Dungeon as a sub-cultural space

(I) Introduction
Smokers from the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences (FASS) in the National University of Singapore (NUS) have, for several cohorts of students, occupied a space within the school compound as an “unofficial smoking corner”, in the words of one of our informants. This space is situated at level 2 of the AS1 building, beneath the common walkway between the Central Library and “The Deck” (the canteen). It is a stretch of corridor outside seven seminar rooms and includes three wooden benches and rows of brown lockers. It is affectionately known among the smokers as the dungeon, its name alluding from its characteristics as a subterranean area always filled with smoke.

In the context of NUS as a “smoke-free campus”, we postulate that the dungeon stands out as a sub-cultural space, primarily occupied by a group of student smokers who stand in contrast to the wider group of the non-smoking population in the NUS campus. In this paper, we seek to examine: one, why the dungeon is a sub-cultural space, in the sense that it has become a space for expressing resistance against the dominant culture present in the university. Two, we are interested in exploring how the dungeon came to become a sub-cultural space in the first place.

(II) Statement of importance
In considering the dungeon as a sub-cultural space, it allows us to understand in a larger picture, how various sub-cultural groups in the society at large comes to occupy certain spaces in carrying out their resistance to the mainstream dominant culture. The sub-cultural space of dungeon, when juxtaposed against the prevailing non-smoking culture in NUS at large, also allows us to get a clearer picture of the tensions and strains present in the larger society and aids us in understanding why and how sub-cultural spaces had come into existence in the society.

(III) Literature Review
Albert Cohen (1955) perceived the emergence of a new “group standard” as cultural because “each actor’s participation in this system of norms is influenced by this perception of the same norms in other actors”. He also conceived this as sub-cultural as “the norms are shared” only among actors who will somehow “profit from them” and those who find a “sympathetic moral climate within these norms which may come to fruition and persist.” (Gelder and Thornton, 1997: 51) Hence, the culture is “continually being created, re-created and modified”, generated by similar circumstances, “not shared generally in the larger system” and may “persist”, but not through “sheer inertia.” Its lifespan may “outlast” that of individuals who participated in its creation, but only so long as it “continues to serve the needs of those who succeed in its creators.” (ibid: 51)

Kidd (2002) understood the ideal of subcultures as a “form of resistance”, which offered a “challenge to the structural forces” that had posed problems for their members. Stanley Cohen (1987) explained further “that subcultures are always fighting against dominant cultures, thus developing only amongst the subordinate.” (Kidd, 2002: 119) The space of the dungeon as being claimed by majority of the smokers in NUS, could be seen as an interest in “winning spaces” where this subordinate group attempted to “claim” their “communities… identities, life-style” by winning both “personal and symbolic spaces need(ed)” to live a life without the structural restraints. (Kidd, 2002: 119) In addition, Wilkinson and Kitzinger (1994) had conceptualized the importance of subordinate groups claiming spaces because their membership of an oppressed group had to be claimed “tenaciously”, in contrast to dominant group membership. The latter was readily “taken as given” and did “not require conscious allegiance” in the same way as other subordinate identities due to “its place in mainstream culture.” (Haslop, Hill and Schmidt, 1998)

The occupation of free spaces embodied two benefits: (i) “an opportunity” for the oppressed people to “penetrate the sources of their subordination” and (ii) the preservation and building upon a collective record of resistance. (Polletta, 1999) It was also argued by Polletta (1999) that free spaces allowed the opportunity to articulate safely “the assertion, aggression and hostility” and to “test limits of official power.” Lastly, these physical gathering places did build on those ties by “demonstrating the co-presence of others,” strengthening “collective identity by providing tangible evidence of the existence of a group.” (Polletta, 1999) It was, however, the character of the ties that were established or reinforced in those settings, rather than the physical space itself, that the free space concept had sometimes successfully captured. (ibid)

(IV) Methodology
(i) Data generation techniques
In the execution of the research, we had earlier chosen to undertake the study of gendered relations in the leadership of a local Protestant Church in our project. This was decided after a discussion among the group members who were Christians and were interested to explore more about their own religion. However, during the course of research, we encountered differences in the development of the project and in the directions of the continuation of the research. One reason was that Isabelle had faced difficulties in getting interviews with one of the church leaders, on the premise that she was not a Christian. Thus resulted in the split of the group where the two of us have since decided to change our research focus to the space of the dungeon in NUS. First and foremost, we have already been aware of the dungeon’s existence and the long-running practices of smokers in this space since our matriculation in 2004. In addition, due to the lack of time we faced, the dungeon is a more feasible space for us to explore, as it is relatively contained and easily accessible. The dungeon is also more relevant to us, as we are part of the community of regular smokers who often hang out in this space and it represents a special part of our university life. The definitions of regular smokers will be expounded on in the later part of the paper. This paper will, thus, be an attempt to shed light on this particular interesting space in the dungeon.

(a) Participant-observation
The methods of participant-observations and semi-structured interviews have been employed in the study of the dungeon as a sub-cultural space. Two observations of approximately one hour each were carried out in the dungeon on two subsequent Friday afternoons, at around twelve noon on 2nd November and three in the afternoon on 9th November respectively. These two timings were chosen after much consideration, as we were aware that spatial changes could possibly occur over time and would affect our data collection. Firstly, our tight school schedules with the heavy load of assignment deemed it necessary for us to carry out observations only in between classes. Secondly, from our personal experiences, we were aware that the dungeon would be often filled with students at twelve noon as this was the time slightly after classes ended or before classes began while three in the afternoon would leave us with the core group of regular smokers in the dungeon. The observation carried out at twelve noon allowed us to capture a larger broader overarching section of the students who would be in the dungeon at this time. At this timing, we wanted to observe the differences between non-regular smokers who would go to the dungeon to smoke and subsequently leave and the regular smokers who stayed in the dungeon unless they had classes. We could also observe the interactions between the regular smokers, and the non-smokers who needed to enter the dungeon because they had classes here. Contrarily, the observation at three in the afternoon would provide a deeper understanding of how the smokers functioned in this space. At this timing, the dungeon would be usually filled only with the regular smokers. In addition, it is also the timing when most of the regular smokers would be around. This is often because most of the regular smokers would only come in the afternoon unless they had classes in the morning and most of them would leave by the evening unless they needed to rush their assignments in school. As such, the timing of three, which is between noon and evening, would be one of the better timings to observe the most number of regular smokers. Hence, we have effectively conducted our observations in the two time frames to facilitate our collection of data of the dungeon as a sub-cultural space.

We chose to carry out a participant-observation in contrast to a non-participant observation in order to most appropriately blend in with the subjects of our observation. From the outset, we were aware that our observational style was bound to have unavoidable impacts on our data collection, as Mason highlighted that the “chosen method(s)” will have “influence” on the “setting and interactions within it as well as the observer’s very “presence.” However, should we have chosen to collect data from the position of a non-participant observer, we might have stood out from the crowd even more and attracted even more unnecessary attention. Not only would the unnecessary attention affect the data in a way that the subjects acted as they would now be paying a certain amount of attention to us, something they would normally not do, but it would also affect the way they behave due to the fact that they realised that they were being observed. Hence a participant-observer approach effectively minimised the alteration of data in this way. It also allowed us to be personally involved in the observation as we could observe the dungeon at a closer proximity. We took our notes while seated at a bench together with the regular group of smokers that we knew and also did it as if we were doing our school assignments there. This was a habit that many of the smokers had and thus we effectively blended ourselves into the group and were not intrusive in the manner of our note-taking. In addition, during our observations, we also smoked as we usually would. This would prevent us from being spotted by the regulars there as behaving strangely. We also engaged in occasional chitchats initiated by the smokers there in order not to reveal the nature of our work.

(b) Semi-structured interviews
For the interviews, six semi-structured interviews were first carried out with informants who were regular smokers in the dungeon. Prior to this, we had designed the interview “ahead of time” with an interview guide with six salient points in “a suggested order” to ensure that we would be able to cover all the topics we were interested in. The interviews were conducted to provide more in-depth information on the way that the informants saw themselves and how they felt about the dungeon. We did this in the non-directive way “to refrain from offering opinions and to avoid expressions of approval and disapproval”. (Haralambos et al, 2000:1004) This way, we could ensure that views received from the informants were that of their own and not of ours. The interviews were also conducted separately on a one-to-one basis as the presence of more than one interviewer or informant would affect the way that the informants responded. Single interviews as compared to group interviews would ensure that each respondent was not “influenced by the presence of other interviewees” (ibid: 1004) or interviewers. Interviews also allowed “words and concepts to be clarified” and “explored in greater depth” (ibid: 1005). Qualitative methods were also able to better “provide true picture of social reality” (ibid: 993) as compared to quantitative methods, and interviews were especially “useful for generating new hypotheses and theories.” (ibid: 1005) We also decided on conducting semi-structured interviews, which could be “modified as appropriate” for each interviewee as it allowed for a greater flexibility where we could digress from the six salient points when the information was “refreshing,” “informative” or “allowed the interviewee to express his (or her) concerns.” (Adler and Clark, 2003) For instance, when asked about what the dungeon meant to him, one interviewee revealed that it was an interesting area because smoking was not the only activity carried out in the dungeon as people also sat down, ate, studied and chitchatted. Wee Loon was then able to probe on about this aspect of other activities in the dungeon, with the flexibility of the semi-structured interview. This gave us a new insight about the dungeon, which we were previously less sensitised to due to our positions as regular smokers there. Thus, the semi-structured fashion of the interview allowed for auxiliary information to surface during the interview by extension of the free space for the informant to express himself or herself. This hence helped us to generate a more in-depth finding in the direction of activities carried out in the sub-cultural space of the dungeon, which we had previously assumed to be only smoking.

The interviews were conducted at various points of time depending on the availability of the informants as well as the availability of quiet and alone places so as to ensure the integrity of information from contaminants as stated above. Repeated interviews were also conducted with informants after we went through the information and discovered some points that needed to be delved on further. Similarly, the repeated interviews were conducted on a one-to-one basis in a semi-structured fashion in a quiet and vacant place to pre-empt undue interruptions. It was also done in this way as the informants were already introduced to this pattern of interviewing and we did not wish to put them off-guard by introducing a new interviewer or new method of interviewing. We also wanted to build on the rapport previously established in the interviews before, in order to facilitate the interview. All interviews were recorded using a voice recorder and transcribed later to facilitate the writing of this paper.

(ii) Sampling
As mentioned above, the interviews were conducted with regular smokers. By regular, we meant smokers who were in the dungeon not only for the sole purpose of smoking but also spent much of their time outside of class in the dungeon. This group of smokers were often seated together and knew one from another. In addition, they were easily recognisable by other non-regular smokers and non-smokers that we spoke to randomly. We found a need to sample as “studying every single instance of a thing is impractical” and “beyond our means” (Adler and Clark, 2003: 105). Sampling also allowed us to “minimise the number of things we examine” and “maximise the quality of our examination of the things we do examine,” (ibid: 106) which was important for our research as part of a course over one semester.

First of all, the choice of smokers over non-smokers as our sample was precisely the point because of our focus in looking at the dungeon as a sub-cultural space. The activity of smoking was one of the defining features of a sub-culture in a smoke-free campus such as NUS. We were concerned with examining how this subordinate group of smokers attempted to adjust to the non-smoking rule in NUS as a collective group in the dungeon. Secondly, the regular smokers had identified themselves as being present in the dungeon for most of their time outside of class and hence presented themselves as valuable sources of information about the dungeon as a sub-cultural space in NUS. This was in contrast to the non-regular smokers who only entered the dungeon for the purpose of smoking and subsequently leave after that as well as the non-smokers who only entered the area of the dungeon because they had a class here. Thirdly, the regular smokers in the dungeon had a kind of allegiance to the dungeon that the non-regular smokers did not, in view of the many other smoking places in campus highlighted by the informants. Being part of the regular smoking community, we had, through our daily discourse outside of this research, learnt that the non-regular smokers, unlike the regular smokers, did not view the dungeon as a space that they “claimed” but they would also shun the dungeon in view of certain dangers such as security checks. As non-regulars were often not present in the dungeon except for smoking purposes, we decided that this would not be relevant to our paper. Our focus is on the sub-cultural space of the dungeon and these non-regular smokers who could also be found in other smoking areas would not constitute to the bulk of our qualitative research focus.

Moreover, we also tried to minimise gender differences in the data collected by getting a fair representation of both genders in terms of informants. Three out of the six informants were males while the other three were females. Isabelle interviewed the three female respondents while Wee Loon was responsible for the interviews of the three male respondents. This was because we were not interested in the gendered representations of smokers in the dungeon and we wanted to control this variable. In addition, through the arrangement of same-gender interviews, we tried to arrange as much similarities as possible between the interviewer and interviewee, so that we could relate better to the respondents. This is to ensure a better rapport with the interviewees as interviewer and interviewees from similar backgrounds tend to bring about less different responses as when they are from different backgrounds. Based on the commonalities of the gender, background as both smokers and regular smokers in the dungeon as well as our working-class backgrounds, this would attempt to encourage them to share more personal details as we would be more understanding and high-handed. However, we understood that this did not necessarily meant that all differences were circumvented as we realised that no matter the arrangements, there existed the possibility for the interviewees to “do gender.” (ibid: 300) In this way, we attempted to reduce any discrepancies in data that might have arisen due to gendered representations of the dungeon as a sub-cultural space.

(iii) Focus and scope of data collection
(a) Participant-observations
In setting out to do this research, we wanted to explore the dungeon as a sub-cultural space. With this research focus in mind, we proceeded to observe the dungeon, as mentioned above, at two different timings. The first timing, at twelve noon, allowed us to include in our data, not only the activities of the sample of regular smokers, it also allowed us to observe the interactions of the sample vis-à-vis the non-regular smokers and the non-smokers. The observations also allowed us to understand who used this space of the dungeon and what they used it for. This was to facilitate our understanding of the dungeon as a sub-cultural space, where Stanley Cohen postulated that subordinate groups would be concerned with “winning spaces” in order to live their life without structural restraints. (Kidd, 2002: 119)

The second observation that took place at a later time a week later was similarly important for us to observe in a more focused manner the interaction between the members of the sample group of regular smokers. We had known prior to the observation, that more regular smokers congregate at this time due to our positions as regular smokers of the dungeon ourselves. It also added to our understanding of the information on the usage of the space that we had gathered in the first observation, as the dungeon was comparatively quieter at this point of time and we could also direct more attention to the group of regular smokers, who would form the subordinate group in this sub-culture in the dungeon.

