do the loving ourselves

 

“IT IS ironic that with the days off for maids, employers with young children and the elderly must now have to work even harder (‘Weekly day off for maids a must from next year’; Tuesday).

Otherwise, who will do the chores and look after the children and the elderly when the maids are enjoying their days off?

My annual leave allocation will not increase, so if no one does the chores, it will only mean that the maid will have to do double the amount of work the day after her day off.”

- Chew Kum Chung (source)

 

Many foreign domestic workers are abused by Singaporeans. In order to ensure their nuts’ worth every month, the job scope of a foreign maid, more like slave, reads somewhat like this:

 

• Lick the house clean, until it is dust-free, every day. We have young children in the house.
• Prepare breakfast for, bathe and clothe the children for school. Put on their shoes too. We have to prepare and rush to the office.
• Prepare dinner for, bathe and clothe the children when they come home. Help them with their pyjamas, please.
• Fetch the children to and from school every day. Please carry the outrageously heavy school bags for them – they are only kids.
• When the son reaches the age to fulfil his military obligations, please help him carry his field bag too – poor child has a tender back.
• Sorry, we have no vacant rooms or beds for you. You have to sleep in the store room.
• Please have your meals only after the WHOLE family has finished so that you can serve us when we are having ours.
• You are not welcome to join us for trips to the cinema. When we dine in restaurants, you are welcome to feast on the leftovers. Help us feed the baby and please, keep the children in order. You know we are incompetent in looking after our own children.
• We also go for weekly dates as a couple – so please keep the children in order! Get them to do their homework! We love our weekly pleasures and do not want the parental responsibilities to get in the way.
• Oh for goodness’ sake, no mobile phones please. We will confiscate them if we catch you using it when you are supposed to do the chores.
• By the way, there is no day’s off for you. We don’t want you to have a break so that you can go shopping with your friends and maybe even hook a boyfriend. We don’t want to pay for your syphillis treatment, or your abortion.
• Remember, we are your boss. We paid peanuts for your work and we expect no monkey business!

 

Shame on Singaporeans and the very system that violates the UN Declaration of Human Rights by detaining people without trial, its fabulously totalitarian defamation laws and its maniacal tendency to criminalise people for publishing books and opinions that criticises the autocracy. Shame on the great Yale University for collaborating with the National University of Singapore to start the shamelessly named Yale-NUS liberal arts college. Liberal Arts? Are the academics and students allowed to discuss and criticise any subject under the sun, which includes the ruling regime of PAP and religion?

 

Shame on Singaporean parents. I have three very young children – and I do not employ a domestic helper. I clean my youngest boy when he poops. I bathe my two darlings every night and adore my eldest five-year-old for showering himself. All three put on their own shoes before I fetch them to the childcare. When we eat out, all three will eat by themselves, including the two-year-old who uses the spoon relatively well.

 

We enjoy company with our friends regularly. We bring our children along, yes, we DO NOT conveniently discard them at our parents’. Besides, we are simple hedonists who delight in conversation, coffee and the occasional wine at the verandah or the coffeeclub with our friends. We read, talk with each other (and with friends) and watch films instead of shopping, swinging and dancing insanely to noise for therapy. We fuck like rabbits before the children come back and have quickies after they are asleep.

 

She is my best friend and mate.

 

We, and not someone else, mother our own children, feeding, showering, clothing and loving them. Parents do not just coin up the family coffers. We are also not Clausian incarnates who conjure up iPads and iPhones at the winter solstice and then disappear until the next year. We are not PAP-taught pragmatists who pay and blame others to do the loving.

 

We do the loving ourselves.

 

Besides, Singaporeans are working their domestic workers like lonely and starved bitches on spiked leashes while they themselves whine like castrated swine about being overworked and underpaid.

 

A rabble of hypocrites and hooligans are what these middle-incomed, middle-kingdomed scrooges really are.

 

*******

 

is this the way to go?

 

“Our long-term goal is to prohibit smoking in all public places except in designated smoking areas…our aim, in collaboration with the Health Promotion Board, is to work towards a future where Singaporeans consider smoking not only detrimental to health, but also socially unacceptable.”

- Grace Fu, Senior Minister of State, Singapore

 

I am scared. Urinating-in-my-trousers scared.

 

I am fearful that a time will come in Singapore when not only the subjects of religion and the People’s Action Party are exempt from intellectual criticism (in the name of religious harmony and autocratic pseudo-democracy respectively); but also civil and social morality, which would be force-fed to the man on the street through devious propaganda and emotionalistic advertising.

