Way to go!
The (probably drunken) actions of my old schoolmate Alfian would go a long way towards putting to the sword my old school's reputation as a bunch of government nerds.
The text of the email sent to Thio Li Ann can be found here. Pissing on her grave, indeed! And you would not put it past her to shamelessly milk it for what it's worth, 1 piss and 1 fuck could amount to being "full of obscene invective".
When he's done pissing I will be next in line.
Tuesday, 30 October 2007
Sunday, 28 October 2007
Real Run
I wonder why they called this the real run.
Well went for this. Thought I'd get an early night before the run, but there was dinner with some old friends. So I took an afternoon nap. I think I more or less napped this weekend away. Then there was the sudden appearance of Wong Li Lin and Allen Wu. The first time I saw her in the flesh while not 7 months pregnant. We were at Dan Ryan's. This is the 3rd time I was in Dan Ryan's. The first was in 1993, the second was last week, and by coincidence the dinner took place here again. I remember the 1993 occasion when I went there because it was 1 week after I had finished a 20k route march at scouts and it was almost like a reward to go there.
So incredibly I got up with the alarm sounded. It was 5. By the time I had fully woken up (I'm cold blooded so it takes a while.) and checked the internet for soccer results (what the fuck happened to Man City?) it was 5.30. But still OK. Drove to Changi. Today was one of the rare times I drove the manual car without getting horned at or into a near accident, so I'm glad. I took a wrong turn somewhere and ended up at Changi Naval base. This is scary, I could have been blown up by JI operatives. So when I got there there was a massive traffic jam (which is weird, a traffic jam that far away from civilisation.)
Bumped into a friend who had left my company, it's interesting like that. It's nice to be running with everybody like this. I used to hate exercising because I was always running alone. I started exercising every week and making this a compulsory routine around the turn of the century, so it was nice for a while, some structure and discipline in your life. But then it became a chore. Many chicks who are physically fit. It's good to have things to watch when you're running, although mostly you're just overtaking or being overtaken. You turn to one side and you can see planes taking off and landing. Then after that you can see nicely toned bared midriffs as flat as those runways. And sometimes you get hot teenagers in St Johns' Ambulance uniforms. Fairly pleasant.
Yes, I'm alone, though. Shingot and Nat were supposed to be here but for various reasons they opted out.
I think, though, I can only run 5k at a time. What happens is that I run roughly 5k, then I take a rest and walk, then repeat. Think this is how it's going to be in the marathon. I don't have a steady running pace I can sustain from start to finish. I didn't feel like I was going to die at the finishing point although I was tired enough as it was.
Was a hot day. Just as well most of the route was shaded. Good for them. There weren't 4 different surfaces. Just 2: asphalt and sand. And for the beach run everybody copped out and trampled on the money plants next to the beach, either to avoid the sun, or to avoid the sand, which bogs you down. Other than that, not much complains. They know how to time this run, it's quite obviously a dress rehearsal for stanchart marathon.
Timing was crap - 1:59 for 15k. If I extrapolate this linearly (take into account I don't have to run on sand), then it should take me 2:40 to finish a half marathon. Was never really that much a sportsmen. I'm just doing it, getting the T shirt and then moving on.
Oh, there's this very interesting boil that I got on my left foot. Like the liquid in there was red, so there must have been some blood mixed with it. I pricked it with a needle, and already got ready the tissue. But it was a splatterfest, just like a horror film. That's cool.
Well went for this. Thought I'd get an early night before the run, but there was dinner with some old friends. So I took an afternoon nap. I think I more or less napped this weekend away. Then there was the sudden appearance of Wong Li Lin and Allen Wu. The first time I saw her in the flesh while not 7 months pregnant. We were at Dan Ryan's. This is the 3rd time I was in Dan Ryan's. The first was in 1993, the second was last week, and by coincidence the dinner took place here again. I remember the 1993 occasion when I went there because it was 1 week after I had finished a 20k route march at scouts and it was almost like a reward to go there.
So incredibly I got up with the alarm sounded. It was 5. By the time I had fully woken up (I'm cold blooded so it takes a while.) and checked the internet for soccer results (what the fuck happened to Man City?) it was 5.30. But still OK. Drove to Changi. Today was one of the rare times I drove the manual car without getting horned at or into a near accident, so I'm glad. I took a wrong turn somewhere and ended up at Changi Naval base. This is scary, I could have been blown up by JI operatives. So when I got there there was a massive traffic jam (which is weird, a traffic jam that far away from civilisation.)
