Philosophy

had a whole string of philosophical points put across about existence.

and the conclusion i draw is that no one can prove which one is right. it's a belief that one bolsters (or discredits) with what seems like a logical argument. then the individual, based on those arguments, makes chooses to accept one idea of 'existence'.

but is what we chose necessarily true? as XH mentions, these statements (and hence Philosophy, as taught as a uni degree course) are generally useless.

however, even Science is built upon a set of assumptions and definitions that we belief to be true simply because past experiences have not proven them wrong. still it does not mean that our beliefs are indeed right.

the universe has no obligations to make sense to us. we, however, have many reasons to try to make sense of the universe. and so we delude ourselves into thinking that we can make sense of the universe.

yet, "there is more to a single ounce of reality than an entire galaxy of human minds can comprehend". so we seek comfort in our delusions, choosing those which are most useful to us.

just read an interesting book. God's Debris by Scott Adams. don't read it looking for answers. read it to spark thinking and come up with your own answers.

if there's anything that i've taken away, it's that conflicting view points can both be right and/or wrong. and the study of philosophy is thus, in my opinion, pointless (insofar as to truly determine the nature of reality, humanity, existence, etc.) except in training people to think critically and see different sides of an argument, opening the mind up, then using this criticality in a practical way to solve society's dilemnas and conundrums.

The Price

if i defaulted on my NS, ran off to another country stayed there for x years and somewhere along the line, gave up my Singaporean citizenship, i am still liable for punishment. that is just us being vinidicative isn't it?

doing NS is the responsibility of a male Singaporean. if a bloke gives up his Singaporean citizenship, he automatically frees himself of that responsibility right?

another way to look at it: shouldn't giving up my Singaporean citizenship punishment enough? so all the kerfuffle about the pianist person. perhaps that is indicative that Singaporean guys don't value their Singaporean citizenship. and perhaps it's also indicative of guys mistake doing NS as what makes their Singaporean citizenship valuable.

should it not be the other way round? that we do NS because we value being Singaporean?

Story telling

over my brief experience of leading a Tai-Tai lifestyle today, i admitted to JIS and V. that i seem to have lost the ability to tell good stories. which, as you can judge from my previous post, is true. given the standard that i have now, if i sit for my O-level English paper again, i'll at most get a B3 or B4.

i blame it on me being in the civil service. writing has become factual, short, succinct.

ah well. *shrugs*

speaking of my brief experience of leading a Tai-Tai lifestyle, it's funny how some completely innocent things, when misheard, can become distorted most hilariously.

V. was saying that he was discussing Romance of the Three Kingdoms with his grandmother. JIS immediately sat up and said, "What? Men's latrine system?"

we all had a good laugh because of that. though V. did choke on his tea. which made it funnier.

Tsal Nam's Story

This is the story of the last few months of the life of Tsal Nam. It starts when Tsal Nam, his wife and their 3-month-old child were stranded in the Eruc Suriv research facility. Tsal had been there for the last half year researching the cure for an epidemic that has reached catastrophic proportions. But just as they were about to finally work out the cure, a terrible natural calamity struck back on Earth. They were not able to get regular re-supply of food and fresh water.

Tsal knew that he had to remain at the research facility to finish his work. He did the logical thing, sending everyone else back. His wife would hear nothing of that and so she and their child stayed behind.

A month after the evacuation, Tsal had a major breakthrough. He was so close! He could feel it. Give him 2 more months and he would solve the puzzle. But they were fast running out of food. Earthcom had told them that they could only get a craft to them in 6 weeks. They had only enough food to last all three of them for one week.

“There is a way. Tsal, the child and I are inconsequential. You alone hold the key to the cure. You alone must survive,” said Tsal’s wife. Her Head had always ruled over her Heart.

Tsal knew what she meant. But could he really bring himself to do what his wife is suggesting? His child was only 3-month-old! His Heart screamed out against what his Head knew he had to do. The continued survival of the human species depended on him living.

“Dr Tsal! You can’t imagine how glad we are to bring you back!” President Lacitilop exclaimed as Tsal stepped off the craft. There was no mention of Tsal’s wife nor his 3-month-old child. It had to be done. He gave up his humanity in exchange for the hope that Humanity would survive.

“Look, it’s the survival of the entire human species we're talking about. Billions of lives! It’s got to be done. Everyone, every single one, old, young, even the babies, everyone… has to be injected with this for it to be effective,” Tsal said, his voice straining with exasperation, “Telling them that there is a one third chance that they will die from the injection will only complicate matters.”

“Dr Tsal, you cannot calculate it that way. You cannot measure human rights or freedom of choice. I am not a tyrant. We are a democratic society. The people have a right to know and to make their choice based on their knowledge,” President Lacitilop explained.

Indeed Aipotu, the amalgamation of the anachronistic ‘nations’ into a single global society, was a truly democratic society. It was a society where the individual’s human rights were defended above all else. And what greater human rights than that of life and choice?

And so choose the people did. Some injected themselves with the cure, some did not. Consequently, just as Tsal warned, the cure was ineffective. The virus mutated, spreading even faster. There was no way of stopping it now. Homo Sapiens would be wiped out in a manner of days. Tsal’s efforts and sacrifices counted for nothing.

Tsal stared at his computer. He knew that no one would survive this final catastrophe. There was nothing left to do but to wait for his turn. His thoughts turned to the 2 people he had cared for most and their pointless sacrifice. Anger at the stupidity of his fellow human beings seethed and bubbled, desperately seeking an outlet. He started typing, “This is the story of the last few months of the life of Tsal Nam…

_________________________________________________

“You have won,” Head said, matter of factly.

“Yes. But it feels like I have lost,” Heart replied, Her voice trembling with grief.

“Best 2 of 3?” Head asked, His voice without a single trace of emotions.

Hurrah!

so Ex Forging Sabre validated the complete transformation of our military forces into a 3G SAF allowing us to fight NCW instead of being constrained to platform-centric warfare. we can now levarage on IKC2 as a force multiplier. how exciting!

except that... reading all the exuberence in the Straits Times, i can't help but think of Millenium Challenge 02.

Millenium Challenge 02 was a major wargaming exercise for the Pentagon to test a set of new and quite radical ideas about how to go into battle. the Blue Team (i.e. the 'good guys', i.e. the damn Yanks) were given greater intellectual resources than perahps any army in history. the Joint Forces Command (JFCOM) devised something called the Operational Net Assessment, which was a formal decision making tool that broke the enemy down into a series of systems - military, economic, social, political - and created a matrix showing how all those systems were interrelated and which of the links among the systems were the most vulnerable. Blue Team's commanders were also given a tool called Effects-Based Operations, which directed them to think beyond the conventional military method of targeting and destroying an adversary's military assets. They were given a comprehensive, real-time map of the combat situation called the Common Relevant Operational Picture (CROP). They were given a tool for joint interactive planning. They were given an unprecedented amount of information and intelligence from every corner of the U.S. government and a methodology that was logical and systematic and rigourous and rational. they had every toy in the Pentagon's arsenal.

the Opposition Force (aka Opfor, aka Red Team) was commanded by a retired 3 star general, Paul van Riper. he commanded a force that was in every way outnumbered and outgunned by the Blue Team.

so on the opening day of the war game, Blue Team poured tens of thousands of troops into the theatre of combat, parked an aircraft carrier battle group just offshore of Red Team's home country and issued Red Team with an eight point ultimatum, with the eighth point being to surrender. they then went on to knock out Red Team's microwave towers and cut Red Team's fibre optics lines on the assumption that Red Team would then have to use satellite communications and cell phones which the Blue Team can monitor.

then everything went wrong for the Blue Team. Van Riper used couriers on motorcycles, messages hidden inside prayers, Morse codes via lights. on the second day, Van Riper put small boats in the sea around the theatre to track the ships of the invading Blue Team. and without warning, bombarded the Blue Team navy with an hour-long assualt with a fusillade of cruise missles. When that surprise attack was over, 16 of Blue Team's ships lay at the bottom of the sea. if it were a real war, over 20,000 American servicemen and women would be dead before they fired a single shot. Red Team also assasinated leaders of pro-US countries in the region, leading to further inability of Blue Team forces to mobilize.

all this lead to a catastrophic defeat of the Blue Team. but what happened?