 

The State cannot and should not behave like the orwellian Big Brother, dictating to its citizens what is right and wrong, moral or immoral, socially acceptable or not. To play the health card on smoking is one thing, to enforce its abstinence is another. It no longer takes the highbrow, in 21st century Singapore, to know of smoking’s deleterious health effects. Nor does it take a President’s Scholar to know the bad effects of massive caffeine consumption on the nervous system, or alcohol on the liver, or bad cholesterol on the heart.

 

It is hypocrisy to demonise tobacco while there are more Singaporeans under the addiction of Char Kway Teow, Roti Prata, Laksa and Nasi Lemak, not to mention KFC, McDonald’s and Burger King. What about alcohol, which many supposedly mature adults consume, to their mental and emotional demise?

 

Some might argue that while alcohol, caffeine and cholesterol-laden foods might harm the addicted glutton, cigarette smoke harms not only the smoker but the innocent angel who happens to be close by. It appears idiotic to notice passive smoking while blind to the numerous incidents of domestic violence, exacerbated by alcohol abuse? Or the emotional abuse of family members due to a loved one’s poor health caused by gluttony? Or for that matter – the addicted gambler who now has more opportunities to commit his dirty deed in Singapore?

 

Or even the Taoist practice of burning “hell money” incessantly during the yearly “ghost” month, which pollutes the environment (and we still talk about going eco-friendly) as well as irritates the respirary systems of many? We choose to keep silent because it is “religion” – and religion somehow escapes any form of criticism even if it harms the environment.

 

Singapore might as well ban alcohol and casinoes and all forms of fatty dishes and fast food from its shores. And even the nose-tickling and lung-churning practice of burning fake money for imaginary dead people.

 

I do not smoke. I dislike gambling. But I am addicted to coffee, and a self-professed lover of sinful Singaporean cuisine. I love lots of sex too – and fantasize about fucking multiple women in multiple exotic positions. But since I love children, and got married as a result, decadent orgies and wanton adultery will never be my portion. Sexual faithfulness to my wife was part of our marriage vows, anyhow.

 

And I reckon many Singaporeans are guilty of the same vices, and would do well not to cast the first stone by demonising smoking into something more than just an unhealthy habit.

 

*******

 

a shrewd political move?

 

Some have lauded the recent expulsion of the Hougang MP by the Workers’ Party (WP) as a brave and shrewd political move. They have “taken, boldy, the moral high ground”, to quote Nominated Member of Parliament (NMP) Eugene Tan, the assistant professor of law at the Singapore Management University.

 

The expulsion was carried out in response to a very immature Singaporean society which still holds on to very quaint ideas of public civil service and its supposed moral standards. The media cannot seem to keep their partisan hands off the poor gentleman and his personal life. It was also his mistake to remain silent amid the media silliness…he should either reaffirm his innocence, if he is, or come out in the open and confess to his indiscretions and apologise to the residents of Hougang.

 

The latter would indeed place him on the moral high ground. I will applaud him for the moral courage and the strength in humility to be transparent to the people.

 

UNLIKE the schemes of the ruling regime…which only “appears” CLEAN because they are craftier and more skilled in covering up their tracks. I always believe in the adage that there can be no senseless smoke without fire…and the disparity is so obvious for any discerning individual – the media is so quick to pick up on any rumour of moral indiscretion on the part of the political opposition but if it comes to the ruling party, ALL IS SILENT.

 

Of course, the testicle-squeezing silence can be attributed to the classic Singaporean fear of being legally sued by the ruling regime if there is any sign of criticism (think of Joshua Benjamin Jeyaretnam, Chee Soon Juan and Alan Shadrake). The capacity to sue has nothing to do with moral innocence but with resources and power, full stop.

 

We are not fooled, though. Until the day when the Internet is cruelly and senselessly censored and squashed (thank goodness for twinkles of humanity in our current PM) by the powers that be, netizens in Singapore would always be the watchdog against a government that is constantly suppressing our civil rights to free speech and expression.

 

Are Singaporeans so naive as to think that the PAP (People’s Action Party) is really that CLEAN and FREE of moral indiscretions? Have you ever wonder why the people of Singapore are in the dark when it comes to the families of the ruling regime, apart from the Lees? We are hardly acquainted with the kin of most of our parliamentarians, let alone MPs and those on the ground.

 

A very good strategy, if you ask me. If the public knows next to nothing about the personal life of their leaders, there is no way we could hold them to account for any moral indiscretion, if they exist.

 

Contrary to propaganda, the truth is really out there. In the worldwide web.

 

While there is still hope for a liberal society, and a fairly liberal internet, please traverse far and wide for the truth.

 

Before even the Internet is unjustly censored.

 

*******

 

thank the gods for singapore

 

The significant number of Singaporeans who are dissatisfied with our current government, which is really just the People’s Action Party (PAP), should ask themselves what they are really disgruntled about.

