Strange Creatures Series- Do Ghosts exist? Part 2

Hey everyone,

I think I love ghosts too much. Hehehe, so I'm going to post up some more ghost pictures that I personally believe to be authentic but wasn't on the weblink that I posted up yesterday. Here we go:

When I first saw this picture, I thought the kid was the one crying in the foreground. However, someone helpfully added the red circle and now you can see a little girl posing with the adults. =)

Apparently the ghostly face behind the old man belongs to his wife. Nice to know that your loved ones are still sticking around and waiting for you to kick the bucket.

Look at the state of the building. It is so heavily blocked up I doubt if anyone can go up there and yet there is a very clearly image of someone in period dress. Looks like 17th century to me. It looks fake to many people I know, but to me, I think it's real because it seems to be "glowing". The surrounding areas around it are dark and if there's a light trained on it, the surrounding areas would be lighted up as well, but that didn't happen. The light seems to be coming from the figure itself. So yeah, go figure.

In addition to these manifestations, I would also like to talk a little about object possession. It seems ghosts have the ability to possess objects and manifest hauntings through it. For the Chinese readers out there, I'm sure you'll remember your parents telling you not to pick up stuff randomly from the roadside. And I'm sure if you read Russell Lee, you'll probably recall stories of "bad luck coins" or people bringing home haunted vases, toys, etc... However our Asian hauntings are not as widely documented as the Western ones. So I have to settle for showing you guys hauntings from the West.

Robert the Doll

Robert, sometimes known as Robert the Doll, is a doll that was once owned by Key West painter Robert Eugene Otto. The doll is approximately 100 years old. The creepy thing about this doll is the owner's treatment of it. He treated it as an independent invididual and it is alleged that the doll can move on it's own. He was seen darting up and down the stairs and people could here his feet tapping on the floorboards.

If you guys aren't too young, you'll probably recall the alleged hauntings of Teletubbies and Furbies Well, I'm not quite sure about the details but I heard of rumours of the voice actors committing mass-suicides. Anyway, if you notice, no more teletubbies are on sale, no more new episodes have been filmed ever since that happened. I know of kids who still enjoy watching them, so I won't say it's due to a fall in demand... Mysterious...

You can read more about haunted dolls here. There's Mandy and Annabelle for you to read up on.

Moving on from the haunted dolls, other haunted objects are typically refered to as cursed. Let me identify some famous "cursed" objects for you.

Diamonds
Diamonds are a girl's best friend, or her curse? There are 2 infamous diamonds that are allegedly cursed and plague their owners with a string of misfortune and death. They are the Hope Diamond and the Lorenzenstien Diamond.



Busby's Stoop Chair
Thomas Busby a local man became partners with his father in law Awety in the illicit coining business at the hall. It was reported, Busby a bully and drunkard, returned home to discover Daniel Awety sat in his favourite chair and after an argument threw Awety out. It is said, Awety threatened to take his daughter Elizabeth away from Busby and return her to Danotty Hall.


Later that night Thomas Busby went up to Danotty Hall and bludgeoned Daniel Awety to death with a hammer. After murdering Awety, Busby hid the body in nearby woodland. When Awety failed to appear, a search was mounted which led to the discovery of Daniel Awety's body and the arrest of Thomas Busby.

Busby was tried at York Assizes in 1702 and condemned to hang and his body dipped in pitch and left in a gibbet opposite the coaching inn at the cross roads on the old great north road leading into Thirsk.

As Thomas Busby was being lead to his execution he is supposed to have cursed anyone who dared sit in his chair. Thereafter the inn became known as the Busby Stoop Inn and the curse of the chair was born, or was it?

It's now suggested, the Busby Stoop chair famously hanging in the Thirsk museum (so no one can sit on it) and the focus of so much fear, might not have been made until after 1840, some 138 years after Thomas Busby's execution.

It is alleged that there has been a string of fatal incidents linked to individuals who have sat in this chair during the 1970s. So beware...

Taken from here.

Strange Creatures Series- Do Ghosts exist?

Do ghosts exist?

Do you believe in ghosts?

What is a ghost?

A ghost - or spirit or apparition - is the energy, soul or personality of a person who has died and has somehow gotten stuck between this plane of existence and the next. Most researchers believe that these spirits do not know they are dead. Very often they have died under traumatic, unusual or highly emotional circumstances. Ghosts can be perceived by the living in a number of ways: through sight (apparitions), sound (voices), smell (frangrances and odors), touch - and sometimes they can just be sensed. Taken from here.

Now, it is possible to prove the evidence of ghosts by capturing pictures/videos of them with cameras, capturing their voices on recorders (EVPs), tracking them down with EMF meters (electromagnatic field)or thermal cameras, etc. Some of these may be real, some may be fake. So intepretation has to come about through experience. =)

Many people they declare that they don't believe in ghosts. But I have a question, if ghosts don't exist than why is it that every culture has it's own version of ghosts? Today, when we think of ghosts, what comes into mind is a pale figure or a severely decomposing figure that suddenly appears out of no where and tries to scare you to death or kill you. This is the stereotype image of ghosts thanks to cinemas.

Based on years of reading and researching, I would say that ghosts are probably harmless and most of the time, they aren't what the movies potray them to be. Most of the time, humans are the ones that scare themselves. Ghosts are usually harmless except for poltergeists who are capable of throwing things at people and in extreme cases, scratching them pretty badly. There are some ghost pictures taken and I don't think they are fake. I've attached 2 links here so that you can read up more by yourself:
- Real Photos (or rather, no evidence of forgery)
- Alleged Ghost Pictures (Evidence of manipulation be it intentional or unintentional)

I have some video clips for you guys to see. I follow only 2 ghost-hunting shows- Most Haunted and Ghost Hunters. There is a difference between the two.

Most Haunted has a "psychic" medium in the crew and they go into an allegedly haunted location thinking that it is haunted and start to scare themselves silly. I won't make any comments about whether they faked evidence whatsoever. I would just like to highlight how their psychological state is affected by their expectations of an angry vengeful ghost. They conduct seances, complain of cold spots or having rocks thrown on them. Unfortunately the lack of control in terms of who was where at which point and the lack professional equipment like thermometers or EMF detectors left room for doubt. However, they have a parapsychologist in the team who objectively questions evidence and rarely concedes that an evidence might be paranormal unless he cannot attributed it to something else.

Ghost Hunters go in with the expectation that the place is not haunted unless they are convinced by the evidence. They don't have a psychic with them but they used electronic devices like an EMF meter or a torchlight to communicate with the "entity". They leave the device away from them and ask for responses to their questions. If there's nothing they can find in terms of video evidence, audio recordings or personal experience, they will just tell the host that the place is not haunted in their opinion. You don't see a group of people screaming and running away at the slightest noise. Ghost hunters will trace down the source of noise and try to explain it. If they can't, they'll conclude that it's probably unnatural. E.g. If there's a thumping sound on the roof, they'll send one member up to the roof and run/jump all over it. They'll try to see if they can replicate the noise. =)

So here we go:

Most Haunted:

Listen out for the gutteral "hello" at 2min++. I'll be much happier if Stuart didn't get scared to bits and investigate further by seeing if he can replicate it.

I'm going to post up the entire series on Derby Gaol. It's an old jail and Yvette seems to be experiencing a whole range of emotional outbursts (to be honest, it might be real because in places like the Edinburgh Vaults, people inexplicably breakdown into tears at certain areas). And Derek the medium seems to be pretty dramatic. If you hear Derek talking to someone invisible called "Sam", it's his spirit guide.










Ghost Hunters:





This is one of the best EVP (electronic voice phenomenon) that I've ever heard. =)


P.S. The camera guy is a guy. And there's no other female around them.

Happy watching and form your own conclusions about whether ghosts exist. To end it off, I'll include another 2 videos of my favorite comedians- French and Saunders, who created a parody of Most Haunted.

Happy X'mas!!

Hello guys!!

