testing testing. blogspot is so screwed.
******
fark... just wrote a pretty long post just now with lots of random things and blogspot just screws it up. there's something abt it with firefox. using safari now. makes me wanna switch to livejournal or wordpress. it also explains the lack of photos and the absence from blogging after such a long time coming back from japan.
******
anyway, was saying that lots of things happened this week. visited CMC. visited mediacorp studios. watched midsummer night's dream. ate with rey and jared and CT. did a totally weird photoshoot. met up and on the phone with contractors. blah blah blah. i forsee next week to be busy as well...
******
You know, Straits Times really is quite a trashy newspaper if you look at it from the.... what's that word... arty farty political undergraduate student point of view. if one has any simple thought process at all, one can immediately see through all the bullshit they're putting on the headlines. the thing is, most singaporeans just don't have the thought process at all. and of course willingly get psycho-ed.
in today's INSIGHT, where they had the 3 MPs talk about the decriminalisation of homosexuality, 3 points of view. law evolves by pace of society vs law prevents harm to others vs law is about morality. seriously, the whole debate is SO NOT about homosexuality. it's about the philosophy of law, the purpose of law and what law is all about. fortunately, i did AS last last sem and was able to see this point. hurhurhur.
indranee rajah takes the stand on that law evolvees through the norms of society. very similar to what mr balaji said about censorship a few months ago in SMU. but it begs the question. who should take the lead? law or society? does the law change first or society change first? in many instances, the law has changed first. think casino. in other instances, society changes first. think women's rights. then again, how do you even measure how much society can accept? surveys? where is the line drawn? what is the threshold? 54%? 75%? 90%? as you can see, it is quite frustrating if u follow this path.
siew kum hong takes the no harm principle. again, question: what is harm? harm to one person might not be harm to another. think rascist jokes. think media criticism. next, harm to who? 1 person? same severity as to 5 people? 20? harm to society? how do you measure gambling's harm to society? number of people who commit suicides? number of broken families? if gambling harms, why are we still having a casino? although the harm principle may seem the most sensible and logical of all, there is really a different perspective to it.
lim biow chuan's stance by saying law "to reflect social norms and values which are acceptable by the general population" is a politically correct one. he betrays his stand by saying earlier "i think the position of the church is correct, which is that we should hate the sin but embrace the sinner." apparently, this green horn has much to learn about politics. how is law suppose to effect then? we will send homosexuality to jail for 10 years but danny, you may walk free from this courtroom and be purged from gay-ness forever!!!!! HAHAHAHHAa... this guy is a christian and he just CANNOT accept anything against the bible. his bible is above the law. period. family values? don't make me laugh. this family values thingy is being promoted way out of hand by the current government. since when did family get such a good name? just ask lao jiu. HAHAHAHHA... so, please just stop trying to impose your values on the rest of society and say that's its society's values too. BLAH.
oh man... it just seems our MPs, our law-MAKERS, our legislators, can't make any sense of their own philosophy of law. these pple are suppose to MAKE LAW for our country, which I am part of, which YOU are part of. Of course I'm not saying they're stupid or I'm smarter. I make no such unfounded allegations or accusations. I'm just trying to look at their arguments and have a thought process. that's all. most singaporeans lack a though process.
******
please DON'T get me started on the articles a few days ago about the NEED for NTUC and its co-ops to DOMINATE and increase MARKETSHARE for the benefit of the masses. questions questions questions. what exactly is NTUC anyway? The purpose of the co-ops? These answers we know. but the FUNCTIONS of these co-ops? are they making a profit? how much profits are they making? how are they financed? who calls the shots? WHY ARE THEY EVEN MAKING A PROFIT? they're not BUSINESSES. who are their shareholders? workers? do they have voting rights? do they have decision making power? who accounts for the transparency of the various co-ops? AND we haven't even dealt into the ethics behind market competition yet.
i was fortunate enough in short and sweet to be able to meet somebody who had previous working experience there and the answers that i was given were still unimpressive and unconvincing for the justification of these co-ops and the "performance" of NTUC. how does one measures NTUC's performance? how does one measures the co-op's performance?
again, i'm not saying lim swee say is a bad man. he's nice. i've seen him. heard him talk. he knows his stuff. he's a president's scholar for goodness sakes. but in that forum, i thought he was seriously struggling to answer eleanor wong's questions. hurhurhur... there are simply too many questions of NTUC left unanswered.
******
if there's one thing that i took away from the business law module last sem, that is to ask questions. about every single word and its meaning behind it. about every single sentence, its structure, intended purpose, stated purpose and meaning at face value.
******
Without wax,
soulgroove