A few days after Sept 11, I saw the following quote in JP Morgan's 'Technology Industry Daily', and suspect someone was trying to make a point on how America should respond to the attack. So I wrote back to the 'editor'. Resulting exchange follows....
Hi Arthur,
It is scary to think what happens when people do take recommendations like your 'quote of the day' to heart. Did it occur to you to ask who did or will follow that maxim? Last week's event looked like a tremendous whack by any measure. Unless you believe only Americans and British can do that. So please don't encourage extremism to anybody. The world need sense and moderation more than Rambo-like behaviours.....
Quote for the day
"If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time--a tremendous whack."
- Winston Churchill
From: Arthur Iger on 09/21/2001 07:47 AM EDT
To: Chee-Khiaw Cheng@JPMORGAN
Subject: Re: Churchill's Contribution
The quote was meant by Churchill as a guide to public speakers, not as a recommendation for how to pursue a war.
I think that Bush did a good job in his speech of laying out American war aims -- these included taking on only terrorists and the governments that harbor them. I believe that they didn't include massive reflexive bombing as in Vietnam, or symbolic scuds or knocking down pharmaceutical plants as in the Clinton administration. In WWII there was a demonization of the Japanese and German people. One of the great things about America now is that it is multi-ethnic, and they vote, so there isn't really a group that can be scapegoated.
Most other enemies that we've fought have been after stuff. With the communists, it was about the struggle for which system can provide the fastest route to economic development and the fairest distribution of the goods created. In WWII, it was largely about territory and markets. This time, the fight's about cultural values. The terrorists want to get rid of market economies and go back to rule by the priest class. They don't want additional territory and they don't want additional goods and they don't want to take material goods away from their subjects. They're very reactionary. I'm not sure that there's a middle road to dealing with a group that has no demands.
art
To: Arthur Iger@JPMORGAN
Subject: Re: Churchill's Contribution
Churchill's greatest speeches as his use for Britain came only after the war had started. He had another quote along the same line when the US entered WWII : "Germany's fate is sealed. Italy's fate is sealed. Japan will be thrashed. The rest will just be subdued by the use of overwhelming force". Churchill did not make such statements as guide to public speakers. Many such Churchillians still exist in your part of the world and they play their hands as do others in the current war/crusade/infinite justice/revenge/retaliation (from Bush's repertoire). Ignorance applied/assumed is as dangerous as arrogance.
Interesting summary of the values involved in the carnage last week. And what power wielders want (money, markets, territory and influence) although some can be satisfied with less (only influence). So I would agree with it to some extent. Especially if we don't bother to understand why the terrorists got to believe what they believe in in the first place. Why the US and not say Finland, Belgium, Germany or Japan. Or the contributions of especially the US and Britain to the state of affairs in the Islamic world centred in the Middle East (remember also oil?). Or that Judaism, Islam and Christianity have many similarities (so the 2 sides are not that different compared to say Hinduism/Buddhism). Or that the US is a great democracy only within the US and only quite recently if we count the 'coloreds'. Democracy ceased to exist the moment governments run an empire (Robert Taft). I'm sure people will understand what their demands are if they really bother to listen or had democracy in mind e.g. Palestine. But that's more complicated or less palatable for many to discuss/imagine.
There is always a middle ground as long as people are willing to accomodate each other - live and let live, and face up to the truths. But then that's not consistent with a superpower's image of itself.
Rgds
CCK
To: Arthur Iger@JPMORGAN
Subject: Re: Churchill's Contribution
My comments in italics below.
From: Arthur Iger on 09/24/2001 09:33 AM EDT
To: Chee-Khiaw Cheng@JPMORGAN
Subject: Re: Churchill's Contribution
Chee-Khiaw,
Whatever the issues, I think that blowing up innocent civilians isn't the route to resolving them. Anticipating your response, I would agree that the U.S's frequent use of its overwhelming military power against civilian targets isn't a model for how to resolve conflicts.
[CCK: Agree but when will people, especially the very arrogant ones not on the less fortunate end, hear the things I talk about below if it is only words?]
One of your other points, the need for a middle ground. I'm not sure that there's a middle ground acceptable to both parties. There's a fundamental conflict of values. I also wonder if the Saudi arabs who seem to be leading this terrorist gang really represent the wishes of the Arab or Afghan people. So a middle ground with out-of-the-box extremists isn't what the US should be seeking. It's hard to say what most people want in these middle eastern countries because none of them are run by a representative democracy.
[CCK: You are right that the few that did this is probably in the minority. Like you said, you will never how wide support for those bombers really is (not for their method but their underlying sentiments). Especially so, when Bush goes round dictating how the world should react ('you are either with us or you are with the other side' as if the world is in such easy black and white). The only reason why the US gets its way and ended up convinced that the world is as simple as that is because it got used to threatening others in many ways.
And the question is why they do it. Why not earlier. Why not someone else. There are structural problems in the current world system that many rich people led by the Americans do not think has any fault because they have head start and advantages (including wealth from the colonial days that ended only 50 years ago - a short time in human history). There are people elsewhere not as extreme as those bombers who think otherwise. It is more than values. It has also to do with basic needs, respect and self-esteem of many less fortunate people/countries. The arrogant conduct of your country and disregard of what others think/feel/need should be looked at. It also has still to convince everyone that Osama is the and only guy involved. Getting the real perpetrators is acceptable but not to ignore the underlying causes for that carnage including why the US government was caught totally off guard. The latter are not of focus to the general American public because of how the US government had managed it e.g. declaring 'war', 'crusade' etc. Americans are not as 'free' as they think.]
One of the interesting aspects of this conflict is that the US is totally unprepared for this fight. Its military and intelligence services are designed to fight a WWII style army. Missions have been added, not taken away. Using stealth fighters and smart bombs against tents and caves in the desert isn't going to "get" the enemy. The Bush administration shows no willingness to think beyond adding missions. In the end, unless force structures are seriously rethought, the cost for this fight will be unnecessarily overwhelming.
[CCK: The US is unprepared because it thought it can get away with its ways and no one will dare mess with it. It is fear not truth that's behind some of the acquiescence and respect for the US. Some countries could probably have warned the US but did not. How can we all know for sure they didn't know?]
Civilian structures are designed for efficiency and not control. It will be interesting to see if the US can remake itself in the face of this new threat and still remain a free and vibrant society and economy.
[CCK: Power, influence, bullying, efficiency and state of the economy are not God chosen measures of greatness or truths. If you can find them in the Bible let me know. Compassion, caring, sharing and living together are in all religions. Not only within man-made borders but wider. No God I know of talk about creating borders or flags. But many free people are not free enough to think of things that way.]
art
From: Arthur Iger on 09/25/2001 08:28 AM EDT
To: Chee-Khiaw Cheng@JPMORGAN
Subject: Re: Churchill's Contribution
Chee-Khiaw,
I think that countries act rationally in their self-interest. After WWII, the U.S. was afraid of both another depression and of Communism. So it helped rebuild Europe with the Marshall plan -- not for altruistic reasons, but because it realized that the collapse of trade after WWI led to WWII. The US approach to open access to its markets has led to the incredible prosperity that many countries now enjoy. The ideological fight with the communists also led to open markets -- which allowed developing countries to join with the US in the benefits of prosperity.
