Instead, Instead, Instead

I'm appalled at the state of English spelling on the Internet. Kids out there seem to have brought their IRC-speak into SMS-speak and eventually allowed all of that unintelligible nonsense become some form of netspeak.

I'm not complaining though: I'm guilty of using my own abbreviations and shortened words as well, but a google search I did a long time ago (back when I was thinking about applying to B-school) showed me something interesting about misspelling words. I googled "INSEAD" and when analysing the search results, I saw links to: INSEAD's various websites; newspaper articles referring to the school; the odd gushy blog post from alumni, participants or newbie; and a whole ton of unrelated pages trawled out by the fantastic search engine.

The unrelated pages all had ONE trait: on each and every one of them, the author of that page had mis-spelt the word "instead". Instead of typing "instead", their quick fingers missed the 'T'. It's probably one of those mistakes which are rather easy to miss when scanning for typos. When Google bolds each and everyone of those mistakes though, it can end up somewhat embarrassing to look at.

Fast forward to present day: I ran the search again in Google today and it turns out that the search engine's code has been updated - it looks for INSEAD in keywords, titles, and in articles where words such as 'B-school' and 'MBA' appear. Sure took them long enough to fix it - probably attributable to the recent spike in Google hirings at INSEAD.

For the heck of it, I also ran the same search through Technorati and Google's Blog Search. Technorati's 5th ranked search result was a typo (top 4 were INSEAD related). Blog Search did better: result #75 was its first typo related retrieval.

Moral of the story? Having a name that is one letter shy of an easily misspelt and often used word is probably not a good idea.

PS: Some folks here have made a business out of helping folks out there with misspelt translations. Interesting stuff, but INSEAD is unfortunately not a misspelling for 'instead'... it is a real-life B-school alas.

PSS: Some folks mentioned in this article cashes in on the spelling misfortunes of others to make that quick buck on eBay. Damn... I should have thought of that. Sure beats some of the stupid business ideas I've heard in B-school.

PSSS: I'm putting a lot more hyperlinks in my blog these days - it makes the Snap Preview so much cooler (I do have a nagging feeling though that some folks out there dislike having hyperlinks blow up like word bubbles in a comic book)

On Pretty Much Everything in My Life Since Whenever

1. I'm still job-hunting. It doesn't feel like hunting much anymore: Job-Hunting sounds like the kind of thing where you traipse around hilly forestland cradling a rifle, ears cocked and eyes darting from side to side, waiting to pounce upon unsuspecting deer. My job hunting is more like a pimping parade where I sell myself like a two-bit whore to the most down and out drive-by looking for a cheap and good time. I don't want to sell myself short; I also don't want to live through half of this fantabulous year STILL housed with my parents (which is where that income... IN-COME... will come in handy).

2. I'm not all bitter and sarcastic though. Life threw me a curve ball in the form of an old secondary school friend. He needed help at his search firm (otherwise known as employment or recruitment agency, but search firm sounds waaaaay cooler) and I gladly jumped at the offer.

The search industry is highly saturated - there are all kinds of firms filling every area of executive search possible. Segment it by industry and you have professionals serving banks, manufacturers, FMCG companies etc. Segment it by function and you have firms that keep files on finance, HR, customer service, marketing, and IT professionals among others. Segment it by complexity and you might see firms looking for management positions or trying to fill temp staff.

And if you don't know where to start when looking for a job, head down to International Plaza and take the lift to the highest floor; ditch the lift and knock on all doors next to signs that have either of the following words: "Consultancy", "Talent", "Recruitment", "Services". Chances are, they are an agency and you can leave your CV behind (no guarantees).

3. Speaking of that search strategy, there was a good reason why my friend locks the door to his office (at International Plaza... affectionately known among the HR-literati as IP). There are so many job seekers doing the hit-and-miss that the door gets an average of 8 knocks a day. Most of the time, they try twisting the knob and go away after finding no one home (we don't open it).

On occasions, I have had to entertain the lucky few who managed to enter because one of us forgets to lock the door - it isn't pleasant (for me): "We don't entertain walk-ins" seem to work the charm and the job seeker tries his luck next door; "We don't have positions at the moment" seem to trigger other desperate measures so I don't use that line anymore; "We are not an employment agency" is a partial lie which I hate to employ. IP being recruitment firm central (Adecco's among the biggest here), these seekers are bound to find something eventually.

4. What is it about hitting that big 30 which makes a guy worry? Nearing 30, your typical Singaporean dude will start thinking about settling down - or when he stops thinking about it, will settle for NEVER settling down, but most guys do the wanna-settle-down thinking more than the never-gonna-settle thinking. It preoccupies him, becomes him, and defines him. He becomes driven by it, or will end up not caring (i.e. never-gonna-settle).

Let's see what happens to the wanna-settle-down guy: he becomes less of a risk-taker, preferring options that guarantee him more safety, assurance and perhaps less uncertainty; the settle-down mentality guides all future actions: perhaps he plans more financially, perhaps he sees more people (if he's still single), perhaps he decides not to seek a job overseas; Singapore's inhibiting social norms start panicking him out: words such as ROM, flat-apartment-condo, ceremony, and wedding dinner start becoming a part of the vocabulary; oh yes, there is that ring shopping and damn marketing-speak about how expensive the ring should be (Side note: bring your girlfriend to watch Blood Diamond to convince her of evil machinations behind the nasty diamond trade - she might change her mind about whining for that expensive piece of carbon; convince her by telling her it stars a fat Leonardo DiCaprio).

It all stems from the time-bomb notion: the clock is ticking away and counting down the minutes of your short existence; brief lives indeed. To make the most of the time you have on earth, to live it to its fullest extent possible, you feel you have to settle down. 30 is the point, the barrier. You are now a man and a boy no longer (yes, you'd better be). Time's running out. It doesn't help that your friends are settling down. It doesn't help that some of them are into their 2nd kid already. It doesn't help to forget to bring Christmas presents for little kiddies running around calling you uncle (ack... I'm an uncle now).

Oh yes, I turned 30 last year but hey, I still think about silly stuff like this. :)

5. So what did I do for New Year? I met one friend, and then I met another. With friend #1, it was coffee, cake, and chat. With her, it is always those 3 C's whenever we decide that we need each other's company. We summed up our 2006, talked about new year resolutions (she resolves to be a better organised person; I don't make resolutions, but I did say something about learning to dance). Friend #1 is going on to better things in her life and walks away, head held high - she calls later to wish me a Happy New Year and I've never felt happier that there are friends who remember you. May distance never be a barrier to our friendship.

