This is politically correct...

Chronicles of the Cowboy

2006-10-18T21:48:00.000+08:00

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp_world/view/236121/1/.html

According to dictionary.com,

ter?ror?ism
n.
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

Terrorists, the bane of the peaceful world, the thorns in the eyes of global policeman W. 2001 - the World Trade Centre, 2002 – Bali, 2004 – Madrid, 2005 – London, Bali. The above mentions of just a portion of the plethora of terrorist attacks dealt to the refined world that we live in. How dare these insolent fools disrupt our lives with their attacks? When the world is in disarray, it does not take an omnipotent being, but the Cowboy with his shining bible to help us tide through these times of uncertainties.

With their attacks, terrorists seek to strike fear in our hearts, causing us to back down in our war against terror. Little did they expect our world leader, W, to be so resilient and perceptive in finding the Achilles heel of these scums. They must be scared out of their shit now. There are no better ways, than to fight fire with fire. What an ingenious way to counter-terrorism, detaining suspects without a reason and implementing “harsh interrogation tactics” to force them to yield. This has served ancient China well centuries ago and W sure has done well to revive these practices to safeguard our interests.

Terrorists use unlawful means to try and force us to submission. W has effectively managed to sidestepped illegality (the Geneva Convention) and pummel suspects to confess to their sinful deeds, rather than allowing them to get away scot-free, thus making
the world safer in the process.

I can’t imagine the world without our neighbourhood loving, terrorist hating Cowboy W. Global ~~prosperity~~ anarchy.

Hail the infinite wisdom of W.

W oozes confidence. Sadly, that’s just about the only thing he’s made up of.

The job of a president

2006-10-07T14:34:00.000+08:00

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PltYvCU2yo4

Quotes from the president, George 'The Decider' Bush being taken out of context, but still, good value for laughs. Jon Stewart, and to an extent, President Bush, never cease to amaze.

"My job, is to do my job." Speaks volumes of the most powerful man (arguably) on Earth.

A Bed Time story

2006-10-06T21:53:00.000+08:00

Q: Daddy, why did we have to attack Iraq?
A: Because they had weapons of mass destruction, honey.

Q: But the inspectors didn't find any weapons of mass destruction.
A: That's because the Iraqis were hiding them.

Q: And that's why we invaded Iraq?
A: Yep. Invasions always work better than inspections.

Q: But after we invaded them, we STILL didn't find any weapons of mass destruction, did we? A: That's because the weapons are so well hidden. Don't worry , we'll find something, probably right before the 2004 election.

Q: Why did Iraq want all those weapons of mass destruction?
A: To use them in a war, silly.

Q: I'm confused. If they had all those weapons that they planned to use in a war, then why didn't they use any of those weapons when we went to War with them?
A: Well, obviously they didn't want anyone to know they had those weapons, so they chose to die by the thousands rather than defend themselves.

Q: That doesn't make sense Daddy. Why would they choose to die if they had all those big weapons to fight us back with?
A: It's a different culture. It's not supposed to make sense.

Q: I don't know about you, but I don't think they had any of those Weapons our government said they did.
A: Well, you know, it doesn't matter whether or not they had those Weapons. We had another good reason to invade them anyway.

Q: And what was that?
A: Even if Iraq didn't have weapons of mass destruction, Saddam Hussein was a cruel dictator, which is another good reason to invade another country.

Q: Why? What does a cruel dictator do that makes it OK to invade his country?
A: Well, for one thing, he tortured his own people.

Q: Kind of like what they do in China?
A: Don't go comparing China to Iraq. China is a good economic competitor, where millions of people work for slave wages in sweatshops to make U.S. corporations richer.

Q: So if a country lets its people be exploited for American corporate gain, it's a good country, even if that country tortures people?
A: Right.

Q: Why were people in Iraq being tortured?
A: For political crimes, mostly, like criticizing the government. People who criticized the government in Iraq were sent to prison and tortured.

Q: Isn't that exactly what happens in China?
A: I told you, China is different.

