gems of wisdom
The real question shd be, "What's so disastrous about having a few more opposition MPs".
I heard the learned minister say that they do not want the 5th C - conformity. He wants to see lively, robust debates etc etc. Obviously, they are not having that now becos most of the MPs look like they are half asleep.
# posted by kampong boy : Friday, March 24, 2006 10:44:40 AM
Lydia Lim- "I think its pointless to vote for an opposition candidate who clearly lacks the ability to scrutinise and critique policies in an inteliigent way."
"Retrenchment is good for singapore. If there is no retrenchments, then I worry."- SM Goh
"The opposition's plans to 'give and give' will lead to $ingaporeans having to pay higher taxes in order to foot the bill, General Lee Hsien Loong said at a rally in Tampines."- then DPM Lee in 2001
"$2.6b "Progress Package" for lower-income groups, elderly, NSmen"- now PM Lee in 2006
"Contrary to public perception, the White Horse classification is not to ensure that sons of influential men gets preferential treatment. Instead it is to ensure that they do not get preferential treatment."- Cedric Foo
"I don't think that there should be a cap on the number of directorship that a person can hold."- PAP MP John Chen who holds 8 directorships
"It's not for the money because some of the companies pay me as little as $10,000 a year."- PAP MP Wang Kai Yuen who holds 11 directorships.
"We are not considering a casino but an IR- an integrated resort. IRs are quite different."- George Yeo
"If you want to dance on a bar top, some of us will fall off the bar top. Some people will die as a result of liberalising bar top dancing .... a young girl with a short skirt dancing on it may attract some insults from some other men, the boyfriend will start fighting and some people will die."- Vivian Balakrishnan
"I would want to form an alternative policies group in Parliament, comprising 20 PAP MPs. These 20 PAP MPs will be free to vote in accordance with what they think of a particular policy. In other words, the whip for them will be lifted. This is not playing politics, this is something which I think is worthwhile doing."- SM Goh
"If you sing Jailhouse Rock with your electric guitar when others are playing Beethoven, you are out of order. The whip must be used on you."- SM Goh again, on a dramatic u-turn, rethink or backtrack, whatever you call it.
"THE National Kidney Foundation (NKF) spends more than 80 per cent of its funds on its beneficiaries."- Lim Hng Khiang
"Save on one hairdo and use the money for breast screening."- another gem from Lim Hng Kiang
"We started off with (the name) and after looking at everything, the name that really tugged at the heartstrings was in front of us. The name itself is not new, but what has been used informally so far has endeared itself to all parties."- Mah Bow Tan on the $400 000 exercise to rename Marina Bay as Marina Bay.
"Having enjoyed football as a national sport for decades, we in Singapore have set ourselves the target of reaching the final rounds of World Cup in 2010."- Ho Peng Kee
"Only 5% are unemployed. We still have 95% who are employed."- Yeo Cheow Tong. Duh.
"Singaporean workers have become more expensive than those in the USA and Australia."- Tony Tan
“People support CPF cuts because there are no protest outside parliament."- PM Lee
"No, it was not a U-turn, and neither was it a reversal of govt policy. But you can call it a rethink."- Yeo Cheow Tong
"...I regret making the decision because, in the end, the baby continued to be in intensive care, and KKH now runs up a total bill of more than $300,000..."- Lim Hng Kiang, regretting the decision to save a baby's life because KKH ran up a $300 000 bill
"If we want to be a world-class city, if we want to be a nation that has got very good standards of public hygiene and cleanliness, the best place to start with is the public toilet."- Amy Khor, PAP MP
"Restoring the pay cuts of civil servants and ministers is reasonable as Singapore's economy has now regained momentum."- Ng Eng Hen
"I don't think my reading for the economy is strong enough for us to even consider asking for the restoration of the cut in CPF."- Lim Boon Heng
"If we ever introduce anything like quotas or incentives based on race, it will reinforce the perception that Malays and Indians have low skills and can only get jobs because of an incentive or quota."- Tharman Shanmugaretnam
"These schools (SAP schools) need to remain essentially Chinese to give the edge in interacting with China..."- self contradictory statement made by Tharman Shanmugaretnam again
"We must encourage those who earn less than $200 per month and cannot afford to nurture and educate many children never to have more than two... We will regret the time lost if we do not now take the first tentative steps towards correcting a trend which can leave our society with a large number of the physically, intellecually and culturally anaemic."- MM Lee in 1967
"If you don't include your women graduates in your breeding pool and leave them on the shelf, you would end up a more stupid society...So what happens? There will be less bright people to support dumb people in the next generation. That's a problem."- MM Lee in 1983
"The PAP Government has always thrived on its ability to anticipate problems."- Wong Kan Seng
"We are not able to be everywhere as a government to know everthing in Singapore"- PM Lee
Some of the gems of wisdom uttered by our PAP MPs and ministers.
