I watched someone on TV state, without hint of a wry smile, that his greatest wish is for every man and woman in this world to be equal. Hey some of you may think I'm Communist, but I cringed as if I had a mouthful of Super Lemons. He's still young though, so I forgive him... a little. The key assumption of course is that every man and woman in the world would want to be equal. A little common sense serves to inform us that this could not be further away from the truth. If you doubt me and sincerely believe that we have this strong innate desire for all men to live as equal brethren in a procedurally/distributive-ly just world, go ahead and do so because I can't prove my case beyond all reasonable doubt. But try talking to the man who lost his job to an Indian national because the latter is willing to work for far lower wages.
Read John Rawl's
A Theory of Justice (revised ed.) over a year ago. He spends the first 150 pages (roughly) outlining his theory, and the other 350 pages whacking the reader on the head with a hammer some academics enjoy wielding. I went from 'Yeah right' to 'I don't want to live in such a society' to 'Can you please stop writing, you're boring me to death'. Not that I'm necessarily a Nozick fan though. Anyway my point is that political philosophers seem to stick their heads too deep into the political economy mud, thereby neglecting basic human psychology all around them in the process. Sure, these people delve into and surmise how people might think, calculate and react when placed in a given sociopolitical milieu. But most laypersons can easily point out how unrealistic these assumptions are. I find it ironic that a psychologist, Daniel Kahneman, won the Nobel Prize in Economics in 2000 for demonstrating how people generally cannot think straight, and thus the assumptions of classical economics need to be seriously overhauled. By the way, I'm not encouraging anyone to major in Psychology instead of Political Science or Economics, because every discipline is screwed up in one way or another. Even the hard sciences.
Meursault was executed for killing an Arab primarily because he did not grieve over his mother's death. Will I be executed for something similar?
There are those who mistakenly believe that another person can give them happiness. These are the same unfortunate souls who travel to get away from something, when they really want to get away from themselves.
Ever read forum letters that begin with "I'm a mother of two young children, and I would like to express my concern regarding (insert policy problem/pet peeve)"? What's up with that? Most people probably have no objections, but my brain has faulty wiring. When did being a mother of young children become valid credentials for commenting on societal issues? Why not begin the letter by declaring "I'm the owner of two young terrapins"?
Yes yes, I hear your collective sighs of exasperation, but let me finish. I'm not against parents writing in per se, but some assume that being a parent of small kids somehow imbues them with moral authority or makes them more of a citizen. I've never understood the concept of moral authority anyway. But because parents have to raise, educate and indoctrinate their children, their pseudo-amplified opinions are more valid and need to be given priority? My mother has three grown children, does that give her more or less 'moral authority' than our parent-in-question? Parents are important, young children are important, but they are not the only members of society. Never forget that.
I'm also bothered by people who extrapolate their personal experiences, using anecdotes to argue a more general case. To exaggerate, it's like someone arguing that people shouldn't be allowed to stick wooden poles out of windows to dry laundry because he was hit by a falling pole. I recognize his concern, but I don't see how he can seriously construct a cogent argument against wooden poles based on one (his) experience. Likewise, a person who begins his forum letter on assisted suicide with "My father recently suffered a drawn-out, excruciating death" deserves a drawn-out, excruciating death.
We can look forward to Formula One racing within our shores pretty soon. That's based on my straw poll among kopitiam policy wonks. These guys are very astute, so I trust their sophisticated political analyses.
I put off writing this post until I'd heard PM Lee's speech in Parliament. In my humble opinion, the Government has committed a PR faux pas. We kept hearing clarion calls for more consultation emanating from the vocal minority. PM Lee himself said that public consultation pertaining to the IR issue wasn't a futile exercise. But I beg to differ. From the viewpoint of the exercise of executive power, difficult and potentially divisive decisions should be pushed through under the radar of public discourse. Hard to swallow from the perspective of an active citizen perhaps, but swallow it nevertheless.
