Ok guys who are reading this ..
I have a friend's wedding coming and I wanna do a special stag night for him. Been to those typical KTV, health center, Pubs, transvestite shit .... now I am looking for a "Thai-girl show" equivalent in Singapore. Where can I find such?? Anyone heard of anything like that locally?
Thursday, June 30, 2005
Wednesday, June 29, 2005
War of the Worlds (1953) - 72%
Now that the War of the Worlds 2005 is upon us, let's do a quick review of the original 1953 Classic.
When the original 1953 was released, it was a sci fi megaton. The special effects (then) were groundbreaking and the "forcefield" effect they did with the miniatures were very impressive. The scenes of people going chaotic and crazy trying to flee the city and how looting started occurring when the city was under attack, were done pretty realistically. I realised that you as an audience, would just watch the chaos unfold, but you never question why people would turn mean and uncivilized the moment foreign attack was upon them. And in a way, we understood, that human nature is in its very roots, selfish and cold.
And had I watched this film earlier, I would have noticed all the references made by the movie "Independence day" to this classic. One scene blatantly ripped from the original was how nuclear bomb was unleashed upon the enemy but to no effect. It goes to show that in more than 4 decades, the nuclear bomb is still the lingering threat that exists in all the major superpowers' crackheads. I guess in these recent years, terrorism is the new threat, and I'd be interested to see how the new movie would play to exhibit that.
The original story was written by HG Wells, with a political reference to the British Imperialism in the 19th century. The movie in 1953, was obviously a knock on US's then "superiority" with their Nuclear bomb. I guess in these recent years, terrorism is the new threat, and I'd be interested to see how the new movie would play to exhibit that.
What to expect from the 2005 version?
Now the original 1953 classic was groundbreaking in the special effects department. The movie also garnered an Academy Award for Best Special Effects. So I would expect this 2005 version to be visually impressive as well. What I didn't like about the original was its ending. Maybe I shouldn't give it away for those who hasn't seen it, but let's just say that it felt like they had ran out of ideas or budget to kill the aliens so they made one pretty lame excuse for it. "Independence Day's" ending was pretty damn ridiculous too. So was "Mars Attack", but at least they made it funny. I hope they would make this ending a satisfying one.
When the original 1953 was released, it was a sci fi megaton. The special effects (then) were groundbreaking and the "forcefield" effect they did with the miniatures were very impressive. The scenes of people going chaotic and crazy trying to flee the city and how looting started occurring when the city was under attack, were done pretty realistically. I realised that you as an audience, would just watch the chaos unfold, but you never question why people would turn mean and uncivilized the moment foreign attack was upon them. And in a way, we understood, that human nature is in its very roots, selfish and cold.
And had I watched this film earlier, I would have noticed all the references made by the movie "Independence day" to this classic. One scene blatantly ripped from the original was how nuclear bomb was unleashed upon the enemy but to no effect. It goes to show that in more than 4 decades, the nuclear bomb is still the lingering threat that exists in all the major superpowers' crackheads. I guess in these recent years, terrorism is the new threat, and I'd be interested to see how the new movie would play to exhibit that.
The original story was written by HG Wells, with a political reference to the British Imperialism in the 19th century. The movie in 1953, was obviously a knock on US's then "superiority" with their Nuclear bomb. I guess in these recent years, terrorism is the new threat, and I'd be interested to see how the new movie would play to exhibit that.
What to expect from the 2005 version?
Now the original 1953 classic was groundbreaking in the special effects department. The movie also garnered an Academy Award for Best Special Effects. So I would expect this 2005 version to be visually impressive as well. What I didn't like about the original was its ending. Maybe I shouldn't give it away for those who hasn't seen it, but let's just say that it felt like they had ran out of ideas or budget to kill the aliens so they made one pretty lame excuse for it. "Independence Day's" ending was pretty damn ridiculous too. So was "Mars Attack", but at least they made it funny. I hope they would make this ending a satisfying one.
Saturday, June 25, 2005
Crime fears.
Straits Times. Home Section. June 25, 2005.
Debate in court over accused's access to lawyer.
A recent brutal murder case has rattled the island. In case you're not aware, a 22 yr old lady from China, is found dismembered - body severed into 2, upper and lower torso wrapped in plastic bag, head severed, feet still missing. The suspect, her supervisor at work, is arrested while investigation is still undergoing.
The case is definitely gruesome and disturbing. The suspect, in almost every certainty at this point, looks to be the most likely killer in this case. However, no matter how the case at hand is going to unfold from this point, the suspect is still unconvicted, and dare I say, innocent until proven otherwise. That's why he's named, a suspect. He's in custody, and arrested based on suspicion. He is not yet convicted.
What boggles me is why the question of him having access to his lawyer is even mentioned. Why should he not be given access to the lawyer, and most intriguingly, the block was done by the DPP (Deputy Public Prosecution) and even more surprising, upheld by the Distric Judge.
The DPP's reason for the block was that the police had to expend much time and resources to locate and verify parts of her body. DPP Koh told the courts yesterday "the scope of an order of investigation necessarily excludes any external meetings or conversations". Honestly, I do not understand what the hell that means nor does it seems like it made any justification for blocking an accused access to his lawyers.
The Judge said that the court has a duty to balance the rights of the accused and the obligations of the police. Why would the rights of the accused to have access to his counsel be in danger to or jeopardize the obligations and the investigative work of the police? Makes no sense to me, and if anyone who is a lawyer could help enlighten me, I'd truly appreciate.
District Judge also says "I am also aware of the view that the interests of the accused will not be compromised by the lack of access to the counsel at this stage". This puzzles me even more. His rights as an unconvicted accused to a lawyer is being compromised, and why wouldn't his interests be?
Debate in court over accused's access to lawyer.
A recent brutal murder case has rattled the island. In case you're not aware, a 22 yr old lady from China, is found dismembered - body severed into 2, upper and lower torso wrapped in plastic bag, head severed, feet still missing. The suspect, her supervisor at work, is arrested while investigation is still undergoing.
