today while studying i met an old man who was a child during the japanese occupation. he said that because of the war, he was deprived of necessary nutrients in his formative years, and so his eyes suffered a lot. he has an incurable dysfunction in his eye. one day while he was lecturing a class of 200 students in hong kong, the words on the transparency began to dissolve like ink blots. right then, he said, his retina began to fray. he said it was the scariest moment of his life, that he screamed and shouted in front of 200 students and no one knew what to do.

he has a kind face, and he approached Gus and i to talk while we were discussing a question. said that while he's not fully blind, he can only make out fuzzy shapes in black and white, that he can't stand being alone in his room, that he comes out to town at night to sit in crowded places to listen to the hustle and feel the atmosphere. he used to be a doctor, travelled to africa to work on research, studied at harvard for a year, etc. he sounds like an achieved man if not for the fact that he had hobbled in, bent double with the help of the manager and couldn't focus his eyes on you while he spoke. low self-esteem, he said, is the one side effect of blindness that he couldn't get over. having to depend on everyone and everything, even to go to the toilet. a lot of 'why me's but he has to deal with it. and so he's writing a book, with an old-school, bulky SONY recorder in his pocket, he talks and he writes his book about his journey with blindness.

'are you a religious man', Gus asked. no, he said, but he's not irreligious. said that with many religions, especially christianity, there are such fundamental flaws, scientific inaccuracies, logical impossibilities, that as a man of science he simply could not accept. how did eve come from a rib? it has no genes, no DNA. how did adam, cain and eve populate the earth? how did virgin mary give birth? but, he said, he does believe in a higher being, something out there. what is good, he said, is when people connect directly with whichever god they believe in -- allah, prophet mohammad, jesus, buddha, whoever. strip it of all its frills (also known as religion) and reduce it to one single relationship. you and this god. deeper understanding and meaning.

and i thought, that is exactly what i want my relationship with God to be. just me and Him. sometimes i think, i don't even need church. i don't need extra people to tell me what the bible says, or a group of people to discuss one verse for 10 hours. i don't need all this extra baggage of the christian community because first i just need God. the thing is when you are striving to even pin down that fundamental thing that tethers you to God, you don't need to strive even harder to meet the needs of a church, as an institution, as well. serve this and that, go for this class and that class, etc. church can encourage you but i find that more often than not, if you haven't been a long time christian, or you're not a solid one, church discourages you. it makes you feel inferior. but being a christian is not about meeting standards, you see? it is, or it should be, about being accepted even though you are not up to par. that God loves you anyway. of course church is not a pointless institution. i just think, personally, at this point in my life, i view church as a burden more than a stepping stone. i wonder if it's wrong to think this way. church is obviously a creation of God's, he wants his people to fellowship. but then again i think, why would God be angry at me for trying to pursue my relationship with Him? the answer is He wouldn't. i think in the end i will come back to church, proper. but at the moment it cannot serve my spiritual needs the way it is meant to.

i think that is what this man was trying to tell us, there is no need for all the fanfare and hullabaloo. when it comes down to it there is only God and only you. when you are in heaven you will not be judged by how many TV screens you put in your church or how many bible studies you managed to hold in a day. God evaluates your relationship with Him, not man. whatever it is, i'm so glad we met this man. i felt bad when we had to leave because the place was close to empty and no one else was there to talk to him. he's lonely, clearly, yet i think in all his troubles he has found a purpose, a way to carry on having hope. i think blindness is one of the most devastating ways in which one internalizes that his future seems bleak. i like that this man thinks, though, he evaluates and he rationalises. he said he searches for peace, but he hasn't found it, and in all honesty i don't think he will, which makes me extremely sad. anyway, even in all his turmoil, he's going back to harvard next month to study more medicine. he may not have peace but i think he definitely finds some comfort in academia, in discovering and in learning. i'm really glad i met him.

also, if someone could answer this question for me:
why is swearing unacceptable spiritually?

we must be thankful

Not much point still talking about elections now. Polling day is tomorrow, I think most people have already decided. So I decided to talk about not what is occurring at the moment, elections, but the impact that the elections will have on Singaporeans in the future.

I think the most important thing that will come out from this, whether or not we get a few more opposition members in parliament, is that Singaporeans will start to question what it is to be Singaporean. For those who have been fighting for non-PAP parties to get some seats, they have ignited a fire to want to have a say in the development of this country. For those who have been PAP supporters all the way, the protests from the opposing camp will make them think about what is really best for this country.

And in a way, I think, there will be a greater understanding and growth of the currently non-existent "Singaporean identity". The way I like to see it is that it has always been there, a dormant creature just resting, and the elections have awakened it somewhat. People like to know that they have a say in their country, it gives them a sense of entitlement and belonging and that's what democracy is ultimately supposed to do. Whether or not ideal democracy has been practiced is regardless. Whether you are voting PAP or not, you feel as if you are making a stand for what you think is good for the country. People will start to feel more attached, more inclined to fight.

Of course, if you take a look in any truly democratic country you will find that not everybody agrees on who should be ruling, what policies should be implemented, what guidelines they should go by. Republicans will remain at odds with the Liberals. The left and the right will never meet fully. But if there's one thing I suppose you can gather from democratic countries is a patriotism quite undeniable. Another place you will find extreme patriotism is in authoritarian countries where conditions are poor. Revolutions spring up because people have had enough of being forced to do things they do not want to do and getting nothing out of it. They revolt because they want to fight for their right to their land, to their home, to their country.

Singapore, unfortunately, hangs somewhere in the balance -- a benign dictatorship. Neither a full democracy nor a brutal totalitarian state, the patriotism and the sense of belonging goes missing somewhere. People think, "I don't have a say because the PAP will just ignore me anyway. But I don't need to have a say either, my life is quite alright." And so the attachment disappears. Nobody feels loyal nor indebted to Singapore, at least not to the degree that is favorable for everyone. The combining effect of a top-down approach and the basic luxuries of a prosperous economy has numbed the general population, especially the younger generation, into a sense of autonomy from the land. Like Singapore is a hotel.

So thankfully, I think the elections will awake a sleeping giant. People are starting to feel that things are at stake -- whether it be the horror of living under PAP rule for the next 5 years or the threat of allowing inexperienced opposition members into parliament. And I think this threat will create a "rally around the flag" effect. People will come together, camping on both sides, but overall come together as concerned Singaporeans to discuss the future. As a Singaporean I've always hoped one day to see Singapore turn into a country vibrant and alive with people who love and stand by their country, not always desperate to get out. I suppose the PAP will one day have to concede to this -- even MM Lee has prophesied that such a day will come when the electorate will not remain as docile as before.

The election process itself cannot be called truly democratic. That is clear for most rational people to see. But the bigger picture here is that the fight for democracy (be it challenging it or defending it) is going to develop a population of Singaporeans who are starting to feel, starting to cherish who they are as Singaporeans, Singapore's future and what she really means to them.

In spite of whatever results emerge tomorrow night, I think that will be a big step for us. A crucial one. And for that, I am grateful.