As alluded to by my use of 'executive', the Singapore Parliament is not analogous to the House of Commons or Congress. Instead, it is probably closer to the Senate or the Executive Branch. The political ramifications of this comparison, I shall not elaborate. As such, we need to understand the dynamics of the decision-making process within an exclusive group armed with substantially more information than the average citizen possesses. In this model, public opinion only acts as a reference, and not a critical determinant, for which the decision is made. I won't speculate whether or not, or how far along, the executive cadre was from the final decision. But there are two things I will say: first, as far back as a year ago Dr Alex Blaszcynski (try googling him) was already being consulted. Second, if certain proposals are swimming around among the top guns, they would have already gathered a degree of momentum that renders any implementation only a matter of timing.
Back to my original point. The Government would have known that vocal objections were in the offing, and what the contents of these objections might be. Since it is highly unlikely that anyone with strong views (for or against) would be sufficiently-informed and unbiased enough such that their views actually meant something, consultation of these sectors isn't necessary. The majority are either willing to accept whichever decision themselves, whatever their opinions may be, or could be hoodwinked to do so. Then, it wouldn't be necessary to consult these people too. PM Lee said that the Government was in a no-win situation, and I agree. As long as the decision was in the affirmative, the vocal minority are going to make noise whether or not the Government consults. Hence logically, to minimise political damage, subterranean implementation with minimization of the controversial issue would have been the best option. Am I advocating a patriarchal state? Maybe yes maybe not, I'm hard to pin down. Or maybe I'm just sick of listening to certain people make noise like crickets in a field of cows, to borrow from Burke. I'm a quiet cow, by the way.
My first paper tomorrow, a counselling module. A friend not in the class asked me how was I going to be graded for the module.
"Written exam, two questions in two hours."
"You mean they do that for a counselling class? I don't see how this would work."
"Obviously the person who scores A for the exam is a better counsellor than the B+ student. Anyway it's mostly theory. So if I do well, which I know I won't, I'll be a good theoretical counsellor."
Singaporeans ah Singaporeans, aiyoh don't be so predictable leh! You're not challenging me- even though you guys are still loads of entertainment. In a recent post, I commented about the possibility to installing closed-circuit cameras in every Geylang lorong. It was a joke. Please, you don't have to present my suggestion in the Forum for me. I'm a literate adult, I can do it myself if I so desire.
A feeling is deep because we hold the acompanying thought to be deep. But the deep thought can nevertheless be very far from the truth... If one subtracts the added elements of thought from the deep feeling, what remains is intense feeling, which guarantees nothing at all about knowledge except itself, just as strong belief proves only its own strength, not the truth of what is believed.
- Friedrich Nietzsche,
Menschliches, AllzumenschlichesNow you complain that the Government doesn't listen to your feedback. I see,.... and?
The whole rhetoric about public consultation is only a facade, the jokers up there aren't listening to us!
Thought the ministers said they've already taken your kind feedback into consideration?
No, they didn't. Well, they publicly declared that they did, but that's just a pretty lie. They don't listen! Next time, we've vote Opposition to teach them a lesson.
Oh, I must say I'm surprised that the Opposition doesn't agree with the Government. By the way, how do you tell if the Government has actually taken your feedback into consideration?Then, they would have made a different decision.
So I see. The yardstick for determining whether your feedback was heard is based on the final decision. If you agree with the decision, they've listened. If not, then they haven't. So clever, why didn't I think of that?
Actually hor, the Government is very clever with the words they use. The term 'integrated' has been recently associated with elite schools, combined electronic filing systems and all things good, so now they employ it for something else. Akan datang, IGPS (Integrated Government and Public Service). To serve Singaporeans better.
Lawrence: I killed two people, I mean two Arabs. One was a boy. That was yesterday. I led him into a quicksand. The other was a man. That was before Aqaba anyway. I had to execute him with my pistol. There was something about it I didn't like.
