Every Singaporean Dialogue Session Ever


Enter emcee.

Emcee: Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen. The event should start in about 5 minutes, but don’t count on it since most Guests of Honour are fashionably late. Although this reminder will most likely be an exercise in futility, I’ll say it anyway – please switch your mobile devices to Silent mode. Thank you.

Enter Guest of Honour. Audience sits uneasily, waiting for the emcee to ask them to rise, but Singapore is trying to be more casual and informal now, so an eerie silence hangs over the auditorium.

Emcee: Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the 2019 #YouthCanDoIt@SG Leaders Engagement Conversation Ministerial Dialogue Forum Session. (Mobile phone rings, all eyes dart towards the offender). My name is Emma See, and I’ll be your emcee for today.

Today, we have the pleasure of hearing from our distinguished speaker, Minister for Education, Second Minister for Health and Coordinating Minister for Infrastructure Dr Tok Tu Long.

Minister for Education, Second Minister for Health and Coordinating Minister for Infrastructure Dr Tok will be sharing with us about changes in our nation’s education landscape, after which our moderator, Mr Foo Ling Yu, will facilitate the dialogue session.

Please do not record this session or post anything about this online as this is a closed-door session and we want to have an open and frank discussion with the Minister. But we can’t have everything we want, can we?

(Forced laughter from the emcee, which is the cue for the audience to chuckle along. One man guffaws a bit too loudly.)

Emcee: I will now introduce our Guest of Honour, Minister for Education, Second Minister for Transport and Coordinating Minister for National Security Dr Tok Tu Long.

(Dr Tok stands up but returns to his seat upon realising that the emcee has to read out his illustrious resume first.)

Emcee: Without further hairdo, please put your hands together to welcome Dr Tok on stage. Dr Tok, please.

(An usher guides Dr Tok to the stage just in case he doesn’t know where the stairs are.)

Dr Tok: Good afternoon all. It’s good to see so many enthusiastic young faces here, and I look forward to having a robust dialogue with you even though I know I’ll be doing the lion share of the talking.

I’ll say at the outset that I’ll try to keep this short, but I won’t really. Let me begin by repeating the same thing I just said to a Straits Times reporter a few days ago. Also, here are some crucial reminders about Singapore’s small size and complete lack of resources, which means we are sustained only by talented, hardworking people. That’s why we make every school a good school, so that every good graduate can get a good job and make good money to sustain a good life.

We all want our children to chase their dreams and fulfil their potential, especially the potential to become doctors, lawyers and accountants. But we also need to build a robust and resilient workforce that is ready for the 4th Industrial Revolution. In order to future-proof our economy, we must build relevant capabilities in our educational institutions and build synergistic relationships between the academic and corporate spheres. We must also focus on re-skilling and lifelong learning programmes for all workers, which can be developed through public-private partnerships. Digitalisation is the cornerstone of a dynamic and innovative economy, and we need a whole-of-government paradigm shift in order to transform our workforce into a future-ready one.

Thank you, and I look forward to a lively discussion. But we can’t have everything we want, can we?

(Rapturous applause from the audience as Dr Tok walks to one of the sofas on stage, accompanied by an usher just in case he gets lost along the way.)

Emcee: Thank you for your speech, Dr Tok. I’m obliged to say that we all benefited from your erudite comments, no matter how accurate (or otherwise) a statement like that may be. At this juncture, I would like to hand the microphone to our moderator, Mr Foo Ling Yu. Ling Yu, please.

Moderator: Thanks Emma. Well I’m sure we’re all brimming with questions to pose to Dr Tok, many of which will probably have nothing to do with his earlier comments on Singapore’s education system. But I request that each person asks only one question, with no sub-questions, preambles, points of information, follow-up questions or tirades. Please be mindful that others want their time in the spotlight as well. Also, please state your name before asking your question. With that, let us open the floor for questions.

Questioner #1: Thank you Minister Dr Tok for your very enlightening…

Moderator: Sorry sir, could we have your name please?

