old photograph sitting in the drawer

old photograph sitting in the drawer

photographs don't lie
even if they were yellow
even if your smile
was frozen, back in time
when you were eighteen
it was an accidental snapshot
neither of us were prepared

do we throw away memories
or keep them hidden
in drawers, where dust collects
stardust, no sorry, i was mistaken
it's only age that has gotten into
the photograph of us, no i'm mistaken
again, these things get blurry after
a while, only you were in the photograph
smiling, and i'm still wondering where
was i, way back then, was it really
so far back in the past, i'm only sure
right now i am twenty five.

By The Sea

Going Into Water

淡水河边

在鸡毛蒜皮里挑骨头

在鸡毛蒜皮里挑骨头


是自己的幻觉吗？近几年翻阅报纸和观看电台时事节目时，总觉得某种病态思想正渐渐侵袭我们可爱的社会。原本以为是自己多疑，不过周遭的朋友们也留意到了这种病态思想。朋友们通常以笼统的 “无聊” 一词称呼此病态思想，不过我觉得将它称之为 “在鸡毛蒜皮里挑骨头” 是最恰当不过了。

这是种什么样的病态思想呢？在本人具体说明之前，先举出几个例子吧。

例如前些时候在报章里争论不休的 “贝弗兰” 命名事件吧。最近在报章的言论版又再度看到类似的批评，只不过是针对 “宝门廊” 和 “达哥达” 地铁站。或许本人不是语文系出身的，无法看清这其中的 “语言暴力” ，更无法感受它的伤害，所以对激烈的争论觉得莫名其妙。正如同去年母校华侨中学和华中初级学院决定合并时，许多人对合并的学院应取的名称争论不休的情况一样。真奇怪了，怎么我们看问题的焦点不是着重于地铁应该如何在保持合理车资的情况下更有效地服务大众？或者，合并后的学院如何更有效地教育学生，以及从四二制转换到六年制所需做的调整？

说到教育，就不禁让我想起有关本地人对于会考成绩和学校排名的着迷。每当会考来临或成绩放榜时，总是在媒体上听到家长对于小数点的差异特别在意，只因为他们觉得这会影响子女进入优等学院的机会。或者，为了让子女进入名声良好的小学而搬家和做义工的例子已经听得层出不穷了。奇怪了，如果时间和金钱投资在自己子女的身心发展，不是更好吗？把话说难听点，不聪明的人不会因为进了好的学校而突然变聪明，聪明的人也不会因为没进好学校而突然变笨。还有，即使没办法进入好学院，或者会考成绩不理想，就不等於人生从此黯淡。小时了了，大未必佳的例子，我相信不只是自己看多了。与其只是抱着 “只要进入名校就可以了” 的目标，不如着重于身心的磨炼，以让子女有能力面对人生的考验。毕竟，进入了社会后是没有成绩单可言的。

或者新加坡人的英语差不差。天啊，我们当然无法说 “标准的英语” 。很简单，因为我们不是英国人。况且，什么是标准的英语呢？本人到了美国后，发现不同国籍的人在说英语时都有不同的发音。然而，这种字不正腔不圆的状况从未导致任何人无法沟通。应该说，语言不是死板的东西，而是会随着时间演化的。谁在乎它是否“标准” ？只要对方听得懂就行了。大家被无聊的争论拖得团团转。

所谓的鸡毛蒜皮里挑骨头，其实就是把精力浪费在微不足道的问题上争论。例子也不限于以上所举的。任君随便通过任何媒体管道，一定能够看到不胜枚举的例子。例如选择曾吸过烟的偶像歌手当戒烟大使是否恰当。天啊，如果你的子女会因为崇拜偶像才不吸烟，那么只证明父母教导无方。

本人并非想在此鼓励大家采取一种 “什么都不管” 的心态。认识我的人都知道，本人对于许许多多的社会现象总是喜欢发表自己的看法，以及做出许多批评。有关当局这样子做是不对啊、虽然这样子很好，不过我们可以做得更好啊等等。讲好听些，是坚持尽善尽美。讲难听点，就是鸡蛋里挑骨头。然而，我只是希望大家可以衡量轻重，把精力运用在值得讨论的课题上。