Friend #2 was a different encounter: we sat down and watched a DVD. It's like the DVD-rental relationship: rent DVD, sit down with popcorn (or in our case, some ice cream) and watch the time away. Oh yes, there is that obligatory switch over to Mediacorp's Channel 5 to count down (they are supposedly 'official time'). The count down program, as with any count-down programs by Mediacorp in the last 20 odd years, sucked: some star will be singing, followed by another star, and then the time comes to count down, they will count down, sing Auld Lang Syne, and its back to more of the same. Oh and it MUST be hosted by Gurmit Singh and Michelle Chia.

After catching some shut eye, we headed out to watch the sun rise and get breakfast. Not much sun for the first day of 2007 though... not that it portends anything of the future - I do hope the sun shines down favourably on the new year.

6. I bought two books a week back, each for a very different reason. The Long Tail is a book about how the Internet phenomenon is bringing society back to being the niche culture it was before mass media came into existence. On the other hand, Guns, Germs and Steel is a 10,000 walk through the history of the world as we know it. Both books have similarities: the Long Tail offers a framework for understanding how to market products to the niche cultures of today (and why they matter - the niches are the long tail of the title); Guns, Germs and Steel go behind the scenes to understand the real forces that shaped history, and comes to an understanding of why Western European civilization came to dominate in recent history.

The reasons behind buying them differ. I bought the latter book because I'm a sucker for popular books which take a crack at explaining history (or sociology, or applied economics); I intend to look smart while reading it and then telling people about views from it (without actually telling them about the source - how smart). The former book I bought for a somewhat nefarious reason: to try to have something intelligent to say at a job interview. The interviewer I was meeting had talked about the book before and I thought it might impressed him if I can say something about it (I did, but in a rather clumsy way, alluded to the book and my praise for its theories).

The challenge is now to actually read them. Given the busy work at IP. Given some of the travelling that I will be doing. Given the hectic search for a job. Given this. Given that.

7. In other news, this is one of those years where marriageable folk everywhere will rush to book that lucky date for their wedding dinner. Which one am I talking about? How about the 7th of July, 2007? And this is a good point on which to end this post: point #7.

Have a lucky 2007 ahead.

Haiku 2/1/2007

Here lie pieces of myself

A jigsaw puzzle

Missing the piece with my heart

Framing the Great Casino Debate as an Ethical Issue - Prelude

This was such a fun essay to write (over 2 days, little sleep, and hackneyed research done via the internet) that I thought it a waste not to put it on my blog. Here goes!

------------

Singapore’s Great Casino Debate

An individual perspective of the ethical dilemma posed by the ‘Integrated Resorts’ proposal to Singapore as a society


Executive Summary

The purpose of this essay is to retrospectively analyze the debate over the proposal to build casinos in Singapore. The debate took place among the general public, the press and within Singapore’s ruling government (both within the Parliament and cabinet of ministers). The proposal was one by the Singapore Tourism Board to build casinos in Singapore in order to boost tourism revenue.

Beyond the economic benefits of the proposal, the public at large and many concerned public figures brought up the issue of social problems that can result from having a casino in Singapore. This essay aims to explore the dilemma between the obvious – and measurable – economic benefits that can be achieved through revenues from casino operations, and the subtle – and often subjective – social problems that arise from the introduction of such an ‘evil’.

Note: from time to time, the essay will utilize the phrase ‘Integrated Resort’ (IR). The IR is a resort concept synonymous with the model of casinos as seen in Las Vegas and Johannesburg, i.e. where the casinos are a component of a larger themed entertainment facility that is (sometimes) targeted towards the family. It is the author’s view that adoption of the IR concept (by the government in its proceedings) is meant to 1) de-emphasize the gaming aspect of the proposal, thus softening the perception that it might be condoning vice; and 2) target a broader market of tourists (and not just high-rolling punters or ‘whales’). The phrase IR will be used interchangeably to mean casino, and vice versa.


History of the Casino Debate

The Singapore Tourism Board (STB) was established in 1964 with the mandate to promote Singapore as a tourist destination. The STB undertakes projects such as the construction of theme parks and targeted overseas promotional activities to boost tourism-related visits to Singapore. For a long time now, it has advocated the development of a casino in Singapore to attract more tourists and increase Singapore’s share of the Asia-Pacific tourism market. Until recently, the government has always rejected the idea of building a casino. During the early phases of Singapore’s development as a nation, the government’s focus was on building Singapore’s manufacturing and industrial capabilities: there was no economic need for a casino given the growth in GDP and the prosperity enjoyed by the nation.

Lately, however, the government had decided to reconsider the decision. In 2004, the idea was once again mooted. The proposal was internally discussed by the Members of the Cabinet and the decision was announced to the general public in April 2005. A parliamentary debate was held in the same month to debate the issue, and opinions both in support of, and against, the proposal were aired. Similarly, a public debate also took place among concerned citizens, with opinions largely expressed in the press and on the Internet.


The Economic Rationale for the IRs

The STB’s invitation for IR concepts attracted 19 submissions, and out of that pool, it was estimated that if 2 IRs are built, SGD 5 billion will need to be invested and 35,000 jobs will be created for the whole economy. The economic impact is significant: when fully operational, the 2 IRs’ contribution will increase Singapore’s GDP by 1% annually. The construction of the IRs will thus contribute significantly to boosting Singapore’s economy through foreign direct investment, the construction sector during the ramp-up phase, and the services sector in its day-to-day operations when completed.

On a related note, Singapore’s tourism industry has been on the decline. Singapore’s dollar share of Asia-Pacific travel has been falling: between 1998 and 2002, Singapore’s share of East Asia Pacific tourism receipts fell from 8.2% to 5.8% ; between 1994 and 2003, Singapore’s Total Expenditure of Visitors (TEV) fell 38% from SGD 7 billion (See Table 1). In considering the proposed IRs, the Singapore government was hoping to boost its flagging tourism industry – previously, the STB had experimented with theme parks, coordinated promotional sales events and contrived festivals. All had failed to revive an industry that is in decline – the only key success area has been in the promotion of Singapore as a location for business travel and Meetings, Incentive Travel, Conventions and Exhibitions (MICE). In effect, the Singapore government recognizes that Singapore (on the whole) as a tourist attraction is not viable with its current offerings and it needs to seek new means of attracting visitors to Singapore.

