ambiguity

February 26, 2010

Disgraceful

Filed under: Uncategorized — theinkhorn @ 1:03 pm

I remember how i used to love reading The New Paper. Years and years ago, when I was still the intellectual equivalent of a Homo habilis, confined to a pathetic excuse for an education system and caged by an equally incompetent institution. But I was always wise enough never to take anything on it seriously. Except the sports section. Oh how I loved reading the sports section. Every time the bell rang for recess, my first stop would be the bookshop. I’d pick up a copy of the paper and flip to the back instantly. The witty styles of Ernest Luis and Iain Macintosh never ceased to amuse me. Their knowledge of football impressed me, and inspired me to expand my writing to include sports.

Today, I hardly touch local newspapers anymore. The mainstream media’s inability to provide fair and just reporting has sufficiently disillusioned me. But even more than the media, the attitude of journalists baffle me. It is one thing to be unaware of the media’s bias. It is another to understand it and continue writing for them anyway. If their aim is to establish credibility and move on to other outlets, it is a huge waste of time. The notoriety of Singapore’s media is widespread, and anyone associated with local papers is unlikely to garner much credibility at all.

July last year, I wrote a commentary here addressing what i consider an insipid, sensationalised piece of writing published on TNP. It contained all the elements of what i like to call “a blow-up doll” article: All gas, no real substance. Inevitably, I offended the journalist and her friend and together they voiced their grievances. Regrettably, our exchange only lasted a couple of messages. It had occurred to me though that she would attempt to dissolve my credibility by referring to my anonymous status. I didn’t see the need to mention the success of Wayang Party’s anonymity since I’m really not that anonymous. They just didn’t put in enough effort.

Of course, TNP being a tabloid, articles like these should be expected. They probably gave her huge pats on her back for it. Which is why it came as no surprise to me when i saw her name at the top of this article.

Over the course of the last few months, Temasek Review has been carrying out an extensive “campaign” to reveal the extent of foreign integration in our society. From publishing excerpts of the MM’s infamous Nat Geo interview to displaying ads of local companies looking to hire only foreigners, Temasek Review ran the “foreign talent” scheme ragged and has, it seems, successfully transformed Singaporeans from “apathetic” to “pissed off”.

Miss Bharwani’s article appears to have only one motive: Appease the angry mob. I understand the strategy, of course. Calm down the angry people by telling them that their competitors suck. Classic stuff. What bothers me is how unscrupulously shameless it is.

The title, in bold, sets the tone of the article. “She failed her English 3 times.” Nothing subtle about that. The article begins with a Vietnamese girl’s sob story. Coming to a foreign land, far away from home, unable to speak a word of English, all in the name of making a better life for her and her family. It focuses on her academic capabilities, despite her linguistic shortcomings. In layman’s terms, “She can’t communicate but she is smart.” The statement that really irks me, however, is this one:

“If you thought that foreign students here usually do well in exams here, you’ll be surprised to know that there are many others like her.”

What’s so surprising about foreign students not doing well? When did the notion of foreign students being smarter get installed into our minds? This statement preys on the assumption that Singaporeans have conceded defeat to foreigners, which I assure you is not the least bit true. It is remarkably dense, though I can’t claim to be that surprised.

The rest of the article is insignificant babble since Miss Bharwani seems to have driven home the point relatively early. “Don’t worry, Singaporeans. Foreigners still suck to a certain extent, so you’re safe”. The only reason I can conceive for writing such a mindless, insensitive and presumptuous piece of propaganda is the intention to incite sympathy from Singaporeans for those whom they consider competitors. It reads like a mother attempting to convince her jealous son that his baby brother isn’t that cute.

Fawn over the baby all you like, then tell that green-faced little monster behind you that he’s not really that adorable. What a childish, dim-witted tactic. The nerve of them. Another severe underestimation of Singaporeans. Just how stupid do they think we are? This is why I have no respect for journalists in this country. When you are part of a machine that serves up bullshit like this, if you are willing to abandon your journalistic ethics, if you are willing to bow down to a media that stifles and undermines, do not expect me to pull my punches. I do not, now, or ever, wish to be part of the disgracing of the profession I so admire. But if it’s alright with you, then be my guest.

