First foreign dormitory in my estate: Serangoon Gardens

The first batch of residents have taken up residence in the dormitory. They seem to be mostly China migrant workers and this has set the fears of many of the local residents to rest. I think the initial fear was based on the ethnicity of the workers. They had been rumoured to be Indian construction workers. I mean no offence to them but they personally strike fear within me due to some black sheep who have lecherous eyes. I am merely of average looks but these black sheep cast their eyes on every single female that they see, and that poses a great sense of discomfort to me. I too, am glad that the dormitory residents are China migrant workers.

I agree with some of the feedback given by residents. We were rather biased out of fear upon hearing about the proposed dormitory and indeed, the workers are behaving themselves well. As a matter of fact, the Indian construction workers along my road have not given me any trouble in terms of behavioural issues as well. However, I feel that the resident who plans to move out because of the dormitory matter, is really overreacting and making herself look foolish. She is the only one interviewed, who is planning to moving out. Her reason is unjustifiable as there are no problems posed by the migrant workers. The prejudice she has towards them is unfounded. The ironies are that her house does not even face the dormitory and she has been staying there for but less than a year. The residents whose houses are facing it and who have been staying there for many years, are not even planning to move out.

In order to facilitate the concerns of the residents, a proposal whereby residents and dormitory dwellers team up to patrol the estate for safety purposes has been handed in. I feel that it is a very good idea as it will allay the fears of the residents and allow them to get to know the dwellers for who they are.

No compromise in parenting

A teenage girl who had contracted H1N1 was cruelly left alone to fend for herself at home while sick. Her parents moved out for fear of contracting it as well. That was a heartless act from the parents of a sick girl who clearly needed their help and care. They are not fit to be parents, I feel.

Their fear had irrationally escalated to the point where they didn't even dare to bring her food and their only contact with her was through a daily phone call. It does not matter that they had left her food to cook. How was she going to cook when she was sick with the virus?! She should have been resting. Were they even thinking then?!

I concur with the doctor who thought that they were overreacting. It was plain selfishness as well, I feel. His advice is definitely simple to carry out. The fact that they are in the glow of health shows that there was no excuse for their behaviour. It merely reflects very badly on them as parents. They should feel ashamed that their daughter still spoke up for them. Ironically, her love for them is stronger.

She also showed maturity and selflessness. She was worried about spreading her virus to others and causing trouble for her friends. Is she even their daughter? She is so much better than they are. She certainly does not deserve such parents. Another irony is that her friends offered to go over to her house to bring her food. They are outsiders and yet they treated her better than her own parents. What a joke! Her parents should really do some serious reflection.

Our service standards still need to be improved quite a bit

The mother of a young boy with alopecia was appalled at the insensitivity displayed by an Ikea staff member.I would be too but that would be the climax of what she had encountered so far. The audacity of strangers in the same lift commenting or 'giving advice' upon noticing her son's condition is too immense for me to behold. If they merely stare at the boy in comparison, it is not as bad. They really have no right to go beyond that.

The Ikea staff member could have at least asked those questions out of earshot of the boy, if he had needed to do so out of professional protocol. What is worse is that he pointed at the boy while doing so. What kind of training is Ikea providing pertaining to such cases?? The boy may be very young but he is still human. That means he has feelings. Being very young does not mean he cannot understand what is said about him. The staff member had clearly underestimated his language ability, since his facial expression and immediate reaction proved otherwise.

In both cases, negligence was evident. The boy was obviously aware of his condition, especially judging from the second case. Such adults just destroy his optimistic expectations of the world in terms of kindness, tact and understanding.

The reason for adultery despite being married

I was reading an article in this month's issue of LHJ about this elderly couple who was having marital problems. The husband perceived his flirtations with younger women as harmless and fun. He felt that they would not compromise on his enduring love for his wife. His wife, on the other hand, saw even one of these encounters as a taint in his love towards her.

I know of cases where there was regret that a wrong marital decision had been made and adultery was seen as merely a reaction to it in the absence of divorce. It is not so easy to convince the guilty parties that they are committing an immoral act. In fact, some of its supporters regard the adulterous affair as a more enjoyable 'relationship', since no legally binding commitment can be made towards such momentary pleasures. They tell themselves that they have chosen to remain married to their life partners and thus that is what really matters. They also attempt to downplay their affairs by claiming that they are not going to marry the person they are involved with, and that the affairs are just for fun.

Sadly, they ignore the reality that the other person may possess feelings which are based on genuine love and emotion, and they are being very unfair to him/her. Such people desecrate the sacred institution of marriage and also fail to realise that deep within themselves, they have a phobia towards it.

Indeed, as another article states, they are cowards who fear broaching the subject of the marital problems faced with their husbands/wives as well. If the courage is summoned to do so, then things can be worked out between them, bearing in mind that they must go back to the genuine love which propelled them towards marrying each other.

The same article reports that husbands see their adulterous wives as dirty while wives see their unfaithful husbands with more tolerant and even forgiving eyes. That is unfairly biased. The same act had been committed by both genders. It is probably the fact that their male egos that have taken a blow and this sorely inaccurate perception is the result of it. This perception can be held by wives too, for their information.

Two cases deserve my comment. Both husband and wife had affairs in the first one. The wife wanted to divorce her husband due to his adulterous affair but she conveniently downplayed her own one-night stand on an unconscious level. The length of time may differ between both their acts but the fact remains that both husband and wife were unfaithful to each other. It is merely language that segregate the type. She has no right to ask him for a divorce when she herself was unfaithful.

