.

6th Feb ’12

So I just spent the last 4 days over in Quebec, which might as well have been France. The language difference between Ontario and Quebec was a lot starker than I’d expected, and even though in my mind I’ve always known for a fact how different Quebec is, I was still quite surprised at the cultural difference when I visited Montreal and Quebec City. It really is like visiting France without the jetlag.

And what a beautiful province it is. Montreal seems so much more exciting than Toronto, even though it is smaller. Even its metro feels a lot big-cityish. Cirque du Soleil and Just for Laughs and all sorts of wonderful arty festivals are based in Montreal, and the charming Old City just felt like I was back in Europe rather than in North America.

Quebec City was even more European. In fact, it felt absolutely like what a typical Europe town would have felt like, only with a bit more English (and even then, not much – the French are the same on either side of the Pond). Went with Wilfred to visit the Old City of Quebec, as well as the Winter Carnival (supposedly the largest in the world) where we met up with Clara, Mary, and the rest. There were ice rides and maple sticks in snow, dogsled rides and ice castles, everything you’d expect.

It was a pretty good weekend trip to French Canada, and I was quite screwed because I had an important presentation on legal philosophy this morning and I obviously didn’t have time to prepare for it (it is assessed for 30% of my Legal Theory module), so I had to get up early this morning to rush it through and print handouts and all, and I’m so glad it’s over, urgh. It’s so intimidating to present on legal philosophy to a class of colleagues who are far brighter than you, and who seem to know the material far better than you. Sigh, the pains of being an undergraduate in a graduate law school.

Also, I am going to have to stop travelling this much until I get my act together, finish my readings, understand what I am actually supposed to be studying, and all. Urgh.

.

7th Feb ’12

Really good lunch session today we had up on CN Tower. A combination of great food, weather, view, company, price – what more could we have asked. Photos on Facebook.

.

11th Feb ’12
Went skiing at Blue Mountain yesterday and my whole body is aching from the muscular exercise already, haha… Never really skied before (just tried it casually in Korea and Australia), so this was practically my first time (at least without my parents telling me to stay too safe). My first run down the beginner’s slope got me crashing into the back of a young teenage girl who was swept off her feet, in front of a huge crowd of onlookers – I just couldn’t stop my descent and forgot how to brake, haha… It was so bad. So I pretty much remained on the beginner’s slope for the most part.

Eventually I knew I had to move on to the intermediate slope or I would regret not doing so when I leave Blue Mountain. Despite what it sounds like, the intermediate slope was really quite scary – it was high, steep, icy (and so slippery), and as a whole quite scary for a beginner. Took the ski lift up (that’s how high!) and went down it 3 times. Our friend Mary, a good skier from Korea, kept telling me I’m really good at it and should be more confident in myself (cos I kept inducing a fall halfway through in order to avoid speeding down at lightning speed), but I could only thank her appraisement and resign myself to the fact that it is far too scary. Still, it was really satisfying going down that hill trice, and yes, it was a really good trip.

.

14th Feb ’12

Gee, so many things I rightly should be blogging about I lazily try to tweet instead (it’s so convenient).

————

Religious stubbornness is hypocritical – it’s the very attitude it claims to condemn: the shutting off of ears to competing claims to truth. By insisting that one is right in his religious beliefs simply because he has chosen to believe, even if he is right in his belief, the attitude must necessarily be wrong because it is the very attitude which would have led him to insistence on a wrong belief had he so chosen differently. Rather, it is the open mind, the inquiring mind, which has brought everyone who are in truth to truth in the first place.

————

As a child, I always saw a wanting lack in art – that of utility. Installations looked pretty (and sometimes not even) but they could not be used in the way they look like they could be used. I saw no point and purpose in that.

I guess appreciating art as it is, coming to learn that it is a means to a different kind of end than practical utility, and often even an end in itself (in beauty, for example), is an essential element of maturity.

————

I’ve just been doing some reflection on my life and how I have developed a kind of stoicism over the years, especially in the last few years when I have been living abroad on my own. I realised last night that I no longer fantasise sexually of anyone anymore, not for many years now. While that may be a good thing on itself, it is symptomatic of a larger phenomenon I noticed within myself: I no longer love anything (or anyone), I no longer want anything very much, I have no passion for anything in particular, and I feel no special affection or desire for anyone or anything at all.

I have turned to pure hedonism, in seeking pleasures as a substitute for desire (so I do have small carnal desires/urges, since I am a human being, but these I either suppress or gratify quickly to get rid of). Pleasures, after all, are sure and certain since (and although) they only last for but a while. Desires, on the other hand, require commitment, and commitment to things or persons you may well never have. In hedonism, pleasure is the end to life, and good experiences have become what I seek, not love or desire or want. I would rather enjoy what I can have than to wait and desire for something in uncertainty and risk a whole string of disappointments. The little bits of pleasure which I can be sure about having are far better than the great idealistic joys of satisfaction in things I may never actually have in the end.

In part because I am constantly moving around the world, and I feel I should not lay my heart on anything and especially not on anyone because I lose everything so easily. Everything changes and nothing is forever; nothing is certain; most importantly, nothing will not be lost. I shut out all desires from my heart so strongly that I am surprised at how successful I am. Even in the little things, like the comforts of home, the affection of my parents, food, Singapore, these things I shut out consciously and with such strong might so that I do not succumb to the tragic situation of longing for what I cannot have. And in the end, I want nothing. I love nothing.

And just a few minutes ago, I just had to come across this short note. Even then, the question is how?

.

15th Feb ’12

So I woke up this morning to the news that Yaw Shin Leong has been sacked from the Workers’ Party. First thought which came to my mind was what a terrible waste this is.