Q: What's the difference between China and Iraq?
A: Well, for one thing, Iraq was ruled by the Ba'ath party, while China is Communist.

Q: Didn't you once tell me Communists were bad?
A: No, just Cuban Communists are bad.

Q: How are the Cuban Communists bad?
A: Well, for one thing, people who criticize the government in Cuba are sent to prison and tortured.

Q: Like in Iraq? A: Exactly. Q: And like in China, too?
A: I told you, China's a good economic competitor. Cuba, on the other hand, is not.

Q: How come Cuba isn't a good economic competitor?
A: Well, you see, back in the early 1960s, our government passed some Laws that made it illegal for Americans to trade or do any business with Cuba until they stopped being Communists and started being capitalists like us.

Q: But if we got rid of those laws, opened up trade with Cuba, and started doing business with them, wouldn't that help the Cubans become capitalists?
A: Don't be a smart-ass.

Q: I didn't think I was being one.
A: Well, anyway, they also don't have freedom of religion in Cuba.

Q: Kind of like China and the Falun Gong movement?
A: I told you, stop saying bad things about China. Anyway, Saddam Hussein came to power through a military coup, so he's not really a Legitimate leader anyway.

Q: What's a military coup? A: That's when a military general takes over the government of a country By force, instead of holding free elections like we do in the United States.

Q: Didn't the ruler of Pakistan come to power by a military coup? A: You mean General Pervez Musharraf? Uh, yeah, he did, but Pakistan is our friend.

Q: Why is Pakistan our friend if their leader is illegitimate?
A: I never said Pervez Musharraf was illegitimate.

Q: Didn't you just say a military general who comes to power by Forcibly overthrowing the legitimate government of a Nation is an Illegitimate leader?
A: Only Saddam Hussein. Pervez Musharraf is our friend, because he helped us invade Afghanistan.

Q: Why did we invade Afghanistan? A: Because of what they did to us on September 11th. Q: What did Afghanistan do to us on September 11th?
A: Well, on September 11th, nineteen men, Fifteen of them Saudi Arabians, hijacked four airplanes and flew three of them into buildings, killing over 3,000 Americans.

Q: So how did Afghanistan figure into all that?
A: Afghanistan was where those bad men trained, under the oppressive rule of the Taliban.

Q: But I thought you said 15 of the 19 hijackers on September 11th were from Saudi Arabia.
A: Yes, but they trained in Afghanistan.

Q: Who trained them? A: A very bad man named Osama bin Laden. Q: Was he from Afghanistan?
A: Uh, no, he was from Saudi Arabia too.

Q: I seem to recall he was our friend once.
A: Only when we helped him and the Mujahadeen repel the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan back in the 1980s.

Q: Who are the Soviets? Was that the Evil Communist Empire Ronald Reagan talked about?
A: There are no more Soviets. The Soviet Union broke up in 1990 or thereabouts, and now they have elections and capitalism like us. We call them Russians now.

Q: So the Soviets - I mean, the Russians - are now our friends?
A: Well, not really. You see, they were our friends for many years after they stopped being Soviets, but then they decided not to support our invasion of Iraq, so we're mad at them now. We're also mad at the French and the Germans because they didn't help us invade Iraq either.

Q: So the French and Germans are evil, too?
A: Not exactly evil, but just bad enough that we had to rename French Fries and French toast to Freedom Fries and Freedom Toast.

Q: Do we always rename foods whenever another country doesn't do what we want them to do? A: No, we just do that to our friends. Our enemies, we invade.

Q: But wasn't Iraq one of our friends back in the 1980s?
A: Well, yeah. For a while.

Q: Was Saddam Hussein ruler of Iraq back then?
A: Yes, but at the time he was fighting against Iran, which made him our friend, temporarily.

Q: Why did that make him our friend?
A: Because at that time, Iran was our enemy.

Q: Isn't that when he gassed the Kurds?
A: Yeah*, but since he was fighting against Iran at the time, we looked the other way, to show him we were his friend.

Q: So anyone who fights against one of our enemies automatically becomes our friend?
A: Most of the time, yes.