Capitalism helps create prosperity, but it also changes the power structure within a society. Traditional feudal and theocratic classes lose power to commercial classes. This change is very threatening to traditional societies and their power structures. The challenge for many countries is to adapt capitalism in ways that maintain their unique cultural identity.
In the US, many people believe that capitalism is inextricably linked to individualism and freedom of speech. Many emerging countries don't agree and want to maintain tighter control. Whether it's due to a self serving desire by the ruling party to maintain control of the levers of power , or a genuine nationalism, depends on your perspective. In my view, in the long run, governments always govern with the consent of the governed.
As to US bullying, most countries have a vested interest in continuing the current system that has brought them much prosperity. That's why they go along with the US. There's an old expression, "When the US sneezes, the world catches a cold." No government that wants to stay in power will risk their country catching a cold.
art
To: Arthur Iger@JPMORGAN
Subject: Re: Churchill's Contribution
Arthur,
We are getting much closer to the underlying problems but again we are less than honest with ourselves.
WWI and WWII were fights for more resources (including oil, thus current middle east) and markets/territories where the likes of Britain/France had more of versus the likes of Germany and Japan. The US and Russia did not have that problem and refused to join in for some time (until attacked). If they thought that their trade were restricted the US or Russia would have been the ones initiating war. The other reason for WWII was the punitive war reparations applied on the Germans after WWI. US and Britain decided after WWII that it is better to share the world with those countries than Russia and because they realised that Germany and Japan are not countries they can afford to humiliate for long without pushing them to 'the other side'. Other smaller ones are different matter (according to the likes of Churchill).
Free trade was never a problem for the world. In fact, the world is less free now than a 100, 200 or 1,000 years ago. Then most people could go to most parts of the world to live or work without 'permits' or 'green cards'. A look at the history of the US would show that. Although as we all know, that US 'freedom' also came with quite a bit of slaughtering and slavery of others (that's also not new).
You are right that self interest is the underlying problem (not easy even for the ones enjoying it to say that). That's selfishness not selflessness. That's another way of saying that one has less consideration for others. Another aspect of arrogance. Hardly a virtue in any culture or religion. And if that is the case, one can assume that one should expect some reaction at some point in time if one pushes too far. It is rational. Custer's Last Stand (or rather his Last Attempt at Humiliating Others Somemore), WWII, MacArthur's Korea and now WTC in their own ways are just a few examples.
Rgds
CCK
p.s. Capitalism has a long existence (well before the US discovered it). You may perhaps be thinking about the 'capitalism' of those counter-arguing with the likes of Marx. That's an awfully short history! Freedom (from colonialism, slavery, feudalism etc.), equality and science/technology not capitalism perhaps have greater contribution to the prosperity we see the last 100 years. Again, that should be manifest in US history alone.
From: Arthur Iger on 09/27/2001 09:46 AM EDT
To: Chee-Khiaw Cheng@JPMORGAN
Subject: Re: Churchill's Contribution
Chee-Khiaw,
The concepts of arrogance/humility that you refer to exist in the west, but my guess is that they are more important and meaningful in eastern cultures. Harmony is another value that I believe is more important in eastern cultures.
art
To: Arthur Iger@JPMORGAN
Subject: Re: Churchill's Contribution
Arthur,
All the concepts that I refer to exist everywhere on Earth. Easterners are no different from westerners if we take away the prejudices, arrogance, selfishness & greed. The whites of many western cultures generally live in great harmony with each other. I assume that is important or meaningful for them. Though it may not be so great if we include other 'colours'. I suspect they don't think the latter is important or meaningful.
That is not to say that those behaviours do not exist in the East either. I saw those behaviors when Singapore was starting out as a poor nation and saw it grow as Singapore got richer by the year. That's partly how I arrive at my views. I thought the Asian Financial Crisis was good for Singapore. It brings them back down to Earth. But then I also saw the Americans celebrating their 'irrational exuberance' and 'free market system'.
Many countries West and East, North and South (poor as they may be) take great care to look after all their people of all races. Spain/Portugal could have been like Britain. They ruled the high seas before the Brits got out of the Channel. But they have much better acceptance of blacks in their life and were the first European countries to have black soccer players. They may not be the richest but you will find greater harmony and less killings there. The bombers did not miss them out by accident.
Some of the greatest killings/dyings in this world were results of poverty and lack of basic education - things taken for granted by many among us the 'fortunate'. Some of us takes things too far when we behave arrogantly towards these 'less fortunate'/'able' people (quotes used because they involved some prejudices). These are great challenges being faced by the world outside the rich countries that WTO or 'globalisation' does not address. We lie to ourselves sometimes. For e.g. that 'capitalism' or 'prayers' will somehow make the world better. But how does a family of 5 or 6 living on less than US$20 a month has the capital or blessing to do anything? Not to say to get an ROE of >15% demanded by 'investors' (later quotes used because something else is hiding behind those terms). That is the income of more than half the people in this world. Unless you don't live in the same world as me. Or you don't care.
Arrogance appears when one focus and succeeds in one's greed to gather greater wealth/power/etc. especially if at the expense of others. It usually makes people feel good to be ahead of others materially.
Humility and harmony will come if we bother to be aware and care about the problems of the others esp the 'less fortunate'/'able'. No matter what colour (as long as one is less tinted by it) or part of the world you come from. Try either of the above on your kids or grandchildren and see for yourself.
I don't make money from all my views/comments. No great ROE to show at yearend. Just trying to do my little part in creating some awareness, and more humility/harmony. All of us should/can. Definitely should not do otherwise. And we don't have to learn from Churchill. The world had seen more enlightened and better teachers.
Rgds
CCK
From: Arthur Iger on 09/28/2001 10:10 AM EDT
To: Chee-Khiaw Cheng@JPMORGAN
cc:
Subject: Re: Churchill's Contribution
Chee-Khiaw,
I think that we are different, to a degree. Somewhere I read that there are studies of brain development that are linked to language and culture.
I wish that I could find the reference. I recall it as a legitimate source, though that might not be the case and I may be mis-remembering what I read. Nonetheless, it seems intuitively correct. Just as the brain of a person who is born blind or deaf, for example, develops heightened awareness with his/her other senses, a brain nourished by a certain language or culture will grow in different ways. Brains grow in response to stimuli in the environment. Is it a major factor? I don't know.
But I use the point to justify the point about people being different. Americans, generally, will be disgusted by the thought of eating an insect, but other cultures see them as treats.
art
To: Arthur Iger@JPMORGAN
Subject: Re: Churchill's Contribution
Arthur,
Would be interested in how you conclude that your source is 'legitimate'. And not view it as a possible attempt at justifying some arrogance. Like claiming 'supremacy' of humans versus other organisms by taking brain size into consideration (even then only certain parts of the head).
Like you said, one's senses can get heightened when one uses them i.e. they grow if used. Otherwise if not. They were not born with predetermined developmental paths. Like you said, one's mind grow with stimuli. So, did Americans stimulate their minds by putting themselves in the shoes of the Palestinians, Iraqis, Africans, Vietnamese, Koreans or Afghans? In the shoes of the poorest of the world instead of brandishing their wealth and power, or exhorting the virtues of their 'capitalism' and 'free market'?
Language and culture can probably determine to a certain extent one's thinking process and prejudices/etc.
