The front page of today's The Straits Times highlighted the obscene amount the middleman makes from organ trading, something which I mentioned in my 6 July post.
Out of the $300,000 allegedly paid by Mr. Tang Wee Sung, only $23,000 was offered to the kidney donor, a 7.7%. Admittedly, the middleman would probably be bearing costs relating to flights, accommodation, food and other expenses, the number does seem a bit lop-sided.
Andy Ho in the commentary "An Organ Market: Separate procuring from allocating" in yesterday's The Straits Times sets out ways in which organ donor can be compensated and how the needy poor need not be disadvantaged in receiving organs. Worth reading. I will try to see if I can get hold of an on-line copy to add here.
Friday, July 11, 2008
Monday, July 7, 2008
Pet Peeves
This is going to be another I intend to keep adding to. This will be a list of my "peeves" (a peeve is defined in the dictionary in my Sony Ericsson as n. a cause of annoyance); not important enough to write to my MP or the editor of a newspaper on but something which either sticks in my craw or worse, something I keep bringing up to my wife (and then getting her to think I am a real nag). I am hoping putting it down gets it out of my system.
Some are just "isn't it sad" sort of peeves and others are the "I really don't believe this" sort of peeves but I am not going to rank them.
The List.
Isn't it sad
Isn't it sad that they need to provide a trough underneath the post boxes at some (or is it all) HDB flats for flyers and junk mail because residents are too lazy to bring it to the bin just beside it and will just drop the litter. Isn't the trough a real eyesore and a poor reflection of the lack of social consciousness?
Isn't it sad that on the road at certain houses (and I mean houses; I will try to add in street names when I next see them), yellow boxes need be drawn? This can only mean that motorists have refused to let one car out often enough for the owner to get the LTA to draw the box in.
Some are just "isn't it sad" sort of peeves and others are the "I really don't believe this" sort of peeves but I am not going to rank them.
The List.
Isn't it sad
Isn't it sad that they need to provide a trough underneath the post boxes at some (or is it all) HDB flats for flyers and junk mail because residents are too lazy to bring it to the bin just beside it and will just drop the litter. Isn't the trough a real eyesore and a poor reflection of the lack of social consciousness?
Isn't it sad that on the road at certain houses (and I mean houses; I will try to add in street names when I next see them), yellow boxes need be drawn? This can only mean that motorists have refused to let one car out often enough for the owner to get the LTA to draw the box in.
Singlish
This may be old hat but it is something that crops up time and again and something which continually interests and very often bothers me. I intend to add to this constantly so that this will become a collection of sorts.
My view is that what is often termed Singlish can be divided into 2 types. The first I feel is acceptable and can be described as the Singapore version of English. This include words peculiar or unique to Singapore and include colloquial words from Malay and Chinese dialects. Included in this would be deliberate Singlish such as jokes or funnies. One good example would be: "What is Singaporeans' favourite ice-cream flavour?" "Vani-lah". I say, let's have our version like the Aussies have theirs.
The second is poor English or lazy English which has become ingrained. This I feel should be avoided. Unfortunately, many are not aware of their mistakes because they have not been told or just don't know that it is incorrect. This post (and its subsequent additions) should be seen as highlighting and bringing to attention rather than as a condemnation of sorts.
So the list.
OK Singlish
Peculiar or Unique words
void deck, flats, hot (see below), spare parts (see below)
Colloquialisms (or no other words seems appropriate)
jelak (when you don't feel like eating any more but you are not really full)
garang (how else to describe that girl?)
shiok (how else to describe a really good chendol?)
hot (to describe the spicy-ness of the chilli)
Funnies
Singaporeans favourite ice-cream flavour: vani-lah
horrigible (when it is really really bad, more than just horrible) (can we claim this?)
spare parts (innards of an animal, particularly as food like with kuay chap or with chicken rice)
Not OK Singlish
Incorrect due to direct translation from Chinese
I was at the food row (don't know what they actually call it) at the Esplanade where they have alfresco dining and apparently food from different outlets can be bought and consumed together. A local couple with what I thought were guests from overseas were looking around and the woman said: "Let's sit here. We can call food from different restaurants and eat them here." Obviously, she is used to "jio tong si", hence call food. (My hanyu pinyin is horrigible - please forgive any mistakes in translation.)
And everyone must be familiar with washing photos because of "si jao pian" instead of developing and printing photos.
