Heavenly Sword

A melancholic post

2007-01-20T23:30:00.001+08:00

Everything disappointments me. Why? The world as I experience it is largely based on a transactional approach to social relationships. This applies to ordinary social relationships as well as relationships with organizations and other entities. But sadly, it can also apply to family relationships. Most things have turned out to be ultimately transactional in spirit. Even kinship is not a safety net in this world permeated by the ideology of money and skilful coping with a heartless society.

There is so much hypocrisy everywhere. People who make nice-sounding proclamations nonetheless don't offer any help when it is needed. Sessions of sociability do not translate into material forms of assistance in times of desperation. Friendships are always easily performed when one is soaring. Convenient excuses from friends and institutions are always ready on hand to deflect sincere requests for a little kindness, making the excuses seem innocent enough. Words of thanks are cheap compared to the actual concessions that could really have been given to make life easier for one. Routines invented are premised upon hyper-fit bodies that can work endlessly like machines. An idealistic focus on ultimately personal goals dressed in rhetorics of lofty ideals make this myopia seem unintentional and not malicious. Ambitious motives are hidden behind a calibrated performance of nonchalance. Contradictions between words and actions cannot be blatantly confronted, in order to maintain a facade of cordiality of social relationships.

Experience of too much nastiness in life makes one tired. What more do they want? Just tell me. And yet in that very questioning one gives him licence to say that the fault lies with the questioner alone. Problems are thus always individualized. Words of frustration appear as expressions of 'whining' to outsiders who think with economic models. Harsh words from one or two thoughtless young minds appear like weeds in a corner. There comes a time when even the truly frustrated refuses to speak, for his anger prevents words from coming out of his mouth: he can't physically speak anymore, even though he has so much anger and jadedness in him. Every night is a night of pondering; a thorough audit of all the things right and wrong which one has done in life. Yet dissonance is intensified every time as one reconfirms that he hasn't in fact done that many things wrong. And yet the rhetorical discourses go on - across diverse sites of utterance and vehemently defended by self-appointed moral guardians - justifying and naturalizing a system deemed as 'fine', and once again condemning the social actor that cannot succeed.

SDU: steering the dynamics of love

2006-11-25T21:21:00.000+08:00

SDU has come to an end, and many critics feel that the main lesson delivered to the government is that it's not omnipotent and cannot control the dynamics of love and related activities (e.g. getting married, etc)... :)

I'm actually a supporter of the SDU :) I think that the idea of matchmaking Singaporeans is cool, and there's no better institutional actor to do this than the State itself. Why, then, did the SDU fail? In this very short post I'll offer my views as an ikan bilis of mighty Singapore, mighty in all ways including the management of male-female relations....

1) First, the name given to the agency was so lousy that I think whoever thought of that name 'Social Development Unit' should bear at least 40% of the responsibility. 'Social development' sounds terrible and it makes the members of SDU seem like problems of society to be solved. It's as if the successful matchmaking of these people will somehow alleviate one of the major 'social problems' in Singapore society, and society will 'develop'... In addition, 'Unit' sounds bad too: it simply doesn't accord a sense of importance and grandeur to the whole mission. This type of name is incapable of generating any sort of pride and excitement in members and non-members alike....

2) The institutional separation of SDU and SDS was also unnecessary and unwise. They should be combined so as to pool resources together, and to expand the membership base. This will then increase the chances of members finding someone they like or love, who may or may not be from the 'same social class' (whatever that phrase means). Is it not common wisdom that 'opposites attract'? A male, highly educated professional may well be more attracted to a woman who is not a graduate, and this lady may also be impressed because the man seems so different from others whom she hangs around with. A man and a woman with different class experiences may in fact have more to talk about because they find each other more intriguing and interesting. So the assumption that people from the same social class can 'click better' does not always hold. Finally, I suspect that women who are not university graduates are more inclined to get married....

3) SDU should be reincarnated, but with a different name and with a 'consolidated membership'. Men and women of all nationalities and citizenship statuses (citizen, PR, non-citizens), educational levels and 'social classes' should have platforms to mingle around with one another. They should be able to view each other's profiles and photos online, and send each other messages.

The State should realize that social engineering has its limits (although it is sometimes necessary). Many things need to be done correctly and when a project fails, it may not be because the idea itself is bad but because the execution was not properly thought through. It must show some sensitivity to the feelings of the members, at least, for example by getting rid of the 'class' dimension of this matchmaking mission, and having a more romantic-sounding name for the organization. I wonder if the people sitting on the steering committee (is there one?) are trained in the humanities and the social sciences. The dynamics of love can be steered, in my opinion, and getting large numbers of people to interact in actual physical social space or cyberspace can indeed allow magical unpredictable sparks and combinations to emerge. So I feel that there is indeed magic in the system, but it's not an omnipotent kind of magic. Anyway, SDU is gone, and I can only hope that its reincarnation won't reflect the rather elitist assumptions of the earlier project.

Related posts
Yaw Shin Leong's essay

On the wrong approaches to learning at HE level

2006-11-10T05:32:00.000+08:00

A thoroughly worn-out Heavenly Sword rose from his disturbed sleep, and decided to spend the rest of the sleepless dawn pondering about some 'real issues' surrounding university education in Singapore.

What is 'university education'? I believe there is a reason why university education is called higher education: it's because it is pitched - and definitely meant to be pitched - at a much higher level of difficulty compared to the A-levels. If it wasn't more difficult than the A-levels, then there is no reason why graduates should be paid more than non-graduates, and no reason why people should invest 3-4 years of their short lives attending classes at the university campus, if the things that they are going to learn do not advance their intellectual abilities (e.g. coping with analytical complexity, distilling the essence of complex literatures, etc) in some ways. Let's face it: life is short, and 3-4 years is a significant length of time.

The problem I see in some of my younger friends (who are studying in various local universities) is that they are struggling to make the adjustment from JC to Uni. This adjustment has various components, and I'll briefly talk about the 'expectational' component, and the tactical component.

'Expectational adjustment' (my term) concerns expectations. Recently I communicated briefly with a friend who is an assistant professor at a university in Singapore, and he highlighted a very good point. Many students in Singapore find the first 1 or 2 semesters of university life extremely traumatic, because they have been so used to getting A's at the earlier stages of education that getting B's and C's end up amounting to a personal disaster (when it is in fact really common at university-level), and some of these students cannot deal emotionally with the perceived 'setback'. I feel that the real disaster is not in the receipt of B's and C's grades itself, but instead the loss of many Singaporeans' ability to cope with grades indicating academic imperfection. This problem, which is the problem of a 'straight-A's culture' in Singapore, is a real problem in Singapore which has hardly ever been problematized; in fact the problem has been packaged as something 'good' through frequent glamourization of 'perfect scores' by various institutional actors and the media. Singapore has a culture of perfection which needs to be replaced by a culture of imperfection that will be more in line with the atmosphere of creativity that the country badly needs.

To these institutional actors and individual actors who have always been singing praises of the straight A's culture, I'd like to say this. Let's not be overly proud of this straight A's culture and forget to look at the dysfunctions of it. What are some of these dysfunctions?

1) The pursuit of a blemish-free record becomes the sole purpose of learning. (Some) students are not interested in learning the subject, but simply want the A's. Because of this, the whole spirit of learning is wrong. The obsession is always with things which are so-called 'inside the 'syllabus"; some students treat the 'model answers' as literally 'models' (when these should be treated as 'indications of a general approach that lecturers hope they can display'), and they want lectures and tutorials to package the information in 'exam-usable' format. Anything falling short of the above-stated 'ideals' is then criticized as unfocused teaching, which will lead to condemnation of the university teacher. In some subjects, there is a trend of increasing 'interdisciplinarity', but some students think in narrow ways, along the lines of 'i am majoring in this subject, why do I have to read materials from another subject?' This is very sad. If Singapore really wants to train students as future 'knowledge producers' for a creative economy, then university-level socialization must get them to think more like creative knowledge producers rather than passive knowledge consumers.

2) The overly pragmatic and grade-driven approach to learning a subject will guarantee that the student can never achieve the highest level of understanding of that subject (the 'jui4 gao1 jing4 jie4'), due to the overly powerful socialization at undergraduate level that results in the wrong spirit of learning that is hard to change later on. Too much attention and effort will be spent on the readings that have been officially assigned, and there is usually no motivation to venture into the library to hunt for more interesting and more advanced books on particular concepts, theories, and topics. This in turn creates the problem of unskilful library users. The use of the library is itself an art and a science: it requires some practice and training.

There are two situations that might then result. First, the 'trained incapacity' of students, who will end up lacking the self-confidence to explore unbeaten paths or select their own sources of information due to excessive fear that they will be 'wrong'; and second, top students are satisfied to stop when they have mastered the 'official' readings, thinking that because they have satisfied the lecturer's demands, they know the subject 'oredi'. This results in a kind of complacency that hinders further intellectual advancement as far as that subject is concerned, due to premature extinguishment of the inquisitive spirit.

So, the above two paragraphs dealt with the tactical adjustment aspect of university-level academic life. This is the paradox: tactical adjustment itself will have certain dysfunctional outcomes, precisely because the learning has become too tactical. Then two further problems will result: first, the students who are tactical enough to do well end up acquiring some problematic mindsets; and second, the students who don't do so well 'officially' in this kind of system ends up (a) losing their self-confidence (for they then think that they're 'lousy' simply because they did not get an A from a particular lecturer), or (b) being actually pushed down the hierarchical educational stratification system and have no chance of redeeming themselves (think of students who don't do well in the first years, they may not be able to 'recover' from the damage if the system is too 'unforgiving'). Point (b), it seems to me, is closely related to Singapore's unforgiving culture.

*********
Since I cannot change the system (as I'm only an ikan-bilis, a non-elite in Singapore), I can only offer some words of advice.

1) Don't be too obsessed with grades. If you truly love the subject (or at least try to love it) and see the spirit underpinning a particular subject, you will master it, sooner or later, at your own pace. If you tell yourself, 'I'm going to try my best; if the lecturer gives me a 'C', so be it'. See it as a signal that you may need to read more books, rather than an indicator of your self-worth. Never ever think that you're BAD at a subject simply because of a single C. Singaporeans, it seems to me, are too easily defeated or intercepted by tiny little alphabets. Isn't that very sad, if you think about it? I mean, so what if you get a C in that subject? Do you then say, 'Eeee, I don't want to major in this subject 'oredi' (even though I thought I wanted to earlier)'. Or 'I don't want to be an accountant 'oredi', the lecturer gave me C for accounting, I'm not cut out to be an accountant'. That is not the hallmark of a mature person. View your lecturers/tutors as people of equal standing as far as humanity and intellect are concerned (of course!): they are not that much smarter than you are; they have only read more books than you have, maybe because they visit the library more often :)

2) Make use of the library and its resources (including online resources such as journal databases, etc). At the university level, it is not right to be a passive learner. Be an active learner, and take responsibility for your learning. If the readings and assigned books are hard to understand, there are many other books out there that will explain the same concept, theory, or topic in different ways, and some of these will definitely phrase the points in a way that you prefer and can understand better. You are not held hostage to the assigned readings (if you don't like them, feel confident enough to create your own reading packet). And most of all, university lecturers and tutors are there to help you, so make use of their services such as consultation hours, etc (they are not ferocious animals who will bite you, I firmly believe).

That's all I have to say....In short, Singapore's culture of perfection is not as good as the elites think. I am not a member of the elite, so this is my subjective view as an ikan-bilis in the system. I, too, have been severely punished by an unforgiving system before. But I am still alive....

Problematic system (Heavenly's recommendation)

2006-08-27T11:15:00.001+08:00

One of my favourite bloggers, Trisha, wrote an essay entitled, 'Why I hate teaching'. I highly recommend it (in fact, I highly recommend her blog). The essay is about the many aspects of the education system that need to be changed, so that people who do love teaching can get on with their real mission...

Announcement for friends & loyal readers:

Actually, Heavenly Sword uses this blog to keep in touch with many people. Some of them have told me that they've been checking back every now and then but 'how come there are no new posts?' So, for those who care about my 'life and death' :) (and wondering whether I'm 'sheng1 si3 wei4 bu3'/still alive or not), I'm fine; it's just that I'm still struggling with something very critical in my life (Yes, I know, it has been ages, but I've already tried my best to get it done by July this year, but I still can't achieve my own target). So I told myself, until that thing is done, I shall not blog....

May I wish everyone good health (don't be like me now) and delightful happiness amidst a generally horrible world.

Best,
Heavenly Sword
6th October 2006

Metaphors of the nation: person, place, and club

2006-08-13T10:53:00.000+08:00

Today Heavenly Sword wishes to write about 'the nation' using three metaphors: 'person', 'place', and 'club'. My discussion will focus on 'reasonably well-educated Singaporeans' who are potentially mobile, and I shall argue that the first metaphor of the 'person' should be abandoned, while the next two metaphors of 'place' and 'club' should be retained. To forestall any misunderstanding regarding the general spirit of the post, I'd just like to say that it's meant to be positive and not negative or overly critical about Singapore and its futures in general.

In many discussions of the nation, for example in Singapore's cyber-civil society and in mainstream media, there has been a tendency to anthromorphosize Singapore and treat it as though it's a 'parent', an 'elder', or some other person whom you should physically care for and love. But a nation is not a person. It does not 'lose' any love, or any 'care' if you leave the nation. The relationship with a nation is simply different from the relationship with parents. If you leave your ageing parents, they 'lose' the companionship and the care that you could have provided if you were by their side. But if you leave your country, the country does not 'lose' any companionship or care. I'm not saying that the country doesn't lose anything. But what does the country lose? In my view, the country only 'loses' something if one is truly talented enough to make a difference to his professional field. So I argue that the one of the primary duties of a reasonably well-educated citizen for the next fifty years or so is to make himself as professionally skilled and talented as possible, for by doing so he can make more valuable contributions to the country - in the quantitative and the qualitative senses.

Now, there is one obstacle, however, lying within the realm of political culture. One prominent area of emotional warfare in Singapore is the perceived 'divide' between Singaporeans who are 'ungrateful' and those who are 'grateful'. There was a stormy debate earlier surrounding blogger Kway-Teow-Man's claim that the tendency for some to think in terms of government 'listening' to them is flawed. I argue that is not appropriate to use the term 'listening' to characterize the relationship between the government and the people. Talking about 'being grateful' is also not a good way to proceed, because if you have this criteria, there will always be a hierarchy of gratitude. Some people are inherently more capable of feeling gratitude to their parents, teachers, company/organization, nation and so on. Those who feel that they 'possess' more of such emotional 'goods' then believe, misguidedly, that they have more of a 'right' to this place compared to their compatriots, which seems to me like people asking for the conferment of an honourary doctorate where none is deserved. It's like a man thinking that he has more 'rights' to a woman than another man does just because he loves her more. The worst thing, however, is not the mere fact that some Singaporeans think like that; it is the fact that Singaporeans view 'moving overseas' as a sign of ingratitude. This is the wrong way to understand the practice of 'moving overseas' in the contemporary era, as the rest of my essay will make clear.

A nation is a place. Because it's a place, we can do things to it, to make it better. A place that people make it to be, and by their actions, inactions, and interactions shape the aesthetic, political, and societal culture. In a globalized village characterized by efficient communications and transport technologies, these actions and interactions can always take place at a distance. So the view that you must be 'based here' to do anything at all is flawed, and so is the view that 'if you are based there you can't do anything'. The boundaries between 'here' and 'there' have become fuzzy, and while Singaporeans most probably would have heard of this, I think that they have not appreciated the great significance of it. Many Singaporeans have also failed to realize that what makes the place shine is not 'lots and lots of grateful people', but 'lots and lots of talented people'. Because this is the case, all the practices of 'chiding' on the part of those who perceive themselves to be more 'loyal', 'grateful', 'patriotic' and so on to Singapore (as though the nation is a person) does more harm than good. If people perceive themselves to be patriotic, then all the more must they refrain from such practices of chiding, which they know will make people unhappy. In this era, the world is one's oyster, and a person who doesn't venture out really does miss out on some valuable experiences; let's face it, overseas expatriation experiences are actually really good for career development. A person who can show that he can succeed in different 'systems' would have proven his worth, and because he has proven his worth, what he says and does will have more weight than one who has done nothing in his life to prove his worth. And he who has ventured abroad can always come back when he is ready...

But a nation is not a club, critics would argue. One should not just treat it as a club where you come and go, as and when you please, as and when you need to 'use the facilities'. This appears to be a convincing statement, but only superficially. Firstly, there is nothing stopping people from loving a club ('oh I really love that club'), and most entities can be analogized to 'clubs' anyway. What is needed is simply a paradigm shift, to realize that one can love a club; think of it in more emotional ways, for otherwise, even if it's not a club but something else, you will treat that something else in a transactional manner anyway. Secondly, Singaporeans should come and go as they please. Why not? This is their home. These are their lives (and they only have one life each, just like Heavenly Sword), and only the individual concerned should have ultimate control over his own life. I am strongly against the view that an individual should 'jiao1 dai4' (account/report/explain one's decisions and non-decisions) to anyone, other than his parents and immediate family members (yes, not even relatives). Neither is it the 'business' of anybody unrelated to him to judge his actions, using unflattering words and discourses. Having said that, I do not mean that Singaporeans should always 'go'; what I'm saying is that it's really fine to treat this as a place for you to come and go, and then after going, come back anytime - precisely because 'this place always welcomes you back', 'this is your home'. The vision I have is a Singapore where a hug always awaits one when one comes back home, no matter how many years one has been away or for whatever reasons one might have chosen to leave initially. People grow, and they grow with time and with new experiences. The person complaining about things at age twenty may very well be that very person who gives his everything to the country at age fifty; the person complaining about things at age fifty may have contributed a great deal in his youth - he should be allowed to go wherever he likes, for whatever reasons, without being judged. This why I do not agree with any analyses that do not build in this 'developmental' perspective.

The nation is global, not national. Singapore is a small place, but 'Singapore' need not be confined to this place; the home can be expanded. However there is a slightly worrying trend: the world is big and Singapore is but a tiny dot on the map, yet many Singaporeans still think that 'Singapore is the world' or even 'better than the world', which is wrong because 'the world does have much more to offer compared to Singapore'. To argue against this would amount to incredulity, for how can such a vast entity known as the world 'lose' to a compact entity called Singapore? Surely one cannot argue that 'Singapore 'beats' the world because Singapore is so safe', can he? But quite amazingly, many Singaporeans do think like that. In the first place, Singapore isn't safe; it only feels safe, and I believe it's good to be vigilant and recognize this. It is nice to be able to see the world that has much to offer, to get a sense of perspective and balance, and to know that there are alternative ways of being a human, of making a living and of thinking about things. Globalizing oneself also makes one more valuable to the nation, for one would then have become valuable through his travels, as my favourite fairy tale The Three Princes of Serendip shows. Conversely, immobilizing oneself only maintains the status quo. Think beyond a tiny 'wiggle" room', as Xenoboy wrote. On their part, those who are more patriotic should take care not to let their patriotism do damage to the sensitive emotional relationship between the rooted and the mobile. Knowing that it's sensitive and then still insisting on provoking others is not right. Zen Buddhism says that small actions that might be 'right' at a micro level may well turn out to be 'wrong' at a more macro level, and vice versa. Therefore I want to argue that even if being dissatisified and uncontented with what one has is not really good, as long as this has the effect of making Singaporeans venture outwards, it is good in its overall effects. Without brain drain, you can never have too much reverse brain gain, and Singapore's 'global network' can never be too spectacular.

The NSSS culture

2006-08-05T00:14:00.000+08:00

Heavenly Sword the wandering swordsman takes a break from his kungfu practice, to talk about something 'light'. I'm gonna talk about what I call the NSSS (or Not-So-Siao-Sa) culture in Singapore. This is defined as a culture that is not so siao-sa :), where 'siao-sa' means 'cool about it'. Basically, I want to argue that Singaporeans tend not to be so cool about things.....things in general.... :)

First, Singaporeans tend not to be so cool about fellow Singaporeans wanting to venture abroad. Some get emotional and react strongly when they hear of Singaporeans wondering 'what it's like to live abroad', and start calling their compatriots names such as 'quitters', 'traitors', 'ungrateful brats', 'whiners', 'complainers', and so on. What is so wrong about wanting to experience life overseas, when this is already a globalizing era? This is an era in which diversity of cultural experiences is prized, and it is simply amazing to me how such parochial mindsets can exist in a (wannabe) cosmopolitan society like Singapore in the year 2006!

Second, Singaporeans tend to be stingy with their smiles. A smile is worth a thousand dollars here, so it seems. It's so precious that very few people here like to smile, or bother to return a smile. That's why some bloggers feel that it's rather unnatural when we are asked to smile specially when there's some major event going on. That's why when we smile at strangers or neighbours we get a blank stare in return, which seems to be saying 'what's your problem?'

Third, Singaporeans are very afraid of 'authority'. This great fear of authority has reached the state of paranoia. As a fellow blogger (Sze Meng) over at my group blog Singapore Angle once commented as an example, Singaporeans worry too much about the secrecy of the votes. To him, even if it's not secret, so what? Even if the government knows that you supported parties other than the PAP, so what? Is one's sense of self-importance so great that he believes that the government will deal with him (as Sze Meng puts it)? Personally, my theory is the theory of the ikan-bilis: nobody will care about ikan bilises. The government really has better things to do. The same argument applies to bloggers and others who worry incessantly about writing 'critical' articles. When Heavenly Sword first started his blog, he wrote essays about the 'beauty of complaining', 'Singapore's system of talent production', and criticized the playgrounds in Singapore. Well-meaning friends who saw my blog warned me over lunch to be 'very careful' because 'you'd never know what might happen to you', 'better to be safe than sorry'.....they said in a most ominous voice. They told me, 'Big Brother is watching', again, in a most ominous voice that ended up sounding comical to me. (I thought, 'Yeah, Big Brother is watching, I know ah, so? Should I say hi to him?') After all, I didn't think that there was anything wrong with me writing about my unhappiness with the tendency to slam 'complainers', or with my poor assessment of local playgrounds. If I do get caught by the police for this, I'd gladly suffer that fate, for one very simple reason - cos this is so globally interesting!

Heavenly Sword really thinks people are not-siao-sa enough in Singapore. They worry too much, think too much, fear too much, and are so paranoid that I do not know whether to feel sad for Singapore or not. The New Economy requires risk-taking behaviour, which boils down to courage. And to me, the tendency to 'think/fear/plan/worry/suspect too much' is simply anti-thetical to 'courage'.

I think that this NSSS (Not-So-Siao-Sa) culture manifests not just in the above realms, but also in individuals' personal lives. People usually worry too much about 'what others think' when making important life decisions. For example, they worry about (a) choosing the 'right course or stream' in JC/university, (b) choosing a life partner whose educational qualifications are 'not bad at least' (i.e. not so-called 'high school oni'), (c) choosing branded schools, universities, or organizations to work for. The excessive concern for 'face' is extremely unhealthy for development of a culture in which people would genuinely pursue their passions, for the passions may not be very well 'respected' by 'others' in their lives. Sadly, for Singaporeans, there are always Many such 'others' in their lives. The family and social network here is cohesive, but in that very cohesiveness one always has too many people to 'jiao1 dai4' to (that is, report/account/explain your decisions or non-decisions to). It's too community-based, and not individualistic enough; everything we do we have to 'jiao1 dai4', because we are juniors - juniors in the family, juniors in the organizations we work for, juniors in the nation (compared to our majestic leaders). Who dares to be himself or herself?

When the natural instinct to be one's True self is so strongly suppressed by many external forces, people tend not to pursue unique life paths, unique life goals, and try out different things. 'Trying out things' is considered a sign of frivolity in Singapore; a sign that you are somehow 'not serious enough', 'not committed enough', or 'not focused enough'. These are extremely negative and unwarranted connotations to latch on to people who simply want or need to 'try out more things, more jobs, more countries' to know what they really want in life. Yet here in Singapore, we're expected to 'settle down' ASAP, do whatever everybody else is doing, and play it safe. This is Not a good culture and it Should be changed. So what if people around you do not 'like you'? Why do you need them to 'like you'? Why do you even need their approval, their endorsements? What bad things can their criticisms of you do to you or your loved ones? Seriously, why take things so seriously all the time?

With that, I end my frivolous post on the NSSS (Not-So-Siao-Sa) culture in Singapore. Note that I occasionally write on what some bloggers would call 'useless topics', but who cares? This is my blog, so I call the shots :) To me, one should really never worry too much about what others say or think. Be yourself, you have the right to be different, you have the right to your own thoughts, own life decisions. Use the phrase 'so what' as your amulet against the ghosts of fear, ask 'so what' all the time: so what if you're wrong, so what if you don't make it in this system, so what....? It is much better to have tried and failed, than never to have tried at all; much better to have experienced extreme pleasures, than to live a life without passions and intense memories.

LEGOs and the 'happiness' debate in Singapore

2006-07-27T08:00:00.000+08:00

The topic of 'happiness' seems to be attracting quite a lot of attention in Singapore blogosphere. In this essay I focus on the debate between those who argue that the government's role in cultivating societal happiness is restricted to economic management and those who argue that the government's role is broader than those listed above. The former group argues that people are 'diverse', and because they are diverse and want different things, the government can 'never please everybody'. Since this is the case, the reasoning goes, the next best thing to do is to simply secure the minimal conditions for happiness - that is, focus on economics, law and social order. As a response to HuiChieh's post on this topic, I presented a two-part argument comprising the following points (in his comments section):

I argued that the problem with the view that the government's role should be restricted to economic management is the following one (which I shall elaborate on over the next three paragraphs). Some citizens only wish to have a good Life, in the individualistic sense, while others wish to have a good Society. The happiness of the former group is more easily secured as long as (a) the economy is doing well, (b) infrastructures are good/surroundings are beautiful, and (c) the place is safe. For this group, there are only three 'necessary' conditions. For the latter group, there may be more, or different, 'necessary' conditions, which may or may not include (a)-(c) above. For them, perhaps the necessary condition for happiness is not (just) a good individual life, but a good society. Now, the tricky part lies here: (1) it is not that the former group discussed above does not Want to have a good Society, it's just that for them to be happy, they only need to be in a place - any place in this world - where they can make money, enjoy physical safety, and so on. And (2) they Want a good society but they do not 'will' it (as philosopher Immanuel Kant would've put it). That is, they do not want it badly enough to do what's necessary to achieve it, and instead just go about their daily lives in a rather apathetic manner. This does not mean, however, that they will not be happy if they could see their Society progress in terms of cultural and political development (e.g. 'opening up'), and they may even agree with the latter group regarding the elements of the good Society.