Allenby: Well, naturally.
Lawrence: No, something else.
Allenby: I see. Well that's all right. Let it be a warning.
Lawrence: No, something else.
Allenby: What then?
Lawrence: I enjoyed it.
-
Lawrence of Arabia (1962)
Almost finished
Lives of the Caesars or The Twelve Caesars by Suetonius. I didn't read it for its historical reliability; as a matter of fact, someone described Suetonius as a 'delightful scandalmonger' whose sources included 'talk show hosts from the Forum's late night hour'. But that's exactly why the book's a capitvating read.
The most interesting parts for me were the cruel and unusual punishments inflicted by some of these creative Roman emperors, which rivalled anything the Chinese could come up with. One of my favourites: Some guys were offered copious amounts of wine to drink. After which, the guards wound cords around their male organs until they turned purple. The entertainment derived from seeing the colour of both their faces and members turn even further when a desperate need to pee arose. Nasty stuff. Yeah I know, instead of studying Counselling for my exam next week, I'm delighting in cruel punishments.
I was in a Taipei bookstore when I chanced upon a selection of the well-known
For Beginners series. It seems that books meant for an adult audience had labels indicating so on their covers in Taiwan. Well,
Freud for Beginners had this label affixed while
Marquis de Sade for Beginners was spared. Strange. I've read both and neither of them deserves an adult rating. But if any one required a sticker, it ought to be Marquis de Sade shouldn't it?
In case you're unfamiliar with Marquis de Sade, rest assured he's not some conservative fogey who postulated that some people derived sexual pleasure from receiving pain. Think of the most obscene, depraved and humiliating acts you can imagine, multiply the intensity by three, and you'll find it in every page of his books. Imagine my surprise when I found an anthology of selections from his books in the NUS Library. Imagine my further surprise when I discovered someone had underlined the descriptions of obscene acts, which meant he essentially underlined the whole book. There are some seriously mental people in school. Oh by the way, I happened to come across the book. Obviously. Anyway in case you're interested, his philosophy is worth exploring and pondering about. Still, he's one nut I haven't cracked.
Weird question of the day: "K, where did you get your nose?" "From Tangs, it was on special offer."
There is a spot in school where I've noticed some fellas kneeling in a certain direction on a mat. They don't seem to do so anymore. Instead now I see a small group of people singing songs in that corner once in a while.
When I was staying in hall last year, I used to watch
American Idol (yeah, I know I got no taste) in the air-conditioned TV lounge with some others from my block. From dunno when, a group of people not from my block decided to occupy the TV lounge to sing. Maybe they were practising for the upcoming
Singapore Idol or something. Generally we let them do their stuff in peace. But once, they had gathered in the lounge waiting for the rest to arrive so that the session could begin just as we were about to watch
American Idol. When they realized that we intended to watch TV, there was a curt suggestion that we conduct our business elsewhere. In hindsight, I think that perhaps they didn't want us to hear their songs before they were available in record stores. The more prosaic explanation would be just that too many singers (both on TV and in person) made for too noisy a room.
Anyway as the unofficial spokeman, I politely declined their offer. I hinted that it might be more appropriate for them to hold their session in the singing lounge in their block, instead of the TV lounge in ours. I suspect there was some unhappiness on their part when they realized there wasn't a singing lounge in hall. Very bad hor me? But LL cos the show was starting soon. I added that I didn't mind them staying if there were no objections to us watching AI simultaneously. But they left in a huff. Later I discovered that they happily came to our block cos other singing groups were using their TV lounge. Didn't know singing is so popular in NUS.
A girl asked which singing group I belong to. I said N*SYNC, but I left to pursue my studies before they made it big. Our original name was N*SYNCK.
A British tourist was pleasantly surprised when he realized that we do not have policemen patrolling every other street corner. Maybe we should. I was listening to the car radio on Friday when the deejay griped about how futile it was queueing at certain taxi-stands because there were people hailing cabs 50 m before the designated area. "This needs some policing methinks", she said.
