Mormon Memories and Current Skepticism

I have been re-reading Jon Krakauer's "Under the Banner of Heaven" (full book review to come at An Unused Voice) ahead of HBO's telecast of Big Love. This HBO Original series chronicles a polygamist family in Utah living the Principle of "plural marriage", a Principle originally revealed by god to Joseph Smith, founder and first prophet of the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter-Day Saints, also known as the LDS church or simply the Mormon church.

Of course, the modern Mormon church has eschewed polygamy for many years. Current adherents of the Principle are typically followers of "Mormon spin-off" faiths and usually collectively known as Mormon fundamentalists. The core of Krakauer's book is the tale of two Mormon fundamentalists who commit a senseless double-murder while in the grip of a religious fervour. Around this central narrative, Krakauer recounts the thoroughly fascinating history of Mormonism, from Joseph Smith's first encounter with the angel Moroni, through the Brigham Young years, to the 1890 Manifesto reversing the church position on plural marriage and the subsequent proliferation of polygamist sects splintering from the mainstream church. He also tells us a little about the modern Mormon church, including how many believers go on missions to convert the masses to the one true church.

While reading all of this, I suddenly remembered that I have had an encounter with Mormon missionaries. This was back in my days as a university student in Australia. Two very friendly, neatly dressed women knocked at my apartment door. They asked me if I was a believer in god, if I had ever gone to church, if I ever thought about what might help make the world better. I can't remember what I told them. Back then, I would sometimes tell the evangelist types that I did visit church and was "considering the faith", just to get them off my back. Perhaps this is what I told these two friendly ladies. I remember that they were not overly persistent, but they did say that their church was different. I also distinctly remember one of them saying "Not to worry, we are not Jehovah's Witnesses". Come to think of it, that was a pretty strange thing to say!

They did not ask to be let into the apartment and left me with a pamphlet, urging me to read it. I think one of them said that if I prayed upon reading the pamphlet, the truth of its message will be shown to me.

I vaguely remember the pamphlet; the front page was green in colour, possibly with a tree/ leaf or earth motif. But I might be confusing this with other church materials that I have seen over the years. I mean, the average church pamphlet designer does tend to like the Garden of Eden / God's Heaven on Earth theme - the "nature" clip-art collection must get a thorough ransacking.

What I definitely am NOT confusing with other church materials are the contents of the pamphlet. In a few paragraphs and not many words, the pamphlet told the story of the angel Moroni giving Joseph Smith the golden plates, upon which were written the Truth of the coming of Christ to the New World, the message of his 2nd coming and the salvation of man. Joseph Smith, the prophet of god, then translated the golden plates into the Book of Mormon and founded the one true church, the LDS church.

Okay, I admit I did not pray as the missionaries had suggested. However, there was something about the pamphlet - the conviction of its proclaimations, the font, the layout, the way the words "Book of Mormon" were made to seemingly glow on the page - well, I half-expected to be visited by a flash of light or something. It was all so far fetched, I almost thought there must be some truth to it. I knew nothing about Mormonism, apart from the fact that Donnie and Marie Osmond, whom I had seen on their eponymous TV show as a child, were Mormons.

Well, there was no flash of light, nor the "burning bosom" that I now know that Mormons talk about. The truth was not shown to me. I did learn that the LDS church had some pretty non-orthodox beliefs. I had not earlier connected Mormonism to LDS. I had some vague knowledge of the existence of the LDS church (they have been in Asia for quite a while), but I could not tell from the name of the church that there was such an outlandish story behind the faith. Jesus visited America, an angel visiting a 19th century American prophet, sacred golden plates - I mean, this seems the stuff of bad Victorian-era fiction!

Since then, I have read a few more things about Joseph Smith and Mormon history. Boy, they were wise to leave some of this stuff off the pamphlets. The thing about the magic translating spectacles would have been an instant deal-breaker for me. And the fact that the magic translating spectacles conveniently disappeared without a trace. Magic spectacles that Joseph Smith put on to read the sacred golden plates! It's like something you read to kids as a bedtime story! This was all very fine and well for people in the 19th century to believe, but I cannot imagine myself ever getting past this. I guess my own half-Buddhist, half-secular-humanist leanings have something to do with my predisposition towards skepticism, but come on! Magic spectacles! A magic quill would have been much sexier. Look what it did for JK Rowling!

And I haven't even gotten to the hat! Once he had lost the magic spectacles, Joseph Smith had to resort to translating the golden plates by sticking his head in an upturned hat, into which he had placed his special magic peep stone. See how "magic" is everywhere in this story? But never mind the magic for now - he translated sacred scripture by looking into a hat!! Again, this was probably quite appealing in the 19th century. It probably struck people back then as being refreshingly down to earth and balanced out the grandiosity of the angel and the great glittering golden plates.

But .... he was looking into a hat. Not wearing it, or touching it, or even pulling a rabbit out of it (which would have been more in keeping with the magic theme). Sticking his head inside the hat. It's all rather ... undignified, no?? If the magic spectacles had not sent me fleeing, this definitely would have done it.

And that is all without getting in the story told in the Book of Mormon itself. The convoluted tale of Lehi who journeyed with his followers from Israel to the New World six hundred years before Christ, his sons Laman and Nephi, the rival clans of Lamanites (the baddies) and Nephites (the goodies), Jesus visiting them in the New World after his resurrection and the final doomed battle between the two clans which killed off the Nephites, leaving as their last survivor a man named Moroni, who would later visit Joseph Smith in angel form to deliver this story inscribed on the golden plates.

