Author: Grievous

Blackberry Storm – Second Look

One comment

The replacement Blackberry Storm which RIM sent from their HK Office actually arrived one week after I bricked the original set. I had managed to obtain it during the Vesak Day weekend for a second look.

It doesn’t look very much different from the previous set except this set has some East Asian language support – except for Japanese. Even though it maybe a fact that the Japanese has more superior 3G handsets, I find it odd that this Storm has no Japanese language support. Perhaps, it was just left out when it left the factory.

As a result of my previous experience, I find this Storm much easier to handle than the previous set. In fact, while it takes a bit of getting used to (which is the same when you moved from a Blackberry with a scroll-wheel to a scroll-ball one), the interface and performance is not as atrocious as what I have read. Basically, I failed to understand the bad reviews and comments I keep seeing in Twitter or in blogs about the Storm. While it may not be an iPhone killer and it may not live up to the performance expectations of some Blackberry users, it is still a beautiful set.

Anyway, on demand by some friends that I made some screen shots, I downloaded JL_Cmder (a javaloader utility) a while ago to capture them directly off the Storm instead of taking photos of it. I even deliberately touch some buttons so it will light up when the screen shot is captured. Enjoy!


OS Version
Wallpaper & Keypad
Main Screen #1

Main Screen #2
Phone Dialer
Browser in Portrait Mode

Zoom In (Portrait Mode)
Browser in Landscape Mode
Full Keyboard

Switching Languages

Movie – Star Trek (2009)

3 comments

WARNING: SPOILERS INCLUDED!!

It’s been a really long time since I watched a movie in a cinema and I can’t even really remember what was the last one. So I was quite happy when xinyun invited me to join her, chillycraps and a few other friends to watch Star Trek at Cathay on Saturday.

I had originally thought that this movie would be just an ‘origins’ kinda story, i.e. how the crew of the USS Enterprise came together and become the experienced and cohesive unit we see in the TV series.

To my shocking surprise, it was more than that. J.J. Abrams has done to Star Trek what Christopher Nolan had done to the Batman story. In some ways, this is necessary because it is my opinion the last 2 films, Insurrection and Nemesis, has been as bad as, if not worse than the Batman movies starring Val Kilmer and George Clooney.

Unfortunately for J.J. Abrams, and the script writers of this movie, it is not as easy to write a script to give Star Trek a new beginning. This particular movie has done way more than just giving the movie a fresh start, it has also destroyed a large part of what some Trekkers considered canon. To put it in the words of a Trekker friend, the destruction of Vulcan is akin to the killing of Anakin Skywalker when he is a boy, and creating a brand new Star Wars universe. If you do not understand the Star Wars analogy, my friend is simply saying this is sort of like taking a time machine back and wipe LKY from the history books, and whatever happens after that will then be unknown.

My feelings aside, I would say that the movie’s pretty well done. The graphics are definitely a marked improvement over the old ones, and the script writer has managed to keep up the suspense in the story throughout. There are many lighter parts as well, like Kirk being caught in the room during a rendezvous by his partner’s room mate, Sulu forgetting to disengage the ‘inertia dampers’ (simply, the brakes) before engaging warp speed, and Chekov’s funny accent all add on to the enjoyment of the movie without breaking the suspense. However, it might not please the Trekkers as this may have made the movie more like a comedy than a sci-fi.

Whatever the case is, I enjoyed the movie thoroughly, though I must personally say I am not sure whether the direction the story is taking is positive or negative. But just as people pass on and a new generation replaces the old, perhaps Star Trek is also undergoing a remake to keep up with the times and cater to a new generation of movie goers.

I felt a little sad however, since it sort of mark the passing of an era… and it once again reminds me of my mortality.

Random Thoughts – Immigrants, Citizenship & Singlish

Leave a comment

In my previous article I mentioned the concern of a friend who mentioned that an increase in homosexuals may further impact the birthrate in Singapore. The end result maybe even further relaxing of immigration laws to maintain our population growth. While the many Singaporeans who remain single, and those who are married but do not intend to have children ‘contribute’ most to the low birthrate, I am sure most of us can agree that we do not need another factor to aggravate the problem.

The other concern is having more foreign immigrants may only set back our nation building and increase the level of disharmony in our society since new immigrants may not respect our traditions, our values and our way of life. This reminded me of a really minor incident that happened several weeks ago at a handphone shop in People’s Park Complex, though this probably did not involve individual(s) who recently obtained Singapore citizenship.