Ahmad: Very sorry for that, my name is Ahmad. I would like to ask Dr Tok what he believes the government should do for workers who are unable to keep up with the rapid pace of economic change, and are left behind?

Dr Tok: That is an excellent question. In fact, it’s so excellent that I need to buy some time. So let me ask you – what do you think the government can do?

Ahmad: Dr Tok, I really have no idea, that’s why I’m asking you the question.

Dr Tok: We have a slew of policies and programmes in place which I will explain now. (Presents an alphabet soup of acronyms.) Hope this answered your question.

Ahmad: Thank you Dr Tok, it did. But even if it didn’t, I probably wouldn’t say so because others are getting impatient.

Moderator: Next question please.

Questioner #2: My name is Mark. In 2016, the basic tenets and core assumptions of international relations were called into question by the double whammy of President Trump’s election and the British people’s decision to vote in favour of Brexit. These seismic shifts in the Western world have upset global markets and thrown the liberal project of global economic integration and free trade into complete disarray, sending ripples of uncertainty all the way to our neck of the woods and casting doubt on the ability of statisticians to paint an accurate picture of public opinion…

Moderator: Is there a question Mark?

Mark: Yes I was getting there. So my question is this – in light of the unpredictability and volatility of geopolitical trends and economic patterns, what should the government do to help Singaporeans who are unable to keep up with the breakneck speed of global change?

Dr Tok: Essentially, you’re asking the exact same question that was asked earlier, which makes me wonder if you were paying any attention at all. But I’ll provide a different answer so as to not make you feel bad.

Moderator: We have time for one more question.

Questioner #3: I would like to ask the Minister – if you had one wish for Singapore, what would it be?

Dr Tok: Thank you for asking such a grand question. You’ve given me an opportunity to demonstrate my profound optimism and wax eloquent about lofty ideals, which will undoubtedly provide juicy soundbites for the media. My wish is for all Singaporeans to chase their rainbow, and never settle for second-best. As we press on towards a brighter tomorrow, let it not be happiness that we pursue, but happiness that pursues us.

(Stunned silence gives way to enthusiastic applause.)

Emcee: Thank you very much Dr Tok. Another round of applause please for our distinguished speaker and our moderator. (Claps into the microphone to encourage more audience applause.) 

We have come to the end of the 2019 #YouthCanDoIt@SG Leaders Engagement Conversation Ministerial Dialogue Forum. Thank you for your attendance here today. Please remain seated as our Guest of Honour heads to the reception first to start eating. I know we all want to eat as soon as possible.

But we can’t have everything we want, can we?


Of Dreams and Reality


“I want to go to Raffles, study forensic science, and join the FBI in Quantico.” That’s what a young 11-year-old boy told me recently.

He has it all planned out. He’s pored over the Raffles school website, chosen his future JC, and even knows the prerequisites to study Criminology at NUS. He laid out his plan with such earnestness that I felt guilty about the poisonous cynicism brewing within.

I was initially encouraged by his choice of my alma mater. In fact, I felt obliged to defend and nurture his ambition. Another kid overheard our conversation and rudely interjected, “Raffles? Oh, it’s impossible to go there.” It was a miracle that I didn’t snap at the kid – I just frowned upon his pessimistic pronouncement and merrily told my motivated young friend to ignore such barbs.

But once he started talking about the FBI, I felt I had to inject some sense of reality into the conversation. The questions spilled out of my mouth like a leaky toilet: Have you been watching too much TV? Do you know how selective the FBI is? Are you sure foreigners can join the FBI? How will you get American citizenship? Isn’t the Singapore Police Force a better idea?

Not a hint of dejection. In fact, he was quite sure that FBI applicants only need to be US residents, and even if that’s not the case, he was certain it’s not difficult to become a US citizen.