The case is definitely gruesome and disturbing. The suspect, in almost every certainty at this point, looks to be the most likely killer in this case. However, no matter how the case at hand is going to unfold from this point, the suspect is still unconvicted, and dare I say, innocent until proven otherwise. That's why he's named, a suspect. He's in custody, and arrested based on suspicion. He is not yet convicted.
What boggles me is why the question of him having access to his lawyer is even mentioned. Why should he not be given access to the lawyer, and most intriguingly, the block was done by the DPP (Deputy Public Prosecution) and even more surprising, upheld by the Distric Judge.
The DPP's reason for the block was that the police had to expend much time and resources to locate and verify parts of her body. DPP Koh told the courts yesterday "the scope of an order of investigation necessarily excludes any external meetings or conversations". Honestly, I do not understand what the hell that means nor does it seems like it made any justification for blocking an accused access to his lawyers.
The Judge said that the court has a duty to balance the rights of the accused and the obligations of the police. Why would the rights of the accused to have access to his counsel be in danger to or jeopardize the obligations and the investigative work of the police? Makes no sense to me, and if anyone who is a lawyer could help enlighten me, I'd truly appreciate.
District Judge also says "I am also aware of the view that the interests of the accused will not be compromised by the lack of access to the counsel at this stage". This puzzles me even more. His rights as an unconvicted accused to a lawyer is being compromised, and why wouldn't his interests be?
Tuesday, June 21, 2005
HDB owners??
Recent survey shows .... 2.84 million singaporeans live in HDB flats (CNA report 21 june 05, HDB Household Survey). That's up 5.2%. The report does not show how many percent of the Singaporean population is that, but using 4million (2000 survey) as an estimate, it would make it about 71%.
Now the report also says ""buying" beat "renting" hands down - an overwhelming 95.6 percent of households interviewed prefer to own rather than rent a flat. ".
My question now would be:
1) How many of these people actually think that they "own" their 99 year lease hold flat?
2) How many of these people actually know that they are actually "renting" these HDB flats from the government, and not "buying" them?
3) Or are these people voicing their unhappiness that these flats are "leasehold"?
If they fall into (1) and (2), that means they need to be educated about how stupid they are, thinking that they "own" these flats. Thus more than 70% of Singaporeans are not home owners. And if we look upon houses as assets, then 70% of Singaporeans do not own any assets. Gulps ..... that truly sucks ....
Why HDB is a scam?
- They are 99 leaseholds.
- "lease" n. definition: A contract granting use or occupation of property during a specified period in exchange for a specified rent. Go read your HDB contract, you are a "leasee" and HDB is the "leasor".
- Assuming they cost between $200-$300,000 for an average unit, and assuming you are using 0% loan (only assuming) you are paying rent of $210 per month for a unit costing $250,000. In fact there are the new HDBs that costs more than $400,000 to "lease", so the monthly rent is even higher. But hey ... no one lives for 99 years, and in fact, I don;t think anyone even buys a HDB until they are at least married or 35 if you're single. So if u take that into account, the effective rental for the HDB per month goes up even more considering that you live there for only 30 to 40 years!! And at the rate of 30-40 years, the rental rate of a $250,000 zooms up to at least $500!! Assuming you'd still have to pay about $200 per mth for carparking, you're paying more than $700 for rent.
- I pay $500/mth for rental of a condo unit, with free parking and gym and swimming pool facilities. Compare that with the numbers above.
- Oh yes ... you are supposed to pre-pay your 99 year rent to the HDB for "leasing" their unit. I mean, the banks have to lend you the money to pay the HDB for renting their place! If you don't call this a scam I don't know what is?
Wait a minute? ... Isn't this supposed to be government property? And if it is, it is paid for by the tax payers money? So the government basically takes our money, builds some apts and we have to pay to use it somemore?
Food for thoughts ....
Now the report also says ""buying" beat "renting" hands down - an overwhelming 95.6 percent of households interviewed prefer to own rather than rent a flat. ".
My question now would be:
1) How many of these people actually think that they "own" their 99 year lease hold flat?
2) How many of these people actually know that they are actually "renting" these HDB flats from the government, and not "buying" them?
3) Or are these people voicing their unhappiness that these flats are "leasehold"?
If they fall into (1) and (2), that means they need to be educated about how stupid they are, thinking that they "own" these flats. Thus more than 70% of Singaporeans are not home owners. And if we look upon houses as assets, then 70% of Singaporeans do not own any assets. Gulps ..... that truly sucks ....
Why HDB is a scam?
- They are 99 leaseholds.
- "lease" n. definition: A contract granting use or occupation of property during a specified period in exchange for a specified rent. Go read your HDB contract, you are a "leasee" and HDB is the "leasor".
- Assuming they cost between $200-$300,000 for an average unit, and assuming you are using 0% loan (only assuming) you are paying rent of $210 per month for a unit costing $250,000. In fact there are the new HDBs that costs more than $400,000 to "lease", so the monthly rent is even higher. But hey ... no one lives for 99 years, and in fact, I don;t think anyone even buys a HDB until they are at least married or 35 if you're single. So if u take that into account, the effective rental for the HDB per month goes up even more considering that you live there for only 30 to 40 years!! And at the rate of 30-40 years, the rental rate of a $250,000 zooms up to at least $500!! Assuming you'd still have to pay about $200 per mth for carparking, you're paying more than $700 for rent.
- I pay $500/mth for rental of a condo unit, with free parking and gym and swimming pool facilities. Compare that with the numbers above.
- Oh yes ... you are supposed to pre-pay your 99 year rent to the HDB for "leasing" their unit. I mean, the banks have to lend you the money to pay the HDB for renting their place! If you don't call this a scam I don't know what is?
Wait a minute? ... Isn't this supposed to be government property? And if it is, it is paid for by the tax payers money? So the government basically takes our money, builds some apts and we have to pay to use it somemore?
Food for thoughts ....
