Its been a 2-week slump. Glad its finally over. Things were rather overwhelming really, with the veritable mountain of law readings to do. And 2 project papers. And ... well the list goes on. The odd thing is people randomly telling me, "But you're Mike" and therefore "no problem one!", to which I must say, "I'm sorry, but that REALLY doesn't help." Being me doesn't actually reduce the amount of work.
But I have to thank God for single-handedly pulling me out of that funk. Best part of it? It was only 2 weeks, and I spent 1 of those ill. So not too bad. Enough time to put everything back in order. The even better part? I get a whole new set of lyrics (to which I can't attach a tune, since I still can't play any instrument to ANY degree of competency) to go with the shift in outlook (for those of you who are curious, its UPWARD). Great thing that God isn't against rock music (sorry conservative folk, you're still wrong), or I might never have stepped up my game (God isn't against rap music either. sorry again if you're conservative about these things. You still happen to be wrong. But its ok 'cos I didn't expect a change a heart over a full stop.)
So here's the new song (without a score 'cos, well, see above), partly inspired by listening to lots of Guns & Roses. Its called 'keys'.
Disclaimer: The first bit is copyright of Mr Bob Dylan, unless its been assigned to some other folk, then they 'own' it, assuming of course the assignment is valid and so on. If it doesn't seem familiar, I only have this to ask: where ya been the last 30 years? Hiding in a cave? If you have, you better have awesome kung fu to show for it or else ... man ... you really wasted all your time.
Right. Enough of my flippant sarcastic humour. On with the lyrics.
Knock knock, knockin' on heaven's door
Knock knock, knockin' on heaven's door
Knock knock, knockin' on heaven's door
Knock knock, knockin' on heaven's door
[abrupt break and some speech]
"Why are we knocking on heaven's door again?"
"Times are tough, man. Need a breakthrough. Damn it, I need a miracle!"
"Still, why are we knocking?"
"Door's closed."
"Got the keys, don't we?"
[music restarts]
[verse 1]
Though a thousand fall beside me
And ten thousand at my right hand
I rest in the arms of The Almighty
No it will not ... come near me
Through the waters and scorching fires
I cast my fears to the side
Your rod and staff, they comfort me
I will soar with eagles over seas
Yes, these keys I have received
In Messiah ... I believe ...
[chorus]
What I bind on Earth, will be bound in Heaven
What I loose on Earth, my Father sets free
No problem too great, nor need to small
No voice too weak, He will hear your call
No eye has seen, nor ear has heard
What the Lord has prepared, for His church
Above and beyond what man can conceive
The love of the Father will meet your need
[verse 2]
All it take is, a bit of faith
Tiny as a mustard seed
Place tomorrow in His hands
Trust in your Passover Lamb
Your Great High Priest upon the throne
Merciful and gracious, so be bold
Run to Him in times of need
Sweet relief, you will receive
A promise was made to us
And in God ... we trust ...
[chorus]
[bridge]
Oh I have the keys to heaven's gates
Yes His Kingdom ... is at hand
On this Rock I place my life
And having done all .... I'll stand
Yep. That took a while to write down and play with a little. But I'm quite happy with the raw version all the same.
Till next time, whenever,
mike.
Monday, November 10, 2008
Thursday, September 18, 2008
Really hilarious lyrics ...
From a Guns 'N Roses Song .... Used to Love Her
Absolutely cracked me up ... WARNING! its kinda morbid though ...
I used to love her
But I had to kill her
I had to put her
Six feet under
And I can still hear her complain
I used to love her
But I had to kill her
I used to love her
But I had to kill her
I knew I'd miss her
So I had to keep her
She's buried right in my back yard.
... like a scene outta CSI
Absolutely cracked me up ... WARNING! its kinda morbid though ...
I used to love her
But I had to kill her
I had to put her
Six feet under
And I can still hear her complain
I used to love her
But I had to kill her
I used to love her
But I had to kill her
I knew I'd miss her
So I had to keep her
She's buried right in my back yard.
... like a scene outta CSI
Friday, August 01, 2008
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
On Myanmar, Weeks On
I refrained from writing about Myanmar's disaster situation too soon after Cyclone Nargis. This is not because I wanted to avoid causing more pain to the thousands of Burmese people who read my blog daily, since those Burmese people are a mere figment of my over-active imagination. No, my reticence was borne of a desire to see what Yangon would do, and how ASEAN would react. I held myself back even when the Secretary General of ASEAN gave an interview on ChannelNewsAsia, believing that something positive could come of all of this talk.
I am sorely disappointed.
There are many divergent philosophies to political legitimacy. Democracy advocates see legitmacy as flowing from the will of the people. In a nutshell, if the people choose you to lead, you are legitimately their ruler. This may surprise some people, but there are other schools of thought. Most significantly in Asia, is the concept of "the mandate of heaven".
Before someone decries this as no more than a label for arbitrary tyranny, the concept needs to be established in its full detail. Being a largely Asian concept, it is often misunderstood and misconstrued in Western media. The mandate of heaven is a derivation of the divine right to rule. However, it carries with it a heavy burden of caring for the populace. Failure to do so results in a revocation of that mandate.
The very idea of a mandate implies that it is given by another entity, and similarly can be withdrawn. In ancient China, the advent of multiple natural disasters was in itself considered a sign of the loss of mandate.
Why are we discussing sources of political legitimacy? Because without relying on a democratic philosophy as a framework, it can still be clearly shown that the military government has no legitimacy whatsoever. The writer is an admirer of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi's labour for Myanmar, and is aware of the military coup that resulted in her unjustified imprisonment. Nonetheless, the military junta's lack of legitimacy is clearly established, even without reference to the coup.
Disavowing democratic philosophy for the moment, the military junta of Myanmar has no legitimacy because its actions directly increase the misery of the people. It has stymied international aid, failed to mobilise the army to provide support, and instead using it to drive refugees back to their 'homes'. The point is not that the junta has tried and failed to be a boon to the people. It is that the junta has deliberately acted in ways that are inevitably disastrous to its people.
The military junta is not the de jure government of Myanmar. This is not to say that some fictional democratic government most likely led by Ms Suu Kyi is the de jure government, as there could likely be no government at all at the present time.
So why does the international community, and ASEAN, continue to deal with the junta? As Chairman Mao once said, political power comes from the barrel of the gun, and the military junta has all the guns in Myanmar. In effect, it is the de facto government, and the international community needs to deal with it, but there is a limit to peaceful means.
It is estimated that millions of people are in danger of losing their lives from starvation and disease if humanitarian aid does not reach them soon. Many have already died. There is no ethnic cleansing. No apartheid, no Holocaust. But clearly, when the government through deliberate inaction and interference allows millions of its own citizens to die, it is genocide and there is good ground for direct military intervention.
There is a certain irony in this. This writer is proposing sending in military forces for the sole purpose of allowing humanitarian aid to flow into Myanmar. It is an emergency scenario, where delays literally cost lives. How many human lives are we willing to trade to give the junta's generals the time to consider how best to let aid in without relinquishing their grip on political power? This writer submits that one life is already one too many.
Will there be a Security Council veto if a proposal to intervene with force is raised? Perhaps. China may veto the motion. But this close to the Beijing Olympics, with memories of Sichuan and how well China acquitted itself in that disaster, perhaps not. And even if there is a veto, it could be time again for the General Assembly of the United Nations to Unite for Peace.
