Eye-catching procession

Alien-pricing for this mobile phone?

Singaporean companies are getting more creative at promoting their products and name.

The group even stopped of its own accord to let me grab a good pic.

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone

Cute oldie in train

My attention was caught by that little blue towel on her head. I thought, "Not another weirdo in public," then refrained myself.

This cute old lady may look silly vis-a-vis current societal norms, but she is one of those who went before us slogging away to gain the 'future' we have now.

Education is a good leveller of the playing field, true. Let us not forget and disdain though those who did not have that benefit, what more them who paid, in a way, for that levelling.


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone

An alternative view to pay and service

This is an article from the Washington Post which highlights a governmental system and monetary sacrifices that contrast with our gahmen's approach. Maybe Singapore, being small and without natural resources, has not much room for the trials and errors that the US has under undergone over the decades. It also has a smaller pool of talent to tap on for political office and a smaller scale of intangible rewards vis-a-vis the largest economy in the world. Do that then justify the pay scales of our political masters? The debate rages on.

==========================================

Country First

By Richard Cohen
Tuesday, April 7, 2009; A23

The recent headlines about Lawrence Summers had it all wrong. They announced with an implied breathlessness that he earned around $8 million last year -- much of it from the hedge fund D.E. Shaw. Here's what I would have written: "Man Takes More Than $7.9 Million Cut in Pay." Somewhere in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, the bible of shrinks, there should be an entry for "public servant." They are all, bless their hearts, a little nuts.

Mine, of course, is not an approach that Screaming Cable TV takes to such people. They are all crooks, up to here -- wherever "here" may be -- in conflicts of interest and perks, and too dim to succeed in the vaunted private sector. But the truth is otherwise. There are, it turns out, successful people who would give up big bucks and much of their privacy to work for you and me. It's virtually un-American.

Summers is clearly one of these people. D.E. Shaw paid him $5.2 million last year to meet with important clients. In addition, he lent the firm his expertise as a crack economist, and it, in turn, provided him with an idea of how a wildly successful hedge fund works. At the same time, Summers made around $2.7 million in speaking fees from other organizations and companies. He was, to use a technical (micro) economic term, on easy street.

Yet he chucked it all for an office on the street of broken dreams, Pennsylvania Avenue. So did national security adviser James L. Jones, who was earning about $2 million a year. David Axelrod, who had been running public affairs firms before going into the White House, kissed away at least the $1.5 million he earned last year and sold his stake in his companies. Other members of the Obama team similarly unburdened themselves of excess wealth, spare time and privacy, proving that money is not everything.

This is the dirty little secret of Washington. I don't mean to characterize these or other administration aides as the functional equivalent of Trappist monks, since they enjoy the attention, the power and -- above all -- the action. They are doing something substantive, important -- sometimes making life-or-death decisions and gaining, if they are lucky, a mention in a history book. It is not a life without any compensation.

There are few among us who would take a multimillion-dollar pay cut. Yes, you could say, someone like Summers could make it back, but that's not really -- or always -- the case. Take Tom Daschle. Here was a man who was not trying to build a career. He is 61, and his career is largely behind him. Yet he was willing to give up a lucrative lobbying practice to go back into government as secretary of health and human services. It turns out he cared more about reforming health care than he did about building a fortune. He didn't make it into the Cabinet, foiled by a humiliating spot of trouble about taxes that he could have avoided just by staying where he was and raking in the money.

In Ronald Reagan's famous formulation, "government is not the solution to our problems; government is the problem." This statement, at the very heart of the so-called Reagan Revolution, denigrated government and the people in it. Reagan's statement withdrew John F. Kennedy's invitation to the intellectually gifted to come to Washington and see what they could do for their country. Reagan sent a different message. Government service is for the lame, the cautious. If you really want to do something for your country, shun Washington and make money. It was morning again in America -- whatever that meant.

It is to Barack Obama's immense credit that he has reversed Reagan's reversal. Washington crackles with people on a mission. Brains are once again in vogue, if only because Obama has them in abundance. Not for him the aw-shucks affectation of the previous eight years, when instinct was extolled and ideology trumped analysis. We are in a mess, and one of the reasons is that people who might have noticed or done something about it had been told to stay out of government.