Monday, June 20, 2005
I LOVE it :)
This was a great weekend .... mainly cos I finished a wedding DVD for a friend and it was one of the prettiest. Man .. the look on their faces when they saw the DVDs, the packaging, the designs, the menus ....man I LOVE it ...
That's why i love doing wedding videos. Yes it is pretty good money ... but it is also pretty hard work.
I hope I can keep doing this until I die.
There's this movie called "The final Cut". About an unknown future, where people can implant a certain chip in their brains (or their child's brain) and then at their death, have it reedited by a "cutter" into a "rememory" for friends and family to watch. Or even have it on their grave for people to watch. Very interesting, and me doing wedding videos for people, makes me feel like somewhat a "cutter" of some sorts. :) nothing morbid about weddings of course.
I am helping people to "rememorize" their weddings :)
That's why i love doing wedding videos. Yes it is pretty good money ... but it is also pretty hard work.
I hope I can keep doing this until I die.
There's this movie called "The final Cut". About an unknown future, where people can implant a certain chip in their brains (or their child's brain) and then at their death, have it reedited by a "cutter" into a "rememory" for friends and family to watch. Or even have it on their grave for people to watch. Very interesting, and me doing wedding videos for people, makes me feel like somewhat a "cutter" of some sorts. :) nothing morbid about weddings of course.
I am helping people to "rememorize" their weddings :)
Friday, June 17, 2005
Power of inaction
Deep thoughts of a Singapore Critic
When people do not act, the power is given to those who do.
Quote by? Yours Truly :)
Grammar fixed :P
When people do not act, the power is given to those who do.
Quote by? Yours Truly :)
Grammar fixed :P
Thursday, June 16, 2005
I promise
I promise .... these coming weeks. .... less play .. more rest ..
I will say with great resolve ... that I shall sleep more this week ....
I promise ....
I will say with great resolve ... that I shall sleep more this week ....
I promise ....
Tuesday, June 14, 2005
MJ is aquitted
Well ... Wacko Jacko is aquitted. I am really not surprised. In fact if he was guilty, I'd be very surprised. I guess those who followed the case closely wouldn't be surprised either. I was a fan, but even I had my doubts. But as the case unfolded, the prosecution just didn't have a strong case. They had no evidence, only witnesses and their accusations. And the defense attorney did a spectacular job at gunning down every single one of the accusations raised, either through clever cross examination or introducing witnesses that destroyed the accusations of the prosecutions witnesses.
In the end, i guess, MJ did finally cleared his name, but at the same time confirmed a few details:
#1: MJ was stupid and gullible to pay those money to those blood suckers
#2: MJ is still weird
#3: MJ is really black by birth, but will probably die a white man.
#4: MJ is probably bankrupt by now
In the end, i guess, MJ did finally cleared his name, but at the same time confirmed a few details:
#1: MJ was stupid and gullible to pay those money to those blood suckers
#2: MJ is still weird
#3: MJ is really black by birth, but will probably die a white man.
#4: MJ is probably bankrupt by now
Batman ... finally begins ...
Last night ... Batman Begins premiere ...
Finally .... after all the injustice served to the fans (and creator) of the comic book Batman with the circus acts named "Batman forever", "Batman & Robin", this is a proper tribute to the Dark Knight. This is how Batman should always have been.
Batman was supposed to be a detective, with a dark brooding emotional baggage, with great acrobatic (and kungfu?) skills, and also, a great businessman.
For the Tim Burton and Joel Shumacher's outings, he became a "star", no longer mysterious, and worst of all "showy" ... Batman became sorta like a fantasy superhero version of James Bond, with big names like Val Kilmer and George Clooney all vying to be the "sexy lips with the black cape". But Batman was never supposed to be about the lips.
Batman Begins is a return to form, back to basics. Most importantly ... this movie had a solid storyline to back it up. Yes, there were holes, but not too glaring, and at least it treated the character seriously, never allowing him to become ridiculous. Bruce Wayne was a man that felt real.
The Marvel comic Heroes have been kicking the DC comics' butt, because they took their characters seriously. We're talking the success of Spiderman and X-men, making the fans and the critics rave about them. While the DC comic heroes were making a fool of themselves (Superman 3 & 4, Batman & Robin and Batman Forever), the Marvel ones were making cash. So what is Warner, with a load of DC franchises in hand gonna do? Give the respect back to the characters .... here's we've seen how they did it with Batman ... next change ... Superman Returns. I am keeping my fingers crossed.
Finally .... after all the injustice served to the fans (and creator) of the comic book Batman with the circus acts named "Batman forever", "Batman & Robin", this is a proper tribute to the Dark Knight. This is how Batman should always have been.
Batman was supposed to be a detective, with a dark brooding emotional baggage, with great acrobatic (and kungfu?) skills, and also, a great businessman.
For the Tim Burton and Joel Shumacher's outings, he became a "star", no longer mysterious, and worst of all "showy" ... Batman became sorta like a fantasy superhero version of James Bond, with big names like Val Kilmer and George Clooney all vying to be the "sexy lips with the black cape". But Batman was never supposed to be about the lips.
Batman Begins is a return to form, back to basics. Most importantly ... this movie had a solid storyline to back it up. Yes, there were holes, but not too glaring, and at least it treated the character seriously, never allowing him to become ridiculous. Bruce Wayne was a man that felt real.
The Marvel comic Heroes have been kicking the DC comics' butt, because they took their characters seriously. We're talking the success of Spiderman and X-men, making the fans and the critics rave about them. While the DC comic heroes were making a fool of themselves (Superman 3 & 4, Batman & Robin and Batman Forever), the Marvel ones were making cash. So what is Warner, with a load of DC franchises in hand gonna do? Give the respect back to the characters .... here's we've seen how they did it with Batman ... next change ... Superman Returns. I am keeping my fingers crossed.
Friday, June 10, 2005
Good laws .. bad laws ... episode 1
Just as there are good people and bad ones .... there are good laws and bad laws ....