Only in Singapore
I am becoming increasingly disillusioned with the state of events we call 'politics' here in Singapore.
Where else in the world can you find a ruling party that has total control over every single little thing in our life, and to prevent people for so called 'opposing for the sake of opposing' and voting opposition players, sugguested that they have their own MPs act as opposition MPs. This is one of the more ridiculous ideas I've heard in recent times. It has the potential of turning the entire parliment system into a sideshow. When these PAP 'opposition' members really speak up, would you question their integrity? I would. Questions asked are likely to be 'safe' type of questions, or may even be scripted and veto beforehand by the PAP already, with a ready solution already so that it would make the PAP look even more efficient. It'll be like some fake reality shows, except that whatever consequences of stupid decisions made by the contestants affect not them, but you and me.
Another much talked about issue of upgrading of estates and lift upgrading also irks me. I have just a simple view of things. Are those people living in opposition wards not singaporeans? Do they not pay their taxes? Do they not contribute to the singapore economy as a whole? Why then are they subjected to such unfair treatment? Why are grants not given to opposition wards? Even when they are, they are distributed in channels that ensures that only PAP supporters benefits. WHY?
Maybe opposition leaders such as Mr Chiam or Mr Low such ask for tax cuts for people in their wards. Why should they be helping to pay or subsidise other wards upgrading projects? It just doesnt seem fair.
Another victim of disneyland?
Is it just me or does this looks suspiously like Pluto...?
Journey of Life
Your entire life summed up in a single picture.
tattoos
I just realised how difficult it is to find a tattoo studio in singapore with a decent website. A google search turns up the same couple of studios that have not updated their sites for years. (yes, I google around when I was planning to get my 1st tattoo like 4-5 years ago and the sites and pics I got back are EXACTLY the same)
Conclusion: Tattoo artistes are either non-tech savvy or plain lazy. I honestly believe its the latter.
People are asking me why I'm not going back to my orginal artist that did my last couple of tattoos, as honestly speaking, both the artwork and the needlework are great. However, the attitude of the artiste isn't. I understand that artists have their weird vibes and characters, but at the end of the day, the canvas that you are painting on is still mine, no matter how signature your drawings are. This particular artiste in question, D, always wants to do thing HIS way, despite what you really want. I specifically told him I wanted my tattoo in black and grey, above my chest, but he insisted that it should be in color and on my chest instead of being above it. After some haggling, we reached a compromise but after the tattoo was done, it was done in exactly the same way that he 1st proposed. What an ass. Yes, I admit it does look nice but I would have thought he should have the decency to respect my decision as well, since it is going to be with me for the rest of my life. Stupid artistic farts...
Anyway, would greatly appreciate if someone can recommend me a tattoo studio that does great oriental style tattoos at reasonable prices. Meanwhile, I'll just have to keep looking I suppose...
Bird flu in hong kong?
Apparently, it got to donald.... may he rest in peace...
Submissions by Dr Chee
[Below]is from the desk of Dr. Chee. Please consider to carry it on your blog.
