Women (Scholar) Bashing

It's time to join in the whining.

I'm not shocked at all to read what that woman scholar had to say. However, I am shocked to read what that woman scholar had to say ON THE PAPERS. There IS a DIFFERENCE between pyjama-party bitching and bitching on the national papers. Not very bright, I say.

Now, why do we whine about doing National Service? Because it takes away at least 2 years of our prime? Because it pays us peanuts and demands more than monkeys out of us? Because it simply sucks? All of the above? Worst of all, we go through all that to have ungrateful lasses calling us whining wimps.

A young male scholar was recently taken to task for carrying racist remarks about minority races in his blog. Don't we have a more lethal character now - one who blurts sexist remarks representing half the population???

I was mulling over why such words could come out of these supposed smart belles. Do they really think so, or have they been conditioned to think that way, or are they simply Yes-Women, trying to please their bosses?

From a pass vocation, I see women settling themselves comfortably into their comfort zones and signing their lives away to that 1 stable job, happy to come in at 9, check some emails, tea-break at 10, lunch at 12, tea-break at 3, and finally rushing to do the job proper beyond 6. The boss prepares to leave and sighs contentedly,"Women staff are so much more productive". Women do seem more contented and less willing to venture out of the comfort zone. The thought of complaining when they have a stable job is certainly out of this world.

However, since days of yore, men have wanted something more. To make good and join the ranks of the elite - the rich and powerful. The Asian male still very much wants to give his family the good life. National service simply isn't part of the bigger picture. While we still serve out the mandatory 2-year service, it isn't asking too much to whine abit. Women whine more about broken nails that take 2 weeks to grow back. Also, while it may seem prestigious to obtain a scholarship at 18, things do change along the way. Guys who thought the scholarship would be their ticket to greatness begin to question the system, maybe eventually abandoning it. The bond breakers.

Women these days are a confused lot. It probably began in the 90's when sexual equality was on every woman's lips. A sudden liberation from age-old traditions empowered women to break free from the general tributes of the Asian Woman. Feminism became a permanent fad.

However, here in Singapore, women are on the cusp of feminism and traditional feminity. While we cannot expect them to cook for us anymore, we're still expected to hold the doors for them. While we cannot get them to mend a hole in the trousers, we're still supposed to change a light bulb. While they scream "Chauvinist!" when we expect them to keep their mouths shut, they go on to mindlessly tell the media baseless nonsense when we let them.

What about pleasing the boss? No matter what, whatever the boss says, one can't be too wrong by saying the same thing? But when a boss says you would get bombed flat if you criticize his actions, it sure sounds a like a bad mix of self-righteousness and misguided infallibility. Now, no matter how great a boss' achievements are, one still needs humility, especially when dealing with the masses, no? So, I say be fair to both parties. I'm sure in one of your corporate-learning retreats at tropical resorts, you've learnt that communication is the key and that teamwork is vital?

In life, we learn that there are always 3 sides to a story. Your side, his side, and the truth.


redcocoon

The Phantom Driver

How many times have you been spooked by the vehicle in front of you, because you can't see the back of the head of the driver? Worse, the vehicle is crawling at a snail's pace in the wee hours of the night. You wonder,"Damn, is this the supposed driverless white car that cruises on expressways at night just to cause you to crash?". You heard of that urban legend, haven't you? As you start to freak out and goose bumps start popping out even at the thickest part of your skin, you step on the gas to overtake the phantom driver, but lo and behold, as you pass the vehicle, it's just your neighbourhood aunty in the front seat, taking her own sweet time.

I say, women can't drive. My god! Women drivers - once they're on the road, all the basic rules of driving are thrown out of the window. Signalling? No way I'm gonna take my hands off the wheel to flick that sign on, those behind me ought to watch where I'M going. Blind spot? What's that?! I'm not blind I can see clearly thank you very much, those behind me ought to watch where I'M going. Speed limit of 90? Well, I need a diversity factor of 20kph, so 70's just about right for me. Those in a hurry can overtake me from the left where's there's plenty of space, those vans are so slow. Don't horn or flash me when I keep stepping on the brakes, the rule of thumb is 5 car lengths in front ok? Anyway, those behind me ought to watch where I'M going.

