July 2004
August 2004
September 2004
October 2004
November 2004
December 2004
January 2005
February 2005
March 2005
April 2005
May 2005
June 2005
July 2005
August 2005
September 2005
October 2005
November 2005
December 2005
January 2006
February 2006
March 2006
April 2006
May 2006
June 2006
July 2006
August 2006
September 2006
October 2006
November 2006
December 2006
January 2007
February 2007
March 2007
April 2007
May 2007
June 2007
July 2007
August 2007
September 2007
October 2007
November 2007
December 2007
January 2008
February 2008
Saturday, April 16
i have issues
i have issues!
so many issues to talk about these days.
well, here i go.
1
the casino issue.
to be honest, my views won't be astoundingly different from what has already been debated, but here is my stand. firstly, mr LKY is all for it. i cite his reasons - not to lose out to our neighbouring countries. in other words, money money. on a slightly off note, i realised i used to be rather proud of Singapore, because i always thought we had a good balance between economic and moral priorities. however if you think about it, there are many things that we do in Singapore that make me think twice. like having gay parties in sentosa, like going ahead with genetic engineering, like this casino thingy here. i mean, they're pretty obvious signs to show which direction we're heading, and to me it doesn't look good. we may be rich, but can we be proud of ourselves? but back to the issue here. casino or not? to be honest, gambling addicts do not appear overnight. those that are have defintely made frequent visits to genting or LV, and i mean, why not just reap in the economic benefits of their loose spending? the problem, however, with this whole casino opening, is that it allows easier - much easier - access to one of humankind's worst vices. if i were a total pessimist, i could go on and on about the social detriments that the casino would bring about. gambling in itself is dangerous, because it could lead to people being desperate for money. and THAT is damn dangerous. it could either lead to higher crime rate, or more people getting drunk - which can lead to more drinkanddrive accidents or spousal/child abuse. and these children, being abused, could grow up to be robbers or murderers. and they would rob or kill those idiotic gamblers from the casino who have money. okay if this were a GP essay i would fail (or as fernandez would say, a simplistic view). but you get my point. its just sad that whenever Singapore has to choose between the society and the economy, it usually favours the latter. in the end, we;re gonna be rich, filthy rich.
2
stoopid cj system.
okay, warning, biased view right here.
hahah. yeah, they went around catching girls for short skirts, mainly. which was damn lame la. growl. i mean, LOOK just LOOK at the other jcs. so they say that short skirts are not favourable, because.. because what? they'll distract guys? come on. if a girl is hot, she's hot. screw the short skirt. so i mean, you are not gonna stop guys from looking at girls just because you make them wear their skirts at their knees, you know? what pisses me off is that there is no point behind most of the rules. and i hate rules with no point. let me explain. for example, the no-handphone-except-in-restricted-areas rule. now this was set up because they don't want students to use the phone during lessons and lectures. so why not just catch ppl if they're using it during lessons and lectures? where's the crime in using it when i'm walking up the staircase? i don't believe you're concerned that i'll trip and fall. pointless. sometimes people enforce rules without seeing the point. if you think that forcing people to lengthen skirts has any benefits at all, i would like to know. as far as i can see, you're doing it just cos it pleases you. long skirts befit tradition? well, what about the new age, the creative expression, the adapting to change? surely the school need not always oppose trends? i mean, ankle socks worked out pretty well didn't they, after you realised there's really nothing wrong with looking nice and adhereing to the rules at the same time? and by the way, my definition of short skirt is really not very short. by short i mean what YOU define as short, which is really not short at all. so well, think about it, you goondoos.
3
the pope's passing.
yes, he was a great man.
but still, he was a man.
i find it unsettling when he is addressed as Your Holiness. who, really, deserves to be called that? but still, yes, he was a great man. although, maybe, a little commercialised. ah, the wonders of the media. tsk.