Cheers!
k.h.
Submissions
(Revised with additional references)
As the AG has preferred a charge against me, I believe I am entitled to a trial here I can call witnesses to demonstrate the truth of my tatements and to document with precision how the courts in ingapore have been used by the PAP Government to maintain its chokehold on the country.
I have said before I will not run away. I am here to face my accuser nd the very people whom I have criticised. I am here to speak the ruth, whatever the consequences may bring. if you are going to charge me for contempt of court, at least have the ecency to allow me the opportunity to defend myself. There is nothing honorable in a fight wherein you bind and incapacitate your opponent.
Defamation without trial
This hearing has it roots from the defamation suits that Mr Lee Kuan ew and Mr Goh Chok Tong took against me in 2001.
In my applications I had indicated to the courts that I needed the services of Queen’s Counsels (QC) as no Singaporeans would take up my case. I am not alone in this predicament. Mr Tang Liang Hong also had great difficult in finding local representation when he was fighting his own defamation suits with the PAP. Mr J B Jeyaretnam experienced a similar plight, saying "No lawyer in Singapore wants to do political cases. It's a very sad commentary. Lawyers here are too scared for their own livelihood.” Mr Charles Gray QC who had represented Mr Tang in 1997 said in his submission to the court of appeal that it was “no credit on the legal community that Tang had been unable to find any lawyer (apart from Mr Jeyaretnam himself and, briefly, Mr Peter Low) willing to represent him.”
It is a telling indictment of the legal and judicial systems in Singapore when Singaporean lawyers fear doing what they have been trained to do and sworn to uphold – justice and the rule of law. The judiciary must ask itself how and why Singaporean lawyers are afraid to take up such cases when foreigners are not.
I was told by the courts that my case wasn’t complex enough to warrant my engaging a QC. The funny thing was that my opponents had solicited the services of Mr Davinder Singh, Senior Counsel which I understand is the Singapore version of a Queen’s Counsel. Mr Singh, whom I am sure you are aware, is an experienced lawyer in defamation suits.
How much more onesided can the fight be? In one corner you have a Senior Counsel and the chief of one of the biggest law firms in Singapore of more than 150 lawyers, I believe, and in the other corner, a psychologist with zero training in law. But the referee didn’t seem to care and allowed the fight to proceed. How the courts could be assisted to come to a fair decision when one side did not have legal representation did not seem to be a matter of concern to the judiciary.
So my case hobbled along and came to its inevitable demise when Messrs Lee Kuan Yew and Goh Chok Tong applied for summary judgment where the case was heard in chambers before the registrar. Expectedly, the matter was awarded to the plaintiffs which meant that there would be no trial, no calling for witnesses and no crossexaminations.
In the meantime, I had gotten legal advice that the matter contained issues that necessitated a trial. But what could I do? So no lawyer and no trial. The courts then proceeded to award the plaintiffs $500,000. I have already paid $400,000 in costs and damages in another defamation lawsuit involving my dismissal from NUS and, as a result, I don’t have much left to pay Lee and Goh.
The question that I want to ask is: Why have the courts been so unfair to me? By not allowing me QCs and thereby legal representation, and then not giving me a trial, and subsequently ordering me to pay Lee Kuan Yew and Goh Chok Tong halfamillion dollars, both of whom are millionaires by the way, and then making me a bankrupt when I am unable to, is to not only punish me but also my wife and children. Is this how justice is meted out in Singapore? If you were me, would you also not have grave doubts about the entire system?
Trials gone bad
One need look no further than the suits of the PAP leaders against Mr Tang Liang Hong to understand how problemaic our judicial system is. The legal events that led to the bankruptcy of Mr Tang make for sordid reading.
