"The big lie about capitalism is that everyone can be rich. That’s impossible. Capitalism works only if the vast majority of the population are kept poor enough to never quit working, are kept poor enough to accept distasteful jobs society cannot function without. If everyone were a millionaire, who would empty the trash or repair the sewers? It follows that the poorer the general population is made, the greater the worth of the money held by the wealthy, in terms of the lives which may be bought and sold with it."
— Michael Rivero
I can't say for sure where my future will take me. I do harbour very serious hopes of eventually becoming an academic researcher who writes his own books and gives conferences on subject matters pertaining to human nature, and this is a profession that is likely to pay well if I get far ahead enough.
But I will never forget that this privileged route I can choose to take, just to even give my passions and ambitions a shot whether I succeed or not, means that I am adequately fed, clothed and housed upon the hardships of others, many of whom will never have the opportunity to get a formal education, leave the borders of their country, contemplate career choices, survive until the age of fifty, or live without the insecurity of those things I am privileged with - food, clothing, shelter and social stability. Who I am and what I can do rests on the shoulders of primary workers who began an agricultural revolution thousands of years ago such that division of labour freed some people from being chained to the soil. I belong to that category of people free from hard labour so that I can, in economic speak, "put my resources to better (more efficient?) use". With a cosmic roll of the dice, I might very well be a poor labourer who has no access to any of the opportunities I have now.
For those reasons, it would be a sin not to make the most of my potential. I will strive to ensure that I make the most out of what I can do and contribute and, as far as I can manage, give back to society where it has allowed me to chase my dreams.
Showing posts with label society. Show all posts
Showing posts with label society. Show all posts
Tuesday, 12 July 2011
Friday, 11 February 2011
Some Thoughts on Goodwill
I woke up to one of the crappiest days I've had in recent times. The past week had been a mess - assignments that piled up, presentations due next week, the thesis to take care of, and other obligations I had to see to. The past three days saw me notching a total of about ten hours of sleep only, and when this happens I get an outbreak of sinus that usually lasts the whole day. The feeling of tiredness and a sneezy, leaky nose is one of the most miserable feelings ever, especially when there's a whole day ahead of you from 11am to 10.30pm consisting of studies to run/participate in, meetings and classes to attend, and teaching assistantships to conduct (of course this is nothing compared to enduring starvation or a lifetime of poverty, but... you get the drift).
I don't really know how to put this, but let me try. In my experience so far I think it is really rare to observe genuine goodwill in our modern day and age. Perhaps it is because our results-oriented societal character makes us think of efficiency all the time. Or maybe we are reluctant to help others because we are afraid, either of not getting immediate returns for our goodwill, or that we will be taken advantage of. People want bang for their buck, and are impatient to get it. People think of "there's no such thing as a free lunch" a lot more than "a little goodwill goes a long way."
I'm certainly not trying to impose or insist on any particular way of doing things here, but what I hope to do is to present a case where what goes around does comes around, even if we may not immediately see it. Goodness begets goodness, and so does evil, in the long run.
How so in my case? I think I've always done my quiet little part for the people who matter to me - nothing more and nothing less. I'm not saying this because I'm consciously doing this in some warped self-interested manner everyday; I'm simply reflecting on it as it happened. And "people who matter to me" are very loosely defined. When my help is asked for - explicitly or implicitly - I seldom see reason not to give it. When people see what I do in research as an undergraduate and perhaps garner some interest in the possibility of going to graduate school, I'm glad to help and give information and my personal heartfelt take on the matter. When I see an elderly person on the train, I give up my seat; absolutely no questions asked. I wouldn't dare entertain the possibly of contemplating my act (often resorted to when people start thinking of costs and benefits), not that I had to. When I do work for others, either because I'm commercially contracted to do so or because I just want to help, I do the work because I want to give them what I can offer. This spans from designing logos, drawing caricatures, running studies, editing a coursemate's essay, taking care of the administration of a class, whatever. It doesn't matter. Do it well, do it good, do it for the fact that you desire to give of yourself first, and then for its external benefits - such as remuneration - second. That's a personal philosophy of sorts to me.
So as I slogged through today with a leaking nose and uncomparable drowsiness from lack of sleep, I was relishing the close of the day at 10.30pm with my negotiation class, for which I was a teaching assistant in. It had been a hectic term, and finally the course was ending - today was the last class before the final examination. I was absolutely taken aback and very pleasantly surprised when the Professor summed up his lesson, changed tack and said, "and finally, we have a very important person to thank today - our TA." He invited me down to the front and handed me some envelopes which I later opened after the class to reveal $100 worth of book vouchers.
Cynics and skeptics may say whatever they wish (my parents took their potshots when I told them, saying, "Oh, maybe he got the vouchers for free, and he could've just afforded them easily anyway"), but at the end of the day those vouchers were of value to a poor student like me. However, more than that, it indicated that there was some degree of recognition of the work I had put in. Cynics can debate the degree of recognition all day long, but to me the fact that the recognition was there shows that the cycle was complete. What goes around comes around, goodwill begets goodwill.
It made a case that my Professor described in class more salient. He recalled a time back in the 1990s when he visited China with his wife. When he checked into his hotel, a street chauffeur approached him and offered him chauffeur services for $50, whereby the Professor and his wife would be brought anywhere they wanted to go the whole day for that price. It wasn't a bad proposition, so the Professor took it up.
The next day, the chauffeur showed up and abruptly changed the terms of their deal. He said it will now cost $60. The Professor was taken aback - how tactical was this move! The Professor had no alternative - in fact, the alternative would be to endure his wife's distress, as she hated to negotiate. So he agreed to the chauffeur's terms, and the chauffeur got the $60 he pushed for.
My Professor then said that the cruel joke here was that the Chinese chauffeur had no clue what he had lost out on. My Professor, being a typical American-Israeli, would have spent the day traveling with his wife for $50, and tipped the chauffeur with an additional $50 for a job well done. But because the calculative chauffeur chose to approach the relationship in such a competitive manner, all bets were off on generosity and giving.
Perhaps it's not the Chinese chauffeur's fault for trying to rip off a traveling Westerner. But the point is that how we choose to conduct our relations with others can and will go a long way. We can choose to either go at it with goodwill or be calculative. What do you lose when you give? I don't know about most others, but for me I think in most cases it's usually very little. I think it often takes a rather competitive and calculative nature to sweat the small losses and perceive some painful cost in every little thing he/she does for others, and in a society where such a nature dictates the norms of social interaction, we stand so much more to lose.
My Professor's little gesture of acknowledgement reinforces my firm belief that if we hold on to being genuine and sanguine about our dealings with others rather than ulterior motives, some day we will get our just desserts.
P.S. It always amazes me how tokens are so much more effective in demonstrating reciprocity than cold, hard cash. Already, gift vouchers are probably the least remote cash items - we certainly find it harder to think of a gift of fruits, a watch or a dress in monetary terms, than a $50 book voucher. Yet, simply because the $50 gift voucher isn't a $50 bill (which would ironically allow me more freedom to choose what I want to buy - Homo Economicus would prefer the $50 bill) I'm still able to perceive it as a gift rather than a payment. This would allow me to remain very much in the realm of social norms, marked by reciprocity and closeness, rather than market norms, marked by transactional relations and coldness.
I don't really know how to put this, but let me try. In my experience so far I think it is really rare to observe genuine goodwill in our modern day and age. Perhaps it is because our results-oriented societal character makes us think of efficiency all the time. Or maybe we are reluctant to help others because we are afraid, either of not getting immediate returns for our goodwill, or that we will be taken advantage of. People want bang for their buck, and are impatient to get it. People think of "there's no such thing as a free lunch" a lot more than "a little goodwill goes a long way."
I'm certainly not trying to impose or insist on any particular way of doing things here, but what I hope to do is to present a case where what goes around does comes around, even if we may not immediately see it. Goodness begets goodness, and so does evil, in the long run.
How so in my case? I think I've always done my quiet little part for the people who matter to me - nothing more and nothing less. I'm not saying this because I'm consciously doing this in some warped self-interested manner everyday; I'm simply reflecting on it as it happened. And "people who matter to me" are very loosely defined. When my help is asked for - explicitly or implicitly - I seldom see reason not to give it. When people see what I do in research as an undergraduate and perhaps garner some interest in the possibility of going to graduate school, I'm glad to help and give information and my personal heartfelt take on the matter. When I see an elderly person on the train, I give up my seat; absolutely no questions asked. I wouldn't dare entertain the possibly of contemplating my act (often resorted to when people start thinking of costs and benefits), not that I had to. When I do work for others, either because I'm commercially contracted to do so or because I just want to help, I do the work because I want to give them what I can offer. This spans from designing logos, drawing caricatures, running studies, editing a coursemate's essay, taking care of the administration of a class, whatever. It doesn't matter. Do it well, do it good, do it for the fact that you desire to give of yourself first, and then for its external benefits - such as remuneration - second. That's a personal philosophy of sorts to me.
So as I slogged through today with a leaking nose and uncomparable drowsiness from lack of sleep, I was relishing the close of the day at 10.30pm with my negotiation class, for which I was a teaching assistant in. It had been a hectic term, and finally the course was ending - today was the last class before the final examination. I was absolutely taken aback and very pleasantly surprised when the Professor summed up his lesson, changed tack and said, "and finally, we have a very important person to thank today - our TA." He invited me down to the front and handed me some envelopes which I later opened after the class to reveal $100 worth of book vouchers.
Cynics and skeptics may say whatever they wish (my parents took their potshots when I told them, saying, "Oh, maybe he got the vouchers for free, and he could've just afforded them easily anyway"), but at the end of the day those vouchers were of value to a poor student like me. However, more than that, it indicated that there was some degree of recognition of the work I had put in. Cynics can debate the degree of recognition all day long, but to me the fact that the recognition was there shows that the cycle was complete. What goes around comes around, goodwill begets goodwill.
It made a case that my Professor described in class more salient. He recalled a time back in the 1990s when he visited China with his wife. When he checked into his hotel, a street chauffeur approached him and offered him chauffeur services for $50, whereby the Professor and his wife would be brought anywhere they wanted to go the whole day for that price. It wasn't a bad proposition, so the Professor took it up.
The next day, the chauffeur showed up and abruptly changed the terms of their deal. He said it will now cost $60. The Professor was taken aback - how tactical was this move! The Professor had no alternative - in fact, the alternative would be to endure his wife's distress, as she hated to negotiate. So he agreed to the chauffeur's terms, and the chauffeur got the $60 he pushed for.
My Professor then said that the cruel joke here was that the Chinese chauffeur had no clue what he had lost out on. My Professor, being a typical American-Israeli, would have spent the day traveling with his wife for $50, and tipped the chauffeur with an additional $50 for a job well done. But because the calculative chauffeur chose to approach the relationship in such a competitive manner, all bets were off on generosity and giving.
Perhaps it's not the Chinese chauffeur's fault for trying to rip off a traveling Westerner. But the point is that how we choose to conduct our relations with others can and will go a long way. We can choose to either go at it with goodwill or be calculative. What do you lose when you give? I don't know about most others, but for me I think in most cases it's usually very little. I think it often takes a rather competitive and calculative nature to sweat the small losses and perceive some painful cost in every little thing he/she does for others, and in a society where such a nature dictates the norms of social interaction, we stand so much more to lose.
My Professor's little gesture of acknowledgement reinforces my firm belief that if we hold on to being genuine and sanguine about our dealings with others rather than ulterior motives, some day we will get our just desserts.
P.S. It always amazes me how tokens are so much more effective in demonstrating reciprocity than cold, hard cash. Already, gift vouchers are probably the least remote cash items - we certainly find it harder to think of a gift of fruits, a watch or a dress in monetary terms, than a $50 book voucher. Yet, simply because the $50 gift voucher isn't a $50 bill (which would ironically allow me more freedom to choose what I want to buy - Homo Economicus would prefer the $50 bill) I'm still able to perceive it as a gift rather than a payment. This would allow me to remain very much in the realm of social norms, marked by reciprocity and closeness, rather than market norms, marked by transactional relations and coldness.