February 25, 2010

MDP And Its Uncanny Resemblance To Religion

Filed under: Uncategorized — theinkhorn @ 12:36 pm

Just as I’ve never understood Cheryl Tweedy’s attraction to Ashley “Tapped-Up” Cole, similar sentiments surface regarding the willingness of man to kill other man, especially for crimes which, even to the dimmest of individuals, don’t seem to be as serious as others.

I’ve made my stance clear before about the mandatory death penalty in regards to drug trafficking. While the future of Yong Vui Kong remains uncertain, the same cannot be said about Akmal Shaikh. The Pakistan-born Brit was executed in China for trafficking heroin late last year.

It seems the common argument from advocates of this archaic and cruel punishment is that judging by the amount of harm drugs cause, surely people who carry and distribute them should be eliminated from society. These vile, disgusting chemicals, filled with the potential to kill brain cell after brain cell, charged with the task of dimming the already dense human race should not exist, and neither should the ones who provide them. I call this argument, and the people who use it, arrogant.

The very idea that providers of drugs cause all the harm is arrogant, simply because it sounds like they’re saying “if they didn’t exist, the world would be a better place.” This arrogant assertion that drug traffickers ruin people suggest that they don’t believe themselves to be causing any harm, that they’re better. Plain arrogance. Compare that to the arrogance displayed by religion. “I’m sure that if we all believed, the world would be a better place.” Doesn’t look too different, does it.

Besides arrogance, another quality that is being exposed is irresponsibility. It is, after all, easier to throw the broken TV out and get a new one than to fix it. Insisting that these traffickers be executed is essentially shirking all responsibility. Do we not all have a choice? To use or not to use, that is the question. Why is it that nobody ever blames themselves for succumbing to the lure of drugs? This weak-mindedness is what should be addressed. Instead of trying to fix ourselves through education and rehabilitation, the simpletons jump straight to “kill, kill and kill”, simply because it is the only solution they can come up with that doesn’t involve them having to open their minds and liberate their thoughts. Does that ring a bell? If so, does the ringing sound a little like “death to the infidel”?

Finally, ignorance. Which seems to sum it all up, actually. Why is a woman who murdered her teenage daughter in her sleep sentenced to 5 years in prison, while a drug mule faces death? Why is potential for harm worse than actual, direct harm? Why is a 52 year old woman who, under the influences of her alleged mental condition, took the life of her own flesh and blood, given a new lease of life while a 21 year old faces expiration for transporting substances which could cause harm? It makes absolutely no sense to me. To claim that drugs would cause more harm in the long run is a stupid argument because no one can be sure of that. But we can all be sure that Goh Hai Eng’s teenage daughter will not be raised from the dead in three days.

Being pro-death penalty and pro-mandatory death penalty are two different things. Sure, I’m pro-death penalty. But I am not going to advocate compulsory murder. I am not going to subscribe to the belief that anyone caught with a certain amount of drugs should automatically have to die. It is beyond ignorant and unbelievably inhumane. It is a sign that the rule of law doesn’t take itself seriously. It says that anyone who commits the same crime, irregardless of circumstances, should be punished the same way, simply because it is convenient to assume that their intentions are similar. While I am all for convenience and efficiency, it disgusts me that such contempt of human rights can be displayed so openly, just so that the people involved can get to T.G.I.Friday’s in time for happy hour.

While the rule of law and religion falls under the same category(ridiculous), the big difference is that with the rule of law, reforms can be imposed. Alterations can be made. And unlike religion, it will not be mocked.

February 19, 2010

Why Is Inconsistency Consistent With Religion?