I will cite a few instances:
During the 1997 elections Mr Tang had made a police report complaining about the accusations PAP leaders had made about him. The PAP leaders accused Mr Tang of making public the contents of the report to the news media and proceeded to sue Mr Tang and ultimately obtained more than $3 million in judgment. This subsequently made Mr Tang, who now lives in exile, a bankrupt.The horror of it all was that it was later revealed, during crossexamination by the late George Carman QC, who was representating Mr Jeyaretnam, that Home Affairs Minister Wong Kan Seng had ordered the police to give him a copy of the report, which by the way is confidential, passed it on to Mr Goh Chok Tong who was then the prime minister and who then gave it to Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yew who disseminated the report’s contents to the media.
Two questions begged to be asked:
Why was a confiential report made available to the PAP when it was confidential? Remember, the information was later used by the PAP leaders to sue Mr Tang in their private capacities. Why was Mr Tang found guilty of defamation when it was Mr Lee Kuan Yew who had released the information contained in the police report to the media? Does it make sense for Mr Lee to disseminate the information and then sue Mr Tang for defamation? More incredibly, Mr Jeyaretnam had held up an envelope during an election rally and informed the public that Tang had made a police report. For that he was also sued and convicted of defamation despite he fact that he neither revealed the contents of the police report nor entioned anything in detail about the PAP politicians. n the Tang Liang Hong case, it will be remembered that Mr Lee Kuan ew had made a statement in his affidavit that the town of Johor Baru was “notorious for shootings, muggings and carjackings.”
In the ensuing uproar on the Malaysian side, Lee was forced to retract his statement and apologize to Malaysia. Lee then applied to have his statement removed from his affidavit. But Tang queried the move on a point of law: that the rules of court stated that an affidavit or parts of it may be struck off only on the grounds that it was “scandalous, irrelevant, or oppressive.”
The judge allowed Lee’s application saying that the judiciary “should help Singapore maintain good bilateral relations.” Maintaining good bilateral relations is the work for the Executive Branch of the Government, in particular the Foreign Ministry. The judiciary’s role is to ensure that justice is meted out in accordance with court rules and the law to contesting parties. I will submit more on this point a little later.
To heap insult upon the already enormous injury, the judiciary then ordered Tang to pay cost for the application even though Mr Lee was the one who had made the statement about Johor Baru and it was Lee who had appliedto have the offending words removed! Similar occurrences happened in my own case. In 2004, I had informed the courts that I would be away in the United States to do a fellowship until September that year. In July while I was still away, Mr Lee Kuan Yew and Mr Goh Chok Tong applied for the hearing to assess damages to be brought forward. The Registrar then wrote to me, knowing that I was away, to attend court to ”confirm the new dates” proposed by the plaintiffs. I found out about this only when I returned to Singapore in September. The fact that the plaintiffs changed their minds about the application and decided to stick to the original dates was cold comfort to me. Going back to the Tang case, It will also be recalled that Mr Tang’s wife was named a codefendant to the suit even though she had nothing to do with case. Be that as it may, when Mrs Tang tried to visit Johor Baru one day, she was stopped by immigration officials who proceeded to impound her passport. Mr Lee Kuan Yew later said in court that “we were compelled to seize her passports for the purpose of satisfaction of judgments to be obtained by [the plaintiffs].” We? Since when was there a law to allow plaintiffs in defamation suits to seize the passports of defendants? Where was the judiciary to prevent such an abuse of power?
International criticisms
These events were not conjured by me for fun. They were actual occurrences. They are incontrovertible facts that demonstrated how the judiciary has bent over backwards to accommodate those in power at the expense of the political opposition in Singapore. These occurrences have led international observers to come to the conclusion that the judiciary is indeed influenced by the executive. Ross Worthington, in his paper Hermes and Themis: An Empirical Study of the Contemporary Judiciary in Singapore, listed the observers: (p. 492)
“Criticism of the Singaporean judiciary has been made by international human rights organizations such as Amnesty International and Asia Watch, by judicial institutions such as the Bar Association of the City of New York, the International Commission of Jurists in Canada, Australia, and its international office in Geneva, the Privy Council and eminent internationally renown senior counsel such as John PlattsMill QC, Frank Galbaley QC, Anthony Lester QC, Geoffery Robertson QC, Judge Paul Bentley, and Stuart Littlemore QC. These critisims have usually been basedon judgments in political cases in Singapore, not on the basis of political belief, but according to the established legal principles of common law nations, the same standards Singapore professes to follow.”