Lazy English: Incorrect (too long or too short syllables)
I don't have enough marney instead of money.
You are so larkey instead of lucky.
We also have the girl in the ad asking if she can grow vegetables in her freedge instead of fridge.
And as my son's teacher says: mudder is someone who plays with mud not the one who gave birth to you.
And farder is obviously the one who married mudder.
Also someone was on the radio giving teeps on how to help our children with their PSLE.
Then there is chillren (i.e. including those needing help with their PSLE).
I used to know someone whom, in private, I refer to as Mr. Chelve because when making his lunch appointments, he would say: "OK, let's meet at chelve-forty five."
Incorrect translation (although not quite English)
nasi lomak instead of nasi lemak (OK for my mum but not the well-dressed exec.)
Incorrect sentence structure (from Chinese or Malay)
"This restaurant how far?" instead of "How far is this restaurant?" because "jiu lo dou yuan?"
[Note to any readers out there: Additional contributions appreciated.]
My view is that what is often termed Singlish can be divided into 2 types. The first I feel is acceptable and can be described as the Singapore version of English. This include words peculiar or unique to Singapore and include colloquial words from Malay and Chinese dialects. Included in this would be deliberate Singlish such as jokes or funnies. One good example would be: "What is Singaporeans' favourite ice-cream flavour?" "Vani-lah". I say, let's have our version like the Aussies have theirs.
The second is poor English or lazy English which has become ingrained. This I feel should be avoided. Unfortunately, many are not aware of their mistakes because they have not been told or just don't know that it is incorrect. This post (and its subsequent additions) should be seen as highlighting and bringing to attention rather than as a condemnation of sorts.
So the list.
OK Singlish
Peculiar or Unique words
void deck, flats, hot (see below), spare parts (see below)
Colloquialisms (or no other words seems appropriate)
jelak (when you don't feel like eating any more but you are not really full)
garang (how else to describe that girl?)
shiok (how else to describe a really good chendol?)
hot (to describe the spicy-ness of the chilli)
Funnies
Singaporeans favourite ice-cream flavour: vani-lah
horrigible (when it is really really bad, more than just horrible) (can we claim this?)
spare parts (innards of an animal, particularly as food like with kuay chap or with chicken rice)
Not OK Singlish
Incorrect due to direct translation from Chinese
I was at the food row (don't know what they actually call it) at the Esplanade where they have alfresco dining and apparently food from different outlets can be bought and consumed together. A local couple with what I thought were guests from overseas were looking around and the woman said: "Let's sit here. We can call food from different restaurants and eat them here." Obviously, she is used to "jio tong si", hence call food. (My hanyu pinyin is horrigible - please forgive any mistakes in translation.)
And everyone must be familiar with washing photos because of "si jao pian" instead of developing and printing photos.
Lazy English: Incorrect (too long or too short syllables)
I don't have enough marney instead of money.
You are so larkey instead of lucky.
We also have the girl in the ad asking if she can grow vegetables in her freedge instead of fridge.
And as my son's teacher says: mudder is someone who plays with mud not the one who gave birth to you.
And farder is obviously the one who married mudder.
Also someone was on the radio giving teeps on how to help our children with their PSLE.
Then there is chillren (i.e. including those needing help with their PSLE).
I used to know someone whom, in private, I refer to as Mr. Chelve because when making his lunch appointments, he would say: "OK, let's meet at chelve-forty five."
Incorrect translation (although not quite English)
nasi lomak instead of nasi lemak (OK for my mum but not the well-dressed exec.)
Incorrect sentence structure (from Chinese or Malay)
"This restaurant how far?" instead of "How far is this restaurant?" because "jiu lo dou yuan?"
[Note to any readers out there: Additional contributions appreciated.]
Sunday, July 6, 2008
organ trading
Hurray for Michelle Tan Su May for her commentary in today's (6 July 2008) thesundaytimes headlined "Get off your high horse, moral arguments a luxury".
I feel for those who are compelled to go overseas to get organ transplants. I can understand the need and want to get well both for themselves and their love ones. And their fear and worry. And what the alternative would be if they do die or worse, suffer on. Some of these are not as rich as the magnate who is alleged to have attempted to buy a kidney and need to scrimp and save and borrow to go overseas for such transplants. Added to that possible concerns about the skill and quality of facilities in China or India where such transplants usually take place. Yes, the healthcare costs might be cheaper here and that might be a factor for going overseas. But there is now no real alternative to do it here in Singapore if one is concerned about the risks and prefer to do it here.