I'm so sorry I've been to busy and lazy recently to post anything up. I think my brain is too tired. Because X'mas is coming up, I've decided to post up some videos to share with you guys. =) It has nothing to do with the contemplasian goals or ideals but heck, its X'mas, time to have fun yar? It's a rather macarbre collection of videos about nature from youtube that I've specially selected for you guys. Have a great X'mas, have lots of nice, clean fun.

P.S. By the time you're done watching this, you'll probably never look at turkey stuffing, cottage cheese, cream or any bump on your skin quite the same way again. *Evil Laughter*

Booomz- Staph's infection






Bot Flies


Just in case you guys have no idea what botflies are:




Funny Urophilic Orang Utan

Cheerios,
DM

Extra-ordinary people: Are they better off dead than alive?

Sorry for the lack of updates, I've been obscenely busy. Anyway, today, I'm sharing some videos from youtube. The theme is basically concerning living miracles- are they better off dead than alive?. After talking to so many people who are so caught up in the miseries of their personal lives, I've decided to do a post about some individuals who are suffering more than us and hopefully, we would learn how to appreciate ourselves and those around us better. The following videos are GRAPHIC. I hope that after watching them, no one will say anythig insensitive.

The Boy with Half a Brain

Poor kid got shot in the head. It is pretty much a miracle how he survived without half of his brains. I could tell that most of his right parietal lobe is gone. That is the part of the brain that deals with sensory-motor functions. People with brain damage there have problems trying to match the real world with the perceived one. So if you had them a card and tell them to slot it into the box, they can probably describe the slot to you but can't put it into the slot. This is but one example and it doesn't occur all the time. Because the brain is such an intricate organ, damage to one tiny part alone can cause a LOT of problems.

Treacher Collins Syndrome

This is a genetic illness caused by recessive genes. When I saw this video, I was more disturbed by comments that the kid is better off dead than alive. I just wonder if that is the right attitude to have but honestly, I rather my parents finish me off if I look like that... (Yes, I'm horribly vain.)

A Woman without Arms

I really have to take off my hat to this lady. She is probably a living proof that physical deformity is not the end of the road towards a fulfilling life. =) Her determination is truly a source of inspiration. I just feel sad that there are people who rather criticize her for being imperfect rather than admire her for her courage and determination.

8 limbed girl

I always believed that whilst people should respect traditions, they should no be a slave to them. This girl is obviously no having a good life and instead of seeking help, she is denied treatment because they believe her to be a reincarnation of Lakshmi.

The Tree Man


The Man with a 20kg tumour on his face


Looking at all the people above, is it right to say that they are better off dead than alive? Are their lives worthless and meaningless just because they were not born physically perfect/wholesome? I think there are too many issues to contemplate over this.
1. Should parents have the right to let their children die naturally if they are born imperfect?
2. Does the society have the right to eliminate the imperfect people of the world (assuming social darwinist mentality is applicable here)?
3. Are the "victims" allowed a choice to live or die?
4. Where do we draw a line between "not worth living", "worth a try" and "still can cope"?

Intelligence

From The Blue Sweater, posted 21 September 2009

Note to readers of ContemplAsian: Sorry, I have not been posting for some time. Here's one from The Blue Sweater that would be quite meaningful...

I was having a long conversation with De Maitre about this topic, a topic that in many ways affect all of us in one way or another.

We talked about three things, the meaning of intelligence, government by elites, and of course, this:



The meaning and purpose of exams.

What is intelligence?

It’s a question that I have addressed many times while writing posts for ContemplAsian, Maitre’s blog. But more often, I expounded on the problem of the meaning of intelligence being misinterpreted or distorted, rather than exploring the true meaning of intelligence.

We all know in our society, intelligence is measured by grades and certification. But what Maitre has persistently tried to tell me in our conversation was that there must be more to intelligence.

I certainly agree.

But the thing is, the idea of intelligence, like many things of a conceptual nature, runs into philosophical problems.

I was reminded of my Philosophy module at this point. For the module, I covered one of Plato’s dialogues, entitled Meno, part of which is a discussion between the characters Meno and Socrates on the nature of “success”.

And one thing that is in common with both the ideas of “intelligence” and “success” is that it is extremely difficult to identity the one single criterion or factor that could define the idea.

Take Meno, for example. We can be successful as doctors, as scientists, as historians, as teachers, but what is common between them? Ultimately, it doesn’t answer the question, what IS success?

Likewise, we can be intelligent in this subject, intelligent in another, but what IS intelligence? Still not quite answered.

Of course, one might just give up and say that to come up with the questions I have put up above is itself intelligence.


Next, government by elites.

It’s one of Singapore’s key ideologies - Meritocracy. Those with the ability and skills should and could manage the affairs of the state.

But this reveals a fundamental question:

Do we need elites to govern, if governance is about furthering the interests of the people?

Because here we assume the elites know our interests. But can we always be so sure?

On the other hand, if we don't have elites (or experts, to use a less loaded word), then will things turn out right for the state?

Maitre brought up the idea of separating “technical” skills from the raw ability to lead, but I can’t help but feel that this dichotomy is fundamentally ambiguous. For a start, what is meant by “technical” skills? And what is meant by the “raw ability”?

Even if we take skills to be things like knowledge in economics, public administration, etc, it doesn’t separate leadership from the elites. And even if we say leaders should have the “raw ability”, it doesn’t necessarily mean they are the ones leading.

For example, the result is the bureaucratic state, where real power lies in the bureaucrats rather than the politicians.

This reminds me of a quote: Leadership is Action, Not Position.


Last, examinations.

Maitre was critical of the exam system. Well, such criticism is to an extent justified. The exam system sometimes creates undesirable effects that affect the overall well-being of the education system.

I once wrote a post in ContemplAsian about exams. There, I explored why we needed exams in the first place. Exams are needed as a mechanism with which to incentivise hard work and penalise sloth. This is the most important reason for exams.

Of course, many states and societies also come to use exams as a measure of success and as a tool of academic advancement, but these are, to me, secondary reasons, because many societies (especially in Europe) don’t have stringent exams, but still achieve (arguably) these results.

In a line, exams are a mechanism for competition.

It is true that exams can distort the meaning of education. When people forget the purpose of education and think that they “study so as to pass exams”, then education truly loses meaning.

But I think it’s not so much the institution of exams, but the procedures within the institution.

Take for example Continual Assessment. In university, part of it is participation in tutorial. The trouble with making such things gradable is that it creates certain... how should I put it... strange effects.

This is because participation is subjective, if not downright ambiguous. What is wanted is “meaningful participation”, but what exactly is “meaningful participation”?

So we have people talking a lot, but you can sense they are just hoarding air time.

And for people with nothing or no time to say anything, is it fair to them that they be penalised?


So what is intelligence? Turns out I still haven’t answered the question...

The Battle of the Sexes- who is worse when it comes to keeping secrets?

A new study has suggested that women cannot keep secrets for more than 47 hours.

Researchers found that women are overcome by a burning desire to share gossip as soon as they hear it.


They will typically spill the beans to at least one other person in 47 hours and 15 minutes.

The study of 3,000 women aged between 18 and 65 also found that four out of ten admitted they were unable to keep a secret – no matter how personal or confidential the news was.

Intimate issues, true cost of purchases and affairs emerged top of the secret-keeping list, with girls most likely to share a secret chatting face-to-face, on the phone or via a text message.

Fortunately for some though, over a quarter (27 per cent) said they forgot what they were told the following day

Taken from: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/6199822/Women-cannot-keep-a-secret-for-longer-than-47-hours.html


That's not all, men have been found to gossip more than women because they need an ego boost.

MEN indulge in gossip more than women about secret liaisons, inept lovers and overpaid colleagues, a study says today.


It helps boost their confidence, says the survey of American college students. Women are more inclined to pass on tittle-tattle to bond with their friends and build closer relationships with colleagues.

Presenting her findings at the American Psychological Society's annual conference in Toronto, she said the report challenged the widely-held view that women gossiped more than men. She said: "Men definitely seem to be getting more out of gossiping than women.


