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

Swirling Shadows

It feels like the wounds in my soul have not healed. Or new wounds are constantly inflicted upon my heart. I know not which. My own heart's blood taints my sight, darkening my visions of the things that are. Would that by daybreak the overcast skies will pass me by, and yet there will be no thunder to echo my cries...

A veneer, a facade for those too blind to see
Unworthy to peer into the depths of the sea
Concealing the turbulence
Yes, the storms within
Too deaf to hear the whispers
Of silent winds

Unprepared and ill-ready
To face the truth they are
So foolishly they stand
Gazing from afar
Too fearful to behold
The heart of a star

Yet slowly but surely
Rays of sunshine seep away
Taking with them
The simple joys I crave
Still they pass by me
Day to day
Unaware of the imminent
Crashing Wave

Tempt me not, I would say
If e'er they would listen
Depart from me
Thou speck in my vision
Still they traipse before my eyes
As if my world was a meadow
Soon to be consumed
By the swirling shadows



">
(<$BlogItemCommentCount$>) comments

Elections 06

To the people who actually read this page to be intellectually stimulated or for various alternative perspectives, despite the irregularity of updates, I salute you and apologise for my cowardice. I really should have written a piece on the elections earlier, but for fear of persecution I waited fir the polling to end. Oh wait a minute, that should have been prosecution. Nevertheless, I shall persevere with this piece.

Before we begin the analysis of Singapore's electoral processes, we should first establish a basis for comparisons of Singapore vis a vis other countries in terms of democratic elections. To this end, I put forward to you that we should stop comparing Singapore's democratic elections with the elections of our fellow ASEAN nations, if they have them at all. This is justified for the simple reason that neither in terms of prosperity nor literacy is there any spheres of parity between Singapore and its neighbours. Therefore, to point at riots in the Phillipines or demonstrations in Thailand and then say we are doing better than they are really does not prove how developed a democratic society we are. It is merely akin to a graduate declaring that he is more educated than a primary school student, obvious and without any point.

Let us begin with one of the silliest pieces of advice ever given by man: put first things first.

(NB: The incidental problem with this statement is that whatever you prioritise as most important to you you will automatically put first, since it is of primary importance to you. The actual idea this statement is trying to convey is to correct your view of what takes priority in life. On its own, the statement is redundant. On another note, what you put first is by defintion first. Hence you cannot put first things second. Its impossible.)

The first phase of elections in Singapore is not the campaigning but the defamation lawsuits. Now in every developed democracy, there always exists a mild degree of mudslinging involved in elections. The school of thought that prescribes discrediting your opponents in advance is rather ubiquitous. In most developed nations, both sides merely counter these 'accusations' over the airwaves. Unique to Singapore is the use of the courts as a countermeasure by the ruling People's Action Party.

Regardless of whether or not there is actual defamation involved or not, the use of the judicial system not merely in defense but in an offensive capacity creates the impression that the judicial system is beholden to the ruling party and as such compromised, because not everyone equal before the eyes of the law any longer. While rather extreme in my opinion, merely demanding justification for its accusations from opposing parties is more than enough. By taking the aggressor's role in suing political opponents, the ruling party instead gives an impression that their opponents have struck a nerve.

Secondly, defamation laws are subject to interpretation, especially when defendants are accused of not directly stating certain ideas but insinuating them. Add to this the fact that the ruling party has never lost a suit, and in winning them often seek to destroy its opponents through bankruptcy, and the fairness of the courts can be called into question.

The second phase of the elections is in the nomination process. It was here where I spotted something rather quaint, before the entire James Gomez saga, which I will deal with later. But back to the rather odd observation. I realised that there were permanent secretaries who were members of the PAP and running for election. This occurred to me as rather weird, as the permanent secretaries are supposed to be senior officials of the civil service, and the civil service is supposed to continue to put into motion government policies regardless of which party is in power. It seemed to me that that the line between policy-mkaing and bureaucracy had beenblurred, whereas they are supposed to be independent entities. What would the world be like if Alan Greenspan were a card-carrying member of the Republican Party?

