only you can make me smile like a silly nut! and make me so happier, that i can only wonder how much happier i can be, but you surprise me each and everything.
=)
May 31, 2007
May 28, 2007
of regrets and a tuition kid
i really hate phone calls after 11pm (or so) and before i wake up. actually in the first hour of my waking up, i do not quite enjoy my phone ringing as well. understandably, this is compounded by the fact that my handphone has a really loud ring tone. i don't quite like phone calls at such time, because these times are rather private to me. after 11pm its essentially my time, and time with jem, and of course sleep is sleep, and right when i wake up i just want some private time to do my morning routine.
so horror of horror when today at 738 am, right when i woke up, i received a phone call from my tuition kid's mom. now we all know how i feel about her, and her absolute refusal to pay a poor student on time. apparently her son asked why does he need tuition even in the holidays, and she is concerned because she wants him to do well, and not later on in life regret that he did not have enough tuition.
seriously.
who would ever later on in their life regret that they do not have enough tuition? there are many things to regret, like not studying hard enough, or not putting in that extra effort. but not having enough tuition? that's quite new. so now aside from being their tutor in english math and science. i have to teach chinese, help out with art, burn CD for the mother and now the resident family therapist/counsellor. i'm not even going to tell you how pathetically i am paid.
speaking about regrets, something i've read on mr wang really made me think. he was talking about his career as a lawyer then and his kids. he quit his job as a lawyer despite liking what he does because of his children. he said:
"Then my first child was born. Six months later, I quit the job. Mrs Wang quit private practice too. The kind of work/family balance we wanted was not going to happen, in a law firm environment.
I had absolutely no regrets. If I thought only in terms of the cost to my career, I would have had regrets. But the wiser thing to do was to consider life as a total package. I looked at my life as a whole, and the correct decision became quite clear to me. So I left private practice without hesitation, quite happily, and much to the dismay of my then-bosses. And I haven't looked back."
indeed many times in life, almost everything is an either-or situation, an opportunity cost. if we do something we have to forfeit something. and sometimes there are regrets. but there are certain things we never regret. nobody, 20 years down in their career would regret putting aside their career for their family. in the bigger picture, it does not matter how much we've put into a career, because there's no end to that, but time never turns back. time lost with your children/family/loved ones is forever lost. one can go about with their career thinking that when everything is settled and their career has taken off then they can spend time with their family, but they never do.
because the higher one gets in their career, the busier they get. and the day they want to spend with their loved ones may never come to materialize. maybe the kids grew up, maybe family members passed away, or maybe their loved ones are just too old to partake in all the activities that they've always wanted.
have no regrets my friend. always think about what is most important to you. if money is most important, more important than your children/family/loved ones, then you know what you must do. but remember, certain things will always be around, certain things will never be.
#####
Sil: thanks for your comment, its been noted and i will address it in the next posting =) btw, do you want to introduce yourself?
so horror of horror when today at 738 am, right when i woke up, i received a phone call from my tuition kid's mom. now we all know how i feel about her, and her absolute refusal to pay a poor student on time. apparently her son asked why does he need tuition even in the holidays, and she is concerned because she wants him to do well, and not later on in life regret that he did not have enough tuition.
seriously.
who would ever later on in their life regret that they do not have enough tuition? there are many things to regret, like not studying hard enough, or not putting in that extra effort. but not having enough tuition? that's quite new. so now aside from being their tutor in english math and science. i have to teach chinese, help out with art, burn CD for the mother and now the resident family therapist/counsellor. i'm not even going to tell you how pathetically i am paid.
speaking about regrets, something i've read on mr wang really made me think. he was talking about his career as a lawyer then and his kids. he quit his job as a lawyer despite liking what he does because of his children. he said:
"Then my first child was born. Six months later, I quit the job. Mrs Wang quit private practice too. The kind of work/family balance we wanted was not going to happen, in a law firm environment.