Mr George Yeo, Secretary General of ASEAN, noted that progress was slow because the junta was highly wary and skeptical of foreign aid. Translated, the junta is wary that they will lose political power. Unsurprising, given their abject lack of political legitimacy. Also, while the armed forces are capable of suppressing their own people, they are insufficient to resist any modern military force.
At the end of everything, here is the litmus test. How many more human lives are we willing to trade to assuage the junta's sensitivities, illegitimate as they are?
I am sorely disappointed.
There are many divergent philosophies to political legitimacy. Democracy advocates see legitmacy as flowing from the will of the people. In a nutshell, if the people choose you to lead, you are legitimately their ruler. This may surprise some people, but there are other schools of thought. Most significantly in Asia, is the concept of "the mandate of heaven".
Before someone decries this as no more than a label for arbitrary tyranny, the concept needs to be established in its full detail. Being a largely Asian concept, it is often misunderstood and misconstrued in Western media. The mandate of heaven is a derivation of the divine right to rule. However, it carries with it a heavy burden of caring for the populace. Failure to do so results in a revocation of that mandate.
The very idea of a mandate implies that it is given by another entity, and similarly can be withdrawn. In ancient China, the advent of multiple natural disasters was in itself considered a sign of the loss of mandate.
Why are we discussing sources of political legitimacy? Because without relying on a democratic philosophy as a framework, it can still be clearly shown that the military government has no legitimacy whatsoever. The writer is an admirer of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi's labour for Myanmar, and is aware of the military coup that resulted in her unjustified imprisonment. Nonetheless, the military junta's lack of legitimacy is clearly established, even without reference to the coup.
Disavowing democratic philosophy for the moment, the military junta of Myanmar has no legitimacy because its actions directly increase the misery of the people. It has stymied international aid, failed to mobilise the army to provide support, and instead using it to drive refugees back to their 'homes'. The point is not that the junta has tried and failed to be a boon to the people. It is that the junta has deliberately acted in ways that are inevitably disastrous to its people.
The military junta is not the de jure government of Myanmar. This is not to say that some fictional democratic government most likely led by Ms Suu Kyi is the de jure government, as there could likely be no government at all at the present time.
So why does the international community, and ASEAN, continue to deal with the junta? As Chairman Mao once said, political power comes from the barrel of the gun, and the military junta has all the guns in Myanmar. In effect, it is the de facto government, and the international community needs to deal with it, but there is a limit to peaceful means.
It is estimated that millions of people are in danger of losing their lives from starvation and disease if humanitarian aid does not reach them soon. Many have already died. There is no ethnic cleansing. No apartheid, no Holocaust. But clearly, when the government through deliberate inaction and interference allows millions of its own citizens to die, it is genocide and there is good ground for direct military intervention.
There is a certain irony in this. This writer is proposing sending in military forces for the sole purpose of allowing humanitarian aid to flow into Myanmar. It is an emergency scenario, where delays literally cost lives. How many human lives are we willing to trade to give the junta's generals the time to consider how best to let aid in without relinquishing their grip on political power? This writer submits that one life is already one too many.
Will there be a Security Council veto if a proposal to intervene with force is raised? Perhaps. China may veto the motion. But this close to the Beijing Olympics, with memories of Sichuan and how well China acquitted itself in that disaster, perhaps not. And even if there is a veto, it could be time again for the General Assembly of the United Nations to Unite for Peace.
Mr George Yeo, Secretary General of ASEAN, noted that progress was slow because the junta was highly wary and skeptical of foreign aid. Translated, the junta is wary that they will lose political power. Unsurprising, given their abject lack of political legitimacy. Also, while the armed forces are capable of suppressing their own people, they are insufficient to resist any modern military force.
At the end of everything, here is the litmus test. How many more human lives are we willing to trade to assuage the junta's sensitivities, illegitimate as they are?
Monday, June 02, 2008
War? on Terror
No, the title is not mispunctuated. There has been much confusion and debate surrounding how to deal with the threat of Al-Qaeda and international organised terror, simply because terrorists escape easy classification within the current rules of war.
In most wars, the Geneva Conventions are readily applicable. The distinction between civilian and combatant is very clear. The person wearing a uniform and carrying a rifles is a soldier, and the person in jeans and a t-shirt is a civilian. During war, if you shoot the soldier, it is legal. If you shoot the civilian, its a war crime.
This brings us to the whole problem with terrorism. Is it a war or not? If it is, who are the combatants, and who are the innocent bystanders?
Nations engage in warfare for many reasons, but most people accept that warfare is justified in a defensive capacity - to protect the lives and livelihoods of its citizens. In the past, the threat would have come from another nation. Today, the main armed threat to most human lives is terrorism, which has no borders. Nonetheless, the threat to human lives is real, and governments owe a responsibility to their citizens to defend them from terrorists, even if it means shooting to kill. Thus, the defence against terrorism is rightly classified as a war.
There is an added problem when it comes to a war on terror. There are no uniforms to identify combatants, and strictly speaking, even in a conventional war, combatants are not limited to those who bear arms. Take for example a truck loaded with armed soldiers. Surely the armed soldiers are combatatns. How about the military driver who is uarmed? He plays a supporting role in the war. Surely he could be considered a combatant as well. At the very least, if the truck exploded under gunfire, it would be a stretch to consider the killing of the driver a war crime. So we understand that people within the organisation that fights the war who provide support for that war can be combatants as well, even if they do not carry arms. Where no combatant within that organisation weras uniforms, anyone providing them with support could be a part of its support structure, with no discernable way of distinguishing between "civilian" and "military" support without questioning at the very least (especially since the writer does not endorse torture).
Communications personnel are part of any military support structure. They connect various fighting units, provide intelligence and so on. They are in fact a vital part of any military organisation, and due to their role is disseminating information, they are key in implementing strategy.
Therefore, in this war on terror, enemy (terrorist) communications personnel, that is to say people who provide information to terorrists, help recruit terrorists, or relay information for terrorists, are rightly considered as enemy combatants and should only be afforded the limited rights granted by the Geneva Convention, which does not proscribe detention without trial.
The International Herald Tribute wrote about a Belgian woman who openly supports Al-Qaeda, does recrutiment for them and so on. She should be detained indefinitely as an enemy combatant.
Note: We should just be clear on this in Singapore, instead of invoking the controversial Internal Security Act.
In most wars, the Geneva Conventions are readily applicable. The distinction between civilian and combatant is very clear. The person wearing a uniform and carrying a rifles is a soldier, and the person in jeans and a t-shirt is a civilian. During war, if you shoot the soldier, it is legal. If you shoot the civilian, its a war crime.
This brings us to the whole problem with terrorism. Is it a war or not? If it is, who are the combatants, and who are the innocent bystanders?
Nations engage in warfare for many reasons, but most people accept that warfare is justified in a defensive capacity - to protect the lives and livelihoods of its citizens. In the past, the threat would have come from another nation. Today, the main armed threat to most human lives is terrorism, which has no borders. Nonetheless, the threat to human lives is real, and governments owe a responsibility to their citizens to defend them from terrorists, even if it means shooting to kill. Thus, the defence against terrorism is rightly classified as a war.