And I was very perplexed as to how a personal family matter can be dragged into politics, and how personal matters are perceived by so many Singaporeans as being relevant in how one does his job. What does such a personal matter have to do with how one runs a town council?

But I guess I could see the theoretical logic on the WP’s part in expelling (what a cruel word) him. I guess a politician as a law-maker (even though they are in Opposition and practically won’t be making any laws) needs to be of a moral character, or at least perceived to be. But that also troubles me. Who in this world is morally blameless? Where do we draw the line between acceptable moral deficiency and unacceptable moral deficiency where a personal matter is involved (as opposed to a matter at work, such as corruption and poor performance)? Is it when the public opinion is galvanised by the media?

I also don’t get this whole “Asian society values” nonsense. I mean, which Asian society are you talking about here? And what values? Do Asians not have personal family scandals? Or do you mean that Asians are self-righteous?

But what got me most disgusted was Hsien Loong’s comment that the WP’s has “let down the voters of Hougang” (on a minor note it is telling how he refers to them as “voters” as if in utility rather than as people or constituents). I mean, HOW has WP let them down? First of all, if anything, Shin Leong let down his wife through an extra marital affair, and while that is most unfortunate for the couple, it has nothing to do with the people of Hougang.

Secondly, the WP was not sitting nonchalantly on the matter, but was investigating the matter the whole time, pressing him to answer the allegations in addressing the matter, and finally to sack him today. I mean, when such allegations surface, this is how you deal with it – by investigating carefully, and then by taking the appropriate measures. What does Hsien Loong expect them to do? Sack Shin Leong at the first instance of such rumours? Or to release pre-mature statements before investigations have started and before Shin Leong would even answer the CEC? In this, the WP was conducting its affairs in accordance with the high standards they purport to demand of Singapore politics, and was only being accountable and transparent (if anything, too accountable and transparent, if you ask me, since the accountability and transparency of politics should be limited to the job rather than allowed to creep into personal space, but I have addressed that above). HOW, may I know, has the WP let down the people of Hougang?

And don’t even get me started on the PAP’s real let-down all these years.

.

16th Feb ’12

I just decided to go to Cuba this Sunday for Reading Week. The agency is trying to fix everything together and I should hear confirmation from them soon.

.

17th Feb ’12

It’s funny. Last week, I was here at the Eaton Centre with Clara and Mary shopping for ski wear.

Today, I am here shopping for beach wear. In the middle of winter in Toronto too, heh.

.

18th Feb ’12

Alright! My flight to Cuba has finally been confirmed. I’m going to Havana tomorrow!!!

Firstly, I do not ask that women be made to serve National Service primarily in the Armed Forces, Police Force, or Civil Defence Force.  My proposal is for women to serve in the two other sectors which are most acutely short of manpower in all developed countries: in Healthcare and in Education. Not all women have to become nurses and teachers, just like not all men become soldiers – those deemed to be qualified and fit may be assigned to teach or nurse after some sort of common basic training, while others may be assigned to different roles in those fields.

At the top of my head, I can think of many examples of these other possible roles: teaching assistants to teachers (one teaching assistant per teacher will free the teacher from daily mundane repetitive chores and enable them to focus on improving class material and lessons, and to devote more time to students), canteen vendors, classroom material preparers, cleaners (just as men clean their military camps), desk job personnel, administrative workers, medical assistants, cooks in hospitals, servers, launderers, physiotherapists, etc. In fact, we currently have a massive foreign workforce in the healthcare sector – why can’t we have our own citizens fill these roles instead?

In this way, our women will be equipped with basic healthcare/education skills which may prove useful later in life (just as our men are equipped in basic military skills); they will be contributing to the national economy and civil society as responsible citizens with an equal stake in this country as men; the other social benefits of bonding between the social classes, of instilling a sense of belonging to Singapore, etc, of National Service in its current form will be extended to women; it will help female citizens empathise with the other half of the country; and it will help alleviate the manpower crunch in crucial areas of national growth while also possibly reducing our reliance on foreign labour.

The demand that women serve their country with 2 years of their lives – just as their male counterparts have been doing for the last 45 years in this nation’s 47 years’ existence – is a matter of basic justice and equality – the principles this nation purports to be founded upon. It is time to correct this blatant discrimination and call our female citizens to play their due part in contributing to the security and prosperity of Singapore which they have been enjoying freely all these years. There is absolutely no reason for preferential treatment of one group of citizens over another. In tandem with striving to increase women’s rights, we must also avoid the hypocrisy (and false male chivalry) of being silent on injustices which occur in the other direction. Indeed, not requiring women to serve National Service is discrimination against men for placing onerous demands on one particular group of citizens but not the other, but it is also discrimination against women in that it serves to perpetuate false notions of the inferiority of women and their lesser (or stereotypical) role in society.

Several flippant excuses have been raised in arguing why women should not have to serve National Service. The fact that women go through childbirth is a poor excuse because pregnancy is the personal choice of a woman which she weighs upon many factors for her personal life, not a state obligation imposed upon her regardless of her personal will. Similarly, the claim that she has to care for her child is an invalid excuse because the family obligation is shared between both parents, and where there are cases of single mothers, there equally are cases of single fathers as well. Further, the excuse that National Service for women will further reduce birthrates is equally silly because women do not get pregnant by being alone at home while their husbands are in camp – they will both have adequate time to procreate if that is what have intended to do. If having to serve in the education or healthcare industry will deter a woman from bearing a child, then it is difficult to think of her ever becoming a mother when she enters the workforce.

