Reflections on the 2011 Presidential Elections

The last two weeks have been pretty hectic for me. With both of my parents out of town and my sis settling in into her new life in Vancouver, I’ve been occupying my time with school, training and the household chores. The Presidential elections are just around the corner and truth be told there hasn’t been as much coverage online about it in comparison with the General Elections a couple of months back. What is even more intriguing perhaps is the lack of knowledge a significant number of Singaporeans have on the presidential candidates and more importantly the duties of what the elected presidency encompasses, despite the 2001 Presidential elections being an unprecedented event with 4 contenders vying for the top job.

I started this note with the intention of (re)introducing the 4 presidential hopefuls and listing out the pros and cons of each individual candidate and what I feel about them and who I believe should occupy the hot seat. However, as I learned about the candidates, and more importantly what the people thought about the presidential elections, the more I realized how severe the ramifications of having an apathetic and “uneducated” electorate were. As I browsed through the couple of popular online forums, I realized that a significant number online didn’t really know just exactly what the duties of the president were and what were his limitations.

Before I go any further, I just like to add in a short disclaimer. This note is not an academic essay. I have cut and paste huge large parts of it (2 big parts to be specific). What I hope to achieve at the end of this entry is to leave you with enough information to understand what you’re voting for come polling day (roles and duties of the president) and have a better understanding on the dynamics of this upcoming PE (I am linking Catherine Lim’s blog post here). We live in a very busy society and it is perfectly understandable how a ridiculous number of people will be going to the polls with no idea just who they’re voting for. Perfectly understandable indeed. Let us begin with the roles and duties of the elected Presidency.

From Annex D: Statement by the Minister of Law on the Elected President, 10th June 2011

Singapore has a Parliamentary system of government, not a Presidential one. The President is the Head of State, not the Head of Government. The Prime Minister is the Head of Government and has the authority and responsibility to govern Singapore. The Constitution clearly defines the role and scope of the President. He has custodial powers, not executive powers. In other words, he can veto or block Government actions in specified areas, but he has no role to advance his own policy agenda. National policies and running the Government are the responsibility of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. This is so for all policies, whether they concern security and defence, immigration and population, or housing and social safety nets. The Prime Minister and Cabinet are accountable to Parliament, where policies are debated and endorsed, and ultimately to voters, who decide every five years who to elect to Parliament and to govern Singapore.

The President’s veto powers over the Government are limited to specific areas:

1. Protection of past reserves, i.e. reserves accumulated during previous terms of office of Government;
2. Appointment of key personnel; and
3. ISA detentions, CPIB investigations and any restraining order in connection with the maintenance of religious harmony.

On all other matters, under the Constitution the President must act in accordance with the advice of the Cabinet. In addition, the President is required to consult the Council of Presidential Advisers (CPA) when exercising his veto powers in connection with reserves and appointments.

The President’s veto powers are an important check against a profligate government squandering the nation’s reserves, or undermining the integrity of the public service. That is why the people directly elect the President: to have the mandate to carry out his custodial role, and the moral authority to say no if necessary to the elected government.

Protection of Past Reserves

The Constitution protects the past reserves of the Government and key statutory boards and government companies (‘5th Schedule’ entities) like the CPF Board, MAS, HDB, GIC and Temasek. The reserves include physical assets like land and buildings as well as financial assets like cash, securities and bonds. The Government of the day can only spend past reserves with the approval of the President.

However, the President does not direct the operations of these statutory boards and government companies. In particular, he is not empowered to direct the investment strategies of GIC and Temasek. The investment strategies of GIC and Temasek are the responsibility of their respective Boards and managements. The Government’s role is to appoint suitable and qualified individuals to the two Boards. The President’s role is to approve Board appointments proposed by the Government. The President also receives the audited annual accounts of GIC and Temasek, and has access to any of the information that is available to their boards. This system of governance has allowed the GIC and Temasek to operate professionally and to achieve good returns over time, comparable to other reputable global investors.