So cute, so innocent, so naïve, so…

“Stop.” The word rang firmly in my head, as a pang of guilt gripped my heart. It’s so often said that Singaporeans sacrifice their dreams on the altar of conventional, cookie-cutter success. Why was I coaxing this young boy to join the rat race so early in life?

Of course this kid will encounter hurdles and brick walls, but I don’t need to tell him that now. He’ll discover that along the way, and I’m sure his maturity will keep him in good stead. He’ll learn to overcome barriers, reformulate his goals, and keep pressing on.

Maybe I was just trying to temper his dreams with a dose of reality. But it’s better that his reality is shaped by his dreams.

You Happy or Not?


I can’t think of any other country that takes happiness so seriously. It seems that at least once a year, Singaporeans must engage in a national discussion about whether they are happy or not, why they are happy or not, why they should be happy or not, and how to be happy or not.

In 2012, a Gallup study claimed that we are the unhappiest country in the world. That generated a lot of soul-searching. Then in 2016, the World Happiness Report named Singapore as the happiest country in the Asia-Pacific region. That got us scratching our heads – either the definitions of happiness used in both studies were vastly different, or we have schizophrenic mood swings.

Then in recent weeks, people got unhappy with how happy Nas Daily made us out to be – because heaven forbid that we allow a foreigner to be happy about how happy we are! Unless that foreigner is Neil Humphreys – then that’s OK because he lived in Toa Payoh for ten years, was vice-chairman of the Tanjong Pagar United Fan Club and acted as Sir Stamford Raffles in Talking Cock The Movie.

About a year ago, another foreigner told the whole world how happy the sunny island of Singapura is. Dan Buettner, a National Geographic Fellow and New York Times best-selling author, wrote an article in Nat Geo that praised Singapore as one of the happiest places on Earth. The ever-cheery Mothership team picked it up and summarised Buettner’s claims in an article that raised incredulous eyebrows all over the country.

Buettner lays out three different versions of happiness in Costa Rica, Denmark and Singapore, and seems to place them on equal footing. But from his own anecdotal snapshots of the three countries, I see a glaring difference between these three types of happiness.

Happiness in Costa Rica and Denmark are linked to Pleasure and Purpose respectively. Buettner’s happy Costa Ricans are portrayed as simple folk, full of lighthearted mirth and humour, basking in the joy and love of family and friends. The happy Danes are able to pursue their most cherished passions because their basic needs are provided for by the government, allowing them to ascend Maslow’s hierarchy with ease.

Meanwhile, happiness in Singapore is associated with Pride, or “life satisfaction”. This apparently stems from the success that most Singaporeans are able to achieve in a mobile society through their own hard work. In an annoyingly trite depiction of this success, popularised even more by Crazy Rich Asians, Buettner highlights the luxurious sports car and multi-million-dollar house of Douglas Foo, founder of Sakae Sushi, along with other trappings of our ultra-modern and opulent city-state.

Should these 3 Ps – Pleasure, Purpose and Pride – be placed side by side? I think not. Pleasure and purpose are defined individually, while the pride of success is largely socially constructed, at least in Singapore’s context. In other words, Costa Ricans and Danes can still be happy regardless of personal circumstances or society’s opinions. But Singaporeans are happy only in comparison with others.

According to Buettner’s depiction of life in Singapore, personal wealth and social status form the bedrock of citizens’ happiness. He makes this quite clear by suggesting that happy Singaporeans “tend to be financially secure (and) have a high degree of status.” Discussions about wealth tend to invite comparison with others. Status is also comparative by definition. So then, happiness becomes a matter of social comparison, which dovetails seamlessly with our national culture of kiasuism – being “scared to lose”. Happiness is set by society and not by ourselves, robbing us of our autonomy.

How about those who are not financially secure and don’t have a high degree of status? Where is their happiness? It’s telling that Buettner’s happy Costa Rican is broke, his happy Dane earns a modest salary, and his happy Singaporean is a multi-millionaire with a trophy case of business awards. Even the choice of photos reveals the stark contrast between these forms of happiness. The images used in the segment on Costa Rica show merry dancers in a bar and a jubilant family surrounding a bubbly baby. The portion on Denmark has a photo of children harvesting their own vegetables.