I believe that the latter group performs an important role in society precisely by urging people to shift their focus from the good Life to the good Society, to be less 'utilitarian' and more 'Kantian'. Dansong in his essay has gone even further, talking about the good World characterized by a global ecological sensitivity. So what exactly is good? For the first group discussed above, the good life is secured by good economic management. For the second group, the good life has 'the good Society' as a necessary condition, which means the government cannot say that they've done a good job just because the economy is doing well, for the 'society' is broader than the 'economy'. The fact that there is a coupling between Life-Society for the second group and an absence of coupling for the first group creates a fracturing in society. If the first group still forms the majority, yes, one could say that the 'majority is happy', but this would then amount to a 'tyranny of the majority', for the intensity of the Unhappiness of the minority (perhaps not even a Small minority) could be very high indeed.

My arguments presented in the three paragraphs above have been rebutted, but I shall present a counter-rebuttal here. Essentially, the objections hinge on the claim that there is indeed a vast 'diversity' of views concerning the 'good Life' and the 'good Society'. This objection appears convincing on the surface, but its convincingness is based on a vagueness that translates into an apparent accuracy of description. Both HuiChieh and The Legal Janitor felt that any society, including Singapore, will definitely be diverse enough to make their arguments stand, and that empirical research will definitely not produce evidence to challenge the diversity-argument that has been marshalled in the rebuttal. HuiChieh nonetheless presented some observations concerning the 'multicultural diversity' that characterizes Singapore, and inferred from that very multiculturalism that there is indeed 'sufficient diversity' to make his original argument stand. Thus, we are led all the way back to square one - to the suggestion that the role of the government is really just to do a good job in economic management, law and order maintenance, and minimization of risks of all kinds. Is that really true? I argue that it's not, for the following reasons:

First, the diversity-argument amounts to little more than an assumption or hypothesis, and it conflates various kinds of 'diversity'. For example, just because a country is multicultural does not mean that it cannot at the same time be 'one-dimensional'. This one-dimensionality could be characterized by a pervasive culture of consumerism, political apathy, 'kiasuism', and so on. Ethnic, religious, and nationality-based 'diversities' and other kinds of diversity may or may not be correlated with diversity regarding conceptions of the good Life and Society, and they are not effective defences against the pathological effects of one-dimensionality. But at the same time, thankfully, they are also not necessarily factors that will always make agreement concerning the good Society impossible.

Second, I present my theory of 'Life Still Goes On' in order to help me counter the rebuttals. This theory posits that for a significant number of people, cultural and political development in Society at large simply has no bearing on their happiness in their own lives (as I argued above while discussing the Life-Society coupling). As long as the economy is doing well and they are still Breathing - that is, as long as Life Still Goes On - they are not likely to be unhappy and might even be happy. The problem with HuiChieh and Legal Janitor's dismissal of the need for empirical research in specific societies in that in different societies, the number of such people varies. For the sake of further discussion, I call them 'LEGOs' (Life Endlessly/still Goes On), and they are a type that can be contrasted against 'LAGOs' (Life Actually Goes On). LAGOs are defined as people whose concern about Society (or even the World at large) causes them to be significantly affected emotionally by the state of cultural and political development in their nation. Their existence in this world is accompanied by the passionate desire to see a Good Society. Now, here's where yet another rebuttal needs to be countered. It is argued by critics that what characterises the Good Society can never be agreed on totally.

It is true that there can never be 100 percent agreement on what constitutes the good society. However, this does not mean that the main elements of such a society are equally contentious. The seemingly convincing rebuttal derives its convincingness from a strategic distraction achieved by pointing to an obvious truism, namely, that there can never be 100 percent agreement on what constitutes the good Life and good Society. Yet, the critics then forget that proponents of the original argument (e.g. myself) do wholeheartedly agree on this point. I also agree (and most people would, too) that the good Society and Life is one that is without religious, ethnic, or political conflicts of great intensity, one that is without the 'clash of civilizations' described by International Relations scholar Samuel Huntington. Why can't there be agreement on most elements of the good Life and Society? Once again, the critics (a) point to the existence of a visible diversity (of race, nationality, class, and so on), and (b) argue that this apparent diversity therefore signals an invisible 'diversity' concerning conceptions of the good Life and Society. As I have argued earlier, these are two different types of diversity; they are not the same, and the first type of diversity doesn't necessarily offer any defence against the virus of pervasive one-dimensionality of life.

How, then, do we conclude on this issue? First, I still believe that empirical studies in actual societies must have a place in the discussion, for just as the critics believe that there is 'diversity at large', there is simultaneously a 'diversity of types of societies', some of which are possibly more one-dimensional than others. Second, I believe that HuiChieh's focus on economic management ends up prioritizing only one of the three categories of factors in a proper calculus of happiness, namely, 'hygiene factors', to borrow and adapt the term of management theorist Frederick Herzberg. There is a problematic neglect of two other important factors, namely, what I'd call (a) 'happiness factors', and (b) 'disgust factors'. Hygiene factors merely ensure that people in a nation are not unhappy, but it does not make them happy. Happiness factors are required to make them happy, provided the counter-effects of disgust factors are not overly strong. Two other points need to be made: first, the temporal and developmental elements should be taken into account in trying to understand why people are happy or not. For it is not merely the state of a society that makes people happy or unhappy; it is also the perception about the speed And the direction in which that society is progressing culturally and politically that affects happiness. Second, people in a society have been treated in earlier analyses by others as discrete units of pseudo-robots (which may well be capable of experiencing a narrow range of binary or simple emotions, e.g. either happy or sad/not), but they are not treated as complex human beings who are likely to experience ambivalence (mixed feelings), self-denial, regret-mixed-with-disappointment, dilemmas (e.g. 'I want the cake and eat it too') and other more complex emotions. It is only through a recognition of the complexity of human emotions that one can begin to appreciate the seriousness of the problem of a society made up of seemingly-contented-but-not-really-satisfied people, living alongside seemingly-neutral-people-who-nonetheless-have-hopes, as well as physically-alive-but-soulless-worker-humanoids.

Relevant web-pages
(1) Harvard's Business professor Michael Porter's 'Diamond Model of Competitive Advantage of Nations'
(2) George Mason's Public Policy professor Richard Florida's observations about the 'Rise of the Creative Class'
(3) U-of-Southern California/Berkeley's Communications/Sociology/Urban Planning professor Manuel Castells's book, 'The Power of Identity'
(4) Affective Computing robot-building projects at M.I.T.'s Media Lab
(5) Film Analysis of Artificial Intelligence (A.I.)
(6) World Database of Happiness and the U.S. Misery Index (Economics approach)
(7) Psychological research on emotions at U-of-Geneva, Switzerland
(8) Funny/wise/interesting Quotes on 'Boredom' (Literary resources)

Living in Singapore

2006-07-23T09:29:00.000+08:00

Blogger Ringisei once left a comment in Xenoboy’s blog which sparked off my thoughts that constitute this essay; Ringisei said, ‘Iain M. Banks wrote that the universal human desire is not to feel useless. Laying that out in parallel with JFK's line that ends with what can one do for one's country, perhaps then fulfillment lies outside the borders of our republic because of the sense that I, as an individual, have nothing to offer my country. Especially when its rulers seem to want nothing more from me than to be an anonymous statistic.’ It is indeed quite ironic that the desire to do something significant for the country could sometimes translate into a strange feeling of disillusionment, which might in turn trigger the urge to leave this place. In Xenoboy's own essay, he considered the tensions that one might feel if (a) one moves or migrates but doesn’t actually feel like moving and (b) if one stays but actually does feel like moving. I actually think that the former case is quite rare; it is the latter case that is more common…. Here, I talk about related issues of 'contemplations of leaving' and 'happy living in Singapore' and focus on the situation faced by married couples with or without kids.

I think that the ‘cost of leaving’ (a phrase coined by Xenoboy) is always determined by the perceived cost of leaving felt by 'the family member who is most reluctant or somehow unable to leave’. A man may really dislike living in Singapore, perhaps because he doesn’t like certain things here, but may stay on because his partner/wife thinks that life in Singapore is still tolerable, or because a next-of-kin (e.g. ageing mother) needs or prefers to stay here. To the one who would rather stay here, this ‘First World paradise’ is the only place in this world where one can find the things that he/she cherishes - tasty food (although it's getting costlier), comfortable trains (although they're getting more crowded), and functioning and beautiful lifts (on every floor soon!) Clean shopping malls and safe streets, conservative and wholesome culture without porn. A place where sexuality is tightly regulated in a global era of decreasing conservativeness and a place of morally perfect beings. There is no other paradise better than this place.

Thus, a man with the inclination to move may end up choosing to stay, not because he really loves it here, but because of loved ones who think that everything is ‘okay wat’. Note that the Singlish term 'wat', conveys a great deal about the nuances of the emotions felt in Singapore. In this place, family ties reign supreme, and therefore in order to leave, you need everybody in the family to feel the same way. But why might one even want to leave a place that’s seen by others to be like ‘Heaven’, Xenoboy asked in his blog. It's indeed puzzling, given that in this world there are many places that are not so livable due to natural or political forces. In some ways Singapore does feel a bit like Heaven, but for this ‘heavenly’ characteristic to surface, I think the following conditions would have to apply:

(a) indifference to what goes on in society at large (e.g. happy to indulge solely in pop culture and/or in a work-till-you-drop culture);
(b) no deep liking for variety in terms of leisure options (e.g. happy to go to Orchard Road or the zoo to see orang utans, week after week, month after month);
(c) no inclination to be close to nature (e.g. happy to be surrounded by concrete buildings and fake and non-artistic artefacts) and no liking for the four seasons;
(d) no financial worries (e.g. people who find HDB flats ‘affordable’);
(e) no worries about the future (e.g. people who tend not to think long-term and worry about high medical costs especially when one gets old);
(f) happy to take the public transport and not own cars (do not mind waiting for 25 mins for a bus to come; do not mind paying $4 to book at 'peak-hours' for taxis that crawl through crowded highways; the 'peak hours' are really long, mind you, and there are more ERP gantries now);
(g) the tendency to compare ‘downwards’ with economically worse-off countries, instead of ‘sideways’ or ‘upwards’ with economically comparable or better-off countries, especially those that are slightly or significantly more 'open', culturally and politically.

This is not meant to a criticism of the fine job that the government has done. I would acknowledge that no government can overcome the inherent limitations of a place that is lacking in natural scenic places and natural resources, and has such a small land area and tiny population. In this volatile era, no government can really feel confident of maintaining economic relevance as a hub for high-end knowledge-based activities or control escalating costs of imported products. So economically, I would say that the government is doing a good job. But in this globalizing era, when ideas flow across borders, discontentment regarding the ‘unique political system’ will invariably arise among a significant proportion of the population and the resulting tensions will always be there. This emotional tension is something that citizens must choose to live with or ‘grow to like’, as I see it, because the failure to do so will result in an angst-ridden dissonance that is not spiritually healthy. And those who are capable of leaving or capable enough to leave may really just decide to 'exit', rather than 'voice' their displeasure or 'stay' on (And it would be problematic if some of the most talented locals leave; let's face it, it is a loss to Singapore.)

I think there are two groups of mobile citizens: the first group leaves because they are pragmatic and leave for the sake of a better lifestyle or other instrumental reasons (esp $$), the second group leaves because they are idealistic and feel that Singapore is not the kind of ‘open society’ that they want. Apart from those who stay because of family reasons, there are three other groups who stay: (a) people with no views (they just don’t think about the kind of life they prefer, and so they just hang around wherever they are, due to inertia), (b) people with views but can compromise, perhaps because their views are not so strongly held anyway, and (c) people who fit in very well ideologically because they find Singapore’s ‘unique political system’ not merely acceptable but actually ‘quite good’! (Having said that, there's also nothing wrong with being group (c) - it's up to individual preference.) The 'extreme' people in group (c) would be those ‘patriots’ who occasionally write in to the Straits Times Forum section with their mushy letters that alienate people, insofar as they come across as ingratiating and sarcastic reprimanding letters more than anything else.

My guess is that many Singaporeans fall under group (b) above. Here's the reason: Singaporeans aren’t exactly the type of human beings who are inclined to hold strong views for anything. I don't think they'll hate something very much, or love something very much. For example, if you ask them how's their work, they'll say 'Okay lah'; if you ask them how's their studies, they'll say 'Okay lah' (see Xenoboy's essay). Where's the passion for the work and the subject! Heavenly Sword really wants to see people with passion, and feels upset when he can't see many of them. Also, many are so well-trained in ‘super-balanced reasoning’ during their school days, that they have become reasonably competent when it comes to seeing both sides of an issue but have somehow lost the ability or inclination (a) to firmly decide which side is better (and stand by their views), (b) to formulate a more unusual position (and present it publicly) or (c) to analyze things more creatively (and risk being wrong). I add that they are (analytically-speaking) also not quite able to piece together many parts of the jigsaw so that the whole picture becomes clearer and the contradictions of society become clearer. The latter type of inaptitude is perhaps due to the constant stress by all kinds of figures of authority that you ‘must always have facts to back up what you say’. The ghostly voice urges one to be a mental slave and subject oneself to the ‘constraint of the empirical’ - for facts may sometimes limit one’s imagination. So being a slave to a set of facts means that one’s capacity for unusual thinking is delimited by what that set of facts says, because anything not said out loud by the facts fall under the realm of the subjective (re the saying that 'facts speak for themselves'), and Singaporeans do not dare to be subjective, and hence they do not dare to interpret – at least not in a radically creative way. Being a slave to facts destroy one’s confidence in his or her intuition which can be a most powerful thing. I have some ideas for Singapore, but I do not present them to the Minister, even if I have the conviction that I'm right. Why? Because I don't have enough 'facts', I don't have enough statistics; it's all sixth-sense...Sadly, a facts-focused orientation and an intuition-driven one are fundamentally different, and what Singapore badly needs now is greater confidence in the latter, in things which are intuitive...

Will Singapore change significantly in ten, twenty, thirty years’ time? I don’t think so, unfortunately, because this system as I see it is built for century-long equilibrium, and the stabilizing forces are too deeply entrenched. These forces have been presented above, and I summarize them briefly: First, most families here tend to think that life is generally fine because they use the material rather than the spiritual yardstick. And Singaporeans, being always glued to the family network, will always compromise obediently. So even the disgruntled talented Singaporean isn't so mobile after all, because of the stickiness of family ties and the immobility of entire family networks. Second, Singaporeans tend to be well-socialized in what I call 'super-balanced reasoning', and this affects their tendency to hold unusual views or hold any particular view very strongly, let alone articulate them. Finally, an obsession with a harrowing work culture and consumer culture is de-politicizing in its effects. Nobody has the time and inclination for heavy discussions of social issues and politics; they would rather 'chill out' in the pubs. Work culture supports consumer culture, while consumer culture legitimizes the oppression imposed by the work culture. When both cultures are well-accepted as part of the way life is Meant to be, that's still alright, but when both cultures are well-accepted as the whole way of life in Singapore, together they make Singaporeans think that that is all there is to life in general. Sad it is, indeed, but not if one doesn’t realize it, since ignorance is always bliss, and I have tried (and have given up on) changing the views of those who think differently from me. I do not want to disrupt the happy equilibrium in this nation, even if the foundations of this equilibrium don't feel quite right to me.

Related essays and webpages
(1) Xenoboy's 'Cost of leaving in Singapore', 'What makes me, me?', and 'Lost leaves, lahs and lors'
(2) Ringisei's review of Albert Hirschman's classic, 'Exit, voice, and loyalty'
(3) Prime Minister's Office, Overseas Singaporean Unit (OSU) and Ministry of Home Affairs's press release on Overseas Singaporean Community (March 13th, 2006)
(4) Parable of the Prodigal Son
(5) Fairy tale Three Princes of Serendip and The Meanings of 'Serendip'

Against non-anonymity in cyberspace

2006-07-13T00:02:00.000+08:00

Today I shall argue against an influential school of thought regarding the issue of 'anonymity in cyberspace'. I believe that the proponents of this school of thought are wrong not only because of the kind of claims that they're making, but also in the way they have made them. Some even go as far as expressing a strong sense of 'disgust' and 'distaste' for bloggers who do not reveal their real identity.

Expressions such as 'closet of anonymity', 'coming out of the internet', 'hiding behind the internet', 'using pseudonyms to disguise themselves' are unflattering and also disturbing to the ears. They are disturbing because not only are they mistaken to assume that anonymity and pseudonymity are driven mainly (although not exclusively) by fear and guilt alone, but also because such an assumption then becomes an implicit attack on the moral character of the anonymous/pseudonymous bloggers. Such an implicit attack is uncalled for when the latter have done nothing wrong at all simply by doing what the available technology and the laws of the land allow them to do.

I think everybody has a right to decide for himself whether he wants to 'let the whole world know who he is' or not. For those who have good reasons to want to be known by the people with whom he communicates, I'm happy for them because they have found a reason to step forward and say 'look, this is who I am', and presumably a range of practical, psychic, and social benefits (both real and imagined ones) would follow from their declaration. But this does not mean, conversely, that people who do not follow suit are somehow morally inferior for not doing so.

First, one cannot assume that other blog readers really WANT to know who you are. Are we so important that our views must necessarily be accompanied with our photos, full name, occupation, and other details? How far shall this revelation of personal details go, and who is to decide for bloggers? Why should these people decide in a society of equals (ideally-speaking)?

Second, like what blogger Design Translator says, he does not go around flaming people and so he should have nothing to hide. I agree but this argument can swing the other way too: if a blogger using a pseudonym ALSO doesn't go around flaming others, why should he be treated as though he is 'morally lacking' in some ways? What 'wrong' has he done other than to deprive others the knowledge of who he really is and how he looks? Some may argue further that bloggers who use pseudonyms tend to flame others, 'take pot shots' at others, and say irresponsible things, but would this not mean, then, that the REAL issues concern the latter three actions or practices, rather than the mere adoption of an online pseudonym per se?

Another important point I'd raise is that even the majority of the pseudonymous bloggers themselves (and anonymous readers) would agree wholeheartedly that defamatory, seditious, and blasphemous comments are unethical and unlawful, and should not be made. So why should they be blamed, given that they also condemn such actions? Finally, if something that has been said is serious enough to warrant legal action, I am sure the parties concerned or the police force would do so, without concerned citizens having to worry about whether the policemen would shirk their responsibilities or not.

May I go on and present a set of reasons for wanting to remain anonymous or pseudonymous in cyberspace. I hope readers will agree that these are perfectly honourable reasons for using pseudonyms when presenting one's views for the rest of Singapore (and indeed the world) to read, or for remaining anonymous:

First, I believe that it should always be strength of the arguments and the frequency of well-argued essays that determine one's overall 'credibility'. Who you are--and thus your gender, age, race, occupation, employer, educational profile, and so on--should not be used to support your arguments in anyway. The mere fact that someone reveals his identity, credentials and affiliation does not make his arguments any better. In fact, at times one's affiliation may well affect the credibility since people might think 'ah you're writing that because your identity is public and you simply have to appear politically correct!' Similarly people in positions of authority may want to write anonymously because of the desire to let people decide rationally on the basis of sound arguments alone rather than on the basis of power relationships. Another situation could be that one may not want his own pessimism about certain phenomena to be associated with his organization, which is in fact a hallmark of a sensibly responsible (albeit pessimistic) person. I would urge critics to remember that the blogging audience is only one among several groups of stakeholders to this activity of blogging, so the 'stakes' of other groups are not any less than the 'stakes' of curious bloggers who are obsessed with real identities. Note, too, that unless one is a parrot and/or a person who does not think, being a supporter or even member of organization (say X) does not mean that one AGREES with every single policy of organization X all the time. Yet, having said that, just because one does not agree with every single policy also does not mean that he cannot simultaneously accept the necessity to be politically correct at least on certain occasions. And one of the ways to be politically correct is precisely NOT to use one's real identity which can always be traced--with the help of the Internet search engines of course--to the organizations with which one is affiliated.

Secondly, I would urge the proponents of this 'anonymity-is-atrocious' (AIA) school of thought to consider the fact that things are really not all that different in the real world in which we live--where feedback forms of numerous organizations are often anonymous by default, or at least allows anonymity as an option. Thirdly, not everybody likes the whole world or whole nation to know so much about them. Even in a big conference, members of the audience who have views may not want to step out, for the simple reason that they do not want 500 pairs of eyes staring at them even for those few minutes. If this is part of the 'shy' personality of real people, should they not be granted the basic rights to be shy?

Fourthly, the 'game' of cyber-interactions is precisely designed like that--critics should therefore blame the game and not the players of the game. Can you imagine a game of hide-and-seek where passers-by condemn the individual players for hiding? In addition, given the way this game has proceeded, it is currently only the minority who are NOT anonymous, and so at this stage the following argument can be made: people remain anonymous because they don't want to be the minority! And as a blog reader or forum participant, one also has the option to remaining anonymous, so I consider this to be a very fair game since people who do not agree with certain points can always argue back and if they do so skilfully, they may be able to make the other party's argument look much weaker than it originally appeared to be.

Thus, with the above criticisms of the AIA (Anonymity-Is-Atrocious) school of thought regarding cyber-anonymity/pseudonymity, as well as the set of reasons I've presented for wanting to participate in cyber-civil society without being a public figure, I hope I have managed to convince not only the undecided, but also the skeptical, particularly the proponents of the AIA school of thought themselves.

On organizations that are less than world-class

2006-07-06T09:18:00.000+08:00

This very short essay presents my views about a type of organizations that I call 'organizations that are less than world-class'. There are 4 characteristics of such organizations:

(1) They pay peanuts and yet they expect the people working for them to devote 300, 500, or even 800 percent of their energies. They tell you to be 'professional', to put in extra effort, to be 'prepared for long hours', and so on, conveniently forgetting that they are actually under-paying you (hoping that like a small child you'll forget)...They do not care if what you earn using all your time will not be enough for you to pay your bills or take care of your family, because what they care about is only the question of how to extract everything out of you (or in Mandarin, 'ba2 ni3 zha4 gan1'), like the way the SugarCaneDrinks Man puts the sugarcanes through the extractor-machine repeatedly until every drop of the sugarcane juice is squeezed out, and the sugarcane promptly discarded....

(2) Not only do they do (1), they also have the cheek to say this aloud and with a straight face - for the employees, temp staff, and the public to hear. It's obvious that such organizations (especially their useless HR departments) think that they are doing the right thing. The most sinister thing about such organizations is that they under-pay you but they tell you that it's 'a fair wage' or 'market rate'. The term 'market rate' is abused by these unethical organizations and their agents to justify the practice of paying peanuts. Ironically, these organizations tell you that you're really valuable to them and you play an 'immensely important role' in upholding the image of the organization and in delivering the goods; yes, you are crucial to the organization, without all your 'good work' the show cannot go on. Indeed the show cannot go on, for this is hypocrisy well-performed - co-acted by the employees who are sufficiently brainwashed...

(3) Following from (1) and (2), you might think that only people with low skills are affected by such unethical practices. This is not true - even highly skilled people are affected. The rhetoric of the knowledge-based economy may give the public an impression that 'ah, finally people with Knowledge are going to be recognized and rewarded more!' But this is a misleading image which masks the actual realities of organizational HR practices. In the knowledge-based economy, what happens might be the opposite: the highly skilled people are rewarded less, or at least less than what they deserve, because the transformations towards the KBE involve the mass production of highly skilled workers, to the extent that the plentiful supply makes each of them a cheap commodity. Have I shattered your dreams? No fear, my friend, for shit happens... :)

(4) They do not have the ability to recognize good people, including job applicants and existing staff. So if great applicants apply, they are promptly rejected, precisely because a mediocre or lousy organization simply cannot recognize greatness (If they could they wouldn't still be mediocre or lousy, would they?) Existing staff who add value or are rare gems are not treasured, and they are sometimes even treated with suspicion - precisely because of their greatness. Greatness sometimes manifests as a form of 'deviance' (without deviating from the crowd, how does one be great?), and mediocre and lousy organizations are entities that cannot tolerate deviance, so they remain just ordinary players in whichever industry or sector they are operating in. When the nail that sticks out gets hammered and only conformist 'yes-men' fill all the professional roles, how can such organizations ever hope to become 'world-class'?

So this short essay has presented my views on a certain organizational type. These organizations are liabilities in any knowledge-based economy, but Singapore has failed to recognize the threat that they pose collectively. The tricky thing about these organizations is that they are lousy but not lousy enough to die off, and so they go about their businesses as usual, projecting the image to outsiders that they are 'doing quite well'. But in their lastingness they do even more damage to the country as a whole, as they silently finish off on a massive scale all the great people or do things that extinguish their creative excellence, slowly but surely.....

Analyzing Mr Brown's original article

2006-07-04T09:48:00.000+08:00

Mr Brown wrote an article in Today newspaper, entitled 'Singaporeans are fed, up with progress!' on 3rd July 2006, which triggered a response from the Ministry of Information, Communication & the Arts (MICA) of Singapore.

The response from MICA has been thoroughly deconstructed by many pseudonymous bloggers as well as anonymous/pseudonymous blog-readers. Many argued that the most troubling conclusions from this episode are the following: (a) that citizens cannot criticize Singapore in any way (including the humorous way), (b) that if citizens do want to criticize, then they must offer solutions, and (c) if citizens criticize publicly, then they must be prepared for nothing less than the swiftest and harshest response. Make no mistake: this is Singapore, and we are definitely a 'swift-response' city and the 'hub of harsh replies'! :)

Thanks to MICA's response which triggered an uproar in cyberspace, I became curious and popped over to Mr Brown's blog just to see what the fuss was all about. I read MICA's response first, and by the end of it I was almost convinced that Mr Brown is an anti-Singapore person who is highly dangerous and who can never see the positive aspects of government policies. Then I read Mr Brown's original article, just to see what are some of the terrible things he wrote, and I reached the following conclusions....

(1) MICA should not be angry with Mr Brown, because Mr Brown did say that the Progress Package which should have been used to 'cope with the rising costs' ends up being used by some Singaporeans for the purchase of unimportant consumer goods. Hence, 'too bad for them then', says Mr Brown.

(2) Mr Brown did not criticize Singapore's IT programmes; he was simply arguing that 'outsourcing' of projects to private companies comes with an inevitable price. He did say that he 'understands the cost of building these roads is high, and the government is relooking the financing of these big road projects'.

(3) Mr Brown's real criticism is probably his suggestion that despite the glittering and impressive symbols of progress, these symbols themselves come with a price, thus neutralizing the progressive effects of the policies put in place by the well-intentioned government. He did not say that the government has bad intentions. Neither did he say that the policies were ineffective. He was simply saying that you need money to pay for all these shiny, cool, and efficient technological artefacts - which is true!

(4) Regarding means-testing, Mr Brown wrote, 'we do know many families who cannot [afford it]....but don't worry. Most of you don't have this problem. Your normal kids can go to regular school for very low fees, and I am sure they will not introduce means testing for your cases.' Mr Brown is pointing out - in a non-partisan manner - the fact that many families cannot afford it, which is a truism in any society! (Which society doesn't have poor families?) He did not say that the government will neglect the needs of these poor families or will fail to exercise flexible discretion in borderline cases. He is simply saying that while price increases are not necessarily nice, as long as he can still afford it, he can't complain because the poorer families are worse off than him.