Filed under: Uncategorized — theinkhorn @ 11:59 am

One thing I’ve never understood is why people enjoy playing along when it comes to stereotypification. Muslims have been stereotyped as dangerous, violent, sexist religious fanatics who are capable of the most outrageous acts of brutality. When Salman Rushdie published “The Satanic Verses” in 1989, he incurred the wrath of the Muslim community, eventually landing a fatwa from Grand Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. While Rushdie himself remains unharmed til this day, the same cannot be said for some of the men who worked with Rushdie on his book. In particular, 37 men were burnt alive to chants of “Death to the infidel”. But they were merely collateral damage as the intended target, Turkish translator Aziz Nesin managed to escape. Not that the Islamists would’ve minded; the 37 killed were Alevi intellectuals.

I cannot then, for the life of me, understand why anyone would subscribe to such a belief system. 3 women were caned in Malaysia yesterday for their part in what was deemed “illicit” sex. Resisting the incredible urge to mock their choice of words, I seriously question the decision. I have discussed this countless times with my Muslim friends who, and i consider myself extremely fortunate for this, are intelligent and civil enough to engage in such discourse without issuing me threats(except for the occasional “you better drink up or else….”).

This is a totalitarian system that relies on fear to keep its people in check. The women commented that while there was barely any physical pain, they had “learnt their lesson”. Strangely enough, in contrast to the last time a caning sentence was issued, this execution was swift and silent, as if to say “We screwed up the last time. This time, it’s happening.” Kartika Sari Dewi Shukarno was sentenced to caning last year for consumption of beer in public. She was supposed to be the first woman to be caned under Sharia law. Unfortunately that honour has been stripped from her.

The Qur’an specifically lists alcoholism as a major sin. In fact, it is said that because alcohol distorts the consumers’ perception of reality, thus enabling them to commit other sins, it should be consider the mother of all sins. I find it interesting then that there supposedly exists rivers of wine in Paradise. Delicious wine too, as quoted from the scriptures(Sura 47:15).

I also find it incredible that Malaysia would use Islamic text and the Sharia law to impose punishment on those three women. While Islam is possibly the world’s most sexually repressive religion, their main man is also possibly one of the most sexually indulgent characters in history. The prophet Muhammad had 13 wives, the youngest of whom was only 6(betrothed at 6, consummated at 9). At one point he was married to 11 women at the same time, including his adopted son’s wife.

I guess the big question is: Why is inconsistency consistent with religion? I would think that if indeed religion was formed as a covenant between an almighty being and his followers, surely he/she would have seen it coming and made efforts to straighten things out. Instead, here we are second guessing ourselves and each other, tripping and stumbling over every clumsy proclamation we come across. So i guess the only two possibilities, working under the assumption that there IS indeed a god, are that either he/she just doesnt’ care, or he/she can’t do anything about it. Either way, both possibilities are considered blasphemous.

If I had to pick one, I’d say he/she simply doesn’t care. And by doing so, I’m giving your dictator more credit than you do.

February 17, 2010

Refuting Rony’s Regrets

Filed under: Uncategorized — theinkhorn @ 11:30 am

In Rony Tan’s first public statement since his indiscretion, the well thought out speech expressed his regrets and presented his vows to promote religious harmony. I say “well thought out” because anything compared to his previous comments can be seen as well thought out. While I appreciate his apology(which for me was completely uncalled for), there are a few sentences within his speech that i find extremely annoying.

First, the reviewing of their “literature”. I take offence at the usage of the term “literature”. Church flyers can hardly be considered art. Drawing from experience, the flyers are probably the only original pieces. Any other material you may have plagiarised is not “yours”. So “your literature” would probably read something like “Come experience the wonders….”. Shakespeare would turn in his grave.

Second, “….we must realise that upholding religious harmony is promoting peace, unity and true freedom.” If it is true freedom, then surely you are granted that similar freedom to say whatever you wish without being harassed. The truth is, that sort of freedom does not exist in this country.

