Month: August 2004

It should be made a biological law that words that are meant to be spoken should run a marathon round the brains first.

Often, people speak without “thinking” and end up making fools of themselves or worse, nuisance of themselves. In truth, as human beings, we are supposed to be blessed with the faculties for thinking. In fact, if we don’t think, we won’t be able to profess our views, thoughts and emotions.

But there exists a species of beings who have rockets in place of mouths. Meaning, they shoot their mouths off, spewing garbage that are not worth responding to. Sometimes, these words are meant to belittle, spite, rib or anger. And sometimes, they are spoken without such malicious intentions but come out meaning the same anyway.

You can laugh it off as childishness, immaturity, impetuousness but really, these are just excuses. If you can’t contribute much with the words that you say, you should just keep your mouth shut until you learn the responsibility that comes along with communication.

Somewhere on this sunny, little island lives a cluster of repressed and uptight Singaporeans.

They frown at anything that is deviant from their Confucian and Chinese upbringing, shake their heads at the sort of music and media that the younger generation at indulging in and believe that they are right in whatever they say and do because they have eaten more salt than the rice consumed by youths (a typical Chinese saying).

This morning, I read, with an equal mix of incredulity and amusement, a forum letter in the Straits Times, in which the writer questioned the decision to air Sex and the City.

“In almost every episode of the popular TV programme Sex And The City, sexual behaviour such as oral sex is portrayed as permissible and acceptable, in public or private.

Since unnatural sex is still illegal in Singapore, why does the censor permit the screening of Sex And The City which advocates such questionable behaviour?”

The writer must have been living in the dark ages.

The debate regarding Sex and the City has been voraciously argued and regurgitated many times before. There will always be those who support the show and detractors who think that it is immoral and hence, not suitable for television. The Censorship Review Committee subsequently decided that in order to facilitate an open society, shows like SATC should be shown. Citizens should not be molly-coddled and should have the right to decide what they want to watch.

Quite rightly so, too.
The writer, by dismissing the show in such offhand manner, has totally missed the point.

Firstly, SATC does not advocate sexual behaviour. It is merely reflecting the lives of cosmopolitan women living in New York City. I am wondering if the writer would have been so offended had the show been about four men leading the lives of debauchery.

Secondly, the themes underlying SATC is more than just sex, sex, sex. It is about love, life and friendship. It examines issues like marriage, old age, death, illnesses among many others.

Thirdly, the show is aired at 10.30pm on a weekday night, on cable television. Not all Singaporeans have the luxury of a television and not all television-watchers have cable. If the writer is offended by it, he can simply not watch it. If he is afraid that children might be exposed to it, then isn’t the onus on their parents to make sure that their children are not up at 10.30pm on a weekday night watching cable television? Just because he does not think it suitable for him does not mean that it is not suitable for the rest of Singaporean adults.

Already, we have to be contented with what little ground the Government has ceded us. While SATC is allowed to be aired, this decision came with many restrictions. It can be frustrating to watch the show sometimes because of the censoring of nudity (even scenes of breast-feeding has been snipped) and vulgarities.

Come on, get a grip.
This is the 21st century, not the 18th.
A little sex won’t kill us or transform us into amoral nymphomaniacs who are getting it on every minute of the day, in every location possible.

On second thought, maybe the latter won’t be such a bad idea, what with low birth rates and all. Hmm.

In less than 24 hours, the current chapter of Singapore would conclude, making way for a brand new one. The baton would be passed and a new leadership would emerge.

Sure, it’s been 14 years in making but it doesn’t make this any less exciting. And a little surreal.

Back in 1990, when PM Goh was sworn in as the prime minister, I was but a wee kid in awe of SM Lee Kuan Yew. SM Lee was, and still is, my hero because I truly believe that without him, there will be no Singapore. I didn’t know much about PM Goh and the subsequent flash election that he called. I went on my way in life.

Over the past 14 years, Singapore faced battle after battle. From the 1997 shock economy crash, to the horrors of September 11 and the subsequent economic slowdown, to the wearisome quarrels with our neighbour to last year’s Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome outbreak – we have fought bravely and emerged scarred but triumphant. We owe our nation’s survival to the man steering our ship through such troubled waters, the man who did not wear the shoes of his predecessor but led the country in his own gentle yet steely manner.

We owe it to PM Goh.

I was picnicking with some friends at Tanjong Rhu on National Day and we had a teeny radio on. As we sat patiently, waiting for the fireworks display, the radio deejay announced the arrival of PM Goh. Spontaneously, we all cheered loudly for him.

And this is how we will remember his “reign” – a sweet mix of fondness and good cheer, sprinkled with some gratitude.

Tomorrow, he will relinquish the leader’s mantle to DPM Lee Hsien Loong.
It’s going to be odd not to refer to him as PM Goh but as SM Goh, just like SM Lee’s amusing transformation to MM Lee (what were they thinking of?).
But we’ll get by.

Majulah Singapura!

What’s Playing on iTunes
家 from “异想世界” by 陈洁仪

In the name of patriotism, I have just downloaded Kit Chan’s updated rendition of Home from the official NDP site.

I would like to think that despite all our grouses about our home nation, we all love Singapore underneath it all.

Although we do not have total freedom of expression, cannot buy chewing gum without registering with our IC, seldom vote because of walkovers and need to pay exorbitant taxes for our cars, this is still a great place to live in. I love the clean air, the smooth transport system, the very existence of an educational system, the efficient sanitary facilities, the crisp and green surroundings, the variety of food and so much more.

We could ask for more but really, compared to others who are battling poverty, famine and the AIDS epidemic, we are so much more fortunate.

So, what does National Day mean to you?

I am vain.
I love clothes. And shoes. And bags. And lip gloss. And shiny hair.
I spend way too much on things I don’t need but covet desperately.
But I accept that this is a universal maxim – you are woman, therefore you are vain.
It’s almost as if women are meant to be vain and particular about the way they look. It’s become a social norm, a convention, a rule.
Men?
You’d be grateful if they wash their faces with facial cleanser instead of shampoo and wear matching socks.

Well, not anymore.
The way ST looks at it, men are increasingly taking more care of their appearances, sometimes even rivaling the girls.

It’s a social horror movie acting out in front of my very eyes.
On the one hand, I wouldn’t want my man to look like he hasn’t bathed for 10 days and wears polo tees tucked into his tightly-cinched jeans, complete with NS sports shoes. No no no.
But on the other hand, I wouldn’t want him to paint his nails, wear diamonds on his earlobes (give them to me instead) and spend hundreds of dollars on shopping every month (spend them on me!), let alone go for manicures, pedicures and facials.

Scary.
Would any girl actually want to date a man who is as vain as, if not more, herself?
The fear of rejection would be too great, the feeling of not meeting up to expectations would suffocate.

Hence, it comes as a (comic) relief when a conversation with a male friend, who wishes to remain anonymous, yields the following (in his actual words):

“This is shopping, the male way.

Time spent: 3 hours. Money spent: $230″

Bravo, here’s a true Singaporean man!
He needs a girlfriend.
Any takers?

What’s Playing on iTunes
Let Down from “OK Computer” by Radiohead