There is one telling detail in this story. The Lamanites were an unruly, ungodly bunch and were cursed by God with dark skin as punishment. Later on the Lamanites wiped off the Nephites from the face of the earth and went on to become the forebears of the native Americans (or American Indians). All this is purported to have happened pre-Columbus and the complete annihilation of the fair-skinned Nephites explains why Columbus found no whitemen when he discovered America.

See, this is the sort of story that would have made perfect sense to your average 19th century American. Historians agree that many Americans in that era were proudly, prodigiously racist. That people of colour were "cursed by God" was something they could readily accept and believe. That the "savages" of the native American tribes were descended from a cursed race only enforced the righteousness of the godly pale-skinned true believers. Joseph Smith's home-spun saga of Good versus Evil fed and flattered the preconceived notions of the time. It pandered to its intended audience and it was a story with great purchase because of that.

Seen through our more enlightened eyes (or perhaps, simply our evolved value systems), it is blatantly, horribly racist. Off-puttingly so. But also in a way that is transparently a product of its time. More than any of the logical inconsistencies of the Book of Mormon (eg. descriptions of animals, equipment and tools that had not arrived in the Americas till after Columbus), this little detail tells me that this was a story of Joseph Smith's creation, not one that is divinely revealed. It's bad fanfiction of the 19th century vintage - riffing off a familiar story or character (in this case, Jesus Christ) by setting said story or character in a different time or place (in this case, America), replete with anachronisms (in this case, too many to recount), convenient and pat plot contrivances (in this case, the Nephite genocide) and consciously "knowing" references (in this case, the cursed Lamanites) that appeal directly to fandom (in this case, the average 19th century American amenable to embracing a new faith).

Even if I could get past the silliness of the spectacles and the hat, I absolutely draw the line at bad fanfiction. Really, there isn't even the consolation of a non-canon slash pairing. It's entirely unsupportable.

And, in Gay News today ....

Update on the 377a situation. Needless to say and to the surprise of exactly nobody, Parliament has decided to retain it.

Media reports said www.repeal377a.com garnered over 9,000 signatories for the online letter, and over 2000 for the petition to Parliament. The keep377a site got over 15,000 signatures. Oh well, it's not unexpected, but still somewhat disappointing.

On a somewhat related note, JK Rowling revealed over the weekend that Albus Dumbledore is gay (reaction posted at An Unused Voice). The international Harry Potter fandom is variously thrilled, dismayed, over-reacting and indifferent. I dare not seek out Singaporean reactions, after the encounter with keep377a. I just wonder whether someone is going to set up a website to denounce the Harry Potter series (www.repealHarryPotter.com, anyone?). Or perhaps a good, old-fashioned ritual book-burning? Or the environmentally friendly option - "Save the Earth, save our values: Recycle your Harry Potter books!" Maybe they could turn the HP books into toilet paper, which would bring the whole thing back to what started it in the first place: the a**hole.

Section 377a: The Keep vs Repeal Debate

When I was recently ranting about censorship of gay relationships on TV, I said I was not lobbying for gay rights.

Well, now I am.

Today's TODAY newspaper had an article on two websites dedicated to petitioning the Singapore government on Section 377a of Singapore's Penal code, which criminalises sex between men.

In one corner is www.repeal377a.com, a website with an open letter to the Prime Minister and a petition to be presented to Parliament.

In response, a group has set up a site supporting keeping S377a. I am not linking to it, because reading the first few lines on the site raised my blood pressure. The superior tone was galling, as was the smug assumption of the moral high ground, as if someone had bestowed upon them the status of arbiter of "family values". Not to mention the odious and condescending capitalisation of "WE, the Majority".

It may be a gross simplification to say this, but Nazi Germany had its roots in disturbingly similar sentiments. So does the Klu Klux Klan. "THEY, the Majority" (or at least the voices that spoke for them) were all too eager to assert their right to have their "values" (superiority of the white race) protected and not to be "forced" to accept something (assimilation of Jews, Poles, coloured people and other "untouchables") they are "not ready" for.

I totally, completely understand that Singapore is an Asian society, with conservative values. People are not comfortable with the concept of homosexuality, which seems so far from what we regard as the "norm". Fair enough. But how does that give any of us the right to say that homosexual acts are illegal or criminal? This is a question of law, surely, and the parameters and axioms by which laws are enacted and defined.

Frankly, I am amazed that this should be an issue in a country which prides itself on the separation of church/mosque/temple and state. If one accepts (as one should if not guided by religious tenets) that (a) homosexuality might be genetic; (b) the mere act of homosexual intercourse does not harm either the participants or anyone else; and (c) what consenting adults do in the privacy of their bedrooms is their own business; then what call is there for criminalising gay sex? It is faith-based value systems that cast homosexuality as "wrong" or "sinful", the same way that that certain faiths denounce pre-marital sex or birth control. Neither pre-marital sex nor birth control are illegal, are they? Which is as it should be, because the laws of the state are separate from the rules of faith.

If something is rendered illegal just because "the majority" is not comfortable with it, where would that leave us? At various points in history, it would have been illegal for women to work, for interracial couples to marry and have children, for anyone to wear black during Chinese New Year, for governments to raise taxes!!

So, you self-righteous, supercilious lot "you, the majority", please come down from your high horse. Something is not illegal just because it offends you personally. I am personally deeply offended by frilly ankle socks, talentless pop bands, bad put-on American accents by SIA flight attendants and many, many more things. You don't see me petitioning for these to be made illegal, not that I have not thought about it. Seriously, unless we are talking strictly about political elections, going the direction of "majority" vs "minority" is getting into dangerous territory in any country with diversity in its populace. In elections, the "majority" chooses the government of the day, but the "minority" is not denied the public services of government. Going beyond that, "the wisdom of crowds" can reveal very unappealing aspects of human nature.