For both observations, we took note of the surroundings in the dungeon, the arrangement of the tables and benches, to see it would tell us anything about the dynamics of the people in the dungeon. We also aimed to find out about if there were any interesting interactions that we as regular smokers ourselves, could have overlooked in our daily experiences in this space. Due to the research focus of the dungeon as a sub-cultural space, we also tried to look for clues as to how the dungeon acted as a sub-cultural space, what might have contributed to this phenomenon, and how it might be different from other parts of the campus. Since the expression “sub-cultural” denoted a resistance against a mainstream culture, we tried as well to look out for any signs that would point out such an exchange, for example when the guards came to patrol. Furthermore, we took pictures of the space of the dungeon to better illustrate the architectural structure of the place. (Please see Appendix)

(b) Semi-structured interviews
In the interviews with our informants, we were interested to add on to our knowledge of the dungeon that we had gathered from the observations. In the interviews, we attempted to find out the reasons why the regular smokers wanted to come to the dungeon in view of the many other smoking places in NUS, how they felt about the non-smokers and the guards that came down to clamp down on smoking activities in the dungeon. We also wanted them to shed light on the norms that were present in the dungeon, which could be different from those in the larger context in NUS. We were interested in how this place has become a sub-cultural space and thus, we were concerned with issues, which would substantiate the culture in the space of dungeon as different from the mainstream dominant culture.
During the interview, we tried to refrain from asking specific questions that limited and led the informants. Instead we asked general and open-ended questions that allowed the informants to express what they felt on a particular subject. For instance, we posed the question of “What does the dungeon mean to you in your NUS life?” The important thing we felt was getting information on how the informants felt about the dungeon and how they perceived the space of the dungeon from their perspective. Through the interviews, it was also possible that the informants could shed light on information that we did not pick up during the observation. As we had been regular smokers in the dungeon, we believed that we would not be as sensitive or curious to the ongoing events in this space; therefore, we looked to the informants to provide observations that we were less observant of.

(iv) Analysis of data
The data collected using the participant-observation method and semi-structured interviews were looked through several times together by both of us. After we got a sense of the information available, we picked out several themes that were recurrent in each set of data. The information pertaining to each theme was then coded using different coloured-highlighters. This technique of interpretive coding was to prove very useful as we could now see more clearly the frequencies of recurring themes and interesting points that were highlighted by informants. The same technique was first applied to the interview data and subsequently to the observation data. The same colour was used for the same themes in the two sets of data. In this way, we could then tell whether a theme was visible in both sets of data and whether it was prominent.

The following colours were employed for the various themes that we picked out from the data. Blue was used for information related to the solidarity between regular smokers and how they felt towards others; green was used to code information pertaining to norms; orange was used for information that explained the dungeon vis-à-vis the other smoking places; pink was for information that related to the environment of the dungeon; yellow was used to code information that was related to the other activities carried out in the dungeon other than smoking; while finally brown was for picking out data that revealed how the informants came to know about the space of the dungeon. These pieces of information were then organised and subsequently presented in the next section as findings, substantiated with existing literature on sub-cultures and spaces.

(V) Findings
(i) Smokers’ experiences in the dungeon and other smoking spots
Through our interviews with six regular smokers in the dungeon, we were informed that they first knew about this place through word-of-mouth or by personal experience. An interviewee revealed that his friends had mentioned the dungeon on the first day he had started school whereas another respondent recalled that his cousin, a second-year student, had recommended him to “go to the dungeon” if he ever needed to smoke as this was “where everyone smoked.” One respondent was pleased that he had chanced upon the dungeon:
“… I had a class over here. And then I walked down and someone was smoking and I was like, ‘Yay! Can smoke!’… when previously I had to go back to PGP (Prince George’s Park Residence) and smoke in my room…”

In addition, when asked if they were aware of other smoking spaces other than the dungeon, five interviewees expressed knowledge, highlighting “a lot of other hidden spots” such as behind LT 11 and LT 8, above the Central Library and the vending machines behind AS6. On a different note, the sixth respondent disclosed that he was “not really aware” of other smoking spaces as he either went to the dungeon or out of school to smoke.

In view of most of their familiarity with other smoking areas, we also posed the question of how the dungeon fared as a smoking area as compared to the others. The dungeon was unanimously chosen among these smoking respondents. Motivations included the “comfort” that they felt in the dungeon, the fact that everyone smoking made them feel “safer”, and how the dungeon was “special” to them. One respondent postulated that it was because “(the smokers) have just been inculcated into the culture of smoking at the dungeon and no place else.” Another interviewee drew a comparison to another smoking area at LT 11 and expounded that “it (was) different there” as it was more “open” and “not so walled up.” Our sixth respondent enunciated very clearly that:
“… will I still smoke at other smoking areas?... No. I have the dungeon.”

(ii) Condition of the environment as an attracting factor to smokers
One common response gathered from the interviews revealed that the environment of the dungeon was a strong motivating factor. Some respondents explicated that it was due to the natural setting the dungeon was located in. To two of them, the dungeon is a “scenic” place with “all the greenery around” and also “shady with circulation.” Some of them felt that it is “a nice place” with “this aura of quietness and familiarity.” One interviewee expressed that “the other places (are) very hot” compared to the dungeon while another indicated that it is “an interesting place which is very soothing.”

Other respondents also expressed gladness at the practical locality of the dungeon, which they unanimously described as “a conveniently located spot.” Another interviewee explained that they would “always pass by (the dungeon) on the way to (their) classes” and thus, they “would naturally smoke there.” Three respondents added that it is “more comfortable” in the dungeon where there are “at least seats” where they could sit “while waiting for their classes.” In general, the interviewees viewed the dungeon as very “accessible” to the other places in school, such as “the Deck (the canteen),” the Central Library and “ADM building (administrative building).”

Interviewees also pointed out that the architectural structure of the dungeon contributed to the cosy environment, where it is “quite out of view” and “quite enclosed.” A respondent illustrated that the dungeon was “reasonably concealed” where they “presumably (would) not be disturbing anyone.” Another interviewee concurred as the dungeon is “secluded” and “not in the general eye of the public.” To her, in spite of the “classes nearby,” the dungeon is “mostly a quiet area” and thus, “people (could) smoke and sit down and chit chat away from the lecturers and the others who do not like smokers.” One respondent felt positively about the dungeon because:
“… it is more homely in a sense, you are cut off from the rest of the school… You are practically walled up on four sides. It feels less intimidating. It’s a small nook… that people come to…”

This sense of cosiness and warmth was pertinent to making the dungeon a comfortable place, which “(grew)” on the smokers who “got used to” smoking there, as one of the respondent fondly explained.

(iii) Dungeon as a space claimed by smokers
The dungeon had been collectively agreed by our interviewees to be a space, which belonged primarily to the smokers in NUS. The extent of this can be seen when a respondent vocalised explicitly that “it has been some time that the dungeon is known for a smoking area” and thus “non-smokers would naturally avoid this place if he or she does not like it.” Smokers have claimed this space, though not “by force”, as an interviewee emphasised strongly. He regarded it as a natural occurrence – “smokers just find (the dungeon) suitable.” Similarly, another interviewee perceived the dungeon as a “created space” for smokers, just like “other spaces are for everybody else” and believed this was the reason why the university authorities had not really clamped down on the dungeon totally. In addition, a respondent identified the dungeon as the creation of “a spot that people identify with,” if they had been there “long enough” to recognise it as “somewhere (they) could have a good time in and people (would) keep coming back.” Comments also revealed that the dungeon is the “only spot that allow(ed) smokers to smoke freely” due to a “seeming on-going culture” and a “place” where smokers could play “hide-and-seek with the security.” One interviewee also expressed his indifference towards the recent spate of recurring security checks in the dungeon and further explained that they “do not really bother” as they had “kind of claim(ed) this place as their own.” Furthermore, because of the “kind of claim” smokers had over the dungeon, he felt that when non-smokers entered, they were “in new territory in some sense.” Similarly, a respondent justified this in his interview that the dungeon was a place that non-smokers would not go to, “unless he or she had classes to attend.” According to his observation as a smoker, non-smokers would choose to “chill” at other benches, avoiding the dungeon as they were “aware that the dungeon is a space for smokers.”

We also noted down interesting objects in the dungeon, which had been there for quite some time based on our past experiences there. Situated beside two of the benches, there is a blue sign with yellow words that states: “THIS IS A SMOKE-FREE CAMPUS”. This was altered with liquid correction pen as the unknown person scrawled “LY” on the sign, making the notice now reading: “THIS IS A SMOKE-FREELY CAMPUS”. In addition, there were stickers pasted on the walls that declared: “Designated Smoking Area”. On another wall, there was a sticker pasted there which read: “Smoking Strictly Prohibited” and there were cancellations and amendments made to it, creating another message: “Smoking NOT Prohibited”.

According to our observations and interviews, apart from smoking, the dungeon was also effectively a space for other activities, prominently because of the benches and tables available. This highlights that smoking was not the only activity carried out in the dungeon. Some respondents indicated that they would “sit (in the dungeon) to do work while smoking,” “sit down and chit chat away” or “eat and work” at the same time. The familiarity of the smokers in the dungeon allowed some to “hang out and chill out.” Three respondents articulated that the benches were a considerably essential part of the dungeon where “people (could) sit down and do their work” and “get work and have their lunch” there. The dungeon was also asserted as “a spot that (one) could have a good time in” and a place where “people would keep (going) back.”

(iv) Smoking: “Point of identity” in the dungeon
The interviewees revealed similar beliefs in the commonality they shared in the dungeon, which facilitated the development of both new and existing friendships. First of all, it was articulated that smokers in the dungeon “tend(ed) to click quite fast” because they “happened to be smokers” and it was their “first point of identity.” Another interviewee also shared that “it (was) pretty easy to pick up a conversation with someone” based on the “commonality that (they smoked).” Four interviewees congruously expressed that “because (they smoked) together, people (were) friendlier” as contrasted against people in other spaces in the school. An interviewee discerned this as “(sharing) this little secret” together of smoking in a “small nook” in the school. From this point onwards, the friendship was grounded and embodied possibilities of development on the same “common grounds of smoking.” Smoking, consistently perceived by the interviewees as “a social activity,” allowed “a bunch of smokers” in the dungeon to “meet rather regularly and frequently.” A respondent demonstrated that smoking “kind of bind(ed) us together” where “in a sense (they had) a shared activity and shared interest.” The sixth interviewee revealed that there was “a certain identity associated with (the dungeon) that (was) very hard to find elsewhere.”

In recent weeks, through our own observations and experiences in the dungeon, new security guards had begun to stamp out smoking heavily on a daily basis. Our respondents had reported to us about how they had grown wary of these “hazards” but this had not stopped them from going to the dungeon to smoke. One interviewee quipped that it would “definitely not” stop smokers from smoking since “it (was) not frequent yet” and he doubted that it was possible to chase away those “very frequent regulars” in the dungeon. Another affirmed that the guards “were not doing anything to (them)” and the other interviewee explained that he would be “tactical” and not smoke “in the presence of the guards” and it did not matter since he “(did) not smoke every five minutes” in the dungeon. He also emphasised that the smokers would “look out for each other” and inform each other when the “hazards” were there. One respondent summed it up by divulging:
“… I think the people here are very cooperative… if they see guards (coming towards the dungeon), they will warn each other…”

In addition, through our observations, we recognised two smokers who had already graduated and were smoking in the dungeon, talking to the regular smokers. Moreover, a respondent had revealed that he had friends who were also graduates but would still go back to the dungeon to see their “smoking friends.” He expressed gladness at seeing his “old friends” who were the ones who introduced the dungeon to him in the first place.
(v) Smokers as the “in-group” versus non-smokers as the “out-group”
Several interviewees caught our attention as to how they distinguished themselves as a united community of smokers in the dungeon. One of these respondents first highlighted that “the smoker community is unique in a sense that (they) are in some ways kind of ostracised” against the larger non-smoking community and proceeded to construe that it is therefore “a sense of identity and unity” in that sense “against the non-smokers.” Despite the alienation the smokers felt, they had, however, regarded themselves as the in-group whereas their non-smoking counterparts formed the “out-group.” This is evident when one of the interviewees, who revealed that he was disgruntled at the negative behaviour of non-smokers in the dungeon, enunciated forcefully that the latter are “being marginalised here.” He described them as “the other people,” those who “walk here (and) cover their noses,” and appeared as though “they are some illegal immigrants” or “god knows what.” He further emphasised strongly that the smokers are “the ones going around and smoking.” In another interview, a respondent elucidated that those non-smokers who are “quite self-righteous” and “start waving their hands in front of their faces” in the midst of the smokers would find difficulties fitting in the community in the dungeon. Another respondent enunciated that “obviously non-smokers would feel uncomfortable with the smell” of “cigarettes and the dungeon” and would not be able to fit in with the community. The other interviewee postulated if the non- smokers are “open to second hand smoke” but further rationalised that even if they “do not mind second hand smoke,” it would “be a funny thing to see them” in the dungeon and they would seem “unnatural.” He illustrated that he had a non-smoking colleague who was constantly “teased” for hanging out with the smokers as to why he would want to “come for a cocktail buffet of second hand smoke.” Moreover, through our observations, the non-smoking students who did stay in the dungeon were often waiting for their classes in the dungeon to begin and would not stay any longer than that.
Another one of our six interviewees cited instances when she sometimes felt inconsiderate towards “the people who have to come (to the dungeon) inevitably” for classes and who might not be smokers. However, she stressed that she did not give so much thought to “people who (go there) to sit and give that kind of irritated look.” Lastly, when posed the question of how one would react in an imaginary situation where another person came up to him in the dungeon and asked him not to smoke, one respondent declared that he would feel “frustrated and irritated.” He perceived this as an “infringement of (his) private space” as “smoking is part of a smoker’s life.” He continued to vocalise how he would “probably stare at the person and give him a blunt face” and then “light another cigarette.”

(vi) Sub-cultural norms of smokers in the dungeon
Through our participant-observations and interviews, we observed and inquired about the norms of smokers in this subculture, which was uncommon or would not be easily understood by non-smokers in the dominant culture. Our respondents have singled out a few for us, namely how they could “actually make friends (there)” and “people would offer cigarettes,” and it was “easier to make friends” as “people are more friendly.” One recalled fondly how they could “sometimes borrow lighters” and thus “strike a conversation easily.”

The respondents consistently highlighted the jargon of smokers such as “bumping off cigarettes,” which they explained as “stealing cigarettes” from “fellow smokers” in the dungeon. One interviewee stressed that he did not think “non smokers could understand these lingo.” He provided another example of how “when someone lights a cigarette for you,” one is supposed to “cover your hand over the fire” and “tap on his fingers twice when it’s done” as a form of “polite gesture.” Another respondent believed that the “norms in the dungeon are very highly contextual” as “these actions are not easily understood by outsiders.” He drew our attention to how if another smoker took out a cigarette, he would follow suit and if another smoker did not have a lighter, he would “naturally feel like passing a lighter or help the other person light.” He concluded that “all these small actions are not understood or practised by non-smokers at all.”

Through our observations, we noticed a paper posted on one of the walls, which wrote: “To the person who left your library book on the bench, no worries as I have helped you returned it already!” After interviews with the respondents, they revealed that it was “common” that smokers in the dungeon would “constantly look out for each other.” For instance, a few explained that if someone was to leave his or her belongings around, they would “naturally” leave the things on top of the lockers, “out of view” so that the person could retrieve it the next day. It was perceived by most of the smokers as a “common practice” and a respondent also recalled how he had left a file behind to find it on top of the lockers the next day. Similarly, if they were aware that there were guards coming into the dungeon, they would “naturally warn the smokers,” even those whom they “hardly know of” but have seen around in the dungeon.

(VI) Interpretations of Findings
Our research had aimed to explore the dungeon as a sub-cultural space in NUS and our observations and interviews have generated findings, which have largely supported our hypothesis. We shall now expound and analyse our data in this section of the paper.