The excuse that women generally have lower pay than men is an equally ridiculous reason for excusing women from serving National Service. An injustice is not corrected by creating a separate injustice, and letting women enter the workforce earlier than men neither increases women’s salaries (which remain low and should undoubtedly be addressed, but separately), nor does it create equality because men are deprived of 2 years (and many more) to freely determine their lives, but women are not.

The last excuse is that the economy cannot handle the loss of women to National Service, but that claim is absurd. If anything, we have moved so far from the 1960s state of affairs, and the removal of 2 annual batches of girls will have little impact on the economy, especially when they will not simply be removed from the country, but are simply reassigned roles in the national infrastructure, contributing to the economy in a different way. The size of the workforce remains the same – it is only the configuration which is slightly tweaked. In fact, there are 25,000-50,000 eligible girls every year and having women serve 2 years of National Service would affect 0.02-0.04% of the workforce of 2,200,000 people. Also, even if the economy is in some way affected negatively (and, as explained, such an effect would undoubtedly be very small, if at all), I would say that this economic cost is far less important than the principle of justice and equality, the loss of which would be an even larger social cost to Singapore.

I am not sexist. But that’s precisely why I am opposed to men-only National Service.

.

.

1st Jan ’12

Happy New Year from Times Square, New York!!! =D

.

It was insanely packed since we arrived at 3pm (they started cordoning off the most inner part of Times Square at around 2pm so we stood just behind the stage) and we stood there till past midnight. It was quite the experience, and I’m glad I have done it (so I can check it of my list, haha) because I don’t think I will ever do it again.

Well, we got to hear Pitbull singing about going to Times Square, Bieber singing The Beatles’ Let It Be (first time I heard him sing), and Lady Gaga singing a few songs. That was pretty much it.

We spent last New Years’ Eve in London, just behind Buckingham Palace, and the fireworks in London, I must say, was at least worth the wait (and we definitely did not wait as long as this – I don’t think I have ever waited for anything as long as this, lol).

.

5th Jan ’12

There is seriously something wrong with me in the way I relate with people. Maybe I should seriously consider counselling because I am ruining my social life.

Anyway, I got myself a new MacBook Pro on New Year’s Day, and Zhao Feng and I had dinner at East Village with Youming who just came back from London and Paris. Visited the Metropolitan Museum of Art and the Museum of the City of New York over the last few days, and finally went to eat at Shake Shack with Shu Lin before going to see Billy Elliot. The musical was so, so moving, the most moving production I have seen since I saw Love Story in London. There was just so much to relate to – being an 11 year old boy, even being in Northern England (I thought to myself, I know these people, I talk with them, walk with them in Manchester). I was hesitant about paying so much for it at first (cos the show is closing on Broadway this week), but it was completely worth it.

The weather has taken a turn for the cold, plummeting to -10°C on Tuesday. Today is my last day in New York City after 3 weeks here, and I actually can’ t wait to leave and settle down in Toronto – only because I am so exhausted. I have a ticket to go up the Empire State Building, but I’m feeling so lazy…

————

So thinking about my plans for tomorrow when I get to Toronto, I got a little stressed so I decided to just treat myself and booked a room at the Sheraton in Toronto in hopes that it will make my settling in a tad smoother. This has been quite an eventful trip already (and it’s barely started), like how I was supposed to arrive in North America in Toronto before heading down to New York, but ended up in New York straight away instead and deciding to just stay here, and how I was supposed to take a different US Airways flight up to Buffalo and visit Niagara Falls, but I am now letting that air ticket go to waste while I take an Air Canada flight straight up to Toronto early tomorrow morning in order to attend my university orientation which begins barely 3 hours after I touch down. Yes, you now see why I need a good night’s rest at the Sheraton (the Hilton is fully booked).

.

6th Jan ’12

What a day!

So I got up at around 4.30am, cleaned up the house a bit and finished packing my bags. By 5.30am, the cab was waiting for me outside, so I lugged my two massive suitcases, backpack, overcoat, and laptop down to the front door before returning back upstairs to leave my keys at the table and bring down some trash to throw into the bin.

So I stepped out a few steps to throw the trash, turned back to get my suitcases, and realised the gate had closed on me and I was locked out. I was locked out, and everyone in the house had left for Hong Kong.

Ok, so there was one cousin of mine at home cos he didn’t go to Hong Kong, but it was 5am, and he lives deep inside the house. I slammed the door like crazy, pressed the doorbell till it literally fell apart a few times (and I had to reinstall it), shook the gates till some of the neighbours came out to peek, shouted, slammed, everything I could do. The stupid cab driver was exceptionally unhelpful, just sat in the cab, and kept telling me he will have to charge me for waiting. So in my desperation, I told him, you know what, why don’t you just leave, cos I think I’m going to miss my flight and there’s nothing I can do about it right now. But he just refused to, saying that he has been waiting for me for 15 minutes already.

So I Googled for a locksmith, and called for one to come immediately. A few minutes later, I decided to just BREAK the door. Well, I used my boot to press against the plexiglass on the gate, expecting it to shatter, but it just fell off (oh, the relief!) stuck my hand inside, turned the knob, cried out a sigh of mixed joy and victory, grabbed my bags, tried to just put the plexiglass back best I could, and ran to the cab. Stupid cab driver seemed unhappy.

Got to La Guardia Airport, I paid the driver the $50 I had agreed on with his company to include both the fare and the tips. To be honest, I would have paid him extra for the waiting, but he was so unhelpful and rude (I even had to go to his window to ask him to please come and give me a hand with my suitcases when I finally retrieved them from the house, and even after I called him at the window, he simply got out of his car and stood there watching me lug all my stuff clumsily) that I just gave him $50 and wanted to walk away. He demanded that I pay him for waiting, and I was like, you waited barely 20 minutes, which could have well been commute time in a different traffic condition, but he was so rude and insistent, and I had enough drama for one morning, so I just said, ok, how much?, and he said, well, at least $10 more. I took $8 out of my wallet and said, this is all I’m going to give you and left. He turned around and shouted at the incoming traffic. Madman.