JFCOM ordered all 16 ships to be magically refloated, all the dead marines to be miraculously brought back to life. they then told Van Riper that all his missles were mysteriously destroyed and that he can't use couriers, prayers nor Morse code to communicate. JFCOM then issued scripted the entire wargaming exercise from then on, dictating what Red Team does.

obviously, Blue Team won spectacularly after that. they then used the results of that wargame to validate their 'revolutionary' set of war fighting doctrines, claiming to have lifted the fog of war and gotten rid of the friction of battle.

so what is the moral of the story? if they had to come up with someone as devious and cunning as Van Riper, would the 3G SAF survive?

Bidding Farewell

thought just struck me. can you imagine if you have to bid farewell to Chee Soon Juan?

"Hey Dr Chee! Bye!"

Beliefs, Assumptions and Definitions

Voctir said: "Moral nihilism (there is no right or wrong) leads us to be unable to condemn Adolf Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin, Milosevic, Saddam Hussein and perpetrators of crimes against humanity."
and so what if we are unable to condemn them? trust me, regardless of what your answer is, it will only lead to a whole lot of other similar questions. and at the end of all the questions, it's all down to what one assumes and defines as 'right', 'wrong', 'good', 'evil'. how do you then prove that one definition of 'right' is more right/valid than another? because most people feel it is right?

my point is thus that there is no universal, absolute definiton of the terms 'right', 'wrong', 'good', 'evil', not that there isn't 'right', 'wrong', 'good', 'evil' as such. a particular action/decision might be 'right' (or 'wrong', 'good', 'evil') for a particular situation, given the particular conditions, knowledge, etc. tweak the conditions, knowledge, situation, then the same action/decision might not be 'right' (or 'wrong', 'good', 'evil') anymore. it all depends on the context and the situation. and to determine whether something is indeed 'right', 'wrong', 'good', 'evil' requires that same thing to be analysed critically from many different angles.

Voctir also said, " I don't see the point of your example about the tree falling--the fact of the tree's falling exists regardless of whether there were any witnesses to it, just as the earth has existed without life (humans or otherwise, which could see) for at least a billion years."

it then bags the question (which has been debated by various people for yonks): what does it mean for something to exist? the tree falling question is actually a very old existentialist question (which until Uni, i had the same views as Voctir).

we 'know' that the world exists for at least a billion years before our arrival because we have seen evidences of that fact. so while we were not there to witness the world being in existence for the whole billion years, our present observation of those evidence gives witness to that billion years of existence. it is just like quantum physics really. until you observed the electron, the electron of a particular state (i.e. energy, velocity, position) did not exist (though a probability of it being in that state existed). but when someone looks at it, all the probabilities collapse into a single state and that particular electron of a specific state comes into existence when previously it did not exist. so if that is the nature of the world at the most fundametal level, why is it not possible to accept that as the definition of existence? that something can only be meaningfully said to exist when it is observed?

now that's all philosophical. on a more practical note, it's all about whether it matters that it exists on paper. for example, under the Singaporean Penal Code, it is a crime to carry hockey sticks in the boot of your car. but for all intents and purposes, this law might as well not exist cos few people know about it and it is now almost no longer enforced. the key words are therefore, "for all intents and purposes". similarly with what i was saying about the death penalty. if no one commits murder nor trafficks drugs, then for all intents and purposes, it might as well not be in existence.

lastly, Voctir said: "The "better world" that you're thinking of is really a synonym for "ideal world", or Utopia. Alas the greatest human tragedies in history came about because tyrants (and their followers) were under the illusion that Utopia exists and is attainable (e.g. Hitler's Third Reich--a nation of the super-race of the Aryans). We can make a better world through education and upholding certain fundamental principles respecting human dignity and rights. We just cannot make an ideal world. It doesn't exist."

there was a point in time when we thought that it was impossible for humans to fly or for us to get to the moon. a craft that could travel faster than sound doesn't exist. anyone who thought that was deluded. but there were those crazy enough to try it. and sure enough, a lot of these deluded died, bring killing quite a few innocent bystanders along the way.

but today, we have reached the moon, we have supersonic flight.

just because something does not exist now does not mean that it will never exist. just because all our efforts to create something has till now ended in failure does not mean that it is not possible.

an ideal world without suffering, murder, crimes of any sorts might seem impossible now. but humanity has pulled of many impossibilities. because some amongst us believe enough to work for it. can anyone truly prove that such a world is indeed impossible? do we know for certain that such a world is indeed impossible? or do we believe that it is impossible because of our past experiences?

if it is the latter, then i choose to believe that it is possible despite the experiences. i believe that human nature is not set in stone, that we can learn and evolve, thus creating an ideal world. not in my lifetime. not even for a few hundred generations to come. but i believe that it is possible if enough people work at it, starting from now.

Vertigo

is when you look down and you have an intense urge to hurl yourself over the edge. just to find out how it feels like to fall and what it feels like as you hit the ground, splattering your internal organs all over the place.

i wonder. would you feel the pain?

how does it feel like to die?

nono... don't worry... i'm no depressed or anything. i'm just... curious. i mean... you got to be. Death comes to us all. everyone meets the robed figure of Death with his scythe and all.

i should stop. why ask about death when i don't even know how to live? or was it "learn about life before you ask about death"?

ah whatever.

[ed: i've actually did some psychoanalysis on myself about why i have this morbid fascination with death and falling. and...]

Revert

which according to Dictionary.com means:

1. To return to a former condition, practice, subject, or belief
2. Law. To return to the former owner or to the former owner's heirs. Used of money or property

so i'm pretty sure using the word 'revert' in the following way is wrong: "Please revert with your decision asap"

alas, you can find a lot of civil servants using the word in that way. in fact, i spotted that word being used that way in the Straits Times today!

not that i am a grammar Nazi or anything... but can you imagine someone emailing you asking for you to "revert to him asap"?

i've never been you before! and no, thank you very much, i'd rather be myself.

speaking of which. i must say that while my blog sounds right winged, i am not entirely so. a lot of what i write is for arguments' sake. it is written to challenge your (i.e. the readers') fundamental beliefs and assumptions (e.g. what makes you think what you think is "fair" is indeed "fair"?).

but i do admit, i have a right winged streak to me. and a left winged one too. perhaps the best way to understand me is to think of me as a fascist commie.

