Dignosco Dignosco

Monday, July 06, 2009

Political Apathy

- Sgreans attitude - Blue/Red Pill? - Why so? - The need for - Changing socio-economical climate -

Source of inspiration.

A survey conducted by a body affiliated to the government found that:

■ Some 63.4% of Singaporeans knew little or nothing about the Constitution and the organs of state.

■ Two-thirds, or more than 66%, of Singaporeans believed that they had little or no influence at all on national issues.

■ A whopping 92.7% had never given feedback to the Government, and 94.9% had never written letters to a newspaper.

■ And 94.5% don’t know what it’s like to sign a petition.

A story that bemused me in an interesting way. I've kinda got this impression that senior officers in my working environment seem to have the answer, or at least seem to know what they are talking and can offer their take on about any issues at hand. So during lunch with one of my bosses, we spoke about the problems of our society and with politics in general. So instead of the usual 'talking down' to me by him, which has often occurred in our office cubicles with me being the inquisitive one asking about workplace policies, this time it was my turn sharing in a uniquely one-directional conversation. Here I'm, a 20+ yr old junior officer, talking to someone of who is a dad of 2, been working in the system for quite some time, and he had nothing of value to share and discuss.

Now, this is not the interesting part, i thought. The weirder and more significant problem that struck me was that this is exactly the same thing that happens whenever the issue of politics was struck up during conversation over a meal, or just about any other conversations among my peers, of similar age and educational profile. Now, not that I've known myself as an overbearing conversationalist, just one who offers my views strongly in things that i've believed in, the nature of this phenomenon is simply the fact that most singaporeans don't give a flying f* to national politics.

This reminds me of the Matrix (yea how useful, the movie Matrix can be used to describe almost anything that happens in the world). Most singaporeans are still swallowing bitter blue pills (as our government likes to tell us, swallow the bitter pill, fight on despite the gloomy economical climate and tough times, the golden age of singapore is over - in implicit terms,"your degree is worthless, masters are ok, phDs are cool, anything else be prepared to bite more bullets).

They are sludging through the system that IS created by national policies. How so? These policies occur in our daily lives, in the systems we live in: education structure, nature of job openings, economic measures like tax, wages, CPF and so on and so forth. And while we are living in this system and working our ways through it (with a little grumbles and complains), we have never considered the WhoWhatWhenWhereWhy and How this system is created.

Why so? Why are Sgreans so apathetic? Is it because they are born apathetic, or they are made this way? (back to the nature vs nurture argument). I guess the answer should be kinda obvious, unless some scientist proves us wrong with the existence of 'apathetic genes', in which we singaporeans seem to have alot of.

In my experience, from young, we are inprinted with the idea of intense competition, especially in education. We work hard with TYSs, repeated end of year papers, and always seek for answers that will always be provided. We are told to score and do well, else our future will be bleak. (and likwise, i'm sure most parents in singapore tell that to their kids). Our governemnt continues its increasing foreign talent importing policies, tells us they need to because our birth rates are low and there are jobs that singaporeans won't want to do. With regards to the last issue, the question to ask is really, is it true that singaporeans do not want to do the jobs as stated? Or is it that these jobs are not wanted by singaporeans because of other factors, such as the incessant reflection of how these jobs are despised and not taken up by singaporeans, causing an effect by stating the phenomenon? And the result of all these policies have caused issues like 'lack of creativity' due to our education nature, 'brain drain', 'exploitation of foreign workers', 'inflation', 'academic inflation' and a whole host of issues that if you open your eyes they would be as easy to spot.

The point is, our behaviours, conscious or unconscious experience is a function of this system that is created. We are the way we are, because of the environment we live in. Parents tell their kids to buck up because in reality thats what they need to do! We are apathetic towards politics because we have so much else that concerns us at a livelihood manner before we can think about what causes these concerns at depth.

Its like we are little Neos, needing a miracle help from the system to feed us the much needed red pills before we can wake up and be aware of things, the matrix that we live in, and how to enact REAL changes from within. For that, we have to understand our own political climate and then come to the realization of our our seemingly innocuous "apathetic" nature of political awareness have led us down to our daily life experiences. Things like national policy affect the very ways of life of society. Grave as it might sound, it is indeed serious. And if we do not care about policy making at the national level, we can also forget about voicing out issues that may produce concerns, and we might as well don't bother making changes at the citizenship level with regards to issues that affect our livelihood.