Third, “Let there be no criticism of any religion.” Excrement. That’s what I think of that statement. And of religion, actually. If there can’t be any criticism of any religion, then what sort of freedom are you promoting? The sort of hypocritical, two-faced, dishonest and patronising freedom that goes hand in hand with fear? You’ll understand if i want no part of it.

Fourth, “I feel unbearably terrible for my grave error for which I regret deeply. I’ve let many people down.” What error? Did Rony not mean what he said? Of course he did. He sincerely believed in it, enough to preach it. Where’s the error then? If the error in question is his opinion, then I don’t think he makes for a very good spiritual leader. If your opinions form as easily as they dissolve, then you probably shouldn’t be herding sheep. If the error in question is that particular sermon, then does that mean that all his past sermons should be disregarded since they could all potentially be grave errors.

The rest is religious rubbish that can easily be refuted. Unfortunately I have neither the time nor the interest at the moment. He may genuinely believe that he’s let many down, and indeed some may have experienced the sort of disappointment that presents itself after a father is exposed to be a raging alcoholic, but I couldn’t have wished for a better way to begin the year. Albeit unintentionally, his actions over the course of the last few weeks have done more to reveal the nature of Singaporeans than any exercise could. My only regret is, like his fellow Singaporeans, Rony has a rather distorted view of freedom, and an even stranger logic to go along. Then again, what do you expect from the religious?

February 10, 2010

We’ve Only Just Begun

Filed under: Uncategorized — theinkhorn @ 12:32 pm

For most, the Rony Tan issue is resolved. Apologies have been made, hands have been shook and people have been humbled. However, what this issue has successfully accomplished is to further expose the perils of religion in a multi-cultural, multi-racial and multi-religious society. It has also, sadly, brought out the worst in Singaporeans, and displayed openly their lack of ability to participate in intellectual discourse.

For the record, I never called for an apology to be made. I called for Rony to think before he said anything at all. The difference is this: With regards to his comments, I am not upset per se. In fact, it amused me that a pastor would willingly subject himself to humiliation via such an open display of stupidity. And anytime any religious entity decides they want to be embarrassed, I’m all for it. What bothers me, immensely I might add, is how the issue has been completely exploited by the media, mainstream or alternative, by the people, for or against Christianity, to promote their own interests.

When news broke that the ISD called Rony up, the headline should have read “ISD Finally Participates In Crowd Pleasing Activity”. While my criticism of the mainstream media has been no less ambiguous than it has been scathing, I surprised even myself by wondering what exactly the Temasek Review’s intentions were vis-à-vis this particular article. The inclusion of words of praise for Buddhism seemed to imply a slanted view. The subsequent text on not bearing wicked ideas against your enemy, which by the way is preached in possibly every mainstream religious text, further presents the Temasek Review’s stance. To be fair, however, they have been very respectful in the way they conduct their business, and it’s something I have the utmost respect for.

Having said that, Buddhism’s case for being tolerant is certainly made scant by the conflict between the Buddhist Sinhalese and the Hindu Tamils in Sri Lanka, where the Buddhist Sinhalese proclaimed their religion to be superior because of its non-violent values. It must also be mentioned that while Theravada Buddhism is hardly practised in Singapore, it is still only a sterner extension of mainstream Buddhism.

Moving on, it bothers me that people called for his resignation and even prosecution. Has it come to that extent? Where we have to imprison anyone who speaks ill of anything? I find this to be the direct consequence of government influence. When people began sticking gum on train doors and on lift buttons, instead of educating the population, the government banned it. As if it wasn’t important to them at all that we were taught why vandalism was bad. It is a notable trend. Anything they can’t handle, or they feel we can’t handle, they refuse to permit. Knuckle dusters, firecrackers, politically and religiously sensitive material, and even Playboy, all banned.