Environments (including governments, media, religious authorities etc.) probably also determine one's behaviour & outlook. When practiced in extreme or with subtlety they can in fact manipulate esp. those less aware. Those terrorists are probable examples, so are all of us.
So may ignorance play a part (e.g. the Sikh American killed because he 'looked Afghan'). I bet half of Americans do not know what 'Sikh' is before that. What a display of great freedom in that case - ignorance and arrogance taken freely!
You may think genes also play a part. Who knows for sure? Hitler thought so. America disagreed then.
Before Jesse Owens, many might think that only whites run fast. Mostly they and the Japanese took part in the Olympics! The latter would at best be a wonder for the ignorant, and because of great cultures for the arrogant. The truth?
Before Tiger Woods or Vijay Singh only whites win golf tournaments. Genes? Neither Africans, Indians nor Thais used to win golf tournaments - so genes cannot be the reason. The more likely truth is that before that the likes of Tiger Woods or Vijay Singh were likely to be cleaning someone else's barns just to survive.
Many relatives of your forefathers would probably be horrified with eating the first turkeys the Indians brought along. I hope you look at your Thanksgiving Day the way I do - an appreciation of the goodwill shown by the native and non-native people that partook in those first celebrations, not your God that those natives did not believe in (as many Thanksgiving Day proclamations have it).
Many people will not put the above that way to their children. Americans included for I find no 'legitimate' reason why they should not. They are just a few examples of how those in power and arrogance hijacks and corrupts the truth.
It takes awareness of all the above, some fair history and the desire to understand others' situations (putting one in someone else's shoe in your language) to get a balanced view of this world. Formulating an internal comprehension of how things really work and not what others tell us how they work. That means to discover the world bigger than one's own - another way of saying not to be selfish/arrogant. Read not what you are told or what your neighbour says. Discover what you are not told or your neighbor doesn't know. There are a lot of truths hidden from people both subtlely and otherwise. And not many want to or can break out of that unreal world. The flat world before Copernicus is a good example. The 'free market and capitalism are answers to everything' when the world is not truly free is another.
Which is why one should not have those behaviors I mentioned.
Which is why one should get to know as many languages and cultures as possible, and not read them from a narrow set of sources. So what did the Chinese, Iraqis, Belgians, Icelanders or Indonesians said about lessons from WTC? They are too irrelevant for Americans to bother about?
With awareness and the desire to really understand our world, I am certain you will arrive at similar views. Hopefully it also brings humility, moderation and compassion. Not just because it makes one feel good. But because one will then see the terrible results of doing otherwise.
Rgds
CCK
To: Arthur Iger@JPMORGAN
Subject: Re: Churchill's Contribution
Arthur, My comments in italics. Rgds CCK
From: Arthur Iger on 10/01/2001 06:35 AM EDT
To: Chee-Khiaw Cheng@JPMORGAN
Subject: Re: Churchill's Contribution
Chee-Khiaw,
My Thanksgiving holiday thoughts generally go to being thankful that America took in my parents and my sister when they were on the run from the Nazis. (I know that a lot of others didn't get in and died in the death camps as a result).
[CCK: Many people died in Palestine, Vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan and elsewhere too. Many millions of them remain poor and homeless today. They will probably die that way without us talking about them. I sympathise with them all. I also sometimes wonder why Jews seem to be enmeshed in the most extreme of situations: doing really well in certain environments like capitalism where greed plays such a key role, and the worst of modern conflicts where hatred/arrogance are so prominent. Perhaps they are all accidents or someone did not 'work' hard enough.]
I'm thankful for the richness of the land, its openness to immigrants, and its ability to reward those who are willing to work hard. (I'm also aware that there's a lot more work to be done.).
[CCK: If that's the case, why do the likes of Woods, Jordan, Powell or Rice appear only 200 years after the creation of the US? It is and was not as simple as that.]
Anyone can leave America who thinks that they can get a better deal somewhere else. (So far, more people want in than want out.)
[CCK: That's a very arrogant way of saying things considering my questions above. That sounds like the beginning of all the exoduses familiar to your forefathers. And you seem to think you can decide things for America! That may perhaps be the case but I don't think many in free America are aware of it.]
I am sorry that America is seen as arrogant in many quarters. America is a great power and, whatever the reality, that's how great powers are perceived.
[CCK: In many eyes Nazi Germany was a great power too. If sorry is all we end with, then we do great injustice to the many who died before us.]
Thanks for your thoughts,
art
Monday, October 01, 2001
Friday, September 21, 2001
2% or 98% Test
(My response to this mail at bottom)
Subject: Try this - 2% or 98%
It's FUN, try this ! Follow the instructions!
NO PEEKING AHEAD!
Free will or synaptic wiring? You be the judge.
Do the following exercise, follow these instructions, and answer the questions one at a time and as quickly as you can! Again, as quickly as you can but don't advance until you've done each of them. Now, arrow down (but not too fast, you might miss something).
Think of a number from 1 to 10
Multiply that number by 9
If the number is a 2-digit number, add the digits together
Now subtract 5
Determine which letter in the alphabet corresponds to the number you ended up with (example: 1=a, 2=b, 3=c, etc.)
Think of a country that starts with that letter
Remember the last letter in the name of that country
Think of the name of an animal that starts with that letter
Remember the last letter in the name of that animal
Think of the name of a fruit that starts with that letter
Are you thinking of a Kangaroo in Denmark eating an Orange?
If not, you're among the 2% of the population whose minds are different enough to think of something else. 98% of people will answer with kangaroos in Denmark when given this exercise. Freaky, huh?
Keep this message going. Forward it to people you know and see if they can see if they are usual or unusual.
(Below is my response to above)
To: lwee111@yahoo.com.sg
cc: family, friends
Subject: Re: Try this - 2% or 98%
Hi,
This is what maths and probability says:
100%: The maths part of this always ends with 4. Therefore starting letter is always D
100%: There is only 1 western country with name starting with D.
D for Denmark - everyone that reads English looks west! Unless you're African, Latin Am or has interest on the 'bigger world', you'd probably not know Djibouti & Dominica Rep existed (who cares?)
98%: Few animal names start with letter K (Kangaroo, Koala, Kancil).
But unless one has strong interest in nature or is SE Asian, one wld probably not think of Koala or Kancil. Anyway, most SE Asian that knows Kancil won't get to do this test (can't read English). The others are more happy to see a Kangaroo than a Kancil (wonder why).
98%: With Kangaroo, one can probably only end with Orange....
Everyone in Singapore buys orange because it is 'better' (to follow someone else's practice)! Apple, Avogado etc if you thought of Koala. Lemon, Lychee, Loquat, Langsat, Longan etc. if Kancil.
So if one ends with the 'standard' solution and is amazed by it, it's probably a celebration of/in ignorance and more. Great test to see what kind of friends you have without insulting them....
Rgds
CCK
Subject: Try this - 2% or 98%
It's FUN, try this ! Follow the instructions!
NO PEEKING AHEAD!
Free will or synaptic wiring? You be the judge.
Do the following exercise, follow these instructions, and answer the questions one at a time and as quickly as you can! Again, as quickly as you can but don't advance until you've done each of them. Now, arrow down (but not too fast, you might miss something).
Think of a number from 1 to 10
Multiply that number by 9
If the number is a 2-digit number, add the digits together
Now subtract 5
Determine which letter in the alphabet corresponds to the number you ended up with (example: 1=a, 2=b, 3=c, etc.)
