Category Archives: Personal Life

Yesterday I decided to get away with writing just one essay by writing a trashy one that is supposedly a joke. I kind of enjoyed writing it although I am not sure if readers would be equally amused. Today, I thought I’ll really take a break and write only a single essay although I don’t mind writing another trashy one. Today’s essay isn’t particularly impressive and I thought I didn’t quite follow GP conventions. It’s an attempt with Arts and Culture, a topic I rarely work on. And because of its discussion on Literature, I guess I need to show off some knowledge of literature works, which is, I have to admit, severely limited to the text I studied during my days in The Chinese High. Then again, actually the fact that I had limited knowledge of works (needed to answer this question) was because the question required something to do with Singapore Literature, which I barely bother.

I always hear about Dr Goh Keng Swee’s contributions to the economic development and strategies of Singapore: He initiated the idea of GIC, he decided that Singapore should retain the National Service, he once helped to manage the education system as well as our national defence. Perhaps because of what I hear, I had always hoped for the chance to listen to his ideas, his opinions about different issues. I finally got the chance when I found the only 3 books he published about his work. The recent ‘biography’ of him published wasn’t so much something that I desire because I didn’t want to delve into his life. I wanted to know about Dr Goh’s ideas.

I read one of his speeches for a seminar on urbanization and felt enlightened about the functions of cities. A third of my Human Geography syllabus was on urbanization and studies of cities. A sixth of the syllabus held ideas about development and modernization. In his speeches, I found names like ‘Myrdal’, which I come across when I learn about growth theories. Despite that, I struggle to conceive a purpose for cities. To me, the congregation of more people, in a larger space meant nothing more than an exaggerated version of towns and villages. I understood the kind of administrative, business functions that cities serve but these were all micro-activities that seem far from national-level importance of economic planning. Economic development, to me, was something related to, but much larger than city itself. Cities, to me, was no more than a component that provided growth and drove growth in the modern age.

Perhaps I was trivializing the role of cities, indeed, after learning of the function of a city, especially the city of a developing economy from Dr Goh, I decided that my beliefs about the role of cities is seriously doing injustice to urban areas at large. Dr Goh believes that urban cores epitomize modernization and thinks that all cities have the role to spread this modernism, both tangible products of technology and intangible ideas on managment, on reality and modern philosophy (perhaps of life) to the rest of the nation, in order to push it along the road of development.

It is perhaps the attitudes in the cities, the desire for better life, the acquaintance with competition, the belief of a better tomorrow, the enterprise, the innovation that sets the urban core above the other areas where people congregate. It is the spread of such ideas, of such lifestyle and beliefs that the city have to perform in order to push the rest of the country with it. Without playing this role, the city can continue to grow and prosper, but that would produce a dual economy, where benefits of these urban sectors would not reach the rural areas. There may even be a backlash resulting from that as the stagnating rural economy fails to provide sufficient food supply for the urban center. Of course, the urban center, with its riches, can import those products and remove its dependence from the rural area – though that is unlikely to turn out well for the national economy.

In all, the urban center is more than a leader in the economy spearheading development, it is the cauldron of attitudes, ideas and knowledge that have to be spread around the economy to achieve modernization, to attain development. The soup in this cauldron have to be scooped out and served, not aimlessly boiled to dryness through rapid yet mindless growth.

I have been writing rather madly these days, sticking to my commitment to do standard sort of academic essays and a few days back I suddenly had the urge to read Orwell’s “Why I Write?“. I was introduced to this essay by a little book in the bookstore that holds the collection of Orwell’s essays and short writings. That was the third time I read this essay of his and I guess it’s the first time I truly understood what he was talking about. My writings these days, beyond what is on my blog is largely the expression of knowledge rather than ideas so it’s impossible for me to draw any parallels between Orwell and myself.

Sadly, I didn’t really give thought to writing as a career and so I guess I don’t even consciously reject the idea of writing. And I realised that the vaguely termed ‘Historical Impulse’ of Orwell’s ‘motives of writing’ seem to stand out for me. I just want to keep records of thoughts that flew past me (that probably makes up part of ‘sheer egoism’). Political impulse is pretty weak given my understanding of my audience and the desire for status quo in politics. And like what Orwell has claimed, Aesthetic enthusiasm exist somehow but is feeble.

I decided that even after my examinations, I should continue with that sort of discipline and write at least a single essay a day. But I’ll no longer write those that are required by the A Levels, having already completed the examinations. I’ll be writing little essays of things I want to discuss on comment on, much like my blog entries but with more academic rigour (assuming it’s currently deficient in my blog entries although I would admit otherwise).