Table 1: Total Expenditure of Visitors (S$ Million), Yearly (Source: STB Website)
Year TEV (SGD Million)
1994 7049.8
1995 7350
1996 6755.5
1997 6207.4
1998 5493.6
1999 6033.3
2000 6292.6
2001 5699.3
2002 5425.8
2003 4315.6

Additionally, the Singapore government has recognized that its position as a desirable manufacturing base is no longer tenable. Investments in the manufacturing sector have stagnated at around SGD 8 billion and MNC capital expenditure have migrated to low cost countries in recent years. A recent case is California-based Maxtor Corp, a hard-disk drive manufacturer. In 2006 it closed two plants in Singapore and moved the operations to China – in addition to the retrenchment of 5,500 Singaporean workers, the move also affected small local suppliers of Maxtor Corp . The slow decline of the manufacturing sector has prompted the government to pursue growth in more lucrative sectors – in particular, a key growth area for Singapore is the services sector, within which the IRs are expected to generate investments, income and jobs when they are built.

Another compelling reason for setting up the IRs is that tourism within East Asia Pacific is booming. In particular, with China easing travel restrictions on its citizens there will be increasing demand for gaming facilities within a reasonable distance (in the future, the majority of Chinese travellers are most likely to be punters seeking to gamble, and current legislation in China forbids the construction and operation of casinos). Whether or not Singapore went ahead with the decision to build casinos, the surge in demand for such services will compel regional countries to compete and offer such services. The competitive situation is such that supply will rise to meet demand, whether or not Singapore chooses to compete for that particular tourist dollar.

While Singapore is able to attract investors due to its various advantages over its South East Asian neighbours, prospective investors are just as likely to set up casino resorts in locations such as Phuket and Bali – locations which are not far from Singapore in any case. As such, a pre-emptive measure to build IRs in Singapore might minimize the eventual impact of subsequent competition in the South East Asian region.


The Gambling Landscape in Singapore

The officially legal gambling channel comes in the guise of the Singapore Totalisator Board. It operates two businesses: the Singapore Turf Club, whose main source of revenue come from betting proceeds earned from horse-racing and totalisator operations; and Singapore Pools, whose revenue comes from running lotteries (operated via 3 distinct and separate means, namely 4D, Toto, and Singapore Sweep) and football betting. The proceeds from the operation of the two entities are channelled to charitable causes, the arts, community development and are generally meant to benefit other worthwhile causes in Singapore .

Other than the officially sanctioned means of gambling, Singaporeans also have access to ‘jackpot rooms’ in some country clubs and semi-union based clubhouses. These gaming facilities often take up a small area and only provide slot machines. Elsewhere, Singaporeans also punt on gambling sites on the internet, without regulation or restriction by the government.

Beyond the locally available options, Singaporeans also travel overseas for the purpose of gambling. The two most popular (and accessible) modes are Genting Resort in Malaysia and cruise ships to nowhere. Genting Resort is within a 5-hr coach ride from Singapore and offers full casino facilities along with a resort and theme park. Cruise operators in Singapore run cruise ships which operate casinos onboard (once they have sailed to international waters and are, legally, not within Singapore’s jurisdiction). The ships typically depart and return to Singapore without calling at any other ports.

It is thus a fact that Singaporeans can access gambling facilities easily. In a ministerial statement by the Prime Minister during the IR debate in parliament, he said that “Every year, Singaporeans spend $6 billion on legal gambling in Singapore, and another $1.5 billion in cruises and offshore casinos.” It appears to be clear that there is profit to be made from the $1.5 billion in gambling proceeds that go overseas.


The Social Problems

The first and foremost question in the debate was whether the casino components of the IRs will undermine societal values. As a society, the government perceived Singaporeans as valuing fairness, meritocracy, integrity and hard work. In some quarters, it is feared that the presence of a casino will erode the Singapore work ethic: the casinos might promote the idea of dependence on gambling and luck as a means of making money (as opposed to hard work). The prevailing view on this issue is that the government needed to act as custodian and enforcer of Singapore’s core values: in allowing IRs, it might be seen to compromise on this stance. The contrary view is that the government should not act in such a paternalistic manner, since such core values are hardly perceived to be accepted nationwide nor are they necessarily applicable to each and every Singaporean individual.

A concomitant danger was that the setting up of a casino might lead to increase in incidences of organized crime and law and order issues. Activities associated with the operations of casinos run the gamut of illegal money lending, prostitution, money laundering and criminal gangs. It has been observed that such a situation had already occurred in Macau: the involvement of triads in Macau’s casinos has led to rampant prostitution and other criminal activities. There is much concern that Singapore’s reputation as a safe and secure place might be ruined if the IRs ever degenerate to that level.

The third concern is that the presence of casinos in Singapore might lead to an increase in cases of problem gambling. This is particularly so in the case of pathological gambling, which is a mental health disorder much akin to a gambling disorder. Sufferers become preoccupied with gambling and are compelled to bet frequently and with increasingly higher stakes. Sufferers also experience withdrawal symptoms if prevented from gambling. Pathological gamblers have been known to gamble too much: to the point of both causing harm to self and family.

Two high profile cases during the period of the debate highlight the extent of the problems created by problem gamblers. Chia Teck Leng, 45, was formerly a finance manager at Asia Pacific Breweries. He got addicted to gambling in 1994 after going for a cruise and was taking on severe debt to finance his gambling habit. Later, he falsified documents purportedly from his company and cheated banks of a total of SGD 117 million. He was caught and subsequently sentenced to 42 years in jail. While in prison, Chia Teck Leng wrote a paper entitled ‘Taming the Casino Dragon’ exhorting the Singapore government to institute seemingly discriminatory measures to prevent Singaporeans from being addicted to gambling. This is a case of a problem gambler who took to crime as a solution to his problems – these are the kind of gamblers which opponents of the IR proposal have been most vocal in warning about.

On a more tragic (and also extreme) note, Simon Lee, 40, jumped to his death from his high-rise flat after killing his wife and two young children in a murder-cum-suicide pact. Simon Lee was found to have crippling gambling debts despite earning SGD 2,000 a month. He had also been gambling for more than 10 years on horses, numbers, soccer, and in casinos. Apparently seeing no solution to his plight, he decided to end his misery by killing himself and his family. This is an extreme case of a problem gambler who took his own life – most of them go into financial ruin but rarely go so far as to commit suicide. Unfortunately for proponents of the IR proposal, such high-profile cases make sensational news. Opponents of the IRs, whether they are religious groups or other social concern, argue that the IRs will accentuate the number of such incidents if left unaddressed.


The Decision

On 18 Apr 2005, the government announced the decision that the IR proposal will go ahead and planned to evaluate bids for two sites in the months to follow. A debate in parliament brought about opinions both for and against the proposal, but since the decision had already been made by the cabinet, the parliamentary debates in no way changed the outcome of the decision.

