Hear Ye! Hear Ye!

It seems one of the counter arguments Singapore’s political leaders like to make when responding to criticisms about Singapore is that critics, particularly those hailing from “Western” styled liberal democracies, have no experience at all when it comes to running a government.

So, to the Singapore government, the only way critics are allowed the license to talk is when the critics have had experience with governance. It seems that experience is pretty much a pre-requisite to the government.

That being the case, why are Singaporean ministers being paid millions? In order for our ministers to talk about and formulate policies for majority of Singaporeans, shouldn’t they experience what the average Singaporean experiences in order to make policies that makes everyone better off?

For starters, the ministers should get a massive pay cut to 5% of their current salary. Next, we should house them in 4 or 5 room HDB flats, depending on how big their family is. Next, they should be banned from owning a car so that they can experience being sandwiched in overcrowded trains and buses. Maybe the water and electrical supply to their homes can be cut from time to time too.

Without such drastic measures, our ministers cannot possibly be experienced enough to formulate good policies. We really should give our ministers the best possible experience of being an average Singaporean.

Addendum:

Someone said to me this entry sounds like an angry rant. Actually, it is not. Look at the tags.

I was rather amused reading this Straits Times article, “Love me, spoil me“, because there seems to be rather negative opinions about the Singaporean women expecting chivalry from the Singaporean male, and the negative opinions are coming from both genders.

Who says that ‘independent’ women don’t need or deserve some male chivalry? If being treated in a chivalrous fashion makes the woman feels happy, what is the problem? And guys, what is wrong with expecting some male chivalry? I’m sure all of us have certain expectations of women as well, with the top of the list being sex, no? If we feel that being expected to carry out acts of chivalry is a chore, then we should expect women to feel that it’s a chore to have sex with us.

The crux of the problem is probably pride on the part of both genders. Women (to be more accurate, the career women and ‘independent’ type) demonise other women who ’succumb’ to chivalry because they feel that they’ve been oppressed by men from time immemorial and to indicate their newfound ‘independence’, they reject everything of the past, including acts of chivalry from men. To accept acts of chivalry would be tantamount to allowing themselves to be oppressed once again. Honestly, if you ask me, it is only because these women want to think they are being ‘oppressed’ and that they are losing their ‘independence’ by accepting acts of chivalry from men.

As for my fellow Singaporean men, I would say that I don’t think women are applying double standards. In fact, I think many Singaporean men are conflating the two issues of female equality and chivalry, which is why they are complaining about double standards. When talking about female equality, it’s more about equal access to opportunities in life, which has nothing to do with chivalry. It doesn’t mean that more of the former has to result in less of the latter.

Ultimately, it is up to the individual how much chivalry to accept and how much to give. You draw your own guidelines and comfort zones. I don’t think it makes me any less of a man to carry my wife’s bag and I don’t think it makes my wife any less of a woman to accept me pulling chairs or opening doors for her. It’s all about your own perception. If you want to perceive something in a certain way and believe that perception to be true, then it’s true.

It should be obvious by now that I am a proponent of chivalry. I believe that men should always pay for dates. I believe that men should help pull the chairs and open the doors for their dates. I believe that men should offer to send women home after a date. Even if it is not to the doorstep, at least to the block or the nearest street. In case you are wondering, I do all things I’ve mentioned as far as possible. The only times I don’t do them is when I suffer from the occasional male blockhead syndrome (but I have never forgotten about paying for dinners, even after marriage).

I believe that my wife isn’t a weak person because I do all these for her. I know that she’s more than capable of fending for herself. It’s just that I want to treat her like a princess because I believe the woman I love should be, as far as possible, treated in the best way that I can offer. And, her small acts of gratitude (a hug, a peck or a word of thanks) make it all worthwhile.

The following headline grabbed my attention instantly:

“Florida pastor challenges married couples to have sex everyday for a month“

It turns out that the pastor was trying to stem rising divorce rates.

Now, the pastor’s challenge does seem like a possible campaign to address Singapore’s declining birth rates, and of course, decreasing divorce rates as well.

Question: Why stop at 30 days?

This week is Chinese New Year week and the mad rush of spring cleaning (I know, I got a new flat and you must be wondering what is there to spring clean but I assure you, I did ALOT of cleaning) and other preparations for CNY have caused fatigue, both physically and mentally. So, I’m just going to ramble about what I consider a very interesting contradiction in life.

