The Problem with Hotels offering Transit Rates

This issue was highlighted in Parliament.

Let's take a look at who and what are involved in this issue.

Home Owners:

They own a property next to a building with some shops or a plot of land zoned Commercial. Next thing you know, Hotel X, infamous for its transit rates, takes up part of the building, then its competitor, Hotel Y, also infamous for its transit rates, takes up the other part of the building. Soon, what used to be a quiet cluster of shops has become a vice node with 'walkers' strutting the streets. Home owners then demonstrate their displeasure through various channels, i.e. complaints to URA, Hotel Licensing Board etc, or write to forums hosted by mainstream media.

Hotel Owners:

Offering the transit option is a significant income stream. It's part of product differentiation. In fact, for their hotels in certain areas such as within Geylang and/or away from touristy areas, it's quite clear that those rely heavily on transit customers. But there are different types of transit customers. This will be elaborated later.

Service Providers:

These include the prostitutes and their distribution channels such as the pimps and lookouts.

Authorities:

This is the interesting one. Why don't the authorities put a stop to this situation? It's already costing quite a few points.

The authorities involved are:

• Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) (decides where hotels are located through landuse)
• Hotel Licensing Board (HLB) (controls the operations of hotels through licensing). 
• Their respective ministries are Ministry of National Development and Ministry of Trade and Industry.

How about making vice trade illegal?

You mean eliminating the vice trade? For that, you'd have to sterilise everyone.

As our population increase exponentially, the demand for prostitutes will increase accordingly too.

While it's not possible to eliminate the vice trade in Singapore, it's possible to limit/contain the extent of the vice trade, e.g. the supply of prostitutes, the place of business etc.

Why can't the authorities disallow the development of hotels near residential areas?

Ok, this is gonna sound weird... Just try to understand it...

Hotels can be developed on land parcels zoned 'Hotel' or 'Commercial'. Those hotels causing problems near residential areas are usually on parcels zoned 'Commercial'.

These commercial spaces are planned such that they will serve the adjacent residential areas by turning into a grocery shop, hairdresser, kopitiam, office etc... If you are lucky, these spaces becomes a Holland Village... If you are not... because the list of allowable commercial uses includes 'hotel', the commercial spaces may become a couple of hotels with hourly rates, attracting the vice trade.

So why not disallow 'hotel' as one of the possible uses under 'Commercial' zone, especially for those near residential areas?

Theoretically, that's possible. It'll be like refining a large blunt tool.

But non-action can always be argued for because not all hotels = transit = problem. Hence, it's 'heavy-handed' and/or 'not pro-business' to remove 'hotel' as one of the allowable uses.

Why can't the authorities make the transit option for hotels illegal altogether?

Fundamentally, the transit option is not the problem.

Not everyone who rents a hotel room for 2 hours is doing so with a prostitute. The transit option serves a somewhat important function, i.e. it allows couples who do not have a place of their own (e.g. cannot afford a place of their own, waiting for HDB flat to be built etc) to buy 2 hours of privacy.

The problem is what else the transit option attracts. And most unfortunately, the transit option fertilises the vice trade. The presence of a transit hotel encourages prostitutes to hang around it, waiting for business.

To exacerbate this situation, a couple of such hotel chains engage in 'pairing strategy', i.e. if Hotel X starts a branch in an area, its competitor (Hotel Y) will do so immediately just a few doors away. This creates a larger supply of ready rooms within that area (a vice node) encouraging more prostitutes to hang around. This is evident in Kovan (as seen in the pic above).

And in some areas, these hotel chains start more than 1 branch along the same street, in addition to the pairing strategy. This instantly creates a cluster of transit hotels, i.e. a potential 'vice hub'.

It's quite clear that the prostitutes follow wherever these transit hotels make their appearances. This means if the transit option is disallowed altogether, the vice trade will have to find alternative place of business, i.e. be shifted to elsewhere. Shifting elsewhere may not just mean shifting out of hotels, but also spreading it into... housing estates... the bushes... the parks etc.

The vice trade has to go on.

Hence, banning transit option for hotels is not helping the situation at all.

Ok, what about disallowing the transit option for hotels near residential areas, e.g. if within 200m of residential area, no transit option allowed for hotels?

Sounds good eh? But imagine the impact this rule will have on Geylang.

If such a rule was approved, few or no transit hotels would continue to operate in Geylang... because along with hotels, there are many residential apartments dotting Geylang.

Once again, the effect will be spreading the vice trade elsewhere. Major spreading of vice outside of Geylang. Ditto for any other smaller vice nodes near to residential areas.

Fine... What about keeping Geylang as it is, but applying the "no transit option near residential area" rule outside of Geylang?

Ok, this seems like a possible solution, right?

But life isn't that simple, especially if you are the government. You are always in a dilemma.

Adopting such an approach would mean that the government was acknowledging Geylang as 'significant' in terms of the vice trade. The government would have to draw a boundary, i.e. where the vice starts/stops. Ironically, this becomes messy because of what happens once a boundary is drawn: Does acknowledging Geylang mean that prostitution is now 'legal' anywhere within the boundary? What about pimping/soliciting? Or any other vice-related issues? Does this mean more of such activities can blossom in Geylang, e.g. can you building a 7-storey vice superstore?

And what about those non-vice trade people who live in Geylang? Wouldn't they be unhappy with Geylang now becoming officially a 'vice hub'? How are the MPs of Jalan Besar GRC gonna deal with this?

And why stop at Geylang? How about other areas which are traditional vice areas such as Desker Road? Are they going to be excluded/included? And if so, they will be 'acknowledged' as vice hubs too... then the residents nearby will complain...

You get the drift... Slippery slope... *slide*

So, what's the solution?

It becomes a convoluted solution of pinning the responsibility of avoiding vice activities on the hotel operator, i.e. don't let us catch you allowing vice activities to take place in your hotel. If caught, we suspend your licence. See the case of Shing Hotel.

The keywords here are 'if caught'.

Meanwhile, you can't stop females hanging around on the public walkway outside a hotel. It's not a crime to hang around... If you ask them what they are doing there, they'd say,"Waiting for a friend." This means a game of cat and mouse between the service providers and the authorities.

Just imagine how much resources have to go into this for it to effective? There are at least a hundred transit hotels in Singapore.

What's our Political Food?

Did you know that our favourite youtiao started because of an authentic grassroots brainwave?

About a thousand years ago in southern China, the population was afraid of openly declaring its contempt towards the corrupt official, Qin Hui, who was very much still in power at the time.