Appointment of key personnel

To safeguard the integrity of the Public Service, the President has the discretion to refuse the appointment of a person to certain key positions in the public service. He can also refuse to concur with the removal of persons from these key positions. These include the Attorney General, Chairman and members of the Public Service Commission, the Auditor-General, and the chiefs of the Armed Forces and Police. The President has similar veto powers over the appointment of the Chief Justice and Judges, and board members and CEOs of the 5th Schedule entities.

ISA detentions, CPIB investigations and restraining orders in connection with the maintenance of religious harmony

The President’s concurrence is required for further detention under the Internal Security Act (ISA) if Cabinet disagrees with the ISA advisory board’s advice that the detainee should be released. His concurrence also allows the Director of the Corrupt Practice Investigation Bureau to continue with investigations even if the Prime Minister has refused permission to conduct the investigations. The President can cancel, vary or confirm any restraining order made under the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act, if the decision of Cabinet is against the recommendations of the Presidential Council for Religious Harmony.

In summary, the President is all but perhaps a signatory authorizing the usage of Singapore savings and can only veto it upon consultation with the presidential council. Though Presidential approval is needed when appointing the top people of the public service, he can only consider and approve names handed to him and not pick his own people. Invoking the ICA, pardoning criminals etc, all that can only be done upon consultation with the Presidential council. Though the 1991 amendment has given the President additional powers, he is still largely expected to dance to the tune of the ruling government. Having settled question of what the roles and duties of the president are, the next question some might ask is… why an elected presidency?

When the PAP government failed to make a clear sweep of all the seats in parliament for the first time in the 1984 elections and the subsequent 1988 elections, the general consensus amongst the ruling party was that these seats were lost as a result of the people “experimenting” with their votes and wanting to have their voices heard in parliament. It was then decided that there was a need for another, to hold a second key to the cabinet, that other being the elected president of Singapore. Prior to the amendments in the 1991 constitution, the role of the president was largely ceremonial. After the amendments, the role of the president was largely custodial. It is important to realize that the president’s main duties are to safeguard our financial reserves and of the integrity of our public service. The president was and is not a counter-balance to the government and that role remains exclusively the duty of the opposition.

Perhaps it’s best if I leave you with the following blog entry that so elegantly pens down the very essence of what I intended to write about the dynamics and ground sentiment of this upcoming PE if I weren’t so busy sweeping the garden and catching up with my ever growing pile of readings. ☺

The Elected Presidency: More Of The Same Or A Whole New Game?

When in 1991, the People’s Action Party (PAP) leaders decided to change the system of a government-appointed President of Singapore to that of a popularly elected one, they could never have foreseen the electoral chaos their decision would cause twenty years later.

For at that time, the amendments in the constitution, by all accounts, fitted in well with the government’s purpose. Firstly, the setting up of a president with a popular mandate to check the excesses of an administration grown incompetent or corrupt, had all the laudable marks of a healthily functioning democracy, that would surely go down well with the people.

Secondly, the veto powers of the president would by no means make him a source of annoyance to a PAP government used to having its own way, because of two cautionary provisions built into the constitution. The first was his prior clearance, before he could stand for election, by a government-appointed body that would see to it that he was acceptable, in the first place, to the government itself, in terms of his experience, intellectual acumen, moral character, personality, etc. The second and more important provision in the constitution, was his being subjected, after his election as president, to precisely stipulated limits of his custodial role as to its scope and demeanour, to ensure that the government would always have the final say.

Thirdly, the newly invested presidential power which would not likely be used on a PAP leadership that had always prided itself on its competence and incorruptibility, would nevertheless be a strong safeguard against any future government inclined towards excess, and especially against any rogue opposition party coming into power and ready to squander the nation’s vast reserves in populist schemes to curry favour with the people.

In short, the amendments in the constitution for an Elected President (EP) would greatly enhance the traditional role of the president, and increase its usefulness. Thus, in addition to being the ceremonial head of a nation, a symbol of democratic processes at work, a focus for national pride and emotional outpouring, and the nation’s proud representative abroad in the illustrious company of royalty and dignitaries, he would also be the moral conscience of the government, albeit a discreetly quiet one. The EP would thus be a luminous star in a continuing tripartite, president-government-people relationship of unity and harmony.