What it did achieve though was that it highlighted the divisive nature of the casino issue: on the one hand, proponents of the proposal tended to be biased towards their views of the economic realities of Singapore and recognize the potential upsides in building the IRs. Opponents of the proposal, though, tended to hark upon the social ills associated with casinos, but often do not have substantive evidence or data to support their claim – information on other cities which are exposed to similar issues were inconclusive as to the full impact, and mitigating factors, of the proposal to build an IR.


Preventive Measures Adopted

In addressing fears over the erosion of the Singapore work ethic and core values, it is perhaps notable that the Prime Minister made a mention towards a less paternalistic approach. Lee Hsien Loong, in his speech during the parliamentary debate, mentioned the role of schools, the family and religious and social groups, in the inculcation of values, and the transmission of civics and moral education . It is a clear signal from the government that, whether or not the IRs are built, the onus is on society to build its own value systems and transmit them to future generations of Singaporeans. The evils associated with gambling as a vice already exist (in its various guises) and values as they are now will not be significantly degenerated as a result of the IRs.

On the issue of increased criminal activity, it is no doubt that the authorities in Singapore will be strict in this regard: historically, Singapore’s enforcement agencies have been tough on vice and related activities. There will be the formation of a special police unit to supervise law enforcement in all activities related to casinos. A casino regulatory body will also be established to help manage some of the social impact of the casinos: for example, the regulatory authority will screen principal shareholders, directors, and employees to minimize any infiltration of criminal elements into casinos. The regulator will also monitor supplier relationships to ensure that all transactions are above board, and also seek international best practices for dealing with money laundering and other associated criminal activities.

Most of the debate focused on measures to curb incidences of problem gambling, and to proactively help gamblers and affected family members cope with such problems. Firstly, the IRs will put in place an entrance levy fee of SGD 100 per visit, or SGD 2,000 for visits over a calendar year. The entry levy is designed to signal to the public at large that gambling is to be considered an expense, and not a money-making enterprise. It is also meant to discourage casual gambling. The minimum age limit for entry is 21 years so as to prevent children and teens from being unduly exposed.

Another measure to limit the exposure of compulsive gamblers is in the institution of exclusion measures. Compulsive gamblers may voluntarily opt for self-exclusion, or they can be coaxed by concerned family members to be counselled and apply for self-exclusion with the National Council on Gambling (the authority set up by the government to regulate the gambling industry). The Council goes further: it will bar those also in poor financial health such as bankrupts, people with poor credit records and people on welfare, from entering the IRs in the future. The voluntary exclusion and other exclusionary measures are already used in other casinos around the world.

To deal with the problem of pathological gamblers, Singapore’s Institute of Mental Health runs a Community Addictions Management Program (CAMP). CAMP acts as a centre for treating addictions (among which are gambling addictions and substance abuse related addictions) and also conduct public education messages to that effect. With the spotlight now on measures for dealing with gambling addiction, CAMP now has the mandate to improve facilities and meet world-class benchmarks as set by experienced addiction centres in the US.

In addition to a treatment facility, the Ministry of Health also focused on public awareness campaigns in the mass media, investment in research on treatment practices, and working with voluntary welfare organisations to deal with problem gambling. Despite the small number of cases (an estimated 100 patients were treated for gambling addiction in 2004), the Singapore government has demonstrated an ample commitment towards dealing with the potential ills that might be introduced with the IRs.


A Personal Point of View

Singapore’s Great Casino Debate highlights the case of an ethical dilemma faced by the Singapore government. The decision to build the IRs was based on economic rationality: the IRs will bring in foreign investment, create jobs and spur the growth of the economy. In its decision making process, the government sought the feedback of its citizens and various social groups: however, no one other than the members of the cabinet had the voting ability to influence the decision – even when the issue was debated in parliament, the cabinet had already made the decision to go ahead with the IRs (having internally considered the issue over several months).

A more populist approach might be to hold a referendum on the issue (as advocated by a particular opposition party). In that way, the rational actor (in this instance the Cabinet of Ministers) can transfer the responsibility for making the decision to society as a whole, rather than bear the burden of the decision alone. However, this argument detracts from the fact that the government had been democratically elected by its people, and is thus given the mandate to act on their behalf on issues of macroeconomics (as far as the economic rationality of it is concerned).

What a referendum might have served to do though is to allow the public to shape the outcome of the decision based on its own values system. The argument goes that the government might not fully represent society’s values or moral concerns, and a general referendum will serve to better reflect the moral pulse of the country. On this note, I am somewhat more supportive of the notion that the public should be allowed to decide, although the imperative economic urgency of the situation did not warrant the government allowing a possibility of the motion being defeated.

Of more interest to myself as the author are the types of ethical values espoused during the debate itself. The majority of the opponents’ arguments centred on the effects that the IRs will have on society and the individual. The particular worries about erosion of societal values, crime and individual gambling problems stem from the adoption of a deontological point of view. Deontological ethics holds that decisions should be made solely by considering one’s duty and rules within which one operates. It is an approach with an emphasis on the how things are done rather than what things are achieved. The call among opponents to the IRs has been for the government to address issues of possible social problems and the measures adopted.

Another subset of the opponents comes from a religious context and they espouse a ‘virtue ethics’ perspective. The major religions in Singapore are Islamism, Christianity, Buddhism, Taoism, and Hinduism. Vocal opponents of the IR proposal have come mainly from among Muslims and Christians opposed to the immoral principle of allowing vice on what is viewed as a grand scale.

The proponents adopt a more utilitarian approach instead. Utilitarianism is an ethical dogma that holds that the right action is the one that produces the most utility for the whole of society (in our context), i.e. the ends justify the means, so long as most of the people benefit from it. As for what measure to adopt in the case of measuring the utility, the proponents of the proposal point to the obvious economic benefits, and look upon the social costs as somewhat minuscule in comparison to the huge benefits to society that the IRs will bring.

For the case of the IR proposal, the utilitarian argument won out in the end: the IR proposal makes good economic sense. As for the social costs associated with gambling and the presence of a casino, the measures seem to be substantial enough. On a more reassuring note, the government has promised that it will continually monitor and improve any social programs aimed at curbing problems stemming from the IRs.

Personally, in considering the various perspectives adopted in the Great Casino Debate, my research has drawn mainly on publicly available information, particularly from governmental sources. I am not personally an advocate of the actions of the PAP government, but with regards to the IR debate, I have found the speeches and statements made by various government ministers and MPs to contain concrete well thought out arguments for their case. From a civic perspective, I have also drawn upon information from other sources such as local news sites and other grassroots political commentary sites which are not regulated by governmental agencies.