(i) The dungeon as a sub-cultural space for smokers
To begin with, we were concerned with the issue as to why the space of the dungeon had particularly become a sub-cultural space for smokers in NUS, as opposed to the other smoking spots. Thus, we first systematically began our field research through posing questions of how the respondents first knew about the dungeon and how the dungeon fared among the other smoking spots. As seen in the findings above, the interviewees had revealed that they had first been initiated into this sub-culture of smoking in the dungeon through the word of mouth or by personal experience as the dungeon was often touted among smokers and non-smokers as ‘where everyone smoked’. This is pertinent in understanding how the dungeon has first retained its long running tradition of the sub-culture of smoking throughout these years, even though different cohorts of undergraduates had graduated and moved on. This sub-culture has been “continually created, re-created and modified” wherever individuals “sensed in each other’ similar needs”, generated by “like circumstances” as seen in the whole system in NUS which has relegated the smokers into a subordinate group. In addition to this, from our respondents as well as observations, the dungeon had been pointed out as a space for previous batches of NUS smokers and sometimes the graduates would even go back to see their old smoker-friends in the dungeon. This supports Gelder and Thornton’s (1997) conceptualisation that subcultures “once established” may “persist” but not by “sheer inertia.” They may achieve a life, which “outlasts that of the individuals who participated in its creation,” but also so long as it “continues to serve the needs of those who succeed in its creators.” (Gelder and Thornton, 1997: 51) The dungeon has thus been supported here as a sub-cultural space where the culture continually gets perpetuated and reproduced. In the dungeon, it is not only a smoking spot for regular smokers where it is a one-off event where they congregate to smoke and leave. They have instead claimed this space to resist against the structural forces, which have caused problems – in this case, they have not been allowed to smoke on campus – and this is a sub-cultural space, which may persist as long as the dungeon allows them to share their “similar problems of adjustment” in a group solution. (Gelder and Thornton, 1997: 51) However, due to our focus in interviewing only the current batch of regular smokers in the dungeon for this paper, this data is limited and would be better substantiated if we had more time and could interview the regular smokers who had graduated as well as the new batches of regular smokers in the next few semesters. Our data can instead shed light on how the sub-cultural space of the dungeon has possibly been sustained as a juxtaposition to the larger dominant non-smoking community in NUS.

In addition, the dungeon stood out as a preferred smoking area for the regular smokers whom we interviewed and this was supported by the majority of them being aware of the existence of other smoking areas in school but still chose the dungeon primarily. When asked to compare between them, most of the respondents tended to draw on the benefits of smoking in the dungeon and expounded less on the disadvantages of smoking in other spots in NUS and this also illustrated how the interviewees first regarded the dungeon positively, above other smoking areas. Drawing on how a respondent asserted strongly that “No. I have the dungeon” in a straightforward and matter-of-fact manner in response to our previous question, this suggests how the dungeon has become a space that he has claimed to have, in contrast to the other smoking spots. This part of the finding emphasises the importance of the dungeon as a sub-cultural space; where at least amongst our interviewees, the dungeon has clinched a favourite spot in their choices of smoking areas. This is also important because to examine if the dungeon is a sub-cultural space, it must first be a space that Schouten and McAlexander (1995) postulated as where a distinctive group has claimed on the “basis of a shared consumption activity”. (Haslop, Hill and Schmidt, 1998)

Furthermore, through the interviews we conducted, the dungeon’s environment also surfaced to us as a motivating factor for the respondents to smoke in that space. There were three main components that we noted out from their responses: the dungeon’s accessibility; scenic environment and secluded location made it a suitable basis for a sub-cultural space for smokers in NUS. This is very important, given how smoking had been banned in NUS and the sub-culture which developed there had to be contained in a relatively enclosed space, where it would be out of public view but still accessible enough for the smokers to carry out their smoking openly. The condition of spaces is very pertinent in the suitability for sub-cultures to develop and in our research, it is more important as the main activities conducted in the space of the dungeon is illegal and liable to fines and warnings from the NUS authorities. Spaces in NUS represented the larger, dominant ideology of non-smoking and law-abiding whereas the dungeon represented a space of resistance to this ideology where the regular smokers are relatively away from public view and are able to adjust to this problem of structural constraints. The suitability of the space is thus essential in understanding how dungeon is then able to “serve to objectify the shared meaning” that the subordinate group of regular smokers “need to reinforce” in one another, becoming a sub-cultural space in the context of NUS. (Edelman, 1978) This concept of the importance of the space of the dungeon in developing and maintaining a sub-culture will be further elaborated by Isabelle in the later section of the paper in the Annex.

The dungeon, as perceived by our interviewees, has become primarily a space for smokers and our respondents also postulated that the non-smokers perceived this space similarly. This is supported by how we observed the non-smokers staying in the dungeon only when they have classes there. Interestingly, as a respondent had previously expressed, the dungeon has not been claimed by “force” by the smokers and some of the other interviewees also shared this common belief that it was a natural progression since there are spaces created for everyone. In view of the “claim” that our respondents believed themselves to have over the dungeon, they also posited that the non-smokers were in unfamiliar new territories when the latter stepped into the place. This can be alluded to how Stanley Cohen (1987) identified that subordinate groups are concerned with “winning spaces” in an attempt to claim their “communities… identities and life-styles.” (Kidd, 2002: 19) Through this, Cohen perceived the subordinate group as having won both ‘personal and symbolic spaces’ needed to live a life without the structural restraints. (ibid: 19) Similarly, the dungeon is seen to have become a space fundamentally and specifically for regular smokers. Our respondents’ emphasis of the “claim” that regular smokers have over the dungeon are very telling as it implies that there is a need to assert a form of ownership of the space in the dungeon because of their membership in an oppressed community of smokers in the context of NUS. This is very important as it may have strengthened their connotation amid “flux” and of order amid “uncertainty” in the campus, which restricts their smoking activities. Wilkinson and Kitzinger (1994) conceptualised this as necessary due to how the membership of an oppressed group has to be claimed “tenaciously” in contrast to dominant group membership. (Haslop, Hill and Schmidt, 1998) The latter was readily “taken as given” and because of “its place in mainstream culture,” it did not require “conscious allegiance” in the same way that membership of a subordinate group did. (ibid: 1998) Hence, the claiming of the dungeon for the sub-culture of smoking in NUS is pertinent in understanding how it allowed the smokers to establish a form of identification with the place. It can be implied that the subordinate group of smokers in juxtaposition of the dominant non-smoking community in NUS thus managed to assert their claim over the dungeon through their smoking activities. They have thus created a subculture, as a form of “resistance,” which is a “challenge to the structural forces.” These structural forces can be understood as the larger dominant group which views smoking as deviant and illegal in NUS. However, the data is limiting as these are suggested from six of the many regular smokers in the dungeon and may not represent the whole entire view of the community there. Yet, given that this is an empirically driven paper, this data is useful in shedding light of how some regular smokers perceive the dungeon and can generate a lot of insights which can be further investigated upon.

The above examples have demonstrated that the dungeon is a sub-cultural space for smokers. However, we want to highlight that this does not limit the activities carried out in the dungeon as solely smoking; evident from our interview responses and observations, the smoking community “eat and work” or “sit down and chitchat as well.” The dungeon could thus be seen to facilitate personal activities (such as studying) or social activities (such as chatting and smoking). It is more conducive because of the benches available; without them, the respondents revealed that they would probably “not stay there” and would “just smoke and leave.” Hence, the presence of sitting facilities promotes the dungeon even stronger as a suitable space for smokers. As a respondent had postulated, if the benches are removed, the dungeon would probably be a normal place for students, regardless of whether they smoked, to hang around slightly before classes. The smokers would, thus, not be inclined to integrate socially as a community against the dominant structures because the space of the dungeon would have relatively lost some of its value as a space of “resistance” if they are unable to sit on the benches and hand out. Moreover, the dungeon can be analysed to be a sub-culture space for smokers as they are not only able to smoke relatively openly here; they can also carry out activities such as eating, studying and talking. All these contribute to a sense of community amongst the smokers, as they are able to hang around here even when they are not smoking. As smokers do not smoke at every moment, the dungeon has become a space where they can do other things other than smoking and thus, strengthening the space claimed by the smokers.

In concert with the dungeon being claimed by the smokers as their space, we can witness the resistance that the smokers put up in this space through the physical manifestations of the discontent with existing rules. The signs in the dungeon that demonstrated the ideas of the dominant culture, namely the “Smoking strictly prohibited” sign and the “THIS IS A SMOKE-FREE CAMPUS” sign became tools of such resistance. By altering the message that these signs from the NUS authorities attempt to perpetuate, the smokers, members of the sub-culture tried to impose their beliefs in this space, that NUS should be a “smoke-freely” campus and smoking should not be prohibited. The dungeon has become a place to redress the injustice they feel about their situation and provides the opportunity to articulate safely “the assertion and aggression” against the dominant culture. Hence, this suggests that the dungeon is indeed a sub-cultural space for resistance of the smokers through our observations of the actions displayed by sub-cultural community in NUS. This data is useful and more significant because it is not solely based on the interviews we carried out, but also generated from our observations in general.

(ii) Smoking as a point of identity in the sub-cultural space of dungeon
From our interviews, smokers faced problems due to the ban of smoking in the institution and had been relegated to the subordinate group within a larger community of non-smokers. Hence, they based their membership in the community in the dungeon based on their first point of identity: smoking. As the interviewees had shared, the “commonality” that they smoke became a basis of how easily friendships in the dungeon were built and developed. Collectively agreed that smoking is a “social activity,” the community of smokers served as a “reference group,” where these actors with “similar problems of adjustment” formed membership of a group as they were “similarly circumstanced within the group.” (Gelder and Thornton, 1997: 48) Like how a respondent expounded that smoking “binds” them together as they “share this little” secret of smoking in a “small nook” in the dungeon, smoking helped the smoker to feel that he was “a member of the group” and experienced “genuinely solidarity” which he could “count on.” (Jenks, 2005: 86) Since NUS is a no-smoking campus, this common identity of being smokers helped to bind them together as they faced problems against the dominant structures as well as the fact they were smoking illegally on the campus. The sixth interviewee who had distinguished that a certain identity associated with the dungeon was very hard to find elsewhere” reinforced this notion of the point of identity of smoking, which the smokers found common among themselves. Hence, as Albert Cohen had postulated, this subculture is “serviceable” and “viable” precisely because it “entails the emergence of a certain amount of group solidarity and heightened interaction among the participants in the sub-culture.” (Gelder and Thornton, 1997: 52) It was only through the interaction of fellow smokers who “share” the same values that the individual actor finds “social validation for his beliefs and social rewards for his way of life,” which has been labelled as “deviant” and “illegal” in the context of the dominant non-smoking community in NUS. (ibid: 52) This continued existence of the group and “friendly intercourse” with the members in the subordinate community of smokers thus became “values for the actors” to be motivated and validated for their actions. (ibid: 52) However, our data collection here is limited as it reflects how smoking, particularly in the space of the dungeon, helps to form a first point of identity among smokers in NUS but it is not necessarily indicative of a special phenomenon only contained within this space. After all, smoking has already been commonly perceived as a “social activity” in general which helps to form friendships easily elsewhere. More importantly, our data has been able to support how the identity of smokers help to contribute to this sub-culture in the dungeon and suggests that the sub-culture in the dungeon is formed within the community of regular smokers.

(iii) Smokers as the “in-group” versus non-smokers as the “out-group”
Despite being “ostracised” against the larger non-smoking community in NUS, the interviewees considered themselves as a united community of smokers in the dungeon where it is the smokers against the non-smokers. This highlighted how the respondents conceptualised themselves as the in-group whereas the non-smokers are the out-group. For instance, as one of the respondent vocalised, the non-smokers often displayed negative actions like “covering their noses” and “appearing as though they are some illegal immigrants” or “god knows what.” He emphasised that the non-smokers are the ones “marginalised” in the dungeon. The negative connotations of his feedback shed light on how he perceived the non-smokers as a different group altogether and were the problematic ones whom he did not identify with. Interviewees conducted also revealed the regular smokers’ awareness of non-smokers who were “self-righteous” and often reacted negatively to the smoking in the dungeon. This could have been a catalyst, which further motivated them to posit themselves as a group of united smokers against the non-smokers.

This is supported by how Jenks (2005) viewed the sub-cultural members as “seek(ing) protection from the outside and solidarity on the inside.” The subordinate group of smokers in NUS, being oppressed by the non-smoking restraints set by NUS authorities, do not have the “respect” in which the non-smokers hold in contingent upon the agreement of the beliefs that the former profess and norms that the former observe with the latter’s norms and beliefs. (Gelder and Thornton, 1997: 47) Facing hostility and the lack of recognition from the outside, they now seek to be validated within the group of smokers. The non-smokers thus have a tendency to “relax” when there are people who think and feel as they do whom they do not have to “defend” themselves from. (ibid: 47) Albert Cohen (1955) believed that consensus is rewarded by “acceptance”, “recognition” and respect” and more importantly, it is the “most important criterion of the validity of the frame of reference which motivates and justifies” their conduct. (ibid: 47) Having the understanding and acceptance by fellow smokers who similarly face the ban of smoking and flout the school rules of no-smoking, this justifies and motivates the smokers who are basing the validity of their beliefs and norms on the “reference group” of regular smokers in the dungeon.

In addition, Gelder and Thornton (1997) expressed that “the new sub-culture of the community will come to include hostile and contemptuous images of those groups whose enmity they have earned.” This explained why the subordinate community of smokers viewed the non-smokers as outsiders in context of the larger non-smoking community in NUS. “Non-conformity with the expectations of the outsiders” is a “positive criterion of status” within the community of smokers and as Albert Cohen (1995) postulated, because of the “hostility of the outsiders,” members of sub-cultural groups were motivated to look for one another for support. (Gelder and Thornton, 1997: 52) This thus further “accentuates the separateness of the (sub-cultural group),” the “dependence of the members on the group” as well as “the richness and individuality of its subculture.” (ibid: 52) Lastly, Fritz Redl conceptualised the term “protective provocation” for smokers whose behaviour may “encounter strong resistances” in the larger context of NUS. (ibid: 53) Through “unconscious motivations” to act precisely in ways that would “stimulate others to expressions of anger and hostility,” the smokers could “seize upon” these as “evidences of their essential enmity and ill will” and were then “absolved of (their own) motivations towards these outsiders.” (ibid: 53) They were then freer to “act without ambivalence” and this hostility of the out-group, thus “engendered or aggravated,” would protect the in-group from “mixed feelings about its own way of life.” (ibid: 53) Therefore, the distinction between the non-smokers and the smokers into the respective categories of the “out-group” and in-group” is very important in understanding how the sub-culture in the space of the dungeon has developed according to resistance against the dominant group, which in this case is the non-smokers. It is essential that a binary opposition be imposed against the others (non-smokers) as this would help strengthen the solidarity within the group, which effectively protects them from the larger dominant community in NUS.