This was something that was said by Gandhi and how very true. When there is a government that straddles on extremism, you get laws that tries to cover every corner possible to give them any excuse to allow them to do anything they wish. In other words, unreasonable laws.
We have quite a number here in Singapore. Here's one:
Please note the definition of "film" in the "Film Act":
"film" means —
(a) any cinematograph film;
(b) any video recording, including a video recording that is designed for use wholly or principally as a game;
(c) any other material record or thing on which is recorded or stored for immediate or future retrieval any information that, by the use of any computer or electronic device, is capable of being reproduced or displayed as wholly or partly visual moving pictures,
and includes any part of a film, and any copy or part of a copy of the whole or any part of a film;
Licence for carrying on business of importing, making, distributing or exhibiting films
6. —(1) No person —
(a) shall carry on any business, whether or not the business is carried on for profit, of importing, making, distributing or exhibiting films unless he is in possession of a valid licence; or
(b) being the owner or occupier of any place shall allow the place to be used by, or let the place or otherwise make the place available to, any person who is not the holder of a valid licence for the purpose of carrying on the business of importing, making, distributing or exhibiting films.
(2) Any person who contravenes subsection (1) shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine of not less than $10,000 but not more than $40,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to both.
Here's another:
Films made in Singapore to be deposited in approved warehouse
12. —(1) The owner of any film made in Singapore shall, within 7 days after the making of the film, deposit the film in a warehouse approved for this purpose by the Board.
(2) Any person who fails to deposit the film in accordance with subsection (1) shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $5,000.
Penalty for possession, exhibition or distribution of uncensored films
21. —(1) Any person who —
(a) has in his possession;
(b) exhibits or distributes; or
(c) reproduces,
any film without a valid certificate, approving the exhibition of the film, shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction —
(i) in respect of an offence under paragraph (a), to a fine of not less than $100 for each such film that he had in his possession (but not to exceed in the aggregate $20,000); and
(ii) in respect of an offence under paragraph (b) or (c), to a fine of not less than $500 for each such film he had exhibited, distributed or reproduced, as the case may be (but not to exceed in the aggregate $40,000) or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or to both.
[10/98]
(2) Any Censor and any Deputy or Assistant Censor and any Inspector of Films may at all reasonable times enter any place in which any film is kept or is being or is about to be exhibited and may examine the film, and if on such examination he has reasonable grounds for believing that an offence under this section has been or is about to be committed in respect of the film he may seize the film and any equipment used in the commission of the offence.
(3) Any film and equipment seized under subsection (2) in respect of which any person has been convicted under this section shall be forfeited and shall be destroyed or otherwise disposed of in such manner as the Minister may direct.
(4) For the purposes of this section if any film is altered in any way after it has been approved for exhibition under this Act, the film shall be deemed not to have been so approved.
So these are just some abstract from the "Film Act" of Singapore. Boys and girls. If you're reading this and you possess any Digital camcorder, and had made any home videos, travel videos, wedding videos or any kind of videos of any sort, you'd better send it into the censorship board to be inspected, and get ready some cash to pay for the licenses. If not, get ready to hide them real well, or may the government have mercy on your soul.
Amen. Amitaba ....
This was something that was said by Gandhi and how very true. When there is a government that straddles on extremism, you get laws that tries to cover every corner possible to give them any excuse to allow them to do anything they wish. In other words, unreasonable laws.
We have quite a number here in Singapore. Here's one:
Please note the definition of "film" in the "Film Act":
"film" means —
(a) any cinematograph film;
(b) any video recording, including a video recording that is designed for use wholly or principally as a game;
(c) any other material record or thing on which is recorded or stored for immediate or future retrieval any information that, by the use of any computer or electronic device, is capable of being reproduced or displayed as wholly or partly visual moving pictures,
and includes any part of a film, and any copy or part of a copy of the whole or any part of a film;
Licence for carrying on business of importing, making, distributing or exhibiting films
6. —(1) No person —
(a) shall carry on any business, whether or not the business is carried on for profit, of importing, making, distributing or exhibiting films unless he is in possession of a valid licence; or
(b) being the owner or occupier of any place shall allow the place to be used by, or let the place or otherwise make the place available to, any person who is not the holder of a valid licence for the purpose of carrying on the business of importing, making, distributing or exhibiting films.
(2) Any person who contravenes subsection (1) shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine of not less than $10,000 but not more than $40,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to both.
Here's another:
Films made in Singapore to be deposited in approved warehouse
12. —(1) The owner of any film made in Singapore shall, within 7 days after the making of the film, deposit the film in a warehouse approved for this purpose by the Board.
(2) Any person who fails to deposit the film in accordance with subsection (1) shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $5,000.
Penalty for possession, exhibition or distribution of uncensored films
21. —(1) Any person who —
(a) has in his possession;
(b) exhibits or distributes; or
(c) reproduces,
any film without a valid certificate, approving the exhibition of the film, shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction —
(i) in respect of an offence under paragraph (a), to a fine of not less than $100 for each such film that he had in his possession (but not to exceed in the aggregate $20,000); and
(ii) in respect of an offence under paragraph (b) or (c), to a fine of not less than $500 for each such film he had exhibited, distributed or reproduced, as the case may be (but not to exceed in the aggregate $40,000) or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or to both.
[10/98]
(2) Any Censor and any Deputy or Assistant Censor and any Inspector of Films may at all reasonable times enter any place in which any film is kept or is being or is about to be exhibited and may examine the film, and if on such examination he has reasonable grounds for believing that an offence under this section has been or is about to be committed in respect of the film he may seize the film and any equipment used in the commission of the offence.
(3) Any film and equipment seized under subsection (2) in respect of which any person has been convicted under this section shall be forfeited and shall be destroyed or otherwise disposed of in such manner as the Minister may direct.
(4) For the purposes of this section if any film is altered in any way after it has been approved for exhibition under this Act, the film shall be deemed not to have been so approved.
