Basket.

Examinations are the axis upon which every student's education revolves, and generations upon generations of every level have had to learn to sit in an enclosed room and complete a stipulated number of questions within a stipulated time to earn a stipulated grade in order to move on to the next stipulated level. Months, and then years, of hard work and toil, coming right down to a couple hours sweating over a paper that will probably only judge a fraction of all the candidate has ever learnt - and if he or she has chosen to learn the wrong things, then he or she is quite simply... fucked.

Yes, of course it is unfair, but then again the world is built upon unfairness, broken promises and bitter tears of regret.

I say this, of course, because examinations begin in school tommorrow, and naturally my hope is that my proteges do their best and achieve whatever they set out to achieve. My hope is also that I don't end up with a good stack of English papers to mark. Perhaps then it is expedient that I am more than used to the sound of shattered dreams and the crushing feeling of abject disappointment.

But I will resolve to have faith. All the very best to all students, especially mine. I believe you have what it takes. Believe in yourselves and do what you can.

And after you have done all you can, after you can sincerely say that you have put in everything you have got, be at peace with yourself. Do not wonder how you could have improved, do not regret what you did not do, or did. The paper will be over and there will be nothing you can anymore change. Look forward, stride on without regrets. Face up to your failings, know your limitations, and seek to change them for the future that will still beckon.

Godspeed.

Former Russian president Boris Yeltsin dead at 76

Another pivotal figure of the 20th century rides into the sunset. As Russia's first democratically-elected leader, Boris Yeltsin was always assured of a place in history. Yet he left a complex legacy, and is remembered both for his heroism - in standing up to the abortive hardline coup of August 1991 - and for enfeebled indecision as Russia transitioned messily from Communism to democracy.

From standing up against tanks in 1991, Yeltsin went to using them against the Russian Parliament in October 1993. From being a firm advocate for the break-up of the Soviet Union and self-determination for its component republics, he went on to begin a ruinous war in Chechnya that killed well over 100,000 civilians and turned out to be a complete humiliation for the Russian Army, who were unable to defeat the ragtag Chechnyan forces. From being a firm friend of the West, he went to nearly triggering a serious international incident with a rash occupation of Pristina International Airport during the Kosovo War of 1999. Like so many great historical figures, he was a bundle of contradictions, and his decision to step down as President on December 31st, 1999, was sudden and unexpected.

What is sure is that he will be remembered for his role in arguably the 20th century's most turbulent decade. Rest in peace.

Happy birthday to Aaron, who turned 21 and was kind enough to invite me.




HISSOC Core. I just noticed that Tse Yang has a distinctly Fu Manchu expression. Also he is sporting hair that has not been cut since ORD.




Everyone together now, but I only know about six people in there and was not interested in the rest.




Bonus incredibly unflattering shot of Aaron and cake. Seriously, I just grabbed my camera and pressed the button without giving the screen so much as a glance. The fact that our corner of the restaurant was unnaturally dark didn't help.

And thus, a good dinner on Friday night to prepare me for the next week of tribulations.

Mondays are always hellish. Fucking Black Mondays, ever since school days, when the prospect of an Economics lecture bright and early to begin the week was enough to utterly lay waste to my morale for the coming five school days. In NS Monday represented the beginning of yet another scintillating week of frustrations, unreason, backstabbing and obsequiousness. It isn't any better now, because three double periods and all four subjects is how I must now begin my work week, facing down four full classes of youthful energy fresh from the weekend and all bouncing off the walls. It is sheer murder.

At any rate, my stint is coming to a close and I will be returning to student life.


I CANNOT WAIT. I JUST CAN'T WAIT FOR IT TO HAPPEN.