(v) Sub-cultural norms of smokers in the dungeon
Through our observations, we were interested to explore if the cultural norms in the dungeon differed from those of the mainstream culture of NUS. As seen in the findings, we noted down examples of how smokers would look after each other in the dungeon. For instance, the paper posted on the wall, which informed the person who had left his or her library book behind that the book was safely returned, appeared that some smokers would help each other and were not selfish or apathetic. Through our interviews, we also discovered that some respondents were on the receiving end of the generally supportive and helpful atmosphere in the dungeon. This, after analysis, stood out strongly as very different from the normal cultural norms in NUS, where most people would mind their own business and help to keep the belongings left behind by others. Given the general detached and cold environment, which the meritocratic and individual academic system in NUS has created, the students generally have no formal classmates due to the modular-based system and the campus does not have a particular space for gathering and social activities. Even in the canteen, space is limited and many people often eat and go. Unless one is active in curricular activities, the academic environment would be detached, alienating and cold to many. In contrast, the helpful gestures of the smokers in the dungeon, no matter how small, suggested how the community of smokers enjoyed a sense of trust and understanding which was often unspoken. Another example of generosity and rapport shared in the subculture of the dungeon was how cigarettes were graciously and charitably offered to those smokers who lacked some. This would stand in contrast to the general cold and detached environment of NUS at large, where people are generally more competitive and individualistic. Another polite gesture of covering the cigarette for another smoker while he or she smoked also indicated a shared sub-cultural norm among smokers. This would be later expounded by Wee Loon in the Annex.

Albert Cohen (1955) postulated that “for every role (in a group),” there are “certain kinds of actions and belief” which functioned, “as truly and effectively as do uniforms and membership cards,” as “signs of membership.” (Gelder and Thornton, 1997: 47) Hence, the sub-cultural community of smokers in the dungeon “covet such membership” to the degree that they were motivated to “assume those signs, to incorporate them into (their) behaviour and frame of reference.” (ibid: 47) The smokers in the dungeon thus exhibited and practised sub-cultural norms; those which interviewees strongly expressed would not be “easily understood by non-smokers at all.” Cohen further explicated that “such new status criteria” as a participant in a sub-culture would “represent new sub-cultural values,” “different from or even antithetical to those of the larger status system.” (ibid: 51) Therefore, in view of how the academic atmosphere of NUS unwittingly promoted individualism and detachment among the students, the sub-cultural norms of the smokers stood out as strikingly distinctive, unique to their community in the dungeon. As part of the smoking community, this was a surprising observation pointed out to us by a non-smoker, who could not understand this friendly and generous phenomenon. This in itself highlighted how the dungeon was indeed a sub-cultural space as Cohen conceived, the norms were “shared only among these actors who stand somehow to profit from them and find in one another a sympathetic moral climate within which these norms may come into fruition and persist.” (ibid: 51) Hence, in NUS where structural restraints limited the smokers, smokers find a “group solution” by forming a community in the dungeon and continually create, re-create and modify this sub-culture through the norms. In essence, this sub-culture was generated by “like circumstances,” not perpetuated “generally in the larger system.” (ibid: 51)

(VII) Strengths and weaknesses
As Mason highlighted correctly, that the “chosen method(s)” would have “influence” on the “setting and interactions” within it as well as the observer’s very “presence.” In the course of research, it was imperative that we understood our own strengths and limitations so that we know the impacts they have on our data collection as well as the strengths and limits of our research and so that we could incorporate them into future researches.

(i) Strengths
Our first strength came from our position as regular smokers of the dungeon. This allowed us to stay around the dungeon without incurring suspicion from the other regular smokers. This was an advantage compared to a non-smoker and non-regular smoker who could be easily spotted by the regulars, as one of our informant highlighted that these people would appear “out of place.” Hence we could carry out our observations easily and unobtrusively. Secondly, because we are regular smokers of this place, we had established the rapport with the informants. This allowed us to gain their trust easily and reduce their inhibitions as they see us as one of their own, making possible the interviews on a subject that was somewhat sensitive as they were after all engaged in an “illegal” activity in the context of NUS. Since this is a sensitive topic to write about for a submitted paper, it was important, as these regular smokers would be more trusting to release information about their unapproved activities. More importantly, the smokers whom we interviewed were not put off by us and this would have been different if we had been non-smokers, who, as seen in our interviews, were seen as the outsiders.

Our second strength stemmed from our position as regular smokers and members of the in-group at the dungeon, though this time it is more relevant in terms of the time that we spent in our site of research. As mentioned in the introduction, this research topic was not one that we had undertaken originally, hence we would naturally have less time available in terms of data collection. However, due to our daily presence in the dungeon, we made up for the loss time by smaller bite-size observations that we could perform while carrying out our daily activities such as studying and eating. We would also have access to data from our daily interactions with the regular smokers in the dungeon that a non-regular smoker and non-smoker would not have.

Our third strength was based on the commonality that we shared with the informants. As regular smokers in the dungeon, our ability to speak and understand the lingo used by our informants was an advantage as they could relate better to us. To begin with, we were already friends and as such, we were already speaking the same language as them. Thus they did not need to adjust their language to accommodate us, this also meant that they could express themselves more freely. For example, we did not need them to explain terms like “bumping off” or “stealing cigarettes”, which our informant used readily. These terms could not be taken literally yet explaining them would have resulted in a loss of meaning. In addition, if the informants had to rephrase their words to express what they wanted to say in terms of sub-cultural norms such as “bumping off” cigarettes, the words would have already lost their meanings.

The next strength we had came, unexpectedly, from the change of choice of research topic. As this was not the first time that we conducted interviews, we had the benefit of additional practice such that we were able to exercise more effective interviewing skills for this research. This is not to say that we were seasoned interviewers; however, the observation exercise and analysis, the interview exercise and analysis, as well as the in-class critique of our previous works did allow us to understand our shortcomings in terms of qualitative data collection, putting us in better stead for this research paper. For example, we now know better to appropriately use probes. For Wee Loon, he was conscious about noting down verbal as well as non-verbal cues during the interview while Isabelle reminded herself not to interrupt her respondents. All these were based on how they had fared in their previous interview exercises for this module and adjustments and improvement were made by us in the attempt to be better interviewers. This was also true for our observations as we were more aware of our weaknesses and strengths in taking notes and we became more conscious of observing the smoking area without being too focused on specific parts. This hence allowed us to generate and support our hypothesis with our empirical evidence.

The last but not the least of our strengths found its source from our choice of research topic. Our topic of research, the dungeon as a sub-cultural space, was one that was just about the right size for a research project of one semester. Its advantage laid in the proximity of the research site, the size of the physical space as well as the scope to be covered. In this case, the topic was suitable as a broader topic would meant that we would not be able to cover the necessary grounds in one semester while on the contrary a narrower topic would turn out insufficient for a module of this size.


(ii) Limitations
One of the first limitations we encountered was that, as members of the regular smoking crowd that we are researching on, our position and knowledge of the subject matter on the one hand brought about insights that outsiders would not understand. On the other hand, we brought with us the same kind of bias that an outsider would not have into the project. For one, in retrospect, we felt that as regular smokers in the dungeon, we were not as sensitive in the discussion of the dungeon as a sub-cultural space. As we ourselves were subsumed in the sub-culture, we were less curious about the points that are brought up by the informants. For example, we were not consciously looking out for the sub-cultural norms prevalent in the dungeon as we were often exposed to them and thus took them for granted. It was only until we conducted our first interview that the interviewee had raised the issue of sub-cultural norms that we realised this was an important issue. We thus incorporated this issue subsequently into our questions. This thus highlights how we have been oblivious to important concepts in the dungeon due to our positions as regular smokers and our lack of relative experience in observations. Certain times, we realised that there were areas that we could explore further with the informants but we did not due to the understanding we had and the knowledge of the topic that we might have assumed ourselves to have. For instance, we collectively feel that we could have inquired about how the regular smokers feel about smoking in front of the blue sign that prohibited smoking in the campus, but because of the shortage of time, we were unable to probe further on this issue.

The second problem that we encountered was that the informants and us were personal friends. Hence there might arise a situation in which the informants responded to our queries in ways that they may think we wanted them to respond or ways which would be socially desirable so as not to be judged by us. As a result, they might not be as candid or real in their responses and thus, we may not be able to gather information as accurately as we would have liked. In addition, we also found ourselves shaping our behaviour, as we were conscious of the fact that they might be judging us even though we were the interviewers. In sum, there were the interviewer and interviewee effects, for both interviewers and informants, to respond in more socially acceptable manners, possibly affecting the “realness” of the data collection.

In addition to the interviewer and interviewee effects as stated above, we were also affected by the interviewer and interviewee effect in another way. As we had two different interviewers, we brought with us, different interviewing skills and interviewer effects into the data that we collected. During our examination of the data that we collected separately, we took to issues various points of the interviews such as how some questions could have been explored further or how the direction of the interview should have gone. Although having more than one person working on the project meant that we could provide important feedbacks to each other, it also meant that the data collection process was inconsistent with each bringing his or her strengths as well as weaknesses into the project. For example, Isabelle tended to interrupt her interviewees even though she tried to minimise the frequencies of the interruptions. Wee Loon, however, had the tendency to let the interviewees lead the conversation even as he tried to steer the interviews towards a more focused direction. Even though we had taken notice of it and got better with each interview, this was undeniably an obvious weakness that we carried in.

The next problem that we encountered was the issue with time. Like previously mentioned, we had to change to this topic of research rather late into the semester, which meant that we were greatly disadvantaged in terms of the amount of time we had to carry out our data collection. Even though we pointed out in the “Strengths” section that we could made up for loss time by adding informal, ad hoc daily observations into our data collection, it was undeniable that such observations would not yield the same quality of data as if we had the time to carry out planned and purposeful observations. Adding to that, we realised that the dynamics in the dungeon had changed since the beginning of the semester as a result of the impending examinations. Consequently, the observations that were carried out during this late period had brought about different information from what we would have collected if we had carried out the observations at an earlier point during the semester.

In relation to the previous point, a good qualitative researcher should collect his data, take it back and go through it to look for areas that needed to be strengthen and explored further, go back to his informants, interview them again and repeat this process so as to “produce rounded and contextual understandings on the basis of rich, nuanced and detailed data.” (Mason, 2006: 3) We felt that this should also have been what we should do. Though we did go back to our informants again, we could not do it more than once due to time constraints. The result was the existence of questions that we wanted to explore and develop further but could not.

Another limitation, we felt, was that we did not survey the other smoking sites. As the activity of smoking, which in a way defined the dungeon as a sub-cultural space, is also carried out in other spots in the campus, it would be interesting to survey the other sites in order to understand the differences between the dungeon and the former. This would give us greater understanding as to why the dungeon stood out as a sub-cultural space. It would also give more justification to the title of sub-cultural space of the dungeon as it was not limited to the information gathered from the users of that space, which might be biased towards it.
Because of the nature of our qualitative research, our analysis on data has not been “derived from a sample that is representative of a wider population”, as compared to that of a quantitative research. (Mason, 2006: 195) This could be a limiting factor in this paper but we would like to emphasis that we are not attempting to make “empirical generalisations”. This paper has sought to generate data for us to come up with concepts to perceive the dungeon as a sub-cultural space. On hindsight, we could have compared the “characteristics of our sample of interviewees” to the characteristics of the wider population from which they were drawn from, to further support our case that there is “no reason to suspect atypicality” in helping us strengthen our generalising “theoretically”. (ibid: 195) Hence, this is a limiting factor that due to the lack of time, we were unfortunately unable to establish. This could have helped us to build a stronger foundation for our theories in this paper.

Moreover, because of the sensitive nature of this topic, we had to be extra careful due to how we would be endangering our interviewees’ identities (as well as ours) as the activity of smoking is outlawed in NUS. This was problematic because we could not take pictures with people’s faces clearly shown and we had to be additionally careful about our observations and interviews. We thus decided that even though our photographs were very useful in portraying the dungeon as a sub-cultural space, we were unable to use them and had to crop some parts away. As our interviewees trusted us a lot to not reveal their personal information, there were a lot of responsibilities on us to be ethical and discerning. This was something we had learned through the previous interview exercises, which we believe we have thus managed much better, and is an example of how we have turned this limitation into a strength.

One last point on the limitations of our project hinges on the nature of study on sub-culture. The existence of the dungeon as a sub-cultural space is not a recent development and it had its beginning in cohorts of students that have since graduated. In contrast, our research is time specific in the sense that it is applicable only to this semester. This made us understand the “ahistoricity” of our paper and that a qualitative longitudinal study of the dungeon over several semester would give us better understanding of the dungeon as a sub-cultural space. Nonetheless, our study gave us good insight into this phenomenon and is a good starting point for further research into this area.

(VIII) Conclusion
In this section, we will reiterate what was there to be performed in this essay and how we went about it. In this paper, we aimed to examine the dungeon as a sub-cultural space amidst the overriding norms of the general student population and the spatial arrangements of the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences at the National University of Singapore, which supplied the contexts for our in-depth interviews and ethnographic study.

Our qualitative research regarding participant-observations and interviews on smokers who spent a substantial amount of time in the dungeon supported our hypothesis that the dungeon indeed qualified as a sub-cultural space. We deduced that the dungeon was a sub-cultural space because of the following.

It was a space where there was smoking, a social activity that the mores of the larger undergraduate population frowned upon and the hegemonic school administration outlawed. In addition, the social actors that participated in these activities used the dungeon as a space for resisting a regulation that they felt was unjust. Furthermore, through the interactions between the smokers and the non-smokers, there was a boundary that demarcated the in-group and out-group of the sub-culture. This contrast between the two groups demonstrated the resistance through which the in-group claimed the space of the dungeon through non-violent means, and where the members of the dominant culture of the non-smokers in the larger NUS context would avoid. Lastly, the sub-cultural norms, which were specific to the members of the group and not easily understood by outsiders, could be observed among the members. These norms did not only include certain types of behaviours but also certain lingo as demonstrated in this paper.

As previously mentioned, this study, despite its limitations, gave us a good insight into the space of the dungeon as a sub-cultural. As we explained, this phenomenon of the dungeon as a sub-cultural space would be better understood in a qualitative longitudinal study, which would allow us to see its development as well as better qualify it as a true sub-cultural space rather than a one semester, short term event. Even so, this study is a good starting point with which we can proceed on to the longitudinal study. Secondly, by understanding the dungeon as a sub-cultural space and its development and resistance with the mainstream dominant culture as present in the larger NUS context, we can get a glimpse of the development and resistance of sub-cultures in the society at large.

Last Semester

The day has finally arrived, when I start the final semester of my undergraduate days.

7 semesters, including 1 in Paris, only made me jaded and tired. The constant idea of schoolwork and money problems looming over my head, In addition to the less than satisfactory results.

1 A+, 1 B+, 1 B, and 2 B minuses consigns me to the rank of 3rd class Honours. In this final semester, I can only wish for better performance, to the ring of an average B+, so that this last year will not be in vain.

human-age

Even wondered how life was like in pre-historic times?

Join me in Human-age, a simulation game that brings through time from pre-historic time to the 21st century.

Please add my name Ng Wee Loon when joining so that I'll reap the benefits of referral. =D

Travelogue

Dear Friends,

I am now in Paris. I have taken some pictures and started a new blog.

They will soon be available on looninparis.blogspot.com.

See me there.

Amities,
Parisien Lune

Suicidal

Is it me?
Or does the last post look suicidal?

Oh my god!
I'm suicidal!
The impossible has happened!

