France says 'Non'. The EU Constitution is stillborn. A kick in the balls for Jacques Chirac and a middle finger in the direction of Brussels. The Dutch are likely to follow France's example in tomorrow's referendum. European integration is still desideratum, but voters reject the devil in the details. Especially the youth and the working class.
In my view, the central focus of 2005 thus far, with respect to international political economy, is that of the dichotomy between free markets and protectionism. The former has become the dirty word of the year. Boeing vs. Airbus, China's textile industry and the yuan, and now the EU Constitution. The Kristofs and Friedmans of the world are exhorting America to wake up and smell the oolong. Economic hegemony is ephemeral. Americans are starting to see the flip side of the liberal capitalism coin, while Europeans are lamenting the loss of the good life (super-generous social benefits and all that). Sure, China isn't an economic superpower just yet, and is unlikely to overtake the United States in terms of influence in the foreseeable future. But one should be suitably warned of things to come. If Brazil gets its act together, which I'm confident is starting to happen, I foresee she'll be a major player in the matter of a decade or two. Add to that the former Communist bloc and Indonesia, and American jobs will disappear faster than one can say 'Spongebob Squarepants'. Indeed, Thomas Friedman devotes an entire book,
The World is Flat, to the argument that people living in the developed countries, particularly America, ought to realize that they no longer have things their own way economically. You have only globalization and yourselves to blame. I've only read excerpts and a couple of reviews, so I cannot say for sure this is what Friedman intends to get at. But I think I've gotten the gist. Life is funny in this way: you try to pry others open with a metaphorical crowbar for your own advantage. When others don't comply, you hit them on the head with a stick. But when they finally open up like SPGs in the presence of Caucasians, you close up yourself like an oyster to prevent the loss of pearls. Not that it stops you from accusing others of not opening up. In abstract terms, it's called hypocrisy. In real terms, it's called protecting national interests.
West Ham beat Preston North End 1-0 in the Coca-Cola Championship playoffs final yesterday. Given that the League Cup final, FA Cup final, Champions League final, Division 2 and Division 1 finals have gone to extra-time, I was worried something similar might happen. Luckily for me and Hammers, Bobby Zamora's strike settled it in regulation time. After the final whistle, Marlon Harewood sat on the grass and said to the camera in jubilation.
"It's been a long season. Fooking hell!"
Yes indeed. Now I'll have to content myself with S-League.
"When three schoolboys ganged up on a girl and took turns to touch her private parts, the girl was so traumatised she had to drop out of school. When the case came before District Judge Lim Hui Min in the Juvenile Court, she was faced with a choice. Placing them on probation meant they could go home, but had to observe a strict curfew and attend counselling. The other option was detaining them in a boys' home with a strict regime.
... Judge Lim asked the audience, made up mostly of local and overseas lawyers, academics and social workers, what they would have done with the boys. More voted to put them in a home, rather than on probation. Judge Lim told them she had opted for probation."
- ST Home, May 28 2005
Read the article for yourself if you haven't. I would not be surprised to hear that most people would prefer to sequester youth sex offenders from the community in homes. Protect our young. Let them learn the hard way through detention. Out of sight, out of mind. If only that were so simple. Remember here I'm referring to youth sex offenders, not adult ones who are a different kettle of fish altogether. Lest you worry about teenage sex fiends prowling our streets, let me assure you that not all of them are granted the privilege of probation. Many factors have to taken into consideration, as Judge Lim explained.
Ms Carol Balhetchet said that the 'fear of being put in a place where they would be completely cut off from the community would keep some in check'. That may be true to some extent, but keeping people in check should not be our ultimate aim. Cutting youth sex offenders completely from the community by itself may do more harm than good in the long run, since the underlying problems are not addressed. We can counsel a sex offender all we want in a home and suppose erroneously that our efforts have been successful because the boy's conduct has been excellent. But the chances of recidivism within the context of a single-sex milieu are pretty low in the first place. There is no temptation to re-offend. Counselling within the community setting might prove more realistic, and thus efficacious. I didn't pluck this out of thin air, the research literature generally converge about this point.
There isn't enough space in our rehabilitation homes. But that shouldn't come as a surprise. We are sometimes too eager to throw our hands in the air and let the Government take care of our recalcitrant teens. With our increasing number of BPC (Beyond Parental Control) cases and all that. To our authorities' credit, there is an implicit understanding of the idea that the larger the prisons/homes, the greater the urge to fill up the space. All the more we should solve community problems within the community, instead of dumping our kids in universally-recognized holding areas for the socially deviant.