There is an added problem when it comes to a war on terror. There are no uniforms to identify combatants, and strictly speaking, even in a conventional war, combatants are not limited to those who bear arms. Take for example a truck loaded with armed soldiers. Surely the armed soldiers are combatatns. How about the military driver who is uarmed? He plays a supporting role in the war. Surely he could be considered a combatant as well. At the very least, if the truck exploded under gunfire, it would be a stretch to consider the killing of the driver a war crime. So we understand that people within the organisation that fights the war who provide support for that war can be combatants as well, even if they do not carry arms. Where no combatant within that organisation weras uniforms, anyone providing them with support could be a part of its support structure, with no discernable way of distinguishing between "civilian" and "military" support without questioning at the very least (especially since the writer does not endorse torture).
Communications personnel are part of any military support structure. They connect various fighting units, provide intelligence and so on. They are in fact a vital part of any military organisation, and due to their role is disseminating information, they are key in implementing strategy.
Therefore, in this war on terror, enemy (terrorist) communications personnel, that is to say people who provide information to terorrists, help recruit terrorists, or relay information for terrorists, are rightly considered as enemy combatants and should only be afforded the limited rights granted by the Geneva Convention, which does not proscribe detention without trial.
The International Herald Tribute wrote about a Belgian woman who openly supports Al-Qaeda, does recrutiment for them and so on. She should be detained indefinitely as an enemy combatant.
Note: We should just be clear on this in Singapore, instead of invoking the controversial Internal Security Act.
Friday, May 30, 2008
Inconsiderate?
There's something to be said about Singapore society. Often, it is criticised for being inconsiderate. After thinking about it, this may not actually be true.
Certainly, all the outward appearances of inconsiderate behaviour is there, for all to see. People pushing their way through crowded areas, the elderly having no seats on the bus, and so on. If one were to conclude from appearances alone that Singaporeans are an inconsiderate bunch, well, fair enough.
But I suspect that the conclusion is not entirely accurate. When you boil it down, inconsiderate people simply don't care about how other people feel, how their actions might adversely affect others. In a nutshell, selfishness. Yet, Singaporeans seem particularly selfless when responding to various emergencies, like earthquakes and tsunamis. Hence, I have this alternative theory to this seemingly inconsiderate behaviour.
Singaporeans simply lack situational awareness. They simply are unable to process what is going on around them. Perhaps they are particularly self-absorbed, but this is doubtful. Most claim that they were not thinking about anything, but simply did not notice the old lady standing. Sound like an excuse, but it is not entirely implausible. It actually makes sense if you account for the fundamental maxim to Singaporean society, as engineered by the State: just follow law.
Singaporeans are conditioned to follow instructions, so much so that when there are no instructions, they literally freeze. There truly is quite an amazing lack of initiative in society. Everything is directed from the top down. Suffice to say, Barack Obama would have great problems campaigning here.
The conditioning to simply follow instructions carries an implicit idea, that someone else is monitoring the situation and taking responsibility for the outcome. Since someone else is observing the situation and the average Singaporean is supposed to do is follow the instructions, and there is in fact a disincentive to disobedience, the easiest way out is really to omit observing the situation for oneself.
A lifetime of conditioning to not having to make any situational observations for oneself leads directly to having very low situation awareness, and thus apparent inconsiderate behaviour.
P.S. The boy's not lazy, he's just stupid. Can you catch the similarity?
Certainly, all the outward appearances of inconsiderate behaviour is there, for all to see. People pushing their way through crowded areas, the elderly having no seats on the bus, and so on. If one were to conclude from appearances alone that Singaporeans are an inconsiderate bunch, well, fair enough.
But I suspect that the conclusion is not entirely accurate. When you boil it down, inconsiderate people simply don't care about how other people feel, how their actions might adversely affect others. In a nutshell, selfishness. Yet, Singaporeans seem particularly selfless when responding to various emergencies, like earthquakes and tsunamis. Hence, I have this alternative theory to this seemingly inconsiderate behaviour.
Singaporeans simply lack situational awareness. They simply are unable to process what is going on around them. Perhaps they are particularly self-absorbed, but this is doubtful. Most claim that they were not thinking about anything, but simply did not notice the old lady standing. Sound like an excuse, but it is not entirely implausible. It actually makes sense if you account for the fundamental maxim to Singaporean society, as engineered by the State: just follow law.
Singaporeans are conditioned to follow instructions, so much so that when there are no instructions, they literally freeze. There truly is quite an amazing lack of initiative in society. Everything is directed from the top down. Suffice to say, Barack Obama would have great problems campaigning here.
The conditioning to simply follow instructions carries an implicit idea, that someone else is monitoring the situation and taking responsibility for the outcome. Since someone else is observing the situation and the average Singaporean is supposed to do is follow the instructions, and there is in fact a disincentive to disobedience, the easiest way out is really to omit observing the situation for oneself.
A lifetime of conditioning to not having to make any situational observations for oneself leads directly to having very low situation awareness, and thus apparent inconsiderate behaviour.
P.S. The boy's not lazy, he's just stupid. Can you catch the similarity?
Saturday, May 10, 2008
On Torture
It is perhaps a little late to be exploring this topic, it being the end of Bush Jr's presidency, and after so much ink has been spilt over Guantanamo Bay.
But there is something to be said about definitions of torture, and perhaps one argument above all others that would suggest that forcing humans to watch Barney for hours on end is torture as much as the coals and hot irons is torture.
So let us begin.
There are only 2 motivations for torture, sadism and extracting information. To achieve either goal, torture is used as an instrument to break resistance, to break the human spirit.
In medieval times, understanding of the human psyche was more crude, and more primal. The only perceived way to affect the human mind was through the human body. Coming from a culture spanning over 5 millenia, human creativity in finding ways to target the human mind via the body is bone-chilling.
For those of us who feel more squeamish about blood and gore, we instinctively condemn such methods as paper cuts and heated irons. Take away the obvious physical wounds, and the concept now seems more palatable.
Yet, we forget that the blood and gore was but a means to an end, to breaking human dignity.
Today, we have far more advanced methods, like sleep deprivation and water-boarding etc, that remove the 'blood and gore' element from our interrogation techniques. As such, while essentially pursuing the same goal of breaking a person's humanity, we can maintain a semblance of urbanity and civility while doing so.
While the end result is not apparent, it really is the same thing. Destroying a person's self-worth, stripping him of his humanity, just minus the blood and gore.
So let us not mistake psychological torture for anything other than what it is, nothing more than a more sophisticated and elegant way of doing what we used to do with heated irons and barbed whips.
But there is something to be said about definitions of torture, and perhaps one argument above all others that would suggest that forcing humans to watch Barney for hours on end is torture as much as the coals and hot irons is torture.
So let us begin.
There are only 2 motivations for torture, sadism and extracting information. To achieve either goal, torture is used as an instrument to break resistance, to break the human spirit.
In medieval times, understanding of the human psyche was more crude, and more primal. The only perceived way to affect the human mind was through the human body. Coming from a culture spanning over 5 millenia, human creativity in finding ways to target the human mind via the body is bone-chilling.
For those of us who feel more squeamish about blood and gore, we instinctively condemn such methods as paper cuts and heated irons. Take away the obvious physical wounds, and the concept now seems more palatable.
Yet, we forget that the blood and gore was but a means to an end, to breaking human dignity.