因为，即使鸡毛蒜皮里真的挑出骨头，所剩下来的还是鸡毛蒜皮。

Jelly Fish 

Giant Hands 

Kitties Galore 

The Sky of Taipei 

Quote by Robyn Hitchcock and my comments

“It is very dangerous to mock people's beliefs, because you can be tortured and destroyed by other human beings …… very seldom do divine forces actually wreak their vengeance on you …… but it is very dangerous to be an infidel in someone's eyes. I believe very firmly in god ... in terms of spirituality. I also have an infinite contempt for religion, which I think is hijacking people's spirituality for political purposes, and I think that religion is perilously close to pornography in that respect.” --- Robyn Hitchcock

My two-cents comments:

Well, have to say I do not agree totally with Robyn Hitchcock's views. At least no one has died in the name of pornography, or blew innocent people to bits with bombs, or coerced individuals into accepting their views.

Sadly, that can't be said for religion.

Give me pornography over religion anyday.

Looking On 

nice quote

"don't call me a poet. because that is the single most digusting word that one can be addressed by. call me that, and you'll be associating me with all the fake fucking pretensions, the skulduggery, the weak-mindedness, and the unadulterated snobbishness of human nature."

found this as i was tidying up my old archives of files. forgot whether it was me who wrote it, or i copied it down from somewhere. i think it must have been the latter, though i'm not sure. if anyone knows who wrote this, please let me know...

although i think i wrote it....

Flyer Along Street of Penang 

Senoko Fishing Port 

Sky 

Charity is not neuroscience, but it isn't stupidity as well

Anyways, saw this forum article on The Straits Times a few days back. Evidently, the writer was sort of berating the directors of the Centre Neuroscience in Singapore for pointing out in an earlier article that the treatments that the Nepalanese and Yishun twins were receiving were dubious and hinted that the parents of these twins could be out to con Singaporeans out of their sympathy money. The writer took the moralistic man-in-the-street perspective by pointing out that:


"The man in the street would not have, before making his donation, the exclusive information that Prof Lee had. He would not be able to confirm with Ms Angella Cheng, the Nepalese twins' guardian in Singapore, that the motive of the twins' parents in coming to Singapore was to get more sympathy money.

He would not know that the Gurkha contingent in Singapore had turned them down because the contingent had already donated to the twins on the first occasion.

He would also not be able to assess if a shunt operation, Botox and intensive physiotherapy will have permanent effect on leg deformity or the ability to walk because he is not as medically proficient as Prof Lee.
As for the Yishun siblings, the man in the street would also not know that the deep-brain stimulation could have been performed at the Singapore General Hospital or the National Neuroscience Institute at a fraction of the cost incurred in Taiwan."

And he concluded with this paragraph:

"I would rather live in a country where my fellow citizens are compassionate and sympathetic than where they are critical and demanding.

Charity is not a neuroscience."

My thoughts? Hmmm, I wonder what this guy has to say when he knew the NKF funds were not properly used. Did he display moral outrage? Or did he say something like: Oh, never mind that we were conned, it was the compassion and sympathy that counts. Heck, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt by assuming he took the former stance. And what? The take-home message is that it is okay for people to con us out of our sympathy money, as long as they are not some big-evil organisation???

Lest I come across to readers as an evil bastard with no compassion, let me set the record straight by stating that I believe in welfare for the less fortunate. It is just that I also believe in something known as efficiency and utility as well. Okay, so the average man on the street doesn't have the necessary information, so that is why the directors from the Neuroscience Centre are providing you with this information, so as to enable you to make a better judgement. If the reaction to this kind of information is the kind of moralistic high-ground in which the writer adopts by saying that oh-I-didn't-want-to-know-that-because-it-is-my-kindness-that-counts-even-though-I-may-be-gullible, then so be it.

Stupidity kills.