Monday, 10 January 2011
Rational Vices, Good Ol' Business Logic And Power
I've just finished lapping up Dan Ariely's Predictably Irrational, an exploration of the systematic irrational behaviour of human beings.
The book is implicitly anti-corporate establishment, as it dishes out nugget after nugget of problems pertaining to the economic institutions of our global world. But perhaps it is not so implicit after all, because it attacks the most fundamental premise and stronghold of economics - that humans are completely rational beings. Yes, indeed humans are rational and thinking creatures, but dogmatic hardliner economists not only fail to account for the systematic irrationalities of humans (such as fear, anger, perceptual biases, etc, which time and again falsify economic theory) but, even worse, often deliberately omit these irrationalities to preserve the elegance of the theory (arbitrage, anyone?).
This completely flies in the face of science and knowledge, because while it is perfectly fine to encounter scenarios that oppose the logic of established theories, those inconsistencies must be addressed and put to good use to further refine what we already know. What's worse is that many of our global economic and financial institutions are designed around such narrow economic principles, and whole societies are expected to fit into those institutions. It comes as no surprise that we have economic failures, because the rationality of classical economics and humans are, to put it straightforwardly, incompatible at some important parts.
Dan Ariely gives some interesting case studies to support his argument. For instance, studies on salaries and bonuses show that huge paychecks do not guarantee better performance. So, on what grounds are bankers justifying their huge salaries? The commonplace argument is that high salaries are needed to ensure that the best men are retained for the job (or else they will move elsewhere), but this is precisely the standard free market logic that Dan Ariely strives to assert is highly flawed. So when the US$700 billion bailout package went straight back into the pockets of the people running and messing up the financial institutions, it is obviously offensive to millions of taxpayers, but what can they do against an economic logic of salary-performance that is virtually accepted as a natural law? (For more interesting findings, I strongly suggest reading the book.)
Reading The Corporation by Joel Bakan does little to placate any already-existing (and growing) sentiments I have about the state of our financially globalized world now. The corporation began in the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries in America and Britain as corporate entities ran by stockbrokers who sought to make money via speculation. Most of these corporate entities failed, leading to loss of livelihoods, and their respective governments were quick to persecute these stockbrokers. However, after Thomas Newcomen invented the steam engine and unwittingly kickstarted the industrial revolution (yes, Joel Bakan brilliantly uses the term 'unwittingly'), corporations were revived because they were the only organized entities that could generate the huge amounts of capital needed to drive industrialization and production.
In the span of 300 years, the power balance has switched in favour of the corporation today. What started out as a damned organization that could be shut down at the whisk of a commissioner's pen, corporations today pervade every aspect of our lives and significantly control society and politics.
I digress, but in some ways I see this as similar to how sociologists trace the rise of male dominance and female oppression - capital accumulation. Because there are sociological and biological conditions under which men end up driven to accrue resources (extrinsic value) in exchange for the intrinsic value of women (in a most basic sense, reproductive capability), women in general rely on the resources that men provide and, in most patriarchal societies, become structurally dependent on men's resources.
Joel Bakan's argument sounds quite similar in that the world today hugely depends on the immense capital that can be accrued by corporations, and we are as reliant on the provisions of corporations as corporations are pervasive. Joel Bakan's angst comes from how little check and balance there is against the power of a organizational entity that is fundamentally not concerned with the welfare of society as much as it is concerned with profits.
I will eventually hope to end up in academia and presumably become a psychology researcher given my interest in the behaviour and psychology of the individual (and belief that understanding the individual will provide much insight into the issues of our world). However, my interest in philosophical, moral and social aspects also suggests otherwise; that I can't be a psychologist purely. The tendency for psychological academia to think of moral constructs as beyond the scope of psychology cannot be satisfactory to my curiosities. It is a dream that I can one day do some work that crosses the disciplines of psychology, sociology, politics, philosophy and anthropology.
Also, all the reading I'm doing, and my interests and drives, clearly makes me a heretic in SMU. Thank goodness I'll be ending my undergraduate term (and irrelevant university core modules that have only served to mess up my GPA, under which my academic capability will be cruelly judged boohoo) in a few more months.
The book is implicitly anti-corporate establishment, as it dishes out nugget after nugget of problems pertaining to the economic institutions of our global world. But perhaps it is not so implicit after all, because it attacks the most fundamental premise and stronghold of economics - that humans are completely rational beings. Yes, indeed humans are rational and thinking creatures, but dogmatic hardliner economists not only fail to account for the systematic irrationalities of humans (such as fear, anger, perceptual biases, etc, which time and again falsify economic theory) but, even worse, often deliberately omit these irrationalities to preserve the elegance of the theory (arbitrage, anyone?).
This completely flies in the face of science and knowledge, because while it is perfectly fine to encounter scenarios that oppose the logic of established theories, those inconsistencies must be addressed and put to good use to further refine what we already know. What's worse is that many of our global economic and financial institutions are designed around such narrow economic principles, and whole societies are expected to fit into those institutions. It comes as no surprise that we have economic failures, because the rationality of classical economics and humans are, to put it straightforwardly, incompatible at some important parts.
Dan Ariely gives some interesting case studies to support his argument. For instance, studies on salaries and bonuses show that huge paychecks do not guarantee better performance. So, on what grounds are bankers justifying their huge salaries? The commonplace argument is that high salaries are needed to ensure that the best men are retained for the job (or else they will move elsewhere), but this is precisely the standard free market logic that Dan Ariely strives to assert is highly flawed. So when the US$700 billion bailout package went straight back into the pockets of the people running and messing up the financial institutions, it is obviously offensive to millions of taxpayers, but what can they do against an economic logic of salary-performance that is virtually accepted as a natural law? (For more interesting findings, I strongly suggest reading the book.)
Reading The Corporation by Joel Bakan does little to placate any already-existing (and growing) sentiments I have about the state of our financially globalized world now. The corporation began in the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries in America and Britain as corporate entities ran by stockbrokers who sought to make money via speculation. Most of these corporate entities failed, leading to loss of livelihoods, and their respective governments were quick to persecute these stockbrokers. However, after Thomas Newcomen invented the steam engine and unwittingly kickstarted the industrial revolution (yes, Joel Bakan brilliantly uses the term 'unwittingly'), corporations were revived because they were the only organized entities that could generate the huge amounts of capital needed to drive industrialization and production.
In the span of 300 years, the power balance has switched in favour of the corporation today. What started out as a damned organization that could be shut down at the whisk of a commissioner's pen, corporations today pervade every aspect of our lives and significantly control society and politics.
I digress, but in some ways I see this as similar to how sociologists trace the rise of male dominance and female oppression - capital accumulation. Because there are sociological and biological conditions under which men end up driven to accrue resources (extrinsic value) in exchange for the intrinsic value of women (in a most basic sense, reproductive capability), women in general rely on the resources that men provide and, in most patriarchal societies, become structurally dependent on men's resources.
Joel Bakan's argument sounds quite similar in that the world today hugely depends on the immense capital that can be accrued by corporations, and we are as reliant on the provisions of corporations as corporations are pervasive. Joel Bakan's angst comes from how little check and balance there is against the power of a organizational entity that is fundamentally not concerned with the welfare of society as much as it is concerned with profits.
I will eventually hope to end up in academia and presumably become a psychology researcher given my interest in the behaviour and psychology of the individual (and belief that understanding the individual will provide much insight into the issues of our world). However, my interest in philosophical, moral and social aspects also suggests otherwise; that I can't be a psychologist purely. The tendency for psychological academia to think of moral constructs as beyond the scope of psychology cannot be satisfactory to my curiosities. It is a dream that I can one day do some work that crosses the disciplines of psychology, sociology, politics, philosophy and anthropology.
Also, all the reading I'm doing, and my interests and drives, clearly makes me a heretic in SMU. Thank goodness I'll be ending my undergraduate term (and irrelevant university core modules that have only served to mess up my GPA, under which my academic capability will be cruelly judged boohoo) in a few more months.
Thursday, 22 July 2010
Blind Men Also Love Barbies
Abstract of a study, titled "Blind men prefer a low waist-to-hip ratio", done by Karremans, J., Frankenhuis, W., & Arons, S. (2010), says:
"Previous studies suggest that men in Western societies are attracted to low female waist-to-hip ratios (WHR). Several explanations of this preference rely on the importance of visual input for the development of the preference, including explanations stressing the role of visual media. We report evidence showing that congenitally blind men, without previous visual experience, exhibit a preference for low female WHRs when assessing female body shapes through touch, as do their sighted counterparts. This finding shows that a preference for low WHR can develop in the complete absence of visual input and, hence, that such input is not necessary for the preference to develop. However, the strength of the preference was greater for the sighted than the blind men, suggesting that visual input might play a role in reinforcing the preference. These results have implications for debates concerning the evolutionary and developmental origins of human mate preferences, in particular, regarding the role of visual media in shaping such preferences."
Excellent. More evidence in favour of the basal instincts undergirding our mate choices that truly drive the media, rather than the often asserted opposite that socialization shapes everything. Of course, socialization has a huge part to play in skewing us towards the trends of the culture we live in. But the origins of media content don't just sprout out randomly.
There's always a rhyme and reason. Everything is traceable back.
"Previous studies suggest that men in Western societies are attracted to low female waist-to-hip ratios (WHR). Several explanations of this preference rely on the importance of visual input for the development of the preference, including explanations stressing the role of visual media. We report evidence showing that congenitally blind men, without previous visual experience, exhibit a preference for low female WHRs when assessing female body shapes through touch, as do their sighted counterparts. This finding shows that a preference for low WHR can develop in the complete absence of visual input and, hence, that such input is not necessary for the preference to develop. However, the strength of the preference was greater for the sighted than the blind men, suggesting that visual input might play a role in reinforcing the preference. These results have implications for debates concerning the evolutionary and developmental origins of human mate preferences, in particular, regarding the role of visual media in shaping such preferences."
Excellent. More evidence in favour of the basal instincts undergirding our mate choices that truly drive the media, rather than the often asserted opposite that socialization shapes everything. Of course, socialization has a huge part to play in skewing us towards the trends of the culture we live in. But the origins of media content don't just sprout out randomly.
There's always a rhyme and reason. Everything is traceable back.
Wednesday, 21 July 2010
Soul
Finally concluded my interviews with Tay Eu-yen, founder of The Butter Factory, today. Seldom do you get to meet people whose aspirations are so inspired by something more than just the need to earn money to get by in Singapore, whose aspirations are perhaps defined by something nobler; an inner drive.
The rarity of such encounters make them a novelty, when really it shouldn't be the case if this place had soul. As much as I hate to say it, it gets tiring meeting people after people who can't seem to figure out why they're holding down that uninspiring job other than to get by, that "it's for the money."
Sure, money's important, and we can't help it that rising costs keep us firmly stuck to chasing greens. But the system exists only because so many people, who fear being marginalized when not pandering to the system, validate it.
Maybe, to many, it's hard to understand why I take such constant issue with Singapore's pragmatism and obsession with stability, security and economic development. The prospects of living in a society that has little or no soul is very, very frightening to those who yearn for creation, art, culture and freedom - more than the things that merely allow us to just get by.
The rarity of such encounters make them a novelty, when really it shouldn't be the case if this place had soul. As much as I hate to say it, it gets tiring meeting people after people who can't seem to figure out why they're holding down that uninspiring job other than to get by, that "it's for the money."
Sure, money's important, and we can't help it that rising costs keep us firmly stuck to chasing greens. But the system exists only because so many people, who fear being marginalized when not pandering to the system, validate it.
Maybe, to many, it's hard to understand why I take such constant issue with Singapore's pragmatism and obsession with stability, security and economic development. The prospects of living in a society that has little or no soul is very, very frightening to those who yearn for creation, art, culture and freedom - more than the things that merely allow us to just get by.
Thursday, 15 July 2010
Whoever Insists His Business Has Nothing To Do With Politics Is Obviously Lying
I was just musing to myself (yet again) how offering a product or service on the basis of an idealistic notion of serving your patrons (and society at large) is just not enough in our modern day and age. In every practical market/industry, there are companies that have firmly established themselves as benchmarks for the quality of the services or products offered, and many of these companies are big-ass corporations.