It's gonna be even more expensive for me to drive to school. In the morning I face jams on the CTE, while paying ERP. In the evening on my way home, I face even stickier jams (they must be experienced to be believed), and I'll have to pay ERP on top of that. Somebody complained to the papers that the Government is punishing people for living in the north. Yah lor. And they want to develop our northern towns some more. Far from the city area (and universities, may I add) nevermind, now still must pay money to go home.
You know, why don't they just go the whole hog and block certain sections of Orchard Road from traffic altogether. I have had the idea ever since I read a lengthy but insightful article (which I can't find) on urban planning. There will be disruptions and all that, but nothing that cannot be solved by sheer Singaporean ingenuity. We would have to re-route three or four roads, and find a large space for parking around the pedestrians-only areas of Orchard Road. But it could be worth it in the long run, don't know myself since I'm not a urban planner.
If there is one thing that makes tedious bus journeys even more tedious, the privilege must go to the wonderful invention of TVMobile. I'm not sure if there's any research literature supporting my hypothesis, but I guess that there's a one standard deviation drop in IQ for every hour of exposure to TVMobile. That will be a suitable topic for my honours thesis. The irony of course is that we're paying inflated fares to be pummelled by the intelligence-diminishing banalities of TV on public transport. I can switch off my living room set anytime I want, but I have no such similar control over TVMobile. The noise bores into my brain and eats it from within, even when I shut my eyes.
One hobby of whiny Singaporean men is to pore over ST editorials and look for logical flaws. We usually do not have to scrutinize very closely because the holes in the arguments are sometimes large enough to allow a three-tonner to drive through. I'm sorry to have to say this, but the lousy pieces are often penned by female journalists. I'm not thinking of Sumiko Tan here. Much as what she writes is trite, unsophisticated and unworthy of her position, she describes and shows, rather than argue. I can't fault her for that.
Anyway there's this article on the Crazy Horse cabaret coming to Singapore by a Cambridge and Harvard educated journalist. Not that I have anything against the alumni of these illustrious institutions, just that I would hesitate before telling the whole world (on more than one occasion) my alma mater. Especially if my writing betrays my education, on government funds no less. Her point was that the feminist in her objected to having erotic acts (if one may term the Crazy Horse that) performed on Singapore soil, that the women may be objectified and exploited etc. But the increasing maturity of the Singaporean audience, the need for a vibrant arts scene and the desire to attract the tourist dollar meant that internationally-acclaimed performing acts, even one that features scantily-clad women, can no longer be rejected at arm's length. Her solution: to have shows featuring naked men, to 'balance the equation' so to speak. You'll have to read the original article for yourself to appreciate the grandiose majesty for her argument. I'm too lazy to rebut her here.
There's another letter in today's Forum bemoaning the imminent arrival of Crazy Horse. The writer is obviously too young to know that there are occasionally topless acts at the Neptune Theatre. That's all I have to say.
Tomorrow's the NUS FASS Open House. If you're interested or have gotten a place, you might want to hop down and pose thoughtful questions to the ever-helpful faculty. Like "Will I be able to secure a well-paying job immediately upon graduation?" to, say, the Theatre Studies people. Prepare yourselves for a stately lecture on the importance of interpersonal skills and critical thinking in the knowledge-driven economy.
I'd think quite a number of people are keen on the University Scholars Programme (USP). Before I go further, a brief caveat. If I sound caustic later on, that's attributable to jealousy cos I'm not a member of this 'premier programme' (their own words). My university admissions package stated that the admin was looking for students with outstanding academic records and/or exceptional talent and achievement in special interests. I have neither of these, so if apply already cannot get very lau kui. Okay, my A-level results weren't too bad, but I was still behind the hundreds of students with 4 As.
The vision of USP, according to the web site, is ""To provide intellectual, leadership, and personal development for a wide pool of talent". But that's not the impression I got from my admissions package. I recall reading that the programme sought to provide an Ivy League liberal education within a state university, for future leaders and global citizens. Obviously, not everyone can be a future leader or secure a passport for global citizenship. Some of us are and should remain heartlanders. If not, they would have tried a little harder in offering the special curriculum, along with all its perks, to a larger number of students.
The USP Director writes:
"Among other things, our specially designed multidisciplinary curriculum will help you to:
-develop critical thinking and creative expression competencies by engaging with a variety of media, such as texts, theatre, visual arts, film and music;
-make cogent arguments and logical decisions in everyday practical situations using qualitative and quantitative reasoning;
-understand how scientific advances, such as the biomedical revolution, are changing your life at the technological, ethical, and social levels;
-reflect critically upon yourself and your relationships to the various societies and communities around you;
-nurture your potential to assume positions of influence and leadership through an understanding of the principles of human behaviour."