An Unfinished Poem

Friend of mine wrote it. Gave up because it just didn't mattered anymore. Anyways......

谁能舞动那场抽象忧伤
聆听着 Keith Jarrett 就幻想置身
于维也纳空荡广场演奏着无声
悲哀掌声如同冻结泪水敲打
那场身陷迷宫往事的愚蠢告白
坠落的爱情永远进入冬眠

秋天已经开始倒数整个九月
渐渐长了的头发即将遗弃帽子
然而苍白的长发再也不为谁
留下遗憾在通俗歌词里对你
好到无路可退的慈悲也不失残忍
这样的关系我说多完美

The Quintessential Singaporean Sign 

Get Porky

Boat By The Sea 

有些话是不能随便说的

有些话是不能随便说的

(刊登於联合早报2005年10 月9日)

每当朋友看到我的文章被刊登时，他们的第一个反应通常是：“天啊，真不敢相信报社竟然被你这个人蒙骗了。那些编辑大概没有听过你平常的满口脏话吧。像你这种把三字经当成口头禅的人的文章也可以见报，简直是快世界末日了。”

或者，每当我对着电视上所播放的荒谬新闻破口大骂时，父母总是得严厉地提醒身为长子的我必须为弟妹树立好榜样。我的回应总是一致，不过我无法在此透露。即使写了出来，也不可能被刊登。

平常在他人面前粗言秽语，但在写作时刻意收敛，就如同在庄重的社交场合时注意自己的言行举止，这样算是虚伪吗？不，是因为知道每个人在不同的场合应该有不同的行为标准。就如同我的指导教授不会在和我讨论学术问题时以激动和强烈的字眼迫使我赞同她的观点，而同时也不会在观赏篮球赛时冷静和头头是道地为我队加油。我私底下的不良行为只会影响亲朋戚友，不过如果随意在公共场合展示的话，这不仅滥用公共空间，也对无法忍受强烈语言的人不敬。

最近，本地有几间学院的学生因为在博客上发表对教师不敬的文章而被校方处罚。虽然我不知道校方最后是如何辅导这些学生，不过我可以想象就是讲一些有关尊师重道，以及用激动的语言发泄自己情绪是不对的话。我赞同这些学生应该被严厉处罚，然而不是因为以上理由。我承认自己不是什么道德的典范，在高中时期常跟老师发生口角。粗话，更不用说了。若以上的理由谴责这些学生，就显得太虚伪了。我认为这些学生应当被处罚的理由是因为他们竟然不知道有些话是不能随便说的。希望校方也有如此教导他们。

另一件和以上事件有关的新闻就是被控触犯煽动法令的两名被告。当我从网上读到这两则新闻时，就预测会有很多言论自由的支持者透过不同管道批评有关当局。果然不出所料，几天后到某些讨论网站上浏览时，就看到许多无名氏辱骂有关当局不尊重言论自由的留言。至于学生被处罚的事件，也读到有读者写信到海峡时报谴责校方处罚学生的手段过于强硬，并声称 “发表错误的言论比不发表任何言论更好” 。

对于这些人的思维模式，我在私下可以用很简单的字眼表达我的感受。不过既然这不是我的私人空间，就让我罗唆吧。我认为这些人把 “开放” 和 “自由” 两个概念混淆了。本人是言论开放的支持者，也认为有关当局有时对于某些话题讨论的开放度不够。不过，我并不赞成所谓的 “言论自由” 。至少，不是那种毫无责任胡乱抨击他人的 “自由” 。Too much of anything is not good，包括自由。别以为自由真的是 free 的。不相信？学生们可以等到出了社会后如此抨击他们的老板。被告者可以尝试在宗教激进组织前发表他们的言论。真的，即使有关当局施予极刑，也算仁慈了。

其实，以上两则新闻让我觉得更讽刺的是：第一，经过这么多年的国民教育后，以及每天在升旗礼朗诵 “不分言语宗教和种族” 的宣誓后，我们的社会竟然还会有拥有这种想法的人存在。第二，我们的教育制度竟然教出这些连做人的基本原则都搞不清楚的学生。或许，因为在不开放的空间压抑太久，没办法学习拿捏所谓的平衡点，在突然得到自由以后就很容易不小心冲出界线吧。