Think of a country that starts with that letter
Remember the last letter in the name of that country
Think of the name of an animal that starts with that letter
Remember the last letter in the name of that animal
Think of the name of a fruit that starts with that letter
Are you thinking of a Kangaroo in Denmark eating an Orange?
If not, you're among the 2% of the population whose minds are different enough to think of something else. 98% of people will answer with kangaroos in Denmark when given this exercise. Freaky, huh?
Keep this message going. Forward it to people you know and see if they can see if they are usual or unusual.
(Below is my response to above)
To: lwee111@yahoo.com.sg
cc: family, friends
Subject: Re: Try this - 2% or 98%
Hi,
This is what maths and probability says:
100%: The maths part of this always ends with 4. Therefore starting letter is always D
100%: There is only 1 western country with name starting with D.
D for Denmark - everyone that reads English looks west! Unless you're African, Latin Am or has interest on the 'bigger world', you'd probably not know Djibouti & Dominica Rep existed (who cares?)
98%: Few animal names start with letter K (Kangaroo, Koala, Kancil).
But unless one has strong interest in nature or is SE Asian, one wld probably not think of Koala or Kancil. Anyway, most SE Asian that knows Kancil won't get to do this test (can't read English). The others are more happy to see a Kangaroo than a Kancil (wonder why).
98%: With Kangaroo, one can probably only end with Orange....
Everyone in Singapore buys orange because it is 'better' (to follow someone else's practice)! Apple, Avogado etc if you thought of Koala. Lemon, Lychee, Loquat, Langsat, Longan etc. if Kancil.
So if one ends with the 'standard' solution and is amazed by it, it's probably a celebration of/in ignorance and more. Great test to see what kind of friends you have without insulting them....
Rgds
CCK
Saturday, September 15, 2001
Japanese Occupation Stories
Japanese at Taiping Reservoir (Sept 2001)
Was talking to my father night about arrogance of the US that resulted in the WTC bombing. Discussion shifted to WWII and the Battle of Britain. Father was interested in the V1 and V2 rockets that the Germans used in that battle since Germany was first to use such weapons. I agreed with him that the Germans were technologically very advanced. Told him about some Americans arrogantly using their Apollo space program as prove that their technology is better than others including Germans. When in fact many of the scientists that worked in the US space program were ex-German scientists that developed the V-bombs of WWII that were 'extricated' from Germany and sent to the US after WWII.
Then discussion went into why those powers fought WWI and WWII. And then to why Japan attacked and wanted to occupy China way before WWII started. Father then said that even before WWII started the British appeared a bit scared of the Japanese and cited the example of 4 Japanese businessmen that went fishing at the Taiping Reservoir before WWII. Apparently, no one was allowed to fish at the reservoir and the Sikh guards would chase any locals hanging around there. But when these 4 Japanese turn up to fish, the guards would just turn the other way and pretend not to see them.
I told father that it may not be fear for those Japanese. They were probably spies with backings from the Japanese government - similar to what I read about in Singapore before WWII. I suspect that the British could be aware of their presence and real intentions, and did not want to create a fuss unnecessarily. According to father some of the Japanese were owners of a dentistry and photo studio in the middle of Taiping town (near the clock tower) which also happens to be very near the town's police station and army barrack.
'Bakero' and the Slaps
During the Japanese occupation of Malaysia, the Japanese troops would station guards at every major road intersection. Every one that passes the instersection must alight from their bicycles (no cars as they would have been commandeered by the Japanese) and make a bow to the guards before proceeding on. This would have to be repeated at each intersection. Otherwise, they risk a thorough wallop.
In one incident, my father and a friend was cycling towards Chan Sow Lin Road in old KL. They had just made the mandatory bow at an intersection when they saw a guard sitting at another intersection nearby that never used to have guards. My father remembered suggesting to his friend that may be they should alight and make a bow. But his friend apparently thought there was no need to. The reason was they had just done one at the last intersection which was in full sight from this one (perhaps he thought the guard would have noticed them making the earlier bow and would not require a repeat so soon after). So, the 2 of them did not stop their bicycles.
Then they heard a loud 'bakero' (I understand it means something like 'bastard' in Japanese), and the Japanese guard furiously waving at them to go towards him. According to my dad, the guard caught my dad unaware and my dad got a good tight slap on the face. Having witnessed what happened to my dad, his friend tried to avoid the slap when it was his turn. Apparently, this made the Japanese guard more furious and he went on slapping this poor friend until he was satisfied. This friend of my dad apparently could not hear anything for a good while after that.
They Took Away My Uncle
According to my dad, I had an uncle who is my dad's second elder brother. This young man was taken away from his home one evening by Japanese troops and never returned. No one knew what happened to the poor young man. My father suspect he was taken away to do force labour or something.
After the war, Japan was never made to account for things like that. I finally got the reason when I found out a few years ago that as part of the surrender agreement which the British, Americans and the Chinese Kuomintang government signed, Japan was not required to account for any of its deeds during WWII! I was very surprised when I read that. Even Germany had to account and pay reparations.
I could accept that Britain and America wanted Japan on their side against red Russia, and Asians are not important to them, but I wondered how the Chinese Kuomintang government could have done that given that China suffered the most under Japan (with more than 10 million deaths). In fact, Japanese troops seem to pick on the Chinese wherever they went. That is one reason why I have no respect for the Kuomintang government. In fact, few in China then had which was one of the reasons they were overthrown soon after WWII.
Was talking to my father night about arrogance of the US that resulted in the WTC bombing. Discussion shifted to WWII and the Battle of Britain. Father was interested in the V1 and V2 rockets that the Germans used in that battle since Germany was first to use such weapons. I agreed with him that the Germans were technologically very advanced. Told him about some Americans arrogantly using their Apollo space program as prove that their technology is better than others including Germans. When in fact many of the scientists that worked in the US space program were ex-German scientists that developed the V-bombs of WWII that were 'extricated' from Germany and sent to the US after WWII.
Then discussion went into why those powers fought WWI and WWII. And then to why Japan attacked and wanted to occupy China way before WWII started. Father then said that even before WWII started the British appeared a bit scared of the Japanese and cited the example of 4 Japanese businessmen that went fishing at the Taiping Reservoir before WWII. Apparently, no one was allowed to fish at the reservoir and the Sikh guards would chase any locals hanging around there. But when these 4 Japanese turn up to fish, the guards would just turn the other way and pretend not to see them.
I told father that it may not be fear for those Japanese. They were probably spies with backings from the Japanese government - similar to what I read about in Singapore before WWII. I suspect that the British could be aware of their presence and real intentions, and did not want to create a fuss unnecessarily. According to father some of the Japanese were owners of a dentistry and photo studio in the middle of Taiping town (near the clock tower) which also happens to be very near the town's police station and army barrack.
'Bakero' and the Slaps
During the Japanese occupation of Malaysia, the Japanese troops would station guards at every major road intersection. Every one that passes the instersection must alight from their bicycles (no cars as they would have been commandeered by the Japanese) and make a bow to the guards before proceeding on. This would have to be repeated at each intersection. Otherwise, they risk a thorough wallop.
