Category: Current Events

Honestly, I’ve always thought that the Malay name for Singapore, Singapura, meant “Pretending Lion”. After all, Singa means lion while Pura means pretend. It wasn’t until I related this story to a foreign friend of mine that Rachel reminded me that Pura in the context of Singapura meant city. The root word was borrowed from a Majapahit word meaning, well, “city” or “town”.

(Of course, if I had scored higher in my Malay language paper I would have spared myself 20 years of ignorance and realize that there is no such word as pura in Malay. The word for pretend is pura-pura)

Perplexed, my view of Singapore was from that point onwards was shattered. I’ve always had an impression that the founding fathers of Singapore had the foresight to see that Singapore’s only destiny is to become a big, well oiled, amusement park- ie. full of manufactured thrills but lacking in authenticity or soul. I have always thought that it was an inside joke that Singapore retained their name because it describes them the best: pretenders.

But after I’ve been corrected, I would have to change my view of this city state. But to what?

This requires a rethink.

Singapore is Strange.
Firstly, there is always something not quite right when it comes to Singapore itself. I’m not speaking about the people per se, as they are pretty awfully nice, like you and me. But the invisible force that holds Singaporean society, LRT schedules and Moses Lim together seemed unnatural. There is no way any country could be this organized or for that matter of fact, clean. I took a walk in the middle of the night with my friends to a place for supper and we saw HDB flats which are well lit, parking bays without even one single broken lamp, elevators that worked and things too perfect to be normal. A city full of Chinese people can never be this clean.

Singaporeans are Strange.
Secondly, Singaporeans think that they are better than Malaysians, in terms of dressing, living standards, education and health care. With declining birth rates among real Singaporeans (taken to mean people and their descendants who had been living citizens before Singapore’s independence from Malaysia), Malaysians will make up a large portion of the Singaporean society soon. Sadly, this does not prohibit the ugly Singaporean to rear his or her head once in a while in public. If I had said in the previous point that the people pretty awfully nice, what I really meant is that they are nicely pretty awful. Public servants have a fake “government-issued” smile, retailers are rude, and nearly all Singaporean breasts are augmented up by Wonderbra.

(Perhaps the Wonderbra bit isn’t quite that nasty but again, like all things artificial, Singaporean women are portraying themselves to be larger than what they actually are).

Singaporean food is Strange.

Imagine this, sweetened char koay teow, frozen roti canai and thick black soya sauce with half-boil eggs. I really do not know where to start on this point except to say that Singaporean food is horrible. Perhaps it is their hypochondriac cleanliness that destroys the taste of the food that they consume. But then again, Sydney’s clean too but I enjoyed the food thoroughly there. Also, what’s with the queue? I can’t remember a lunch or dinner in any restaurant in Singapore where we did not have to take a number. It reminded me of a scene in various prison movies where inmates were shepherded into cantinas that served stingy globs of tasteless goo. It is like this in Singapore- except that the inmates are better dressed.

After the rethinking process, I have come to a conclusion.

I choose to forget that Pura is a Majapahit word for city. Instead I choose the Malay definition because I am a Malaysian. But for my Singaporean friends who are reading this, you know that I am writing all these in jest. After all, Singapore is a fine city 😉

Ever looked at a caged bird? It’s desire to break free from the entrapment that we think of as its home is a natural predisposition to its species. Over the millions of years, it has evolved wings to allow it to fly. And fly away is what the bird will do when you open the doors of the menagerie.

For some of us, the fear of uncertainty is overpowering our courage to fly away. We cling on to our cages and look forward to our scheduled bird seed meals. As a result, the bird in the cage increasingly becomes complacent and dependent on the paltry meal consisting of broken seeds and discarded husks.

For those who dare, no longer will the restraints of bondage clip their wings. They are free to soar high above the clouds. Or they can chose to go the nearest tree. But most will go to another cage as a Pavlovian response, hopeful that this one will serve better seeds. After all, in a twist to the saying, familiarity breeds content

But those who really dare must also realize that being in captivity too long dulls one’s senses and sharpens one’s cynicism. The real test now is to see if we dare to discard the confining bearings of the cage of which we are used to and fly wherever the winds take us.

Only then will we be truly free.

After months of feeling frustrated at Dubya and Boneless Blair’s half truth and whole lies on why Iraq has to be invaded, this film finally restored my faith in the system of the United States of America, the garden where dissenting voices get a chance to bloom among stalks of mainstream viewpoints.

Right wing critics have labeled Michael Moore as the contemporary Leni Riefenstahl. And frankly, Moore’s an easier target than the content of the film itself, which could not be spun away that easily.