In other words, it is insufficient to go into business without a workable business model that will cover all kinds of things ranging from finances to logistics to human resources. Going in with a product, even if it's a great one that will benefit mankind greatly, and hoping its weight will carry itself is naive and unrealistic.
With this notion in mind, 'bigness' can be a great advantage to gain for any corporation that wants to firmly root itself in the market and lock out competition. It is terribly difficult for new firms to enter certain markets because it is too difficult to offer products and services on the level that the existing giants already provide for.
Anyone who is decently versed in the supposed virtue of the free market will know that it is an established fact that the more firms in a market there are, the more efficient the market becomes - competition is good for the consumer and society on the whole.
The fact that bigness shuts out competition is a profoundly bad thing. Market moralists will argue all sorts of things to defend the market intellectually, but the truth is that any corporation that becomes big enough tends to become a monopolist.
But while I argue that it is a bad thing that new firms face difficulty in entering markets locked out by big corporations, it does not follow that big corporations should therefore lower their standards or provide handicaps so as to give weaker entrants a chance.
The issue really is in the immense amount of power that resides in the hands of big corporations who now can redefine the rules as consumers become dependent on them, a power that is unchecked because there are few entrants and firms that can provide alternatives for consumers. With bigness comes great power and with great power comes the potential for great sin.
Also, there are tons of reasons why the pursuit of profit at all cost is bad, or why the Milton Friedman argument that the 'only thing businesses should care about is profit' is a dodgy mantra to follow. But here's an important one. Without virtues or ethical principles guiding a company's direction for profits, especially when the company is a monopolist, the company can be easily bought over by politicians.
Should there be any social elite with the capital who decides to further any self-serving agenda, any spineless powerful corporation can hop on the bandwagon to further the interests of that social elite, providing all sorts of support ranging from commodities to marketing to manipulation of consumers, as long as the social elite has sufficient money.
When political power and corporations come together, giving rise to the agenda-setting problems that the United States particularly faces, society can be quite doomed.
In other words, it is insufficient to go into business without a workable business model that will cover all kinds of things ranging from finances to logistics to human resources. Going in with a product, even if it's a great one that will benefit mankind greatly, and hoping its weight will carry itself is naive and unrealistic.
With this notion in mind, 'bigness' can be a great advantage to gain for any corporation that wants to firmly root itself in the market and lock out competition. It is terribly difficult for new firms to enter certain markets because it is too difficult to offer products and services on the level that the existing giants already provide for.
Anyone who is decently versed in the supposed virtue of the free market will know that it is an established fact that the more firms in a market there are, the more efficient the market becomes - competition is good for the consumer and society on the whole.
The fact that bigness shuts out competition is a profoundly bad thing. Market moralists will argue all sorts of things to defend the market intellectually, but the truth is that any corporation that becomes big enough tends to become a monopolist.
But while I argue that it is a bad thing that new firms face difficulty in entering markets locked out by big corporations, it does not follow that big corporations should therefore lower their standards or provide handicaps so as to give weaker entrants a chance.
The issue really is in the immense amount of power that resides in the hands of big corporations who now can redefine the rules as consumers become dependent on them, a power that is unchecked because there are few entrants and firms that can provide alternatives for consumers. With bigness comes great power and with great power comes the potential for great sin.
Also, there are tons of reasons why the pursuit of profit at all cost is bad, or why the Milton Friedman argument that the 'only thing businesses should care about is profit' is a dodgy mantra to follow. But here's an important one. Without virtues or ethical principles guiding a company's direction for profits, especially when the company is a monopolist, the company can be easily bought over by politicians.
Should there be any social elite with the capital who decides to further any self-serving agenda, any spineless powerful corporation can hop on the bandwagon to further the interests of that social elite, providing all sorts of support ranging from commodities to marketing to manipulation of consumers, as long as the social elite has sufficient money.
When political power and corporations come together, giving rise to the agenda-setting problems that the United States particularly faces, society can be quite doomed.
Thursday, 18 February 2010
Society Of Artists
A society of artists deeply intrigues me. It must be pretty close to the kind of public sphere I'd want to be. Knowing the generally stereotypical but pretty much accurate personality of genuine artists (not those who are merely superficially engaging in their art) - introverted, quirky, weird, reclusive, anti-social, profound, quiet, reserved, removed, detached - the kind of community made up of such people will be so far removed from social formalities that it will be a sort of utopia for me.
I might be naive in hoping that such a fantasy place will be the furthest removed away from the clutches of gross human nature, because most artists are quacks and weirdos anyway who have chosen not to subscribe to a 'normal' world for whatever reason - an inability to fit in, or the refusal to do so. In such a fantasy place, the things most worth living for are the artworks each individual entrusts his or her soul and truth to, while the individual himself or herself fades into the insignificant backdrop.
I might be naive in hoping that such a fantasy place will be the furthest removed away from the clutches of gross human nature, because most artists are quacks and weirdos anyway who have chosen not to subscribe to a 'normal' world for whatever reason - an inability to fit in, or the refusal to do so. In such a fantasy place, the things most worth living for are the artworks each individual entrusts his or her soul and truth to, while the individual himself or herself fades into the insignificant backdrop.
Thursday, 15 October 2009
Knowledge Is Power
We can accept that food shouldn't be taken for granted and it is a sin to waste it, because there are millions starving all over the world. That moral line of thought isn't difficult. But what about education? I would liken it to food, and I would never take a chance to learn for granted, because out there, millions of people, particularly children, are denied this valuable chance to learn.
In any case, this story about Babar Ali, the youngest schoolmaster (at 16 years old), and his little unofficial school in India should make the idea a little more salient and heartfelt.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8299780.stm
To me, education and knowledge is so important because it liberates people. Enslavement of a people can only happen unchallenged when a population is illiterate and unenlightened. This dates back to past millenia, as language was only propagated exclusively among political elites so that everyone else could be easily utilised as unquestioning slaves. Without the access to language and knowledge, people are relegated to animals as their awareness is undeveloped and they can only rely on instinct and other people, which is dangerous because it then allows powerful men to elicit tyrannious acts at their whims and fancies. Only through an enlightened voice can an idea spread through communication, poetry, music, art and revolution, and only then will a tyrant begin to fear his people.
When idealistic liberals see utopia as the perfect society run by many rational men and a minimal state, this is the realistic beauty of the idea that everyone can think for themselves so that a whimsically intervening tyrant isn't necessary, unfortunately undermined by the reality that human nature doesn't often quite meet the cut because we are still quite flawed. A part of the problem lies with governments who do want their people to be muted, apathetic, fragmented and powerless, because traditionally, government is about power monopoly and consolidation and they thus rationally fear liberty.
And from what I've seen in articles like the Babar Ali story and other accounts of civil society in suppressed African and Middle Eastern countries is that people do thirst desperately for knowledge, sometimes even at the expense of their own safety. We have it here in affluent Singapore as a birth right.
What Babar Ali shows us indeed is that we can be the change we want to see. Let knowledge be the light, and seek it as much as we want to be free.
In any case, this story about Babar Ali, the youngest schoolmaster (at 16 years old), and his little unofficial school in India should make the idea a little more salient and heartfelt.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8299780.stm
To me, education and knowledge is so important because it liberates people. Enslavement of a people can only happen unchallenged when a population is illiterate and unenlightened. This dates back to past millenia, as language was only propagated exclusively among political elites so that everyone else could be easily utilised as unquestioning slaves. Without the access to language and knowledge, people are relegated to animals as their awareness is undeveloped and they can only rely on instinct and other people, which is dangerous because it then allows powerful men to elicit tyrannious acts at their whims and fancies. Only through an enlightened voice can an idea spread through communication, poetry, music, art and revolution, and only then will a tyrant begin to fear his people.When idealistic liberals see utopia as the perfect society run by many rational men and a minimal state, this is the realistic beauty of the idea that everyone can think for themselves so that a whimsically intervening tyrant isn't necessary, unfortunately undermined by the reality that human nature doesn't often quite meet the cut because we are still quite flawed. A part of the problem lies with governments who do want their people to be muted, apathetic, fragmented and powerless, because traditionally, government is about power monopoly and consolidation and they thus rationally fear liberty.
And from what I've seen in articles like the Babar Ali story and other accounts of civil society in suppressed African and Middle Eastern countries is that people do thirst desperately for knowledge, sometimes even at the expense of their own safety. We have it here in affluent Singapore as a birth right.
What Babar Ali shows us indeed is that we can be the change we want to see. Let knowledge be the light, and seek it as much as we want to be free.
Sunday, 11 October 2009
Pour La Liberté
I believe profoundly that everyone wishes to be who they want to be, except that many people do not realise this innate desire and there are also many others who mute it.
Take for example girls dressing up. I think every girl wishes she could dress up nice and put on make-up without being judged for it. It's hardwired and there's nothing wrong for a girl to feel that way. Nothing wrong, until other people start putting her down for it, for whatever reason - the plainjane group she belongs to trying to keep her a part of them, the pretty group trying to play her down so that she can be kept in check and won't threaten their own privileged position, or maybe even society playing out enforcements of class distinction, so that this poor girl silences her will and 'knows her role' in the bigger scheme of things.
That's why I think when plainjane girls, who are initially perceived as simple, get attached and finally have a means out of the stigmatized roles they have been socially assigned to, they really surprise us and dress up more. With their new boyfriend, they don't have to conform to the wishes or expectations of the group they used to be associated with. They now have the (much more attractive) alternative of going out with the boyfriend wearing whatever they wanna wear, and not get flak for it.
This is but one example of the fear of expectations, even those that only exist in our minds but not in reality, imposing on us and making us a lot less than we can be. I think this is what diminishes a society and compromises on diversity and vibrance, and it's only to the loss of everyone else as well that we all can't do what we think is best for us.
Unfortunately, as most liberal-cynics will contend, "Most people want security in this world, not liberty." (H. L. Mencken)
But I'd always rather be faced with the inconvenience of having too much freedom, than a lack of it.
Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light not our darkness that most frightens us. We ask ourselves "who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous, talented and fabulous?" Actually, who are you not to be? You are a child of God. Your playing small doesn't serve the world. There's nothing enlightened about shrinking so that other people won't feel insecure around you... As we let our light shine, we consciously give other people permission to do the same. As we are liberated from our own fear, our presence actually liberates others.
- Marianne Williamson, as quoted by Nelson Mandella in a 1994 Inaugural Address.
Take for example girls dressing up. I think every girl wishes she could dress up nice and put on make-up without being judged for it. It's hardwired and there's nothing wrong for a girl to feel that way. Nothing wrong, until other people start putting her down for it, for whatever reason - the plainjane group she belongs to trying to keep her a part of them, the pretty group trying to play her down so that she can be kept in check and won't threaten their own privileged position, or maybe even society playing out enforcements of class distinction, so that this poor girl silences her will and 'knows her role' in the bigger scheme of things.
That's why I think when plainjane girls, who are initially perceived as simple, get attached and finally have a means out of the stigmatized roles they have been socially assigned to, they really surprise us and dress up more. With their new boyfriend, they don't have to conform to the wishes or expectations of the group they used to be associated with. They now have the (much more attractive) alternative of going out with the boyfriend wearing whatever they wanna wear, and not get flak for it.
This is but one example of the fear of expectations, even those that only exist in our minds but not in reality, imposing on us and making us a lot less than we can be. I think this is what diminishes a society and compromises on diversity and vibrance, and it's only to the loss of everyone else as well that we all can't do what we think is best for us.
Unfortunately, as most liberal-cynics will contend, "Most people want security in this world, not liberty." (H. L. Mencken)
But I'd always rather be faced with the inconvenience of having too much freedom, than a lack of it.
Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light not our darkness that most frightens us. We ask ourselves "who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous, talented and fabulous?" Actually, who are you not to be? You are a child of God. Your playing small doesn't serve the world. There's nothing enlightened about shrinking so that other people won't feel insecure around you... As we let our light shine, we consciously give other people permission to do the same. As we are liberated from our own fear, our presence actually liberates others.