In our scandal-soaked culture, it is de rigueur to denigrate public officials and to search for the inevitable conflict of interest. But here are people, such as Summers, who have put aside wealth and lavish perks for government service. They have their reasons, sure, but whatever they are, we -- not they -- are the richer for it.

cohenr@washpost.com

Much as I dislike to admit this in myself, I have inadvertently entertained racist notions, conveniently slipped into stereotypical thought patterns or been guilty of bigotry. Definitely not something to be proud of. Thankfully, experience has given me more awareness and humility (so I hope).

In recent years, the idea of "respect" has increasingly been bantered around my consciousness. That's a lot of what civilisation is about. Everyone has a story to tell; every person is deserving of respect; and every human being can fail.

And that is something to consider vis a vis the foreign workers brouhaha. To me, it's an ugly reflection of the class mentality that we humans exhibit from childhood. Because you don't score A's, are not good-looking, don't wear Nike shoes (my generation), don't hang with the cool crowd, you are not as good.

In adulthood, it's the house, the car, the size of the bank account, who you mix with, your title, that marks you as special. Sure, it's good to go for the best, be the best that one can be, but that doesn't imply that those who slog away in construction sites, at coffeeshops, as sales assistants, etc. are inferior. Sometimes, it's the luck of the draw, and who is to judge?

Because every human being is deserving of respect, and the same human being fails.

Talk about lust. It doesn't matter the colour of the skin or the occupations, the "colour wolves" are present across the spectrum. Men in power (relatively) have tried to take advantage of me and a humble steel worker has treated me with respect. Conversely, an ah pek tries to "bump" into me and another makes doubly sure I have enough room to feel comfortable on the bus seat next to him.

Foreign workers have shown me more simple courtesy than our well-togged chinese executive-types. Dressed in their work clothes, smelling of sweat, not a few have paused to let me climb up the bus first, while similarly, not a few chinese executives have "cut the queue" so to speak, up the bus. The reverse happens too.

It boils down to humanity. Not skin colour, not clothes, not money, not jobs, not the accessories. I like how the authors of this fluffy, slash and burn, novel series (The Destroyer), put it:

Said the driver, "Don't tell me that if we didn't have coloureds, the crime rate wouldn't drop."

"It would drop even faster if we didn't have people," said Remo.

Society in transition?

A girl in her early twenties, wearing this really short long-sleeved baby doll dress, boarded the bus with her boyfriend, and made to climb up to the upper deck. I wondered in a clinical sort of way if she would be able to cover her posterior if she was careful while climbing up, then wondered if the boyfriend would be able to cover her effectively since he let her go up first and followed behind.

I looked on idly and unexpectedly saw the boyfriend reach his hands up to her posterior to playfully do something (it happened so fast I didn't catch what he did). She turned around immediately and said "hey" with a laugh. In the process she was exposed so to speak, and I was surprised to have witnessed this intimate moment.

Later in the afternoon, I was on a bridge walking from Suntec to Marina Square and noticed this middle-aged man walking the same way with a cane and a weird gait. I felt sorry for him... till I saw his left hand seemingly clasped around something in the lower area and moving up and down.

My first thoughts were: "What is he doing? ... This cannot be. In broad daylight? Maybe my eyes are playing tricks on me." So I glanced sideways when I walked past him and it still looked like he was being lewd.

I was a coward... and probably conservative in a sense too. I couldn't bring myself to turn around and look at him directly to confirm this for a fact, and so, I simply walked on.

It was a little weird how I stumbled upon these two incidents within the day when normally, I hardly ever see such things happen, except in the papers. It's Singapore after all, or maybe because it is Singapore after all.

Flower biker's patriotism

Have been meaning to post this but kept procrastinating. Saw this during the NDP period. Residents at housing estates are putting up less flags, but the flower biker keeps at it and rather proudly too, going by the number of flags on his vehicle.

Plugging the gaps

The Straits Times published an infographic (see table below) yesterday showing the type of aid the government gives to Singaporeans.

Old folks specifically get Medisave top-ups and Senior Citizens' Bonus. They may receive Workfare Income Supplement if they work, HDB rebates on rent and fees, and help through grassroots, self-help and welfare groups.

Is it sufficient? I say no -- for many at least. This is the generation that slogged to bring about the economic prosperity we see now but how much of it do they share? Meritocracy rewards abilities and gifts but what general is one if he has no good ground troops?

A family friend used up all his Medisave to treat a chronic condition and is now almost penniless. His children can hardly support themselves, he needs to see the doctor and he comes having to ask for a "loan". When given the money, he breaks into tears -- for? I believe the relief and the humiliation of it.