Today, we have far more advanced methods, like sleep deprivation and water-boarding etc, that remove the 'blood and gore' element from our interrogation techniques. As such, while essentially pursuing the same goal of breaking a person's humanity, we can maintain a semblance of urbanity and civility while doing so.
While the end result is not apparent, it really is the same thing. Destroying a person's self-worth, stripping him of his humanity, just minus the blood and gore.
So let us not mistake psychological torture for anything other than what it is, nothing more than a more sophisticated and elegant way of doing what we used to do with heated irons and barbed whips.
Thursday, April 10, 2008
Stirrings of Elitism and Grace
It is perhaps not too surprising that these feelings of superiority surface now. It is exam season, and thus a convenient time to feel superior. It builds confidence, enhances the exercise of potential, and generally produces good results. Security in oneself can be a powerful thing. Sadly, it brings a clear downside with it. It is generally distasteful and makes a person unlikeable. And it can be quite miserable looking into a mirror in the morning and not liking what one sees. Worse still, guys can't exactly put on make-up.
Whether or not one can back up that sense of superiority is really quite irrelevant. Changing any form of self-belief is extraordinarily difficult, and must come from within. Nobody ever managed to convince another that their beliefs were wrong by argument. The other side has to be open first.
The critical question is whether fostering a superiority complex is optimal. It has a downside after all. Here is where things get a little interesting.
For a moment, let us assume that an elitist mentality is backed by the requisite ability. Generally, the foundation is actually self-fulfilling. A study on grade school children found that performance improved simply by telling them they were better. What a wonderful force self-belief is.
Assuming the pedigree, should elitism be the proper development? In a nutshell, no.
If you've ever read a wuxia novel, the most powerful fighter is always either a) that annoying old man hiding somewhere that doesn't really care if he is the best, b) that even more annoying old man who tries his best to hide how good he is because he knows he's the best and is secure in it, so he lets some foolish thugs rob him anyway, c) that strange fellow who's convinced there's someone better than him and so keeps working on his own skill.
The common denominator isn't in what their attitude is, but in what it is not. There are many alternatives to building that sort of earth-shattering ability, but one definite way not to. And the road to perdition is to lord it over everyone else. In short, elitism is self-destructive in the long run. Yes, all this from a kid fostered in the most elitist programme known to mankind, the MOE's GEP. Wonder of wonders.
Jesus tells His disciples that the one who wishes to be greatest among his brethren ought to serve them, not lord it over them like the rulers in the world.
A few important things are worth noting here.
First, there is no purpose in telling someone how to be great if they have no capacity for it. Explaining to a mouse how to fly is either foolishness or insanity. So we know Jesus thought the disciples were capable of becoming great. And so they did. So why tell them how to get to the top?
This is the second point. How you get to the top has a great bearing on your longevity at the top. Your capacity allows you to ascend the heights, but your character keeps you flying. And your journey to the top determines your character. Therefore, the whole prescribed methodology to becoming great, by serving, is designed to develop the right character. That way, when the Lord prospers, He will add no sorrow to it. We're beginning to see a larger pattern here.
What sort of character does serving produce? The lame answer is the character of a servant. But what does that consist of?
A. Humility
A precautionary note. Humility is not to reduce oneself to a worm. That's self-humiliation, which is sort of like self-flagellation. Now, if you enjoy that sort of thing, well, that's your private business. I wouldn't personally try it though. Rather, humility is an acknowledgment of reliance on God, and on others, that you're not in this alone and entirely independent. Nonetheless, humility involves an honest acceptance of self. In a strange RPGish analogy, if you're a level 10 character, you're acknowledge a level 10 character.
B. Faithfulness
Servants, at least good ones, are faithful in the work they've been given. They get things done. Good servants may tell their masters that a certain task is difficult, or even that they don't think they are able to accomplish it. But the one thing they never say is 'No.' The litmus test is not a 100% success rate. The litmus test is commitment. Faithful servants give it everything they have. And truly, if they gave their best, and it still didn't work out, who can fault them for it? Lets throw in the bonus analysis. Servants do what they are told. If they try their best and fail, it would be the fault of the one who assigned the task. This is not because the master caused the failure, but because he allocated his available resources wrongly, or took on too difficult a task for his resources. Now consider the following:
i) God never makes mistakes. No, not even me.
ii) God has infinite resources.
So guess what the result of faithfulness to God is?
Note that in no part of faithfulness is there an element of competition. In fact, Jesus explicitly tells Peter to forget about what was in store for John. "What is it to you ... You follow Me." I'd provide the link to a fuller discourse on faithfulness and competition, but I don't have it. I promise to get it though.
It should be pretty clear by now that elitism has no part in a servant's character that produces lasting greatness. There is no lording it over other people. No "muahaha, I'm better than you" attitudes. A servant doesn't need everyone else to tell him he's a good servant. It would be nice, but hardly necessary. A servant's worth is measures in his master's estimation alone. And that measure is on faithfulness alone. That provides a supreme confidence of worth that cannot be displaced, along with it the character to withstand the buffeting winds on the mountaintop.
So really, elitism? Not for me.
Whether or not one can back up that sense of superiority is really quite irrelevant. Changing any form of self-belief is extraordinarily difficult, and must come from within. Nobody ever managed to convince another that their beliefs were wrong by argument. The other side has to be open first.
The critical question is whether fostering a superiority complex is optimal. It has a downside after all. Here is where things get a little interesting.
For a moment, let us assume that an elitist mentality is backed by the requisite ability. Generally, the foundation is actually self-fulfilling. A study on grade school children found that performance improved simply by telling them they were better. What a wonderful force self-belief is.
Assuming the pedigree, should elitism be the proper development? In a nutshell, no.
If you've ever read a wuxia novel, the most powerful fighter is always either a) that annoying old man hiding somewhere that doesn't really care if he is the best, b) that even more annoying old man who tries his best to hide how good he is because he knows he's the best and is secure in it, so he lets some foolish thugs rob him anyway, c) that strange fellow who's convinced there's someone better than him and so keeps working on his own skill.
The common denominator isn't in what their attitude is, but in what it is not. There are many alternatives to building that sort of earth-shattering ability, but one definite way not to. And the road to perdition is to lord it over everyone else. In short, elitism is self-destructive in the long run. Yes, all this from a kid fostered in the most elitist programme known to mankind, the MOE's GEP. Wonder of wonders.
Jesus tells His disciples that the one who wishes to be greatest among his brethren ought to serve them, not lord it over them like the rulers in the world.
A few important things are worth noting here.
First, there is no purpose in telling someone how to be great if they have no capacity for it. Explaining to a mouse how to fly is either foolishness or insanity. So we know Jesus thought the disciples were capable of becoming great. And so they did. So why tell them how to get to the top?
This is the second point. How you get to the top has a great bearing on your longevity at the top. Your capacity allows you to ascend the heights, but your character keeps you flying. And your journey to the top determines your character. Therefore, the whole prescribed methodology to becoming great, by serving, is designed to develop the right character. That way, when the Lord prospers, He will add no sorrow to it. We're beginning to see a larger pattern here.
What sort of character does serving produce? The lame answer is the character of a servant. But what does that consist of?