Deadly Pair

if you are stupid enough to take too much drugs, it kills you.

if you are unlucky enough to be standing right in the middle of a gunfight between 2 rival gangs fighting for extra territory to sell drugs, you die.

stupidity and unlucky are a deadly pair.

e.g. stupid enough to run the risk of trafficking drugs into a country where there's the mandatory death sentence for trafficking x amount of drugs and being unlucky enough of get caught.

i hope this will be my last post (at least for a loooooooooooong while) about the death penalty in Singapore.

i don't actually know enough to comment conclusively whether it is justified, whether it is right or wrong.

what disturbs me greatly is that there are people who produces, trafficks and consumes drugs, resulting in stupid and/or unlucky people getting killed (one way or another) in the process.

what can i do about it? nothing much. not yet anyways.

Fair?

something else came to me.

if we want to talk about fairness...

now why doesn't Australia (or any of the other countries pushing for ideals of "human rights") threaten trade sanctions (or whatever else they can use as a threat) on every single nation that produces drugs until the world is and remains free of drugs? that would solve the problem of there being addicts and drug traffickers (and hence making the whole death penalty to drug trafficker a non-issue). because then no one can choose to be an addict.

won't that be a much nicer world? one without drugs at all?

but would these countries who defend "human rights" go that far to really further the wellbeing of humanity? of course not.

and if the international community is really that serious about "human rights", they should consider doing something about the billions of starving in the world first before worrying themselves about something as inconsequential (relatively inconsequential) as the death penalty in Singapore.

let he who has not sinned cast the first stone. [ed: which is a flawed argument, which i'm only using now cos it suits my purpose. point being there really isn't anything that is right. at most, it's right for that time, in that context.]

If a tree falls...

Jasmi said in response to my earlier post:
"you are kidding me. thats totally avoiding the question of fairness, of justice altogether. i hate to say this.. but it is an utterly shameful suggestion."

but what is fair? what is just? are these just not mere philosophical constructs?

then let me give you another philosophical construct (or question rather): if a tree falls in a forest and there's no one there to witness it fall, did it fall?

similarly, even if there exists the death penalty, but no one commits a crime that permits the death penalty, then does the death penalty exist?

there is no shame, no fairness, no justice, no right, no wrong, no good, no evil. there just is.

philosophical statements aside. why is it a shameful to suggest that we create a society/world where no one trafficks drugs or murders other people? i'd say it's a pretty noble aim for anyone foolish enough to attempt.

imagine a world where everyone values the life of everyone else such that no one wishes to kill another person, imagine a reality so wonderful that no one needs to take drugs to escape from. imagine also that this is a world where there is also no want, no suffering?

in such a world, it wouldn't matter even if, on paper, there is the death penalty because it will not be invoked and so for all intents and purposes, the death penalty would not exist. in fact, in such a world, the entire penal code could demand death penalty for the smallest infringement on paper, but might as well, for all intents and purposes, exist. because no one would break the law, because everyone would be able to do the right thing.

aren't we all trying to create such a world? a better world?

but until we suceed, it does matter what the penal code is. it does matter that the death penalty exists on paper because it is invoked and hence the death penalty does take on more aspects of existence.

so until that day when we suceed in creating such an ideal world, it is a delicate balance having sufficient carrots and sticks to ensure that people do abide by the Law. for that matter, it is important to come up with appropriate laws.

i don't think that Singapore has found that balance. in fact, i don't think any country has found that balance. and so we tweak it here and there, groping in the dark, almost.

It's a BIG AD

which can be found here

wonder whether it's all CGI or whether they really got hordes of poeple running around like that.

Gifted

there was a letter in the Today papers in response to an article GEP. which drew more letters to be written, which i shall not link (but links can be found here)

i have met many people who have been through GEP and are just wonderful people to be with. intelligent, capable, dependable, honest and frank.

the question i have is whether they would have turned out they way they did without having all the resources pumped in anyway.

other concern is whether, when they become AO's, PS's , Ministers, they will be able to empathise and have a true grasp of the sentiments on the ground and how the 'little' people feel.

but that is not solely their fault, nor that of MOE (though MOE isn't helping much either). Singaporean society just does not allow our students the bandwidth to develop the things which really matter but hold little ostensible economic value. things such as empathy, genuine concern for others, patience, humility.

Getting Rid

for those people who do not want to see another execution in Singapore, there is a way.

make sure that no one commits the crimes that gets the mandatory death sentence.

i.e. make sure that no one trafficks drugs, murders, etc.

because if no one does that, then whether or not the death sentence is there does not matter.

Uniquely Singapore

amidst the duntz duntz of last night, i had an epiphany about what is uniquely Singapore.

i was at Mambo last night. and as usual, when they started laying on the cheese, the co-ordinated, pre-determined hand-waving, hip gyrating, lyrics mouthing started. and i commented to Y that perhaps she should learn the moves and bring them back to Loughborough. who knows, she might start a trend there.

that's when the epiphany came.

it won't work in UK now. people there guard their individuality too fiercely. they will refuse to become part of a faceless mob.

but in Singapore. that's different. we are fine with being lemmings, comfortable with being one with the crowd, yet at the same time, trying to inject our own little bit of individuality into the mass orgy of pre-determined choreographed uniformity. it was hilariously funny, yet interestingly educational (not to mention quite fun cos of the really cute girl dancing near us, and the other quite cute girl dancing on the podium...)

i conclude that Mambo night of Zouk in Singapore is truly uniquely Singapore. and so i thought to myself someone should Wikipedia it. so when i got home, i went to Wikipedia and typed in Zouk and Mambo. and what i found out was pretty interesting. completely not what i expected. nonetheless, i still think we should have the uniquely Singaporean versions of Mambo and Zouk as entries in Wikipedia. what do you think?

About Children

bit of wisdom from JIS (Teochew version sounds a lot nicer...):
gu za eh nang, no kia si si sua seh,
(last time, people anyhow give birth to kids)
dong kim gai nang, seh jit kai zu da kao lo dong.
(now people have one kid like super big deal)

and i think the kids in the past turned out relatively well despite the situation. or perhaps because of the situation?

another bit of parenting tips from JIS:
communicate to children that whether they succeed or fail, it's up to them and no one else but them. after that, let go.

and it's back to the same point in the previous post. we have to bear the responsibility and consequences of our choices, our actions. that is what differentiates us from animals.

Still human?

would we kill mosquitoes who bring dengue fever? yes. with a vengeance.

so we would get rid of carriers of pestilence? of course! we must.

then are drug traffickers/lords not carriers of pestilence? yes, they are. by deciding to engage in such an act, they have forsaken the ethics, morality and everything that makes them human. they are nothing more than pests. and hence, we should treat them as we treat mosquitoes. squash them, kill them for they are no longer human.

and thus we solve the problem of the death penalty being inhumane. as we only need be humane to those who deserve us being humane to and in my opinion, drug traffickers do not deserve humane treatment.

having said that, it is sad that there exists conditions in society which make people willing to forsake that which makes them human.

BUT my point about the recent hanging is not about what i feel of the death penalty per se. it is about playing by the rules, and accepting the responsibility and consequences of one's actions. if Nguyen is a man, has any shred of humanity left in him, he would accept the punishment stoically. and if the family wants to blame anyone for the grief of losing a son, they have only the son himself to blame for choosing to do what he did.

On a lighter note

for those of you who hate your jobs... be thankful you aren't doing any of the above. but if you are... well... i'll get back to you once i've found people who are in worse conditions than you. :)

Death

so there are 3 letters in the Forum today about the case of Nguyen what's his name and the death penalty. oh... and let's not forget Howard's comments about it and Dr Chee's most sagacious views.

one letter by a Peter Lowe in particular asked 3 questions, which i reproduce here with my own answers:
who suffers after Dec 2 until the day that they die?
True, the family members are the ones who suffer, as do the family members of anyone who loses their loved ones. but whose fault is it that they are made to suffer? Singapore? or should they blame the stupidity of Nguyen for trafficking drugs? or should they blame Australian society for forcing Nguyen into having to traffick drugs to survive? or should they blame themselves for not inculcating in Nguyen the fortitude of character not to traffick drugs?