I had absolutely no regrets. If I thought only in terms of the cost to my career, I would have had regrets. But the wiser thing to do was to consider life as a total package. I looked at my life as a whole, and the correct decision became quite clear to me. So I left private practice without hesitation, quite happily, and much to the dismay of my then-bosses. And I haven't looked back."
indeed many times in life, almost everything is an either-or situation, an opportunity cost. if we do something we have to forfeit something. and sometimes there are regrets. but there are certain things we never regret. nobody, 20 years down in their career would regret putting aside their career for their family. in the bigger picture, it does not matter how much we've put into a career, because there's no end to that, but time never turns back. time lost with your children/family/loved ones is forever lost. one can go about with their career thinking that when everything is settled and their career has taken off then they can spend time with their family, but they never do.
because the higher one gets in their career, the busier they get. and the day they want to spend with their loved ones may never come to materialize. maybe the kids grew up, maybe family members passed away, or maybe their loved ones are just too old to partake in all the activities that they've always wanted.
have no regrets my friend. always think about what is most important to you. if money is most important, more important than your children/family/loved ones, then you know what you must do. but remember, certain things will always be around, certain things will never be.
#####
Sil: thanks for your comment, its been noted and i will address it in the next posting =) btw, do you want to introduce yourself?
May 25, 2007
A case for fertilization techniques
I read with interest the recent events of a father raping his daughters, a teenage monster who molest and rape his victims; this even brings to mind the old case of Took Ah Hao and his victim Huang Na.
It is with great shock and disgust that I realized what our society has degenerated to, and in light of the recent debate on decriminalizing homosexuality, I feel that not only should we not decriminalize gay sex, we must also ban all forms of sex.
As we can see from all the above events, heterosexual sex is hedonistic and they even violate the modesty of the girls. Because of the want for sex, the criminals above resort to actions such as molest and even rape to satisfy their needs.
To put an end to all this moral problems, and to prevent the society from degenerating into one with no values other than to satisfy our lust, we must ban all forms of sex, putting it in line with penal code 377, where we give life imprisonment to anybody who wants to have sex, heterosexual or homosexual.
Scientific advancement have led to many successful fertilization technique, as such there is no excuse for having sex for procreation purposes, besides many people do not indulge in sexual activities for procreation purposes.
Singapore is conservative country and if we continue to allow heterosexual couples to have sex, I fear what might become of our society, what comes next after raping your own daughters? If we do not ban all forms of sexual activities, the society may be too dangerous for the next generation
It is with great shock and disgust that I realized what our society has degenerated to, and in light of the recent debate on decriminalizing homosexuality, I feel that not only should we not decriminalize gay sex, we must also ban all forms of sex.
As we can see from all the above events, heterosexual sex is hedonistic and they even violate the modesty of the girls. Because of the want for sex, the criminals above resort to actions such as molest and even rape to satisfy their needs.
To put an end to all this moral problems, and to prevent the society from degenerating into one with no values other than to satisfy our lust, we must ban all forms of sex, putting it in line with penal code 377, where we give life imprisonment to anybody who wants to have sex, heterosexual or homosexual.
Scientific advancement have led to many successful fertilization technique, as such there is no excuse for having sex for procreation purposes, besides many people do not indulge in sexual activities for procreation purposes.
Singapore is conservative country and if we continue to allow heterosexual couples to have sex, I fear what might become of our society, what comes next after raping your own daughters? If we do not ban all forms of sexual activities, the society may be too dangerous for the next generation
May 22, 2007
Homosexuality - why it should bother you
The most widely talked about topic in the recent weeks is something close to heart indeed. After Minister Mentor Lee made a statement that could be interpreted as either about removing laws that discriminate homosexuality or maintain status quo and not enforcing the current laws, the english speaking community went into a fury. Some are for equality for all, others like Jonathan, Agnes of course who can forget Yvonne Lee from NUS Law school (who is currently going through a tough period from a huge backlash) and others decided that homosexuals are less than human and they should be banished, if not continued to be illegal or a 'sub'-culture.
Now the most interesting thing is that when you look at both sides of the issues, there are far bigger implications and many logical fallacies. Why should we continue incriminating homosexuals? Well because the bible says so. Period. (for an in-depth read on homosexuality and christianity, this is a speech by Rev Dr Yap Kim Hao. I am no expert in Christianity, so I'll let the expert do the talking - please read that nette)
I wrote once about why religion should never be mixed into law. Some may argue that law came from religion, but i beg to differ. The premises of law came not only from religion, but along the way many other thinkers and philosophers and movements throughout history have shaped law. Obviously laws that came before the bible must have came from somewhere no? So to argue that law as we know of today descended from biblical interpretation, is as best being ethnocentric.