Eh, pardon me if I'm wrong, but aren't undergrads in general supposed to be developing these competencies? You mean non-USP students are not learning such stuff in school? Then why are we paying the same tuition fees as the USP people?
"Imagine what it would be like to live in a community of like-minded people with a passion for intellectual and creative pursuits. You will be part of a select number who will be exposed to innovative ways of thinking and doing things.... You will enjoy the prospect of developing a strong social network with fellow promising students... You will also venture to foreign countries to collaborate with some of the best minds in the world through international conferences and leadership programmes."
Oh, no wonder! The E word you don't dare to use right? Nevermind I understand. These people are being trained to serve community, society, nation and global village. The whole thing is for our own good. They represent us. We shouldn't resent.
Sorry if the blogging frequency drops. I've got quite a few things on my hands.
Apologies about the flagrant infringement of morphological rules and interspersion of local patois in my previous post. I forgot the language Nazis are out in force, given that the latest season of the Speak Good English Movement just commenced last week. I aspire to be one of the few Good English Icons. But I have to put in a lot of effort since I'm not an Oxbridge graduate like certain people. I from Chinese school one, and my parents boh tak chek.
Read the ST report on aqua-titanium bands last week? I saw someone wearing one recently. Evidently these trinkets reduce bodily aches and pains. Much like the magnetic mattresses someone tried to sell me a while back. I like the answer given by a chemistry lecturer with regards to the purported composition of the bands, which was something to the effect of: if titanium dissolves in water, then our planes will melt in the rain. Cute.
A retailer or band enthusiast insisted the bands work, and "I know it's not a placebo effect." A person who makes a statement like that obviously doesn't understand the concept of placebo. It's akin to saying "I know I'm not self-deluded." One of those declarations that cause logicians' brains to crawl out of their skulls.
My father told me about a guy who was selling tap-water filters that also 'energize' the water. The fellow demonstrated, to a crowd of curious consumers, the efficacy of the filters. The filter paper was stained brown a few minutes under running tap water. I was scarcely listening to my dad, but said that if there are people dumb enough to buy these products, then they deserve to be parted with their money. But my father argued that if CASE went after retailers who make unsubstantiated claims on their ads, then the law should also apply to people selling bogus stuff. It is no different from swindling.
Somebody say hor that Singapore guys are whiny and immature. Cannot say who lah, or else kena sued.
Yes, I agree. You read my blog you'll know how whiny and immature I am liao. Wah piang, the local blogosphere has never been so 'on fire' since the release of a particular sex tape lor. Maybe that's because almost every political blogger in Singapore is male. Which supports the premise stated at the beginning.
Then hor, got one girl from my school. Scholar, ex-child-model, very smart one. She say that Singapore males are fine until they go into the military for their national service. Lucky Singapore girls no need go NS, or else they will start to complain too much like us infantile males. She thinks maybe Singapore males tak boleh tahan the siong physical training and regimentation.
Actually, the solution presents itself: Abolish National Service lah! Like dat we'll be as mature as our female counterparts. Our girls hor si bei matured one. Never break bond, never whine, never complain, younger than the guys but know how to solve problem like adults. We must learn from them. Maybe the teachers in all-girls school inculcate the right values. So I suggest that students from all-boys schools be made to attend immersion programmes in girls' school.
I'm helping my lecturer with some research over the holidays, and most likely over the next academic year. Actually, I'll probably need more help with research from my lecturer and fellow cronies than vice versa. The group of student helpers were kinda selected by the lecturer, rather than us volunteering our services. Interestingly, in a department where around 85% of the students are female, five out of the six of us are male. The outstanding female has typically male interests. Our prof is male, understandably, and the subject matter techincal in nature. Which reminds me of the Harvard furore over the lack of women scientists in the top echelons, and its links to innate sex differences. I think our male lecturers in general think smart boys are smarter than smart girls.
Just read
this transcript of the debate between Steven Pinker and Elizabeth Spelke, both distinguished psychologists. I have a copy of Pinker's
The Blank Slate, so his arguments are already familiar. The book is awfully political, even though a large part of it attempts to play down the blatant politicizing of sex differences. Pinker and Spelke largely agree on the scientific findings, even with most of the interpretations. But extrapolating controlled studies to real life becomes more speculative, and this is where differences in opinion arise. To state, there are criticisms on both sides I find valid. Which amounts to saying that I have no stand, much as I would like to believe males have superior mathematical ability, spatial cognition and the like.