Do the rights of the few not matter more than the "comfort level" of the many? How do we define the civil liberties of citizens in a democratic nation? Does the right to vote not represent the importance of the individual? Do gay people not have the right to do as they wish in the privacy of their bedrooms?

Another thing about the whole "majority" message that really bothered me is how it is almost like the campaign platform of one George W. Bush. It sounds like something from Focus on the Family, even bringing up gay marriage and adoption as if this was America and we were in the midst of the Bush vs Kerry period all over again. The irony, of course, is that the "majority" would accuse the pro-repeal group of being too "Westernised" in our way of thinking.

A few of the comments from the anti-repeal camp could almost be classified as expressions of bigotry, but many are more misguided than hateful, in my opinion. One letter to TODAY linked from the anti-repeal site said this:

I am not against homosexuals; I recognise that they are as human and Singaporean as I am. As citizens, they already enjoy the same rights as the others.

But what they are pushing for now is the Singaporean majority's approval of their behaviour. It is clear the majority does not covet the agenda that gay activists are pushing for. If Parliament repeals Section 377A, we will be unwittingly consenting to such behaviour.

Honey, "they already enjoy the same rights as the others"? You have a right to make love to whoever you want. GAY PEOPLE DO NOT HAVE THAT SAME RIGHT!!

And I doubt that the gay community is seeking "majority's approval of their behaviour." Right now, they would be pretty happy if you just left them alone to live their lives without fear of being thrown into jail for what they do in their private space.

Gay people probably do not give much of a damn about what heterosexuals do in the bedroom. Can heterosexuals not extend the same courtesy to them? Why the prurient interest in other people's affairs?

Off to www.repeal377a.com to sign the open letter.

Exhibit 10932 that Murphy's Law works

Sometimes, you just have one of those days when life seems hell bent on bashing you over the head. That's when you KNOW that Murphy's Law is inviolate.

Case in point: Why is it that you get a huge, uncontrollable sneezing fit when in the middle of brushing your teeth? Specifically at the point when you've worked up a mouthful of foam and are standing nowhere near the basin? (Okay, I admit that I don't brush my teeth while standing over the wash basin. I often brush my teeth in the mornings while sitting in front of my laptop reading email or checking overnight soccer scores - I am mighty adept at using my left hand to work the touchpad!). Seriously, you could be two seconds away from having toothpaste foam all over things that are not amenable to having toothpaste foam on them.

First Post of 2007

2006 ended and 2007 began in the midst of a minor catastrophe - loss of Internet access due to the earthquake in Taiwan (which was of course the MAJOR catastrophe). It brought home how dependent I had become on the Internet. Not being able to check email of soccer scores was NOT fun.

So I thought I would devote this first post of 2007 to my favourite spots on the Web. The biggies to begin with and I might post about some favourite obscure sites at another time.

a) Guardian Unlimited

The whole site is stellar especially the special features but my soft spot is reserved for Sports Unlimited. I especially love the sports blogs, which has probably the most hilarious sports writing on the Internet. The headlines and blurb writers have that British sense of humour that is at once weird and accessible, cruel and humane. The recent Ashes loss have brought out the best in the Guardian writers and readers (the Over-by-over archive is a treasure trove!).

b) Television Without Pity

I have lurked at TWOP since its MightyBigTV days (what is that, 6 or 7 years now?). It isn't quite what it used to be (as the site has grown, it has lost that unique sense of community it once had) but many of the recaps are highly readable and the forum posters are more likely to make sense than not. Gems from the archives include Aaron's Six Feet Under recaps (which are like literature and make me wish that I watched The Sopranos so I could follow his recaps of that show as well), and Demian's side-splitting disdain-laden recaps of Charmed (his catchphrase "Pause. Rewind. Play." for moments of Phoebe or Leo abuse still make me laugh).

c) Meta Critic

All major reviews for a movie collated in one page, with a nifty rating system that aggregates and summarises the critics' opinions. What more can one ask for? As a compulsive reader of reviews for movies that I might never watch, I appreciate the ease of navigation and the convenience of the site.

d) BBC Radio Online

Such riches to be found here! Personal favourites include Composer of the Week on Radio 3, Just a Minute on Radio 4 (a show I have listened to for 16 of its 35 years!) and Counterpoint also on Radio 4.

e) Daily Kos

Sometimes rather unwieldy to navigate and confusingly cluttered with an excess of information, but always entertaining even if pointedly partisan. For Liberals, a meeting of minds. For the Liberal-leaning, a convenient news update service. For neutrals, an insight into political passion. For anti-Liberals, probably rather perplexing.

Commercial Christmas

It is not even mid November yet. The Yanks just finished celebrating Halloween and Thanksgiving, fer cryin' out loud. Yet, in this equatorial part of the world, the spirit of Christmas has arrived. Or rather, the spirit of Christmas has begun to be advertised.

The faux-pine trees have been erected at the shopping centres. The holly and the ivy adorn the facades of buildings. Sleighs and reindeer and Santa merrily greet us as we unsuspectingly venture into the heart of Singapore's shopping districts. It was somewhat disconcerting and yet, totally and completely unsurprising.

I very much enjoy the trappings of Christmas, even the commercialism of it. The retail sector relies on these festive seasons to make profits, after all. But even with my unromanticised view of Christmas, I am somewhat appalled at Christmas beginning in what basically amounts to early November. Well, I suppose there is something to be said for beating the Christmas shopping crush, if you start shopping early. Maybe that's what this is about - a public service to harried shoppers.

Vegetarian Liver

Yesterday, I had Chinese vegetarian food for lunch. And I ordered vegetarian liver, cooked in the classic Chinese style with ginger and spring onions.