But the General Election of 2011 (GE 2011) has burst asunder all the smooth lines of this pattern and reduced it to a chaos of disunities and disjunctions that, in the present run-up to the Presidential Election on 27 August, continue to confuse and vex voters. These fall broadly into the pro-PAP group, the 60% who voted for the party in GE 2011, and the anti-PAP group, the 40% who gave their vote to the opposition, both groups being now expected to give their support, accordingly, to the presidential candidate who is either associated with the PAP, or distanced from and independent of it.

The four contenders, as they go about canvassing for votes, are clearly lined along an ideological spectrum, with the strongest PAP associate at one end, and the strongest PAP critic at the other. All the highly-charged, hotly debated issues of the campaign seem to devolve into one common, fundamental question: Exactly what is the role of the EP?

It is a reflection of the latent contradictions of the constitution, only now emerging, that the very same sacrosanct document is quoted by both opposing sides to support their standpoints. Thus, the pro-PAP voters, backing the presidential hopeful who has been publicly endorsed by the government and the various pro-establishment unions and organizations, are saying: ‘The constitution stipulates the president’s custodial role very clearly, which means that he must work closely and harmoniously with the government for the common good.’ The anti-PAP voters, supporting those presidential hopefuls who they perceive will act independently, even adversarially, are saying with equal confidence, ‘The popular mandate of the president, for which the constitution was changed in the first place, would make no sense if he did not represent the people who had voted directly for him. Therefore, he must be the voice of the people and stand up against the government, if necessary, to protect their interests.’

The dilemma for voters boils down to a choice between two situations that could not be more contrasted: to keep the status quo and thus ensure continuity and stability, or to opt for change without which there can be no progress. So: stay on the terra firma of the known, or venture into the terra incognita of the unknown? Have more of the same, or go for a whole new game?

Ironically, the same constitution is perceived as providing equal logical, legal and moral backing for either of these two diametrically opposed stances. Even more ironically, the constitution which places the EP above politics, has caused him to be the centre of the most divisive political contest seen in Singapore. It would be difficult, after such an election, to see the new President of Singapore in an aura of magisterial bearing, dignified detachment and inspirational benevolence. For he would have been permanently tainted by the mean-spiritedness and low-mindedness that are an inevitable part of the hype and hoopla of a political campaign.

Among the anti-PAP group, there is a specially vocal, bold, single-minded band which, though in the minority, warrants special attention, because they have, through their persistent, assiduous and skilful exploitation of the power of the social media, successfully channeled the discontent and anger of GE 2011 into the Presidential election. Their rallying cry which must have great resonance for large numbers of disaffected Singaporeans is: No more of the same PAP dominance, no more of the same PAP arrogance and insensitivity to the needs of the people! We need a whole new game, with the rules re-written by ourselves, to serve the people’s interests, not theirs! We can do this through the EP because we gave him our vote!

There are three special kinds of emotional appeal that this anti-PAP group has adroitly crafted out of the outcomes of GE 2011:

• urging the people to replicate their astonishing triumph and spectacular gains in GE 2011, by reminding them that, for the first time in electoral history, they were able to make the powerful PAP government buckle to their demands for changes in unpopular policies, including the hated ministerial salaries; convincing them that the coming Presidential Election represents their best possible chance to reinforce and extend these gains, a chance that moreover, may never come again, at least not for another five years.
• emphasizing to the people the sheer unfairness of a system by which the unprecedented 40% vote which they had given the opposition had converted into a paltry six seats in Parliament; assuring them that this gross disproportion could be redressed by an actively independent EP.
• pointing out to the people that despite the avowals for change, the PAP administration is still very much mired in its old mindset, and so far seems to be more interested in making personnel rather than policy changes; that despite his resignation from the cabinet, the former, long-feared Minister Mentor, Lee Kuan Yew is still very much around, judging by the public comments and pronouncements he is still making, including his recent one reiterating the necessity of bringing in foreign talent, which had been a contentious GE 2011 issue.