Religion should be removed from law simply because all religions are equal, why should we incriminate what one religion feels that is wrong onto others whom have no opinion. Simply stated, our Muslim brothers do not consume pork, should we then ban all pork? Hence the key word we are looking at is secularism, whereby policies and initiatives are created without religious biases.
After removing religion from the debate of homosexuality, we then come down to 2 other arguments, the medical argument, and the family values and society argument. Now proponents of the medical arguments are, ironically all christians! They claim that the American Psychological Association (APA) removed homosexuality as a disease back in the 70's due to pressure from the gay right movement. What they did not tell you is that later on in 1994, long after the gay rights movement, APA stood up and reasserted themselves that homosexuality is not a mental disease and they did not removed it due to pressure from gay groups.
The other medical argument would of course be the nature and nurture argument. The problem with this is that people who cite research do not know the basic premise of research, the double negative nature of research. As an example, if a group of scientist embark on a research to show the nature/biological causes of homosexuality, and they do not find support, it DOES NOT mean that therefore it proves the nurture argument. it simply means that in their sample population, they have not enough evidence to prove nature. period. that is all there is to it.
Furthermore holding a nature OR nurture view is highly simplistic. Research will show you that gender, intelligence, race are all nurture AND nature. Its a case of both because both are so highly intertwined that they cannot be separated, for every scientific research done on one, we can find another scientific research that shows the other, and that is the spirit of academia, to arrive at an eventual reasonable range of explanation.
Proponents of the medical argument will also often cite Dr Spritzer's research on reparative therapy proving that gay men can turn straight. Well I'll have you know that the very people who started this therapy ended up breaking away from the church after they were caught in gay bars and were publicized in the media as one big hypocrisy. Moving on the Dr Spritzer's research, his research was not to show that reparative therapy works on homosexual. Rather he gathered a group of homosexual who went through therapy (they were volunteers by the way) and then assessed them. Now this is a group motivated for change, 97% of them are of christian background, and 93% of them said that religion were extremely important to them. Now the study he did showed that TWO-THIRDS (63%) of this motivated group still had feelings towards the same gender. This figure is higher amongst gay men (at 86%). Even Dr Spritzer himself came up and expressed his disappointment at anti-gay religious groups misquoting his studies. One also must remember that Dr Spritzer himself was one of the instrumental figure who help in the declassification of homosexuality as a mental illness
Still on the case of medical arguments, recently Dr Alan Chin Yew Liang (i think that's his name) claimed that homosexuality is a disease because being homosexual shortens life-span, and by his definition of a disease, that its a condition that shortens life-span. Well it must then surprise all of us than being male is a disease, and being left handed is a disease, and being members of different race is a disease then. As we all know, males have shorter life expectancy than females, left-handed people live shorter than right handed people, members of different countries and race have different life expectancies. Furthermore, Dr Chin justified his conclusion by using a report that shows than being homosexual shortens life-span because of the high prevalence of HIV in this population. For my unbiased reader, it must be then obvious that it is HIV that is the disease that shortens the life-span and not homosexual. Going by Dr Chin's logic, heterosexual men whom visits prostitutes and have unprotected sex must then be a disease, since they are by far, the population with the highest prevalence of HIV.
Moving on from medical to family and society arguments. A very fascinating thing to note is that very definition of both ideas. It appears that for those anti-gay people, they assume that a family must comprise of a father, mother and children. And that if there were gay people around who are minding their own business and having sex with their own partners, somehow their family unit will fall apart. I am not quite following their logic, are you? What about single parent families then? What about unwed mothers then? How will their family fall apart? Definitions for family do not take into considerations culture as well, in many parts of the world, fathers and mothers do not look after their children, it is other members who do so; also what about families with adopted children? So what exactly is a family? Psychologist have seek to define family as a group of people who live together have established relationship and care for each other. You might also be interested to show that studies done, such as that by Tasker and Golombok (1997) shows that an overwhelming majority of children growing up in gay families have a heterosexual orientation.