Who else is seriously offended by Singapore's actions?
obviously not every single Austrialian citizen judging by the other letter in the Forum today by John Fletcher. Mr Fletcher adopts a more moderate tone, giving a fairly balanced argument and pointing out the double standards of the criticisms levelled against Singapore. he also defends Singapore's sovereign right to enforce the laws that we have set.

How do you think Singapore and its culture are regarded by the civilised world?
Mr Lowe allows us to ponder this for ourselves. i have and i have come to the conclusion that the world would think of us as being a tough and fair nation, determined to defend our sovereign rights, doing what we think is right and not giving in to international pressure. i think the civilised world would recognise Singapore as a place where the rule of law is indeed enforced with much efficiency, thus giving the civilised world confidence that the environment in Singapore is conducive for them to come do business with us. the civilised world would also applaud Singapore's tough stance against drug traffickers, sending a strong signal to drug traffickers not to bring drugs into Singaopre. or to do so, at your own risk.

a Ms Ooi also wrote in asking whether an Aussie passport puts one above the law. i agree with her view that Nguyen is responsible for his own predicament. he knew the penalties, and he 'decided to take a gamble and, unfortunately, he lost.' Ms Ooi also brings up a good point about how Nguyen 'put aside his ethics and morals.'

while i am still undecided about the death penalty, i am certain that the people clamouring for Nguyen to escape the gallows are in the wrong. Nguyen took the gamble knowing full well the possible consequences. he lost the gamble and now he wants to escape those consequences. that's like playing a high stakes poker game only to have someone call your bluff and then refusing to pay up.

and then you have Dr Chee coming up to call for global protest. now that's sheer genius isn't it? definitely would win him the next elections! NOT! it's all fine and well that he is against the death penalty and tries to change it, but the fact of the matter is that currently, that's the law that we have in place. asking the international community to intervene against Singapore's sovereign rights to enforce the law is, in my opinion, tantamount to treason. what else would he do if he's in power? give up our sovereign rights to run our country to tree hugging hippies based in London (who probably never really been poor anyways...)?

not surprisingly, Howard was circumspect and respected our sovereign rights to enforce the law. he also took a practical view that neither countries should sabotage their economic and strategic partnership because of the folly of one man.

my thoughts on the death penalty perhaps a little later.

the one with People Like Us

Akikonomu had an interesting post on the recent brush that the civil society group PLU had with the monolithic machinery of the Gahmen. he has been criticised by quite a few people for his post. these people seem to have the opinion that Akikonomu is criticising PLU because he is not sympathetic with their cause and instead of criticising, should be more encouraging.

i, on the other hand, think that Akikonomu's intentions of bringing up this discussion is valuable. i believe that this discussion is about how PLU (and other civil society groups) can do better. which is all the more important precisely because of all the obstacles that civil society groups are facing. in order to navigate all the obstacles, you have got to be tough, get your act together and be watertight as possible. so if we are sympathetic to the cause, all the more we should criticise, bringing to light what went well, but more importantly, what went wrong and how can we do better. if not, how can we improve? if not, civil society groups would just turn into the civil service, full of people who keep patting themselves on the back but never quite improving because somewhere along the line, some one can't take criticisms.

besides, civil society groups are supposed to be critical of society, pushing boundaries and all. should they not apply the same principles to themselves and be critical of their own efforts, pushing their own boundaries of what they can do to be better, more efficacious and efficient? thus i feel the greatest value of Akikonomu's post is to bring up this discussion, where different views of how PLU does things are thrown up, and then for PLU to glean from it ways of how they can improve. that is the mark, in my opinion, of a foward looking, progressive organisation.

if only our Civil Service was like that. it would solve a lot of problems. alas, nonono... middle management kills everything. in what little i've seen of the Civil Service, i have seen visionary senior management whose ideas fizzle out because the middle management rather go with the safe, tried and tested way. i feel that this is all the more so with MOE.

Minister has set out a vision of quality education that prepares for life not just for exams. he admits that it is hardly possible to measure and quantify this sort of quality of education. however, we are in Singapore where everything has a number attached to it. we still attempt to measure how good our education is. which is fine. the numbers give a very rough indication of where we are. but to see getting a good set of numbers as the goal of education would be to miss the point completely.

alas, it seems that that is what some Principals are doing, still only going for all the awards, certificates, etc., turning students into award winning, medal producing machines, sacrificing those who cannot do so along the way.

Sun with Moon

is a new restaurant that i just discovered. it is on the third floor of Wheelock Place where Olio Dome used to be.

food there is quite good, decor gives the place an ambience appropriate to chill and there are quite chio waitresses there too!

definitely a good place to chill out.

things to check out there:

1. Saba Shioyaki (however it's spelt.... the grilled mackerel)
2. Grilled Salmon
3. Sukiyaki
4. dessert (i've thus far only tried the parfait's which were quite good)
5. tea (not o-cha, but tea that comes with the sets)
6. cute waitresses

Chatter

another article in the ST today titled "Oh, how the Indians love to talk!". Asad Latif had this wonderful line:

"our disagreements entrenched a wild friendship, a pilgrimage of unruly minds bound only by the agreement to disagree."

i think this statement describes very well my relationship with some of my closest friends.

Another Wonder

i think that in time to come, Google Library (if the effort is not shot down by myopic publishers and corporate interests) will become another one of those Great World Wonders in a future edition of the game "Civilisation".

And a bell(e)?

in today's papers were the following:
Comments in response to Ignatius Low's "Is Annabel Chong a national hero?"
one was titled: "Don't glorify Annabel Chong"and the other was "Youth may get wrong message". both felt that what Annabel Chong did was disgraceful and "celebrating" and "glorifying" her would lead to promotion of promiscuity amongst youths. i think both are missing the forest for the trees.

firstly, i don't think Ignatius Low was promoting promiscuity in any ways. Rather, i think he was urging youths to emulate Annabel Chong's daringness to challenge the boundaries, to think out of the box, to question the status quo, to take a stand and be prepared to defend that stand, to fall and bounce back up. in short, i think he was urging youths to emulate Annabel Chong's entreprenueral spirit and exploit a niche to make a name for themselves. how they then utilise and make manifest this entreprenueral spirit would definitely have to differ from what Annabel Chong did.

secondly, i don't think our 'glorifying' Annabel Chong will make our youths more promiscuous. the causes of promiscuity in Singaporean society are many and complex. if anything, Annabel Chong is but an effect of these causes and i think if youths were to become more promiscuous, they'd do so anyways with or without Annabel Chong.