"We found that men felt better about themselves when they criticised another person's behaviour. It gave them a sense of moral superiority and showed others that they knew the difference between right and wrong."

Miss Hom added that rather than creating strife in the office, gossip tended to relieve the stress of arduous work and the long hours spent in front of a computer screen. She said: "It is a vital function of social inter-action. Often it helps to break the ice among people."

The findings follow a study by the Industrial Society that said gossip should be encouraged in the office by providing more communal areas in the workplace.

Prof Nigel Nicholson, a psychologist at the London Business School and the author of a book on human behaviour, Managing the Human Animal, said: "Men enjoy a gossip as much as women, but they call it networking instead."

Taken from: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1311999/Men-gossip-more-than-women-to-boost-their-egos.html

Well well, it seems both genders can't keep secrets at all! The only difference lies in their motivation for revealing secrets- men for the sake of "networking" and "ego", and women for the sake of "stress relief". Personally, I never trusted both sexes much. After all, you'll never know when you'll argue with friends and stop talking to each other. And you can never predict if your former friend wouldn't spill the beans on you.

Are Singaporean parents Authoritative or Negligent when bringing up their children?

This post will be an extension of my previous post- "Should the parents of Ah Lians/ Ah Bengs be blamed for their deviant behavior". This time I will focus more on the parenting techniques identified by psychologists and what kind of children do they create.

Have you guys realized that over the past 10 years, there has been a sudden boom in the market for family/parent related magazines, forums and websites? In my opinion, this sudden surge in parenting interest could be due to the following factors:

-More highly educated parents who believe in the virtue of using “science” to establish the “best” parenting style for their children.
-Guilt that parents aren’t spending enough time with their children
-Increased social pressure to be nothing but the best. So parents want the best kids and hope to achieve that through the best parenting approach.

So what parenting styles are there? A psychologist named Barumrind came up with the concept of a tripartite classification of parenting styles in 1967 using four orthogonal dimensions- consistent discipline, maturity demands, destructiveness and encouragement of independent conducts. This results in 4 types of parenting styles: Authoritative, Authoritarian, Permissive and Neglecting.

This model is way too US centric anyway. =) In local Asian culture, beating children who are naughty is NOT considered abusive as long as it doesn't cross the line of causing the child long term emotional, psychological and physical trauma/injury.  In the US system, they don't hold to the "spare the rod and spoil the child" ideology, so Asian parenting styles are classified as Authoritarian parenting simply because they lack the element of warmth. The Asian and European perception of warmth differs greatly. To Europeans, warmth/love is expressed through physical expressions of affection, such as hugs and kisses. To Asians however, warmth/love is expressed through less "intense" means such as cooking herbal chicken soup, nagging, caning a child when he/she is naughty, etc.

It is commonly excepted that the Authoritative parenting style is the most effective, especialy if parents adopt a democratic approach to parenting (as suggested by Baldwin et. al. in their 1955 paper). The democratic approach refers to parents who communicate the demands of the real world to thier children instead of their personal demands.

Given the penchant of Asian parents issuing orders to their children on what to do and what not to do, punishing disobedience with physical (canning), emotional (locking children out of the house) or verbal (shouting) aggression, Europeans think that Asians only practice the Authoritarian style of parenting, which generally creates more obedient and submissive children who appear to be less spontaneous, curious and creative. However, I would like to question- are Asian children obedient and submissive because of their parents or because of cultural norms?

Ask any Asian parent and they will tell you that they cane their children because they love them not and it is for their own good. Asian parents would also say that they make decisions for their children because their children are not ready to make an informed choice. These examples clearly violate the typical American belief that punishing children would result in nothing parental abuse in the long run and that children should be given the independence to make their own decisions in life.

In other words, Asian parenting should resemble the Authoritative model, so it should be within healthy boundaries. Unfortunately, the model does not account for additional factors such as parental kiasu-ism and having the fostering of parenting duties to maids.

To me, I think Singaporean children are over stressed by their parents' expectations of them. Furthermore, given our traditional beliefs, many Singaporean children today can't differentiate between what they want and what their parents want out of them. Somewhere, somehow the line got blurred along time. I think it’s just plain sad that many of the teenagers I’ve met don’t know what they are doing in life. They are just caught in the web of confusion stemming from a loss in life goals.

With the increased affluence among Singaporeans stemming from having both parents working full time, I would suggest that many Singaporean children suffer from emotional neglect even though their daily needs are met by their maids. For one, their parents return home late at night tired and irritated from a hard day at work. They usually spend a little time with their children but do not want to be bothered by their children’s constant demands for attention. I’ve seen parents telling their kids to go watch TV whenever their kids try to start a conversation on mundane stuff like “Daddy, Mummy, today my friend had a birthday party in school! We had a lot of balloons, than her parents brought ... … …” (you know children and their endless capacity for chatter).

I think Asian parents need to move on with time, given the exposure to western ideals that their children gain from watching television, young children today expect their parents to express more caring questions that most American parents typically portray in movies. These questions could be as simple as “how was your day in school?” or “did you enjoy yourself with your friends?”. This expectation failed quite badly in the face in typical Asian brusque mentality where the most likely question that children receive when they reach home after school would be “do you have any homework?”, “do you have any tests coming up?” or “any results out?”. That’s quite disheartening.

I also think parenting standards have dropped a lot in Singapore. I’ve met parents, who are blissfully ignorant of their child’s favorite dish, what time the child has to go to school, and the worst sin of all, they forgot their child’s birthday. And the saddest part of all, it is often the maid who remembers all of these. Parents leave their maids to make sure that their children have been fed, showered and have done their homework. Which inevitably, leads us to this conundrum of mine once more: "Are Singaporean Parents Authoritative in their approach but Negligent to their child's emotional needs?"

Spamming for idiots

I feel very inspired to do a post on spamming thanks to “hairylongcock” (HLC), which I have publically dubbed as the ”baldshortworm”, who had made the conscious effort to return to my blog, not once, but TWICE to spam my wonderful (because its free) Chatroll with meaningless messages such as “jk”, “gh”, etc in random order. I'm not categorizing this post under the "What is" series because it lacks sufficient detail and does not cover a broader spectrum of the global issue of spamming.

I must say I’m honored with the effort taken by HLC to key it random alphabets approximately 50 times each time the dear spammer pops by, however due to its unconstructive nature, I had to ban him. I must say I prefer hecklers who will scold me at my Chatroll, I’m not perfect and I need a scolding now and then to squash my big head back into size. =) I’ll be more specific and say, I rather know WHY you hate me than to see you clutter up my entire Chatroll, only for me to delete it ALL away with 2 clicks… Hardly worth the effort, isn’t it?

So these are the common variations of spam, are there others that fall under this umbrella? HLC would still fall under the umbrella of a IM spammer who sends out bulk messages in person rather through a virus trying to promote some product. Personally, I always looked down on such IM spammers, because you can tell quite a few things about them (I’ll use HLC as a case study here):

1.They are incredibly free. I think any decent person with time on their hands can think of better things to do than to come to people’s IM and leave a brandom string of alphabets behind.
2.They are hard up for attention. Obviously, no one gives a damn for HLC, whether he’s dead or alive. He’s so desperate that he is reduced into being a faceless persona who failed to market his obviously handicapped anatomy as something mightier than it actually is. You know, they said “the pen is mightier than the sword”, I say “a worm is more pitiful alive than dead”. If you don’t get what I mean, too bad. =P
3.They are very stupid. Their vocabulary and knowledge is extremely limited. In HLC’s case, all he knows is how to beg for a blowjob because no one wants to do it even if he pays them to and how to type alphabets in random order.
4.They are failures in every sense of the word. When I had a tagboard as my guestbook, HLC drew a picture of an inch long penis and called it big. As you
can tell, I’m hardly impressed and I was trying very hard to keep a straight
face when HLC begged for blowjobs.