Instead, a couple of street hawkers fashioned Mr Qin and his wife out of dough, stuck them together, deep-fried them in boiling oil, and ate them vehemently.

As more people caught on with the concept of and meaning behind this street snack, the production had to catch up with the demand. It was further simplified, i.e. 2 sticks of dough, instead of 2 dough figurines with details such as body shapes, facial features.

Soon, this simple yet meaning-laden snack spread like wild fire with its name of 'Deep Fried Ghost' which also sounds like 'Deep Fried Hui' in Mandarin/dialect.
.......................................................

Ever wondered what our very own political food will be?

If anything, I bet Breadtalk will come up with something as they are known to give their creations fashionable names. However, one may wish to note that their version is likely to be pro-PAP. (Re: Chairman of Breadtalk is associated with PAP MP George Yeo)

Using a snack to propagate a political message (in fact, any message) is much more effective as a communication tool, than say a facebook/iphone app/Channel 8 advertisement/full page spread in ST. This is because Singaporeans, regardless of age, gender, race, religion, education, social status, sexuality, tech-savvy-ness etc, simply love to eat.

Kick-Ass

I was very reluctant to catch Kick-Ass coz it sounds... erm... dumb. I really didn't want to be stuck in the cinema with a lot of kids haha-ing to a dumb film for 2 hours.

But 'Good Fren' wanted to watch it. I think this is what they mean by 'Love conquers all'. =_=

I mean...Seriously... This film must be really quite dumb if someone decides to vandalise its Wikipedia page. Click on the pic below to see what's in the pink circle. It says "Fuckin Gay== Plot ==" right at the start of the page. HAHA!

But... I changed my mind about the film once it started rolling on screen. It's my bad for not reading up on the people behind the film. Matthew Vaughn, Brad Pitt etc. This film is... almost Quentin Tarantino. It KICKs ASS!

There were deliberate moments when the brains behind the film put the audience in sudden and awkward positions where the latter became absolutely unsure about whether they should be laughing. That, in itself, is brilliant. =))

Like when a boy died or when the little violent girl got bashed up violently by an equally violent adult. I mean... just a sec ago, the little girl was violently decimating everyone in her way... So why am I feeling bad for her when she got bashed up instead? Oh yes... Coz she's a little girl.

Go catch this one.

艋舺 Monga

There are many reasons to catch this film. Here are some:

1. Triad theme (AH BENGS GALORE!)
2. Dialogue in Mandarin and Hokkien (Read: Swearing in Hokkien)
3. Beautiful beautiful boys in high school uniform and ah beng clothings (I can't decide amongst the three, i.e. Ethan Ruan (阮經天), Mark Chao (趙又廷) and Rhydian Vaughan (鳳小岳). =P``` They are soooooo young.
4. Rather honest depictions of complex and contradicting human relationships

Loads of related vids to watch online.

.........................................................

I cannot help but to wonder if the 太子帮 in the film was a reference to the 太子党 in China, aka descendants of prominent and influential senior communist officials in the PRC.

艋舺 Monga's a Taiwanese film afterall.

It's not a bigger cake...

Read this: Slight change to the Non-Constituency Member of Parliament (NCMP) scheme

Opposition says:

"By introducing the NCMP scheme, the PAP is trying to have a cake and eat it - to tell Singaporeans, let's vote for PAP as government and we provide you with NCMP. But that is not how a healthy political system should work," said Mr Low.

PAP says:
"What the government or the PAP tries to do in this situation is not to have its cake and eat it," said Mr Wong. "We are trying to make the cake bigger and give you a piece of it!" 


Dear Sirs,

It's not a piece of the same cake.
It's more like... you're having cake, while they are to be consoled by whipped cream.

If we, as a nation, are really serious about and ready for a vibrant political landscape with 'diversity', look towards what the UK Election debates have done for public participation instead.

Selective Reporting is "Astroturfing" too!

Contrary to those reports and rankings often quoted by our mainstream media which always sing of how much expats lurrrrrrrrrve Singapore, this Daily Mail report says otherwise.

Survey of 1,306 British expats reveals that:

"The countries with the lowest quality of life were those in the Far East and Middle East: China, Singapore, Hong Kong and the UAE. 
In each of these countries a majority of British workers said they intended to return home to retire." 

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1267641/9-10-UK-expats-say-quality-life-better-abroad.html#ixzz0lqRuwIeZ

We need to be honest... minimally with ourselves. Singapore is not always good enough for all types of expats we extend our invitation to.

Just another day at Raffles Place

Toilet Trained Cats are for REAL

I know some cats are trained to use the human toilet, but those are other people's cats... people and cats I dunno... people and cats in faraway lands... and they only and merely exist on Youtube, right?!

Then my Singaporean friend comes and tells me very plainly that his Singaporean cats are toilet-trained. Just use the pan, he says... As if it's that easy... =_=
 
Blinky and Tiger!!! 
It's time to cut cost/ join the race/ catch up/ show your mother some love/ do your mother proud/ be a green cat and save the earth/ *insert more excuses*...

Har? What's that? The litter box is full?

Eh... The litter box is full. Change it NOW!

Alrrrriiiiight... I go change the cat litter now... *sulk*
I is slave.

But it's your honour to be chosen by us, Slave!

Which Voter Segment do you belong to?

With the elections fever heating up all around the world, our little red dot is redder than ever about the upcoming elections.

Though no one knows when the election will be held, there has been all sorts of speculations, mainly fueled by massive public appearances by politicians, old and new, left and right,  all over the island in the past two weekends.

Some say the election will be held in July 2010, i.e. before National Day and YOG, while others say it will be held after YOG during the 1-week school holiday in Sep 2010.

Regardless of when, everyone is also wondering about the election outcome. Some say the current governing party will lose more seats. Some say more seats but still same percentage of seats held by opposition. Theories abound.

Let's take a look at the Singaporean Voters.

Here we have a rough depiction of the Singaporean Voters. While it's easy to get the total figure for Singapore Residents (which includes Singapore Citizens + Permanent Residents), it's not so easy to get the specific figure for Singapore Citizens. For ease of discussion, let's assume the total no. of Singapore Citizens = 3mil, and they are all inside the pointed drum below, and divided by housing types.

Amongst these 3mil citizens, let's assume there is a 60-40 split. 60% want status quo and/or don't give a damn about how our country is governed. 40% want change.