 

Many rant about the inefficient public transport (think of the recent Singapore Mass Rapid Transit fracas) and healthcare systems in our country but do not have the relevant experiences overseas to make such value judgements. Many grumble about the high costs of living but never stop to think how much costlier it is to live in Japan, London and New York. It is erroneous to make comparisons with “cheaper” places like some of our neighbours in Southeast Asia as costs of living are rather relative to the quality of living as well. Many nag on and on about the salaries of our public ministers, even after the proposed paycuts, when they do not realise how morally upright and efficient our government is when compared to governments all over the world. And why is that so? We do not believe in having a populist leadership where any joe blow can run for the top post in the land (think of the US) – political leadership has to be from among the best of the best, the cream of the crop – and such can only be acquired by good salaries.

 

Of course, service and loyalty to the country is paramount – but one has to be pragmatic about it – if a highly competent and intelligent individual can make more money and have the social privacy for his family along with it by being a CEO of a multinational company, why not? There is so much at stake by being a public servant and if the lure of a high salary compensates, why not?

 

Others murmur about the lack of social welfare but do not know how much taxation welfare countries impose on their citizens. Some moan about the prices of cars in Singapore but seem to be ignorant about the social consequences of having highly congested streets (it is already relatively crowded) in a very tiny city as Singapore.

 

And the list goes on and on.

 

Human beings can be very colour-blind, often assuming a greener pasture on the other side, when they do not have all the facts. And Singaporeans especially so, with our notorious “kiasu” and “kiasee” mentalities that make us a very selfish people.

 

It is time we stop throwing stones at our government and wonder where all this resentment comes from in the first place.

 

Besides, I cannot fathom, for the life of me, how an uncouth individual like Low Thia Kiang can be a prime minister of Singapore.

 

Eeeehh.

 

*******

 

how to pronounce your h’s and your z’s

 

Many people pay minimal attention to individual letters of the English language and hence often mispronounce them, especially here in Singapore. The letter h is one very good example of how a beautiful sound can be butchered to scream like petrified pigs dragged to the slaughter house.

 

H is “aitch” and NEVER “haitch” – please do not aspirate the huh sound.

 

Similarly, due to the dominance of the American language in our culture and especially our preschools where the “abc” song is taught – the vast majority of children these days seem to forget that the letter z reads as “ZED” and not as “ZEE”. As a child, my parents always read it as “zed” whereas my teachers mutilated it as “zee” much to my confusion.

 

As such, the word zebra is actually “ZE-bruh” and not “ZEE-bruh” (yankee) or “zee-brah” (chinglish).

 

Enough said.

 

*******

 

how to pronounce the phrase “vice versa”

 

According to the Oxford English Dictionary (OED), the phrase vice versa comes from the latin which literally means “in-turned position”. It refers to the “main items in the preceding statement turned around”.

 

The most common rendering of the first word vice by Singaporeans is “vai-see” which is remarkably off base, even though many pronunciation dictionaries start to record this anomaly as one correct way of pronouncing it.

 

The traditional ways of reading vice have always been either “vais” or “vai-suh”.

 

*******

 

how to pronounce the word “tortoise”

 

As trivial as it may seem, this animal is rather slow to catch on in Singapore, with the majority of Singaporeans mispronouncing it.

 

For most of the population, tortoise is “thaw-tees” while it should be “THAW-tuhs”. As the stress is on the first syllable, the second should have a schwa sound.

 

*******

 

a personal apologia for elegant english

 

It is almost public knowledge these days that the majority of people who study language for a living, namely linguists, spurn the notion that there is such a thing as proper English.  It is blasphemy in the religion of linguistics to mention the word standard or proper when it comes to the English language.

 

There are NO rights and wrongs – any departure from accepted norms is interesting and “proper” in itself. Many linguists today would thus argue for a “descriptive” approach to the English language, which simply means that there is no such thing as a norm or standard – but custom and wide usage or practice.

 

This very generous approach to accepting deviations and departures into what was once a generally conservative and gentlemanly language can be due to the historical fact that the English language, unlike languages like French, Italian and Spanish, does not have an “official” governing body to govern its use. There is no official “academy” of English.

 

But of course, it is this feature of the language which has allowed it to become the global lingua franca that it is today – assimilating, adapting and absorbing different cultures and dialects into its embrace.

 

Anglophones like me cheer on the English language for her progress into once unchartered territories but we also bemoan the influence of the language professionals on much of what has become adulterated and bastardised English. Well-meaning organisations like the Queen’s English Society in the UK are often the targets of ridicule and mockery, accused of trying to bring the language back into the stone age. It is no wonder that many of the young in England today cannot write, let alone speak, a single sentence of decent English.