Now to actually discuss the James Gomez saga. The issue was that the candidate failed to submit a declaration that he was of a minorty race along with his nomination form. The elections department raised the matter, he denied it and then proceeded to make a big fuss. Ultimately, a security video proved the case in favour of the elections department. Now, the ruling party has every right to question his integrity after such an episode. However, to let the issue drag on for three days is uncalled for. It is actually embarrassing to have such a big fuss made out of such a minor issue. Assuredly the demonstrations in Thailand are more socially damaging, but at least when they do make a fuss, its about something rather more significant.

Also on this note, it would not be fair if I did not point out that the Worker's Party could have been disqualified from the polls at Aljunied GRC simply because James Gomez could have been disqualified for not submitting all his forms. And without James Gomez who is of a minority race, they could not contest a GRC at all. So, in a sense, it could be argued that James Gomez made a political gamble and lost, which in the opinion of this writer is no big deal.

At the end of the day, as the polling results come in, a few thing still have not changed. The PAP still rule Singapore, and will continue to do so with good results, as they have in the past. The state of democracy in Singapore is still tellingly infantile, in comparison with our peers. Of course, it has been the most exciting election in a while.
Comments

In addition

A friend recently mentioned to me recently that my writing in my blog is rather difficult to read, as is my spoke language at times. I concur. And if it causes you problems, you have my sincere apologies. Also, I ask for your understanding (I was going to use forebearance) as simplifying the way I speak and write is somewhat akin to (like) cutting off my left or right hand. I didn't start with the average level of English and them work my way up. I never spoke English like a Singaporean so its rahter hard to relate. Think of me as an expat kid. Its more or less accurate. And it should help. I tried speaking Singlish to fit in, but after so many years, it still sounds rather forces and fake. I don't honestly know which is worse, that people don't understand what i say and think I'm arrogant, or hear my forced Singlish, believe I'm being condescending and therefore conclude I'm arrogant.

Yes, there actually is a point to all this reflection. It actually serves to highlight something from the previous post 'Society and such'. It is written in my usual style and has its usual distinct properties.

As such, for the majority of Singaporeans, it causes the same problem, that is not easy to understand.

The question though is how you are going to react to it?

A) I couln't fully understand the writer. The standard of English is too high. I should improve on mine.

B) I couldn't understand the writer. The standard of English is too high. But he's Singaporean like me! Therefore, he's just and arrogant ******* trying to show off.

Now, I've experienced many people who fall under category B, and that's also what motivated the below piece. So in a single moment of vehemence from a tormented primary school life, reality check folks!

">
(<$BlogItemCommentCount$>) comments

Society and such

It just occurred to me roughly what just irked me so much about Singapore society. Now, I am unsure if the terminology is mathematically accurate, but I feel it rather succinctly expresses my thoughts.

My greatest disatisfaction with the Singaporean social fabric and culture has really nothing to do with the lack of logical thought among them. Let me first explain this idea.
I realised some time ago that Singaporeans are very quick to tell others that they are wrong, especially when faced with ideas that are not what we call mainstream, inter alia more controversial or maverick ideas. While less than pleasant, there is nothing much else wrong with that.

The actual problem lies on 2 levels. Firstly, Singaporeans have very little reasoning to explain why a certain concept is wrong. The counter-arguments virtually never vary from the following 2 templates: a) Somebody important or supposedly important said so, or b) We are older and have gone through experiences you have not, therefore we are right and you are not.

Now, to be fair, there is a certain validity to both these concepts, when applied appropriately. It is in this application where Singaporean society in general falls short. These concepts cannot be used simply as a one-liner and be expected to have an effect. And it is self-evident that they cannot possibly apply to everything. Yes, it is rather demanding, but a simple 'Confucius says' does not necessarily make whatever you present right. There needs to be a further explanation of why Confucius said what he did. Furthermore, I don't suppose we are more older and more experienced and therefore know better can be applied to information technology, now can it?