But not all 3mil citizens will get to vote. Firstly, the eligible voters are probably around 70% of the 3mil. In addition, if only half the seats are contested during the elections, the Actual Voters are only about 30% of all Singaporeans.

So assuming this 30% of Actual Voters are spread evenly across the population, the voting result should not deviate from the 60-40 split very much.

But in reality, "evenly distributed" usually does not exist. Voters from Area X may vote for Party A more than Voters from Area Y does for Party A. In addition, voters can and are always swayed by what the politicians have to offer. Of course, politicians are aware that not all voters are the same. Hence, the voters are segmented, i.e. into groups - to divide and conquer, as follows:

Elites - These vote to preserve their own influence in society and to maintain/enhance their own profits. Not very different from most people, except that they do get to realise what they want in a significant manner.

Smarts Chasers - These generally vote based on who they think are smart enough to lead the country. And 'smart enough' is usually based on educational credentials from ivy leagues/Oxbridge, and/or have achieved extraordinary careers, e.g. exceptionally skilled in his trade, made a lot of money etc. A minority of these voters possess these credentials/achievements, and so are choosing those similar to themselves or better as their leaders. The remaining majority of voters in this category simply yearns to be 'successful' like their ideal leaders.

Hence, the opposition has placed quite a few of such 'smarts' candidates to the foreground in the recent months. In a certification-obsessed society like ours, this is a solid move to attract the votes of Smarts Chasers.

Some observers ponder about the irony of the opposition party showing off their Smarts candidates, while the current governing party attempts to associate itself with people of lesser smarts in the entertainment industry. This is not a reckless move by the latter, mind you. In fact, it can be explained in a rational manner.
 
Visual Chasers - These vote based on what they see of the candidates. These visuals may include those gathered in the flesh and/or through the mainstream media + online. These voters like to see 'good form', e.g. candidates who are good-looking and/or pursuing 'meaningful' activities such as hanging out with the voters, seen to be saying the right things, baby-hugging etc. These visuals translate into 'having heart' and/or 'being good' in the eyes of this group of voters. They take 'seeing is believing' very literally.

Because a lot of younger voters fall within the Visual Chaser group, this has lead to the increase in the less 'smarts' but more 'looker' type of candidates in the recent years. It's probably prudent for the opposition party to start filling their arsenal with some of such candidates.

It is possible for a voter to be a combination of 'Smarts Chaser' and 'Visual Chaser'. With a majority of candidates being male, such combination voters are possibly females who transfer their notion of the ideal partner onto their ideal leader candidate (i.e. as a provider of a better life).

Dislocated - This group of people is dislocated from society as they are usually jobless and do not have the means to maintain relevance. This group is usually played up by all factions to tug at heartstrings. But nobody really knows what's going through their minds.

And of course, in the past few elections, there are about 2%-3% of spoilt votes. The impact of this group will only become significant when the contest cuts very close, i.e. in an almost 50-50 situation.

(Some will argue that this segmentation model is too simple. But really, is there a need to create more segments for an exercise like this? Singaporeans are rather homogeneous when it comes to macro issues like this.)


So, if you are a party with a lot of resources (including power, people, money etc), you are likely to assess the profile of voters of each contested area is a way similar to the above, then adjust the mix of your team accordingly.

In other words, if you, as a voter, kena a 'looker' in your GRC, you must realise that someone had decided that your fellow voters and/or you are likely to be a 'visual chaser'. =))

Rough breakdown and framework for discussion purposes. 
Please leave your comments accordingly.

Same But Different

On Tuesday evening, 'Good Fren' brought home a life-size standee of himself from work. Because our apartment is really tiny, we left it in the living room. Then we head to Lido for 志明与春娇.

We got back a few hours later and found Blinky cowering. He was really scared of the standee! And so, we made fun of Blinky about it.

"Eh Blinky! Why you so scared? 

This Papa is even better! He doesn't move!"

Until I realised that I kept getting shocked by the standee too. =_=

Everytime I got out of the bedroom, the silhouette of the standee at the corner of my eye would make me jump. Even 'Good Fren' got a slight shock by his standee this morning.

I think it's not a good idea to leave the standee standing in the living room. We shall try to nail him onto the wall. Ahhh... I know oredi! Maybe nail him onto the main door... on the outside?! Can dress him up according to the festive seasons =)))

志明與春嬌 Love in a Puff

Shaw invited me to catch this latest film from Hong Kong on Tuesday evening. The film has a great Chinese title, it's called 《志明與春嬌》. The English title is 'Love in a puff'.

The guy from Shaw deliberately highlighted to me in his email that Mayday's song by the same title will NOT be featured in this film. =))

Coincidentally, I had chanced upon the trailer for this film while looking for Mayday's 《志明與春嬌》 on youtube just a few weeks ago. I did make a mental note to self that I'd catch it. =))

The trailer is very promising.

It is true that people around the smoking area bond better. Coz you are stuck in the same spot everyday for at least 6 minutes and a few times a day. Name another communal activity like that.

I wish we had caught the film in Cantonese though. Coz the film is rather dialogue-ish, and quite a few jokes made no sense in dubbed Mandarin.

Even though there were always light-hearted moments, I thought everyone in the film lived a sad superficial existence, which is not unlike having a smoke. It's a light temporal relief with invisible nasty long term downsides.

Miriam Yeung's smoking wasn't really convincing. It's all in the fingers.

I caught myself yearning for a smoke twice during the film. Sigh...

Lan-Gaming is an Addiction

Our cleaning lady told me a horrible story this afternoon.

She said that her neighbour's teenage son borrowed from loan sharks to feed his lan gaming addiction.

O_o

I think if all public agencies, such as MCYS, MOH, MOE, IDA etc, are not gonna tackle this issue at its roots (Please! Not of more those 'let's raise awareness' rubbish which will include announcement of S$XX mil to be devoted to raise awareness of the downsides of lan gaming addiction!), then CNB ought to include anti-lan gaming addiction in its mission, coz it's not much better than drug addiction. Make those kids report in white shirts and black pants every morning at Central Division. Check their fingers for traces of keyboard and mouse. =_=

We think of them as 'kids' now... But they are gonna grow up with this addiction, and become something else altogether. It's not a 'phase'. This is a serious and authentic problem.

The Real Amnesia

If you can read in Chinese, check out this article on MM Lee by someone with the moniker of 頎洋. The article is named 'Lee Kuan Yew's Amnesia'.

The author's obviously someone from Nanyang University.