He gets Medisave top-ups, Senior Citizens Bonus which are not that much to begin with. He is sick and can hardly work, so no Workfare help for him. He is not well read, not Internet savvy, he doesn't even know what aid groups are there for him. And most who have earned their own keep all their lives don't like to ask for help, all the more so from strangers.

Where does that leave him?

Our government is known for its efficiency. The top-down approach has been applied for many issues; to name some recently highlighted ones: Environmental protection and civic consciousness.

Then for this crucial group of society who have given much to the nation, why not utilise a top-down approach more aggressively too? I believe the government has said that there should be more voluntary welfare organisations to help the down and out. But why not lead the way with a top-down approach? If the issue or the group is important enough, surely...

Regardless that the old folks worked for a living and likely not with the higher purpose of nation building, they contributed.

There is now some form of a one-stop contact point for all government related applications, (I don't have the correct terms now), so why not a one-stop contact point for social help? One that will cut through red tape and move with speed and compassion to help? One that can be publicised extensively so that the old folks know where they can go? Instead of sporadic efforts.

Yes it will take money and resources, and it shouldn't become just a lumbering giant of a social welfare scheme that drags down the country, but how much effort and priority has been even given to thinking this through by those in power?

How Government helps Singaporeans to cope*

Support schemes	Amount
Growth Dividends given to all Singaporeans following the large Budget surplus	$865 million
GST Credits given as cash to Singaporeans to offset the 2-point rise in GST and Senior Citizens’ Bonus for those 55 and older, and whose income is not beyond $100,000	$560 million
Post-Secondary Education Account top-ups for students from age 7 to 20 to fund their studies here	$500 million
Medisave top-ups to help older Singaporeans with medical bills	$226 million
Workfare Income Supplement for workers earning $1,500 or less a month	$300 million
Rebates on rent plus utilities, service and conservancy charges given to HDB homes	$200 million
Personal Income Tax rebates of 20 per cent but capped at $2,000	$380 million
Property Tax rebates	$100 million
Money given to grassroots and self-help groups, and voluntary welfare organisations to help needy Singaporeans over four years	$20 million
Total cost to Government	$3.15 billion

* Taken from The Straits Times on 14 Aug 2008.

A class difference?

I had a discussion with a friend the other day on how privileged kids who grow up in comfort surrounded by material wealth and "elite experiences" may lack a certain empathy towards others or humility, unless the parents take care to inculcate proper values in them. My friend was playing, quite gleefully, the devil's advocate, but I think we agreed on the issue. Academic ability, wanton wealth, position and power do not a better man make.

If only many more of the "upper socio-economic class" people are like Lee Wei Ling.

The article below by Lee Wei Ling appeared today in The Straits Times.
================================
Doing what's right without fear or favour

I was born and bred in Singapore. This is my home, to which I am tied by family and friends. Yet many Singaporeans find me eccentric, though most are too polite to verbalise it. I only realised how eccentric I am when one friend pointed out to me why I could not use my own yardstick to judge others.

I dislike intensely the elitist attitude of some in our upper socio-economic class. I have been accused of reverse snobbery because I tend to avoid the wealthy who flaunt their wealth ostentatiously or do not help the less fortunate members of our society.

I treat all people I meet as equals, be it a truck driver friend or a patient and friend who belongs to the richest family in Singapore.

I appraise people not by their usefulness to me but by their character. I favour those with integrity, compassion and courage. I feel too many among us place inordinate emphasis on academic performance, job status, appearance and presentation.

I am a doctor and director of the smallest public sector hospital in Singapore, the National Neuroscience Institute (NNI). I have 300 staff, of whom 100 are doctors. I emphasise to my doctors that they must do their best for every patient regardless of paying status. I also appraise my doctors on how well they care for our patients, not by how much money they bring in for NNI.

My doctors know I have friends who are likely to come in as subsidised patients. I warn them that if I find them not treating any subsidised patient well, their appraisal - and hence bonus and annual salary increments - would be negatively affected. My doctors know I will do as I say.

I remind them that the purpose of our existence and the measure of our success is how well we care for all our patients - and that this is the morally correct way to behave and should be the reason why we are doctors. In NNI, almost all patients are given the best possible treatment regardless of their paying status.

My preference for egalitarianism extends to how I interact with my staff. I am director because the organisation needs a reporting structure. But my staff are encouraged to speak out when they disagree with me. This tends to be a rarity in several institutions in Singapore. The fear that one's career path may be negatively affected is what prevents many people from speaking out.

