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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Righty then. Exam season now.
Lots of studying to do. Which I will get back to soon.

For now though, go watch Chad Vader Season 1 (8 episodes) on Youtube!!!
A must for all Star Wars fans. Its amazing stuff!

Lingua

It occurs to me that I am rather handicapped in Singaporean society. Perhaps it is the result of being weaned on the BBC World Service, courtesy of my father, or the constant drumming to speak proper English, also courtesy of my father. I have as such developed a taste and appreciation for the finer points of the English language, or perhaps more accurately British English. Yes, I freely admit it. The dry wit, the understatement, and the liberal use of sarcasm are all imprinted into the very soul of my command of English. I make no excuses for this. I did not even speak English until the age of 4. It was never necessary in Hong Kong. Naturally, being taught be expatriate kindergarten teachers did not help me acclimatise to the local scene.

It is a source of endless joy for me to be able to appreciate the finer things in life like poetry and The Economist. And surely a command of the English language brings with it manifold advantages in interviews and particularly a study of law.

Sadly though, it brings no predisposition in communicating with peers. It is not a mere issue of diction, and a tendency to use longer, if more precise, words. The crux of the matter seems to be style itself. Indeed, I would write and speak in a different form, often interspersing rhetorical questions into conversations. And it is occasionally doubtful if the appropriate message were conveyed at all.

At this fork on the road, I must confess I am not yet willing to surrender the thing that I love, the gentle caress of the English language in all its refinement and subtle charm, for a greater acceptance into everyday society.

While it seems that I have stepped out of my ivory tower into the crowd, I have clearly forgotten to change out of my sorcerer's robes.

P.S. The situation as regards to Chinese is even worse. Singaporeans must speak some of the worst Chinese in the world.

377a, to repeal of to keep?

Just a quick bit on background. s377a of the penal code makes it an offence to have homosexual intercourse. It doesn't matter when or where.

Now on with the show. I caught part of the parliamentary debates on the news today, and before delving into the actual subject matter, I have to comment on the quality of the debate itself. I have watched (and judged) better debates at the secondary school level. Seriously, it was rather disappointing. To be fair, special kudos go out to A/P Ho Peng Kee and the NMP who proposed the repeal of 377a for actually sounding like they knew what they were doing.

Now on to the actual arguments proferred by both sides.

It has been said that 377a is discriminatory and unconstitutional. Personally, I will avoid the question of constitutionality for now, as I do not actual believe that Singapore has a de facto constitutional supremacy. For the record, I will state my opinion that the constitution has never truly been judicially interpreted in an objective manner. In fact, Singapore while being a state with de jure constitutional supremacy, did not have its own constitution till some time after independence. Strange how a a state with the constitution as the supreme law of the land can move on despite the lack of such a document. But enough on that and back to 377a.

As far as discrimination goes, the basic premise would seem to be that 377a criminalises something that is private in nature, and if we do not legislate against other activities in private, then we should not legislate against homosexual intercourse either.

The argument of discrimination however gives rise to certain rather odd problems. For one, discrimination must be against a certain identifiable and distinct class of people, such as a certain race or religion. It is illegal to do so in Singapore. It is however, a usually unexplained step of logic, to say that homosexuals are a distinct class in the same fashion. Do note at this point that in general, race is a matter of genetics at birth, and religion a matter of choice. As such, whether one believes that homosexuality is inborn or a conscious choice is immaterial on this point.

Now say we accept that homosexuals are a distinct class, and thus can actually be discriminated against. It is also a fact of life that certain forms of discrimination are legally enforceable and even desirable. Children are not allowed to vote, smoke, drink etc. This works on a justification that children need to be protected from themselves, being unable to make certain mature decisions, and to protect society as well.