It should come as no surprise then that Singaporeans would try and get rid of that that they do not understand. Instead of seeing the need for civil discussions, intellectual debates and exchange of ideas, most Singaporeans jump straight into “apologise and arrest” mode. And it is precisely because the education system has not managed to cultivate in them an inquisitive mind. It has not managed to convince them that the acquisition of knowledge is far more important, and far more satisfying than the acquisition of say… Fancy branded wallets and expensive jeans. Sexual conquest has jumped ahead of thirst for wisdom in our list of priorities, and it is this superficial culture, undertaken by most, that has led us to the brink of what can only be described as complete and utter hopelessness.

As for the following category of people, I really cannot decide whether to consider them more benign than the first. They are the ones who see this pastor’s faux pas as an opportunity to glorify their own religion. The ones who shamelessly promote their beliefs in an effort to trump someone else’s. I feel at this point of time, the need to clarify something. I am not preaching my belief. If anything, I’m preaching disbelief.

Back to the topic, these people, these opportunists, do not realise how dangerous and despicable their behaviour is. I equate it to kicking a man in the nuts after he’s been run over by his own runaway, brake-less car. But most importantly, it is dangerous because it speaks volumes of their personalities. Instead of lecturing Rony or educating him about their religion, which by the way I doubt they know very well themselves, these people prefer to sit down, watch as the chaos unfolds, occasionally fan the already raging flames, continue watching as what little credibility their fellow religion has gets crushed, and swoop in to salvage the remains. The hypocrisy disgusts me to no end. “We want to co-exist. But see how much better my god is than yours?”

The state of the country, or the world for that matter, is evident. It is a picture of superficiality and apathy, lacking intelligence and critical thinking. It is one filled with much sorrow and bloodshed, one filled with false promises and never-ending, self-generating fallacies. It is one filled with indifference and intolerance. It is one even an almighty creator would be ashamed to call his work. Those who consider themselves environmentalist, who claim to want to save the planet, I ask you this. How do we expect to save the planet, when we can’t even save ourselves?

February 9, 2010

Souls, Not People

Filed under: Uncategorized — theinkhorn @ 11:09 am

So apparently, Rony Tan made a public apology on the telly last night(which i missed). I did, however, read the full text of the apology on the Temasek Review. The usual stuff… “sorry”, “promise never to do it again”, “continue to love souls”… Continue to love souls?

How many who were watching actually caught that part? Continue to love souls. Now, it doesn’t seem like much at first. Until you think about it. Why the word souls? Why not people? Why refer to them as souls?

The answer is very simple. Christians see themselves as “saved”, and therefore, make it their responsibility to “save” other “souls”. It is plain, simple, straight forward, Christian style arrogance. Yes I know that christians don’t save, Jesus does. I don’t think technicalities matter that much, especially since christians consider themselves vehicles of the word.

So is this Rony’s attempt to subtly imply that he disagrees with having to publicly apologise for his unambiguously insensitive remarks? That’s the way he does it? By condescendingly bringing everyone who isn’t “saved” to the level of mere souls? By not acknowledging that despite our lack of belief in his faith, we should still be referred to as fellow people? Did you not read what I said yesterday about thinking before you talk, Rony?

This is how religious wars begin. With the very notion that one believer’s dick is larger than another’s. It may not seem like a big issue to us, possibly because most of us have yet to evolve critical thinking skills. But send his apology to Richard Dawkins. Send it to Bill Maher. Send it to Sam Harris. Find some way to deliver it to George Carlin. And if you dare, send it to Christopher Hitchens. Given his literary prowess, I am certain that Hitchens would spot and appreciate the underlying premise, and depending on how drunk he is, tear Rony apart.

Perhaps I’m overreacting. Perhaps I’m giving Rony too much credit. Maybe he isn’t clever enough to come up with something like that. Which is it then? Is he so half-witted as to underestimate us and display such defiance in the face of his own faux pas? Or have i given him too much credit? Perhaps he’s too dense to have been able to come up with such a scheme?

