or broadcast media and then dissipates in the blogging community where everyone weighs in which his/her 2 cents worth. But the story really started innocuously enough in the print media when the subject of interest wrote an article for the Straits Times.

Of course, I am referring to Singapore Permanent Secretary Tay Yong Soon's ill-advised column on his family and his 5-month trip to Paris where they attended a cooking class $15,000 a pop, totaling S$45,000. For this amount of money, you could be enrolled in a full-fledge degree course, or even a master's degree course at SIM University. This is conspicuous consumption of the highest order, although one cannot deny that the PS is just following official policy to learn new skills to remain employable. Thus, before we jump to the conclusion that the PS has indulged himself and his family, we should let him explain.

And from all accounts thus far, the PS appears to be a decent chap. The only error he made was talk to the press about his trip and have it written up. Really, if he has the means to get a top-notch lesson in cooking that costs a bomb, that's his prerogative. There are many others who spent a fortune indulging in their hobbies, so why begrudge a man his pleasures? And he did it with his family, so that's really a good thing. Nothing like family bonding around the fireplace, albeit a costly one.

But chatter on the internet, in blog gossips and such, these are often merciless, subjective and shorn of any mitigating information. Merciless is the keyword here. It does not matter if you are a good man, a generous man, a charitable man. Once you are 'caught', you're toast. So what's the lesson here?

1. Be careful when you talk to the Press.
2. Apologise to show humility, not that you are in the wrong (Good for you, Mr Tay)
3. Don't defend yourself, let others do it for you (his colleagues' comments spoke volumes for him).
4. Be a good boss - the goodwill will be returned in spades later
5. Take internet chatter with a pinch of the salt. (Look, we are not trained journalists, just chatterboxes, sometimes equal to the best auntie gossipers you can find in a market any day)
6. Ignore internet savvy auntie gossipers at your own peril
7. Write for the Press at your own peril. Worst if you are a civil servant

The Old and the New

The New Year in Singapore brings something good and something not so good, depending on who you are. First the good news (why must the bad always come first?).

The ban on smoking has now been extended to cover all multi-storey and basement car parks. Why couldn't they include open air car parks too? After all, trees in open air car parks need carbon dioxide, not carbon monoxide. Help save the tree, dammit! But then again, we don't want smokers to have to rent a boat out to sea to smoke, right? Let's remain compassionate. Anyway, they can't smoke in non-aircon public buildings either (that's what the authorities mean when they state Shopping Centres, right?). Lift lobbies, markets, playgrounds and exercise areas (which I take to include all path for walking and running (hey, walking is a form of exercise too) are included too. And oh, anywhere within 5 metres of the entrances and exits of buildings are no-no-land. I suppose that means that you can lean on or hug the walls of these buildings and smoke away happily. This extension of the banned areas is good news for non-smokers, bad for smokers. Now will they stop smoking? No, they'd rather go onto the roads 5 metres away from the buildings and add vehicle exhaust fumes to their cigs smoke. That will mean more will contract lung cancer and whatever other ailments related to pumping smoke into your lungs on a regular basis. Certainly bad news for smokers, which leads to the bad bad news below.

The bad news? The government is going to charge more for B and C class wards in its Hospitals. That's what means testing leads to, generally - unless you are dead broke. Between the two - being dead broke and having the means, the choice is clear - be broke, but don't let anyone find out that you are broke in name only. Like someone who moved millions to dollars to HK SAR and went to jail for it. Singapore's laws are just as tough, if not more so.

So the upshot is, if you smoke, don't be rich. Otherwise, you'll have to pay through your nose, pun not intended.

Otherwise, have a Happy New Year.


Image: morgueFile.com. Author: Pedro Jose Perez

Messing up

It just won't work. I wish it would and look forward to the day that it becomes a part of our lives. But it wouldn't work in today's Singapore. It could have worked perhaps 20, 30 years ago when social behaviour was highly prescribed, tightly controlled and vigourously enforced. Not today. We are more enlightened, grown up and can make our own decision and choices. Ironically, that also means that we can choose not to return or clear our food utensils and trays after a meal in a cooked food centre, variously referred to also as a Hawker Centre, Eating House and Foodcourt. Fastfood Restaurants such as McDonalds, KFC and Long John Silvers are no exceptions.

But this is exactly what Straits Times editor, Mr Han Fook Kwang, wishes to see - a more gracious Singapore where people clean up after themselves - not just in the loo, though that is something that needs working at - but at the tables in these food centres. Anyone who arrives at these eating establishments hopes to find an empty table which they can plonk down on and start ordering their meals immediately. Nobody wants to have to wait for the tables to be cleared of the debris left over from the last occupier of the table, and less so if the last occupier was a messy diner. Nobody wants to clear the mess themselve either. They simply choose a cleaner table or worse, walk away to another more inviting eating place. Right now, all of these eating places engage cleaners who walk around the place the whole day cleaning up after every diner, and I mean every diner. That is because even if one doesn't mind doing the cleanup, we'd leave it to the cleaners who can do a better job, really.

You see, it has become established practice that tables are to be cleared by paid cleaners, as much as our household trash is to be carted away by the trashman in their trash-trucks. The reasoning is that the cost of the meal already includes this service, so it would be nothing short of moronic to do what you have already paid someone else to do. But removing these cleaners will not do either because the trash on tables will begin piling up and, given the cost of food nowadays, no diner will volunteer their cleaning services. That's why paid cleaners came into the picture in the first place. It has become a circular thing, no?

Some have been inspired to suggest that you should make the students in Primary, Secondary and Tertiary institutions do this first - i.e. clear the tables themselves after a meal. The logic is that once these students have imbibed the habit, they will naturally carry over this habit outside of school. I am not that optimistic about this approach for the reasons already stated earlier. Further, these new adults do not want to appear kiddy to others by bucking the adult practice of returning trays in public eating places. In fact, not returning trays can be seen to be an 'adult' thing. Its just like saying the National Pledge and singing Majulah Singapura. You don't do that everyday after leaving school. Some even do not want to be seen doing that. So it wouldn't work.

Let's have a compromise. The one thing that irritates me more than anything in an eating place is when diners leave behind a table that looks as if a rat has rummaged through the leftover food. It looks like a hell of a mess with fish bones, curry, used tissue paper, etc. lying all over the table. I don't understand how and why people eat like that. Granted you can't ask them to swallow the bones and lick the curry off the tables and pocket their soiled tissue paper for disposal elsewhere, but they could have started by practising considerate clean eating habits. Get an empty bowl/plate to desposit the leftovers, or if non is available, use a tissue paper or two which is always available, if nothing, to 'chop' seats, from your own pocket. If you spill curry on the table, wipe it off with the paper and deposit it in the empty bowl, plate or cup which you have eaten or drank from.

This way, it makes it easy for yourself or anyone who comes after, to clear the table without the help of a professional cleaner. Yes, the cleaner will lose his job, but if this is what we want as a gracious society, then too bad. I did mention that is is a compromise solution, right?

Image source: morgueFile.com. Author: Anita Patterson Peppers