Upon my first bite, I thought "What the heck are you doing???". I know that there are people that actually like the taste of liver (not pate, actual pig's liver), but I am not one of them.
Here's my deal with liver. When I had problems with anaemia, eating it became de rigeur. It was good for me and so I ate it in great quantities. The only point of eating it was to get the iron boost. I don't hate it exactly, but if it was not for the iron boost, it is not something that I would go out of my way to eat.

Here's the deal with vegetarian liver. There is no iron be had. It's made of soy and while soy is wonderfully rich in protein and vitamins, it's not a source of iron. And here's the thing with the particular dish of vegetarian liver I had: the cook had gone to GREAT means to approximate the texture AND taste of real liver. This was basically soy with a bitter after-taste.

So, there I was, eating something that tasted like liver and not getting the benefit of an iron boost. What the heck was I thinking??

And, why is there such a thing as vegetarian liver in the first place? Are there vegetarians that actually crave the taste of liver? If ever I became a vegetarian, I would miss lots of things - chicken, fish, prawns, pork and beef. The last thing on earth I can ever imagine missing is liver.

The 2005 Reminiscing Post

A little late, but better than never. Here is the obligatory 2005 year-in-review post. I am sure a lot of things went down that were beyond my radar, but here are a few things I will remember about 2005.

Memorable events: Singapore
1) The NKF saga
2) The great Integrated Resorts (Casino) "debate"
3) The gruesome murder of Liu Hong Mei

Memorable events: World
1) The bombing in London
2) Iraq goes to the polls
3) Death of the Pope

The Year in Entertainment: Singapore
1) Project Superstar Mania
2) The Sly Sim/ Maia Lee hook-up that almost was
3) Zoe Tay reveals her Auntie-dom at the Star Awards

The Year in Entertainment: World
1) Michael Jackson was acquitted of all charges (but not released from the prison of his mind)
2) Tom Cruise went mad on Oprah and helped the Church of Scientology recruit Katie Holmes
3) The non-lurid tale of Brad / Jenn / Angelina in which everyone was far too discreet to generate scandal. In a rather cool bit of irony, the entire situation ended up being all the more interesting because of the protagonists' discretion.

The Year in Pop Culture:
1) Harry Potter-mania: a book and a movie released within 5 months of each other. Whew, it's been a hectic year for HP fandom.
2) The final Star Wars prequel is released, to general relief and mildly favourable reviews.
3) Peter Jackson's King Kong sees the light of day after months of online build-up online.

The Year in Sports: (not going to do one for Singapore because I don't pay enough attention)
1) Liverpool won the UEFA Champions League (and well nigh giving their supporters a collective heart attack in the process)
2) England reclaimed the Ashes (I first started watching cricket in earnest in 1989, and in all the years since, Australia has won series after series, always deservingly. What an amazing, amazing turn-around the 2005 series was.)
3) Belgians done good: Justine Henin-Hardenne winning the French Open and Kim Clijster winning the US Open (Just very pleased for them for overcoming horrible injuries and illness to achieve Grand Slam titles).

My votes for People of the Year:
Business/ Politics/ Current Events: Terri and Michael Schiavo, Donald Tsang, Davinder Singh
Entertainment and Pop Culture: JK Rowling, Angelina Jolie
Sports: Tiger Woods, Roger Federer

Gentleice's Hell: East Asian Celebrity Edition

I would not exactly want to condemn them to hell, but these are people that I really dislike, for various reasons. Some I dislike for their apparent lack of talent, some for being plain misguided, some for their famewhorish ways, some for their general asshattery and sheer unlikeability.

Terence Chao, Rachel Lee, Gigi Lai, Lee San San, Jolin Tsai
Circle I Limbo

Ken Lim, Sylvester Sim, Anthony Png
Circle II Whirling in a Dark & Stormy Wind

Fann Wong
Circle III Mud, Rain, Cold, Hail & Snow

Sylvester Sim supporters
Circle IV Rolling Weights

Kelvin Tan supporters
Circle V Stuck in Mud, Mangled

River Styx

Zhang Ziyi, Andy Lau
Circle VI Buried for Eternity

River Phlegyas

Jacelyn Tay
Circle VII Burning Sands

Maia Lee, Bai Ling
Circle IIX Immersed in Excrement

Jackie Chan
Circle IX Frozen in Ice

Design your own hell

Scenes at the Embassy

I was at the American Embassy this morning, applying for a visa for a working visit in mid November. Gentleice Goes to Washington (but that's another story for another day)!

It was my second time at the American Embassy, but I don't recall getting such a strong Ellis Island vibe before. This time, I was in the waiting room for over an hour and heard a number of interviews. I think someone could make a TV series centred around the waiting room of a Visa Services Department in an American Consulate. Every episode would feature a different applicant, hoping to get a visa to visit to land of the free and the plenty. The stories are so compelling, so human.

I saw two applications being turned down, and the reactions were painful to behold; shock, denial and finally (and most devastating of all), resigned dejection. One was a young man who was caught out in a (perhaps minor) mistruth by the visa officer. He denied having previously applied for a visa. It simply was not a very smart thing to lie about, given how easily these things can be checked on computerised systems.

Then there were the IT professionals who had gotten job offers in the US and were applying for work visas. These interviews seemed brutal! They were asked to detailed information about their American employers as well as their own job histories in Singapore. One gentleman admitted to having almost as many jobs as years he has worked in Singapore, which seemed to have set off several alarm bells. Another one was bringing his wife along and she too had to be interviewed. When asked how she met her husband, she revealed that it was an arranged marriage (I suppose that it is common in her culture and she felt no qualms about revealing such information in a roomful of strangers, but I would not have been so comfortable were I in her shoes).

Then there were the families where not all members speak English. So much potential for "lost in translation" scenarios (beyond my abilities to discern as I did not speak any of the foreign languages in question).