How does families then fall apart? How does society fall apart?
The biggest misunderstanding is that society is an entity, that it exist as something concrete and thus can be destroyed. That is not the case, society exist because humans exists and there are interactions with one another. Because society always exist, because it is not an entity, it cannot be destroyed. For all those who say that if everyone is homosexual, there would be no society, here's Dr John Corvino's reply "with all due respect, if the whole world becomes roman catholic priest, there will be no society too". The case in point is that either society exist, or, when humans eventually become extinct, it does not exist. There's is no destroying of a society.
So why should it bother each and everyone of us? The very idea of tolerance, acceptance and love. At no point should we discriminate anyone because they are different. We have seen many of such instances in the past and even today. African Americans were overtly and very much discriminated against in the past, today such discrimination may not exist overtly, but implicit attitudes test measured still shows some form of discrimination. Gender discrimination was also something that existed and continue to exist, women were not able to attend institutes of higher educations, some are not even allowed to work in other countries. Even in home ground, despite what we would like to believe, discrimination against other races can be observed, such as sitting beside members of the same race when there are seats available besides members of different races as well.
Why should we fear people who are different?
Even if we can't change the fact that there will always be some form of discrimination, should we then inscribe in law that some groups are less equal than others and hence they should be discriminated. Some people might argue that majority of the population is not ready, but if we look closer, all major shifts in mindset happens at a time where 'majority of the people are not ready'. During the civil rights movement for the blacks, majority of the Southerners were not ready. I assure you that many men today still don't think women should have equal rights, but then should we use this and justify that women therefore should not have equal rights.
Furthermore, homosexuals in Singapore are not even asking for additional rights, not to be treated as special, but to be treated as human. That we have a right to love, and a right to express our love. Why should it be that an expression of love is as guilty as culpable homicide not amounting to murder? Why can't gay men love? There is absolutely no reason to deny anyone of a basic fundamental human rights of love and expression of love.
For anyone who wants to extend this to bestiality, pedophilia, necrophilia, or even screwing a tree, think again. The point here is that this is 2 consenting adults who can make their own choice, they are not forced. I don't really know how an animal, dead people or a tree can give their consent, please do enlighten me. As for pedophiles, we are not talking in the same league, because the law and the medical world assumes that children cannot make choices, hence everything a child does requires parental consent. This is also why children are considered juvenile and trial differently from logically reasoning adults.
It boils down to one thing, homosexuals are human, if we continue to discriminate against them, because anti-gay religious people dictates so, then where do we stop? who are we going to attack next? Are we going to discriminate against people who do not have the same religious inclination? Are we going to use an interpretation of a religious text and come up with new laws (this brings to mind the prohibition of alcohol in the US in the 70s). Homosexuals have been having sex since and will continue to have sex; homosexuals have loved each other and will continue to do so. Why should we then, decide that the lives of others are less worthy than ours, and deny them of their rights?
If we want to continue to incriminate them? What is next? Sexuality cleansing? Systematically murder all homosexuals?
What is next? Love for all? Compassion for all? Or a situation as Yvonne Lee fondly puts it, equality for all, but all means some.
word count: 1931 (as requested by alexis)
Now the most interesting thing is that when you look at both sides of the issues, there are far bigger implications and many logical fallacies. Why should we continue incriminating homosexuals? Well because the bible says so. Period. (for an in-depth read on homosexuality and christianity, this is a speech by Rev Dr Yap Kim Hao. I am no expert in Christianity, so I'll let the expert do the talking - please read that nette)
I wrote once about why religion should never be mixed into law. Some may argue that law came from religion, but i beg to differ. The premises of law came not only from religion, but along the way many other thinkers and philosophers and movements throughout history have shaped law. Obviously laws that came before the bible must have came from somewhere no? So to argue that law as we know of today descended from biblical interpretation, is as best being ethnocentric.
Religion should be removed from law simply because all religions are equal, why should we incriminate what one religion feels that is wrong onto others whom have no opinion. Simply stated, our Muslim brothers do not consume pork, should we then ban all pork? Hence the key word we are looking at is secularism, whereby policies and initiatives are created without religious biases.