- Marianne Williamson, as quoted by Nelson Mandella in a 1994 Inaugural Address.
Thursday, 1 October 2009
Legality
There has been a significant correlation between the level of legality of a country and its level of individualism. In other words, the more complex, reliable and encompassing a country's legal system is, the more it shifts from a collectivistic nature to an individualistic one.
There is good reason for this. It explains why western societies, steeped in centuries of legal tradition, are more individualistic. America and Europe have great legal traditions. China, on the contrary, didn't have any laws pertaining to many aspects of modern civilised society, including business and court settlements, until about half a century ago despite its long-drawn glorious history. In eastern, Asian societies, because the legal system is less established and less dependable, relationships are vital to ensuring that agreements are honoured. From a functionalist perspective, as a result, collectivism serves its purpose of keeping people bonded for good reason - trust comes not from a law-abiding contract, but from the honest word of each person involved in the agreement.
On the other hand, a sturdy legal system functions as a good arbitrator to settle disputes; thus people in individualistic societies have shifted the responsibility of ensuring that a deal stays clean to a system that punishes dishonourable people based on a code of objective law. This has allowed them to forgo the bonds of collectivism.
This is why capitalism/individualism and socialism/collectivism are dichotomously opposed. Capitalism is anchored on objective principles, such as individual rights, reason, non-coercion and the protection of property. Socialism is anchored on more fluid principles as altruism, subjective reciprocity and trust, and the subordination of man to the servitude of the greater collective.
There is good reason for this. It explains why western societies, steeped in centuries of legal tradition, are more individualistic. America and Europe have great legal traditions. China, on the contrary, didn't have any laws pertaining to many aspects of modern civilised society, including business and court settlements, until about half a century ago despite its long-drawn glorious history. In eastern, Asian societies, because the legal system is less established and less dependable, relationships are vital to ensuring that agreements are honoured. From a functionalist perspective, as a result, collectivism serves its purpose of keeping people bonded for good reason - trust comes not from a law-abiding contract, but from the honest word of each person involved in the agreement.
On the other hand, a sturdy legal system functions as a good arbitrator to settle disputes; thus people in individualistic societies have shifted the responsibility of ensuring that a deal stays clean to a system that punishes dishonourable people based on a code of objective law. This has allowed them to forgo the bonds of collectivism.
This is why capitalism/individualism and socialism/collectivism are dichotomously opposed. Capitalism is anchored on objective principles, such as individual rights, reason, non-coercion and the protection of property. Socialism is anchored on more fluid principles as altruism, subjective reciprocity and trust, and the subordination of man to the servitude of the greater collective.
Wednesday, 6 May 2009
Apathy
"I have a very strong feeling that the opposite of love is not hate - it's apathy. It's not giving a damn."
- Leo Buscaglia
If there is anything worse than being evil or hateful, it is blind, unthinking apathy. Ignorance, apathy and a lack of thought is the weapon by which bad acts are enacted. Without the parochial masses, there will be no means for those capable of evil to exact their intentions. In essence, one who is capable of hate still has the propensity for taking a stand and, by virtue of that, can then be convinced with rationality and reason. Attacking the opinions of such a person will still evoke a thinking response.
"Apathy is the slow poison coursing through the body politic that paves the way to tyranny."
- Laurence Overmire
But the one who is apathetic and unthinking has no such thought logic. Being devoid of a want for deeper clarification and understanding of things leaves much room for the inability to be properly enlightened, resulting in behaviour that follows the crowd without rootedness in objective morals. Such an unenlightened state leads one and many to the ills of dispassionateness, erosion of tradition and consumerism. And in such an apathetic state of mind, there is little propensity for genuine guilt should one commit an act of evil, other than guilt you have been told to experience in order to make yourself seem like a normal person, an emotional response adopted in a bid to belong to the normal order of the world.
Apathy is the basis of blind faith for those who do not bother to seek beyond the lines and colours of what they see. When pressed for reasons, they will only have textbook answers, beyond which there is often nothing else but shrugs or emotional states of defensiveness.
Stripped of the tangible, material ropes that anchor these parochials to some popularly held state of mind, they are left with nothing. And with disgust, they can be watched as they stray aimlessly until they locate and leech themselves to some other reasonably attractive truth, axiom or following; intellect and responsibility exchanged for comfort, security and a sense of self defined by someone else.
"Words ought to be a little wild, for they are the assaults of thought on the unthinking."
- John Maynard Keynes
Audio Candy:
Feist - Let It Die
- Leo Buscaglia
If there is anything worse than being evil or hateful, it is blind, unthinking apathy. Ignorance, apathy and a lack of thought is the weapon by which bad acts are enacted. Without the parochial masses, there will be no means for those capable of evil to exact their intentions. In essence, one who is capable of hate still has the propensity for taking a stand and, by virtue of that, can then be convinced with rationality and reason. Attacking the opinions of such a person will still evoke a thinking response.
"Apathy is the slow poison coursing through the body politic that paves the way to tyranny."
- Laurence Overmire
But the one who is apathetic and unthinking has no such thought logic. Being devoid of a want for deeper clarification and understanding of things leaves much room for the inability to be properly enlightened, resulting in behaviour that follows the crowd without rootedness in objective morals. Such an unenlightened state leads one and many to the ills of dispassionateness, erosion of tradition and consumerism. And in such an apathetic state of mind, there is little propensity for genuine guilt should one commit an act of evil, other than guilt you have been told to experience in order to make yourself seem like a normal person, an emotional response adopted in a bid to belong to the normal order of the world.
Apathy is the basis of blind faith for those who do not bother to seek beyond the lines and colours of what they see. When pressed for reasons, they will only have textbook answers, beyond which there is often nothing else but shrugs or emotional states of defensiveness.
Stripped of the tangible, material ropes that anchor these parochials to some popularly held state of mind, they are left with nothing. And with disgust, they can be watched as they stray aimlessly until they locate and leech themselves to some other reasonably attractive truth, axiom or following; intellect and responsibility exchanged for comfort, security and a sense of self defined by someone else.
"Words ought to be a little wild, for they are the assaults of thought on the unthinking."
- John Maynard Keynes
Audio Candy:
Feist - Let It Die
Sunday, 18 January 2009
Rise And Fall
I'm celebrating my reunion dinner today, a full week in advance from the actual day because tradition, once again, doesn't hold up to conveniences. My yearly reunion dinners are celebrated together with my extended family on my dad's side so it's a huge group. On the actual day, we'd be fighting the crowds and higher prices, in addition to being much busier doing Chinese New Year preparations closer to the day, so everyone figured that they'd be better off just coming together on an alternate day instead. Why not?
I've nothing against having my reunion dinner away from the actual date, my weak belief in this whole festival notwithstanding, but on an academic note I think this again shows that, somewhere between the adages that change is the only constant and that modernity has no room for tradition, we seem to have a natural social programming to gravitate away from saturated or expired practices; 'saturated' and 'expired' only so defined by the people of the age they own.
No one can say for sure that traditional Catholic axioms are absolute truths, that making it back on the actual day religiously for reunion dinner every year is the best way to preserve the family, that refraining from the television makes one a better person. But neither can anyone say for a fact that such thoughts or practices are outdated. Human nature doesn't provide the intelligence to discern whether moving in a certain direction ultimately leads to a demise for our species. For now, living in an information and internet technology-intense era just redefines what the masses believe should be the right way to live.
There is hardly a right or wrong here when the majority intends to ostracise and ultimately condemn and eliminate minority or dying practices. At the very basis of social human behaviour, people will instinctively frown upon acts that do not go with the flow. Even more deep-seated than that, when one considers Gestalt psychology, people naturally group even black squares and blue circles according to what makes it look most convenient to describe. When practices are perceived as obstacles, then people will evolve by changing those practices or ditching them. We are innately wired to deny those we perceive as deviant and as we move along the chain reaction from the mind to society at large, sometimes it really comes as no surprise when age-old practices are compromised to make way for convenience and efficiency, often euphemised with a seemingly innocent "why not?" by unknowing revolutionists while blasted as a blasphemous indecency by the generation we are leaving behind.
With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to smallpox. Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.
- Charles Darwin
Audio Candy:
I See Stars - Save The Cheerleader
I've nothing against having my reunion dinner away from the actual date, my weak belief in this whole festival notwithstanding, but on an academic note I think this again shows that, somewhere between the adages that change is the only constant and that modernity has no room for tradition, we seem to have a natural social programming to gravitate away from saturated or expired practices; 'saturated' and 'expired' only so defined by the people of the age they own.
No one can say for sure that traditional Catholic axioms are absolute truths, that making it back on the actual day religiously for reunion dinner every year is the best way to preserve the family, that refraining from the television makes one a better person. But neither can anyone say for a fact that such thoughts or practices are outdated. Human nature doesn't provide the intelligence to discern whether moving in a certain direction ultimately leads to a demise for our species. For now, living in an information and internet technology-intense era just redefines what the masses believe should be the right way to live.
There is hardly a right or wrong here when the majority intends to ostracise and ultimately condemn and eliminate minority or dying practices. At the very basis of social human behaviour, people will instinctively frown upon acts that do not go with the flow. Even more deep-seated than that, when one considers Gestalt psychology, people naturally group even black squares and blue circles according to what makes it look most convenient to describe. When practices are perceived as obstacles, then people will evolve by changing those practices or ditching them. We are innately wired to deny those we perceive as deviant and as we move along the chain reaction from the mind to society at large, sometimes it really comes as no surprise when age-old practices are compromised to make way for convenience and efficiency, often euphemised with a seemingly innocent "why not?" by unknowing revolutionists while blasted as a blasphemous indecency by the generation we are leaving behind.
With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to smallpox. Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.
- Charles Darwin
Audio Candy:
I See Stars - Save The Cheerleader
Monday, 21 April 2008
Bimbo
Richard and I are sitting in Mr Tea and he's been busying himself with some Rubik cubing and me with a book and then getting on the net with my laptop, and sporadically eavesdropping on a group of 3 girls frantically talking about really funny and weird guys-don't-and-won't-get-it stuff. Like how being tall is cool, how 'big hair' is nice and yet unattainable, if wearing spectacles allows you to not put make up on etc.
So I was prompted to dig up an old comic strip that I cut out from the papers quite some time ago:
So I was prompted to dig up an old comic strip that I cut out from the papers quite some time ago:
(When guys hang out)
(When girls hang out)
I guess it can be likened to girls saying that the stuff guys spout, like cars and technology and Rubik's cube and soccer, are equally inane. I might argue that stuff like that require a greater degree of more useful knowledge and ability (see On Female Mediocrity), but I guess, who am I to make a normative judgement and say what's more important in this world?
It kinda reminds me of the other day when Angie and I were at Takashimaya and I asked her if Jimmy Choo was like some local brand and she went, "omg, bimbo moment!" Of course, to me that totally didn't constitute to being anywhere near 'foolish, stupid or inept' (see bimbo) in the sense of the word because it doesn't strike me being as important as, say, knowing the difference between a speedometer and an odometer, or some other bit of knowledge as being more 'worth knowing' in my personal opinion. Like when some girls push on pull doors, don't know who Kim Jong Il is, or are unaware after a year that SMU has a Social Science faculty, those are what I'd consider to be real bimbo moments.
But I guess we live in a world that has been historically institutionalised by the male gender anyway. If the world was inherently matriarchal, perhaps being pretty with dainty nails, fussing over hair and makeup and knowing your Manolo Blahniks from your Charles & Keiths are what really matters, vis-a-vis understanding the offside rule. Hahar.
Welsh men only marry Welsh women because sheep can't cook.
Audio Candy:
Taylor Swift - Teardrops On My Guitar
Friday, 21 March 2008
I Think, Therefore I Am; I Dream, Therefore I Become
In a heaven of people there's only some want to fly
Ain't that crazy
Oh babe Oh darlin'
In a world full of people there's only some want to fly
Isn't that crazy, crazy, crazy
But we're never gonna survive unless we get a little crazy
Time and again I am prompted to revisit these thoughts about having dreams and passions in life to work towards, about finding something greater than yourself so that you've got a sense of purpose, about having something that you aspire to do or be, not something that someone else tells you that you should or shouldn't do.