I need...
PROFESSIONAL HELP!
Quick! give me the number for the hitman!

Haha... Yah right...

Nothing

Managerial economics tutorial,
French presentation,
French oral test,
German tutorial,
French lecture,
History term paper,
German lecture,
Sociology tutorial,
French test...

The list just goes on...
This is only for this week...

More than half the semester...
Still not motivated...
Totally disinterested...
Somewhat disillusioned...

Wish I can just sleep...
Never wake up...
Nothing to do...
Nothing to think about...
Nothing to fret about...
Nothing to be sad about...
Nothing to be angry about...
Nothing to be puzzled about...
Nothing to wonder...

Nothing to complain about...

Lessons learnt

A few lessons today;
Ain't it great that we learn something new everyday.

1) Never double book.
Things don't always go as plan. You never know what happens and things happen impromptu.

2) Never use a real person as a chip.
Using a third party is sometimes a good way to value-add. But never use a real person.
Make someone up. You never know when your friend will call and you get into deep shit.

3) Don't over-do it.
When value-adding, moderation is the key.
When told too often, jokes will be taken as truth.
You lose a friend because she now has to be avoided to prevent misunderstandings.

4) Words are double-edged
When saying something, avoid ambiguity at all cost.
Think carefully before saying.

That's all folks for today.
Lack of sleep equals can only remember so much

Stagnant

This blog has been stagnant for so long.
In a way it's good.
I usually gets inspired when I am down.

Things had been going pretty well.
Work's work and school's school.
Nothing spectacular.

But today is not a good day.
Woke up late.
Had been up all night studying
For the first French test of this semester
But it wasn't good.

Then said wrong things
Did wrong things
Hope things will clear in the next few days

Had a long chat with an old friend
Haven't seen her in more than half a year
So did some catching up.

Some things to do in the coming days,
Hope they get done.

神

At a dark and rainy morning
When the wind blows cold
And the sky covered by a veil
Even a god
Can fail

As the sun rises in the east
His rays held back by the clouds
The earth cold, and dark

A gentle hum in my ear
A loud horn in the distance
A continuous crow
A ring of smoke

Invisible words
A lone silhouette
Endless movement
In a darkness like no other

I feel a need
A need for blood
Let there be blood
Blood on the dance floor

Mundane blogs

Remembered that I read somewhere
Somebody said that
Singaporeans blog about the most mundane things
What they did for the day
What they had for dinner
yada yada yada.....
blah blah blah....

And so
I've decided
My blog will be intellectual

I will post my essays from my studies in the uni
Not that they are any good
Only average stuff
Judging from my grades.......
Haha

Enjoy =)

Singapore Society: Foreign Talents

Introduction and Methodology

Singapore is a cosmopolitan city that consists of more than 4 million people. Among this population of 4 million people, there are a significant number of foreigners, ranging from construction worker, maids to expatriates. This number of foreigners has been constantly increasing mainly due to the government policy of overtly importing foreign talents into Singapore. Among these foreigners, there is this group of sportsmen who are given Singapore citizenships in order for them to represent Singapore in international sports competitions. In our essay, we are going to examine how Singaporeans feel about these foreign sports talents playing for Singapore and why they feel this way. Do they treat these foreign sportsmen as fellow Singaporeans or do they just see them as tools that Singapore uses to achieve recognition in the international sports arena, vice versa. In order to gather the opinions of Singaporeans, we have drawn up a survey consisting of 16 questions that will help us in understanding the views of Singaporeans regarding our focus of research. And at the end of the essay, we will attempt feebly to state the significance of social change in Singapore society and predict what might happen in the future.

The method we used to conduct the survey was in person. The survey was done face to face with the 15 participants so that there would not be any misunderstandings and we would be there to explain those questions that our interviewees do not understand or are unclear about. A targeted group of young, well-educated Chinese Singaporeans were chosen to found out how this specific group reacts to the influx of foreign sports talent. Such a group was chosen as the requirements of the paper do not allow us to include the general view of all Singaporeans. To prevent the misconception that those interviewed represents the general view of Singaporeans, they were be referred to as the interviewees.


The foreign talent scheme

Before we start the analysis of how Singaporeans feel towards foreign sports talents, we feel a need to first give a brief introduction of the Foreign Talent Scheme (FTS). The Singapore government has in recent years attempt to improve Singapore’s standings in the international sporting arena. They are however keenly aware of the glaring problem that Singapore is facing; a lack of a huge enough population to produce enough local sports talent, or more importantly, a lack of sports talents. The foreign talent scheme is the government’s aggressive policy of courting foreign talents in order to support or boost our local ones. In the sports arena, it would refer to giving them citizenships for them to represent Singapore as “Singaporeans”. Under this foreign talent scheme, we see a continuation of the British policies of “bringing specific people from specific places to do specific jobs”; to harness the expertise of the various group of people. In the same way, the Singapore government brought in players from China to play table-tennis, players from Indonesia, a badminton power house, to play in our badminton team. An interesting observation of Singapore’s FTS is how the players imported were all from countries with a lower Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita. The GDP per capita for China is $3600 while Indonesia is $2830 and Nigeria is $960. Singapore alone has a $26300 per annum GDP. From this, we can assume that monetary rewards form the basis for attracting these talents to Singapore.


Analysis

Nationhood versus Statehood

From our survey, we realized that all except one of our interviewees are aware of the presence of foreign legions in the Singapore national team. Most of them, 9 out of 15, however, do not agree to the government’s policy of giving away citizenship to these players just so that they can play in the Singapore jersey. But by granting them citizenship, is it possible that the government is letting the foreign talents represent Singapore as a member of the state, whereas in the eyes of the interviewees, the foreign talents are representing Singapore as a member of the nation, because they don the national emblems on their jerseys. In a way, these interviewees view citizenship as a representation of nationality. This tells us that they have a misconception, that they are confused about the idea of state- and nationhood.


Viewing them as our own

In that note, 11 out of 15 of the interviewees do not view the foreign talents as Singaporeans and 10 out of 15 are unable to fully identify themselves with the achievements of these foreign talents. One of the reasons cited were that even though they represent Singapore, these foreign talents were essentially not born in Singapore. This in turn tells us that the country of birth, in the eyes of the interviewees, is an important factor in determining the nationality of a people.

Others that did not cited place of birth as a primary reason believed that it is because these foreigners came as talents that their achievements were not ours. How so? The foreigners were chosen because they had displayed a certain level of skills. Even though after their arrival they were given substantial trainings, they were first and foremost trained in their original countries. So they were plying a trade that was not Singaporean in nature.


Symbol of allegiance

Many of the interviewees exhibit a prejudice that the foreign talents came because they were not doing well in their own country. And as mentioned above, the basis of attraction to Singapore seems to be monetary in nature. This is also evident in the promises of huge prize money by the government for achieving specific targets like high finishes or medals won. These forms of remunerations have led most of the interviewees to believe that the foreigners are merely mercenaries, pledging allegiance only to the dollar, instead of Singapore.

Some believed that the foreigners were looking for a better life and higher standard of living. If so, then there is no guarantee that they will stay and not jump onto the plane the very minute another country with a better offer comes knocking. Others are afraid that the foreigners are sojourners, that even as they are given permanent residency or citizenship, they are like the forefathers of Singapore, yearning to one day return to their homeland after earning enough. The interviewees’ sentiments are echoed by others:
“Just like most of the MNC that have left Singapore for more competitive countries, foreign talents could also one day leave Singapore for other more attractive destinations. Singapore, therefore, needs to count on its own people much more. While Singapore can offer carrots for foreign talents to come here, either for sports or work, these foreign talents are basically a materialistic lot as they ventured overseas for greener pastures. What is to stop them from moving out of Singapore once their grazing is done? Singapore lacks other natural resources, its people is the only resource it can tap and develop. Reliance on foreign talents can only go so far. Let us not forget that.” (http://www.newsintercom.org/index.php?itemid=148)


Why else are they here?

These are however not all that was felt. According to the survey, there are some that felt that these foreigners came because of Singapore inherent attractiveness. We have a strong government that expresses openness and practices a welcoming policy; our economy and society is stable; our education system can provide their children with an all rounded development; our streets are safe with one of the lowest crime rates in the world:

“Singapore is blessed with a highly developed and successful free-market economy, a remarkably open and corruption-free business environment, stable prices, and the fifth highest per capita GDP in the world. Exports, particularly in electronics and chemicals, and services are the main drivers of the economy. The government promotes high levels of savings and investment through a mandatory savings scheme and spends heavily in education and technology. It also owns government-linked companies (GLCs) - particularly in manufacturing - that operate as commercial entities and account for 60% of GDP.”

These reasons, some feel, will make sure the foreign talents will come and stay. We are able to make them realize that there is not a place like Singapore and will therefore be willing to permanently settle down and be a through and through Singaporean. This view is enforced by one of the most locally-renowned foreign talent, paddler for the national team;
“I've been in Singapore for more than 12 years, I married a local and I'm the mother of a four-year-old Singapore boy, I've been proud and happy all these years but, every now and then, there will be some who will bring up these questions of loyalty and citizenship. Really, what can I say? Is there any way of proving myself? Is there a test I can take?” - Jing Jun Hong (http://www.singapore-window.org/sw03/031214a1.htm)


Better or worse

Despite their disdain of the foreigners, 9 of the interviewees felt that we are indeed doing better in the international sports scene because of the foreign talents with 6 having expressed no particular inclination and none felt that we are doing worse. This is evident from the various achievements of Team Singapore in competitions such as the Southeast Asian games, All-England Badminton Tournament, and World Table-Tennis Grand Prix.

“For they have done well, whether it was Ronald Susilo making the quarter finals at the Athens Olympics or Jiang Yanmei and Li Yujia earning a Top 10 world ranking in the women's doubles. Then there were the encouraging performances of young players like Kendrick Lee and Xing Aiying. Our mixed doubles combination of Li and Hendri Kurniawan Saputra have also made their mark.

Best Performer
First a few words about Susilo. He was clearly the year's best performer among our players. Apart from winning the Japan Open, he also became the first Singaporean in 37 years to reach the semi-finals of the All-England championships. Then in Athens, he created a big upset by beating world No 1 Lin Dan of China in the opening round before losing to Thailand's Boonsak Ponsana in the quarter-finals.

Respectable Showings
Jiang and Li have clearly made god progress this year. Formed in the middle of last year, this doubles pair has proven to be a force, wining five small satellite victories and putting up respectable performances in the bigger Grand Prix events. For example, they reached the last eight of the five-star Denmark and Malaysia Opens and made the semi-finals at the two-star German and Taiwan Opens.”(http://www.teamsingapore.com.sg/main/detail.jsp?cat=1&a_id=5918&type=1&print=1)

Thus indeed the feelings of the interviewees are well founded. We have indeed done better because we are now in a better position in terms of sporting achievements many of which are achievements of foreign talents.


Locals versus foreign

Our survey has also revealed concerns of the interviewees that the foreign talents are doing better at the expense of local talents. Some believed that in importing foreign talents, the government is stifling local development due to negative competition. With the influx of foreign talents, resources are necessarily used as upkeep and also necessarily diverted to fund their trainings, instead of training local talents. Secondly, as more and more attention is placed on foreign talents, it is inevitable that local talents will be, to a certain degree, neglected. 11 out of the 15 interviewed felt that more emphasis should be placed on developing local talents. Local talents, they felt, should be the ones that form the backbone of Team Singapore’s achievements, instead of the foreign talents, as it is the case thus far.

This concern is however, not totally true. With the setting of the Sports School, the government has increased its effort in nurturing local talents to play a more significant part. They are trying to redirect local youth’s attention from good grades, better employment to include sporting achievements. That is not to say that good grades are not important, rather it is to give equal weightage to both academic and non-academic achievements. As 1 interviewee puts it, “with the Singapore Sports School, hopefully there will be more local talents that shine in the sporting arena.”


Mixed views

The most prominent conclusion from this survey is that while many of the interviewees exhibit a somewhat xenophobic attitude; they were unable to identify with the foreigners; they were not proud of their achievements; they were unsure of the foreign talents’ loyalty; they hold the prejudice that most of the foreign talents were not doing well in there own country; they felt that too much emphasis are on foreign talents and insufficient on local talents and so on.

They were unable to deny that the foreign talents contributed to the Singapore sports scene; both as players that basked in the lime lights, as well as “behind the stage” as coaches and other support roles. The foreign talents were also undeniably the ones that were raking in the medals and the awards.

Other than the mixed views amongst the low-level interviewees there are also mixed views between the interviewees and the government. From this survey and from research done on the issue of foreign talents, we can conclude a disparity and classic case of difference between top-down and bottom-up approach. The interviewees, on one hand, are less than supportive of the foreign talent scheme, the government, on the other hand, are the main proponents. In fact, without the government, there will be no foreign talent scheme. One of the most outward manifestations of this difference can be found in former Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong’s National Rally in 2002, Remaking Singapore – Changing Mindsets,
“Last year, I spoke on the importance of attracting international talent to Singapore. This is crucial for our growth and development. I was therefore disturbed by the negative comments over our medal haul in the Commonwealth Games. Some Singaporeans claimed that they felt no pride in those achievements, because they were by foreign imports. These Singaporeans need to change their negative mindset. If we gripe, instead of honouring our foreign-born Singaporeans for their success, we are giving the wrong signal to other talent who want to make Singapore their home. Our table-tennis and badminton stars may have been born outside Singapore. But they have now all become Singapore citizens. Some have their families here, and have sunk roots here. They trained hard and played their hearts out for Singapore. They did us proud - first medals in the Commonwealth Games after 16 years; first gold medals after 40 years. How can anyone now be so ungracious, small-minded, and mean, to deride their success?”(http://www.channelnewsasia.com/cna/ndp2002/text_rally5.htm)


National identity

In the words of Former Prime Minister Goh, we are only a state, not yet a nation (Singapore Straits Times, 6 May 1999). This statement is put to the test when the interviewees seem to be putting up a united front against the foreign talents. Their reactions to the foreign talent scheme, are giving us a perception that seems to contrary to Mr. Goh’s beliefs. For if we are not a nation; we are not, on least on the psychological level, acting as one, then the interviewees would not have such an adverse view on foreign talents. Also, looking at the way they were worried about the stifling of young local talents, we can see the presence of a protective behavior. And this protective behaviour is to protect what we see as our own. It is precisely with the existence of a national identity that we can deem what is ‘in’ and what is ‘out’. In this case, the foreign talents are seen as ‘out”. Therefore, it can be deduced that a national identity might in fact exist.


Conclusion

From our studies, there are several points that we observed. The government’s policy of importing foreign talents is in fact a matter of concern for Singaporeans. There are several reasons for their concerns that we have raised in our essay. But most importantly, we can see that there is confusion between statehood and nationhood as well as the possible presence of a national identity. From the results of the survey, it may seem that Singaporeans are xenophobic, but what is important is the reason behind this perceived xenophobia. Is it a national identity, fear of competition or is it something else? What can be observed from this issue is that it is more of a struggle between the top-down and the bottom-up forces. The people might generally be against the importing of foreign talents, while the government is for. In our assignment’s feeble attempt to predict the future, we would say that there would not be too much of a change in terms of our policy of importing foreign talent as the top-down pressure is apparently stronger, given the government’s stronghold in Singapore’s politics.