Really? But then again, wouldn't it consume too much resources to deploy policemen at every bus interchange, taxi-stand etc...? This year's budget sees cuts across every civil service sector except the Defence and Education ministries. I know why: so that we can have soldiers taking over from policemen in patrolling our streets and more teachers to teach young Singaporeans how to queue. Very funny leh Singaporeans. Every thing also say 'need more education in schools'. MOE, listen. In accordance to the people's opinions, I propose that we have a minimum four hours of moral education/National Education every week in primary and secondary schools. Confirm solve all social problems one. We'll teach them not to make noise when watching movies, not to kick stray animals, not to worship boybands, not to cut queue, not to litter in parks, not to smoke cigarettes, not to spend too much of their parents' money, not to criticize government (unless you want to join PAP Youth Wing or the opposition), not to be influenced by Western media and their lousy values, blah blah.
Actually hor no need to have actual people patrolling one, use closed-circuit cameras can already. The cameras in certain Geylang lorongs have displaced the streetwalkers, resulting in them plying their trade along other alleys. Residents complain, so more cameras should be installed at all the other lorongs, just to be safe. In fact we should have cameras in every area where there's potential threats might arise. You know, places like Mohammad Sultan, Orchard Towers, Joo Chiat and all HDB void decks. We need cameras to protect us from terrorists, gangsters and homosexuals. OK sorry lah, Ministry of Home Affairs didn't say anything about the last group. Rather, it's the Ministry of Health. I mean, eroding the moral and social fabric of the nation is bad enough, then they have to go and spread AIDS. I implore the police to resume sting operations against gays. Homosexual acts are illegal. If we have operations against illegal gambling, drug trafficking and the like, we ought to have traps to ensnare the pernicious homosexual community. Also, if you're either confessed homosexual or HIV-positive, we should have cameras installed in your bedrooms to ensure you do not engage in homosexual acts or spread your filthy disease.
For some reason, I've recently developed a fascination with population figures. And I'm also interested in fuel reserves and water resources. But I suppose that's normal. The most important things a country ought to concern itself with are population, fuel and water, in descending order. Contrary to lay understanding, food, while important in its own right, isn't really that crucial. Anyway I've taken a look at the latest IDB population rankings for 2005. There have been a few changes in ranking over the past 3-4 years, even among the top ten nations. The top ten are as follows:
1 China: 1306 m
2 India: 1080 m
3 United States: 295 m
4 Indonesia: 242 m
5 Brazil: 186 m
6 Pakistan: 162 m
7 Bangladesh: 144 m
8 Russia: 143 m
9 Nigeria: 128 m
10 Japan: 127 m
Some facts: Singapore has a population of 4.4 million now, don't know what proportion is constituted by foreigners though. We have 400 000 more people than Ireland, and one million more than Uruguay. But of course Ireland and Uruguay have far better football teams. We are ranked just above New Zealand. Hong Kong has now 6.9 million people. By current trends, they will overtake Switzerland (7.5 million) within a short space of time. The West Bank and Gaza Strip have a combined population of 3.7 million (thought they had significantly fewer people). Israel, on the other hand, has 6.2 million. The Philippines and Vietnam have 88 and 83 million people respectively, both of which are greater than Germany. Thailand has 65 million, 5 million more than France and Britain.
Conicidental. Mentioned Bertrand Russell in my last post and originally intended to write about how most people fail to understand the dynamics of power. Then, lo and behold, I found and bought a copy of Bertrand Russell's Power: A new social analysis today. So I'll read it first, ruminate over what he says and return to the topic some other time. But knowing Russell's humanitarian proclivities, he probably won't tell me what I seek to understand; to wit, how to subjugate others and employ power for the sake of power. I could write a whole book on this.