My brain’s anger fuse is weird. It’s unusually long for most people, except when it comes to immediate family. For some strange reason, I’m like a tinderbox with family. I lose my temper much more readily, either at them or in front of them.

My wife and I have talked about this before and we have wondered why we are usually so patient with others but less so with each other (she’ll probably say it’s just me and I shouldn’t extend things to her). My guess is that when you’re emotionally close to someone, you are not so self-conscious and more comfortable with self-expression. We’re probably not afraid of being looked upon negatively by the person who we are emotionally close to and as a result, we express both positive and negative emotions more readily than usual.

Then again, shouldn’t we be treating the ones who mean the world to us much better than people whom we don’t know so well? Isn’t it odd that we are more likely to vent our frustration and anger on people who are closer to us? I mean, why do we want to use hurtful words on or look really upset in front of people we care about so much?

While it might not make much logical sense, I guess that’s the way life is. It’s only when you are close enough to someone that you let down your guard and express all your emotions freely and openly. While I do lose my temper much more readily (but I get over it really fast), I too laugh much more readily, engage in small pranks on my wife very often and do all kinds of funny things to cheer her up that I’ll never do in front of other people. I guess it’s a two way street.

I recall hearing a marital advice that prescribes quarrels from time to time. The logic behind it is that couples should let out some steam from time to time. The worry is that one party might just be letting it all build up inside in a bid to have a more ‘harmonious’ relationship so it’s better to play safe and argue from time to time. Well, I guess I don’t need to deliberately create a quarrel with my wife considering that I’m pretty much a tinderbox when I’m with her.

Of course, one might be tempted to reason that too much of arguing can also cause the relationship to fail. Well, I think that will happen only if the couple does nothing other than quarrel all the time. I fight with my wife, but I take her out for good dinners, mop the floors, clean the toilets, iron the clothes and cook and wash the dishes much more often than I fight with her. In fact, I ban her from doing lots of housework because cleaning agents will cause her hands to dry and no woman would want her hands looking like raisins (nobody really cares about how smooth a guy’s hands are). Besides, science has proven men to be physically stronger so I have no excuse not to do housework.

Anyway, I digress. What I’m trying to get at is that a relationship fails not because of constant bickering but rather, there’s nothing solid that undergirds the whole relationship. If there’s a strong emotional bond between two people, both of them will come to realise that the expression of ‘negative’ feelings is part and parcel of a strong relationship (of course, this will be appreciated only AFTER cooling down).

Ok, enough ramblings for now. I would like to wish you a very happy Chinese New Year. And, if you want to come visit me in the hopes of getting an angpow, I’m sorry to disappoint you. I’ve yet to do my tea ceremony so I won’t be giving out angpows.

I almost died laughing when I saw the edited pictures of MM Lee, PM Lee and president SR Nathan on TalkingCock.com. Seriously, go check the two links out.

http://www.talkingcock.com/html/article.php?sid=2414

http://www.talkingcock.com/html/article.php?sid=2427

I just read AFP’s report on the failed attempt to repeal s377A (the act that criminalizes sex between two men) and this was what the Senior Minister of State for Law and Home Affairs, Ho Peng Kee, has to say:

“While homosexuals have a place in society… repealing section 377A will be contentious and may send a wrong signal that the government is encouraging and endorsing the homosexual lifestyle as part of our mainstream way of life,” Ho said.

Well, for years we have the marital immunity law. For the uninitiated, the marital immunity law basically means that a man CAN sexually force himself on his wife, whether she likes it or not. If you are in Singapore, don’t worry about raping your wife. By not repealing this law, the government is also sending the “right” signal that a man can legally rape his wife.

Singaporean men are really privileged. They don’t have to worry about their wives cooking up lame excuses such as headaches and being too tired. If they can’t get their wives to consent, just resort to rape! The law “encourages” Singaporean men to satisfy their sexual urges at ANY time of the day by granting immunity from marital rape. I don’t think there are many other countries where men have it this good!

Oh, now that “unnatural” sex between consenting heterosexuals has been legalised, all the better! Singaporean men have more choices in raping their wives! This is simply great, isn’t it?