February 8, 2010

Religion-less

Filed under: Uncategorized — theinkhorn @ 1:22 pm

I love, absolutely love, talking to people about religion. It’s astounding, the lack of knowledge people have about their own religion, and of others. You’d expect more from someone who fervently believes in the existence of an invisible man with a divine plan. That is the common benchmark, i understand. My theory is if you’re going to criticise, make sure you get your facts right. Apparently that concept is lost on Lighthouse Evangelism Pastor Rony Tan.

I don’t want to come right out and insult someone, but who names their kid Rony? How badly do you want your kid to be beaten up? Anyway, that’s besides the point. Mr Rony Tan, according to this article from the Temasek Review, criticised Buddhism’s aspects of reincarnation and meditation, and was blasted by netizens for allegedly “ridiculing” it.

Coming from a man whose belief systems revolves around a spiritual being living in the sky whose son died and rose again three days later, that’s a little oxymoronic isn’t it. Or moronic, whichever makes you happy.

The truth is, the idea of reincarnation is much more acceptable than Christianity. Think about it. Christianity revolves around the belief that God sent his only son to die for our sins, so that we may once again enter the kingdom of heaven. This son apparently died and rose again three days later. The entire belief system works around the assumption that we are worth saving in the first place. That’s a little arrogant don’t you think? What have we done to deserve the attention of this almighty being?

The Buddhist rendition of reincarnation, however, teaches that it is not one’s identity that is reborn into another’s flesh, contrary to popular belief, but a stream of consciousness. It teaches that depending on one’s karmic “seeds”, a person in this life may be reborn as a different being in the next, but without any recollection of the previous life as it is not his/her personality that has been transmigrated. Don’t you sometimes look up in the heavens and curse your luck? Don’t you sometimes pose rhetorical questions such as “what did i do in my past life to deserve this” to yourself? This could be your answer. And it’s foolproof because since there is no transfer of memory involved in reincarnation, you wouldn’t remember. Hence there’s no way of proving if any of it is true. What a genius Siddy must’ve been.

The issue of meditation is a no-brainer. This guy’s a pastor, no? Surely he must’ve glanced through the bible at least once. Remember Joshua 1:8? You know, something about meditating on the book of the law? It’s in between Joshua 1:7 and Joshua 1:9. If you see Joshua 1:10, you’ve gone too far.

Meditation in Buddhism, at its worst, teaches one to direct his/her focus onto a single subject. It encourages thinking, and helps one understand his/her individuality. Way, way more productive than church if you ask me.

Make no mistake, I am in no way, interested in defending any religion. I am, however, very, very interested in dismissing the callous views of an uneducated man who believes that the only belief worth having is his own. If there is a god, i have no doubt that he would be disappointed.

If this god, or higher power or whatever you want to call it actually exists, then it certainly does not belong to organised religion, simply because no god would allow his religion to be the sole cause of so much death and bloodshed(“No woman could or would ever fuck things up like this” – George Carlin).

No amount of tough love, no amount of lessons to teach, no amount of reasons no matter how outstanding could ever justify Northern Ireland, Kashmir, the Spanish Inquisition, the Crusades, the Thirty Years’ War and the Holocaust, just to name a few. Labelling a fellow religion ridiculous is itself a ridiculous thing to do. Yet another case of the pot calling the kettle a pot. Rony has to learn to think about what he says, especially since he holds a position of certain power and influence within his community. Then again, when has that ever stopped the religious?

February 5, 2010

Of Pretty Names, Crazy Judges And Lousy Drivers.

Filed under: Uncategorized — theinkhorn @ 10:55 am

Do you trust the government? Well according to one Miss Marissa Lee of the Straits Times, data collected by US based PR firm Edelman says you do! Apparently, 84 percent of Singaporeans trust the government.

Seriously? How was the survey formatted?

Do you:

a) Trust your government
b) Trust your government
c) Trust your government
d) No comment (this answer will cost you $20)

As for the journalist, I really can’t say I’m surprised. Pretty name though.