To be spending long, lissome nights on essays again; to sacrifice sleep and maybe a few lectures on the altar of academic achievement; to be back in touch with former classmates and present seniors (fuck NS. FUCK NS.); to be in a CCA again; to multitask with three MSN windows (two work, one pleasure), someone on the phone, a couple essays open in Word, a couple books open for footnoting and a world at my feet in Civilization II; to procrastinate endlessly and set targets to be barely met; to not-listen in lectures; to be ready to spring in tutorials; to live for the next assignment or test or exam and be able to enjoy that couple minutes of complete, absolute peace just before the paper and frenetic writing begins.

That is the life of a student. That, is THE LIFE.

I want it. So, so, so bad.

Fuck, I am a masochist.

Inevitably, the latest and deadliest ever school shooting in US history has cast the spotlight back on gun control - whether the United States of America ought to make a greater effort to regulate, or even ban, the possession of firearms. Not that I expect it to change anything, because of the entire Bill of Rights, the oft-quoted "right to bear arms" is considered sacrosanct.

The NRA, just as inevitably, has already been mentioned. On my tagboard, as well. Yet the NRA is only part of the entire issue (most commonly, merely its public face), which is rather more complicated. The reasons why gun control cannot come along easily are rooted deep in American history and the American psyche.

Why can't America ban guns? The first very simple explanation is that it is a democracy, and those people who believe in the right to own firearms still outnumber those who don't. Many of the former grouping belong in very high places, at that. It would then be quite obviously futile to attempt to push through strict gun laws, as strong public and legislative opposition will ensure the failure of such a movement. But why exactly is this "right to bear arms" so sacred, so important, so dear, to the American people?

Let us examine the relevant portion: the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America:

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

The key terms being:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Quite simply, what it is saying is that the People need to be well-armed in order to face down a potentially rogue, tyrannical government, to overthrow it and restore liberty to all. A militia, after all, is traditionally an irregular force formed by ordinary citizens to protect their homes, families and territory against hostile invaders, foreign or local. And the ideal of a responsible, well-kept and maintained militia is very much an integral part of America's national consciousness. It is one of their founding myths, so to speak.

The Second Amendment was promulgated against the backdrop of a young nation, newly independent, thinking of itself as newly liberated and determined to remain that way. The political struggle in this new entity was between Alexander Hamilton's Federalists, advocating a strong central government, and the AntiFederalists, arguing for a rather looser union of states. The argument of the latter group, of course, was that a strong central government would have a tendency towards despotism. They feared the creation and maintenance of a large standing army, which the central government could potentially utilise to apply maximum rule. The Second Amendment was born out of the need to placate such fears; a vast militia of armed citizens outside the control of the central government would greatly hinder, to say the least, any attempt by this government to impose absolute rule.

Over the centuries, such a view has been endlessly romanticised. It was American irregulars, after all, who fired the first shots of the American Revolution - at Lexington and Concord (which incidentally occured on this day in 1776). A myth was born: the myth of the Minutemen; strong, young, healthy, crack shots ready at a moment's notice (hence the name) to defend "inalienable rights" and "self-evident truths". Having freed their nation from British tyranny (this view is in itself a fallacy, but that's another story), the American militia now stood a ready bulwark against dark forces of tyranny and absolutist evil. A nation, kept at liberty with arms.

The truth down the centuries has, of course, been rather more prosiac. The performance of the American militia in the Revolution itself was deplorable, and it did equally badly in the War of 1812. In addition, Lincoln's extraordinary suspensions of civil liberty (including habeas corpus) during the Civil War provoked little reaction from these supposed guardians of liberty. Yet the myth endured, and endures still, fed by incidents such as the true heroism of the defenders of the Alamo. It is a part of America's national consciousness, and it is simply not possible to extract this part and decry gun ownership as outdated and brutal. To do so would be tantamount, to an American, to questioning not only his/her rights, but also his understanding of his/her nation's history and identity. It might be asking too much.

We cannot expect anyone to forget 250 years of history in an instant, and ditch treasured national myths all that easily. I definitely am not for loosely regulated gun ownership (or even private gun ownership, for that matter), but we do need to understand that there are very good reasons why the American government can't just ban guns - and why the NRA shouldn't need to be the fall guy all the time.