Yes. organ trade works to the detriment of the poor donor. But it may be a way for them to get out of the poverty trap as is the case with the donor to Ms. Tan's father. I cite the example of places in China where men (some old) would carry tourist seated on sedan chairs up mountain paths. Yes, you would feel sorry for them but getting on allows them to make an honest living.
What exists presently are:
1. Some forced to go overseas at possible risks for such transplants. Even if they would rather do it here, they cannot.
2. Resorting to buying organs under pretence and I would assume, paying large amounts to the middlemen who then pay pittance to the donor who are then that much poorer in terms of getting proper care and nutrition.
You really cannot stop certain things. People gamble whether you legalise it or not. If Singapore Pools does not take 4D bets, your friendly neighbourhood bookie will. Singapore Pools can use the profits for good, stop the bookie and his boss from getting rich and sometimes ripping punters off. Not unofficially condoning the sex trade would drive sex workers underground where control of STD will be a problem.
Having some form of control over organ trading would prevent the middleman from exploiting the would-be donor. I am not suggesting things are simple but the Singapore authorities are good at plugging the loopholes (HDB and LTA can offer suggestions).
Disclaimer: I am making the above comments as a "kay-poh" by-stander. None of my family members (knock on wood) will derive any benefit if the rules are changed.
For those who may not have read her piece, I copy below Michelle Tan Su May's commentary:
Get off your high horse, moral arguments a luxury
By Michelle Tan Su May
I am so sick and tired of hearing people who truly know nothing about the situation debate this issue in a vacuum, in principle, in theory, as a hypothetical ethics essay.
I was 14 when my dad's kidneys started to fail. It was the realisation of our worst fears, the culmination of a lifetime of worrying.
My whole childhood was filled with fear that my dad would die. Having been a diabetic since he was 20 years old, potential loss of sight, loss of his limbs and subsequent kidney failure were the perennial phantoms that lurked in the shadows of his entire adult life, and thus my whole childhood.
His burden of daily injections of insulin, never being able to eat anything sweet and a strictly restricted diet were suddenly compounded by kidney failure. Now, in addition to no sugar, he could not take any salt or water. His daily quota of water was only two tiny shot glasses a day - and these small mouthfuls had to wash down more than 10 pills daily.
The simple things that we take so much for granted became unattainable luxuries to him. Drinking, eating, walking without assistance, being able to urinate normally, being able to see your kids finish their O levels or PSLE (my younger brother).
He was only 39 at the time. He went on the two types of dialysis available to cleanse his blood of toxins. The first type (peritonial dialysis), which involved having a tube dangling out of a hole cut into his tummy, worked quite well for him but because of his diabetic condition, the hole kept becoming infected. So after a few months, he had to go on the more tedious type - hemodialysis. This involved him being hooked up to a machine daily for up to three hours at a time after having metal tubes the size of knitting needles inserted into his arm.
This did not work for him. So the symptoms of kidney failure returned full force. Constant retching, yellowed eyeballs, constant weakness, the inability to walk without assistance, and the inability to work. He was a Simex trader, and an outgoing man.
After a few months, we were given the bad news and the worse news. The bad news was that the dialysis was not working for him and he needed a transplant. The worse news: Because he had diabetes as well, he was not eligible to be placed on the Singapore organ waiting list! Without dialysis or a transplant, he would die within months. The doctor was basically delivering the news of a death sentence.
Fortunately, we were informed that it was possible to find a donor in India and have a transplant operation carried out there. After months of blood tests and groundwork, my dad flew to Mumbai to have the transplant. Despite putting on a brave front, he was terrified that he would not survive the operation. He told me later that he had brought extra money, 'in case I had to come home in a box'. I can only imagine what it feels like to say goodbye to your children at the airport thinking it may be the last time you ever see them.
The donor was a poor young man with a young family from India. He earned approximately $30,000 for his kidney. He used the money to buy a shop and start a business to support his young family. This young man and my dad gave each other a new lease of life.
My dad lived for seven years after that transplant. He died aged only 49, but he lived to see my brother turn 20 and to attend my university graduation. Never a day went by that he wasn't grateful for this second chance at life. Seven years is a lifetime when you have faced death and managed to get a second chance. Going through all that has also made me a stronger person today.