The husband justified his adultery as hereditary in nature and acceptable in a familial surrounding, in the second case. His own father had committed adultery and his mother, out of love for the family, I presume, had not reacted in an unhappy manner over it. Tragically, this had misled their son, this husband, into thinking that adultery was condoned and he could do the same when he was married. He expected his wife to react to his affairs in the same way his mum had done so to his dad's. His mother must now speak up and tell him that she had accepted his father's adultery out of love, but adultery injures the vow of trust mutually taken by a married couple.

Tiger's escalating scandal of sexual infidelity

A celebrity is still a human deep down and I sympathise with the resentment he possesses towards the media's constant exposure of this scandal he is involved in. Any human would want to have his personal space respected.

However, I also feel that he is rather foolish to continue being so hard-headed. Though he is now more than a millionaire with his past earnings from product endorsements, tournament winnings and even appearance fees, the money will run out sooner or later. Let us be practical here. No matter how excellent a golfer he is and how well-respected he WAS, the heroic status the world put on him has now definitely dwindled. As a celebrity, he is still expected to adhere to the expectations of the public on him, and this means that he cannot do much to determine the level of privacy he is privy to.

He seems rather proud too, in wanting to remain mum about these allegations upon him. Even if they are untrue, would it not be more advantageous to him to speak out about them? With this perpetual silence, he is merely keeping everyone guessing as to their credibility and he is providing more opportunities for new allegations to surface. If they are really true, on the other hand, his public acknowledgement of them will win him back his old fans and may even create new ones for him. This act of humility and courage is surely deemed to win him back his wife and family too.

His marriage seems to be flawed in the first place. I personally debunk pre-nuptial agreements, or are they mainly used by celebrities? Marriage should be based on sincere commitment and a strong desire to maintain it. Call me naive but it is probably the cynics who do so. Tiger has seemingly persuaded his wife to tell the media that she has forgiven him, and this really boosts his reputation. It tends to make me think that he is using her for his own ends.

At the same time, I do not blame her for changing the terms of their agreement. She is still a woman and has been terribly betrayed by her husband. She probably feels helpless and her loyalty towards him is now at stake. Hence she made the time frame shorter and the payment sum greater, which is somewhat of a material consolation for her.

Only time will tell if their marriage survives. I agree with the fact that celebrities are more vulnerable to temptations what with their fame and fortune, but it also requires self-discipline to resist these temptations. More is definitely expected of a married celebrity. Tiger's move of attempting to warn his mistress of his wife's knowledge that they had an affair already goes to show that his loyalty towards his wife is fading. He evidently cares more for his mistress than his legally married wife.

His confession somehow speaks of insincere repentance in my eyes. He states that he is "not without faults and am far short of perfect". He seems to be trying to give an excuse for his atrocious behaviour, that he is imperfect as a human and the affairs are due to this human weakness. Ironically, it was the matchmaker between Tiger and his wife that took the initiative to apologise for anything. In the first place, he has nothing to apologise for, as no one could predict Tiger's fall from grace, but the heartening thing is that the matchmaker is not siding with Tiger even though he is also a man.

Tiger has finally made a public apology and it seems that it is the right move. His words show that he is truly regretful. I am however, disgusted at some of the reactions to it. Donald Trump advised him to forget about his marriage and continue being a playboy. Excuse me?! Trump may be one but he cannot convert others into following in his footsteps. That is not only irresponsible but also malicious!

His Las Vegas dealer mistress was unhappy that he is doing the right thing of apologising to his children. Why should she or the rest of the mistresses deserve an apology as well? They almost broke his family up. I think she mistook their involvement for a real relationship. Being physically intimate does not equate to true love. Being someone's mistress and affair partner will not lead to an enduring relationship, even if it is real!

Rules that spoil the atmosphere of dining

I understand the rationale behind certain rules, since Singaporeans are typically known to be uncouth and discourteous patrons. Some rules that have been implemented by certain eateries however, seem rather unreasonable and ludicrous. A case in point was a customer being asked by the staff at Cheesecake Cafe to either have her bottle of juice which was bought from another place, thrown away, or to have it kept by the cafe till she left. This occurred even though she had ordered drinks from the cafe's menu and had only intended to leave her bottle on the table.

Another case was the ban on taking photographs of the same cafe even as a customer. They were allowed to do so only if they were in the photograph. The reason given seems to be an unjustifiable one. There is a fear of other competitors wanting to duplicate the cafe's layout design.

The fact that there was a refusal to comment on the other rules laid down by the cafe seems to indicate the knowledge that they are unreasonable, and that the owner is adamant about retaining them. I reckon that the cafe will have fewer customers in time to come, due to such rigid and self-centred laws.

Heaven's Loft seems to be more reasonable in its rules. They are based on its customers' feedback. There is a rule though, that seems to stir up controversy: the age limit of customers going to its balcony in the evening. One of the views mentioned seems illogical: younger customers may feel discriminated against. I am confused here. The rationale behind the rule is sensible. The balcony becomes a bar loft that serves alcohol in the evening. Such a rule shows the social responsibility of the restaurant. It is not doing anything wrong and the customer who gave that view is probably one who falls below that age limit, or knows someone who does.

Times have changed and have been harsher on we teachers

A parent wrote in to complain about an English paper taken by his child. It had many mistakes in the set question, and they were only discovered and corrected on the actual day the paper was taken. He was unhappy that the teachers had not corrected them before giving it out to the students.

I find this a little hard to read and then turn the page. When I was a student, this happened as well. The invigilators would correct any mistakes in the paper before we started doing it. There were a few of them but there were no complaints made against the school.

Sometimes, they can be overlooked before printing the paper out. It is not so fair to just lambast the teachers for making an error any human can make. We may be teachers but we are not deities. Some parents just fail to realise that.