After 2 days of experimentation, I am positive I can sustain my efforts and continue being prolific (probably for the rest of my life). I have decided to work on essays everyday to keep me in the mode of writing and encourage myself to read up more in order to synthesize what I know into piece of writings. I will be uploading the essays I wrote here, so that anyone can access them and use them for reference of as tools for revision.

I’ll be writing any sort of essays so you’ll probably find me answering a General Paper Essay question and a Macroeconomics essay on the same day. I have dated all my essays to force myself to keep to my commitment. Blog entries will not be factored in but I’ll still continue with analysis of daily encounters and stuff here.

Oh yes, anyone interested in sharing their essays or having their essays featured there can also gmail me your essays. I’ll make sure you are properly credited as long as you do a good job.

Back to writing…

I was looking for something to read while I take a break from slacking and I chanced upon some old stuff on Kwang Guan’s Blog. It was dated July so I guess it’s real old given the temporal contraction we are currently experiencing because of the A Levels. And apparently, it kind of interest me in the typical way – it made me feel like disagreeing with the mainstream interpretation. I shall quote the story here, directly (Ctrl+C, Ctrl-V)-ed from KG’s blog.

A saint was praying silently. A wealthy merchant, observing the saint’s devotion and sincerity, was deeply touched by him. The merchant offered the saint a bag of gold. “I know that you will use the money for God’s sake. Please take it.”

“Just a moment.” The saint replied. “I’m not sure if it is lawful for me to take your money. Are you a wealthy man? Do you have more money at home?”

“Oh yes. I have at least one thousand gold pieces at home,” claimed the merchant proudly.

“Do you want a thousand gold pieces more? Asked the saint.

“Why not, of course yes. Every day I work hard to earn more money.”

“And do you wish for yet a thousand gold pieces more beyond that?”

“Certainly. Every day I pray that I may earn more and more money.”

The saint pushed the bag of gold back to the merchant. “I am sorry, but I cannot take your gold,” he said. “A wealthy man cannot take money from a beggar.”

“How can you call yourself a wealthy man and me a beggar?” the merchant spluttered.

The saint replied, “I am a wealthy man because I am content with whatever God sends me. You are a beggar, because no matter how much you possess, you are always dissatisfied, and always begging God for more.”

Kwang Guan’s motivation for quoting the story will not be addressed here but I would to urge everyone to see beyond the surface of the story and think about the dynamics underlying the society that is being highlighted in the short story here. I agree with the saint that he’s wealthy (spiritual wealth) and that merchant is a beggar. But that is all the compliment I have for the saint in this story. I praise the merchant for the fact that he said “I know that you will use the money for God’s sake.” and that he also mentioned “Every day I work hard to earn more money.” While greed is not a virtue in itself, self-interest of individuals is the virtue of a society. Only the aim to serve thyself can provide a consistent justification for all actions. The merchant in the story is a devout as well, for he believes that his wealth can be put into use for God’s sake and is rightly so. He works hard for his money and I believe he prays only that God would guide him towards goodness in his desire to amass greater wealth.

From the merchant’s perspective, serving himself is the justification for everything and it presents a logical framework for us to look into the actions of the merchant. He loves God, and he hopes to show his love through contributing his wealth to God’s cause and he expresses his gratitude towards God’s blessings through his devotion to prayers and his attempt to give the saint a portion of his wealth. He is cultivating his soul and preparing for some sort of ascent to heaven for an eternal life may he be chosen by God to join Him someday. He believes wholeheartedly in the saint’s devotion and works hard to amass the wealth that he seeks. The merchant enjoys physical, mental and spiritual fulfillment.

The saint’s perspective, on the other hand, is highly inconsistent and narrow-minded. It is illogical and only allows people to concur with him from a single dimension and even so, with much reluctance. The saint questions “I’m not sure if it is lawful for me to take your money. Are you a wealthy man? Do you have more money at home?”, setting down the premise that the saint is attempting to gauge whether the wealth (taking the form of gold) that the merchant have would sustain the rich guy such that the saint is not raising his welfare in the expense of the merchant’s. This premise is violated at the moment when the saint exclaims that “I am a wealthy man because I am content with whatever God sends me. You are a beggar, because no matter how much you possess, you are always dissatisfied, and always begging God for more.” The double standards (different meanings) applied to ‘wealthy man’ and ‘beggar’ makes the stand of the saint extremely inconsistent and injects a sense of queasiness in me. The saint seems to imply that asking God for more is wrong, but he disregards the fact that the merchant asked for more, so that he can do more for God (as exemplified by the fact that he was trying to give the saint some money).