Madam Lam Yar Ee, in The Straits Times Forum page, said: 'The Health Ministry should discipline Singaporeans who return after participating in organ trading.' I say she should visit the homes of dying people who have no other option before she spouts such nonsense. She should look into the eyes of their loved ones, their young children, and get off her high horse.
Mr Jeffrey Chan said organ sales are wrong because they are 'exploitation of the poor'. Let me ask him this: If you were told that you could have someone abandon their children for years to come and live in your house and to wash your dirty underwear, to wait on you hand and foot, and to clean up your bedridden relatives' faeces, for up to 16 hours a day at 60 cents an hour, wouldn't you think such a situation sounded inhumane and unacceptable? Yet that is what our foreign domestic workers are forced to accept by coming here to work in Singapore.
Do they like it? No. Do they have a choice? Yes and no. They could stay at home and have nothing to feed their children. Or they could come over here in the hope of a better future eventually for their children. Yes, they are poor. Yes, they are desperate. By the same token, Mr Chan would have to argue that we ban the use of domestic workers because it is also exploitation of the poor.
It is time to wake up. The world is unfair, life is unfair. It is unfair that some people can live in good health until their 90s, while others like my father die at 49 or earlier. It is unfair that we get to be surrounded by our children and loved ones, while people like my Indonesian maid (whom we treat as part of our family and pay $500 a month instead of the standard $350) have to leave their kids for years in order to eke out a living in a foreign land so their children won't starve.
Inequality is a fact of life. Therefore, the role of a sophisticated society should be to regulate all dealings to ensure that the poor, the unhealthy and the desperate know their rights, and their risks versus their potential returns before they embark on any life-changing decisions. Taking the choice out of their hands in the name of protecting them is paternalistic and patronising. Being poor does not equal being stupid.
My stance is: 'Get off your high horse.' Till something terrible happens to you, you don't know what you would do to survive. Life is unfair. Poverty is unfair. Ill health is unfair. But we can do something to alleviate the misfortunes of those who are unlucky by allowing them the freedom of choice to save a life and better their own at the same time.
Freedom of choice results in human beings maintaining their dignity. The dying man who can buy a little more time, and the poor man who can better his family's life by selling an organ that he will be perfectly healthy without - they can both regain some dignity by entering into such a transaction with their eyes wide open and being well-informed of their rights.
Moral arguments are a luxury that healthy people indulge in before misfortune befalls them too.
The writer is a businesswoman in her mid-30s. A lawyer by training, she runs a property investment firm and owns an antiques shop. She is married with two children.
I feel for those who are compelled to go overseas to get organ transplants. I can understand the need and want to get well both for themselves and their love ones. And their fear and worry. And what the alternative would be if they do die or worse, suffer on. Some of these are not as rich as the magnate who is alleged to have attempted to buy a kidney and need to scrimp and save and borrow to go overseas for such transplants. Added to that possible concerns about the skill and quality of facilities in China or India where such transplants usually take place. Yes, the healthcare costs might be cheaper here and that might be a factor for going overseas. But there is now no real alternative to do it here in Singapore if one is concerned about the risks and prefer to do it here.
Yes. organ trade works to the detriment of the poor donor. But it may be a way for them to get out of the poverty trap as is the case with the donor to Ms. Tan's father. I cite the example of places in China where men (some old) would carry tourist seated on sedan chairs up mountain paths. Yes, you would feel sorry for them but getting on allows them to make an honest living.
What exists presently are:
1. Some forced to go overseas at possible risks for such transplants. Even if they would rather do it here, they cannot.
2. Resorting to buying organs under pretence and I would assume, paying large amounts to the middlemen who then pay pittance to the donor who are then that much poorer in terms of getting proper care and nutrition.
You really cannot stop certain things. People gamble whether you legalise it or not. If Singapore Pools does not take 4D bets, your friendly neighbourhood bookie will. Singapore Pools can use the profits for good, stop the bookie and his boss from getting rich and sometimes ripping punters off. Not unofficially condoning the sex trade would drive sex workers underground where control of STD will be a problem.
Having some form of control over organ trading would prevent the middleman from exploiting the would-be donor. I am not suggesting things are simple but the Singapore authorities are good at plugging the loopholes (HDB and LTA can offer suggestions).
Disclaimer: I am making the above comments as a "kay-poh" by-stander. None of my family members (knock on wood) will derive any benefit if the rules are changed.