Excerpts: April 28, 2009 (Tue) [The NewPaper NudePaper]
In Singapore, it is not uncommon to hear someone address a female stranger as ‘xiao jie’ [小姐, miss in Mandarin].

But that was also what got him into hot water with the woman, a Chinese national.

Why?

In China, the term ‘xiao jie’ is often used to mean ‘prostitute’. It is seen as disrespectful to address a woman as ‘xiao jie’ there. (See report below.)

I find it amusing that a salesman who addressed a woman from China who walked by his shop as ‘xiao jie’ got him into hot water. Not to mention that the report mentioned that the salesman who called out to her came from Malaysia. If I hadn’t read through the article, I would have thought this to be a case of mistaken identity by some local Ah Beng in a second hand mobile phone shop either in City Plaza near Paya Lebar MRT or some old shop houses in Geylang.

What the heck, really? For ages Singaporeans addresses ladies as ‘xiao jie’ out of courtesy. No one has taught us that it meant anything offensive – be it night club hostess or prostitute. The fact that it has independently evolved in China to carry those negative connotations doesn’t mean it applies here as well! There is certainly no special meaning behind that term nor is there any intention to insult by doing so. Perhaps, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) should work with the Chinese Embassy on some familiarisation courses for PRC (People’s Republic of China) citizens coming to Singapore to avoid such misunderstanding. Or as another friend jokingly say, have this said in the announcement on incoming flights: possession and trafficking of drugs in Singapore carries the death sentence, and in Singapore ‘xiao jie’ is a polite term and does not mean prostitute。 [在新加坡拥有和走私毒品可能处以死刑，还有小姐在新加坡是友善的称呼，并没有妓女的意思。].

Funny, but it is such incidents that convinced my friend and I in some way, that an increase in immigrants will only retard our nation building efforts. It had already worried us when a woman during the AWARE EOGM said she has no confidence in a dominantly Christian and Chinese ExCo in taking care of her concerns. To me, this person is the testimony that 44 years after our separation from Malaysia, Singaporeans remained independent of one another due to our race and religion. By making that comment, this person had trampled upon our national pledge. With this in mind, we are concerned that an further increase in foreign immigrants will only add or amplify another problem: former nationality.

It is reasonable that some of us will be concerned with the loyalty of new citizens. In fact, not too long ago I was told an Indonesian undergrad in one of our local universities complained about her Indonesian citizenship, and expressed her desire to be a Singaporean – simply because of the difficulty to obtain visas to enter the Russian Federation as a result of her Indonesian nationality.

Several days later, the same undergrad accused the Singapore authorities of covering up in the case of NTU Student David Widjaja. The best part here is, she is not a NTU student but had expressed ‘outrage’ at the local authorities even before the investigations are completed simply because she is also Indonesian. Granted she isn’t a former Indonesian turned Singaporean (yet!), but we are reasonably worried that some new immigrants would behave likewise, and share such sentiments when it comes to cases involving people of their former nationality. If such people applied for Singapore citizenship merely for the matter of convenience, and they are actually granted citizenship, it would only debase its value. To me personally, it further reinforces the impression that serving National Service is really nothing more than a monumental waste of time.

Fortunately, my friends and I have not come across new citizens who are derisive of Singapore while they remain proud of their former nationality. But if there is ever such a day, I can only say we have ourselves to blame. There is a Chinese term for that and it is called 犯贱. I am not good with translation, but I think it carries the meaning of debasing one self, asking to be looked down upon and getting it all rolled together.

Sadly, it appears to me we are awarding citizenship not on merit but simply by the immigrants’ education level and his / her expected economic value to Singapore. As long as they have stayed here long enough, simply being a graduate, or making a certain amount of money would almost automatically ensures success in citizenship application.

Anyway, before I end, let me say this, stop beating down Singlish – it is the only thing that is a true product of our nation building, even though it may not have been intended and merely a by-product as a result of the integration of the cultures of our people. It gives us the identity as Singaporeans and is truly the one thing that we can really call our own. It is not shameful or dirty!

