"Milking" Dry ...

This year is a year of new rulings, especially in terms of heavy ticket items like car and housing. For a country who charges exorbitant prices for cars and housing, the news is definitely not welcomed by the general population.

 

Just imagine this. The salaries we make is barely sufficient to make ends meet. I am not even talking about luxurious lifestyle like fine dining, going first class, staying in a mansion and driving fancy cars. I am talking about a mere small two-bedroom apartment, small hatchback car, and grocery shopping or eating at hawker centres. Yet most people still struggle with dual incomes.

 

For instance, the cheapest car around, a Suzuki Swift, cost around S$68,000.00 or thereabouts. I am quoting the estimated price because I have no idea how much the cars cost nowadays. This is for a new car. But in order to own this car, one needs to have the certificate of entitlement of say S$10,000.00. So in total, a small car like this can cost S$78,000.00 or thereabouts. I believe with this price, one can own a fancy car or even two cars overseas already!

 

It was still bearable in the past because you just need to purchase the car with a loan and then pay off as much as possible after that. However, with the new ruling, those who intend to buy a car needs to have a forty percent downpayment first before the bank loans can start. Which means one now needs to pay S$27,200.00 plus S$10,000 of the entitlement to even own a car, making it a flat payment of S$37,200.00 before the loans can start taking into effect.

 

S$37,200.00 to own a car! And this is only the downpayment! This amount probably equates to a full car ownership in some other countries! How many people can come up with this amount first hand? Unless you are the rich and famous, otherwise this amount equates to many people's yearly income.

 

This also includes buying second hand cars, which means even if the car is older, one also needs to pay the full flat fee of forty percent downpayment before being able to own a car. Looks like the government's efforts of restricting cars on the roads are finally going to succeed, to the uproar of the public.

 

It may still not be that bad if one does not have a house to pay off. However, if one needs to pay off housing loans as well, then it is really practically impossible to own a car now. Living expenses are really getting more and more difficult to sustain in the near future. Housing prices will only increase, despite the flats getting smaller and smaller, and location getting more and more inconvenient. No longer do we have the luxury of owning a big flat in a good location, because the newer estates are all in the undeveloped areas that is so far off from everywhere, with hardly any transport and amenities, and yet the flats are being built with smaller spaces.

 

Now comes the new ruling for flat ownership. It used to be that singles who have reached the age of thirty-five, are not able to buy new flats on their own. They can only buy resale or old flats, and only limited to three-room flats, which means two-bedrooms and one living room. Why? Because new flats are exclusively reserved for those with families. Why are we being punished just because we happen to marry late, or do not get married for whatever reason? It is as if it is a sin being single and unmarried.

 

With the new ruling, singles who have reached thirty-five and earning a maximum of S$5,000.00 a month can apply for new flats. However, the catch is that the new flats must be in non-mature estates, which means developing estates, which means somewhere out of the way from everywhere else. And they are only restricted to two-room flats. Which means the bigger flats are reserved for those with families.

 

Does it mean just because one is a single, one is not entitled to a bigger flat? What if someone likes to live in a bigger place with more rooms? What can one do with just one room? What if they have guests coming to stay? Afterall, if we are going to pay so much for a flat, are we not entitled to choose where we want to stay? A flat, like marriage, is supposedly a once-in-a-lifetime affair, and if we buy a good place and build our dream home, would it not be much better than to shift again if there is any change in status or family?

 

Sometimes I really wonder if our government is milking us dry. Where else is there such restrictions on things like housing and cars? I have never heard of anywhere else that singles cannot buy their own place until thirty-five. Does it mean once you reach thirty-five, you are certified left on the shelf and no hope for a family anymore? Then I should start panicking, is it not, since I am close reaching that age and still will not be married by then.

"Dream House" Gone ...

A couple of weeks back, I happened to go to one of the "less developed" areas around the north east region. When I say "less developed", it simply means there are still plenty of grassland and an old-fashioned "feel" to the place, and not saturated with tall buildings one after another. But of course, being the way this country is run, this "less developed" area is now being earmarked for development of high-rise housing. I hope that certain old-fashioned part is still retained though.

 

In any case, I saw a housing development that was going to be built. I kind of like this area because it faces a cosy estate on one end, with a new sort of shopping "village" consisting of modern eating places and groceries, and the famous eating stretch with lots of good food at all hours on the other side. Right at the end of that stretch is the development of our new aerospace hubs, with a few colonial bungalows scattered here and there. Behind the eating stretch are the last remaining farms to be found here, which I suspect their days may be numbered too.

 

So it is a pretty good place, away from the congested area yet not too "countryside" at the same time. In any case, there is a new development going to be built, and I enquired about it. Essentially, the place is going to consist of four blocks, with a mixture of two-bedroom units, three-bedroom units, four-bedroom units and penthouse units.

 

Out of curiosity, I enquired about the penthouse units first. Now, housing here is not cheap. Anywhere else I go, I can easily buy a mansion with a fancy car with the amount I need to spend on just a three-bedroom apartment here. So a penthouse unit can cost high up in the millions.

 

Guess what? All penthouses were sold out within the first half hour of launch! People always complain they are poor, lacking in funds and that our housing is too expensive, yet the penthouses are the first to go! Makes me wonder what exactly is their definition of "poor" and "lack of funds"?

 

In any case, I am unable to buy an apartment there, not because of lack of funds. I have enough savings set aside to buy a new flat. The trouble is the regulations here. Because I am unmarried and below the age of thirty-five, I am not able to get a brand new apartment, as these are reserved for couples (as in married couples), families, or people who intend to get married in the very near future. There must be a certificate of marriage or a document stating intention of marriage in order to get a brand new apartment.

 

For family units, it has to be either someone buying with the parents or the parents buying together with the children. However, if the parents already own a property, be it public or private, then they are no longer entitled to get another place. And parents as in father and mother, both their names have to be in, because we are not allowed to split up the family unit, unless one dies or divorces.