(5) Next, Mr Brown, through his article, merely expressed a sincere hope that children with special needs can get 'a little more therapy to help them walk and talk', and 'if the country does really well,...a little more subsidy'. What's wrong with a citizen writing this to express a hope? Can't citizens have hopes?

(6) And finally, the pseudonym 'Mr Brown' is used by Mr Lee Kin Mun; even Heavenly Sword who usually stays in the mountain practising his kungfu knows this... :)

The response from MICA, nonetheless, did not surprise me. (You mean you're surprised?) :) I can see where it's coming from, and I respectfully acknowledge what it's saying. But the purpose of this short post has been to argue that MICA's interpretation of Mr Brown's original article is wrong, hence triggering an overly harsh reply to an actually-innocent Singaporean.

Related posts
Mr Wang
Xenoboy
Molly Meek
New Singapore Angle
Others (accessible from Molly Meek) :)

Announcement

2006-06-26T19:39:00.000+08:00

The announcement is (drumbeats).....
that 'I'm going to make an announcement soon....' :)

Ever heard of anyone practising kungfu until he becomes 'zou huo ru mo'? This is a dangerous physical and psychological state that could lead to severe internal injuries, fainting, coma, insanity, and/or smoke coming out from one's head if one is not careful - a state that one has to risk reaching if one wishes to learn the most deadly skills in the pugilistic world today. My kungfu is going to be perfected in another 7x7 (49) days...

Wish me luck.

************
Real Announcement #1: The new Singapore Angle group blog is here. It is specially dedicated to social and political commentaries, and the writers are: HuiChieh the philosopher, Dansong the sociologist, BL the scientist-and-entrepreneur, Kway Teow Man the chef specializing in local cuisines, Ringisei the international politics and international relations specialist, as well as The Void Deck team, The Legal Janitor, Sze Meng, and Wayne the public policy and political analysts. Last but not least (or last and indeed least), there's Heavenly Sword the wandering swordsman himself. :)

Real Announcement #2: pending.... :)

Light touch approach to Internet regulation

2006-06-03T12:37:00.000+08:00

Heavenly Sword likes to analyze things and write long essays online, but he also believes that the phrase ‘paralysis by analysis’ could sometimes be true. I think that there are really some events around us that are best interpreted by intuition. So here’s one of my shortest essays in my blogging history, written on the basis on intuition alone.

Debates about how light is the ‘light touch’ or what the government is going to do to bloggers are not going to lead us anywhere. Right now, the situation is one in which bloggers find themselves in a muddy pond where the kind of fishes swimming in it cannot be seen. So for the sake of prudence, a 'political blogger' may well have to assume that the ‘light touch’ may not be so light after all if he or she is even 'just a little bit worried'. This is Singapore after all, a famously (or notoriously) uptight country with a government that leaves nothing to chance, not even the creation of something as elusive as creativity. So my interpretation is that basically nothing has changed: it’s still business as usual, my friend, as I would tentatively conclude...

I think that it is precisely this reluctance to accept the fact that the ‘light touch’ isn’t going to be so light that creates a further series of concerns (see Gayle and Charissa's blogs and SBP, for example). The announcement by the Minister probably gave some people a ray of hope that this light touch might be really light indeed! But I feel that even this momentary feeling of hope is borne out of an unrealistic optimism. As some people say in Chinese, 'mei you qi wang, jiu bu hui shi wang' (if you don't hold any expectations, you will never be disappointed). Perhaps that's why I feel okay! Because I have never held any expectations that Singapore's 'opening up' will manifest as obvious transformations in my lifetime. The official message will probably not change for the next few decades and it is this: blog ‘responsibly’ (and Xenoboy has written an essay on this some time ago), and the government will usually ‘close one eye’ if one is relatively harmless and is merely complaining about various aspects of Singapore, but may intervene if one is blatantly defamatory, seditious, or racist....

This is really a case of the available information being ‘interpretable’ in various ways at this point in time - ‘oh maybe very light huh, if they decide to be nice, but maybe not so light eh’. The night is still young, baby...This brings me to the conclusion that Singapore's approach to Internet regulation is best summed up as follows: ‘it's not as heavy-handed an approach as the government could have adopted, but certainly not as light as bloggers would like it to be’. Serious transgression will definitely still result in a lightning bolt striking down on the respective bloggers, leaving them in a vegetative condition, which is kinda of scary if you ask me, but is a real possibility that needs to be accepted. I guess this is a kind of scariness that differs in psychological intensity for people who are paranoid to varying degrees, and their paranoia is probably in turn related to who they really are and/or the threat they actually pose, politically or otherwise.

The threat posed by most ordinary bloggers is, in my opinion, not something that the government should even worry about, for what can a scattered population of bloggers do to change the consciousness of the vast majority of Singaporeans who are not connected to the non-infantile blogosphere? This fact of course will not lead the government to announce that they will make it ‘free for all’, because from its perspective, there are operational advantages to be gained from a perception that it's 'very tough and very watchful', rather than 'understanding and kind' when it comes to regulatory matters. So even humourous satirical works are frowned upon; it's like your army sergeant warning you with the phrase delivered in a most ominous tone, 'you laugh, you dare to laugh...never mind...' This keeps everybody obedient. It's done in the hope that such perceptions would translate into a fear of reprisal which may help to prevent even more critical online articles and satirical multimedia works from appearing.

So this is Heavenly Sword’s rather short and 'neither optimistic nor pessimistic' assessment of Minister Lee’s pronouncements on Singapore’s Internet regulation. This essay is delivered in the spirit of not wanting to over-analyze something that is firstly, too vague to be analyzed and secondly, too contingent on future events to be debated on the basis of competing guesses at this point in time...

Can entrepreneurship be taught??

2006-05-29T20:05:00.000+08:00

Blogger BL at Singapore Entrepreneurs once wrote a great essay entitled ‘Can entrepreneurship be taught?’, in which he argued that there are some things about entrepreneurship that cannot be taught. Being rather uncreative, Heavenly Sword decided to write a post on this topic as well and with the same title, except that in my title I've inserted one more question mark than BL. :) Anyway, over at Mr Wang’s immensely popular blog, a certain reader called Hinly hinted that entrepreneurship education is essentially rubbish, because ‘we can only read about success stories, and we cannot account for the failures’… Mr Wang modified that argument and created a more acceptable variant, which says that ‘entrepreneurship cannot be learned in a school environment.’ Other blog readers, including Wayne, linked the lack of an entrepreneurial activities in Singapore to the ‘culture of control’ here, thus adding a ‘political’ dimension to the issue. I shall tackle the above issues one by one....

My view is that the ‘nuts and bolts’ subjects required of an aspiring entrepreneur can and should be taught. For example, modules like financial accounting, cost/management accounting, taxation, & business/company law can and should be taught. Other potentially useful modules include business plan writing, business strategy, operations management, human resource management, marketing, and international accounting (if the person is thinking of venturing abroad). Thus in terms of content, at least the basics of the business world can and should be taught. This actually has a minor positive side-effect in terms of networking with fellow business associates. Sure, you may not need to bring out your ‘Porter’s five forces of industrial competition’ as you speak to your business associates, but the more things you know in your head, the more you can speak to them about, even if the jargon is not mobilized in your attempt to impress…

There is also another important point about entrepreneurship courses, which is that they don't merely aim to teach aspiring entrepreneurs what to do (the so-called 'success stories'), but also what not to do (that is, the stories of failure). The 'what to do' portion has no boundaries: nobody can really list out all the possible business strategies for an aspiring entrepreneur; creativity is needed and several permutations are possible in complex business situations…. But the 'what not to do' portion can be illustrated using case studies of what has failed despite using apparently sound strategies. Business education is more about learning what NOT to do. After all, why waste time (and money) making all the same mistakes that others had made before? That's why business schools like Harvard and Wharton use the 'case method' to teach business courses, including entrepreneurship courses. And in those courses, questions of 'what went wrong with a company's apparently brilliant business strategy?' always pop up. And this ability to not be blinded by superb-sounding strategies is a skill that can come about with practice, even if that practice is based on simulation on paper. (A disclaimer should be put in place here, though, for I do not think that everything should be taught by the formal education system: things like sex education should probably not have existed at all…) :)

Adding to the confusion in the discussions of entrepreneurship education is the unfortunate conflation of two things: the types of ‘entrepreneurship-related knowledge’ that I have discussed above, with a more elusive ‘entrepreneurial spirit’, which results in people talking past one another. I used to think that this elusive spirit simply cannot be taught, and so in a way I was supporting the ‘you either have it or you don’t’ argument. But I’m now more inclined to think that even that entrepreneurial spirit can be taught. As the philosopher Alastair MacIntyre wrote eloquently in After Virtue, ‘the well-trained soldier….may do what courage would have required of him in a particular situation, not because he is courageous, but because he is well-trained.’ So things like ‘spirit’ can indeed be cultivated through training, precisely because the human mind is flexible, capable of learning (as Mr Wang has wisely pointed out), and respond excellently to ego-boosters. That training could well have an important motivational effect, turning a previous timid person into one who is more self-assured, and more ready to take the steps needed to start a business. I believe that an appropriately motivationally-charged person will have that necessary burst of energy that an entrepreneur requires especially in the initial phase of his operations….

The last point of my essay is that entrepreneurship is a distinctly business-focused activity, de-linked from the sphere of the political. If one wants to be an entrepreneur, does he or she stop short at becoming one because there is a ‘culture of control’ that supposedly ‘stifles creativity’? A relative of mine is a winner of the Cultural Medallion, who did think that Singapore is kinda strict when it came to modes of expression, but nonetheless went on to produce many internationally-acclaimed creative works. My view is that if one really wants to do something, it’s surely possible. So even if that culture of control is really there, one should probably bash through it….Unfortunately, the situation now, which stifles entrepreneurship, is not one in which there are numerous young people thinking ‘wah I really want to start a business but cannot la, got culture of control here!’, it is in fact due to some other reasons that steer capable young people towards other areas or organizations - a phenomenon that I shall write about at a later date…

Concentric model of obligations / the social versus the political

2006-05-25T23:59:00.000+08:00

Confucius has this cute little concentric model of obligations, which goes like this: xiu shen (first cultivate the self), qi jia (then start a good family), zhi guo (then help with national affairs), ping tian xia (and finally think of more universal problems). However, Confucius spoke about this in an era that is very different from the current one, so would this concentric model still apply?

I suspect that Singaporeans are roughly split into two groups: the first group focuses on the first two tasks, namely, the cultivation of self and management of the nuclear family. The second group focuses on the third and fourth tasks, which concern national politics and ‘global’ issues such as poverty in developing countries, ‘human rights’ issues, and so on… The problem in Singapore is that there is a fundamental incommensurability between the world views of these two groups. The ‘self/family-focused’ Singaporeans feel that their priorities should be to take care of themselves and their immediate family members. They are more concerned with day-to-day problems in their work and family lives, with ‘the bills’, and their free moments are usually spent on things which do not require much thought, such as watching TV, shopping, and basically indulging in the pleasures of consumer culture. Life for them is best expressed with the help of a Singlish term as the following sentence will show - ‘Singapore ok wat, see, the shopping is so good, food is sooo nice...’ (Xenoboy once wrote an essay focusing on the ‘Singapore ok lah/Singapore ok lor’ mentality). This group is viewed by the ‘politics/society/global-issues-focused’ group as being too ‘apathetic’. The latter group thinks that everybody should be concerned about and interested in politics and society. The failure to see what’s the big deal is common in Singapore, unfortunately.

In a sense, it’s true that if one is ‘ni pusa guo jiang, zi shen nan bao’ (Buddha made of mud crossing river, can't even help himself), one should not even think of other things. This idea is expressed as a piece of advice which says that unless one is truly well-established and pretty successful in his or her career and have a blemish-free record, one should not even think about entering politics. Other views supporting the supposed ‘apathy’ of this camp would include: (a) the view that we can safely ‘leave everything to the experts’, (b) the related view that being able to wash one’s hands off national affairs is a luxury indeed, thanks to party X which has ‘done such a gooood job’ (sounds familiar?) :), (c) the view that one can be concerned about ‘society’ without being ‘political’, for example, by being a social worker, a grassroots volunteer, or just by excelling in one’s profession….

The first view is premised upon the saying that ‘too many cooks will spoil the broth’. If one simply does not have the expertise in a certain policy area, participation in it might make things worse, so the argument goes. In fact there is a ‘law’ called the Gresham’s Law, which, when applied to what we're dealing with here, would suggest that ‘the average’ will always have more influence that ‘the best’, and that the preferences of the majority may not translate into an optimal decision. The second view reflects the ‘sit back and relax’ mentality of many Singaporeans. It assumes that a ‘good job’, once done, is there to stay. But this line of thinking is flawed because even if a good job has indeed been done, there is always much more to do. There are always little things that can be done to improve policies, living environments, strategies, culture, and so on… And finally, the third view is that one should not conflate the social with the political, and that although politics includes societal affairs, being concerned about societal affairs does not mean that one needs to be political (for example, by joining a political party or being a ‘die-hard’ supporter of certain parties). And blogger Gayle at I-Speak says that blogging is itself a meaningful form of participation in society, which I do agree, but only to a certain extent…

Blogging is limited in its power to influence society because of the inherent nature of this technology, which shapes the way users (bloggers, blog readers) respond or do not respond to it. Blogging is temporal in nature too: readers will only keep a blogger on their ‘blogrolls’ if he or she blogs constantly and with at least a fortnightly frequency (who still remembers or reads ‘Rebrab Moor’ these days?). Articles written by various bloggers only have a fleeting, momentary influence. The newer articles will be the foci of the day, while the older articles slowly disappear into a cyberspace blackhole and forgotten by everybody. So it’s a bit like ‘fashion’, which comes and goes quickly. Analytical essays (including those covering the elections) are read only by a minority of Singaporeans. You could almost say that bloggers at most form a ‘subculture’ in Singapore. In fact, bloggers who write about social and political issues may very well be viewed as ‘a handful of trouble-makers'. Most people still read blogs of a small circle of people whom they personally know; many others read but do not comment. On the whole, I think that blogging as a form of social participation doesn’t involve a sufficiently large portion of society to make a difference yet. Even if an online essay does get readers’ attention, the virtual crossfire in the comments section usually reinforces their preconceived beliefs, leaving those who are in favour of a position and those who are against it more divided than ever, for this ‘divide’ now consists of not merely differences in viewpoints, but also a memory of quarrel which will be remembered bitterly and carried over to future interactions. So unless Singaporeans really try to be civilized and gentlemanly to one another, and try to have a real dialogue despite their political differences, cyberspace 'discussions’ will always turn out to be divisive, which is quite a bad thing if you ask me….

Anyway, to reiterate my earlier point which is the central theme of this essay, I think that there is a fundamental incommensurability between the worldviews of people, who could be roughly grouped into two camps. The purpose of this essay is merely to map out their positions and to show that both sides do have valid reasons for thinking and behaving as they do. (a) The self/family focused Singaporeans are not necessarily unconcerned about national affairs; they might be, but they may (i) want to focus on improving their individual or family lives first before moving on to larger things (based on the concentric model of obligations), or they may (ii) prefer to focus on social rather than political issues, for to them the ‘political’ may well be too political for their liking. Some of these people who do not actually step forward to join political parties may prefer to contribute anonymously and independently as bloggers. However, their influence shall by default be fleeting and negligible. (b) The politics/society/globally focused group has lofty ideals, and they should not be discouraged, viewed as idealistic, or dismissed. This incommensurability is not something that any person can resolve, because the problem resides in the very nature of any society that is not made up of clones, and no amount of eloquence by any blogger or politician can reason away this contradiction with the power of words alone…

Power over the body

2006-05-19T18:50:00.000+08:00

This essay is about the immense power of the State over every male citizen’s ‘body’ in Singapore. It is prompted by this new controversy that is building up in cyberspace, which revolves around the issue of whether a certain gifted Singaporean violinist should be granted deferment of his mandatory military service. Despite the heartfelt and forceful rhetorical attempts by concerned citizens to help the gifted violinist to plead with Singapore’s defence ministry, I fear that all these voices are not going to make any impact at all at the executive level of the ministry, and of the government in general.

In the first place, the actions of the well-meaning Singaporeans who write in to help the gifted violinist are based on the assumption that the defence ministry has a heart. But it doesn’t! It’s a bureaucratic machine and a machine is just that – a ‘thing’ or ‘network of paperworks’ which does only what it was designed to do originally, with no other purpose. Since it does not have a heart (literally and metaphorically speaking) and has instead a singular focus (to force everybody to serve NS), all the letters that appeal to emotions (e.g. feelings of 'ah what a pity') will simply be deflected like bullets hitting a massive rock, even if individual decision-makers reading them do in some way sympathize with the poor gifted violinist...

As for letters appealing to rational reasoning, they will also fail to convince the bureaucrats, for the ministry will 'reason' that (a) if he's really that good, he will get into the same or another top music school after his NS, and (b) his skills won't weaken during NS (and if it does, then he isn't that good). In any case, MINDEF will be able to retort by saying, in a somewhat circular way, that "if you can't achieve your own professional goals despite the NS hurdle, then you aren't really that good, which then means that MINDEF was right after all to refuse to grant you the deferment in the first place". And through this episode, MINDEF achieves a scarier goal: it once again reminds people of its immense power, which manifests most clearly when it rejects, for the sake of macro-level interests, requests that actually seem reasonable at the individual or micro level.

In any case, the poor gifted violinist would most probably have to accept his fate or karma. It is intersubjectively understood as part of Singapore’s social contract that to be a citizen of this country you have to agree to let your ‘body’ be fully taken over by the State, via MINDEF and through the Enlistment Act. So first you have to let it be consigned to a powerful regime of two years, known as NS (2-1/2 years in my time). Then you have an immensely long period of reservist activity. So this regime operates at two levels which are very creatively known as ‘National Service (full-time)’, and ‘National Service’. The latter term, which is an extremely creative variation of the former, essentially refers to the seemingly endless military regime that continues to bring Singaporean men immense stress, physical ‘torture’ (not literally, obviously), and inconvenient disruptions to their otherwise peaceful and focused working life. A more pervasive pair of ‘sub-regimes’ would be the IPPT physical fitness regime and its associated ‘remedial training’ regime, which strikes fear into the hearts of many Singaporean men over the age of 30 (young men under the age of 30, you won’t understand, so you can stop reading this essay from this point onwards…) :)

One might say ‘oh come on’ and say proudly that HE thinks IPPT is easy, personally, but it’s true that it can be a great hurdle for many people. The remedial training of 8 weeks is simply ridiculous from the individual’s point of view, although the ridiculous nature of the experience is translated from a seemingly non-ridiculous organizational logic (which is to get people to pass the test). At a more fundamental level, one could also ask why there is this necessity to run at such a fast pace for such a great distance? ‘National defence, of course!’ comes the rapid answer. But in this technological era characterized by terrorism and unconventional warfare, I do not believe that the 'bricks and mortar' way of preparing for a war makes much sense. It’s more important to train people how to cope with unexpected attacks (e.g. bioterrorism) and know some basic civil defence skills. Honestly, why waste the precious time of busy professionals who are fighting for their careers and looking after their kids by calling them up so frequently for mobilization exercises, in-camp trainings, 2-1/2 weeks guard duties (euphemistically called ‘protection of installation’ exercises), and even telemarketing-like duties such as ‘detachment IC’ duties, where reservists need to take a list and perform the role of telephone operators, calling up fellow reservists for some ‘secretive’ reasons that cannot be revealed...

I've meditated on the above issues for a long time. I still feel great unhappiness each time I have to drag my feet to run (I hate running, by the way, even though when I was younger I didn't mind it so much.) And I have come to the following conclusion: I think that this regime is actually put in place by the defence ministry for two unarticulated purposes: the first of which is to create an impression that the defence force is always ready to fight. And because the metaphor in use is precisely that – to ‘fight’ (as though it involves guys delivering punches at one another) – IPPT fits well as a complementary regime and a ‘wayang’ show to tell potential foreign attackers that ‘hey don’t pray pray with Singapore okay, our soldiers do IPPT one okay….they do reservist 40 days a year and get mobilized all the time okay….’ The second reason is slightly more hilarious: it is to remind you that your body is actually theirs, and thereby gain an opportunity to reassert and consolidate their identity as an organization and social institution of ultimate power - power over your consciousness (‘how not to think about NS since the letters come at regular intervals each year, ‘reminding’ you of your obligations to Singapore’), and power over every muscle in your body. This is, I guess, legitimate power - one that is legitimized by the 'national security/national duty' argument and supported by many Singaporeans, ladies especially :) So remember that with ‘every step you take, every breath you take’, you are under its total control: ‘Move on, you insignificant hamster! Unless you want to go for RT and have less time for your little hamsters at home and for your hamster job.’ (Don't you think running on the treadmill makes us look a bit like hamsters?) :)

But being a rather optimistic person, I will try to look at the bright side of things. Perhaps this IPPT regime is actually GOOD for Singaporeans because it forces them to exercise. But then if it is indeed so good, my suggestion would be that the age limit be extended to 60 years old, or more (say, 90?). After all, who says that we cannot run when we are in our fifties or older? We can!! And if it’s for national defence, we will do it! And in fact because of its natural goodness, perhaps ladies should do IPPT every year too – all the way until age 60 as well. That would be my prescription for a healthy and secure Singapore which is strongly defended by people of all ages and sexes who can RUN and do chin-ups, even if they have zero knowledge about how to react when there is a simple terrorist or bioterrorist attack. Yes, running is the priority in a war, especially if you are on the losing side. :)

On leave

2006-02-05T13:55:00.000+08:00

Dear faithful readers and friends,
Apologies to those who still bother to click and check if I'm still alive. Thanks for not giving up on Heavenly Sword. Things are still rather busy now. The above is an interim post for your reading pleasure. In the mean time I'll finish whatever I have on hand and try to resume regular blogging soon...
HS

Conservative Singapore

2006-01-26T22:06:00.000+08:00

Singapore is a highly conservative society. In this essay I'll not be wasting precious space to describe how conservative it is. Instead, what I wish to suggest is that Singapore's conservative culture is an extremely stable and deep-rooted one, to the extent that this country will still be as conservative as it currently is even in 60 years' time. In other words, I predict that there will be no social change in this particular aspect of society as long as I live. I'll be focusing especially on the way society thinks about 'expressions of sexuality', and sexuality itself.

Do not be deceived by the apparent signals of decreasing conservativeness in society. Things like Sexpo and Crazy Horse may make people feel as though Singapore is finally becoming less prudish. But do you really believe that there will be a day when Singapore allows magazines such as Playboy to be sold in Singapore? I do not think so. Censorship of the print media and online media will continue to be strict for the foreseeable future. So, to the extent that there are clear and unambiguous limits that cannot be crossed, the suggestion that society is somehow 'opening up' may cause people to think that this 'opening up' shall proceed in a teleological and linear fashion. Such guesses are overly optimistic and do not to take into account the ways in which powerful brakes exist in Singapore to halt the unbridled development of Singapore into a totally permissive society.

It is sometimes said that there is a silent majority in this country, which is an extremely moral bunch of people. While I do not know the exact size of this group of people, my wild guess is that they amount to at least 60% of Singapore. Naturally, the older generation will be conservative. The younger Singaporeans are split between the conservative, the not-so-conservative, and those who have never thought about this question or issue. Do a rough calculation based on some estimates and you might arrive at the same percentage as I have: the not-so-conservative group is a minority group in Singapore, amounting to probably only 10% of the total population!

Thus the Singapore in 20, 40, or even 60 years' time will still be the same old Singapore. Playboy magazine and that company's website will continue to be censored, and society at large will continue to support strict censorship. No doubts about that. There are two philosophies supporting this form of censorship by the State. The first is that pornography (both hard and soft porn) corrupts the mind absolutely, and will therefore convert most Singaporeans into lust-filled monsters who ought to be quarantined immediately. It is assumed that total chaos will follow and this pristine moral paradise will then be reduced to Fourth World status from the fighting, fires, rapes, molest cases, and a whole series of crimes due to the pornographic magazines and their close cousins. Why do you think the scene where Kate Winslet appeared nude in Titanic was cut? To those in charge of censorship, there is no such thing as 'forms of nudity' or 'nudity for artistic purposes'; there is only one monolithic category of 'nudity' which is equated to pornography and to the notion of 'evil'.

The second and more fundamental belief is that anything related to the enhancement of sexual attraction and desires or serves as a form of sexual expression is inherently bad. I'm not surprised because Singapore rests upon a system-wide perpetration of a 'wholesome' image for the sake of attracting tourists, foreign talent, and investors, and this overall country image can only be sustained when the circulating discourses, practices, and products (e.g. magazines, television programmes) are all equally wholesome. In fact, even married couples are not spared from the pressures that this subtle moral culture exerts. As an exaggeration, they might even hear some ghostly voices telling them that sex is at best a necessary evil (even for married couples!) It is a practice that is tolerated here only because it has the positive externality of churning out the next generation of workers. Once the goal of reproduction has been achieved, this evil practice shall promptly be discontinued, for there is no longer any reason why a person needs to touch his or her spouse. True or false?

Now, do I need to place a disclaimer to say that I am obviously writing rhetorically in the above paragraphs? Please don't take the sentences literally...What I want to say is really this: that Singapore will always be conservative. And the proxy that I have used in this short essay is the censorship of expressions of sexuality. Sex, lust, intimacy, and liberal attitudes, according to the invisible moral majority, must not be tolerated in our squeaky clean, no-nonsense island. One can only wonder whether local married couples are exempted from such moral injunctions, and whether it is a bad thing to be intimate with one's spouse after the national 'duty' of childbearing has been discharged.

The worsening of contemporary songs and cartoons

2006-01-20T22:55:00.000+08:00

This short essay is about songs and cartoons, and how they reflect the increasing meaninglessness of society...

Songs these days are substandard compared to songs in 'my generation'. In 'my generation', both English and Mandarin songs are so much more melodious and the lyrics are often touching, educational, and/or much more meaningful. Personally, I do not like to listen to songs which are meaningless, even if they have catchy tunes.

The lyrics of a currently very popular song goes like this, "Mayee-yahee...Mayee-yahoo.....Mayee-yahoo....Mayee-ya-heh-heh...." My wife says it's quite cute, but I simply cannot stand it! Especially if she hums that song!

I told her that this song is really written for frogs to listen to, not human beings. And she challenged me to post this statement on my blog, saying that I will definitely become the number one public enemy in Singapore if I do so. Well, perhaps just let me say first of all that I do think the singer sings well and has a lovely voice. But still, with due apologies, I have to say that I really can't stand that song because it's just meaningless! So it's the song that I don't like, not the singer. Anyway, this is a free society and I can certainly express my personal views. So any attempt to make me follow the crowd and say that this 'frog-song' is good will simply show that this society is intolerant of dissenting views, that the nail which sticks out gets hammered down. This will then be an interesting discovery for me personally. So either way, I will gain something. In any case, does Heavenly Sword ever come across as one who is afraid of anything?