This reflects poorly on leadership. In many organisations, superiors do not like to be contradicted by those who work under them. Intellectual arrogance is a deplorable attitude.

'Listen to others, even the dull and ignorant; they too have their story,' the Desiderata tells us. It is advice we should all heed - especially leaders, especially doctors.

I speak out when I see something wrong that no one appears to be trying to correct. Not infrequently, I try to right the wrong. In doing so, I have stepped on the sensitive toes of quite a few members of the establishment. As a result, I have been labelled 'anti-establishment'. Less kind comments include: 'She dares to do so because she has a godfather'.

I am indifferent to these untrue criticisms; I report to my conscience; and I would not be able to face myself if I knew that there was a wrong that I could have righted but failed to do so.

I have no protective godfather. My father, Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew, would not interfere with any disciplinary measures that might be meted out to me.

And I am not anti-establishment. I am proud of what Singapore has achieved. But I am not a mouthpiece of the government. I am capable of independent thought and I can view problems or issues from a perspective that others may have overlooked.

A few months ago, I gave a talk on medical ethics to students of our Graduate Medical School. They sent me a thank-you card with a message written by each student. One wrote: 'You are a maverick, yet you are certainly not anti-establishment. You obey the moral law.' Another wrote: 'Thank you for sharing your perspective with us and being the voice that not many dare to take.'

It would be better for Singapore's medical fraternity if the young can feel this way about all of us in positions of authority.

After the Sars epidemic in 2003, the Government began to transform Singapore into a vibrant city with arts and cultural festivals, and soon, integrated resorts and night F1. But can we claim to be a civilised first world country if we do not treat all members of our society with equal care and dignity?

There are other first world countries where the disparity between the different socio- economic classes is much more extreme and social snobbery is even worse than in Singapore. But that is no excuse for Singaporeans not to try harder to treat each other with dignity and care.

After all, both the Bible and Confucius tell us not to treat others in a way that we ourselves would not want to be treated. That is a moral precept that many societies accept in theory, but do not carry out in practice.

I wish Singapore could be an exception in this as it has been in many other areas where we have surprised others with our success.



The writer is director of the National Neuroscience Institute. Think-Tank is a weekly column rotated among eight heads of research and tertiary institutions.

What about the donor?

The debate that has been raging in our nation's main newspaper, or the "newspaper of record", focuses mainly on ethical considerations, the need of the organ recipient and the rich versus poor controversy. Surprisingly, nothing much has been said about the impact on the donor and his health, apart of a line or two in some articles.

It should not be so. The impact on donor health, both short- and long-term, costs of medical expenses in the long run, insurance, ability to work, quality of life... have not been sufficiently discussed and understood for a truly meaningful public consensus or opinion to be reached.

The info below was taken from organdonor.gov, "the official U.S. Government web site for organ and tissue donation and transplantation". A para in there says:
"Because all of the effects, especially the long term effects, to the donor are not known at this time, the Federal government does not actively encourage anyone to be a living donor. The Federal government does recognize the wonderful benefit that this gift of life provides to the patient awaiting a transplant and has several ongoing programs to study, support, and protect the living donors who do choose to provide this gift."

==========================================================
http://www.organdonor.gov/donation/typesofdonation.htm

Suitability to Donate

Each potential living donor is evaluated to determine his or her suitability to donate. The evaluation includes both the possible psychological response and physical response to the donation process. This is done to ensure that no adverse outcome, either physically, psychologically, or emotionally, will occur before, during, or following the donation. Generally, living donors should be physically fit, in good health, between the ages of 18 and 60, and not currently have or have had diabetes, cancer, high blood pressure, kidney disease, or heart disease.

The decision to be a living donor must be weighed carefully as to the benefits versus the risks for both the donor and the recipient. Often, the recipient has very little risk because the transplant will be life saving. However, the healthy donor, does face the risk of an unnecessary major surgical procedure and recovery. Living donors may also face other risks. For example, a small percentage of patients have had problems with maintaining life, disability, or medical insurance coverage at the same level and rate. And, there can be financial concerns due to possible delays in returning to work because of unforeseen medical problems.

Follow-up for Living Donors

The National Institutes of Health is in the process of conducting a study to collect information on the outcomes of living donors over time. At present, follow-up reviews of living donors by some transplant centers show that living donors, on average, have done very well over the long term. However, there are some scientific questions regarding the effects of stress on the remaining organ. There could be subtle medical problems that do not develop until decades after the living donation that are not known at this time because living donation is a relatively new medical procedure. To ensure the safety of all living donors, it is critical that the long term results of the effects of living donation are studied further.