[Defamation lawsuits have] done little to overcome the courts’ reputation as improperly compliant to the interests of the country’s ruling People’s Action Party. – International Commission of Jurists “What emerges…is a government that has been willing to decimate the rule of law for the benefit of its political interests. Lawyers have been cowed to passivity, judges are kept on a short leash, and the law has been manipulated so that gaping holes exist in the system of restraints on government action toward the individual.” – New York City Bar Association Lawyer’s Rights Watch Canada: “The use of defamation suits in Singapore to prevent political statement belies any notion that Singapore is a democracy. Democracy is the right to participate inone’s governance and to receive, distribute and debate information regarding issues of public concern and the performance of public officials without the risk of civil or criminal penalties. Singapore has failed to protect these rights. Singapore has also failed to honour its obligation to promote and protect the rule of law (a state of affairs in which there are legal barriers to government arbitrariness and legal safeguard for the protection of individuals.)” Retired Canadian judge Paul Bentley: “The issue of' whether the filing of' defamation suits affects freedom of expression and peaceful democratic discourse in Singapore is beyond question for me. The more pressing concern is whether international condemnation of the practice and faint signs of growing domestic distaste for it, will be sufficient to change the government's tactics against its political opponents.”
Professor Ross Worthington had conducted an empirical study on the judiciary in Singapore and this is what he found: On the subjugation of the judicial branch of government (p. 491) “This is a system of governance which, however, has been extensively criticized for its lack of transparency, accountability, and democratic behaviour. In particular, there has been a continuing concern that the ruling Peoples Action Party (PAP) governments have produced a political system in which all branches of government, including the judicial, have been subjugated to the executive branch. This has led to considerable criticism of the Singaporean judiciary…”
On the control of the subordinate courts (p. 497)
“This practice of actively ensuring that there is no professional judiciary within the subordinate courts subjugates these courts directly to executive power; they are not part of an independent judiciary but an arm of executive government, part of the Singapore Legal Service, and they carry into that role the norms characteristic of the civil service including implicit support for the political executive and its power arrangements.”
On appointees to the Supreme Court (p. 499)
“Almost half of appointees to Supreme Court are drawn from the AttorneyGeneral’s Chambers or were formerly senior officers of this department before going into private practice and then into the judiciary. If we accept that it is irrelevant for senior civil servants to be PAP members or cadres as it is both illegal for them to be members of a political party and they can have allegiance to the party without such a formal status, those appointed with formal or informal affiliation to the PAP form 85 percent of Supreme Court appointees. Those not obviously linked to the PAP comprise 15 percent.”
On the abolition of appeal to the Privy Council (p. 502)
“The last vestige of complete independence in the judicial system, appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, was abolished in February 1994, despite Lee Kuan Yew’s previous insistence that Singapore should ‘allow a review of the judicial process that take place here in some other tribunal where obviously under influence cannot be brought to bear’. The abolition of appeals to a nonSingaporean tribunal is, in itself, no cause for concern; New Zealand acted in 1996 to do likewise, as has Australia. The principle concern is that the indigenous judicial system be sufficiently mature to defend the rule of law, maintain the independence of the judiciary and, at the most basic level, be able to provide balance in the exercise of state power over citizens.
Given that the Privy Council and several international judicial organizations had castigated the Singaporean judiciary for failing to uphold such standards, it is difficult not to conclude that the executive replace the Privy Council with a domestic Court of Appeal as a means of maintaining executive control of the judiciary and minimizing international criticism of the judicialexecutive nexus and the executive’s occasional overt abuses of power.” In the US State Dept Human Rights Report 2005, it is stated that “The following human rights problems were reported” one of which was “executive influence over the judiciary.”