Why do the Danes, Swedes and British stay out of the EMU?

Introduction

The European Economic and Monetary Union (EMU) is an integral part of the European Union (EU). As of now, following the latest enlargement in 2004, there are 25 members in the EU, with 12 of them in the EMU. The 10 new members have yet to join the EMU but have “are all committed to joining the euro once they meet the entry requirements” ; Britain and Denmark chose to stay out of the EMU with the “opt-out” option that they negotiated for at the Treaty of European Union of the Maastricht revision; Sweden, though “not been formally granted the right to remain outside EMU” , has chose not to participate in the EMU via a national referendum. 1 important point to note is that non-participation in the EMU do not always refer to total non-participation, for example, in the case of Britain which is in the 1st 2 phases of the EMU, but not yet in the last and final phase. But for the purpose of discussion, the EMU mentioned in this essay will come to mean both the EMU as a whole and also the final phase. We will, through this essay, try to investigate why these 3 countries chose to stay out of the EMU, which includes political, economic and social reasons.

The Economic and Monetary Union

A simple definition of an economic and monetary union is the highest level of economic cooperation between countries. It consist of a free trade area with common external tariffs, internal standards and movement of goods, services, finances, people as well as, most significantly, a single currency.

The idea of a European EMU was materialized in the Madrid European Council in 1989, as proposed by then European Commission President, Jacques Delors. It was a necessary step as there was increasing interdependence in the European trade with the development of a European single market. “The Delors report set out a plan to introduce the EMU in three stages and it included the creation of institutions like the European System of Central Banks (ESCB), which would become responsible for formulating and implementing monetary policy. The three stages for the implementation of the EMU were the following:
Stage One: 1st July 1990 to 31st December 1993
The Treaty of Maastricht in 1992 establishes EMU as a formal objective and sets a number of economic convergence criteria, concerning the inflation rate, public finances, interest rates and exchange rate stability. The treaty enters into force on the 1st November 1993.

Stage Two: 1st January 1994 to 31st December 1998
The European Monetary Institute is established as the forerunner of the European Central Bank, with the task of strengthening monetary cooperation between the member states and their national banks, as well as supervising ECU banknotes. In 16th December 1995, details such as the name of the new currency (the Euro) as well as the duration of the transition periods are decided. In 16-17 June 1997, the European Council decides at Amsterdam to adopt the Stability and Growth Pact, designed to ensure budgetary discipline after creation of the Euro, and a new exchange rate mechanism (ERM II) is set up to provide stability between the Euro and the national currencies of countries that won't yet have entered the Eurozone. In 1st June 1998, the European Central Bank (ECB) is created, and in 31 December 1998, the conversion rates between the 11 participating national currencies and the Euro are established.

Stage Three: 1st January 1999 and continuing
From the start of 1999, the Euro is now a real currency, and a single monetary policy is introduced under the authority of the ECB. A three year transition period begins before the introduction of actual Euro notes and coins, but legally the national currencies have already ceased to exist. The Euro notes and coins are finally introduced at January 2002.”

Why is Britain not in the EMU?

Britain is 1 of the 2 countries, beside Denmark, to have the choice of opting out of the EMU. This choice was negotiated by the Conservative Party which was in power during the signing of the Maastricht treaty. This decision to negotiate an “opt-out” option was motivated by political as well as economic concerns.

Politically speaking, Britain was always not in favour of integrating with Europe. This view was upheld since the time of former Prime Minister Winston Churchill, who in his speech at the Zurich University in 1946 called for a “United States of Europe” that “excluded Britain…and thus reflecting an ambiguity toward Europe that remains strong in Britain today” .

Secondly, as shown by a poll in a public opinion poll done by The Economist in 1999, the people of Britain do not identify with Europe as much as they do with the flag of the Union Jack. This has led to reservations by the government as to whether they should hold a national referendum to join the EMU, which greatly signifies a deeper integration with the rest of Europe.

Thirdly, Britain had join the European Union as a mean of checking Franco-German influence in Europe and using Europe as a tool to serve British interest. Further integration, especially with the presence of European instituitions such as the European Commission and the European Central Bank, there is, at present, a question over the loss of national sovereignty.

Economic-speaking, joining the EMU will mean entering into a union of common currency, fixed exchange rates and interest rates. Rates adjustments have always been a tool for fixing domestic economic problems. Exchange rates adjustment can be used for corrections of external imbalances while interest rates adjustments can be deployed to stimulate consumer spending. But with the surrender of control over rates controls, economists have pointed out that “western Europe is not yet an optimum currency area where the gains from a common currency can outweigh the losses resulting from the abandonment of the exchange rate as a policy instrument for the correction of external balances”

But Britain has expressed its desire to join the EMU. Stating economics concerns as the reasons of its reservations, it came up with a test of 5 criteria which it must pass before it will hold a referendum that will once again decide whether it will go ahead with the single currency. The 5 criteria:
1) Convergence with Eurozone
2) Enough flexibility to adapt
3) Impact on jobs
4) Impact on financial services
5) Impact on foreign investments
according to the Labour government, has not been met.

“The chancellor announced in June that the UK had yet to meet his five economic tests for joining the single currency.” -- Gordon Brown

Why is Denmark not in the EMU?

Denmark’s politics has a tradition of being highly influenced by public opinions. Over the divided issue of both joining the EU and the EMU, public opinions had held the final say.

“At the 1986 referendum about the European Single Act - which in reality became a new membership referendum - 56.2% voted in favour. The membership issue thus disappeared from the political agenda and the debate instead turned to the substance and implications of membership, primarily in the light of the so called ‘union process’. This problem was dramatically expressed in June 1992, when a tenuous majority of 50.7% rejected the Maastricht Treaty about the European Union.” Therefore, one of the key reasons that resulted in Denmark staying out of the EMU is the lack of public support. Danish opposition were in some sense similar to British opposition. Both countries were afraid of the loss of national sovereignty. The Danish currency, the Krone was “regarded as a symbol of national independence”. Joining the common currency, in that case, is seem as a more than serious blow to the danish sovereignty.

Other than sovereignty, the Danes also have another concern; the erosion of the Danish welfare system. Denmark is one of the first countries to establish a comprehensive public welfare system. “The Danish welfare model is subsidised by the state, as a result Denmark has one of the highest taxation levels in the world.” If they were to allow external influences on their economic policies, they are afraid of a possible collapse of the welfare system.

Why is Sweden not in the EMU?

Sweden, though not granted formal opt-out rights like Denmark and Britain, had stayed out of the EMU. Like Denmark, Sweden too had a national referendum that opposed to joining the EMU. “The vote against EMU in the north Sweden was extraordinarily strong. Even in Umeå, a relatively prosperous university town that voted for joining the EU in 1994, two-thirds of voters was against the euro.”

Other than a national referendum, the Swedes conducted a government report that was which focused on the political and economic aspects of EMU. The report findings are, in short, as such:
1) Economic gains of joining the EMU are small though certain
2) Economic arguments did not currently favour Swedish participation while the political arguments did.

Common grounds for the 3 countries

Though a different aspect was highlighted for each of the countries, it is important to note that all these aspects are non exclusive. The same reasons, more often than not can be applied across the board. Like Sweden, Britain and Denmark too have economic considerations regarding participation in the EMU; especially Britain, where the pound remains to this day, one of the strongest currencies in the world.

Likewise, all 3 countries are concerned with the issue of national sovereignty. This is even more so in Europe, where the idea of nationalism was conceived and where the various powers had for years enjoyed the status of imperial masters.

Conclusion

As more and more countries are included into the European Community, the adverse political repercussions as the outsiders will take its toll on the 3 countries. Increased participation in Europe will soon depend on whether a “United States of Europe” will materialise or not. If Europe were to fail eventually, then, by staying out of the EMU, Britain, Denmark and Sweden will be saved from the consequent economic crisis, or at least be less affected. However, if “Europe” were to succeed, then the delay in joining the EMU will only place them in a disadvantageous position within the European community.

Essay about the "Social Contract"

What is a ‘social contract’? What powers did the social contract theorists give to the state and how convincing is the theory in explaining the origins of the state?

In Political Science, the social contract theory has been used to explain the formation of the State. Though a social contract type argument was used by Greek philosopher Socrates as early as 5th century B.C, social contract theory is rightly associated with modern moral and political theory and is given its first full exposition and defense by Thomas Hobbes. After Hobbes, John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau are the best known proponents of this enormously influential theory . Other than defining a ‘social contract’, this essay will attempt to analyse, and explore the possible inadequacies of the theory as interpreted by the 3 theorists.

“The social contract, as a political theory, explains the origin and purpose of the state, and of human rights.”

A social contract is a voluntary agreement made amongst individuals . It is formulated in an attempt to bring about law and order, and organisation to a previously ‘stateless’ society, believed by the theorists to be of chaos, violence and general unpleasantness. Under the social contract, the citizens of the newfound state submit themselves to the authority of a ruler or a group of rulers in exchange for stability and peace. Under different interpretations of the contract by various theorists, this power and authority can either be absolute or further subjected to the scrutiny of the people.

According to Thomas Hobbes, the state, headed by an absolute monarch, therefore has absolute powers. While the people under the contract surrender all their rights, including the right to revolt, the ruler in turn owe the people nothing save the need to govern. Governance in this sense equate to maintaining law and order and the resolution of conflicts. Hobbes’ theory of the origins of the state complements his allocation of power to the ruler.

In his theory, Hobbes described men as self-serving individuals who only came together for fear of losing their lives. For in the stateless society, without a higher power to protect them, men driven by greed will hurt, and be hurt by others. Therefore to protect themselves, they, being also rational men, came up with the social contract through which rights are given up in exchange for the safeguarding of their well-being. And only by giving in to absolutism, can the people have effective protection from the ruler, giving rise to the establishment of a state.

There are however, contest points in his version of the origins of the state. Firstly, given the possibility of a harsh life under a not-so-benevolent monarch, it is unlikely that men as Hobbes perceived to be be willing to give up all their rights. Secondly, Hobbes’ image of men seemed to be biased. According to him, men were solely influenced by their self-interest, in all circumstances. This notion ignored all possibility of a men’s care and concern for others, be it their kins or otherwise. Therefore, Hobbes social contract theory is though probable, does not seem to account for the origins of the state.

The second theorist to be examined is John Locke. Locke’s social contract theory was less unilateral than Hobbes’, in that he gives the people the right to depose a ruler that was not fulfilling his duties or had turned tyrannical. Hence, even though the ruler was allocated enormous power, he was still limited by his own level of competence and benevolence.

The pre-state era in Locke’s view, were similar to Hobbes’ in that people had free will and rights. The difference between them is that these people acted less out of fear than out of a sense of practicality in the formulation of a social contract. In his view, as the people subject themselves to the laws and decrees of the monarch, they in turn gain protection and freedom. Also, both the monarch and the people are obliged to serve each another’s interest. Its bilateralism allows for the people through uprising, to dethrone an unsatisfactory ruler.

Locke’s view appeared more convincing than Hobbes’ theory in explaining the origins of the state because he offers a less radical view. In his supposed state of nature, rationality other than desires play a big part in the characteristics of people. It is exactly this rationality brings about the congregation of people to form a state.

What both Hobbes and Locke fails to explain is how a monarch is chosen. Since the position of a monarch enjoys such power, as we have seen in history, and since men were self-serving individuals, then it would naturally result in people fighting to be the ruler so as to be in a position where they can most exploit others to their advantage.

Following this, Rousseau on the surface credits the state with little power, given that much of the decision making requires the coming together of the population. But further investigation would reveal otherwise. In a situtation of absolute democracy, the people are the state. Thus when power is decentralised in the hands of the people, it would follow that the state enjoy highly centralised power.

Rousseau’s beginning of the state is a more pleasant place where people live in freedom and a society without structure. These people, in contrast to Hobbes and Locke, were generous and of kind nature. He reasoned that ‘it was the so-called process of civilisation, itself, that created the phenomena of greed, lust and violence that so beset society both in his time and in our own.’ Society according to him had degenerated so much so that a new order is necessary to replace that which had rotten. This is where Rousseau’s theory stands out in that he did not specify a monarch that was to rule over the rest. Instead, Rousseau’s interpretation of the social contract as that of absolute democracy, in that the people were to come together and debate over an issue concerning all and that the opinions of the majority, termed the ‘General Will’, would be adapted as the law.

The counter-arguments to Rousseau’s theory are that, one, in order for it to be possible for all members of the state to participate in the passing of the ‘General Will’, the state cannot be too big. That is to say that each state can only have a limited population size. Also, Rousseau did not specify in his works, the origins of the process of civilisation.

To sum up, neither of the social contract theorist had managed to accurately give an account of the origins of the state. Each appeared to be more concern with finding a justification for the political scenario of their time. There are redeeming points however, in that, by a consummation of their arguments, we might be able to get a glimpse of the true beginning of the idea of the state. Also, it is an undeniable fact that their works laid the foundation for the establishment of many of the world’s constitutions and political science theories.

Top Gun

Here's some from my favourite: "Top Gun"

Damn there's so many i don't know which ones to choose!

Tagline: Up there with the best of the best.
I feel the need, the need for speed.

Iceman: You two really are cowboys.
Maverick: What's your problem, Kazanski?
Iceman: You're everyone's problem. That's because every time you go up in the air, you're unsafe. I don't like you because you're dangerous.
Maverick: That's right! Ice... man. I am dangerous.

[Charlie and Mav talking about a MiG28]
Charlie: Where did you see this?
Maverick: Uh, that's classified.
Charlie: It's what?
Maverick: It's classified. I could tell you, but then I'd have to kill you.

[During practice]
Wolfman: Holy shit, it's Viper!
Goose: Viper's up here, great... oh shit...
Maverick: Great, he's probably saying, "Holy shit, it's Maverick and Goose."
Goose: Yeah, I'm sure he's saying that.

[On the best of the best]
Viper: In case some of you are wondering who the best is they are up here on this plaque.
[turns to Maverick]
Viper: Do you think your name will be on that plaque?
Maverick: Yes sir.
Viper: That's pretty arrogant considering the company here, don't you think?
Maverick: Yes sir.
Viper: I like that in a pilot.

Maverick: That son of a bitch cut me off!

Stinger: Maverick, you just did an incredibly brave thing. What you should have done was land your plane! you don't own that plane, the tax payers do! Son, your ego is writing checks your body can't cash. You've been busted, you lost your qualifications as section leader three times, put in hack twice by me, with a history of high speed passes over five air control towers, and one admiral's daughter!
Goose: Penny Benjamin?
[Maverick shrugs]

[watching a video of planes being shot down]
Hollywood: This gives me a hard on.
Wolfman: Don't tease me.

[Discussing Maverick]
Viper: Let me ask you something, if you had to go into battle, would you want him on your side?
Jester: I don't know, I just don't know

Carole: Hey Goose you big stud!
Goose: That's me, honey.
Carole: Take me to bed or lose me forever.
Goose: Show me the way home, honey.

Slider: Goose who's butt did you kiss to get in here anyway?
Goose: The list is long, but distinguished.
Slider: Yeah, well so is my Johnson.

Goose: The defense department regrets to inform you that your sons are dead because they were stupid.

Iceman: The plaque for the alternates is down in the ladies room.

