people, for the sake of your beloved friends who are stuck in offices with no work to do (ie me) please do update your blogs! there are only these many times i can visit straits times and bbc in a day!

i have another love now though. i think abiel shares it with me. it's called...CHUZZLE! yes the cute little fuzzballs that squeak, roll their eyes, sneeze, burst and even shed their fuzz if u annoy them. there are fat chuzzles too, also cute. i think the major attraction of this game for me is that, you guessed it, the little fuzzballs are too cute to bear! now if you don't believe me and want to see proof (not my pic):

isn't it just the cutest game? there are even chuzzles that sleep. i got my fat chuzzle to belch which was really funny. ahhh if i remember to bring my laptop tomorrow i might be able to play chuzzle while at work. muahahaha. i am not being lazy, my boss has run out of work for me to do and he knows i have no work because i reminded him. oh well. nvm, i won't complain about more chuzzle time! it is also the first computer game i am playing properly in a long long time, after neopets. i tried abiel's need for speed too, but must confess i really suck at drifting. ah another game to master for another time.

it seems like i haven't been doing much this summer holiday, yet it's almost ending. i have been to greece and back, started working, continued driving (wish me luck, i in turn will ensure your insurance premiums don't increase) trained for ahm (which i don't know whether i am running in the end! sigh) but not touched schoolwork, not even my thesis. i envisage a stress-filled michaelmas. my kor commented that i was being very efficient though, cuz i have a china trip coming right up (in fact flying on the day of ahm), and then driving very shortly after, followed by france! for RWC! yay seeing the all blacks and then going to disneyland and touring paris will be so fab. i think going back to oxford straight after that will be such a bummer, but it can't be helped i guess. anyway efficient perhaps in the number of things i can do and places i can go in a short three month span (honestly i think it's a little embarrassing) but no studying! argh.

anyway today i was reflecting on some things about crime and punishment. there's an outcry in uk about a boy who murdered a man in 1995. he was rather young, 15, stabbed the poor man who was trying to protect another boy in a gang fight. he was sentenced to life in prison with a 12 year minimum term, but could be released as soon as next year if the parole board judges that it is safe for him to be released. the outcry is not just that he will be released (it seems to be a foregone conclusion) but rather that he will remain in uk and not be deported (he's italian and came to england at 6.) it is a tussle between the home office and the asylum and immigration tribunal. basically the home office want him back in italy, where he was born, while the asylum and immigration tribunal ruled that he can stay in uk because of the Human Rights Act. basically because he is an EU national and has lived in the UK for more than 10 years (even though this is in a prison) he can only be removed from UK on the "imperative grounds of national security" and so, respecting the law and his rights mean he can stay in uk.


my intuitions were, this can't be right? he is a convicted murderer, and his act of murder mean in effect he lost all claim to his right of freedom of movement. this is recognized, of course, in his imprisonment. isn't this easily extended to his not being able to stay in uk? well, the more i thought about it, the more i felt this issue was actually incredibly tricky. firstly, examining why his freedom of movement was curtailed in the first place, well i'd say it's both a punitive as well as a preventive measure. there is little direct deterrent effect in this particular case, because well, a life is not paid with a life, and also because a life term is in effect a 10 or 20 year term. even arguing about his early release i would wonder if 12 years is enough punishment for a man's life, and enough to inculcate in one the value of another's life, and what respect for her rights mean. sorry if i sound unnecessarily harsh given his young age, i know he's spent a good part of his years in jail. however if the parole board were to rule that he can be released, they are not only saying he has been punished enough, but also that he poses no threat to society. i can only raise my eyebrows in great scepticism at that claim. i have not met this boy, know nuts about him, but my basic understanding of punishment is that it should be proportional to the crime, and even though there is no way you can ever repay a life, it seems like they are equating the victim's life with 12 years of this boy's life. furthermore, the attack was brutal - the victim was stabbed, not shot - stabbing requires you to physically hold the weapon, plunge it into the other person's body, with the full knowledge of how much that would hurt, the sight of how human this other person is when the blood gushes out onto your hands..i mean the whole nature of stabbing is the close direct contact with the victim, and therefore awareness of the humanity and frailty of the victim, but still choosing to commit the heinous act. (sorry i am not expressing myself very well at the moment) 12 years for a brave professor's life.

even more than that, what intrigued me was precisely what the victim's widow said. what about her family's rights? when do u stop punishing someone, a young person with perhaps a bright future, and when will that, if ever, appease the victim's family? there must be some degree of forgive and forget, no doubt about it, and the murderer should be given a second chance at life, especially if he has really and truly reformed. but how much of this person's life should encroach, if i may use that word, on the victim's family's lifes? i think emotions rule the day, because everyone can emphathise with the woman's claim - i know i would act in the exact same way. how much of your rights do you surrender when you not just disobey the laws of a nation, but also of humanity, and most of all, when you take someone's life away? if that surrender was acceptable even for a period of time, then explain clearly why this is now not the case, rather than hide behind some human rights legislation intended to protect refugees, poor migrant workers and asylum seekers, people who actually need that help.

human rights is always controversial i know - why, who, the extent, even its existence. but this, i think, is a blatantly wrong use of the term, and the scary part is, the only way i can explain it
is by appealing to emotions.

i am displeased.

last week ST featured a group of promising talents in the fashion industry. well and dandy, kudos to all of you. except of course, the lament was that singapore girls are really dress down, take their inspiration from magazines, and worse of all horrors, leave the house without a stitch of makeup on. today, there's a feature about teens who spend a lot of money on making themselves look good.