 

Contrary to the sentiments of the British people who seems to be alone in their narcissistic admiration of broken English, the majority of the anglophone world are perturbed by the strange sounds that come out of many of their celebrities and pop stars. Not only are their accents difficult to fathom, they butcher well-established English sounds and turn them into alien gibberish. Just listen to the way superstar Cheryl Cole speaks – sometimes I wonder if she is speaking English or Hindi or a mixture of both. Comedians like Russell Brand, Ricky Gervais and Ali G can’t seem to enunciate their t’s and l’s properly.

 

Call me a pedantic prick if you must, but really, it is not just me. Thousands of Americans think so too when they listen to Cheryl Cole on the first few days she was judge on the popular reality talent programme, The X Factor USA. It took a bit of straining on the ears to get used to her. Furthermore, it is a well known fact that apart from the inhabitants of the British Isles, almost every other citizen in the English-speaking world finds some of the regional accents in Britain profoundly straining to the ear.

 

Similarly, it seems that only Singaporeans are enamoured and in love with their self-concocted brand of English, endearingly termed Singlish, with all of its glorious brokenness. We might pay lip service to the glory of Singlish out of loyalty to the tribe, but when it comes down to international diplomacy, many still wish for the leaders to be able to converse IN PROPER ENGLISH to the wider world. Many are appalled if people like Tan Kin Lian becomes president. Why not ask PM Lee Hsien Loong to make speeches in our glorious Singlish accent?

 

It wouldn’t be a very pleasant auditory experience, I can assure you.

 

All of us, regardless of our position along the prescriptive-descriptive continuum, live our daily lives based on the assumption that there is such a thing as “standard English”. Otherwise communication will break down if anyone could write or speak in any way he wishes, which is logically what the linguists are trying to say. We write emails to clients and employers with certain “rules” in mind – we do not use textspeak or slang language. We give speeches with these self-same “rules” – we do not use slang and try to minimise filler words.

 

I admit that there are several “standards” of the English language, namely the British, American, Canadian, Australian or New Zealander. And each of these, although mainly identical, have differences that are unique and very distinct. Still, all serious users of English will want to abide by these standards, no matter what they are. National newspapers will have strict guidelines on writing style for their journalists and columnists, be it grammar or spelling.

 

It is therefore my contention that there IS such a thing as proper, standard English, and that is the English, spoken or written, that one uses to communicate effectively and efficiently to a global audience in an official capacity.

 

*******

 

how to pronounce “deteriorate”

 

This is one of those words that can be somewhat slippery to pronounce, especially when one is short for time.

 

I have often heard Singaporeans skip a syllable by pronouncing it as “dee-tyoaw-rate” while it should be “di-TIUH-ruh-rate”, with the stress on the second syllable and a schwa sound on the third.

 

*******

 

how to pronounce the word “amorous”

 

I have often come across Singaporeans reading the word amorous, which means a feeling or expression of sexual or loving desire, as “uh-moh-ruhs”, which is more appropriately rendered as “AE-muh-ruhs”. The stress is on the first syllable.

 

*******

 

some more commonly mispronounced English words by Singaporeans

 

In line with the Singapore’s Speak Good English Movement (SGEM), here is a list of some more common English words that are mispronounced by Singaporeans.

 

Vehicle – “VEY-uh-cl” instead of “vee-hee-cl” (the “h” is silent)

Piano – “PIAH-noew” instead of “pee-aiy-no”

Memorable – “MAE-muh-ruh-bl” instead of “mae-moh-ruh-bl”

Industry – “IN-dus-tri” instead of “in-dahs-tree”

Premonition – “PRAE-muh-NI-shn” instead of “pree-moh-ni-shn”

Banana – “buh-NAH-nuh” and NOT “buh-NAH-NAH”!

Primarily – “PRY-muh-ri-li” instead of “pry-mae-ri-lee”

Engross – “en-GROWS” instead of “en-graws”

Ambiguity – “am-bi-GU-uh-ti” instead of “am-BI-gwuh-ti”

Variety – “vuh-RYE-uh-ti” instead of “vuh-rye-tee”

Posthumous – “POS-tiu-muhs” instead of “post-hue-muhs”

Extraordinary – “ex-STRAW-di-nuh-ri” and NOT “extra-ordinary”!

Mandatory – “MAN-duh-tri” instead of “man-day-tuh-ree”

Organism – “AWE-guh-ni-zm” and NOT “orh-gae-ni-zm”!