So these are just some abstract from the "Film Act" of Singapore. Boys and girls. If you're reading this and you possess any Digital camcorder, and had made any home videos, travel videos, wedding videos or any kind of videos of any sort, you'd better send it into the censorship board to be inspected, and get ready some cash to pay for the licenses. If not, get ready to hide them real well, or may the government have mercy on your soul.
Amen. Amitaba ....
In light of all the violence ...
It saddens me to see how the wheel spinners at the White house still tries to claim "we're making good progress in Iraq".
"I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary; the evil it does is permanent."
-- Mohandas K. Gandhi
"I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary; the evil it does is permanent."
-- Mohandas K. Gandhi
When u got nothing to write ....
When u got nothing to write .. point your readers in the direction where there's something to read ...
And read this u must dear readers .. before it gets pulled or sued .... :)
http://www.yeocheowtong.com
And read this u must dear readers .. before it gets pulled or sued .... :)
http://www.yeocheowtong.com
Monday, June 06, 2005
Death
My friend of 16 years passed last week.
Fell from his apartment on the 8th Storey.
Accident.
Grief.
Funeral.
Tears.
Memories.
16 years.
Fell from his apartment on the 8th Storey.
Accident.
Grief.
Funeral.
Tears.
Memories.
16 years.
Tuesday, May 31, 2005
Night Safari
We have a cool theme park in Singapore ... the name? Night Safari.
This is one thing about Singapore that I am mighty proud about. This is one tourist attraction that I do not feel like it is a trap, and that it is not trying to rip me off.
Why? It is professionally designed, and conceptualized. It is a theme park that trusts its customer who will behave even given the closeness they can get to the animals. They dare to think big, and they dare to execute. Not like many other places where corners are cut to save costs, they are willing to spend to polish the place, and trust that the higher fee that they charge will justify its exhibits. They do not make you feel like they are ripping you off because you enter the place and you feel like it is worth every single cent you put in.
Do you hear people complaining about Disneyland being a rip off? Yes they are expensive, but once you've entered the place, you can literally do anything you want without fearing that you'll be subjected to other "hidden" costs. Night Safari is very close to replicating that "not being ripped off" feel.
I've been there thrice .. and I would love to bring more people back there again - Singaporeans and tourists alike.
This is one thing about Singapore that I am mighty proud about. This is one tourist attraction that I do not feel like it is a trap, and that it is not trying to rip me off.
Why? It is professionally designed, and conceptualized. It is a theme park that trusts its customer who will behave even given the closeness they can get to the animals. They dare to think big, and they dare to execute. Not like many other places where corners are cut to save costs, they are willing to spend to polish the place, and trust that the higher fee that they charge will justify its exhibits. They do not make you feel like they are ripping you off because you enter the place and you feel like it is worth every single cent you put in.
Do you hear people complaining about Disneyland being a rip off? Yes they are expensive, but once you've entered the place, you can literally do anything you want without fearing that you'll be subjected to other "hidden" costs. Night Safari is very close to replicating that "not being ripped off" feel.
I've been there thrice .. and I would love to bring more people back there again - Singaporeans and tourists alike.
Monday, May 30, 2005
Complaining about bad service?
We got lotsa customers complaining about bad service. We appreciate that most of the time. Being in the restaurant business myself, I need these feedbacks to see how we should improve our operations, products, services etc.
But then .. there are those customers i wish i could strangle them, tell them off, burn them at the stake .... but being the civilized me and always having the "customer is king" attitude, I endure, smile ... But anyways, the complaints are always the same. Food is slow, Payment is slow etc.
It is very sad about some simple observations about many Singaporean customers, ask anyone who runs a restaurant and they will agree with you :
1) They expect to be treated like Kings and Queens
2) They think "I am paying money and service charge, of course I expect nothing less than what I demand"
3) They think their money is BIG DEAL
4) Even if they are told they have a certain waiting time for their foods, they still complain.
5) They finish their foods, then they complain - when you couldn't do anything to resolve the issue by then.
6) They can't put themselves in other people's shoes.
7) You apologize, give them discounts, and they will still want to give you a hard time. Should I retract my apologies and discounts then, because if they are not pleasing to you, what will?
(I had even given customers free meals before and they are still angry. HUH???)
If there are any of my customers who are reading my entry and had experience bad or slow service at my restaurant, I apologize, and I would also hope that, you guys be more forgiving. I am just asking Singaporeans to be more understanding, forgiving and gracious. We're trying to make a living, by selling you our foods and providing a nice ambiance.
Stop thinking spending your money at restaurants will mean you can start treating people like they are your slaves. The next time readers, when you eat at any restaurants please keep the following in mind:
1) We're just humans.
2) To you, you're just waiting for your food and paying up when you're done. To us, we have to do the following:
- Send you to your tables, send you your menus, explain to you about the menus if necessary, take your orders, send your orders, prepare and make your drinks or salads and soups, send you your bill, collect and process your bills/cards, return your change/receipts, and clear your tables, and set the tables for the next customer.
3) And we do not have 1 service staff to attend to each customer, typically, it is 3-4 persons, doing all the above (and other things as well) and serving 70 of you all. Think I should hire more? Are you will to pay more?
4) Ever waited long for your payment? The bottleneck could be the credit card machine. OR if multiple customers wanted to pay all at the same time, you'd have to wait your turn. More machines/staff to process payments? I'll ask again, are you willing to pay for them?
5) Look around and see if we're trying to slack on our work. Seriously. Does it look like we're not trying our best to serve ALL of YOU??
All I am urging, is that customers do not just ask and complain why services suck. But they should also ask themselves, am I being reasonable or gracious at the same time? If you want to complain, we'd be happy to hear them, and accept criticism, but also let us offer you a way to compensate you, in a form of a discount, replacement or whatever. And please please please, appreciate it.