Maverick: This is what I call a target rich environment.
Goose: You live your life between your legs Mav.
Maverick: Goose, even you could get laid in a place like this.
Goose: Hell, I'd be happy to just find a girl that would talk dirty to me.

Maverick: [spots Charlie for the first time] She's lost that loving feeling.
Goose: She's lo...
[catches up]
Goose: No she hasn't.
Maverick: Yes she has.
Goose: [objecting] She's not lost that lo...
Maverick: Goose, she's lost it man.
[walks off]
Goose: [to Mav] Come on!
[to himself]
Goose: Aw sh... I hate it when she does that.

Maverick: I feel the need...
Maverick, Goose: ...the need for speed!

Maverick: You don't have time to think up there. If you think, you're dead.

Iceman: You can be my wingman any time.
Maverick: Bullshit! You can be mine.

Stinger: They gave you your choice of duty son, anything, anywhere. Do you believe that shit? Where do you think you wanna go?
Maverick: I thought of being an instructor, sir.
Stinger: Top Gun?
Maverick: Yes, sir.
Stinger: God help us.

Goose: No. No, Mav, this is not a good idea.
Maverick: Sorry Goose, but it's time to buzz a tower.

Goose: Come on, Mav, do some of that pilot shit!

Merlin: What are you doing? You're slowing down, you're slowing down!
Maverick: I'm bringing him in closer, Merlin.
Merlin: You're gonna do WHAT?

[Flying above MiG upside down]
Goose: Is this your idea of fun, Mav?

[Charlie has just given Maverick her address while pretending to turn down his date offer]
Slider: Crashed and burned! Huh, Mav?
Maverick: Hey, Slider.
[sniffs]
Maverick: You stink!

Charlie: Listen, can I ask you a personal question?
Maverick: That depends.
Charlie: Are you a good pilot?
Maverick: I can hold my own.
Charlie: Great, then I won't have to worry about you making your living as a singer.
Maverick: I'm going to need a beer to put these flames out. Yo! Great Mav, real slick.

Carole: God, he loved flying with you Maverick. But he would've done it anyway... without you. He'd have hated it, but he would've done it.

Maverick: Communicating. Keeping up foreign relations. You know, giving him the bird!
Goose: [Charlie looks puzzled, so Goose clarifies] You know, the finger
[gestures appropriately]
Charlie: Yes, I know the finger, Goose.
Goose: I-I'm sorry, I hate it when it does that, I'm sorry. Excuse me.

Goose: It's the bottom of the 9th, the score is tied its time for the big one.
Iceman: You up for this one, Maverick?
Maverick: Just a walk in the park Kazansky.

Maverick: I can see it's dangerous for you, but if the government trusts me, maybe you could.
Charlie: It takes a lot more than just fancy flying.

[to Maverick after the last dogfight]
Stinger: How's it feel to be on the front page of every newspaper in the english-speaking world, even though the other side denies the incident? Congratulations.

[Iceman shoots down a MiG]
Slider: Splash that sucker, yeah!

Maverick: Damn, this guy's good!
Viper: Damn, this kid is good!

Excerpts

Ivy writes beautifully.
And the most beautiful thing.

here's something i really like.
From her favourite movie "Ever After"

Tagline: Desire. Defy. Escape.

Here are some memorable quotes from the movie that I love:

Leonardo Da Vinci to Prince Henry (on fate/destiny):
Leonardo da Vinci: You cannot leave everything to Fate, boy. She's got a lot to do. Sometimes you must give her a hand.

Prince Henry’s reaction after retrieving the painting of Mona Lisa from the gypsy:
Henry: You told me it was a matter of life or death.
Leonardo da Vinci: A woman always is.

Discussion of ‘The One’:
Henry: Do you really think there is only one perfect mate?
Leonardo da Vinci: As a matter of fact, I do.
Henry: Well then how can you be certain to find them? And if you do finally find them, are they really the one for you or do you only think they are? And what happens if the person you're supposed to be with never appears, or she does, but you're too distracted to notice?
Leonardo da Vinci: You learn to pay attention.

Danielle’s consternation at the incompatibility of social status:
Danielle: A bird may love a fish, signore, but where will they live?
Leonardo da Vinci: Then I shall have to make you wings.

A quote that inspires us to possess determination till the very end:
Baroness Rodmilla De Ghent: Darling, nothing is final 'til you're dead, and even then, I'm sure God negotiates.

Conversation between Danielle and the prince:
Danielle: It is not fair, sire. You have found my weakness, but I have yet to learn yours.
Henry: But I should think it was quite obvious.

Danielle quoting from Thomas More’s 'Utopia':
Danielle: If you suffer your people to be ill-educated, and their manners corrupted from infancy, and then punish them for those crimes to which their first education disposed them, what else is to be concluded, sire, but that you first make thieves and then punish them?


Prince Henry’s proposing to Danielle:
Henry: I kneel before you not as a prince, but as a man in love... I would feel like a king if you, Danielle De Barbarac, would be my wife.

Conversation between Danielle and Prince Henry:
Danielle: You were born to privilege, and with that comes specific obligations.
[pauses]
Danielle: Forgive me, sire, it seems my mouth has run away again.
Henry: It is your mouth that has me hypnotized.

Mugger

the time now is 517 on a monday morning.
once again, i am alone in campus.
my usual haunt for weird hours mugging.
as6.
this place is nice.
it's quiet.
i can smoke.
necessary facilities are nearby.
i am once again here alone.
then alone.
loneliness is conducive to studying.
itunes plays on.
my favourite playlist.
the surrounding silence complements the music.
with an occassion low grunt from the vending machine.
and the familiar old security doing his round.
i like the campus at this time.

School

School has reopened
6 modules this sem
no surprise there
lectures alone I have a 4 day work week
the good thing is so far the earliest lesson is at 12
Really hope I can keep it this way.

Nice little paper roses

Such a wonder what little paper roses can get me.

Monday I folded 6 and got myself a bottle of corona,
Today I folded 1 and got 12 in return,

And I was told to keep them properly cause this is only the second time she folded roses for anyone.
Awww, so sweet.
Alright, I should keep them safe.
Anyway, they smell nice, good as air fresheners I guess.

Wonder if all girls always bring a bottle of perfume with them...
Hmm...
Interesting world of women,

To leave or to stay

Mdm Wong's,
A place I have grown to like working at.
The place is ok,
The music is ok, with some songs that I quite like,
The staff are ok, we all click and work/ play well together,
The work is reasonable, getting better at it each day,
BUT, the money is bad.

Shanghai,
According to Shi An,
The pay is alot better,
The work is easy,
The staff are reasonable enough,
The welfare is good.

So, what should I do?
To stay or to go?
At this point of time, I don't really have much choice do I,
I think I'll go where the money is.
Hate it when my life is rule by the dollar sign,,,,

Me, a flirt?

Am I a flirt?
Do I project the image of one?
My colleagues seem to think so.
Always sweet talking to girls, they say.
Haha.
Am not!
I am just sweet.

*bleah**vomit*

Haha

Holidays

The holidays are coming to an end.
I have not garnered enough money for my expenses.
And I don't want to work so much during school terms.
3.39 is still not too far.
4.0 is still possible.
God bless me please.
So do not look forward to August.
Show me the money!!!

不安

帶著不安的情緒
傳送了一個簡訊
以簡單的几個字
企圖隱藏
我的心意
在我的心裡
目送她離去
一種不熟悉的感覺
是和？是分？
不喜歡這種感覺
在她歸來的一刻
是喜？是悲？
是否距離是他們唯一的障礙
是否我真的永遠不能代替他
是否是否
我想答案呼之慾出
對我們沒信心
應該只是
我的一廂情願。

Internet Banking

Internet banking is not good!
Just finish ibanking and looking at my transaction report...
So sad.

In the blink of an eye,
About 10 minutes,
600 bucks flew away.

At least when you don't have internet banking,
You got to go to places to pay your bills.
I know it's the same.
Money flies away anyway.
But at least it's not so painful as to see it all at one time. :(

And my pay?
Only 700+! I thought I'll get about a 1000.
Oh my...

Any sugar mommy around? :p

我愛的人

我知道故事不会太曲折
我总会遇见一个什么人
陪我过没有了她的人生
成家立业之类的等等

她做了她觉得对的选择
我只好祝福她真的对了
爱不到我最想要爱的人
谁还能要我怎样呢

我爱的人 不是我的爱人
她心里每一寸 都属于另一个人
她真幸福 幸福得真残忍
让我又爱又恨 她的爱怎么那么深

我的爱人 她已有了爱人
从他们的眼神 说明了我不可能
每当听见 她或他说(我们)
就像听见爱情 永恒的嘲笑声

New habit

It's been happening for 2 weeks
2 days actually.

My new habit
I hope it's here to stay.
Last Sunday and today,
I was up real early, at around 7,
washed up, and went down to the coffeeshop
And ordered me a nice cup of tea, 2 half-boiled eggs
And spent the morning reading my Time magazine.

After a week of work and late nights,
It's nice to be a morning person.
5 days of work and lack of sleep really took its toll
As I slept for 18 hours on Sat.
Basically spent the whole day sleeping.

Still it's worth it.
For I am refreshed on Sundays.
Besides, for once I can call my friends out while the sun still shines.

Drowning

I am up to my neck in debts.

Singtel wants $500, a.s.phoon wants $200, colleagues want $175, bike repairs requires another $200 at least.
That's more than $1000 in expenditure.
This month's pay?
Around a thousand.

Looks like it's going to be another month before I can live comfortably again.

So sad that I can't even go out and enjoy a nice movie with my friends.
Haven't watch Star Wars, Mr. and Mrs Smith and Initial D.
Yesterday Shi An ask me out to drink, and I told him I want to sleep.
When I had been sleeping the whole day and was wide awake.

Slog slog slog

启程

＊每一天，都有一些事情将会发生；
　每段路，都有即将要来的旅程；
　每颗心，都有值得期待的成分；
　每个人，都有爱上另一个人的可能。

＃想爱就不能害怕会有伤痕，
　没有人完整，却有人能信任，才找到永恒。

△想到达明天，现在就要启程，只有你能带我走向未来的旅程。
　想到达明天，现在就要启程，你能让我看见黑夜过去　天开始明亮的过程。

Repeat ＊,＃

★想到达明天，现在就要启程，只有你能带我走向未来的旅程。
　想到达明天，现在就要启程，你能让我看见黑夜过去

Repeat △　★,△

除此之外

Say Goodnight 晚安 谢谢你陪我一整个夜晚
Close your eyes, be quiet 我明白你有自己的不安
很多来不及我不曾看见 我只遇见你的现在
不管你接受或离开 I hope to stay for a while
除此之外 要你明白 你的笑我真是喜欢看
于是我一次又一次等待 其实都还算愉快
除此之外 非常遗憾 你的心我还是打不开
And if you need somebody 我确定我会在 不会走开
So Goodbye 晚安 舍不得看你觉得不自在
It's alright, I'm fine 看起来 这故事会写不完
很多差一点你没有发现 你只认识我的现
不管你留下或走开 I'm gonna stay for a while
除此之外 我要你明白 你的笑我真是喜欢看
于是我一次又一次等待 其实都还算愉快
除此之外 非常遗憾 你的心我还是打不开
And if you need somebody 我确定我会在
除此之外 我还在等待 你的心将为我敞开
But if you need somebody 你知道我会在 不会走开 不会走开

Magnifique

Magnifique
Chanson d’amour, cherie
c’est fantastique
Comme on chante de nos coeurs

Fabuleux
La joie de vivre
Comme on chante quand on est amoureux

Les regards languereux
Les balades romantiques
La belle vie, rien de mieux sur cette terre

Magnifique
Chanson d’amour, cherie
c’est fantastique
quand on est amoureux

bedroom

wow!
first time i feel that singapore is a city that never sleeps.
i found a pub.
at circular rd, that opens till 0900!
pretty good music.
drinks that are slightly expensive.
fun crowd.
i went, i drank, i danced, on the bar top no less.
haha.
when i left, it was *woah* all so bright outside.
interesting!

east coast park

I found a new place at east coast.
it is better than the place we went to.
nice place to sit and talk.
or just gaze at the stars.
i saw 2 shooting stars.
first time in my life.
unbelievable.

Races

There are some races that you just can't win.
Apparently.
If you start late,
you lose.
Even when it seems like you are catching up,
you lose.
Hell I'm gonna continue running anyway.
Miracles happen, I might win.
Or I'll just run till I drop.
Or I'll just keep running till one day,
I'll switch tracks one day.
One day. Not today, but maybe one day.

NCC outing

I went drinking again today...
Hahahahaha...
Not working? Doesn't make a difference.
Drink!
Hahahahaha...
Went drinking with the NCC fellas.
$15 each, $135 altogether,
Equates to 2 bottles of vodka and 1 bottle of bourbon
Plus a bottle of orange juice, 7-up and coke.
Courtesy of Carrefour
We didn't finish it.
There's still half a bottle of bourbon left.
Damn why don't I have coke at home.
Should have bought some coke on my way back.
Drink drink drink.........................

痴心絕對

想用一杯LATTE把妳灌醉
好讓妳能多愛我一點
暗戀的滋味　妳不懂這種感覺
早有人陪的妳永遠不會

＊看見妳和他在我面前
證明我的愛只是愚昧
妳不懂我的　那些憔悴
是妳永遠不曾過的體會

＃為妳付出那種傷心妳永遠不了解
我又何苦勉強自己愛上妳的一切
妳又狠狠逼退　我的防備
靜靜關上門來默數我的淚

＋明知道讓妳離開他的世界不可能會
我還傻傻等到奇蹟出現的那一天
直到那一天　妳會發現
真正愛妳的人獨自守著傷悲

重唱　＊,＋

曾經我以為我自己會後悔
不想愛的太多痴心絕對
為妳落第一滴淚　為妳做任何改變
也喚不回妳對我的堅決

重唱　＃,＋

直到那一天　妳會發現
真正愛妳的人獨自守著傷悲

where is the money...

Oh my...
It's June already.
Within 7 days, I'll get my pay.
I've calculated that it'll be around 800 plus.
I've also calculated that after paying off all that I need to pay,
I'll have nothing left.
Oh my goodness...
How am I going to survive June...

day off

I think I worked too much lately.
Yesterday's day off was quite refreshing.
However, it was spent at home....
AT HOME!!!
I need to get out more.
Luckily this week got 3 day-offs.
HAHA...
Thursday, Friday and Sunday.
Where do I go now... *GunsNRoses melody*

李圣杰--手放开

我把自己关起来只留下一个阳台
每当天黑推开窗我对着夜幕发呆
看着往事一幕一幕
再次演出你我的爱
我把电视机打开听着别人的对白
也许那些故事可以给我一个交代
你要的爱我学不来
眼睁睁看情变坏人怔怔看情感概
不能给你未来我还你现在
安静结束也是另一种对待
当眼泪流下来伤已超载
分开也是另一种明白
我给你最后的疼爱是手放开
不要一张双人床中间隔着一片海
感情的污点就留给时间慢慢漂白
把爱收进胸前左边口袋
最后的疼爱是手放开
不想用言语拉扯所以选择不责怪
感情就像候车月台有人走有人来
我的心是一个站牌写着等待
最后的疼爱是手放开
我把收音机打开听着别人的失败
啃咽的声音仿佛诉说着相同悲哀
你的依赖还在胸怀
我无法轻易推开我无法随便走开
感情中专心的人容易被伤害

and it is done

tu vraiment l'as pensé à travers,
tu étais confondez et es toujours,
comment contradictoire.

mais laisse tomber,
tu as composé ton esprit et je le respecterai.
quoi qu'il en soit j'ai composé la même décision avant que tu m'as dit ta décision.
ainsi, juste soyons les meilleurs des amis.

et n'essayez pas cela acte disparaissant à toi encore.