The Decision to Donate

The decision to be a living donor is a very personal one and the potential donor must consider the possibility of health effects that could continue following donation. In most cases, that decision must also take into consideration the life-saving potential for a loved one—the transplant recipient.

Because all of the effects, especially the long term effects, to the donor are not known at this time, the Federal government does not actively encourage anyone to be a living donor. The Federal government does recognize the wonderful benefit that this gift of life provides to the patient awaiting a transplant and has several ongoing programs to study, support, and protect the living donors who do choose to provide this gift.

The decision to say yes to both organ donation after death and/or as a living donor is the focus of many very active and successful research projects that are being conducted across the nation, and these efforts are supported by the Division of Transplantation, Health Resources Services Administration, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Federal Assistance for Living Organ Donors

In September 2006, HRSA awarded a cooperative agreement to the University of Michigan to establish a national program to provide reimbursement of travel and subsistence expenses to living organ donors who cannot afford these expenses. In October 2007, the University of Michigan in partnership with the American Society of Transplant Surgeons launched the National Living Donor Assistance Center to help donors with travel, lodging, and meal expenses associated with the organ donation process.

They sure come in all shapes and sizes

This house reminds me of a ship -- narrow, long and tiered. Truly individualistic though I wonder why it was built this way.

Vibrant blood?

Despite passing by this banner a number of times on my way to work and back, I hadn't figured out what the copywriter actually meant by these words.

Was he trying to contrast an energetic and enthusiastic tunnel of people with vibrant-looking blood? Energetic and enthusiastic bloodletting a la a vampire or cult movie? A bright and bold looking tunnel? What has that to do with donating blood?

Deaf & dumb biker on ride around the world

Saw this biker, Vladimir Yarets Alexeevichat, at the open area near Sim Lim Square today. His bike, photos of his journey and not a few signs/flash cards were on display, together with a hat on the floor with donations from passer-bys. I read about him in The New Paper some time back, so I was sure he wasn't a con artist. His background and journey are documented in www.yarets.com

One of his flashcard says that he will be moving on to Malaysia from here.

Gotta admire his guts and spirit of adventure. Can't imagine a Singaporean going around the world in his trishaw, bike or car, leaving off the goodwill of others, what more a deaf and dumb Singaporean.

Like attracts like?

It's funny how things come in threes. I saw another funny name today in the papers, albeit as part of a sad story. It was a lady called Cinderella Wang.

With a great sense of incredulity, I did a double take, then looked again. It's really Cinderella Wang!

Much as Cinderella was my favourite fairytale as a kid, I would never dream of naming myself after the heroine.

Funny names - part 2

All these hilarious monikers keep turning up.

When my friend heard about the esteemed Hao Xiao Ming, he told me he has a name card of this chap called Xiao Ting Tong (read this in Hokkien).

It's a crazy world out there.

Another friend told me this story, which was in turn related by another friend:

As an NSF, he was at an intro briefing held by a sergeant. They took turns to shout out their names. When it came to this guy standing at a corner, they heard hardly a whisper.

The sergeant turned to him: Recruit! What is your name?
Guy in a corner: *whisper*

Sergeant: Speak up soldier! Louder!
Guy mumbles: Ee Chee Kok

Sergeant: What?! Louder!
Guy shouts: Ee Chee Kok!

And every one laughs out loud.

Poor chap, his name really takes the cake or more accurately, his manhood. That's a true story, btw. Mr Ee really should apply to work with talkingcock.com

Postscript
What would happen if Ms P---y met Mr Ee Chee Kok?

Hi, I'm Pussy. Hello! (Hands out with much enthusiasm) I'm Ee Chee Kok.

With such complementary names, surely they will get on like a house on fire.

Or maybe not. They could be let down by the lack of chemistry.
*Groan*

Funny names

I burst out laughing when I saw this today: Professor Hao Xiao Ming. Nothing against the esteemed professor, just that he professes to be Hao Xiao Ming.

If you read that it Chinese, it means "good Xiao Ming", where "Xiao Ming" is a very typical name used in my Chinese textbooks when I was still in school. Perhaps his parents wanted the babe in their arms to be a good boy and good man, hence Hao Xiao Ming.

What a name. When my dad heard about it, he remarked that in Hokkien, "Hao Xiao Ming" will sound like Ming is very hao xiao (means to exaggerate a lot and talk a lot of nonsense). What a name!

