Two Single Women, one married man.

I read 3 articles by 3 regular columnists in the Sunday Times today.

The first was by a single woman who frequently shared her dating and singlehood angst in her columns. By now she has said that she has accepted her singlehood, but I think the lady doth protesteth too much. Anyway, her column today started with the Heinekan TV commercial (lady with walk in closet, man with walk-in refrigerator stocked with Heinekan beer). and meandered into her problems with buying clothes. My brain exploded from sheer inanity at that point and I did not finish reading the article.

The second was by a recent father about changing diapers for his daughter in the wee hours of the morning to spare his wife the stress and fatigue. Nice husband. He writes well, and his sharing of his paternal night duties was cute.

The third article was by a lady doctor, also single, who shared about her friend whom she called "an everyday hero". He struggled to walk, and was in constant pain, but his attitude to life was still good and positive.

3 articles. 2 single women. One married man. My takeaway: If you're single, talking about your personal problems is just plain pathetic and self-centred. A married person talking about parenting issues could be cute. A single person should talk about larger things like people who inspires.

Nominated ministers: Good or bad idea?

June 13, 2009

By Jeremy Au Yong & Zakir Hussain

MP Hri Kumar Nair floated the idea of having nominated ministers last month. His suggestion, though not new, has sparked some debate. Insight analyses the issue and looks at some parliamentary democracies with these non-elected ministers

MP HRI Kumar Nair regularly talks about politics with a group of helpers and grassroots leaders in his constituency.

Several months back, the difficulty of getting good people to run for office was their topic of discussion.

It prompted Mr Nair to propose in Parliament an approach not uncommon in several countries with a Parliament based on the Westminster model, like Singapore's.

These parliamentary democracies have ministers who are appointed from outside the pool of elected Members of Parliament.

Said the MP for Bishan-Toa Payoh GRC: 'We could have people with the talent and organisation for running ministries, but without a similar talent for grassroots work. So far we've managed to get people who are good at both but, going forward, can we say this will be the case?'

Legally speaking, nominated ministers are possible in Singapore. This is because the Constitution, as it stands, allows any MP - elected, nominated or even non- constituency - to be made a minister.

If the Government so chooses, it can bring in a minister by first making him a Nominated MP.

Speaking in Parliament in 1990 when NMPs were first introduced, then Deputy Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong said he felt it would be to Singapore's benefit to give a future government room to appoint ministers.

'I would rather that a government has the flexibility to appoint the right person to be the minister for finance, than to compel that government to select from whoever is available in the House,' he said.

He hastened to add that the Government had no intention of appointing a Cabinet minister from among NMPs then.

Five years later, responding to a dialogue participant, then Acting Environment Minister Teo Chee Hean dismissed the suggestion, saying nominated ministers would not be accountable to the electorate.

The issue was to surface again in 2006 when Ang Mo Kio GRC MP Inderjit Singh spoke about roping in the private sector to help craft legislation. He proposed having a non-elected minister involved in the highest levels of decision-making.

Mr Nair's recent comments have reignited debate on the issue.

Given the difficulty of attracting talent to politics, is it time to reconsider the issue? What are some benefits and pitfalls of such a system? How do other countries implement such a system? Could it be done here? Should it be done here?

The case for

MOST people who support the idea of nominated ministers do not view it as a complete replacement of elected ministers. Nominated ministers would serve only in specific ministries.

One example from Mr Nair is that of having a nominated foreign minister.

A foreign minister is expected to travel widely to advance Singapore's interests, but such frequent travel leads to constituents saying they do not get to see enough of their Minister-MP.

'There's a tension there, and it's undermining our own cause to not allow for a nominated minister,' Mr Nair tells Insight.

Mr Singh, standing by the suggestion he made in 2006, notes that India has them, and they usually turn out well.

'Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh came through the Rajya Sabha and he turned out to be one of the best prime ministers they've had,' he says.

India has a bicameral system in which the federal Upper House, the Rajya Sabha, comprises representatives sent by state Parliaments.

Mr Singh argues that having some nominated ministers will allow those who are keen to help in policymaking but not to participate in politics to help Singapore.

'We are using many of these people in one committee or another at the moment. They are serious people, with reputations to uphold, and will be responsible,' he says.

As for accountability, Mr Nair notes that the prime minister will have to justify their selection. 'Any sensible PM will know he has to choose carefully if he wants to keep the public on his side.'

Associate Professor Hussin Mutalib of the National University of Singapore's political science department notes that a nominated minister scheme would allow some ministers to be appointed with relative ease and speed.