From an economic perspective, the saint is not achieving allocative efficiency as he’s sacrificing overall social welfare when he chose not to accept the gold from the merchant – he’s not behaving rationally (which is kind of expected). By accepting the gold, he gains wealth that can be translated further into devotion to God by renovating churches, traveling to more places to preach and helping the poor; at the same time the merchant attains satisfaction from expressing his devotion to God and probably spiritual enlightenment from the process of sharing the fruits of his labour. The only dimension we can take to agree with the saint’s act is his lack of desire for worldly possessions and his contentment with all that he possesses. I mentioned we agree with him reluctantly because of the curiosity he displayed when he was first presented with the offer, probing into the wealth that the merchant possesses rather than to reject the gold outright.

I am sorry I have rendered the story with such negative light that we don’t seem to be able to draw any moral conclusions from the story anymore because of the inconsistencies. I would also like to apologize for taking the opportunity to advance my free-market ideas, but I just can’t help it when I observe the inadequacies in logical reasoning that most possess in day to day affairs. Hope this entry has enlightened some.

For a week I seem to have been indulging in myself – looking out for scholarships, thinking about my achievements to flaunt in my personal statement, looking out for opportunities in the different organizations offering me a chance to study abroad. For the same period, I realised I didn’t make any contributions to academia, I didn’t generate any new ideas for the world and I have not helped much people with anything (besides a few for matters that are of, okay, considerable importance, and I guess you know who you are). In essence, I have been selfish and that’s why I have not been being too happy. My intentions for generating ideas have become those surrounding the elevation of myself rather than purely for the sake of inquiry like in the past. Even when I speak to people I seem to hope to obtain information that would be of use to me in future rather than out of pure curiosity. This sort of motives are bothering me.

I have been happy most of the time this year (and many other years) because I held on only to the desire to know. This change in me is not inherent but shaped by external forces – the realities of the world and the features of our system. That’s not to discredit the system in achieving its purpose of advancing the society and cultivating talents; I know of tonnes of people who are working towards the good of the entire society because they are responding appropriately to the incentives system that is set up and for them, the reason they work is directly tied to these incentives. I long admit my deviation from the typical rational agents of the system and have never once seen myself as part of the system anyways – perhaps until recently. As I grow to take up more responsibility of my life, the sad fact of reality sets in and I become subjected to the constraints set up by the environment and forced to respond to the incentives of the system. I dread that sort of materialism (that’s to assume knowledge is immaterial) so what I need now is a consistent set of belief that would reconcile my persistence for truth and the natural constraints of both my physical and mental capacities.

Had I clarified the context of my discourse earlier, I might not have disturbed so many readers (and many others who cease reading this entry even before this part comes). My goal: To know. And now that I have reached a particular milestone in knowing, getting to the next stage is harder and the entropy of this next stage is so high that it sometimes confuses me. I need access to more advanced text only available in limited libraries in the world and I need to get in touch with people, specialised people of different fields, to talk to them, to discuss about issues I have been interested in, to conduct research with them, to propose theories and get them validated, to make criticism about flawed arguments, to have my own propositions corrected. Of course, I guess there’s no need to spell out the constraints. I need a scholarship, an admission into a top institution and a good deal of luck to fulfill my goal. But the stuff really don’t end there. Remember? I am a rogue academic, what makes you think I stay in academia and let myself be overwhelmed by the sort of power (super)structure that exist in the realm of the intellectuals?

I have never said that ‘to know’ is a goal restricted solely to academia or intelligent systems. I understand some previously thought I am a misanthrope but the fact is that I am extremely interested in social/human systems, the macro-consequences of micro-interactions. I am curious about how the aggregate of all is more than the sum of its constituents. To want to know these would mean I have to immerse myself in human systems, in societies, in artificial environment free of the forces of nature (at least for most times – I am not that ready to tackle the question of anthropogenic interaction with Mother Nature but I’ll touch on that later). I have chosen to be with the corporate, to be around businesses, the meaningful sort of interactions between people that have the longest history. Just think about it, the family systems in the human race have been very much the same throughout all these years of existence, even if the functions were to differ, the relationships are grounded upon the same basis that is borne of nature. But businesses are different – it is something so entirely artificial and yet seem to stem from human nature itself. I hope to plant myself in these business interactions and see things being accomplished through such interactions – perhaps even take part in such interactions. High chance I’d try to make a career out of that.