As a kid, he must have been the butt of jokes among his peers.

Which leads me to this name my colleague saw: Seah Chee Poh.

"Chee Poh! Why are you so cheapo?!"

Try placing the name western style, i.e. having the surname placed after the name. Chee Poh Seah. Now think in Singlish. ;)

Then, another friend heard of this lady from one of our neighbouring countries who called herself p---y (the informal name for a cat). I hope she didn't know what she was doing!

GMP's ghost

GMP created a fake sighting of a ghost in a lift at Raffles Place and followed that up with postings by other people on the ghosts they purportedly saw or heard, all on a website http://rafflesplaceghost.net.

After some hoohah, it was finally revealed as a viral campaign for GMP, on why you should not work late. And shortly after that, they closed down the website.

It could be all the bad comments, generally along the lines of "bo liao".

It's quite a bad hoax IMHO, bad in many ways.

Firstly, it's such a crass and cheap trick to play on peoples' fears. Some poor soul now says she doesn't dare take the lift at Raffles Place. It's also a bad branding play, both from the western and eastern perspectives, to associate a brand with ghosts (unless the company sells ghostbusting services or the likes).

Now people think of GMP and associate it with ghosts and worse -- liars. This brings to mine words like fearful, insubstantial, wispy, non substantive, cons, bad decision makers, low class, etc. I definitely do not link GMP with innovative or cutting edge.

This video by some GMP chap explaining the hoax further adds oil to the fire.

http://www.myescapeplan.com.sg/whyushouldntworklate/

Can't they find someone who can speak and enunciate properly to front the campaign? If they really can't, use flash text or a tongue in cheek letter?

After listening to him, my opinion that in no way would I use GMP's services is strengthened.

GMP sure got the eyeballs it wanted, but at what cost to its reputation?

Bad grammar in ad

Saw this ad on the MRT train some time back. I wonder what the copywriters are doing when they allow such a glaring mistake in an ad they help to produce.

"Solves hair problems quick & effectively"

The use of "quick" sounds like Singlish. Not that I'm against Singlish, which has its own syntax and structure, and is something that marks our people and gives us a common identity. (Hey you think any old ang moh can speak Singlish properly? It's not just lahs and lors hor.)

However, Singlish is unaccceptable usage in proper Singapore English and in written English, except perhaps as an ad for a Jack Neo movie.

So, to end this, the line should have been: Solves hair problems quickly & effectively.

When smart people say stupid things

It's a pity that a public figure makes a good speech, showing the proper humility, competence, determination and thoroughness, and proceeds to give a real silly answer (IMHO) to a legitimate question.

Scenario:
A arranges for Lady B and Guy C, both perfect strangers, to meet at the town square. They have not seen each other and are not able to obtain photos in time. In describing Guy C to Lady B, A takes an unduly long time.

A to B: I've arranged for you to meet Guy C at the town square at 10am.
B: How does C look like?
A: He's a guy.... Sorry I have to be very cautious about my description as I want to be very accurate. Won't do to have you meet the wrong guy! Give me a few days. I don't have the information clearly in my mind or on the records.

[Five days later]
A to B: He'll be wearing a yellow shirt and green pants.
A adds: Give me some more time. I want to be accurate.

[Another 14 days later]
A to B: I'm very sure now. He has a mole under his eye.
B: Thanks. Erm... what took you so long? Don't tell me you were interviewing C's minders and submitting them to polygraph tests to ensure that they weren't lying about the mole?

Soup de la creme

The best soup I've ever tasted. Sadly, it's not created by a Singaporean Michelin-ready chef but a French 2-Michelin-star chef. Yummmmmm.... I even liked the mushrooms in it! Those who know me will know what an amazing thing that is.

I agree that the local food scene is ready for some Michelin ranking. But how will French palates be able to rate Chinese, Indian, Peranakan, Malay, Teochew, Cantonese (you get the idea) cooking properly?

Happiness redefined

A conference organiser recently concluded a hunt in Singapore for the happiest person. I wonder how they measured happiness (refer to Sylvia Toh Paik Choo's cheeky but incisive article on it in the New Paper).

Is it how much you laugh? So are giggles counted? What about those that are nervous in nature or that grate on your nerves?

Contentment? How much contentment before it meets the mark?

I can go on and on.

Not that it's bad to promote happiness. I'm all for a laugh and many more a day. Sometimes life gets tough and the only thing besides praying is to give myself all the reasons to have a good laugh.