Tuesday, March 29, 2005

BBC NEWS | Business | 'Return of the Mac' - coming soon

Save rap! The commercialisation of rap will be complete once they start accepting money from the Big Macs! Then the death of rap as a from of political activism will be complete.

The golden arches will offer US$5 every time the Big Mac is mentioned in the rapper's song. This US deal is meant for them to ride on the coattails of what is the most successful genre of popular music culture in the history of man - Hip Hop

BUT...my concern ain't with obesity. It ain't with junk food. If you're dumb enough like me to eat it without sufficient exercise you deserve it. Stop trying to use the judiciary to launch an attack on what is fundamentally a personal choice of rationality or stupidity.

My concern is with politics.

The Old School of the 70s was dealt a hige blow by the crass materialistic consumerist philosophy of the post 80s (East-West Side battle) that we saw in rap. Extravagent settings with scantity class girls, bling-blings (ostentatious jewelry) are the raison d'tate of many of the gangsta' rappers today. But an alliance with the granddaddy of commericialisation will sound the death knell for whatever pretensions or links rap can and WILL EVER HAVE with political activism.

Peace daw'gs!

Monday, March 28, 2005

*Why I'm Buddhist*

I'm not entirely comfortable speculating why people assume that I'm Christian.

Yes, I spent 7 years in a Methodist School (ACS Barker then ACS Independent). My cousins were from covent schools and I used to get infrequent doses of Gensis and Jesus Loves You kind of speeches. 7 years of morning service and imbibing of morning chappel (my mother refused to write me an excuse note on the grounds that knowing more never hurt). 7 years of prayer and Christian doctrine, some good, some bad, some simply sad.

I was raised and brought up in what might be termed Chinese Religion, a hodgepodge of various thoughts and religions merged with Chinese animism and historical deitification. The Chinese have a very economic relationship with their gods. Bribery was not merely accepted but ritually encouraged. One did not have to really do anything except be good and offer the appropriate offerings on the appropriate days.

I was notionally Christian for a while before I converted to Buddhism. It wasn't an overnight conversion. No voice that spoke to me telling me which path to adopt. But slowly and surely, my heart and mind took me on the Noble Eight Fold Path.

I was never really happy being Christian. Sure it was kinda fun to sing the hymms and to say Amen as and when appropriate. But the comfort was that of the conventional, to be one of the whole group of them in school. Faith means nothing to me, it always has and always will be the absence of reason, a crutch, nothing more than a self-perpetuated self delusion. You believe because you want to believe, and you close your minds to all the doubts and never never ever question.

So while I have great admiration for the teachings and doctrines of Christ and the Church fathers. I view them the same way as I do the teachings of Mohammad and the Qu'ran. Great philosophers but not with some exceptional link to the Dei.

When I read the Noble Four Truths the first time, I didn't understand it. But I came across it again as I was older and it began to make a lot of sense.
1) The Nobel Truth of Dukkha - Life is suffering: Blunt and honest, it needs no sophistary to explain evil and suffering in the world. To live is to suffer.
2) The Nobel Truth of the cause of Dukkha - Suffering is Caused by Selfish Desire (Cravings): Our attachment to a false notion of 'self' causes us to strive to satisfy this self. It can never be satisfied, life is temporal and transient. Attempting to satisfy this with transient and impermanent things mere leads to more pain, suffering and disappointment. Annata is the opposite (and hence the title of this blog noself)
3) The Nobel Truth of the end of Dukkha - Suffering can end by removal of the cravings in the mind. This is where we enter the state of Nibbana (nivanna), the state when we are free from the conditioning of life, the endless cycle of birth and rebirth and of suffering in life.
4) The Nobel Truth of the path leading to the end of Dukkha - The Nobel Eight Fold Path. The Path of Moderation. Enlightenment need not be achieve through extremism.

In the end, there really could only be one choice that appealed both to my heart and mind.


Schiavo Feels No Pain - CME Teaching Brief - MedPage Today

*Is Dr. Andy Ho really a medical doctor?*

Sometimes I wonder....... It looks like he's putting his religious inclinations in front of good science once again.

*Of all the stupid things to do*

I thought for once (okay 2nd time) that I would skip contracts lecture and simply sleep in.

Potter down to school where I discover that contracts had stopped and there was no lesson after all.

At this point, I've absolutely no idea whether to feel relieved or just stupid. Gee...