I'm not trying to romanticise the idea that we should all have a dream (or dreams), especially for the glamour factor. The media tries to sell us that idea so often that people can end up having impractical, naive "passions" just for the sake of it. But on the other hand, there are just so many things that greater institutions dictate such that many of us lose sight of what it really means to be alive. It would be truly magnificent to see a nation of people step back and out of the dark to see for themselves beyond what we are told to see.
I live in a country where almost everything is fabricated, regulated and policy-driven - our sense of nationhood, our economy, and our goals and dreams. Maybe it isn't all that a terrible thing; we've probably progressed much faster in terms of achieving stability and growth compared to many other countries, which is remarkable for a young nation.
But we've compromised a lot in terms of building a culture that we can personally identify with, in the sense of being ourselves. And we can tell by the way we're trying to establish something here now after all these years, as we frantically pump capital and resources into our sports and arts sectors amongst other overlooked things thus far. We're finally opening up. I've seen more bands performing live concerts here in the past 2 or 3 years than ever before, Zoolander became legalised, the IR's on its way, and we're going to have F1 racing and many other things. We're pushing to become an arts and cultural hub. It's not a bad thing at all, but because it might be a little late, the inertia will be there.
From the way I see it, from the moment we're born, our purpose is clear - to become the nuts and bolts of the clockwork that is Singapore Inc. Anyone who tries to rock the boat gets marginalised, ostracised or incarcerated some way or other, especially when expectations are socially constructed, woven into the fabric of our daily lives and constantly reproduced in cyclical fashion. In line with attempting to achieve the ideal life that we're expected to achieve, we're given narrow paths to take in life; our choices are very much dictated by a greater order and it is very often not our own. I see this so often in people and friends who tell me that they're feeling lost, that they're getting the grades just to please their folks, that they just can't pursue what they like cos they can't afford to fuck up in the preliminary heats that lead up to the rat race. So, because of these things, it's hard to spare room for so-called 'frivolous passions' and 'pipe dreams'.
Just think about it. You wanna be a soccer player. But a part of you, so strongly ingrained, says you have to ensure that you graduate with some qualifications so that you can at least have a decent job if your soccer aspirations fail. It's things like that. And as long as such a mentality of the fear of failure exists, it is hard to give our best in other things. And it is yet still true that such fears are not unwarranted. It is almost like it's part of our national character to have those fears.
But life can be so much more than just being a statistic. You'd exist as a forgotten cell in an entity, but to truly live, this resides in finding something that is bigger and more important than you are and dedicating yourself to it. And this isn't a force-fed process - this purpose in life can only be purposeful if it's true.
Only then can we break away from simply existing and transforming into something of value, not for anybody, but for ourselves especially. We really could do with holding our dreams and passions dear even if it isn't easy to leave our comfort zones and be socially unconforming, and it is a worthwhile journey even if we do not succeed at them. We can then shed so many other material things that weigh us down and yet still feel more spiritually fulfilled.
I cannot even fathom how much better it could be for our society if we could all embrace what is truly important to us; to have more people that I could talk to who speak with a burning conviction of knowing that something matters more to them than just making sure they can stand in line. It is truly a joy to converse with people who have found a true sense of calling - there's always that spark in their eyes.
And when you have that kinda bottomline that really means something, then life is so much simpler. Life is only as tough, complicated or as lost as chasing after stuff that don't mean anything to you.
We are all born with wings but we are told to burn them along the way. Screw that. Spread them and fly towards the light that defines your destiny.
The whole world steps aside for the man who knows where he is going.
Audio Candy:
Ice Nine Kills - The Greatest Story Ever Told
Ain't that crazy
Oh babe Oh darlin'
In a world full of people there's only some want to fly
Isn't that crazy, crazy, crazy
But we're never gonna survive unless we get a little crazy
Time and again I am prompted to revisit these thoughts about having dreams and passions in life to work towards, about finding something greater than yourself so that you've got a sense of purpose, about having something that you aspire to do or be, not something that someone else tells you that you should or shouldn't do.
I'm not trying to romanticise the idea that we should all have a dream (or dreams), especially for the glamour factor. The media tries to sell us that idea so often that people can end up having impractical, naive "passions" just for the sake of it. But on the other hand, there are just so many things that greater institutions dictate such that many of us lose sight of what it really means to be alive. It would be truly magnificent to see a nation of people step back and out of the dark to see for themselves beyond what we are told to see.
I live in a country where almost everything is fabricated, regulated and policy-driven - our sense of nationhood, our economy, and our goals and dreams. Maybe it isn't all that a terrible thing; we've probably progressed much faster in terms of achieving stability and growth compared to many other countries, which is remarkable for a young nation.
But we've compromised a lot in terms of building a culture that we can personally identify with, in the sense of being ourselves. And we can tell by the way we're trying to establish something here now after all these years, as we frantically pump capital and resources into our sports and arts sectors amongst other overlooked things thus far. We're finally opening up. I've seen more bands performing live concerts here in the past 2 or 3 years than ever before, Zoolander became legalised, the IR's on its way, and we're going to have F1 racing and many other things. We're pushing to become an arts and cultural hub. It's not a bad thing at all, but because it might be a little late, the inertia will be there.
From the way I see it, from the moment we're born, our purpose is clear - to become the nuts and bolts of the clockwork that is Singapore Inc. Anyone who tries to rock the boat gets marginalised, ostracised or incarcerated some way or other, especially when expectations are socially constructed, woven into the fabric of our daily lives and constantly reproduced in cyclical fashion. In line with attempting to achieve the ideal life that we're expected to achieve, we're given narrow paths to take in life; our choices are very much dictated by a greater order and it is very often not our own. I see this so often in people and friends who tell me that they're feeling lost, that they're getting the grades just to please their folks, that they just can't pursue what they like cos they can't afford to fuck up in the preliminary heats that lead up to the rat race. So, because of these things, it's hard to spare room for so-called 'frivolous passions' and 'pipe dreams'.
Just think about it. You wanna be a soccer player. But a part of you, so strongly ingrained, says you have to ensure that you graduate with some qualifications so that you can at least have a decent job if your soccer aspirations fail. It's things like that. And as long as such a mentality of the fear of failure exists, it is hard to give our best in other things. And it is yet still true that such fears are not unwarranted. It is almost like it's part of our national character to have those fears.
But life can be so much more than just being a statistic. You'd exist as a forgotten cell in an entity, but to truly live, this resides in finding something that is bigger and more important than you are and dedicating yourself to it. And this isn't a force-fed process - this purpose in life can only be purposeful if it's true.
Only then can we break away from simply existing and transforming into something of value, not for anybody, but for ourselves especially. We really could do with holding our dreams and passions dear even if it isn't easy to leave our comfort zones and be socially unconforming, and it is a worthwhile journey even if we do not succeed at them. We can then shed so many other material things that weigh us down and yet still feel more spiritually fulfilled.
I cannot even fathom how much better it could be for our society if we could all embrace what is truly important to us; to have more people that I could talk to who speak with a burning conviction of knowing that something matters more to them than just making sure they can stand in line. It is truly a joy to converse with people who have found a true sense of calling - there's always that spark in their eyes.
And when you have that kinda bottomline that really means something, then life is so much simpler. Life is only as tough, complicated or as lost as chasing after stuff that don't mean anything to you.
We are all born with wings but we are told to burn them along the way. Screw that. Spread them and fly towards the light that defines your destiny.
The whole world steps aside for the man who knows where he is going.
Audio Candy:
Ice Nine Kills - The Greatest Story Ever Told
Friday, 22 February 2008
If She Gets Nowhere In Life...
At least she knows she's pretty.
I really like these lines from the song Straw Dog by Something Corporate. At first glance, it sounds somewhat sad in a trifling way as she only has a very perishable quality; it's the one thing she's good at, and good looks don't last.
But on further thought, it actually really is a warming and empowering thing to know of; that the girl is able to come to terms with her predicament of not getting anywhere in life and acknowledges the fact that she is still pretty nonetheless.
To begin with, consider the esteem problems that virtually every girl faces. Deep down inside, no girl thinks she's pretty enough, and I think this afflicts even the prettiest and the most egoistic of girls. Regardless of whether it is because of the media-portrayed unattainable ideal beauty of a woman or a fundamental biological issue due to the emotional and perfectionistic nature of girls in this aspect, every normal, average girl seems to have some degree of insecurity about the way she looks.
'At least she knows she's pretty', then, is a celebration of the girl who has come to terms with her insecurities and accepts that she is pretty. Or pretty enough. That is more than anyone can really ask for I guess. Prettiness may be superficial, but here's her clincher - so what if it is? Strong indeed is the girl who can acknowledge her prettiness (or beauty), whether she really is or not. Such a girl has truly come to terms with her feminine propensity.
To dig further, the 'if she gets nowhere in life'-line represents the idea that we all must get somewhere in life and this 'place' of destiny is often not self-defined, but rather ascertained by society in the forms of a job, an education or a husband. Or looks, as the media, amongst other socially-reinforcing means, deems fit.
This part of the lyric is about chasing after a societal benchmark and then falling short of it. Here, then, we celebrate the girl who doesn't let the all too familiar criticism get to her head and instead revels in the self awareness that she's 'pretty'.
And by 'pretty', this could mean every single trifling, frivolous quality she has, such as a liking for flowers, a great voice for singing, some graceful dancing feet and other passions she owns that society tries to suppress by telling her that she naturally ain't good at math in school, to get a real job or find a typical man for a husband. When at least she knows she's pretty, at least she knows that she has passions and as long as her heart is open, she will get somewhere someday.
This is still a very optimistic interpretation and I may be criticised for that, but that's how I'd see it beyond the typical sadness of having only to rely on a very transient and temporal quality when you haven't lived up to society's yardsticks.
And boy, I'd toast my heart out to any girl with the innocence and courage like that.
Staring into the intersection, she thinks that she can fly and she might
Holding on in a new direction, she's gonna try it tonight
The closer I get to feeling, the further that I'm feeling from alright
The more I step into the sun, the more I step out of the light
Jessica is covered in a blanket on a Sunday porch
Thinking of weekends she would party in the city
She doesn't have a flame, she'd prefer to burn out like a torch
If she gets nowhere in life, at least she know's she pretty
She said, "Hey, now, the straw dog's out in the street
Hey now, there's chemicals in the clouds
Hey now, they're calling the police
They won't get to us, anyhow."
The moon is shining now and shadows are what's left of all the noise
Simple silhouettes and cutouts as if we had the choice
He listens closely now, swears that he can hear a voice
That's calling him
And saying, "Hey, now, the straw dog's out in the street
Hey now, there's chemicals in the clouds
Hey now, they're calling the police
They won't get to us, anyhow."
What does it take to be a superhero in our world?
Make no mistake that these villains always get the girl
We can escape, and then we'd skate away from all of this
And no one ever does.
She's saying "Hey, now, the straw dog's out in the street
Hey now, there's chemicals in the clouds
Hey now, they're calling the police
They won't get to us, anyhow."
Straw Dog
Something Corporate
On the lyrics, SoCo says, "that actually comes back to that book I was telling you about, the 'Dao De Jing', it’s a reference from that book. A 'straw dog' is like this ceremonial figure in some, I’m going to really fuck this up, but in some eastern culture it’s almost how a crucifix is looked at in Christianity. The only difference is after it’s one of the most respected thing in their ceremonies, they trash it out in the street, they beat it up and disregard it."
"To me that was kind of a pretty decent statement about the way youth is treated in America. Like everybody says that they’re our future and most important thing in the world. Then you see the way that teachers and police and everybody treat them, they kind of treat them like shit even though they supposedly the most honored thing in the world. That’s kind of like my take on it."
"It’s not anything I would ever expect anybody to decipher, it’s like the most senseless babble. To me writing was never more of an inventing type thing. If I can’t relate to it on personal level then it’s bullshit to me anyway, so it ends up being more specific than general."
