Atheism – Science and Philosophy of God’s Nonexistence

Guest Post by Ivan

*The following article has been written by Ivan and strictly reflects his personal opinion. This article should not be interpreted as an attack against any religious organization or individual.

The existence of a God has often been widely debated. As a nonbeliever of any supreme being or creator God, I will attempt to bring the scientific evidence against the possibility of a God or transcendental form of consciousness beyond the limits of neurological processes.

Philosophy

Before I begin discussing about the various evidences for the nonexistence of God, I will first discuss about the fundamental philosophy regarding the debate. First of all, the existence or nonexistence of a God cannot be proven. If a God does not exist, then obviously its nonexistence can never be proven. As an analogy, if I say that there is a Chinese teapot orbiting the sun between Earth and Mars (Russel's teapot), can anyone disprove me? Of course not. Likewise, no one can prove if it exists. Of course, we know that it does not exist because nothing proves its existence. On the other hand, if a God exists, we can never prove it unless the God decides to show itself to the world. Despite this impossibility of proving or disproving God, it is still possible to provide evidence for and against each side to add to the argument. Like the Chinese teapot analogy, an absence of empirical observation would mean that its nonexistence would be accepted unless proved otherwise.

However, the important thing to note at this juncture is that the debate revolves around evidence that shows how probable or improbable God’s existence is. It is in this post that I will give evidence for the latter in the form of scientific evidence and logical reasoning.

Part 1: The Origin of the Universe

One of the most important arguments put up by theists is the concept of the first mover, or primum movens. The idea is based on the axiom of causality which would logically indicate that a set of causes for the universe’s existence would extend to infinity, which is impossible. In order to solve the problem, theists would invoke the idea of a God. This idea is augmented by the law of conservation of energy, which states that energy in a closed system can never be created nor destroyed.


However, an important philosophical argument would render this concept false. Since the laws of physics, as well as the axiom of causality, is created at the time of the big bang, it is perfectly possible for energy to be created out of nothing and spontaneous creation to take place without the need for physical laws to be fulfilled. It is the nonexistence of causality and physical laws before the big bang that permits spontaneous creation to occur. Presently, it is thought that a hyperspace exists to allow such spontaneous creation of an infinite number of galaxies. I will discuss this on more detail later on.

Part 2: The complexity of the Universe

For most people, space is simply the black sky that hovers over their heads every night. In the past century, however, the magnificence of our universe has started to reveal itself to science. To put things into perspective, the observable universe is calculated to be 93 billion light years across (one light year is equivalent to 9.46 trillion kilometres), with the Earth being at the centre (since the calculation of the horizon is based on Earth’s perspective). In the observable universe, there are approximately 8 quintillion stars, with the sun being just one of many. I derived this number from the calculation of the number of galaxies observed by the Hubble ultra deep field, multiplying that value to the area of the night sky, and multiplying that number to the number of stars in one galaxy. This is a staggering number indeed, and it shows that Earth, being only a tiny speck of dust in the great cosmic depths, is not as special as it was once thought to be.

The universe has a beautiful set of physical laws in terms of mathematical aesthetics. Equations are always symmetrical in terms of the values on both sides, the golden ratio is found naturally in organic life, and the precise arbitrary constants of the standard model allow the existence of stable matter for life to exist. I have realised that many theists enjoy using the complexity of the universe as evidence for intelligent design. Of course, all becomes clear when the anthropic principle is understood.

First of all, the laws of the universe are undoubtedly perfect for life to form. Should the mass of the proton change by a tiny fraction, stable matter would not exist. The Earth has a perfect atmosphere and temperature for life to evolve, and the laws of physics and chemistry drives evolution in a positive direction. However, this apparent coincidence is actually based on a sort of observation-selection bias. If the conditions of the universe (and Earth) were not perfect, there is absolutely no way that life could exist. If life did not exist, we wouldn’t even be here to ponder about our existence. In today, modern physics has begun to unravel a world that is much stranger than we thought. Most scientists now believe that there is more than just the three dimensions we know today. In total, eleven dimensions are thought to exist, with only the limits of sensory perception limited to the familiar three causing the illusion that higher dimensions do not exist. With this, it is also thought that an infinite number of parallel universes exist alongside ours; each with a different set of physical laws that determine how the universe works. Using the anthropic principle, we would then realise that only habitable universes can contain life. Since life is indeed formed upon rare chance, we would assume most universes to be devoid of life, or even stars. Likewise, it is only through habitable conditions of Earth that life could exist here.