Most heartbreakingly, I saw an Indochinese gentleman who spoke halting English and was having an almighty struggle trying to understand and be undertood by the visa officers. I gathered that he was applying for a special category of visa that one officer called "diversity program" (a quota-based immigrant visa issued to applicants from countries with low immigration rates to the US). It was just heart-breaking to watch him patiently requesting for something that the officers repeatedly told him could not be done. He had also apparently filled in his application form wrongly because he had not understood what he was being asked. I found myself wondering how he and his family would survive in America when communication is so obviously a problem. I hope that he has family and friends there.

Watching this gentleman, I thought about America's almost mystic appeal to so many people. I wondered at the lengths that people would go for that precious green card. I wondered it it was worth the effort and the stress. What awaits some of these people in America, if they do not speak the language or have the right skills? Menial jobs at minimum wage? Then I got to thinking that maybe what they are leaving behind makes the effort and the stress (and the minimum wages) worthwhile. It is easy for us who live in Singapore to realise that American streets are NOT in fact paved in gold. Materially, at least, living conditions here are decidedly First World. Many of these hopeful applicants are fleeing poverty, unemployment and discrimination. So, yes, for them, there is metaphorical gold to be found on American streets.

There's something wrong with the Earth's fengshui

The world has been having some pretty rotten luck lately. I mean, really bad luck as if it broke a mirror, had a black cat cross its path, walked under a ladder and lived in Block 44, #04-44, Fourth Avenue, Singapore 444444.

In the past 12 months, we had the Asian tsunami, Katrina in North America, Stan in Central/South America and most recently, the earthquakes in South Asia. That's a whole lot of natural disaster in a few short months. And we haven't even counted the non-natural disasters, including the bombings in London and Bali. Poor old Earth is being put through the wringer.

There's something whacked about the Earth's fengshui. Perhaps there are too few water elements in its surroundings. Or maybe it is situated at the junction of two planetary paths.

Maybe it's not a fengshui thing, and it really is just blind bad luck. That makes it even more tragic, no? There's nothing worse than feeling completely helpless about events that might irretrievably change lifes.

Moving - Arrrgh

Some statistics:
Number of years in current organization: 10 coming on to 11
Number of years in current position: coming on the 3 years
Number of times relocated office in current organization: 6
Number of times relocated office in last 3 years = 4!!!!!

Oh, I also moved house this year, so 2005 is The Year of the Move.

I hate, hate, hate moving. The thing I hate most about moving is packing. Specifically, the sorting part of packing. The decision making - what to keep, what to throw? - is just draining. How much sentimentality to attach to objects rarely seen and never used? Whether to throw away something is there is a remote off-chance that it might be needed in the future?

The thing about

I have bruises, sore muscles and a too much dust in my system. HATE packing.

Taxi Talk

I took a cab earlier today and had the pleasure of encountering a friendly driver who kept up a lively line of chatter throughout the 30 minute journey. He referred to himself in the third person as "Uncle" and told me about his wonderful varied career, including a stint as a cook in the navy, 2 years in the tool-die industry, a side-line as a martial arts instructor and almost 30 years of driving a cab.

Then he moved on to other topics; as a taxi driver, he has heard a million stories from his many passengers. Thirty seconds before reaching my destination, he drops a bit of salacious gossip that left me slack-jawed. So much so that we almost overshot my alighting point. Worst of all, I didn't have time to press for more details!!

I am not going to repeat that piece of gossip here. It might be a very nasty piece of slander that should not be spread around. What astounded me is that Uncle has seemed so certain of the truth of it. He even seemed rather surprised that I was not aware of it.

I wish I had managed to get more details about it. I only have one man's certainty, which is mighty convincing but not entirely so. It begs this question - does something become the truth just because a large enough group of people proclaim it to be so? I am Malaysian and in Malaysia, you hear this sort of thing all the time, about famous and powerful people. There is always an "unspoken truth" that "everyone" knows because there are "insiders" and "networks". It gets spread around because we hear it from people we tend to trust and tell it to people who tend to trust us. Everyone ends up believing it, but at some point, nobody remembers who actually originated it.

Does the taxi driver grapevine work like this? Taxi drivers hear so many different things from so many different people. And they tell so many different things to so many different people. Other than the Internet, there might not be a more effective channel to transmit information between entirely unconnected people. It is very powerful, but is it reliable?

I really wish there was a way to confirm this rumour without asking too many different people about it. If I did that, I might just be adding to the weight of "evidence" which is simply this - "so many people have heard about it, there must be some truth to it". And so are urban legends born ....

Happy Birthday, Malaysia!

My homeland celebrates 48 years of independence today.

A chance for us to remember the great deeds of Tengku Abdul Rahman and the founding fathers, whose legacy seems to have shamefully fallen off the radar in recent years.

A time for taking stock and self-examination. How far has the country come, how much has changed and yet, how so much has not changed at all.

A moment to contemplate a vibrant, fascinating, confusing culture.

A period of excessive patriotic cheer-leading on Malaysian TV.

A day for looking forward and hoping for better and more.

48 years of progress and regression, of harmony and tension, of solidarity and conflict, of triumps and setbacks. I like to think we came out ahead.

4's the number, and so it 0

The number 4 is in vogue this year. It finds itself in unfamiliar surrounds, as it is usually regarded as a harbinger of bad luck among the more superstitious segment of the ethnic Chinese population. I am not sure about Singapore but in Genting Highlands, the hotels and apartment buildings do not have 4th, 14th or 24th floors. I think this is also the case in Hong Kong.

But in 2005 in Singapore, 4 is BIG. That's because 2005 marks Singapore's 40th year as an independent nation. There is a tendency to manify the significance of anniversaries that end with the number 0 (and to a much lesser extent, 5), so it's not a surprise that this year's National Day celebrations are more extravagant and extensive than ever before. I might even venture to say - 4 times bigger and better!