I'm sitting in the library. I'm hungry. I want food. I'm stuck to my seat. Ergo, I should get someone to get food for me. However, I'm not allowed to eat the library. Egro I should get someone to get me out of the library and buy me some food.

Yeah, while I'm doing that I should daydream of World Peace and Tolerance too...


Saturday, March 26, 2005

Dear Sir,

I read the recent ‘analysis’ in the Ridge titled “Terrorism and the ‘New Equation’” with no small amount of incredulity and dismay at the lack of objectivity and some spurious argumentation.

Three issues are basically raised by the article. 1) How is the Palestinian Problem central to the problem of terrorism? 2) What has the USA’s role been in the creation and continuation of such problems? 3) Is using force to combat terrorism necessarily mutually exclusive and counter–productive to a policy of solving the Middle Eastern Problem?

The article rightly points out that the word ‘terrorism’ only became more ubiquitous after 9/11 and so did the materialisation of the ‘War on Terror’ and there is absolutely no doubt that it is true. Similarly, there is no question that this is fundamentally a US led cause. However there are a number of reasons why this is the case. 9/11 shattered the complacency of the Pacific-Atlantic security of the US. This was the biggest, most audacious and most successful atrocity at the same time. But most fundamentally, terrorism became truly global for the first time. No longer is terrorism simply a politic tool of violence for domestic ethnic groups, ETA (Spain), IRA (UK/Ireland), FARC (Columbia), Red Brigade (Japan), Shining Path (Peru) etc.

Osama’s Al–Qaeda seeks to be the new pan–Arabic Nationalism, no longer based in secular principles but in a form of extremist Islamic Fundamentalism rooted in Wahabism. Its original aims are nothing less than an eradication of the way of life as we know it. Offshoots like Jemiah Islamiah have demonstrated an interest in this region, with breakaway groups in ASEAN nations claiming inspiration and allegiance to a broader cause. This has gone beyond a domestic political dispute and grown into something much broader.

So in what manner is the Palestinian Problem truly central to the current problem of terrorism? Osama ranked the Palestinian problem right at the very bottom of his list of grievances, which begs the question on how important he truly viewed it. It is worth pointing out that he said nothing about the US pullout from Saudi Arabia, which had conversely ranked at the other end of the spectrum. The autocracies of the Middle East find it more useful to play up the plight of the Palestinians in order to divert attention away from their basic domestic problems i.e. poverty, lack of political representation, oppression and ethnic rivalries.
So even if it were possible, as the authors have sweepingly and breezingly assumed, to solve the massive Palestinian Problem, it will not fundamentally alter the situation so as to solve the problem of Terrorism. As long as this is an ideological war where its adherents are willing to swallow extremist Islam Fundamentalism, because they lack alternatives, they can be persuaded of the inherent evil of the rest of the world. If so even if there were peace between Israel and Palestine, their eyes will turn from Palestine and towards perhaps, the existence of Israel as a state. As long as they can be persuaded of the evil of the West, they do not need any other reason for their brand of terrorism.

What then is the Palestinian problem? And is the unstinting support of the US truly the biggest obstacle to reaching a solution? Oddly enough, it has seem to slip the authors’ minds that the last two peace plans (Dayton and Oslo Peace Accords) that had even a passing chance at building a lasting solution were US–led. In a way, American support (and presumably the threat to withdraw it) has been the main reason why Israel has even been willing to come to the table.

At the end of the day, Israel wants to exist as a state and any ‘solution’ that threatens its survival will be unacceptable. US support is the only way, short of constant war to ensure that survival. The persistent refusal to condemn acts of Palestinian terrorism (no matter how justified or heinous) simply reinforces the Israelis’ siege mentality. More troubling for them is the governing Palestinian Authorities (PA) inability to truly enforce a cease–fire, much less a truce or a lasting peace. To be fair, the systemic destruction of the PA’s institution and the Palestine economy have very much been due to Israeli action e.g. the West Bank Wall, the Gaza carve–up and so on. But at the same time, the PA and its late leader Yassar Arafat himself has as much to blame. They squandered the good will and political capital that they earned from signing the peace process (and gaining a Nobel Peace Prize in the process) through corruption, sheer incapability and a refusal to relinquish power long past when one ought to. Is it any wonder then, that even the Egyptians have made an about face and put the onus on the Palestinians to take the first concrete step for a political solution?