I was early for my Air Canada flight (a rare occurrence indeed) and it was slightly delayed, but it was pretty alright. Touched down in Toronto, took the hotel shuttle bus to the Sheraton, checked-in to a room with a great view, dropped off my suitcases (I gave the bellboy C$6 for bringing up my bags in a trolley, later realising maybe that was a little bit too much – I hate the tipping system), and then set off for school for the International Orientation. Got to know a few other Singaporeans (all from NUS), finally, some of whom are doing Law as well, yay!

Came back to my hotel for a while, and then set off to meet Jon Ooh and his friend (forgot everyone’s name today already, lol) at Jon’s place by Lake Ontario, ate sushi for dinner, played cards, and then came back to my room to meet Kaz Nakamura and had some drinks till late. Crashed in my bed at, like, 2am, sooooooo exhausted.

And I just want to say how much I like Toronto already. One of the main reasons I came here was to relived my days in Melbourne, and I had hoped for Toronto to be just like Melbourne. It is. I walked the streets and I feel just like how I felt when I was living in Melbourne, happy, secure, free. Toronto looks like it is what I was expecting it to be, and I hope the following months will not disappoint. In fact, this stint is beginning to resemble my year in Melbourne in more ways than one already.

.

7th Jan ’12

Can I just say how much I love Toronto? I have not felt so happy and at home in a new city since I was in Melbourne. Maybe it’s the things which have happened in just my first day here, or maybe it is just the city. It is the same game as I played back in Melbourne, but this time I am determined to play it better.

I moved into my hall today, and the location and building of the hall is wonderful – it is a heritage building right in the centre of the university, probably the centrepiece of the entire campus, and I quite like it. The rooms, however, are like the student rooms in the United Kingdom, urgh. There are no basins in my room, and the toilet is a long walk away, and I still haven’t discovered where the kitchen is. But oh well, I’m just here for a few months, and this will probably (hopefully) be the last time I ever live in a university hall, haha.

Haven’t really unpacked – just took some stuff out, and my suitcases are both still packed. Took my bedsheet out to wash, cos I literally just pulled them out from my bed in England before I came over to New York, and I left my thick, warm duvet behind because it couldn’t fit into my suitcase, haha… But I was in the laundry room (and omg, it’s so cheap!!! $1 to wash, and $0.50 to dry!!!) and I didn’t have detergent, so I just took a bottle of detergent lying around, but there was hardly any left, so I took another bottle and poured it in liberally before realising it is bleach, and my brown bedsheet now has marbled designs on it, hahaha…

After that, walked down to the Eaton Centre, the main mall in Toronto to take a look and got myself a new phone card, so I have a Canada number now, and ate dinner there (sushi again, heh). I love how Toronto is so walkable as well, or it is probably just because the university is a lot closer to the city than Manchester.

.

8th Jan ’12

Went over to Jon’s place last night just to chill and sleep over, which was just as well since I hadn’t bought a duvet or blanket for my room, haha… Took the subway for the first time, and it looks a lot like the London Tube, only a lot cleaner, haha…

And I’m so glad I discovered the sushi store at his condominium – they serve such fresh and excellent sushi, especially the white tuna sashimi. I have been in Toronto less than 3 days and I have had 3 sushi meals already, heh.

.

9th Jan ’12

First day of school in Toronto today, and I was late for my first class (damn, I was told they start 10mins late to factor in walking time, but not for law school, apparently, and my lecturer was teaching on the dot already), which was Legal Philosophy or Jurisprudence or Legal Theory, cos I got lost in the building which was so badly signposted. But apart from that, the law school looks so professional, with a well-equipped 3-story law library and facilities.

In-ho Cha came over to University College for lunch, and he remained in my room while I went over to meet Victor and Gerald to take a look at Knox College, and then went to attend my Public International Law class, and then my Crime and Punishment class, and then In-ho told me he left his pencil case (he is in high school), phone and iPod Touch in my room when he left. How could he take so long to realise he had left his phone behind! Lol.

.

17th Jan ’12

As you probably can see, I haven’t been updating this blog very often. Well, I’ve been extremely busy of late, and barely keeping up with my readings (graduate law school is no joke, I’m telling).

That said, I still try to stay active on Facebook and Twitter at the very least.

Quite a lot has happened in the 12 days I have been in Canada so far, and I think I will blog about my days here soon when I get a breather. *gasps*

.

21st Jan ’12

I just thought of my old childhood friend and went to visit his Facebook wall to read the wall posts and browse the photos. I just recalled he should have been here in Canada right now too. A part of me still doesn’t really believe it, but RIP Alex Henry Davies, my first best friend. It’s so hard to believe that it has been 4 years already since you left.

.

24th Jan ’12

I don’t even remember ever hearing this song while it was on TV, and I don’t even remember its title or lyrics. Still, it’s always been in my head and I just thought of listening to it today and had so much trouble searching for it online since I don’t know the words in it. In the end, I had to hum the tune over Facebook to Sureeporn to identify its title.

It’s funny, though. The song encapsulates so much of what I recall of my life in the 90s, of Singapore, of childhood – a sweet, sweet memory that I suspect a part of me has always been searching for, a distant place I do not know if I will ever revisit again. It is making me wonder what a mess of a life I am living now, and how much of it is a result of some events which must have occurred between then and now. Suddenly, the song brought me back to a happy place, and I could only cry.