'There's no need to wait for the long, if not arduous, process of recruiting and persuading the talented to contest in a general election, and then put them through a series of tests before promoting them as full ministers,' he notes.

But he warns that the scheme is not without its share of drawbacks.

The case against

FOR opponents of the scheme, their objections centre on the legitimacy and accountability of such ministers, as well as the scheme's impact on the concept of democracy here.

Prof Hussin, for instance, warns: 'Not only will this disenchant even more Singaporeans and deepen our parochial political culture, the scheme might dent Singapore's international standing as a modern global city.'

Law professor Eugene Tan of the Singapore Management University is unequivocally opposed to the idea. Mincing no words, he says: 'It sacrifices authority, accountability and legitimacy at the altar of pragmatism.'

A minister not standing for elections, he says, 'would be perceived as not having earned the right to hold that substantive public office'.

He rebuts suggestions that having that person account to the prime minister would be sufficient, saying that this would deviate from the essence of a parliamentary democracy in which the government is accountable to Parliament.

He also rejects the argument that the scheme would solve the problem of attracting talent. To provide for nominated ministers without understanding why Singaporeans do not want to join politics in the first place is to simply paper over the cracks.

'What would be the next band-aid after nominated ministers?' he asks.

NMP Siew Kum Hong notes that to insulate a minister from politics is to ignore the political aspects of the position: 'A minister's role is political. They are not just administrators; they are leaders.'

For administrative aspects, there are already people like the permanent secretaries heading the various ministries, he notes.

The view is shared by IT consultant Gerald Giam, a founding member of the socio-political blog The Online Citizen.

He writes on his blog that ministers need to have the common touch; they need to be people who can empathise with ordinary Singaporeans.

'If we open the doors to this segment of society to lead us, we will be fishing from the wrong pond. We will, in the long run, attract the wrong sort of people to lead our country - people with a different set of values and motivations,' he says.

Mr Giam, Mr Siew and Dr Tan all say that a parallel cannot be drawn between Singapore's parliamentary system and the presidential system in the United States, where the Cabinet is made up of people who are appointed, not elected.

For example, Mr Tim Geithner, the US Treasury Secretary, the equivalent of Singapore's finance minister, was a New York central banker until he was invited to join the Obama administration in January.

In a presidential system, the buck stops with the president, who is directly elected and directly accountable to the people.

In Singapore's system, the Cabinet is accountable to Parliament, which in turn is accountable to the people.

Comparisons with parliamentary systems with upper and lower Houses are also problematic.

In bicameral systems like those in Canada, India and Malaysia, nominated ministers have a 'veneer of legitimacy' because, as senators, they are legislators as well, notes Dr Tan.

Clearly, the nominated minister idea is a contentious one, even without going into the more practical aspects like how to determine their salaries and whether or not civil servants should answer to them.

What some see as a weakness, others see as a strength, and vice-versa. For instance, where some might see an efficient way to draw talent into the Cabinet, others see an eroding of democracy.

Prof Hussin put it best when he referred to the idea as a double-edged sword, saying: 'What might appear to be its greatest assets could also be its greatest liabilities.'

[May 15 2011 update. PAP lost Aljunied in the elections and with it, George Yeo. Interestingly, the Foreign Minister role was mentioned in the article. Was there already signs that Aljunied could be lost? Anyway, at this point the question is moot. PAP is not pursuing the avenue, and there are lots of issues still to be resolved.]

Ambiguous legacy of 1959

June 12, 2009

Statehood achieved that year is an occasion well worth celebrating

By Chua Mui Hoong

SINGAPORE had not one, but two births. Or three. Or four. It depends on your point of view and the historical facts you wish to emphasise.

Its first birth - as Singapore, not Temasek or Singapura - was 1819. This was when Stamford Raffles, an ambitious young executive at the British East India Company, decided to make a name for himself by setting up a British trading post in Singapore to resist the expansion of Dutch influence in South Sumatra.

This 'founding' of modern Singapore was met with hostility and consternation - from the Dutch who felt Singapore fell within its Riau sphere of influence and threatened military action; and from the Colonial Office in London, which had not sanctioned Raffles' plan. The British merchant community in Calcutta, though, supported the move, seeing in Singapore a 'fulcrum' for commerce in the region.

In the end, the British settled their differences with the Dutch, who accepted that Singapore was British.