A. Humility
A precautionary note. Humility is not to reduce oneself to a worm. That's self-humiliation, which is sort of like self-flagellation. Now, if you enjoy that sort of thing, well, that's your private business. I wouldn't personally try it though. Rather, humility is an acknowledgment of reliance on God, and on others, that you're not in this alone and entirely independent. Nonetheless, humility involves an honest acceptance of self. In a strange RPGish analogy, if you're a level 10 character, you're acknowledge a level 10 character.
B. Faithfulness
Servants, at least good ones, are faithful in the work they've been given. They get things done. Good servants may tell their masters that a certain task is difficult, or even that they don't think they are able to accomplish it. But the one thing they never say is 'No.' The litmus test is not a 100% success rate. The litmus test is commitment. Faithful servants give it everything they have. And truly, if they gave their best, and it still didn't work out, who can fault them for it? Lets throw in the bonus analysis. Servants do what they are told. If they try their best and fail, it would be the fault of the one who assigned the task. This is not because the master caused the failure, but because he allocated his available resources wrongly, or took on too difficult a task for his resources. Now consider the following:
i) God never makes mistakes. No, not even me.
ii) God has infinite resources.
So guess what the result of faithfulness to God is?
Note that in no part of faithfulness is there an element of competition. In fact, Jesus explicitly tells Peter to forget about what was in store for John. "What is it to you ... You follow Me." I'd provide the link to a fuller discourse on faithfulness and competition, but I don't have it. I promise to get it though.
It should be pretty clear by now that elitism has no part in a servant's character that produces lasting greatness. There is no lording it over other people. No "muahaha, I'm better than you" attitudes. A servant doesn't need everyone else to tell him he's a good servant. It would be nice, but hardly necessary. A servant's worth is measures in his master's estimation alone. And that measure is on faithfulness alone. That provides a supreme confidence of worth that cannot be displaced, along with it the character to withstand the buffeting winds on the mountaintop.
So really, elitism? Not for me.
Friday, April 04, 2008
Tibet, Protests, Crackdowns and the Olympics
It is interesting to read the diverse coverage of the Tibetan protests across various media. The more or less certain facts are that there are 2 separate protests: the violent ones in Lhasa and around the world (following the Olympic Torch it seems), and the peaceful ones across the plateau.
There is apparently now a split in the movement for autonomy in Tibet. There are those who still follow the Dalai Lama's middle way, who are protesting peacefully. Then there are those who believe that change can only come by violent means. The Chinese government allege that even the violent protests were instigated by the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan government in exile. It is hard to see evidence to support this claim, but it is understandable how the Chinese government seems to equate the violent and non-violent protests.
Violent protests are morally reprehensible because of the loss of life, limb and property. Non-violent is causes none of this. Why then does the Chinese government not distinguish between the two types of protests?
The crux for the Chinese government, and most Chinese people, is what the protests are aimed at. The concept behind the protests is to hurt the China's standing just before the Olympics. The 2008 Beijing Olympics was meant to be a debutante ball for China as it joins the international community. Granted there are many Chinese policies that ought to be reviewed, but rationally we cannot expect all the things we believe to be unseemly to change at once, and China has made progress in the period approaching 08-08-08. As such, it is not unreasonable to for the Chinese to believe that all and sundry are using the Olympics, the crowning achievement of China's modernisation, to pressure it make changes to situations they are not pleased with. Think of Spielberg's withdrawal on account to Sudan, and now protests everywhere trying to ambush the bearer of the Olympic Torch.
This is really not an article about the morality of violent protests, but much less ambitious. Simply, it is highly politically inexpedient to protest at this hour. Viewed in isolation, the cause for Tibetan autonomy can be advanced by protesting prior to the Olympics. Beijing might make changes to smooth things over before the Olympics. The problem with such thinking is that Beijing has a limited amount of tolerance to make changes at any point in time. With all the pressure Beijing is already facing on a plethora of issues which it has responded positively to before the Tibetan protests, one might infer that they were reaching their limits.
We should also note that violent protests within its borders is something Chinese political thought views as anathema. There is still a very real fear that the Middle Kingdom will break up into Warring States again.
With these things in mind, it is highly foreseeable that the Beijing would react with extreme prejudice. This actually did not quite happened, as many observers were surprised by Beijing's muted response. But clearly, the crackdown has intensified as protests have continued.
In a nutshell, the protests were probably meant well, ignoring the evils of violent protests. However, it was politically a bad move.
There is apparently now a split in the movement for autonomy in Tibet. There are those who still follow the Dalai Lama's middle way, who are protesting peacefully. Then there are those who believe that change can only come by violent means. The Chinese government allege that even the violent protests were instigated by the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan government in exile. It is hard to see evidence to support this claim, but it is understandable how the Chinese government seems to equate the violent and non-violent protests.
Violent protests are morally reprehensible because of the loss of life, limb and property. Non-violent is causes none of this. Why then does the Chinese government not distinguish between the two types of protests?
The crux for the Chinese government, and most Chinese people, is what the protests are aimed at. The concept behind the protests is to hurt the China's standing just before the Olympics. The 2008 Beijing Olympics was meant to be a debutante ball for China as it joins the international community. Granted there are many Chinese policies that ought to be reviewed, but rationally we cannot expect all the things we believe to be unseemly to change at once, and China has made progress in the period approaching 08-08-08. As such, it is not unreasonable to for the Chinese to believe that all and sundry are using the Olympics, the crowning achievement of China's modernisation, to pressure it make changes to situations they are not pleased with. Think of Spielberg's withdrawal on account to Sudan, and now protests everywhere trying to ambush the bearer of the Olympic Torch.
This is really not an article about the morality of violent protests, but much less ambitious. Simply, it is highly politically inexpedient to protest at this hour. Viewed in isolation, the cause for Tibetan autonomy can be advanced by protesting prior to the Olympics. Beijing might make changes to smooth things over before the Olympics. The problem with such thinking is that Beijing has a limited amount of tolerance to make changes at any point in time. With all the pressure Beijing is already facing on a plethora of issues which it has responded positively to before the Tibetan protests, one might infer that they were reaching their limits.
We should also note that violent protests within its borders is something Chinese political thought views as anathema. There is still a very real fear that the Middle Kingdom will break up into Warring States again.
With these things in mind, it is highly foreseeable that the Beijing would react with extreme prejudice. This actually did not quite happened, as many observers were surprised by Beijing's muted response. But clearly, the crackdown has intensified as protests have continued.
In a nutshell, the protests were probably meant well, ignoring the evils of violent protests. However, it was politically a bad move.
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Yes we can.
This is a little strange, writing about the US elections. I really thought I had given up on US politics, after the farce of the last 2. It has been a great struggle to understand how anyone could vote for George W. Bush, whoever his opponent would be. Then again, the Democrats were so terribly organised then, many voters probably had no idea where to go at what time. Yet, I was certain any interest in US elections was in the past.
Then, a miracle happens.
I have been a long-time admirer of Sen. John McCain, who has crossed partisan lines to get the right bills passed, for the right reasons, and eschewed the pork-barrel ladening that plagues so much of his party's other politicians. Last I checked, George H W Bush still serves as a director of the Carlyle Group. As much as Sen. McCain's nomination pleases me, it has hardly been a surprise, particularly considering the much disillusioned Republican political base. Here is a candidate who is everything right, for everything wrong with 'Dubbya'. A real war hero, a veteran in the Senate, and by most accounts an honest man.