PS. A friend recently asked "Is there a place where I can place complaints abt bad restaurants and all?" Most restaurants allow you to channel your feedbacks via a form or something. Why not go direct? Instead of complaining and destroy other people's reputation via a blog, maybe you could help by giving them advice or feedbacks to help them improve directly?
Remember, you're not really helping anyone by being nasty.
But then .. there are those customers i wish i could strangle them, tell them off, burn them at the stake .... but being the civilized me and always having the "customer is king" attitude, I endure, smile ... But anyways, the complaints are always the same. Food is slow, Payment is slow etc.
It is very sad about some simple observations about many Singaporean customers, ask anyone who runs a restaurant and they will agree with you :
1) They expect to be treated like Kings and Queens
2) They think "I am paying money and service charge, of course I expect nothing less than what I demand"
3) They think their money is BIG DEAL
4) Even if they are told they have a certain waiting time for their foods, they still complain.
5) They finish their foods, then they complain - when you couldn't do anything to resolve the issue by then.
6) They can't put themselves in other people's shoes.
7) You apologize, give them discounts, and they will still want to give you a hard time. Should I retract my apologies and discounts then, because if they are not pleasing to you, what will?
(I had even given customers free meals before and they are still angry. HUH???)
If there are any of my customers who are reading my entry and had experience bad or slow service at my restaurant, I apologize, and I would also hope that, you guys be more forgiving. I am just asking Singaporeans to be more understanding, forgiving and gracious. We're trying to make a living, by selling you our foods and providing a nice ambiance.
Stop thinking spending your money at restaurants will mean you can start treating people like they are your slaves. The next time readers, when you eat at any restaurants please keep the following in mind:
1) We're just humans.
2) To you, you're just waiting for your food and paying up when you're done. To us, we have to do the following:
- Send you to your tables, send you your menus, explain to you about the menus if necessary, take your orders, send your orders, prepare and make your drinks or salads and soups, send you your bill, collect and process your bills/cards, return your change/receipts, and clear your tables, and set the tables for the next customer.
3) And we do not have 1 service staff to attend to each customer, typically, it is 3-4 persons, doing all the above (and other things as well) and serving 70 of you all. Think I should hire more? Are you will to pay more?
4) Ever waited long for your payment? The bottleneck could be the credit card machine. OR if multiple customers wanted to pay all at the same time, you'd have to wait your turn. More machines/staff to process payments? I'll ask again, are you willing to pay for them?
5) Look around and see if we're trying to slack on our work. Seriously. Does it look like we're not trying our best to serve ALL of YOU??
All I am urging, is that customers do not just ask and complain why services suck. But they should also ask themselves, am I being reasonable or gracious at the same time? If you want to complain, we'd be happy to hear them, and accept criticism, but also let us offer you a way to compensate you, in a form of a discount, replacement or whatever. And please please please, appreciate it.
PS. A friend recently asked "Is there a place where I can place complaints abt bad restaurants and all?" Most restaurants allow you to channel your feedbacks via a form or something. Why not go direct? Instead of complaining and destroy other people's reputation via a blog, maybe you could help by giving them advice or feedbacks to help them improve directly?
Remember, you're not really helping anyone by being nasty.
Friday, May 27, 2005
Do Singaporeans complain too much?
Singaporeans complain too much. We read reports and people talking about this ... I am sure we're familiar hearing about how the government (man heard it from so many sources i am not even sure which government person who said it) saying that Singaporeans should not criticize if they've got no concrete suggestions or solutions to come forward with.
Really .... personally, I feel Singaporeans should be allowed to complain, and criticize ... even if they've got no solutions to boot. Why? Because I firmly believe in the power of the people. I firmly believe that enough Singaporeans have gone through enough education to learn to differentiate what is senseless bashing versus nonsensical babblings. I believe the government should let the people decide for themselves what is right and what is wrong.
Well, if the people can't do that efficiently all the time, we should still allow them to learn from their mistakes. Maybe a government who acts like parent will have to learn to accept the fact that the children has grown up. The parent's guidance is important is instilling the right values for the kids when they are young and growing, but when they have grown up, it is time to let them make their own decisions and learn to take responsibility from their own actions.
So getting back to the issue of complaints. There are constructive complaints and criticisms, and there are the senseless ones ... and usually it is the constructive ones that will result in one thing - discussion. We should promote discussions as much as possible, among the people, and between the state and its nation. Actions to discourage discussions (like the use of fear tactics and lawsuits etc) can result in conformity and the lack of innovation. The Singapore economy is in dire need of creative and innovative ideas to push for the next growth, and the state should do all it can as a start, to promote active, healthy and most importantly, FREE discussions. Let the market run itself ....
Really .... personally, I feel Singaporeans should be allowed to complain, and criticize ... even if they've got no solutions to boot. Why? Because I firmly believe in the power of the people. I firmly believe that enough Singaporeans have gone through enough education to learn to differentiate what is senseless bashing versus nonsensical babblings. I believe the government should let the people decide for themselves what is right and what is wrong.
Well, if the people can't do that efficiently all the time, we should still allow them to learn from their mistakes. Maybe a government who acts like parent will have to learn to accept the fact that the children has grown up. The parent's guidance is important is instilling the right values for the kids when they are young and growing, but when they have grown up, it is time to let them make their own decisions and learn to take responsibility from their own actions.
So getting back to the issue of complaints. There are constructive complaints and criticisms, and there are the senseless ones ... and usually it is the constructive ones that will result in one thing - discussion. We should promote discussions as much as possible, among the people, and between the state and its nation. Actions to discourage discussions (like the use of fear tactics and lawsuits etc) can result in conformity and the lack of innovation. The Singapore economy is in dire need of creative and innovative ideas to push for the next growth, and the state should do all it can as a start, to promote active, healthy and most importantly, FREE discussions. Let the market run itself ....
Thursday, May 26, 2005
concerns about criticism
Yesterday I had this conversation with my friend.
ywchai says: (6:08:17 PM)
i wanna start writing on my "singaporecritic.blogspot.com"
says: (6:08:37 PM)
you better get out of the country first .. seriously
says: (6:08:51 PM)
i really believe they will come after you.