After removing religion from the debate of homosexuality, we then come down to 2 other arguments, the medical argument, and the family values and society argument. Now proponents of the medical arguments are, ironically all christians! They claim that the American Psychological Association (APA) removed homosexuality as a disease back in the 70's due to pressure from the gay right movement. What they did not tell you is that later on in 1994, long after the gay rights movement, APA stood up and reasserted themselves that homosexuality is not a mental disease and they did not removed it due to pressure from gay groups.
The other medical argument would of course be the nature and nurture argument. The problem with this is that people who cite research do not know the basic premise of research, the double negative nature of research. As an example, if a group of scientist embark on a research to show the nature/biological causes of homosexuality, and they do not find support, it DOES NOT mean that therefore it proves the nurture argument. it simply means that in their sample population, they have not enough evidence to prove nature. period. that is all there is to it.
Furthermore holding a nature OR nurture view is highly simplistic. Research will show you that gender, intelligence, race are all nurture AND nature. Its a case of both because both are so highly intertwined that they cannot be separated, for every scientific research done on one, we can find another scientific research that shows the other, and that is the spirit of academia, to arrive at an eventual reasonable range of explanation.
Proponents of the medical argument will also often cite Dr Spritzer's research on reparative therapy proving that gay men can turn straight. Well I'll have you know that the very people who started this therapy ended up breaking away from the church after they were caught in gay bars and were publicized in the media as one big hypocrisy. Moving on the Dr Spritzer's research, his research was not to show that reparative therapy works on homosexual. Rather he gathered a group of homosexual who went through therapy (they were volunteers by the way) and then assessed them. Now this is a group motivated for change, 97% of them are of christian background, and 93% of them said that religion were extremely important to them. Now the study he did showed that TWO-THIRDS (63%) of this motivated group still had feelings towards the same gender. This figure is higher amongst gay men (at 86%). Even Dr Spritzer himself came up and expressed his disappointment at anti-gay religious groups misquoting his studies. One also must remember that Dr Spritzer himself was one of the instrumental figure who help in the declassification of homosexuality as a mental illness
Still on the case of medical arguments, recently Dr Alan Chin Yew Liang (i think that's his name) claimed that homosexuality is a disease because being homosexual shortens life-span, and by his definition of a disease, that its a condition that shortens life-span. Well it must then surprise all of us than being male is a disease, and being left handed is a disease, and being members of different race is a disease then. As we all know, males have shorter life expectancy than females, left-handed people live shorter than right handed people, members of different countries and race have different life expectancies. Furthermore, Dr Chin justified his conclusion by using a report that shows than being homosexual shortens life-span because of the high prevalence of HIV in this population. For my unbiased reader, it must be then obvious that it is HIV that is the disease that shortens the life-span and not homosexual. Going by Dr Chin's logic, heterosexual men whom visits prostitutes and have unprotected sex must then be a disease, since they are by far, the population with the highest prevalence of HIV.
Moving on from medical to family and society arguments. A very fascinating thing to note is that very definition of both ideas. It appears that for those anti-gay people, they assume that a family must comprise of a father, mother and children. And that if there were gay people around who are minding their own business and having sex with their own partners, somehow their family unit will fall apart. I am not quite following their logic, are you? What about single parent families then? What about unwed mothers then? How will their family fall apart? Definitions for family do not take into considerations culture as well, in many parts of the world, fathers and mothers do not look after their children, it is other members who do so; also what about families with adopted children? So what exactly is a family? Psychologist have seek to define family as a group of people who live together have established relationship and care for each other. You might also be interested to show that studies done, such as that by Tasker and Golombok (1997) shows that an overwhelming majority of children growing up in gay families have a heterosexual orientation.
How does families then fall apart? How does society fall apart?
The biggest misunderstanding is that society is an entity, that it exist as something concrete and thus can be destroyed. That is not the case, society exist because humans exists and there are interactions with one another. Because society always exist, because it is not an entity, it cannot be destroyed. For all those who say that if everyone is homosexual, there would be no society, here's Dr John Corvino's reply "with all due respect, if the whole world becomes roman catholic priest, there will be no society too". The case in point is that either society exist, or, when humans eventually become extinct, it does not exist. There's is no destroying of a society.