And don't get yours truly started on women pedestrians. Damn, their roads, their rules...

How about this? Just the other day, as I was going up the ramp in the multi-storey carpark of my office, keeping to my own lane, this lady driver swerves down the ramp, the same one that I'm on but in the opposite direction, and half her car is in my lane. I was sure it was gonna be a head on collision. I jammed, she jammed. I looked out straight into her face, give her this oft-used disgusted look and shake my head. Oh she gets pissed, starts gesturing wildly with her flabby arms, unwinds her window and shouts,"what you shaking your head for?!"

I reply,"You drive like a woman, man!" To which I get an angrier reaction,"Well, I AM a woman WAT!!!". Calmly, bent on irritating the crap out of her,"Oh, I'm sorry, I couldn't tell, you sure don't act like one." The next day, I notice a new scratch on the side of my car. Hey, I'm not accusing her or anything, just describing the sequence of events. Bitch.

On the road everyday, I get to meet several such phantom drivers. How they got their licences in the first place, I would never know. But the way they drive, there might as well be a real phantom driver manning the wheels. At least my goose bumps would not have gone to an anti-climatic waste.

redcocoon

Mind Bender

Ok, this is for the world at large. It's an IQ question that's supposed to have a logical answer. Stumped me for some time now. So if anyone chances upon this, do think about it and send me the answer!!!

Here goes:

-There are 12 coins of equal shape and size
-However, 1 coin weighs differently from the 11 other ones, BUT, you do not know if it's heavier or lighter
-You are given a scale (same one as the scale that symbolises justice)
-You are given only 3 tries to determine the 1 coin that weighs differently from the rest

Ok, go figure...

The One That Didn't

My one post about the casino that was afterall ... a forgone conclusion. Alas, they're still gonna maintain the freakin' $100 "cover charge"!


SCRAP ENTRANCE FEES, OR SCRAP CASINO IDEA ENTIRELY

I have been following the debate on building a casino cum holiday resort in Singapore with cynical interest ever since the idea was brought up. Do not misunderstand. I am not taking any sides on this matter. There are definite pros and cons on this issue. More often than not, proponents and naysayers of a proposed casino resort are inevitably metamorphosed into warriors between good and evil; capitalistic bloodsuckers and social do-gooders.

But why does it have to be like that? When I visit the casino at Genting Highlands, I mentally set aside a certain sum I am willing to lose (come on, in an established gambling house, the odds are always stacked against the visitor) before stepping into the casino. When I toured Las Vegas, I treated the money I lost at the tables as a cover charge to a club. Of course, I hope to make a killing at the tables. However, by simple mathematical logic, the “house” wins most times. So, the money I mentally set aside is like my entry fee to an amusement park, for me to enjoy the ride on the Roulette Table or to watch an “entertainer” demonstrate his deftness in flipping cards on the Blackjack Table, getting thrilled by the money chips doing the cha cha between the players’ and dealer’s compounds. To me, it is just entertainment.

Refer to the Straits Times article, “To Get Into A Casino, Pay $100 A Day or $2,000 A Year”, dated Dec 30, 2004. Having read the article, I was surprised, yet, at the same time, not surprised. Let me explain my conflict of emotions. Having been a Singapore Heartlander all my life, I am comforted by the authorities’ desire to protect the general good of Singaporeans – therefore, I am not surprised by the rather drastic guidelines imposed on the potential gaming operator. Why am I surprised? Well, to say “the entrance fees were a signal that gambling was not a way to make a living” and “Singaporeans are mature and should be entrusted to make responsible decisions” in the same breath does not really go down well with the country’s drive towards a nation of thinking people, whereby involved Singaporeans in a knowledge-based economy act rightfully without any micro-supervision. It seems we Singaporeans are still not trusted to make our own informed decisions.