Well it has been a rambling of sorts, but to conclude, we citizens have to take a stakeholder approach towards national building and policy making. We have to stop being singaporeans only on NDP. We are the ones working the ground, knowing what is going on, feeling the economic and social effects of our environment that shape us, and I believe we jolly well know what what kind of environment we want ourselves and our kids to live in, and we can produce change at the grassroots. Taking ownership is the first step I ask for, and being politically aware is just a subsequent consequence of that attitude.

Saturday, May 30, 2009

A lighter moment

Reminiscing one of the funnier and enlightening moments during my previous vacation attachment. Was working in a small department of 6, in which 5 of them are married with kids ranging from toddlers to late teens. Managed to had a lighter and funnier moment with the 2IC, who was about to celebrate his 20++ yrs of marriage/wedding anniversary and he gave me a golden advice:

Him: "Leslie, next time when you get married, try to make things easier for yourself."

Me: " (in my mind: WTF are u talking about). Huh? "

Him: "See.... My anniversary is on Christmas day. I never forget about our wedding anniversary date. Only sometimes the number of years, but at least my wife doesn't nag or scold me if i forget the date!"

*the group of married men in my department laughs and cheers, saluting this little piece of wisdom being imparted to a rookie young man.

------------------------------------

Golden advice indeed.

I've always wondered whats with the fascination by the female species on celebrating special occasions on a anniversary basis. I'm not a big fan of celebrating at a glorious level, throwing parties and such. IMHO, such glorious celebration should only take place if the occasion really means something. Like if you have ED for the past 30 yrs and you get cured in your coming bday. Now thats significant and life changing and certainly deserves celebration.

Bdays aren't top of my list. Turning 24, 30, 40 or 50 or 69 the next day certainly doesn't mean anything significant. You are still yourself before your bday, and you will certainly still be the same you after your bday, so what is the big deal with celebrating them? For milestones sake, sure, though to me it feels a little shallow. Getting friends and acquaintances to celebrate and the next day everyone goes on with their lives. I've known of ppl who attend others bday parties religiously, in so with hope that their own bday parties will be properly reciprocated. What bollocks?

Anyway lesson learnt from this wise man and his advice for guys : plan your special days in advance and make things easier for yourself...e.g. if you are starting out, your monthiversary date..if you gonna plant your first kiss on your girl, your first kisserversary date...if you gonna hit home run....your first homerun date...if you gonna propose....your proposal date...and if you gonna ROM...your ROM date and if you gonna get married, plan your marriage date. To make things easier, just try to do them all in the same day, like...erm...Vday. This way, you get high benefit with lower costs. And when dementia or the effect of "just being a guy" sets in, you don't forget such important dates because its stated explicitly in your default calender.

P.S. GF is going to complain about this when she sees this.

Thursday, April 30, 2009

AWARE Fiasco...Issues to ponder

Cliffnotes: (google wayangparty / the online citizen for more background information)

AWARE is a secular women right's organisation. Among other fronts that they push further for women rights, they have also adopted a neutral stance towards homosexuality in Singapore.

Meanwhile, pastors and high ranking church people from CHURCH OF OUR SAVIOR (COOS), decided that homosexuality is an act against the teachings of their God, and planted the seeds for a management coup d'etat (though it was constitutional) of AWARE so that they can change the direction of a secular organisation into one that is anti-homosexual.

------------------------------------------------------

Issues and implications to ponder:

1) Fanatics, whose religion allowed them to have a higher moral standing, decide to impose their discriminatory views onto a secular organisation by taking over the management on a constitutional basis.

Granted it was a constitutional takeover, why can't the Church simply start a new organisation and fight for their own cause? Why is there the need to take over a secular organisation that represents the multi-religious, multi-racial woman demographic in SG? Can't they mind their own business?

The pastor actually said "It’s not a crusade against the people but there’s a line that God has drawn for us, and we don’t want our nation crossing that line."

Apparently he has forgotten that he is just a pastor of a church (not the Prime-minister nor the Prime-minister's father whom have the actual capacity to make such statements) and should not have made such a daring blanket statement concerning the nation crossing that line. And which LINE? Who drew the line? JESUS? Would the Gods of other religions , e.g. Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism and atheism have drawn different lines? And who is to say whose line is BETTER than the other line?