I’ve been tagging randomly at some Ah Lian’s blogs as well as at AALT2. Thanks to my heckling nature, I made a lot of enemies, not that I care because all of them are still immature and have underdeveloped brains (a.k.a. below 21 years old). I was quite amazed that liannies like to call me a spammer. I did mention this in one of my earlier posts about liannies. For one, I don’t do BULK messages, I just leave innocuous messages like “why must you swear so much? It makes you look crude and stupid.” That is enough for them to reply “who are you to tell me what to do!!!!” to which I’ll usually post my replies and get labeled a spammer once the blog owner is tired of me. I'll leave the blog when I'm asked to nicely.

I still believe in respecting the basic rules of courtesy- "be polite unless aggression is called for" & "don't overstay your welcome". I think I need to justify myself, I produce unsolicited advice indiscriminately, that’s all. I didn’t start off with an aim of pissing the blog owner off unlike most IM spammers like HLC. I’m a fair person, I’ll praise people if they are good and scold them if they are bad. If they fall between the grey area, I’ll shut up and hold my peace (or piss).

So back to the topic of spamming, what is spamming? Spamming is now universally accepted as the abuse of electronic messaging systems to send unsolicited bulk messages indiscriminately. “Traditionally” speaking, spam used to refer to unsolicited adverts that unknown idiots shove into your letter boxes. With the progress of technology, spam now refers to unknown idiots flooding your emails, IM, mobile phones and fax transmissions with more adverts that you do not need.

Spam is harmless by nature, but they are certainly a hassle. For one, I have to clear my emails more often before they jam up the entire system. Furthermore, many spam emails and IM messages contain viruses in attached folders/links that actually compromise your account security and send out more spam emails to annoy those on your contact lists. For those of you who use msn, I’m sure you’ve received random links from friends who appear to be offline with messages ranging from “I can’t believe you were so cheap! (link)” to “Is that you in this picture? (link)" to “I lost over 20 pounds in three weeks! You should try out this acacia berry pills! (link)". Clicking on the link provided would only result in a viral invasion of your beloved computer.

So how to deal with spam? I say, ignore them and don’t respond. When spammers realize that there is no benefit in sending out such messages, the whole system will be redundant. As for annoying buggers you will meet online, just delete their post, ignore them and live goes on, WITHOUT them. They’ll get tired and stop after some time. In summary, don’t take things personally, they are people too, they’re just attention seeking and immature. Sex maniacs will die of STDs and the verbally abusive will get beaten up one day. Unsolicited hecklers like me will give up once we realize that your skull is thicker than a coconut.

P.S. whatever I said about ignoring spammers doesn’t work on me, I have this obsessive-compulsion to insult them back.

What would you do if you witness a case of abuse?

Oh my, oh my, I was at a complete loss for words when I saw this video. My first thought was “OMG, than man is such a CMI (cannot make it).” Second thought was “OMG, what a bitch”. I have a question for my readers out there, I hope you guys will respond through the comments because I won’t be around at the Chatroll much…

“What will you do if you saw this happening in your neighbourhood?”

a.Ignore them on walk on?
b.Intervene and stop that woman from abusing the guy?
c.Others. (Please elaborate)

Personally, I do not condone physical violence unless the person REALLY deserves it. But I draw a line at humiliation. No matter what that guy did, this woman really crossed the lines of decency when she kept grabbing his balls repeatedly in PUBLIC, no less. Never mind the pain, it’s just downright humiliating. I hope she meets a domineering man who will whack her boobs whenever they quarrel in the middle of a crowded shopping mall.

So what would I do when I see this short of nasty behavior along the streets of Singapore? This is what I would do:
1.Walk up to the couple and tell that woman to stop that disgraceful behavior.
2.Take of my right shoe.
3.Slap that woman for mistreating that guy.
4.Slap that guy for letting that woman treat him like this.
5.Walk away feeling satisfied

Oops, I sounded violent didn’t I? But violence would wake the both of them up than by all mean. Actions do speak louder than words. Sometimes a tight slap works better than starting a verbal fight with people who think with their fists more than their mouths.

Singapore-the Club of Inspiring Elitists who should learn the value of shutting up if they can't do better

Recently, Ris Low came into the spotlight when everyone started critizing her English- "How on EARTH could someone of her calibre represent Singapore?? So MALU!!" Initially, I was nodding my head in full hearted agreement because she wasn't exactly what I would call "beautiful" or "hot" and her English was a monumental tragedy! She was obviously inarticulate and has trouble trying to organize and express her thoughts and feelings. The words that came out of her mouth were jumbled messes that were in a hurry to run out and trip over each other. The words she employed were really simple and weird...

Furthermore, I felt that she just revealed her ignorance with regards to South Africa when answering question about African-inspired fashion. It’s not just about leopard prints and zebras… In fact, most of the African inspired fashion is largely based on traditional tribal designs based on geometric patterns! The emphasis is on clothes that are outdoor look, color and comfort. Leopard prints and feathers are largely a by-product of the imposition of western ideals on a backward nation. The people there rarely wear fur and feathers except for tribal festivities, simply because it’s too damn hot.

This is an example of Safari-inspired Fashion:

I disagree with her idea of how to carry off animal prints without looking trashy, but I won’t go into it beyond the point “less is more” and no “mix and match”. I would also like to add that fashion is NOT about yourself… The opinion of others DO matter, they decide if you look like an ass or elegant. Your personal opinions do not matter in this case. So back to the old girl, is it that embarrassing to have her as a representative of Singapore? I thought of this question overnight and watched this video again. Surprisingly, I found myself reaching some new conclusions.

1.Nervousness
It is possible to attribute her extreme self-centered speech and bad choice of words to her nervousness. It was quite clear from her body language that she was very nervous. But if that’s the case, would she make a suitable representative for Singapore? She might be required to do speeches and rub shoulders with the political/industrial elites, would her nervousness make her look like a terrible village idiot?

2. Long tongue
I would attribute the countless mispronunciations to her long tongue, or at least I think she has a long tongue. She always sounds like she’s slurping her words. So can’t really blame her for that.

3. Ignorance
Singapore is a country with literate people who are both knowledgeable and yet ignorant in their own way. Thanks to our education system, our knowledge of the world is limited to what we can learn from the success of EMDCs and the reasons why ELDCs still cannot make it. Little effort is done to highlight the failures of EMDCs and how ELDCs do achieve successes slowly but ultimately. I’m hardly surprised when most of the Singaporeans I’ve spoke to:

- think that South Africa refers to the entire African continent
- have no idea that Egypt is part of the African continents
- have no idea what Biltong is
- are blissfully unaware that South Africa isn't just full of Savannas, there are deserts and jungles too! (I dunno how Singaporeans pass their geography exams)
- think the all of Africa still practices animalist worship. WRONG, some African cultures/tribes have been practicing Islam and Christianity as well for hundreds of years.
- are completely ignorant the South Africa is one of the MOST dangerous countries in the world (SA makes the US look safe).

Judging from such communal ignorance, who are we blame her for being ignorant when her strongest critics often need to look at themselves in the mirror first? I refuse to believe it when people insist they are NOT ignorant- rubbish, you can never know enough.

4. Age
She's only nineteen, some might say she should be mature enough, but I beg to differ. Unless she has a voracious appetite for books, nineteen is still the age of innocence and ignorance. She has yet to achieve the financial and emotional independence to see the world as it truly is. Nineteen is still the age where people think that the world is their piece of cake and opportunites for success are open and equal for everyone. They stil need to learn that whilst everyone is equal in society, there are some who are more equal than others. It is at the age where they still think about themselves first over others, the day they start putting others before themselves is the day where they full achieve maturity.

So is it a tragedy for her to represent Singapore? Are her critics any better than her? I always believed that criticism should be constructive and one should not criticize others unless one can prove to be better. I would openly criticize Ris Low because I believe that I’m way better than her in terms of worldly knowledge, fashion sense and linguistic expression. However, I will admit that I’m chronically shy when it comes to talking in front of a group of people. So fair is fair, I’ll shut up because I lost to her in one field.