In one incident, my father and a friend was cycling towards Chan Sow Lin Road in old KL. They had just made the mandatory bow at an intersection when they saw a guard sitting at another intersection nearby that never used to have guards. My father remembered suggesting to his friend that may be they should alight and make a bow. But his friend apparently thought there was no need to. The reason was they had just done one at the last intersection which was in full sight from this one (perhaps he thought the guard would have noticed them making the earlier bow and would not require a repeat so soon after). So, the 2 of them did not stop their bicycles.
Then they heard a loud 'bakero' (I understand it means something like 'bastard' in Japanese), and the Japanese guard furiously waving at them to go towards him. According to my dad, the guard caught my dad unaware and my dad got a good tight slap on the face. Having witnessed what happened to my dad, his friend tried to avoid the slap when it was his turn. Apparently, this made the Japanese guard more furious and he went on slapping this poor friend until he was satisfied. This friend of my dad apparently could not hear anything for a good while after that.
They Took Away My Uncle
According to my dad, I had an uncle who is my dad's second elder brother. This young man was taken away from his home one evening by Japanese troops and never returned. No one knew what happened to the poor young man. My father suspect he was taken away to do force labour or something.
After the war, Japan was never made to account for things like that. I finally got the reason when I found out a few years ago that as part of the surrender agreement which the British, Americans and the Chinese Kuomintang government signed, Japan was not required to account for any of its deeds during WWII! I was very surprised when I read that. Even Germany had to account and pay reparations.
I could accept that Britain and America wanted Japan on their side against red Russia, and Asians are not important to them, but I wondered how the Chinese Kuomintang government could have done that given that China suffered the most under Japan (with more than 10 million deaths). In fact, Japanese troops seem to pick on the Chinese wherever they went. That is one reason why I have no respect for the Kuomintang government. In fact, few in China then had which was one of the reasons they were overthrown soon after WWII.
Wednesday, September 12, 2001
World 101: The Price of Super Arrogance
Less than 24 hours ago, four commercial airliners taking off from various parts of the US were commandeered for a series of suicide attacks on 'major symbols of American power': the World Trade Centre and Federal Reserve Building in New York, and the Pentagon in Washington D.C. The most severe of the attacks resulted in the collapse of both 110-storey high towers of the World Trade Centre resulting in untold loss of lives. The sad loss of innocent lives does not hide the fact that the missions were well coordinated and executed. The attacks happened within hours of each other early yesterday morning as office workers were going to work.
Taking a cold objective look at the news pictures of a plane flying straight into one of the WTC towers, one cannot but see an uncanny similarity with the precision bombing so proudly displayed in recent years by the US and its allies in Yugoslavia and the Middle East. In fact, the same cold objectivity and awareness of some recent histories had the Americans warning themselves that such a thing was waiting to happen. And despite President Bush's instruction to the FBI to conduct a 'full investigation' I am afraid that one important but very basic lesson will be missed: that there is a price to be paid for super arrogance.
For no country in modern times has been attacked as such. There is no reason to unless some people somewhere had been so insulted or humiliated as to be willing to sacrifice and take so many lives of non-combatants merely to register their displeasure at the conduct of a nation's government.
To understand what extreme arrogance we are talking about one need to imagine which nation in only the last few years would fit the following descriptions:
- One that condemns other countries for selling arms and providing military support to others while enjoying more than 40% market share of the more than $15 billion annual arms market;
- One with 5% of world population but contributing 30% of its pollutants that arrogantly walks out of environmental management meetings (Kyoto Protocol) because reducing the harm it makes does not serve its national interest;
- One that deems it a right for it to have spy planes flying within a couple of hundred miles of another's shores and thousand of miles from home while it deems the same action by others as hostile. And has the gall to demand immediate release of its aircrew without considering the fact that they were involved in a midair collision that took the life of one of the other's pilots, and landed in that country's soil in a clearly unfriendly act. And top it off with an insulting $34,000 compensation for all the troubles it created (a US spy plane emergency landed in China);
- One that claim that a potential 'yellow peril' competitor cannot be trusted at the same time as it unilaterally attempts to abrogate a series of nuclear arms treaties just when its older rival is at its lowest ebb, hoping to attempt a replay of an old cold war strategy of engaging the upcoming competitor in an impoverishing arms race it could ill afford;
- One that played a distinguish part in engineering a 'divide and manipulate' state of affairs in the Middle East by creating countries that did not exist before and supporting whichever that happen to serve its purposes while it lasts. Until one of them occupied a smaller oil rich neighbor. Then in the name of the free world, it undertook a mother of all wars to guarantee that the oil fields will remain well carved for easy manipulation;
- One that celebrated so much its thorough annihilation of its opposite in Iraq in a one sided mismatch that the nation made management gurus out of its generals. It still deem it its right to enforce an embargo against the other and to bomb selected sites at its sole discretion whenever it wishes (first Iraq war of 1990);
- One that so arrogantly displayed its military prowess for the world to see in those videos of precision bombings in Iraq and Yugoslavia only to brush off the bombing of the embassy of a third country friendly to one of the attacked nations as only a mistake. And one that it thought can be made up by a few million greenbacks;
- One when its people demonstrate in front of its guests do so in the virtuous names of justice, freedom and human rights but ascribed the same thing that happened after it bombed someone else's embassy to possible acts coordinated by the agrieved government (US planes bombed Chinese embassy in Yugoslavia by 'accident');
- One which obviously found it too shameful to exercise its veto rights on UN resolutions condemning an ally it supported financially and militarily for occupying the land of others but which arrogantly thinks that it is the only country eminently qualified to manage any 'final negotiated settlement' of the problem;
- One which tells the ally that took 600 Palestinian lives within a year (at an exchange rate of 4 for 1 of its own) to 'exercise restraint' but tells the other side to 'stop its suicide attacks' when 90% of the latter's dead were stone throwing demonstrators and not suicide bombers killed by the security forces of the first;
- One which claims to support the 'one country' principle of a large country while thinking it prudent not to be involved in influencing a peaceful integration but worthwhile making distinctly clear military sales and commitments to one side (Taiwan);
- One which supported a corrupt government when it suited its purposes during the cold war but only to have a global institution it has tremendous influence to dictate terms for assistance that was so well represented by the arms folded 'do as we say' arrogance of the IMF head a few years ago in Indonesia;
- One that arrogantly thinks it has the moral authority to preach human rights to others by hoping to force others in the UN to make annual declarations about its perceived lack of such in others. While only slightly more than a hundred years ago (only a short time in world history) its forefathers had almost wiped out entire peoples whose land they took by force and deceit;
- One whose seemingly virtuous declaration of independence was really only meant for an uncolored subset of its people up till recent times. Well manifested by the cases where it tried to make an espionage accusation stick to one of its own national, and where some that were suppose to 'protect and to serve' pumped half a dozen bullets into a man taking out his wallet in New York City but walked free because the victims were colored by their skins while the perpetrators were not;
- One whose vice president had the cowboy arrogance to accept another country's invitation to a regional head of country meeting (APEC) only to walk out of the welcoming dinner. But before publicly humiliating its Malaysian host in front of all its distinguished guests and with the whole world watching. All in the name of 'reformasi'.
Many perhaps understood something from Deng Xiaoping's reminder to the Chinese that for the sake of the long-term development of their country, they should be ready to accept some short-term humiliation. But more important was what he did not say which was implied by Zhou Enlai when he said that Americans have no sense of history. And although it may suit the Americans well to forget things quickly and to continue to ride rough-shod over others time and again, many other people of the world do not suffer from similar memory lapses. And they will remember insults and humiliation for a long time. Just waiting for the right moment for payback.