A sample from the article:

"南大冤死多年，凶手在自家的王国里逍遥法外，如今更在光天化日之下、明目张胆地撬棺鞭尸，全世界受华文教育的炎黄子孙众目昭彰，是可忍、孰不可忍！"

I cannot conclude whether I agree/disagree with his points only because I am not familiar with that part of Singaporean history. I don't think anyone my age really knows much about that part of our history. Coz according to my brief history education, after Sang Nila Utama and gang visited Singapore, Raffles came along, stood on the banks of Singapore River and gave birth to modern Singapore. Then the Japanese came and killed quite a few of us. And the next thing you know, MM Lee and his kakis started building HDB flats.

Despite my inability to understand the context, I found the article very intriguing. So, I reread the article and gave it some thought.

Then I realised why the article had seduced me.

It's not because of the content, but only because I find his disparaging tone keenly familiar. Ahhh... Many of my formative years were spent amidst such words... especially that tone. The Chinese-educated indignation.

Familiarity is a strange phenomenon. It just kicks one into auto mode. There is no real amnesia to claim here.

Entry to Local Unis

The debate on whether poly grads ought to be given equal opportunity for entry to local universities has been going on for weeks!

I love reading stuff from people who write to the forum, coz sometimes they make hilarious arguments. E.g. People go to poly because they didn't qualify for junior college, and so they should not deserve a chance to study in the local unis. O_o

It's not just Poly Cert vs 'A' Levels Cert

Before we get all myopic and start poking at the eyes of our own kind, take a good look at what kind of students the local unis have been taking in. Apart from taking in our great 'A' levels holders for undergraduate courses, the local unis have been taking in foreigners from all sorts of education system around the world. Before we diss the quality of our own polytechnic grads, we should make sure that those foreign students are holding pre-U qualifications which equal, if not better, our 'A' level certs and poly diplomas.

Lack of Standardised Test

To put it simply, this current debate has been going on and on soley because the local unis generally do not use a standarised admissions test to assess the ability of the applicants to the undergraduate programmes.

In the US, students take high school exams (GED), then take the SATs to gain entry to local unis. They recognise the variance in standard of applicants who may have been educated via a variety of avenues, e.g. public schools, private schools, distance-learning, home-schooled, not from the US etc.

Afghan College Entrance Exam Day
More than 1,800 prospective cadets rise for the playing of the Afghan National Anthem before the start of the Afghan College Entrance Exam for the Afghan National Army Academy, Kabul, Afghanistan, Oct. 25. The prospective cadets here are hoping to be one of the approximately 300 chosen for the new freshman class. The exam makes up 80 percent of their final admissions score. (U.S. Air Force photo/Staff Sgt. Brian Ferguson)

Customised Standardised Test

Heh heh... sounds oxymoronic...

Having said that, I have to add that some faculties/departments, Medicine, Dentistry, Law, Architecture etc., do create their own set of entry hurdles, e.g. entrance exams, interviews, personal statements etc.

E.g. During my time, the Department of Architecture in NUS shortlists a few hundred applicants ('A' level holders, polygrads, foreigners etc) and get them to sit through a test (which consists of all sorts of questions, i.e. quantitative and qualitative), then shortlist again, and get the remaining to go for an interview with their portfolios, then finalise the list of candidates.

Why does Department of Architecture go through this trouble? Because it's very difficult to assess whether one has an aptitude for Architecture just by looking at the 'A' levels cert. Is someone with 3As and 1B in Double Maths, Physics & Economics suitable for the Architecture course? It's difficult to tell. Wouldn't it make more sense to just accept the better Architecture polygrads? If then, people would be writing the papers to complain about Department of Architecture favouring polygrads. Unfair advantage for polygrads!

Hence, the useful entrance exam + interview + portfolio presentation.

Question is: How many departments/faculties can and/or bother to do something so labour-intensive? Imagine those super large faculties producing thousands of graduates each year... They already need a factory-line method to sort out the existing thousands of applications.

Imagine if every department/faculty in the local unis start coming up with their own entrance exams, tests, interviews etc... And you have 5 options to fill... Do you have to go for all 5 entrance assessments?! *fainted*

The Elections Debate

The UK will be holding its elections this year. The most significant change to the elections is the inclusion of the UK Elections Debate.

This is a live debate, broadcasted on television, amongst leaders of the nation's top 3 political parties. Questions are fielded by a live audience of 200 who live within a 30-mile radius from the debate venue, selected by the polling company. There are 76 rules to the debate.

CNN explains the format of this debate via this video.



Here's the vid of the 90-minute debate.
The first question is also currently very hot in the Singaporean scene, i.e. IMMIGRATION. Check out the range of answers. It's never "You are low-productive, that's why!"



Love this line by Gordon Brown: You can't airbrush your policies like you airbrush your posters.

By the end of the debate, polls were taken, and they demonstrated that for this first round, the leader of the Liberal Democrat Party, Nick Clegg, has come out tops.

Check out how some British voters gathered together at a pub to watch the debate, as if they were watching a soccer game.

Just 24 minutes after the debate had ended, there were 200,000 tweets on it, with each of the 3 political parties participating as well.

The idea, of having such an election debate, such open participation by members of public in elections, is very alien to me. In Singapore, our elections are like... a week-long kampung event that is shunned by most 'better-bred' citizens who are too good to stand in the muddy grass fields with thousands of other sticky Singaporeans just to listen to the candidates speak live.

Of course, I wonder about what the elections debates can achieve. Because of the nature of a debate, the candidate, who is more quick-witted and telegenic, will gain more of an advantage. It's so unfair for the candidate who is not as good-looking + speaks with a heavy Singlish accent + unable to think on his feet. But then again, that's what politics is about anyway. This is merely one more avenue to help the voters to get to know their political candidates. It is certainly more engaging for the voters to see the candidates in action.

If we want this, we should start mooting the idea of having such a debate NOW. Coz in the UK, this idea was first mooted in 1964. It took 46 years for it to happen. It may take a century for the same debate to take place in Singapore.

The Men Who Stare at Goats

This film received lukewarm reviews. It's understandable. Not because the film's concept nor its presentation was not good, but because the film is counterintuitive.

Superhuman soldiers with telekinetic powers to influence another person's mind, and to kill by merely  staring. Intuitively and immediately... a bizarre story. Almost slapstick. The New Earth Army. Too hippy to be part of a serious and proper outfit.