Hamas emerges from this political vacuum to become, in a sense, a state within a state. But unlike the PA, they have still yet refused to acknowledge Israel’s right to exist. It is this fear and the constant suicide bombings that they have used to achieve this end that have forced the Israeli’s hand towards military incursions and the erection of the Wall. Terrible as its effects have been, it has bought some measure of peace, and to a beleaguered people, sometimes that is all one can see. Thankfully, this myopia of terror has been lifted somewhat from the two peoples’ collective eyes. Ariel Sharon, uber–hawk as he may be, has faced down both his party and the powerful settlers’ lobby to start a unilateral pulllout from the Gaza Strip. Hamas and the PA in turn have held their hands and not made too much of as effort to make it seem like an Israeli retreat from acts of terror. PM Abbas has the popular support of the people (the joys of an election) as well as wary support from the Israelis, Americans and the British.
But at the end of the day, the real sticking point in any lasting peace treaty is not land but people. The Senai treaty with Egypt aptly demonstrates Israel’s willingness to trade land for peace, so too the Golam Heights with Syria. Even Jerusalem is not the big issue as it once was. But the right of Palestinian refugees to return is. Allowing unlimited right of entry will swamp the current Jewish majority and turn them into something less than even a substantial minority. Thus far, the Palestinians power-that-be have refused to budge from this position (the Israelis are willing to accept under controlled circumstances certain numbers), which on balance is justified. But justified or not, unless the world is willing to admit that it will cause the end of Israel as we know it, this is a non-issue. Thus far, the Saudi–sponsored plan (more land from Israel in return for the dropping of the right to return) is the only one with a modicum of support from both countries, but its death gives a good indication of its political feasibility.

So what is the USA’s true motive for being in the Middle East? Let us examine the very simplistic populist notion that it is all about the oil, the immediate question would be what’s wrong with that? Our global economy is entire and heavily and much too dependant on oil. It would be blatantly naïve to assume that if the US did not attempt to exert influence, no other country would. In fact, we have seen nations such as France, China and Russia do so by essentially turning a blind eye to and propping up autocratic and corrupt regimes like Saddam’s Iraq. Ironically, that is the exact same failed policy attempted by the US towards its support of the House of Saud. The regime in turn supported Wahabism in an attempt to bolster its religious credentials and stay in power. That in turn bred maniacs like Osama bin Laden who in turn threatens the status quo.

So the authors’ are right in a sense when they claim that nothing has fundamentally changed with the US invasion of Iraq. It’s all about control, never mind whether the assumption that it is possible to install a popular, democratically elected, pro–American regime in that region is even reasonable. Even so, it marks a drastic shift in the manner in which USA influence and control is to be maintained in the Middle East. It is not by coincidence that we are seeing more liberal and democratic reforms not simply in Iraq but also Lebanon and even Saudi Arabia. Granted, the questions of how far these reforms would go and whether they are sustainable remain. It would be interesting to know what exactly the authors’ preferred solution is? Perhaps a total withdrawal of the US in the Middle East, thereby leaving it open to the influence of the EU or maybe China and Russia? The US is no more a force of absolute good than it is a force of absolute evil, on balance their recent actions while in the short run destabilising, looks to be paying off.

Which brings us to the final issue, whether a conventional war is necessary at odds with the ideological one. If the situation was as simple as the authors’ have made it out to be then yes, the Palestinian Problem cannot be solved by military force. Both the intifada and the Seven–Day War show that neither nation will be cowed by a show of force and hence Bush’s conventional aspect in his War on Terror will be doomed to failure. The more sophisticated argument would go that the conventional war will breed nothing more than another cycle of hatred and violence and would not alter the realities on the ground. I have great sympathy for both arguments but the where the real problem is not the Palestinian Problem but Osama’s brand of madness, the conventional war is still a necessity.

The ideological war, USA wielding its soft power, is just as necessary as stamping out regimes like the Taliban and Saddam’s Iraq which have had a history of state–sponsored terrorism. One cannot win a defensive war on terrorism, the experience of domestic terrorism have demonstrated the need to strike out at the terrorist. This has always been at heart a policing issue but the global nature of Al–Qaeda and its support from various nations make it clearer than ever that there is that military component as well. The need to strike at terrorist camps must be balanced by the need for the US to demonstrate that there are not simply anti–Arab or anti–Muslim (the war that NATO undertook in defence of the Muslim Bosnian Serbs has largely been gone from our collective memories).