The basic premise of the film is that the Bush Administration has been duping the American public and the rest of the world to wage an unjust and unnecessary war in Iraq. The genius of this film is that it uses actual news clips of Bush, Rumsfield, Wolfowitz, Powell, Rice, Ashcroft and other cabinet members to discredit themselves. And that, my friend, is an ingenious stroke that brings to light the Bush Administration’s hypocrisy and its changing stand when it comes to the Iraq war

Bush’s (Last) Stand: “Well, Saddam has WMD and worse, has tied to Al-Qaeda, and there is an imminent threat to the homeland…well, maybe not WMD but he has shown that he has the means and the motive to use WMD…of course we didn’t say that they were involved in the 9/11 attacks with Al-Qaeda, we just said that they had a relationship with one or more of the principals of Al-Qaeda….Don’t misunderestimate what I have to say! Shut up and be a patriot! Danger, danger!!!”*

* This is not a quote from Bush. He didn’t really say those things- not in one sentence, of course…but he really did say:- “Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we.” on 5th August 2004. It’s there as a transcript in whitehouse.gov.

I may not be a theology student or Bible quoting expert but I do find Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ to be a good movie that is going to return lost sheep to the flock.

He (Mel Gibson, not God) wanted to make this as authentic and at the same time as entertaining as possible. But there are a few things that stood out as possibly inaccurate. Although Aramaic was one of the languages that was widely spoken then, the Gospels were written in Greek and there were evidence that Jesus spoke Greek (refer to this thread in an American Scientific Affiliation forum), in addition to 2 more languages that were used then- Latin and Hebrew. Another stretch is the implication that Mary Magdelene and the adulteress being stoned were one and the same person. Apart from these two examples, the movie is quite close to the Gospels. Of course, there is this one episode of flashback that involved Jesus inventing the dinette table, but then you have to give the film makers some artistic license…

Is it anti-Semitic?

My personal view is that there are no anti-Semitic messages that had been added by the filmmakers that were not already there in the Gospels. And even so, the Gospels are not anti-Semitic when taken into context. While the New Testament made reference to Jews who wanted to kill Jesus, in context, Jesus and His followers were Jewish too. It’s like saying that Chiang Kai Shek is anti-Chinese because he wants to kill Mao Zedong. Doesn’t make sense. I guess what irked some Jews is that the Bible claimed that 2000 years ago, some Jews, or specifically, the Pharisees, plotted to kill a person who claimed to be the Messiah.

Of course, it doesn’t help that a Pastor put up a sign in his Denver Lovingway United Pentecostal Church reading: “Jews killed the Lord Jesus”, taken wholly out of context from 1 Thessalonians 2:14-15. This really shows how dumb some purported Christians are because the message of Christ is one of love and understanding.

The reason why Christ died is more important than who killed Christ.

In a year that is devoid of any real issues, Malaysian will be going to the polls on the 21st of March 2004. Who then, to vote?

First off, the incumbents are looking very strong this time around. The opposition has to ditch their black book of old scores because the old Man has retired and the new man is doing an acceptable job so far. In Malaysian politics where forgiveness is divine, expect to see issues of the last administration falling flat with the voters (“Haiyaa, now PM also change already what, why bring up somemore?”). Scaling on a solid performance record (though I must say that without the cronyism and corruption we could have achieved so much more in a shorter period of time), there is no denying that this election will be a renewed endorsement for the incumbents. Only thing that I would like to see is old guards lose their seats to make way for new blood.

I’ll be rooting for my favorite social democratic (or democratic socialist) party whose absence and silence during the past 5 years makes one wonder if they had really suffered some rocket malfunctions as a result of NASA cuts. Worse still, are they on a path of orbit that will result in a spectacular fireworks-type disintegration during this election season? Questions that remain to be answered in a season that is devoid of any real social issues to be exploited.

Of course, if you speak to my friend, the Pakcik of my office- we should all vote fairly and free Anwar. To his credit, Anwar is a passionate politician who can summon up the spirits and command respect. He is strong and charismatic. He’s pro-business (another way of saying that he has his own personal business interests). So what if he’s a poof? I’ve no issues with his (allegedly proven) homosexuality but being naked in bed and getting jiggy with zealous mullahs is just plain immoral. My suggestion, cut the taliban ties and move to real issues instead of being another Aung Sun Suu Kyi.

Lastly, how can one not love our own made-in-Malaysia brand of Islamic extremists, whose declared goal is to change our constitutionally inshrined secular (okay, maybe moderately Islamic- but secular enough) Constitution so that they can set up an Islamic state. Their idea is to strip the country of all vices and to impose a code of morality that everyone should follow. Only problem is that their lifestyle might ensure them a place in heaven but what about the unbelievers? Besides, what fun would life be if some of us cannot chomp down on our favorite pork knuckles while guzzling down a pint or two?

I can’t wait to attend the campaign ceramahs!