But if you stop for a moment to ponder about the film, it is all about 'faith'. These people believe that by doing A consistently, one may achieve B. And in the process of attempting A, sometimes, B is really achieved. Nobody really knows whether A really leads to B, but all it takes is 'faith', i.e. people who believe, and A will lead to B.

The True Violence

Re: The aggression incident at the SA vs ACS(I) rugby game

Can you believe this?

THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA

The mainstream media is still going on and on, focusing on the police reports made against the SA boy who struck the ACS(I) boy, on how the SA boy is 'distraught' because he's called up for statement by the police etc.

Know why the poor kid is distraught? It all started because the media made such a big deal of this fight on the front page on the national papers.

These continuous reports fan the emotions of people of and around the ACSians. It probably led to the mother of that ACS(I) making the police report in a delayed manner.

THE MOTHER OF ACS BOY

Hey... Mother of ACS boy... plus all those people gunning for SA blood... These boys are not playing chess for their CCA leh. This is a damn CONTACT SPORT, can? Rugby is mother of all contact sports, can? (Ok, third to boxing and wrestling, so avoid those too, if you cannot tahan.)

CONTACT SPORT means there will be... physical contact. Duh?! And when things get hot and heavy, someone will taunt someone, someone will react, and someone will bleed. It's part of the game.

If you really wanted to protect your kid from physical violence, then change his CCA, get him to represent his school in a Math competition or something. Oh... maybe not... coz he may kena poke by a pen in his eye if he loses and taunts his (this time RI) competitors. Better stay at home and play Wii by himself.

More seriously, does the mother know what the consequences are by making that police report against the SA boy? What if this police report causes the SA boy to have a criminal record? Is this really resolving the situation 'amicably' as claimed by the mother?

THE POLITICIAN

Then you have regularly opportunistic politicians who, when interviewed, could have put to a stop to the media circus, but instead grabbed the interview moment, and fanned the flames, while plugging his own portfolio. O_o

People who do not compete in contact sports, but only in solo 'sports' such as running or swimming, should not pass cheap euphemistic comments on 'sportsmanship' in contact sports. Better ask someone who has been playing a contact sport competitively for comments, e.g. Water polo, basketball, handball etc. Fights, bleeds, accidents, injuries... erm... aggression... etc are inevitable in competitive contact sports.

THE SCHOOL

The abovementioned adults do not know the SA boy personally, and probably do not care if their actions may harm him.

If you have not read about it, the boy's school, SAS, punished him in the following ways:

1. Temporarily suspended the boy from lessons.
2. Banned the boy from all school rugby activities for six months, disqualified from receiving the school colours, and will not be allowed to represent the school again.
3. Made the boy publicly apologise in front of the entire school during assembly 
4. To be taken to meet Leonard, the ACS(I) boy, to reconcile their differences.

Seriously???
It's ok to suspend the boy from playing rugby, but why suspend him from lessons? And why shame the poor boy in front of the whole school? To preserve the school's integrity? Must 废 his 武功 or not? Ah bo chop off the arm/hand he used to punch the ACS boy with lah!

These 名门正派s ah... Why so ah gua one?!

Just settle it on the damn pitch, and forget it lah!
Why allow all those unrelated 惟恐天下不乱的小人s to stir up this incident so much, then have to react to them in such a massively public manner? At whose expense?

BM, are you saying that fight in the pitch was acceptable violence? Isn't violence unacceptable?

No one plays the game just to fight. A line has to be drawn on how much violence can be tolerated. The line is 'keep it within the pitch/court/pool'.

In this incident, I think the so-called fight on the pitch was insignificant. How bad was it? Punches and 1 boy lost 1 tooth.

BUT, there were a couple of associated demonstrations of violence which were totally unnecessary and unacceptable outside of that rugby pitch:

(1) The Bus-Stop Attack
The attack by boys in civilian clothes on the 2 boys in ACS(I) uniform at the bus stop outside the game. One of the ACS boys' nose got broken. That's outside the pitch and unnecessary. Making police report for that incident is totally justified. The media should have focused on this, instead of playing up the 'school rivalry'.

(2) Emotional Violence inflicted on the SA Boy by ADULTS
The media's extensive coverage on this incident (including quoting stupid people), the police report by mother of ACS(I) boy on the pitch, and SAS's punishment for that boy... These are acts of emotional violence inflicted on the poor SA boy by adults.

And worst still, with the police report, he could be stuck with a criminal record for the rest of his life.

If the SA boy was blinded by rage and adrenaline when he punched the ACS(I) boy, the abovementioned groups of adults ain't faring much better than him either.

BM is a Prude

Someone (male) called me a prude after I pointed out the curious phenomenon of females wearing 20% to 60% less than males under any circumstances.

I wonder if I would be called a prude if I were male and made the same remark to the same male friend?

I think the male friend will probably say,"Bro, why you think so much? Just enjoy lah!"

What about if I were female and made the same remark, but to a female instead?

I think the chick will probably stop hanging out with me, thinking that I must be some kind of freak bitch who look down on other females for expressing their femininity through fashion.

What about if I were male and made the same remark to a female?

I'll probably get a slap, and/or be branded a sicko, and/or be accused of sexual harassment.


Hmmm... I guess the point is... No one should be pointing out something like that at all, even though it's true. O_o

Motherly love as an excuse

Woman gets jail term dropped

What's this?!

Previously sentenced to 6 weeks of jail for driving without a licence, Catherine Peter (wife of a commercial pilot, housewife, and mother of 2) has gotten her jail term dropped in her latest appeal.

"Justice V K Rajah decided to set aside the jail sentence, saying that Peter was not likely to repeat the offence. He added that "this decision does not signify the present judicial status ... but it is a one-off case that commands a departure from the norm". "

Fwah! So special for her...

Please! She's obviously recalcitrant!
Know why she was driving without licence on 29 Aug 2009? Coz her licence had been previously suspended for drink-driving on 9 Apr 2009, just 4 months ago! If this is not being recalcitrant, what is? Simpy no regard for our laws. 

She claims that she had to drive without a licence to the mall coz she couldn't find a cab and had to get to the mall to buy her sick son a toy. Guess where her husband was while their son was ill? The commercial pilot was not overseas flying, but was in Singapore. He had gone to the SIA Sports Club that afternoon. Was her son really sick? Or perhaps she's a self-suffering wife holding the family together on her own? Hence, having to make unthinking decisions such as driving without licence just 4 months after getting caught for drink-driving?