Q: And anyone who fights against one of our friends is automatically an enemy?
A: Sometimes that's true, too. However, if American corporations can profit by selling weapons to both sides at the same time, all the better.

Q: Why?
A: Because war is good for the economy, which means war is good for America. Also, since God is on America's side, anyone who opposes war is a Godless un-American Communist. Do you understand now why we attacked Iraq?

Q: I think so. We attacked them because God wanted us to, right?
A: Yes.

Q: But how did we know God wanted us to attack Iraq?
A: Well, you see, God personally speaks to George W. Bush and tells him what to do.

Q: So basically, what you're saying is that we attacked Iraq because George W. Bush hears voices in his head?
A: Yes! You finally understand how the world works. Now close your eyes, make yourself comfortable, and go to sleep. Good night.

Good night, Daddy

P.S. Q: What's the Foundation of the U.S.?
A: Democracy? No! Money!!

------

Read this sometime back. Never fails to bring a smile to my face. And eerily true for some parts.

Wake up your fucking idea

2006-09-29T20:29:00.000+08:00

Attention: If emo and self pity are not your cup of tea, please leave. If you're a voyeur who'd like to gloat at someone else's failure, by all means carry on.

Have you ever wondered 'if only' at least once in your life? Have you ever thought that there is something that you ought to have done, which would stop the tap of copious regrets that would go on to echo within yourself before you walk out of it? I have my share of 'if onlys' and this regret has never been as immense, eclipsing the pain I've felt in the past. Never felt closer to being a 'failure' academically, and there'd never been a greater urge to tear up the scripts. 51/100, what a joke, mocking my expectations and confidence in being the best.

Perhaps I shouldn't have been so confident in the first place. Perhaps I should have noticed that the first paper to be tested is paper 2 rather than 3. Perhaps 1 night of revision is a recipe for disaster. Perhaps my efforts would never justify my expectations and I was deluded enough to speak of having at least a B. But my pride, up till now, could not take it lying down. My beautifully painted picture was tarnished, and what smeared it was simply a result of my own doing.What would have changed if I had been less careless, putting in the right alphabet for the source which would not have undone my efforts for the whole SBQ, which would guarantee at least 9 marks more? What would have changed if I had been careful enough, identifying that the questions asks for 'indigenous people' which would have saved me time to focus on other areas? What would have changed if I had not been complacent before the exams just because of some good performances which would count for nothing when it matters. The answers to these questions, I'll never know.

Knowing full well that doing well in this subject means so much, I'd done nothing concrete help my own cause. Maybe I'm afraid that the results would be disproportionate to my efforts. At least if I had gotten poor grades without studying, I could tell myself I'd do well if I studied, just like how I had lied to myself since PSLE. But it feels so different this time around. The exclamation of 'fuck', the thought of myself as a loser, the sound of a 'thud' as if I've fallen just as the peak was within grasp. The scene is still being played and the sight of the top becomes murky. Why the fuck did I allow myself to fall into this. Why the fuck did I ever allow it to happen, if this test means such a great deal. Perhaps, like some say, it is only when failure is tasted and regrets set in that one will truly appreciate things.

As an ego-maniac with massive pride, I never liked the taste of failure. Losing and failing in things I take pride in has never been an option. That would account for my anger when I make mistakes during football games and me being somewhat emotional when I got my scripts. While I can say I had little regrets for my primary and college football (with the only regret being my lack of ability) and studies, I can't say the same now. 'I can do it if I tried', coupled with laziness and procrastination have been my undoing. Maybe it's like kind of like the lack of courage to confess - you can try and fail/succeed or keep lull yourself in the illusion you spinned, believing that not doing anything would mean nothing lost, and doing something might yield disproportionate results. What a fucking coward.

Easily the biggest setback in my years as a student. Negative vibes had never reverberated so strongly before, neither have I felt so strongly as a failure. This is a subject, which I could ill-afford to do badly in, to the extent that I'm prepared to fail both the other subjects just to get a B or top this one. But what deals the most pain is not just the fact that I've done badly, but how I could have done something, could have been more careful, could have...