Bumped into a friend who had left my company, it's interesting like that. It's nice to be running with everybody like this. I used to hate exercising because I was always running alone. I started exercising every week and making this a compulsory routine around the turn of the century, so it was nice for a while, some structure and discipline in your life. But then it became a chore. Many chicks who are physically fit. It's good to have things to watch when you're running, although mostly you're just overtaking or being overtaken. You turn to one side and you can see planes taking off and landing. Then after that you can see nicely toned bared midriffs as flat as those runways. And sometimes you get hot teenagers in St Johns' Ambulance uniforms. Fairly pleasant.
Yes, I'm alone, though. Shingot and Nat were supposed to be here but for various reasons they opted out.
I think, though, I can only run 5k at a time. What happens is that I run roughly 5k, then I take a rest and walk, then repeat. Think this is how it's going to be in the marathon. I don't have a steady running pace I can sustain from start to finish. I didn't feel like I was going to die at the finishing point although I was tired enough as it was.
Was a hot day. Just as well most of the route was shaded. Good for them. There weren't 4 different surfaces. Just 2: asphalt and sand. And for the beach run everybody copped out and trampled on the money plants next to the beach, either to avoid the sun, or to avoid the sand, which bogs you down. Other than that, not much complains. They know how to time this run, it's quite obviously a dress rehearsal for stanchart marathon.
Timing was crap - 1:59 for 15k. If I extrapolate this linearly (take into account I don't have to run on sand), then it should take me 2:40 to finish a half marathon. Was never really that much a sportsmen. I'm just doing it, getting the T shirt and then moving on.
Oh, there's this very interesting boil that I got on my left foot. Like the liquid in there was red, so there must have been some blood mixed with it. I pricked it with a needle, and already got ready the tissue. But it was a splatterfest, just like a horror film. That's cool.
Saturday, 27 October 2007
Al Gore
Vanity fair is getting to be a really interesting magazine to read. Sometimes I wonder if all those books I read aren't anything but extended magazine articles. No, I didn't pick up that issue just because of Nicole Kidman's fantastic albeit 40 year old bodice. There was interesting stuff like reporting on how, in 2000, the media laid into Al Gore. It was amazing, there were plenty of people who were writing for liberal publications, and therefore supposed to be on the same side as Gore, laying into him and taking smallest remarks and making him look bad.
It's not at all clear what kind of president Al Gore would have been. Yes, he could probably win the Nobel prize this year but Jimmy Carter, a second rate president, also won the Nobel prize. They'd have called him a government nerd. He might have had to deal with Republican dominated congresses, I don't know if he was going to be able to handle all that.
What is clear, though is that history would have been quite different if Gore had won. There would not have been an Iraq. I don't know if Gore would have prevented 9/11, but he would have at least been more diligent about anti-terrorism. And there might not have been Afghanistan and Iraq. There might not be the amazing fiscal mismanagement that sees the US dollar in peril. The US government would not be as secretive and hostile as it is today. It used to be that the media would whack Clinton and Gore left right centre. At the beginning of the Bush administration they would be the ones whacking the media left right and centre, and it is only now, when evidence of Bush mismanaging emerges, that he's beginning to get some.
I don't know what Gore's response to 9/11 would have been. He might not have been astute enough as Bush is to ride the wave of popularity that these tragedies can give you. It's not only cynical thing to get political power: trying to attain power is like trying to earn money, it depends on how you get the power, and also what you use that power for.
That's the thing, if you're very fast to make war, like in the Bush administration, then people say that you're war mongering. If you're very slow to make war, like Clinton was in Bosnia, then people say that you're a coward and a weakling. You just can't win.
It's interesting how Gore's image is being rehabilitated. I don't think it would be so if he became president. They would continue whacking him, although they might relent a little if 9/11 did take place under him. He's done a lot to push the cause for environmentalism (now renamed "climate change" to make the threat more concrete, and less altruistic and hippy-ish). And former presidents can be very good ambassadors for causes. They are ideal as activists because everybody already knows them. It's not fair, of course, people on the ground would slog for their causes, put in the hours, wage war against riot police, work for shit pay in order to bring peace and justice to the world whereas these guys have it easy and collect Nobel Prizes. But Nobel Prizes are always political and the act of awarding it is always about bringing attention to big causes, so I say what the hell if that's the way the system works then that's the way it works.