The increasingly bolder anti-PAP camp, whose vociferousness and hence very palpable presence makes them a more effective force for change than the silent majority, is a new species of political animal that was created by the shock events of GE 2011. It has tasted freedom and smelt blood. It can no longer be muzzled. Indeed, it seems by now to be unstoppable and may well prove to be the most intractable force for the PAP government to deal with in the future. The EP who might have been savaged by this feral creature during the hustings, will have no choice but to placate and make peace with it.

The coming Presidential Election on 27 August will be watched like no other, because the political landscape that has changed so amazingly after GE 2011, may well see a second transformation.

- Catherine Lim

That marks the end of this what I hope has been a rather meaningful read. Happy voting!!

PS: Before I truly conclude however, I would just like to draw your attention to just one of the many contentious issues brought up over the past week.

In the Presidential Elections Act, it is stated that a candidate must have for a period of not less than three years held office as a as chairman of the board of directors or CEO of a company incorporated or registered under the Companies Act with a paid-up capital of at least $100 million or its equivalent in foreign currency or in any other similar or comparable position of seniority and responsibility in any other organization or department of equivalent size or complexity in the public or private sector which has given him such experience and ability in administering and managing financial affairs as to enable him to carry out effectively the functions and duties of the office of President. Mr Tony Tan retired as the Executive Director of GIC only on the 23rd of June 2011… Either GIC doesn’t cut it as a department of “equivalent size or complexity” Food for thought eh...

Happily Ever After...

Fairytales ending do come true...

Election Fever

With polling day just round the corner, one cannot help but notice the surge in activity online. This increase in “elections-related” activity online, especially over Facebook (which is the only social networking site I am on aside from the dying twitter account which I hardly pay attention too…) has been rather interesting and has been a welcome relief to many, including me, during the exam period. I have left a comment or two on friends’ walls about how I thoughts on certain individuals and policies. Amongst the many videos and commentaries that have been posted online, there are a few notable pictures, articles and interviews that have stood out from the others. TPL’s reflections on Razor TV, MG Chan’s 5 or 100 year speech and Nicole’s Introductory address, just to name a few. Despite the heavy coverage by the mainstream medias, it seems that the bulk of the discussion and “exchange of information” is taking place over the Internet. It also seems that the PAP (its candidates and policies) are drawing the heaviest fire online. Despite a number of notable and constructive criticisms made, it seems to be that a great many of the arguments for and against the incumbents seems to be rather superficial.

Like many out there, I feel strongly about a whole slew of issues which have been raised this elections. The rising cost of living in Singapore, the latest property cooling measures that were in put in place last year, immigration issues, the potential rise in GST, ministerial pay… the list is long and non-exhaustive. I believe that there has been a lot of debate online and amongst the candidates themselves and I believe that that hails as a promising start to this upcoming elections.

This week marks the start of my examinations and as much I’d love to go on about how I feel about the candidates and all, I must keep this entry short and get back to my books.

The emergence of social media has altered the way the elections will play out tremendously. Inexpensive, easily accessible, fast and most importantly anonymous, new media has replaced traditional media as mainstream this elections. The PAP has been serving as the ruling party for the past few decades and has been credited with having great foresight when dealing with issues related to Singapore. However, it seems that the incumbents might have underestimated the utility of social media in their election campaign.

When the campaigning first started, I won’t deny that I was only too happy to start throwing comment after comment, shooting off criticism after criticism on the YouTube videos and articles on the PAP. There is no doubt that they were crass, arrogant and utterly tactless in dealing with the questions that were posed to them and the issues that were raised. The way Mr. Lui handled a meet & greet session with a resident, TPL’s frivolous replies to questions posed to her on that infamous video and Mr. Chan’s brutish ways when speaking on stage… honestly what’s there to love? Conversely, the opposition parties were eloquent and extremely responsive in dealing with the general public both during public forums and online, across the various social networking tools, which they have fully exploited to their benefit. I was immensely irritated by the incumbents’ arrogance and was adamant about voting for the opposition come May 7th. This changed however when my good friend, G, wrote in a reply to one of my comments that “he didn’t care about well a politician speaks but how well they governed.” It was only then did I realize that I might have been assessing the candidates rather superficially too.