Well, everyone should have heard of this by now.

Let me just say in all seriousness that if guns were legal here, I would not in my wildest dreams ever consider becoming a teacher for any length of time whatsoever. Teen angst and firearms are a potent, quite literally deadly, mix - proven time and time again in schools not just in the United States, but also in the United Kingdom and even relatively pacifist (so we think) Germany.

Yes, I am aware that this time the killer is no teenager but a fully mature adult. However, I believe my statement is not diminished in validity by this fact.

In any case, unstable people will always exist in society. Teenagers are, of course, the group most prone to instability - puberty is a very bewildering time - but most eventually grow out of it and into mature, responsible adults and fully functional members of society. Some, unfortunately, for various reasons do not. The loners, manic-depressives, sociopaths, psychosomatics... are as much a part of a nation's collective consciousness as all its law-abiding citizens. We cannot easily get rid of them - and early recognition and treatment, as this latest case shows, has its limitations.

So let us put aside all discussion about political freedoms and personal rights for the moment, and let me thank our government that we have some of the strictest gun laws in the world. This - more than anything else - keeps us safe, and especially keeps our educators and students safe.

I returned to Ghim Moh today for breakfast; of the lor mee that sustained me all throughout A-Levels. Unfortunately, I couldn't find the time to go have a look at our old, decaying stomping ground, presently the site of Dunman High, reason being that I had to hurry home to catch Winston's TV debut as a curry puff salesman. Honestly the rest of the show was crap though.

Ghim Moh market and food centre has changed little. Same worn red tiles, same friendly hubbub, same eclectic mix of cagey elderly, blinkered policemen and loudly-Hokkien stallholders. But most importantly - same excellent selection of wonderful food. I spent mornings there as a primary schoolkid, and much later afternoons as a JC student, and the food never changed all the way. It still hasn't. My family has patronised this lor mee stall for close to a decade and another particular prawn mee stall for more than one - and there is no reason to stop because they still know exactly how to dish out delightfully fulfilling meals.

Ghim Moh is a place of many memories for me. Much of our family groceries come from there, so I've been going there for years now. It was a good way, as a child, to spend a Sunday morning, until sleeping-in and cable internet beckoned, years down the road. It was an even better way, as a student, to spend weekday afternoons, killing time either before History S or simply unwinding after a long, hard day. Or sometimes, if we felt like something more appealing for lunch. Those afternoons were always filled with jokes, horsing around and plenty of laughter: the stuff of unforgettable memories. After which we could still adjourn to McDonalds' and get 25-cent ice cream cones, enjoying air-conditioned comfort while still spinning yarns.

Later on, when I was supposed to be studying for A-Levels, the McDonalds' became yet another refuge, as I whiled away long afternoons at chess there. Unfortunately, the place did not long survive our departure, for whatever reason. It is gone now, only existing in the memories of so many thousands of students that spent so many memorable moments within its premises.

I really miss those days.

Unsurprisingly, the local media continues to be filled with justifications of the recent ministerial pay hike. In addition, sycophantic entries have appeared on both the Young PAP blog and p65.sg. The ruling party is indeed, as declared by Dr Vivian Balakrishnan, ready and determined to make use of this "new media".

Not that the old is being neglected in any way. The press in Singapore, long subordinate to the PAP government, is playing its usual role to perfection.

Let us take as an example today's edition of The New Paper. An excerpt:

"The Government has already more or less won the battle of the mind. Few would begrudge the public servants their due recognition and respect.

But can ministers ever win hearts when it comes to how much to pay them? The heart, swayed by emotion, becomes illogical, envious, contentious."

Reading between the lines: pay hike is logical and fully justified, and anyone who does not believe so is being truculent and irrational.

How irrational is it, I ask, to believe that there ought to be some element of "service" in "public service"? Some element of self-sacrifice, of serving the nation out of a sense of prideful idealism? Being motivated not by piles of money but by a desire to genuinely bring the republic forward?