Foot – “fut” instead of “fooht”

Modernity – “muh-DUH-nuh-ti” instead of “maw-duh-ni-ti”

Innovative – “EE-nuh-vuh-tiv” instead of “ee-know-vay-tiv”

Combatant – “COM-buh-tuhnt” instead of “com-bae-tuhnt”

Carpenter – “CAR-puhn-tuh” and NOT “car-pen-tuh”!

Mischievous – “MIS-chiv-vus” and NOT “miss-chee-vius”!

 

Take note!

 

*******

 

the druid with the voice of god

 

 

That combination of a pair of extravagantly lush eyebrows brushed with wizened white plus a bush of gandalfish beard is familiar to millions across the world. But just in case, this druidic disposition belongs to the current Archbishop of Canterbury, the leader of the global Anglican church.

 

His name is Rowan Douglas Williams, the reluctant Welsh bishop who became modern christianity’s PR man since 2003. Seemingly introverted with a bookish demeanor, he seems more suited to academia and the local parish than as Anglicanism’s top dog. Born in Swansea, Wales and educated in both Cambridge and Oxford, he was a former Lady Margaret Professor of Divinity at Oxford from 1986 to 1991, when he was elected as Bishop of Monmouth in Wales, a post he held until his enthronement as Archbishop of Canterbury in 2003.

 

 

The man superstitiously endears himself to me, in no fault of his own, via his age – born in the same year as my father (1950) - and on the day preceding mine (14th June). He is also a gentleman of immense erudition, born in no uncertain terms to be a man of the book, which is very unlike his predecessors like George Carey and Robert Runcie. A lover of the arts and literature, Williams has also published a few collections of poetry and is functionally literate in no fewer than 11 languages!

 

But it is his spoken English that I wish to highlight.

 

If one is familiar with the numerous speeches he has made over the decade as archbishop, one will not only notice his very rich and deep voice but also the very clear and well enunciated diction. His welsh roots notwithstanding, Dr Williams is one of the VERY FEW britons who actually speak good and elegant English, despite the very idiotic atmosphere of dialectical diversity so rampant in the british isles these days. Young britons may label him as an old-fashioned Received Pronunciation speaker, but Dr Williams’ speech patterns reflect more of a “general” RP speaker than a “conservative” RP one, which is spoken by a much older generation of the upper classes. A discerning listener would be aware of his rather neutral tone, with none of the plummy affectedness of Prince Charles or even the former Professor of Poetry, Christopher Ricks or the historian, Simon Schama, both of which speak with very “exaggerated” tones (think of the stereotypical British sounds which non-british people often imitate).  

 

He is thus a very suitable role model for Singaporeans to follow, with much of our English phonetics having based on the standard Received Pronunciation model.

 

*******

 

how to pronounce the word “metabolism”

 

In view of the Speak Good English Movement (SGEM) in Singapore, here is another word commonly mispronounced by a vast majority of Singaporeans, including very educated individuals who should know better.

 

How do you read metabolism? For most Singaporeans, it is “mae-tuh-baw-li-zm”, either with no stress at all or with the stress on the third syllable. That was also what my wife insisted when I was recently commenting to her on how low my “muh-TAE-buh-li-zm” was. Until I showed her the pronunciation dictionary which vindicated me.

 

Yes. It should be “muh-TAE-buh-li-zm”, with the stress on the second syllable. The adjective, however, is rightly rendered as “mae-tuh-BAW-lik” (metabolic).

 

*******

 

parenting – singaporean style

 

The World’s Strictest Parents is one of those reality programmes on the telly that attempts to exploit real life with the chimera of reel life, this time, highlighting the “strict” parenting styles of its international participants.

 

News of this programme made its rounds on the Web locally due to the focus of one episode in the 1st season of the series of the Australian edition where the “strict” parents happened to be the Singaporean Chua family, a banker father and a supposedly “parenting coach” mother. Their own children happened to be students of some of the most elite schools in Singapore (you can make a guess there).

 

And they would be handling two “rebellious” Australian teenagers for a certain period of time, abiding by the programme’s intent of “reforming” the little rascals.

 

The programme proceeded to portray the Chua parents as fascist-like authoritative, setting out stringent rules for the teenagers as soon as they arrived. Their own two children are not exempted from their fascist dictatorship – prohibited from drinking, smoking, sleeping over at friends’ places, and having romantic relationships during their teenage years. And of course, academic results seemed to be the order of the day.

 

Singaporeans the World’s Strictest Parents?

 

So, are Singaporean parents really that screwed up in the head? Is the Chua family an accurate representative of much of Singaporean parenting in the 21st century?

 

I sincerely hope not.

 

Singapore may indeed be a very competitive and fast-paced society that begats the illusion of academic success as the sole key to happiness and success in life, but that does not mean that parents in this country have to be like sheep, uncritically being allowed to be herded to the same pasture.