Another argument related to the anthropic principle on a planetary scale is the low probability of abiogenesis. According to creationist statistics, the probability of a protein molecule forming by itself is less than that of a hurricane sweeping through a metal scrap yard and assembling a working Boeing 747 (Hoyle’s fallacy). However, when we look at the staggering number of stars in the universe, it is obvious that this probability is overcome easily. Furthermore, the 15 billion-year old universe would have provided sufficient time for this to occur. Most importantly, however, the autosynthesis of liposomes and microspheres (membrane-bound RNA, believed to the earliest form of life on Earth) has been performed in the laboratory. This shows that the probability calculated by the creationists is not accurate in the first place.

Another argument that is often put up by theists is the apparent beauty of nature. To them, the grandeur of the sunset and breathtaking views of Earth from atop a mountain is due to the work of intelligent design. However, what they fail to take into account is the fact that our brains are adapted to the Earth and universe that we inhabit after four billion years of constant evolution. As an analogy, us humans would often feel repulsed at the sight of a female cockroach. To a male cockroach, however, the structure of a female cockroach is perfectly and beautifully designed. This was a requirement for reproduction and their survival as a species. The most important thing about this analogy, however, is that it shows how beauty is only the result of adapted psychology. This means that the mathematical and aesthetic beauty of the universe is the byproduct of evolution and not a creator. This brings me to my next point on evolution.

Part 3: Evolution

The theory of evolution is often one of the most widely-debated topics as it directly challenges the claims made by the Christian genesis. Although evolution is described as a ‘theory’, it has as much doubt in biology as quantum physics had in physics. This is important to note as many creationists argue that evolution is ‘only a theory’. By their definition, atomic theory and the theory of relativity would be only theories. As an analogy of scientific theories and facts, the constant rising of the sun in the East everyday is now established as a fact since all observational evidence proves it. If, however, the sun rises in the West one day, the theory would be proved wrong. The same goes for evolution: to date, all scientific data supports it. However, it is very susceptible to being disproven because a single evidence against it would render it untrue. In fact, the theory is supported by a massive amount of evidence which I will now put forward. At the same time, I will also clarify some of the misconceptions about evolution based on the people who argue against it.

First of all, what exactly is evolution? Evolution is actually the process whereby small changes in the form of genetic mutation occur along every generation that produces a substantial shift in genetic composition of an organism from its distant ancestors and is naturally selected due to its chances of survival. Evolution is a gradual process that occurs in every generation. While the genetic composition of the offspring is almost genetically identical to that of the parents, small changes in genes over hundreds or thousands of generations would eventually cause a significant change in the observed characteristics that differentiate the descendent species from the ancestral species. Traits that are beneficial for an organism’s survival is selected preferentially due to the fact that organisms with beneficial traits would survive better and hence be able to reproduce. Over time, constant sexual reproduction would cause beneficial genes to be spread across the entire population of a species, causing a shift in the genetic composition.

It is important to note that all organisms are transitional species between two others. Due to the fact that evolution is a gradual process, transitional fossils exist to show the smooth transition of one species to the next. In the case of humans, the chimpanzee-like australopithecines evolved to species with the genus homo, such as Homo erectus and homo habilis right up to homo sapiens as shown by fossil evidence. Although many creationists maintain that evolution is false because humans evolved from monkeys, it is important to note that modern species do not evolve from modern species. Rather, humans and monkeys share a common ape-like ancestor. In fact, all organisms share a common ancestor with one another. The only difference is, the greater the difference in genetic composition, the more distant that common ancestor is.