The fact that I have to be worried about voicing my concerns about my own country boggles me ... i mean ... this is a perfect example of how Singaporeans are so scared about saying anything ... ANYHING at all about the system ... even in general ....
i bet if they had a machine that can read minds ... the migration rate and suicide rate of Singaporeans would explode
ywchai says: (6:08:17 PM)
i wanna start writing on my "singaporecritic.blogspot.com"
you better get out of the country first .. seriously
i really believe they will come after you.
The fact that I have to be worried about voicing my concerns about my own country boggles me ... i mean ... this is a perfect example of how Singaporeans are so scared about saying anything ... ANYHING at all about the system ... even in general ....
i bet if they had a machine that can read minds ... the migration rate and suicide rate of Singaporeans would explode
Revenge of the Sith?
Now I might be reading too much into this .. but watching the Revenge of the Sith .. made me think about how similar it was on Mr Bush's self righteousness on what he believes is the correct thing to do ... to push for war in Iraq.
Same thing .... Anakin never thought what he did was wrong ... even up to the point he was facing his wife and Obi-wan ... he believes the Jedis are staging a rebellion to betray the Republic ...
Bush refers to the soldiers of US as on a "crusade" .... and uses religion to back up his war .. and keeps saying God is on his side (US side) .... well how about Allah? Is there a difference? He uses false intelligence to go to war and even when it was proven that those information were wrong, he still thinks the war is justified.
Shouldn't he be put to trial by the UN?
Oh no ... the "emperor" shld never be questioned. :) the Empire is already under his control ... there is no senate .....
"Tum tum tum .. tum tum tum ..." (The Imperial March theme plays)
Same thing .... Anakin never thought what he did was wrong ... even up to the point he was facing his wife and Obi-wan ... he believes the Jedis are staging a rebellion to betray the Republic ...
Bush refers to the soldiers of US as on a "crusade" .... and uses religion to back up his war .. and keeps saying God is on his side (US side) .... well how about Allah? Is there a difference? He uses false intelligence to go to war and even when it was proven that those information were wrong, he still thinks the war is justified.
Shouldn't he be put to trial by the UN?
Oh no ... the "emperor" shld never be questioned. :) the Empire is already under his control ... there is no senate .....
"Tum tum tum .. tum tum tum ..." (The Imperial March theme plays)
A*STAR incident
I am sure everyone has read about this ..
Mr Chen Jiahao ... 23 year old ... blogger ... wrote about A*STAR and Mr Philip Yeo ... supposedly about some "defamatory" comments about A*STAR and Mr Yeo himself ("supposedly" because it was never stated which were the defamatory comments). So, Mr Chen got threatened with a vague lawsuit that did not specify which were the bad statements, and he eventually gave in and took down the ENTIRE site, with the exception of an apology.
I have a few thoughts ... very deep concerned thoughts about the whole situation. This is getting rather disturbing. I am living in a country where the Govt threatens with the all expensive lawsuit against a student, when he basically made some comments that the Govt found offensive OVERSEAS, in blog hosted on a FOREIGN server.
What was the Big Brother so worried about that made them go to such extent? If the purpose was to prevent further discussion about the comments, their actions had definitely resulted in the opposite. Many many more sites now spring up in discussion on about the comments, but about concerns of how ridiculous the actions of the Mr Yeo was.
Sorry Mr Chen, you were never meant to win. You probably didn't even wanna win anything, but they struck you down anyways. They know you (or any Singaporeans to begin with) would not be able to afford the time and the money to fight the case. You're already guilty before you could fight it. They accused you of defamatory, when they did not even specify how you did it. You could have resisted, and they could then have you jailed for not giving into their demands to remove your blog.
I am wondering, if I started saying how I hated Microsoft in my entire blog. Or dedicate a special blog just to bash how i dislike their products or Bill Gates. Would Mr Gates come after me? Probably not. Why? Because if it was baseless, unfair accusations and comments, no one will give a shit and some people might even leave comments to bash me. There are "invisible" market forces who will balance the comments out and readers will decide for themselves if what I write make sense.
But the Singapore Government apparently do not yet have the same level of trust for its own people. They do not trust the people to make up their minds on what is right and what is wrong. I had spoken to some people who supports the Singapore government's harsh treatments and strong arm tactics to keep the country at peace, and use that as a reasoning why we should trust the government to know what's best. That is a very dangerous proposition. It is a same situation to having Microsoft controlling 90% of the browser market and you see how they had slacked in their product development of IE. I am sure both Microsoft and the Singapore Government will go explain why they still are the innovators, while at the same time destroying those companies and people who threaten their dominance.
What is the eventual result of using "fear" as a tactic to ensure peace in Singapore? The younger generation become subdued and content with what they have. They do not question, and accept all decisions by the government with little actions to resist. These Singaporeans are not those who would like to concern themselves with the way the government runs the show. They just want to make their living and make stay happy. They are probably not interested to give actions to make the country better, just their own lives because it is "not their problem". If these are the type of Singaporean that the government wants to groom, I'd say they've done a mighty job. But what I think, is that the Singapore Government wants something else.
Singapore Government wants entrepreneurs, they want talents and they want a nation that loves its country. They are trying to sell us songs that make us feel that "This is my country, this my flag, this my family, these are my friends, We are Singaporeans". But the opposite is happening. The foreign talents who come in do not "love the country", they love "the money". The younger Singaporeans who love the country feels that they can't do what they want, say what they want, and they leave. Like a feeder school, Singapore is breeding young Singaporeans they wish to keep , but they can't stay loyal. Those who stay and can't do/say what they want, are constantly looking for ways to "get out". Singapore wants to have a nation of young entrepreneurs who takes risks and think creative, but at the same time, Singapore also wants control.