The report went on to say that “Some judicial officials, especially supreme court judges, have ties to the ruling party and its leaders… Government leaders historically have used court proceedings, in particular defamation suits, against political opponents and critics. Both this practice and consistent awards in favor of government plaintiffs raised questions about the relationship between the government and the judiciary...”
All the instances that I have cited, there seems to be almost universal agreement about the lack of judicial independence in Singapore. Given this isn’t there a possibility that there may be, just may be, a kernel of truth in all their observations.
You may say that all these organizations and individuals are somehow stupider than the judicial and legal officials in Singapore when it comes to interpretation of the law. Or may be they are all angmohs (Caucasians) who are intensely jealous of Singapore’s success and want to sabotage it. They are all either telling lies or deeply mistaken, the whole lot of them: AI, ICJ, Professor Ross Worthington, the US State Dept and so on.
Maybe you can try to make this to be the case that everyone else is wrong except you. But what is most important is what does the average reasonable person think.
But let us for the moment assume that everyone else is wrong and that the AG and the Courts are right. You will recall that in the Christopher Lingle case, the AG admitted, and the courts agreed, that when the American academic said that some Asian governments used “compliant” judiciaries to bankrupt opposition politicians, he was referring to Singapore.
Let’s pause for a moment here and take a closer look at the absurdity of the present case. The AG and the courts acknowledge that“compliant” judiciaries are used to bankrupt opposition politicians in Singapore. That’s what you said. Yet when I agree with you and say the same, I am charged for contempt of court. Does this make any sense to you?
The only way that I can be convicted for contempt of court is if you admit that the AG and the Courts had lied in the Christopher Lingle case because it is not true that the Singapore judiciary is “compliant” when it came to defamations suits involving opposition politicians. But if you are speaking the truth, then so am I. And if I am speaking the truth, how can I be in contempt of court. Isn’t truth what courts seek? On this point allow me to point out that in Nationwide vs Mills
(p 39):
“It is not neccesary, even if it be possible, to chart the limits of contempt scandalizing the court. It is sufficient to say that the revelation of truth—at all events when its revelation is for the public benefit—and the making of a fair critisim based on fact do not amount to a contempt of court though the truth revealed or the critisim made is such as to deprive the court or judge of public confidence. The critical difference between the scope of s. 299(1)(d)(ii) and the scope of contempt of court is that the latter does not purport to supress justifiable or fair and reasonable critisim which exposes grounds for loss of official repute, but s. 299(1)(d)(ii) purports to supress all critisim which is likely to bring the Commission into disrepute including critisim that is justifiable, fair and reasonable.”
Conclusion
The truth of the matter is that convicting and punishing me for contempt does not and cannot change reality, it cannot elevate the reputation of the Singapore courts. Its like the big bully punching out the little guy for calling him a bully. Please don’t for one minute think that I am attacking you, sir. I respect you as a person and I hold have only the highest regard for your intellect.
But I cannot in good conscience continue to allow it to go unremarked when our judicial system is in such a dismal state. I am not foolish. I know the power that you wield. It is power backedby handcuffs, prison cells and, utimately, guns, the combination of which keep heads bowed and mouths shut. I don’t possess or have at my disposal such enormous power. I have only my freedom with which to wage this battle. But I also have something that is far more powerful than all the physical force that you can muster – and that is, the truth. And if you realise the power that truth posseses you will see how lopsided this contest is, and you will have the wisdom, I pray, to get on the right side. What you do to me today, the sentence that you will hand down, will be temporary. But the infamy that you will have to live with will go down in the annals of Singapore’s history and that will last forever. I plead not for leniency but for reform, that good and wise minds prevail in this room today.
Speaking truth to undemocratic power is never easy for it invariably invites reprisal. I do not want to go to prison for I have have a lovely wife and three beautiful children wanting me to come home. Having to leave them under such circumstances is the most painful thing I have had to do. But living with the shame of keeping my head bowed when injustice permeates our society is infinitely worse. I want to be free but freedom is nothing when one cannot speak the truth to power.
so bad that it feels good.