Another important evidence for evolution, besides the transitional fossils, is the experimental observations of evolution occurring in the laboratory. Known as the Escherichia Coli Long term evolution experiment, twelve containers of the bacteria are allowed to grow in a nutrient broth of glucose and citric acid. Due to the rapid rate of reproduction, a small sample of the bacteria would be extracted from each container daily and allowed to reproduce to the original amount on the next day. The rest of the bacteria would be frozen for observational analysis. The experiment has been going on for over twenty years, and has recently reached the 50,000th generation early this year. The significance of this experiment is that the results showed ongoing evolution in all of the different containers. The bacteria in each different container would take a different evolutionary path due to random mutations. The results were indeed stunning. At first, the original bacteria sample could only thrive on glucose as the source of food. However, one sample suddenly managed to evolve and utilise the citric acid mixed with the glucose in the nutrient broth, resulting in a sudden surge in bacteria count for that particular flask. This shows that ongoing evolution can and has been observed, and the fact that it is done based on empirical methods would mean that evolution can be directly verified.

Intelligent design, besides having only a few arguments, has much evidence to disprove it. In human males, the vas deferens (the tube carrying semen from the testes) loops over the ureter before making its way down to the penis. This is unintelligent design as the looping of the vas deferens requires the wasting and channelling of more resources to the building of the extended tube. From an ecological perspective, this is a detriment to the survival of the organism as the resources used could be channelled to other areas that would have otherwise improved other aspects of survival. From an evolutionary point of view, however, all becomes clear. In our ancestors, the scrotum was located above the bladder. After millions of years of evolution, the location of the scrotum ‘moved’ downwards to its present position due to the benefits of having it exposed to the ambient air which is of a lower temperature. During this process, the vas deferens would have to loop over the ureter by that path.

Another evidence of unintelligent design is from the ecological perspective of a forest. In forests, and especially in tropical rainforests, trees compete for sunlight by growing taller than the other trees. Although resources are wasted to increase the tree’s height, the benefits of gaining more sunlight for photosynthesis outweighs the extra resources used. From the perspective of a single tree, this is a requirement for competition. From the perspective of the entire forest, however, large amounts of resources are wasted: if all the trees did not compete with one another, the resultant intensity of sunlight falling on the surface of the trees would still be the same. As an analogy, spectators from a concert might start to stand to get a better view of the performance. However, since their act of standing up would block the view of the people behind that person, the people sitting behind would thus stand up to prevent the person from blocking their view. Over time, everyone would be standing up and the result would still be the same. From an evolutionary point of view, the wastage of resources is due to the fact that evolution occurs on an individual basis and not as a whole.

Part 4: Morality

Many theists disregard the study of science as they think that it is the work of a devil. This is an extremely closed-minded thought. Good and evil do not exist: They are concepts created by us humans. Good usually refers to morally upright acts, or acts that seem ethical. There is no clear distinction between good and evil, as changing circumstances would change what defines both. Furthermore, behaviour is the result of both our psychology (i.e. greed, sex drive), and the living environment (e.g. bad childhood). All people are created with a somewhat similar psychology (with slight variation as a result of genetic mutation), but different living environment. Personality is determined by experiences and not the existence of a soul.

Yet, why do we stand up against injustice? The answer does not lie in a god, but with evolution once again. By feeling pity for another member of the same species, we are increasing our chances of survival. Of course, you might argue that animal-lovers are common and this would contradict evolution. However, evolution does have an explanation for it. It is known as reciprocal altruism (you scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours). Reciprocal altruism refers to the apparent non-selfish act involving first helping another organism at the expense of one’s own survival. This is evident in symbiotic relationships between species. Within a single species, each organism has ideal behavioural characteristics that lie somewhere in between all-greedy and all-giving. This ensures that while an organism would aid and cooperate with other members of the species, a form of selfishness must exist to ensure the survival of itself.