 

Furthermore, there is the income consideration. The combined household income must not exceed S$10,000.00 for a normal brand new flat, or S$12,000.00 for a higher-end public flat. Household income means the combined income of the flat-owner(s) and all occupiers.

 

Which means in my case, it is very tricky. Since I am not yet thirty-five, I cannot get a flat in my own name. Even after I reach thirty-five and can get a flat in my own name, I cannot get a brand new flat. I can only get a resale flat or an old flat which had probably changed hands several times, and these can cost even more than a brand new flat.

 

Secondly, I cannot apply with my parents because they already own a landed property. Technically, my mum owns the house as it is under her name, so I should be able to buy a flat with my father as his name is "free". However, if I buy a flat with my father, my mother has to be listed too, as I have mentioned, we are not allowed to split up the family unit. But if we put my mother's name in, then we are not entitled to get any flat at all, ie our application will not go through, because she already owns a property, and besides, her income alone is more than the required cap.

 

So what can I do but to give up on this apartment that I am eyeing? The housing regulations here is really too much I feel. Afterall, there is no guarantee that someone can marry by age thirty-five, is it not? There can be many circumstances relating to why a person is unmarried by then, so why must it seem as if it is our fault that we do not get married by then, and then "punish" us by not letting us have our own place? Does it mean just because we are not married, we are not entitled to our own place at all?

 

I really hope the regulations change soon as promised. The news is out that the regulations will change for singles thirty-five years and above to be able to buy a brand new flat just like everyone else, so I am keeping my fnigers crossed that that can actually be done soon!

Opposition On The Rise?

With all these scandals going around lately, coupled with the public transport problem that had been going on since last year, I wonder how our main political party will fare in the next election? Already, due to yesterday's scandal, the opposition is pushing for election in that constituency newly vacated due to the resignation of that politician. Another politician is now taking over in the interim, but the opposition is pushing for election as soon as possible, so they can contest for the constituency and let the people in that constituency have more choices.

 

Will our Minister Mentor be heartbroken if the main political party that has been in charge ever since our country became a republic almost fifty years ago, lost the next election? Even if the opposition takes over, what then? Would the country go downhill or becomes better?

 

With so much insecurity right now, I wonder how it will be like in the next four years before the next election. Our ruling party better find a way to salvage themselves before anymore damage is done and their credibility is lost once and for all.

Dating Vouchers, Anyone?

Last week, there was news about government-accredited matchmaking agencies promoting dating vouchers as Christmas promotions. Essentially, we can get dating vouchers at a good price, to be used to offset any social events or packages we like to sign up in any of the accredited agencies. These vouchers can also be given away to others.

 

This creates an uproar. Some people feel it is downright insulting that we have to be offered dating vouchers, especially those who are happy being single and feel it is just the government butting into their business. It is a choice of life afterall, do singles really have to be ostracised and discriminated, and being pointed at for being single?

 

I cannot say for others, but personally, it is never my choice to be single. The earliest dream I have, which I have yet to fulfil, is to marry a nice guy, have a good family, raise up my children, and dedicate my time teaching them the right things. This dream has still not faded. In fact, it is even stronger in me, and no matter how old I am, I still hope against hope this can ever come true.

 

I have also talked to many people I know, and most of them did say they do not want to be single, but just cannot find someone, or rather, even if find someone, the guy can be such a big jerk. Even the men, many of them are not single by choice, but they just feel they cannot find a girl to be with.

 

So with this kind of mentality, is it necessary to shove dating vouchers at their faces, reminding them that it is NOT okay to be single? That something must be wrong with these people, that is why they are still single?

 

The female friends I know are smart, established, mature and have beautiful souls. They are also well-maintained and eloquent. These are all very good qualities. Unfortunately, these ladies often meet shallow men who are turned off by their intelligence and success.

 

The male friends I know are also smart, established, high-flying jobs and are gentlemanly. They are sociable and cheery. Again, these are all very good qualities. Unfortunately, these men often meet ladies who have no romantic chemistry whatsoever with themselves.

 

So is it really so hard to find someone suitable that our government has to resort to dating vouchers to encourage people to date? And many people I know do go for dating packages and social events, me included, but somehow nothing ever progresses out of there. Does the number of dating vouchers and price really help then?

 

From what I have learnt, sometimes the harder you try, the worst things become. It is like Murphy's Law, you will never meet someone if you keep expecting to meet someone. Rather, the right person can come anytime, anywhere, anyhow, at the most unexpected times. I have seen this myself in several examples, from my friends to my own cousins, where they met their other halves so unexpectedly that it was really a fairytale story that every girl dreams about.

 

So there is still hope out there. Most important is to always hold on to the hope and never lose hope. I am sure each and everyone of us can find someone wherever and whenever, but we just have to open our hearts and accept whoever God or destiny arranges for us and make things work out instead of being picky and perfect.

 

Here's wishing everyone best of luck for finding their one true love!

Public Transport Cost To Increase Again!

Due to all the hype over the recent bus strikes, the bus companies are looking into reviewing the drivers' remuneration, and they have promised to increase the market value of bus drivers. The reason for the strike is because those perpetrators felt that they were being paid too little compared to the working hours and what they needed to do.

 

I guess it is good to increase the remuneration of the bus drivers, because afterall, they are human, and they do have to be on the road for many hours a day. They work irregular hours and whereas the rest of us can take the weekends off, they may have to slog during the weekends too.

 

Unfortunately, by doing so, starting next year, public transport fares are going to increase again, from the already high cost. The trouble with people is that they want everything - they want more wages, and yet they want lesser cost. It is true that our cost of living is very high, and if we talk about our wages, for most of the general public, what we earn is really minuscule as compared to what we have to spend on necessities. Which is why most people are struggling everyday to make ends meet, especially when one has kids.