Singaporean men, be thankful that the government encourages and endorses marital rape as, in the words of Ho Peng Kee, “a part of our mainstream way of life” by not repealing the marital immunity law. Like s377A, repealing this law “will be contentious and may send a wrong signal”.

Remember to tell your wife tonight that you can rape her and she can’t do anything about it because the government said so.

I cannot help but feel that for some, frankness and incivility are both one and the same. I don’t think they are quite the same. One can be civil without being frank, or one can be frank without being civil. By the same token, one can be both frank and civil at the same time.

An example might be easier to understand. Let’s imagine that you and I are at a mutual friend’s place (and the friend happens to be a cook by profession) and that friend has kindly decided to make pasta for all of us as dinner. At the dinner table, the pasta is served and you take a first bite. The first thought that comes to your mind after tasting the pasta is that the pasta simply tastes horrible.

There are several ways of telling the cook friend know that he has just made some really bad pasta. The civil yet not frank way of doing it could probably be like, “Hey, your pasta tastes not too bad.” (Avoidance of frankness in order to be civil)

The frank but uncivil way of conveying the same message could be, “Are you sure you are qualified to be a cook? How can this pasta be eaten? Go back to cooking school la.” (Gets to the point in an extremely rude manner)

The frank yet civil way of telling the friend would be along the likes of “You know, the pasta you made today is below your usual standard. Are you ok?” (Gets to the point that the pasta is bad but phrases it nicely)

There are ways to be frank and yet civil at the same time. There are people who confuse the two, thinking that by saying they are being frank, they are automatically given the license to be less than civil, or even insulting/rude. It is little things like this that start ugly quarrels and bar brawls. The world will be a much nicer place if people can learn that it is possible to be frank and civil at the same time.

But that’s just me. My opinion is definitely no representative sample of the entire population.

Dick Lee pokes fun at Singapore, and in particular, the Lee family.

Wow, our latest salary revisions have even impressed the world’s remaining superpower! From Yahoo! News:

WASHINGTON (AFP) - A senior White House official on Tuesday admitted he was floored by the news that Singapore’s prime minister earned five times more than US President George W. Bush.

“I’m going to emigrate and run for office in Singapore,” the official said on condition he be identified only as “a senior administration official who sits in disbelief after reading that story.”

On Monday, the Singapore government had announced a fresh 25.5 percent pay hike for Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, boosting his salary to 2.05 million dollars per year.

Bush gets paid 400,000 dollars per year for doing his job, according to the White House.

Combined with personal investment income, he and his wife Laura reported 618,694 dollars in taxable income in the 2005 fiscal year. They had to pay 187,768 dollars in federal taxes.

But maybe Bush shouldn’t feel so bad. The Singaporean’s paycheck is eight times fatter than Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s.

Our little red dot has succeeded. Even senior officials from the White House now want to emigrate to Singapore! But I wonder if the officials realises that he must be willing to wear a muzzle as a pre-requisite if he migrates. Well, maybe not a muzzle, but he must at least learn the art of parrot-speak. Anyway, whatever it is, it’s wonderful news. We might get a citizenship application from Shinzo Abe pretty soon too. Someone should also tell Tony Blair the wonderful news.

After reading the massive amount of anger and unhappiness on blogosphere from Singaporeans regarding the GST increase and ministerial pay increase, I think that it is time for Singapore to have a new political party that represents Singapore blogosphereans. Therefore, I am looking into setting up the Singapore Blogger Party (SBP) now so as to prepare for blogosphere’s contestation in the next Singapore General Elections.

The party logo is shown below:

The party logo is made up of the logos of the 3 most popular blogging services on the Internet to symbolise the nature of the party. The logos are arranged to look like a gavel (the hammer used in court) to represent the party’s interest in seeking truth and justice. Please note that the copyright of the 3 logos used in the party logo remains with the respective companies and any reproduction will require permission from them. I do not claim copyright over these logos.

Politics in Singapore is tough. Therefore, I would like to call on all bloggers to support the Singapore Blogger Party. We must show that bloggers are to be taken seriously. If all bloggers can band together, we will have the ability to upset the political scene by securing more than 33.3% of the vote in the next elections.

By now, if you haven’t realised how ridiculous this entry is, it’s about time you realise it. This entry is a joke. YOU HAVE BEEN TRICKED.

Happy April Fools Day.