If thinking like that is being irrational, then I am proud to be irrational.

And what is so bad about being contentious? Democracy thrives on different competing ideas, perspectives and notions. A society without contentious issues is not a democratic society - and this place, allegedly, is a democracy. Yet "contentious" is consistently bandied about like a foul word?

So much for the Fourth Estate - but the government has expressed itself to that respect on more than one prior occasion.

More laughably, our media also enjoys using the phrase "the uncertainties of political office". Ooh, ministers' terms are not guaranteed - they have to face elections every five years! Oh please; what are they going to do, lose? Singapore hasn't had an election where the result was in any reasonable doubt for well over forty years. It does not look like having one any time in the near future, either, although I do foresee the opposition posing a much stiffer challenge next election on. It is reasonable to assume that the PAP is going to stay in power for a good long time from now. Uncertainties of political office? Certainly not here.

In addition, the entire slew of back-and-forthing is being trumpeted by the government as a triumph of transparency. Which it technically is, of course. Unfortunately, this transparency is of little value. There was always a sense of inevitability about the pay hike. As a matter of fact, whenever the government declares that something like this is going to happen, there is a sense of inevitability about the entire matter. Singaporeans pick up the paper, see the headlines about the "proposed" increase, throw it a few choice Hokkien expletives and then resign themselves to it happening. And of course, it duly does, every time. It is as if stiff public opposition (or as Young PAP ominously calls it, dissent) does not matter. MPs can speak passionately against it in Parliament, and that will not matter either. Look at transport fee hikes. They are always pushed through in the teeth of mounting public discontent. Can anyone blame Singaporeans for believing that their opinion is of little worth?

As a matter of fact, the transparency makes it worse. The government is basically saying, look, this is what we are going to do, this is how we are going to do it, and we will do it without giving a rat's ass for your opinion, bitches. It's like having a serial killer break into your house, tie up your entire family and describe to you in graphic, excruciating detail how he is going to eviscerate your parents, brutally rape your younger sister, dash out your younger brother's brains against the wall and then burn down the house with all of you still helpless inside. Knowing what is going to happen, how exactly it is going to happen and that it is going to happen no matter what only makes one feel insignificant and worthless. Transparency is no consolation at all.

What we need is accountability. In a democracy, which this place supposedly is, the leaders are accountable to the people. I have seen little sign of that. Part of leadership and accountability is sacrifice - and I have seen little of that from our leaders, as well.

PM, ministers to get pay rise of between 14% and 33%


Full ministerial statement on the issue

In a startling and completely unexpected development, the Government of the Republic of Singapore has decided to award itself enormous pay rises at the expense of the people. Certainly can't say I saw that one coming.

But more seriously - the issue of how justifiable these pay rises really are. Let us have a look at the cold, hard facts and figures, laid out so beautifully in an easily accessible news report in an act of magnanimous transparency.


- President S R Nathan will now get S$3.2 million a year, up from S$2.5 million currently.

- Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong will get S$3.1 million a year, up from S$2.5 million currently.

- Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong and Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew will get S$3.04 million a year, up from S$2.7 million at the moment.

- Deputy Prime Ministers will get S$2.4 million a year, up from the current S$2.06 million.

- Ministers and Senior Permanent Secretaries will get S$1.6 million a year, up from S$1.2 million previously.

- Members of Parliament will now get S$13,200 per month as allowance, up from S$11,900.


Let us leave everything else aside for the moment and agree that that is a lot of money.

What is mentioned but not emphasised in the press, however, is this is not going to be the only increase. There will be another next year.

As the press is, for obvious reasons, not going to emphasise this point, allow me to.

THERE IS GOING TO BE ANOTHER PAY RISE FOR OUR AUGUST LEADERS NEXT YEAR - EQUAL TO OR EXCEEDING IN MAGNITUDE, THIS ONE.