So why should it bother each and everyone of us? The very idea of tolerance, acceptance and love. At no point should we discriminate anyone because they are different. We have seen many of such instances in the past and even today. African Americans were overtly and very much discriminated against in the past, today such discrimination may not exist overtly, but implicit attitudes test measured still shows some form of discrimination. Gender discrimination was also something that existed and continue to exist, women were not able to attend institutes of higher educations, some are not even allowed to work in other countries. Even in home ground, despite what we would like to believe, discrimination against other races can be observed, such as sitting beside members of the same race when there are seats available besides members of different races as well.
Why should we fear people who are different?
Even if we can't change the fact that there will always be some form of discrimination, should we then inscribe in law that some groups are less equal than others and hence they should be discriminated. Some people might argue that majority of the population is not ready, but if we look closer, all major shifts in mindset happens at a time where 'majority of the people are not ready'. During the civil rights movement for the blacks, majority of the Southerners were not ready. I assure you that many men today still don't think women should have equal rights, but then should we use this and justify that women therefore should not have equal rights.
Furthermore, homosexuals in Singapore are not even asking for additional rights, not to be treated as special, but to be treated as human. That we have a right to love, and a right to express our love. Why should it be that an expression of love is as guilty as culpable homicide not amounting to murder? Why can't gay men love? There is absolutely no reason to deny anyone of a basic fundamental human rights of love and expression of love.
For anyone who wants to extend this to bestiality, pedophilia, necrophilia, or even screwing a tree, think again. The point here is that this is 2 consenting adults who can make their own choice, they are not forced. I don't really know how an animal, dead people or a tree can give their consent, please do enlighten me. As for pedophiles, we are not talking in the same league, because the law and the medical world assumes that children cannot make choices, hence everything a child does requires parental consent. This is also why children are considered juvenile and trial differently from logically reasoning adults.
It boils down to one thing, homosexuals are human, if we continue to discriminate against them, because anti-gay religious people dictates so, then where do we stop? who are we going to attack next? Are we going to discriminate against people who do not have the same religious inclination? Are we going to use an interpretation of a religious text and come up with new laws (this brings to mind the prohibition of alcohol in the US in the 70s). Homosexuals have been having sex since and will continue to have sex; homosexuals have loved each other and will continue to do so. Why should we then, decide that the lives of others are less worthy than ours, and deny them of their rights?
If we want to continue to incriminate them? What is next? Sexuality cleansing? Systematically murder all homosexuals?
What is next? Love for all? Compassion for all? Or a situation as Yvonne Lee fondly puts it, equality for all, but all means some.
word count: 1931 (as requested by alexis)
May 20, 2007
its been awhile
its been awhile since i've blogged, well what have i been up to? plenty! its the holidays but *drum roll* i am still studying and *more drum rolls please* i'm also working, freelance plus giving tuition. so that makes me busy. but the super busy week's over, and now its a short rest period, because next week i've got my presentationS, yeah that's plural for you. and then i've got 2 weeks break before my exam and then, and then.............. *one last drum roll* I AM OFF TO MELBOURNE to find you-know-who.
people whom are close to me would probably have heard me gripe about this, but for those who haven't, i have issues with people who don't pay up. and i have issues asking them to pay me! i suppose this is in part of perhaps a chinese culture. but then this leads to the question, what exactly is the chinese culture, or the 'asian value' argument put forth, and of course the favourite argument' of our ministers.
all chinese love money right? after all, 吃喝嫖赌 are the essence of what makes us chinese no? we want money, more money. everything we do is about money. so why do i feel difficult in opening my mouth to ask for what i rightfully deserve? i rendered my services, and i don't get paid on time, EVERY SINGLE TIME, because of. i mean how cash strapped can a family be, when they can afford a CAR, a MAID, DOUBLE WORKING PARENTS, and that they even want to hire bloody expensive tutors, but they can't afford to pay a poor student. bullocks i say.