The 1819 setting-up of a trading settlement here was an epochal event. But apart from having erected a statue of Raffles, we do not celebrate the moment. The main national birthday we celebrate now is Aug 9, 1965. Expelled from Malaysia, Singapore had independence thrust upon it that day. Its future was uncertain. Citizens reacted with anxiety, tinged with relief at getting out of an increasingly acrimonious merger. Then Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew shed tears and described the moment as one of anguish. Singapore was birthed in pain.

If these two births - in 1819 and 1965 - were unpropitious and marred by the fear of conflict, the other birth was remarkable for its relatively quiet tone.

Past midnight, in the early morning of June 5, 1959, the last British Governor of Singapore, William Goode, handed power over to the first locally-elected Cabinet.

But the year has not been highlighted in national education efforts as a year of great significance, compared to 1819 or 1965.

Unlike the euphoric tone of 1984 to celebrate 25 years of nation-building, or the celebrations to mark Singapore's 40th birthday in 2005, events so far to mark the 50th year of internal self-government have been remarkably muted. More events are being planned as part of this year's National Day celebrations to mark the 50th year of self-government.

Do we feel some ambivalence commemorating 1959? If so, the hesitation is understandable.

Self-government was just a precursor to independence. 1959 marked the year the People's Action Party came to power - and it is difficult to run away from the whiff of partisanship in commemorating that year. Some will ask: What is being celebrated: 50 years of self-government, or 50 years of PAP rule?

Some Singaporeans well-versed in history will also argue that you can put forward a strong case that 1955, not 1959, was the year that Singapore became self-governing, and embarked on the road to independence.

After all, if internal self-government is the yardstick by which 1959 wins its place as a birth year for Singapore, 1955 was the year the process began, when the Labour Front formed the government. And it was the Labour Front government that led an all-party delegation that successfully negotiated the terms of full internal self-government in 1959.

And if the yardstick is local elections to the Legislative Assembly, then 1948 was the year when election to the assembly began. In that year, six seats were elected. In 1955, 25 out of 32 seats were elected seats. In 1959, all 51 were elected.

Does a former colony celebrate the first time seats to the national legislature were elected, the year the majority were elected, or the year all were? Ironically, today's Parliament has 84 elected seats, nine Nominated MPs and one Non-Constituency MP. In other words, it has 10 MPs who are not elected, but appointed or admitted under special circumstances provided for in the Constitution.

Singapore was able to chart its own destiny only to a limited extent with self-government in 1959, for defence and foreign affairs remained with the colonial authorities, and internal security was the responsibility of the Internal Security Council, on which both Britain and Malaya were represented. Moreover, the British High Commissioner in Singapore retained the power to suspend the Constitution in an emergency and take charge of the government.

So though 1959 was an epochal year, its legacy and meaning are not as clear-cut as that of 1965. Perhaps this is why events to mark 1959 have been low-key.

But in fact, there need be no ambivalence about the importance of 1959. The 1959 election was the first election when the Singapore voter was truly able to exercise his right to vote

Before that, the vote was restricted to British subjects. In 1951, the electorate size was just 48,000. In 1955, automatic registration of voters swelled the number to 300,292, but only 52 per cent of that number voted.

In 1957, citizenship rules were changed to give citizenship to local residents. About 300,000 Chinese were able to register as citizens, becoming eligible to vote. As a result, the electorate swelled to 587,797 in 1959, of which nearly 90 per cent voted. The year thus marked the point at which Singaporeans became conscious that they could determine their own destiny. A people will never forget such an act of empowerment - one reason why they resisted being bullied later when Singapore was part of Malaysia from September 1963 to August 1965.

Another point about 1959 is unassailable: it was in that year that Singapore became a state of its own, with the right to confer citizenship. The first Singaporean citizen was thus born in 1959, not 1819 or 1955.

Whatever the twists and turns of Singapore's history, 1959 marked the start of a journey for the state and its people, from a poor self-governing state, to the prosperous, confident metropolis of today.

That alone surely is reason to bring out the cymbals on this occasion - the 50th anniversary of the start of the journey.

muihoong@sph.com.sg

Seditious tract duo jailed eight weeks

June 11, 2009

By Carolyn Quek

A CHRISTIAN couple were jailed eight weeks yesterday for distributing and possessing anti-Muslim and anti-Catholic publications, but this did not mark the end of Singapore's first trial under the Sedition Act.

SingTel technical officer Ong Kian Cheong, 50, and UBS associate director Dorothy Chan Hien Leng, 46, have appealed against the conviction and are out on $15,000 bail each.