It's not at all clear what kind of president Al Gore would have been. Yes, he could probably win the Nobel prize this year but Jimmy Carter, a second rate president, also won the Nobel prize. They'd have called him a government nerd. He might have had to deal with Republican dominated congresses, I don't know if he was going to be able to handle all that.
What is clear, though is that history would have been quite different if Gore had won. There would not have been an Iraq. I don't know if Gore would have prevented 9/11, but he would have at least been more diligent about anti-terrorism. And there might not have been Afghanistan and Iraq. There might not be the amazing fiscal mismanagement that sees the US dollar in peril. The US government would not be as secretive and hostile as it is today. It used to be that the media would whack Clinton and Gore left right centre. At the beginning of the Bush administration they would be the ones whacking the media left right and centre, and it is only now, when evidence of Bush mismanaging emerges, that he's beginning to get some.
I don't know what Gore's response to 9/11 would have been. He might not have been astute enough as Bush is to ride the wave of popularity that these tragedies can give you. It's not only cynical thing to get political power: trying to attain power is like trying to earn money, it depends on how you get the power, and also what you use that power for.
That's the thing, if you're very fast to make war, like in the Bush administration, then people say that you're war mongering. If you're very slow to make war, like Clinton was in Bosnia, then people say that you're a coward and a weakling. You just can't win.
It's interesting how Gore's image is being rehabilitated. I don't think it would be so if he became president. They would continue whacking him, although they might relent a little if 9/11 did take place under him. He's done a lot to push the cause for environmentalism (now renamed "climate change" to make the threat more concrete, and less altruistic and hippy-ish). And former presidents can be very good ambassadors for causes. They are ideal as activists because everybody already knows them. It's not fair, of course, people on the ground would slog for their causes, put in the hours, wage war against riot police, work for shit pay in order to bring peace and justice to the world whereas these guys have it easy and collect Nobel Prizes. But Nobel Prizes are always political and the act of awarding it is always about bringing attention to big causes, so I say what the hell if that's the way the system works then that's the way it works.
Wednesday, 24 October 2007
377a
Readers of this blog (which are admittedly dwindling in number) would have noticed that the penchant to intellectually masturbate is getting less and less. That's great. Less philosophy, more action.
But I do want to put my 2 cents' worth on 377a, or the non-repeal of which. You know which side I'm on, it's a really stupid idea. There's this law which is almost never used anyway. It's not sinful.
It'll be unfortunate if people reject raising a nuclear family because they think that homosexuality is cooler than being "straight", which has connotations of being uncool. I believe that homosexuality is inborn, and there are those out there who can't help it, but I also believe that it is a continuum, where you can say "On a scale of 1 to 10, 1 being straight, 10 being gay, I am a 4" or something. So there are some people out there who can choose.
I've heard the arguments on both sides before, so I won't bother with that. I'm not that interested either. I'm just wondering how the events of the last few weeks have played out. We have Siew Kum Hong, young NMP sticking his neck out to push this issue in Parliament. In practical terms this is not an issue. The law did not persecute homosexuals but it will not do so in the near future regardless of the outcome of this motion.
What we do have is that this seems like a fairly new phenomenon in Singapore, if not unprecedented: a motion to be discussed in parliament, raised by citizen activists. What does it mean? Will the government's decision on this issue be tainted by whether this is a citizen action? Are they going to say, "we shouldn't allow this to go through because once we are seen as being receptive to the opinion from the ground, we will have to contend with citizen action for the rest of our (overpaid) lives."
Singapore is not what it was during the LKY era where 1 dictator (albeit a fairly benevolent one) just decided what was to be done and things got pushed down from the top. Now, even for the casino issue, you were just going to have to get permission from people. You were going to have to explain it to people, why you went through with it, even though in the 80s you were telling everybody that gambling is bad. Even though there were petitions everywhere not to have these casinos in our country.