You know what I like about the debate? The very fact that laypersons are not involved. If a philologist tells me that the Mycenaean language was not Indo-European, I take his word for it. If another philologist says otherwise, I'm in no position to judge. The difference between philology and psychology is that most people are not amateur philologists. I'll leave it as that. Only as an undergrad did I realize that I cannot take as an established truth a particular research finding until I've read the actual paper for myself. Methodological flaws abound. Since I scarcely have time to do my course readings, this means that I have to accept most research findings provisionally (normally I just take the easy way out and accept them as fact).
Because I have not read the relevant research papers, I dare not judge to what extent certain differences here and there are significant or just spurious effects. Personally I think studies such as those examining sex differences are not methodologically 'clean'. We cannot control for everything, so there are a lot of assumptions to be made. Ditto for the assessment tools employed. In any case, common sense ought to tell you that it's impossible to generalize across half the human population to any degree of certainty, even with nicely tweaked Gaussian curves.
In fact, my instinct is to holler "So what?" I find it amusing that slight innate sex differences, that are subject to the powerful distortions of environment, social prejudice, sheer human variation etc..., seem to matter so much to some people. Okay, discrimination is a problem. So seek to ameliorate its effects, or eliminate it if possible at all. If women seem less interested in the technical disciplines, encourage their participation and remove entry barriers. There's no need to invoke evolutionary psychology, hidden political agendas and sex differences in technical competence. Pinker put quite rightly as he said that there's no apparent need for there to be equal (or near-equal) numbers of men and women in all disciplines per se. But there seems to be an overwhelming preponderance of men in the highest ranks of academia, and that needs to be put right.
This is out of point, merely in keeping with my persistent desire to complain about females. I'll regale you with an anecdote from JC.
Male maths teacher: ....Girls are better in their studies in late primary and secondary school, Then the boys catch up.
Female students moan and groan in protest.
M: Why, what's the matter? I said 'catch up'. I didn't say 'overtake'.
Somebody I know appeared in the papers for making defamatory remarks in his blog about A*STAR. The other guy. But I haven't met up with him since he allegedly had tea with Mr Phillip Yeo. I wonder if the tea at A*STAR is especially fragrant. See lah,
tree big invite wind. Scholars must be careful about what they say, cos apparently people at statutory boards nothing to do read blogs by prominent people. The lesson is not to blog about sensitive issues if you're a scholar, and spend the time polishing up one's appearance. Why? So that can appear on New Paper, featured as scholars-that-look-like-models lah! Sure beats getting sued.
The recent conclusion of my exams has left me squarely facing an inescapable, insuperable and irreducible fact.
I veli crever.
I've never (and will never) used more than one answer booklet on a single exam. Even when I comply to my lecturer's beseechment to write on alternate lines so that she wouldn't go blind. There she was, standing beside me waiting to hand me a fresh booklet, when I was writing on the very last line on the very last page. I finished that line, closed my booklet and kept my writing instrument. In comparison my friend beside me used three booklets, though one must add that his handwriting resembles a kindergartener on acid.
I don't write much cos I don't have to. My powers for summarizing the most complex ideas and arguments cogently and succinctly are legendary. As a matter of fact, I do that so well that the markers often fail to appreciate the multi-layered subtleties within the few lines I've scribbled. The fault lies with the reader, not the writer. When Picasso paints with hues of blue, one does not entreaty him to add red to the chromatic repertoire. Ah, such is the tragic fate of the iconoclastic artist! When mere plebeians have the temerity to punish a visionary for daring to exercise his art!
Take for example my diagrams illustrating the reciprocal connections between certain brain regions. Other people draw diagrams reminiscent of the Ptolemaic epicycles, while I got rid of the unnecessary clutter to effect my Copernican revolution. I know my diagram differs from that of the textbook. But this obviously means that the textbook is mistaken. In fact, I found the required diagram so unchallenging that I took the liberty of drawing it upside down.
"Examinations are formidable even to the best prepared, for the greatest fool may ask more than the wisest man can answer." I agree with this quote. Almost always I feel that my intelligence has been insulted when I read the exam questions. Hence, I answer the questions which I think the examiner should have posed, as I've done for these exams. Hopefully when my lecturers read my meticulously crafted answers, they will be so overwhelmed by emotion that they'll write better questions in future.
Watched 'Up Close with PM Lee' on CNA a couple of days ago. There was a panel of educated (and successful) Singaporeans having a conversation with PM Lee on all things Singapore. These people made some sense. But when I started to reflect upon some of the things said, my brain began to reel in overdrive and I had involuntary spasms. The lesson is: Never think deeply into things Singaporeans say on national television.