Fucking Frogs (No, they aren't actually procreating here, I think) 

有关幽默

有关幽默

或许因为都喜欢观看即无聊但却又发人深省的搞笑综艺节目，所以才会和 Chris 一见如故吧。

当他知道我跟他一样喜欢看某个以荒谬的搞笑手法讥讽美国社会和其政治形态的综艺节目时，他非常热情地邀请我到他家去。原来，他从几年前就把每集节目都录了下来，而他想与我分享之前的精彩片段。

Chris 在寻找影片档案时问我新加坡是否有类似的电视综艺节目。我告诉他本地没有类似的讽刺节目，至少没有批评和讽刺得这么直接。当然，我也补充这并不代表本地的媒体并没有批评有关当局，只是鲜少以幽默的手法批评。

“那么你不是到了这里才第一次看到类似节目？” Chris 问。

我笑着回答不是，并向 Chris 形容以模仿台湾政治人物出名的台湾节目 <全民乱讲>，告诉他这是我在新加坡最喜欢的节目之一。Chris 听了后大笑，然后随口评论说：“我想因为那里的政治形态和美国一样啼笑皆非，所以人民才没有办法，只能以幽默的方法舒解。”

Chris 的这句话不禁让我开始思考有关本地媒体所缺乏的幽默文化。除了很久以前的 <搞笑行动>之外，我想不起其他以搞笑手法探讨社会问题的电视节目。这意味着什么呢？难道本地人没有幽默感？或者说有关当局的政策太无懈可击了，让本地人没有办法以幽默的方法批评和讽刺？

应该不是这样吧。有上过本地的搞笑网站 “讲鸟话” (talkingcock.com) 的读者都知道，该网站上的文章总是以搞笑手法讽刺有关当局的政策和我们社会的不合理现象。或者在众多本地博客网站上所读到的文章，总是让我忍不住大笑。前些日子某些匿名的人士把 “白象” 板子摆放在万国地铁站的举动，其幽默和讽刺的层次不输给任何人。这证明本地人还是有幽默的一面，而有关当局并非无懈可击。

然而，为什么主流媒体还是缺乏这种具有批判和讽刺性的幽默呢？或许跟有关当局在以往动辄以严父姿态来回应任何对他们的批评有关系吧。如果严肃和认真的批评都会被斥责的话，更何况是即不认真又容易得罪人的幽默手法呢？就这次白象事件而言，或许警方的介入不一定就等同某人犯了法，不过如果要质问为何本地主流媒体并不幽默的话，这大概是个很好的例子吧。

Chris 把其中一段录影调出来，并说这是他最喜欢的片段。该片段的内容大致如此：主持人非常诚恳地面对镜头，告诉观众他身为个喜剧演员谐星，主要的工作就是嘲笑 (美国) 政府荒谬的政策和明显的过失。然后，他恳求有关当局赶快把行政搞好，以及整顿好社会，好让他尽快失业。他最后一句话是：“如果政府没有任何荒谬的状况让我们搞笑的话，我会很开心，因为我现在感觉非常累了。”

或许本地主流媒体缺乏这种讽刺性的幽默文化是个好现象。至少，这暗示有关当局的政策大致上还是合理的。当然，在我的记忆中，许多以高压政策管制人民的国家也是缺乏幽默文化的。不过，我相信本地的情况是属于前者，并希望有关当局能够以正确的方法使本地的主流媒体继续缺乏讽刺性的幽默文化。
因为，自嘲真的是件很累的事。

Skull And Apple 

Jumping High 

moment

it was a moment frozen in time
i turned around to face myself
asked, "so here is where we part?"

"sometimes you just can't have
everything in life" i said as the past
started to fade into the background
i smiled wrily, and continued walking

it was one of those moments where
you know you'll never be the same
again, for worse or better

it was one of those moments where
you know you've grown