If you’ve ever wondered why I don’t write about the Philippines, this should explain most of  it. How do you make fun of a country whose judges are mentally challenged? They’re already a joke. Though going by that logic, I should probably stop writing about Singapore too.

Finally, justice looks set to be servde as suspended Romanian jackass Silviu Ionescu faces charges of manslaughter, fleeing from scene and providing false testimony. I find it a massive insult to Singaporeans that he thought he could get away scot-free. Why, because we’re a small country with a population less than a quarter that of Romania? Because we’re Asian? Because our government is lame? To think I rooted for Romania at the Euros.

Speaking of Asians, don’t you think the stereotypification of Asians not being able to drive should be amended? Compared to a Romanian diplomat, we’re F1 racers.

February 4, 2010

Of Religion, Politics and… Photography?

Filed under: Uncategorized — theinkhorn @ 11:06 am

France will deny a man citizenship after it was revealed that he would not allow his wife to leave the house unless she wore the full Islamic veil. It’s a strange situation because while the man refused his wife the liberty of making her own choices, the French refusal to grant him citizenship suggests that they too will refuse the man the liberty of making his choices, especially since he “does not respect the values of the republic”.

The most obvious sign of religious intolerance has come from French Prime Minister François Fillon. Besides the obvious religious discrimination, Fillon openly admits that he would disregard the opinion of the Council of State and sign the decree anyway. I thought the United States was the only place where politicians could say stupid things and get away with it.

In local news, James Gomez’s Singaporeans for Democracy (SfD) has been gazetted as a political association and thus will not be able to accept donations from “impermissible or foreign sources”. A few days early and this would be in my “Surprise” post. Clearly, Mr Gomez would have fully expected it and would have made preparations to deal with the situation. Heck, anyone would have expected it.

Finally, picking up girls has never been easier. All you need is a camera, a bogus name card, and a dreamy “thinking man” expression, and let the local girls’ pure asininity take over.

Do I think he’s out of line? Absolutely not. In fact, I applaud him. His success in exploiting the ambitions and desires of the two 20-year-olds(for crying out loud, you’re not even teenagers anymore) exposes the complete absurdity of their cerebral processes(or lack thereof).

The problem with young (and the not so young) women in Singapore nowadays is they have their head up their arses. Popular culture has indeed succeeded in breeding an obsession with aesthetics within the minds of women. To the point they fail to recognise a chocolate coated poison dark as a threat. On the one hand, I weep for these women. On the other, new pick-up line!

February 3, 2010

Of Questions.

Filed under: Uncategorized — theinkhorn @ 11:00 am

What is with Malaysia and sodomy? One can’t help but wonder. You’d think that after the first time, they’d come up with something better. But no, Anwar is still on trial for charges of sodomy. The truth is, unlike the first episode, hardly anybody believes the story anymore. Surely Malaysia is creative enough to come up with a better story.

In other news, the Temasek Review today published an article weighing up the Government’s performance and significance, essentially putting into words what we were thinking all along. Myths are busted and lies are exposed in this one.

Following on the heels of Singapore’s “no corruption” story, a 22 year old woman successfully bribed a former Deputy Superintendent of Police into finding her a scapegoat. And all it took was $1000. I had no idea former high ranking police officers were so easy to buy. Now i know what to get my drink-driving friends for their birthdays.

Elsewhere, Iran’s Green movement is set to rally after Ahmadinejad’s regime hung two protesters last week, with further plans to murder nine more government critics. Call it courage, call it stupidity, call it what ever you want, I admire it. Makes me wonder if anyone would ever dare to rally if the PAP decided to take a page out of Ahmad’s book. They’ve already done the political imprisonment bit, who’s to say what comes next?

Finally, Google is in it for the win. After launching the Nexus One as a direct rival to the iPhone, Google has released designs for their very own tablet. The Google OS isn’t even here yet, and now a tablet? My heart can’t take much more, Google. Save me JooJoo!

Next Page »

Blog at WordPress.com.