 

Sometimes I really wonder what our government do with our tax money. We are literally debt-free, as compared to other countries. But if that is the case, should we not have more money to spare to help improve living standards and welfare for the population? There are many of us who are really struggling, and even though the income is considered low, but they are not low enough to warrant help.

 

Does it mean to say if we earn just enough, we should not need help, even if the family is really struggling to make ends meet? Does it mean to say only kids and senior citizens can get rebate for everything and working adults, even if they bring in very minimal amounts, are not entitled to?

 

Sometimes I wonder if the welfare system in other countries is better, because the government takes care of the people no matter what. On the other hand, this creates laziness as people will take for granted they need not work and just rely on the government to take care of them.

 

I hope the fare increase will not be too much though, otherwise I seriously wonder how some people will fare in the next election. Already there are lots of people with grievances in lots of areas. The last election, the ruling party won by the lowest margin ever, and lost an entire constituency due to some "old school" thinking and opinions, so for the next election, perhaps there will be a better show to see.

GOBAMA!!!

It is official! Obama is President again. I am never one to follow politics, but I kind of like him. I think he tried his best and did a good job for the past four years, even though the country was quite messy.

 

Here's wishing him all the best and hopefully the next four years would be even better for him!

 

Just as well I took a picture of his figure at Madame Tussaud's Sydney during my recent trip :

 

Three cheers to Mr Barack Obama!!!

Be Careful What You Say Online

Recently, it seems to be the time of "sensational" news. After all the sex and corruption scandals going around, the "biggest" news in the past week is on a certain lady holding a prominent post, making an "innocent" racial-related remark on a social media site and triggering a big hoo-ha over the web.

 

Her remark really sparked controversy. I am not saying what she said is right, it is really downright insensitive, and she should not even state that in the first place. And it is this little "innocent" remark that got her terminated from her employment instantly and triggering some war of the words via the online portals.

 

However, to be really objective, because we are living here, which is why this little remark can spark such uproar. Just imagine if you are living in another country in the West, say United States, United Kingdom, or even Australia. This kind of remark would not even spark off any controversy because freedom of speech and expression is so prevalent there that no one would bat an eyelid if things like that were said.

 

Again, I am not saying what she said was right. Even for other countries, remarks and actions like these would be frowned upon by certain people. But it would not trigger such big controversy and get them terminated from their jobs because honestly, to be really objective, it is not a crime to speak your mind.

 

Having said that, one really has to be careful what one says online. I am also on social media platforms, and I am outspoken and speak my mind too. But there are certain things that I will not say, simply because I know it is not right. Certain things you just do not say online, unless you are willing to face the consequences of your actions, especially in this age where everyone is connected to everyone else somehow. You may say something and the next thing you know, you get into so much trouble.

 

Just look at this poor lady. Because of an "innocent" remark to vent how she felt, within a day, she lost her job, got slammed by thousands, with her photos being floated everywhere, and lost her reputation and integrity just like that. Last I heard, she went back to Australia where she orignated, which would be better for her to start over, as she definitely would not be able to start over here.

 

Hence, in this age of technology and where everyone is living an open life, we really have to be more discerning what we express or say, as one never knows who is scrutinising who. It will be a big surprise if we get called for investigation by the police because of something we said whom we thought no one else would give a deal about. But there will always be people who give a big deal, and no one should go through this kind of trouble in the first place.

What Contributes To Declining Birth Rates?

The government here is getting pretty worried, because 2010 has one of the lowest birth rates. Now the higher-ups are worried that people are not producing enough to replace the aging population.

Our government is really good. First they play matchmakers, without success. Then they plan people's family lives for them, again without success. Then they give money to those who give birth, but to the couple in question, they will think it is not enough to raise one child.

No longer is it during our parents' or grandparents' times where families have ten children or so. I have many cousins and relatives because my extended family is very big. But come to my generation, I believe the pyramid will only taper downwards as families are getting smaller and smaller.

The government can do all they can to organise single events and encourage others to give birth, but what are they doing about it? Firstly, many people do not know how to mingle. Yes, they go for single events and whatnot, but what is the use if people go and then just stare at each other? The purpose of going to a singles event is to talk and mingle and make friends right? So if they just end up staring at each other or into space, then it defeats the whole purpose, and that is why there are still so many singles out there.

Secondly, even for people who meet, fall in love and start dating, many I know are unwilling to settle down. They do not see the need nor the urgency. They can have long relationships of nine years or so, but still do not feel the need to settle down. This applies more to guys who like to drag the girls on and waste their time.

When are guys ever going to get that it does not matter to them, but matters a lot to the girl because a woman's youth is limited and if she wants to settle down, it means she wants to do it before she gets too old to conceive? Hence if the guys are not serious, then please be responsible and stop dragging a girl down!

Thirdly, even for people who do intend to settle down, there are so many issues invovled. Housing, for one. What one pays for a flat here is able to buy a mansion, two luxury cars and a big piece of land in say Canada or Australia. With the amount used to pay for a flat, plus household expenses, plus bills, even in a duo-income family, there is hardly any left to spend on child-bearing. And no insurance, company or even the government is going to reimburse the amount spent on gynaecology checkups, actual hospitalisation for giving birth and any complications after that.

Fourthly, people are getting married later. This should not be the case, but it just happens to be. No longer are those days where people meet each other, settle down after university and raise a family. Life is no longer that simple. Nowadays often do we meet people at the wrong times. So by the time someone actually settle down, they can be well in their thirties or fourties, which for women, are biologically hard to conceive anymore.

Fifthly, last year, being the year of the Tiger, many Chinese still tend to avoid having kids during this period of time. Most will wait until the Rabbit or Dragon year to plan for a child.

Sixthly, in this fast-paced society where everyone is busy and stressed, it is also hard to conceive. When people are stressed and busy and they start having hormonal imbalance, the body does not have the proper environment to breed a child.