And the images of happy Singapore? A rich father buying a Porsche for his son. Girls partying on a rented yacht. A chic woman’s reflection in the storefront window of a showroom at Marina Bay Sands.

Perhaps the primary reason for Singaporeans’ vitriolic reaction towards Nas Daily’s portrayal of Singapore as an “almost perfect country” is that we have embraced the misguided notion that happiness is denominated in dollar bills. That explains why one of the rants directed at Nas complained about CPF contribution rates, the high cost of HDB flats, and the imminent rise in GST. Of course, no one will deny that financial security and material comforts do contribute to happiness, and that poverty is miserable. But happiness that is solely based on our bank accounts is volatile and fleeting.

I’m no authority on happiness, and I’m certainly not a bundle of joy. But I’m sure many would agree with me when I say that we need to decouple our idea of happiness and fulfilment from material goods and social status. And we need to do it fast, if we know what’s good for us.

This is an expansion of a Facebook post I published in October 2017.

Both Big and Small


While eating dinner, I heard loud booms outside the apartment. It was not the rolling clamour of thunder, but the short, sporadic bursts of fireworks at the NDP Rehearsal at Marina Bay. I hurried to the window to watch the glorious pyrotechnic display, sharing the luminous moment with thousands of spectators sitting kilometres away – and presumably other curious onlookers dotted around the cityscape.

“It takes me an hour to get to Marina Bay from my house,” I mused, “and yet I can enjoy the fireworks as if they were in my hypothetical backyard.”

I noticed a subtle paradox. Ours is a city of overwhelming skyscrapers. The towering behemoths can sometimes create the impression of largeness. And indeed, we are a bustling, crowded metropolis. But ascend the concrete mountains, and depending on location, you’ll be able to see the borders of our tiny island, the peninsular to our north, and even the islands of our (much) larger southern neighbour.

In the same vein, because of our small size, we live in such close proximity to one another. And yet, there is a vast distance even between neighbours – a social chasm resulting from our relentless busyness, our desire for precious privacy, and our obsession with ourselves. We even commute as silos, detached from the world by our headphones and screens.

We are big and small, so near and yet so far.

In many ways, we are defined by our miniscule size. It weaves its way into every decision, every policy, every forecast, and sometimes even the insults of foreign leaders. We are undeniably small. But we constantly devise ways to distract from that inconvenient truth. We sing about how in Singapore, you’ll find that our hearts are big and wide (after taking a little trip around Singapore town in a Singapore city bus). During NDP 2014, a catchy song was sung with the words “Big Island” repeated countless times. We also love poking fun at the residents of Jurong, calling them foreign citizens from a faraway land.

We live in this paradox daily, and so we don’t think much about it. But it flashed through my mind just like the fireworks – small solitary fireballs erupting forcefully into big flaming flowers over our big and small island.

The First Stone

The First Stone

Just one wrench of the wrist, and the wretched man’s life would end.

The whole ordeal was supposed to be over before sunrise. The condemned was not to see the light of another day. But the sun was already up, and Sherry Liew still could not bring herself to pull the lever. She stood at the gallows with her eyes fixed on the hooded man with the noose around his sweaty neck. Her hands trembled with fear; her soul bowed beneath the weight of the power of life and death.

Sherry was wracked with grief for her precious son, who had been bludgeoned to death by the hooded man now standing before her. Sam had been hanging out with the wrong crowd, getting into gang fights and working for ah longs, and would ignore her relentless pleas to come home. But she prayed unceasingly for the prodigal son to return.

On that fateful morning, she leapt for joy when the doorbell rang unexpectedly. But the last flicker of hope in her heart was snuffed out when she opened the door to a policeman bearing tragic news of his death.