Its soooooooo sinful..... :D
random rants - guys, woman, sex
A female friend was lamenting to me the other day about how guys only have sex on their mind. Not true, i told her. There always also football and cars. :)
But honestly, I remember reading a study somewhere, sometime, that guys think about sex and average of once maybe every 60 seconds or so. I think that's a generous estimate. Most guys I know are much more hornier than that. Me included.
I get fustrated when I get no sex sometimes. Its worse when you are attached, and is like having a cold war with your girlfriend. You want it, but you know you are not going to get it from her, yet you know its morally incorrect to cheat on her, and the worse thing is you hate masturbating. That basically sums up the situation I'm in right now, which, if you think about it, is really sad... :(
People often equate having a partner to having regular bionking sessions. That is the biggest misconception of the century, at least for me. I used to club alot. By alot, I mean a minimum of 3 times a week, wed, fri and sat are confirm dates, while I'll squeeze in another couple more days if schedule permits. I'm not trying to brag here, but 90% of the time, I do not go home alone. I'm not exactly into ONS, in fact, most relations I had lasts way more than a night, its like I have a number of what others usually called 'fuck buddy'. They are really my friends, and we go way back, without any sexual beginnings. Alcohol is usually the culprit, and I guess deep down, no one really wants to be lonely....
Anyway, the point is, after I got to know my girl, I stopped fucking any one of them anymore. In fact, I don't even club much anymore. Its not easy resisting temptations, I can atest to that... I run a pub and you get hit on pretty much somedays by both your customers and sometimes your own staff. I have guys coming up to me and telling me how much they envy me, but honestly, it feels even worse when the food is at your mouth, but you are resisting from taking it. Sometimes I wonder is they are just being a tease as they know I remain pretty much faithful to my gal.To my gal, she probably doesn't see all these stuff that I'm actually 'not doing', rather, I'm judged by what I actually do, which honestly, is not alot. I'm not a romantic by any means, so you won't be getting any flowers or praises regularly. I'm not that rich so it means theres no expensive gifts every other day. What I do is I stand by you faithfully, always there for you when you need me. But this kind of things are intangible. You can't see it, so you don't weigh it. You only see what I do not do...
Anyway, that was a major digression. -_______-"
As I was saying, there's no doubt guys are horny all the time. We want sex, its the way nature made us. But then again, why did nature play such a cruel joke and made guys perpetually horny while making woman seemingly able to go without sex? I remember there was this movie about this guy trying to abstain from sex for a month or something for lent, and you can see and laugh at him as he goes cold turkey. Yes, it is a gross exaggeration, but you would believe it(mildly). What if the lead was a woman? you would think its ridiculous wouldn't you?
Anyway, I'm starting to blabble and not making sense... Should just go to bed... with no sex again today... sigh...
Brokeback Top Gun
This is funny :)
Top Gun RecutBrokeback Top Gun
Which Celebrity Do You Look Like?
haha, was about to go to sleep when I came across this funny shit courtesy of
lmdDecide to give it a try and the results are freaking funny :)
I look the most like
1) Francoise Hardy (61%)
Knn! I look like a girl?? But she quite chio lah.. so ok.. although dunno who she is.. haha!
2)Kim Cattrall (60%)
Nabei! Another woman?? I am seriously being to think that there is something wrong with the system... I mean, I look so manly one leh! :)
3)Jay Chou (59%)
Finally! The system is starting to work. :)
4)Ashton Kutcher (56%)
Ok, so the system isn't exactly faulty after all I guess :)
Decide to give it another try with a picture of my gal and me, and the top 3 are:
For my gal
1)Alizee (74%)
If only.... hehe :P
2)Jennifer Jason Leigh (73%)
I was thinking the system probably have no problems identifying her as a woman as she got long hair. I was proven wrong
3)Will Ferrell (72%)
THAT SMILE!!! Its freakingly uncanny ok! gosh....