Hence, all these contribute to declining birth rates. But personally, I feel having children and how many one intends to have is a matter of personal preference. I always say I like to have four or five kids, but that was when I was younger. Now at my age, I wonder if I can still conceive even? Maybe I will stop at two, the most three if still possible, as lesser kids mean more time to cultivate and nurture them.

Perhaps I am not doing my part because the ideal number now is at least three kids per couple. But with the high cost of living, the lack of support and the amount it takes to raise even one child, can one really blame the couple if they do not intend to have kids or have only one?

Maybe if more benefits or welfare, or support is given (not just to the mother but also to the father), then perhaps it is feasible to have more children. But until then, having children is one's free will. No one, not even the highest authority, has the right to plan one's family for them.

Lessons From Politicians

After the eulogy to our dear Minister Mentor's wife, I have been thinking through some issues. First of all, he is a great man, with a great wife. This is a model couple for everyone. Those interviewed had only wonderful things to say about her, on how she is always thoughtful, caring and considerate to everyone, on how she is a great friend and a wonderful person.

Their partnership in marriage and career seems so perfect. He met her more than sixty years ago, and was attracted to her because she was smarter than him. He married her because she was more capable. She was the one who edited and proof-read his memoirs and speeches. He was not threatened by the fact that she was more capable than him. In fact, the reason he chose her was because she could be the sole breadwinner for the family while he concentrated on his political career.

I remember the advise he gave, "Marry someone your equal or better, so your children can be better." In a way, it is like passing down good genes. I suppose his sons took that advise, because his daughters-in-law are very smart, capable and powerful women in their own rights. More men should take this advise, instead of being threatened that the woman is better or more powerful than him.

In fact, a capable woman will only benefit a man. Our politicians are good examples. Just like one of our late Presidents. His wife was also smart and capable, but also his companion and his confidante. He was also very upset when his wife passed on, during his last few months of presidency.

These are men who are not only smart, capable and powerful, they are great leaders and mentors whom we can look up to. Yet at the same time, they love their wives and families, and have no qualms showing their love to their wives and families. They epitomise the beauty of marriage, commitment and partnership.

How many of us can be like this? Chances are, we run away in times of trouble. We chose the person we want to marry, yet when things do not turn out well, we blame each other and run away. How many women have been repressed by men because men feel threatened over a capable woman?

When is men ever going to believe that a smart, capable and powerful woman can be a good wife and mother too, yet at the same time balance her career and family? Why do men assume that if a woman is capable, she will lord over him and control him and call the shots?

Marriage is a partnership after all. There is no one who should be "better" than the other. It is how both parties work together to get along, to be each other's best friends, soul mates, confidantes and companions.

We should take a leaf out of our politicians. They run the country, yet at the same time realise that the fundamental root of anybody is to have a happy family. After all, if one cannot manage one's family life, how to run an entire country?

My New "Identity"

Finally, after an official "call-up", a year of procrastination and several reminder letters, I went to make my new identity card on Saturday. It is an offence here if one does not re-register ourselves by the time we turn thirty-one, hence I had to do it since the deadline is fast approaching.

So I was at the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority early Saturday morning. I always wonder why do I have to make my identity card at the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority, since mine is the little pink card (not the blue or green) indicating that I am a born and bred citizen, not any immigrant (legal or illegal) for that matter?

Anyway, perhaps it was early, the queue was not as long as I thought. I proceeded to take my photo (I really do look puffy!), then queued to make my new pink card. Hmmm.... my personal particulars remain the same, save for the religion part. They do not even have "Roman Catholic" in their system, so I had to be categorised under "Christianity". If things were different, perhaps I would have a change of name and status by this time already. Oh well ....

In any case, my Chinese characters are still included. I must really "thank" my mum for giving me such a Chinese name that not everyone has come across it, let alone know how to pronounce it! I had to write out all the different strokes for them bit by bit before they finally found it in their system!

After that, I had to go to another counter to wait for my instant pink card. My name was called and as I proceeded to the counter, they checked my thumbprint again, when just half an hour ago, I had to press both thumbs on the form in order to make the card!

One thing I do not understand is, why, when I have already pressed two thumbprints on the form and given clearance, I had to scan my thumbprints again before I could collect my new card, when my new card had my photo on it? Would my thumb prints be any different after a gap of just half an hour?! Or is it because it is a rule that they must do it, so they just follow suit, without questioning how ridiculous it is?

So anyway, I now have my new pink card, and my old one has been punched a hole, hence cannot be used anymore! The new card looks exactly the same as the old one, save for the photo, which, besides the puffiness, I do not look that different as compared to the old photo. Which makes me wonder, in that case, why is it a necessity to make it mandatory to change the identity card then, instead of changing when one gets married or moved house?

What Is All The Fuss?

When I came back two weeks back, I was catching up on the news I have missed. What amused me most was the episode of what a certain government official wrote on his family vacation. To me, I did not think it was that big a deal because he took a break for some family bonding, and he gave his wife and son what they wanted to do. That itself would be a pretty cosy family vacation.

Except I did not expect his article would illicit so many responses. True, the country is facing bad times, true, many people have been retrenched, etc, but the gist of the matter was that he is a government official, thus his salary comes from tax payers, thus everyone is making a big hoo ha that they are using their hard-earned tax money to finance a government official’s family vacation!

People spend at least five thousand per head on family vacations. My family just spent twenty thousand in New Zealand. Of course it is not as compared to the forty-five thousand spent by the civil servant, but one does not go on a long family vacation and not spend at least a five figure sum in all.

The thing is, why do people bother so much what he does in his free time? Is he not entitled to vacation leave? So if he goes on leave, why can he not go on a vacation like everyone else? Why kick up such a big fuss?

Maybe if he is not a government official but a top man in a company, nobody bothers because his salary does not come from the people. It is only when he is using the public’s money that is why everyone bothers. But people have to distinguish that a job is a job. He works as a government official, but he is also a husband and father, and has every right to have his own free time with his family, notwithstanding what he does.