Now let me move on to bitch about the other Singaporean critics! The main criticism is leveled at her language. I used to think Singapore was a place where good English was heavily prized. That ideal was smashed when I entered the working world. Based on emails and phone calls with “graduates”, “lowly clerks” and “warehouse guys”, I can safely say “Good English does NOT exist anywhere”. The good English that I see are usually from graduates, who consciously remember to follow grammatical rules and punctuations, and from Caucasians. However, it must be noted that not all Caucasians use good English, I’ve met some with worse English than an average kid from primary 6. So does good English have to be a must have for a representative in Singapore?

If you’ve noticed, Singapore has a culture of over-prizing graduate beauty queens. Our beauty queens- Rachel Kum, Joanne Peh and Felicia Chin are highly popular because of their status as graduates! They are seen as the “smarter breed”. However, is that true? They are as human as anyone of us, are we creating an artificial benchmark for them as well as ourselves to reach? What’s wrong with diploma or NT students representing Singapore? They are not part of the elitist culture, but they ARE part of our Singapore culture aren’t they?

For too long we have been obsessed with the idea that only the best of Singapore would be shown to the world, with the other “undesirable” aspects conveniently being swept under the carpet, away from the curious eyes of “foreign investors and dignitaries”. Should we give them a chance to appear in the limelight for once and accept them as they are? They are integral aspects of the culture after all, and the elitist club members are by no means perfect themselves…

As my friend SH said, such competitions are useless beyond their entertainment value. So what's the point of having such competitions anyway? It is all pointless competition engaging pointless people inviting pointless critics. Shouldn't such resources be channeled to more constructive activities such as saving Taiwanese flood victims? After all, the title of beauty queen is just a temporary crown, temporary fame and unnecessary pressure to create a farcical "virtuous image". I could only shake my head sadly when the public insisted that Rachel Kum be stripped of her status as beauty queen just because of some suggestive pictures of her being posted online. Must the public always pretend to have this moral high ground? I’m sure everyone had their heydays that they would rather not mention to their kids today. It’s just a meaningless competition for an empty crown, there’s no need to hold up their personal flaws against them- nobody is perfect.

Guest Post: SMRT

Response to WK's No Eating or Drinking: Fine $500 post
WRITTEN BY: MING FENG
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2009: SMRT introduces the complete ban on consuming all form of food, including plain water, on all trains.

2011: SMRT bans sleeping on trains, the rationale being "dunno, just for the heck of it." Offenders are fined $500.

2012: The notorious East-West line claims the first victim, who died of dehydration after attempting to ride from Pasir Ris to Joo Koon.

2013: Fine raised from $500 to $5,000.

2013: Fine raised from $5,000 to $50,000.

2013: Fine raised from $50,000 to $500,000.

2014: SMRT bans singing, loud handphones, talking louder than 45 decibels, not keeping to the left on escalators and not giving way to alighting passengers, as part of their motto of "Moving People, Enhancing Lives".

2015: SMRT renamed to SMaRT despite their rules being quite on the contrary. SMaRT changes motto to "Moving People, OUR Way".

2016: SMaRT bans inhaling of plain water, after one commuter attempted to justify the ingestion of plain water through the nose as "inhaling, and not drinking, and therefore you can't fine the shit out of me". The man was detained for being a public nuisance.

2018: 172 people died from dehydration while attempting the "Coast to Coast" feat, riding from Pasir Ris to Joo Koon without alighting to drink water. Local adventurer Mr S.C Khoo becomes the first man in the world to succeed in this feat, becoming a national hero once again.

2019: SMaRT caught 783,402 people attempting to drink or inhale plain water on the train, and decided to make smuggling more than 18 grams of plain water into trains a capital offence. In the same year, SMaRT declares a profit of $402 billion, a world record for a public transport company, while denying that fines make up the bulk of their profits.

2019: First person executed for attempting to smuggle a bottle of NeWater into trains.

2021: A commuter with 18kg of plain water strapped to his body, managed run through the water detector gates, evade pursuing station officers, and charged through the ticket gantry without paying. He later disappeared into the peak hour crowd and was last seen distributing water on the platform. The Water Bearer, as he was later affectionately known among commuters, was branded a hero by the people but was never seen attempting the feat again. SMaRT arms their station officers with police-issued MP5 submachine guns after the infamous incident. The SMaRT management deals with the humiliation by likening the Water Bearer's actions to that of "a terrorist, a suicide bomber", and threatens to shoot any commuter attempting to emulate the Water Bearer.

2027: To solve the problem of commuters not giving up seats to the elderly, the pregnant and the handicapped, SMaRT bans the elderly, the pregnant and the handicapped from taking trains. SMaRT buys over SBS Transit.

2030: After a nine-year hunt, the Water Bearer was finally caught and was due to be sentenced to death. However, he escaped through the window inside one of the toilets in a detention facility. The notorious Window was last reinforced in 2008 when a wanted terrorist escaped through it. The Water Bearer was never seen again, despite eye-witnesses reported seeing him swimming in the Straits of Malacca with a flotation device fashioned out of 180 NeWater bottles hours after he was reported missing.

2034: The number of deaths related to the plain water drinking ban exceeds that of the Death Railway, earning SMaRT the nickname of "The Death Transit".

2035: SMaRT successfully monopolises public transport after completing the buyover of ComfortDelgro. The people likened the move to an experience similar to the Japanese Occupation. SMaRT shot down the claim, saying nobody in this generation has ever been through the Japanese Occupation, and therefore there is no basis of comparison. SMaRT ridership at an all-time low.

2036: In a brilliant collaboration with the government, private transport, including bicycles and tricycles, are completely banned from the roads. SMaRT encourages the people to take their world class public transport service. SMaRT ridership at an all-time high. SMaRT embarks on the Great Leap Forward programme, massively and rapidly expanding their transport services.

2038: Taxi flag down rates raised to $24.40. Bus fares increased by 600%.

2048: Taxi flag down rates raised to $96.70. Bus fares increased by 600%.

2086: Great Leap Forward ends. There are now 666 kilometres of train tracks serving every corner of Singapore, including previously inaccessible places like the Live Firing Area, Pulau Brani, Pulau Sudong, Jurong Island, Pulau Ubin and Pulau Tekong. Batam extension opens. There is one taxi for every four people, and one bus for every 12. SMaRT employees make up more than half of the 15 million people in Singapore.

2987: SMaRT celebrates 1000 years of public transport service.

Animal Cruely vs Consumerism

Warning: Disturbing video for animal lovers.

P3ST showed me this video clip about how animal cruelty occurs due to consumer demands.

Thrown, dropped, mutilated, and ground-up alive. This is the disturbing reality faced by hundreds of thousands of chicks each day at the world's largest egg-laying breed hatchery Hy-Line International in Spencer, Iowa.

New hidden camera footage obtained at this facility during a http://www.MercyForAnimals.org undercover investigation gives a disturbing glimpse into the cruel and industrialized reality of modern hatcheries.

The warm, comforting, and protective wings of these newly hatched chicks' mothers have been replaced with massive machines, quickly moving conveyor belts, harsh handling, and distressing noise. These young animals are sorted, discarded, and handled like mere cogs in a machine.

For the nearly 150,000 male chicks who hatch every 24 hours at this Hy-Line facility, their lives begin and end the same day. Grabbed by their fragile wings by workers known as "sexers," who separate males from females, these young animals are callously thrown into chutes and hauled away to their deaths. They are destined to die on day one because they cannot produce eggs and do not grow large or fast enough to be raised profitably for meat. Their lives are cut short when they are dropped into a grinding machine tossed around by a spinning auger before being torn to pieces by a high-pressure macerator.

Over 21 million male chicks meet their fate this way each year at this facility.

For the surviving females, this is the beginning of a life of cruelty and confinement at the hands of the egg industry. Before even leaving the hatchery they will be snapped by their heads into a spinning debeaker a portion of their sensitive beaks removed by a laser. Workers toss and rummage through them before they are placed 100 per crowded box and shipped across the country.