Now, she had the power to avenge her son. For many months, she had longed to strangle the evil bastard with her bare hands. But what then of her many years preaching the forgiveness and love of Christ that covers a multitude of sins? The murderer’s mother had fallen on her knees, begging for mercy for her only son. Even that monster – she struggled to see him any other way – had written countless tear-stained letters to her, asking for forgiveness and promising that he had turned his life around in prison.

How then could she spit in God’s face?

Abruptly, she loosened her grip on the lever and walked away. No matter how much this man deserved to die, she couldn’t be the one to kill him. One mother had lost her son – there was no need for another to bear the same anguish.

She walked out of Changi Prison, weary and disoriented, but at peace.

How on earth did a sweet, unassuming school teacher become an executioner?

For years, the debate on Singapore’s death penalty was stale and predictable. The government continued to peddle the hackneyed narrative that death by hanging was an effective deterrent against egregious crimes like murder and drug trafficking. The abolitionists pointed to academic research questioning the effectiveness of the death penalty, and championed a more “merciful and humane” penal system over the country’s “ruthless and primitive” system of retribution. The vast majority of Singaporeans either accepted the government’s rhetoric, or were too busy growing their bank accounts to bother engaging in public debate.

It was clear that the abolitionists needed a new strategy. Whenever they criticised the death penalty as a “barbaric” penal system, they were accused of derisive name-calling. When they called for a more enlightened form of justice, they were ironically caricatured as naive latte liberals, completely out of touch with reality.

Tired of the impasse, one activist devised a new game plan. The government was adamant on keeping the death penalty, and there was no indication that the ruling party was going to lose power any time soon. Singaporeans had grown accustomed to the moniker “Disneyland with the death penalty”. So perhaps the way forward was not to target the substance of the policy, but its implementation instead.

This activist figured that the death penalty was carried out so effectively because the condemned was hanged by a professional executioner who was supposed to be a dispassionate agent of the state, with no emotional investment or psychological inhibitions to deal with. He was just like any other bureaucrat with a job scope and KPIs. Ultimately, this automaton was the linchpin of the entire process. Remove him, and the process would fall apart.

But how could the executioner be removed? To answer this, the activist decided to ask another question – why should the State carry out executions in the first place? Murder is certainly a crime against society in that it violates the moral sanctity of life on which society stands. And the State is supposed to carry out punishments so that there is fair and proportionate justice, not vigilantism. But it is also a crime against the ones who loved and cherished the victim. The State did not give life to the victim – a mother did. Before the victim was a citizen of the State, he was a son first and foremost.

The activist argued then that in the case of first-degree murder, the execution should be carried out by the family of the victim. As for drug trafficking, the trafficker should be hanged by family members of victims of drug abuse. The State would still play the role of a neutral third party, but instead of delegating an agent to carry out the execution, it would merely “set up the venue”.

The Government accepted this proposal because it kept the death penalty intact. And so did the abolitionists. After all, for many years, they had framed capital punishment as nothing more than a clinical, state-sanctioned form of retribution. In their eyes, this new system would clearly demonstrate their point by empowering the victims’ families to exact their revenge.

More importantly though, the new system left room for compassion and mercy to intervene. In the old system, mercy was virtually non-existent because the President (or rather, the Cabinet who advised him) almost never granted clemency. But now that the act of execution was no longer in the hands of a detached, professional hangman, would every hanging be followed through?

In first-century Judea, when an angry mob brought a woman before Jesus and accused her of committing adultery, an act punishable by death, Jesus replied, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” The crowd dispersed because none of them believed they had the right to mete out the death sentence.

It was the same with Sherry Liew. She chose to show mercy because she believed mercy had been shown to her. But had she decided to pull the lever, she would have acted legitimately and lawfully as well.

Of course, this scenario is completely hypothetical. But it is worth wondering what the contours of public debate would look like if a proposed system like this really gained traction. I wonder what would change if Singaporeans were no longer detached from the gruesome act of hanging, which today is carried out secretly in the early hours of the morning behind the iron gates of Changi Prison.