Maybe if he did not disclose the amount spent, people would not be so agitated. Honestly, if he is a top man in a company, his salary will probably be more, so just a mere forty-five thousand is nothing to him. I am not saying the figure is nothing; it is a lot to a lot of people, but for anyone of the same rank and status, that sum is really nothing to them.

I am not trying to be insensitive here. I know forty-five thousand is equivalent to many people’s yearly income. And there are also many who do not even earn forty-five thousand a year. Thus, they have every right to have an uproar over how their money is being spent.

The thing is, if people can afford a lavish vacation, so be it. If you yourself cannot afford, why fault others if they can afford? I also like to have a big car to drive around, stay in a big house of my own, go for exotic holidays a few times a year, indulge in high-class hotels and spas, buy designer goods all the time, take expensive airlines.

But I know myself, and I know my limit. Whatever I want to do, I save up to do it, and if I am not able to do it, I just have to let go. There are so many people around me who can do so many things, own so many more things than me. That does not mean I go around griping and kicking up a big fuss on how come they are spending so much money on this and that. It is their lives and if they have the priviledge, no one can fault them.

Maybe the big issue is that he is spending taxpayer’s hard-earned money, and everyone is now “suffering” for whatever reason. In that case, how come I still see people splurging on shopping sprees, going for high class meals and driving big cars? If people are really as poor as they claim they are, should these all not be cut down?

So we can spend our own money in our own lavish ways, yet fault someone for spending his money in his own lavish way? Is that not a double standard? Just because his lavish way is far too lavish for some? We work for companies who pay us salaries, but our employers never question how we spend their money.

So why must we then turn around and point our fingers at someone who can afford and has every right to a good life? Or is it because being a government official, he has to set an example and scrimp and save and live the most frugal way in order for people to look up and be happy with him? So does that mean being government officials, one cannot live comfortably in times like these?

Blogged with the Flock Browser

The Presence Of Politics

It had been one busy day. After being away from the office for two weeks, the first thing I noticed when I went back this morning was that my place had been shifted (again!). Someone helped shift my things when I was away, and this time, I am sitting nearer to my department, just opposite where my old place was. Luckily none of my things were misplaced. Thank goodness! So I spent the morning tidying up my work station. One never knows just how many things one can accumulate especially when you are away! It is always this case – nobody gives you anything when you are around, but the moment you are away, everything start coming!

In any case, being down at the “end of the world” so to speak, I have lost touch with local and international news. Headlines showed that even our local banks are retrenching staff and the news today reported that private corporations may get hit the worst. Down time now! When is this going to pick up and end?

On the political front, Obama has won, good for him! At least it is a first for Uncle Sam, that perhaps the society has grown that they are more tolerant of a non-white running the country. I suppose he will have no problems stepping into the shoes of his predecessor, considering how he messed up, but after all the promises, one can only see if he can live up to them!

New Zealand was also having their elections around the same time. In fact, before I left, people were voting. It was the red Labour party (headed by Mrs Helen Clark) against the blue National party (headed by Mr John Key). That spouted a pun only to be understood by people of my country – Clark “Key”. Hmmm….

In any case, Obama was on the front page of newspapers everywhere, even in New Zealand. Yet the New Zealand elections were only on their own newspapers, not considered an international news. Or perhaps we rely too much on Uncle Sam that only news from there will be considered “newsworthy” and news from anywhere down under are not.

So the final verdict is that National managed to defeat Labour. Initially it was thought that Labour would have a landslide, but after being put to public voting, National won by a thin margin. Thus, poor Mrs Clark has to give way to Mr Key as the new Prime Minister of the country, and she has to relinquish her office at the “Beehive” in Wellington to him.

Politics are everywhere, be it in a country, at work, or even between friends and working associates, as well as business rivals. Personally I am never one to be embroiled in any form of politics whatsoever, but then again, one cannot do without politics as well!

Marriage Hindrance ....

I chanced upon an article yesterday on how a local man who wanted to marry a foreigner had to apply for approval, but was rejected numerous times. Normally here if people want to get married, the law is that both parties must be above the age of twenty-one, and witnessed by two witnesses when signing the certificate.

If one or both are less than the age of twenty-one but above the age of eighteen, parental consent must be sought. If one or both are below eighteen, both the parental and state consent must be sought. This is only for civil marriages, not religious marriages. In any case, save for Muslims, all other forms of religious marriages are not recognized until the marriage is legally registered.

However, in the case of the man in the article, he is already in his mid-forties. His girlfriend is in her mid-thirties. By right, they can get married without a glitch. So what is the problem? Firstly, his income is low, so the government fears that he will not be able to support a family. Secondly, his girlfriend used to be a domestic worker here, who has since finished her contract and gone home. So the government is reluctant to set the precedent of foreigners coming here to work with the mentality of getting married.

What a farce! On one hand, they have been going non-stop about how people should get married and have kids early, should not wait until the career has been established, can do everything at the same time, etc. On the other hand, when someone really yearns to get married and settle down, he is not allowed to because his income is too low.

Love happens anywhere anytime to anyone. So the two fell in love, one is a citizen, the other is not. Does it matter as long as both want to be together? Now there is massive promotion on singles get-together, matchmaking and parents matching kids, yet we have real life examples of two people finding each other but yet the government stands in their way of getting married.

Okay, no doubt perhaps what is stated in the article may not be totally true, but still, there is no reason to keep rejecting his application if he really wants to get married right? There are already so many who do not want to get married, so why stand in the way of people who really want to get married?

Of Politics And Popularity

I am a nonconformist when it comes to politics. I do not really care whether the main party or opposing party wins the elections, or who is involved, as long as the governmental authorities know what they are doing and able to administer the country well.