District Judge Roy Neighbour decided on a jail term, even though a fine was allowed for under the law, as the couple's offences affected the very foundation of Singapore society, which is multi-religious and multiracial.

The judge said the sentence in this case was necessary to deter others from committing similar offences.

Decked out smartly in executive wear, husband and wife showed no emotion when their sentences were read out to them.

They were convicted of four charges two weeks ago, which included three for mailing seditious or objectionable evangelical Christian tracts to three Muslim civil servants between March and December 2007.

Another charge was for keeping about 440 copies of 11 seditious booklets in their Bukit Timah condominium.

The Sedition Act is designed to punish those who stir up feelings of ill-will and hostility between different races or classes of the population of Singapore.

The punishments the husband and wife of 24 years received, however, were at the lower end of what the prosecution had urged the court to impose.

Deputy public prosecutors Anandan Bala and Sharmila Sripathy-Shanaz had asked the court to keep the couple - first-time offenders - behind bars for between two and six months.

Under the law, the maximum jail term for distributing a seditious publication is three years' jail for a first offender.

The couple, who have a 19-year-old daughter, worshipped at the Berean Christian Church at the time of their offences last year.

Judge Neighbour, in a written judgment, explained why he imposed a jail term of just two months.

He noted that it was Ong's and Chan's first brush with the law.

He pointed out that the tracts were published by a reputable publisher and had been freely available for sale to the public. 'This may to some extent, have contributed to their complacency in assuming that there was nothing wrong to distribute them to the public.'

Both Ong and Chan had also apologised to the three people who received the offensive mail.

But Judge Neighbour said the offences they committed were 'serious ones'. 'They have the capacity to undermine and erode the delicate fabric of racial and religious harmony in Singapore.'

The booklets the couple possessed and distributed were not only offensive for religious content but also could promote ill-will or hostility between different races or classes of the population here, the judge added.

Religion is a sensitive issue and a person is free to choose and practise his religion, he also said.

The intent in mailing seditious and offensive tracts was clearly done to convince the Muslim reader to convert to Christianity.

'It is foreseeable that the faithful have desires to profess and spread their faith. Besides worship, some Christians might even see evangelism as their paramount Christian duty,' Judge Neighbour said.

But the right to propagate an opinion cannot be an unfettered right.

As Singaporeans, Ong and Chan cannot claim to be ignorant of the sensitivity of race and religion in Singapore's multiracial and multi-religious society, the judge said.

By distributing the tracts, the couple 'clearly reflected' their intolerance, insensitivity and ignorance of delicate issues concerning race and religion in Singapore.

'Common sense dictates that religious fervour to spread the faith, in our society, must be constrained by sensitivity, tolerance and mutual respect for another's faith and religious beliefs,' Judge Neighbour said.

carolynq@sph.com.sg

[If I were their lawyer, I'd ask if the Judge were Catholic and if so request that he recuse himself.

Not because I think he has acted partially, but because justice must be seen to be done. If Islam and Catholicism has been insulted, then the judge should not be Catholic or Muslim.

That said, I think there is a need for this couple to be made an example of. I feel sorry for them, but I think they need to think for themselves and find a better way to get to heaven. Evangelistic Christianity is resembling a huge pyramid marketing scheme if your place in heaven depends on the number you convert.

Insensitive evangelising arising from intolerant religious-superiority complex needs to be curbed. Christianity that cannot tolerate other religions or promotes an "us vs them" mentality has not place in Singapore.

Jesus said, if they are not against us, they are for us. Not the other way around. That was a tolerant position. Some Christians have turned that around.]

Most liveable city in SEA

June 9, 2009

By Reico Wong

SINGAPORE is the most liveable place in South-east Asia, according to survey of 140 countries.

It also ranked number 54, above New York in 56th place, as the world's easiest city to live in in the latest survey by the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU).

In the survey which examined five categories - stability, healthcare, culture and environment, education and infrastructure - Singapore got an overall score of 88.5, with 100 being the ideal rating.

A score of 80 or more indicates that the city will have 'few, if any, challenges to living standards'. A city which scores 50 or less will present 'daily challenges to living standards'.

Kuala Lumpur and Jakarta were placed 79th and 123rd respectively.

One interesting fact the survey revealed was the stark contrast in the liveability among Asia-Pacific countries.

While three countries in the region - Australia, New Zealand and Japan - accounted for eight out of the top 20 cities worldwide, nine Asian countries took the 10 spots in the bottom 20 cities in direct polarisation.