The number of activities is astounding, and they are spread throughout the island this year. Rehearsals for the parade has necessitated closed roads and massive traffic jams on weekends for more than a month. Even more amazing has been the publicity. I do not remember ever seeing as many TV ads in past years for the NDP telecast or as many airings of the ND song. Of course, with new technology, the publicity machine is now reaching us while we are on the move.

The LCD screens on the MRT have been showing NDP related clips on loop. My commute on the MRT is about 45 minutes, so that's around 45 times every morning that I have seen Rui En and Taufik Batisah teaching Singaporeans how to dance. Granted, I usually read on the train so I haven't actually seen them that much. But there was one day last week when there were no seats and the train was too crowded to hold a book while standing. I was standing directly in front of the LCD panel and by the end of the journey, had almost learnt to lipread the lyrics of the song.

All this effort because it's a 40th birthday, not a 39th or 41st. One year makes a big difference. I am not complaining, just fascinated by how we choose to mark milestones and to find reasons for celebration. Another eminent birthday is being celebrated in Singapore this year - the National University of Singapore turns 100 years old. I do not recall much being made out of NUS's previous anniversaries, but this centennary year has been marked by television documentaries and a well-publicised conquest of the Everest summit.

I suppose that once in a while, everyone just wants a reason to throw a bigger party than usual. Can't afford to do it every year, or even every other year. So, every 5 years seems a good compromise. And every 10 years, you can really go out on the town. It's also a lot less taxing on the mental arithmetics. And it gives creative people lots of opportunities to design marketing and promotions plans ($40 vouchers for first 40 customers who spend minimum of $400 dollars!).

Singapore's going out on the town tomorrow. It will be a 40th birthday party to end all parties. I just hope the weather is good!

Record Stores: Frustrations of a Musical Theatre Fan

I was at Borders and HMV Heeren last week, trying to scrounge for a couple of Original Cast Recordings (OCR) of musical theatre scores. A year ago, HMV Heeren had a semi-decent collection of what they called "Shows" recordings, lining half a wall on the third floor, taking up about two of their display racks. My recordings of Aspects of Love and Into the Woods were purchased from this store. Now, this section has been relegated to one third of a rack, tacked on at the end of a substantial display of movie soundtrack CDs. They even had more compilation albums (The Best of Broadway, the Andrew Lloyd Webber Collection etc) than recordings of individual shows.

Things were slightly better at Borders but not by much. A few years ago, I bought Sondheim's "Sunday in the Park with George" from Borders and the store was known for having copies of the not-so-blockbuster shows. The title cards in the display rack showed tantalising evidence of CDs that might once have been on sale but are now no longer in stock (or presumably on the inventory - show music is hard to move, so I suppose these titles are not high on the stockist's priority). The available recordings were strangely retro, with more than a few original Broadway cast recordings of shows that debuted in the 1950s and 1960s.

Neither Broadway nor the West End are anywhere close to being satisfactorily represented, but Broadway appears to have gotten the slightly longer end of the stick. OBCRs like Chicago and The Chorus Line at least had more than one copy on display. Even OLCRs of old standbys by ALW were hard to come by. The recording of The Woman in White, Lloyd Webber's latest West End offering, was available at HMV, but it was just one miserable copy, at the exhorbitant "import" price of $65. I know that pricing of these things has to do with exchange rates, but come on, $65???

You would also think that nobody on Broadway or the West End had mounted a new musical in years. Mamma Mia! does not count in my book - it's more of a pastiche revue than a musical. On that score, Smoky Joe's Cafe does not count either. In the two stores, I could get Julie Andrews and Angela Lansbury singing roles they originated in the theatre, but not recordings of the recent Broadway hits, Avenue Q, Wicked or even The Boys from Oz, Hugh Jackman's star-turn on Broadway. I can't figure it out - I know classics will always have their market, but would a modern hit musical not have some following? Maybe the classic recordings are just cheaper to bring in (it is all economics, I suppose).

Even the provision of the "staples" disappoint. Les Miserable has had 4 high-profile recordings. In both stores, only the 10th Anniversary recording was available. This is a excellent "live" recording, but best experienced with the visuals on the DVD. An enthusiast seeking a purely audio recording would have no options at all. The other block-buster musical, Phantom of the Opera, was available in both its full-length 2 CD and highlights versions. Still, the number of copies in-store was far fewer than the copies of the soundtrack for the movie version (found in the Soundtrack section, of course). I suppose we are now to accept Gerard Butler as an acceptable substitute for Michael Crawford (not even close, mate, no disrespect to Mr Butler) and Emmy Rossum for Sarah Brightman (I actually find Brightman's singing unpleasantly affected, but Rossum's uncertain technique is a far greater disadvantage on record). Heck, if they start making movie versions of all the big musicals (Sunset Boulevard seems a go, and Les Mis cannot be far behind), who would ever need cast recordings anymore?

Yes, both stores would say that if they can order in the titles that you want. That's all fine and dandy, but that means no browsing, considering of options (such as different recordings of the same show), no chance to have you eye caught by a CD cover design or the name of a performer. If I know exactly what I am looking for down to the CD number, I don't need to order at a store - Amazon.com is more convenient and just about as affordable. And for the more advanced, many sites offer legal digital downloads of entire albums. emusic.com is my latest find; it carries smaller labels and has OCR's such as 25th Annual Puttnam Spelling Bee and Falsettoland for download.