My results:
1)Rod Stewart (67%)
Hope I don't have THAT many wrinkles on MY face...
2)David Coulthard (61%)
My face got so square meh..?
3)Bunko Kanazawa (60%)
The complimentary woman picture again... chio ok, I see I also like.. :P Looks like a porn star though.... Gives a whole new meaning to the expression 'Go fuck yourself' :D
Go try it out yourself!
who do you blog for?
Just looking at the counter for the blog. Realised that there are like 100+ views there. Then I kinda wonder why I put the counter up in the first place. Do I really care how many people is reading this?
I have two blogs, one here, and one at xanga. I post most of my personal stuff there, stuff that is so boring that you would not be interested anyway. I like that blog alot. I had it for like two years and known a whole group of virtual friends who feels like I know them and they know me, but we have never ever met. I dun feel comfortable meeting up with new people, I never like to socialise. Which is apparently abit weird considering that I'm a Gemini and I can be really whacky and fun(especially when I'm drunk :P) but I just dun like to get to know new people(again, unless when I'm drunk).
So I had a comfortable existence there at xanga, writing just about everything, and having my virtual friends commenting on them, knowing my deepest secrets, yet I know that they won't ever tell cos they dun even know what I look like, let alone who I am. That is, until I made the mistake of letting my (now)girlfriend knew about the blog. Suddenly, I feel that I cannot blog freely cos I will be judged. She was the one and only person that I know in real life that knew I kept a blog. I suddenly feel I have to present myself in a better light. We were not together yet back then, but I had an interest in her, and I can't exactly blog about the flirting session that I had the previous night with whoever it happen to be when I drunk. Now that we are together, I can't exactly blog about arguments and the fact that I think she is being a riduculous spoilt bitch.(not if I wanted the arguments to stop) Suddenly, I feel crippled.
Those entries went into private posts. But the thing about private posts meant that only I could read it. No longer can my virtual friends comment on them and tell me that I'm a jerk/bastard/poor sod. I lost the feeling of actually blogging something off my chest, cos only until I know that someone knows how I feel or what I'm talking about would I feel justified. Its like I'm not 'suffering' in silence, someone knows. Pathetic huh?
Its a love hate thing. I look at my counter going up, and I'm glad in that I feel I'm being heard, yet at the same time, I dun really want people to know, or understand what I am actually feeling. I will then move away from personal thoughts and posts. How contridicting. Who should we blog for??
Jobs I would like to do (Singapore only)
Taking a break off my final projects, I being to think of jobs that I would like to do (read: easy job, high pay) when I graduate.
1. MP (NOT Military Police!)
Job Scope:
- Show face once every 5 years to shake hands and carry babies.
- Take home pay average of the highest professionals.
- Lamblast opposition at every opportunity.
- When asked uncomfortable questions, wave hand dismissively and declare that we need to 'move on'
- Or sue them
If you are lucky, you can probably stay in your job without going through a single election(ie never got tested!).
Dream job rating : *****
2. Charity Organistation CEO
Job Scope:
- Get donations
- Get more donations
- Get even more donations
- Use donations to buy gold tap
- Use donations to pay for worthless projects run by friends or self.
- Get paid a peanut a year
Nobody will ever need to know how much money you are
stealing getting paid. Just dun go for gold taps, and leave more powerful organisations alone...
Dream job rating : ****
3. Pastor
- Pray
- Help people keep money
- Pray
- Help church keep money
- Pray
- Help 'invest' the money
Too much praying involved... :(
Dream job rating : *
4. President
- Eat lunch with visitng delegates
- Visit other countries to have lunch
- Guard reserves (But never attempt to ask how much you are guarding aka the late mr ong)
Cons - Diff to get employed...
I had a few more ideas in my mind earlier... will update again.
Dun believe everything you read online
Turns out that its all a very nicely done practical joke.
link