And unless the Americans practice what it preaches and that includes its own 'reformasi', it will continue to earn the scorn of many. Not a few of which will be glad to pay to make them pay for their super arrogance.
Additional Notes:
- US refused to sign the land mine treaty banning use of land mines
- US refused to submit its own citizens to the International Court of Justice but expects everyone else to
- The moment Bush Jr. was elected president the US insisted that South Korea should terminate discussions on possible peace and re-union with North Korea supposedly because North Korea 'cannot be trusted'. South Korean Kim Dae Jung travelled to Washington the first weeks of his election to 'convince' him that talking peace makes sense.
Taking a cold objective look at the news pictures of a plane flying straight into one of the WTC towers, one cannot but see an uncanny similarity with the precision bombing so proudly displayed in recent years by the US and its allies in Yugoslavia and the Middle East. In fact, the same cold objectivity and awareness of some recent histories had the Americans warning themselves that such a thing was waiting to happen. And despite President Bush's instruction to the FBI to conduct a 'full investigation' I am afraid that one important but very basic lesson will be missed: that there is a price to be paid for super arrogance.
For no country in modern times has been attacked as such. There is no reason to unless some people somewhere had been so insulted or humiliated as to be willing to sacrifice and take so many lives of non-combatants merely to register their displeasure at the conduct of a nation's government.
To understand what extreme arrogance we are talking about one need to imagine which nation in only the last few years would fit the following descriptions:
- One that condemns other countries for selling arms and providing military support to others while enjoying more than 40% market share of the more than $15 billion annual arms market;
- One with 5% of world population but contributing 30% of its pollutants that arrogantly walks out of environmental management meetings (Kyoto Protocol) because reducing the harm it makes does not serve its national interest;
- One that deems it a right for it to have spy planes flying within a couple of hundred miles of another's shores and thousand of miles from home while it deems the same action by others as hostile. And has the gall to demand immediate release of its aircrew without considering the fact that they were involved in a midair collision that took the life of one of the other's pilots, and landed in that country's soil in a clearly unfriendly act. And top it off with an insulting $34,000 compensation for all the troubles it created (a US spy plane emergency landed in China);
- One that claim that a potential 'yellow peril' competitor cannot be trusted at the same time as it unilaterally attempts to abrogate a series of nuclear arms treaties just when its older rival is at its lowest ebb, hoping to attempt a replay of an old cold war strategy of engaging the upcoming competitor in an impoverishing arms race it could ill afford;
- One that played a distinguish part in engineering a 'divide and manipulate' state of affairs in the Middle East by creating countries that did not exist before and supporting whichever that happen to serve its purposes while it lasts. Until one of them occupied a smaller oil rich neighbor. Then in the name of the free world, it undertook a mother of all wars to guarantee that the oil fields will remain well carved for easy manipulation;
- One that celebrated so much its thorough annihilation of its opposite in Iraq in a one sided mismatch that the nation made management gurus out of its generals. It still deem it its right to enforce an embargo against the other and to bomb selected sites at its sole discretion whenever it wishes (first Iraq war of 1990);
- One that so arrogantly displayed its military prowess for the world to see in those videos of precision bombings in Iraq and Yugoslavia only to brush off the bombing of the embassy of a third country friendly to one of the attacked nations as only a mistake. And one that it thought can be made up by a few million greenbacks;
- One when its people demonstrate in front of its guests do so in the virtuous names of justice, freedom and human rights but ascribed the same thing that happened after it bombed someone else's embassy to possible acts coordinated by the agrieved government (US planes bombed Chinese embassy in Yugoslavia by 'accident');
- One which obviously found it too shameful to exercise its veto rights on UN resolutions condemning an ally it supported financially and militarily for occupying the land of others but which arrogantly thinks that it is the only country eminently qualified to manage any 'final negotiated settlement' of the problem;
- One which tells the ally that took 600 Palestinian lives within a year (at an exchange rate of 4 for 1 of its own) to 'exercise restraint' but tells the other side to 'stop its suicide attacks' when 90% of the latter's dead were stone throwing demonstrators and not suicide bombers killed by the security forces of the first;
- One which claims to support the 'one country' principle of a large country while thinking it prudent not to be involved in influencing a peaceful integration but worthwhile making distinctly clear military sales and commitments to one side (Taiwan);
- One which supported a corrupt government when it suited its purposes during the cold war but only to have a global institution it has tremendous influence to dictate terms for assistance that was so well represented by the arms folded 'do as we say' arrogance of the IMF head a few years ago in Indonesia;
- One that arrogantly thinks it has the moral authority to preach human rights to others by hoping to force others in the UN to make annual declarations about its perceived lack of such in others. While only slightly more than a hundred years ago (only a short time in world history) its forefathers had almost wiped out entire peoples whose land they took by force and deceit;
- One whose seemingly virtuous declaration of independence was really only meant for an uncolored subset of its people up till recent times. Well manifested by the cases where it tried to make an espionage accusation stick to one of its own national, and where some that were suppose to 'protect and to serve' pumped half a dozen bullets into a man taking out his wallet in New York City but walked free because the victims were colored by their skins while the perpetrators were not;
- One whose vice president had the cowboy arrogance to accept another country's invitation to a regional head of country meeting (APEC) only to walk out of the welcoming dinner. But before publicly humiliating its Malaysian host in front of all its distinguished guests and with the whole world watching. All in the name of 'reformasi'.
Many perhaps understood something from Deng Xiaoping's reminder to the Chinese that for the sake of the long-term development of their country, they should be ready to accept some short-term humiliation. But more important was what he did not say which was implied by Zhou Enlai when he said that Americans have no sense of history. And although it may suit the Americans well to forget things quickly and to continue to ride rough-shod over others time and again, many other people of the world do not suffer from similar memory lapses. And they will remember insults and humiliation for a long time. Just waiting for the right moment for payback.
And unless the Americans practice what it preaches and that includes its own 'reformasi', it will continue to earn the scorn of many. Not a few of which will be glad to pay to make them pay for their super arrogance.
Additional Notes:
- US refused to sign the land mine treaty banning use of land mines
- US refused to submit its own citizens to the International Court of Justice but expects everyone else to
- The moment Bush Jr. was elected president the US insisted that South Korea should terminate discussions on possible peace and re-union with North Korea supposedly because North Korea 'cannot be trusted'. South Korean Kim Dae Jung travelled to Washington the first weeks of his election to 'convince' him that talking peace makes sense.
Saturday, September 01, 2001
Jewish vs Singaporean Mothers' Questions: Malaysian Answer
In this year’s ‘Teachers Day Rally’ the Prime Minister of Singapore last week exhorted Singaporeans to change the way they approach education to encourage and develop greater creative thinking. To illustrate his opinion on why Singaporeans are less creative than others (which is not necessarily untrue), he compared Singaporean mothers to mothers in Israel this way: "In Israel, when a child goes home his mother would ask ‘How many questions did you ask today?’ In Singapore, the mother would ask ‘How many marks did you get for your test?’ ‘No prizes for guessing which child grow up to have more depth and breadth, and which one will suffer from tunnel vision and stress’" Of course we don’t believe all Singaporean mothers or Israeli mothers do what the PM said they do. He was generalising a bit. Although the Singaporean audience took a light-hearted laugh to that, I fear the comparison and perhaps more will stay in many less well-informed and analytic minds.