The other issue is that politically, the parliament is sensitive to the charge that it doesn't exactly represent the entire segment of the population. Chinese and Christians are over- represented in parliament. (I'm saying this even though Tang Liang Hong got his ass whipped for saying the same.) And what would it look like if this westernised elite allowed some fancy westernised ideas through? To a lot of people, it might seem alarming to repeal the act 377a. It would not look like a neutral act. It is a pro-homosexual act. It is different from saying that you want to be neutral on this issue, which is what you'd want to do if you were to avoid kicking up a storm. Singaporeans are kiasu, and the most kiasu thing is to maintain the status quo: you can always tell the people who want you to repeal that you are never going to use the act, and you can always tell the people who get offended by homosexuality that this is a "statement of our values".
Then there is this other issue about how it contradicts what we have all along been trumpeting as our "asian values". Which Singapore value should we choose? We don't accept their "gay lifestyle", but what do you mean by that? Going to parties and fucking strangers in the ass? Or having a domesticated happy family life with your partner? Both of these are "gay lifestyles", and it's hard to see how the latter would contradict family values.
On the other hand, a fairly entrenched value in Singapore is tolerance. Maybe we might even have racial harmony one day, but at base we have tolerance. We recite the pledge and say "regardless of race, language or religion". And some versions of this include "creed". Which means acceptance is also central to our national values.
Thio Li-Ann is taking the approach that many conservatives tried on Bill Clinton when they were trying to impeach him. Ken Starr's report on his affair with Lewinsky was spiced up like it was some kind of a Jackie Collins novel so as to elicit disgust. She called anal sex 'shoving a straw up someone's nose to drink'. Now this is stupid. To be sure, anal sex is disgusting, but why not place a ban on picking your nose? (other than because the whole of Chinatown would be up in arms?) Some forum letters have defended her as being fiery and passionate. Come on, you can be fiery and passionate over matters that don't relate to persecuting disadvantaged minorities.
What would people make of this issue? What would Chinese make of this issue? I can imagine that the typical reaction would be similar to Lee Ang's "Wedding Banquet" when the old father learns that the son is gay. First he has a stroke, because it's like dishonour onto the family. Then he thinks that it's his son after all and then he forgives the son. In Chinese culture, when you look at a person, you don't really ask "is he gay?" You're more likely to ask, "what's his relationship with me?" It's less likely that this homosexuality, which is just 1 attribute of the human being as a whole.
This debate could only have been carried out amongst people who view this issue the way that a westerner would see it. Only in western culture would a label like "homosexual" would assume the gravity that it does. A Chinese educated guy is more likely to point at the guy and say "chow ah kua", then absent- mindedly turn to his kakis and say "ai lim kopi mai?"
But I do want to put my 2 cents' worth on 377a, or the non-repeal of which. You know which side I'm on, it's a really stupid idea. There's this law which is almost never used anyway. It's not sinful.
It'll be unfortunate if people reject raising a nuclear family because they think that homosexuality is cooler than being "straight", which has connotations of being uncool. I believe that homosexuality is inborn, and there are those out there who can't help it, but I also believe that it is a continuum, where you can say "On a scale of 1 to 10, 1 being straight, 10 being gay, I am a 4" or something. So there are some people out there who can choose.
I've heard the arguments on both sides before, so I won't bother with that. I'm not that interested either. I'm just wondering how the events of the last few weeks have played out. We have Siew Kum Hong, young NMP sticking his neck out to push this issue in Parliament. In practical terms this is not an issue. The law did not persecute homosexuals but it will not do so in the near future regardless of the outcome of this motion.
What we do have is that this seems like a fairly new phenomenon in Singapore, if not unprecedented: a motion to be discussed in parliament, raised by citizen activists. What does it mean? Will the government's decision on this issue be tainted by whether this is a citizen action? Are they going to say, "we shouldn't allow this to go through because once we are seen as being receptive to the opinion from the ground, we will have to contend with citizen action for the rest of our (overpaid) lives."
Singapore is not what it was during the LKY era where 1 dictator (albeit a fairly benevolent one) just decided what was to be done and things got pushed down from the top. Now, even for the casino issue, you were just going to have to get permission from people. You were going to have to explain it to people, why you went through with it, even though in the 80s you were telling everybody that gambling is bad. Even though there were petitions everywhere not to have these casinos in our country.