 

As a victim of the same idiocy that runs through the veins of the Chua parents, I realised how much psychological damage I have received as an adult, always attempting to model my own parenting style as a protest against the monstrous dictatorship of my own father. As a child in the 1980s, my childhood was akin to that of a North Korean autocracy – even my thoughts were censored and hawked over by a patriarchal dictator. I was forbidden to read certain books (books that were critical of evangelical christianity), watch certain television programmes (drama series, crime watch, etc), listen to certain music (rock, metal, hip-hop music), wear certain kinds of clothes (I was ridiculously forbidden to wear jeans), adorn certain hairsyles, etc.

 

Having sexual thoughts and desires (which is perfectly normal for a testosterone-charged adolescent male) were anathema – masturbation was viewed as a moral evil despite my having chanced upon a stash of pornographic VHS video tapes that belonged to my father. Obviously he had been jerking off to those films.

 

The one thing I didn’t have was extracurricular tuition classes, which wasn’t the norm in those days. Besides, my academic performance was fairly good to offer no valid reason for having such classes.

 

But not so these days.

 

Sigh. There is much more to human life than achieving well in school so that one can “find a good job” in the future. And what next? To earn enough to purchase a condominium, get married, buy a car or two, have children, save enough for their education, and the cycle carries on. And then what?

 

Life is more than just school, work or material attainments. Life is more than just transient success and fleeting wealth. Life is having the time to listen and understand your loved ones, having an orgasm in the arms of your lover, giggling over some joke with your kids, having a chat over coffee and toast with your friends, watching a game of football with your buddies, playing with your children when they are still young, being their best buddy when they are older, and having a worthwhile hobby to sustain you when you have matured and the nest goes empty.

 

And if you think that you will not have done all these things when you are on your deathbed, then you have been a loser.

 

Think about it. No one on his deathbed would wish he could have worked much harder or spend more time with his boss or colleagues or getting much better grades. Most if not all would wished they had spent more time with their family and friends.

 

Perhaps listening to the wishes of a dying person is key to living a better life, here and now.

 

*******

 

a penchant for the supernatural

 

Yesterday was Hari Raya Puasa, or Eid, which is the islamic celebration which culminates from a month long period of daylight fasting and prayer. In multi-religious Singapore, Eid is a public holiday.

 

As such, the whole family was at home, and in the afternoon, I was attempting to cut open the irritatingly spiky husks of the durian when I noticed a few spots of blood on the newspapers which I laid on the kitchen floor. I thought I had accidentally cut myself. There was also stains of red fluid on my left thumb.

 

Anyhow, I was unperturbed by scratches and slight cuts and proceeded to finish the few seeds of durian, while my wife was toying with the rubic’s cube in the bedroom and the three kids roughing it out in the living room.

 

I washed up about ten minutes later and was bewildered by the lack of any wound on any part of my members. Where on earth did the spots of blood come from then? I searched in vain for any hint of a scratch, puncture mark, anything…to no avail.

 

Whatever the case might be, it was nothing to fuss about and I assumed there had to be a natural explanation for the presence of blood but the cause just eluded me.

 

Yesterday’s trivial experience made me think about some things, though.

 

Although my presuppositions were naturalistic, and my thought processes at that time seem common sensical; not many Singaporeans go through the same rational process. I realise that if indeed no apparent wound was found, there would be some people who would really assume that in some supernatural way, the “miracle” blood could be a sign from god! Or that the durian had indeed bled!

 

I know…it sounds so incredulous…but isn’t this same looniness present when people attribute natural epiphenomena such as crop circles, wood grain patterns and even coffee stains to the divine? I remember there was a monkey-like pattern in the bark of a tree a few years ago that had the chinese community in Singapore wondering – if it was a sign of the monkey god! What made me puke was when numerous incences and food offerings were erected around the tree as a sign of “respect” or worship.

 

Similar reported sightings of such “miracles” abound about Jesus or the Virgin Mary appearing in the clouds, burnt stains of toast, wood grains of cupboards and wardrobes, etc.

 

The human brain has the propensity to seek out patterns and meanings and thus even in genuine randomness, people love to presume some sense of significance, pattern and ultimate meanings (this applies on a larger scale to cosmology and human origins).

 

Some time last year I had an experience in the middle of the night which the less educated or ill informed would label as “supernatural” or “paranormal”. That evening I retired to bed in the children’s room alone, with my wife and three kids in the other room (there wasn’t enough space for all of us on the same bed – my older kids insisted on sleeping with their mom that night). I was awaken about an hour or two past midnight with fear written all over my heart. Perspiration riddled my face and my heart was pumping at a furious pace and it seemed as though someone or some presence was in the room with me.