I know there are people who advocate left-wing, there are some who are pro right-wing, and there are some who are middle of the road. But for me, I have never involved myself in any politicking, be it in office or outside. Heck, I have not even have a chance to vote for anyone as yet!

However, in light of the recent heavy political activities around (like Malaysia, United States, et al), a thought came into my mind. In some countries, those charismatic popular figures are those who win elections, and very popular with the public.

The public then vote for them to win, perhaps thinking that it is better to have someone they like administer the country. Yet, in some countries, the popular figureheads may have good rapport with the people, but when it comes to actual work, some fail to deliver what they have promised.

Instead, it is those autocratic figureheads who in the end fell out of favour with the public that did manage to get things done. I am not going to risk naming anyone here, lest I get into real trouble, but I see this pattern in quite a number of places.

There are some people who aim to please, and become well-liked, but yet never get anything done properly. There are some who insist on their own ways, offending people in the process, yet they manage to get a lot of things done properly.

I do not mean just figureheads, but across the board. Even in work, even for normal employees, there are some who bootlick and promise the sun, moon and stars, but when the time comes, they fail to deliver. There are some who do not follow instructions, who become hated by everyone, yet when it comes to real work, they are the ones who manage to deliver.

So the question is, is it better to find someone who is charismatic, popular and know the right things to say at the right time, but totally incompetent, or find someone who is unpopular, who offends everyone, but yet efficient?

Of course, the perfect scenario is to find someone who is both popular, well-liked and efficient, but then, how many things in life can be so perfect? Many a times we have to look at the bigger picture instead of taking things at face value.

Anyway, my vote on the United States election? Well, if either of them wins, it will be a first in United States history anyway. So I am hoping the lady will win. Afterall, women should always support women!

How Did Revolutions Come About?

The Spain trip is off! The flight timings are very bad, so my mum decided not to proceed. :-( But we are in the midst of planning something better - a trip to Russia, complete with Moscow and St Petersburg! That will be so much better, as Russia will be a nicer place, with cooler climate even in the summer! I am keeping my fingers crossed we can go on the trip afterall, as after this period of being a scanner, photocopier and manual labourer with my marriage to Mr Xerox, I really need a break!

I attended a very enriching lecture on the French Revolution last night. I always thought the reason for the Revolution was because the French people were influenced by the American War of Independence, plus the peasants went hungry and got angry at the rich and nobles, so wanted more equality.

Hoowever, after the lecture, it seemed that it was a French philosopher (who was Swiss by birth) influenced the thinking of a French artist, who painted rather propaganda pictures with political sentiments, triggering off riots and revolutions, and the eventual guillotine of the royalty and nobles.

How did any revolution come about anyway? Is it because of poor government, administration and a messy Cabinet? Or is it being humans, once people get some form of education they start to become dissatisfied with life and the current state of affairs, so want to fight for something better? Do things really become better even after revolts? How many incidents do we know that things become better after a revolution? If anything, things probably become worse because of the tremendous bloodshed, and an even messier government administration.

Learning about all these scenes make me feel glad that at least I live in a secure place. Hopefully there will not be any revolution in the future!

Elections Galore!

So the elections are over, and the results are just as expected. The party that is supposed to win always wins. My best friend and parents (not together) went for a Worker's Party rally, and she (my friend) sent me a picture of the crowd rallying.

There are certain things that my best friend told me about in the rally which I found rather good. For instance, it was said that the main government should not keep saying that only by voting for them, we will get all the incentives.

Not voting for them and voting for some other party does not make us any less of a citizen or any less patriotic. Very true! I applaud them for having the guts to say this out!

Since I did not have to vote yesterday, I went for a makeover session. I got a complimentary makeover for some promotion the studio was having, and I made the appointment for yesterday before the election day was announced.

I wanted to cancel the appointment, but then since I did not need to vote after all, I went ahead. It is not the first time I had a makeover, and I still find it rather amazing that the makeup artist can make me up so well in such a short period of time. How I wish I can do the same myself!

I have really aged already. The photos this time look so different. My under-eye bags are more prominent in the photos now, and I look more haggard as compared to my earlier photos. No wonder people say that women in their late twenties are starting to go downhill! The evidence is there, I must really take more care already!

Public Bonus Grant

I received my Progress Package last week. I am not one to reject when the government gives me money, but I find it a little unfair, considering I got such a measly amount as compared to my peers who are earning more and own more material possessions than me.

My friends say that the main reason I received that amount is because I am not entitled to any military allowance, and that I live in a three-storey detached house with a big driveway and garden. So the amount I got will be lesser based on the type of property I live in.

My mum received the same amount as me, but her case is different. What she earns in one month can easily be what I earn in half a year, and to some people, their entire year's combined income! Besides, she owns the house, not me. I am just a resident. That amount is nothing to her, but it is quite something to me.

It is not fair! To decide how much to give based on our address? How would people know I did not just happen to rent the room next to the kitchen? I am earning lesser as compared to my peers, and I do not even own any car or property whatsoever, so why am I getting so much lesser?

On a more cheerful note, I think I do not need to vote after all. So I do not need to waste my Saturday morning queuing up just to cast my choice.

What happens is that my house is smacked right in the middle of two constituencies. The entire area in front belongs to Constituency A, which is a walk-over, not surprising considering it is held by one of the most prominent and powerful members of the main government.

The entire area behind belongs to Constituency B, which is a contest between the main party and the opposing party. All along, I thought I am under Constutuency B, but apparently, new links have been drawn up and now I have been put under Constituency A.

My parents are saying that so far there have been no election or promotion posters or rallies around, so most likely we need not vote after all. Oh well, at least I can just sleep in and not worry about anything.

General Elections 2006

The nationwide elections are coming, and this is the first time I will be voting. I was already able to vote during the last elections, except the constituency I am under was uncontested the last time round, so the Minister won by a walk-over.