But it wasn't the Straight-Talk Express that caught my interest. I honestly thought the Republican nomination was sewed up from the beginning. The Evangelical base would never go for a Mormon president, and Huckabee cannot win over anyone besides Evangelicals.
No, the real surprise was in the Democratic primaries. Not too long ago, there was but one candidate in the race, Sen. Clinton. Who's Barack Obama anyway? But Obama's meteoric rise has sparked off some serious thinking, especially about cynicism. It isn't the rise of Obama in itself that is interesting, it is the high road he has taken over the the course of these elections. I had been sick to the stomach with all the mud-slinging and aspersions of US politics. Then here comes a man, a black man, with a message based a positive message for once. It was inspiring, but I doubted if it was workable. I hoped it did, but doubted it, and reality smacked me in the face for it.
The one thing I don't really believe is Obama transcending racial lines. It is not that I think he is playing the race card. He is not, at least, not by any detectable means. Mostly, it is because he does not have to. He is the one who may become the first black president. He does not need to talk about being black. The black vote is already his. But that much is expected, and nothing to truly gripe about. The same ought to be said about Sen. Clinton and the white women's vote, but it is not happening. And to be fair, if Sen. Clinton dominated the women's voting, would we accuse her of playing the gender card?
But back to the question of why Sen. Clinton is losing. Over the past couple of elections, voter turnout among Democrats and young people has been low. Barack Obama is not fighting for voters among established groups so much as creating new groups of voters, particularly among the young and the disenfranchised. His message his change and hope, which particularly appeals to the young. Now that young voters have finally ceased their apathy and come out of the woodwork in large numbers, are we going to accuse them of voting for the 'wrong' candidate? If an older generation does so, it is effectively denying democracy itself. First, the young are berated for not voting, then for not voting for 'their' candidate. It would seem the only 'right' way would be to vote exactly as the older generation. Their vote might as well be cast for them.
There is some doubt as to whether Obama can deliver his promises. That will depend on many things after he gets elected, such as who his team will be, how much support he can get from both the lower and upper house, and so on. The only evidence of his leadership ability thus far is in his campaign, which in many ways far more efficient and effective than Sen. Clinton's. It is without doubt that Sen. Clinton has more experience, but the question remains if she can escape the shackles of her past as First Lady (something Obama has not attacked her for).
The final gripe I have perused on the internet is the frustration of feminists. It is almost amusing reading about how a woman running for elections must be seen to be competent, yet still feminine, and how that is such a huge challenge. Fair enough, it is not easy.
Yet, Obama faces his own challenge, one as tricky if not even more so: how to stay on the high road while your opponent slings mud at you daily. The most part of Obama's appeal lies in his self-portrayal as the good guy. As a result of that, he can only snipe back after Sen. Clinton has done too much. Beyond that, he can but defend himself, and amicably.
The argument runs on, that if Obama were a woman, he would never have made it this far. Why not argue that if Hillary were a man, she would not have Bill and any dynastic support? Or that she would not even potentially have pulled it even a fraction of the women's vote that she has? Sen. Clinton's gender cuts both ways, as does Sen. Obama's race. The only difference is how they have used their backgrounds, and Obama has done better. As long as we are speculating, Sen. Clinton would have probably lost the women's vote even more spectacularly if Obama were a woman.
At the end of it all, the scoresheets look like this:
Sen. Clinton is the more experienced candidate, but experience can often be offset by gathering a team with experience and listening to them.
Sen. Obama has captured the moral high-ground.
On the question of competence, we weigh Obama's campagin against Clinton's past work. It is arguable which way the coin falls, so lets go with a draw.
In the end, the scales tip slightly in Obama's favour, but then again, I'm biased. Nonetheless, Obama has run the better campaign and won more votes overall. Its time to let the people be heard.
Yes we can.
Then, a miracle happens.
I have been a long-time admirer of Sen. John McCain, who has crossed partisan lines to get the right bills passed, for the right reasons, and eschewed the pork-barrel ladening that plagues so much of his party's other politicians. Last I checked, George H W Bush still serves as a director of the Carlyle Group. As much as Sen. McCain's nomination pleases me, it has hardly been a surprise, particularly considering the much disillusioned Republican political base. Here is a candidate who is everything right, for everything wrong with 'Dubbya'. A real war hero, a veteran in the Senate, and by most accounts an honest man.
But it wasn't the Straight-Talk Express that caught my interest. I honestly thought the Republican nomination was sewed up from the beginning. The Evangelical base would never go for a Mormon president, and Huckabee cannot win over anyone besides Evangelicals.
No, the real surprise was in the Democratic primaries. Not too long ago, there was but one candidate in the race, Sen. Clinton. Who's Barack Obama anyway? But Obama's meteoric rise has sparked off some serious thinking, especially about cynicism. It isn't the rise of Obama in itself that is interesting, it is the high road he has taken over the the course of these elections. I had been sick to the stomach with all the mud-slinging and aspersions of US politics. Then here comes a man, a black man, with a message based a positive message for once. It was inspiring, but I doubted if it was workable. I hoped it did, but doubted it, and reality smacked me in the face for it.
The one thing I don't really believe is Obama transcending racial lines. It is not that I think he is playing the race card. He is not, at least, not by any detectable means. Mostly, it is because he does not have to. He is the one who may become the first black president. He does not need to talk about being black. The black vote is already his. But that much is expected, and nothing to truly gripe about. The same ought to be said about Sen. Clinton and the white women's vote, but it is not happening. And to be fair, if Sen. Clinton dominated the women's voting, would we accuse her of playing the gender card?
But back to the question of why Sen. Clinton is losing. Over the past couple of elections, voter turnout among Democrats and young people has been low. Barack Obama is not fighting for voters among established groups so much as creating new groups of voters, particularly among the young and the disenfranchised. His message his change and hope, which particularly appeals to the young. Now that young voters have finally ceased their apathy and come out of the woodwork in large numbers, are we going to accuse them of voting for the 'wrong' candidate? If an older generation does so, it is effectively denying democracy itself. First, the young are berated for not voting, then for not voting for 'their' candidate. It would seem the only 'right' way would be to vote exactly as the older generation. Their vote might as well be cast for them.
There is some doubt as to whether Obama can deliver his promises. That will depend on many things after he gets elected, such as who his team will be, how much support he can get from both the lower and upper house, and so on. The only evidence of his leadership ability thus far is in his campaign, which in many ways far more efficient and effective than Sen. Clinton's. It is without doubt that Sen. Clinton has more experience, but the question remains if she can escape the shackles of her past as First Lady (something Obama has not attacked her for).
The final gripe I have perused on the internet is the frustration of feminists. It is almost amusing reading about how a woman running for elections must be seen to be competent, yet still feminine, and how that is such a huge challenge. Fair enough, it is not easy.
Yet, Obama faces his own challenge, one as tricky if not even more so: how to stay on the high road while your opponent slings mud at you daily. The most part of Obama's appeal lies in his self-portrayal as the good guy. As a result of that, he can only snipe back after Sen. Clinton has done too much. Beyond that, he can but defend himself, and amicably.