2) If such a management takeover for the sake of furthering a cause of a religion is condoned and accepted by the public, what sort of message does it imply?

That if another pastor in another church dislikes a national or organisational policy that does not fit into their God's doctrine, they should actively campaign aganist them and if possible, take over the organisation and impose their views on their freewill?

Will we become a christian state? And for "God's sake", why do christians always need others to see things in their shoe, evangelising, preaching, and now imposing?

------------------------------------------------------------

There are some personal reflections and takeaways with regards to this issue.

Firstly, homosexuals are here to stay. They have always been around in history, in the present, and also in the future with or without any religious, social, genetical, governmental (and what not) interference. Heck, talking about sexual abuse of altar boys, there are even homo pastors, bishops and cardinals!

No matter how negative or distasteful the presence of such beings appear to anti-homosexual religious fanatics, they have to realise homos are humans afterall, and have equal living rights amongst us. Furthermore, living in multiracial and religious inclusive society, we have to make sense of our living environment and develop an awareness (not tolerance though, as the word implies I hate what you are doing, but I'm going to take it in my stride and not make a big fuss about it) towards the sensitivity of such issues. Ain't Christianity all about preaching of love towards humanity? Where is the humanity when there is so much hatred in condemning homosexuals to hell when they are just like normal people? Love the hypocrisy.

Secondly, issues like this with a religious background can have drastic implications on a plural society. It is making people who are at first sensitively aware of religious differences into one that is more of quiet tolerance, and in the worst case, developing a disdain. The Church of our Savior has certainly done itself no favours as an ambassador of whatever god they pray to. Even some christians have publicly condemned such actions taken by the Church. I can forsee certain government intervention being taken should there be any threats occuring to our pluralistic society.

Lastly, to end with a quote:

"When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion, it is called Religion."
-- Robert M. Pirsig

I've always maintained that the world will be better off without any religion. The only good thing I can take out from having religions is the good values they impart to followers. These similar values can also be learnt and assimilated on my own without the help of any religions at all - it is simply called being a HUMAN. It doesnt take much common sense to know what being a Human means. The world can be better off with a bit more humanity versus "My God is better than your God, and my Line is bigger and wider and nicer than your freaking line."

Friday, April 17, 2009

Trying to make common sense in current issues. (Non Sequitur)

Just trying to make some sense in latest happenings and current affairs in our tiny beautiful island. Singaporeans are generally apathetic to general current affairs and political news. This isn't surprising as we have many daily survival issues to contend with, before we can exercise our common sense on what is really happening on the ground. Lets see.

Ren Ci CEO Monk gone amok. Political/Journalistic/Management Implications.

Apparently doing charity is all about filling the pockets of the head honcho before the beans are spilled. I thought TT Durai was the man, now this monk (someone who should espouse the values of the religion he preaches) tops the chart. Details of this fiasco aside, some key issues arises:

1) What is the management committee doing? A news report said they trusted their head monk and allowed him to set his own salary. Okay, so they run on the basis of 'trust'. This was the same basis used when our national reserves were tapped for our 'Resilience Package'. When questioned on the process of approval, I quote our Finance Minister

“I’m not sure why it is relevant. At the end of the day, this is a system that is different from Norway and Australia, where as much detail as possible is provided. This is a system that relies on trust in the individuals who are in charge including those appointed to the CPA and the Elected President. Do you trust them? Have they made decisions wisely? Has the government been acting responsibly?”

Where was the accounting, check and balances, transparency? The word 'trust' is a big word to use, and has big implications. When things go wrong, where does the fault lie? Is it the management fault for trusting someone whom they thought would not abuse their authority? Or is it a systems failure for not implementing proper check and balances to prevent such cases from happening? I thank God (I'm an atheist, but I can't find anyone to give thanks) that this time it was a Charity Organisation that screwed up. I do hope nothing of this sort happens for our National Corporation. Just because of the word "TRUST".

2) I got news that headhoncho monk approved a $60k loan to a PAP MP thru CNA's online website. The title listed in the website changed from "Ming Yi approves $60,000 loan to MP Ong Seh Hong" to "Former RenCi CEO Ming Yi approves several loans to staff" a few hours after this news clipping was released online. It doesn't take an idiot to figure out what our local media is doing.