Well, I've digressed. Back to the songs. It is very unfortunate that in today's world, it is often songs without very deep meaning(s) that can strike a chord in people's heart, for society and life today are in general becoming more and more lacking in meaning and substance. So in a way, the kinds of songs that you get merely reflects the state of society. Another trend is that people do not like to think so much. So songs that make people think are simply not welcomed! This is a reflection of Gresham's law - it will always be the lousy things that dominate the world. Because the taste of the majority tends not to be the 'best' if you judge 'taste' in terms of strict professional standards! Interestingly, this is also why people who write garbage blogs have lots of readers - precisely because they write garbage!

Cartoons these days are horrible too. Just look at all those repulsive cartoons these days. In particular, look at the atrocious cartoons that you are 'forced' to watch on the buses thanks to the Mobile TV. I feel a strong urge to lodge an official complaint about those cartoons. The military themes are highly inappropriate for children, who are growing up and would surely benefit more from more 'innocent' and more easily understandable themes rather than such 'dark' and complex issues concerned with warfare and military technologies. Who cares about these technologies of death and violence anyway! Why bombard children with such garbage images when they are so young? Just look at the faces of the characters in these cartoons - totally unlovable, totally sinister, and totally stuck up. Are these the kinds of 'personalities' that we wish to expose our younger generation to? Just look at the things they say: they are full of hatred and desire to kill ("sha qi" in Mandarin). To me, cartoons should be cute, have lovable characters, and focus on more light-hearted settings.

To conclude, songs are getting meaningless and cartoons are becoming more 'adult-like'. Will there be a day when I can listen to more classical music or contemporary instrumental music rather than 'mayee-yahee, mayee-yahoo' FROGs' song everywhere I go? Will MDA please show some good cartoons such as the cute little Smurfs? I don't think my wishes will come true, for the world is undergoing a process that could be known as 'meaningless-ization'!

Cars, taxis, buses, and the MRT: Singapore's transport system

2006-01-15T20:12:00.000+08:00

Singapore's transport system is truly world-class. Just look at our Mass Rapid Transit system, especially the new 'North-East line': the stations are so safe, posh and artistically designed, and the trains are so fast and comfortable. The buses are impressive too, especially the newer ones installed with MobileTV sets. Who can complain that the transport system is not world-class?

Taxi companies are also becoming more professional and IT-oriented. Bookings can be done over the phone and the taxi that you need will arrive in about 5-10 minutes. "Convenient!" At least that's what the rich 'tai-tai's' would say. Cars are said to be 'cheap' too, since the prices of the COE have fallen....My mother happily parted with $80,000 cash and bought a Honda Civic, and was telling me that 'it's so cheap!' In the area where I live, there are numerous Mercedes-Benz's (especially the 200 series), BMWs (especially the 300 series), Toyotas (esp. Altis), Hondas (esp. Civic), and so on. It just looks as though everybody is so rich nowadays! Gosh, I'm really under-achieving!

Anyway, it appears that there is really nothing for one to complain about, regardless of one's preferred mode of commuting. But still, my everyday experiences of commuting leave me frustrated and tired. Pardon me but I really cannot afford to maintain a car (even though I can probably afford to buy one with a loan). Anyway, for car owners, the highways are always packed with cars that move like turtles. And even if they were not, I cannot afford a car because all my money is spent paying off the numerous bills that come to me in scary white envelopes every month - the service and conservancy charges, the electrical bills, the handphone bills, Internet connection bills, and other miscellaneous bills.

Unfortunately, my alternative modes of transport disappoint me. The public buses take ages to come, especially the feeder buses. Taxis are always taken, and I usually have no choice but to book one over the phone. The booking fee for 'peak hours' is $4, which sounds fair enough since those are supposed to be 'peak hours'. But hey, 'peak hours' is defined to be the period from 6pm to 11pm! That's when I need to get home from work! So you can imagine 'getting home from work' to be a most excruciatingly painful experience for me. I can either pay $17 to get home by taxi, or spend 1 hour and 45 minutes commuting in packed buses....

So this is the world-class transport system that impresses everyone but makes a poor commuter like me suffer daily. The strength of a chain is determined by its weakest link. I consider the buses to be the weakest link of our otherwise excellent transport system. From 6pm-10pm, buses are always packed like sardines. Sometimes they remain packed even until 11pm or later. The reason is that the frequency of the buses is too low, resulting in overly packed buses and in people having to wait for 20mins or even more sometimes at the bus-stops. The bus companies can at least provide printed time-tables at the bus-stops, like what they do in UK, so that when I wait at the bus-stop, I can at least read a book rather than constantly look at the oncoming buses to see if my bus has arrived. Bear in mind that I'll have to rush in order to get onto the bus when it comes, thanks to all the equally kiasu commuters!

Actually, I could understand why they're rushing too - for nobody wants to wait for another 25 mins for another packed bus, since even when the next bus comes, you STILL have to 'compete' with people, especially the middle-aged aunties in order to board it! I'm not being biased here but in my experience, it is always the 'aunties' who are the rudest, the most 'pushy', and 'kiasu'! They simply have no respect for young professionals like myself and literally dash past us like elephants even if we're obediently queuing up in front of them! This is what I call uncivilized behaviour at its extreme (very common in Singapore)!

Anyway, I've digressed. Regarding the world-class transport system, feeder buses are the worst culprit that undermines the efficiency of the system. The feeder bus that serves my area takes at least 20 minutes or even half an hour to come. It has been like that since I was 12 years old, and it is STILL like that. Zero improvement over nearly two decades, which is absolutely pathetic. The bus companies have either underestimated the importance of feeder buses, or they simply don't care about the quality of the 'service' they're providing. It's bad, by international standards, to put it bluntly.

Having presented my personal experience of commuting in Singapore, I have to say that my views are not representative. They do not in anyway represent the views of all social groups in Singapore, especially those who have immense financial resources and do not mind paying the $4 taxi-booking fee when the buses take too long to arrive, or those who do not find it tedious to own a car in Singapore. I do find it tedious to own a car and to commute daily, but I guess that must be because I am a comparatively unsuccessful man by the standards of my beloved country.

Platypus ideology

2006-01-11T23:10:00.000+08:00

This post is not about how to identify a platypus, and neither is it about how to catch an octopus. It's about how certain aspects of the country exert pressures to shape Singaporeans in the image of the platypus, resulting in us having to become quasi-octopuses.....

Most of the shaping occurs during the teenage years. Look around you and you'll notice how many people actually overload themselves with extra-curricular activities (ECAs). (Or are they called CCAs now?). The idea of having these ECAs is to make students more 'well-rounded'. But everything soon turns into a competition: within specific student societies/clubs/sports teams, people strive for positions of power, because these will enhance their resume. Being good at one thing is not considered to be a big deal in Singapore. This is a country where people will only be impressed if you are excellent in everything. Like a platypus, you should be able to lay eggs, walk on land, swim in water, and look like a duck, an otter and a fish - all at once. It's good if you are the sports captain, students' council leader, and graduate with a good honours degree, but it's still not good enough, for you can still be defeated by the person who have a slightly more impressive 'ECA record'.

I have a feeling that this 'ECA record' mentality is doing more harm than good in our country. How many fine young men and women have been exhausted to their limits because of ECAs? How many student societies and clubs have turned 'political' due to people vying for key positions within the 'committee'? How many potential budding scholars (as opposed to scholarship holders) have missed their first class honours because of excessive commitments to other non-academic activities? How many people truly like the activities they've chosen to join, and how many ended up hating those very activities that they had loved before everything became overly formalized?

Why do capable young people spread themselves so thin? The answer is that their capabilities have given them the feeling that they can take on the world. At the same time, 'society' at large and their immediate social environment send all kinds of signals to tell them that it's good to BE a platypus. If you want a good job after you graduate, you'd better be a platypus and have all kinds of activities listed on your resume - and make sure you hold at least one or two leadership positions. Nobody cares if you had been the worst 'President of Students Council' or 'President of Singapore Society', or the worst Rugby captain throughout the history of your school or university. Nobody will know anyway, and so the game transforms into a power struggle. ECAs are no longer for cultivating a deeper interest in the activity. They are instead platforms for the acquisition of titles which may impress your potential employers....

I'm not sure about the current situation but in my time, we're not allowed to change ECAs 'halfway through' or we'll lose all our 'ECA points'. So it doesn't matter that I've been an excellent player and contributor in the sports team and won several medals in the initial years of my secondary education. If I quit the team in my final year, I shall lose all my merit points. This is an unfair and silly practice, don't you think so? Why can't people have a change of interest? Why can I try out different things during my teenage years? Wouldn't it be nice if I could learn abit of Astronomy from the Astronomers' Club, a bit of horticulture from the Horticultural Society, and a bit of chicken-slaying skills from the Chicken-Slayers' Council? Why must I stick with a single uniformed group and a single sports team for 4 years of my life? I'm quite sure that I'll be very much more well-rounded if I had the chance to try out 5 to 15 different ECAs without any regard for the ECA points!

One might argue that I'm just going to exhaust myself if I try out so many things. But why should merely trying out things exhaust a person? The system is stupid, to begin with. For example, if I'm interested in Air-Rifle, why should I go for Air-Rifle sessions twice a week? And there shouldn't be a system that constrains peoples' movement across societies by imposing penalties or having disincentives. There shouldn't even be an expectation (on the part of employers) that people should have a string of titles associated with their 'official' positions in their ECA groups.

I would rather see people trying out different things in their youth. I would rather see a great young pianist who only has ONE ECA and no official position of responsibility, but could play the piano really well and lets his love for the piano show in his general excitement for life. And I would rather see a young scholar who had been yearning to become a famous professor one day and studied wholeheartedly and as a result had ZERO ECAs. All of these scenarios, in my opinion, are much better than the scenario of many exhausted, half-hearted, and over-stretched platypuses approaching their lives with an overly pragmatic attitude to everything. The process of transforming into a pragmatic platypus will slowly but surely limit one's achievement to mere technical perfection, and extinguish all chances of attaining a much higher, much more magical form of spiritual ecstasy and passionate performance through a hedonistic indulgence in things which he loves.

The screwed up year...

2006-01-07T23:31:00.000+08:00

The screwed up year of the Chicken is going to be over soon. The year of the Chicken is especially bad for people born in my year. Although such things do not have any scientific basis, the predictions all came true for me, so how could I not believe in the Chinese horoscope? A year of hell indeed. I have had enough. One bad thing after another. Enough. And even as the year of the Chicken approaches its end, the spiteful Chicken still will not let me off. Its curse continues to work its black magic on me.

Believe in the Chinese horoscope, for its predictions are always accurate. If it says you are going to go through hell in a particular year, you will go through hell. And at least for me, no matter how hard you try, things will still turn out badly, leaving you thoroughly wounded in all bloody ways.

So this leads me to a thought: perhaps I should end this blog too. What's the point of blogging, when it does not make my life any better? What purpose would that serve? Would money fall down from the sky to solve real problems in life? Would frustrating things stop happening? Anyway, 'business' hasn't been good (for this blog), so why continue to incur the 'operating costs'? If blogging is a way of capturing a snapshot of life similar to using a camera to take photographs of things, then I can only say that I am not in a happy enough state of mind to capture anything right now. I want things to get significantly better for me. And I want the year of the Chicken to end soon. Too many hateful things have happened this year. One wave after another. Just when I'm cheering up after one wave of mud has flushed through me, another wave starts rolling in....I'm already tired. Even people close to me feels that my life is quite 'cursed' this year in a very strange way. Did I step on anything supernatural unknowingly? Did I offend any deities? Did I harm anyone? No to all, so leave me alone, hateful Chicken. I'll see you in 12 years' time. By then, I will not let you defeat me again.

Singapore - the food paradise!

2006-01-02T09:55:00.001+08:00

Happy New Year to everyone who reads this blog!
To start off a great new year, Jeff Yen has an awesome essay on nutrition. It's interesting to note that the Health Promotion Board is cooperating with McDonalds to teach people about nutrition! Hahaha

Indeed, it is about time that Singaporeans learn more about nutrition. The older generation of Singaporeans care very much about the kinds of food that their families eat. It's very common to hear the elders say to the younger ones, "Don't eat too much of 'outside food'; it's not so good for you..." And they would probably say that fast food in general is not really healthy.

The younger generation, however, is an 'eating out' generation. By that, I mean a generation that generally eats outside :) or buy takeaways...This is related to what I have earlier called the 'outsourcing of cooking' in my essay on Singaporean women who can't cook. The ready availability and affordability of takeaway food is one of the causal factors. The other is the increasing number of bosses and managers who are 'slave drivers', resulting in Singaporeans having to work very long hours and suffer immense stress associated with work. This leaves most Singaporeans with no time or inclination to prepare home-cooked meals. So buying takeaways and eating outside become attractive options that would help people to save time.

Because of the prioritization of 'convenience' as a factor affecting how we eat, 'nutrition' has become downplayed and is generally not an important consideration for Singaporeans. In other words, there is a shift of attention away from what we eat due to the lop-sided focus on how we eat. Long queues waiting for oily dishes such as char kway teow or chai tow kway (fried carrot cake) are commonly seen. Singaporeans are willing to wait for 45 minutes for a plate of Hokkien prawn mee (noodles) or BBQ sting ray or satays. Ask anyone in the queue why they love these dishes so much and they'll tell you right away, "Because they're nice!" Thus, 'nice' is a generic word that most commonly used in Singapore to justify all kinds of choices: the choice of a partner ('she's nice or 'he's nice'), unhealthy food ('it's so nice....yum yum'), well-designed clothings ('this top is really nice', 'that shirt is nice'), expensive apartments ('they are nice'). Because 'nice' sounds so disarming and innocent, the use of this word to explain one's consumption choices immediately makes all other considerations disappear. Yet, these considerations that have been made to disappear are those that could and should be regarded as equally or even more relevant and salient.
The tyranny of the word 'nice' operates together with marketing slogans and widespread myths circulating in society. Singaporeans and organizations operating in the tourism/hospitality/food-and-beverages industries here happily rehearse the phrase 'Singapore is a food paradise!' over and over again. Locals and foreigners accept this phrase too and joyfully agree and repeat, 'Yeah! Singapore is indeed a food paradise!'

In a way, Singapore is truly a food paradise. Our food courts, food centres, and hawker centres are unbeatable in the world. The food they sell are so tasty that Singaporean men would gladly give up their partners for them (and same for Singaporean women too). But this is precisely the key problem as I see it: the prioritization of taste over nutrition. People say that Singaporeans are 'practical' rather than 'emotional' or driven by instincts. But when it comes to food, this general observation does not apply; Singaporeans are driven by instincts rather than rationality when it comes to food! Who cares about the nutritional value of the food? What matters is that the food is nice! :) (ooh, the pigs' trotters, the kway chap with all the tantalizing pigs' intestines! the greasely grilled chicken wings!) Who says Singaporeans do not know how to enjoy and are too serious? They are not - they are hedonistic and are not serious about eating well when it comes to food and nutrition!

The only four stalls that sell healthy food in food courts or food centres are (a) the porridge stall, (b) the soup-based noodles stall, (c) the yong-tau-fu stall, and (d) the 'mixed dishes'/economical rice stall. The food sold at these stalls are the only ones that are (a) not oily, (b) have acceptable levels of cholesterol, and (c) contain a few shreds of vegetables in them. The Health Promotion Board needs to tell people to eat more fibre. In fact, I propose two draconian but potentially highly effective measures: the first is to force all Singaporeans to become temporary 'herbivores' (I like this word) :) and eat lots of fibre for at least one week every month and fine anybody who dares to go against this order (say, $1000, which is peanuts anyway), and the second is to have a national campaign to make Singapore a 'fibre eating' hub. I feel that the Health Promotion Board's strategy is too generic to be effective. Achieving 'good health' by eating healthily is too vague as a message for Singaporeans. The crux of the problem lies in the insufficiency of fibre in the typical Singaporean's diet, which is tied to two other phenomena I've discussed earlier, namely, the 'eating out' culture and the composition of stalls in the food courts/centres.

Another problem relates to hot drinks in Singapore: they are simply too hot for human consumption! I have a friend who is able to finish a cup of boiling hot 'teh si' (milk tea) in 2 minutes. Unfortunately, most Singaporeans can't do that. In fact, they shouldn't even try to do that because it's extremely bad for one's throat. The World Book encyclopaedia said that Singapore has one of the highest rates of throat cancer, precisely because of this rather brainless practice of preparing boiling-hot beverages for customers to drink. Do these drink stall operators (and even some fast food restaurants) really expect customers to sit down for half an hour just to wait for the drinks to cool down to an acceptable temperature? I once had an amazing experience too: this drink stall operator asked me, "You want your tea to be 'not-so-hot'? Do you mean I should add ice?" I was so appalled that I asked back in exasperation, "Do you mean you don't know how to make tea that is not so hot? Just add some cold water!"

Finally, Singaporeans who care about nutrition should learn to decode nutritional information. This does not mean simply reading and accepting all those information at face value. For example, instead of simply accepting that food product X has Y amount of carbohydrates/protein/fat etc, think about how it is cooked and prepared. Everybody knows that the way food is cooked will affect its nutritional value. So the key question that a reader of nutritional labels must ask is: does the nutritional information presented pertain to the food/ingredients that are 'pre-cooked' or 'after-being-cooked'? And does it pertain to the amount of nutrition one would potentially get (ideally speaking) if you cook the food well, or to the amount of nutrition that one would definitely get based on the way that the restaurant/packaged-food company in question has prepared the food for consumption. What I think is missing in Singapore is a nutritional literacy. And the Health Promotion Board isn't exactly addressing this issue with its rather elementary 'nutrition awareness' campaign, unfortunately.

Piano culture: Singaporeans are so musically inclined!

2005-12-26T19:28:00.000+08:00

If we start gathering statistics on the number of Singaporeans who have 'officially' learnt piano, I am quite sure that the statistics will be rather impressive. In Singapore, learning piano is part of the culture among a sizable portion of the middle-class! So the question I've been asking myself is: are Singaporeans really so musically inclined? Do we really have so many aspiring Melvyn Tan's? Do we truly love piano music so much?

From what I've observed over the years, in Singapore, piano learners are not really learning the instrument out of true love for it. Most of the learners are really young when their parents find piano teachers for them, and many of them seriously wish to give up this time-consuming 'extra-curricular activity' when they reach their teenage years, when their schoolwork gets more harrowing and their interest in the instrument wanes. Unfortunately, these parents do not really care whether their children like the piano or not. In fact, they don't care at all! But they will still force their children to go through this ritual for several reasons.

Firstly, many of them have not had the chance to learn the piano when they were young. Chinese cultures all over the world are like that: the older generation will always try to make the younger generation do what they had wanted to do in their time but did not get the chance to. Secondly, the piano is an instrument with 'class', so learning it confers some of the associated prestige to the family that has a child learning it, regardless of the reason for learning it or the actual capabilities of the 'pianist within the family'. Parents are usually quite proud when their kids practise the piano, since the neighbours can certainly hear the piano music which is quite loud compared to the music produced by other instruments. Even if the guitar were to have equal prestige as piano, people will probably still choose piano, because the latter can be heard much more clearly and thus the family does not need to go out of the way to 'advertise' that fact to the neighbours. It is not 'music' that the family-with-piano prizes, but the 'face' or 'mianzi' that this activity confers that it is attempting to gain...

But parents are not entirely to be blamed. Another reason why I think that piano learners in Singapore are not truly passionate about piano is that they can't be! The piano-education system here is flawed, for it mirrors the education system in general in terms of its exam focus. In Singapore, the ultimate credentials-focused society in the world, piano learning has mutated from a leisurely activity done out of musical appreciation into a stressful activity done out of the motivation to collect yet another certificate. Someone I know once told me that the reason why he wants his children to learn piano is that they can have an additional skill to make a living if the economy is not doing well. Gosh!

The focus is on passing exams of one grade after another, all the way to Grade 8 or even Diploma (LTCL, ARCM, etc). With this kind of focus, it's not surprising that the child's love for the music is eventually knocked out by the boring exam pieces, the 'scales', and other exercises that the child has to master in order to pass the exams. The compulsory Baroque piece that one has to play at every grade (for example, J.S. Bach, Haydn, Handel, etc) is usually not melodious at all, and certainly a great pain to practise (unfortunately, the two other pieces of different genres are usually not the nicest-sounding pieces in the world either, unless one is extremely lucky). And having to practise two to three uninspiring and not-exactly-melodious pieces daily after many tiring hours at school can really drive a teenager crazy.

It's also hard to find a stimulating piano teacher in Singapore. Many are teaching piano for the money, not out of real love for imparting this art to the children. Of course, they are probably also disillusioned after seeing so many disinterested children who have been 'forced' to learn the piano by their parents. How many will actually teach beyond the exam syllabus of the Associated Board of the Royal Schools of Music (ABRSM)? Not many will, I reckon. And it's not surprising because I would do the same too if I were in their situation, having to face the pragmatic parents who will scream should their precious and obviously 'talented' child fail the exam ("What?! I'm paying you so much money every month and he can't even pass his exam?? Then why are you wasting his time by teaching him these pieces which are not in 'the syllabus'?!").

Thus, the piano culture in Singapore is warped. It's parents-driven, exams-focused, and certificate-oriented. Perhaps parents should seriously consider thrice before insisting that their children learn the instrument, or let the children decide for themselves when they are older (say, 11-12 years old). It's really a heavy commitment in terms of finances, time, and energy. It may be cool to boast to your friends that your child can play the piano, but if you really think about it, despite the tens of thousands of dollars spent on learning the instrument, how many people with the Grade 8 certificate actually do continue playing it when they have crossed all the hurdles? Isn't it a waste to learn the piano if one stops playing it immediately after passing all the exams? Isn't it silly to play nothing but the exam pieces for 10 years of one's piano education? This reflects a mentality that is antithetical to the spirit of music learning. Somehow, I feel that Singapore's culture of pragmatism is so pervasive that no area of activity is spared. So the piano, despite all its beauty, similarly denegerates and mutates into a torturous tool for social comparison, prestige enhancement, authoritarian exercise of parental power, and credentialling for an uncertain economy. Which is sad, really......

Marriage in Singapore

2005-12-19T19:10:00.000+08:00

Singaporeans are getting married later and later in life. More people are beginning to feel that marriage is a burden, or that being single can be a great alternative to getting married. This essay challenges only the former view that marriage is a burden. I do think that there are wonderful benefits of staying single, so it is not my intention to portray singlehood as an 'inferior' option. My only wish is to defend 'marriage' and to show that it is not as bad or fearful as many young Singaporeans tend to think it is (having been inspired by Mr Wang's recent posts and the ST articles).

Some feel that without an extremely strong financial base, getting married will merely lead the couple into misery. In many cases, the Chinese saying 'pin jian fu qi bai ri ai' (poor couples live a hundred years of misery) is quite true: if both parties are very poor, it may not be such a good idea to get married. Nonetheless, the phenomenon that is manifesting in Singapore is not the abovementioned one; it is one in which young Singaporeans with salaries that are often above $1500, $2500, $3500, or even higher, feel that they cannot get married yet. The key concerns are:

(1) not having enough money to get a nice flat;
(2) not having enough money and inclination to have kids

The first concern is not merely the insufficiency of cash to meet the cost of the flat's initial payments. Most young couples have seen so many advertisements of 'designer condos' or 'designer flats' that they too want such a well-renovated flat. Now, the ST, the television programmes, and the magazines are all partly to be blamed for always glamourizing these beautifully renovated apartments. In the past, people are satisfied just to have a proper apartment to live in; now, even for a temporary flat that one might want to change after 5 years, most couples would want to live in such expensively designed and renovated spaces. There are three forces at work here: the first is the increasing inability of people to defer their satisfaction of their wants (if they want something, they want it immediately), the second is the increasing fetishization of designer living spaces, and the third is the outright refusal to 'stay with parents', even for a few months. It is the combined operation these three entrenched psychological traits of young Singaporeans today that results in the final decision not to get married. This final decision is then simply explained as the 'insufficiency of cash', which I think is only the tip of the iceberg. It's a deceptively simple initial excuse that in fact masks a more complex tripartite operation, which I have elaborated above. (And the refusal to stay with parents might in turn be due to other entrenched social factors...)

The second concern is related to children. The reasoning goes like this: getting married is important if you want to have children, but since we are not ready for children yet (either financially or psychologically, or both), why get married? The implicit idea is that if the man and the woman are not thinking of having children, they do not actually need to get married. Again, there is more than meets the eye regarding this simple view. Three entrenched societal trends are at work. Firstly, pre-marital sex is becoming more common, or even increasingly regarded as 'normal' among some quarters of society, so people no longer feel the need to get married in order to consummate one's love for another. People now 'enjoy' the 'benefits' that in the past marriage alone used to bring: historically, only 'membership has its privileges'; now, even non-members can have the same or even more extensive 'privileges'. But since this shift of norms related to sexuality seems to be a worldwide trend, the Singapore government will have an uphill task if it wishes to criminalize the abovementioned practice...!

Secondly, on the view that one needs to first be 'ready for children'. This sentence is very misleading, yet it is at the same time appealing because it makes several assumptions that one who is not thinking carefully might simply accept without further questioning. The first of these assumptions is that one even needs to be 'ready' mentally in order to have children. This 'mental readiness' may or may not be related to financial readiness; it can even be absent when a couple is financially ready. Now, this line of thinking did not appear overnight. It is related to four entangled factors: (a) Singapore's culture of kiasuism, (b) Singaporeans exceptionally high level of risk aversion, (c) the children products industry's successful indoctrination of people, often via the media, and (d) the herd mentality. The second assumption is that one can be mentally ready, that somehow with the natural flow of time one might one day wake up and feel 'hey! I'm ready!' While this may be possible for some people, I think that for many others, it is impossible to be psychologically 'ready' for a baby. The readiness is instead created by your interactions with the baby when it arrives. So what we have here is a 'catch-22' situation: if you do not have the baby, you can never be 'ready', since the experience of being a parent is so unlike anything that a non-parent has ever experienced that it cannot be mentally prepared for by merely imagining.