So ... what do you want Singapore? What do you want? If you want change, you have to let go. Just when I thought I see signs changing, like the relaxing of the censorship laws to allow more uncut movies, and our very own "speaker's corner", things like the A*STAR incident totally destroys my faith in the Government. The Govt says something and does another. They claim to promote freedom of speech, yet they do not execute all the way. They claim they hear, but they do not listen. You want to make a speech at the "speaker's corner"? Sure, as long as you head down to the police post to register. I know changes are hard. But if you want changes, you should not execute it in a crippled manner and then use it to support your future claims for the lack of interest in it.
I love to see a better and freer Singapore. But the day is not today ... and from the looks of it, we still have a long way to go.
Mr Chen Jiahao ... 23 year old ... blogger ... wrote about A*STAR and Mr Philip Yeo ... supposedly about some "defamatory" comments about A*STAR and Mr Yeo himself ("supposedly" because it was never stated which were the defamatory comments). So, Mr Chen got threatened with a vague lawsuit that did not specify which were the bad statements, and he eventually gave in and took down the ENTIRE site, with the exception of an apology.
I have a few thoughts ... very deep concerned thoughts about the whole situation. This is getting rather disturbing. I am living in a country where the Govt threatens with the all expensive lawsuit against a student, when he basically made some comments that the Govt found offensive OVERSEAS, in blog hosted on a FOREIGN server.
What was the Big Brother so worried about that made them go to such extent? If the purpose was to prevent further discussion about the comments, their actions had definitely resulted in the opposite. Many many more sites now spring up in discussion on about the comments, but about concerns of how ridiculous the actions of the Mr Yeo was.
Sorry Mr Chen, you were never meant to win. You probably didn't even wanna win anything, but they struck you down anyways. They know you (or any Singaporeans to begin with) would not be able to afford the time and the money to fight the case. You're already guilty before you could fight it. They accused you of defamatory, when they did not even specify how you did it. You could have resisted, and they could then have you jailed for not giving into their demands to remove your blog.
I am wondering, if I started saying how I hated Microsoft in my entire blog. Or dedicate a special blog just to bash how i dislike their products or Bill Gates. Would Mr Gates come after me? Probably not. Why? Because if it was baseless, unfair accusations and comments, no one will give a shit and some people might even leave comments to bash me. There are "invisible" market forces who will balance the comments out and readers will decide for themselves if what I write make sense.
But the Singapore Government apparently do not yet have the same level of trust for its own people. They do not trust the people to make up their minds on what is right and what is wrong. I had spoken to some people who supports the Singapore government's harsh treatments and strong arm tactics to keep the country at peace, and use that as a reasoning why we should trust the government to know what's best. That is a very dangerous proposition. It is a same situation to having Microsoft controlling 90% of the browser market and you see how they had slacked in their product development of IE. I am sure both Microsoft and the Singapore Government will go explain why they still are the innovators, while at the same time destroying those companies and people who threaten their dominance.
What is the eventual result of using "fear" as a tactic to ensure peace in Singapore? The younger generation become subdued and content with what they have. They do not question, and accept all decisions by the government with little actions to resist. These Singaporeans are not those who would like to concern themselves with the way the government runs the show. They just want to make their living and make stay happy. They are probably not interested to give actions to make the country better, just their own lives because it is "not their problem". If these are the type of Singaporean that the government wants to groom, I'd say they've done a mighty job. But what I think, is that the Singapore Government wants something else.
Singapore Government wants entrepreneurs, they want talents and they want a nation that loves its country. They are trying to sell us songs that make us feel that "This is my country, this my flag, this my family, these are my friends, We are Singaporeans". But the opposite is happening. The foreign talents who come in do not "love the country", they love "the money". The younger Singaporeans who love the country feels that they can't do what they want, say what they want, and they leave. Like a feeder school, Singapore is breeding young Singaporeans they wish to keep , but they can't stay loyal. Those who stay and can't do/say what they want, are constantly looking for ways to "get out". Singapore wants to have a nation of young entrepreneurs who takes risks and think creative, but at the same time, Singapore also wants control.
So ... what do you want Singapore? What do you want? If you want change, you have to let go. Just when I thought I see signs changing, like the relaxing of the censorship laws to allow more uncut movies, and our very own "speaker's corner", things like the A*STAR incident totally destroys my faith in the Government. The Govt says something and does another. They claim to promote freedom of speech, yet they do not execute all the way. They claim they hear, but they do not listen. You want to make a speech at the "speaker's corner"? Sure, as long as you head down to the police post to register. I know changes are hard. But if you want changes, you should not execute it in a crippled manner and then use it to support your future claims for the lack of interest in it.
I love to see a better and freer Singapore. But the day is not today ... and from the looks of it, we still have a long way to go.
Can I say whatever I want?
Can I say whatever I want in a blog? This is a tricky question ... recently apple sued some bloggers for releasing some confidential information that were supposedly not to be released under NDAs. I guess that would be not right due to the fact that there were some legal bindings to the information concerned.
How about regular ramblings and criticism about things in general? Do we have to watch what we say? Is it due to the fact that blogs are public, we have to be extra careful about what we write? I mean ... do you have to justify your criticism or complaints in your blog? Do you have to think about what your thoughts are before writing them out? Isn't that almost like censorship? But if blogs are personal thoughts and opinions .... why should it need to be subjected to journalistic integrity?
Eg. Do I have to justify if I dislike someone's face?
If I have to watch everything I say on my blog in fear of offending anyone .. and be politically correct about all the things I blog about .... I'd rather not blog anymore ....
How about regular ramblings and criticism about things in general? Do we have to watch what we say? Is it due to the fact that blogs are public, we have to be extra careful about what we write? I mean ... do you have to justify your criticism or complaints in your blog? Do you have to think about what your thoughts are before writing them out? Isn't that almost like censorship? But if blogs are personal thoughts and opinions .... why should it need to be subjected to journalistic integrity?
Eg. Do I have to justify if I dislike someone's face?
If I have to watch everything I say on my blog in fear of offending anyone .. and be politically correct about all the things I blog about .... I'd rather not blog anymore ....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)