It is the second of these arguments raised that is usually applied against the case for repealling 377a. 2 arguments have surfaced in the parliamentary debates.

the first is about how repealling 377a would send a message that the government condones homosexuality, and that threatens the family unit. there seems a be a drastic lack of logic in this argument. firstly, government repeal of 377a does not necessarily send a message of acceptance. Prostitution is legal in Singapore. Are we then saying that the government accepts and even encourages prostitution? Secondly, there is the implicit floodgates argument that homosexuals are all suddenly going to emerge from the woodwork once 377a is repealled. Given the studies on Singaporean attitudes toward homosexuality that those against repealling 377a cite as support, this is hardly going to be the case.

the second argument raised was one that defied rational thinking. one MP raised the argument that where 2 camps were in opposition, like the camps to keep and repeal 377a, the solution would be to maintain the status quo. In essence, the MP was saying, when people debate, do nothing! it would be intellectually irresponsible to simply aribtrarily declare one side the winner , then say we'll keep the status quo. But at least, there is a reason for doing so. By stating that conflict of opnion leads to a maintenance of the status quo is to implcitly deny any possiblity of any progress whatsoever, and is patently ludicrous, even by conservative standards. No contested issue, or any issue at all, will ever get a 100% vote of confidence. By that singular statement, all progress grinds to a halt.

Also for the record, I would like to state that I believe homosexuality is immoral. Yes, you read correctly, I think homosexuality is morally wrong. However, there is a huge step to take from saying something is morally wrong to saying that we should legislate against it. Once again, back to prostitution. It is morally wrong. It damages the family unit. Its legal.

Also, it is far harder to take the position that allowing homosexual adults to have consenting intercourse will destroy family units, mostly because there won't be family units to destroy. And also no future family units to be torn about by skeletons in the closet.

It has of course been argued that the law serves to preserve a minimum standard of morality. The usual questions asked of this are whose morality, and why.

2 coutnerpoints to this. the first stems from the other school of though which states that the law is but a means of preserving society and continued development. it has no business in morality.

the second argument is perhaps more controversial, but in many ways stronger. there are many moral issues in life. we do not legislate on many of them, if not most, unless there is a clear social harm to be prevented. and most importantly, it may very well be immoral to take away someone's freedom to choose his or her sexual orientation, even though the choice is the immoral one. in essence, keeping 377a may very well be the greater evil.

on this note, it is important to keep separate the debates on gay marriage, gay adoption, and the rights for gays to have private consensual sex. the former 2 have clear social effects that may very well give a very different answer than that of 377a.

as it stands now, there are 2 clear conclusions from the events unfolding.
1. our MPs need a lot of debate practice, and possibly a course or two on logic
2. society has not matured to the point where we can be rational about emotional issues like 377a

so please, if you are a clear-thinking person, sign the petition to repeal 377a.
if you haven't matured enough for that, there's a similar petition to keep it to be signed.
also note that this writer does not think the petitions will affect the decision.

Fixed!

Well its been a bloody long hiatus for me for a bloody simple reason. Somewhere along the way, for some obscure reason, my posting template code was no longer acceptable, and caused some unknown error.

Now, I've been a lot of things in this relatively short life: gymnast, debater, economist, lawyer, philosopher ... but I have never been a software engineer, so forgive me for not getting something like that right sooner.

But now I'm back, and I'm better (or badder) than ever. So watch out!

Falling Sick ETC

Heaven forfend if one should EVER fall ill or get injured. EVER.

The sad fact is I'm gonna be nagged and nagged and nagged about how I don't take care of myself, how I should do this or that and that and not do that and that and this, and so on and so forth, and more of the same and less of something else, all the while I'm getting an open wound cleaned up and trying my best not to writhe in pain.

I mean really. Is there a POINT to all the nagging? Mom cares. Yeah we know. We don't need the reminders. And its not really necessary to tell me how things can get worse. Doctor's kid remember? Mom SHOULD know about this at least. I'm certain adding stress and frustration and general unhappiness to the mix is going to help the recovery process. Really certain. Yep, the rest cure is naught but a myth.

And of course, things must always be SOMEBODY's fault (read: me) so lets take the opportunity to browbeat and berate while he can't move anywhere, because he's on the treatment table and focused primarily on not feeling pain right now. And oh yeah, there's a need for running commentary on whether the condition has worsened or not, while the doctor himself is less than 6 inches from the wound and apparently satisfied.

Gah! I need fresh air, and to leave the house more often. Gah!
">
(<$BlogItemCommentCount$>) comments

Informal Release of Comms 101 Grades

It is with a certain wry amusement that I contemplate my grade for this particular course. A B+, of all things. Vis a vis the trepidation evidenced by the palpitations of my heart when I had to look up the result on the net, I find myself in a rather nebulous position.