Deflated ego, torn pride, clipped wings, murky sight of the top. What remains is work and hope. Shed the coward, start the climb. I had allowed myself to be lulled into a false sense of security and hope and I'll work to ensure that I won't fail in something I hold dearly onto. and If the above resonates with anyone, stop being a coward. If someone at the peak is looking at this, I'll be there.

This entry will serve as a reminder, to the frustration I felt during the moment I received the script and the immense sense of regret currently.

~~14 11 13 13~~ 23 18 18 18

This would just be a story of a friend. I'll be too good to be deemed a failure.

I'm like a bird (No, you are)

2006-09-23T00:21:00.000+08:00

Birds often form the paradigm of freedom, an ideal held on dearly by people in this day and age. Symbolism is one of the oft-used techniques in literature today and birds as a symbol has been used to great literary effects. That is of little wonder, as we take into account the array of symbols different birds can provide us with – like owls to sagacious / hawks to swift. Taking nothing away from the birds mentioned above (since only positives can be said about them), there exists to be some species of birds which take joy in being a joke/nuisance/prick/irritant in the eyes of others. In this article, I'll try my hand at being a literature guru, providing detailed analysis of these literary symbols so one might be able to benefit from this in their next English Literature test.

Peacocks

By simply looking at the species, it's pretty obvious what I'm on about. Convinced of their on abilities/looks, this species make it a point to show everyone what it's made of. Granted that it does/might have the abilities to warrant the confidence, not every mother and son is interested in its auto-biography. Even more pathetic are those who are somehow convinced they are great when, well, the only people who think so are its parents and the person on the other side of the mirror. Birdologists (or whatever they are called) say its for mating purposes. I say: absolute show-off. Keep in that in mind, since I'm pretty much the authority on everything (other than the fact that I can't really decide on how great I really am).
Evolves into – Pigeons.

Parrots

One of the most fascinating species would have to be the parrots. Why so? It's almost as if it lacks the brain to think, lacks the eyes to see while relying entirely on its ears and mouths. Or simply because they are too half-assed to do so, since parroting is the only way to gain acknowledge, at least in the case of the parrot. How often have we seen examples of parrots reciting what they have seen of or heard from the others after minimal thought process (must be the brains)? Be it a joke just cracked 5 seconds ago, an answer to a question it wouldn't be able to answer even in its wildest dreams or the most detailed analysis of an issue, the parrot's sole mental capacity is to regurgitate it as its own to the next listener, so as to ensure its standing as a parrot master of all trades. Some say it brings joy/information/convenience to its listener. I say: lack of mental capacity.

Pigeons

Take the characteristics of a peacock and throw in ten doses of insolence and utter disrespect and you'll see your average pigeon. Insolent, disrespectful (to peers and even authority) and some say ungrateful, these birds are most likely to be evolved from peacocks. Convinced that it is indeed superior to the others this bird has a lack of respect for others, if it had any in the 1st place. While it used to be fed or feed on scrimps left behind by us, it has shown that it would have no qualms turning around and shitting on the head/shoulder/hand that feeds it. What's most fascinating is how a pigeon is almost always away from the line of fire. Maybe its flaws are belied by its looks/abilities. Or maybe because there are...

Crows

There isn't really anything likeable about crows. They look bad, sound bad and they shit just as well as the pigeons. Thus, crows are always being haplessly been pinned as the most hated, even if there exists to be other detestable species. Every allegation thrown at the crows are underpinned with 'evidence', like how they are either noisy, shitting on us, or they are just butt-ugly so they deserve it. Somehow, I've come to pity this crows, when they are pin-pointed as the wrong-doers while other species equally detestable get away scot-free. That being said, it still doesn't take away from the fact that this specie is irritating in more than one way, and that coupled with it's inability to mask their flaws, ensures its standing as the number 1 most hated.