It's like musical theatre is a niche genre that cannot justify the inventory costs or shelf space. I think musical theatre is just as accessible as classical music, which is still decently represented (but more on that another time). It's certainly much less "difficult" than opera, and HMV has a whole rack of opera recordings, plus another of opera DVDs. Is it stuck in a vacuum - too high brow for some, too low brow for others? Or is it hampered by the relatively limited offerings of "live" musical theatre on the local stage? Does it really not enjoy much of a following here?

Or has it always has its share of admirers, but who have ceased to purchase from local record store? Perhaps they have discovered the joys of online shopping or purchase from overseas stores, either when travelling or through friends. Certainly, there are many viable options for fans, and the lack of options in local retail stores is not a crisis. But I do lament the loss of visibility for the genre, and the inevitable relegation to minority niche status.

Roosting Close to Home?

For those to whom the Chinese word for chicken means more than just poultry, this picture is rather humourously "symbolic".


Taken in Chinatown. This is the "entrance" to the Chinatown New Year light-up. The entire display is rather garish, too much red and gold and too little of anything else. And too many claw-like motifs. The overall effect is like watching tomato and orange juices mix in a glass, with an red bulb in the background.

All these roosters at the doorstep of Keong Saik Street! Of course, the "trade" is not what it used to be in that part of town anymore, but it's still good for a chuckle. Now, if these scenes were found in Geylang, I would just about die laughing.

Phobias and Inner Demons

I had to visit the dentist last night. Now, my dentist is great; friendly, mild-mannered and not at all the type to strike fear in anyone. Still, I can't help but get tense just at the thought of seeing her. The sound of that drill alone is enough to give me an instant stomache ulcer. Without realising it, I spend most of the time in the waiting room like a very tightly wound coiled spring.

A phobia is a strange thing. The rational part of the mind knows that the fear is unreasonable and usually unfounded. Yet, the fear is a instinctive reaction and just comes upon you, no matter how much you rationalise. I think the scientific journals may have a perfectly good explanation for it (perhaps something to do with the synapses in our brains?), but I wonder how much of it is psychological as well?

For instance, I fear dentists. At the same time, one of my oft-recurring bad dreams is one where my back teeth fall out due to incessant grinding on my part. The dream books say that dreaming about losing one's teeth symbolises fear of death. I don't know, I certainly don't think I fear death any more than the next person. I rather suspect that the phobia and the dream are linked and may indicate some underlying psychological fear of pain (or perhaps something deeper, like a fear of being made "less whole", as the actions of "drilling" and "losing" may suggest).

Wow, this has been a downer so far! Do I really need to make a phobia worse by endlessly trying to analyse it? Instead of overthinking, I will, of course, make a list, since that is my current modus operandi.


Phobias (or Things that would cause me to lose on Fear Factor)

• Rats (especially black ones - I am having the shivers just thinking about them!)
• Large house lizards. Strangely, this phobia does not extend to really large reptiles like iguanas and crocodiles. I just can't stand the larger-sized house lizards with their damp scaly skins. Yuks!
• Birds. Okay, it's not like I run away screaming whenever I see one. I do tolerably well with birds in cages, seagulls on the beach, even those darned pigeons in public places, as long as there are people around. What I really fear is when they start swooping towards me with their sharp beaks and claws. Or when I am the only human person around and vulnerable to their attacks, if they were the human-attacking type. I think ultimately, my fear of birds is about the claws and beaks.
• Dentists. Well, I have covered that one.
• Monkeys. This one goes back to a childhood experience in Penang's Botanical Gardens (not sure if it's the right name, but it's a big park). I was carrying a bad of fruit and kindly offering a rambutan to a monkey when the greedy bugger suddenly summoned his family and they made a grab for the bag. It was an ambush! I can still remember their shrewd eyes and very nimble fingers. I know they are our closest evolutionary cousins; no wonder I don't trust them!
  
• Dirty public toilets. Singapore is rather blessed that this isn't so much of a problem anymore.

Hmmm ... rather many animal related phobias in that list. I wonder if that says something about my essentially urban upbringing, or perhaps my innate introversion. Enough with the over-analysis! It may not mean anything at all. For one thing, I don't fear all animals. I am fine with cockroaches, worms, slugs, bees and dogs, which are objects of fear for many people.

Phobias: Nurture or Nature? A bit of both, perhaps.

A Chocoholic's Rhetoric

I'm in a bit of a silly mode, so here goes:

Tribute to Chocolate

Sweet or bitter, dark or milky
Melt-in-the-mouth, smooth and silky,
Chocolate is the king of food
Plain or nutty, it's all good!

Praline, truffle, brownie, eclair,
The way to heaven lies right there,
Ice cream, cookie, cake and mousse
Chocolate is the type to choose!

Raising spirits, gladdening hearts,
Boosting sales in supermarts!
With chocolate, who would complain?
Even the economy stands to gain!

Apologies to anyone who may be allergic to chocolate. This was in no way meant to offend or rub anyone's noses in it. I just really like chocolate, and writing rhyming couplets is fun!

Let's make a few Lists

After several years of writing formal reports and academic papers, one's writing style does tend to lose something in spontaneity and colour (and boy, can a sentence be any more lacking in spontaneity and colour than that one???).

So when I started this blog, I thought I could use it as a chance to write in a free-form manner and just have fun with words, phrases and turns of expression. I envisioned myself churning out great thought-provoking essays, written in an approachable and vivid style. Not aiming for a Pulitzer, exactly, but hoping to post writing that I could read again five years from now, without cringing.

I have realised, though, that it's hard work to churn out thought-provoking essays. Much easier to just note down salient points and dispense with the elaborate descriptions and analysis. Much less taxing on the vocabulary too. So as a gentle ease-in, I am going to test out that nifty bullet point icon in the post editor and make a few lists.