In this upcoming election, especially in Singapore granted that we’re operating under the parliamentary system, it's the party's policies and goals that matter more than the individual’s promises. As G mentioned, MPs have very little room to demonstrate or voice their own views until they become more established (And by established one means becoming a minister in the cabinet). Unlike in the US, where a politician is given much more leeway in pushing his beliefs and stands, the MPs in Singapore (from one party that is) will tend to “blend in together like sheep”. At this point in time, TPL, Mr Chan, Nicole and all the other new faces are simply starting out on their political journey and it really is too early to tell how far they’ll go in their political careers (or maybe not…lol…).

Having said all that, the only sure thing is that there are many new faces this coming election, a significant portion of whom have had no or little previous experience in politics. All we have to go on is the manner in which they conduct themselves during rallies and walkabouts, their credentials and their electoral promises. As a result of the elections rules, the rallies and pre-elections speeches will be the only avenues for these candidates to discuss issues that they intend on tackling if they get voted in. The only ones with any experience in governing a country are the incumbents. The PAP has been the government since independence and in all honesty truth we don't exactly have a benchmark/gauge to measure them up against. (Unless we count the Japanese Occupation and the British Colonial Rule) I believe that the PAP has done a decent job thus far. There is definitely room for improvement and I do believe that they are capable of bringing about positive change in time to come. However, the new faces dressed in white on white, who like most members of the opposition team, are greenhorns seem entirely indifferent to the changing political climate of this country. I believe it is this ignorance, arrogance and this aura of entitlement, which these fresh PAP candidates have, which is irksome. This election will be a watershed for all Singaporeans in so many ways and it is imperative that we all sit up and make the right choice when polling day comes.

Photo by Suhaimi Abdullah/Getty Images AsiaPac

Photo by David Ng

Nuisance

You know the feeling one gets when one sits idly at the computer and surfs randomly for hours... browsing through random Facebook profile pages, reading through blogposts belonging to total strangers and deciphering 140 character coded messages on Twitter... yeah that feeling... I tend to get that quite a bit these days. On hindsight, the "hangover" from that mindless surfing leaves one reeling from extreme lethargy and a strange numbness in the brain. However, every dark cloud has its silver lining, and this mindless surfing on the net is no exception too. What one looses in terms of academic productivity, one reaps, multifold I must add, in what I would describe as "social knowledge". The latest gossip on who's dating who, who's got laid, who's popped out of the closet... my my... :) Its also fascinating to watch how individuals try so be someone else on the internet. The socially awkward becomes Mr Popular, the retards who can't converse in simple English (OR Mandarin for that matter...) start blogging in French and the silent start becoming opinionated anonymously... There's no crime in doing all that I guess but just so YOU know... I think its sad... :)

Happy Family

I have thought long and hard about the recent developments observed within my extended family (despite the growing mountain of work that's piling up on my desk) and I have come to realize that the best thing to do is to write about it. It is most unfortunate that the people that this article is directed at will most probably not read the post for what it is and there's a high probability that the blog post will probably end up getting lost in translation or totally misinterpreted but hey... that really isn't my problem right? Before we proceed to the main issue (or issues) at hand, I think its best I state my intentions and what I hope to achieve by publishing this post. Honestly... I hope it gets read by the right people in the right frame of mind, who's prepared to tackle the following issues in a mature and sensible manner. I believe that KNOWING and FULLY COMPREHENDING both sides to the story is the first step to resolving any conflict. All this talk about not needing/wanting to know about the other side... or not wanting to listen to what one of parties involved has to say prior to tackling the issue... just indicates how "serious" the mediator is on resolving the problem. Now with that out of the way... let me just slip in one more disclaimer. This is a blog post. It isn't a written assignment, an essay, nor is it a thesis paper. This is merely a note in which I am going to just write in as cohesive a manner as I possibly can about what I feel about what's going on around me (with respects to familial ties...)over the last few days. I will attempt to make this post as objective as possible though it is pretty darn obvious just what some of my prejudices are. (I will also be writing in ENGLISH... if you're not familiar with the sentence structure or vocabulary used... consult a dictionary OR a thesaurus [use the dictionary to find out what a thesaurus is...]. It doesn't matter if you're uneducated or possess a Masters in whatever-it-is-you-studied-in-uni...)