Would we be willing to cast the first stone?



Source: MySkillsFuture website (www.myskillsfuture.sg)

I’ve become so accustomed to filling in my “Race” on application forms in Singapore. Usually, I just need to choose one of four options – Chinese, Malay, Indian or Others.

But when you register on the MySkillsFuture website (www.myskillsfuture.sg), you now have a long list of “races” to choose from!

Instead of being just “Malay”, you can choose “Acehnese”, “Boyanese” or even “Bugis”.

You can identify as “Indian”, or you can be more specific and select “Tamil”, “Punjabi”, “Sindhi”, “Goan”, or others.

Depending on how nationalistic you are, you can choose “French”, “Dane”, “German”, or just jettison all these archaic labels for the more progressive “European”. For the more pedantic, instead of “British”, go ahead and choose “English”, “Welsh” or “Scot” (apologies to the Northern Irish, there’s no option for you).

If you’re only partly English, don’t worry – there are several hybrid options for you, such as “Anglo Chinese”, “Anglo Indian”, “Anglo Filipino”, “Anglo Burmese”, and “Anglo Thai”. (What, no “Anglo Uzbek”??? Sheesh.)

At the risk of sounding like a neo-Nazi, you can even choose “Aryan”. Oh man, I’d like to see who’s brave enough to do that…

If you think that “American” and “Canadian” are races rather than the more inclusive labels of civic identity that they are generally believed to be, those options are listed too. I have no idea why, but they’re there.

For our Middle Eastern friends, shalom/salam and welcome to the party. Along with “Jew” and “Arab”, “Israeli” and “Palestine” are somehow options too. Wow, this reminds me of Conflict Resolution classes back in Israel…

But if all this is too complicated, and you’d rather just put the generic and non-committal “Other”, you’re in luck. Though for some bizarre reason, that’s listed along with “Other Eurasian”, “Other Indonesian” and “Other Indian”.

So what should I choose? Normally, I would just choose “Indian”. But with such a smorgasbord of “races”, I feel like writing in and asking for “Indo-Greek” to be made available. After all, that sounds better than “Greco-Indian”.

Or I could just be a rebel, forget the whole “race” thing, and choose “Brahmin” (I kid you not, it’s actually there).

Look, I appreciate the effort to move away from the CMIO system and acknowledge the great diversity on our island, but in offering so many options, the labels have become meaningless. Or maybe that’s the whole point?

Spaghetti Girls


Lenny’s frustration grew with every tick of the clock. He squirmed in his uncomfortable chair, equipped with a cushion for his back but plain plastic for his buttocks. Wasn’t Changi Airport supposed to be paradise on earth – a replica of Heaven’s own aviation terminal? Surely they could afford better seats? He must have really pissed off the customs officer earlier with his typical New York levity.

“Well, who cares about my ass, they’re gonna cane it anyway,” he muttered under his breath. His smirk seemed to irk the officer sitting across the room. Or rather, he thought he had annoyed her. She was completely expressionless, almost catatonic, but her death-stare seemed a bit more intense, so she must have been ticked off by his insouciance.

But hey, what could he do? He was a hound dog, sniffing out amusement in every situation.

“Hey, ‘smirk’ and ‘irk’ rhyme!” he smiled clownishly. Why was he so easily entertained by the slightest thing? He couldn’t help himself! That’s why he was brought into this sterile waiting room, fully furnished with awkward chairs, an abnormally loud clock, and a dour, bespectacled bureaucrat whose stony demeanour gave him the heebie-jeebies. He was left there to stew in the eerie silence, all because he couldn’t keep his mouth shut.

No, hang on a minute. Lenny refused to shoulder the blame for his predicament. It wasn’t his fault that this country had no sense of humour. All he wanted to do was inject a bit of mirth into the humdrum of lining up (oh wait, they say ‘queuing’ over here) at the airport border control. Was his joke really that offensive?