The Next Generation

Seah Chiang Nee has an interesting article in the Review of 19/11/2005, titled, "What S'porean next generation holds".

i think he gave a fairly accurate description of the majority of middle and upper class Singaporean youths. i particularly liked his comment about the Singaporean teenager being helpless without his/her maid and being naive about internet predators, corruption or real poverty.

i feel that most of his criticisms of the average Singaporean youth springs from the Singaporean parents being too demanding and strict in some areas and being too indulgent in others.

too demanding and strict:

1. academic results, forcing students to sacrifice real education for being able to do well in exams.
2. earning big bucks, ingraining into students a strong desire to make a living, sacrificing the desire to actually live, hence resulting in Singaporean children 'knowing the price of everything but the value of nothing' (i love that line...)

too indulgent:

1. not disciplining the child in etiquette, respect (oneself and others), leading to children running amok in public places (Sumiko Tan has a great article in Sunday Life of 20/11/05). for examle, i saw this kid once on a bus, complete brat. had real volume control problems, didn't really speak as much as demanded. she looked like the sort who expects to get every darn thing she wanted. this ah-so accidentally stepped on her foot (bus was crowded), the girl stomped on the ah-so's foot and started scolding the ah-so, even before the ah-so could even apologise. the mother stood by and did nothing.
2. maid does everything. increasingly, children don't do chores anymore. i didn't. but thankfully, i had OCS to force it into me. and then 4 years overseas to practice. i'm still a slob. but i do not extend my slob-ness to inconvenience other people.
3. more often than not, buying unnecessary things for the children just to bribe them to study/behave, breeding an unhealthy consumerist behaviour.
4. not allowing the child to fall down, hurt himself and get back up by himself. this includes making the wrong decisions and failing.

(lists are not exhaustive. please add on. )

i think if i ever have kids, i want my kids to be the sorts who do not really care about how much money they earn, but are more concerned with whether they love their jobs and whether they are leading meaningful lives.

I believe

that Science is a belief system. or at least that it is a system of inquiry that is built upon a single belief. and that belief is thatthe universe can be understood and predicted (even Quantam Mechanics is predictable insofar as it follows certain statistical rules). however, just because the Universe has, for the history of Mankind, been predictable, does not necessarily mean that it is indeed predictable. just because there seems to be a certain order in the universe that Scientific inquiry seems to have shown does not necessarily prove that there is indeed order in the Universe.

for example, there might be a day when there is no more order and the universal gravitational 'constant' will fluctuate most randomly. what's to say that that's not possible? nothing. just because it has not happened before in the past and has no perceptible evidence of happening does not make it impossible to happen, because if there's anything that we can learn from the history of Scientific inquiry, it should be how right Socrates is: that we do not know anything.

so Science is built upon a single belief, that the universe is predictable (or can also be seen that there is certain order to the Universe that we can seek to understand). this belief has served humanity well. let's hope it is a reasonable belief and continue to not be proven wrong.

Existence

what does it mean for something to exist? does 'justice', 'morality', 'ethics' exist?

XH is of the opinion that they don't. i however think that they do. they do because there are people who think they do and define what they think are 'justice', 'morality' and 'ethics'. and by that act of thinking that they do and defining them, these people bring into existence 'justice', 'ethics' and 'morality'.

an example, if i think of a purple chicken, the purple chicken does not exist, but the concept of the purple chicken, the idea of it does exist, right here in my head. and perhaps even in yours now. so if i think of 'justice', then at the very least, the concept of 'justice' does exist in my mind. similarly for 'ethics' and 'morality'. but in essence, 'justice', 'morality' and 'ethics' are but mere concepts which once in a while manifests themselves through actions. so the fact the the concepts of 'justice', 'morality' and 'ethics' are brought into existence because of my thinking of them means that 'justice', 'morality' and 'ethics' as i've thought of and defined them exist.

XH rightly points out that different people have different notions of 'justice', 'ethics' and 'morality'. and i agree. so there exist different sorts of 'justice', 'ethics' and 'morality'.

and quite a lot of trouble with the world comes in how to reconcile the various definitions of 'justice', 'morality' and 'ethics', as well as to reconcile the concepts of 'justice', 'morality' and 'ethics' with the realistic translation of these concepts into action.

Truth

what is "Truth"? how do we know if something is true? what criteria do we take to define what something is true? that we can experience it, see it, touch it? but we know how our senses often mislead us. then how?

how do we know? we do we know that we know? what makes for meaningful life? how does one lead a meaningful life?

how do we go about finding answers to these questions? is there even a point to finding the answers to these questions?

Love Truth

otherwise known as Philosophy.

XH agrues that Science is not Philosophy. but i believe that Science is a subset of Philosophy. it is the search for truth about the nature of the world, hence Natural Philosophy and as such a subset of Philosophy.

and XH further argues that beside Science all other forms of Philosophy pales in comparison. he argues that all other forms of Philosophy do not deal with the Truth but what Truth ought to be and only Science reveals the Truth.

my take is that Science reveals our best claim to be the Truth given our current understanding and knowledge.

XH further argues that Science is knowledge and not a belief system. my question in response to this is an old one: what is knowledge? what does it mean to know something? some would say, and i agree, that knowledge is reasonable belief. [ed: i wanted to extend this thought further, but realise that it's too late in the night... perhaps another day...]

interestingly, there's a scene in Small Gods where this great library of a city full of philosophers was burning down and 2 characters, Didactylos and Urn were trying to decide which books to save. Urn argued for those to do with Natural Philosophy as these contained information that would be useful to Mankind. Didactylos argued against it. he felt that those were useless as they do not" show people how to be people" (which i take to mean educating people how to lead meaningful lives).

somehow, they managed to take out every single book (read Small Gods to find out the details).

interestingly, later on in the book, Urn used his knowledge of Science to build this contraption that was supposed to be used to fight this tyrant. but the tyrant died (got killed by a falling tortoise) and the weapon was turned against Urn's own people. Urn of course protested, but to no avail. fortunately, all's well that ends well.

i think it shows that Science in itself has no value. it is only the application of Science that gives it value. just like fire, which can be both destructive and constructive depending on how it is being used.

more importantly, the bigger the fire, the stronger the flame, the more wisdom it takes to use it appropriately. similarly, the greater th power, the more wisdom we require to wield it meaningfully.

alas, as i've said many times, we are now in a stage where we have more power than we know what to do with. we are like babies wielding the power of Gods. the advancement of Science has far outstripped the advancement of our Wisdom, leaving us in a precarious situation.

Humanity's fate rests on a knife's edge sitting on a precipice.

Fear Me!

And the Dork Lord shall rise and all ye non-Dorks shall be crushed under his hooved feet and be cast into the depths of incessant suffering, memorising endless formulae and theorems, doing endless volumes of TYS, accepting everything you read to be the gospel truth without thinking!

MWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

and you can call me: DAFT Rench!

Narf!

Om

just finished reading "Small Gods". it's a Terry Pratchet Discworld novel. it's quite good. as a story, it's so-so. but the humour is entertaining and the ideas that he puts forth in the book are refreshin.

my favourite line:
right here and now, you are alive.

Overrated

Anonymous said:
"Societies should be made of different individuals, different cultures and different points of view, not a bunch of mind controled robots."

what's wrong with being a bunch of mind controlled robots?

i used to think that the ideal state would be one where the People do not need to divest authority and responsibility of governing to a centralised entity, nor do they need the police to enforce laws because everyone is willing to do the right thing because it is right. but human beings are bastards.

so let's consider the alternatives: the Philosopher Kings of Plato's Republic and/or the Alpha Plus of Huxley's Brave New World. what's wrong with those societies? particularly Huxley's Brave New World? so what if the rest of us have to be reduced to controlled entities controlled by a group of 'enlightened dictators' if that is what it takes to stop us from blowing ourselves to kingdom come?

i say that we should be like ants. each ant born knowing exactly what to do and performing their task with precision. what's wrong with that? it ensures that the species survives. ants have being around far longer than we have and will probably be around far longer after we have killed ourselves. by the measure of fitness as a species, they definitely surpass us.

so i say, all the qualities that we pride ourselves as human beings: intelligence, 'free-will', etc are all over-rated. we as a species are over-rated.

but, i am a human being. so being human, i have to make the most of it, and live a good life by the silly values that other human beings have set, i.e. be successful, be rich, be "compassionate", be "humanisitic", etc. whatever they all mean.