.

26th Jan ’12

O, the suffering of the world. It seems so foolish, but it depresses me too often, thinking about the magnitude of the culmination of all human sufferings. I am not the most sympathetic person, but I just wonder how God bears to watch it all. He watches it all.

And then there was the day I was on the bus back from army camp in 2007 or 2008, and I was just sitting on the empty bus home on a normal day, such a normal day, and suddenly I thought of Israel and Palestine, and the pain and the pain and all the human pain. And I could only cry.

————

I guess that living as a vagabond and a pilgrim in the last few years, I have come to learn the important truth that nothing in this world is really ever mine anyway.

.

27th Jan ’12

Had a really nice Italian dinner with the Europeans (and Japanese) at Yorkville which is such a beautiful area of Toronto. Great food, great wine, great company.

————

Melbourne is the city where rich Asian parents send their brats to. It’s close to home and very safe, so all these spoilt teenage boys and girls spend their time exploring and discovering who they are. I quite miss Melbourne.

.

28th Jan ’12

So we went to visit Niagara Falls today and as all my travels (which is practically what my life is now – one large pilgrimage across the globe), it was a bit of an adventure.

The weather was terrible all day. When we arrived at Niagara Falls, it was snowing very heavily (and continued all day) and that made walking, breathing, looking through my glasses, and taking photographs (especially with my f/2.8 DSLR lens) all very difficult. It was very cold because of the strong winds, and my glove tore. =( Juwon lost his pair of gloves, which was worse. And because of the heavy snow, the view of the Falls was terribly veiled. Still, it was a good trip with the great company.

So we went to see the Falls and then half of us took a taxi over to another town called Niagara-on-the-Lake to visit the Ice Wine Festival ending there. There was a little trouble with the taxi because he was supposed to be waiting for a couple and we didn’t know that but as we entered, that couple returned and the driver told them, I’m sorry, you took too long, I’ll just call another cab to come pick you up, and the man of the couple was like, I’ve never heard of this before, this is unacceptable – my umbrella is still inside, and my friend passed him his umbrella through the window and we sped off. I barely realised what was happening till we had left, lol.

Niagara-on-the-Lake is such a quaint and beautiful town! It’s one of those well-preserved typical American country towns, and its main street is the exact thing the Disneylands around the world try to replicate in their Main Street USA theme land. We reached pretty late and only realised upon arriving that the festival is really happening at the wineries around Niagara-on-the-Lake which obviously would be difficult to visit without a car. It was 3.30pm and we were told the wineries close at 5pm, and our alternative, the only winery representative outlet in the town, closes at 6.30pm. The town was so small and quiet (it’s winter) that there were no taxis to be seen.

I had to make a decision, so we ended up walked to the nearest winery which we were told is 20mins walk away but really was around 30-40mins in the cold, in the snow and against the strong gales. I tried to hitch a ride quite a few times but no one was willing to pick up 4 wet and possibly muddied-boot Asians, lol. It was such a very difficult walk that we were so relieved to arrive at Jackson-Triggs Winery and we went for their winery tour and wine tasting which was so good. It was quite worth the traumatic walk. I got myself 2 bottles of ice wine too. Omg, I love alcohol. =)

So after the tour I got the winery concierge to call us a taxi which saved us the repeated torment. Went to the other winery outlet on the main street and had another session of ice-wine tasting there. Omg, so damn good. I don’t know the names and the colours, the wood and the bodiedness. I only know that ice wine is so damn good. Got myself another bottle there.

.

29th Jan ’12

So we were the last remaining dinner guests at this quaint French restaurant today, having a passionate discussion on WWII – we, a German, Dutch, Japanese, Korean, Australian, and I. Eventually we came to discussing how cruel Israel takes advantage of history in treating Germany up to this day, and I was agreeing (partly cos my German friend was getting visibly upset) and giving examples.

The restaurant owner serves dessert and our Dutch friend asks him casually, “So are you really French?”. “Oh, you’d be surprised”, he smiled his reply and then paused as he served us. “I’m Israeli”. =)

.

31st Jan ’12

I have taken to downing coffee in an attempt to clear my often clouded thoughts and overly distracted mind, because I am just getting too little done in too much time, spending whole days distracted on the computer and finishing barely 20 pages of important readings in a whole week. That rate only spells disaster for law school. I used to drink a lot of coffee back in my teens but then I developed such an acute insomnia that I never had a proper night’s sleep for years, so I quitted caffeine in Melbourne (which was most unfortunate, given the wonderful coffee culture there), but I think I need it again now.

The PAP has done, and still does, a very good job as a whole in ruling Singapore, and it should remain in power. However, because so many problems have surfaced in the last 50 years which, rather than being solved at their root, have often been ignored by an increasingly elitist ruling class growing detached from reality and the public, there was and still is a dire need for discerning Singaporeans to demand changes, and to use General Elections as a tool to make the PAP listen. There are many things I oppose the PAP for, including the lack of adequate social support for the lowest class in the country, its detachment from the common people and reality, its tight control on the media and heavy censorship, unethical treatment of human beings, biased teaching of history, and Tin Pei Ling.

I write this new note because so many people are simplistically and mindlessly “supporting”/”opposing” the PAP rather than its policies. Among some, having been brought up in heavy propaganda, blind support is prevalent, while among others whose peers are increasingly questioning the establishment, it has become fashionable to dismiss and oppose the Government for everything it says and does. There is widespread failure to distinguish between hating a government as a whole (which does not do much good for the country) and opposing particular policies. Many people simply want to hear what they want to hear, and to find a scapegoat for the troubles they face in life (which, it must be conceded, are often the result of bad governance, but often also largely due to poor personal choices in life).