Evolution cares nothing for the comfort of any organism. The many wasps sting an insect prey as a host for reproduction. By strategically stinging the ganglia of the host prey, the prey would be paralysed, thereby enabling the wasp to inject its eggs into the body of the insect. Throughout this process, the host insect is kept alive, only paralysed. The larvae hatched from the eggs would then move on to devour the meat of the host insect while it is still alive. This is indeed a traumatising death for the host insect. Yet, this is important for the survival of the wasp as it ensures that the meat is kept fresh. This is a fact of evolution, and nature does not care whether the host insect suffers a traumatising death. Justice often fails to be done. That is a fact of life that has to be accepted. Morality is merely an illusion created by reciprocal altruism. Does this mean that the theory of evolution would cause chaos in society? Perhaps it will. Theists often use this argument that by accepting Darwinism into society, injustice would pervade. This argument is also known as argumentum ad consequentiam. However, our preferences do not decide how nature works. Whether we like it or not, evolution is still true. Per contra, even if Darwinism is accepted by the scientific community, it does not mean that society would function based on its principle. This, however, is beyond the scope of this post.

Part 5: Are humans the only species to qualify the entry to heaven?

This is perhaps one of the most direct evidence against the existence of a God. Many religions assume that only humans would go to heaven. However, fossil evidence shows that there is no clear distinction between humans and apes. Transitional fossils exist with a smooth transition until the human species. If this is the case, how do we define what a human is? Humans are continually evolving, and because the process is so gradual there each successive generation can be considered genetically identical from the previous one. Yet, there exists a slight change in DNA from one generation to the other. This amounts to large scale changes over millions of years. This also means, however, that there is a loss of clear definition of a human, and thus who goes to heaven. The idea of hell is also based on a fallacy. How do we define good and bad? There is no common consensus that clearly defines the two.

Even if all creatures go to heaven, how do you differentiate conscious life from non-conscious life? You might say that this lies in the presence of a brain. However, there is also no clear distinction between what is considered as a brain. For one, some organisms contain a centralised and complex network of nervous tissue but lack what we would consider as a brain. Like I mentioned previously, evolution is a gradual process and no clear distinctions can be made. If a conscious organism is but a smooth transition from an unconscious one (as proven in fossil record), how do we define what can transcend physical death? It is unlikely that a benevolent and omnipotent God would favour a certain group of organisms over another.

Even assuming that all creatures, both conscious and unconscious, would transcend death and go to heaven (or hell), how do we define life and non-life? Viruses show characteristics of both, and the first organisms were just a clump of membrane-bounded RNA. From all the evidence above, it is thus obvious to note that it is unlikely that a God could exist. The absence of any clear distinction between all forms of life, as well as life and non-life, would indicate that it is impossible for any afterlife to exist.

Part 6: The Paranormal

Paranormal activities in the form of haunting by entities returning from the afterlife have been reported in most, if not all cultures across the globe. These cultures exist independently from one another. It is possible, however, that the idea of the supernatural has existed in the very first humans who originated in Africa. For the benefit of the doubt, however, I will assume that the ideas of ghosts were created independently from the different cultures.

If the idea of supernatural forces influencing human lives were created independently across the world, does this mean that ghosts really do exist? The answer is a vehement ‘no’. Reports of paranormal activities are more likely to be the side effect of an evolutionary byproduct. First of all, our natural curiosity towards the universe (which has benefited us by enabling us to develop technology that started in primitive humans) results in a tendency to attribute unknown gaps in information to an unknown force. For example, our distant ancestors believed that fire was the result of a God and required the adding of firewood as a way to appease it and continue producing fire. This characteristic of the human mind has far-reaching consequences that resulted in many theists arguing about gaps in science through an argument from ignorance, or argumentum ad ignoratiam.

The second cause of supernatural beliefs is the result of the psychological need to believe in the continuation of consciousness beyond death. When organisms evolved from non-conscious life to conscious life, the need for survival is transferred from a physical level to a psychological level. This results in us not being able to perceive a time when conscious activity ceases. As a result, we would tend to think that some sort of continuation of one’s self and mind would transcend beyond physical death, resulting in a belief that dead ancestors would manifest in a ghost-like entity capable of returning from the dead.