honestly, i have many many things to say, especially recently there's been much debate and talk about issues close to heart, homosexuality, ministerial pay raise, possible bus fare hike (AGAIN!, yes i know, after posting RECORD PROFIT AGAIN!), GST hikes and all, but again i would say that i need time to sit down and write a proper entry, i've got work to do now, and i suppose that's the one thing our government tries to achieve, work all of us to death, such that we don't have the time to ever bother with these. after we all want money don't we?
what else in life is there that is more attractive than money? you tell me!
people whom are close to me would probably have heard me gripe about this, but for those who haven't, i have issues with people who don't pay up. and i have issues asking them to pay me! i suppose this is in part of perhaps a chinese culture. but then this leads to the question, what exactly is the chinese culture, or the 'asian value' argument put forth, and of course the favourite argument' of our ministers.
all chinese love money right? after all, 吃喝嫖赌 are the essence of what makes us chinese no? we want money, more money. everything we do is about money. so why do i feel difficult in opening my mouth to ask for what i rightfully deserve? i rendered my services, and i don't get paid on time, EVERY SINGLE TIME, because of
honestly, i have many many things to say, especially recently there's been much debate and talk about issues close to heart, homosexuality, ministerial pay raise, possible bus fare hike (AGAIN!, yes i know, after posting RECORD PROFIT AGAIN!), GST hikes and all, but again i would say that i need time to sit down and write a proper entry, i've got work to do now, and i suppose that's the one thing our government tries to achieve, work all of us to death, such that we don't have the time to ever bother with these. after we all want money don't we?
what else in life is there that is more attractive than money? you tell me!
May 18, 2007
S.H.E - 触电
风走在我们前面
甩裙摆画着圆圈
花美得兴高采烈
那香味有点阴险
你在我旁边的旁边
但影子却肩碰肩
偷看一眼
你的唇边
是不是也有笑意明显
明明是昨天的事情
怎么今天我还在经历
一丁点回忆都能惊天又动地
想问个愚蠢问题
我们再这样下去
你猜会走到哪里
但请你不要太快揭开还沉默的情话
先让我多着急一下再终于等到解答
太容易的爱故事就不耐人回味啦
像这样触电
就够我快乐熔化
我们就耐心培养萌芽不要急着开花
反正有长长的日记等我们去填满它
在被全世界发现以前先愉快装傻
就这样触电
一直甜蜜触电
直到爆炸
像一年四个季节
都被你变成夏天
我才会在你面前
总是被晒红了脸
像一百万个秋千
在我心里面叛变
被你指尖
碰到指尖
我瞬间就被荡到天边
May 6, 2007
Rain
i have always loved rainy days. when i was a little kid, i remember there was this really huge storm that turned the whole sky grey; i couldn't even see the trees in front of my house. but in the deep grey outdoors, there was this silhouette of a lone big tree. the picture was so beautiful. so sad, poignant yet of an unspoken beauty. Loneliness. creeping all over the tree. Solitude. somewhat a reflection of life. more often than not, we are with and by ourselves, we have to learn and stand up against the storm. in the end, its only you.
the tree survived that torrential downpour. but i saw no rainbow. the sky however, cleared up. rainbow doesn't always appear after a storm, but the storm always clears up eventually. even now, watching the raindrops fall from the sky still evokes many feelings. 伤感, because grey is a sad colour. lifeless. i have this romanticised notion of rain, standing by the big window watching the rain fall drop by drop, in the warm embrace of the one i love, listening to the slow and gentle music, saying "i love you" with the soul of my eyes. Silent.
30/01/02
the tree survived that torrential downpour. but i saw no rainbow. the sky however, cleared up. rainbow doesn't always appear after a storm, but the storm always clears up eventually. even now, watching the raindrops fall from the sky still evokes many feelings. 伤感, because grey is a sad colour. lifeless. i have this romanticised notion of rain, standing by the big window watching the rain fall drop by drop, in the warm embrace of the one i love, listening to the slow and gentle music, saying "i love you" with the soul of my eyes. Silent.
