Sunrise-sunset-midnight and the struggles of being

At sunset-watching, just before the day folded into night, Celine gazed wistfully at the setting sun which was hanging precariously by the horizon.
She said, “It's still there..still there...”

As the sun vanished, together with its warmth, glory, colours, hope……all that the sun came to stand for, completely removed from the sky, leaving a long stretch of darkness behind. Celine concluded melancholically, “……and it's gone.." An allusion to what she felt about her love.

For Celine, her love with/for Jesse was sun-setting.

18 years ago, Celine and Jesse met for a day in Vienna, a foreign land for both of them, in the first of the trilogy movie Before Sunrise. It explores the possibility of love.  Just before sunrise when Jesse has to catch his connecting flight back to America, they vowed to meet again six months at the same platform where they started.

The subsequent sequel Before Sunset unravelled the fact that they failed to meet up. When Celine and Jesse met again in Paris, their only second encounter, there was already a space of nine years before them. Nine years in real time. A boyfriend, a son and a wife entered their respective lives, all were but feeble attempts to fill up that vacuum which Vienna left them when they exited each other’s life. Before Sunset contemplates the decision of breaking commitments in pursuit of following one’s heart.

In the second sequel Before Midnight, Celine and Jesse have proceeded into a relationship and into their middle-aged journey. Nine years into their relationship and a production of a pair of twins.

In the oasis of Greece, in the form of a family holiday, the strains and stress of their career, self-development and family still managed to seep through and soiled their time together.

Unbeknownst to Celine, she herself was sun-setting too. Negotiating the realities of a 40-something-year-old woman, Celine was slipping unconsciously into the horizon like the setting sun, struggling to keep her head above all the different roles that she has chosen to play at that stage of her life--a mother, a career woman, a feminist, a lover, an aging woman and herself. And the desire of perfecting each role has taken the toll on her. And bringing Jesse/relationship down along with her in the midst of her own struggles.

When the heavy curtains of the night came down after the sunset, signalling the imminent end of their relationship, Celine and Jesse entangled in a heated and irreconcilable argument in a hotel room which was intended to be a romantic getaway. They were soulmates yet the worst poison for each other.

Realities bite. Deeply. For them and for anyone else.

A one-day romance in Vienna has seemingly succumbed to the weight of the mundanities of everyday life and the constant tussle with their inner selves. The inner tussle was especially strenuous for Celine. Her failure to tackle her own insecurities turned her bitter and calculative on every “sacrifice” that she has to make in the relationship. Love seemed to be ending. As she prophesized. It could well be her self-fulfilling prophecy afterall.

Nine years of absence accentuated the fondness and the connection between those two. Nine years of living together has obscured the fondness and caused distance.

However, it may not be an end or as despairing as depicted.

Sunrise passes on to sunset and sunset passes on to midnight. It is a matter of passing on. Life/love passes on. It may not have ceased but only to take shape in new forms. The yester-love might be asphyxiated by the daily mundane, realities and self-interests. It could also be just buried under and taken a different form. It could be still there, in a different form and to be readapted.

For after all is said, after midnight comes the sunrise.

LHL's mindset on tangibles

                                      LHL NPD Message 2013

Yet, LKY derided GCT when he made known that GCT was not his preferred candidate to succeed him, that he was a poor public speaker. 

In LHL's NPD 2013 video, I found him terribly uneasy with himself before the camera. A wide plastic grin split across his face in attempt hide his uneasiness and he was clearly awkward with his hands. I need no comparison with GCT's public speaking skills or LKY to dictate me, of arriving at my own conclusion about the quality of LHL's public speaking skills. 

Moving away from the presentation of the NDP message to its content.

With no surprise, LHL's message did not, and never fails to, mention Singapore's GDP performance in any of his address to the nation. There was a mix of tangibles and intangibles in his message. The economy, the workforce, transport, healthcare, accommodation, family, inflation, the kind of society, aging and even SAFRA upgrading. 