The irony of this issue was that I was watching the news reporting on Mediacorp News Award ceremony which awarded prizes and recognition for the great journalistic content of the media. I quote their Chairman Ho Kwon Ping,

“In understanding the spirit of the times, we stand united not as a single MediaCorp but as professionals dedicated to the task of making this crazy world more understandable to our audience."

I'm sure our journalistic standards are up there among the best, and the efforts of the editors in making this RenCi news report more understandable to the international and local readers alike should be applauded.

New Creation Church Pastor earns $500k/annum. God is the new first class honours

Oh my GOD! If I knew believing in certain unproven assertions from a Bible and then charismatically preaching to others would secure me such a comfortable salary, I should have gone to seminary schools instead of slaving it out in NUS currently. Cut to the crap, here are some common sense issues that we should all think about:

1) Why is the pastor paid so much. Isn't a pastor one who should adopt the very core values that the religion teaches? I don't think the peeps who wrote the bible said it is okay to pay yourself so well from the many donations made by altruistic (if not blind) followers of the church. Besides, does a pastor need so much? Drive a big car, live in a big house, indulge in luxuries while providing religious and spiritual comfort to believers? A pastor is the embodiment of the religion, an ambassador of good teachings for God's sake!

2) Is there a need for mega classy-extravagant church? Is there justification for the amazing amounts of donation - $19 million worth on one Sunday ? Why do the followers of the Church donate so much? Do they know where the money is going? Into the pockets of their pastor? Into the senseless building of high-class luxury style church so that they can feel cool and hip when they confess their sins on a weekly affair? Into buying a nicer lot with more amenities in Heaven? Or just because you believe in God and you just know you should give your money to him. For God's sake, there are so many people in the world who could make better use with that sum of money. People are dying of poverty, lack of food, healthcare and medicine. I seriously implore these kind-altrustic-classy church-goers to get a sense of proportion (a term so strongly used by our ahkong you know who) and make sense of their donations, and what they are actually donating for.

Granted, I'm not a follower of the church, and can never understand fully their actions for amassing such huge sums for a church. But even if I am, I should be exercising due common sense in making such donation decisions, especially with the integrity of altruistic organisations being thoroughly questioned in the light of the NKF and RenCi saga.

There are more issues to contend with, and I guess that is the new direction for this blog. Making common sense out of daily issues.

Sunday, September 14, 2008

The Nature of Truth, or 'truths'

- Maths and Science - The Big Bang Experiment - History of Singapore - Declassified Documents - Onions - 2+2 = 4 -

There is a beauty in the simplicity of Maths and Science. Both serve to unravel the truth and facts of nature, resolving complexity to simplicity. Regulated by systemic processes such as peer reviews, both fields ensure that the research discoveries hold the integrity of truth, at the very moment at least, until they are denounced by discoveries and inconsistencies in the future.

The latest LHC Big Bang experiment is another attempt to dig deeper into the truth of matter. To put this discussion in context, lets look at a summarized version of the understanding of matter through ages of mankind.

The history of matter began with the early Greeks near 490 BC. They first took it at face value that matter is made up of 4 elements: fire, water, air and earth. Later, another Greek studied the indivisible nature of matter and came up with the concept of atoms. They thought that atoms were the fundamental particles in nature, and they were wrong. Fast forward, future discoveries brought about the knowledge of nucleus and subsequently, protons and electrons and the likes. Going deeper, the standard model that we now know shows the truths of what matter really is, consisting of even smaller particles such as quarks, muons, gluons and what nots.

It should be noted the contemporaries at the different parts of the history had a different understanding of the 'truths'. The Greeks certainly thought their '4-elemental model' then was correct during the context of their society. And certainly physicists today know that the standard model is a widely accepted 'truth' on how things work today. It is a great thing to be able to unravel and test existing truths through advancement in technology, with the LHC experiment. Having the ability to know what is real, what is not, what is right and what is wrong provides a soothing influence for me at least.