Instead I'll say a little something about Tibet. Little or no opinions, just facts, and see what conclusions you draw.
The Tibetan plateau is geostrategically one of the most easily defensible places you can find. To the north, the Kunlun mountains; to the south, the Himalayas; to the west, the glacial Karakorum range and to the east, more mountain ranges. Even to get to the mountains of the north and northeast requires traversing endless deserts. The land is generally dry, with poor soil, but the Brahmaputra flows through it.
The Western Zhou and Qin rulers descended from a matrilineal/matriarchal society. It is conjectured that the Qin people were originally proto-Tibetan. In the sixth century BC, Duke Mu of Qin, with the help of Bai Lixi, instituted land and legal reforms that strengthened the vassal state that consolidated itself in the Sichuan region. He understood that Qin was backed by the insurmountable Tibetan plateau to the west, and that ultimately Qin expansion would proceed along the west-to-east axis. Once the Qin King Zhaoxiang occupied the fertile regions formerly of Chu, Qin hegemony was assured.
While Tibet cannot support a sprawling urban population, formidable armies could be built. While Tibetan kingdoms were isolated, they were similarly buffered from Chinese armies. In fact, strident Tibetan imperialism became evident once food surpluses were available from the sixth century AD onwards. Even before that, increasingly Sinicized proto-Tibetan tribes were encroaching on the Central Plains. The part-Tibetan Earlier Qin emperor Fu Jian was one victorious battle away from overrunning Eastern Jin and unifying China in 383 AD. He famously lost the battle of Fei river despite overwhelming military superiority of course. An authentic Tibetan king (I can't reproduce his super-long name) however did, with the help of Arabs, manage to annex the Western arm of the Tang Empire in 751, weakening it permanently. This had followed a number of successful campaigns in areas under Tang suzerainty.
Fast forward to today. Where men and horses cannot travel, nuclear weapons can easily pass. At least a quarter of the Chinese nuclear arsenal is deployed in Tibet. Oh, by the way, Tibet is home to the largest uranium deposits in the world, besides reams of other mineral resources of course. Look at where Tibet is on a map, and you'll see why certain nations are justifiably nervous.
Josef Stalin: “A single death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic.”
K: “To kill a single person is to be a murderer. To kill ten men is to be a butcher. To kill a hundred men is to be a warrior. To kill a thousand men is to be a good commander. To kill ten thousand men is to be an excellent general. To kill a hundred thousand men is to be a military genius. To kill a million men is to be a visionary statesman.”
Bertrand Russell pointed out that we have the tendency to worship homicidal maniacs. Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, Genghis Khan, just to name a few. Even Jesus and Mohammed indirectly caused the deaths of more men than all the aforementioned put together. Anyway, killing people is killing people. The justifications for so doing shouldn’t matter, but they do. Killing millions of Native Americans is unsavoury but tolerable, but killing Jews because you just happen to abhor them is unforgivable. Which is why the Mongols were refreshing; Muslims, Christians, syncretic Buddhist/Taoist, doesn’t matter. The Mongols would slaughter them all if they put up resistance, no other justification required.
Napoleon Bonaparte admired Frederick the Great, who probably got a hundred thousand men killed in combat. Adolf Hitler admired Napoleon in turn, whose wars resulted in the deaths of a million Europeans. And Hitler surpassed all his heroes in terms of human lives lost. Of course, if Hitler hadn’t been a racist, he might have been described in the same breath as Napoleon. As John Keegan put it, Hitler came closer to subjugating Europe than anyone else. If he had reserved his disdain for the Arabs, instead of the supposed vermin-like Russians, and given Rommel the forces earmarked for Barbarossa, the Middle East would’ve been his and his captured territories untouchable. I won’t go into details how. Incidentally, following the Anschluss, Hitler was being described in exactly the same glowing terms by some Germans that Republicans use for George W. Bush nowadays. Pretty damn funny if you ask me.