To emphasize, the Malaysians I chat with over Windows Live Messenger or exchange emails within the Kuwakchai game writes in a mix of Cantonese, Hokkien, Malay and English. To me it adds color and flavor to the conversation and it gives them an identity distinct from ours. So, the language nazis can go do to themselves the anatomically impossible and ease up on our true national language – Singlish.

Jokes:
Lothlorien: FAQ – Mas Selamat Recaptured

Daily Discourse: CSE and the role of MOE

S. Iswaran, Senior Minister of State for Education, gave parents the following advice when he was asked about the criticised CSE (Comprehensive Sexuality Education) programme:

Get your facts right on what is happening in Singapore schools when it comes to sex education, and do not base comments on ‘innuendo or information received on the fly’.

It is sad that this comment came from my favorite minister. Ironically, the above comment would somewhat also apply to Mr Iswaran himself, now that the CSE has been suspended by the MOE (Ministry of Education) after a thorough investigation.

I would really hope that Mr Iswaran had gave the above advise only because he was replying on the fly, sort of a knee-jerk action to defend his ministry and not because he was ill-advised by officials ‘ocifails’ working under him. If it was the latter case, then the individual(s) responsible for stumbling my favorite minister should be investigated and dealt with like those who were found to be responsible for the screw-ups leading to Mas Selamat’s escape.

Anyway, Mr Iswaran justified the ministry’s lack of action by because it had not received any complaints about CSE, and thus had no reason to intervene. Did the minister actually think the lack of complaints mean parents are aware of what their children has been taught in school?

It is really hard to believe most children know right from wrong, when it comes to sexual mores, especially when they are in their teens. Furthermore, given the fact that children and teens nowadays already have some form of wayward sex education, no thanks to the liberal arts and media and the proliferation of pornography on the Internet, would most of them provide feedback to parents who are otherwise too busy to give them the required attention during their formative years? I certainly don’t recall going home to tell my parents what I have been taught in school every day when I was schooling.

Chua Mui Hoong, of the abominable Straits Stooge Times, wrote that parents who hold the MOE or other groups responsible for teaching their children morals are simply turning over their parental responsibility to the state. But the point is, when parents are not aware that their children are taught something (or do something) that are in conflict with their own moral views, how are these parents supposed to exercise their responsibilities? Certainly, schools do not keep video recordings of the days’ classes to be made available to parents for review later, do they? Not to mention, we often found parents or family members of suspects talking about just good these people were, while completely oblivious of their other activities. But please, do not issue ‘time sheets’ to write a summary on what they have been taught each day in school as an attempt to correct this oversight. Frankly, I would be horrified if that is done!

Of course, parents has a part to play in educating their children and cannot push that responsibility to schools. A consensus must therefore be reached between parents and the schools when it comes to such issues. There’s no point in having confused kids being taught that homosexuality is a sin by their parents or elders, but is then told it is ‘neutral’ in school.

Based on the above, it is my considered opinion that the usual suspects for government gahmen propaganda can stop telling us that MOE is absolved of all responsibilities in this matter. MOE must answer to not just parents, but the general public whether ‘ocifail(s)’ of the MOE had actually studied and vetted the CSE program in the first place to make sure it conformed to MOE’s guidelines. It appeared to me though, that it was simply all left to the decisions of the schools. After all, MOE wrote in a letter: ‘the schools found that the content and messages of the sessions conducted were appropriate for their students and adhered to guidelines to respect the values of different religious groups‘. It had said nothing about its role in deciding on this matter.

If the assumption above is correct, the public must be informed on how the schools which adopted this programme come to their decisions. Was it a committee or an individual who made the decision? Beyond that, is there any mechanism in place by MOE to audit any of these processes and decisions? If the general public has no clue what goes on in this particular ‘black box’ just like me, it is clear that once again that Singapore’s main stream media (and in particular the Stooge Times) is found to be wanting in investigative journalism. Call it deteriorating journalism too, if you wish!

So, it is really is quite amazing to see that in less than a week, the MOE now decides that CSE ‘did not conform to MOE’s guidelines in some aspects’ after a thorough investigation. Does this mean that CSE was never thoroughly reviewed before its approval? Is someone either sleeping on his job or simply negligent? Or more ominously, is someone within MOE or a teacher usng his / her position to push the homosexual agenda through the backdoor? A programme which promotes homosexuality – technically still illegal under the laws of Singapore – went under the radar of the ministry and entered our schools right under our noses! Without Josie Lau and her now much vilified ex-ExCo, would we even be aware of this matter? Pity these female-activist equivalent of the 82nd or 101st Airborne… they got sort of massacre and no one even shed a tear for them!