Certainly, this grade is rather below expectation, and has a negative bearing on my grade-point average (GPA). Its going to take a rather Herculean effort to keep it at its current perfect standing. Or rather, it would take one, if my exams were not quite so finished.

But quite beyond the practical repercussions of this grade are the principles of fairness and justice. And it seems to me that both these principles have been grossly violated in the process of my receiving such a grade.

Now, I do not pretend to be the best communicator in the world. I personally know a handful who I would prefer before myself. That list, I also concede, is not exhaustive. Nevertheless, it is also true to say that none of those people are in my class, which then makes the grade all the more bewildering.

I suppose it would make some kind of perverse sense if the highest grade in class were a B+, whcih would then suggest that the criteria for grading were rather too strict. Yet I suspect it is not the case. Rather, I do suppose some sort of favouritism was at work and merit had little to do in determining grades.

Yet at the end of the day, I do not suppose it truly matters all that much beyond my GPA. Life moves on, and a new semester in the very elect Law Double Degree Programme beckons. It does seem that the interviews speak for my communications skills. Perhaps now I do have to set myself a goal to go to the World Universities Debating Championships, just to make a point.

More pointedly though, this particular course instructor I have not held in high regard from the first lesson. And there may yet be something to be said and done about the matter. Do not rouse sleeping serpents, for only the deadly dare slumber so openly.

">
(<$BlogItemCommentCount$>) comments

School Uniforms

In a time and age where the buzzword is creativity, society reaches an impasse. Do we encoruage our children to conform, to maintain the cohesive and efficient machine our forefathers have built, that has led to such rapid growth and prosperity, or do we forge a new path?

The collective societal psyche seems to suggest the former. Humans it would appear are almost always resistant to change, especially when things are well. What does this say of the role of trouble in the advancement of human civilisation?

The writer, however, would put forward the notion that it is time for a change.

The global economy has moved on. Our place in it is not what it was before. Whether one prefers Samuelson's S-curve analysis or other models, the conclusion remains the same. Regardless of government statements, we are now a developed nation. Along with this promotion comes a shift from manufacturing to service industries being our primary engines of continued prospertiy, and these new industries require above all else fresh ideas.

The concept of creative thinking, or thinking out of the box, is not new. And it is simple enough to understand that ideas from out of the box are best formulated from without. The problem of course is that we all live within a box, with some of us oocasionally managing to breach the walls of the box to take a walk on the other side, and return richer for it, im mind if not in matter.

To enhance our competitiveness in this new paradigm, we need to thin the walls of our box, relaxing the constraints on what is and what is not an acceptable notion, of what can and cannot be tried out. We need to accept the reality of failures as a viable, nay, a vital part of success. We can't always be the best, and in many areas that we so tout, we no longer are.

Therefore, we need to remove the oldest and most pervasive symbol of societal conformity and thinking within the box, the school uniform.

The school uniform is supposed to be an equaliser of sorts. Rich or poor, all school children wear one. Yet other accessories have crept in, from shoes to watches to school bags to ensure that the income gap is made manifest. There is simply no good way to keep the income disparity between students hidden. More importantly, there is no reason to. Let us not pretend that the poor are not among us. It is the fastest way to breed apathy. One, after all, cannot show compassion to what one is told does not exist.

The school uniform is also supposed to be about neatness and presentability. We, however, have the misfortune of having some of the most unsightly school uniforms this side of the Earth. The artistic acumen of their designers is truly deplorable. Perhaps some of them are colour blind.

On the other hand, a school uniform expresses conformity and stifles orginality. Putting one on symbolically shackes our future to thinking the same thoughts as those who came before them.

This is not to say that there should be no school rules to enforce certain modes of behaviour to ensure that the school runs without problems, or that there should be no emblems to show belonging to one school or another, but the school uniforms have to go. Let RFID tags identify students for security reasons. Better still, embed them in the school badges so there is a practical reason for punishing students for not wearing them.

Right. So I suddenly feel a need to recap everything thats happened to me over the past couple of weeks.