For those who may not have read her piece, I copy below Michelle Tan Su May's commentary:
Get off your high horse, moral arguments a luxury
By Michelle Tan Su May
I am so sick and tired of hearing people who truly know nothing about the situation debate this issue in a vacuum, in principle, in theory, as a hypothetical ethics essay.
I was 14 when my dad's kidneys started to fail. It was the realisation of our worst fears, the culmination of a lifetime of worrying.
My whole childhood was filled with fear that my dad would die. Having been a diabetic since he was 20 years old, potential loss of sight, loss of his limbs and subsequent kidney failure were the perennial phantoms that lurked in the shadows of his entire adult life, and thus my whole childhood.
His burden of daily injections of insulin, never being able to eat anything sweet and a strictly restricted diet were suddenly compounded by kidney failure. Now, in addition to no sugar, he could not take any salt or water. His daily quota of water was only two tiny shot glasses a day - and these small mouthfuls had to wash down more than 10 pills daily.
The simple things that we take so much for granted became unattainable luxuries to him. Drinking, eating, walking without assistance, being able to urinate normally, being able to see your kids finish their O levels or PSLE (my younger brother).
He was only 39 at the time. He went on the two types of dialysis available to cleanse his blood of toxins. The first type (peritonial dialysis), which involved having a tube dangling out of a hole cut into his tummy, worked quite well for him but because of his diabetic condition, the hole kept becoming infected. So after a few months, he had to go on the more tedious type - hemodialysis. This involved him being hooked up to a machine daily for up to three hours at a time after having metal tubes the size of knitting needles inserted into his arm.
This did not work for him. So the symptoms of kidney failure returned full force. Constant retching, yellowed eyeballs, constant weakness, the inability to walk without assistance, and the inability to work. He was a Simex trader, and an outgoing man.
After a few months, we were given the bad news and the worse news. The bad news was that the dialysis was not working for him and he needed a transplant. The worse news: Because he had diabetes as well, he was not eligible to be placed on the Singapore organ waiting list! Without dialysis or a transplant, he would die within months. The doctor was basically delivering the news of a death sentence.
Fortunately, we were informed that it was possible to find a donor in India and have a transplant operation carried out there. After months of blood tests and groundwork, my dad flew to Mumbai to have the transplant. Despite putting on a brave front, he was terrified that he would not survive the operation. He told me later that he had brought extra money, 'in case I had to come home in a box'. I can only imagine what it feels like to say goodbye to your children at the airport thinking it may be the last time you ever see them.
The donor was a poor young man with a young family from India. He earned approximately $30,000 for his kidney. He used the money to buy a shop and start a business to support his young family. This young man and my dad gave each other a new lease of life.
My dad lived for seven years after that transplant. He died aged only 49, but he lived to see my brother turn 20 and to attend my university graduation. Never a day went by that he wasn't grateful for this second chance at life. Seven years is a lifetime when you have faced death and managed to get a second chance. Going through all that has also made me a stronger person today.
Madam Lam Yar Ee, in The Straits Times Forum page, said: 'The Health Ministry should discipline Singaporeans who return after participating in organ trading.' I say she should visit the homes of dying people who have no other option before she spouts such nonsense. She should look into the eyes of their loved ones, their young children, and get off her high horse.
Mr Jeffrey Chan said organ sales are wrong because they are 'exploitation of the poor'. Let me ask him this: If you were told that you could have someone abandon their children for years to come and live in your house and to wash your dirty underwear, to wait on you hand and foot, and to clean up your bedridden relatives' faeces, for up to 16 hours a day at 60 cents an hour, wouldn't you think such a situation sounded inhumane and unacceptable? Yet that is what our foreign domestic workers are forced to accept by coming here to work in Singapore.
Do they like it? No. Do they have a choice? Yes and no. They could stay at home and have nothing to feed their children. Or they could come over here in the hope of a better future eventually for their children. Yes, they are poor. Yes, they are desperate. By the same token, Mr Chan would have to argue that we ban the use of domestic workers because it is also exploitation of the poor.
It is time to wake up. The world is unfair, life is unfair. It is unfair that some people can live in good health until their 90s, while others like my father die at 49 or earlier. It is unfair that we get to be surrounded by our children and loved ones, while people like my Indonesian maid (whom we treat as part of our family and pay $500 a month instead of the standard $350) have to leave their kids for years in order to eke out a living in a foreign land so their children won't starve.