30/01/02
May 4, 2007
May 3, 2007
Apr 30, 2007
looks out agnes chua
there's a look that never fails to amuse CS students. the looks on the engineers face before their exams. its like one gigantic ball of stress. but come tomorrow morning, i'll be sporting that i'm-really-stress look. its so fashionable.
who is agnes you ask? she's this bitch on straits time forum page, after my exam tomorrow, i am writing an in-depth reply to her absolutely factually incorrect forum article.
i'll bitch slap till she sports my second favourite look. the i'm-the-loser-bitch look! WOHOOOOOOOO
19 more hours.
who is agnes you ask? she's this bitch on straits time forum page, after my exam tomorrow, i am writing an in-depth reply to her absolutely factually incorrect forum article.
i'll bitch slap till she sports my second favourite look. the i'm-the-loser-bitch look! WOHOOOOOOOO
19 more hours.
Apr 29, 2007
no life
guess what i was doing today?!?!?! the same that i do everyday, try and take over the world pinky!.... no not really, i've been studying in school, on a sunday! how depressing huh? and what is the worse thing, its statistics. statistics is not really that bad. really. i just HATE and abhor the manual calculating. its not like its damn easy lor. seriously, its like the moment i have one decimal wrong, my whole answer is wrong.
but of course i will persevere and pull through! after tomorrow, i will be free!!!! until thursday that is. tuition starts, and monday school reopens for me, who takes special semester just so i can clear modules for my double major. i have no life!!!
sigh.....
but of course i will persevere and pull through! after tomorrow, i will be free!!!! until thursday that is. tuition starts, and monday school reopens for me, who takes special semester just so i can clear modules for my double major. i have no life!!!
sigh.....
Apr 28, 2007
Apr 26, 2007
quote of today!
"make something idiot-proof, and they will build you a better idiot!"
edit: tag changed from humor to humour as per jiaz request. she kinda detest american spelling. but i am more with the americans on thru. seriously whats with through, repeat after me, rough... th-rough...
edit: tag changed from humor to humour as per jiaz request. she kinda detest american spelling. but i am more with the americans on thru. seriously whats with through, repeat after me, rough... th-rough...
Apr 24, 2007
MUST WATCH
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6578225891784504536
this is sylvia lim in parliament. i can't seem to use google video to post it here, so click on the link and watch her debate on the pay rise, and watch as she dissects ministers argument to bits!
i can't really say much because i've got an exam to study for, and scholarship to apply for. but i wondered who thought of a pay rise? and makes me also wonder about our GST hike. and many many other things. but oh well
on another note, much love to ayline and zeeq for their comforting notes. yeah the paper is over! and many more to go. thanks for video ayline, i've watched it before, but it still made me smile =)
cheers
this is sylvia lim in parliament. i can't seem to use google video to post it here, so click on the link and watch her debate on the pay rise, and watch as she dissects ministers argument to bits!
i can't really say much because i've got an exam to study for, and scholarship to apply for. but i wondered who thought of a pay rise? and makes me also wonder about our GST hike. and many many other things. but oh well
on another note, much love to ayline and zeeq for their comforting notes. yeah the paper is over! and many more to go. thanks for video ayline, i've watched it before, but it still made me smile =)
cheers
tough and trying
its been tough and trying. i didn't sleep a wink because the night before i had a panic attack - that was the most frightening experience of my life - and i just woke up and started screaming at the top of my lungs. last night, i was too afraid to fall asleep. and so many times, i just broke down, because i've got a paper today.
FUCK
i couldn't sleep, really. i can't even control my tears. its sooo tough, but hang on i must. *wipes tears* need to start my day, final revisions and go to school for paper
as my friend said "when the going gets tough, the tough goes shopping!' after the exams, i am buying myself a lanvin ketucky tote that cost $2000. nahz, i am not that rich, buying myself an EDC tote!
i love myself, do you love me?????
FUCK
i couldn't sleep, really. i can't even control my tears. its sooo tough, but hang on i must. *wipes tears* need to start my day, final revisions and go to school for paper
as my friend said "when the going gets tough, the tough goes shopping!' after the exams, i am buying myself a lanvin ketucky tote that cost $2000. nahz, i am not that rich, buying myself an EDC tote!
i love myself, do you love me?????
Apr 23, 2007
Apr 22, 2007
Eddie Izzard
you guys HAVE to watch him, he is the FUNNIEST standup comedian i've seen. much better than russell and margaret. HILARIOUS
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)