Ah, the Straits Times. Putting the "state" in "state media". To give out some details, this year's increase is expected to push salaries to 77% of THE BENCHMARK, while next year's is expected to push them to 88%. This little factlet took up four lines in a single column on page seven of today's Home section, the headline of which was, masterfully, "More of ministers' pay to be linked to performance".

But enough about the subtleties of state journalism. Let us move on to the main point and examine these increases, what they mean, and whether they are deserved.

The government has demonsrated an impeccable sense of timing, for one. GST is to go up 2% from July - against strong public opposition. Even as the GST hike debate raged, a small, insignificant motion was rejected by Parliament, almost unnoticed amidst the controversy. This was a motion to raise the stipend given to Singaporeans on public assistance from S$290a month to around S$400. The old crutch mentality excuse was trotted out in order to reject this very humane call to aid one of the tiniest, neediest portions of society - even though one needs to be unable to qork in order to qualify for public assistance. If the monthly providence had been raised by S$110, the government would have had to bear an extra S$3.96 million a year in costs. Quite a princely sum, until you find out...

... that the total adjustments in Civil Service salaries will mean an increase in S$214 million in costs per year for the government.

And that the pay rises for political appointment holders will cost the government an extra S$10.5 million a year.

So... what are we supposed to think here? Personally, I can draw only one conclusion: fuck the poor, let's keep getting richer! If you happen to reason out something wildly dissimilar, I would greatly enjoy hearing your reasoning.

This, of course, is in addition to the government's Tharmanomical dismissal of a proposal to exempt GST on essential items (dealt with in an earlier post) and another possible impending hike in transport fees. So, the message? Seems clear as day to me.

I have no doubt that ministers and political appointment holders have incredibly hectic schedules. They are running a whole country. But this kind of pay rise, this kind of salary is patently ridiculous. S$3.1 million a year is S$101,680 a month, which is just over S$3,000 a day - which is not so far away from what an NSF recruit earns in a year. Also, median household monthly income is around S$2,700 a month. This amount is also about five times what American President George W. Bush earns. Really puts things into perspective, doesn't it?

However, PM, SM, even MM salary rises are at least slightly justifiable. They are a hectic jobs full of pressure and never-ending headaches, perhaps. What is utterly unjustifiable is the increase in the President's salary and the increase in MPs' allowances.

Let us first examine the office of the Elected President in Singapore. No joke, that is what it is called, even though the last presidential election to take place was the first, way back in 1993 (prior to that, the president was selected by Parliament). Then, the PAP had to coax a visibly reluctant Lim Kim San to run against former PAP protege and DPM Ong Teng Cheong, who incidentally later broke rather publicly with the ruling party. After Mr Ong declined to stand again in 1999, the PAP placed another handpicked candidate on the rostrum - senior civil servant Sellapan Ramanathan (better known as S R Nathan). Nathan's most high-profile previous role was Ambassador to the United States from 1990 to 1996. He also served a term as head of Singapore's external intelligence agency, the Security and Intelligence Department, often overshadowed by its rather more infamous domestic counterpart, the Internal Security Department. It was then claimed that no suitable candidate had stepped up to oppose Mr Nathan, and he was duly "elected" President of Singapore on 18 August, 1999. He was "elected" in a similar way to a second term on 17 August, 2005.

What, exactly, is the role of the Elected President of the Republic of Singapore? Ostensibly, he is a safeguard against a rogue government. Contitutionally and in reality, he is a ceremonial figurehead. The government has never made any bones about Singapore being a parliamentary democracy - a country run by Parliament, as opposed, for instance, to the United States of America, where the elected President and his cabinet make the decisions, albeit aided and approved by Congress and the Senate. Our Elected President, in contrast, takes little or no part in the actual governing of the country - although he technically has the power to veto laws by not signing them. He is not even the nominal commander-in-chief of the armed forces (the actual and ceremonial roles belong, of course, to the Chief of Defence Force).