To pay $100 a day to be able to enter the casino is steep, an amount too exorbitant for me to swallow. Yes, I may be one of them that this weird guideline manages to keep out, but I am definitely not the one that the guideline aims to keep out. This does not make me an impulse gambler, as the guideline seems to imply, but it definitely gives me the impulse to skip visiting the resort altogether. On the flipside, $100 a day would not be able to detract the compulsive gambler who seeks to make a fortune from the gaming tables; in addition, an annual fee of $2,000 is such a big discount from the total summative daily fee that it is such a steal for the gambling addict to pay upfront to secure his seat at the table. Now, having paid a “membership” fee for a whole year, it would be no surprise for a kiasu Singaporean to want to maximize his privilege, thereby putting more money on the table, more often.

In an era where any entrepreneurial startup (a gamble of sorts) requires tens of thousands as seed capital, it seems a no-brainer to “set up shop” for only $2,000 a year; what’s more, one gets to keep his full time job to fuel his new startup or to sustain his lifestyle in case the startup fails. To a compulsive gambler who thinks (everyday) that lady luck has set upon him today, no “fair” amount of entrance fee can prevent him from trying his luck.

So, we can choose to be an elitist nation and allow only the rich and famous, or more blatantly only foreigners, to enter the grounds of this promising world-class resort; or we can choose to really believe that we Singaporeans are indeed mature and be entrusted to make responsible decisions whether or not to enter the mythical (in my opinion) modern day shadow of the valley of darkness.

Let us for once put our money where our mouths are and allow Singaporeans to select their own gambling destinies, to make their own decisions, to choose between a lifestyle or an addiction. Because to prevent us from doing this and that for fear that this or that might happen only reaffirms the idea that latent evil is present (in which case we have a bigger problem at hand). But whatever happened to the goodness of mankind? Whatever happened to the doctrine of innocent until proven guilty? For what is the use of preventing evil from emerging when it is so strongly believed that there is such a diabolical presence within us Singaporeans? For it would most definitely rear its ugly head in another avenue…



redcocoon

The One That Got Away

An article to the Forum that never went into print. Here's what they did'nt want you to see...


WRITING RITE

Oops… did the title trigger the ire of some readers here? Isn’t the title of this article supposed to read “Writing right”? Well, as the grammatical counterpart of the now famous line, “Eats Shoots and Leaves”, I would like to highlight the importance of, well, writing right. Gone are the days where students adopt a certain procedure when writing. Introduction, Body and Conclusion have all been jumbled into a singular orgy of body text. “I” before “E”, except after “C”? Huh, what’s that?? Who cares, as long as you get the message across?

In recent times, proliferated by the popularity of communicating through SMS on the mobile phone, we have seen many reports on the general decline of the written English. Abbreviations of certain English words are widely used (or abused) in mobile text messages. Sadly, improper abbreviations have also appeared and masqueraded themselves as cool! Sadder to say, such new breed of words are increasingly being imported to schoolwork produced by our young students.

I cringe every time I see “Simon Rox!” or “Paula wuz so babeliciouz” or “Jane lurve Tarzan” text messages on the American Idol program. To all you Dudes and Dudettes out there, it is not cool to write like this! Our seemingly lost youth, in a bid to be different from one another, have misinterpreted the definition of cool. As oxy-moronic as it may sound, there are certain boundaries in trying to be different. Wanna be different? Try this. A says (not “sez”), “arse”, You say, “derriere”; A says “he rox!”, You say, “he’s so singularly/atypically cool!”; A says, “I dun like him staring at me”, You say, “I’m appalled by his blatantly salacious gaze fixated on my nubile torso”. Well, not the best of examples, but you get the picture rite…uh I mean, right? In short, it is cool to be unique and stand out from the rest, but please, do it the right way.

While I do not disagree fervently with the use of Singlish on a daily basis, we should never fully adopt Singlish without maintaining proper English as the basis of the language. In fact, it takes a strong foundation of the English language to understand Singlish, really. In the earlier seasons of local hit comedy, “Phua Chu Kang”, I remember Tan Kheng Hua’s character, Margaret, teaching (more like attempting to teach) Gurmit Singh’s Phua Chu Kang to speak proper English. I broke out in stitches when PCK pronounced façade as “fa-ca-dee” and parquet as “par-kwet”. While it may seem embarrassing to feature a Singaporean character speaking perfect Singlish (read: poor English) on national TV for the world to see, PCK was not entirely erroneous in reading the words the way he did. Well, at least he was not phonetically wrong.