Finally, to reiterate, I am of the view that the IRs, or the casino component of the IRs, will bring significant economic benefits to Singapore. The social costs as a consequence of the IRs will probably not be significant enough to overwhelm the benefits achieved, though this is something that can only be known in the future. As of now, the preventive measures put in place to curb the erosion of societal values, crime and problem gambling seem to me to be substantial and are ethically the right thing to do: in a sense, these actions are the social responsibility of the government given the economic action (the IRs) they have undertaken.

From my own moral standpoint, I do not think that gambling is immoral. I believe that gambling has the ability to ruin lives, but I believe in the right of the individual to exercise the freedom of using his financial resources as he pleased (provided it does no harm to others – here I adopt the deontological view). Researching the Great Singapore Debate has shaped my perspectives on gambling, the IRs, the ills, and the leadership exhibited by the Singaporean government.




Notes (Ed: Originally appearing as footnotes to the essay - I didn't have the time to figure out how to do it in Blogger):

1. ‘Whale’ is a gaming industry parlance for serious gamblers who are heavily funded and high-rollers, with the ability to stake millions in gambling transactions.
2. The Cabinet is composed of elected Members of Parliament (MPs) who are chosen by the Prime Minister to be Ministers. The Cabinet is responsible for all Government policies and the day-to-day administration of the affairs of the state. It is collectively responsible to the Parliament. Source
3. Total Expenditure of Visitors (TEV) is one of the key performance indicators of Singapore's Tourism Sector. TEV measures the total revenue received by Singapore from tourism activity. It includes all payments and prepayments for goods and services made by visitors, as well as high yield shopping expenditure.
4. Chia Teck Leng's paper also mentions his experiences, and details expounding why the ‘house’ always wins.
5. In May 2006 Las Vegas Sands won the bid to operate the IR on the Marina Bay site. Recently, in Dec 2006 Genting Resorts won the bid to operate the second IR on the Sentosa site.

Articles referenced (I've lost my bookmarks for these pages, so no links here):

• Alex Au, ‘Casino Decision: A Bigger Question Looms’, The Straits Times, 12 Nov 2004
• Seah Chiang Nee, ‘Tragedy and the Casino Debate’, Little Speck
• James Gomez, Workers’ Party Policy Statement on the PAP Government’s Casino Proposal

Parliamentary speeches referenced (I've lost my bookmarks for these pages, so no links here):

• Speech by Dr Vivian Balakrishnan, Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports, on 21 Apr 2005 at Parliament House
• Speech by Prof S Jayakumar, Minister for Home Affairs, on 18 Apr 2005 at Parliament House
• Speech by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, on 21 Apr 2005 at Parliament House
• Speech by Mr Khaw Boon Wan, Minister for Health, 19 Apr 2005 at Parliament House

Back with a Vengeance...

A whimper of a vengeance - there's nothing to be vengeful about, and there's certainly nothing to cause a ruckus about either.

But I'm back nonetheless. I'm sorry (to all 10 of my loyal readers) - after I went to Goa on my grad trip, I just felt a lot of inertia and was not too eager to start sharing thoughts (though I had many). I blame Goa: white sandy beaches and amazing food meant that sloshing myself with food and alcohol at the beach proved more fun than tapping away writing meaningful stuff. I'm kinda regretting it: there's a ton of material during the last two weeks that might not get blogged about as a result (time waits for no man).

So how about a short update on what I've been up to? Then perhaps I can launch into something less mundane and more thoughtful...

1. I think I left my friends dangling with that last post: what was it about??? Well, I wrote this essay for my Ethics professor and decided that I wanted to post it here also. Although it is an academic discourse, I do think it is a pity that only an audience of ONE professor, a certain de Bettignies, is going to read that paper.

2. After that dangling post, I went for my grad trip to Goa - it took almost a week and I came back early morning last Wednesday, for the purpose of... (more on Goa in a separate post, with pics)

3. GRADUATION! I'm now a newly minted MBA. The class of December 2006 graduated last Wednesday (in Singapore) and Thursday (in Fontainebleau) and we never felt happier, nor sadder. In my opinion, the goodbyes started long ago: at the end of P4. However, I think the most poignant farewells were at the graduation ceremony and the subsequent...

4. Graduation party at MOS. Drank, danced, hugged friends and shook hands all night. I can't believe that INSEAD is at an end.

5. Over the last few days, I've been catching up with friends and clubbing rather more often than I wanted to (sloshed with alcohol some nights). Also, I'm having too many late nights, either up with friends chatting or partying. It's a little too much to take: I need to go back to what is probably a lot more important...

6. Which is my job search. Ack - I'm still looking for a job but half the world is busy with their holidays. I guess it will have to be in Jan 2007 when I start in my honest earnest quest for a job (and a paycheck).

---------------

In other news, since I've had a little too much free time, I've updated the look and feel of the blog. Actually, it looks pretty much the same, but the advent of Blogger's new functionalities meant that I can now tag (Blogger calls it 'label') my posts.

For a long time now, I've toyed with the idea of tagging my posts using Technorati's tag feature. It isn't too difficult, but the hassle of tagging old posts as well just turned me off the prospect of playing around with too much HTML (I wanted to avoid that - I may be techy at times, but I'm lazy too).

Then when Blogger introduced Beta, I thought it was a godsend, but they didn't allow bloggers who also do group blogs (alas) to use Beta. Without wanting to relinquish my membership in that particular group blog (guys there hardly blog now), it was only recently when Beta became a full version that I started tagging posts.

So, while happily tagging away, I realised that finding the right tags to use increasingly becomes a problem:

1. First of all, you want your tags to express exactly what you mean in your post. Therefore, you come up with very descriptive tags that encapsulate in one or two words what you're trying to say. Simple tags like 'Photography' will include photos, and 'Travel' will be about your trips.

2. Then, when it comes to posts which consist of more topics, you try using two or more tags to express the idea behind the post.

3. But the problem comes when you started to realise that you're having too many tags (the problem I'm facing now). You need to be economical about your tags: after all, there are some tags that reference only ONE post, and what good is a tag if it only references ONE article? It's like, if each and every article is referenced with its own tag, the tagging system makes no sense.

4. So you start being economical about your tags... and that's another problem because you then start force-fitting your posts into your tags. That's not what blogging is about: you're supposed to write what you feel, and THEN decide what your tags should be.

Yuck. I hate tagging, but I'm doing it nonetheless. Tagging is an afterthought: you write a beautiful novel, with all thoughts and ideas expressed as per your plan, but you've conveniently left out the title of the book and now wrack your brains thinking about a suitable title, something that concisely encapsulates the main thrust of the novel, a short phrase that tells the reader all he needs to know about whether he should be reading the book or not.

So, with those thoughts in my head, I took on the onus of tagging all my old posts (to aid you loyal readers! All 10 of you!). I could only do 50 without collapsing from tag piling - I keep introducing new tags and failed to be economical about them. Sighs - there're guys who're able to be really efficient with tags, but I don't belong to that club.