First and foremost, everyone needs to come to a decision on one fundamental issue. That would be just how much does this extended family mean to them. If everybody is in it just for the money or some other form of personal gain, than we needn't proceed further with the resolution process. However, if these familial ties aren't just about self gratification or some other menial, outstanding vendetta that needs to be shoved into each other's face then I'd say we're on the right track. Now assuming that everybody now is on the same page I am... we shall continue...

We will attempt to resolve this conflict from the base unit up. Beginning with the individual, followed by the respective family unit then the different generational tiers and lastly the whole family (from the Grandparents to the kids...) as a single entity.

The Individual

Its important to realize that everyone is different. Some are born arseholes, others grow to become arseholes :) Regardless, everyone has the right to be different. However, that right to be different has its limits. Acknowledging the fact that we are of Asian descent and hold strongly (or so we believe...) to our Asian roots, there are certain traditions/ practices that we still should (as I believe...)... these would include... filial piety, respect for elders, humility etc. For example, one should not curse or use expletives on ones parents on the internet. One shouldn't scream at an elder over the phone or say... wrestle with an aunt in public.... When giving out red packets, one shouldn't start behaving like an absolute retard by obnoxiously prancing around and declaring to the whole world that she wasn't stinging on red packets... One shouldn't smash a cup in another's face during Chinese New Year etc... the list goes on... and on... and on... Now, from the individual's perspective, if he or she could have better control over his or her actions/words (REGARDLESS of one's level of education or upbringing, though I must recognize that for some, the lack of an education AND a proper upbringing seems to be an achievement and excuse for every stupid action or gibberish said) there will without a doubt be much less conflict present.

The Family Unit

The family unit, as recognized by MM Lee and Confucius, is the most important unit in society. More so than the individual too if I might add. I will redefine the family unit as one which comprises a man, his wife (not the one who files documents for you at work nor the one who receives you when you arrive at some random Chinese airport... we're talking about the one the MAN swore and oath too... for better or for worse till death do them part) and their issue. Any conflicts within the family unit... gets settled within that family unit. External assistance is always welcome if it facilitates in resolving the conflict and adheres to the 1st rule of thumb stated above (comprehending and understanding both sides of the story and possessing a genuine interest in resolving the conflict in a fair and just manner). However, sadly unbiased assistance doesn't come by that often and in MOST cases, external interference seems to be a more appropriate term to use. Anything or anyone that threatens the stability of the singular family unit should be viewed as a pain in the arse and dealt with appropriately. (Brawling about it could be seen as a way of dealing with the situation appropriately but I would much rather recommend an open discussion or worse comes to worse... the cold shoulder.)

However, this trend of thought presents itself with a number of complications (Most of which can be easily resolved). Some family units believe that with seniority and a bit of cash, they have the right to superiority over the other branches of the family tree. This argument, sadly, is quite flawed. It is important to understand that each family unit is its own authority. The unit creates its own problems... the unit solves its own problems. When one unit goes renegade and starts antagonizing another unit within the same entity, both units become involved not just a the women, or the man of the unit. It is only by reaching a consensus between both entire units can the matter be considered resolved.