I am never really into local politics. To me, as long as I lead my own life and the government is doing a pretty okay job, I do not wish to be entangled in any political conflict and complications. However, this time round, I have to make a choice between voting for one of the most prominent members of the main party, or one of the most prominent members of the opposing party.

There are certain issues with the main government which I have, but then, there is not really any freedom of speech here so for now, I just have to be a good citizen and keep my mouth shut, while griping about things behind closed doors out of earshot of any prominent figures.

Despite certain things, one cannot say that the government has not done a good enough job. Comparatively to some other countries where the entire Cabinet and ministries are in a mess, I must say our local government is pretty good already.

There is almost no hunger or starvation, unemployment rate is almost zero, citizens do not feel oppressed (oppression is by parents, not the government), no racial discrimination, equal opportunities for all and everybody is leading a rather peaceful life.

Thus, in this respect, the country is well-managed at least. One need not fear gangfights or racial riots or oppression of women, and we can go about our daily lives knowing we are more or less safe and secure.

So anyway, I have already thought about who to vote for. At least I get to vote perhaps this once in my life. My brother is stuck overseas and he is not coming back, so he does not need to vote this time. But my choice of voting? That shall remain my own secret, and anyway, it is too dangerous to declare in cyberspace. ;-)

Romancing Singapore ....

Count down to 2006, three more days to be exact, starting from now. New Year's Day, followed by Chinese New Year, then Valentine's Day. And Valentine's season normally corresponds with the "Romancing Singapore" campaign.

For the past few years, every February to March there will be some sort of a Love Fest called "Romancing Singapore". This month-long thing includes songs and dances of love, advertisements and articles on love and family, and various special promotions on government and corporate matchmaking agencies. This campaign was started due to the government's movement on helping people find love and to settle down early and start a family.

These efforts are commendable because our local government is actually concerned enough for its people not to let them die of loneliness in their old age. Or is it they are just concerned about the decrease in birth rate and population, and worried that there will not be enough smart young generation to take over the ageing population?

It is one thing spreading all these messages around, but it is another thing changing people's mentalities altogether. In general, a lot of Singapore guys still think Singapore girls will not look at them as long as they are not rich, handsome or whatsoever. Then there are other Singapore guys who only crave for sexual attention and think girls should oblige.

There are yet other Singapore guys who think the local girls are too out-spoken and domineering. Thus they all look for other pleasures outside the country, where some women from other countries are dying to marry into Singapore society just so they and their families can have a better life.

What about Singapore girls? It is a growing concern among local ladies that it is getting harder and harder to find a real nice, decent, educated, smart and responsible local guy all rolled in one, especially since all these guys are most likely to be snatched up long before. Thus local girls also look for other pleasures, and marry foreigners, whom they deem as good and decent, and not shallow, uncouth and chauvinistic like some of the local guys.

But nowadays it really seems harder and harder to find the right one for oneself. I seriously wonder why my parents' generation (and above) seemed to have it so easy. Government and media messages can preach about finding love and promoting activities, but it is a one in a million chance that we are able to find someone for ourselves even if we do go to those places and participate in those activities.

Sometimes the one you fell for may not necessary be the right one, especially if you want someone for a lifelong relationship. A mere boyfriend / girlfriend is not the same as being a husband / wife. The responsibilities and expectations are just so different.

Someone who makes a nice boyfriend may not equate to being a good husband. My ex is nice and filial and caring, but he will not make a good husband (at least not for now) because he is still too dependent on his parents. Someone who is to be a husband and head of the house must at least be able to think for himself on what to do, and be responsible to himself and his family. How can someone who still relies on people to tell him what to do be able to be fully responsible to himself, let alone to take care of a family?

Similarly, a friend of mine may be a good girlfriend, but she may not make a good wife. She cares for the boyfriend and accommodates him, but when it comes to marriage, she wants things her way. She does not mind staying with her in-laws, but wants her in-laws to treat her like a princess, like how her parents treat her. She does not want to work, she wants to sleep until all hours of the day, she does not want to do any housework, and yet she expects the in-laws to take good care of her. I thought getting married means taking care of each other's families and not the other way round?

A girlfriend is different from a wife. A girlfriend can still whine and sometimes wants the boyfriend to pamper her a little, but a wife has to be a pillar of support to her husband, often taking charge of the household when her husband is away, and making sure he is well taken care of when he returns from a hard day of work. She has to put her own affairs aside and put her husband's interests first, just like a husband putting his family's interests first.

With marriage comes great responsibility and commitment. Love and romance alone is not enough at all, especially to sustain a long-term relationship. Perhaps that is why a lot of people are still not ready to make the big step to be fully responsible to each other. The dating stage is different because each is still their own person, but after marriage, both are supposed to be joined as one so as to carve out a life together.

My mum was just telling me the other day that I should change my perspective and stop looking for someone romantic and find someone seriously responsible and reliable. She said romantic guys often do not stay faithful because romance is more for the courting stage, not marriage. After marriage, all the lovey-dovey and romance will fizzle out after a while, and what comes next is the commitment and determination to make the marriage work out.

As I observe the people around me, I finally began to see her point of view. My ex-boyfriends (with the exception of the first one) are all romantic and sweet guys, but they are not willing and ready to commit further. So look where romance got me.

Whereas when I see my married relatives, how many of my uncles and male cousins do I see that are really romantic? None actually. They do not hold hands or talk lovingly in public, they do not hug or kiss in front of people. My parents are not romantic too. In fact, I hardly ever see my parents showing loving display in front of us, which is probably why my mum used to frown whenever my ex wanted to hold my hand or hug or kiss me in front of them.

But are they leading good lives? Yes! In fact, I think my married relatives have never led happier and more fulfilling lives. The husbands really take care of the families well and the wives really support their husbands and take care of the households. They show their love in their hearts and through their actions of providing for their families, not by expensive gifts, wining and dining or public displays of affection.