The gahmen, and not just the MOE, should really take a more serious views on this matter and conduct an investigation to identify those responsible. This material has not only offended the sensibilities of both Muslims and Christians, but also promoted activities that are against our laws. In fact, there’s a term for this kind of activities: subversion, if not sedition.

It is my fear that if such subversive activities are unchecked, this will embolden certain elements within society to continue in such activities that will threaten and destabilised social and religious harmony in our country.

On a lighter note, two different friends (who are less extreme than I) have also expressed concern that certain undesirable developments might take place from here. The first friend expressed concern that the gahmen may take the results of the AWARE EGM as indication that our society is now more open and accepting of homosexuality and thus take action to that effect. The second friend is concerned that Singapore’s low birthrate will be further aggravated with the increase acceptance of homosexuality. In the end, he is concerned there could only be a further relaxing of laws to allow more immigrants – who may have no respect to our values and traditions, and our way of life – to make up for the loss of population.

In both cases, both have expressed that these are developments they do not wish to see.

Recommended Reads:
Call It Grace: The Queen’s Gambit
Joel Joshua Goh’s Notes: True AWAREness

Daily Discourse: Christianity vs Homosexuality

5 comments

Set piece (n) – A situation, activity, or speech planned beforehand and carried out according to a prescribed pattern or formula.

From the debate on Section 377A, to FOTF, to the current squabble at AWARE, each and everytime, Christianity found itself caught in a set piece and in the defensive. Christians are vilified as homophobes, called names, portrayed as uncaring bigots, insensitive, backwards, and brainless religious fanatics by their ‘Christian-o-phobe’ opponents.

In everyone of those situations, extremist elements of the LGBT community deliberately set the stage and define the tone of the debate – i.e. Christianity vs Homosexuality. Christians and protestant churches are sadly drawn into a meaningless debate and repeatedly portrayed as the main enemy of homosexuality. But in essence, Christians have almost no need to respond to these allegations and when they feel compelled to do so, they can respond in a manner in which they do not compromise on their core beliefs and yet avoid the labeling.

Take Section 377A for example. When the Council of Churches made their stand clear about homosexuality, Christians are therefore caught in the jaws of the vice of ‘Christianity vs Homosexuality’.

Section 377A was introduced in 1938 to criminalise all other non-penetrative sexual acts between men. ‘Gross indecency’ is a broad term which, from a review of past cases in Singapore, has been applied to mutual masturbation, genital contact, or even lewd behaviour without direct physical contact.

How the matter degenerated into one of Christians vs Homosexuals is quite beyond me. It is a law that specifically criminalise male homosexual acts in public, not one that targets the entire LGBT.

Perhaps like I was for some time, this is confused with the now repealed Section 377 which also covered sodomy. However, Section 377 in particular is not a homosexual specific law, but would also target heterosexuals performing those acts – for e.g. a husband forcing his unwilling wife into sodomy or fellatio or a pervert sodomising a little boy. Granted, that other legislations may be used to covered these aspects, Church / Christians would have done better to point out that this is the core matter they want to defend, which may thus find more acceptance among even non-Christians, and leave the extremists of the LGBT to scream at the four winds. On top of which, Section 377 in particular covers also other manners of sexual acts repulsive to most human beings – necrophilia, bestiality and pedophilia.

Thus, when I looked at how the debate continue to degenerate and the deeper Christians / Church falls into the trap, it really makes me wonder that whether Christians fall into the logic trap that their morality is superior to that of non-believers and even if that maybe true – do they actually believe that non-believers are completely lacking in morality? Even those who do not believe have a certain conscience too, yes? Clearly there are certain things that even common people would find repulsive and Christianity would do a lot better pointing that out! Even when not everyone can be made a Christian, Jesus commanded us to be the salt and light of the world and isn’t doing our part to prevent a further slide into immorality doing just that?

And before any one starts screaming that I am saying that homosexuality is immoral, let me explain. Take for e.g. when Christians brought up the matter of the spread of AIDS or STD/VDs as a point in defense, they should point out the core issue here is opposition to promiscuity. And promiscuity not only among homosexuals, but also heterosexuals. At the very minimum, even when Christianity may not agree with LGBT, Christianity is still for faithfulness between partners, and the question now to those LGBT beating their chest against Christianity will be – Are you in support of a promiscuous lifestyle that even when most parts of society disagree?