The other issue is that politically, the parliament is sensitive to the charge that it doesn't exactly represent the entire segment of the population. Chinese and Christians are over- represented in parliament. (I'm saying this even though Tang Liang Hong got his ass whipped for saying the same.) And what would it look like if this westernised elite allowed some fancy westernised ideas through? To a lot of people, it might seem alarming to repeal the act 377a. It would not look like a neutral act. It is a pro-homosexual act. It is different from saying that you want to be neutral on this issue, which is what you'd want to do if you were to avoid kicking up a storm. Singaporeans are kiasu, and the most kiasu thing is to maintain the status quo: you can always tell the people who want you to repeal that you are never going to use the act, and you can always tell the people who get offended by homosexuality that this is a "statement of our values".
Then there is this other issue about how it contradicts what we have all along been trumpeting as our "asian values". Which Singapore value should we choose? We don't accept their "gay lifestyle", but what do you mean by that? Going to parties and fucking strangers in the ass? Or having a domesticated happy family life with your partner? Both of these are "gay lifestyles", and it's hard to see how the latter would contradict family values.
On the other hand, a fairly entrenched value in Singapore is tolerance. Maybe we might even have racial harmony one day, but at base we have tolerance. We recite the pledge and say "regardless of race, language or religion". And some versions of this include "creed". Which means acceptance is also central to our national values.
Thio Li-Ann is taking the approach that many conservatives tried on Bill Clinton when they were trying to impeach him. Ken Starr's report on his affair with Lewinsky was spiced up like it was some kind of a Jackie Collins novel so as to elicit disgust. She called anal sex 'shoving a straw up someone's nose to drink'. Now this is stupid. To be sure, anal sex is disgusting, but why not place a ban on picking your nose? (other than because the whole of Chinatown would be up in arms?) Some forum letters have defended her as being fiery and passionate. Come on, you can be fiery and passionate over matters that don't relate to persecuting disadvantaged minorities.
What would people make of this issue? What would Chinese make of this issue? I can imagine that the typical reaction would be similar to Lee Ang's "Wedding Banquet" when the old father learns that the son is gay. First he has a stroke, because it's like dishonour onto the family. Then he thinks that it's his son after all and then he forgives the son. In Chinese culture, when you look at a person, you don't really ask "is he gay?" You're more likely to ask, "what's his relationship with me?" It's less likely that this homosexuality, which is just 1 attribute of the human being as a whole.
This debate could only have been carried out amongst people who view this issue the way that a westerner would see it. Only in western culture would a label like "homosexual" would assume the gravity that it does. A Chinese educated guy is more likely to point at the guy and say "chow ah kua", then absent- mindedly turn to his kakis and say "ai lim kopi mai?"
Friday, 19 October 2007
Ang moh food
I wonder if restaurants obey the 90% rule: 90% is shit. Like 90% of pop music is shit, or 90% of academic research is shit.
I will come clean about this: I do not think that ang moh food is better than Chinese food or Malay food or Indian food. Except that French food and Mediterrenean food is probably on par, if you discount that they have all those fancy ingredients and stuff. And the stuff that makes it to Singapore is very same-y, unlike those that I've bumped into on my travels, which make more imaginative stuff like rabbit meat pate or paella or tripe sausages or bouillabaisse soup or squid ink sausage. Yes, maybe fancy ingredients are expensive. Yes, maybe Singaporeans are not very adventurous with other cultures' foods. Too bad for us then.
Well it's curious, when I go to ang moh countries (other than Oz or NZ) and there are very few Singaporean / Malaysian restaurants. Like you know how great our hawker food is, right? Like it's one of the few things where we are at least as good as HK or Taiwan. But very few Singaporean / Malaysian restaurants there, unlike Viet outlets which are a dime a dozen. So you can imagine that people are really queuing up for those places (and they are).
But when I go around hunting down some restaurants that I see good reviews for it probably has to be an angmoh place or a Jap place, because Chinese / Indonesian / Indian restaurants are usually places you go with a group of people. Unless it's hawker centre stuff.
So I will list here 5 angmoh food places that I've come across that are actually pretty decent, even though it's just angmoh food.
Steeple's Deli 2nd floor Tanglin Shopping Centre, Tanglin Rd
I guess that it's hard to find this place because it's mostly open during office hours. Also it's tucked away in the corner of Tanglin Shopping Centre which means it's not really that accessible (although it's near a bus stop and 10 mins walk from Orchard MRT).