So what exactly is he doing to earn S$3.2 million a year? Meeting the occasional foreign dignitary, presenting the occasional award, appearing at Istana open houses, being the guest-of-honour at this or that event. To paraphrase Churchill, never has a country paid so much to so few to do so little. Unless he has some super secret role I don't know about, but I seriously doubt this - as Mr Nathan is eighty-three years of age and this will certainly impose certain limitations on the tasks he can carry out.

What, for the matter, are our MPs doing to earn an S$13,200 allowance per month? And "allowance" is the key word here - because allowances are not subject to CPF deductions. Therefore an allowance of S$13,200 = take-home pay of S$13,200 = serious load of money every month for sleeping in background of boring speech by minister for x.

What is more, MPs do not have to be present at every single Parliament sitting. I believe they only need to make about 75%. In addition, the vast majority of them have day jobs, usually very well-paying ones in the private sector. So what is this? The way I see it, it's by far the highest-paying part-time job in the damn country.

Some people have commented that being an MP is not an easy job - but I must question how difficult it really is if so many of our MPs can hang on to their day jobs as company directors and the like. If it was truly so hectic, wouldn't they have to devote their entire energies to being a responsible Member of Parliament? And think about it - if you have ever been to a Meet-the-People session, how sure are you that your MP is actually devoted to your concerns and not simple half-heartedly listening to you bitch while day-dreaming about the next day in the boardroom?

To wrap it up, since the PAP loves accusing those who criticise it of not having good solutions to problems, allow me to present a few. Pay hikes - if you really must, can't it wait? It's not like your previous salary was a pittance. Couple more years maybe, let Singaporeans get over the GST hike? Better still - benchmark your pay not to top private sector earners, but more reasonably to other leaders of First World countries. Because the argument that we need top dollar to get top talent is not holding water - other First World nations are not paying their leaders so much and... they still have leaders?! Pretty capable ones too. Why?

For MPs - make it a full-time job, and make them draw a salary. Only then can we be sure that they are putting their full time and effort into helping to run the country, instead of having to entertain the disturbing possibility that your MP is more interested in company stock performance than the concerns of his/her loyal constituents.

Not that all that is going to happen. There is only one important rule of governance: Governments should serve their people. Not the other way around.

It seems that our government has completely abandoned that one shining rule of good governance in favour of rhetorical fluff that, very disturbingly, they are themselves beginning to believe.

I have distinctly mixed feelings about public holidays at the moment. On the one hand, there is no work, and on the other... there is no work. Which means no money. Not that I've been spending much, after a frightening splurge in early March. Even gone without buying a book for quite a while already.

In the papers this week: woman posts about extravagant lifestyle on weblog, complete with vapid, materialistic musings - proceeds to be flamed by trigger-happy demagogues - makes police report - extreme lack of newsworthy items in Singapore amply demonstrated when whole rigmarole makes front-page (albeit tabloid) news.

If you didn't quite catch that, some airhead bimbo made a police report against people who posted unpleasant comments on her tagboard.

This has to trump the woman who called 999 to report the infamous racist bloggers of 2005 (as she herself relates, the police officer thought she was reporting a fight at some void deck. Blog-block.), or the one other who nearly had a nervous breakdown because she couldn't take the flaming, bravely defending government policies online.

What these people must understand: if you can't take the heat, get the fuck out of the kitchen. Also it certainly speaks volumes about your actual mental strength and aptitude is you are not able to rise above crude insults from anonymous usernames on the Internet. Learn to behave like mature adults and understand that when you express your opinion, when you take a stand, there are bound to be people out there who will not like what you are saying. Some of these people are degenerates incapable of expressing themselves in any way other than utilising infantile references to your mother, your parentage and your sexual orientation, with a choice sprinkling of interjections regarding human genitals and/or your particular lack of them. It is most unfortunate, but that's the way the cookie crumbles. Humanity is not capable of simply getting along.

If you take flaming too seriously, all you'll be doing is making yourself a laughing-stock, because it shows that you too lack maturity. Learn to ignore barbs. It is better for you if you do, because life throws us so many anyway.