Woodpeckers

There isn't really much hate to be associated with these birds, since they are the perennial do-gooders when people talk about the characteristics of birds. Juxtaposing a woodpecker and a crow, it really shows the difference in league, with the crow noisily shitting on people while the woodpecker noisily rids of trees of worms. What I can't really agree with, is the praise heaped on the woodpecker, just because it rids trees of worms. What's the big deal, when all they seek is a good meal and to stamp their authority with all the pecking? To me, it is merely a matter of convenience or a positive externality, like how economists would put it. In my book, giving the woodpecker credit would mean that I should receive nationwide acclaim and acknowledgement for studying hard. Forgive me if it's kind of far-fetched but even if I'm studying hard so as to ensure my 1st BMW comes by the age of 28, my contribution towards the society and the economy will be immense. If I'm not getting my acknowledgement, no way should the woodpecker get his.

It sure is great to watch as birds soar high in skies. It's not a wrong-doing if we wish that we can have freedom like birds. At the end of the day, however, just remember that rather than to be a bird imitating fool in our pursuits in life, being a human might just be a better choice afterall.

Think twice before you go on and sing "I'm like a bird".

Timeout

2006-09-11T16:19:00.000+08:00

On an approximate 2 week hiatus to fight a massive battle.

Why are you still on the computer at this point in time?

Peter Crouch: An Enigma?

2006-09-02T22:43:00.000+08:00

Summer 2005, European Champions Liverpool signed Peter Crouch from relegated club Southampton for 7 million pounds.

May 2006, Liverpool got knocked out in the second round of the European Cup to Benfica.

Surely only the most optimistic fan can claim that the addition of Crouch is an improvement made on the club? I, for one, have no fucking idea why Rafa spent 7 million pounds on this fucking waste of space then (and from a relegated club) and a year on, I'm none the wiser. I mean, his record for his 1st half of the season speaks for itself – a grand total of (drum-roll) 0 goal scored in 4 months as a striker! What follows would be the breakdown of the more obvious of Crouch's weaknesses (listing them all would take hours) which would substantiate my sentiments on how the transfer was simply mind-boggling and a monumental mistake which would scar the tenure of Rafa.

Before hitting Crouch with all the vitriol, it would perhaps be better to have a look at other more effective forwards in the world so as to prove my case why Crouch is simple not of Liverpool's standards or even Sunderland's for the matter.

Specimen 1. Thierry Henry

Thierry Henry failed to find the net for his 1st ten outings for Arsenal since his switch from Juventus. That, however, was largely due to Henry trying to adapt to a new system. Once Henry got into the groove, he never looked back; scoring goals for fun, terrorizing Premiership defence and never fails to chalk up an obscene amount of assists as a striker. Most goals, however are scored in surplus against lesser sides, when the scoreline doesn't really matter.

Specimen 2. Dennis Bergkamp

Forwards are almost always judged by the amount of goals they scored and I've always felt that it's a yardstick which totally disregards the contribution a player makes to the team. With the case of Bergkamp, my case's justified. Bergkamp can be said to be a player which makes a team tick, with his sublime touches and eye for a killer pass. Few can lay claim to be able to pick out a pass to a team mate Bergkamp style and even fewer can discount the contribution the Iceman had made to Arsenal.

Specimen 3. Jan Koller

Once again, not the type of forward that one would expect to score beyond 20 goals in a Premiership season, but one which would provide an excellent foil to his striker partner or on-rushing midfielders. Koller's height and strength would not only allow him to win most aerial challenges, which results in flick-ons or headers on goal, but also hold off challenges from defenders after he'd gained possession.

One might ask – “Why go to such pains? Isn't it obvious that Crouch simply sucks?” I'm tempted to agree, but it would take some solid evidence to drum in the fact to the blind that Crouch indeed sucks. Crouch doesn’t score for months, and when he finally does, it's off a wicked (understatement) deflection off the defender or goalkeeper that even Lampard couldn't manage with all his luck in the world. Never mind his scoring exploits for England – most of them are scored during useless friendlies anyway.