Let's just say that that's the place where I first came across a Reuben in Singapore worth eating. They served Reubens in my uni cafeterias, and they were pretty decent: rye bread, melted Swiss cheese, sauerkraut and corned beef. I think that was when I first found out that pickles always go well with meat. (Those of you who don't know what pickles taste like, next time you eat your hor fun get yourself some green chilli.) Cost me $13 which is not that expensive for a fried sandwich.
Pizza da Donato
Pizza al Taglio
8 Sixth Avenue Singapore 276473
Tel: 6462 0838
Pretty decent pizza for decent prices - $6 a slice (neither cheap nor expensive.) And they import all their ingredients from Italy. The pizza is not ordinary run of the mill Americano super supreme stuff you'd get some interesting things like goat's cheese or parma ham or anchovies on it. (Note: anchovy is ang moh ikan bilis.) Not as good as Spizza but cheaper, more worth it than Pizza hut.
Le Petit Cuisine
#01-05, 10 Jalan Serene, Serene Centre
A French place, and the prices are quite decent. Ordinary bistro fare, only ate 1 dish but the rest of the stuff smells great. As you would expect from a place that sells French food at decent prices, it's packed on a Sunday, the kitchen's a little too small to be handing the loads of customers, and I overheard the French chef throwing a tantrum about "tell ze customers zat I will close ze kitchen in zen minutes and too bad if they're late".
Had the ravioli (ang moh wantons) with foie gras, should have known better than to expect generous dollops and servings, because it was foie gras is ex. Tastes great. I had probably the same dish somewhere else in a more pretentious place and had to pay twice as much for it, so this is fine. I haven't been back to try the rest but French food for affordable prices is A-OK with me, and I don't necessarily have to hunt down the French Stall.
Then there are the Garibaldi restaurants. 1 on Riverside Walk, and 1 at Raffles City. Pretty decent pasta and good deserts, you get a set lunch with $20 and it's worth it. Pretty OK to bring a chick there if you have one. Also there is Friends at Jelita and Serangoon Gardens. Great Ukrainian Borsh soup and steaks, but also ex.
I realise that these places will be a little out of the way for HDB heartlanders. Yes, they are in districts 9, 10, 11. Expat / angmohland. Paradoxically where land prices are not so high. Just remember this: every time you eat at a place less than 500m away from an MRT station you are subsidising the restaurant owner so that he can pay for the land. you'd be better off in these places than heartland malls where it's crowded, lots of screaming kids playing catching, food is hastily prepared and not very good but it's OK for the restaurant and the crowd is always there.
I will come clean about this: I do not think that ang moh food is better than Chinese food or Malay food or Indian food. Except that French food and Mediterrenean food is probably on par, if you discount that they have all those fancy ingredients and stuff. And the stuff that makes it to Singapore is very same-y, unlike those that I've bumped into on my travels, which make more imaginative stuff like rabbit meat pate or paella or tripe sausages or bouillabaisse soup or squid ink sausage. Yes, maybe fancy ingredients are expensive. Yes, maybe Singaporeans are not very adventurous with other cultures' foods. Too bad for us then.
Well it's curious, when I go to ang moh countries (other than Oz or NZ) and there are very few Singaporean / Malaysian restaurants. Like you know how great our hawker food is, right? Like it's one of the few things where we are at least as good as HK or Taiwan. But very few Singaporean / Malaysian restaurants there, unlike Viet outlets which are a dime a dozen. So you can imagine that people are really queuing up for those places (and they are).
But when I go around hunting down some restaurants that I see good reviews for it probably has to be an angmoh place or a Jap place, because Chinese / Indonesian / Indian restaurants are usually places you go with a group of people. Unless it's hawker centre stuff.
So I will list here 5 angmoh food places that I've come across that are actually pretty decent, even though it's just angmoh food.
Steeple's Deli 2nd floor Tanglin Shopping Centre, Tanglin Rd
I guess that it's hard to find this place because it's mostly open during office hours. Also it's tucked away in the corner of Tanglin Shopping Centre which means it's not really that accessible (although it's near a bus stop and 10 mins walk from Orchard MRT).
Let's just say that that's the place where I first came across a Reuben in Singapore worth eating. They served Reubens in my uni cafeterias, and they were pretty decent: rye bread, melted Swiss cheese, sauerkraut and corned beef. I think that was when I first found out that pickles always go well with meat. (Those of you who don't know what pickles taste like, next time you eat your hor fun get yourself some green chilli.) Cost me $13 which is not that expensive for a fried sandwich.