If a life goal of the desire ‘to know’ is merely restricted to studies and a career I guess I wouldn’t consider myself a ‘wholesome’ person (though you can call that a ‘workaholic’ as well). I am also curious about the interactions between man and nature and the wondrous power of the consequences our collective decision have on the environment and eventually, ourselves. I hope to have an idea of how a world where nature-man’s mutual dependence can be more pronounced or plausibly manifest in our reality. Given such abstract goal, I can only fulfill it through the arts. I may not really know the stuff I desire in my conscious mind, but through exploration of the world, photography and the ventures into different art forms, I hope my subconscious mind gets a glimpse into answers to the questions I have. I want to be able to experience and know things that cannot be so easily achieved from my interactions with the other beings and my adventures into the tomes and scrolls accumulated over my time.

I am glad now, for in such a short piece of writing, I seem to have mapped out my purpose and reconcile it with the harsh realities of our world. It has always been in my mind but somehow I didn’t know what I think until I write them out. Laying out all these is just the first step to getting them into reality. Perhaps, the title of this entry can mean the way Richard has used it.

On my way home yesterday, I thought about what sort of term I can describe myself given my exploits in academia, my lack of respect (at least in writing) for academic authority and my passion in exploring all different fields of knowledge. The term ‘Rogue Academic’ flashed in my mind, having recalled Steven Levitt described as the ‘Rogue Economist’ in Freakonomics. Aware that the term ‘rogue’ is negatively associated with any person, I looked up the term on Answers.com:

Rogue
n.
1. An unprincipled, deceitful, and unreliable person; a scoundrel or rascal.
2. One who is playfully mischievous; a scamp.
3. A wandering beggar; a vagrant.
4. A vicious and solitary animal, especially an elephant that has separated itself from its herd.
5. An organism, especially a plant, that shows an undesirable variation from a standard.

adj.
1. Vicious and solitary. Used of an animal, especially an elephant.
2. Large, destructive, and anomalous or unpredictable: a rogue wave; a rogue tornado.
3. Operating outside normal or desirable controls.

I prefer to have the word as a noun and I guess the 3rd meaning best suits my intention of the description, the notion of a lack of vested interest (not entirely true though), the connotations of having no special [selfish] motives for inquiry beyond the cultivation of the mind. I spent the journey home thinking about why I want to know things. It took some time before I realized that I was fumbling for a justification for curiosity. It was something rather hard to define but it rarely serves as a motivation for the life work of a person – for me, it has been doing so and I hope that continues.

I continued to question my own motives for inquiry and other actions associated with my dealings with academia – I asked myself why I choose to do that economics essay that I have never ever attempted when presented another essay question which I wrote twice in class. I asked myself why would I even bother to clarify things outside the syllabus with my teachers. I often wonder why I respect teachers who show little respect for their bosses (it seems like they didn’t really deserved it); while I dislike those people who perform their duties (according to their Instruction Manuals) with little flaws. The answer it seems, point to my intense disfavour of convention, and abhorrence of those who goes by the book. In that sense, the 5th meaning of ‘rogue’ seems to fit into the picture in the figurative sense.

If I ever decide to put this term to describe myself in any scholarship application form, or personal statements, I wonder what those people will think.

I must say I have entrusted the role of valuing and measuring my abilities to my teachers. I trusted them to identify my potential and supply me with Truths of the world. They have, repeatedly failed me and led me to question their authority in the subject matter they are supposed to be handling. I claim no authority but cannot help wondering if I can continue to leverage on their interpretation of Truths…

An Update

I have forgiven the teachers for their unthinking tendencies when marking scripts. I admit my inadequacies in attempts to make conceptual understanding explicit. It’s like I explained how gases behaviour and how the molecules interact as well as the macro-properties of the gases observed in theory and in practice but failed to give the ideal gas equation (something that is apparently regurgitated) and so I was faulted. Of course, the subject in concern is not Chemistry but Economics. My teachers have been brought up under strict, disciplined, traditional studies of Economics that emphasized theory over empirical study, that employs concepts rather than parallel experiences; while my passion and interest is fired up by books like ‘Freakonomics‘, ‘The Undercover Economist‘ or ‘MicroMotive & MacroBehaviour‘. I find validation of my knowledge with Sloman but that is all. I haven’t even read Wealth of Nations though I don’t doubt the fact that the book wouldn’t help me much in tackling the A Levels.

I shall get through a formal Economics education and get back at them some time in the future. Of course, I am hoping I would feel grateful to them when I am back (I am currently not a bit grateful because I feel that my knowledge are all self-assembled and not a bit imparted by them); if I still feel the same as now, I guess something has to be done to save the coming generations of youngsters.