The Generational Tier

The younger generation should not interfere with the issues plaguing the older generation, unless that issues critically affects how the base unit (family unit, which involves both the older and the younger generation) in a negative way. The older generation should also be mature enough to keep their quarrels and arguments to themselves. Again, the lack of a decent education NOR a proper upbringing should be an excuse for failing to abide by the above.

The Family as an Entity

Assuming that everyone still believes that familial ties are sacred. Everyone should have the happiness of the family as his or her main objective. Sometimes that happiness can only be achieved with a little bit of compromise and a great dose of humility.

With the mantra-bit out of the way, I think I should write a bit about my sentiments. I always believe that blood runs thicker than water and it is without a doubt that theses familial ties do mean a lot to me. However, having said that, there is one thing that I will rank above the preservation of those familial ties and that would be the well being of my own family unit. I will and do not tolerate any form of prejudice against any member of my family unit. The hypocrisy and double standards which are strongly prevalent in the große familie will rip the family to bits unless its members are enlightened enough to recognize that their own selfish, petty agendas are standing in the way of what could be a blessed, joyous and loving family.

Is it possible?

Is it possible to make billions of dollars... like by 28?

Quotable Quotes :)

At the end of the day, when it comes down to it, all we really want is to be close to somebody. So this thing where we all keep our distance and pretend not to care about each other, it’s usually a load of bull. So we pick and choose who we want to remain close to, and once we’ve chosen those people, we tend to stick close by. No matter how much we hurt them. The people that are still with you at the end of the day, those are the ones worth keeping. And sure, sometimes close can be too close. But sometimes, that invasion of personal space, it can be exactly what you need.

– Meredith Grey, Grey’s Anatomy

Sentiments

I look at the photos and I often find myself asking yet again, why the rush to grow up. As fun as it may be, the pretentiousness of it all is just a teeny bit too overwhelming for me. Is it something worth working towards? Yes. Is it something worth rushing towards? No. Most definitely not. There's so much more work that needs to be done internally. So many things to fix, before I can safely progress to the next stage in life.

I have heard time and time again how you will be often be judged on the company you keep. I think I am making the right choices thus far. Everybody has his price, and I'd like to think that my self worth is significantly higher than certain individuals I see out there.

Back to that damn essay.

Having the cake and eating it at the same time...

"Gamblers in our midst: Unmasking the Singapore punter", a special report published in today's edition of the Straits Times, discusses the observations of a couple of ST journalists over their 5 day outings at both our casinos. I must admit that the article proved to be throughly insightful as it provided a glimpse into the lives of those individuals affected, be it positively or negatively, by the launching of these 2 IRs on our shores. I read through all the mini-articles and loved the way they categorized/stereotyped the assortment of punters who pass through the doors of both Casinos.

After reading all the articles + the recommendations at the end, I got a sense (no prizes or surprises there too...) that aside from the extra income and revenue from the casino levies and regional publicity generated by the opening of these two casinos, nothing good has come out from the establishment of these two casinos. "Technician Jerry Lee, 38, misses the celebratory dinner his mother had cooked at home...", "The last straw came when he (Mr Khoo) gambled away the last bit of money meant to settle the family's utility bill","Gambling is now his dirty little secret..." etc., the list of stories goes on and on. Personally, the negative externalities incurred by our society as a whole, far outweigh whatever profit we're generating from these two casinos. In fact, I believe that none of these social ills can be compensated by any amount of money.

Singapore isn't a state stuck in some random desert away from the rest of civilization, neither is it an island isolated from the main population reachable only by a couple hours of flying or ship. We're a small city state with our people as our only resource. Proximity makes a helluva a difference and we're starting to see the impacts of these two casinos on our society. One family broken as result of poor self restraint on the part of the gambler is one family too much. There was a report (if my memory doesn't fail me...) written a couple of years back about the feasibility of establishing these two casinos a while back and the report concluded that the casinos should NOT have been built.