Nonetheless, three aspects stood out prominently among others as they have been the recurring themes in the last few years. Foreign workers. Investor confidence. Other countries' admiration of Singapore. There is no way which he will spare us from these. Coincidentally, they are directly linked to GDP. A clear picture of how clear-minded LHL is on GDP-core related matters. Even his concern on our falling birth rate is related to his GDP as he offers a intake of new immigrants as his only solution.

On the other hand, his take on the intangibles appear weak and hollow in light of his past policies. 


His mention of fair and just society sounds ironical. Think of the removal of the estate duty in 2009. Which strata of our society will be the biggest beneficial of its removal? Think of the wage gap between the lower income groups and his top civil servants or himself. Think of Woffles Wu. Think of his treatment to his political "opponents". Think of the unproportionate political and economic power the "elite group" holds. Think of what he pays himself and his gang for their "sacrifices" and what he pays for our NS men for theirs.

He treads into the realm of Singapore's identity, which Singaporeans holds dearly to in the face of the tsunamis of foreigners taking place on our shore, yet he has a vague idea of what it meant, given his statement of "we are feeling our way forward carefully" on identity. "We" refers to him and his gang, exclusive of the people. He is determined with his Population White Paper in shrinking the proportion of local-born Singaporeans to less than half of the population and inviting new citizens to make up the shortfall in our birth rate, diluting and exterminating our own identity. A clear depiction of his priorities over the tangibles. GDP is after all more valuable than identity.


Interestingly, LHL mentioned SAFRA upgrade in his NDP message this year. Couldn't help but think of it as an epitome of his tangible-obsessed mindset and his incompetency refusal to address the intangibles.

In his understanding, a new SAFRA building, as the tangible, suffices as a compensation for the male Singaporeans' contribution to NS against the growing proportion of new citizens, PRs and foreigners who have the luxury of choosing for themselves and their sons whether to serve NS or not. It is a duty for Singaporean males to serve NS for the defence of their homeland when non-Singaporeans (new citizens inclusive) are steadily outgrowing them.

SAFRA building and amenities are peanut compensation for the financial and job opportunity loss of two years in the job market. And the burden duty of NS is shared between the NS men and their families who have to provide financial support during their NS period. Especially a drain for financially-strapped families. 

Either he couldn't see or that he couldn't care less.

There are times when we have to ask what we can do for our country; there are times when we have to ask what can the rulers country do for us! A lot of tangibles are being extracted from his citizens but the returns are far from fair and just. Crumbs for the lower and middle stratum of the society while fat chunks reserved for the higher strata.  

Think of the pre-election upgrading of HDB and sheltered walkways bribes incentives to secure our votes. Giving you the tangibles but taking away the intangibles of transparency, accountability, the rights to unobstructed access to our own CPF, a stronger alternative presence in the Parliament, uncontrolled media .... away from you for good. 

Inevitably, Marina Bay comes into mind. About a month ago, LHL shared his new-found pride with his audience "....there is only one Marina Bay in the world." Marina Bay was used to illustrate the outcome of getting the "right politics". Again, he is self-complimenting himself and his gang. There is no inclusion of his people. Again, a clear depiction of using the tangibles as an indicator of success. 

Marina Bay, an expensive pride of his, developed by stacks of cash for the glittering buildings, casinos, ferris wheel, Garden, expensive shopping malls......

And what proportion of the returns is being channelled across our society to improve the quality of our living? In alleviating the stress of cultural, social and identity invasion by the fierce foreign influx and the diminishing sense of security? In reducing the stress for the unfair competition for land space, jobs, education and housing?

Interesting Finds on SG Cabinet

The GRC red carpet to ministerial pedestal:

17 ministers out of 18, ie 94.4% of our rare breed of talent entered politics via this mode with Lee Hsien Loong being the exception. Almost everyone rode on the coattails of ministers before getting to see the scenery of a Parliament.

Teck Ghee SMC forgotten

Surprise! Surprise! For a leader who habitually hides behind his subordinates and father, Lee Hsien Loong stood the test on his own feet in his debut election. He is the only minister in our current entire Cabinet who was directly elected into the Parliament via a SMC. 