Inequality is a fact of life. Therefore, the role of a sophisticated society should be to regulate all dealings to ensure that the poor, the unhealthy and the desperate know their rights, and their risks versus their potential returns before they embark on any life-changing decisions. Taking the choice out of their hands in the name of protecting them is paternalistic and patronising. Being poor does not equal being stupid.
My stance is: 'Get off your high horse.' Till something terrible happens to you, you don't know what you would do to survive. Life is unfair. Poverty is unfair. Ill health is unfair. But we can do something to alleviate the misfortunes of those who are unlucky by allowing them the freedom of choice to save a life and better their own at the same time.
Freedom of choice results in human beings maintaining their dignity. The dying man who can buy a little more time, and the poor man who can better his family's life by selling an organ that he will be perfectly healthy without - they can both regain some dignity by entering into such a transaction with their eyes wide open and being well-informed of their rights.
Moral arguments are a luxury that healthy people indulge in before misfortune befalls them too.
The writer is a businesswoman in her mid-30s. A lawyer by training, she runs a property investment firm and owns an antiques shop. She is married with two children.
Maiden Post
After reading how easy it is to start and operate a blog, I have been talking about starting one. My wife of 20+ years (better not be too specific in case I get it wrong and more worryingly, get into hot soup) is as always supportive in her own way. Just do it. (For the record, she has been using it even before Nike.)
Number One Son when asked how to do it and if I should use my real name was also supportive in HIS own way. "Why do it?" "Why bother, if they want to find out your real name, they will."
So, I am listening to both of them. I AM starting one, as this proves. And while I am not including my real name (at least not now, might do so later if this blog gets the attention it so richly deserves), I will try to avoid sensitive (read, politically sensitive issues that will attract unwanted attention) topics and comments. I will also ask readers who write in with comments to similarly avoid sensitive comments.
Then, the second question was what theme the blog should be on? I am no real food connoisseur, nor know very much about wine. I don't have a hobby I am mad about. I enjoy looking at good-looking women but there are many salacious sites already (half in jest here). I also enjoy looking at not-so-good-looking women and making disparaging comments (as my wife can testify).
So after much thought, I decided I would write comments about all and sundry. I am after all, a grouchy (getting) old(er) man who is constantly agreeing or disagreeing (more often the latter) about what I read in the papers or see on TV. I know this "no real theme", "middle-of-the-road" stuff is not going to get this blog on Google (not unless I include words like sex, McDelivery and Edison Chen in my posts) but I thought I would start and specialise later. Mainly it is because I have always wanted to write but keeping a diary is so teenage girly stuff and I don't know if the papers and magazines would accept my stuff.
I have titled this blog "Fair Comment or close enough". I was also thinking about "Rants and Raves" but that sounded a little like what Rasputin might do. I might and probably will include a section on Singlish (my petty and favourite peeve). I might include some photos if I find out how to do it. And also organise the blog in some manner (again, when I find out how to do it).
Anyway, here goes.
Number One Son when asked how to do it and if I should use my real name was also supportive in HIS own way. "Why do it?" "Why bother, if they want to find out your real name, they will."
So, I am listening to both of them. I AM starting one, as this proves. And while I am not including my real name (at least not now, might do so later if this blog gets the attention it so richly deserves), I will try to avoid sensitive (read, politically sensitive issues that will attract unwanted attention) topics and comments. I will also ask readers who write in with comments to similarly avoid sensitive comments.
Then, the second question was what theme the blog should be on? I am no real food connoisseur, nor know very much about wine. I don't have a hobby I am mad about. I enjoy looking at good-looking women but there are many salacious sites already (half in jest here). I also enjoy looking at not-so-good-looking women and making disparaging comments (as my wife can testify).
So after much thought, I decided I would write comments about all and sundry. I am after all, a grouchy (getting) old(er) man who is constantly agreeing or disagreeing (more often the latter) about what I read in the papers or see on TV. I know this "no real theme", "middle-of-the-road" stuff is not going to get this blog on Google (not unless I include words like sex, McDelivery and Edison Chen in my posts) but I thought I would start and specialise later. Mainly it is because I have always wanted to write but keeping a diary is so teenage girly stuff and I don't know if the papers and magazines would accept my stuff.
I have titled this blog "Fair Comment or close enough". I was also thinking about "Rants and Raves" but that sounded a little like what Rasputin might do. I might and probably will include a section on Singlish (my petty and favourite peeve). I might include some photos if I find out how to do it. And also organise the blog in some manner (again, when I find out how to do it).
Anyway, here goes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)