Most paranormal encounters are the result of psychological activities that stem from psychological inadequacies prevalent in all humans, such as paraedolia, or the natural tendency to look for patterns. Hallucinations are also a common cause, and are often augmented by one’s belief system. Experiments in virtual reality have proven that whenever a person enters a place believed by that person to be haunted, he or she would observe entities or objects that are not really there. This effect can be increased by the addition of electromagnetic fields and infrasound.

Reports of paranormal activity observed by more than one person simultaneously cannot be attributed to psychological effects. However, they too, can be explained by physical effects not quite understood. Human emotions are extremely powerful energies that can leave a signature at a certain location. This is often the cause of residual haunting. Although the neurological model of consciousness and emotions is not yet completely understood, biochemical reactions occurring as a result of powerful emotions such as a traumatic death might release vast amounts of energy, possibly electromagnetic in nature. If the energy is powerful enough, local conditions such as the presence of material in soil that can be easily magnetised might act as some sort of natural recorder. This energy can be replayed continuously for centuries when the electromagnetic fields interact with the brain of the visitor. Note, however, that this is only a theory and that a diverse range of scientific phenomena can account for this. The growing field of Quantum mechanics might also provide another explanation for such paranormal activity.

Conclusion

In a nutshell, the existence of a God is highly unlikely. Given all the scientific evidence, rational thinkers would easily assume that the existence of a God is highly improbable. While there is still the possibility that a God exists, our current understanding of the universe shows that it is highly unlikely that there is such a possibility. For one, a God is not required for all that we see today, and closer observation of life and the universe indicates that God does not exist.

Will Boot Camp work out for Juvenile Delinquents?

After watching the cyber wars against Ah Lians and Ah Bengs at HWZ recently, I just start to wonder if the ALs and ABs know what they are doing in their life. They glorify under-aged smoking/drinking, take pride that they belong in gangs and electronic tags end up as a form of battle trophy. Many psychology theories agree that the adolescent period is the period of identity confusion where teenagers are doing their best to search for a place where they belong (regardless of whether it’s good or bad).

The main issue that got me worried was that these at-risk kids are getting a lot younger (ranging around 12 years old) and they openly glorify their actions of stealing bikes, smoking, belonging to gangs, etc in their blogs. Although I understand that there are many reasons why many adolescents turn delinquent, I have to say that most of the rehab programs lack the resources to deal with each juvenile delinquent on the individual level. Most of the rehab programs like probation, Girls' Home, Boys' Home, etc seem to be unsuitable for many delinquents because they seem determined to glorify in their “badness”. Like one professor once said to me, they probably gave up being the best of the best, so they decided to be the best of the worst because that’s the only thing they can hope to achieve.

Many juvenile delinquents (JD) are typically from low SES, broken/dysfunctional families and are overly represented in the NT population. Most of the time, they are the by-products of ill-discipline and poor opportunity. Personally, I think the growing rates of JD are due to the maturing of the “spoilt generation” of Singaporeans. This is a generation that I notice to be very spoilt- their parents give them everything they want except close parental monitoring. In fact, it has reached a stage where many parents use extremely large amounts of pocket money as a form of compensation for the lack of time spent interacting with their kids. In my day, pocket money would be sufficient for my meals only. MacDonalds and trips to the cinema were a privilege, not a routine. Many parents today don’t even know their children’s timetables or what their kids are doing in their spare time.

You can read an academic paper about factors affecting JD in Singapore here.
Although there has been a slight drop in JDs arrested over the years, I question if it is because less of them get caught, or are there actually less JDs around. In my biased opinion, I suspect the former is probably true. Given the Flynn effect, is it that hard to believe that JDs may have found a way to outsmart the criminal justice system? It’s quite possible. With the help of the internet, many people are learning and doing illegal stuff. Did you know that Youtube has a video on how to pick locks?