Marriage is a three ring circus: engagement ring, wedding ring, and suffering.
Audio Candy:
Buckcherry - Sorry
I really like these lines from the song Straw Dog by Something Corporate. At first glance, it sounds somewhat sad in a trifling way as she only has a very perishable quality; it's the one thing she's good at, and good looks don't last.
But on further thought, it actually really is a warming and empowering thing to know of; that the girl is able to come to terms with her predicament of not getting anywhere in life and acknowledges the fact that she is still pretty nonetheless.
To begin with, consider the esteem problems that virtually every girl faces. Deep down inside, no girl thinks she's pretty enough, and I think this afflicts even the prettiest and the most egoistic of girls. Regardless of whether it is because of the media-portrayed unattainable ideal beauty of a woman or a fundamental biological issue due to the emotional and perfectionistic nature of girls in this aspect, every normal, average girl seems to have some degree of insecurity about the way she looks.
'At least she knows she's pretty', then, is a celebration of the girl who has come to terms with her insecurities and accepts that she is pretty. Or pretty enough. That is more than anyone can really ask for I guess. Prettiness may be superficial, but here's her clincher - so what if it is? Strong indeed is the girl who can acknowledge her prettiness (or beauty), whether she really is or not. Such a girl has truly come to terms with her feminine propensity.
To dig further, the 'if she gets nowhere in life'-line represents the idea that we all must get somewhere in life and this 'place' of destiny is often not self-defined, but rather ascertained by society in the forms of a job, an education or a husband. Or looks, as the media, amongst other socially-reinforcing means, deems fit.
This part of the lyric is about chasing after a societal benchmark and then falling short of it. Here, then, we celebrate the girl who doesn't let the all too familiar criticism get to her head and instead revels in the self awareness that she's 'pretty'.
And by 'pretty', this could mean every single trifling, frivolous quality she has, such as a liking for flowers, a great voice for singing, some graceful dancing feet and other passions she owns that society tries to suppress by telling her that she naturally ain't good at math in school, to get a real job or find a typical man for a husband. When at least she knows she's pretty, at least she knows that she has passions and as long as her heart is open, she will get somewhere someday.
This is still a very optimistic interpretation and I may be criticised for that, but that's how I'd see it beyond the typical sadness of having only to rely on a very transient and temporal quality when you haven't lived up to society's yardsticks.
And boy, I'd toast my heart out to any girl with the innocence and courage like that.
Staring into the intersection, she thinks that she can fly and she might
Holding on in a new direction, she's gonna try it tonight
The closer I get to feeling, the further that I'm feeling from alright
The more I step into the sun, the more I step out of the light
Jessica is covered in a blanket on a Sunday porch
Thinking of weekends she would party in the city
She doesn't have a flame, she'd prefer to burn out like a torch
If she gets nowhere in life, at least she know's she pretty
She said, "Hey, now, the straw dog's out in the street
Hey now, there's chemicals in the clouds
Hey now, they're calling the police
They won't get to us, anyhow."
The moon is shining now and shadows are what's left of all the noise
Simple silhouettes and cutouts as if we had the choice
He listens closely now, swears that he can hear a voice
That's calling him
And saying, "Hey, now, the straw dog's out in the street
Hey now, there's chemicals in the clouds
Hey now, they're calling the police
They won't get to us, anyhow."
What does it take to be a superhero in our world?
Make no mistake that these villains always get the girl
We can escape, and then we'd skate away from all of this
And no one ever does.
She's saying "Hey, now, the straw dog's out in the street
Hey now, there's chemicals in the clouds
Hey now, they're calling the police
They won't get to us, anyhow."
Straw Dog
Something Corporate
On the lyrics, SoCo says, "that actually comes back to that book I was telling you about, the 'Dao De Jing', it’s a reference from that book. A 'straw dog' is like this ceremonial figure in some, I’m going to really fuck this up, but in some eastern culture it’s almost how a crucifix is looked at in Christianity. The only difference is after it’s one of the most respected thing in their ceremonies, they trash it out in the street, they beat it up and disregard it."
"To me that was kind of a pretty decent statement about the way youth is treated in America. Like everybody says that they’re our future and most important thing in the world. Then you see the way that teachers and police and everybody treat them, they kind of treat them like shit even though they supposedly the most honored thing in the world. That’s kind of like my take on it."
"It’s not anything I would ever expect anybody to decipher, it’s like the most senseless babble. To me writing was never more of an inventing type thing. If I can’t relate to it on personal level then it’s bullshit to me anyway, so it ends up being more specific than general."
Marriage is a three ring circus: engagement ring, wedding ring, and suffering.
Audio Candy:
Buckcherry - Sorry
Saturday, 27 October 2007
It's been over 2 weeks since I kept in touch with the anonymous masses who surprisingly make the hit counter on this site jump, and of course friends who actually still bother dropping by.
CCA's been a problem because of a couple of things. It's a little weird why I still haven't been able to give soccer a shot yet, and alot of it has to do with there not being an opportunity to enter it somewhat. It doesn't really help that I don't know any of the year 1s who are in there now, and they joined way before school started. Post-trials, it's been very quiet.
Then there's Samba Masala. I love the music and the people are great and all that, but there's very obvious commitment problems. And with the introduction of next year's exchange program to Helsinki, it's hard to not show interest in going when the rest are really hoping everyone can go. Like, sincerely. And amidst all the complications leading up to me being abit in too deep now, quitting is gonna be a problem.
377A has been kept after the petitions because of the landslide victory (about 16k vs 8k). I voted to repeal, but it isn't really the result that matters. The fact that such a consideration has been made does show progress already and it's about time cos Singapore's very late amongst developed countries to tackle the issue.
There have been lots of opportunities for me to do my homosexuality research and discussions, both formally in the form of reports and informally in the form of small deep talk with people. It's been cool cos it's really interesting to be able to convert all that trivial conversation of sorts into something I can formally work on in school for research and such. On my psychology research paper, I'm working not so much on whether being gay is a nature or nurture problem, but rather on the social and psychological repercussions of repression of sexuality.
Mid terms seem well so far, with my stats notching a respectable 22/30 considering I totally didn't study, and 81% for psychology which is 5% above the mean, also with minimal mugging done. I wonder if I could have a personal aim of attempting to listen in class hard enough to resort to not needing to study for my social science related papers. Awaiting sociology now.
In a flash, mid term break is over (like over a week ago already) and 1 week holidays don't mean a thing cos I need more than just a week to actually be able to switch into a 'the holiday mood's sinking in feeling', even IF I choose to believe it's a holiday unlike almost every other SMU student. I had so much trouble finding supper buddies that I even resorted to going down on my own.
Talked to Chris quite some time ago. The fast-paced, no fixed class culture of SMU is such that you hardly get opportunities to form very strong bonds with anyone, and all this is in the light of SMU's networking, corporate objective - to mirror the working world and all of it's practical glory. Let's say you're someone who thinks you can go to school and then perhaps meet some girls and find a girlfriend or something, it's not even that simple. Even after all the group meetings (where you unarguably spend more personal time with people unlike normal classes), people still very much have their own personal lives established prior to SMU to go to; or at least they'd rather be there.
The whole structure of Singapore's educational upper class is such that most guys will end up dating girls 2 years younger than them. I don't really have an objective opinion about that other than the fact that the whole NS thing does have its impact on the sociological structure of those within the academic upper class, which does make me wonder what happens if there wasn't any of this.
My LTB project is in Seventeen magazine's October issue. And also, I'm active on Facebook now because of Scrabulous. Open for challenges now! Alright Dudley's birthday in an hour or so. Ciao.
Love your enemies! It really gets them confused!
Today's Listenables:
The Juliana Theory - Shotgun Serenade
CCA's been a problem because of a couple of things. It's a little weird why I still haven't been able to give soccer a shot yet, and alot of it has to do with there not being an opportunity to enter it somewhat. It doesn't really help that I don't know any of the year 1s who are in there now, and they joined way before school started. Post-trials, it's been very quiet.
Then there's Samba Masala. I love the music and the people are great and all that, but there's very obvious commitment problems. And with the introduction of next year's exchange program to Helsinki, it's hard to not show interest in going when the rest are really hoping everyone can go. Like, sincerely. And amidst all the complications leading up to me being abit in too deep now, quitting is gonna be a problem.
377A has been kept after the petitions because of the landslide victory (about 16k vs 8k). I voted to repeal, but it isn't really the result that matters. The fact that such a consideration has been made does show progress already and it's about time cos Singapore's very late amongst developed countries to tackle the issue.
There have been lots of opportunities for me to do my homosexuality research and discussions, both formally in the form of reports and informally in the form of small deep talk with people. It's been cool cos it's really interesting to be able to convert all that trivial conversation of sorts into something I can formally work on in school for research and such. On my psychology research paper, I'm working not so much on whether being gay is a nature or nurture problem, but rather on the social and psychological repercussions of repression of sexuality.
Mid terms seem well so far, with my stats notching a respectable 22/30 considering I totally didn't study, and 81% for psychology which is 5% above the mean, also with minimal mugging done. I wonder if I could have a personal aim of attempting to listen in class hard enough to resort to not needing to study for my social science related papers. Awaiting sociology now.
In a flash, mid term break is over (like over a week ago already) and 1 week holidays don't mean a thing cos I need more than just a week to actually be able to switch into a 'the holiday mood's sinking in feeling', even IF I choose to believe it's a holiday unlike almost every other SMU student. I had so much trouble finding supper buddies that I even resorted to going down on my own.
Talked to Chris quite some time ago. The fast-paced, no fixed class culture of SMU is such that you hardly get opportunities to form very strong bonds with anyone, and all this is in the light of SMU's networking, corporate objective - to mirror the working world and all of it's practical glory. Let's say you're someone who thinks you can go to school and then perhaps meet some girls and find a girlfriend or something, it's not even that simple. Even after all the group meetings (where you unarguably spend more personal time with people unlike normal classes), people still very much have their own personal lives established prior to SMU to go to; or at least they'd rather be there.
The whole structure of Singapore's educational upper class is such that most guys will end up dating girls 2 years younger than them. I don't really have an objective opinion about that other than the fact that the whole NS thing does have its impact on the sociological structure of those within the academic upper class, which does make me wonder what happens if there wasn't any of this.
My LTB project is in Seventeen magazine's October issue. And also, I'm active on Facebook now because of Scrabulous. Open for challenges now! Alright Dudley's birthday in an hour or so. Ciao.
Love your enemies! It really gets them confused!
Today's Listenables:
The Juliana Theory - Shotgun Serenade
Wednesday, 29 November 2006
For most cases, sending your kid to a school like Rosyth's like trying to put him or her on a path that leads on, hopefully, to academic excellence. But what can really determine these things? We shape our destiny as fate shapes us, two seemingly unfathomable concepts intertwined to bring us full circle to where we are now, and very much beyond.
Having spent most of my schooling years in, I'd admittedly say, the higher-end of the academic class (though not that much higher-end, just a little bit above the average on the scale) seriously puts me in a social culture that is relatively shielded away from most of the basic ills of society. The other day on the bus, some young, undecorous lout had an argument with a bus conductor and proceeded on to lay a barrage of hokkien vulgarities on the old man who was just trying to do his job. And last week, some kid was contemplating whether he should jump from my block cos he 'de2 zui4' (offended) some other retard. I'm going to SMU a little under a year's time; where exactly do I have the place for such people or scenarios conceptually in my life, no matter how apparently simple these examples may seem?
Having spent most of my schooling years in, I'd admittedly say, the higher-end of the academic class (though not that much higher-end, just a little bit above the average on the scale) seriously puts me in a social culture that is relatively shielded away from most of the basic ills of society. The other day on the bus, some young, undecorous lout had an argument with a bus conductor and proceeded on to lay a barrage of hokkien vulgarities on the old man who was just trying to do his job. And last week, some kid was contemplating whether he should jump from my block cos he 'de2 zui4' (offended) some other retard. I'm going to SMU a little under a year's time; where exactly do I have the place for such people or scenarios conceptually in my life, no matter how apparently simple these examples may seem?