While the report avoids mentioning the nationality or immigration status of Catherine Peter, it's quite obvious that her husband is a Foreign Talent and these are probably a couple of PRs or even New Citizens. This would explain why the judge had decided to drop the jail term, because a jail sentence complicates immigration matters for PRs/foreigners.

In addition, if this woman were to be sentenced to jail as decided in the district court earlier, her life in Singapore would be compromised, and immigration status affected. This would mean that she would not be able to take care of her kids, especially when her husband's work required regular travel overseas. All in all, a jail sentence for the wife would also mean that Singapore might altogether lose her husband, i.e. a Line Instructor and Pilot of the A380 fleet, Flight Operations Division of Singapore Airlines.  

Even if the complications arising from their immigration status were disregarded, it makes one wonder if we had ever jailed a mother of young children, rendering these children 'motherless' for some time. Is it more ok then to jail local mothers coz their kids could be taken care of by the extended family in Singapore?

Will the Prosecution be appealing against the appeal decision?

While we were fighting ourselves...

This is simply lovely.

Just a few days ago, I put up a blog entry, lamenting that if we ever got into trouble with non-Singaporeans, how unlikely it was for fellow Singaporeans to fight along side with us in Cambridge.

'Good Fren' suggested that the only time such 'support' by Singaporeans would be possible was if we got into a fight during a sports meet where Singaporeans from Oxford and Cambridge played against one another, i.e. 自己人打自己人.

You would think 'Good Fren' was exaggerating.

Then over the weekend... TA-DAH!!

We get a real-life example, i.e. front page news of Singaporean school boys bashing one another up during and after a Rugby match.

Meanwhile, few have learnt about the latest sports news that our foreign talent Olympic Silver Medalist joining the team in her former hometown, because the same mainstream papers have not mention any word about it.

Hello?!! Wake up! Wake up!
Stop wasting energy on mindless competition amongst ourselves! While we were busy fighting ourselves, the aliens have come and left with bags of gold oredi!!  

Related note: If the online community is guilty of 'astroturfing', i.e. creating false impressions of certain views, by spamming formal channels, the mainstream media ain't that much better either.

Omitting significant pieces of news (and/or only highlighting partial truths) is just another way to create false impressions.

Ah Lian will never make it in Singapore

Just in case our mainstream media omits reports of this piece of news, or that you can't read in Chinese:

Our national table tennis player, Li Jiawei, has signed to play for BEIJING Women's Table Tennis team.

This is probably an arrangement for her to play in leagues within China. Don't think she can represent China as yet, coz she's still a Singaporean citizen.

She was just our Singapore flag bearer at Beijing Summer Olympics 2008, remember?

In 2008, Li Jiawei made headlines not just because she, formerly from the PRC, was our flag bearer, but because she dragged the Singapore flag on the ground.

But we are reminded that her husband is not Singaporean, and she didn't have her kid in Singapore. And now... She plays for a Chinese city's table tennis team.

If China wants her back, what's stopping her from giving up her Singaporean citizenship?

That's after Singapore had spent at least 15 years (worth of money and opportunities) on her. 

Imagine that Singaporean national player (let's call her Ah Lian) who did not make it to the first team because foreign players like Li Jiawei are parachuted into the first team. Ah Lian would not even have the chance to don Singapore colours and represent Singapore at the Olympics. Ah Lian will never be 'good enough' for the game henceforth. And before you know it, Ah Lian's sporting peak/career is over. Culmulative disadvantages. It's irreversible for Ah Lian, you know.

So, which is more important?

(1) For Singapore to win an Olympic medal via foreign players

OR

(2) For true-blue pink Singaporean players to gain any experience by representing Singapore?

Now, before you walk away thinking that this is just about sports... who cares? 

Just remember that the very similar foreign labour/talent policies are also denying you of job/career opportunities. Maybe not your current job, but what about your next job?

If the top/better/most spots are always opened to the endless supply of international talents, you lowly-productive Singaporean, like poor Ah Lian, are highly unlikely to ever get that chance to progress. 


Meanwhile, that FT, who beat you to the job, has gained enough experience and exposure to hop to the next better (paying) job, probably in another country.

Can you blame the FTs for being opportunistic? NO!
Coz if another country had easy migrant workforce policies like ours, we would be queue-ing up for it too.

The more relevant question is:  

WTF are we doing to ourselves?!

Time and opportunities lost for the current batch of Singaporeans are irreversible, you know.

Ashraf, on the first episode of the new Channel 5 talk show called Singapore Talking, used the main points in my blog entry on the current public housing debate. Even the order of those points made is the same.

Please... whoever is doing the research or writing the script for that programme, if you can't think independently, at least credit the sources you lift from. Or you can employ me.

Lifting from my blog in this manner is way too lame.

Who will fight with us?

BM: Baby... Using our MBA class and Cambridge experience as a reference point... Do you think any of our Singaporean classmates would have stood up for us if we got into a fight in Cambridge?

GF: *pause* In general, unlikely... But maybe if there were Singaporean Ah Bengs overseas with us, I think they would stand up for us.

BM: But it's Cambridge, where got Ah Bengs?? Did you have Ah Beng classmates in Oxford?

GF: Yah... Dun have Ah Bengs in general... But I think one or two persons from Oxford may stand up for me. Like XX and YY.

BM: Wah lau! XX is not really Singaporean! He's from Taiwan lah! So... only YY out of so many Singaporeans in Oxford? Seriously... If you compare with other nationalities... I'm sure our Korean classmates would stand up for one another without question. The PRCs too. The Indians too. The Russians!!

GF: Singaporeans only gather together for meals to celebrate Lunar New Year, or watch National Day Parade via cable as a group. Superficial merry-making stuff.

BM: Yah... Superficial is the word. True colous revealed in everyday life... That $#^#$%*$ XXX in class, he just wants to one-up other Singaporeans. I'm sure the Koreans see one another as competition too (South Korea is a highly competitive society, even more cut-throat than ours), but they also understand that it's important to band together in face of foreign competition. That's something, I feel, is sorely lacking.

Worse still... I know of Singaporeans who won't fight along with you, and would even turn against you, using you as an excuse to approach the opposing group for his/her own benefits. Remember ZZZ?

GF: Yes. Wait... I know when other Singaporeans will stand up for me in a fight oredi. 

BM: When?

GF: During the Singapore Oxbridge Games lor... When it's Singapore Oxonians vs Singapore Cantabs... Shoving the other team around... "An zhuar... An zhuar??"