Regarding the first assumption, the entanglement is explicated as follows: in a kiasu and 'face conscious' culture, people are afraid of being seen by others (e.g. friends, relatives) as giving their kids an inferior early childhood. Yet, they are also too face conscious to ask for the old baby clothings and other items that they might require, from friends and relatives who might be willing to pass them on. The desire to have the latest artefacts is largely due to the children products industry's constant hammering of the idea through various media and advertising campaigns that parents must certainly buy tonnes and tonnes of expensive products (e.g. diapers, toys, baby cot, etc) in order to welcome their babies. People, being forever gullible, will tend to believe in such rubbish (or, they may not be gullible but they nonetheless choose to prefer the state of affairs that such rubbish advertising portrays to them). In any case, when more and more people adopt such views, they spread the views around, among people they know such as friends, acquaintances, colleagues, relatives, and so on, creating the illusion that such views are now the de facto standard view in society. Being kiasu, Singaporeans also feel that the marketed products might well be 'safer' for their kids or 'better' in some other ways, and so the babies are likely to grow into healthier/gifted/ more energetic kids and could in future cope with a highly competitive society...

The apparently simple statement that 'we're not ready to have kids' is thus supported by a wide range of ideologies and widely-rehearsed myths, which people pass on from one to another in this tiny nation. The above explanation also attempts to illustrate why having the first baby is seen to be such an expensive affair. It's not inherently so, but it has been made out to be so, and the worst thing is that Singaporeans who have become so used to an ultra-hygienic environment have come to believe in the significant superiority and necessity of all those advanced childcare products that have been invented, for the assumption is that what a Singaporean adult is used to would be what the Singaporean infant wants. But I would think that this assumption cannot be adopted without further exploration, since Singaporean infants may well be less pampered than Singaporean adults!!

Having argued that the 'expensiveness' of having a kid is largely imaginary and self-created, I would say that the most critical difference between this generation and earlier generation is that the latter places utmost importance on 'having children'. My parents' generation accepts the need to have kids without much questioning. And because of the priority that they give to 'having children', cost considerations do not pose an obstacle at all. But things are changing, as I have argued in my early essay on 'conceptions of children': people are having an ever more pragmatic orientation towards children. Children are now conceived of in terms of dollars and cents. They are no longer the priceless treasures that they once were...

Anyway, I'm not arguing that people should all get married and have children today even if they see singlehood as a better personal arrangement; it's a personal choice. What I have done is merely to show that beneath the two ice-tips (represented by the two deceptively simple excuses that young Singaporeans present to deflect their elders' encouragement to get married), are two huge icebergs. These two simple excuses mask the two sets of complex forces that underlie Singaporeans' decision not to get married so early. In fact, I would go as far as to claim that young Singaporeans have not even 'decided' not to get married so early; they have merely accepted those views without attempting to challenge the assumptions on which those views depend.

Too much tuition is bad for your brain...

2005-12-11T10:15:00.000+08:00

This post is about what I see as a rather unhealthy trend in Singapore society: the rise of a 'culture of tuition' that has become obsessive to the point that it defeats the very purpose of education.

Most parents in Singapore feel that tuition is necessary or beneficial for their children. In principle, the concept of tuition is supported by a rather convincing ideology which has nothing but positive connotations. This ideology says that there is no harm trying to improve your academic performance by seeking some guidance.

As a result of this kind of thinking, tuition has become a booming industry in Singapore. Tuition centres appear all over the island, and tuition-related advertisements can be seen at bus-stops, public notice boards, and in the newspapers. Parents who are not financially well-off are willing to part with their hard-earned money in the hope that their children can 'cope' with an increasingly stressful education system. Photocopies of 'top schools' exam papers' are on sale everywhere; and the 'Assessment Books' section in Popular Book Stores form a bigger and more crowded section than sections on 'Local Works' or 'English Literature'.

But what could be so wrong with 'tuition' when it is based on such a convincing argument? In my opinion, too much tuition does harm to your child in several ways. Firstly, it exhausts your child's physical and mental energies and lessens the time left for his brain to rejuvenate after school. Exhaustion makes the child unhappy and causes him to dislike the subject(s) for which he is being given tuition. Secondly, the child has less time to play, and playing is important for the development of a less uptight personality. Thirdly, and most importantly, tuition is based on a flawed pedagogical philosophy of 'coaching to or even beyond the point of understanding'.

Coaching per se is alright, but it is possible for 'over-coaching' to occur, with great harm to the intellectual development of the child. Overcoaching robs the child the precious opportunities for (a) discovering things for himself, (b) struggling and then succeeding in solving a problem by himself, and (c) feeling an enhanced level of self-confidence after achieving the above. It takes away much of the joy of learning and mastering a subject, and turns it into a cluster of banal chores that must be performed daily: doing exercises in assessment books, one after another; marking out vaguely difficult questions that they can't be bothered to struggle through by themselves, and then expecting a 'quick fix' by the tutor.

Overcoaching also prevents the development of a genuinely self-created and original 'kungfu of studying' by the student, which is likely to be crucial if he wants to really excel at the University level. The rationale is simple: everybody has different strategies of studying, and one must simply discover for himself the strategies or 'bag of tricks' that work best for him. The sophistication and effectiveness of such a set of skills can only come about with the practice and refinement over years of self-studying, not what I call 'over-reliant studying', which is overly guided by a tutor who may not even be that good himself.

I see no way that this Singapore-specific trend could be reversed, because of two reasons. Firstly, the culture of kiasuism sustains the tuition industry. People are 'kiasu' (literally 'afraid of losing') and will do everything they can to make sure they have some kind of competitive advantage over their neighbours' kids. Related to this is the fact that people are risk-averse, and risk-averse people would rather stick with the common approach of putting the poor kid through hours and hours of tuition. After all, this is what everybody is doing, so if the strategy is wrong, at least everybody suffers to the same extent. So unless every family in Singapore agrees to prevent their children from going for tuition, it is unlikely for this vicious cycle to be terminated.

Secondly, the prevalence of tuition could be the symptom of a deeper problem in the educational system. Is there something wrong about the syllabi, or the teaching methods in schools, or both? Why is there still a need for children to go through hours of additional instruction beyond what they go through in school during the official hours? Do teachers encourage students to go for tuition?

With that, may I reiterate the point that I wish to stress most in this post: that tuition robs your child of an opportunity to become a great scholar in his own right. He may become a great mugger, a reasonably competent student who knows how to get the correct answers to all the assessment books on the market, but that will not be because he has learnt how to think for himself or has cultivated for himself a unique style of studying and learning that will benefit him when he grows up. Everybody who practises enough number of assessment books can get A's. But what does this show about his cleverness? Not much at all. He will not be passionate in his subjects, because everything has turned into a routine, a routine of reviewing and regurgitation. Learning becomes a simple and predictable process of practice, rather than the exciting and unpredictable process of making enjoyable discoveries that it should be. When there are no longer any surprises within the educational realm, is it any wonder why creativity does not manifest when the children turn into adults and have to compete with people from other countries in this creativity-driven, knowledge-based, and innovation-oriented global era?

If you want people's blood....(Free advice from an altruistic vampire...)

2005-12-06T18:20:00.000+08:00

Nowadays I always see the advertisements on the MRT trains that try to convince Singaporeans to 'give blood'. This inspired me to write this post. I'm also inspired by this brilliant Chinese television series showing now which is called My Date with a Vampire III (我和僵尸有个约会 III). It features a number of actresses who have mesmerized some of my fellow bloggers (haha, you know who you are...) ;) Anyway, I've digressed. I meant to talk about the highly 'effective' advertisments that urge kind folks like us to donate blood. These MRT advertisements essentially go like this (based on my personal interpretation, which is obviously subjective, not objective)....

Advertisements' Summary
(1) "hey come on it's not a big deal! We just want a few drops of your blood! No big deal, right?"
(2) "hey come on, you're really gonna make a huge difference to Singapore. You're really really gonna make a HUGE difference by donating a few DROPS of your blood!"
(3) "hey come on, do you mean you can't afford to pay for the transport expenses that you'll have to incur for travelling all the way from (say) Yishun to that blood donation station at Outram MRT? Oh come on, it will cost you ONLY about $5 to donate blood...by the way, your time is not worth anything to us, okay."
(4) "hey do you know that you can keep donating blood? You are thinking of donating once only? So stingy!"

And on 5th December 2005, I read the Straits Times 'Forum' page. Dr Diana Teo from Health Sciences Authority of Singapore said that the reason why we shouldn't give 'material rewards' to kind folks who bother to donate blood is that 'Voluntary blood donation on an altruistic basis is promoted by the World Health Organization, International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, International Federation of Blood Donor Organizations and International Society of Blood Transfusion as the foundation of a safe national blood supply'. So look, all these prestigious global organizations are saying that altruism should be the basis for blood donation; and so, Dr Teo thinks that we in Singapore must therefore not even reimburse a single cent for the blood donors, because that one cent shall constitute a 'material reward'.

I personally feel that the whole campaign to get more blood from people is poorly conceptualized. Although the World organizations have stated that altruism should be the basis, one might feel that they are saying so (a) in order to sound nice, (b) because that is the right thing to say, and (c) they are assuming that this principle would work in all countries. But this is Singapore, a tiny city-state with so few people. Do you actually think that most Singaporeans will bother to go through so much trouble to donate their blood, bearing in mind that Singaporeans are people who are (a) frequently exhausted from work, (b) perpetually short of time,and that (c) it is expensive to commute in Singapore. Besides, the culture here is one of extreme pragmatism. Although there will certainly be folks who still donate blood, I think that without some incentives, it's very difficult for the campaign to succeed....

Dr Teo then says that 'those who have donated blood...regularly...form the basis of a sustainable and safe blood supply to meet the country's needs'. This makes potential blood donors feel that they are not going to make that much of a difference after all, as the MRT advertisements had led them to believe. The mentioning of a substantial group of regular blood donors undermines the MRT advertising to some extent, in my opinion. Basically, their messages are conflicting: on one hand they're saying, "Hey we're desperate..." (and one would indeed think they are seriously short of blood after looking at their advertisements); on the other hand they seem to be saying "Hey no worries, mate, we've got loads of blood...." I'm confused. If they are very short of blood, then I will donate. If they are not really that short of blood, then I won't donate. Now, it's not that I'm selfish, but Heavenly Sword is really scared of being poked by needles, you know? :)

The greatest problem I have with the blood donation campaign is that it simply trivializes the efforts and sacrifices of blood donors (current and potential). It makes it seem as though blood donors are only giving a few drops of blood when they are in fact giving much more than that, perhaps a few bags of blood! It remains silent about the money that people have to spend in order to travel to the blood donation station. It assumes that everybody lives in Outram Park, or has a bicycle (and the necessary energy) to cycle from Yishun to Outram. Worse, it assumes that a few dollars of MRT fare is not a big deal at all, that a few dollars is 'peanuts'...

Dr Teo in the ST Forum also said that there is 'clear evidence that monetary incentives will lead some donors to withold information that might prevent them from donating blood'. How am I supposed to interpret this? It makes me worried because I thought that there should be systems in place to ensure that the blood donated by everyone is safe. How can you just count on people being honest? People can still withhold information if they are sinister enough, and sinister people, I believe, are not affected by the presence or absence of monetary considerations at all! Also, there is no need for a large amount of money to be paid; a small token amount of $3 or $4 is better than nothing. After all, I think that after donating blood people will need to eat a more nutritious meal right after that in order to replenish their energies. And it is only fair to reimburse people who sacrifice their time, energies, money, and blood, for their commuting expenses, right?

In short, treat Singaporeans as busy people who need to work and are short of time. Also, assume that people are not staying within 5 minutes walk from the blood donation station. Further assume that people need to eat well after donating blood, and finally, acknowledge that a few dollars is not peanuts to everybody. These are the important assumptions that blood donation centres need to adopt before they formulate their advertising campaigns.

************************************************************
Translated to practical advice, this means:

1) Acknowledge that something requires sacrifices, if it really does.
2) Assume that your target audiences are those who are reluctant, rather than those who are already quite willing to donate (the latter group will donate anyway, with or without advertisements.)
3) Use realistic language (e.g. not 'drops' of blood - a 'drop' of blood can't help. And you are not drawing 'drops' of blood from people; people do want to know exactly how much blood will be removed from their body. If the process involves a little bit of pain, don't say it's painless. Tell us how long the process will take. I think the messages will be more effective that way, at least for me.)
4) Don't send out conflicting messages; aim for one thing at a time (e.g. do you want to convince those who've never tried donating blood to give it a try? If so, don't try to get them to donate many times when they haven't even gone for the very first donation. One step at a time. One message per campaign.)
5) Minimize cost to the donor; aim for maximum impact (currently the campaign can only convince those who are already inclined to donate.)

The discourse of giftedness

2005-11-30T08:46:00.000+08:00

I couldn't believe my eyes when I read this letter in Today newspaper (21st Nov 2005), which is about the Gifted Education Programme (GEP) in Singapore! Let me quote some of the interesting sentences for you....

(1) "You see, GEPers (as we call ourselves) are more mature than most mainstreamers, the result of being in the GEP. The mainstreamers think we are snobbish — when they stereotype us, they are being immature......Being in a specialised class lets us interact with people like us."

(2) "....I didn't have many good friends because I found my classmates to be immature. But when I entered the GEP, I was impressed with my classmates and now we can't bear to part ways."

(3) "Most of us found it boring in mainstream classes, as we knew most of the curriculum and it was easy to get good grades. But when faced with someone at our own level, we step up our efforts to compete."

(4) "The GEP broadens our experience. Nobody minds if a girl mingles with a bunch of boys, or if she is interested in DotA, Final Fantasy VII or PS2 games. We accept each other. Would we be able to do that in the mainstream, where everyone follows the trends or the person who is the "coolest", and everybody starts gossiping if anyone talks to someone of the opposite sex?Nobody except us, the GEPers, could know how much fun we have being in the GEP."

Do I even need to do a critique? :) I can't believe that Today actually published it! I think the writer of the letter needs to see a counsellor.... :)

Let me say that there are too many assumptions involved in this whole 'gifted education' debate. Instead of re-typing everything I've posted as a comment somewhere else, let me reproduce it here:

(1) Against the assumption that "motivated teachers prefer to teach classes full of bright kids rather than classes full of kids who are seen as disruptive wastrels". This is not true...There are good as well as average teachers in all streams. One cannot assume too much about what motivates teachers. Teachers who are more motivated when they see a bright kid and disinterested/demoralized/unmotivated when they see a not-so-bright kid shouldn't be in the education profession.

(2) Against the assumption that "children left in these [Express/Special/Normal stream] classes - the vast majority of children in the educational system - face an environment that makes it harder for them to learn." If that is the case, then the problem is classroom discipline, rather than anything else. Discipline and punish. :)

(3) Against the view that a gifted student must/should be placed in the GEP. It could be bad for his self-esteem, if he's not the most gifted among the gifted (e.g. if he belongs to the bottom half). He might shine and develop more if he goes to Express stream. And yes, there seems to be an assumption that all Express students are nowhere near gifted students in terms of academic cleverness - this is not true: the very good or top Express students are (or can be, as I've seen) as smart or smarter than the bottom half of the GEP.

(4) This leads me to the next point: bear in mind when the test was conducted, and what questions those tests involve. The kids are all so young then. Those hundreds(?) of kids who narrowly missed the 'cut-off point' and then entered Express stream (possibly in top high schools) may well develop faster when they are 13-16 years old, resulting in Situation (3) described above. I think some kids from GEP are indeed 'gifted'. But in principle, I would hesitate to equate test-taking ability with giftedness.

*Due to my lack of giftedness, I wasn't too sure how the 'comments moderation' function works at first and turned it on. Then for 2 days I was wondering 'how come no new comments'? After seeing so many interesting comments 'pending approval' in my heavenly.sword@gmail.com account (which I have not checked for years), I have decided to turn that function off! All the comments have been published now - apologies to my friends, fans, and readers! :)

What is an apartment?

2005-11-28T10:13:00.000+08:00

What is this thing called an 'apartment'? Is it an asset, or is it an expense item? What exactly is it for?

Many people think that an apartment is an asset, but I think it's not. To me, getting a leasehold property is not very different from renting an apartment. You have to pay so much for it, and in the end it's not even yours forever....

Consider an apartment that costs $200,000 or more: this is really an extremely high amount to pay for a small living space, if the family earns a combined income of about $7,000 or less. I have encountered many people who say, 'But the flats are so nice!' My reaction is, 'Of course they are nice! Look at the price tag!' Expensive goods are always nice!

I personally treat my own apartment as a rented apartment. How can I consider it mine, when I can only finish paying for it 30 years down the road? The looming 'balance to be paid' exerts a great psychological pressure on me every day. I ponder quite often about the possibility of downgrading to a one-room flat, camping by the East Coast beach, or migrating to a developing country for my retirement...All of which then turn out to be unrealistic options, unfortunately. The second option is also not allowed in Singapore; I think some creative local folks have thought of camping as a good way to save $$, but the local police force is too smart for them! ('want to camp by the seaside and save money right...?!! We'll catch you!!)

For the first option, I'm not sure if I'll be eligible for the one-room flat, which will not be big enough for my stuff anyway (e.g. books, clothes, junk, etc). Sometimes I entertain the wild thought of upgrading instead (!) just so that I'll have a bigger space to store my junk. But then I thought, why pay so much just to store things that you will hardly ever use?

So what is an apartment? A place to store junk? My friend recently told me that her nicely renovated condo is simply a place for her to take a shower, get ready for the next day's work, and sleep. Based on this definition, an apartment is an extension of the workplace, for it merely prepares us (and 'repairs' our body) so that we can continue to work, and thus continue to pay for the apartment. This logic leads one to conclude that an apartment is the raison d'etre of a person's life: we exist for the sustenance of the apartment, not the other way round.

I have yet to find a satisfactory answer to the question of what moral status an apartment should have in my life. If anyone could enlighten me on this, that would be great.

The State of the Blogger

2005-11-23T20:31:00.000+08:00

Hello everyone, a few months have passed very quickly. How am I now? Below is a status report:

Career: 4 out of 10 (it's improving, I hope...)
Finances: 1 out of 10
Health: 5 out of 10 (I thought it was 8 out of 10, until my X-ray showed some weird results that doesn't tally with how I actually feel! I feel quite alright!)
Morale: High (but not very high)
Emotional state: Happy (but not very happy)
Kungfu level: Reaching the peak soon.... :) (don't come near me!)

*****************************************
Blogging should be carefree & relaxing...

Singapore is the place for a very peculiar kind of blogger. It is my home, where I feel quite natural to be paranoid...When I think about things to blog about, I will always hear whisperings that tell me: 'eh hey, but you can't write that...!' Why is that so? Examples...

1) I want to blog about my personal life....but I can't....I'll leave too many clues about who I am! And who am I anyway? I'm not a big shot at all. Yet, in feeling that the world might want to nail me down, I acquire an arbitrary feeling that I am actually one! Not bad!*

2) I want to blog about my work (not the work that I currently do for my employer - which is a good employer - but the work I did for some other organizations)....but I can't....Why write things that people might one day use against me despite my intentions? People can twist my words after all, if they know the art of 'words-twisting'. What if someone wants to sabotage me...I have been a nice guy all my life, but you'd never know....Nowadays, who will think twice about destroying another man's rice bowl and bringing suffering to his family if they have the power to? Is there still kindness in this world? I do know that one or two people hate me like crazy. I think they're crazy, but well, they do have a right to be crazy...! It's their choice.

3 I want to blog about how I feel towards important people in my life.....such as....my ex, who is in every way a perfect gal. But I can't, because it will let people know that I have made mistakes before in my life....and this is related to the next point.

4) I want to blog about my thoughts, which often involve a profound sense of ambivalence, scepticism, regret, and melancholy. But you can't let people know that you're not a perfect person. In Singapore, it's very unacceptable to be an imperfect person. I know this because I'm still not happy after spending all my life trying to perfect myself: went to top secondary school and JC, did all the 'right' things like learning piano and passed Grade 8, won sports medals for the JC, and even got some award during army days, then went to a global top 30 university somewhere overseas and topped the uni, went for masters and got distinction, but so what? Look at the state of my finances: 1 upon 10!

5) So what do I blog about? Society? Politics? I will then think: why blog about these when I'm so much of an imperfect speck of a great nation? As Confucius said, one should follow the sequence of first cultivating oneself, then get your family/household in order, before thinking about greater things. Thus I should continue to perfect myself, perfect myself to the point where my CV can just burst into flames on its own due to its unbelievable excellence. (Is that really possible? Obviously not, silly me. But Machiavelli has once told me that one should do as prudent archers do when the goal they intend to hit is too distant; knowing how far the strength of their bow would carry their arrows, they aim for the further goal, so that the trajectory itself will help them to attain the original goal.) Years 27 to 30 of my life have not been shining years of my life, despite the groundwork I've tried to lay for myself in years 1 to 25. And because of that, I have suffered greatly at the hands of sarcastic people. Let it sink in me now - the fact that stumbling and fumbling are not acceptable in this great nation. You can stumble and fumble, but you must rise again quickly.

With that, I return to the practice of my consummate skill, to my well-renovated cave which I have painstakingly paid for with my CPF. Hope to be back again soon....in the mean time, take care, everyone :)

*By the way, friends who know me, don't give away my identity lah! I like privacy too, u know :)

Away for a while....

2005-08-17T07:00:00.000+08:00

Dear readers, regular customers, and fans,
I will be away for a while for a secret retreat (2-3 mths)....Feel free to leave comments. I will be back (hopefully with enhanced prowess)... :)

Update (13th October 2005): I won't be back until March 2006 or even a few months later than that. Apologies to the few of you, my dear readers, who have been checking and getting slightly disappointed each time you click on the link to this blog. I'm fighting a huge battle over at my side - a financial, emotional, intellectual, and career battle. I have to win, for otherwise I'll not get out of this paralyzing aura of 'good-for-nothing'-ness that surrounds me right now. I think that a man like me in this current state really shouldn't be blogging. Let me achieve something first.

Heavenly Sword learns to write poems...

2005-08-13T22:13:00.000+08:00

I've been thinking of taking up Poetry Writing as my new hobby, having been inspired by talented Singaporean lawyer Mr Gilbert Koh at The Reader's Eye and talented Singaporean blogger Dead Poet at Rest in Peace, so let me give it a try on this peaceful Saturday night....

Singapore Angle's latest entry about books and new blogger Trisha's entry about the National Library as a 'storehouse of knowledge' have inspired me to write a poem about 'Books'...

******
Books
Books have helped and hurt me in my life
They have burnt a big hole in my small pocket
And made me a very poor man indeed...

Books have made me wiser, though still not wise enough
More critical, but still not critical enough
More conscious of the world at large, but still not conscious enough...

Books have made my tiny HDB flat a huge mess
But custom-made bookshelves cost too much to make
And bungalows cost too much to purchase

Books are for the rich men to buy
And for the poor men to borrow
That is what libraries are for...

Yet books-buying is an addiction that is hard to break
For books on hand for scribbling and highlighting are great
Thus making the poor man poorer and poorer all his life...
******

Think critically? Notes on 'critical blogging' by Heavenly Sword

2005-08-07T23:20:00.000+08:00

A few rather intellectual bloggers have been advising others to 'blog critically' or 'think critically'. I think that the advice is a good one and originates from good intentions.

The above advice, however, has often been misunderstood or applied wrongly. Being critical should not mean being cynical all the time, nor should it mean giving anti-establishment views all the time. Simply reversing the claims made by others represents just that – a simple flip from one view to a directly opposite view – an action which can be executed by any ordinary computer or robot.

Critical thinking, I suggest, should mean that one is able to judge for himself the strength, weaknesses, nuances, and structure of the arguments presented by proponents of various schools of thought on particular issues. It is perfectly normal that on certain issues, one might well feel that the government has done the right thing while on other issues, one might feel that the government could do better. But some habits hinder genuine dialogue in Singapore's civil society. Firstly, there is a tendency in some people to view any sort of criticism negatively. Critics are often viewed as unpatriotic just because their discourses do not match those of the Ministers perfectly. Thus any deviation from the standard script is viewed with suspicion. At the other extreme, there are others who criticize everything they see, as though the country is a shithole. These critics tend to take the moral high ground and assume that their arguments are superior just because they have a moral case. They will ignore other views that are based on a holistic assessment of situations that take into account unique characteristics of a particular country. I would like to suggest that both extremes are unhealthy. Just as no society is perfect and utopian, no society is so bad that you have to totally dismiss it or condemn it (for example, by describing it with the word "bloody" as one blogger has done).

Thus, one should always take the time to see things from various perspectives. This sounds cliché but it is the phrase that most adequately captures what I think. Critical thinking and 'proper argumentative writing' are inseparable, in my opinion. The latter means that having judged the strength and weaknesses of the various schools of thought, the person is able to present his own arguments in a way that is convincing/persuasive, fair/reasonable, and polite/non-sarcastic.

An argument that is phrased in a sarcastic way can hardly persuade people to try and see things from your point of view. Whenever I read or hear something sarcastic, I feel that the person is not interested in convincing me or engaging in a civilized dialogue; instead, he is probably out to provoke, irritate, annoy, or enrage me. Arguments designed to convince should come across very differently from those designed to say, 'please punch me'. The philosopher Nietzsche once said that people sometimes do not agree with one another not because of the substance of the arguments, but because of the ways they are phrased and delivered – that is, the form of the arguments. So form can be as important as substance.

Using phrases such as "if you think about it..." (as though people are not thinking about it) or "come on..." (as though people are being unreasonable), or swear words such as "WTF" (whatever that means), or loaded terms that imply dissenters' stupidity, immaturity or incivility, are all strategies falling outside the realm of proper argumentation. I will never think more highly of a piece of writing just because one or more of these strategies are used. In particular, I do wish that people in Singapore will use Hokkien swear words less frequently or not at all if possible, especially in public (and publicly accessible domains). People who are vaguely famous should take note of this, because 'with great power comes great responsibility'. My fear is that over time, my beloved dialect group, Hokkien, will be associated with a vulgar culture of the most banal form – and I would like my culture, which obviously includes its language, to be associated with something more positive in my very own country.

Thus, I have presented my view of what (a) critical thinking and (b) 'proper argumentative writing' should entail – namely, civility (as represented by a decent form), and avoidance of the two extremes that I have described earlier. Only when (a) and (b) are combined can one engage in 'critical blogging'. Lastly, I would say that many people confuse critical thinking with the practice of voicing personal views on every controversial issue on earth. This is understandable, since this practice does allow people to boost their egos in the process of trying to appear encyclopaedic or morally superior. However, commenting on every single controversial issue on earth is not something that I would personally do, because at times it just seems obvious to me that the fundamental disagreement over certain issues, laws, or policies is due to normative differences in value systems, to the extent that arguments and counter-arguments will only end up in a stalemate.

In defence of Sumiko Tan: Notes on decent blogging

2005-08-02T20:10:00.000+08:00

The veteran Straits Times journalist Ms. Sumiko Tan wrote an article in The Sunday Times (Reflect column, 31st July 2005) which I feel is a timely one. It is about time that somebody prominent so eloquently articulates the truth about certain portions of cyberspace, albeit in a somewhat exaggerated way. My personal interpretation of her article is a positive one. What Sumiko is doing in that article is not merely to describe cyberspace, but also to urge bloggers to do two things essentially: (a) to write in a more polite way, and (b) to read high quality websites from now. (a) is an explicit message; (b) is an implicit one. And based on my interpretation, I would summarize Sumiko's key points as the following:

(1) She wrote, "See no evil, blog no evil". This is what she proposed and the sentence is prescriptive. I would support what she has prescribed.