So the big question is how to deal with these kids? Personally, I’m in for the break and re-mould concept of shaping them again. What I propose is a lot more radical than the Boys' or Girls' home and let me clarify. What I have in mind is for the extreme JDs, the type that probably have conduct disorder, no respect for authority, no self respect and a conscience that probably went into coma a long time ago. I tend to favor discipline as the cause and solution to all of life’s problems. Boot Camp would be the best place to teach them that. Many psychologists are of the opinion that placing a group of JD together would only make things worse because they learn more deviant behavior from each other. Personally, I agree but I think the context matters. I propose an environment of mentoring and encouragement through discipline, teaching them life skills and learn that they are respected as individuals. So this is my idea of boot camp:

Duration: 1 Year

Admission Criteria: Beyond Parental Control children. They may only join the program if the teachers, counsellor, judge and parents deem it necessary.

Intake: 60 at a time. 30 male; 30 female. Divided into 3 platoons that train, eat and live together (divided by gender of course)

Entry point: No overnight bags needed. Report in as dressed. Cadet’s personal items will be removed and they will be issued a set of essential items- plastic glasses, toiletries, towel, underwear, uniform, PT kit, running shoes, boots and led to their bunkers. Male and female cadets will be shaved bald and all forms of personal adornment (i.e. rings, ear rings, necklaces) will be removed. This is to deprive all of them of a sense of identity and make them easier to train.

Program:

1. Briefing about the rules. One 5min phone-call allowed each month. Both parents and cadets are strongly encouraged to write letters. Cadets must make their own bed, clean their bunks and wash their toilets.

2. Briefing about how to wear the uniform, how to tie the boots, who is who is the camp.

3. Basic footdrills will be conducted

4. Basic combat drills, live firing and hand grenade to teach them the value of life.

5. Obstacle course to inculcate respect for others, not just authority, but peers too. Group dynamics would be a focus in these courses to reinforce the need to respect themselves and those around them.

6. Inculcate anger management skills by offering incentives for obedience and punishment for insubordination.

7. Inculcate communication skills and focus on how to express themselves in a healthy manner.

8. Have regular sessions with counsellor and psychologist to help them understand their own behavior and how to improve themselves.

9. Engage in gardening and animal husbandry to teach them the value of how to nurture.

10. Cadets will be given a pig/rabbit to take care off when they first arrive and they'll be asked to shoot their pig/rabbit 6months down the row for food. Cadets will not be forced into slaughtering their pet. It is an exercise to help them understand how their parents feel about bring up their children only to see them grow wild and face the decision of "terminating" them.

After the 3months of isolation for intensive training, they will be allowed to have a day or two off per week just like the normal NS men. If they mess that up, they forfeit that freedom.

Resources required: 1 cook, 1 on-site psychologist, 1 on-site counselor, 6 training instructors (3 of each gender) and 1 medical officer.

After the 1 year of training, a support team of psychologists and counsellors that will still keep in touch with them for up to 5 years. They will be offered a slot in skill training courses to make them more elligable for the work force. In addition to that, I propose that they be awarded with a certificate of recommendation if their instructors, psychologist and counsellor all agree that he/she is worthy of it. After this boot camp stint, I'm pretty sure they'll start to appreciate home and family a lot more.

This is my idea. I tried presenting it to someone and receive the feedback that it is too idealistic and I should get off my moral high horse. Perhaps I am on a moral high horse, but than again, its just a radical idea isn't it? I don't feel a compulsion to help these "poor souls" afterall, the fall of each one means that I stand higher in life! But the thing is, I think they deserve better and why not offer them a last chance to improve their life? I view this as the last ditch effort to save these delinquents from a permanent career as criminals or poorly paid individuals.

This camp is what I would describe as a make or break. I've met enough "retired" delinquents and career criminals (aka gang members) who regret their hey-days and spend out the rest of their lives working for peanuts at low-skill jobs. They would tell me stories of how they had many chances to live a better life but they messed up everything in their desperate efforts to become rich and powerful the fast and easy way. I will always remember their one and only advice to me: "Don't end up like me".

If you thought I'm radical, watch this boot camp for problem kids in China.

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 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.

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.