Sensitive?

in response to comment by Anonymous: "Just because issues are sensative does not mean that they should be brushed under the carpet. "

i believe that there are times when one should sweep such issues under the rug and pretend, for a while, that the problem does not exist.

for example, there is this story of this guy (pardon the lack of exact details, just trust me that i read it and it most probably is true...) whose parents were told by the doctor that he would had a medical condition which would render him unable to walk. the parents never believed it and did not tell the boy nor betray any notion of that knowledge to the boy. so the boy grew up not knowing that he has any medical condition. and so he walked. and went on to run and went on to win gold medals in sprint competitions. if he had known that he had the medical condition, he most probably would not have walked.

another case in point, one could predict the onset of Huntington's disease pretty accurately via some medical test. a doctor found out that this particular woman, whose family has a history of the disease, indeed does have Huntington's disease. but he did not tell her that she has. just as well, cos her friend later told the doctor that if he had told the lady that she had the disease, the lady would have committed suicide.

and cases of war. when even if you, as a commander, think you might lose, you do not tell your men that. you always create the illusion of victory in the vain hope that regardless of how dire the situation, there is a glimmer of hope for victory.

another example. if i overheard a racist remark. do i want to broadcast the racist remark to the whole Singapore? or do i just deal with the person who made that racist remark?

in Singapore's context, therefore, i believe that there are situations where certain groups of people do not need to (and indeed should not to) know about certain things.

final points:

1. press/media "freedom" should be a consequence, not a cause of a more critical Mob.
2. press/media "freedom" can, after the Mob has become more critical in thought, further the process of 'educating' the Mob.
3. it is thus a matter of sequencing. prime first then gradually open up.
4. no matter how enlightened the Mob is, there are certain issues, as it stands now, which should be swept under the rug for the time being and be seen/heard/dealt with by a few people.
5. it is thus a matter of degree of 'freedom'.

in conclusion, in principle, more can be done. of course. but the devil is always in the details. and that requires an in-dpeth study of Singapore society, being completely immersed in every single level, every single strata, straddling the various divides before we can come up with a solution. and perhaps, in this case, i would err on the side of caution.

Freedom?

i've gotten my second wind (which i just broke... but that's alright...) and decided to write about PJ's letter to the forum which can be found here

gist of letter:

1. free press might not be irresponsible and controlled press might be irresponsible
2. for Singapore to progress further, we need open dialogue, feedback and discussion to foment the creativity needed for the future
3. for that to happen, we need to be open and transparent and hence free press is needed

while i agree with much of PJ's many disagreements to a certain Mr Chan's earlier letter, i do not entirely agree that we must have a 'free press'.

what indeed is a free press? is Singapore's press really not free? by whose standards? how did those standards come by? should we judge ourselves by those standards? or should we come up with our own? can there be anything as an unbiased press?

and while i agree that we do need feedback and dialogue within Singapore, platforms to openly discuss issues that concern us, i do not think that we necessarily need a free press before that can happen. in any case, he merely asserted that there is a need for there to be a free press before that can happen. particularly in this day and age of the Internet, i really don't think we depend on just the local media. what is more important is a critical mind which doesn't merely lap up everything that anyone says.

while i agree that very often, our media does indeed skew certain reports, but the fact of the matter is that there are certain things which are sensitive in Singapore and have to be treated with much caution. should the media be the custodian or can we trust the people to be? frankly speaking, seeing some of my fellow Singaporeans, i have come to the realisation that are not critical thinkers, most of us are more than willing to be led by the nose, following herd instincts. and this applies to the so-called radical elements too.

an example, there are people who 'speak out' against the government just because other people do so. question them a bit more, and they don't really know much about the issues that they are talking about (case in point: the recent vigil held to protest the death sentence of the drug trafficker). and then there are those who would just lap up what those people say without actively seeking out more information, looking at the problem from different perspectives, etc.

and of course there are those who think that everything the government do is right. and really believes completely in the all too rosy picture that our local media sometimes paints and are so easily affected by what the media portrays (another case in point: misplaced money in 'charitable' causes such as Huang Na and NKF)

so given that most of us Singaporeans are given to mob instincts, what we need is not so much a free press but a responsible one. and if it takes the government to control it for it to be responsible, then so be it. if it is better off being 'free' (whatever that means), then it should be free.

more importantly, our society must grow to be more critical, more discerning. alas... it is an uphill task. bigots and close-minded people abound. and i'm just not convinced that the press/media is the right place to start.

my sense is that freeing up the press and media will indeed lead to confusion and chaos because Singaporeans as of now are not able to discern for ourselves what is and is not. and 'freeing up' the press will, in my opinion, indeed lead to chaos and disorder of the sort we cannot afford.

that is not to say, however, that we should never learn to take responsibility to think for ourselves. we have to. and we have to do it now. i propose that we start with education before anywhere else. encourage students to ask questions like "is this right? how do i know? how can i find out whether it is right or not? am i presented with enough information? how do i judge it to be right or not?" amongst others. teachers of any subjects should start asking students what they think of the news that has been reported and to question its veracity, accuracy and implications and how they come to those answers. of course the topics must be carefully chosen and questions pitched correctly. if done properly, it would incite students to find out more information outside of what is available and from there foster in them a critical mind which will create the environment conducive for a free media.

but again, it's an uphill task. i am daunted by the sheer number of close-minded people around me who are willing to be lambs.

Spicy

Tom Yum Goong has a paper thin plot that doesn't make any logical sense.

but of course that show is not about logical sense. it is about arms breaking, tendon snapping, high flying kicks, gravity defying stunts and various means and methods to inflict greivous bodily harm.

i quite liked the Capoeira bit. i think black dude with dreadlocks spinning around on hands look quite cool. but of course he, being the bad guy, had to have the living shit kicked out of him.

i wanted to blog something fairly intellectual... my response to PJ's letter in the forum today, something about press freedom and all... but i'm too tired to be cogent.

in any case... YZ, if you are reading this, the Philosopher's stone is hidden in the...

nah... would i be so mean as to spoil the book for you? :)

SMS

following is a transcript (kind of...) of an SMS conversation that i had with B.:

B: cannot la. got driving in the afternoon. maybe meet you guys later.
RC: k. so driven...
B: need to la. to sian the girls.
RC. no need. they see you sian already.
B: you full of shite today
RC: no... i'm like that everyday.

SMS can incidentally also stand for See Me Sai. the funny thing is... it is actually sounds like a possible dialect translation of a feasible Chinese name.

Kiasee

it is dreadful! how can anyway drink the juice that came from a starfruit which is not washed? we are not barbarians! it's dangerous, deadly!

or so some lady will have us believe. the saddest thing about it is that it was a letter published in the forum. it demonstrates 2 things:

1. the papers are very small-minded to think that such an issue is worthy of the space
2. a complete lack of resilience.

i shall address more of the second point. i remember having to eat food knowing that the food might not be clean (c'mon... you are digging a trench, your hands are covered in mud... do you think the food's going to be sterile?) when i was in NS (before i downgraded of course...)

now, i wonder what that lady would say if her son had to go through that for NS... she'd probably kick up a big fuss.

how can a people who cannot even bear the thought of eating an unwashed starfruit hope to survive a terrorist attack? we are nancies we are.