Pizza da Donato
Pizza al Taglio
8 Sixth Avenue Singapore 276473
Tel: 6462 0838
Pretty decent pizza for decent prices - $6 a slice (neither cheap nor expensive.) And they import all their ingredients from Italy. The pizza is not ordinary run of the mill Americano super supreme stuff you'd get some interesting things like goat's cheese or parma ham or anchovies on it. (Note: anchovy is ang moh ikan bilis.) Not as good as Spizza but cheaper, more worth it than Pizza hut.
Le Petit Cuisine
#01-05, 10 Jalan Serene, Serene Centre
A French place, and the prices are quite decent. Ordinary bistro fare, only ate 1 dish but the rest of the stuff smells great. As you would expect from a place that sells French food at decent prices, it's packed on a Sunday, the kitchen's a little too small to be handing the loads of customers, and I overheard the French chef throwing a tantrum about "tell ze customers zat I will close ze kitchen in zen minutes and too bad if they're late".
Had the ravioli (ang moh wantons) with foie gras, should have known better than to expect generous dollops and servings, because it was foie gras is ex. Tastes great. I had probably the same dish somewhere else in a more pretentious place and had to pay twice as much for it, so this is fine. I haven't been back to try the rest but French food for affordable prices is A-OK with me, and I don't necessarily have to hunt down the French Stall.
Then there are the Garibaldi restaurants. 1 on Riverside Walk, and 1 at Raffles City. Pretty decent pasta and good deserts, you get a set lunch with $20 and it's worth it. Pretty OK to bring a chick there if you have one. Also there is Friends at Jelita and Serangoon Gardens. Great Ukrainian Borsh soup and steaks, but also ex.
I realise that these places will be a little out of the way for HDB heartlanders. Yes, they are in districts 9, 10, 11. Expat / angmohland. Paradoxically where land prices are not so high. Just remember this: every time you eat at a place less than 500m away from an MRT station you are subsidising the restaurant owner so that he can pay for the land. you'd be better off in these places than heartland malls where it's crowded, lots of screaming kids playing catching, food is hastily prepared and not very good but it's OK for the restaurant and the crowd is always there.
Thursday, 18 October 2007
I got sucked into Facebook. I heard about it, it's all the rage nowadays. Then I got 2 invites to join Facebook. It was interesting. All those feint memories from school / uni... all those people I vaguely knew existed but I didn't know were still alive... Sent out a flurry of friend invites and suddenly I have 18 ppl in my network. By the end of the day it will probably be 20. Damn, I didn't know I had friends. No wonder they say that Facebook is a productivity killer. A has sent B a drink. B has sent C a hi 5. Damn it's like playschool all over again... Damn I suddenly got messages to respond to...
Wednesday, 17 October 2007
Remerger
Lee Kuan Yew recently talked about the merger. There was this period when Singapore's economy wasn't doing very well, and we're always wondering about our vulnerabilities as a nation. It seemed inevitable then, when there were problems with the water agreements.
It seems like such a good idea. Although there are certain technical problems that will present problems.
How are you going to reconcile Singapore’s common law with the part of the federation that practices Islamic law? (But true, we have our MUIS to take care of this.)
How are you going to reconcile the vastly different standards of corruption between the Singapore government? (Don’t mean to imply that Malaysia has rampant corruption, because this is not true, but when you confront them with Singapore’s anal insistence on zero corruption, it’s potentially explosive.)
What are you going to do about national defence? How are the 2 ministries of defence going to co-operate with each other, when they’ve just spent much of their lives thinking about fighting each other? What's going to happen when we see each other's war plans about each other?
How are the PAP and UMNO going to deal with each other?
How’s Indonesia going to take it? Another confrontasi?
Are you going to continue paying cabinet ministers like you used to?
How is Singapore going to absorb the bumiputra laws? I think this is one of the biggest obstacles. LKY said that Singapore would merge only if the bumiputra laws were abolished. Sometimes I wonder if he wanted to comment on the merger or fire another sling from the bows and continue that argument he had with Tunku Abdul Rahman that led to Singapore's seccession?