(2) Next, I would group the following sentences (a) to (c) together as 'sentences describing (large portions of) cyberspace'.

(a) "Need evidence that man is nasty and brutish? Go to the Net. You can witness the worst of human nature there....(b) Cyberspace has degenerated into such a malicious, nasty, toxic place. There is so much bile and vile floating around...The Internet has also brought out the worst in people. Cyberspace is choked with smut....(c) What scares me more is the personal smut that litters the Net, the vicious gossip, invidious hearsay and the big, fat lies you get on some websites, chatrooms and...blogs.... It's fine to lie about, insult and denigrate anyone you know...Isn't the Net simply reflecting the idle gossip that's already being traded at the office water-cooler?"

The words in bold are those representing the kinds of behaviour that I think she is really criticizing – those that are truly bothering her. And everyone would surely agree that those are terrible kinds of behaviour to display.

Of course, one could argue against Sumiko and say that not 100% of cyberspace is like that, and she would probably say, "Ok, even if not 100%, then at least 80%." But therein lies the catch: even Sumiko herself knows, obviously, that of course not 100% of cyberspace is like that (she is not stupid, you know?). Although she apparently said things to the contrary, as a reader, I felt that she was very much trying to get her point across by exaggerating things slightly, using hyperbole (where 'hyperbole' is defined as 'deliberate exaggeration that is not meant to be taken literally').

Next, Sumiko moved on to state her normative stance, which is exemplified by the third key point that I would extract from her article. She wrote, "In asserting one's right to comment, surely one must be guided by some decency and decorum?" And I think most readers would support such a normative stance.

Sumiko also wrote that she is "leery of chatrooms, forums, and blogs." That is her attitude and feelings towards blogs in general. She did say that she will be missing out on some potentially useful information that might help her feel the 'pulse' of society. Her attitude and feelings towards blogs resulted from a 'halo effect': she has seen too many terrible blogs to want to go near any blogs now. In other words, she has developed blogphobia, as I would call it. I think anyone who gets exposed to too many low-quality blogs will somehow be afflicted with this condition.

There is one solution that I will propose - which is that parents, educators, and everyone else should put in the effort to know blogosphere in greater rather than lesser depth, in order to direct the younger ones better in this jungle trail, especially in the earlier phases of their personal experimentation with blogs. Withdrawal from or complete dismissal of an increasingly widespread social activity like blogging is not the best way to cope with the changing times ourselves, let alone to provide relevant guidance to our children or younger/teenage friends. Just like the orang asli, we should know the jungle well in order to help the younger ones avoid the dangerous areas of the jungle. In other words, we should be the cyber-orang asli.

Many readers/bloggers have thus interpreted Sumiko's article in a negative way, but as I have shown above, her article should be welcomed despite the strategy of using hyperbole to get her point across. Now, even if she is saying that 99% of the blogs in cyberspace are of poor quality, that itself is also not entirely bad. The greater the number of lousy blogs in existence, the more the good ones will stand out and shine like twinkling stars in the sky at night. Discerning readers will then be more appreciative of civilized and substantial blogs such as Singapore Angle, Commentary Asia, and many others. I think even Ms Sumiko Tan herself would probably agree that blogs such as the two mentioned above are insightful and would accept them as notable exceptions. Although they are technically 'blogs' in the sense of 'online diaries' (in terms of their form or format), they are essentially de facto websites dedicated to social commentary and civilized discussion on societal issues (their substance). And Ms. Sumiko Tan did hint that she would still visit websites that are useful, civilized, and insightful, did she not?

Finally, Sumiko Tan wrote this: "If I want to be mentally and spiritually calm, I should strive to see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil – and blog no evil". I can see her point. But at this point I would differ. I think that true calmness should not be just externally induced calmness, for that kind of calm depends on the quietness of the environment, rather than on the instrinsic calmness of the person himself, and is therefore something which cannot be sustained when one encounters a more chaotic environment or situation. The ultimate test of spiritual calmness should comprise three parts: (a) the ability to ignore people who hurl insults or vulgarities at you (i.e. do not exchange insults/vulgarities), (b) to speak politely to people who defame or misinterpret you (one can be firm and polite at the same time), and (c) to address the issues raised by an over-zealous blogger who has a misguided conviction in certain fallacious arguments, but to do so fairly. Indeed, these abilities can only be cultivated after regular practice – and such forms of practice are probably more readily available in cyberspace than in the real word. Such practice would be a very good way to build up one's patience, threshold of anger, and overall 'internal strength' to face less fearful enemies in real life, or even more fearful ones. Patience and the ability to contain anger are surely the best skills to possess in this Hobbesian society that we live in today, insofar as it is Hobbesian.

So, do not draw your weapons and fight the moment someone has a different view from you (if you slay him with your sword now, who will spar with you?). Do not hurl Hokkien swear words at people no matter how angry you are. And most of all, even if someone is rude, sarcastic, or appears ignorant, sit down with that person, drink coffee, and converse calmly. Be the calm one. The world is in a terrible state as it is - there is no need to make things worse...

Related Articles
(1) From a Singapore Angle: 'Sumiko Tan on Cyberspace's 'Bile & Vile' & 'Online Diaries'
(2) Trompe L'oeil: 'Blogging - An Exte nsion of Self?'

Three pairs of ambivalent feelings

2005-07-28T22:49:00.000+08:00

Absence and Fondness
Absence makes the heart grow fonder, but only up to a certain point. Further absence will result in erosion of good feelings - ending up in neutral feelings. The more neutral something is originally, the more likely it will withstand the "test of time" (and the converse is true). There is another kind of absence - known as eternal absence - which is the saddest of all; for you will no longer meet the person whom you miss so much again in your lifetime.

Time and Weariness
Time appears to heals all wounds, but sometimes only 99% of the wounds. It tends to be the case that people get weary of feeling that hurtful feeling. So it is the weariness that heals, rather than time per se. And it is in the very quiet moments of the night, that the lingering hurt of that wound creeps back, reminding you that you are only 99% healed, not 100%. That 1% hurt will always disturb you in the night, like a hairline crack in your bone.

Worry and Helplessness
Why worry when you are helpless? They say Fate will decide. But what if the punishment that Fate is planning for you is something that would be far too much for you to take - emotionally, financially, and in all other ways. How do you prepare yourself for this? You can't. And no one can help you. That is the extreme kind of helplessness, the extremely unfortunate kind of circumstances, that you can only prepare for by worrying excessively in advance.

Why should primary schools matter so much?

2005-07-23T18:00:00.000+08:00

I find it rather strange when parents place so much emphasis on the selection of primary schools. Personally, I do not think that the choice of schools matter at all at the primary level!

Let me state this simply: I think that primary schools are all about the same. There may be one or two that are particularly famous, such as Rosyth, but the fame of the school does not translate into better education for the students - in other words, I still think there is very little substantive difference between Rosyth and another 'average' school. I'm not saying that the famous primary schools do not provide good education; instead, my point is that all primary schools can provide rather good education for your children.

So what differentiates the so-called 'top' primary schools from those that are not so prestigious? I think the only difference is the climate of competition: top primary schools are probably more competitive. My personal preference is to send my children to less competitive schools, because I do not see the point of forcing them to cross swords with the smartest kids when they are so young. As far as primary education is concerned, I would rather see them develop at their own pace, and build up the self-esteem and confidence that I regard as much more important than results per se.

In fact, I also do not think that secondary schools matter much. I know that many people will disagree with this view, but that's alright, because that's what the 'comments function' on this blog is for! :) Basically, I tend to think that there must be a 'fit' between the individual and the school itself - in terms of affinity for competition/tolerance for a kiasu culture, English- versus Mandarin-speaking orientation, and social class of the majority of the students (e.g. some schools are full of rich kids, and a child from a poorer family may not fit in so well). Thus, schools like Raffles Institution may not provide the best environment for the academic development of every student, contrary to what many parents think. For some students, even if they can make it to the top schools, they might be better off studying in an average secondary school. The above argument applies to junior colleges too.

I have seen many people who had been star performers at one or more of the three levels (primary, secondary, and JC). But they failed to shine when it came to university, for some reason. Conversely, there are many who did not shine at all, or 'fumbled' at one or more of the three levels, but performed brilliantly at university. The moral of the story is this: every stage of education is a new game.

Hence, this is my central argument: that primary schools really do not matter. A weaker version of this argument will apply to secondary schools: that is, secondary schools may not matter as much as parents think (although they may matter as far as the 'disciplinary culture' of the schools are concerned). An even weaker version of this argument will apply to JCs: that is, JCs may not matter that much, unless parents want their kids to aim for the various competitive scholarships. At all three levels, it is the 'fit' between the student and the school that is important, which means that a student may well find that school X, which is ranked somewhere in the middle, is best for his or her personal and academic development, given his or her academic power, personality, and social background.

So parents, please relax, don't be so kan-cheong....! :) It's definitely not the end of the world if your child cannot or chooses not to enter a top primary school, secondary school, or junior college!

Reflections on salted peanuts: The NKF saga, public outcry, and flawed reasoning supporting astronomical salaries

2005-07-14T01:10:00.000+08:00

I have always been fascinated with peanuts and those interesting views about peanuts. This post is thus dedicated to the analysis of these lovely nuts...

First, there is an influential school of thought that says that CEOs of all multi-million dollar organizations should be paid lots and lots of money. Proponents of this school of thought often attempt to boost their arguments in two steps. Firstly, they will assume that all organizations involve a similar degree of managerial complexity simply because they all involve 'multi-million dollars'. Secondly, they will assume that pay packages come in two and only two discrete quantities - that is, one either gets paid the package with peanuts, or you get paid that package with gold bars. With this reasoning, they then claim that we cannot pay talented people peanuts (which I do agree) and so we need to pay them gold bars (which I do not agree). Thus they present this seemingly convincing argument by comparing two opposite extremes, saying that if one extreme position is untenable, then it automatically means that the other extreme position is good. This argument is fallacious, and ignores the fact that there can be different pay scales which can be finely calibrated to strike a balance between a range of priorities. In the following paragraphs, I will proceed to further challenge this influential school of thought.

On the issue of managerial complexity, proponents of the above school of thought usually invoke two examples: one from politics and the other from the business world. The political example says that CEOs of charity organizations are not very different from government Ministers, and since Ministers are highly paid, therefore CEOs of charity organizations should similarly be highly paid. I find this example to be inadequate, mainly because I feel that a Minister's job is so much more difficult than the job of a CEO of a charity organization - the responsibilities are much greater, and the entire nation's well-being is at stake.

The business example says that CEOs of top MNCs are paid the same amount or more, so CEOs of charity organizations should be paid similarly. Again, this example is not adequate because it treats the environment surrounding the two kinds of organizations as roughly the same. I feel that the environment surrounding a business organization is very different from the environment surrounding a charity organization. Firstly, a business environment is so much more volatile, risky, and competitive; a non-profit environment is just the reverse. Secondly, in order to survive, business organizations need to provide goods or services which people will need or want, and then persuade people to pay for them; and that persuasion is not easy. Charity organizations, on the other hand, obtain money through a rather different logic: they appeal to the kindness and goodwill of members of the public. And this is much easier, I think, because Singaporeans are quite compassionate. :) Business organizations, operating in a hypercompetitive and volatile environment, have a more difficult time since they have to constantly innovate and keep up with their powerful competitors and come up with new products that people will want to pay for. This imposes challenges on the managerial teams that are far greater than those faced by their counterparts at the charity organizations operating in relatively more stable environment.

Thus, I feel that the argument that bosses and managers of business organizations deserve their extremely high salaries is a strong one, while the argument that bosses and managers at charity organizations deserve extremely high salaries is a weak one, even though these two arguments look very similar on the surface. I think for charity organizations, reasonably high salaries are acceptable but astronomical salaries are not. My conclusion stems partly from my personal view that charity organizations are guardians and aggregators of the public's money, which means that what is needed is not extraordinary talent but only ordinary competence and honesty. I am not saying that NKF is not honest; it is, but what I'm saying is that there is no need to hire an extraordinary supertalent to manage NKF. Someone who is ordinarily competent and honest would do (for example, Heavenly Sword...hehe, just kidding) :) I think as long as Singapore remains a compassionate society, the charity organizations will continue to receive the inflow of cash (although I'm not sure what's going to happen to NKF from now onwards). My impression is that the source of the cash inflow lies not so much in the extraordinary talent of the CEOs, but in the compassion of the societies that they are appealing to. This also means that the view that the CEO somehow magically and single-handedly 'made' a particular charity organization a multi-million dollar organization is flawed.

Finally, I would highlight some interesting observations that I have noticed. Many people have cancelled their monthly donations to NKF, and many more are thinking of doing so. Just within my social circle, at least 5 people have cancelled or are going to do so. I personally feel that they should not cancel, but then, hey, this is their hard-earned money, so who am I to say anything? They feel that if $600K is peanuts, then what they are donating must be even more insignificant than peanuts - very much like the salt on the peanuts! And since the amount is going to be insignificant for NKF anyway but nonetheless significant for themselves and their families, they might as well keep the money. I can fully understand this feeling: it's like a friend coming to borrow or rather, ask for money from you when you are already struggling to make ends meet. You help him out of compassion because he tells you that every dollar counts, and then one day you find out that his living standard is actually much higher than yours. How would you feel?

At this point, I do not know how to end this post for once - because on this occasion my emotions are involved. In fact, there would be nothing worth discussing if this issue were only a matter of business or economic analysis (contra Mr Brown, Oikono, and a few others). It is precisely because this issue involves multiple dimensions that the discussions became so extensive. The quick dismissal of that 'focus on the high pay' issue (saying that this is not the main issue or a big issue) is far too hasty, in my opinion. It should be a big issue in this case, and while it may not be the main issue, I certainly feel that it is one of the main issues. Lastly, I think that this issue can be made bigger or smaller by the people, so the assumption that its bigness or smallness is an inherent quality of it is wrong. If the public makes it a big issue, there must be a reason - a reason involving what is morally ideal or not ideal, rather than what is legally allowed or not allowed, or what is informed or not informed by business logic.

********************************************************
Updates

(1) Other related articles not already linked: Diverse opinions accessible from Tomorrow.sg. Check out also the interesting article on 'charitable gamblers' at Ivan's Chimera, the thought-provoking post at A Life Uncommon, and MercerMachine's funny cartoons.

(2) Host of NKF Cancer Shows, Mr Cao Qi Tai, annoyed quite a number of people with his closing remark made in the final show - something along the lines of "You can forget the donation hotline number after tonight, but I won't" (in Mandarin/my translation & interpretation; 14th July 2005).

(3) I salute Ms Susan Long, the great journalist from The Straits Times, for her professionalism. Well done! And I think that SPH has been fair and comprehensive in its reporting of this event - especially the ST articles on 14th & 15th July.

(4) Excellent quote 1: "You need to know whom you're donating to, how this money is going to be used, and have the assurance that the money will be put to a good and appropriate use." - Dr Vivian Balakrishnan, Minister for Community Development, Youth & Sports (ST, 15th July)

(5) Excellent quote 2: "NKF is an organization that has been built with public donations. In a way, therefore, the public are the moral owners of NKF...So the public have expectations on transparency and how things should be done." - Dr Balaji Sadasivan, Senior Minister of State for Health (ST, 15th July)

(6) Excellent quotes 1 and 2 show that some bloggers' attempts to 'play devil's advocate' are misguided (re Mr Brown, Oikono, and others who invoke what I would call the 'business school argument').

Singapore's system of talent production (SSTP) Part II

2005-07-11T20:20:00.000+08:00

My earlier article had one central aim, which was to describe the central paradox of Singapore's meritocratic system. It did not take on the difficult task of elaborating on the meaning of true talent, apart from highlighting that there is a difference between extraordinary supertalent and ordinary competence. It was also not a critique of the scholarship system per se (contra Elia Diodati's interpretation), even though this system is part of the meritocratic system.

The word 'system' as used in the earlier article refers to all those institutions responsible for producing as well as sorting out talent in Singapore, as well as three other aspects of society that contribute to the proper functioning of the meritocratic system as it currently stands - namely, culture, ideologies, and the system of rewards (i.e. institutions responsible for rewarding talent) - all of which interact and produce through their complex interactions the paradox that I have described. The earlier article focused on the culture and the ideologies which sustain this meritocratic System (with a capital 'S'); the system of rewards (including the scholarship system) was not discussed, since extensive discussions have already been presented at Singapore Angle, Commentary Singapore, and Random Thoughts on Public Policies.

This article will discuss just one issue - how should we adjust the Meritocratic System (henceforth 'MS') so that it can:

(1) allow young potential supertalent to realize their fullest potential and support them as they struggle to do so, and
(2) achieve (1) with high morale across the whole society.

Full potential of young potential supertalent
Imagine that a person is a young potential supertalent in two fields, X and Y, but only these two fields. He is mediocre or even terrible at everything else, but he displays an unsual flair in certain areas and is deeply passionate about them. Alternatively, we can imagine him to be an extremely intelligent person with nearly perfect IQ scores who realized that his real passion lies somewhere else after trying out a particular field for a few years - such a person is also likely to excel in the field that he decides to venture into subsequently, since he definitely has the intellectual abilities. At this point, I will clarify what I mean by a supertalent: he is someone who can go far in a particular field; in other words, a supertalent is either (a) a gifted person with nearly-perfect IQ scores who can excel at almost anything if he has passion in it, or (b) a supertalent for a particular field who might not be a super-jack-of-all-trades with straight A's throughout secondary school, JC, and university as well as outstanding extracurricular records. In fact, (b) is likely to be the more common type. But regardless of whether the young potential supertalent belongs to type (a) or type (b), it is crucial that he displays immense passion in his desired field, because that is the fuel that will take him far for the next two or three decades...

Unfortunately, a type (b) young potential supertalent is rather unlikely to shine in the current Meritocratic System. He may be a not-so-well-rounded bookworm who is supremely gifted in only one subject (e.g. economics or literature). Or he might be someone who scored mediocre grades for his A-level subjects, only to emerge with a stronger determination to excel at university, thus topping the university with first class honours and a few prizes; this person, again, is viewed (wrongly) as 'not-really-that-impressive' in Singapore compared to scholars with straight A's for O- and A-levels and 2nd class upper honours degrees.

Type (b) supertalent might emerge out of the Meritocratic System feeling great resentment. Also, he will almost certainly fail at any attempts to get any sort of scholarships to pursue his chosen field, for which he has passion. This would be a great problem if he does not come from a rich family, because he has bread and butter issues to worry about. Paradoxically, it is precisely because he is so passionate about his field that he might feel that Singapore is not the place for him if he wants to persist in his chosen field. If he were less passionate and take things easy, he might have felt a lot better. So the greater the intensity of his passion, the more resentment he feels - and probably, the more he feels like going to a place that is willing to give him a second chance, and/or a place where he can hear or read nicer things about what he does from the newspapers, his peers/relatives, and other sources of representation. Let's face it, the kinds of things you hear or read, really do affect how you feel. Talented people are human beings with emotions too, are they not?

What Singapore can do is to offer a system of loans to people who really want to pursue their ambitions through further studies (e.g. Ph.D., M.Mus./D.Mus, M.F.A (master of fine art), etc). These need not come from the government; they can come from the commerical banks. Scholarships and bursaries would be nice too. Loans, scholarships, and bursaries would have two functions of (a) preventing resentment from arising (and maybe even cultivating gratitude), and (b) allowing young potential supertalent to go for the necessary training in their chosen fields. Function (b) will usefully provide a second chance to those who have not been able to shine at O- and A-levels. Excellence at O- and A- levels is an indicator of potential genius, but it is definitely not the only indicator. The view that says "but we want consistency!" is flawed in so far as it assumes that a person who has suffered setbacks before is never going to be better than one who has had a smooth journey throughout his life.

High morale across the whole of society
I will move on to my next point, which concerns morale. Who says morale is not important? As every general in the past or present will know, morale can determine the victory or defeat of an army. I sometimes hear Singaporeans say, "Keep quiet, don't complain!" whenever they hear something vaguely critical of anything about Singapore - anything at all, even if all I'm saying is that the public toilets here are not clean enough, or that the char kway teows are not tasty enough, or that the customer service in the country is not good enough in general.

This is a very wrong way of thinking which should be abandoned in the knowledge economy. In this knowledge economy, it is new knowledge, ideas, and suggestions that are crucial for moving society forward. It is only with civilized discussions between citizens that we can derive novel understandings and interesting perspectives on certain issues or policy problems. New knowledge cannot emerge when there is 'groupthink' on a societal scale, with self-appointed moral guardians labelling people with their unique views as overly critical or whining deviants who need to be told off. This is a sure way to dampen people's morale. Even if things in the country are generally okay, there is no reason why discussions cannot aim for further refinement of various aspects of society. So this is what I recommend - a change of mindset so that people will be welcoming of discussions, as long as these are delivered in a polite manner and originate out of the desire to improve the country.

Secondly, as several readers pointed out in the comments section of my earlier article, what the government says often has immense influence on people's decisions about what to study, which career to pursue, and so on. This is not entirely the government's fault; in fact, one can argue quite convincingly that it isn't government's fault at all, since it is merely doing what is right when it encourages people to go into the fields that will reap the most benefits for the country in the long run. What should we do, then? I suspect that we need to point the fingers at ourselves instead, for not following our hearts' desires! Parents, too, being the closest advisors to their children, should also encourage their children to pursue what they like, or at least lay out the options clearly on the table for them to see, so that they do not grow up thinking that they are doomed just because they did not study medicine, law, accountancy, finance, engineering, computer science, or biomedical science.

Having said that, one might argue that many people only realize what they are truly interested in (a) halfway through their undergraduate studies, (b) right after they have graduated, or (c) a few years after they have entered the profession that they thought they liked. These three scenarios are common enough, and it is not really their fault if any of the scenarios transpire. This leads me to propose the third solution - which is described in detail in an earlier article, Tried and Tested Routes, which focuses on the employers. This also leads me to think that more scholarships should in fact be given for postgraduate studies, rather than for undergraduate studies. And for postgraduate studies, it is doctoral studies that produce new knowledge and train new producers of knowledge, although in some fields, a Masters would be sufficient (e.g. L.L.M. for law, M.F.A. for fine art, etc).

Conclusion
I have thus presented my views on Singapore's system of talent production (or SSTP) in two parts. This system, as readers will know by now, needs to place great importance on morale, emotions, and passions, which are all affected by culture, ideologies, and system of rewards.

Singapore's system of talent production: the paradox of success

2005-07-07T19:38:00.000+08:00

In Singapore, uniquely talented persons often find themselves in a very strange situation due to the success of the meritocratic system here. In this entry, I am not suggesting that Singapore does not value 'talent'; it certainly does and in fact puts in great effort to cultivate talent....

But in my view, the 'system' in Singapore has been too successful in churning out 'talent'. Everywhere we go, we hear about Singaporeans with a string of A's under their belts or high scores for standardized tests. The paradoxical effect of our success is that individual 'young and uniquely' talented persons are often not considered to be unique, for they are now hidden within the talent-crowd comprising talent of varying degrees of excellence, passion, and dispensibility. As a result, a prodigy-in-the-making with great passion in his chosen field may very well be treated as any 'ordinarily talented' person.

So, while I agree that 'talent' in the collective sense is valued, I feel that individual young and uniquely talented persons (henceforth called 'young potential supertalent') may not be so valued, and what I mean is this: instead of being singled out and groomed further to realize their fullest potential in their chosen field, quite often, these people with potential to go far in their fields are overlooked. (Old, established, and proven 'supertalent' such as Nobel Prize winners of course need not worry, since risk-averse Singaporean bosses are always reassured by tried and tested products.)

Consider the common view in Singapore that there is a replacement for anybody no matter how outstanding he appears. Consider also the unfazed reaction when many bosses and managers in many Singapore organizations encounter outstanding young individuals - there is often no outward expression of being impressed at all. The nonchalant or even occasionally aloof treatment comes across as a non-verbal message to the young potential supertalent, hinting to him that all his achievements are 'not a big deal' at all; and thus he feels slighted. The impression that bosses and managers have is that there are numerous Singaporean first class honours or summa cum laude graduates, masters degree holders, PhDs, artists, writers, academics, and other professionals around....Surely one less wouldn't make a difference? And furthermore, if the person later became a globally recognized figure in his field, we can always reclaim him as a 'prodigal son', can't we?

This is a kind of culture in Singapore, which may have a negative effect of creating disillusionment in the young potential supertalent who perceive the system as one that fails to recognize their great potential to go far in their fields - their uniqueness. Flooded with hordes of straight-A's graduates, quite a lot of organizations in Singapore have lost their ability to identify the young potential supertalent and differentiate them from those who are merely ordinarily good. This does not mean that they do not wish to be able to do so, but merely that they find it increasingly difficult or even impossible to do so because on the surface, everybody looks quite talented!

Some may feel that as long as these young potential supertalent still live on and pursue their trades, who cares if they are disillusioned? They may further reason that even if we lose one outstanding local talent, we can always seek a foreign replacement. I think that sometimes there is no replacement if the talented local person is a 'one of its kind' (sui generis). After all, history has shown that there is only one Chopin, one Michaelangelo, and one Einstein. I also suspect that there is a consolatory kind of thinking that even if a young potential super-talent is disenchanted and upset, then maybe he can do better work because of his frustration! After all, many geniuses were very depressed and disillusioned people. So the impression is that depression might bring about excellent work: correlation is thus confused with causation.

In every field, if we fail to cherish, promote and support the next generation of Singaporean 'young potential supertalent' now, they will be hindered from reaching their fullest potential, and their path to global fame will be greatly slowed down. Singapore has done a good job of supporting some important fields, such as life sciences, engineering, computer science and so on, but I feel that it can do a bit more in certain other fields...

One might argue that if the flower is of a particular species, it will look beautiful no matter what, and hence there is no need for extensive support. But this argument fails to recognize that there is a subtle but significant difference between a wilting flower that still manages to look nice in the normal way, and a fully blossomed flower that looks spectacularly captivating because of special nurturing. A painful process of struggle does not create talent; many people succeed not because of the lack of support for what they do (financially, emotionally, institutionally, etc), but in spite of it. Bread and butter issues do distract people, as one episode of the Chinese television series 'Zheng Ban Qiao' (the Artist) shows. Some struggle is fine, but too much struggle wastes the precious time of the talented person who could have started contributing to his chosen field much earlier.

At this point, one might ask this question, 'How do we identify the young potential supertalent then?' Unfortunately, this is not always easy. But it is precisely because of this difficulty of identifying them in advance that Singapore needs to view every person who is 'quite talented' as an individual with potentially great contributions to make in his field - that is, with due respect despite his youth, and with the working assumption that he may one day go really far indeed....