Now that both casinos have been completed and opened for business, we start to see hear more and more "true" stories of individuals and families getting burnt by their escapades emerging from the shadows of these two glitzy new buildings. The broken family, the youth who started gambling merely out of curiosity, the terminally ill individual who chooses to shut himself up in a casino wasting his days away... its almost painful to carry on. Did the relevant authorities factor this into their calculations before OK-ing the casino despite strong protest from Singaporeans? I highly doubt so.

What's hilarious perhaps is the list of recommendations published after the main article. 10 seemingly well thought out and carefully planned recommendations on how to reduce the social ills emerging as a result of these two casinos. Some seem workable but others such as having social workers prowl the casino floors to spot potential gambling addicts? seriously? You can't have the damn cake and consume it at the same time I say. I seriously need to get back to my essays but yeah... go read both articles and reflect on it... Here's a quote for those out there who haven't made up their minds about gambling yet.

"The safest way to double your money is to fold it over once and put it in your POCKET."

- Kin Hubbard

Logical Reasoning

I made a decision a long time ago with regards how I was going to handle some of the friendships I have established over the years. There are some which just keep going on because... the friendship itself was an end in its own right and there were those that fizzled out because the friendship took too much out of one party of the other. There are some friendship that seem to flicker about like a candle in the wind but still stay firm at the end of the day and there are those that blossom like a Mexican Petunia, only to die before the next sunrise. A friend once talked to me about the importance of sustaining a friendship, the need to make an effort to groom and nurture that friendship. The friend continued to mention that the lack of enthusiasm on my part was detrimental to the sustenance of that friendship.

I see all human relationships, when stripped to its bare essence, a simple transaction of emotion between two individuals. One must have something the other needs and vice versa for that transaction to go through or that relationship to occur. The lack of enthusiasm perhaps is a result of me realizing my inability to provide you with what you seek and you not being able to do the same :) Simple and good analogy, I would say.

Lessons

The world is not a forgiving place. In school, they teach us how "it is alright to make mistakes" and how "every mistake or setback only prepares you for greater success in time to come." Its all bullshit I'd say. We live in a world which simply permit you to keep hitting the restart button. I learnt it the hard way and if I could turn back the clock I'd most definitely have done things differently. Sadly, for me and the zillion people out there who screwed up, things don't work that way. All that can be done is to, stop crying, wipe up that puddle of milk on the floor and carry on. Learn at the expense of others, its not only pain-free but also equally effective. Thats how things are going to go over at my place from this day on.

Going it alone

I wrote on this empty space once about limits. About the boundaries established in the mind just with regards to how much shit an individual can take be it physically or emotionally. I must admit that I am tittering on the edge of that boundary of mine. I have come to realize the truth about camerade amongst friends and my relationship with my school. Some of it is real, sincere and genuine others... well they might mean well but they just don't get it. I realized last night that I most probably failed to secure my exchange slot to Paris and that event set in motion a whole roller coaster ride of sentiments which saw me unloading on certain individuals last night. I got pissed then fuming mad then just terribly upset with the whole situation as the night went on. Initially what had set out to be a night of unloading and "getting things off my chest" turned into a night of discovery too. I learnt about the varying degree of friendships that I have. There were those who have totally no opinion or backbone whatsoever... those who keep paraphrasing my questions without providing any comfort or useful/ constructive support. There were those who were more concern about the end-state of the dynamics of the team instead of the feelings of the individual... and thankfully there were those who understood that sometimes all I need to hear are just words of support and comfort about the stuff that happened. Ever since my outburst in mid-novemember, I have detached myself pretty much from just about everything around me. Schadenfreude seems evident everywhere I look and I guess its affecting my rather fragile mental state at this juncture in time. Useless sports directors, tactless overly competitive individuals who'd rather remove you as a friend then attempt some form of reconciliation and friends who just don't care are going to be a thing of the past for me. I used to believe in the unconditionality of friendships but alas now I realize just how foolish I was. The lies, deceit and bullshit that surrounds us all... Its time to break out and start walking my own road.

"Only by embracing your past, can you understand the present, and reach for the future" Jason, upon reflection and analyzing the numerous quotes pertaining to heritage and embracing the future :)