Tuesday, 15 August 2006
Singapore Inc.
Oh happy belated birthday to the nation. Other than some very probable cliches, I don't really have much to comment this year around, so I've decided to quote some good excerpts from blogs I've read. Copyrights earned of course. ;)
The youths in Singapore are losing their identity and sense of belonging. I'm not sure who I'm speaking for, but I'm pretty sure it's not just a lonesome three to four. Polls have said it, half of the youths in Singapore would emigrate if given the chance. To rejoice or to despair?
I believe one of the reasons why Singaporeans are slowly losing their identity is partly the nation's fault, society's fault. Firstly, there's that lack of transparency on what the nation is doing for us. Secondly, they keep wanting us to be something else, or someone else. For example, wanting us to speak perfect English to "match up" with the ang mohs, or learning Chinese to keep up with China the growing dragon or whatever pet name it's given, or brushing up on Tamil as India's growing too. You can call us a multi-racial society and be proud of it, but it's not fair to exploit that and emphasizing on language so much in such a coercing manner. If there weren't those fireworks or the holiday, would the youths remember it's Singapore's independence day tomorrow? Would anyone embrace the day as a special day worth commemorating? Or would it just be another holiday? Singapore is indeed doing a lot for us, keeping the streets safe, making those policies to ensure every one of us gets sufficient education and so on and so forth, but then somehow people know only how to focus on the bad stuff, like rising transportation fares (does anyone ever feel thankful for the considerably-high pay they're getting compared to like native Indos?), stressful work environments, and bad education system which kinda limits students in some way and turns them all into bloody muggers who care only about results and nothing else. Our protective leaders' plans are backfiring on them, turning all their lovely citizens into narrow-minded self-centered money-minded people.
- Gracelina
I've been to the NE show when I was a starry-eyed Primary 5 kid, I've performed when I was a Nanyang Girl in Sec 1, I've been part of the audience 2 years ago, and this year I'm an usher for the last NDP at the National Stadium. For a possible quitter that is quite an awful lot of involvement in THE nation-building show, hahas.
It went from being awed by the fireworks to swelling with pride singing the national anthem after performing on the field to being somewhat cynical while on the audience stands, and this time I don't know what to feel. NDP hasn't exactly changed over the years--the formations are the few basic shapes you toy around with, the song singing of "future" and "peace" and "stars" and "soaring", the videos always appropriately reminding us of how we overcame our hardships etc [I just HAD to stifle a laugh when someone in one of the videos said "I am free to express myself."]
In so many ways the NDP show is a miniature replica of how the government would like Singapore Inc to work--months of hard work in nation-building that would have everyone believing and belonging, celebrating our achievements and the fact that we are Singaporeans and we are here, we've got it made, happy and all (remember, 4 million smiles or the police will arrest you for being unfriendly). Age strips the rose-tinted glasses away--the heart hardens and we dismiss each message as propaganda, which it is, really, but today I realise that it is not necessarily a bad thing because it doesn't make sense to badmouth/feedback on this day, because it doesn't seem right to not be idealistic and hopeful for a better Singapore, especially on National Day.
- Chris
I don't really have something specific to say in these recent times of growing anxiety about youths of our nation and politics of the country, and recently I realised that I'm becoming more of a backseat person - listening more than I speak, which, more often than not, turns out to be the wiser thing to do. But for a very, very inspiring read, go here. It's an interview with the late David Marshall. I know most people would probably dismiss this link but reconsider doing that, coz trust me this read could potentially change how you think, at least for awhile (heck if you had to choose between reading my online journal or that interview I'd say go for the interview dmnit.).
Met Gracia, an old schoolmate and ex-neighbour of mine (actually we still stay very much in proximity) the other day for a round of supper, and I was posed a question: "are you satisfied with your life?" And somewhere along those lines the question "what have you achieved?" probably lingered in anticipation of an answer as well.
How many of us have actually asked ourselves that question, and seriously gave that question a thought? I haven't until now. Deroose's asked me that before and it was half-dismissed because I thought it was too idealistic a question to consider at that point of time in my life when I was very much still in the platoon sergeant hotseat (clearing leave now and handed over! Woot).
Besides, what can you do when you're in the army right? That fuckin' obstacle in the prime of your youth? People can claim to have answered that question and gave an answer as dismally as I have thinking that it's okay, but now I realise it's not really alright.
After some reflecting, I guess I've tried to make my team, if not my unit, a better place to be in, and that's as heroic as I can get within my legal means. Because trying anything beyond that, especially as an NSF sergeant, is simply out of the question. Perhaps I've tried to change the system but failed, and maybe I can say that's the cause of my dissatisfaction. But I think I do have reason to be satisfied. In very basic, physical terms, I hope that I've cultivated a sense of pride in our team to be the best at what they can do, both for and against the system. Unity is strength, and you can't underestimate people power. Think I'm getting a little carried away again... But changing the system on my own would amount to opposing the government in its very funny, micro-level kinda way; a government which has cleverly buffered itself in its God-complex so as to be untouchable.
Take OC and CO relations for example, and why the chain of command is so strongly enforced upon the men to go through the right flow of channels. For those who aren't in the know... I can't elaborate here. Touchy issues.
Then again sometimes I think, is that really it? Or is that what I'd like to believe it is... Am I really as pensively intelligent as I think I am? Or am I just making a crapload of noise here, just like almost everybody else? Because sometimes I see chinks in my armour of seemingly correct principles.
I'm in a period of time where I'll probably look back on in the future and feel stupid of myself about. I've read back on some of the stuff I wrote, especially during phases of my life where I'm especially impressionable, not just towards trends but towards perspectives and beliefs as well. And I wished I could just go back in time and slap myself for the immature, silly stuff I did or said.
When it comes to being really clever, I suck. There are people I know whom I admire for their speed of thought and strategic foresight (qualities I think I fall short in), and when it comes to actually knowing stuff, I'm sorely lacking as well. I do not know global problems because I do not follow the news. But then again can I be faulted just because this is what society says is the right thing to do? Who determines what's right or wrong, or normal anyway?
I am who I've convinced myself I am to be. That's about it but it's more profound than it actually sounds.
Sometimes I do feel a sad longing for some place in society I'd really belong to. I've been constantly constrained by a lot of circumstances to do things I don't feel purposeful for. Going to schools to ensure I'm kept in the paper chase, I'll admit, is important. But it's left me feeling terribly empty. Through the years I've ended up in cultures devoid of people I can come alive with. Don't get me wrong, I love the bunch of fellas that make up my platoons through my army stint, but the stuff that they talk about or the music they listen to just simply don't cut it with me, and I'm constantly lying to myself just to keep up... It's tiring. Maybe as a platoon sergeant I saw it as a job to interact so as to understand the men better. But now that I'm letting it go, I'm really gonna let it go. Going to SMU after I ORD sure gives me sensations of escapism.
To what extent can I be faulted for not trying hard enough to be different, or make a difference? I genuinely believe I'm not a typical Zhonghua-to-NYJC-to-NTU-engineering student but whenever I have dreams of my own, voices tell me to forgo them because they're not practical. Truthfully, am I all for the paper chase and emphasis on the rice bowl? Why am I being faulted when my focus on a money-making career lapses when that's not what I really want? People can really try to convince themselves with their self-help books and blog rants that life is more than just a rat race but each time I talk to people, they keep convincing me that in the eyes and minds of the masses, that's all there is to life and ambition.
Weijian once said that we're living in a fucked up country. It is indeed an acidicly sweeping statement to make, but it does hold a certain amount of truth when he points out that every morning, people are rushing to bus stops and through train stations chasing god-knows-what and going home late at night. It's bad enough just to be in the rushing crowd for more inconsequential reasons like booking in to camp, and it's sick to know that conventionally, they're who you'd eventually become. Anonymous automatons of society.
But being in my unit has woken me up a little and while I have done what I could to make a difference there, I think it's about time to try and step out as an individual to be different. And eventually attempt to make a difference in society.
I wished more of us could have the courage to live. To give to your fellow brethren without expecting anything in return.
Starting to clear leave now. The light at the end of the tunnel is getting brighter... Just hope there aren't any potholes along the way that could really fuck things up in very unwelcome ways. Can't wait to throw all this down and escape into the life of a student again. I'm being an optimistic idealist for the moment.
Yes, I have a charmed life but it's not because of fairy dust, of self-help books, of circumstances or a bazillionheirress cash-flow. It is because I choose the path in which I walk.
The youths in Singapore are losing their identity and sense of belonging. I'm not sure who I'm speaking for, but I'm pretty sure it's not just a lonesome three to four. Polls have said it, half of the youths in Singapore would emigrate if given the chance. To rejoice or to despair?
I believe one of the reasons why Singaporeans are slowly losing their identity is partly the nation's fault, society's fault. Firstly, there's that lack of transparency on what the nation is doing for us. Secondly, they keep wanting us to be something else, or someone else. For example, wanting us to speak perfect English to "match up" with the ang mohs, or learning Chinese to keep up with China the growing dragon or whatever pet name it's given, or brushing up on Tamil as India's growing too. You can call us a multi-racial society and be proud of it, but it's not fair to exploit that and emphasizing on language so much in such a coercing manner. If there weren't those fireworks or the holiday, would the youths remember it's Singapore's independence day tomorrow? Would anyone embrace the day as a special day worth commemorating? Or would it just be another holiday? Singapore is indeed doing a lot for us, keeping the streets safe, making those policies to ensure every one of us gets sufficient education and so on and so forth, but then somehow people know only how to focus on the bad stuff, like rising transportation fares (does anyone ever feel thankful for the considerably-high pay they're getting compared to like native Indos?), stressful work environments, and bad education system which kinda limits students in some way and turns them all into bloody muggers who care only about results and nothing else. Our protective leaders' plans are backfiring on them, turning all their lovely citizens into narrow-minded self-centered money-minded people.
- Gracelina
I've been to the NE show when I was a starry-eyed Primary 5 kid, I've performed when I was a Nanyang Girl in Sec 1, I've been part of the audience 2 years ago, and this year I'm an usher for the last NDP at the National Stadium. For a possible quitter that is quite an awful lot of involvement in THE nation-building show, hahas.
It went from being awed by the fireworks to swelling with pride singing the national anthem after performing on the field to being somewhat cynical while on the audience stands, and this time I don't know what to feel. NDP hasn't exactly changed over the years--the formations are the few basic shapes you toy around with, the song singing of "future" and "peace" and "stars" and "soaring", the videos always appropriately reminding us of how we overcame our hardships etc [I just HAD to stifle a laugh when someone in one of the videos said "I am free to express myself."]
In so many ways the NDP show is a miniature replica of how the government would like Singapore Inc to work--months of hard work in nation-building that would have everyone believing and belonging, celebrating our achievements and the fact that we are Singaporeans and we are here, we've got it made, happy and all (remember, 4 million smiles or the police will arrest you for being unfriendly). Age strips the rose-tinted glasses away--the heart hardens and we dismiss each message as propaganda, which it is, really, but today I realise that it is not necessarily a bad thing because it doesn't make sense to badmouth/feedback on this day, because it doesn't seem right to not be idealistic and hopeful for a better Singapore, especially on National Day.
- Chris
I don't really have something specific to say in these recent times of growing anxiety about youths of our nation and politics of the country, and recently I realised that I'm becoming more of a backseat person - listening more than I speak, which, more often than not, turns out to be the wiser thing to do. But for a very, very inspiring read, go here. It's an interview with the late David Marshall. I know most people would probably dismiss this link but reconsider doing that, coz trust me this read could potentially change how you think, at least for awhile (heck if you had to choose between reading my online journal or that interview I'd say go for the interview dmnit.).
Met Gracia, an old schoolmate and ex-neighbour of mine (actually we still stay very much in proximity) the other day for a round of supper, and I was posed a question: "are you satisfied with your life?" And somewhere along those lines the question "what have you achieved?" probably lingered in anticipation of an answer as well.
How many of us have actually asked ourselves that question, and seriously gave that question a thought? I haven't until now. Deroose's asked me that before and it was half-dismissed because I thought it was too idealistic a question to consider at that point of time in my life when I was very much still in the platoon sergeant hotseat (clearing leave now and handed over! Woot).