I hope that you will transmit this to the authors’ and let them know that people do read their articles even if we do not agree with them.

Thank you.

BBC NEWS | Asia-Pacific | Malaysia to curb 'moral policing'

All power and kudos to the government of Malaysia for asserting control over activist religiousity.

But a huge question over freedom of religion still remains. Under the Malaysian Constitution, if you are born of Malay parents, you are Malay and hence Muslim. You cannot effectively deny your faith for that would be apostacy and would be subject to Sharia Law.

Will write something longer another day but have expended time and brain-power writing response to argument for abstinence-only policy and quasi-homophobia on Young Republic.


Friday, March 25, 2005

*I shave my data with Occam's Razor, what do you do?*

Some interesting events...

1. There's a kiosk in Jurong Point selling what I would term God Pop or Christian Chic. Clothes, accessories and little sign plates that talk about how cool Christianity or Jesus is... *Roll eyes* I don't agree with alot of Chrisitian doctrine or even with the existence of a Judeo-Christian God but there's some rigour in the analysis of various Church Fathers and Protestant Intellectuals (about as far as it can be rigourous without questioning basic tenents of faith admittedly). But the stuff they are advocating is Doctrine-Lite. Well at least they were selling anything controvesial.

2. Stepped into a video arcade after a whole hiatus. Was watching a game called virtual soccer (I remember the original version, not sure what version is currently in the arcades now). The graphics were pretty good, but what was mind blowing was the realism. If you play as France and play Spain away, when your black players go onto the field, you can actually hear the racist taunts. Just joking...=P But to be honest, they did take the idea of realism too far. What was annoying to the nth degree were the stupid ADVERTISING BOARDS ON THE PITCH. I mean, what the hell? I don't mind product placements in games or movies generally but I feel terribly offended by the idea of having to pay to see Fuji Films when I run down the field.

3. Saw something odd outside the arcade. They put up a notice stating quite clearly that under no circumstances were people (EVEN if they had graduated from the place) were to be permitted into the arcade if they were wearing any piece of clothing that show signs of affiliation to any institute of learning (including Universities). Which begs two questions, 1) Can they do that? 2) Why the hell would they want to do that?
The law states (though I have no idea where) that people under the age of 16 are not allowed into arcades before 6:30 p.m. Okay, I can buy that but where's the link of disallowing people who are above the age of 16 (JC, Poly and Uni) from wearing a school clothing?

4. Some Idiot made a really racist comment during a seminar given by Dr. Vivian Balakrisnan. I saw it's time to meet intolerance with intolerance. So the next time someone makes an intolerant comment, try to make them see the error of their ways. If they can't or don't shout them down.


Thursday, March 24, 2005

L39 Fighter Jet from I Want One Of Those

This is absolutely mind-blowing!!!

It seems they sold a couple of these things before they got stopped from selling them.

Wednesday, March 23, 2005

*Things that cropped up*

Watched the practice yesterday (yes I know that I should have been rehearsing for my moots). Terribly inspired by the opening by this character called Danny Craig - he's some legend in civil law in the school and he did a brilliant fantastic 'Theory of the Case'. It honestly blew me away...

Watched the West Wing two nights ago. Had read the Ridge over the weekend, laughable piece of 'analysis' called "Terrorism and the 'New Equation'" which not only lack objectivity, had numerous spurious and lousy argumentation and what seemed to be a wilfull disregard of the facts...*bah*. I mean, putting it in opinions and editorials is one thing...but analysis?!!!!

Anyway, sat down thinking I would type a quick reply and send it off to the Ridge as a reminder that I still wanted to write for them and also as a form of catharsis. Quick letter turned into 4 page article in the following two hours. Being proof-read and edited by Her now so maybe I'll put it up once it's done.

Tuesday, March 22, 2005

CNN.com - Jury?deliberates?deadly human smuggling case - Mar 21, 2005

I think people who prey upon the desperation of others and yet do not even fulfill the minimum criteria of a simple duty of care to ensure their safety ought to be punished to the full majesty of the law (I don't condone capital punishment so I guess that would have to be consecutive life sentences).