In other words, write me off all you like, but please demonstrate actual logic when you do so.

But enough of that and on to the main gist of today's post. I feel that Singapore is a dishonestly lowest common denominator society. Now that's just funky terminology, sometimes known as cheem-inology, and makes absolutely no sense on its own. So let's move on.

In every society, there are some elements of a lowest common denominator culture, where people because of human nature try to pull down others who try to excel, or rise above the crowd. It is not a desireable state, but it exists. And most societies are honest enough to acknowledge that and do something about it. The USA is a good example of this, with many schemes and programmes to encourage development of specific talents. Other societies are honestly trying to equalise everything and make sure nobody stands out. Its terrible, but at least they do so without trying to hide it.

In Singapore however, we like to present the image that we are doing something about this lowest common denominator problem, but refuse to admit that we have this problem. This leads to policy changes without any changes in thinking, which is ultimately meaningless, because nobody is going to take 'the new way of doing things' seriously. It leads to strange concepts like creativity classes with structured worksheets.

But let's look at a more detailed example. Contrary to popular belief and MOE statements, the standard of English in Singapore is rather terrible, and the standard of Chinese is worse. Nevertheless, lets focus on the English language, since I admit that my standard of Chinese is too poor for me to comment.

Now to examine some evidence to back up my case. Now, the standard of written English in a daily context is passable, if you do not work in the civil service, which regularly makes up its own words such as 'operationalisation' or 'tranch'. However, for professional publications, the level of written English lacks the level of sophistication and polish necessary, especially with lack of distinction between 'will' and 'shall', or 'which' and 'that', just for example. There is also an issue with the diction (choice of words) used which relflects either a limited vocabulary and a poor one which does not distinguish between the connotations and nuances of similar words.

Moving on, we confront as a second example the standard of spoken English in Singapore, which I can confortably say is abysmal. We need look no further than the confusion of the number 'three' with the plant 'tree'. Further evidence lies in the way we mispronounce words like photographer (emphasis on the 2nd syllable, not the 3rd as is the norm). Unfortunately, the usual escuse presented that its a matter of accents hold no water. Accents involve the quirky ways people of different native tongues speak English. They sound a little strange, but they place the emphasis on the right syllables and the sentences are mostly grammatically correct, with colloquialisms. Singlish is not like that, however commendable its amalgamation of the various languages spoken here is.

In the face of this, and our daily exposure to English better than are own, we still insist on holding on to our false belief in our own standard of English. In fact, we vehemently defend it against criticisms whether direct or not, intentional or not. In fact, the most telling kind of critcisms are the indirect and unintentional ones. These arise when one person in class simply speaks and writes English of a higher quality and sophistication than others.

Now your language standard is intrinsic in the way you communicate. The level at which you normally interact with others is your standard of language. It is a perfectly natural expression of how well you know that language. In spoken terms, this is reflected in the fluency and confidence of speech. It is rather unreasonable to ostracise someone for that.

Nevertheless, this is what happens in Singapore society. Instead of ackowledging the gap in the local standard on what is required, we cling on to our belief that we are good enough. And when a person's performance exposes the fallacy of that belief, that person immediately comes under sttack for threatening our precious belief. This simply because if the belief falls, then society as a whole will have to make an effort to change.

At the end of the day, behind everything else, it is this social intertia that is masked by a facade of progressiveness that leads to the advent of a dishonestly lowest common denominator society, and it is this whcih i so detest about Singaporean society.

This piece was partially inspired by the responses in the Straits Times to the recent forum between certain selected members of my generation and the Minister Mentor, Mr Lee Kuan Yew, whom I greatly respect for his achievements, but not necessarily agree with.

">
(<$BlogItemCommentCount$>) comments