The advent of technology, especially the internet, (and not the media, if you understand the nature of free-press in our country), allowed me to come across declassified documents that gave me a new insight of the History of Singapore, as well as things that are not taught formally in the classroom, not published publicly in the press, and things that have been actively 'socially engineered' into me since young. To be honest, having such new insights and perspectives kind of made me feel and look stupid, into believing what was taught was taken to be the real truth. There is always the other side of the story in the study of history.
(Note: I used the word 'insight', and not necessarily truths. For what I've learnt gave me new perspectives, but by no means the authority to deem them as truths)

As we know, history is written by the victors. History is a product of survivorship bias, as the lost and the dead do not tell stories. There is always the other side of the story, I repeat, in history. But what about now, the present? Is there any difference between present and past, future and history? What happens now becomes history tomorrow. If we continue to be ignorant of 'the other side' in our daily lives and taking what is portrayed to us as truths at face value, we would just look like idiots when we become history tomorrow. "Look at the dumb Greeks..matter....Fire, water, air, earth...COME ON..dumbass..lol!" It may sound ridiculous now on hindsight (the Greeks), but without the active search for truths, we would not have the luxury of understanding issues deeper with more clarity.

Getting to the truth is like peeling off the layers of a huge onion. What you see may not be what you get. What you know at present may not be right. What you perceive as truths could be wrong. Such is the nature of truths and 'truths'. For until you can reach the core of the onion and say for certainty that 2+2=4, the quest for deeper knowledge and having a critical review of what we know is of the utmost importance. It is only through this that societal and personal development can progress.

Tuesday, May 20, 2008

Does God Exists?

- Same old argument - Early Greeks and Maths - Irrational Numbers - Moses and the Red Sea

For religion-bashers/believers alike, the same old argument continues to be an interesting topic. Does God exists? By the word "exist", what does it really mean? Does it mean the presence of a physical existence? Or a metaphorical abstract one? I now link the idea of existence with a seemingly un-parallel argument related to maths.

The early Greek mathematicians and the worshippers of maths as a religion believed in the beauty of numbers. They loved the finiteness and preciseness that numbers relate to their lives. Almost all believed in the absoluteness of numbers, the idea of fractions, integers, odd and even numbers which all depicted exactness. Until the discovery of "Irrational" numbers - numbers that have no whole value, no defined exactness of odd or even, numbers that are simply irrational, logically non-understandable. Yet all this irrationality is proved in maths and as we know, maths is the purest form of "rational"/"logical" deductions and reasonings. Now we can't live without irrational numbers in our daily mathematics life. Think of all the pi's and square roots, and i we had to endure during our academic life.

What has the existence of God have to do with irrational numbers? The early Greeks and mathematics did not believe in the existence of irrational numbers. They find it crude. How can a number that is undefined in exactness be called a number? Until Hippasus of Metapontum, a pythagorean(source wiki) who prove that it existed through a series of logical mathematical reasoning, there ceased to be the existence of an "irrational" number.

Likewise if we change the word "God" in our title to that of "irrational numbers", we see the link between them. Imagine we are back in early Greece and ancient maths, there is a religion of "irrational numbers". They are, back then, considered to be weird people who go around campaigning of these "weird" and seemingly "illogical" numbers around the street, shouting "PI PI PI PI, ROOT 2 ROOT 2". Some of them may have even been sentenced to prison or death for spewing nonsense. But the truth is that "irrational" numbers existed. And until they are proven to exist, there is no way of concluding whether or not the existence is true or false.

Thus going back to our subject title. There is no way to prove or campaign for the existence or nonexistence of God, until further knowledge/facts appear. Who knows, maybe there really is a God, and it exists on a definable scale on planet earth. Maybe one day a middle-east dude with a cool looking beard resembling Moses splits the Red Sea in full view of the public; Maybe one day a guy looking like Jesus appears and revives a dead person in public, and (tongue-in-cheek) publicly declares he is in fact a Buddhist.

To proponents of the existence of God, have you really thought deeply on the reasons or arguments (and more importantly the basis and source of your reasoning) that prove that HE really exists? To opponents of the same argument, would your arguments and reasoning you make emplace you as one of the ignorant early Greek Mathematicians as discussed above? To both, should there even be a need to argue and define the true answer to our topic?

I guess my stand is clear.

Disclaimer: This is by no means any intellectual discussion that should be taken seriously. Religion is a touchy issue that I hate talking to people about. Mainly because I'm an Atheist and one who finds arguments disproving a higher entity more plausible then those that prove them. But yet it serves me better by thinking actively on these topics and keep my mind open on things that are "unknown".