So lest they get the wrong idea and think that there is a genetic or cultural cause to the issue, the PM should have put it in its proper context. For example, he could have qualified his joke by telling Singaporean mothers not to seriously imagine that by asking their children the question he said Jewish mothers ask is a ‘sure fire’ way to develop their creativity. Or reminded them that in the course of history the Jewish people have had their fair share of achievements and catastrophes that no one can entirely dismiss as not attributable partly to their culture which includes what Jewish mothers teach their children. But more importantly, he should have stated that the problem of creativity and its inhibition by established institutions (i.e. not just parents and teachers but also those in power) is not a new one. It has been there for time immemorial and the Jews suffer from that as much as everyone else. Einstein who was a Jew summarised it pretty much by saying that ‘It is surprising how creativity can survive formal education’. Just to put things in perspective, I’ve not read anywhere that Einstein had attributed his well-known creativity to his Jewish origin or his mother asking him about the number of questions he asked in school. But he did either switch off or drop out entirely from school! Of course, by that small example I am not recommending that mothers hope the same happens to their children. But I do mean to say that governments and established institutions may be the greater cause of the problem - something not apparent to many present at or who read about the Teacher's Day rally.
PM Mahathir of Malaysia said essentially the same last weekend when he talked about how policy makers earlier and Islamic influence in school in recent years affected the educational outcome of an entire race so dear to him. His equivalent of PM Goh's 'mother question' parable was one about no one daring to question Islamic interpretations that resulted in schools requiring students to play footballin long pants. To be fair, he also recognised that established institutional influences were not the only cause - laziness and taking the easy way out were some others. His honesty at this late a juncture when his motive is questionable did not help but nevertheless instructive.
For those who know what Singaporeans and the Singapore government are like (a generalisation, of course) the real reason why creativity is an issue was not really because they see the value of creativity and independent thought for its own sake. Though to be fair, some do see it that way. Like the Singapore PM alluded, the more important reason was to make Singaporeans more entrepreneurial (better term for making more money) in this environment of increasing competition so as to ensure Singapore’s survival in a more globalised world. Creativity and independent thought are just the means to get to that, hopefully. Therein may lie Singapore’s real problem but that is not said or worse may not be admitted. For the overriding desire to make money has never been a problem to them. Making less or not enough is. For those familiar with the topic of making money, it is perhaps not unfair to again generalise that that is also where the Jews excel. That attribute besides others is also the reason for some of their historical troubles but that is a separate topic. Perhaps, that was not a coincidence. For the PM must surely have a greater power of observation than to only notice Jewish mothers’ one question on their children’s schooling!
So why did the Singapore PM chose to use the above comparison? Instead of saying for example, that Sim Wong Hoo’s mother probably never asked him ‘how many marks he scored’ daily. He could have easily checked with Sim Wong Hoo if that was the case. Perhaps he has a basis for that. Perhaps as a race, the Jews are indeed more creative. For there can be many examples of that. The likes of Einstein and Feynman were some of that. And Goldman, Morgan and Salomon are good money making examples.
But one probably cannot but admire the Jews for their ultimate of all creations. Were they not the ones that came up with the nice notion that began with the claim that man is created in the image of God? Perhaps it does not matter to many that that claim was probably to get those with equally egoistic imagination (but may be less independent minds) to feel good enough to buy into the whole scheme which so happens include the notion that Jews are ‘the special children’ of God while all other humans are only ‘His children’. We all know what a vast institution and following that creative notion had helped create over the last 2,000 years.
Given the above examples, one can possibly understand how some people may be convinced that the Israelis are indeed more creative than say Singaporeans. Who else but an especially creative people would be able to come up with an idea that can make so many feel so good telling themselves that they are not their equal? Of course, the Bible did not really say that literally but then which one who follows that book read it that way? (Although here we are only looking for examples of Jewish creativity, one may wish to keep in mind that they also have other characteristics that may be partly the cause of less desirable events like the Exodus, the Holocaust and the sorry state of affairs in present day Middle East. Unless of course, one looks at those events simplistically and thinks it was someone else’s fault alone.)
But continuing with the same example above, we can also learn a bit more about creativity and its development. Other than Einstein, Galileo Galilei was probably the finest example. Galileo is not Jewish and God knows what his Greek mother asked him everyday (Singapore should get their best scholars on that one for the next rally). But I believe we all know about that little story of how Galileo tried to prove to the people around him that Copernicus' suggestion that the world was not flat and not everything revolved around the Earth was right. He did not say anything about his mother’s questions either but he undoubtedly displayed creativity and independent thought. But the government and people of his time backed by some creative but more stupid interpretation of the Bible insisted that Galileo was wrong. To which Galileo’s reply was "I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use". Of course, we all now accept that Galileo was right and the power operators of the institutions that persecuted him continued on with a smarter outlook than to contradict head-on with the likes of Galileo and science. But who knows that Galileo was sent into exile for that. And the fact that the suggestion that earth revolved around the Sun and not the other way round was first made 100 years before that. The guy who did that was less fortunate. He and his idea were burnt in a Christian ritual. God knows how many suffered the same fate as that guy and Galileo. Few or no followers of the Church will be told things like that. Too unimportant compared to the 'big picture'. This is but one example of what established institutions and men in power including governments can do to people and their creativity.
That is perhaps also where Singapore’s problem lies. And you will see the creativity behind the way it was made not so apparent. By that little parable about mothers, the Singapore PM may have managed to create an impression (sub-consciously at least) that the lack of creativity had more to do with the parents. When in fact it was largely because of the way the whole country was or had to operate for the last 36 years. Although the government of the time might have few other choices, it nevertheless was a major cause. For the country’s development since independence its leaders relied on 2 things that played a part in stifling creativity.
Firstly, Singapore’s early strategy for development was to rely on foreign MNCs and as LKY eloquently said ‘to act as a first world oasis in a third world surrounding' for the MNCs to operate out of. So the government put its best brains and resources into attracting and helping those MNCs operate from Singapore including giving them tax incentives their local entrepreneurs did not get. Given limited resources (as is always the case), it also effectively ignored its local enterprises and entrepreneurs. It was a case of the more equipped and better-endowed foreign companies getting premier support while the less developed local ones having to fend for themselves.
As we will see, it was also "first class support for those playing second fiddle and second class support for those fiddling on their own". Most MNCs by necessity required a work force that are more proficient with the mechanics of application and operation (to implement head office or foreign manager instructions) than one possessing a level of entrepreneurial or creative ability that may eventually threaten their employers’ existence. In other words, the MNCs were better served by having better doers than thinkers. Quite possibly, some of the foreign managers were doing it for selfish reasons. Expatriate life in a first world oasis is actually pretty good. The above elements combined to create a situation that was obvious to many Singaporeans: that the fastest and shortest path to a decent living was to work in the corporate world of the MNCs. It was the smart thing to do then. Having to operate in a mode desirable to their employer was a small price to pay for that advantage.