Dhaka, Bangladesh fared the worst in 138th place, and among the Southeast Asian city, Phnom Penh, Cambodia ranked the lowest in 128th place.

'The performance of Asian cities reflects the diverse levels of development throughout the region,' said Jon Copestake, editor of the report.

'Australian cities represent many of the best aspects of liveability while instability in countries like Pakistan and Bangladesh means that cities in South Asia fare much worse,' he added.

Sleep affects blood pressure

June 9, 2009

CHICAGO - MIDDLE-AGED adults who get too little sleep are more likely to develop high blood pressure, US researchers said on Monday.

The study, among the first to directly measure sleep duration in middle-aged adults, found missing an average one hour of sleep over five years raised the risk of developing high blood pressure by 37 per cent.

It also suggests that poor sleep may explain in part why black men have higher blood pressure risks.

'People who didn't sleep as much were at greater risk of developing hypertension over five years,' Kristen Knutson of the University of Chicago reported in the Archives of Internal Medicine.

Adults typically need between seven and nine hours of sleep, according to the US Centres for Disease Control and Prevention, but many get far less, and several studies have begun to show the health consequences.

In children, lack of sleep has been shown to raise rates of obesity, depression and high blood pressure. In older adults, it increases the risk of falls. And in the middle-aged, it raises the risk of infections, heart disease, stroke and cancer.

The team studied 578 adults with an average age of 40. They took blood pressure readings and measured how long each person slept. Only 1 per cent slept eight hours or more.

The volunteers slept six hours on average. Those who slept less were far more likely to develop high blood pressure over five years. And each hour of lost sleep raised the risk.

The team also found that men, and particularly black men, got much less sleep than white women in the study, who were least likely to develop high blood pressure. -- REUTERS

Legally Speaking: What's In A Name? As It Turns Out, A Lot

From another paper.

9/23/2008 12:58 PM
By John G. Browning
 
During a recent appearance on Dallas' local ABC affiliate, WFAA-TV, I took some calls live from viewers seeking legal advice.

Given the state of the economy, I wasn't surprised by the calls from people facing foreclosure, job layoffs, or mounting credit and debt. What surprised me were the multiple phone calls I received asking about name changes.

Don't get me wrong - I have no problem with name changes. In fact, I think the celebrities who have saddled their kids with weird monikers have engaged in a form of child abuse, and I won't be surprised to see a wave of legal name changes in the future from such kids as Pilot Inspektor Lee (offspring of "My Name Is Earl" star Jason Lee) or Moxie Crimefighter Jillette (child of magician Penn Jillette).

Celebrities, in fact, seem to have cornered the market on odd names. The late Frank Zappa, of course, named two of his children Dweezil and Moon Unit. Director Robert Rodriguez has children named Rocket, Rebel, Racer and Rogue. Actress Jessica Alba recently named her daughter Honor, while Korn frontman Jonathan Davis chose the name "Pirate" for his newborn - arrgh!

Actress Rachel Griffiths and "Rocky" and "Rambo" icon Sylvester Stallone, elected to stick their children with names guaranteed to produce quizzical looks if not playground beatdowns, naming their kids "Banjo" and "Sage Moonblood," respectively.

Musicians seem to be among the worst offenders. Late INSX lead singer Michael Hutchence had a daughter name Tiger Lily Heavenly Hiraani. John Mellencamp, meanwhile, spawned Speck Wildhorse Mellencamp. Rocker and activist Bob Geldof may have raised awareness of hunger in Africa, but somebody needs to raise his awareness of childhood teasing: he named his daughters Peaches, Pixie, and Fifi-Trixiebelle. For crying out loud, Bob, they're children, not French poodles!

One of the best known examples of celebrities run amok in the baby name department is the product of actress Gwyneth Paltrow and Coldplay lead singer Chris Martin's union: Apple.

Says Mr. Martin, "There's nothing weird about calling your baby Chewbacca if that's what you want to call your baby. It's no stranger than Sarah. A name is just a noise." (I respectfully disagree - no matter how hairy your baby may be, or how big of a "Star Wars" fan you are, don't name your kid Chewbacca).

While I'm not aware of any famous offspring named Chewbacca (or Han Solo, for that matter), some celebrities have let their sci-fi/comic book obsessions get the better of them. How else would you explain Kal-el Coppola, the son of actor Nicholas Cage, who borrowed from the true birth name of Superman?

And let's not overlook little Harley Quinn Smith, daughter of director/writer/actor Kevin Smith. He named his little girl after the Joker's sidekick from "Batman: The Animated Series." At least these kids can grow up with their own action figures.