 

I tried to get up but I was somehow “glued” to the mattress – I couldn’t move an inch. It all seemed like a child’s nightmare but it wasn’t a typical dream when one was asleep. I knew I was awake.

 

There was also voices and strangling sounds. Strange sounds that seem to be coming from the living room and it occurred to me that whoever or whatever those sounds belong to would soon be entering my room.

 

And then all of a sudden…I snapped out of it and the entire room whirled back into normalcy. The sounds dissipated and I managed to sit up on the mattress.

 

I went back to sleep. Sound as a baby.

 

Now…this same experience would be interpreted by my mom as a form of demonic oppression or “spiritual attack”. As with most evangelical christians, especially those of the charismatic and pentecostal variety, such “encounters” at night are often understood to be spiritual in nature and a demonstration of the existence of spirits and demons.

 

There are many others, most of them women, who claimed to have been “pressed down” by some forces or “demonic spirts” in the middle of the night and such experiences are also attributed to the supernatural or paranormal realm.

 

I know this is all chicken droppings. Although the experience I had that night was very “real” to me, I did not interpret it as something paranormal. In fact, such experiences can be empirically proven to be nothing more than what scientists call sleep paralysis. The human body has a remarkable way of protecting itself when it is in deep sleep – it immobilises itself – so that even in the most dramatic of dreams while in R.E.M (rapid eye movement) sleep, it doesn’t move. But of course, sometimes this mechanism malfunctions in a sense, and thus there would be some occasions when we wake up in tears or even wetting ourselves.

 

And then there is also another natural phenomenon in which we tread on the subconscious level – the layer between consciousness and deep sleep. It is this layer of experience that we sometimes feel that we are wide awake and yet hear voices or “see things” – we are in fact actually dreaming while being half awake.

 

This explains my hearing voices as well as my supposedly inability to move. This also explains the whole lot of bunk about demonic oppression at night.

 

Of course, people love to affirm the supernatural. I have offered this explanation to many folks and it seems that the superstitious or religious ones never accepted them. Not on any rational or scientific grounds, mind you. They simply prefer the supernatural explanation to the natural one as this validates their worldviews.

 

This is but the remarkable matrix that is our human brain. It creates this illusion of self consciousness and a sense of reality that is really nothing but phenomenological. It also creates this illusory sense of self apart from our bodies, and thus the idea of the human soul. But it is my personal opinion that we are our bodies and what we feel, think or behave are simply functions of our physiology, psychology and biology.

 

I think that is the truth, whether we like it or not.

 

*******

 

 

presidential election

 

The campaign trail has started for our four presidential candidates, and it would be a race against time for these men to earn the trust and faith of their fellow citizens before the 27th of this month, the day we would be going to the ballot box.

 

Unlike the US, the President of Singapore is more like a constitutional monarch, having no real ministerial authority except the supposedly “custodial” responsibility of protecting our nation’s financial reserves as well as some veto responsibilities here and there.

 

Similar to the Queen, our President acts more as a unifying figure among Singaporeans, a figure head of sorts.

 

But of course, as with all politics, much goobledygook is made about the “importance” of the President in Singapore life.

 

Really. The real authority lies in the Prime Minister and his cabinet.

 

Anyway, who should I vote for? I am kind of apathetic towards the local political scene, where I suppose it has been a once bitten-twice shy proposition for me. Singapore is one teeny weeny nation – how many competent and trustworthy leaders can we get? Honestly, a multi-party governmental system is not the way to go for our country.

 

It will just make it worse. Contrary to what all the liberal wannabes in our midst say, freedom of speech and expression (as interpreted by the liberal democratic West) will ruin Singapore and allow anarchy free reign.

 

That will not be genuine freedom for me. There has to be a middle ground somewhere. While I do not want Singapore to go the way of the draconian theocracies of the Middle East or the oppressive communism of China; I do not wish for Singapore to be like the UK, France or even the US, where strikes, protests and public rioting is common, thereby disrupting the stable and quiet life of citizens who want to have no part to play in such uncivilised troublemaking.

 

Back to our local scene. So far, all of the opposition parties that we have are useless. They are empty vessels that make white noise, nothing more. Can they really build a nation the way Lee Kuan Yew did, from “third world to the first”? Do they really have the interests of our country, our people at heart? Or do they have a liberal agenda up their sleeves, masquerading as alternative voices so as to play to the gallery of the common people who knows next to nothing about politics?

 

Hmm. Who shall I vote for?

 

For one thing, I am turned off by the poorly spoken English of Tan Kin Lian, and to a lesser degree, Tan Jee Say.