As such, I seek to write in defence of the PAP on certain controversial issues to offer counterbalance to the unhealthy attitude prevalent in our country today which is careless opposition for the sake of it. In general, I believe the PAP works for the overall good of the country, having to choose the lesser of evils for what is ultimately in the best interest of the country in the long-run.

.

1. Ministerial salaries
The common accusation is that Singapore ministers, highest paid in the world, are being remunerated far too much for the jobs they do. On its face, this accusation makes much sense – they govern a small country, and while they perform relatively well in terms of corruptibility and economic rankings, their performance is hardly spectacular, compared to nations who perform even better than Singapore and whose ministers are being paid peanuts compared to ours.

However, one must look at the issue from a wider perspective. While it is not theoretically (and perhaps morally) desirable for money to be the main motivation for individuals to serve the nation, pragmatically, in Singapore, it is the lesser of evils. As it is, the PAP already has to recruit medical doctors and leaders in the private sector, to the detriment of those fields. This is a terribly undesirable state of affairs, but the need for qualified individuals in government is greater than in those sectors. Obviously we have seen that many of these individuals turn out to be less than capable, but that’s the point – individuals who make good Ministers are in far greater shortage than one would expect in a nation of 2-3 million (citizens, that is). Who will our next Prime Minister be? I cannot think of even one person talented and capable enough whom I can feel secure at the helm of our nation. And if the PAP, which is so obsessed with talent-grooming and -scouting, has to resort to poaching from sectors which already face severe talent shortages, what are the chances that they can find enough bright individuals who are both capable and willing to serve in Government? With this practical concern in mind, the financial cost of paying Ministers millions of dollars honestly pales in comparison.

.

2. Focus on economic growth
The PAP also draws flak from its obsession on economic growth. At the expense of the welfare of society, economic progress is being sought after even as the income gap widens further, our heritage is compromised, and the entire nation has turned into a theme park for tourists.

However, one must also consider Singapore’s place in the world. The fact of the matter is that as a city-state, Singapore is not going to last forever – no city-state ever does. The odds have always been, and still is, against us because as a tiny island with absolute nothing except for what we buy, reprocess, and sell, we can only hope to last for as long as we can. The last 50 years of relative peace in the world should by no means delude us to the way nations have always been rising and falling, and borders shifting like auroras since the earliest times.

We do not have spare towns to use – Singapore is all we have – and we do not have neighbours up to step with us in terms of development for close integration, unlike small European states in the EU. Singapore is all we have to use to entrench our place in the world for as long as we can.

As such, keeping in mind that we are an artificial country in constant struggle against the odds, it is most crucial that we do everything to keep afloat for as long as possible. Especially in a world as tightly interconnected as today’s, where the ebbs and flows in any part of the world has an immediate impact on us, we need every help that we can create for ourselves. In essence, we need to do everything we can to ensure we are not hastening our own inevitable demise. And there is nothing we can do except to create wealth, from which we can create an influence which far exceeds our physical size, to expand our influence (and hence increase our stability) far beyond our shores.

Also, while a widening income gap is obviously a problem to be mitigated, it is the lesser of the two evils, the other being accepting a gentler economic growth curve. By increasing national GDP as a whole, even at the cost of allowing the lowest income bracket to lag behind, the nation as a whole benefits from higher tax yields which can pull up the entire country. But that is the smaller point. The main point is that in a world in constant flux, where economic growth opportunities do not last forever, Singapore cannot afford anything less but growing at the maximum speed it can, to push for as much growth as possible because the lull period inevitably will come. To compromise on potential growth in our top-earning sectors simply because the lower-income sector is not catching up is hardly sensible. Obviously I am against the miserable miserly aid the Government offers to the lower bracket of society, and other issues, but those are quite separate matters from the fact that we should make as much hay as we can while the sun shines.

The hosting of the F1 race, YOG, and the construction of the IRs, turning my home into a theme park for the nations is a massive inconvenience to me and my people, but the intangible benefits, the most crucial of which is simply spreading our name so that investors even think of us as an existing place in the world to consider working in, far outweigh it.

.

3. Influx of foreigners
The influx of foreigners carries on from the previous point. In the short-run, on the ground level, there is much reason to oppose the policy to fill this nation of 3 million citizens with 2 million foreigners. Our feeble national identity is diluted, there is stronger competition for jobs, and there is severe overcrowding practically everywhere on the island.

Still, these are myopic grievances when one considers the larger scheme of things. For one, building on the previous point above, we need to increase our own economic clout as far as possible so as to increase our security as a small nation which can disappear much quickly than we like to think. To give an illustration, whole chunks of the United States such as the Rust Belt saw a swift change in fortunes and a steep decline just 3 short decades after their glory days as “the Foundry of the Nation”.

The best that Singapore can do is to create itself to be as powerful and influential a city in the world as possible, since the more indispensable (or at least important) we make ourselves to be to others, the stronger our bargaining power to survive. And an essential element of a global city of considerable influence is the size of its population – the amount of goods and services produced in a single city, as well as the size of its market.

.

4. Lee Kuan Yew
I have never understood how some people hate Lee Kuan Yew so much, to the point of even hoping for his death. Those who suffered under his brutality aside, why do these people hate him personally so much? Because many other people are hating him too?

Although it is well-known that he steered Singapore from its early days to its present state of affluence, the credit rendered upon him by the education system and the establishment is exaggerated since Singapore was already the richest state in Asia after Japan at the time of our independence, and we would have grown rich anyway, given our location and diligent hardy population.