The callous disregard for animal welfare at this facility is not isolated. In fact, the conditions documented during this investigation are completely standard and acceptable within the commercial egg industry. Referred to by Hy-Line corporate leaders as mere "genetic products," these chicks are treated just as they are viewed as inanimate objects, rather than the sentient creatures they are.

Driven by consumer demand, the egg industry will continue to exploit, abuse, and kill day-old animals as long as doing so remains profitable. Empowered consumers can put their ethics on the table by choosing kindness over cruelty at each meal by adopting an animal-friendly vegan diet.

Would you call this evil? To me, I still think chickens are prey animals, so they are meant to be eaten. WK was horrified at the sight of the make chicks being ground up ALIVE. But to me, I found myself suprisingly at ease with this because they die almost instantaneously. Their entire nervous system has been ground up, the true death would have been instant. In contrast, breaking the male chick's neck may not always result in death! Beheading takes about 30 seconds for true death to occur.

Actually, I was more disturbed at the sight of the chicks' beaks being lasered off. If you're wondering why, I would liken that action to removing a teenager's teeth off and leaving him/her toothless for the rest of their miserable existence.

I think this video is also too biased against meat eaters. Chicken meat is a primary source of protein for most people. And given the monumental increase in human population the past 200 years, farming practices have to move on with time in order to meet the demands of the meat consumers. Ask any meat farmer, they don't have any affection for their lifestock! To love your animal would mean not being able to kill it. So should mega-farmers like Hy-Line be presecuted for mass-producing meat in the most efficient manner they could come up with?

As for rough handling of chicks, one must bear in mind that these are our food, not pets. Tender loving care requires time and effort, and it usually breed emotional attachment. This is something that all lifestock farmers avoid. These animals are a means of income, they are FOOD. Plain and simple, its just a matter of when and how they die. So to me, I think lasering off their beaks would be a greater cause of agitation, simply because it is making them suffer throughout the durations of their pathetic little lives. At least the males died quickly.

Another point to note is that asking everyone to turn vegetarian would be impractical either, this is due to a shortage of landspace for farming. Another cute thing is, this is the first time I've heard of males being killed off in the favor of females. ^^ So much so for zhong4 nan2 qing1 nu3. =P

The Political Opposition

From The Blue Sweater, posted 4 September 2009

Ok, before I begin, the disclaimer:

First, this essay is about politics, but aims only to reflect on the realities of political opposition in Singapore.

Second, this is NOT a Political Science essay. So for any of my PS friends reading this, please don’t take it so seriously...

Alright, now I can start... though I seriously wonder whether those disclaimers are necessary in the first place.

There has been much news about opposition parties in general recently. Japan had a historic change in its politics, when the opposition Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ) ended the 55-year rule of the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP).

In Singapore, the opposition party PKMS hit the headlines (and made a fool of themselves) after fights broke out due to power struggles within the party. All these events made the discussion with a friend of mine today all the more meaningful.

A friend of mine took a module on politics in Singapore, and I was approached for ideas, as I took the same module during Special Semester.

I was given this question, which is not strictly a political science question, but nevertheless is related somewhat to the topic of Singapore politics: “I know some people who vote opposition, but when asked why, they didn’t have a real reason, other than ‘I just don’t like the PAP.’ How does it make sense?”

Well, my initial thought was that it simply doesn’t make sense. I was initially inclined to say that these voters are simply irrational, but then again, I personally felt that wasn’t really answering the question.

So I adopted a different approach to the question, that is, I wanted to address the question “Why do people vote opposition in the first place”.

I thought of three possible reasons.

First, there are people who simply do not support the PAP as it is. People might be dissatisfied with its elitism, the conservatism, or the political ideology of the party.

Second, there are people who sincerely believe that there should be more space and opportunities for the opposition. This is because of the belief that a true democracy is one in which ruling and opposition parties can compete on an equal basis, which is a situation that does not happen in Singapore. In addition, there is the desire for the greater presence of opposition in parliament, so that there is more debate and alternative voices in parliament.

Of course, one might rebut by arguing the role of the Nominated MPs in parliament, but the problem is, though NMPs are non-partisan by nature, they are screened by a PAP-dominated panel, which affects the neutrality of the NMPs.

Third, and more importantly, there are people who do not benefit, or are even marginalised by PAP policy. PAP policies and schemes might not have benefited them, and there are important structural contradictions in some of the government’s policy, such as the contradiction between cosmopolitanism and building national identity, between embracing globalisation and coping with the problems and challenges associated with it, such as the “digital divide”, which marginalises the older generation who lack the IT skills necessary in the digitised job market.

Though there are issues, it is ultimately important to note that these factors are ultimately inconsequential. Political opposition in Singapore is ultimately too weak, for a variety of reasons, to effectively challenge the PAP government (I won’t get to the reasons, one can write an entire essay out of these reasons, which I decline, having already done so just last semester). We are very unlikely, in the foreseeable future, to see the situation in Japan, when a long-ruling party is simply brought to its knees.

Nevertheless, I feel there is an important lesson for the PAP. The ineffective handling of national problems and issues can lead to public disillusionment. The PAP will not see the situation as that in Japan, but public dissatisfaction is easily manifested in the electoral swings, as evident in the PAP’s troubled years of 1980 and 1984.

The Sciences or the Humanities?

From The Blue Sweater, posted 31 August 2009

This is one of the great debates in academia. For a very long time intellectuals and thinkers have been thinking of the differences between the natural sciences, the humanities, and the social sciences, and the debate is still ongoing.

I’m no academic authority, but I do have some thoughts of my own based on my (albeit limited) experience and knowledge of the differences between the sciences and the humanities.

It was a pretty ordinary after-lesson chat (and lunch), and a friend and I discussed the issues between the humanities and the sciences (among other somewhat unrelated topics), and how these differences relate to us.

Actually, there are similarities. Both make use of systematic methods in the process of generating knowledge and understanding.
But then, what are the differences?

I think the most important difference is that the sciences seek knowledge that is absolute, that is universal in nature, while the humanities look for the general in the particular, since the nature of the subject matter – humans – are difficult to predict and are changeable over time.

This brings me to my thought for today: are the differences between the sciences and the humanities critical? Are there costs if one made the switch from one to the other?

In the chat with my friend today, the answer seemed to be: “Maybe”.

I was a science student in secondary school. I took double pure science (physics and chemistry), along with double math (Additional and Elementary). It’s a combination that prepared me for a track in science education at the post secondary level.

But when my O level results came, I decided to make the switch. Instead of opting for the Science stream in JC, I’ve decided to go to Arts instead. The reason? Sheer realism (well, my math was horrible though I did fine for my sciences, but it was my Combined Humanities score that made the crucial difference). I remembered my teachers were quite flabbergasted at my decision, but looking at my humanities grade, they (kind of) let me be.

What my friend felt about the switch was that it would be difficult if one did not have the foundations in language. The humanities require a certain command of language since it’s reading and writing intensive. Being well-read and having a strong ability to express oneself is essential for a good performance in the Arts stream.

I thought: “You have a point”. After all, I do realize that I still have some weaknesses in this respect (since my friend told me I was the first ex-debater she’s out-debated, but, well, that’s beside the point. Anyway, debaters debate and get out-debated all the time).

What I do agree with, is that it does take a bit to adapt to the “switch”, if I can call it this way. It did take me a while to master the reading and writing skills necessary.

Since I was from a science background in secondary school, taking on Arts meant taking on a different set of reading material, adopting a different mode of thinking, and to be able to express my case. To be honest, it was difficult at times.

What happened next? I joined the debate society in JC. Debate taught me how to read, how to write, and most important, how to think in the Arts and Social Sciences way.

So to be out-debated was, well, quite expected really, since I knew I was the “late-bloomer” in debate, plus the fact that my JC didn’t have a strong debating culture in the first place.

But then again, since I did survive (or I wouldn’t have made it to NUS), that means there is no real cost in making the switch. It’s “maybe” for this reason. It’s good to start early, but there seems to be no real difference between early and late.

What could it be then? Maybe it’s the attitude, the willingness to put in more. Maybe it’s the training I had in debate, which taught me the skills and stimulated my mind.