 

Besides, there is this vulgar air of “ah-seng-ism” about the former Tan, the way he wants to “challenge” the government by being the “voice of the people”. Sounds so propagandish, so unruly, so uncivilised, so crass. Perhaps as someone who is raised in an anglophone environment, I simply cannot stomach poor English speech and prose from a public figure.

 

The latter Tan, on the other hand, comes across as too young and too bullish for the post. He smells of the opposition, through and through, despite his claims that it is a nonpartisan race.

 

All in all, these two blokes do not make a dignified public figure head for me. I would feel ashamed if either of them is my president.

 

On the other hand, both Tony Tan and Tan Cheng Bock speak relatively well. Both have a quiet and dignified air about them which exudes confidence and humility. And both have a vast depth and breadth of experience in politics among themselves. This gives me security and makes me trust in them more than the former two louts.

 

I like Tony Tan for his experience and statesmanship. I like Tan Cheng Bock for his emphasis on multiculturalism.

 

Who shall I vote?

 

I’ll just wait and see.

 

*******

 

utterly shameful and a disgrace

 

 

According to this report, the majority of people in the US, especially those who call themselves Protestant Christians, don’t know what religion the Dalai Lama, who is wrapping up a two-week visit to the land of liberty, represents.

 

And for those who do, who constitutes less than half of those polled, are mainly ATHEISTS and JEWS.

 

The poll was conducted by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life.

 

I am at a loss for words. I don’t know what to say.

 

It is probably unfair for me to compare the Americans with us Singaporeans since we live in a much more culturally and religiously diverse society; but still I am all for the idea that the average Singaporean is a class more knowledgeable about current world affairs than our American counterparts.

 

With all their military and national might and power, with all their ego and individualistic spirit, it is sad to say that their beliefs about themselves seldom match up with their actual competence.

 

Americans can be very confident about themselves to the point of being almost ignorant of their actual competence. As a Singaporean Chinese I am more modest of my own abilities. In fact, I can be very brutally honest with myself – if I can’t sing, I can’t sing – I don’t pretend that I can (just watch the American Idol preliminaries every year). And I am always open to constructive criticism.

 

Americans seem to dislike people telling them that they are wrong, or weak, or incompetent (even if it is true). They seem to love listening to lies and falsehood about themselves.

 

Strange culture.

 

We Singaporeans are more like the British. We are more down to earth and perhaps more pessimistic. But then again, that is reality.

 

There was a particular year whereby the Americans came up last in an international mathematics olympiad, with the Koreans creaming the competition. But strange enough, before the results were announced, the students were surveyed regarding what they felt about their chances. The Americans were TOPS in feeling good about themselves and their chances in the olympiad; while the Koreans were at their asian best – modest and uncertain about themselves.

 

But really producing the results.

 

Shame on the Americans. And especially the evangelical Christians, among which anti-intellectualism is rampant. Back to the religious knowledge survey by PEW, it is no surprise that the atheists and jews (probably cultural jews) knew much more about their evangelical counterparts.

 

It was why they are atheists in the first place.

 

There is much about religious fundamentalism that stems from intellectual ignorance. Many evangelicals don’t know anything about the history of their own church denominations, the history of Christianity (some even think that Roman Catholicism is another religion), some basics on Christian theology (they can’t seem to articulate some of the basics of their faith such as the Incarnation of Christ, the Trinity, salvation proper, creeds and confessions, etc), how the bible was compiled, the various translations, etc.

 

And the moment they do, they will either become agnostics and atheists or progressive and liberal Christians. The evangelical psyche will not survive in the crucible of modern enlightenment thought as the very foundation of their belief system – the inerrancy of the bible – is historically, empirically and rationally untenable.

 

It is no wonder that The Free Thinker, the leading atheist magazine in the UK, called the US the “land of the dumb“.

 

*******

 

“slang” does not mean “accent”

 

It is very common to hear Singaporeans using the word “slang” to denote what they actually mean to be an “accent”. You can easily listen to comments such as “John speaks with a slang”, “what a nice slang John has”, etc.

 

The word slang does not mean “accent” at all. The Oxford Dictionary describes slang as “a type of language consisting of words and phrases that are regarded as very informal, are more common in speech than writing, and are typically restricted to a particular context or group of people”. 

 

Example:

• “Bobo shooter” is a slang term used in the Singapore military to describe someone who is a poor rifle shooter.
• “Sabo” is a Singaporean slang term for sabotage or getting someone involved in a negative way.

 

The next time you want to describe a particular style or sound that someone is speaking with, use the word “accent” instead.

 

*******

 

 

What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.

- Christopher Hitchens