But I think, that there's alot to be said for a less restrictive system/regime of immigration coupled with major developmental projects to help those nations suffering structural economic problems such that their citizens are not driven to risk their health, lives and safety simply for the right to earn a decent living. As long as the economic pressures exist and hope exists elsewhere, barring a perfect form of enforcement and detriment, there will be people willing to undertake tremendously dangerous journeys whether across the desert (from Mexico to US) or the sea (to Australia and USA: Europe's land linked which makes the journey much easier)

I think President Bush made a very good point and a step in the right direction when he advocated a form of temporary work permits to allow illegal workers to work legally and to travel back and forth from their country of origin. Similarly, guess worker permits are a serious consideration of John Howard's government. It's worth noting that if one contrast's Pueto Rico and Mexico (both basically poorer nations), the former has unlimited right of entry and work whereas Mexico comes under much more stringent rules. Yet the problem of overstayers and illegal immigrants is practically non-existant for the Pueto Ricans. Part of it is of course one of definition (they don't need to sneak over the border) but the other is that the stakes of leaving the USA is not as high. Illegal migrants from Mexico don't dare go back because they won't know if they'll be able to get back.

Most emphirical studies have shown that immigration leads to a net benefit to the host nation. However, it must be admitted that unless the migrant has a high school education or above, the likely result would be a small net loss. Of course, this discounts the fact that for many in these developed nations (or even in Singapore and particularly in Japan and Saudi Arabia), we don't have to do DDD (Dirty, Dangerous, Difficult) jobs. These migrants often do. Malaysia is feeling the pinch now that a estimated 600,000 illegal workers have left.

But for the type of immigrants that we 'want', this of course leads to accusations that we favour foreign talent over local ones etc. But more importantly, this does lead to a major brain drain that that be very detrimental to the country of origin. Certain nations have a shortage of health care workers because they have been lured to countries like Britain with much higher wages. Other professionals do so similar. And while the expartiated money is always a nice boost to the economy, the loss of skills can lead to unquantifiable losses. Granted that some of these professionals do go back and bring back the skills they learned in their host nation (see Jamaica)

At any rate, I think we're muddling our way to a equilibrium and things will probably get better but let us help it along ya?



In other news, maybe it's time for us liberals to stop playing nice. If conservatives of any stripe refuse to play nice with us and want to asser their views over others. Why don't we do the same to them as well?

Intolerance towards Intolerance I say!

CNN.com - War of words over Schiavo continues - Mar 22, 2005

A sad case really, woman in persistent vegetative state who had prior to this incident indicated her desire not to live in this condition. Husband is attempting to honour her wishes and has suceeded in removing her feeding tube after a very long and protracted battle with his wife's parents who are, essentially, hoping for a miracle.

This is a scene played out in quite a few of these cessation of treatment cases. And the truely note-worthy feature in this case was Congress with the backing of President Bush signing a piece of legislation yesterday pushing the hearing of this case up from the state level (which has repeatedly upheld the wishes of her husband) to the federal level where the battle swings in the balance (not least because of the makeup of the US Supreme Court)

If this had been England, there really would have been no problem. Doctors are allowed to act in the best interest of their patients which includes acceeding to the wishes of their legal guardians and stopping life support. It says alot about the religous organisations in the USA that they have managed to push it in this fashion.

Anyway, for those who have never consider the possibility, do think about what you would like to do if you were in such a position. If you do not wish to be permamently on life support, sign an Advance Medical Directive (AMD)/ Living Will and make the decision for yourself. Or tell your family and relatives what your wishes are.


Saturday, March 19, 2005

*Training Spar with the lads and gals from HCJC*

Kudos to HC for very gallently and valiantly responding to our case..=P

Motion: THBT Penguins should be given shelter (Courtesy of Divya)

Now there are a number of ways one could run this debate of course, amongst which are:

1) Normal environmental debate on the need to protect endangered species (Are penguins endangered?)

2) Squirrel it somewhat to Bush's plan for the Artic Wilderness Drilling Plan (going to Alaska to drill for oil -> Best case scenario, it feeds 10% of what the USA consumes. So much for energy self sufficiency)

3) Penguin = Red Hat = Open-Source Software. Hence the need to protect open source software in the uncompetitive consumer market by unbundling Windows ala the EU anti-trust ruling.