1. Grandfather passes away on Valentines day.
2. Debate tournament postponed until September
3. Cascade of papers and presentations (though this is nothing new)
4. Hovering somewhere between heartache and heartbreak

Well, to tell the truth, its not like there is anything to DO about any of this. The doing is never the problem. Its the doing nothing that is. And well ... I hate doing nothing.

">
(<$BlogItemCommentCount$>) comments

To say that I'm rather upset is quite the understatement.

The clinic operated by NTUC in school is quite ludicrous indeed. I suppose some illustration is in order.

The entire purpose of taking time out of an otherwise busy schedule to make an appointment would be to save time in future, so one does not have to spend time waiting in the queue. The practice is universal among clinics. I really ought to know. My dad runs one and I grew up around one.

So yours truly makes an appointment for 12pm on Wednesday to see the doctor to do what would be a 15 min medical checkup at most. As of now, I've been waiting for 29 min, having arrived 3 min early because I did not want to miss my appointment and have to wait.

But as it is, I am wondering if any such appointment was noted down. I am rather perplexed by the situation. If the situation should persist, I would have to wonder if the clinic has a policy on appointments at all, seeing that I have just been leapfrogged. On e gentleman took a particularly long time with the doctor, for him to be the previous patient, but its within the realm of possibilities.

It truly is rather harrowing how badly run the place seems to be. Given my current less-than-sunny disposition, a series of complaints to various authorities may just be necessary to ellicit a response.

While I write this, my appointment has just been leapfrogged a second time. Perhaps it is just the waiting. I am singularly unused to having to wait very long to see a doctor, and I have waited half an hour to see one of the most established orthodontic surgeons in Singapore. That was rather understandable since I failed to make it on time for my appointment, and the surgeon in question shows up at that particular branch of the clinic twice a week. And I waited half an hour.

At this point in time, I've waited more than that to see a GP for a silly medical checkup. I may have noted before that most of the adults I know happen to be medical practitioners. This is becoming most upsetting.

Well, the actual checkup took less than a minute. The doctor's nice and competent, but the administration ... most upsetting.

On the bright side, I wrote a blog entry.

In Hong Kong, service like this is suicide. That's all for now.
">
(<$BlogItemCommentCount$>) comments

Alrighty then. Its been a pretty long while since I wrote something new. So I guess I should, before the blog feels neglected. And the last thing I need is a blog whining for attention. There are enough other things doing that. *Glares at LTB project*

This one's also a shout-out to Theresa, if she ever actually visit.

I guess today I'll talk about the quality known as magic. Increasingly, I feel the burden of magical expectation upon my shoulders. I'd just like to declare once and for all that I'm not a magician nor a miracle-worker. I may know a miracle-worker, but thats about as far as it goes. Referent power ... as my LTB textbook says.

OK. My brain's kinda fried and there's a rend in my soul, so I'm gonna stop here before my rather less friendly alter-ego makes an appearance.

Peace.

">
(<$BlogItemCommentCount$>) comments

Waves of love from a broken soul,
Anguished cries of a heart alone;
A sprinkle of rain on desert sands,
Life flourishes upon parched lands;
Why do they struggle;
How do they thrive;
I've searched they skies,
Yet know not why;
Through darkness and despair,
Still they try;
For a memorial,
Whene'er I cry.

Forfeited for sin
Redeemed by grace
Sacrificed in gratitude
Restored in glory

Life.

Progress Report:
Stats Exam: finished. think i dropped 4% of my grade

Well, its been an age and a half since my last post, for reasons that escape even me. Guess I don't actually have all that much to say after all.

Most recently, I've been pondering whether I should go ahead with my Economics second degree or not. I've come to realise that I do not really believe in modern economics, per se. It has become too mathematical, which is not really the issue. The mathematical skills learned would definitely help in understanding academic journals.

The problem is really in that the journals do nothing but reaffirm what is already in my textbooks, about the supremacy of orthodox economic theory. Unfortunately, I don't think orthodox economic theory makes very much sense. The only reasonable approximate to a perfectly competitive market is a financial market, and even that can be called into question.

Ceteris paribus is the biggest lie in human history. Okay, maybe not. Time Magazine did declare that God is dead. So its the second biggest lie in human history. It works wonderfully as an assumption to simplify things so specific factors in an economy can be analysed, but that is all it is, an assumption.