Christians should really waste no more time debating why there is an issue with homosexual sex when it is sex between two consenting adults. After all, as much as homosexuals are entitled to how they want their sex life to be, Christians are entitled to their right to disagree. It is the same as how Christians would disagree with a compulsive gambler or one going to the prostitutes but we see far less conflict coming from that. So, let’s freaking just agree to disagree, forever, and move on to the next and more important issue. Is it not the same with homosexuals, when even most heterosexuals would be upset about unfaithful partners?

I am not suggesting that all LGBT is promiscuous, but clearly when they asked to be viewed normally, then I would really take a step back, not as a Christian but as any other human being, and attempt to consider all aspects of homosexuality with a heterosexual mindset. Do LGBT not agree that promiscuity is a real issue, be it for homosexuals or heterosexuals?

Do we all not put our feet down on promiscuity, which may destroy any relationship – both heterosexual and homosexual? Does society in general not frown upon people who goes around hitting on partners for nothing more than to satisfy their lust? Clearly the image of swingers going around looking for partners, is repulsive to many. When homosexual swingers hit on even straight people, does that not go forth to present homosexuality in a bad image? What fault is there for Christianity to point that out? Or is the LGBT actually suggesting to us all that promiscuity is alright, or in fact, exclusively theirs?

Next, the matter of FOTF. Again FOTF is shown to be a Christian organisation with programs against LGBT – as such, it is anti-LGBT. Yet again the specter of Christian homophobia is raised to vilify Christians. But look deeper at the matter, if it has been a organisation called FOPH (Focus of Personal Health), with programs that encourages people to focus on health and give up on smoking and fatty food, is FOPH thus anti-smokers and anti-obese people? Certainly, I find less outrage in smokers being treated worse than common criminals – outcast from pubs and public buildings, and cornered to a limited space to smoke even in open-air eateries.Why is that? If we are talking about inclusiveness, clearly we have left the smokers out.

Finally, the AWARE matter. It annoys me to no end that the Straits Stooge Times has dug up much significant details not just about the faith of the new ExCo, but has invaded their privacy by listing who their spouse are, their occupation and the number of children they have. No one considered that an invasion of privacy and even applaud the Stooge Times for it, over nothing more than the allegation that the new ExCo will be less inclusive. (Surprisingly, other than the fact she has been an ex-president of AWARE, there is very little said about a particular Dana Lim, whose name has appeared in the very first article, and now in a video exhorting people to turn up for the AWARE EOGM on May 2nd.)

But what is the issue here other that the fact that the ExCo has been Christians? The matter become a problem because Christians have repeatedly allowed the brown shirts of the LGBT to continue labeling and portraying them as anti-LGBT by default. The Stooge Times clearly did them a ‘great favor’ by digging up past letters on the Section 377 debate. To put it in an analogy, it is as if a cheerful butcher at the market has been portrayed as one taking joy in chopping parts dead animals, will in effect definitely be a sadistic murderer.

Has the public forgotten that the new ExCo hasn’t even done anything, other than their ‘hostile take over’? I would have thought that even common criminals are assumed innocent until proven guilty. But yet the new ExCo has been judged as being an exclusive club, being non-inclusive and would be thus not helpful to non-Christian and not just lesbian women too.

Woo… just how the goal posts have shifted from the earlier Christianity vs LGBT now to Christianity vs the world! I am amazed at how the tactics get dirtier day by day and sadly no one has noticed this. Then someone like Gwee Li Sui scores an own goal. Reminds me of a scene in Hamburger Hill, where the Marines were in the midst of taking the position and there comes a UH-1H gunship which machine-gunners gunned down the Marines. Thank you very much, Gwee.

There are of course some Christians (and Christians on both sides of the debate), who would not agree with some of my views here. But it is my considered opinion that it is high time Christianity avoid getting itself into such set pieces, and when they do get into it, evolves new tactics to get themselves out of the situation and come out gunning, scoring some goals of their own.

Recommended Reads:
Call it Grace: Confronting Idols
Where Bears Roam Free: Sectarian Christians replaced by Sectarian Gays – So what’s the difference?

1 … 48 49 50 51 52 … 186