The argument runs on, that if Obama were a woman, he would never have made it this far. Why not argue that if Hillary were a man, she would not have Bill and any dynastic support? Or that she would not even potentially have pulled it even a fraction of the women's vote that she has? Sen. Clinton's gender cuts both ways, as does Sen. Obama's race. The only difference is how they have used their backgrounds, and Obama has done better. As long as we are speculating, Sen. Clinton would have probably lost the women's vote even more spectacularly if Obama were a woman.
At the end of it all, the scoresheets look like this:
Sen. Clinton is the more experienced candidate, but experience can often be offset by gathering a team with experience and listening to them.
Sen. Obama has captured the moral high-ground.
On the question of competence, we weigh Obama's campagin against Clinton's past work. It is arguable which way the coin falls, so lets go with a draw.
In the end, the scales tip slightly in Obama's favour, but then again, I'm biased. Nonetheless, Obama has run the better campaign and won more votes overall. Its time to let the people be heard.
Yes we can.
Thursday, January 24, 2008
Misanthropy and the Superiority Complex
A superiority complex is not a simple problem, nor is it a convenient burden to carry around. While less obviously damaging than an inferiority complex, it certainly has ill latent effects, and because it is just that much harder to discern, possibly ultimately the more harmful of the two.
When I was younger, I did believe that general ability in comprehension was a higher order ability than, say, being able to pitch a ball really far. It was a simple sort of brains better than brawn sort of idea. To cut the history of my life short, everything I knew then about managing the issues of life, I learnt from playing chinese chess. Essentially, they were lessons on predicting what would happen next and preparing for it in advance by moving certain pieces into place, or sacrificing some if necessary. Of course, when I was 11, I could not clearly express these ideas, but they had become a habit of sorts.
Needless to say, I was not very popular at school. It was partly because my family was not from Singapore, nor am I really, and partly because I thought everyone else was strange in not understanding a great many things. Now, there weren't really a great many things, nor was it really strange given the different upbringings between me and my peers, but 11-year-olds lack that sort of perspective.
So since the people around didn't accept me, in the usual childish tit-for-tat, I couldn't care less about them either. After all, stupid is as stupid does. Obviously, intellectual capacity didn't bring along any emotional maturity whatsoever.
Then I made my way to RI as I had declared I would, and it was a completely different world. There were still many cultural differences to overcome in order to fit in a bit better, but at least everyone was intelligent. The curriculum was challenging, and the majority of us were struggling together, creating a sort of bond. On hindsight, I am not certain if that was the best thing for a child who was already not fitting into mainstream society. Obviously, testing into the GEP did not help at all.
So there I was innoculated in a culture of superiority. Look at it this way. You know you're in the best school in the country. Every other day they remind you you're the best, and that you should start acting like it. After 4 years, you don't think you're the best. You know it, like you know your own name. Of course, the emphasis was on scholastic and sporting achievement, which clearly is not everything, but what did I know then.
As I grew beyond those years, when I was in RJC, I came to realise that neither good grades or being a sportsman meant very much in the final analysis. It was nice, but I was not all. There were other gifts and talents in other people, outside of this secluded JC environment that had gone sterile.
And this entire idea of superiority lost the ground it stood upon. Being better at certain things did not make you altogether better, just better at certain things. Its a fine argument to say that certain abilities, like strategic thought, have more general applications and are thus more important, but that does not a general principle make.
And for a long while, it was a struggle to deal with an ingrained superiority complex that hinged on rejecting what this society emphatically states are the more important abilities to have. So not only did I have to wrestle my inner thoughts, I had to wrestle the societal norms bolstering those thoughts.
Only recently though, did I realise that the entire superiority complex, while real enough in itself, was merely a front. It covered something even deeper. Let us be more than crystal clear. Being smarter isn't everything. But it is an easy way to differentiate yourself from the vast majority of society when you don't like them. And honestly, the dislike was not because they were less intelligent.
The truth is that everyone wants to be accepted. And rejection develops resentment. Even after dealing with the resentment itself, the ingrained misanthropy still remains. And it is the misanthropy, more than anything, that is driving the problems with feeling superior.
So the final conclusion is a rather simpler and yet more profound mindset. I think, or feel, that Singaporeans are insular and unfriendly, often rather uncivilised, and dislike them on a general level. This is not to say all Singaporeans are like that, but I may be justified in saying that most are. And it was this unwelcoming, unfriendly side that I was first exposed to, which has far-reaching effects in my life.
Well, at least these things are now out in the open and can be better dealt with.
The writer tests in the 130 - 140 IQ range.
This probably justifies the smarter-than-thou complex on an empirical level.
But it is still wrong. That's all there is to it.
When I was younger, I did believe that general ability in comprehension was a higher order ability than, say, being able to pitch a ball really far. It was a simple sort of brains better than brawn sort of idea. To cut the history of my life short, everything I knew then about managing the issues of life, I learnt from playing chinese chess. Essentially, they were lessons on predicting what would happen next and preparing for it in advance by moving certain pieces into place, or sacrificing some if necessary. Of course, when I was 11, I could not clearly express these ideas, but they had become a habit of sorts.
Needless to say, I was not very popular at school. It was partly because my family was not from Singapore, nor am I really, and partly because I thought everyone else was strange in not understanding a great many things. Now, there weren't really a great many things, nor was it really strange given the different upbringings between me and my peers, but 11-year-olds lack that sort of perspective.
So since the people around didn't accept me, in the usual childish tit-for-tat, I couldn't care less about them either. After all, stupid is as stupid does. Obviously, intellectual capacity didn't bring along any emotional maturity whatsoever.
Then I made my way to RI as I had declared I would, and it was a completely different world. There were still many cultural differences to overcome in order to fit in a bit better, but at least everyone was intelligent. The curriculum was challenging, and the majority of us were struggling together, creating a sort of bond. On hindsight, I am not certain if that was the best thing for a child who was already not fitting into mainstream society. Obviously, testing into the GEP did not help at all.
So there I was innoculated in a culture of superiority. Look at it this way. You know you're in the best school in the country. Every other day they remind you you're the best, and that you should start acting like it. After 4 years, you don't think you're the best. You know it, like you know your own name. Of course, the emphasis was on scholastic and sporting achievement, which clearly is not everything, but what did I know then.
As I grew beyond those years, when I was in RJC, I came to realise that neither good grades or being a sportsman meant very much in the final analysis. It was nice, but I was not all. There were other gifts and talents in other people, outside of this secluded JC environment that had gone sterile.
And this entire idea of superiority lost the ground it stood upon. Being better at certain things did not make you altogether better, just better at certain things. Its a fine argument to say that certain abilities, like strategic thought, have more general applications and are thus more important, but that does not a general principle make.
And for a long while, it was a struggle to deal with an ingrained superiority complex that hinged on rejecting what this society emphatically states are the more important abilities to have. So not only did I have to wrestle my inner thoughts, I had to wrestle the societal norms bolstering those thoughts.
Only recently though, did I realise that the entire superiority complex, while real enough in itself, was merely a front. It covered something even deeper. Let us be more than crystal clear. Being smarter isn't everything. But it is an easy way to differentiate yourself from the vast majority of society when you don't like them. And honestly, the dislike was not because they were less intelligent.
The truth is that everyone wants to be accepted. And rejection develops resentment. Even after dealing with the resentment itself, the ingrained misanthropy still remains. And it is the misanthropy, more than anything, that is driving the problems with feeling superior.