Creative

if i were an accountant, i would be a very creative one, pulling numbers from the air as a magician does rabbits from a hat. whatever it takes, by hook or by crook, one way or another, by Jove! THE ACCOUNTS WILL BALANCE!

Enron would look like a joke. perhaps that's why i never even thought of being an accountant.

Evil

WY agreed with me that ASSignments are EVIL.

she reminded me that in time to come, i shall be setting them, unleashing the EVIL upon poor unsuspecting young minds, probably tearing them apart, sending them into endless throes of agony, plunging them into the darkness of many sleepless nights.

my response: i never said I wasn't EVIL.

forget knowledge. forget judgement. forget critical thought and creativity. i shall train my students to be obedient dogs jumping through hoops (aka exams), docile hamsters running on little exercise wheels, chasing after little scraps of paper (aka certificates). just as what many of my teachers have done to me and what the SYSTEM expects me to do.

or not.

Stripped Bare

and on parade. that's what some people would think of blogging. indeed, there are people who post their entire lifestory, blow by blow (sometimes quite literally so...), on their blogs.

at other times, as YZ has observed, the way a person writes and what he/she writes about reflects very much this person person's character, thinking, expectations, etc.

and from the way i write, YZ gave a quite accurate description of my personality. this is quite interesting considering YZ hadn't really known me for that long and there was probably no other ways for her to draw all those conclusions other than from my blog.

but, as i duly informed YZ, you can only tell so much about me from my blog. because i am a complex person. i am like an ogre, or onions: i have layers. or rather, there are different sides to me and while many different sides of me do show in my blog (and hence sometimes my blog seems cryptic and as if written by a few different people), there are still other sides of me that you won't know until you talk to me, spend time with me, etc.

which is just the way i want it. imagine if someone really could give a completely accurate description of who i am just from my blog, that would be pretty scary. it would mean one of 2 things:

1. i really have divulged too much on my blog and should be more discrete
2. there really isn't much about me so much so that i can simplify myself.

fortunately, i don't think i have the linguistic abilities to pen down all my thoughts and put down in words the multi-dimensional person that i am.

0r perhaps i only think i am complex but am in actual fact a rather easy person to read?

Funny side of the Law

These are from a book called Disorder in the Courts of America, and are things people actually said in court, word for word, taken down and now published by court reporters who had the torment of staying calm while these exchanges were actually taking place.

ATTORNEY: Are you sexually active?
WITNESS: No, I just lie there.

______________________________

ATTORNEY: What is your date of birth?
WITNESS: July 18th. A
TTORNEY: What year?
WITNESS: Every year.
_____________________________________
ATTORNEY: What gear were you in at the moment of the impact?
WITNESS: Gucci sweats and Reeboks.
______________________________________
ATTORNEY: This myasthenia gravis, does it affect your memory at all?
WITNESS: Yes.
ATTORNEY: And in what ways does it affect your memory?
WITNESS: I forget.
ATTORNEY: You forget? Can you give us an example of something you forgot?

_____________________________________
ATTORNEY: How old is your son, the one living with you?
WITNESS: Thirty-eight or thirty-five, I can't remember which.A
TTORNEY: How long has he lived with you?
WITNESS: Forty-five years.

_____________________________________

ATTORNEY: What was the first thing your husband said to you that morning?
WITNESS: He said, "Where am I, Cathy?"
ATTORNEY: And why did that upset you?
WITNESS: My name is Susan.

______________________________________
ATTORNEY: Do you know if your daughter has ever been involved in voodoo?
WITNESS: We both do.
ATTORNEY: Voodoo?
WITNESS: We do.
ATTORNEY: You do?
WITNESS: Yes, voodoo.
______________________________________
ATTORNEY: Now doctor, isn't it true that when a person dies in his sleep, he doesn't know about it until the next morning?
WITNESS: Did you actually pass the bar exam?

___________________________________
ATTORNEY: The youngest son, the twenty-year-old, how old is he?
WITNESS: Uh, he's twenty-one.

______________________________________
ATTORNEY: Were you present when your picture was taken?
WITNESS: Would you repeat the question?

______________________________________
ATTORNEY: So the date of conception (of the baby) was August 8th?
WITNESS: Yes.
ATTORNEY: And what were you doing at that time?
WITNESS: Uh....
______________________________________
ATTORNEY: She had three children, right?
WITNESS: Yes.
ATTORNEY: How many were boys?
WITNESS: None.
ATTORNEY: Were there any girls?
______________________________________

ATTORNEY: How was your first marriage terminated?
WITNESS: By death.
ATTORNEY: And by whose death was it terminated?

______________________________________
ATTORNEY: Can you describe the individual?
WITNESS: He was about medium height and hada beard.
ATTORNEY: Was this a male or a female?

______________________________________
ATTORNEY: Is your appearance here this morning pursuant to a deposition notice which I sent to your attorney?
WITNESS: No, this is how I dress when I go to work.

______________________________________A

TTORNEY: Doctor, how many of your autopsies have you performed on dead people? WITNESS: All my autopsies are performed on dead people.

______________________________________

ATTORNEY: ALL your responses MUST be oral, OK? What school did you go to?
WITNESS: Oral.

______________________________________

ATTORNEY: Do you recall the time that you examined the body?
WITNESS: The autopsy started around 8:30 p.m.
ATTORNEY: And Mr. Denton was dead at the time?
WITNESS: No, he was sitting on the table wondering why I was doing an autopsy on him!

______________________________________
ATTORNEY: Are you qualified to give a urine sample?
WITNESS: Huh?

______________________________________
ATTORNEY: Doctor, before you performed the autopsy, did you check for a pulse?
WITNESS: No.
ATTORNEY: Did you check for blood pressure?
WITNESS: No.
ATTORNEY Did you check for breathing?
WITNESS: No.
ATTORNEY: So, then it is possible that the patient was alive when you began the autopsy?WITNESS: No.
ATTORNEY: How can you be so sure, Doctor?
WITNESS: Because his brain was sitting on my desk in a jar.
ATTORNEY: But could the patient have still been alive, nevertheless?
WITNESS: Yes, it is possible that he could have been alive and practicing law.

___________________________________

i particularly like the last one. i emailed the above to JIS, who is a lawyer by profession. her response was: "lawyer envy" should become a branch of social psychology.

her wit is so sharp you can slice through silk with it.

Futile Waiting

just sitting there, staring into blank space, waiting, no, hoping for something to happen. the air was filled with pregnant anticipation that gave birth to many moments of stoned silence. SOMETHING was bound to happen. surely it must.

but there was nothing. no portents nor signs, not a single hint. and the world goes on spinning silently through the void.

Misses

a split second late, a moment too soon, a misplaced word, a misunderstood message: my life has too many of those.

how many "if-only's"? how many "i-should-have's"?

sighz.

Booby Art?

so one of my MSN messages to K had an emoticon of a lady flashing her boobs. so K, attempting to fake being a prude, called it porn. but i disgreed with him. i am convinced that it is ART!

why?

because it celebrates the female form. the act of proudly displaying the breasts is an expression of liberation from the restrictive false moralities set by male chauvinists. the act of flashing of the boobs is a step towards touching our atavastic roots, connecting us with a purity of a primordial past. it is a return to the maternal embrace of Nature.

so, since the act of flashing of boobs embodies all these profound themes in one beautiful simple action, it must be ART! calling it porn is denigrating the female form, it is being sexist and whoever does so shall BURN IN HELL!

i have just taken my first steps towards winning that Turner Prize (aka Prize for who can bullshit best to justify why SHIT is art.)