Crouch with his gangly frame, can never be said to be the prime candidate for a targetman. While that is said, Rafa continues to employ him in that role, causing Liverpool to be branded a boring team by most quarters. What the blind does not see (no pun intended) is that Crouch's sheer presence on the field has a negative influence on the actions of the players on pitch, with Hyypia in particular most fond of hitting aimless long balls up front. This malignant influence is to such a grave extent that players feel compelled to do so even if Crouch is not on the pitch. Moreover, while teammates profit from Koller's physical presence, Crouch could only flick the ball feebly, and it is only to Gerrard's credit that he was ever-so alert to pounce on those loose balls.

Lastly, Crouch's touches are too poor as compared to the likes of Cisse or Bergkamp. While Bergkamp's touches oozes class, skill and craft, Crouch could only manage a feeble touch to the ball which serves no purpose other than to slow down the attack. Cisse, on the other hand, possesses a touch which takes the ball 5 yards in front of him everytime, enabling him to maximize his effectiveness with his acceleration and pace which are beyond-this world.

The truth is for all to see. Perhaps, Crouch isn't enigmatic - football fans are.

With that, I sincerely hope other fans come to their senses with regards to this man on stilts who costed us 7 million pounds (we'd do well if we manage to get 7 quid and a ladder thrown in as a makeweight from another club for him). Heck, a ladder would cost no more than 70 pounds.

I've said my piece and I rest my case.

At Liverpool, You'll Never Walk Alone.

Making a mountain out of a molehill?

2006-08-28T21:22:00.000+08:00

Singapore 2006 showcases Singapore as a global city with a world of opportunities. It is a series of events which highlights Singapore as a dynamic, well-connected and entrepreneurial economy with tremendous opportunities in the financial, business, technology and creative industries sectors. It also puts the spotlight on Singapore as a cosmopolitan society where arts and culture thrive. Singapore 2006 includes the Annual Meetings of the Boards of Governors of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank Group, the Program of Seminars 2006, Raffles Forum 2006, the Institute of International Finance Annual Membership Meeting, Per Jacobsson Lecture, International Banking Seminar by the Group of Thirty, the inaugural Singapore Biennale and many other meetings and events to be held in September 2006.
http://www.smiles2006.com/content/introducing+s2006+2.htm

No, the whole idea of Singapore 2006 and placing the series of events on top of the priorities list is by no means making a mountain out of a molehill on the part of the government. In fact, it's pragmatic to do so, albeit too pragmatic.

Before getting to the crux of the issue, it has to be established that the range of activities is assumed to be built on the premise that Singapore 2006 is integral in the portrayal of Singapore as a "dynamic, well-connected and entrepreneurial economy with tremendous opportunities in the financial, business, technology and creative industries sectors" and such a portrayal would be vital to Singapore's development as a vibrant economy. With that, we should question not the objectives of Singapore 2006 - it is indeed for the benefit of the development of Singapore, but how we go about doing it.

The spotlight here will be specific to the '4 million smiles welcome the world' campaign, which, if I don't remember wrongly, is to encourage Singaporeans to smile more and create the ~~facade~~ image of a vibrant and welcoming society, where the top brass (and their families) in the above mentioned organizations would feel at ease and welcomed in. Nothing wrong with that, one might say. After all, for the third time in this article, may I emphasize that this is to the benefit of Singapore's economy. And this is where I have a bone to pick.

On the surface, there seem to be nothing wrong with what the government is trying to pull off. Make these people feel at home, make them like it here. They are happy with what they see, decide to consume more, or come back for holidays, which would in turn pep up our economy in the face of the looming economic giants of India and China. Well, these talents might even choose to become expatriates in favour of Singapore and this would go in line with the government's policy of attracting foreign immigrants, talented ones at that. Looking at what a successful campaign represents, we might be laughing our way to the bank in the near future.

The economic benefits are indeed tantalising. Who would think that a new car, LCD television or MP4 is one too many? However, I would prefer to think that such a 'way to behave' to put it crudely, should be ~~indoctrinated~~ inculcated in us way before Singapore 2006 has taken place. Going by how we need S2006 to have these foreigners feel at home, does it mean to say that our Courtesy Campaign (R.I.P 1979-2000) had failed miserably?