It has been a really long time since I commented on any social phenomenon at all but reading through my Human Geography materials has forced me to develop some viewpoints about social issues I normally wouldn’t bother. The idea I was introduced to is about the ‘Equal Emancipation’ of women at both the level of the society and education. In one of Janadas Devan’s columns in The Straits Times a few years back (yea, we use newspaper articles across a range of years as materials for our study of population), he described the phenomenon of a seeming direct and proportional relationship between female participation in the workforce and fertility. Comparing figures between countries like Sweden and Spain, one realised that Sweden has a fertility rate above 1.5 while Spain’s fertility is below 1.5 while Sweden’s female participation in workforce is significantly higher than in Spain.

Such a counterintuitive observation is explained by the inequality in emancipation of females in education and society at large. In countries such as Italy and Spain, female enjoy same education levels as their counterparts in the other developed nation but generally enjoy lower status in the society. Experts believes that the inequality that the females in this more chauvinistic societies led them to go on a ‘womb-strike’ because child-bearing is seen as a form of adherence the traditional perceptions of women (which is that of lower status) and as these society is less understanding of the woes of working mothers, they enjoy less accommodation/encouragement by the employers – this would mean that it was harder for mothers to rise in the corporate ladders. This made females more determined not to give birth while they are into their career, dragging the total fertility rate with it. On the other hand, in the Nordic states like Sweden, with their strong support for working women, not only has social equality for females but also tailor policies to ensure that females do not lose their advantage in the corporate settings because of their family ‘responsibility’ of child-bearing. Excellent child-care services further relieve the burden of working mothers and reduces their worries linked to child-bearing. Father’s responsibility in child-care is also emphasized and there’s a mandatory paternal leave period.

In contrast, expectations of females to stay at home to care of the children without the husband’s aid in the family chores in the male-dominated societies of Spain and Japan pushes females who are working to stay childless. There’s is thus a very complex relationship between socio-economic development and fertility. While traditional theories that suggest that socio-economic advancements necessitates rising cost of child rearing and naturally leads to falling fertility rates, there is a bottom to this because cost factors is not the only concern of parents. The attitudes towards childbearing and the motivations involved have to be considered. While emancipation of women and the increasing proportion of working women has been singled out as factors causing the fall in fertility, we now realise that these factors only reduce fertility to particular extents and further reduction can be attributed to problems pointed out in this entry – the unequal emancipation (in terms of mindset of society at large and the females themselves).

In understanding of such a social phenomenon, there are policy prescriptions that can be applied to Singapore. Singapore must seek to ensure greater equality for females (a good start is to lift any gender quota in anything – study of medicine in particular) and churn out policies that would aid working mothers with balancing their duties. While we already have programmes promoting family bonding and highlighting importance of families, the campaigns that restructure social mindsets (trust me, our government can work this out) to recognize the importance of father’s role in the family would help give females greater opportunities outside the family. If the mindset now is such that forming families restrict their opportunities and makes it harder for them to compete in the society, then it must be changed. Financial incentives such as grants and tax rebates would remain important in encouraging birth but in long run, attitudes must be changed. In the past, the reduction of family size became successful because the two-child norm was successfully erected, this time, the justification for bearing children is weak and we tried playing on ideas of family and patriotism. It turned out that it wasn’t the justification for childbearing that our people need, but the social environment that is friendly to females bearing children and corporate settings that do not discriminate against mothers (or fathers who now must share the responsibility of child-rearing for that matter).

Of course, I am not saying that this unequal emancipation is the sole cause or the root of the fertility problem but it can have significant impacts on the effects of policies and long term fertility trends. Economic growth stands out as another important factor as affluence encourage people to believe in their ability to raise a child; moreover, parents would very much like to give birth in an environment they believe to be good for their children and would contribute to their success.

Like ‘伪君子’ who ‘说一套，做一套’, Chemistry department is always setting questions that seem so far-fetched from what they teach. It doesn’t matter if they are testing something that may appear at the end of A Levels and force us to prepare for them. The problem, as you may figure out after 1.5 years in the college, is that the questions always differ in style and methods, so much so that it is hardly plausible to make generalization about the stuff that would possibly appear in the National Examinations. Of course, spotting questions is bad and we shouldn’t do that, but at least allow us to grasp the standard that is expected of us will you (those up there)? Some seem to enjoy setting examination papers in their ivory towers without concern for the standard of the student they are testing and without care about what they were teaching the students in the first place.