Anyhow, the tags are there to help YOU. Yes, YOU the reader. I hope you find the reading experience enhanced as a result!

---------------

PS: Will be posting pictures from my Goa trip (not many, but I think they're nice) and the said Ethics essay in due time. I just want this catch-up post to sit around for a day or two before proceeding with more catching up!

Framing the Great Casino Debate as an Ethical Issue - Prelude

It was 10pm Sunday night and I was at a friend's place in Dover Road. An ethics paper is due on 5pm Monday afternoon, and I don't want to spend Monday night working on it. Given the time constraints (and other factors), it meant I had only about 18 hours to work on a paper I have yet to start writing.

I had thought about the paper though, and spent about an hour on Friday bookmarking certain sites I wanted to revisit to bone up my knowledge of the topic. But the fact is, it was 10pm, Sunday night, and I had to deliver a paper in 18 hours.

I didn't sleep until 6am Monday morning, and was in school by noon. All I did during my waking hours between that time and 5pm was spent writing the damn ethics paper. And the topic? I thought it was topical to revisit the hotly debated IR issue from a year ago, given the recent award of the Sentosa site to Genting. Nope, I'm not talking about the ethical dimensions of the current award, but about the great debacle from about a year ago.

Given the time constraint I thought it was a decent effort - so I'm going to put it up in my next blog post. Provided I remember to do it. Before I leave. For Goa.




I must be high on the cappuccino... 8)

Wrapping Things Up

This is going to be largely about me: I'm getting so ego-centric these days...

------------

The year at INSEAD is almost over: for most, today heralded the last day of school. The Strategic Pricing prof was nice: he provided champagne, toasted to the success of each and every one of us, and bid us a good life ahead.

It has been a bittersweet year for me. I started the year a rather ebullient personality, enjoying every moment of it, but I ended up alienating a certain section of my network in the process. I'm ending the year on a somewhat depressed note: I'm sad to leave, I'm also happy to go to the next phase of life at the same time.

A friend said that I haven't been very social all period (P5) and it's true. I've shied away from contact with most INSEADers, sticking to the ones I know better and just hanging around with people closer in ethnic terms (the Asians, largely). On the whole, it was perhaps a strategy of withdrawal: to slowly distance myself from INSEAD and the wonderful time it has been. Ironically, because it has been the experience of my life for the last 5 years (or so), I wanted it to end as soon as possible. Because, in my most twisted opinion, it is artificial.

This year is not like life as I know it to be. This year has not been progressive in terms of achieving my life goals (I did get my MBA, but I believe I regressed when it came to being a better human being). That, for me at least, is why I will always regard this blip (of a year) as something of an anomaly in my existence. It was fun, it was great, and the experience was wonderful. But it isn't my life: and that's what I so desperately want to get back to.

Someone said that my reaction seems somewhat escapist in nature, it's like a retreat from all the fun and enjoyment everyone else has been having. An utterance that is not entirely untrue, but also 'reflective' in a way. I'm not escaping: INSEAD itself has been the escape for me.

In the grander scheme of living, I didn't really need this MBA at all, nor the one year away. I just wanted to escape from mundanity, conformity, perceived lower sense of self-worth and a non-too-exciting career. I could have plodded on and not 'seen the world' (albeit through rather biased eyes), but I chose to live this one year of wretched debauchery - oh I exaggerate, it is a fun year, with everyone placing emphasis on different aspects of it.

I chose this year at INSEAD to escape, but I found myself wanting to go back now. My colleagues will probably think that this is a regression, a retreat - something quite like a tortoise who stuck his head out and wished he'd never left the comfort of his shell.

------------

The cabaret was last night and I wished I'd gone for it. The cabaret is an INSEAD tradition brought over from the Fonty campus that is meant to showcase student talents. One can perform, dance, sing or just croak on stage in front of fellow INSEADers. Can't say much else though because I wasn't there: from what I heard about it, the performances were funny, superb, and there was a lot of fun all round.

Another INSEAD 'tradition' is also taking place: The End Game. This one is somewhat more interesting, but again, I'm a non-participant (not by choice alas!). The End Game came about because of a gender disparity in INSEAD. Primarily, the problem with B-schools is that there are more males than females enrolled: in INSEAD, the males outnumber females 3 to 1.

Thus, when it came to the general dating pool, the INSEAD female is faced with 'choice', and the INSEAD male is faced with little choice and too much competition. And if you've read my take on the game theory aspects of the dating scene here, you quickly realise that with competition being stiff, girls find it hard to fend off the die-hards they don't fancy, and find it difficult to approach the ones they do.

Hence, the premise for the End Game - the game to end all games (yuck, I hated how that sounds). The End Game is a party to which only 'certain' guys get invited to go. The invitation can only come from one girl i.e. one girl gets to invite one guy (whom they fancy / had the hots for / lusted after), and everyone gets an equal chance to hook up. No competition, no guys blocking each other out, and more attention given.

The rules (for the gals): 1) you cannot invite your boyfriend; 2) If a guy is already invited by another girl, the girl has to choose another guy to go (the 2nd choice, or 3rd or whatever); 3) you're supposed to keep it a secret, i.e. not to reveal it to the invitee nor other invitors.

It all sounds fun until you think about the poor guys who don't get to go. So, in the spirit of all things to do with parties at INSEAD, there is another element added on top of it: guys have to campaign for that 'coveted' invitation to the End Game. Wow... and I thought there was no competition. :)

I think decisions have been made and invitations sent out: Have fun all End Gamers! And if you've ever lusted after someone, tell them.

------------

The end is nigh and I've got another location update to... well, update on. I'm going on a grad trip to Goa next week onwards, and then will return just in time for the graduation ceremony. If I don't blog in the meantime, it is because I didn't drag my laptop along, or I was just having too much fun to drag myself in front of a PC to hammer away on a keyboard.

Also, since I started using StatCounter on this blog, I've noticed certain discernible patterns among my readership: applying what I've learnt from Marketing classes, there are 3 main segments among the readers of this blog:

1) The Friend / Relative / ex-Colleague / fellow INSEADer who I've told about this blog;

2) The click-througher from another (more popular) blog that links here (Thanks to whoever links me!);

3) The ones searching for 'Markstrat Tricks' - seriously, I have so MANY of these guys that I'm seriously considering posting up a solid article that actually espouses the tricks behind Markstrat (there is ONE and only ONE trick I know: when it's time to kill babies, you have to KILL babies).

There: my segments. :) Which are you?