In an era when Singapore has successfully churned out so many people with good grades and apparent flair in various fields, the task of identifying and nurturing the young potential supertalent is made much more challenging. The success of the meritocratic system in producing students with many A's has made the task of identifying those who can go really far in their fields much trickier. And it is precisely because of this reason that we must not end up thinking that people in our talent pool are all 'talented in the same ways', as though they are interchangeable and easily replaceable commodities. If we end up doing so, we would have failed to understand what the psychologist Dean Keith Simonton calls 'the origins of genius'.

Boosting the prestige of local universities

2005-07-05T18:27:00.000+08:00

Local universities are gaining prestige. I must say that the ST articles on 4th & 5th July made me quite happy indeed. Minister Mentor Lee suggested that more top students should be sent to the local universities for their studies, and this, to me, is truly a step in the right direction!

Such a move will boost the prestige of local universities and will thus help in Singapore's quest to become a higher education hub of Asia. In fact, I would propose one additional strategy that will take Singapore's universities to the next level, which is the following...

The top scholars should not only pursue their undergraduate studies in Singapore, but also their postgraduate studies here, especially doctoral studies. This is because two important criteria for judging the international excellence of a university are firstly, the size, the student composition (e.g. whether there are many from other countries), and the quality of students in the graduate programmes, and secondly, whether the PhD graduates can get hired at reputable universities elsewhere. Thus, if one day it becomes widely known that the PhD graduates from Singapore's universities can secure academic jobs at reputable universities in foreign countries, then that would really be the pinnacle of success. This kind of success is obviously not built overnight, but I suggest that this is something that Singapore can and should aim for as a long-term goal.

To help to achieve the above, some of the top scholars who did their bachelor's degrees overseas should in fact be encouraged to pursue their masters and doctoral degrees in Singapore. In other words, what I suggest is a 'foreign-then-local' sequence to complement but not replace the 'local-then-foreign' strategy, which is also necessary. I would be very proud as a Singaporean if I can one day tell a foreign friend, "This researcher who won a Nobel Prize is a Singaporean who did his PhD (and maybe bachelor's degree as well) in NUS/NTU/SMU! He did his research training here!"

So this is my heartfelt wish for Singapore...

Literature/philosophy quiz....

2005-07-01T22:58:00.000+08:00

Greetings!! I could not resist the temptation and came back to blog! I have thought of some questions to keep my blog readers and 'fans' occupied over the week when I shall be very busy...... ;)

Whoever knows who said the following, shall get a prize! (You have to get all 3 correct) Here they are....

1) "The man I am, looks mournfully at the man I could have been....."

2) "The well-trained soldier, may do what courage would have demanded in a particular situation...not because he is courageous, but because he is well-trained....."

3) "A woman may very well form a friendship with a man, but for this to endure, it must be assisted by a little physical antipathy....."

Hope you'll like the little quiz that I have devised for you all! See you next week! :)

Away for a week

2005-06-29T23:49:00.000+08:00

I won't be posting new entries for about a week.....

To my regular customers, many thanks for visiting and please do proceed into the Manor and help yourselves with a cup of cyber-tea.... :)

To new visitors, thanks for dropping by and hope you'll find the articles interesting...I'll be in resting mode; please click around and have fun reading...post comments (but not those that will get the police knocking on my door, please)

Four reasons for not blogging this week:

1) My Japanese lady friend is coming to Singapore, so I have to tidy up my apartment.... :)

2) I've been spending too much time online - when I've got tons of work to clear! I'm feeling guilty.

3) I've just had an intellectual exchange with the great blogger at From a Singapore Angle - and he is just too good for me! (I've exhausted most of my internal strength after the exchange; I shouldn't have engaged in the debate - he's a philosopher) :)

4) I looked into the mirror today and noticed that I look increasingly like Master Yoda - which is terrible! (I mean, it's good to be able to wield the lightsaber like him but I don't think any guy will want to look like him) Conclusion: I've aged, and I need some time to get over this.

See you in a week's time!

Singlish and the process of a society becoming more boring...

2005-06-25T01:00:00.000+08:00

Do not underestimate the power of Singlish. Even though we are now told not to use it so much, I think it is a language that is cool in its own quirky way. This post is about how Singlish allows one to truly capture the nuances of certain aspects of Singapore's culture, using a new Singlish term, 'sianization' as a case study.

'Sianization' is a term first invented by a fellow Singaporean blogger, jllt. This term, as far as I can see, has immense potential in helping us to formulate a sophisticated analysis of contemporary society and culture, especially in Singapore. So here, I present an elaboration of the Singlish Sianization Theory, which might be slightly different from what jllt had in mind when she first coined the term*.

Sianization refers to a process of a country or society becoming more and more 'sian' (or literally, 'boring'). But the term is more complex than that. 'Sian' is a Singlish term (with Hokkien origins) that is used to denote a complex feeling of boredom, apathy, tiredness, 'jadedness', and resignation. Is there such a process going on in Singapore? If so, what are the causes, the diverse aspects, and the implications of sianization? In my opinion, there is no smoke without fire: sianization is indeed going on as many people have felt it, but thankfully, it also involves a range of countervailing forces as we shall see later. The causes of sianization can be summarized as the Three P's - place, product, and people (not to be confused with the 4 P's of Marketing, which is easy stuff). These should be read in conjunction with my earlier entries (e.g. 'playgrounds', 'tried and tested routes', etc). Let us explore each of these below.

As a Place, Singapore does not have many sites which are enchanting. Sure, we have several tourist sites such as the bird park, the zoo, and so on. However, we simply cannot expect a few birds or orang utans to deliver the magic, can we? The existing tourist sites do not look extremely attractive, or feel extremely exciting; they cater adequately only to those who are already quite 'sian' and have no other places to go. And Sentosa is plainly disappointing as a tourist site: the journey round the island is harrowing - has anyone been there recently? In addition, the cable car system is far from 'world class': my Taiwanese friend visited Singapore, and we waited in the very hot and stuffy 'cable car tower' for 45 minutes before finally boarding a cable car, which took just 5 mins to reach the other end, and she said, "I'll never take the cable car again". I feel so sorry about the whole incident.

The second P refers to products - products of Singapore. I have in mind cultural products such as Singapore-produced television programmes and movies. There should be more of these, and the quality can be further improved. More local stars should be cultivated, especially if they look tremendously attractive (e.g. Pierre Png, Constance Song). Let's face it, looks are important in the media industries. I wonder why poor Pierre Png is always assigned roles that do not show him at his best - what a waste of talent! And I believe that any television programme or movie featuring Constance Song (perhaps together with Pierre Png) will be an instant hit globally! Why hasn't MediaCorp thought of this??

The third P refers to people. While there are actually a lot of interesting people in Singapore, the interesting sides of them are often suppressed when they enter the workforce. The work culture is too tough here - it should be changed so that people can knock off at 6pm instead of 9pm. Be like London, as Minister George Yeo says! Work-life balance should be cultivated, so that we do not have to book appointments with friends 3 weeks in advance just to see them once a year. People should also pursue their dreams. In Singapore, ask around and most people will tell you that they would like to be doctors, lawyers, engineers, IT specialists, accountants, or part of some other major profession. How many will actually tell you he wants to be a writer, an artist, a pianist, a sportsman, or a chef (as is the case in USA)? Not many, because there are pressures towards conformity in this country. The aspirations to pursue a different life from the rest of your countrymen may well reside in people's hearts, but the environment does not allow such aspirations to manifest as actual career decisions. As a result, many find themselves working in unsatisfying jobs for which they have no passion. Although the above major professions are good professions, the problem of homogeneity arises when most people aim for those few professions and nothing else...

Thus, the Singlish term 'sianization' has its roots in the 3 P's of Singapore - places, products, and people (not to be confused with the 4 P's of Marketing, remember). What we have done so far is to identify the causes of this societal process. One does not need to be pessimistic, however, for this process may trigger countervailing forces such as (a) new measures by the government to make the Place less 'sian' (e.g. the casino decision), (b) new products from the cultural industry (such as the Phua Chu Kang musical), and (c) new emphases to reorientate People's lives in Singapore (e.g. five-day work week to encourage work-life balance). It is therefore a dialectical process that can be shaped by citizens and public agencies rather than a unidirectional one that is destined to overwhelm us.

As far as I know, Singlish is the only language in this world that can capture the nuances of this process in just one word. Don't you think it's a cool language? :) I am not advocating the widespread use of Singlish within the education system here, just as one who loves Hokkien does not necessarily promote the use of Hokkien in the schools. My point is that we should be proud of Singlish not just because of its local flavour, but also because of its richness and its ability to capture elusive and ambivalent aspects of life in Singapore, thus resulting in the economy of words which contributes to efficiency. However, in order to 'earn the right' to use Singlish on informal occasions, I feel that one should first master standard English to an advanced level, for only by doing so can one firstly, defend himself against critics who associate Singlish with 'those who cannot master English', and secondly, prove with one's ability that Singlish users are highly competent English users, thus earning the necessary respect for this local language of ours.

*jllt's version is more focused on the countervailing forces of 'sianization' :)

Being elite

2005-06-22T20:30:00.000+08:00

The Youthink section in the Straits Times on 20th June presented an article on the theme of "being elite". This is a very hot topic now, and I want to blog about it not because I like fashionable things (e.g. I don't read certain high-profile blogs), but because having read the ST article once, twice, and thrice, I was left with a nagging feeling of uneasiness.....

The disturbing thing is not that what the contributors wrote was total rubbish. If that was the case, then it would have been easy for me to dismiss it completely. The problem is that what they wrote consisted of many familiar arguments on this issue, but with a few slightly inappropriate sentences inserted here and there....(by three of the five contributors). Here they are:

(1) "To the non-elites, accept yourself for who you are and don't wallow in self-pity. Rise above your personal limitations and prove those who look down on you wrong."

After I read this, I did not become unhappy with the writer mainly because I know that she meant well. And that's actually part of the problem! She actually meant well! Yet it came across badly in the end. The writer was arguing that we should "celebrate those who work hard too" and I certainly agree with this and with most of the things she said. But the way the section ended was not as graceful as it could have been, for three reasons:

Firstly, the term "non-elites" inherently defines the majority of the people against the minority (elite) group. Tell me, do you prefer to be known as a Singaporean, or a "non-Westerner"? Why should anyone define himself in relation to another group of people?

Secondly, the sentence "accept yourself for who you are, and don't wallow in self-pity" is patronising. Just as we should never walk up to a stranger and say, "Hey pal, don't be sad lah, accept yourself for who you are", we should also never declare that people are in fact wallowing in self-pity for certain assumed reasons.

Thirdly, the last sentence "Rise above your personal limitations and prove those who look down on you wrong" presupposes that (a) if one cannot be part of the elite, it must certainly be due to personal limitations rather than external, societal, or systemic factors, and (b) there are indeed some people out there looking down on non-elites. But if there are indeed many such people who are narrow-minded enough to do so, shouldn't the writer be urging these people to change their views instead, rather than telling the non-elites to fight for the self-respect that they deserve all along?

(2) "Going to a JC is regarded as the main route to university, and people who don't make the cut either go to a polytechnic or the ITE....I'm not trying to promote polytechnic studies....My point is that young people should not blindly follow the 'elite' route".

This section (written by a different contributor) also gave me the perplexing feeling that I can agree with the general thrust of his/her argument and yet find certain aspects of the article problematic. The striking thing is how the writer states the observations as though they are undisputable matters of fact without pointing out that those views are in fact wrong even though they are widespread (for example, wouldn't it be good if s/he indicated his/her normative stance by saying that "going to a JC is often wrongly regarded as the main route to university"). The part that says so unambiguously that "people who don't make the cut...go to polytechnics" is also problematic, for it simply reinforces the misleading beliefs held by some that (a) only people who cannot make it to JCs go to the polytechnics, (b) there is one and only one 'elite route' rather than multiple pathways, and (c) that people opting for the polytechnic route are in fact permanently cutting themselves off from the opportunity of being an elite. Are they?

(3) "I was part of the elite again".

The third article by another commentator is the most problematic of all. I believe that this writer is a nice, normal guy with good grades who just wants to get a scholarship to enter a good university. I think his two main arguments are firstly, that "you can be an elite in any field", and secondly, "there's nothing wrong with (the presence of) a governing elite" - both of which I do agree. But the style of the article can be improved.

Essentially the article follows a structure of (a) "at first I can't join the prestigious elite club so I was very upset" line of argument, (b) "later I could join the club and became delighted again", and (c) only "complainers" "curse" elitism (note the use of the unflattering term, "complainers", to refer to people who do not embrace elitism) (my own interpretation and paraphrasing for (a) to (c)).

There is no indication in the article of how (a) and (b) are in fact very wrong attitudes to hold, when the writer (being a scholar himself) could have taken this opportunity to criticize such attitudes - and he would then have gained my respect. The silence on this could leave readers (especially aspiring scholarship applicants reading the article) thinking that it is 'not wrong' for people to feel this way. But I argue that it is wrong for aspiring scholarship applicants to feel this way, because the scholarship system that I hold in high esteem is about public service and nothing else. One should never yearn to be part of something which draws its legitimacy from public ethos mainly, or even partly, because of practical reasons such as "prestige", or for fulfilling personal 'dreams of overseas study', just as one should never indicate to a potential father-in-law that he wants to marry the daughter by saying "I sincerely hope to be part of your upper-class family", or to a lady he loves by saying "I'll be very upset if you don't accept me, as you're widely regarded as the most desirable girl on campus." (Where is the pristine love, may I ask?)

The way his emotions swing like a pendulum from extreme sadness to a blissful state of happiness also disturbs me, and results in the writer coming across as being (a) overly concerned with status differentials or (b) slightly myopic for being unable to see how one can still serve society by studying in one of our three reputable local universities using his own finances. And he mentioned that the years coinciding with his National Service "was an awkward and uncomfortable time" for him, leaving me to wonder why he has to feel this way. The use of the word "club" should also be avoided, for "clubs" are exclusive groups in which "membership has its privileges"; I feel that any suggestions of exclusivity should be avoided. And lastly, I do not think that it is modest to declare publicly that one is 'part of the elite'. Respect needs to be earned slowly over time, not conferred overnight by virtue of membership; and modesty is a virtue, even among the elites.

These, then, are my reasons for feeling slightly disturbed after reading the ST article.

Blindspots of the critics of NS-complainers

2005-06-13T11:50:00.000+08:00

This short entry presents a defence of the 'NS-complainers' (that is, Singaporean guys who complain about various aspects of National Service): they have been too frequently caricatured as unmanly weaklings. Recall how this lady was quoted in the Straits Times saying that Singaporean guys complain about the 'most trivial things' when they go for National Service.

My defence is simple: The national servicemen may complain but at least they do what they have to do - by trying their best to cope even if their hearts are elsewhere and by doing their jobs properly instead of malingering or going on AWOL (absence without official leave). It may be that those who do not complain simply have no need to complain, since they do not (by virtue of gender, medical/PES status, or nationality) have to put up with much suffering at all! Surely being in air-conditioned offices would be much more comfortable than being in the fields, under the scorching sun?

Yet, many people who criticize the NS-complainers fail to criticize the wider societal trend of increasing number of Singaporeans attempting to try their luck at getting medically 'downgraded'. Instead, they target the national servicemen who dutifully perform the combat operations, during NS as well as during the long reservist period which extends over 13 years into a man's middle age! I have seen many soldiers who complain during their resting time but perform excellently and to their fullest abilities when it comes to actual military operations. Should they not be commended and applauded, notwithstanding the fact that they may complain a little as an emotional release mechanism while doing NS or 'reservist'?

And my final point for the critics of NS-complainers is that if nobody complains, then perhaps the Ministry of Defence should really worry, because this may mean that the training isn't really fulfilling its function of stretching the physical and mental limits of the soldiers at all! The training is so relaxing that everybody breezes through it with a laugh - just like a holiday camp!

Connotations of the term 'real world' & reflections on the 'work-education' linkage

2005-06-09T10:04:00.000+08:00

It is not unusual to hear people say this (especially to people doing National Service, high school/JC students, and undergraduate students), "Wait till you enter the real world, then you'll know.....that all the education you have had don't count...It doesn't matter how many degrees you have."

The purpose of this post is to deliver a critique of this saying, because I think that it is far too misleading, and chauvinistic. This saying is misleading for several reasons.

Firstly, people who say such things are usually those working in the corporate world. I stress the corporate world because you tend not to hear these from people working in other equally established professions - the medical world, academia, education, real estate, the arts sector and the military. These people have failed to realize something very fundamental - which is that they (or at least most other people in the corporate world) got far precisely because of the education they have had. What they are doing amounts to 'guo4 he2 chai1 qiao2' (dismantling the bridge after one has crossed the river), ungratefully disregarding all the efforts that have been channelled into them by their former teachers spread across perhaps 16 levels of education, thinking that they could have achieved their cognitive skills on the basis of self-study alone. I would think that what they might have been trying to say is this instead: that "when you enter the corporate world, your scoreboard starts from zero once again and you will be regarded as on par with all those who have been hired, and 'work performance' shall be the most salient criterion for promotion decisions". I am not arguing against this interpretation, then, because even in academia, getting a PhD is no guarantee that one will be a great professor. What I am pointing out is mainly (a) the failure of the 'real-world' theorists to consider how 'work performance' may be affected by the earlier education and training the student has had, in terms of attitudes towards official tasks, competency, ability to convey ideas clearly, etc; and (b) the fact that without the certificates, the good companies may not even consider their applications. (Try applying for Citibank's jobs with an O-level certificate.) Most importantly, even if a poorly qualified candidate succeeds in getting the job, s/he may not be able to pull it off. If the 'real world' theorists truly stand by what they say, then if they have children, they should tell their children, "Don't study - go straight into the 'real world' at age 16. After all, all the education don't count". Would they dare to do that?

Secondly, the use of the term 'real world' by default places the corporate world in the centre of the universe, in the centre of society. This is a reflection of how corporate capitalism extends its tentacles to all corners of society. In fact, when people say that, it shows that even their brains have been taken over by the corporate world, and they are now ideologically under control, without even realizing it. The real world now, for such people, is real only in so far as it concerns profits, money, and the so-called 'bottom-line'.

Now, let me say that the corporate world (which exists for profits primarily) is not and should not be treated as the centre of the universe. In the first place, education is not a servant of the corporate world - so whether or not the education allows the person to 'hit the ground running' from Day One at work is not an issue. In the UK, it is much more difficult to get a place on a degree programme in English Literature or History than Accounting and Finance or Engineering. It would be sad if one day education exists solely for the purpose of churning out workers for companies. Also, other fields of work are equally legitimate. Is one a lesser person just because s/he does not physically sit in an office to work, and instead fries char kway teow for a living? Is one a more immature person just because s/he has never had to deal with a lot of office politics? I have encountered people who blatantly told me that working in the office, having to deal with unreasonable customers, back-stabbing colleagues, etc is the only way to learn about society. May I suggest that this is plainly bullshit, because I have never been able to detect any correlation between maturity and work environment. In fact, many people who have been in the so-called 'real world' (which is really the corporate world, according to their definition), exhibit narrow-minded thinking that is not the hallmark of mature persons.

To assign the superior-sounding 'real world' title to the corporate world is chauvinistic, and does great injustice to the millions of people toiling in various other professions - the nurses and doctors working in the hospitals, the teachers, lecturers and researchers in education, the officers and 'regulars' in the military, the independent real estate agents helping to sell houses, the chefs, the taxi drivers, the actors and other professionals in the cultural industries (e.g. artists, designers, writers, etc). Are the 'real world' theorists suggesting that these people are somehow living in a world of 'virtual reality'? If so, then even when an army officer/teacher/artist has retired, a corporate person can still slam him or her in the most nasty fashion, "You have not been in the Real world! Your life is a waste of time and resources!" People are earning money with their own labour - their own hands, brainpower, life time, and energy - they didn't go out and rob the banks or earn money through illegal means. They should be respected for that.

This, then, is the real 'real world' - a world in which you have to earn your own money, through whatever legitimate means, making use of your own talent and skills. Whichever profession you choose, excel in it. And when you are successful, all the critics will plainly shut up and swallow their words, for you have made your contribution to this society in your own unique way.

'Creative' advertisements on TV

2005-06-07T00:00:00.000+08:00

Some ads are so 'creative' (or 'uncreative'?) that I don't know whether to laugh or cry when I see them....

First, we have the M1 advertisement, in which the human beings all started to lay eggs on the floor for no good reason! What exactly is this whole 'egg-laying' business all about?? It looks so distasteful and the music sounds horrible too, even though I can tell that it was intended to sound 'cute'....Because of the stupidity of this advertisement, I will never sign up for M1. Never. I don't want to end up laying eggs one day for no good reason....

Second, we have the most irritating FedEx advertisement. What exactly inside that stupid parcel?? Because of this ad, I will never use FedEx - ever.

Third, we have the SKII advertisement, where Lin Yi Lian goes "toin, toin...."....What exactly is "toin toin"? What a silly sound!

Seeing all these advertisements on TV makes my blood boil. The above are three of the most poorly conceptualized advertisements in this world, hardly reflecting any sense of aesthetics. These ad designers ought to be reprimanded - or sent (back) to art schools!

Various life worlds, various life forms

2005-06-06T12:29:00.000+08:00

I have finally understood something important - that although the word LIFE is just one word, it can refer to totally different experiences!

There are various life worlds and various life forms. If one accepts this, then one will be freed from the impulse to compare.

Some people work horrendously long hours, with little time to rest, and maybe no time at all for social life or personal life (e.g. hobbies, contemplation, watching TV, etc). Of course, the compensation for such sacrifices is the money that they earn, or the increasingly impressive namecards that they hold (and can proudly present to their friends during 'gatherings').....This group of people, for the sake of my subsequent analysis, shall be called the workaholics. :-)

For me, I do not think that it's worth sacrificing your weekends (i.e. Sundays and Saturdays, not just Sundays) for work. It's okay to go back occasionally to office to work during weekends, but 'be a regular activity it should not'. Social life (especially those aimed at finding lifelong happiness) is important. A friend of mine sometimes laments, "Sigh, I've no girlfriend!", but from what I can see, he hasn't put in the hours and the 'work' required to get one! I wish to tell him (out of concern for a good friend) that ladies would not stroll into his office just like that and ask him, "Hey, Mr. Busy, I see that you are overwhelmed with work and are too stressed and busy, but would you like to be my boyfriend?" That simply won't happen. (As for those who really feel that they would like to let work take over their lives, I have nothing more to say...I wish you good luck.) :)

There's another group of people called the family men/women. They are contented to have a wholesome family, and the meaning of life revolves around the family. Work, for them, should not be too harrowing, and certainly should not 'eat into' the family time. So, no unpaid overtime, no 'bringing-of-work-back-home' for this group. In fact, I think this group is the happiest lot, based on my observation of people around me. If they have children, life should be even happier, provided they are also happy with the person they married. (See my 'Conceptions of Children' entry). There are those who feel that having a pet dog or cat can be a suitable surrogate experience for having a child, since according to them, the reasoning is perfectly logical:

1. "A child provides companionship"
2. "A pet dog/cat/mouse/(insert animal) also provides companionship"
3. "Therefore, a pet dog/other animal can replace a child"

This is simply flawed reasoning. It's true that both a pet and a child provide companionship, but the companionship provided by a child is so different from companionship provided by a pet. It does not take much of a leap of imagination to visualize this, does it? :) Of course, a person who is truly radical in his/her views can insist on the constant play of words and say that "a pet can also be your friend", "you can also talk to your pet", "a pet can also be part of your family", etc along with all the advantages of having a pet (e.g. you can give it away anytime, it's cheaper, you can ignore it, etc). But this only makes the discourse look like it makes sense without changing the fact that a child is different from a pet - as any empirical research work done on Singaporean parents can show. Just ask them, ask them, if there's any difference.

So, my conclusion is that there are various life worlds coexisting in this world. Everybody's life is so different. As the Chinese saying goes, "Tong2 ren2 bu4 tong2 ming4" (and this saying should be used in a non-lamenting way). Some are plainly rich, but do not feel happy for various reasons. Some are immensely successful in their careers for their age. Some are immensely happy with a wholesome family. Career success and wealth accumulation are not the only yardsticks to measure the 'goodness of a person's life'. So why compare? In another 50 years, we will all be nearing 80 years old. I do not want to spend my time at 'gatherings' chatting about other friends "VP position" at some top MNC (saying 'wow' endlessly), or over how much money and bonuses (in terms of "how-many-K's") so-and-so earns, or over the speed at which one manages to pay off one's housing loan, etc. The impressiveness of other people's achievements still leaves space for me to be happy with my own life, in my own way (that perhaps only I myself can understand), unless I let the mental demons trick me into an endless exercise of social comparison. That others may not be able to understand why I should be happy with my life does not matter at all, since I do not have to find reasons to justify my happiness. In the prevalent discourses of social comparison, the important things in life - friends, kinship, love, passion for what life has to offer, dreams and ambitions, interest in aspects of society - all but disappear into thin air. And the main reason for the increasing impoverishment of the discourses is the failure to understand that there are various life worlds, various life forms.

In short, a fish can be as happy as a leopard.

The 'outsourcing' of cooking

2005-06-02T20:48:00.000+08:00

The way to a man's heart is through the stomach...If that is so, then I know why women are unable to capture the hearts of men nowadays. It is nearly impossible to come across a lady who can cook in this modern era! Out of 100 ladies I know, only about 3 can cook. That is a bit sad, really.... :-)

Why is it that women of this era are losing their culinary skills that the earlier generations of women have? I suspect that the main reason is the 'outsourcing of cooking' to the commercial providers - namely, the food courts, the kopitiams (coffeeshops), and the restaurants...This takes away the incentive for the ladies to learn cooking, since couples (or even entire families) can just go to places nearby for decent meals at very affordable prices.

The second reason is that people are just too tired to cook. With the 'work-till-you-drop' culture in Singapore, who still has the energy to go to the supermarkets, wash the vegetables, cut the meat, and fry the dishes? Even if one has the energy to cook, one may not have the energy to do the washing after the meal.

The third reason is that the guys are not doing their job - they should be protesting against this steady loss of culinary skills! Because guys do not exert the necessary pressure, and passively accept such a situation, there is even less incentive to master the difficult art of cooking! It's possible that this has something to do with the beauty industry. With ladies becoming better at beautifying themselves - often very successfully - the guys have become weak and unassertive, and fail to stand up for their rights....hehe :-)

So, we can't really blame today's women for not cooking. The incentive and 'mood' simply aren't there...This means that we may all have to live with this fundamental transformation of Singapore society from now - no more home-cooked soups, no more cosy family dinners in the comfort of one's home....Today's culture is a culture of 'eating out', so guys out there - if you come across a lady who can cook, go for her, cherish her, for there aren't many such ladies in this 'food paradise' of ours now.