My Australian aunt used to complain that my uncle was not romantic. My mum said they used to quarrel a lot in the early stages of their marriage. Yet now, after more than thirty years of marriage, my aunt said she had never been miserable in the marriage. There was really nothing to complain about because he provided for her and the family so well.

I only know of one cousin-in-law who is romantic and loving, yet my poor cousin ended up divorced. After seven years of marriage and two kids, he suddenly wanted to be free and walked out of the whole family. Maybe someone who is truly committed with a sense of responsibility will try to make the marriage work out and not let the wife and children suffer.

That is not to say romantic guys will not make good mates. I have seen some guys who are very loving and a good family man as well. But these guys are few and far in between. But between someone who is romantic and woos you with flowers and gifts yet frivolous and someone who is focused and committed but not romantic, whereas I would have chosen the former in the past, now I will choose the latter.

I realise now that romance, candlelight dinners and memorable times are but so fleeing. To be able to really enjoy a good life with a good person, it is the maturity, reliability, responsibility and independence that really count. Material things and good times are actually not that important if the guy is able to provide a good family life and never let the family suffer.

Romancing Singapore : Really Feasible?

I had a very fun day with K today. We went to Carl Jr's for lunch (I still cannot finish the whole burger), watched two shows, "The Legend of Zorro" and "The Great Raid", then dinner and stroll back to the train station. We went to the newly-revamped Marina Square, which transformed from a small, cosy, simple mall to a chic, uber but very super confusing place. We kept getting lost and walking in circles!

I really love war epics. Ironically for someone who professes I disagree with all wars, somehow I cannot get enough of war epics and stories. I guess it is interesting to learn how everyone got rescued. In the case of "The Great Raid", the focus was on the American Prisoners-Of-War in Philippines, and how one battalion went on a mission to rescue them from the Japanese army, who had been ordered to annihilate all the POWs.

It is disappointing (at least to me) that every time there is a war epic (or anything historical or show with a good storyline), the cinema always only seems to be half-full, yet when there is some slapstick show, the cinema is full. Or perhaps not many people are able to appreciate intense and intellectual shows which require them to exercise their little grey cells. So they prefer to laugh than to think, which is not altogether a bad thing also.

I was reading Addy's post on the government efforts in trying to make couples get married and have kids younger. The government has been trying to do that for years, especially since there is not enough of the younger generation to replace the aging generation of baby-boomers. As a result, baby-boomers now have to work until the age of sixty-two to sixty-five as official retirement age, instead of fifty-five to sixty.

So the government is trying to "breed" people to ensure the survival of the country by opening up more and more of these matchmaking agencies, encouraging social activities, and even sending brochures to offices to advertise for singles to sign up for activities. However, there is some discrimination. All these efforts are mostly targeted at single graduates below the age of thirty. Does that mean that non-graduates and singles above the age of thirty do not need to settle down and raise the young generation?

In the past, the reasoning given was that when two graduates get together, their offsprings will most likely be a graduate, so the country need more of these smart young blood to survive. Does it mean that offspring of non-graduates will not be smart and will doomed to be left on the streets?

And that statement is not necessarily true. Look at my family. My parents are both Master degree holders, yet I am nowhere near their calibre. I have relatives who are non-graduates, yet they have children with Masters and good honours. So how can this statement be casually put across to the whole population?

In my friend's post, he put up a few good points on why the government's efforts are mostly in vain. If couples are to get married young, which means most likely get married shortly after university, which means they have to find each other during university (or younger). But school times are not that easy to keep a relationship going, with all the focus on studies. The time spent on studying is enough to kill any relationship if the couple is not willing to persevere to see it through. Besides, during school days, some may not be mature enough to handle a relationship, or really ready to commit yet.

Even if the couple manages to survive through university, there will be more challenges and eye candy when they start working. Again, things will change. Your childhood sweetheart or school days first love may suddenly not be that appealing to you anymore, and you start to stray and wonder how it is like to be with another person. But this boils down to how committed you are to keep the relationship going.

Even if the couple manages to hold through all these trials, when they have just started working, how are they going to raise enough cash to pay for a wedding? Even a simplest wedding ceremony (just registration, photos, gown, suit and honeymoon) can cost a few thousand, not to mention the downpayment of their own place. Thus, even if the couple manages to scrape enough to get married, they will have to make sure they are established and financially stable enough before they can start thinking of having any children.

With all these, it is impossible to get married young. No doubt some do get married at a young age, but it is impossible to have children so fast. If I did get married young, I would not think of having kids so soon because I have to get used to living with someone first, and then make sure everything is ready financially and emotionally before I can be ready to have children. Bringing a kid into the world is not just a matter of finding a job where you can change anytime you do not feel like it or ready to do the job.

But despite everything, the government cannot change people's mentality just like that. No doubt the country is in need of more young blood, but getting married and starting a family is not just a decision made on a whim. If people get married just for the sake of satisfying what the government wants, then if the marriage does not work out there will be more divorce cases coming up. People can only get married only if they are ready and willing and feel the time is finally right.

Then the thing on baby bonuses and more maternity and paternity leave may not necessarily be a good pull factor. Raising a kid is not just on mere money or the few months of leave; it is a lifetime of responsibility, or at least until the kid is old enough to move out. But in the case of parents, they will want to take care of their children for a life time, no matter even if the children are old enough to be grandparents themselves.

I know the government is trying to do a good job, but it is being too idealistic if it expects things to change. If anything, there will be more young people getting married later as they want to accomplish so much when they are still relatively young and energised, thus reluctant to commit to a relationship; as being in a relationship means you have to commit to the other person, and in a lot of cases, committing to the other person means spending time and being accountable to that person, thus some of the things you want to do may have to be sacrificed.

Then there are people (like me) who went in and out of relationships when they were younger, always thinking each partner was the right one but in the end turned out otherwise, and may not be able to find the really right one until at a later age. So with circumstances such that more people are getting married later, and ultimately having kids later, can the government really blame us?