Drafted and Shafted

There were things which I wrote halfway and abandoned some time ago for one reason or another. Sometimes, I'm just not motivated enough to continue something I started (a familiar refrain alas). At other times, I don't structure my thoughts coherently enough to deliver something worth reading. I also sometimes fear that what I was writing might affect some friendships in certain adverse ways.

Here's one of those posts I started writing and never finished. It's been in the blogger draft folder since October:

The Night of a Thousand Fucks (Only the Verbal Kind though)

It was not a night to remember. I recalled sitting on a bench, and the next memory was 8 hours later waking up in a housemate's bed without any idea how I got there.

Well, it wasn't just about me not remembering - I was a big nuisance and I sure did not leave any fond memories for the folks I troubled that night.

---------------

Piecing together the events of that night took a while - my fellow South-East Asian saw most of the action, and the blow-by-blow account blew me away. (he took some literal blows as well, poor sod)

First off, I was already drunk by the time he found me.

And then, he fed me more of the vile stuff.

The vile stuff makes one feel vile. But prior to feeling vile, I became the quintessential angry drunk, and that's when the litany of 'fucks' started.

I see someone familiar, and the first issuance from my mouth was 'F*** you'. A friend started keeping count, and from the time I started the f-ing rant till I dropped dead on the living room floor, it was a ceaseless F-fest.

Yup. Certifiably an angry drunk.

Oh yes, there was the hurling bit as well, and that's when it did not become that fun for my fellow South-East Asian friend. (It is always fun up to the point people get sick) Hurled on his jacket, his car, his shirt. Even violently tore up the hurl bag wrapped around my mouth. Punched and abused him as well.

The amount of verbal and physical abuse they had to endure. Ouch...

So there was sick in his car, and on our clothes. The guys dragged me home, pulled some sheets over the small living room area, and left me curled up on the floor.

I don't know how I ended up in my housemate's bed - and telling him had been the worst thing I had to do today.

---------------

Yes I was drunk sometime in October. And drunk in only the kind of way one should be drunk: irresponsibly unconsciously dead drunk.

Another one I tried to write a few days ago didn't get anywhere beyond two points:

Question and Answer / Echo and Bounce

1. Why is it that conversations necessarily follow the Q&A format? I ask you a question, you say something in response, and we both think we are having a conversation. It seems otherwise impossible to elicit information from anyone else: it's all about getting a response.

2. A 'Plop' is an utterance that is greeted with silence. Actually, it is more like an unacknowledged comment. It is a painful thing being a plopper: you never know if it is because what you just said is the single most stupid comment in a conversation.

----------------

Like the above painfully lousy drafts that never got published, some things are really better left unsaid. In the 'Better Left Unsaid' (BLU) bin, I've shafted a whole bunch of ideas which will probably never see the light of day.

For instance, I'd always wanted to write a travel blog that would go by the ostentatious name of 'Heart of Asia' (oddly enough, inspired by a particular techno chinois song). Unfortunately for me, I never did travel all that much - not during the time when I was earning a regular salary, and not even now when I'm a student. Not in Asia at least.

Then, there was the other idea about writing political trish-trash, something ala sammyboy forum clap-trap (like there isn't enough coffee shop political commentary already). I feared being flamed and ridiculed for what I think would most likely be naive commentary: better leave it for people without the common sense to shut up then.

The BLU bin is also filled with the (true) thoughts I have of the friends around me, and they are seldom very flattering. I generally don't see people optimistically: this means that I usually have the view that people around me possess more negative traits than positive ones. For instance, a friend of mine who is effusive and good natured to most other people; in my mind, he will be typified as being irritating, obsessed with unnecessary information, and choose inappropriate topics for conversations (think of that annoying kid who talks about the extent of his knowledge of various species of cockroaches while his parents are gagging over dinner).

I just can't see the positives in most people. What I really think about them thus are better left unsaid.



Like I said before, I'm too risk-averse.

Closer

"If you believe in love at first sight, you'll never stop looking"

Are we close friends? As with all vague notions, there is no metric with which I can measure the distance between us. I can't say that we're close friends because of reasons A, B, C... and so on. I certainly can't claim we're close friends because we see each other more often than others within our circle (well, outside my circle, there are friends who're indeed closer).

Can I build criteria? I think I've tried:

1. How often do we see each other a week?
2. What is the amount of time we spent exclusively in each other's company?
3. When we need to confide / talk, how often do we think of calling each other?
4. Are we... just friends? Or is there some other underlying attraction?
5. If so, is this what close friends do, or is this because other emotions are at play?
6. Have we fought?
7. How did we make up after that?
8. Do you love me? Does that still make us close friends, or something worse?

Vague notions and vague answers at best - when something as tenuous as a friendship needs to be defined along quantitative measures, what does one make of it?

--------------

I have a friend - close enough, but not close enough to touch rub my emotions raw - who is very good at one thing: she is good at asking questions. She asks questions relentlessly, and her style of presentation is to shoot questions at her audience, make them ponder, and rattle off more questions in quick succession. The questions always demand an answer, and the way that it is asked, the answers are proffered in no small measure. The questions are always good, but the answers to them always seem to invite her to probe more, like a hungry unsatiated hippo (eating up those balls... hehe... pardon the slight digression into the 80s).

But although she asks questions well, she doesn't seem to give answers. It is a one-sided relationship: she asks the questions, you give the answers. And there's no point in asking questions of her because she doesn't have answers. Or it might be that the answers she's collected, she's keeping them for herself, unwilling or unable to share them. Perhaps she cannot distill the answers she hoards into something that someone else can understand. So the questions always come flying, but the answers don't. And in such a relationship, the answerer always feel drained, like he's being sucked dry of knowledge without any replenishment in return.

"Ask and it shall be given unto you" but can one ask incessantly? Very unchristianly behaviour to be expecting reciprocity on this account, but one can't help feeling like he isn't getting a fair bargain.

--------------

"If you believe in love at first sight... take a closer look"

You must be wondering, do I have a point to all this? Like with all good things, I'm getting to my point - in my fashion.

I think that, with regards to how close a friendship really is, one can only ask vague questions of oneself and invite unwillingly qualitative answers. As with my inquisitive friend, the questions one can ask only invite further questions, until such a point when no answers can be elicited.

A close friendship cannot be one without some measure of attraction (my opinion). At some base level, one has to be attracted to the other - with same-sex friends, it doesn't necessarily mean you're gay. The attraction has to be of a kind where one finds a quality in the other that one desires, whether it be that the other is beautiful, or smart, or in possession of some such attribute.

The thing is, the level of attraction cannot exceed a certain (vague) point - beyond that (vague) point, it tilts towards something more akin to attraction and liking, where one party comes to desire the other. When Desire plays the matchmaker, that friendship isn't close anymore: it is means to an end, that end being one of desire, and at its most debased, lust.