Still, he deserves respect simply for being an old man. More important than that, he deserves the respect due him as an elder statesman, for having done his work all these years at the helm of our country. Yes, Singapore would nevertheless have become rich had we been under a different leader, such as David Marshall, but we could also have been far poorer had we ended up under a bad leader. Simply for keeping Singapore on the right track is enough reason to grant him his due credit.

He also made many difficult and, from hindsight, very wise decisions which very few other men would have made, which altered our collective course as a people for the better. Even Marshall praised him for having done an excellent job in making an economic miracle out of Singapore, conceding that had he been Prime Minister instead, he might not have been able to match his success.

Needless to elaborate, he made many terrible decisions as well, but the point is that his motives were genuinely for the good of the country. Consider our early days – we could have been led by any one of the kinds of people who led our neighbours: possibly a Marcos who’d have plundered our reserves, or a Suharto, or most likely, a blatantly racist Bumiputra UMNO Government. Instead, we were led by the wisest, most foresighted, dedicated, passionate leader our region has seen. Indeed, amid accusations of selfish ambition, one has to admit that he had little to gain in taking the helm of a country was seen as doomed for failure, plagued by housing problems, racial unrest, confrontational hostile neighbours, etc. Yet he took up the job anyway, and did it really well. As he said shortly after Singapore was ejected from Malaysia, “I am not here to play somebody else’s game. I have a few million people’s lives to account for. Singapore will survive”. I find it extremely hard to believe he did not sincerely mean those words.

Separately, I also wonder if his strong hold on power and his insistence on the political entrenchment of the PAP is not ultimately for the good of the country. While my main opposition to the PAP remains that it needs an adequate check to its power, perhaps while disagreeing with its political entrenchment, I can see that it is done partly in Singapore’s interest. After all, as established above, Singapore faces an acute leadership shortage, and the PAP, having done so much work in building up Singapore, sees itself as most qualified in leading it, and it genuinely believes that the best way to lead Singapore is to adhere to the long-term strategies it has drawn up, and so all potential political opposition must be prevented at all costs from ever even standing a chance from taking over, or even posing an adequate threat to require the PAP to bow down to pressure to pass populist policies which may seem politically correct but which are detrimental to Singapore in the long-term.

.

Conclusion

This does not mean we stop opposing the PAP. The point is about striking a balance, recognising that it is a good government performing its role excellently in many respects, honouring it for doing so, and not demanding populist changes which may benefit us in the short-term but will only hasten our collective demise. At the same time, we must continue to press the PAP for particular changes which must be made, such as further checks on its virtually unlimited powers, clear and real separation of powers, human rights, a free and clean press, etc.

The PAP performs its role as a Government very well, but it fails to do 2 things which it must take into account now or risk losing even more support from an increasingly impatient electorate: 1. genuinely listen to what the people have to say and 2. communicate with its electorate its policies, and the rationale behind them (rather than propaganda and censorship). Indeed, if the PAP wishes to do what is best for Singapore, it must do far more than just making tough unpopular decisions. And on Singaporeans’ part, if we want what is best for our country, we must rightly divide the rights from the wrongs, opposing only what must be opposed but giving the due honour and support for what deserves them.

————
An old note suffices as my response to the massive heap of comments to this post.

“…before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad–in order that God’s purpose in election might stand…” – Romans 9:11

In the Christian doctrine of Predestination, God is the predeterminator of everything which happens on Earth. All our choices are but mere illusions of choice, and we are little more than puppets following a script written long before we existed. Naturally, such a belief creates a certain discomfort within us firstly because we would like to believe in a just God who gives man according to what they deserve, and because we would like to believe that all our difficult choices and decisions make some sort of a difference to our lives and that we are not powerless. However, Truth is not about what we would like to believe in, but is what is.

The Bible has much support for Predestination. In Romans 9, Paul illustrates this sovereign “election” by God in the lives of Jacob and Esau, a pair of twins who, before birth, were already “elected” by God, one to serve the other, one “loved” and the other “hated” (9.11-13, Mal 1.2,3). Paul goes on to explain that this illustrated the way salvation works through God’s mercy just as He said to Moses “I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion” (9:15, Ex 33.19). This was because it is not about what a man chooses, nor about what a man does, but about what God decides (9.16,18). One may contend that God also said He “desires that all men be saved” (1 Tim 2:4) and that He does not take pleasure in seeing men perish, but is pleased when they are saved (Eze 18.23). However, just because God wishes for and is pleased by something does not mean He necessarily plans to act accordingly. Indeed, we may find pleasure in countless things, but that does not mean we intend to indulge in them all.

Predestination is also seen in other parts of Scripture. For example, in the Acts, it was recorded that “all who were appointed for eternal life believed” (13.48). In Ephesians, Paul reaffirmed the basic belief that we are saved by God’s grace through having faith Him, which he expounded at lengths in the first half of Romans. However, he clarified that this faith we have is not from ourselves but is a gift of God, so that we cannot take credit even for having so chosen to have faith (2.8-9). Indeed, Jesus said, “no one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him” (John 6.44), and that “all those whom the Father gives me will come to me” (John 6.37). If we ‘choose’ to believe, it may seem to us that our circumstances or faculty of reason or decision to take the plunge was what made us choose so, but in reality, it is because God has predetermined for us to believe so. Some may contend that the Father could have drawn all men and these men have the free-will whether to come to Jesus, but that is restricted by John 6.37 above, by Jesus’ own words: “many are called, but few are chosen” (Matthew 22.14), and in the context of the other verses cited here. Indeed, others may contend that Jesus implied that all men have free-will when He said “everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life” (John 6.40) and “whosoever believe in me shall not perish but have eternal life” (John 3.16), but these, in considering the context of the aforementioned verses, should be seen as descriptive rather than prescriptive, in that it describes the people who find themselves believing in Jesus (whether or not they realise that their faith in Him is a gift rather than a personal choice to their credit), rather than an open prescription to all men to exercise personal choice.