Celebrities, however, aren't the only ones to manifest their passions in name choices. Do you really need to ask Brazilian soccer player Creedence Clearwater Couto what his parents' favorite band was? Or, for that matter, little Metallica Tomaro (daughter of Michael and Karolinn Tomaro)?

Two different boys - one in Michigan, one in Texas - have been named Espn (after sports network ESPN), and I'm pretty sure that the parents of Wrigley Fields are hardcore baseball fans. And it's not just the parents shouldering the responsibility for such choices.

Sometimes individuals themselves change their names in honor of their obsession. For example, a "Phantom of the Opera" fan had her name legally changed to that of the character, Christine Daae. A member of the U.S. National Guard who is evidently a huge "Transformers" fan changed his name to Optimus Prime. In 1994, Santa Barbara resident Peter Eastman Jr. legally became "Trout Fishing in America" (after the music group or the book by Richard Brautigan, I'm not sure).

Sometimes, people have pursued name changes to make a point. In 1998, a Tennessee politician enhanced his chances of beating his statehouse rival by legally becoming Byron Low Tax Looper. In 2006, a PETA staffer named Chris Garnett decided to show his opinion of the Colonel by changing his name to Kentucky Fried Cruelty.com.

Meanwhile, Michael Howard had had enough with the bureaucracy and overcharges of his bank in England. Accordingly, he had his name changed to "Yorkshire Bank PLC Are Fascist Bastards," in part because he wanted that printed on checks made out to him.

Many of the stranger names encountered by registrars and bureaus of vital statistics, however, can only be chalked up to twisted senses of humor or downright cruelty. Authors Michael Sherrod and Matthew Rayback pored over census records from 1790 to 1930 for their 2008 book Bad Baby Names.

Those labors turned up names like Candy Stohr, Mary Christmas, Garage Empty, Please Cope, Happy Day, King Arthur and many others. Others make little sense, like Fish and Chips; Number 16 Bus Shelter; Sex Fruit; Violence; and Yeah Detroit.

No less a figure than former Texas governor James Stephen Hogg named his daughter Ima; let's hope the poor girl didn't develop an eating disorder.

Maybe some of these parents took their cues from the classic Johnny Cash song "A Boy Named Sue," in which the protagonist's estranged father defends his choice by saying "I knew you'd have to get tough or die/And it's the name that helped make you strong."

But at least one judge has taken strong action against a parent's questionable choice in children's names. Judge Rob Murfitt of Wellington, New Zealand, encountered a 9-year-old girl involved in a custody battle; her parents had christened her "Talula Does The Hula From Hawaii."

Judge Murfitt made the girl a ward of the court so that her name could be changed, after hearing testimony about her embarrassment over the bizarre appellation. He observed, "The court is profoundly concerned about the very poor judgment which this child's parents have shown in choosing this name. It makes a fool of the child and sets her up with a special disability and handicap, unnecessarily."

I've been called upon in the past to help make a child's life easier through a name change. On one occasion, I successfully petitioned a court to change the name for a boy who was constantly tormented by his peers; it seems Mr. and Mrs. Krueger had sorely underestimated the lasting popularity of a certain "Nightmare on Elm Street" movie villain when they chose the name Frederick for their son (memo to the Lecters: anything but Hannibal, please: school cafeterias will be tough enough for your child to deal with as it is).

So what does it take to change your name legally in Texas? Well, first you have to actually file a petition (a lawsuit) in the county where the adult or child desiring the name change resides. It must be sworn to, and must give the full name being requested by the petitioner as well as the reason why the change is being sought.

To make sure the person seeking the change is not doing so in order to evade justice or any outstanding legal obligations, there are additional requirements.

These include: indicating whether the petitioner has been convicted of a felony, or is required to register as a sex offender; a legible and complete set of the petitioner's fingerprints on a fingerprint card; full name, sex, race, date of birth, driver's license number, Social Security number, and any assigned FBI number or state reference to a criminal history record that would identify the petitioner; as well as the case number and court for any offense higher than a Class C misdemeanor.

Bear in mind, changing one's name in order to avoid liabilities incurred under a previous moniker won't be permitted by a judge. But getting a fresh start in life after a parent stuck you with a name that doomed you to years of abuse in school - say "Talula Does the Hula From Hawaii," for example - that'll be justified every time.

John Browning is a partner in the Dallas office of Gordon & Rees, LLP. He may be contacted at: jbrowning@gordonrees.com