My question is, “how many people not in the building construction industry ever came across the terms “façade” and “parquet” before PCK mouthed them off in typical Singlish fashion?”. In a knowledge-based economy, doesn’t the onus rest on us to find out what we do not know or understand? Simply put, the PCK show is an introduction of our common grammatical errors, a humourous dig at our own silly mistakes, but the rest is really up to us. The PCK show is not an English educational program. In any case, to the naysayer who insists PCK being a negative influence on us, we are in bigger trouble if a weekly half hour show could negate all the many hours of effort put in during school.

While there are basic rules to learning the English language, there are many exceptions that tend to confuse. It is really up to the individual to want to master the language. This may sound clichéd, but read the papers! Watch (and learn from) more English TV programs! Read more novels! Check the dictionary!

Adopt a right writing rite and write right. Rightly written?


redcocoon

Passing on of the Fourth...

Today, as I turned away from my colleague after discussing some work, he asked rhetorically,"Hey! The former President just passed away, aren't you gonna pay your respects?"To my surprise, in retrospect at least, my instant reaction was "So?".

When the 1st one left for the nether world, I don't think I knew what a President meant then. The 2nd one? Tha little boy that I was was just elated we were let off from school half a day early. But now that I am at quarter-life and able to demonstrate emotions, I'm abit surprised myself at my own reaction with the passing on of the fourth.

Now, just to qualify myself, I didn't mean "So?" as in he deserves it or it's about time or anything negative to him or his family. I meant "So?" as in it's just another face in the obituary; not a close relative of mine; not a loved one of mine; but just simply ... the passing on of another homo sapien

Another qualification, I used "homo sapien" not for any other reason than to demonstrate my feelings on this matter - that it is, to me, the end of the road for just another human being of the masculine gender... no personality nor face attached to it. Religion teaches us all that death is inevitable; while in life, human hearts are touched by the Great ones. So, when Death hops along with his sickle and takes away a Great one, people would be sad right? So, why was my reaction "So?"????

I do sympathize with the family but not anymore than the family of someone I see in the Obituaries.

To put things in better chronological perspective, this incident happened at about 10.30am today (3 May 2005) and it is 7.35pm (3 May 2005) as I type. It's been haunting me ever since, as I went about work, as I was driving, as I was taking a dump, and as I was having dinner. All this time I was trying to connect with my inner self, to determine if I am just a heartless and unpatriotic bloke.

Am I heartless? Don't think so. That major calamity on 26 Dec 2004 saddened me a lot and it moved me to donate cash and kind generously by my own measure. Also, the demise of my beloved hamsters when I was a kid shed me buckets of tears that I totally staved off pets altogether cos I couldn't handle another heartbreak(how naive of me, as I learned later in life that women, not pets, are really the high-risk heartbreakers) . Am I unpatriotic? Ditto. I know if the day comes when we're at risk of colonisation again, I would be one of the few staying behind to kick some farang butts.

I can only deduce that it boils down to our culture of upbringing here, not at the family level, but more the macro level. The stuff that matter today seem to be getting the qualifications in the hope of a better future. But at what price? Singapore has always been described as a clean and green city. Ask any tourist and his instant reply is how neat everything is here. Thailand is the Land of Smiles. Japan is the epitome of politeness. What about the people of Singapore? That's what Singapore is. All hardware and no software.

My point is, finally, maybe, just maybe, we've been brought up to keep our mouths shut and leave it to the "higher-uppers" to take care of it all. No culture? Hey, just build 2 durians and pay exhorbitant prices and we're Philistines no more. No heart? Hey, just have more charity shows and entice us with more condos and cars to donate generously. No love? Hey, Romance Singapore! No faith in us as mature adults in the new IRs? Hey, just slap a $100 entrance fee on us. That'll teach us not to gamble our HDB flats away.

To a major extent, yes, maybe we can leave it to Big Brother (I know you're watching, dude). But to corner us to partake at an almost non-participatory level of social and cultural evolution will only lead to apathy. When we have no avenue other than Speakers' Corner to put a voice to our thoughts, we care less.

There you go.

Now, I sincerely offer my condolences to all who have lost their loved ones…


redcocoon