one thing i don't understand is the emphasis on makeup. why resort to something so artificial when in the end, you may frighten the poor boy away when one day you don't put any makeup on? actually given that cosmetics is a multi-billion industry in litigious america i am frankly surprised that no girl's been sued yet for "appearing different" from what she normally looks like, not having "the goods" so to speak. (the same goes for breast augmentations too and all that) surely it's not essential to put makeup on for something as simple as a jaunt around the neighbourhood, or even orchard? and since when did well groomed meant being well made up too?

i understand the need for makeup, and i know that makeup can work wonders. that is why i have some myself. but i resist any attempts to make me wear it more than i deem necessary, it's a tool to complement not to subsume. personally i find that as long as one is hygienic, smells good and is healthy, no one is that unattractive to need makeup on all the time. i much rather spend money on a good skin-care and fitness regime than something as ephemeral (i think the word was developed specially to describe made-up beauty) as makeup. really, if you're lucky, it will last you till the time you intend it, that is, 9pm, beyond which you probably will contend with panda eyes and smudgy lips. another horror to contemplate surely.

having said all that, i totally understand the feeling of wanting to look good. i have days when i feel like buying that waistcoat, getting that perm and manicure, and generally wanting to make myself up in the prettiest way i think i can. but in the end, i dismiss those ideas, partly because i am lazy, i know i cannot upkeep such habits, but more importantly because i don't want to be reliant on something that will ultimately destroy my confidence in my own physical features.

My work so far

The good: realizing that the horror stories told by MFA about Saudi Arabian men just aren’t true. For the past week, I was attached to a group of Saudi Arabian delegates, picking them up from the hotel to meeting venues, and back again. They treated me with respect, and spoke to me and talked to me about themselves, their families and their culture. I had a very enriching time (the meetings, though at times boring, were really an eye opener because it taught me so much about Singapore), and even though the scheduling and the job was demanding, I felt different at the end of the week. Like I have truly learnt something. And I was sad to say goodbye to the delegates – they really were very nice and understanding.

The bad: the constant ringing on my phone, even throughout the meetings. People just assumed because I was there as a “Liaison Officer” that I was always free, but in actual fact I was so frustrated because I could be in the middle of a call, and get another call coming in and have a text at the same time. It seemed as though everyone demanded my undivided attention, which by definition I could not give to all at the same time.

The ugly: the policy about gifts. Let me relate the whole story first. On the second last day of the trip, they went to Botanic Gardens. At the gift shop, the leader of the delegation stopped and was browsing. He beckoned me to join him, and asked me about a orchid necklace he had in his hand, if it was suitable for his daughter “about my age”. Well I thought since it was gold, and his daughter was my age it may not be appropriate as I pointed him to a silver one which I thought was more suitable for someone younger. I also asked about his daughter’s taste, and he said that she was like me, so I finally pointed to one and he chose it.

Surprise surprise (probably spoilt it already) he gives the necklace to me and said it’s on behalf of the entire delegation as a thank you. I am so incredibly shocked I don’t even have time to react before the gift’s in my hands. No matter, I go back to office after all the meetings have ended (so much integrity I have) and report it to my boss. He wanted me to keep it, but my tale was overheard and I was told to declare the gift instead because it’s for my own good. Today I get the form. On the form, not only do I have to fill in the gift and why I could not decline it, I was also asked to indicate if I wanted to buy the gift.

I’m sorry? Did I read correctly? The company wants me to pay for a gift I got, the money of which will go into the company’s coffers? If I do not want to buy the gift, the company will keep it. I’m told it might be used in family day events and the like. I don’t know but to me it was a little shocking to say the least. I understand the government’s concern about being clean and all, but surely it’s a little presumptuous to make one state that one has to buy the gift at the company’s valuation? Why can’t the system be that you state the gift that you have, and the company then decides whether or not to take further action? And again, what if the company values it above the gift price? My biggest query is, why is it in the end the company who benefits from it all, when the gift was supposed to be a thank you for the hard work that I put in, sort of a reward for hard work? No matter, one might say, afterall you are paid – that is enough reward for your hard work. However that is why it is tricky, I am not paid a single cent at all. But more than that I do not like in the end it is the company which benefits from whatever arrangement comes out of it, and the most I can keep of the gift is perhaps a snapshot. I would have no objections at all if the money was donated, because that is the very essence of a gift right? If your purpose is to maintain a clean graft free government, which I fully agree, isn’t there something strange about “selling” someone’s gift back to them, and keeping the money for yourself? How can you, in the first place, make money out of something that you do not own, that is in all respect another person’s? Shouldn’t you at the very least pass on the benefit to someone who needs it more, never mind any arguments about reward now?

Someone may say, think of the greater good. Such mechanisms are in place to ensure a graft-free environment, after all there can be no buying you off since you pay for your own gift. Sure, I agree, but then the question is not just you paying for your gift (even though to that I still have some reservations) but also where the money goes? I understand, correct me if I am wrong, that the money that the government collects as fines goes into the government’s coffers. I always wondered what about the fines that the government collects when someone is convicted, say of robbing someone. Do the fines go back to the victim, or is he seriously out of pocket?

Knowing my government and company however I know there is no use complaining, much as I feel hard done (it’s not the gift per se that irks me, it’s the fact that it was from a group of people who I will like to remember in years to come). I will just go home and take a snapshot. After all, this is merely a foretaste of the rewards I will get in future for my participation.