So, the sciences or the humanities? I say: “Follow your heart (or your grades).” I know my heart’s with the humanities.

On Freedom of Speech

From the The Blue Sweater, posted 30 August, 2009

“To speak or not to speak?”

That is the question, and the answer to which has persistently eluded me from time to time. Here I share my thoughts on what the freedom of speech is, and what it means for me.

I mentioned in ContemplAsian I had this horrible experience where I invoked the anger of someone while, exercising the freedom of speech, if you will, with a friend. The full story is in ContemplAsian, but long story short, I was chatting with a friend on a bus about school, and as we chatted we got someone we didn’t know angry, and it was a somewhat disturbing experience.

I had several thoughts after the incident, but it’s mainly about the other person, so here I’ll talk more about my own self-reflection.

Well, the problem might not have been as complicated as my friend and I thought. Maybe I was just too loud (after all, I’m aware of this bad habit of mine, where I lose myself during a conversation).

But then again, was it simply a matter of volume, or was there something more fundamental?

This brings me to my topic for today. What is the “freedom of speech”?

I feel that the freedom of speech simply means the ability to say what one thinks without the fear of suppression. Of course, there are important things to recognise, such as issues that are clearly “out-of-bounds”, like comments that threaten racial and religious harmony, and slanderous remarks. But putting those aside, there is freedom of speech in Singapore, at the very least, in principle.

But based on my experience that day, I think there are other issues to consider that are just as important.

First, if what is being said has the potential to cause public anger (like the things my friend and I discussed that day, which, to be quite honest, are quite cynical in nature), would that right still apply? It is certainly true that the freedom of expression should never compromise peace and harmony among people.

But then it begs the question: how would we know whether what we say could offend a person? My friend and I didn’t know we angered that particular person, and then again, the rest of the bus didn’t react in any way that meant displeasure (of course, there is a possibility they feel we were right, or they just can’t be bothered), and if we didn’t mention any names, or any specific institution, where was the need for the person to respond in the way he did? This was the question my friend and I never quite came to terms with.

Or just to quote my friend: “I think that’s his own problem.”

In other words, should we keep quiet simply because of the potential fear of someone getting angry, or should we keep quiet despite being as politically correct as we could? Either way it looks like we are better off quiet, but then, where is the freedom of expression then?

So maybe I was too loud. Maybe if I whispered to my friend this incident would have a different outcome, or would never have taken place.
This brings me to my second point. Is the freedom of speech conditioned not by what we say, but how we say it? This is a very plausible case. Since the point is to minimise disturbance or distress amongst others, it would help if the contents of the conversation is limited to just, say, my friend and I.

But then again, putting it into perspective, does it mean we can whisper to each other about how a certain race or religion is (whatever)? Certainly not.

Besides, if that person still managed to hear us, and still got angry, it’s still our responsibility, since the conversation has already spread beyond the two of us.

The bus, as an example of public space, shows indeed how the issue of free speech can be so complex.

To be honest, as I’ve said in ContemplAsian, I would apologise for making that person so angry, but I would not apologise for what I said, because I feel I have the right to talk about the issues regardless of my standing.

It was regrettable that what we said has caused the breach of peace, if I could put it that way, but ultimately, the balance between peace and free speech was never an easy one to strike in the first place.

Why De Maitre stopped supporting AAL team

Did you know there is a new Anti-AAL blog up? =) No, I don't hate the blog. Love it so far because it is actually in good English!! Today, I want to talk about why I withdrew my support for AAL team even though I hate ALs. Unfortunately, the comment I left on WHAAL was a tragic parody of my usual standard of English. Learn from me guys, sleep deprivations turns you into a blubbering mass with badly expressed opinions. Ivans' parents are right, you need sleep to function well. Heh, unfortunately, I'm still going to be sleep deprived, so bear with me.

So there, with the help of my friend (who wants to remain anonymous for now) correcting my English, I'm going to repost up my comment.

The reason why I withdrew my support for AAL team even though I dislike ALs was because I think they have crossed the line of decency. Insulting a collective group of people who share common deviant behavioral traits is fine to me. BUT I certainly don't approve of the way the AAL team expresses their dislike for ALs.

For one I do not condone personal attacks. That means, I dislike the posting of personal friendster/facebook links, blog links, personal pictures, etc. Revealing a person's name is fine to me, but not the whole name. People deserve a little privacy and I think that should be respected. I have written posts about ALs before, and I only mentioned a few names as examples, and never in forms that can allow for their being identified, shamed, or cyber-bullied. I deem it more meaningful and constructive to focus on the general idiosyncrasies of their behaviours in a bid to bring them back onto the right paths faster than most of them normally would return to the straight path (i.e. before the age of 20).

I did air my displeasure with their penchant for pasting up pictures of ALs ripped out of the ALs' private blogs/friendster pages. Attempts to censor the pictures by strategically blocking parts of the face fell tragically flat when they pasted up the victim's friendster url. That's bullying as far as I'm concerned.

Abrupt as my switching of support from AAL to AALT2 might seem, I think it should be understood that I did so only out of my growing inability to stomach the fact that the AALs themselves were becoming the very things they sought to censure.

The conflict between AAL team and the ALs-at-large, has degenerated into an ugly brawl between "high-class and educated" ALs against the "low-class and not-so-educated" ALs. To me, plastering vulgarities all over your blog just cheapens your image and credibility. SO you might want to rethink about using vulgarities as well... =) After all, the moment you use the vulgarities Ah Lians use and stoop to their level, you become them and worse, seeing as to how they curse out of ignorance and yourselves, cockiness.

What makes an AL a AL goes beyond stupidity, rebonded hair and cheap clothes. It's the attitude as well. So if AAL is content going about bitching ALs on a personal level, they are just cyber ALs, period. As for the phrase-not afraid of "tsunamis" and "fire", well, it sounds like an average defensive, insecure and overly-defensive AL going "come larh, you think I scared ah". =P

By the way, AAL did use the word "Pandemic" correctly because they are using the rabid consumption of "DSLR related cam-whoring" as the context of an "infection disease" that is spreading across the AL population.

I agree that there is either good English or bad English. Unfortunately, there are many versions of English, so it's hard to say what is good English beyond good spelling, grammar and tenses.

I would assume that AAL team employs "standard" English to ensure that most ALs would understand them after all, your intent is to reform them, not mock at them senselessly with a holier-than-thou attitude, or is it? Based on my research, I can roughly conclude that ALs below 15 years of age still tend to use twit.

I prefer AALT2 because they are a lot more interactive and the focus is more on the stupidity and lack of maturity of ALs as a whole. I managed to talk and learn more about the reasons for why ALs chose to be deviant kids. Furthermore, they are willing to reverse their policies to respect the rights of the ALs on the individual level. They are a lot more respectable than AAL team in that sense.

What Would You Do?

In this post WK is going to adopt a slightly different style. Usually I write about serious things pretty seriously, but today, I’m going to talk about something serious based on a bad experience I personally had one particular morning.

I was on my way to school with a friend, and we chatted while we were on the bus. Our conversation eventually moved in the direction of my pet topic, the education system (specifically the JC system), and we got critical of the system, commenting how it does a pretty inadequate job of preparing students for university.

But just as we were discussing the issue, the person who sat in front of us (another student at my school, whom neither my friend nor I knew) got very angry. And we could feel it. (I was dumber, I only realized it when he started getting vocal about it). So we kept quiet, right till we alighted from the bus, and went our own ways to our classes.

It was a very bad experience, and I, wouldn’t say was disturbed, but I was quite uncomfortable with his response.

Personally, and honestly, I would apologise for making him so angry, but I wouldn’t apologise for what I said, because first, we did not mention any names, and second, what we said was ultimately, true.

Even though I’m quite likely to be criticized for intellectual snobbery…
So, what did I say? This brings me to the issues I want to discuss today in this post.

As I have discussed in my previous posts, there are problems in our JC system. My friend argued that a problem was that JC was supposed to prepare us for university, but this intent was distorted by the A level system, which compelled teachers to prepare students for the exam rather than for university culture, which are two very different things.