Work

told some of my friends about my post on 'Services'.

we then started wondering out loud what it would feel like to be the person providing the... protein-rich lotion. Our conclusion:

he must be really hard at work. either that or he must suck at it and have hands full.

it was a mind-BLOWING conversation.

and all over lunch with XH sipping a protein rich beverage that was white in colour... soya bean milk.

Is Racism innate?

Voctir said:
" think "lack of interaction" and "lack of true friendship" are not causes of racism. They're more like symptoms of racism. It's because of racist sentiments within individuals that the different races avoid each other."

i'd like to point out that babies of different races are not prejudiced against one another nor avoid one another until instructed by parents to do so. hence racism is learnt, not innate.

and i put it that racism is learnt as a result of the lack of interaction. this lack of interaction breeds a sense of unfamiliarity. human beings are naturally averse to things we are unfamiliar with. we are thus naturally prejudice against that which we are unfamiliar with. and hence that lack of interaction produces 'racism'. and this prejudice then makes us less likely to interact, leading to a downward spiral.

all the policies in Singapore that's supposed to bring about inter-racial interaction have not resulted in interaction, but merely different races existing in close proximity without in any way modifying the behaviour (i don't think putting people close to one another equates to consciously modifying those people's behaviour. whatever modifications to the behaviour are merely unplanned for side effects).

what i am proposing is not just physical proximity, but a meeting of minds and hearts. i'm not sure whether you can come up with a policy to bring about such interaction when their hearts and minds are not open to such interaction in the first place.

however, if the common people make an effort to open their hearts and minds, regardless of policies set, to acquaint oursleves to another culture, to respect and appreciate another culture, then we have hope. it has to be organic, person to person.

thus where policies fail, the community can step in. Minister Yacob spoke of reviving the gotong royong spirit amongst the Malay community. i say that we should revive it in the entire Singaporean community.

so i repeat my call to everyone. go out there and learn about a different culture, appreciate it, get to know someone from that other culture, be his/her friend (and a true one at that). touch him/her with your sincerity and let that goodwill spread.

Services

friend was watching TV and they featured this guy who offered some services. this was what she told me: "he offers spa cum massage".

apparently many ladies go to him for these services.

perhaps protein is good for skin and hair?

Untitled

the head says what the heart cannot bear.
the heart speaks what the mind cannot comprehend.

Down the road

it was about 3 am.

there were no cars on the road except for the white Merc cab that i was in. the road was exceptionally wide. palm trees lined the road, small shrubs served as the divider. the smooth purr of the merc drowned out the silence.

an odd sense of tranquil calm wash over me like warm ripples of the sea in the afternoon. i have been here before. i know this place. i know this feeling.

it was the same route i have taken home from the airport so many times.

the plane landed. picked up my luggage, waved to parents. their relief was palpable. but it was not just relief. it was pride and joy, a yearning satisfied.

the air outside the airport was moist, felt almost as if someone had pressed a wet towel over my face. the heat was oppressive. my body had forgotten how it felt like to be back in Singapore.

hopped into the first cab available. quick instructions and off we went. perfunctory questions answered, idle chit chat. the cab sped down a stretch of wide road, lined with palm trees, where shrubs served as dividers. it was an unfamiliar stretch of road. but speeding down it felt refreshing.

we rounded a corner, sped down a distance, up a bridge. the sun was setting, the sky a mixture of azure blue and tangerine orange. set against this backdrop, the skyline of the city centre of Singapore came into view. towering skyscrapers of glass and steel stood where less than half a century ago, there was nothing. i know this place. i was here before.

we looked at the skyline of the city centre. no one spoke. a gentle breeze carrassed our skin, whispering softly a sweet melody. we had just finished our A-levels that morning. a chapter of our lives have ended. where will we go from there? will our divergent paths ever cross? will our friendship forged survive the assualts of the humdrum of life? no one spoke. no one knew. i will be here again.

we were on that bridge, staring at that skyline. it was now brightly lit for the sun has set. the first summer was ending. i pulled her tighter into my embrace. i looked at her, falling into her deep gaze. we took a circuitous route to be there. it will surely work out. regardless of the ocean between us. regardless of the time difference, regardless of how our ideals differed. regardless.

the merc cab sped on. too fast! i have not seen enough! i want to go back! but there is no turning back. they have become doctors, one is getting married soon. she has left my life, no doubt doing well. we have all moved on, speeding into the darkness of the future.

a bridge. a skyline. i have been there before. they have changed and so have i.

Black Gold

black must be the most popular and coveted colour in this day and age. it is the colour of oil.

i have already written about how much modern civilisation depends on oil, when we no longer have oil, no electricity, all the vestiges of modern civilisation will crumble.

this thus means that those who control the supply of oil weild immense power. and yes. with great power comes great responsibility. or rather, as XH pointed out on his blog, the great need to be responsible with how one with that much power exercises that power.

alas, power corrupts.

so you get idiots like Bush (sorry... just insulted idiots...) who are not only irresponsible with the power he has, but also abuses the power he has.

and then you have companies like Exxon Mobil. their third quarter profits were USD 9.9 billion. to put that in perspective, the entire UN budget for 2004-2005 is USD2.9 billion.

the world has more than enough resources to end poverty, to eradicate hunger, to teach every single child to read and write. sadly, we lack the heart to do so.

we'd rather refuse to give other people a chance to live, just so that we can hoard our wealth. how different are we then from animals? not much.

we are but pigs. capitalist pigs. like those in Orwell's animal farm. but we are worse than animals, because we delude ourselves into thinking that we are, in some ways, superior.

but we are superior only in our ability to bring death and carnage, to inflict pain and distress.

humanity, if it doesn't evolve, is doomed to fail. our 6000 year reign will not last much longer.

Head... Butt...

i don't mind ignorant people as much as people who think they know a lot.

i don't mind people who think they know a lot as much as people who, after having it pointed out to them that they do not really know much, still think that they do know a lot.

what i cannot stand most are people who think they know everything, think that their points and no others are correct and who refuse to accept that they are incorrect even when it is pointed out to them, even when logical arguments are put forth, even when the weight of evidences are laid against them.

it's not so much that i'm worried about being rebutted by one of these people, but more worried about being headbutted by them, given the thick skulls that they might have. these people have their minds up places where the sun don't shine. perhaps that is why they are so often pain in the asses...

ignorance and arrogance is a dangerous mix.

having said that, mea culpa sometimes too. though i still feel that i am indeed open to criticisms and do honestly value good dialogue where some of my fervently held beliefs and views are shot down to shreds (if anyone feels otherwise... then you are obviously very wrong... :p no... i jest).

this post is thus also somewhat of a reply of Garota's comment in my earlier post that it is important to have dialogue. yes it is. and the prerequisites of a good dialogue are the humility to accept that one might be wrong, to see things from the other party's point of view and, at the worst situation, to agree to disagree.

Acid

ASSignments are a thing of the past,
the pain they left shall not last
moving swiftly really fast (?)
into the depths of time they are cast.

i blame my aberrant creativity on the alcohol of Acid bar.

it was quite a good night out.

but damn. i just realised that i've arranged my life in such a way that i'm having appointments that clash with one another.

nvm. i'll find a way around it. time to delgate.