It does not end here. The need for '4 million smiles welcome the world' seems to tell me that Singaporeans are incapable of such behaviour inherently, and it has to stated explicitly for one to display an act as simple as a smile. In short, the societal climate certainly isn't there. And what have we done? Commercialise the whole deal. By linking something as basic as an innate characteristic such as smiling to economic advantages, the organizers of this campaign have been subtly egging Singaporeans on to smile by attaching their facial muscles to where it hurts (or interests) them most - their pockets. This is unlike the straightforward "smile and you get your Progress Package (terms apply)". Through linkage of Singapore's economic well-being to the campaign, Singaporeans would then be alerted to the importance, or usefulness, of their smiles and then maximize it's use for the sake of our new Hi-Fi set, not because it is simply the right thing to do.

From what I know, Thailand is the 'Land of Smiles' not because their government actively promoted smiling or ordered them to (or maybe the Thai government did a damn good job at concealing whatever 'smile' campaign they have). Such an image is inherent in their culture and it would do us much good to tackle the problem at its roots, however cliched it may sound, rather than simply commercialization or dangling carrots at the people. Paraphrasing what Karl Marx (omgwtf! Communist! burn him alive!) has stated, "Man would go down the road of becoming a commodity, a mere factor of production himself." When what we do is essentially linked to the capitalistic benefits associated to it, surely we are going down that path?

Maybe, maybe I'm just making a mountain out of a molehill.
All opinions and no viable suggestions. I'm a self-opinionated student, not a fking politician.

Well, I didn't study but I did okay so I'm damn freaking smart and intelligent.

2006-08-22T19:54:00.000+08:00

There is certainly a silver lining with regards to the gloom and doom surrounding Singapore's lack of creativity and intellectuals. Singapore's student are getting more sophisticated, smart, intelligent, (insert positives) over the years.

Singaporeans are smart. No doubt about that, with the perfect specimen being yours truly. Ego inflation aside, the above claim of the 'big bang' development of Singaporean intellect isn't unfounded. While diligence and hard work of our forefathers laid the foundations for our comfortable lives today, students today were able to ace/pass/do decently (whichever floats your boat) their exams without even trying. Historians prove their claims with evidence and being one myself (or at least I consider myself one), there you have it:

Juxtaposing this,

Student A, 1990s "Grades BCD, well, I'm just glad months of revision paid off."

With this

Student B, 2006 "Grades BCD, well, I expected to do better but heck, I didn't study (much) anyway."

Rings a bell? Even myself, who noticed this phenomenon and is writing this now is guilty of this unknowlingly, further proving my point that I'm smart. The phenomenon, as stated above, is alarming, with "I didn't study" fast catching on as the hippest catchphrase in every school near you. The phrase is being reused, recycled but its frequency never reduced. Such is the profound influence of the phrase that traditional virtues like being hardworking are now the scourge of school life. While some may argue that these people are looking for recognition by saying "Ids", that's just pure jealousy. In my opinion, just let them have the due recognition - they are just that damn smart. Denying them of any sort of recognition would be tantamount to a war crime. They got their fucking results without even trying. Therefore, they fucking deserve it.

There isn't any reason, for the government or anyone (including Li Ao) to speak of the dearth of creativity or intelligent people in Singapore because we are now witnessing a golden era, where these very elites are entering the workforce in approximately 5 years time. Foreign talents? Gearing towards creative learning? A more dynamic society? Who needs such policies when we have students who take self-directed learning to an unprecedented level? Heck, the concept of learning is obselete now. They just fucking know. I'm staying in Singapore for sure, the future sure looks rosy, since these elites are surely going to take us to greater heights.

Will there be someone telling me "I didn't study for my 'A's" in 3 months' time?

P.S One can dispute any point above, just not the ones stating that "I'm smart".
P.P.S These are purely observations, no offence, nothing.