So the final conclusion is a rather simpler and yet more profound mindset. I think, or feel, that Singaporeans are insular and unfriendly, often rather uncivilised, and dislike them on a general level. This is not to say all Singaporeans are like that, but I may be justified in saying that most are. And it was this unwelcoming, unfriendly side that I was first exposed to, which has far-reaching effects in my life.
Well, at least these things are now out in the open and can be better dealt with.
The writer tests in the 130 - 140 IQ range.
This probably justifies the smarter-than-thou complex on an empirical level.
But it is still wrong. That's all there is to it.
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
Liebeck v McDonald's and the True Stella Awards
After attending my first Law of Torts class for the year, some rather interesting, albeit disturbing thoughts, come to mind.
First, to briefly summarise the case studied. Grandmother and grandson drove to a McDonald's drive-through and bought a cup of hot coffee. Grandmother then proceeded to hold the cup between her knees and pull the lid off the cup. Coffee was spilt and soaked her cotton garments, giving her third degree burns.
The controversies that arise from the case, which the grandmother, Mrs Liebeck, won against McDonald's, are as follows:
1. the value judgment of responsibility
In essence, a ruling by a court in favour of Mrs Liebeck is saying that McDonald's was responsible for the burns suffered by Mrs Liebeck. At this juncture, it is important to clarify that anyone ought to sympathise with the sufferings of Mrs Liebeck from the burns.
But we must surely resist the knee-jerk reaction that somebody must hence pay for it. There are hardships all around us for which we cannot say that a specific entity is responsible. This situation could fall within that scope.
We must also be very clear as to why we think McDonald's ought to pay damages to Mrs Liebeck. From the facts, we obviously feel that since it was McDonald's hot coffee that scalded Mrs Liebeck, that the decent thing for McDonald's to do would be to help Mrs Liebeck with her medical fees. After all, that is what a decent person would do, could he afford it , and surely McDonald's has the money to do so.
That is all well and good. But that is not, and has never been, a function of the civil courts. The civil law does not compel people to be decent. The criminal law may uphold a certain minimum standard of morality, but the civil law has no jurisdiction to compel human decency. In any case, compelled decency is no decency at all.
In order for a court to, within its jurisdiction, compel McDonald's to pay damages, there must be a finding of fault with McDonald's actions, in this case, selling coffee that was 'too hot' without adequate warning. It is elementary logic that if you buy hot coffee, you ought to get it hot, and that it can scald. Several factors, such as the period of contact (affected by what clothing you wear) as well as the temperature of the drink, may affect the severity of the burns. But the essential point that everyone ought to know is that hot coffee scalds. What duty can there be on McDonald's part to state the overwhelmingly obvious?
Imagine a situation where you go to McDonald's and order a hot coffee. The server at the counter brings you a coffee and says, "Sir, be careful. It's hot." What would your response be? After all, is that not what you ordered?
Secondly, the issue of 'too hot' is really not about temperature, but a mask for the severity of injury, for which, as mentioned above, temperature alone is not the only factor. Moreover, any further study would have revealed that the temperature at which McDonald's makes coffee is the industry standard. Wherefore, too hot?
In essence, however, the case is really about McDonald's having ought to have done something to prevent Mrs Liebeck's injury, as opposed to Mrs Liebeck having to do something about it. Is that a reasonable burden for McDonald's to bear?
2. personal responsibility
This case is in many ways also about whether the law should protect people from themselves. If you make a mistake which you ought to know better about (opening a hot cup of coffee in a risky manner), should the law help to make your life easier after the disaster? It is surely the charitable thing to do, to help those who have unwittingly or carelessly harmed themselves, but is it something a court should be involved in? Especially since the court does not devote its own resources to do so, but makes someone else pay for it? Is it right to compel charity either?
The hard truth is simply this. If you make a mistake, you suffer the consequences. It would of course be nice if someone tangentially involved were to help you out, but you do not have a right to make them help you.
Note: Yes, thats an American case. And yes, that's why McDonald's coffee cups have "Caution: Hot!" on them. And yes, its bloody stupid.
First, to briefly summarise the case studied. Grandmother and grandson drove to a McDonald's drive-through and bought a cup of hot coffee. Grandmother then proceeded to hold the cup between her knees and pull the lid off the cup. Coffee was spilt and soaked her cotton garments, giving her third degree burns.
The controversies that arise from the case, which the grandmother, Mrs Liebeck, won against McDonald's, are as follows:
1. the value judgment of responsibility
In essence, a ruling by a court in favour of Mrs Liebeck is saying that McDonald's was responsible for the burns suffered by Mrs Liebeck. At this juncture, it is important to clarify that anyone ought to sympathise with the sufferings of Mrs Liebeck from the burns.
But we must surely resist the knee-jerk reaction that somebody must hence pay for it. There are hardships all around us for which we cannot say that a specific entity is responsible. This situation could fall within that scope.
We must also be very clear as to why we think McDonald's ought to pay damages to Mrs Liebeck. From the facts, we obviously feel that since it was McDonald's hot coffee that scalded Mrs Liebeck, that the decent thing for McDonald's to do would be to help Mrs Liebeck with her medical fees. After all, that is what a decent person would do, could he afford it , and surely McDonald's has the money to do so.
That is all well and good. But that is not, and has never been, a function of the civil courts. The civil law does not compel people to be decent. The criminal law may uphold a certain minimum standard of morality, but the civil law has no jurisdiction to compel human decency. In any case, compelled decency is no decency at all.
In order for a court to, within its jurisdiction, compel McDonald's to pay damages, there must be a finding of fault with McDonald's actions, in this case, selling coffee that was 'too hot' without adequate warning. It is elementary logic that if you buy hot coffee, you ought to get it hot, and that it can scald. Several factors, such as the period of contact (affected by what clothing you wear) as well as the temperature of the drink, may affect the severity of the burns. But the essential point that everyone ought to know is that hot coffee scalds. What duty can there be on McDonald's part to state the overwhelmingly obvious?
Imagine a situation where you go to McDonald's and order a hot coffee. The server at the counter brings you a coffee and says, "Sir, be careful. It's hot." What would your response be? After all, is that not what you ordered?
Secondly, the issue of 'too hot' is really not about temperature, but a mask for the severity of injury, for which, as mentioned above, temperature alone is not the only factor. Moreover, any further study would have revealed that the temperature at which McDonald's makes coffee is the industry standard. Wherefore, too hot?
In essence, however, the case is really about McDonald's having ought to have done something to prevent Mrs Liebeck's injury, as opposed to Mrs Liebeck having to do something about it. Is that a reasonable burden for McDonald's to bear?
2. personal responsibility
This case is in many ways also about whether the law should protect people from themselves. If you make a mistake which you ought to know better about (opening a hot cup of coffee in a risky manner), should the law help to make your life easier after the disaster? It is surely the charitable thing to do, to help those who have unwittingly or carelessly harmed themselves, but is it something a court should be involved in? Especially since the court does not devote its own resources to do so, but makes someone else pay for it? Is it right to compel charity either?
The hard truth is simply this. If you make a mistake, you suffer the consequences. It would of course be nice if someone tangentially involved were to help you out, but you do not have a right to make them help you.
Note: Yes, thats an American case. And yes, that's why McDonald's coffee cups have "Caution: Hot!" on them. And yes, its bloody stupid.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)