A close friendship does not need frequent contact, nor does it need two people to spend any significant amount of time with each other (again, my opinion). In fact, when two people spend too much time with each other, it's more likely they will end up detesting the other, finding each other's bad habits beyond reproach and letting familiarity breed contempt.

Time apart from each other allows room in which one can grow, and change in ways that only a close friend can appreciate. Being in frequent contact means the subtle changes go unnoticed, and that is always a loss to the unobservant one.

Finally, getting closer doesn't mean one should not fall in love with the other: it just means that such emotions need to be embraced and expressed - with much grace and some acceptance of the fact that the friendship might not be the same thereafter. Never, ever, bottle up your emotions - when one does, the time will come when emotions burst forth in a torrent and there will be no way to pretend one never felt them.

And when it comes to that point, can one remain close?

George Michael sings it thus, and it speaks for me: 'I keep my distance, but you still catch my eye.'

--------------

"Those who love at first sight are traitors at every glance"






Notes:
1. Quotes in italics were taken from taglines for the movie Closer (2004).
2. Hungry Hungry Hippos is one of those meaningless games from the 80s. You take the lever of one of 4 hippos and manoeuvre it to 'eat' as many balls as possible. The player with the most balls eaten wins.

3. The George Michael song? That line's taken from the song 'Last Christmas' by Wham!

Me 11/2006

I reckon this has to be the easiest thing to blog about. What is harder than talking about yourself?

If you've ever attended a toastmasters' meeting, this will be the first thing that you have to do. Talk about yourself for 3 minutes (I think... I can't really remember now). Back in NUS 1997, I attended one session with the toastmasters there, had a panic attack and never returned. I wished I'd stayed: perhaps I could have gone on to become a better public speaker. It must have been the law students scaring me away with their vocabulary.

Anyhow, if you want to compare the me now and the me in 2005, I really can't see much in my psyche that has changed: I think I am still me essentially.

But... let's start anyhow.

-------------------

The Me in November has been a student for 11 months. I am currently an INSEAD participant (they don't like to call us students, the adminstration). Unfortunately, this status isn't lasting for much longer, probably warranting another update soon in 2007. See, I'm going to be graduating soon - next month - and then I can truly call myself an alumni and MBA.

Being an MBA hasn't done me much good financially: I've gone into debt and my finances are strained beyond what they can bear. The MBA also hasn't given me any better an idea what I want to become: the kiddy dreams of becoming the CEO of some MNC remains that - a kiddy dream.

But hey, I can still dream, and dream big.

:
:

Come to think of it, the MBA gave me the dreams in the first place. And the MBA taught me many things which I would never have learnt in a less formal context: there just isn't the kind of room to learn the things you learn in an MBA while on the job. So a one year break to learn, to recharge, to rethink, and to find myself: priceless.

-------------------

The Me in November is also in a rut relationship-wise. There is nobody. Zilch. Not any romance in sight. Having concluded a relationship during summer, the me now just cannot muster enough resources to mount another 'offensive', i.e. search for a new girlfriend. Partly because life is still in a state of flux, and partly because I'm just not motivated enough to. Another reason was also because any romantic interests I harbour didn't get past the 'reality-check' stage.

That stage goes like this: OK, now I know I like this girl. What next? Shall I tell her? No, not yet. Only when I am sure we can have something that will last - like your last one, you don't want to make the same mistake right? Ok, but it won't last, and you know it won't. Am I sure? I don't know. But what if she doesn't like you back? Hell, then I can't tell her can I? Don't want to risk getting all hurt and such. Ok, hold back on those emotions and just be all rational: it won't last, she won't like you, and what's the whole point of it all?

Right. So the reality check was a huge jumbly mass of thoughts that did not materialise into concrete action. The fact was that I did do something about it in the end, but I did the minimal. All that thought of 'risk' just screws one up.

Oh, where was I? Yes, I'm in a relationship-rut, but then, that kind of suits my mood nowadays. It lets me simmer in dismay and brew in mild discontent at the (perceived) unfortunate circumstance. It allows me the room to play out fantasies, and not risk getting disappointed with real-life. It lets me withdraw into my own space, like a turtle in his shell, away from disappointment and hurt - why go through all that shit again, right?

-------------------

The Me in November has one grandparent less than the Me in 2005. On my dad's side of the family, this meant that there were no more old people... The mantle of old people has passed from my grandparents to... gasp... my parents.

My dad hit 60 in October, sometime after the death of my grandmother. I now think a lot more about getting old and living out the twilight years. I think more about how I want to live when I get there. The more I think about such nonsense as the future, the more I worry that my father never lived the dreams he had when he was a 30-year-old lad.

My father certainly didn't foresee himself failing in business at that age. I don't think he saw himself as getting too old either. I don't know if he ever was disappointed: with his career, his life, his children, his marriage. I don't know if he ever felt elated with the age he has lived up to. He always found solace in religion, and it has been that way since he was a teenager.

I admire that about my father: the ability to have that much faith. Perhaps I ask too much of my faith. Perhaps I ask too much of God and what he should or should not have done to this world (and me in the process, but I feel so small).

Nevertheless, my father is still the person I look up to. (I've got to speak for my mum too... but that's another long story for another time).

-------------------

The Me in November just realised how jaded I have become. Reading the post of me back in June 2005, I seemed more carefree, more at ease with myself in the world. Now, I think I am more uptight and frustrated. More bogged down by the mundane and meaninglessness of existence. More questioning of my self worth and what my station in this world is.

The Me in November can't look beyond November and regain the optimism that the Me in 2005 had. There was more hope then, and more clarity on my purpose in life. What I have now is a little less desire, a little less hunger for success. Hitting 30 must do this to you, I posit. Hitting 30 must give you that sense of dread that life just isn't the same anymore, and downhill is the only way to go.

Crap.

-------------------

The Me in November wants to walk out of December 2006 into a new year with his head held high and his future straightened out. Granted that I am not the most happy person to be with now, I do hope to be happy, and I do seek happiness.

That's why I don't like the risks that I have to take sometimes, but that's part and parcel of life.



Living it a day at a time...


The Me in November apologises for the utter lack of references to persons other than himself. This is an ego-piece and, although it does not live up to its promise of describing Me in November, it does serve its purpose of acting as an outlet for venting some frustration. Me in November is a frustrated, sex-deprived, uptight, unhappy, and screwed-up son of a bitch and he admits it readily. It's a wonder that he still has any friends, and they're absolutely gourmet when it comes to being friends. Top notch. He also wants to say that he loves you all.