GRC remains the greatest all-time innovation of Singapore. Cleverly introduced as a short-cut to the Parliament for political newbies. And Singapore electorate received an expensive gift in the election of 2011 in the form of Tin Pei Lin as a result.

The ministers-churning GRC: Tanjong Pagar GRC

It is not just any door. But the door that opens to the realm of heaven opportunities of ministerial appointments and perks.

27% of our Cabinet, ie 5 out of 18 ministers, entered our political arena via the golden door of Tanjong Pagar GRC (CCS, KBW, LHK, LSS, LTY). Tanjong Pagar GRC producing the most number of ministers in our current co-hort among all the GRCs and SMCs. Jurong GRC, Marine Parade GRC and West Coast GRC come in second.

The most formidable GRC: Tanjong Pagar GRC

Remains uncontested since 1991 for 5 consecutive elections. In the last election in 2011, contestants were disqualified for submitting their forms THIRTY FIVE SECONDS late. Thanks to that particular clock/watch, it helps to preserve the unscathed record of Tanjong Pagar GRC uncontested for two decades.

The boundary pool of ministers:

It is just not about qualities but professions. You must fall within a particular kind of mould, namely in the form of army officers, civil servants, GLC leaders, doctors or lawyers.

The most undesirable trait of ministers:

That you do not come from the army, the civil service, the GLCs, medical profession (sorry, nursing excluded. Pls remember that nurses are classified as unskilled workers) and legal profession. If you do not fall within these boundaries of professions, wait for your next life for that chance to be ever parachuted into the Cabinet as long as PAP holds firmly to their political lifeline. Forget about PAP changing at its core. It is easier to remove all the spots on the leopard than to anticipate core changes within PAP.

From Ah Boys to Men: Yes, Sir!

6 out of 18 of our ministers come from an army background (LHL, CCS, TCJ, LHK, LTY and TCH). One third of our Cabinet is nurtured to the habit and demeanour of issuing orders to their subordinates.

Unfortunately, in the political context, there are no soldiers to command respect (note that it is to command respect instead of earning respect) but only citizens to be herded.

The loneliest department: PMO

So much so that it needs three ministers to warm up the temperature at PMO. Yes, three ministers without portfolio. Grace Fu, LSS and Iswaran. Equivalent to 16 % of the Cabinet manpower channelled to the PMO alone. And I thought LHL had challenges looking for sufficient talents to work for him in the Cabinet. Fyi, there is only ONE minister without any portfolio in the entire UK cabinet.

Cheaper, better and faster Cabinet?

Minister without portfolio LSS urged Singaporeans to improve productivity before dreaming about wage rise. His most famous advice for our workers is: cheaper, better and faster. Nevertheless, the contrary for our Cabinet ministers.

Take a look at our Cabinet size and price.

18 ministers (including PM) for a country of a population size of 5.3 million (as at 2012 and this figure is still growing) and over a land size of 710 km² with a total GDP (PPP) of US$327.557 billion (2012 IMF estimate).  

To put it simply, employing one minister for 0.244 million people per 39.4km². If we divide our total GDP over our Cabinet size, one minister would account for US$18.1 billion GDP produced.

Compare this to the UK cabinet. 32 ministers (including the PM) for a population of 63 million (as at 2011) over a land size of 243,610 km² with a total GDP (PPP) of US$2.316 trillion.

11 times our population, 342 times our land size and 3 times our total GDP but their Cabinet size is less than twice of ours and the salaries (excluding bonuses) alone for their entire Cabinet are lower than ours.

I would imagine that given the relative smaller population density, there is the advantage of swifter and greater control and response. Infrastructure and essentials such as healthcare, public transport and housing will be relatively easier to deal with. And crises too.

The reality in Singapore tells a different story. Think of the recent haze crisis. It was THREE days after PSI hit hazardous level that free N95 masks were distributed free of charge to the lower income groups.

Looking at the efficiency and the value for money of our Cabinet, LSS’ words on “cheaper, better and faster” only serve to irk.