Guess which we did...*big evil gwin*

Thursday, March 17, 2005

BBC NEWS | Business | In quotes: Wolfowitz reaction

Quick primer: World Bank used to be called World Bank for Development and Reconstruction which should give you some indication of what they do. Created after WW2 to help rebuild Europe. During the Cold War, funneling of money to keep nasty (and some nice) regimes in power and maintain influence so that the Communist did not. As you can see, massive political considerations do come into play despite this supposedly being an...um...I don't know what to call it, an aid agency with strings attached? Note that some of these strings are attached by 'well meaning' NGOs and not simply the USA.

To be contrasted with the IMF, which is the lender of last resort i.e. everyone including junk bond traders and your mother have given up on you. Traditionally, the job has gone to an American while the IMF goes to a European.

Anyway, what tickled my little brain was something about the World Bank not going to be 'pro-poor' and I have absolutely no idea what the hell these NGOs and agencies are talking about seeing as they screw up these countries with their voodoo economics and inappropriate (environmental) policy. Or maybe these groups aren't speaking to each other.

Right, my politics go left, my economics generally goes right. So I'm pretty much a firm believer in globalisation and I think in the huge majority of circumstances, Globalisation and free trade is a good thing. And similarly, the environment does have, in the short run, a trade off with the economy. There's no running from that, the best thing really to do is to minimise the environmental impact, get the economy going so people (literally) have the energy and resources to do something about it.

So what is being pro-poor? Not sprouting things like fair trade (paying a fair price for the goods...no i have no idea what that means either) and labour standards (way too often a means of protectionism for 1st world workers who can't compete on productivity. you think this is some communist utopia? workers of the world unite indeed) and MNC oppresion (for only paying 50% the average worker's salary instead of 1st world salaries i suppose).

Ah heck...cheerios!

Wednesday, March 16, 2005

*Shaun wants a long long hiatus*

Day-dreaming of a long long holiday on a wind-swept beach with white sands along a coast that stretches as far as the eye can see unaided. Her, good book, laptop with satelite uplink, beach chair and non-stop flow of alcoholic fruity tropical drinks.

And of course, robotic minions of darkness who will help me launch an invasion of the island and subjugate the native animals who I will then transform into my organic minions of darkness.

From that island I will launch a wave of benevolent attacks all around the World. Once all independent nations are under my control, I will reign as the benevolent dictator who will bring an unprecedented wave of happiness, peace and prosperity all around the world.

Okay...that day dream took a distressing turn there, but I still want a break.

Sunday, March 13, 2005

*Raccous cheers prematurely ended by threat of litigation*

Finally finally finished with the stupid (erm...I meant thought provoking and challenging) criminal law assignment. Ye pan-dimensional deities, can't believe how much time this ONE assignment has consumed. Kinda like how a nation like the USA with a population of 265 million (as of 1995) can produce 26.4% of global carbon dioxide emissions. Or even how people could believe in religion for that matter.

Anyway, have decided to stop railing at what I though was truely horrible articles ('analysis' of the USA elections and a fictatous piece about casinos which was mind blowing only in the sense of a lack of oxygen reaching one's brain due to non-stop laughing) in the Ridge (NUS student paper) and decided to write for them instead (if they want me).

Figure I could get more people to rail at my views if they actually knew what it was...=P Who knows, maybe one day I'll inspire demonstrations against me.


Tuesday, March 08, 2005

Defining the enlarged EU

Okay...so the new eastern european states have supposedly 'hijacked' the discourse on the EU to focus upon low taxes, liberalization and competition and this is bad how?

Monday, March 07, 2005

*Due to Time Constrains*

Velly velly busy right now. One week criminal law take home examination followed by final moot memorial and then the actual moots themselves.

Moots: Arguing before the court. 'Nuff said

So those of you actually expecting updates =P will have to wait for quite a while.

In the meantime, cheerios.

Saturday, March 05, 2005

*Irreverant thoughts of the day*

1. Does the Academy Awards hate Martin Scorsese?
2. Is that guy really the ex-business times editor? Wait maybe he's an intel officer coz he sure can't write. I don't support a casino vote but the way he rights is logically fallacious and downright condesending. Wait....maybe that's reverse psychology at work.. Damn those intel people!
3. I don't support a vote for the casino coz I don't like religious nuts f*cking dictating our national policy. Don't tell me what I can or cannot do by trying to quote some mythological literature or ancient chinese dude to prove why you're 'right'. I'll have to be under the influence of some serious weed or a major lobotomy before that happens.
4. Are the Miss Singapore Universe ladies truly unappealing or is simply inapt makeup and camera work?
5. Man, were those bikinis ugly.