BM: Wah lau... 自己人打自己人 meh?! No meaning.

What does it mean for the opposition party to win any seat?

If you keep in touch with the online community (and perhaps your mailbox if you live in Sengkang: also read here), you'd realise that many are complaining against the PAP government, and vouch that they will be 'voting for change', i.e. voting for the opposition.

These voices want to 'show their displeasure through their votes'. It seems... to these people... that

'Voting for Opposition' = 'Change in Government and its policies'

Is this assumption true?
Let's look the relationship between parliament seats and votes.

Here are the results for General Elections 2006.

Out of 84 seats, 47 (56%) were contested.

67% of the votes went to PAP, while 33% went to opposition parties.

Does 33% of the votes sound significant? 

Of course. If you recall the table summary of election results in the earlier entry, the opposition party even managed to get almost 40% of the votes in GE1991. Wow! 40%!

If many angry people vote for the opposition, they may be able to manage 51% of the votes this coming elections? That will mean real change, right?

Not so fast.

Look at the diagram again. The votes are in the blue boxes. VOTES send a signal to the various parties, highlighting level of support to a limited extent. This is an indirect way to cause change.

Only the PERCENTAGE of SEATS in the red boxes cause change in government and policies DIRECTLY.

While 33% of the votes went to the opposition parties in GE2006, this merely translated to 2 seats in Parliament. PAP still holds the majority of the seats at a whopping 97.6%.

Even back in 1991 when the opposition parties managed to get almost 40% of the votes, that merely translated into 4 out of 81 seats, or a 5% representation in Parliament.

Why does 33% of the votes only translates to 2.4% of seats? Why so disproportionate?

It sounds like 33% of votes = 33% x 47 seats = 15 or 16 seats. 

Why isn't this the case in GE2006?

Because the concentration of opposition votes is lumpy, i.e. the winning opposition wards register a lot of opposition votes, while the opposition votes in the winning PAP wards are very low. Remember that 47 seats were contested, only 2 went to the opposition. 

What's so important about holding majority of the seats in Parliament? 

1. It affects the President's choice of Prime Minister. The President has to choose a Prime Minister from the basket of elected MPs (i.e. those with seats) who is likely to command the confidence of the majority of MPs. Hence, even if the opposition parties win 10% of the seats this time round, the Prime Minister is unlikely to be one from the opposition parties.
2. When issues are put forth and debated in Parliament, they are subject to MPs' voting. Once again, if the opposition parties do not agree with the proposed policies but only make up 10% of the seats, they cannot stop those decisions. They can only voice out their opposing views.

Hence, remember this sequence:

VOTES >> affect >>  SEATS >> affect >> CHANGE

So, more votes for opposition = more seats?

Ahhh... This sounds logical and intuitive, doesn't it?
If the same 47 seats are contested, but more people vote for the opposition, then the outcome will have to be more than 2 seats won by the opposition. Maybe 5 seats... maybe 10?

But try to remember... it's not the absolute number of seats that counts. It's the PERCENTAGE of SEATS. So, say the opposition manages to win 10 seats this time round, but the total no. of seats has increased from 84 to 417 seats. The resulting opposition percentage is still... 2.4%.

Ok, maybe 417 seats sound too crazy... How about from 84 to 90 seats? And the opposition wins 10. Still minority.

Furthermore, judging from the size of the opposition parties, they are unlikely to run for all and/or more seats, while the PAP is highly likely to be able to field all and more candidates. Size does matter. More candidates, more chance.

Is it possible for Opposition to win up to 100% of the votes, but still remain a minority?

Yes. This is possible, because of:

(1) Low proportion of contested seats. If there are 100 seats, but only 30 seats are contested, winning 100% of all votes for 30 seats still does not make majority in Parliament.

(2) Lumpiness of votes. If there are 100 seats and all are contested. The opposition manages to win 60% of all votes, but most of their votes are concentrated in 25 wards. The opposition may thus win those 25 wards, and and still remain a minority in a 100-seat Parliament.

Har?! Like that ah? Things will stay the same regardless who I vote for? Voting is a waste of time?

This is not true at all.

We cannot assume that the small voice of minority in Parliament has absolutely no impact, especially a growing small voice.

More importantly, we cannot assume that in a large political party, such as the PAP, all its members think alike. Values and views change over time and are shaped by societal forces. That's you and me.

Voting is merely one way for you to demonstrate your views. There are many other ways. You can blog/twitter/talk about your views. And last but not least, you can run for a seat.
Remember... more candidates, more chance.

A Single Man

My gay friend smsed me again the other day as part of our little on-going virtual conversation. We keep each other updated of our lives this way.

That particular sms update included the latest film he had caught with his partner. It was A Single Man by Tom Ford.

And, boy, was he right about the film being extravagant. The glass house was perfect (I love the kitchen), the suits were perfect, the hair, the car, the protagonist as an British Professor of English in the States, the books, that handgun, the dancing, the boys... ahhh... the beautiful boys... Perfect faces of youth... and its attendant seduction.

I saw the film at the Cathay (as always), and noticed that the crowd was unusually gay. That, to me, was the most cliche bit of the entire experience. Because the film, though the protagonist was gay, was not exactly about homosexuality. It's about the absurdity of one's existence in the face of hollow loss and loneliness. Adding homosexuality to the story was, I thought, more for aesthetics.

And Julianne Moore is just... exquisite. Her face and her character in the film are made for each other. If I had to be old and lonely, I wanna at least look half as good as she did in the film. Because beneath all that existential mumbo jumbo, aesthetics, like void, is a kind of truth, isn't it?

Would you like to sleep with me tonight?

Read this article written by a Muslim Singaporean girl who is helping out at YOG:

The day I said no to a creep 

She got hit on by one of the YOG delegates from overseas, who also placed his thigh touching hers even after she had moved away from him. Others like her got propositioned. More reports from Wanbao and Shinmin newspapers and summarised in Temasek Review. And also here.

This is what happens when you bend over backwards for the whole world. They start thinking that any and every single one of you is so eager and easy, beginning with our women.

When more than a few of your invited guests start acting like that way before the party commences, are you supposed to:

(1) Stand up for yourself and tell them off/ call the police/ kick them in the balls,  

OR 

(2) Suck it up coz the show needs to go on? 

The show? Show for who? Why are we putting up a show at such an expense? These harassment incidents have been reported for the past 2 weeks. What has been done about it? Some of these female volunteers are students (from 18 years old onwards). How are they expected to be able to protect themselves?