活人的情绪

前英国首相撒切尔夫人仍健在时，已在网上浏览过对她不满的言论。英国政坛的铁女子，在执政时期所实施的措施，给一些人带来了负面的影响。

2013年，撒切尔夫人与世长辞。意想不到的是，不满言论变成了上街欢庆她逝世的行动。让人瞠目结舌。赤裸裸地展现了个人情绪，而且是在一名往生者的身上。于是，这些人的情感表露受到了批评，被指不尊重过世的人。

是的，我们总是不疑有他地遵守着不明文的规定，尽量美化死者。出自于对逝世者的尊重，也包含了对死者亲属的体谅。

尊重逝世者，所以人民的情绪应该有所收敛。

然而，人民的情绪，活着的人的情绪，政客们生前是否有同等地正视或尊重？政策影响的是一群人，活着的人。

一部分大肆庆祝撒切尔过世的人，曾经受到她政策长期负面影响。遭遇的人不是我，我无法感同身受。正因如此，无法否定他们对撒切尔所显露的情绪，更无权判定他们的情绪为非理性。

把视线从英国拉回狮城。

某名政客退出政坛时当着媒体落泪，被视为人的表现，人民必须受宠若惊，感动涕零。

然而，当某个高龄政客眷恋权势，迟迟不肯退下光环，甚至在选举时威迫选民；当他为了守着自己的政治势力，在未经审讯下就囚禁政敌，剥夺了一个人长达三十二年的人生；当他为了巩固英语的政治势力，把其他族群语言边缘化；当他信奉优生学而公开侮辱低教育者的子女不聪明；在他吹捧的高薪养廉下聘用的绝世贤才，把住屋作为套利的工具，让房价飚出了平均薪酬的负担水平、无理地扣住了人民有血有汗的公积金、开放移民政策吸纳大量新移民时……人民所表露的情绪，却被斥为非理智、不够远大。

然而，政客是否给予活着的人应有的尊重？是否正视活人的情绪？

尊重只能赢得，无法被指令。即使通过威迫来换取尊重，也只能是在世时才奏效。一朝入黄土，恐惧就会化成乌有。尊重也当场湮灭。

想要在身后获得多少分量的尊重，政客们别无他选。毕竟，尊重，也是一种人的情感。

允许歇息

英国郊区里，不管是风景区还是非风景区，常遇到这样窝心的设备——公众捐赠的长椅。通过捐赠长椅纪念逝世的人。这类长椅都镶上小小的牌匾，刻上已离开的人的姓名。

长椅，存在的意义就是给走累了或想放慢脚步的游人提供片刻的歇息。镶上牌匾的长椅，更是一张张的思念。把内心抽象的情感，化为具体的长椅；把个人的感伤化为积极的能量，造福人群。

那天，坐在户外长椅上，不知怎的，突然觉得这样在公共场合里被“允许”坐下来歇息的机会很难得。是的，被“允许”的休息。而且是免费的。

不是所有的公共场所都允许人们休息、放慢脚步的。地下铁内便是如此，不设座椅，以免阻碍人流。这是可以理解的，也可以接受的。

然而，催促着人们不能停顿、不得歇息的压迫感，在狮城，不仅限于地铁站而已。

一些翻新后或是新建的商场所设置的室内座椅越来越少，或者是根本不设座椅。

例如我家邻里的购物商场扩建后，制造了更多的空间，走动和休息的空间却缩小了。更多的店铺、更大的人潮，座椅却更少。于是，座椅总是座无虚席。购物者只能上餐馆、咖啡座“买”位子坐下来。

狮城人口的增加，带动了更多的商机。旧有的购物商场陆续翻新，绞尽脑汁变出“新”的空间容纳更多的店铺。新的商场竞相抢滩。更多的商机，却让歇息的空间变得更“昂贵”。

于是，不“允许”购物者免费休息。人们，只能在锐减的空间里，不停地流动。不许妨碍商家的盈利。

不知何时开始，连歇息也被金钱化了。