I argued that another problem was that some teachers only teach the bare minimum. They teach precisely enough for the A levels. What I used to do (when I encounter such a situation, which I did) was to ask the teacher questions, and give ideas that were outside the textbooks, or from readings outside the required list, and possibly, out of anyone’s imagination (sounds like a crazy troublemaker, aren’t I?).

My friend added that it had a good effect of pushing the boundaries of the lesson, though not everyone will be happy with this, because some people really, just want the bare minimum, and to be spoon-fed. They either don’t have the energy, or the time, or the capacity, or all of the above, to deal with such things.

My friend then added that such students ultimately suffer in university, because in uni, lecturers never feed, and you shouldn’t expect to be fed anyway.

The second issue is that of learning. We discussed this particular point about the differences between the sciences and the humanities, and my friend commented that in the sciences, one problem was that students learn formulae, are told to remember them, but they may not understand how these formulae actually come about, or the underlying concepts behind them. In other words, they know, but they don’t understand. (I think that comment was the boiling point of that guy I was talking about earlier).

So, what got that person so angry? The real reason I will never know, but a fair guess would be, I hit a soft spot, or stepped on his tail. Something, somewhere in the conversation related to him somewhat, and he felt angry about it.

But then it begs the question, if what we said was unfair or untrue, why respond like that? A mature university student surely would be able to take up a debate?

Besides, by responding angrily, aren’t you already implying we were right, and you do have a problem? A wise person would have simply laughed it off, or kept quiet (but then, we could have been wiser to have kept quiet too). But well, all these are beside the point.

I think another reason for that anger is that we threw out of the bus window many ideas and assumptions about school, which some (like probably that guy) would rather hang on to.

For example, it is safe to say that all who go to NUS (or any of the other of the Big Three) are smart people. After all, we survived the JC system, many probably very well.

But, the good performance experienced in JC may not be continued in university. A former triple or quadruple ‘A’ student may find him/herself in trouble because of schoolwork.

And the issues we discussed during that conversation in the bus were PRECISELY the reasons for this contradiction.

But there are people who refuse to accept it. When they don’t perform and they don’t understand why, they blame everyone except themselves, or they hang on to the reasons we’ve thrown out of that bus window. They refuse to understand that there are fundamental problems.

I am not a smart person. I wasn’t the “straight A student” in JC, I am not some student in law or medicine, but I can say my grades in university are, so far, good.

I know it doesn’t give me the authority to say what I said, but I feel that we have the right to talk about these things, regardless of our standing.

If you meet the same situation as I did, what would you do?

Religious Rights or Secular Space?

It’s a pretty incendiary title, alright, but the issue is one that has to be engaged one way or another, and not just swept under the carpet, hoping it’ll never happen to us: taking our religious lives into public space.

De Maitre showed me this article a few days ago, about two separate, but related issues. The first was on this French Muslim lady who was refused entry into a public swimming pool wearing a “burkini” (which is like a swimsuit covering one from face to ankle). The second issue was that some of the UK’s public swimming pools are starting to impose Muslim dress codes and “Muslim-only” swimming sessions.

Well, I’m not going to talk about the swimming here. What I am going to talk about is the related issue that spring out of these cases:

Individual rights or not?

Personally, it’s everyone’s, and anyone’s right to lead a religious life, if one so wishes to do so. But the issue is, there are bound to be situations where secular systems prevail, especially in a secular, multi-racial and multi-religious society.

Take for example the (in)famous tudung (headscarf) incidents a few years back. A few Malay parents insisted on letting their children wear the headscarf to government schools, despite such action being against the schools’ dress codes.

When I first heard of the incident, the first thing that came to my mind was “what’s the problem? Why so persistent?” It’s understandable to want to follow a religious life, but I thought the parents were missing two important points.

First, they wanted their children to have a good education. But to do so, they have to respect the institution of the school. The school has rules that are to be respected, and these rules are meant to provide the conditions for constructive education under a multi-racial and religious setting.

Second, a religious life isn’t simply one’s form of dress, it’s about internalising the values that underpin the religion.

It’s the right of the parents to want a religious life, but what about the right of the children to a good education? If the two come into conflict, which is more important? The wiser parent would know. Ultimately, it begs the question, if they so desire a good religious upbringing for their children, why reject the madrasas (religious schools)? If they want a mainstream school, why reject its rules?

It’s ultimately the children who pay the price for the religiosity of the parents.
To return to the question, is it an individual right? Well, arguably yes. The person does have a right to lead a religious life. But it must not be at the detriment of others in the community, who may not share the same ideas. And as I have mentioned, one may lose some of his/her own rights in the process.

What is the Purpose of Exams?

I was inspired to do this post after reading an article about how the A levels in Britain were becoming so easy, one official actually said, “A monkey could sit for the exam”. Of course, Singapore’s standards are slightly different, but there are still some important issues that are worth discussing, first, are our exams easy or difficult? Second, what is the purpose of exams? Third, which is better, easy-to-pass exams, or high-standard but difficult exams?

First, Singapore’s exams are well, doable. It is difficult to set a fixed conclusion on the level of difficulty of our papers, since there are different standards and levels of difficulty across subjects. The nature of subjects also creates challenges in determining the difficulty of the exam.

For instance, Chinese is fun, but dead. It’s not very difficult per se, but the way it’s taught makes it difficult.

Doing well for exams ultimately depends on a combination of personal effort, attitude, a passion for the subject, and a degree of personal aptitude.

As for whether or not exams in other countries are too easy, the problem is related to the issue of grade inflation (what Singapore students are familiar to as “moderation”). But there is a critical difference. Moderation refers to adjusting the results to reflect estimated performance during the actual exam, because for some schools (like my secondary school) in-house exams are ridiculously tough. Grade inflation is really inflating the grades so that more students appear to do well.

But it begs the question, are students really worthy of their grades?

Second, on the purpose of exams.

What is the purpose of exams? A measure of intelligence? A process to enable promotion within the educational system? A system of competition to reward the industrious and penalize the idle? All these reasons are possible, but they neither serve, nor support the true purpose of education, to impart knowledge and skills.

Some might argue that they test students whether they remember their stuff. But education isn’t simply remembering stuff. Given the ever increasing quantity of knowledge and information in the world today, it is practically impossible.

So what should exams be? Rather than test content, they could test skills. Skills need not be remembered, they should be internalized. To the point it really becomes “in the blood”.

Lastly, on the preferable exam system.

Perhaps exams really are a “necessary evil”, because we ultimately need some system of competition to enforce standards, to reward the industrious and penalize the idle. This is what makes our education system so tough, and yet so successful.

Therefore, rather than say “we don’t want exams” we should explore this question instead: “what kind of exam system do we want?”

In this post I brought up two possibilities, in response to the article I’ve read.

One, an easy exam, or a tough but high-standard exam.

Of course, there are problems with my definitions. “easy” and “tough” are fundamentally ambiguous and relative concepts. These two terms differ between two individuals within the same educational system, between different educational systems, and between students from different streams or faculties. A Singapore student might find a math problem a piece of cake, while an American student of the same level might struggle.

But nonetheless, there is still value in the notion of “easy” and “tough”. This has to do with the purpose of exams. If exams are meant to be competitive in nature, that they should be “tough”, the “tougher” the better. There is no point in passing students for the sake of passing them. This will have a detrimental impact on educational standards.

Of course, making exams tough doesn’t mean leaving students out to die. Teachers must have the means to teach as well, especially in teaching the necessary thinking skills which are of utmost importance. Besides, since exams shouldn’t be intellectual bulimia, wouldn’t a “tough” exam system where students simply have to remember and regurgitate yet more stuff defeat the whole purpose of education?

As I come to the end of my post, I’ve realized that I’ve gone quite far from the article. it’s exaggerating perhaps to say that a monkey can sit for a human exam and pass, but the idea is quite clear: that exams for humans probably no longer serve a human purpose.