He cast his mind back to his freshman year in Columbia, where he spent countless hours with his Singaporean buddy, Jackie Chan. (Actually, he had an unpronounceable Mandarin name – something like Chan Zi Hong or Chan Zhi Huang or whatever – so Lenny just gave him the natural nickname.) Jackie spoke incessantly about his country, and curious Lenny lapped it all up – the Singlish, the acronyms, the National Service stories, even the odd custom of ‘choping‘ tables with tissue packets.

But what really piqued his interest were the SPGs.

“You know, Lenny, if you come to Singapore, you’ll have a lot of SPGs chasing you,” Jackie cheekily remarked one day. Lenny gave his characteristic quizzical look, waiting expectantly for his next nugget on this quirky country.

Jackie continued, “We call them Sarong Party Girls. They like to go for ang mohs.” Now he really had Lenny’s rapt attention. As he explained what a sarong was and the peculiar origin of the term ang moh, a mischievous grin stretched across Lenny’s face.

“Looks like I’ve gotta find myself some SPGs!” Lenny chuckled. “So when I visit you in Singapore, and the customs officer asks what the purpose of my visit is, I’ll exclaim, ‘Spaghetti Girls!'”

And that’s precisely what landed him in hot soup. Damn jialat, as Jackie would say.

Welcome to Singapore, where banter is banned, and fun is done, Lenny quietly quipped. Of course, he didn’t do himself any favours by guffawing at his own joke at the customs desk. But besides the bans on smoking and some queer spiky fruit – not to mention the ridiculously menacing warning about the death penalty for drug trafficking on the customs form – he was quite certain that there was no restriction on laughter at this world-class airport.

Or was there?

As he nervously wrung his clammy hands in the waiting room, he thanked his lucky stars that he didn’t shoot his mouth off about his brilliant solution to Singapore’s falling population. Back in college, when Jackie told him that only the men had to spend (or did he say ‘waste’?) two years in the military, he railed indignantly against the gender inequality of the system. Then in his classic witty style, he proposed an ingenious way that women could serve the nation too.

“You guys should start a Reproductive Regiment!” he blurted out. “The more babies, the higher the rank!” The bewilderment on Jackie’s face back then was priceless.

Lenny glanced at his watch, crossed his legs, uncrossed his legs, glanced at the blasted ticking clock, sighed in exasperation and scratched his blond locks. The robotic immigration officer glared mercilessly at him. Lenny thought about starting a staring contest, but he changed his mind, lest he be accused of leering inappropriately at a woman. Or of trying to pick up an SPG.

The officer’s scowl was getting too much to bear. What was his crime? Had he really been so insensitive that he had to be detained? Had he violated some sacrosanct Singaporean custom? Why was everyone so touchy here? This country has redefined absurdity!

Lenny was resigned to his fate. Since his sorry ass was most definitely going to be hauled off to jail – after it was caned of course – perhaps he should just throw all caution to the wind and have himself a bit of fun. He stood up slowly, shuffled across the room to the soulless uniform, looked her straight in the eye, and smiled the gentlest smile that he could muster.

“Excuse me, Miss, do you have any chewing gum on you?”

The ticking clock was drowned out by Lenny’s racing heartbeat. The lady was stunned. Her deadpan face betrayed a slight quiver of the lip as she tried in vain to suppress a grin. Lenny held his breath, surprised that he had actually found the chink in her armour. She got up quickly, turned around and scurried off to the next room, fighting back the giggles.

Moments later, a senior ranking officer entered the room with a beam plastered across his face. Lenny clenched his fist, ready to sock the man in the jaw with full immunity – for right there before his eyes stood his college buddy.

“Jackie Chan, you son of a gun, you’re a customs officer?!” Lenny threw his arms around his friend.

“The joke’s on you, buddy,” Jackie declared triumphantly. “Welcome to Singapore. Let’s grab something to eat.”

“How about spaghetti?”