Where are those 'brains' behind this show when something like that goes wrong? What are they doing about the situation? Do I hear the organisers mumbling about how common such incidents are at these international events? If so, did the organisers knowingly leave these women (girls) out there to deal with such harassment issues on their own? Or perhaps these 'brains' see such incidents as 'sunk costs'? If those women were your sister or wife, would you still think it's ok or simply 'inevitable'?

The parents of these girls must have felt that it was ok for their kids to volunteer for a government-backed/organised event, on the assumption that due diligence must have gone into ensuring the safety and security of their children. Nobody expects a government-backed/organised event to be mismanaged, especially when it's advised and managed by so many high-powered individuals (Ministers, Administrative Service Officers, MPs, people from the private sector, the press etc).

This has turned out to be a case of misplaced trust, and an analogy of what Singapore has become. Those in power invite foreigners to Singapore for their gratification, in exchange for international attention and growth potential. All at the expense of taxpayers' money and our people (in this case, our girls). 

I don't think this is how virtuous promiscuity is supposed to turn out to be. At least, not so literally.
........................................................

By the way, these girls can lodge police reports and/or magistrate complaints as words such as "Would you like to sleep with me tonight? Can I bring you home tonight?" can constitute insulting the modesty of a woman. The contact of thighs episode can also constitute outrage of modesty.

Elections? What's That?

What are the Elections for?

To be very clear, there are 2 general types of Elections, i.e. Presidential Elections and Parliamentary Elections.


Parliamentary Election

In simple terms, Members of Parliament (MPs) represent the people of Singapore in Parliament to make national decisions in Parliament. There are 3 types of members of parliament, i.e. Elected MPs, Non-constituency MPs (NCMPs) and Nominated MPs (NMPs).

The Parliamentary Election is for the election of 2 types of MPs. All who win the fight at constituency level get a seat in Parliament and are known as Elected MPs, while the candiate with the highest percentage of votes without winning a seat will become NCMP.

To date, there are 84 seats up for grabs (Elected MPs), and slightly more than half the seats were contested in the 2006 elections.

Be default, the number of NCMPs = 3 - Number of Opposition MPs elected. E.g. In 2006 elections, there were 2 elected MPs from opposition, so No. of NCMP = 3 - 2 = 1. However, the President can say he thinks more NCMPs will be better and allow up to a maximum number of 6 NCMPs.  

Generally, Parliamentary Election takes place once every 5 years. The next Parliamentary Election is due before Feb 2012.

You may wish to read more about the Parliamentary Elections Act.

Presidential Election

As its name suggests, Presidential Election is for the election of the President. This takes place once every 6 years. The next Presidential Election is due in 2011.

According to the Constitution of Singapore, the President picks the Prime Minister from the basket of Members of Parliament (MPs) elected via the Parliamentary Election. After that, both of them will put together the Cabinet by choosing from the basket again.

Who gets to vote?

Minimally, you have to be a (i) citizen + (iii) over 21 years old to be eligible for voting + (iii) have been staying in Singapore for at least 30 days in the past 3 years. There are other factors which may render one ineligible to vote, e.g. facing death sentence, having joined an army not paid for by our government etc.

But being eligible doesn't mean you will get the chance to vote. An eligible voter will only get to vote if the constituency he is registered under is contested, i.e. more than 1 party fighting to be the MP for the area.

In the past 3 Parliamentary Elections, about 7 in 10 Singaporeans are eligible to vote. And depending on the number of seats contested, only about 30% to 55% of those eligible voters get to vote. In other words, 2 - 4 out of 10 Singaporeans get to vote.

Here's a quick summary of the past few parliamentary elections. Click on it to enlarge.

You may also wish to view the stats for all elections at www.singapore-elections.com.

Is it possible to trace my vote?

Someone asked this question in the earlier entry, and someone else put up a reply.

In gist, your ballot slip has a serial number, and that is tied to your name and NRIC number on a separate list. Technically, it is possible to trace which party you have voted for, but it is an offence to do so because your vote is SECRET.

I see this issue this way:
Firstly, no one is supposed to find out about your voting decision.
Secondly and most essentially, if you cannot bring yourself to be upfront about which party you want to voted for, then do not vote as such.

Can I tell someone which party I have voted for?

You can tell someone about your decision, but you cannot ask someone about his decision.

In addition, it is an offence to collect voting decisions, e.g. exit polls are disallowed. 

I am blind, how do I vote?

According to the Elections Act, you will let the presiding officer know your voting decision and he will mark your ballot slip for you.

.........................................................

Next entry lined up:  

What does it mean for the opposition party to win any seat?

Gimme some time, I've been busy playing supportive partner, coz 'Good Fren' is quite ill. =(

Elections are Coming!

Everyone knows the elections are coming.

A portion of Singaporeans will get to vote, while most Singaporeans will not.

In other words, the group of Singaporeans who will get to vote is determining on behalf of everyone (not just for themselves or fellow Singaporeans, but also for PRs, foreigner labour/talents, tourists, drain cats, stray dogs etc.) how Singapore will be managed in for the next 4 four years. If anything, this is a huge privilege and responsibility.

So who are these voters?
And do they really know what/who they are getting in exchange for their precious votes?

Let's explore a series of issues related to the elections in the coming week. Do let me know if there are specific issues you wish to explore by leaving a comment for this entry.

Alliance & Association

According to Temasek Review, Reform Party (Kenneth Jeyaretnam) may form an alliance with Singapore Democratic Alliance (Chiam See Tong) to target Bishan-Toa Payoh GRC, i.e. currently under PAP (Wong Kan Seng).

This potential alliance will be making its round in Bishan this Sunday.

It seems the war drums are sounding loud and clear. And this time, the underdogs are louder and bigger. Everyone loves a good fight.

Question:

If Reform Party can form an alliance with SDA, do you think PAP will attempt to form an alliance with any party?

Or perhaps PAP prefers association? E.g. with Jack Neo.

But He's 'Good Fren', right?!

My 17 year old cousin chatted with me on Facebook early this morning at around 1am.

He told me that he reads my blog. I was quite surprised... coz I didn't think I would have young readers. Or better still, young readers who are family.

Of course, we chatted about other stuff... Checking up on each other etc. Then I realised something...

He doesn't know 'Good Fren' by his real name. He only knows 'Good Fren' as 'Good Fren'. O_o

My bad my bad. Maybe I should start to try to have more 'normal' interaction with my cousin.