Besides, what can you do when you're in the army right? That fuckin' obstacle in the prime of your youth? People can claim to have answered that question and gave an answer as dismally as I have thinking that it's okay, but now I realise it's not really alright.
After some reflecting, I guess I've tried to make my team, if not my unit, a better place to be in, and that's as heroic as I can get within my legal means. Because trying anything beyond that, especially as an NSF sergeant, is simply out of the question. Perhaps I've tried to change the system but failed, and maybe I can say that's the cause of my dissatisfaction. But I think I do have reason to be satisfied. In very basic, physical terms, I hope that I've cultivated a sense of pride in our team to be the best at what they can do, both for and against the system. Unity is strength, and you can't underestimate people power. Think I'm getting a little carried away again... But changing the system on my own would amount to opposing the government in its very funny, micro-level kinda way; a government which has cleverly buffered itself in its God-complex so as to be untouchable.
Take OC and CO relations for example, and why the chain of command is so strongly enforced upon the men to go through the right flow of channels. For those who aren't in the know... I can't elaborate here. Touchy issues.
Then again sometimes I think, is that really it? Or is that what I'd like to believe it is... Am I really as pensively intelligent as I think I am? Or am I just making a crapload of noise here, just like almost everybody else? Because sometimes I see chinks in my armour of seemingly correct principles.
I'm in a period of time where I'll probably look back on in the future and feel stupid of myself about. I've read back on some of the stuff I wrote, especially during phases of my life where I'm especially impressionable, not just towards trends but towards perspectives and beliefs as well. And I wished I could just go back in time and slap myself for the immature, silly stuff I did or said.
When it comes to being really clever, I suck. There are people I know whom I admire for their speed of thought and strategic foresight (qualities I think I fall short in), and when it comes to actually knowing stuff, I'm sorely lacking as well. I do not know global problems because I do not follow the news. But then again can I be faulted just because this is what society says is the right thing to do? Who determines what's right or wrong, or normal anyway?
I am who I've convinced myself I am to be. That's about it but it's more profound than it actually sounds.
Sometimes I do feel a sad longing for some place in society I'd really belong to. I've been constantly constrained by a lot of circumstances to do things I don't feel purposeful for. Going to schools to ensure I'm kept in the paper chase, I'll admit, is important. But it's left me feeling terribly empty. Through the years I've ended up in cultures devoid of people I can come alive with. Don't get me wrong, I love the bunch of fellas that make up my platoons through my army stint, but the stuff that they talk about or the music they listen to just simply don't cut it with me, and I'm constantly lying to myself just to keep up... It's tiring. Maybe as a platoon sergeant I saw it as a job to interact so as to understand the men better. But now that I'm letting it go, I'm really gonna let it go. Going to SMU after I ORD sure gives me sensations of escapism.
To what extent can I be faulted for not trying hard enough to be different, or make a difference? I genuinely believe I'm not a typical Zhonghua-to-NYJC-to-NTU-engineering student but whenever I have dreams of my own, voices tell me to forgo them because they're not practical. Truthfully, am I all for the paper chase and emphasis on the rice bowl? Why am I being faulted when my focus on a money-making career lapses when that's not what I really want? People can really try to convince themselves with their self-help books and blog rants that life is more than just a rat race but each time I talk to people, they keep convincing me that in the eyes and minds of the masses, that's all there is to life and ambition.
Weijian once said that we're living in a fucked up country. It is indeed an acidicly sweeping statement to make, but it does hold a certain amount of truth when he points out that every morning, people are rushing to bus stops and through train stations chasing god-knows-what and going home late at night. It's bad enough just to be in the rushing crowd for more inconsequential reasons like booking in to camp, and it's sick to know that conventionally, they're who you'd eventually become. Anonymous automatons of society.
But being in my unit has woken me up a little and while I have done what I could to make a difference there, I think it's about time to try and step out as an individual to be different. And eventually attempt to make a difference in society.
I wished more of us could have the courage to live. To give to your fellow brethren without expecting anything in return.
Starting to clear leave now. The light at the end of the tunnel is getting brighter... Just hope there aren't any potholes along the way that could really fuck things up in very unwelcome ways. Can't wait to throw all this down and escape into the life of a student again. I'm being an optimistic idealist for the moment.
Yes, I have a charmed life but it's not because of fairy dust, of self-help books, of circumstances or a bazillionheirress cash-flow. It is because I choose the path in which I walk.
Wednesday, 12 April 2006
Being in a unit like mine really enables me to observe very fascinating forms of interaction between people as this unit is truly a melting pot of people from all walks of life, and somehow being in charge of them puts me in a very interesting position.
Of course that means having to deal with the occasional fucker who shirks work. Put a couple of people like that together and you get an irritable prick in the system. It's not that hard to understand why I'm willing to put in a little more effort behind the scenes to get shit done instead of pushing things to the men (just because of a fuckin' superiority complex) when I believe in actually working harder to validate my reception of earning an extra $200 every month.
I guess my unit's like a microcosm of societies out there, and like most cases, what really lacks is a serious sense of empathy, especially from the top people towards the men on the ground. And I've always had a bit of a feminist streak (read: feminist, not feminine) in me so I believe that most fuckups occur because of chauvinistic egos. Some guys just seem to relish the chance to put others down whenever they can, like when a mistake is made, or when something isn't done up to standard even if the effort's been made. Then all the weapons of an egotistical bullying emerge, like insults and sarcasm. Bloody gay stuff.
But then again, sometimes I think some women should seriously go for some form of NS-ing of their own. I don't mean in the sense of having them experience the physical aspects of training like how most people are misconcepted to believe when it comes to the point of the said issue (coz I think that's just plain unrealistic and shallow; as that would be plainly making a comparison and whining that life isn't fair in a sissyboy kinda way, to which I don't particularly condone), but in the form of having to work in a unit, especially one which isn't exactly glorious in any way, and of which having to carry out your duties pretty much involves dragging yourself through self-discipline and responsibility. This is because some girls I know sometimes whine just a tad too much for my liking, to which I wish I could tell them in a more convincing manner that life isn't as perfect and idealistic as their immature minds perceive things to be. I suppose that when you get thrown into the shithole you'll grow up pretty fast. But don't get me wrong, it's not like every girl I know is like that.
Of course that means having to deal with the occasional fucker who shirks work. Put a couple of people like that together and you get an irritable prick in the system. It's not that hard to understand why I'm willing to put in a little more effort behind the scenes to get shit done instead of pushing things to the men (just because of a fuckin' superiority complex) when I believe in actually working harder to validate my reception of earning an extra $200 every month.
I guess my unit's like a microcosm of societies out there, and like most cases, what really lacks is a serious sense of empathy, especially from the top people towards the men on the ground. And I've always had a bit of a feminist streak (read: feminist, not feminine) in me so I believe that most fuckups occur because of chauvinistic egos. Some guys just seem to relish the chance to put others down whenever they can, like when a mistake is made, or when something isn't done up to standard even if the effort's been made. Then all the weapons of an egotistical bullying emerge, like insults and sarcasm. Bloody gay stuff.
But then again, sometimes I think some women should seriously go for some form of NS-ing of their own. I don't mean in the sense of having them experience the physical aspects of training like how most people are misconcepted to believe when it comes to the point of the said issue (coz I think that's just plain unrealistic and shallow; as that would be plainly making a comparison and whining that life isn't fair in a sissyboy kinda way, to which I don't particularly condone), but in the form of having to work in a unit, especially one which isn't exactly glorious in any way, and of which having to carry out your duties pretty much involves dragging yourself through self-discipline and responsibility. This is because some girls I know sometimes whine just a tad too much for my liking, to which I wish I could tell them in a more convincing manner that life isn't as perfect and idealistic as their immature minds perceive things to be. I suppose that when you get thrown into the shithole you'll grow up pretty fast. But don't get me wrong, it's not like every girl I know is like that.
Tuesday, 15 November 2005
There was a segment on CNA about Deng Xiaoping earlier and I think my dad's a fan of his, and was like talking about DXP's idea of one-country-two-systems and how the poor-didn't-go-to-school-but-turned-into-a-national-leader-bloke called the world his university.
That led me to think that ironically, the modern privilege of going to school from young somehow stifles our children and enforces a systematic rhythm to society, and that's where all the social ills of a cold and failure-condemning world like Singapore comes about. The elusiveness of study and the harsh situations people like DXP had to endure gave them a passion for learning and a purpose in life. So, with all due respect to the honourable people who've went through a shitty childhood without proper education and became leaders, I guess maybe not being able to go through any form of institutionalised study can be a privilege in itself that many people now won't dare to risk taking.
I've always been one to advocate free learning in place of study drills, art instead of science and creativity rather than conformity. I think it's laughable to think that art can be taught the way they are now in schools. As a victim of conformity largely in part due to my folks, I've been going through my academic life via the science route, when it was obvious my inclinations are very much towards art. I was at my prime in lower secondary and even managed a top 10 placing due to general art and design technology studies, and when I embarked on the triple science journey that everyone else seems to wanna take, my results just hurtled downhill. Once again due to societal and familial pressures I went on to take maths, chemistry and physics in junior college, and emerged with pretty mediocre shit for my As. Unsurprisingly, GP was my best subject and paper, the only thing I'm proud to mention about after two years of slogging through. I've never been one to sit down and mug coz I really really detest reading for the sake of studying, and anyway I can't sit down just to swallow notes for nuts, so it's really no wonder now I feel so unfulfilled after all these years and I'm more than determined to go to perhaps mass com or take arts and social sciences in university. I'm always convinced that there really isn't a point ultimately to study something you don't believe in or lack a passion for because you're not gonna benefit from it other than getting that grade for a subject you actually find distasteful, so in the end I guess it's all about how true you wanna be to yourself.
I recently read an article by Colin Chee in the Newpaper and there was this quote which caught my attention: "... be a society that can stare failure in the face until it blinks." And he mentioned about a society that has individuals who dare to take the lead and show the way without having to look for someone more senior in age or appointment, and how very true that statement is. That article was about the rigidity of modern Singapore.
That led me to think that ironically, the modern privilege of going to school from young somehow stifles our children and enforces a systematic rhythm to society, and that's where all the social ills of a cold and failure-condemning world like Singapore comes about. The elusiveness of study and the harsh situations people like DXP had to endure gave them a passion for learning and a purpose in life. So, with all due respect to the honourable people who've went through a shitty childhood without proper education and became leaders, I guess maybe not being able to go through any form of institutionalised study can be a privilege in itself that many people now won't dare to risk taking.
I've always been one to advocate free learning in place of study drills, art instead of science and creativity rather than conformity. I think it's laughable to think that art can be taught the way they are now in schools. As a victim of conformity largely in part due to my folks, I've been going through my academic life via the science route, when it was obvious my inclinations are very much towards art. I was at my prime in lower secondary and even managed a top 10 placing due to general art and design technology studies, and when I embarked on the triple science journey that everyone else seems to wanna take, my results just hurtled downhill. Once again due to societal and familial pressures I went on to take maths, chemistry and physics in junior college, and emerged with pretty mediocre shit for my As. Unsurprisingly, GP was my best subject and paper, the only thing I'm proud to mention about after two years of slogging through. I've never been one to sit down and mug coz I really really detest reading for the sake of studying, and anyway I can't sit down just to swallow notes for nuts, so it's really no wonder now I feel so unfulfilled after all these years and I'm more than determined to go to perhaps mass com or take arts and social sciences in university. I'm always convinced that there really isn't a point ultimately to study something you don't believe in or lack a passion for because you're not gonna benefit from it other than getting that grade for a subject you actually find distasteful, so in the end I guess it's all about how true you wanna be to yourself.
I recently read an article by Colin Chee in the Newpaper and there was this quote which caught my attention: "... be a society that can stare failure in the face until it blinks." And he mentioned about a society that has individuals who dare to take the lead and show the way without having to look for someone more senior in age or appointment, and how very true that statement is. That article was about the rigidity of modern Singapore.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