A lady made a comment along the following lines: As Singaporeans become more and more educated and affluent, they will become more vocal, to impress their views upon the Government and society at large. But the pre-eminence of Western media and culture will distort their (our) views, such that our traditional core values will be eroded over time. This erosion of values will similarly be reflected in what we expect from the Government and society. As such, we need to develop and imbue our citizens with a set of core values that are distinctly Singaporean, that will keep us rooted. It is suggested that the Government teach these core values to schoolchildren.
Core values? We already have a set of widely disseminated core values, no need to come up with new ones. Like that Gahmen also can save money. I'm of course thinking of our SAF core values lah! Since almost the entire adult male population knows it by heart, just teach it to the other Singaporeans can liao. I propose that schoolchildren be made to recite the seven core values during flag-raising ceremony, after the Pledge. They should also recite the core values during water parade during PE. What, school PE got no water parade? How can? Like that how to 'care for soldiers'? If students collapse during a run, how will the PE teachers cover their backsides if they didn't conduct water parade?
For no reason I was reminded of something from
Schindler's List. Actually I think there was a reason, since I was trying to get my sister to read Art Spiegelman's
Maus. Anyway Roger Ebert writes thus:
"Goeth (Amon Goeth, Commandant of the Krakow camp) is clearly mad. War masks his underlying nature as a serial killer. His cruelty twists back on his victims: He spares a life only long enough to give his victim hope, and then shoots him. Seeing ''Schindler's List'' again recently, I wondered if it was a weakness to make Goeth insane. Would it have been better for Spielberg to focus instead on a Nazi functionary--an ''ordinary'' man who is simply following orders?.... The film as Spielberg made it is haunting and powerful; perhaps it was necessary to have a one-dimensional villain in a film whose hero has so many hidden dimensions."
Ebert apparently has the paragon of Hannah Arendt's banality of evil, Adolf Eichmann, in his mind. Eichmann engineered the deaths of so many Jews because he was 'simply following orders'. Goeth, on the other hand, enjoys killing for sport. Because of this, he is mad? Whether he would have been a pathological killer if the war hadn't occurred is open to conjecture. That said, why should we be surprised if Goeth was revealed to be just like a large number of us? I don't know about you, but if I were in Goeth's position, I might have embarked on a killing rampage. The pressures of the job, hatred towards the ethnic group under command, the mere knowledge that one could kill and get away with it, and the innate desire to play God; these factors are more than sufficient for one to start killing arbitrarily.
Amon Goeth is not mad, because he's a functioning adult and does not do things without reason. There is also no indication that he hears voices in his head. Why am I saying this? Just because a person commits heinous crimes for the sake of so doing does not necessarily mean he's an evil madman. Evil yes, mad no. A man who freezes mid-step on a sidewalk for a long period has catatonic schizophrenia, he is insane in common parlance. Use this as a comparison.
Really, the film demonstrates on many occasions Goeth's keen intelligence, and the desire to play with people based on his power and intelligence. For example, he tells a lineup of young Jewish women that he's choosing a lucky girl to be a maid in his villa, "away from all this backbreaking work". He asks who has experience in domestic help. Predictably, all but one claim to have experience. Goeth chooses the (honest) girl without experience because he doesn't want someone with learnt habits from previous employers. The following conversation is revealing:
Goeth: You know, I look at you. I watch you. You're not a drunk. That's, that's real control. Control is power. That's power.
Schindler: Is that why they fear us?
Goeth: We have the f--king power to kill, that's why they fear us.
Schindler: They fear us because we have the power to kill arbitrarily. A man commits a crime, he should know better. We have him killed and we feel pretty good about it. Or we kill him ourselves and we feel even better. That's not power, though, that's justice. That's different than power. Power is when we have every justification to kill - and we don't.
Goeth: You think that's power.
Schindler: That's what the emperors had. A man stole something, he's brought in before the emperor, he throws himself down on the ground, he begs for mercy, he knows he's going to die. And the emperor pardons him. This worthless man, he lets him go.
Goeth: I think you are drunk.
Schindler: That's power, Amon. That is power. (Schindler gestures toward Goeth as a merciful emperor) Amon, the Good.
Goeth: (He smiles and laughs) I pardon you.
Goeth then become a lenient nice-guy for a while, before deciding that killing is more fun than pardoning and reverts to his old tricks. To me, choosing whether to exercise power may be an exercise in power. But real power manifests itself in its effects on the subjects. If the subject can predict whether or not the commander chooses to kill, then the effect of killing is gone, and real power diminished. Which is why random, arbitrary violence is so scary, yet effective.
Believe it or not, I'm having only my second paper tomorrow. There's been such a long wait between exams that I felt the holidays had started already. Cognitive Neuroscience, the brain is so freaking complicated.