I don't really approve of the bumiputra laws, and a "Malaysian Malaysia" sounds great in theory. But what would happen to the Malays in Malaysia if everybody competed on an even keel? Would the Chinese and Indians take over the country, and what would happen to the Malays? It would be nice if all of them could be equal, but would that ever happen? I've seen multi- racial societies before, even some where all races live in harmony but very few of them where all the races have equal status. Maybe it will 1 day happen in Australia and the USA. But we know that in Singapore Chinese have more power and more money than the Malays. And it's going to get worse because China is getting more and more powerful. I may get my blog in trouble for saying this, but what the hell. There is racial tolerance in Singapore, no doubt. More murky is whether there is racial harmony. And as for racial equality, I highly doubt it.
Maybe some day in the future we might have a situation in America where race is disappearing. Everybody has mixed blood, half Asian or half African or half Arab or God knows what combi. That's quite rare for Asians in Asia, but it might happen. Maybe racial lines will start vanishing. And then maybe we might just start thinking about the bumiputra policy.
Is a small city state like Singapore necessarily more vulnerable? And if so, how the hell did Venice exist as one for 1000 years? What was the last national merger that took place? We know about the divorce of the Czechs and the Slovaks, we know about the fracture of the Yugoslav federation, the formation of East Timor, and a nearly successful referendum that would have split Quebec from Canada. Does Kosovo belong to Albania or Serbia? Should we have a Kurdistan, cut out from parts of Iran, Turkey, Iraq, Syria? Does Chechnya belong to Russia or Georgia?
What’s the language policy going to be?
At least one thing is going to stay the same: those of us who never managed to figure out the words to “Majulah Singapura” aren’t going to do the same for “Negara Ku”.
It seems like such a good idea. Although there are certain technical problems that will present problems.
How are you going to reconcile Singapore’s common law with the part of the federation that practices Islamic law? (But true, we have our MUIS to take care of this.)
How are you going to reconcile the vastly different standards of corruption between the Singapore government? (Don’t mean to imply that Malaysia has rampant corruption, because this is not true, but when you confront them with Singapore’s anal insistence on zero corruption, it’s potentially explosive.)
What are you going to do about national defence? How are the 2 ministries of defence going to co-operate with each other, when they’ve just spent much of their lives thinking about fighting each other? What's going to happen when we see each other's war plans about each other?
How are the PAP and UMNO going to deal with each other?
How’s Indonesia going to take it? Another confrontasi?
Are you going to continue paying cabinet ministers like you used to?
How is Singapore going to absorb the bumiputra laws? I think this is one of the biggest obstacles. LKY said that Singapore would merge only if the bumiputra laws were abolished. Sometimes I wonder if he wanted to comment on the merger or fire another sling from the bows and continue that argument he had with Tunku Abdul Rahman that led to Singapore's seccession?
I don't really approve of the bumiputra laws, and a "Malaysian Malaysia" sounds great in theory. But what would happen to the Malays in Malaysia if everybody competed on an even keel? Would the Chinese and Indians take over the country, and what would happen to the Malays? It would be nice if all of them could be equal, but would that ever happen? I've seen multi- racial societies before, even some where all races live in harmony but very few of them where all the races have equal status. Maybe it will 1 day happen in Australia and the USA. But we know that in Singapore Chinese have more power and more money than the Malays. And it's going to get worse because China is getting more and more powerful. I may get my blog in trouble for saying this, but what the hell. There is racial tolerance in Singapore, no doubt. More murky is whether there is racial harmony. And as for racial equality, I highly doubt it.
Maybe some day in the future we might have a situation in America where race is disappearing. Everybody has mixed blood, half Asian or half African or half Arab or God knows what combi. That's quite rare for Asians in Asia, but it might happen. Maybe racial lines will start vanishing. And then maybe we might just start thinking about the bumiputra policy.
Is a small city state like Singapore necessarily more vulnerable? And if so, how the hell did Venice exist as one for 1000 years? What was the last national merger that took place? We know about the divorce of the Czechs and the Slovaks, we know about the fracture of the Yugoslav federation, the formation of East Timor, and a nearly successful referendum that would have split Quebec from Canada. Does Kosovo belong to Albania or Serbia? Should we have a Kurdistan, cut out from parts of Iran, Turkey, Iraq, Syria? Does Chechnya belong to Russia or Georgia?
What’s the language policy going to be?
At least one thing is going to stay the same: those of us who never managed to figure out the words to “Majulah Singapura” aren’t going to do the same for “Negara Ku”.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)