It's the start of the sporting year and with sports on my mind, here's my list of

Sporting Personalities that I Admire

• Michelle Kwan (Figure Skating): graceful in the rink, gracious outside of it.
• Michael Schumacher (Motor Racing): not enough superlatives to describe his driving, but above all, he is to be admired for his generosity towards the tsunami victims.
• Stefan Edberg (Tennis): a gentleman when being an gentleman was becoming unfashionable and pretty darned good to watch on a grass court.
• Steffi Graf (Tennis): maybe I have a thing for people named "Stef"? A great and gracious champion.
• Alexander Popov (Swimming): an inspiring rise-above-adversity story, the best smile in the business and a technique that made sprint swimming look elegant.
• Hicham El Gerrouj (Athletics): an amazing story of fulfillment postponed and finally attained. I cried when he finally won his two Olympic gold medals.
• Michael Jordan (Basketball): the best there ever will be? An artist in an aggressive sport, a consummate businessman, a charismatic spokesperson. Who's going to rise above this?
• Michael Johnson (Athletics): time stopped in my room when he clocked that 19.32 seconds.
• Steve Waugh (Cricket): "enough bottle for a milk float"; an athlete whose sporting life seems written by Homer; epic, heroic and triumphant. And a humanitarian, author and photographer to boot.
• Han Jian (Badminton): gifted AND disciplined, not a common combination!
• Roberto Baggio (Soccer): touched by genius. A career that perhaps only an Italian can have; from heroism to villainy to redemption to rejection to respect, and all the while wholly adored.

To balance out the sheer jock-quotient of the first list, here's something in a more "cultured" vein:

Sights in London that took my breath away

• Westminster Abbey: Seeing this the first time, bathed in the bright sunshine of a summer evening, was like having all the air sucked out of me. Just awe-inspiring.
• The West End Theatre district: It was just such a thrill to see the names of famous plays and musicals (and people!) up in the marquees.
• London Tower Bridge: An engineering and architectural wonder. A highlight was standing right on the spot of the "gap" where the bridge parts to allow ships through.
• The Leonardo da Vinci cartoon of Jesus, Mary and St Anne in the National Gallery: The darkened room and the hushed atmosphere were appropriate; it seemed almost a spiritual experience to see this.
• The Egyptian displays in the British Museum: Cleopatra's mummy was only the start of it. It was truly mind-boggling to wander into room after room of these artifacts.
• The musical instruments collection in the Victoria and Albert Museum: So, so beautiful.
• The Monet painting of Waterlilies and the Van Gogh still-life of the Chair in the National Gallery: They were in the same room (which was amongst the most crowded in the entire gallery) and placed amongst many other paintings, but just seemed to have a vibrancy of their own., which really caught the eye and held it. Prints really do not do justice to great art.

And finally, something completely different, drawing on my embarrassing enjoyment of reality television shows.

Favourite Seasons of Reality TV Shows

• The Amazing Race Season 1: Kevin and Drew, Rob and Brennan, Frank and Margarita. They really don't cast them like that anymore (Current season Jonathan and Victoria? Are you freaking kidding me?)
• The Apprentice Season 1: Such great television; smart alecs, delusional bitches, pathological liars, jealous egotists, ambitious brown-nosers and The Hair!! It was also very cleverly edited and the theme song was as catchy as anything on MTV last year.
• The Amazing Race Season 3: Flo being on the winning team was a big downer, but this was the season with Ken and Gerrard, my all time favourite TAR team. And they came to both Singapore and Malaysia, so that compensates for one Flo meltdown.
• America's Next Top Model Season 1: A fast-paced, action-packed show about MODELS! Who would have thought? Girl for girl, this cast was more interesting than Season 2.Elyse was a brilliant casting find and Adrienne had a heartwarming tomboy to top model story arc. And hate her all you want, but Robyn was a better show-villain than Camille.
• Survivor Amazon: Again, good season let down by a less than desirable winner. Up till the point that Jenna won immunity at Final 3, it was all good, with Rob Castriano redefining Survivor fanboydom.
• American Idol Season 2: In retrospect, the best collection of talent in the 3 seasons. It introduced me to the voice of Clay Aiken, if nothing else, which makes up for the predictability of Simon's manipulation, Paula's incoherence and Randy's "yo, dawg" routine. And they performed really enjoyable medleys every week (the 60's medley on the Final 5 results show is still one of the best moments in AI's 3 seasons) - what happened to these in Season 3?
• America's Next Top Model Season 2: A worthy sophomore season, although too many of the finalists were not too memorable (Sarah, anyone?). Points deducted for that episode which was a glorified commercial for Tyra's music video, but points added back for Janice Dickinson's very funny bitchiness.
• Survivor Pulau Tiga: I liked Richard Hatch, though he was something of an a**hole. He was just so gloriously self aware that it was hard to completely dislike him (notwithstanding subsequent events in All Star Survival). The final tribal council set a benchmark for seasons to follow and many have tried to resurrect the glory of "snakes and rats" but most without success.
• The Amazing Race Season 5: Chip and Kim won!! Not since Season 1 had I been so happy about the winners. The stunt casting of Charla detracted from the season, and Colin's intensity was hard to take (but looking at Jonathan this season? Come back, Colin.) but the whole season was genuinely entertaining.
• Survivor Pearl Island: Rupert eventually wore out his welcome, Johny Fairplay was frankly odious and the self-righteous brow-beating of Lil and her scout's uniform was just ridiculous. But it was a season which reinvented itself with a few fresh ideas. And Sandra winning is fine by me.

Looks like no room for The Bachelor, Temptation Island, Joe Millionaire and shows of that ilk. If I ever get around to those thought-provoking essays, I will do a full on rant about a viewing audience that preferred The Bachelor to TAR. What is the world coming to?