The roti prata man versus the chwee kuey seller

2005-05-24T23:11:00.000+08:00

The quality of 'customer service' in Singapore, in general, is not very good, I must say....

Let me give an example. There's this little Chwee Kuey (soft rice cakes with lettuce toppings) stall near my place. On one (initially) fine morning I walked to the stall to buy Chwee Kueys and I got the rudest shock of my life. The 'minced pickled lettuce' (or 'chai por') that comes with the Chwee Kueys is what makes the Chwee Kueys nice and tasty, but this auntie gave me just one tiny teaspoon of it for five Chwee Kueys! She didn't even bother to spread the toppings around and just put one teaspoon in the centre piece - that was outrageous! I felt so insulted; I asked for more and she grudgingly gave me another half a teaspoon of the toppings. I was too disillusioned to say anything more, so I just took the plate and sat down, eating the tasteless chwee kueys quietly.....Can you imagine the shock that I felt?

Gosh, are those toppings really so expensive? Are they made of gold? This may strike one as a trivial issue, but I argue that this case is really an indication of 'customer service' in Singapore generally. I have a number of other anecdotes as well, such as a Western food stall owner who blatantly refused to give me the third packet of chilli sauce when I bought chicken chop from him, saying that two packets should be enough for me. ('Why do you have to eat so much chilli??' The joker asked me.) Also, have you ever noticed how you as the customer often ends up as the one saying "thank you" to the cashiers, wherever you shop in Singapore (e.g. NTUC)?

But I also do not wish to make sweeping statements without taking note of some exceptions. Indian roti prata sellers in Singapore, for example, exhibit very good customer service (and bookstores in Singapore too - they are the exceptions.) I'll focus on Indian food sellers here. They smile, they say thank you and are generally very courteous. If you ask for more curry, they give you more curry, with a smile. This should be the way - service with a smile, and generosity! In fact, on one occasion, I asked for more tomato ketchup for my mee goreng, and the man gave me so much extra ketchup that I'll not miss it for another fifty years....! And they're not aloof! Chinese food sellers, on the other hand, tend to be super-aloof - especially those who have been mentioned in some newspapers as being 'one of the best in Singapore' or those with long queues of customers waiting for them to slowly prepare their food (e.g. taking half a day to fry a simple plate of char kway teow). They seem to have been overwhelmed by the good business and national publicity, to the point that they now treat customers with a certain arrogance that needs to be criticized - at least by Me in my little blog!

I told myself - I'll never want to be served a plate of Chwee Kueys with just one teaspoon of minced lettuce again in my life. I'll never want to be treated rudely by Chinese food sellers (esp. those with their laminated newspaper cuttings) again in my life. I'll also never want to have to be the one to say "thank you" to a cashier first, only to get an "okay" rather than "welcome" or "thanks" as a response, ever again. But then again, I'm in Singapore - what can I do? Everywhere I go, it's like that!

Maybe I should order roti pratas for every meal....!

~ from a hungry swordsman

Poorly designed playgrounds & the disappearing childhood

2005-05-17T09:19:00.000+08:00

I have been paying attention to the design of playgrounds recently. My goodness, they are so poorly designed! Chia-lat, man! (Whichever agency is in charge of playgrounds, please don't sue me!)

In the past, the playgrounds are sites of great fun and adventure! Two of the key artefacts that contribute to such great fun and adventure are the see-saw and the swing. A third important thing to include in any decent playground would be sand. So, in short, what we need are the three S's - see-saw, swing, and sand. But what has happened to the three S's??

We can speculate on the reasons for this disappearance - policymakers' desire to have complete cleanliness (after all, sand can mess up the surrounding areas), the need to conserve land and hence the need for smaller playgrounds, and the wish to please those paranoid parents who cannot bear seeing their child fall down on the sand and scratch him/herself. It is possible that over time, parents have become more and more protective of their children, and this may have contributed to the disapperance of the third S - the sand (and possibly the first and second S's too, although one would have to adopt a very loose definition of 'danger' in order to consider the see-saw and the swing as 'dangerous').

I suppose those who made decisions about playgrounds did not consider the views of two groups of stakeholders - parents who are not so paranoid, and the children themselves. If they did, and if they had bothered to do some field research (e.g. an anthropological study of how the children are enjoying themselves on the playground), they will realize that the children of today, in Singapore, are a bit bored with the tiny, adventure-less, and abstract-looking playgrounds! In fact, there's a fourth S that we can criticize - the pathetic slides ('hua-ti') which take just one second to slide down! How can this possibly be fun?? Even if it is mildly fun, how can it be exhilarating?!) For me, thankfully, I had the pleasure of enjoying a majestic, exciting, and awesome Dragon Head playground when I was a kid - hence I am happy now! Hahaha! :)

In conclusion, I am nostalgic and I yearn for the day when awesome playgrounds can return. The tiny, artificial-looking playgrounds are boring and uninspiring, for on top of the lack of the three or four S's, they lack themes. So they are not awesome, but awful. How can Singapore become a world-class city if we do not have world-class playgrounds?! I am going to find out which agency is responsible for playgrounds and 'grumble' or 'complain' to them, despite what ST journalist Chua Mui Hoong said. And following PM Lee's advice, I'm going to come out and change things if all my feedback fall on deaf ears. I'll buy an axe (to chop down some trees for the wood), a shovel, and other essential tools (a drill, maybe?) and build my own preferred playground downstairs if necessary. After all, as the official rhetoric says, 'Change it, do something, don't just whine!!!!'

The commodification of smart people?

2005-05-17T01:00:00.000+08:00

This post has been revised and re-posted as 'Singapore's system of talent production: the paradox of success'. (July 2005)

On the beauty of complaining

2005-05-14T09:04:00.000+08:00

I continue from my previous post using a different heading...

I flipped through the newspapers yesterday and saw an article on grumbling and societal change. What a coincidence, since I have just blogged about this in my preceding entry! The ST article is indeed not very flattering to the social analysts! It seems to me that in the journalist's view, one needs to be a journalist like her in order to have a moral and professional 'licence' to comment and stop at that. So if one is too busy and cannot find the time to contribute other than commenting, should one just keep quiet? After all, who likes to be labelled as a 'grumbler'?

So while I have some 20 mins to spare now, let me extend my theory of the 'beauty of societal grumbling'. Earlier, I said that some things get done only after people complain. The complaints can be delivered in a normal super-courteous and super-tentative way (like a little mouse approaching a cat) or in an extraordinarily forceful way. The 'force' of the complaints can come from quantity (i.e. many people have complained about similar issues/phenomena) or quality (i.e. extremely good writing).

'Complaining' is about analyzing society with the aim of improving it. A mature reader assumes that the intentions are good rather than malicious, and instead of dismissing the critical analyses as trivial (e.g. a grumble), treats the analyses as offering some useful insights. Further, the activity of complaining, when done on a societal scale, makes the country a nation of concerned and idealistic citizens rather than a nation of apathetic and economistic workers. It sets in motion a powerful machine that can continuously improve itself, since flaws of the system are constantly pointed by people situated at various levels and social locations, anonymous bloggers or otherwise. The pattern of complaints lets the elites know about the 'pulse' of society, and more specifically, how many people feel about particular issues. The individual complainers will also know whether their concerns are anomalous or typical ones: are they the only ones with certain problems, or do many other Singaporeans also face similar problems. Thus, complaints have real value, both at the individual level and the societal level.

Next, I feel that the 'complaining stage' can be a useful phase of thinking, sorting out one's thoughts, doing one's 'homework', and generally gaining the personal emotional momentum before one takes the final step of actually doing something. I was playing with my son's toy car: the car travels a longer distance the more times I turn the screw at the side. So, complaining is like turning that screw, so that when one actually does the work necessary for changing the unsatisfactory situation, one has the motivation to see it through to completion, since all the self-doubt, mental obstacles, and justifications would already have been thought through before the action. The ST journalist who wrote that piece about grumbling may say that complaining/grumbling should be done in private rather than in public, in one's little bedroom in the little HDB flat when one is lying next to his wife who doesn't really care about politics and instead watches Wu Zong Xian's entertainment programmes. But this ignores the benefits that complaining in a public or semi-public domain (e.g. a blog) brings - the new perspectives from other people whom one may never encounter in one's 'real' life, or the new thoughts that emerge from the debates with dissenters...

Thus, I present my tentative theory of the 'beauty of complaining'. My wife says that I am a 'complain king'. But I am proud to say that because of my complaints to various agencies (e.g. town council), my neighbourhood has improved significantly, with various changes benefitting many uncles and aunties, ah peks and ah mm's...All these despite the fact that I wasn't the one doing the legwork - I have neither the time nor the energy. I merely 'grumbled' about the problems from my laptop and alerted the relevant authorities on the unsatisfactory things/uncivil acts I have noticed in my neighbourhood. In fact, if one has enough of a helicopter view, one will know how the culture of 'NATO' ('no action, talk only') came about - namely, due to the interactions between a harrowing work culture that sucks the life force out of people and the work required to maintain a family with kids - together, these two things leave one no time and energy for anything else. If citizens still has the inclination to complain despite the fact that they actually have better things to do, the government leaders should be very happy because it means that the citizens still have souls and still care. Seriously.

Change it

2005-05-13T01:11:00.000+08:00

One of the exhortations that we commonly hear in Singapore is this - if you don't like something about the country, come forward and change it.

Now, this kind of exhortation is usually supported by a number of sister arguments or claims, which some Singaporeans like to make. First, there is the criticism of 'NATO' ('no action, talk only') - directed at people who only point out the flaws, blindspots, and paradoxes of the system but do not actually come out and do something. Second, there is the implicit suggestion that social critics or observers are in fact rather immature people who only know how to 'grumble', 'whine', or complain in a somewhat childish way. In this post, I wish to present a counter-critique of the 'NATO' criticism which I consider to be a real conversation-stopper.

The 'NATO' criticism wrongly accords a certain moral superiority to actions and activities rather than discourses and mental processes. What is implicitly suggested is a scenario of busy bees flying around doing 'real' work, while the idle critics merely watch, observe, give suggestions, and basically indulge in arm-chair theorizing. The metaphors of 'grumbling' and 'whining' are truly unflattering, and serves to make the social analysts/observers/critics look silly and immature. It is as though one cannot talk if one is unable to find the time, the energy, nor the inclination to commit to the logistics of social improvement or political activity. But I think people should be allowed to contribute in ways that fit with their capabilities. If people are good at analyzing issues, let them analyze issues; carrying chairs, pinning up posters, and shaking hands with uncles and aunties are not the only ways to contribute to society.

My next target is the sister argument which I mentioned above - that one should not complain but should instead change whatever one is not happy with. I do have friends who have said that they are contemptuous of people who complain instead of changing what they are not happy with. But this view is very flawed. Firstly, it assumes that what one is unhappy with can be changed! Secondly, it assumes that the change can come about without people complaining! In my experience with various events, if you don't complain with enough force, nothing gets done. Complaints that have the support of the masses and/or the force of the argument/rhetoric are good for the betterment of society!

*To be continued....
(I need to recuperate from my severe internal injuries incurred during IPPT...) :-(

Tried and tested routes

2005-05-12T22:43:00.000+08:00

To become a creative and entrepreneurial economy, Singapore needs to have more people who are willing to take risks. This is the commonly heard rhetoric that I am increasingly tired of hearing. This is not because I do not believe that cultivating a risk-taking culture is the way to go, but rather because there are some serious problems in Singapore, as I see it.

Firstly, it is true that people must change, but there is a specific group of people who needs to change, most of all - the employers and the associated staff (e.g. human resource professionals) who play a part in recruitment of new employees. In Singapore, the mindset of employers is so narrow that in hiring for a particular position, they will usually only consider people with the specific degrees. An extreme example is this: if you are applying for a marketing job, then you had better have a marketing degree; even a business administration degree may be regarded as 'not specialized enough'. This means that people without the specific (or so called 'relevant') degree can forget about 'converting' and entering an industry for which they were not specifically trained.

This problem is related to the second one, which is that many organizations here are reluctant to invest the time and energies required to train newcomers, however talented and intelligent the potential newcomers may be. Organizations often prefer applicants to be 'pre-trained', ready to 'hit the ground running' from Day One. This explains why in the newspapers' Recruitment Section, most of the advertisements state that they want people with 'at least 3-5 years' relevant work experience. But the sad thing is that 'relevance' is too narrowly defined.

The above two problems thus contribute to the third problem, which is the extreme difficulty of changing career paths in Singapore. If you want to be in Industry X, you had better obtain a directly relevant degree and work a number of years without interruption in Industry X (not Industry Y, no matter how synergistic the two may be). The extreme difficulty of changing career paths thus make Singaporeans risk-averse, preferring to always stick with the 'tried and tested routes', as mentioned in the Channel 8 programme on 12th May featuring PM Lee. After all, all diversions will be viewed negatively by employers and so are likely to be fatal for one's career. An interviewer can always ask you sarcastically, 'You don't seem to be very committed to this industry?', or 'What if we hire you and you decide to try out another industry again?', or 'You studied for degree A at university, why are you applying for this job since it is not directly relevant to what you studied?'

A pat on the back by the government commending one for the risk-taking behaviour only serves to console the poor person who is now cast as a reject of the job market, thanks to his risk-taking behaviour. All the talk about studying what you love, being entrepreneurial, and so on will be cast out of the window in the interviewing room. So as I see it, the rhetoric promotes something good ('study what you love', or 'try starting your own business'), but employers need to change and be more willing to accept people with unconventional backgrounds or those who took some time out to do other things. They also need to have more flexible hiring criteria together with a structured training programme that will help smart people from any disciplinary background get acquainted with the industry, as long as they have an interest in it.

The UK chartered accountancy profession does this: they take in and train anybody whom they think is smart and capable, as long as they have a 2nd class (upper) honours degree, regardless of discipline. So even philosophy majors can convert and become chartered accountants (ACAs). The accounting profession thus has a more varied composition, comprising people from diverse backgrounds, which is conducive for creative problem-solving and a more interesting social life within the profession.

So, I see three major problems in Singapore, as far as evolving into the knowledge-based economy is concerned. There are other problems, of course, but the other problems are not the subject of this blog entry.

Happy faces & the appearance of (im)maturity

2005-05-10T01:22:00.000+08:00

Smile or laugh too much, and immediately people in Singapore will assume that you are not very mature. After all, this country is famous for having a tough work culture, along with a stressful, uptight, and hyper-competitive climate. Life in Singapore is meant to be harrowing.

So how can one still have the inclination to smile?

Since young, I've been the recipient of countless sarcastic remarks and questions about why I always look so happy. In my army days, I was scolded and sometimes punished for always looking happy. My officers and sergeants believed that I was out to be cheeky - in their view, since training is so tough, I cannot possibly be enjoying it, and no one in his right mind should be smiling.

Now, more generally, even when I go downstairs to buy take-aways, the stallkeeper will ask in the most puzzled and somewhat frustrated manner, 'Why are you always so happy huh?'

But I have never consciously tried to appear happy. In fact, if people had not pointed it out to me, I wouldn't have noticed. I guess it is a default expression for me. I mean, if there isn't any serious disaster to upset me, why show a black face to people? Usually, I try to be friendly to my familiar neighbours. However, this gesture is sometimes met with either a 'what's your problem' gaze, or a blank, lifeless stare.....The expression on the faces of people whom I know for sure lives in my block says, 'Do I know you?? Have I even met you before?' But I'm pretty sure that whenever I see these familiar faces, I am not in dreaming mode....The lack of life in the eyes of many people is not a good sign of the times. What has sucked the life force out of them?

So it seems that Singapore's culture does not appreciate or even tolerate friendliness and/or happiness as expressed on the human face. 'Thou shalt not smile' - this is the order of the day. In fact, I have noticed that people far younger than me may well look a lot more serious, and therefore older, than I do. This is fine, but when carried to the extreme, the 'black face syndrome' results and it can sometimes have a contagious effect in terms of spoiling my day as well. Some people have told me that in order to be regarded highly in society, you have to pull a long face - the longer the better, the blacker the better. I believe the underlying presumption is that a long/black face signifies seriousness, while a smiley/cheerful face signifies frivolity. A happy person has to be a joker, who is not serious about his work, definitely not very capable, and certainly not very smart to begin with.

In any case, I have come to realize that to be happy requires wisdom. If I'm happy but I care about the negative responses of people who hate happy-looking people, then I will become upset again easily. One should be wise enough to ignore these black-faced people, for despite their look of maturity, they have failed to realize that exuberance and happy interactions make this a better world. At the very least, it is courteous to reciprocate when people greet you, press the 'door-open' button for you in the lift, or say 'hi' to you. The price they pay for succeeding in their careers is a long, stiff face incapable of courteous responsiveness and rich expressions of emotions. So in conclusion, happiness is the outward expression of a certain kind of wisdom, and wisdom is the internal resource granting stability to a happy character.

Of eagles and chickens

2005-05-09T08:29:00.000+08:00

The Eagle

He clasps the crag with crooked hands;
Close to the sun in lonely lands,
Ring'd with the azure world, he stands.

The wrinkled sea beneath him crawls;
He watches from his mountain walls,
And like a thunderbolt he falls.

- Alfred, Lord Tennyson

The above is a poem - a cool poem.

****************************************
Let me give it an extension....

Life is more about being bold
Rather than regretting when one is old
An eagle knows this principle will hold

And thus he soars through the sky
While the chickens watch with envious eyes
The price of flying high is a lonely life

Thus mix with the chickens he will not
For by doing so his soul will rot
Soaring is risky but he'd give it a shot
So, people, grab opportunities as they come...
And strike the iron while it's hot!

*****************************************

The performance of grief

2005-05-07T15:10:00.000+08:00

Whenever someone dies, people will mourn for him or her. This is a way of showing respect for the person who has passed away.

But the over-dramatic performance of grief (sometimes amplified by the mass media if a celebrity is involved) arouses cynical feelings in me.

Firstly, why is it that many of the closer ones who appear to be so upset over the death of the person could have missed seeing the person for the last time (unless they are working overseas and could not rush back in time, which is a legitimate reason)? Was the death too sudden, or was it simply because these people had not bothered to stay in touch frequently enough to expect the impending death? If I were the one who had just passed away after a period of poor health, I would certainly have preferred to see my 'good friends' and some of the closer relatives before I die, not right after. That's why I cannot stand the statement, 'I came to see him for the last time' (yes, after he is dead), for this act seems to be more for relieving the guilt of the visiting persons, rather than performed out of a geniune desire to 'see the person one last time', since I define 'a last meeting' as one involving mutual interaction between mortals.

Secondly, many people shed tears for people they do not know, which is fine, except that I would ask the question of whether they had been kind to people whom they do know. What I'm saying is that one should be kind, nice, filial, or respectful to the people closest to one first of all, before one can show melodramatic concern for more distant associates without hypocrisy. For example, one should not think about doing charity work for distant others unless one has already discharged the necessary duties towards his/her closer ones. Would it not be strange and too long-sighted if, instead of visiting one's own lonely grandma during weekends, one spends all his or her time doing charity work at old folks home?

Thirdly, if the death was due to the natural process of ageing, and the process was not too painful, one should not feel so sad. Life and death are just part of heaven and earth and the universe.

Thus, I am cynical, but I'm not saying that mourning and paying one's last respects is bad. It's just that I think more can and should be done, firstly when the person was alive (at least a visit before he dies), secondly for one's closer kins, and thirdly in terms of cultivating one's personal acceptance of the naturalness and inevitability of death.

Conceptions of children

2005-05-05T08:49:00.000+08:00

I realized that people's conceptions of children may be very different from mine.

Yesterday, I had lunch with my old friend who is a top real estate agent and a millionaire at age 29! Incidentally, she is quite stunning and looks like Zhao Wei. It was because of the distraction caused by her that I did so badly for A-levels! And because of that I became a casualty of the system and couldn't become part of the 'elite'.....(excuses, excuses...) :)

Anyway, where was I? Oh, the conceptions of children thing...Yes, we were talking about having children. Not with each other, obviously, because she's married :), but just the idea of having children. She thinks that a child is a huge burden, and that bringing up a child brings only marginal happiness with very little benefits.

I tried to convince her that having a child is great. 'Don't you think it's magical seeing a cute little version of yourself?' It's like extending your life in both space and time - that is, you have someone who is in fact part of you, and s/he can carry on when you are gone...' She said no, because if the child doesn't turn out well (e.g. unfilial, incapable, unhealthy, etc), then she might as well not have him in the first place. But if the child turns out better than her (e.g. better-looking, more successful in career, etc), she will feel jealous. So for her, either way, she will lose out or in Singlish, 'loo-gi'....

'Why should you feel jealous of your own child???' I asked...

For me, I'd do everything to make sure that my child surpasses me in every way. I do not think (as my friend does) that spending money on a child is a waste of money. She thinks that money can be more wisely invested or used to earn more money, go for travelling, etc. But the point is that even if one has a child, one can still do all these things! And in the first place, what's so great about travelling? It's a fine experience but there are many things finer than that - and watching a little boy/girl grow up and grooming him/her into a 'you1 xiu' (outstanding) individual is one of them! My friend feels that since she went through hell in order to achieve success, 'why should my child have such an easy time?' She would force the kid to go out and work at age 16, and tell him, 'if you want money, earn your own money'.

In my opinion, supporting your child until s/he attains success is a wise thing. Take a business venture as an example. If I have a successful company, and I want to create new outlets, it is in my interest to give all I can to make sure the new outlets succeed. Each new outlet carries my name, so the failure or mediocrity of it does no good to me. Even without such practical, rational-economic thinking, supporting your child until s/he succeeds is intrinsically satisfying. The child is like 'me-plus', a better Version 2.0 - who doesn't want Version 2.0 to be better?

I realize, at this point, that at the end of the day, our disagreement about the way a child should be conceptualized boils down to our view of money. Money is obviously the price that one must pay in order to have a child. And money can purchase a range of second- and third-order goods such as a nice house, a nice car, and a 'feel-good factor' (nice!). Who doesn't want all these things to make oneself feel better?! I would! But it doesn't follow that without these, I will feel bad. Instead of looking at a Jaguar (i'm referring to the car, not the animal) with envious eyes, why not just see it as what it is - a technological artefact with 4 wheels and an invitation to aspiring robbers (please rob me! I'm rich!)? So money and its second/third-order goods are viewed as supremely important to the quality of one's life. I beg to differ. I think that money and its second/third order goods are but illusions...(ah mi...tuo fo...tok tok tok) I can't possibly carry them into my grave (unless I have a very big coffin - but I'd rather not as I'm environmentally friendly)...

So, in conclusion, I disagree with my friend that having a child is a waste of money. Having a child is fun. And fun is certainly worth paying for! After all, are the second/third-order goods that money is supposed to purchase not all about fun, fundamentally?

Want to build, just build

2005-05-04T21:13:00.000+08:00

There has been far too much discussion about the 'casino issue'.

A casino is a good idea - I think the government is doing the right thing. Critics' arguments have been very weak so far, as you can see below.

1) 'Social problems' argument
- come on, which country doesn't have social problems? The 'families will break up, people will die etc' argument is simply ridiculous - it's a slippery slope argument. And have these critics ever met a gambling addict in real life? I suspect that they are drawing on stereotypes of a 'typical gambling addict' (for example, as portrayed by the media) to make their arguments.

2) 'We shouldn't copy others' argument
- Why should we not copy other countries? After all, the 'copying' need not be wholesale copying. These critics treat 'the casino' as a black box, an object with universal characteristics. They are unable to visualize how the casino can deviate from a standard (global) template to exude local flavour.

3) 'Not sure whether it will definitely make money' argument
- This is a business venture, and like all business ventures, there are risks involved. These critics are, simply put, too risk-averse. It's time to be more risk-loving, especially in the New Economy. Also, how do they know it won't make money?

A casino adds diversity to the leisure scene in Singapore. This is the single most important benefit. This is my summative analysis of what I see as a rather straightforward issue; it's not as complex as the numerous newspaper articles suggest.

Human value just like shares....

2005-05-03T20:03:00.000+08:00

The power of positive thinking. Yes, this is the topic of this post.

I've been drawing my energies from negative thinking for too long. Sure, telling myself that I must push myself harder just 'so that I can say something proud/emerge victorious/be rightfully arrogant in a revengeful way right in the face of my critics' may be highly motivational. But it's motivation by dissonance; it's a negative kind of motivation that is not good for the soul, and not good for one's health.

Now, I've mastered a Taoism-inspired kind of self-motivating approach: one that stresses harmony within oneself and with nature. There will always be people who cannot stand the fact that you have a 'good life', and my recommended response will be this: 'Yes, I am lucky and I have a good life. Any problem with that?' Should one be made to feel guilty somehow just because he has a good life? What is a good life anyway? The suffering that one has to endure is often known only by himself and people close to him....

One thing that a person must learn to get used to in this practical world is that your bank account and your source of income very much determine the kind of treatment and verbal remarks that you receive from people whom you interact with. In other words, cash - its presence or absence, amount, and the rate of inflow - affects the quality of your social experiences.

Thus, a person's value can be analogized to the value of a portfolio of shares. Our value as human beings fluctuate like the value of particular shares in the stock market. When things are going well for you and people can see that that is the case, they will not be nasty to you; in fact, they will be pretty nice and especially polite to you. When you appear to be struggling, some people will take this as an indication that your 'value' is going downhill, and so they become careless when they interact with you. I am not saying that people will intentionally try to put you down. Instead, my point is that they may carelessly say things which put you down, since you are (at least at that point in time) not someone who could help them very much, or someone whose affiliation will benefit them very much. This implies that people operate very much in the present, rather than the past or the future.

I have personally encountered such treatment before. When I did well for O-levels and entered 'triple science' stream of a good junior college, everybody was nice. When I did badly for A-levels, they became nasty overnight.... And when I did well at university, they were nice again. When I was struggling with my masters (due to some personal problems), they thought that I would most probably fail and were nasty again. Thank goodness I got 'distinction' for my Masters, despite struggling along the way! In retrospect, I'm puzzled why people think that an excellent outcome cannot be the result of intense struggle.

In any case, I've learnt the hard way, that life is not all that rosy. A person who is idealistic because he hasn't been through hell exhibits what I call untested idealism. And the world therefore appears very rosy, with nothing to lament about. A person who has his idealism destroyed, later revived, and finally tempered with realism exhibits what I call tempered idealism. And the world therefore appears as it is - with all its 'sham, drudgery, and broken dreams' - but nonetheless 'still a beautiful world'. At least this is what I hope would be the case.

Lastly, forget about pleasing people, because the goalposts will shift once every few years....from the grades you get and the schools you go to, to the name cards you hold and the number of grands you earn. Why tire yourself with such petty comparisons?

Photo

2005-05-02T20:35:00.000+08:00