But this cannot be!, or so the expected response of the typical Christian might sound. How can this reconcile with God’s character of fairness and justice? Paul preempted this response when he wrote on in Romans: ”You will say then to me, Why does he yet find fault? For who has resisted his will?” (9.19). Paul’s response was that God is sovereign as the Creator to do whatever pleases Him, just like a potter has the power over the clay to make whatever He likes, and who are we as created men to question His will and purpose (9.20-21)? He further goes on to explain that God created all men, some as “vessels of mercy” “prepared beforehand for glory”, and some “vessels of wrath prepared for destruction” (9.22-24). So then, before any men were born, not having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works but of Him who predetermines, God had already determined the end of all men.

Yet God is supremely fair and just, and all men, on account of their inherent sinfulness, deserve eternal death in the first place. To give us this judgement of damnation which is due is fairness (in that sense, I’m not so sure if I would like to desire God’s fairness and justice – not that what I desire should have any bearing on reality). So then, because we all deserve destruction as pottery of wrath because of Original Sin, the fact that God has chosen some of us to shed grace on and to pardon freely not because of who we are or what we can do but solely because of His own sovereign will, is a massive act of mercy. What should the criminal who is pardoned for no reason except for the State’s magnanimity say about the fact that some other criminals are still behind bars for their crimes? Nothing much but thankfulness! So far so good, and I genuinely rest my case in sincere gratefulness to God here. The rest of this article is merely for theoretical muse and entertainment, recognising that there are divine mysteries beyond which human reason alone cannot penetrate. Indeed, “the secret things belong to the LORD our God” (Deut 29.29).

————

The confounding issue arises when we consider Original Sin.  If salvation itself was predetermined, then how much more all of our decisions in life (which I will attempt to explain in a while). And if all our decisions in life were predetermined, can we say then that God was the one who preordained for us to sin? Surely that is not in His character, so we have a problem to solve here – the Question of Free Will.

All our decisions in life are predetermined from the time of our birth (or earlier), influenced by the circumstances around us. So then there are two elements: the external factor which acts upon us over which we have no control, as well as the internal factor of our inner dispositions and inclinations, genetic composition, in short, our character and constitution at the point of birth – this we do not have any control over either. From these two factors, all the decisions we make in life find their source.

One might contend that these internal factors – inner dispositions, inclinations, conscience, character, capacity to reason, primordial instincts, carnal urges, genetic makeup, our entire constitution – merely influence but do not determine our choices. However, when we make a decision, we make it based on who we are. If we are wise, we make a decision on what we consider to be wise. If we are rash, we choose hastily and rashly. If we are epicurean, we pick the most pleasurable choice. Of course, these are over-simplistic categorisation because individuals are a mixture of all such dispositions, but the point is, we make decisions based on what we value (and what we value is based on our inner inclinations), using the relevant faculties we have (whether reason, or gut feeling, or carnal urges, etc) to determine which option is “best”, in that it will best reach the end we so desire based on our inner dispositions. So then, it is who we are which determines how we make all our decisions, and since we will always choose what we consider “best” according to what our inner dispositions vaue, there is ultimately always only one way in which we will choose in every decision. Indeed, even if we flippantly choose at random or with little thought (as we do for most of the thousands of decisions we make daily), this flippancy manifests an inner disposition and judgement which decides that it is “best” to not consider the decision too seriously.

Whenever we make a decision, we judge the situation with our judgement – this capacity for judgement is innate and was in us at birth, only developed as we grow. We also assess the options with our faculty of reason – this faculty of reason is innate, and is also developed as we grow. We also use all sorts of other internal decision-making mechanisms such as our personal preferences and carnal urges, what we are naturally inclined to, and our moral compass, all of which are congenital and were present at birth, but also developed with life. This should not be seen as contradicting the fact that we act based on what we were born with, because even our developed judgment was developed to its precise current state because of all the previous decisions we have made in life (e.g. to be attentive in school, to actively read books, to contemplate matters, how to learn from experiences, etc) which can ultimately be traced back to the very first decisions we ever made in life. So then, all our decisions, however determined by our changing constitution, stem from our earliest choices which was what determined how our constitution developed (together with the play of external factors beyond our control), and these first decisions were themselves determined by the all the characteristics of the individuals we were born as. All our decisions, therefore, are the direct result of who we were at birth.

If even you should after reading this decide to change your way of life and make drastic decisions which seem contrary to your usual nature, the very inclination which drives you to want such a change – to attempt to defy predestination and pursue free-will – is itself an inclination you were born with, and which predetermined that upon reading such an idea you would decide to desire and behave such. If, therefore, you should make decisions which seem like you have ”chosen” an option contrary to your character and dispositions – that very decision is in keeping with your character and dispositions.

So then, if one does not believe in a God, then the external aspect – the circumstances in our lives – are but a random chain of events outside of our control. The internal aspect – who we are born as – is not very different and may in fact, be considered to be an external aspect as well because you do not really exist – you may feel like you are a participant in this mad world, but you are merely an observer who has no real choices except to follow and act out what your composition predetermined for you to do, and you cannot change anything of that.

If one believes in divine intervention in the external aspect of the circumstances of our lives, and divine intervention in the internal aspect of who we were created to be, there is little difference except in the hope that someday, this predetermined part of life will soon come to an end, and a “true” life may begin – but that is merely speculative. The pertinent question for this life is, Where, then, is the free will of man?