En Français

à l'avenir, j'écrirai ce blog en français,
parce que tu ne comprendras pas.
ainsi je peux écrire sans s'inquiète.
j'ai beaucoup de choses dans mon esprit,
j'ai décidé que tu ne les sauras pas.
de sorte que nous soyons au moins toujours des amis,
parce que j'estime que je te effraye loin.
à toi, je deviendrai le vieil effronté, écoute, s'inquiétant l'ami encore.

Something Stupid - Frank Sinatra

I know I stand in line until you think you have the time to spend an evening with me.
And if we go some place to dance I know that there's a chance you won't be leaving with me.
Then afterwards we drop into a quiet little place and have a drink or two.
And then I go and spoil it all by saying something stupid like "I love you"

I can see it in your eyes that you despise the same old lies you heard the night before.
And though it's just a line to you, for me it's true and never felt so right before.

I practice every day to find some clever lines to say to make the meaning come true,
But then I think I'll wait until the evening gets late and I'm alone with you.
The time is right, your perfume fills my head, the stars get red and oh the night so blue.
And then I go and spoil it all by saying something stupid like "I love you"

The time is right, your perfume fills my head, the stars get red and oh the night so blue.
And then I go and spoil it all by saying something stupid like "I love you"

"I love you"
"I love you"
"I love you"

A crazy idea

I have.

To some people it might not be crazy.
To me?
If I actually do it, yah it's crazy.

First I need to gather some information,
Then I need to research and plan.
After that I need to made some observations.
Depending on which comes the stage when I evaluate whether I can actually pull it off.

Here goes nothing!

I love you for sentimental reasons - Nat King Cole

Preamble
It was dedicated to you when you saw it on my msn.

I love you for sentimental reasons
I hope you do believe me
I'll give you my heart

I love you
And you alone were meant for me
Please give your loving heart to me
And say we'll never part

I think of you every morning
Dream of you every night
Darling I'm never lonely
Whenever you're in sight

I love you for sentimental reasons
I hope you do believe me
I've given you my heart

I think of you every morning
Dream of you every night
Darling I'm never lonely
Whenever you're in sight

I love you for sentimental reasons
I hope you do believe me
I've given you my heart

here's the sad entry

you were drunk and you forgotten,
how convenient.
what if you weren't?
would you have done the same things.

how much do you really remember?
how much did you really forget?
maybe people are really different.
the countless times i've been drunk,
i still remember what happened.
out of control maybe, but amnesia, not so much.

i prefer you drunk then.
haha, haha, haha.
when you told me how you feel about us, about him.
how we held hands, how we kissed.

who says i can't smile and be sad at the same time.
i am but a shield, sounds familiar?
can you break this shield?

Loonism again

In the book of Relationships,
Loonism says it is not who starts the race that matters,
It is who finishes it.

This is what I preach to people.
But somehow, like a doctor who can't heal himself,
I can't self preach.

Little things get to me.
They are so little, I don't even know why I'm bothered.
Time, to shake myself up.
Just go in and get it.

Old school revisited ;)

Someday - Nickelback

How the hell did we wind up like this
Why weren't we able
To see the signs that we missed
And try to turn the tables

I wish you'd unclench your fists
And unpack your suitcase
Lately there's been too much of this
Don't think it's too late

Nothin's wrong
just as long as
you know that someday I will

Someday, somehow
gonna make it alright but not right now
I know you're wondering when
(You're the only one who knows that)
Someday, somehow
gonna make it alright but not right now
I know you're wondering when

Well i hoped that since we're here anyway
We could end up saying
Things we've always needed to say
So we could end up stringing
Now the story's played out like this
Just like a paperback novel
Let's rewrite an ending that fits
Instead of a hollywood horror

Nothin's wrong
just as long as
you know that someday I will

Someday, somehow
gonna make it alright but not right now
I know you're wondering when
(You're the only one who knows that)
Someday, somehow
gonna make it alright but not right now
I know you're wondering when
(You're the only one who knows that)

[Solo]

How the hell did we wind up like this
Why weren't we able
To see the signs that we missed
And try to turn the tables
Now the story's played out like this
Just like a paperback novel
Let's rewrite an ending that fits
Instead of a hollywood horror

Nothin's wrong
just as long as
you know that someday I will

Someday, somehow
gonna make it allright but not right now
I know you're wondering when
(You're the only one who knows that)
Someday, somehow
gonna make it alright but not right now
I know you're wondering when
(You're the only one who knows that)
I know you're wondering when
(You're the only one who knows that)
I know you're wondering when

R1 2005! Can't wait! 

童话

忘了有多久 再没听到你
对我说你最爱的故事
我想了很久 我开始慌了
是不是我又做错了什么
你哭着对我说 童话里都是骗人的
我不可能是你的王子
也许你不会懂 从你说爱我以后
我的天空 星星都亮了

我愿变成童话里 你爱的那个天使
张开双手变成翅膀守护你
你要相信 相信我们会像童话故事里
幸福和快乐是结局
我要变成童话里 你爱的那个天使
张开双手变成翅膀守护你
你要相信 相信我们会像童话故事里
幸福和快乐是结局
我会变成童话里 你爱的那个天使
张开双手变成翅膀守护你
你要相信 相信我们会像童话故事里
幸福和快乐是结局

一起写我们的结局

Je ne sais rien

Je ne sais rien.
i know nothing
Je ne sais pas que sa couleur de favori est bleue.
i don't know her favourite colour is blue
Je ne sais pas qu'elle veut le parfum de estée lauder.
i don't know she want the estée lauder perfume
Je ne sais pas qu'elle aime les bikinis blancs.
i don't know she like the white bikinis
Je ne sais pas ce qu'elle aime.
i don't know what she likes

Quand on l'aime, on devra savoir tous.
when one loves, one should know
Je sais une chose, je l'aime
i know one thing, i like her

Elle

Elle est une belle femme.
she is a beautiful woman
Une femme speciale.
a special woman
Je pense que je l'aime.
i think i like her

Elle a juste celebré son anniversaire.
she just celebrated her birthday
Nous avons eu un bon temps.
we had a good time
Apres, ses amis ont celebré son anniversaire pour elle aussi.
after, her friends celebrated for her too
Si heureux de la voir heureuse.
so happy to see her happy

Nous avons eu quelques obstacles.
we had some obstacles
Mais je pense maintenant est le temps.
but i think now is the time
Je veux être avec elle.
i want to be with her
J'ai manqué une chance.
i missed a chance
Je ne veux pas la manquer encore.
i don't want to miss it again

Mais il y a le monstre pourpre.
but there is the purple monster
Elle etait ainsi touchée par ce qu'il a fait.
she was so touched by what he did
A-t-elle ete touchée autant par moi?
was she as touched by me?
Ce n'est pas important.
that's not important
Le plus important est je l'aime.
the important thing is i like her

I need it off my chest

I need it off my chest
-
Today I got a new word to describe myself. Courtesy of my friend.
I am now good, bad, emotional, cold, philosphical, crappy and some others that I can't remember. The latest additional is immature.
-
My friend cited an example that my use of words shows that I am immature.
-
This is also why I got some of the other descriptions. So here I am to defend myself and let ppl know more ABOUT ME.
-
I have many frens from all walks of life. When I talk to them I try to choose the appropriate form of language. I can be refined, vulgar, concise or naggy. This is the way I communicate. If anyone is not happy with the way I talk, you shld let me know. I am NOT God. To accommodate you, I can change the way I talk. This is not hyprocrisy, like what some of my frens think. This is so that I am at the same level as the person I talk to. Or maybe I am easily influenced.
-
When I am with an Ah Beng, I talk like AB. When I am with a kantang, I talk like kantang.
-
The way I talk to someone also reflects the level of comfort I feel. But it DOESN'T have to. I do care abt other ppl's level of comfort. IF they let me know. I always try to guess other ppl's mind, but like I say, I AM NOT GOD.
-
Another complaint is I talk with ambiguity. This in fact, in my perspective, is a skill I am learning. Although it drives some ppl crazy. Long long time ago, I heard from a fren of a person who always leaves an escape route for himself when he speaks. Which I personally feel that is a very good method.
-
So when I say "maybe", or "I think so but I am not sure", it is so that if something goes wrong, ppl can't come back and say "WL, YOU TOLD ME THAT BLAH BLAH BLAH AND NOW IT'S ALL YOUR FAULT!"
-
Most of the abovementioned ("Most of" is my escape route here) can also be applied to other perhaps unacceptable behaviours of mine.
-
So if you don't like something, TELL ME!

So tired

J'ai très fatigue.
Aujourd'hui, J'ai deux test.
Un de Français 2, et un de La politique de Europe contemporain.
-
Je n'ai su pas
Les test sont trop difficile.
Maintenant, J'ai fatigue.
-
Et puis,
les examen s'approachent
Je n'ai pas assez de temp.
Il y a trop de livres.
Je ne peux pas finir.
-
Putain!
Le Co-op n'a pas mon portable
Argh!

Knowing and understanding

She is feeling down
She is bogged down
These all I see
That's all I do - see

She lets me in on her troubles
I now know what's up
Looking at my replies
I suddenly feel that
It looks like someone who knows
But don't understand

What can I do?
What shall I do?

Clamped

How lucky can I get
Yesterday I won 50 bucks
Today
I lost a hundred
Why
Because my wheels got clamped
Costed me a hundred to get them released
Never knew the campus security was that efficient
1001 I reach school
Parked my bike at Forum carpark
1012 they clamped it
But I think it's just me
Because
When I leave to come home
There was another bike there
No clamps

Feelings

I feel alot about things
But I don't like to rely on feelings
Even though they pop out often
Sometimes they are just plain inaccurate
Sometimes they are too accurate
And sometimes They tell me what I don't want to know
And more often than not
they affect my actions in a way that's not the best

Mdm Wong

The management is very clever
All this while I expressed interest in bar
They refused to let me in
The moment I expressed desire to leave
Because I want to put more time into school
And you
They let me in
I still prefer to be in the bar
4 days in the bar
It's fun
Now I don't know whether I should still leave
Damn you management
Haha

Smoking

A roll wedged between my fingers
Only the second one today
It's another attempt
A little at a time
Because you don't like it
I thought I'd get to see you today
Controlled myself
Didn't wanna smell like a cig butt near you

Angel

Angel
Written by - Sarah McLachlan
Spend all your time waiting
For that second chance
For a break that would make it okay
There's always one reason
To feel not good enough
And it's hard at the end of the day
I need some distraction
Oh, beautiful release
Memory seeps from my veins
Let me be empty
And weightless and maybe
I'll find some peace tonight
In the arms of an angel
Fly away from here
From this dark, cold hotel room
And the endlessness that you fear
You are pulled from the wreckage
Of your silent reverie
You're in the arms of the angel
May you find some comfort there
So tired of the straight line
And everywhere you turn
There's vultures and thieves at your back
And the storm keeps on twisting
You keep on building the lie
That you make up for all that you lack
It don't make no difference
Escaping one last time
It's easier to believe in this sweet madness oh
This glorious sadness that brings me to my knees
In the arms of an angel
Fly away from here
From this dark, cold hotel room
And the endlessness that you fear
You are pulled from the wreckage
Of your silent reverie
You're in the arms of the angel
May you find some comfort there
You're in the arms of the angel
May you find some comfort here

I don't know

Yesterday I was still sure
Today I am not
Why I don't know
Maybe tomorrow I will be again
-------------------------
Always on my mind
while I'm in school
While I'm eating
While I'm studying
While I am playing
Even now
While I sit here listening to Sarah's Angel
------------------------
It's been awhile
So strong it is
It's always so
But this is different
It may end the same
It might end different
It might not end
-------------------------
I'll try
I'll really try
I hope it's going to be different
This one is different
I can feel it
I just know it

What Greek God am I? 

What Kinda Mask I hide Behind

I've heard it all

I've heard it all.
Quite a few at least.
All in 1 day.
Within that few hours.
Those few hours that were some of the best in recent times.
That few lines.
Lines that a man almost never want to hear.
Not a man like me at least.
Just a few here and there.
Amongst the so many you said.
Almost ended any hopes that I harboured.
Almost.
But me?
I am a taurus.
Stubborn you say we are.
Maybe I am afterall.
I don't know.
We shall see.

R1 2004! 2006 will be better! 

I did it

1 more.
Just 1 more to go and I will complete the collection of driving licences.
----
22nd Feb
2A, 2B, 3, 4 and 5.
Class 2, you will be mine.
----
And then?
Vroom! R1 2006! Power!
Female pillion wanted!
---
Hahahahahahahahahaha

I am cursed.

TP. 8 points. but 1 immediate failure. Sian.
--------------------------------------------
Think after I always-1 time pass record was broken by the class 5 TP, I cannot pass 1 time anymore. Sian.
--------------------------------------------
Next TP is on the 22nd.
So far away.
--------------------------------------------
I want raw power!
2B bike so slow.
Yesterday late for school.
Sped.
But still so slow.
POWER! I WANT POWER! I WANT R1!
--------------------------------------------
Sian. Go study.

She Will Be Loved

"She Will Be Loved"
-------------------------------
Beauty queen of only eighteen
She had some trouble with herself
He was always there to help her
She always belonged to someone else
---------------------------------
I drove for miles and miles
And wound up at your door
I've had you so many times but somehow
I want more
---------------------------------
I don't mind spending everyday
Out on your corner in the pouring rain
Look for the girl with the broken smile
Ask her if she wants to stay awhile
And she will be loved
She will be loved
---------------------------------
Tap on my window knock on my door
I want to make you feel beautiful
I know I tend to get so insecure
It doesn't matter anymore
---------------------------------
It's not always rainbows and butterflies
It's compromise that moves us along
My heart is full and my door's always open
You can come anytime you want
---------------------------------
I don't mind spending everyday
Out on your corner in the pouring rain
Look for the girl with the broken smile
Ask her if she wants to stay awhile
And she will be loved
And she will be loved
And she will be loved
And she will be loved
---------------------------------
I know where you hide
Alone in your car
Know all of the things that make you who you are
I know that goodbye means nothing at all
Comes back and begs me to catch her every time she falls
-----------------------------------
Tap on my window knock on my door
I want to make you feel beautiful
-----------------------------------
I don't mind spending everyday
Out on your corner in the pouring rain
Look for the girl with the broken smile
Ask her if she wants to stay awhile
And she will be loved
And she will be loved
And she will be loved
And she will be loved
-------------------------------------
[in the background]
Please don't try so hard to say goodbye
Please don't try so hard to say goodbye
-----------------------------------
Yeah
[softly]
I don't mind spending everyday
Out on your corner in the pouring rain
Try so hard to say goodbye
----------------------------------------
Should I?