The problem though, is weighing intellectual honesty against economic value. The Economics degree has a value. As alien as orthodox economics is to real life, it has an actual economic value in the search for employment. Investment banks love economists, even though the knowledge does not seem to apply. Yet, I am not certain I am willing to put myself through 4 years of theory I do not believe in just for that. I barely survived Business, Government and Society as it is. For those who are thankfully spared the module, its a half-baked ethics course on the stakeholder model of management, which is even more devoid of intellectual foundations than modern-day orthodox economics, whose only sin is to believe in its own untenable assumptions.

I would look into development economics in terms of alternative theories, but the basic courses... Oh the pain of redoing macro and micro economics with mathematical models I believe are essentially useless.

Well, so I ponder on, while I read Omerod's The Death of Economics.

Its been fun though. Might just do the degree to be academic. The business degree is clearly not exercising my brain, or will not once this law module is done with.

Adieu, mon ami.

Friends and Peers

Its been sitting in my head for a long while to write about this idea. But thoughts take time to percolate, and political expediencies would dictate other delays.

So finally, now seems like a good time to let loose, so to speak.

And already the controversy is about to begin. Friends and peers are not the same thing.

A friend is someone you genuinely like and usually get along with. The operative idea here is love. No greater love has a man for his friend than to lay down his life for him. When love blossoms in a non-romantic way, you get friendship.

A peer is someone of your level. In a sense, it is a match in terms of standing, or ability. The guy who knows as much as you do, is a subject-matter expert in one field as you are in another for example, is your peer. He is, in other words, you equal.

Now you do not have to like your peers. You can dislike them with a vengeance. The feeling can be mutual. You may not see eye to eye with them at all. The operative idea here is relative ability.

In a perfect world, all your friends would be your peers, even if not all your peers are your friends. We all wish things were this way. This gives rise to us using the words interchangeably, even though they operate on completely different concepts.

Perhaps an illustration is in order. God is Abraham's friend. God says Abraham is His friend. There is a mutual love. That much is nice and Biblical too. However, its utterly blasphemous and ludicrous to assert that God and Abraham are peers. For the theologically uninitiated, God has no peer. That's why He's God. Name above all names, Almighty, Most Exalted and so on. Clearly no peers. Its simple. Nobody is God's equal. And nobody tries to be. Well except that one guy. You might know him. Mr S A Tan. But it didn't work out for him. Mostly because he tried to be something he was not. Frankly, he didn't have it in him. Perfection is hard to attain.

But enough of that. The point is this. In you life, there are peers, and there are friends.
There is an intersection in those 2 groups where you have friends who are peers and peers who are friends. But not all friends are peers, and not all peers are friends. Think of it as a Venn diagram.

Now comes the problem when people start confusing the 2 ideas.

Usually, a peer of yours won't become confused that he's your friend when you barely know each other. No relationship, no love develops.

No, the problems arise when your friends think they are your peers. At this moment, it is only prudent to admit that there are some things your friends do better than you. Its a fact of life. There are things lizards do better than humans, namely walking up walls. But peers are people who generally match you in terms of ability. Now, the thing with friends is that emotions are involved. And when that happens, people can become offended.

So it comes to pass that you don't treat your friend like a peer, because he is not, and he becomes offended because he thinks he's your peer because he's your friend. The logical mistake is in that last bit. A friend is not necessarily a peer.

And how do you handle this?

Telling your friend he is not your peer will bruise his ego, and he'll be offended.
Pretend that he is your peer is deceiving him and yourself.

Catch 22 anyone?

That said, the wounds of a friend are true. But sadly, many friendships can end this way.

What would you do?

Then there is this: if you're the smartest guy in your group of friends, start making new ones.
Its a quote. I didn't make it up. I'm not sure what to make of it either.

The strains on my life. Man...

Sometimes life is just amazing. So amazing in fact you don't know what to think of it.

On the one hand, challenges faced in my various community service projects are evaporating in spectacular fashion. There's a sponsorship for 1st prize to fly the winners to Geneva. I've never sniffed Geneva even. Then the school wants to pay for a dinner reception and other stuff.

On the other hand, its like life is ripping my internal organs out.

I have no idea how to feel.

">
(<$BlogItemCommentCount$>) comments