The Singaporeans who could not take advantage of that opportunity were the ones that were not educated in English the lingua franca of the MNCs. Or those that did not score well in the English tests conducted by the government. These people had to strike it out on their own. Sail the high seas, so to speak, the way their forefathers did for centuries, on their own. If you don’t believe this, you can talk to graduates of the original Nanyang University (Nantah). Although many of those involved would disagree (no differences in opinion allowed?), what happened to Nantah is a good example of what governments can or try to do to societies which can affect its people’s creativity. Nantah, an educational institution like many of the greatest in the west that Singapore tries to emulate, was formed spontaneously by a community of men and women that were proud of its past and hopeful for a brighter future. It came about unassisted by those in power then, the British. Its Chinese origin and focus, and relative closeness to communist thoughts practiced in China in the 50s and 60s made it a source of discomfort for another subsequent Singapore government. Which closed it down and reconstituted it in a social re-engineering exercise to manage dissent, and ensure future generations look at the world the way the government does. An exercise some politicians were cock-sure would guarantee Singapore’s future survival. It doesn’t matter how important it was to a people’s pride. Thus, a whole different language and world-view was closed in a way no modern government proud of its people (not to say their pride and creativity) had done before. At least not to my knowledge and if you don’t believe it you can go check with the Israelis. So much about encouraging diversity, differing views and confidence so necessary for creativity to even begin take root.
But that was not an issue then. Equipping and, more importantly to the government, moulding (see education ministry's motto below) children for the MNC world was top priority and paying dividends (monetary wise for the population and politically for those in power). So much so that most parents gladly cooperated by sending their children to English schools and accepting the closure of Nantah. Some even blindly go to the extent of imitating names and other practices similar to their future employers. Presumably that was advantageous. May be it was someone's idea of making Singapore look more like a first world oasis. It was a dubious necessity that needed no creativity but few cared. Like the PM would say, no prizes for guessing which the few that would be bothered by it are. But these people have undesirable (different) views. And they also 'happen' to be the ones that did not do so well in the English based environment and fell on the way side - treated almost like pariahs by their government and their more successful English-speaking neighbours. However it was easy to get rid of them because they don’t generate significant income for Singapore then. The easiest way to prove them wrong was to leave them to their own devices and see what happens. They will come running to the government for help one day and repent, or some thought. But hey, that’s not exactly Adam Smith’s laissez faire but close enough! Of course that was not the intent and so not noticed by the fathers.
The above category of people and their families, if not for their wealth if they were successful, would also form the so-called ‘heartlanders’ (with a not very positive connotation to it) their PM talked about not quite long ago. If one bothers to, one cannot but also notice that this group of Singaporeans is where the most entrepreneurial of its people had came from. They form the bulk of the local businesses that was not priority for the government. The Mustaffas and Kweks included. Had he done superbly in his English education, Sim Wong Hoo would now probably be only an executive (although may be a top one) in an MNC and not be heading Creative Technologies, a global company that the Singapore government so proudly extol in convenience. Sim Wong Hoo probably thanked his heavenly stars that his mother did not push him to earn an admired Queen’s scholarship, was not rich enough to send him to Cambridge, and did not name him Harry. And I doubt he would take issue with his mother not asking him questions the way Israeli mothers do. Of course, if his mother did do all the above and he has reason to be thankful, he would likely be thanking something else in imitation and not his ‘heavenly stars’ or his mother. May be that’s why Sim Wong Hoo’s mother’s tack of questioning was not analysed for a potential PM rally punch line.
Secondly, in the above situation the only significant Singaporean entity that can or may be allowed to identify and develop the creative and entrepreneurial spirit is the Singapore government and civil service. Better control. And as history had proven, that was indeed the case and in a number of instances they did do a very good job at it. SIA is a good example. But you don’t need an LKY or an Einstein to tell you that bureaucrats and governments, and creativity and entrepreneurial abilities don’t mix very well very long. And many Singaporeans can probably come up with a few cheeky comparisons of the different responses you might get from a Singaporean bureaucrat and a Singaporean Chinese businessman when you have a suggestion or a complaint. No contributions from me - it’s not my area of interest. Besides, they say that’s not so safe a creativity to display in Singapore.
But the best example of the limits of bureaucratic involvement is probably the recent case of DBS’ takeover bid of OUB. Goldman is one of the top money making firm admired and mentioned earlier that DBS paid top money for services in that cowboy-like misadventure that caused DBS shareholders another $2million to buy everyone’s scared silence. All because their supposedly top value service provider or professionals (clearly no one was paid enough to take the blame or say which one should) took a cheap swipe at their ‘Chinese businessman’ competitor. And remember the ‘they are worth every cent we pay them’ certainty just a few months before? That may be representative of Singapore’s problem. So is the fact that I’ve yet to see anything creative from Singaporeans on that incident so far!
Equally ominous is Singapore's education ministry’s seemingly creative motto: ‘moulding the future of our nation’. No prizes for asking questions on what mould means or what the future will be.
Now that the likes of China and India are open to the free market, Singapore (like many other developing countries) found that there are 2 choices: compete with the likes of China/India or the MNCs. The former is a downward journey. Over the weekend (many things happened in Singapore and Malaysia last week) LKY described this Singapore dilemma as 'squeezing between 2 huge convoys'. It is actually more like 'caught over-stretched for straddling 2 trains whose tracks are fast diverging'. That was what the 'first world oasis in a third world surrounding' strategy that worked well in the past was meant to do - straddling 2 worlds. But the China/India train is too far for Singapore to be go-between for the MNC train. So is their cost structure.
Competing with the MNCs is more salivating - greater margins. Except that that’s not the way Singapore is used to or moulded for. That’s when the government discover that the past strategy of playing compliant but expensive brand-name bridesmaids to MNCs in a poorer neighbourhood does not work as well any more (last weekend PM Goh also spoke proudly about some westerner talking about Singapore's brand name). Does not matter if it comes with premier gown fitting service in the form of the government. For the MNCs, there are cheaper and better ones to be had in the likes of China. As LKY and the likes learnt quickly from Suzhou Industrial Park (SIP), the Chinese that remained in China are made of slightly different stuffs from those that came to Singapore. Never mind if SIP was supposed to be mutually beneficial - of course, with Singapore thinking it can get away with a 60% share.
So to continue to deliver, the government has to look for the edge the country needs to compete with the MNCs. Despite what it says, buying expensive foreign talents may not be worth it. There are other considerations. Surreptitiously it attempted to search for the traits displayed in the people it has ignored in the people it managed to mould which was of course glaringly absent. Saying that publicly would be admitting mistake and political suicide. The people that will be more willing to attribute their abilities or success to the government do not have what it takes. So, some better story had to be told. Like, Singapore is too small to have much home grown creativity (that is if they are not already dead). But equally small Israel was probably as instructive on governance as it was on creativity (and may be more). So someone decided that limiting the PM’s public comparison to mothers would suffice.
So the whole issue of creativity in Singapore may be a case where now that the need to meet is well apparent, the father is calling for his forsaken child to appear before him. Until that happens, mother’s tack of questioning may have to be called into question.
Everything above has to be true. I do not have the creativity or the depth of imagination to come up with the above from nothing. That’s because my Malaysian mother had never asked me how many questions I asked in school.
So lest they get the wrong idea and think that there is a genetic or cultural cause to the issue, the PM should have put it in its proper context. For example, he could have qualified his joke by telling Singaporean mothers not to seriously imagine that by asking their children the question he said Jewish mothers ask is a ‘sure fire’ way to develop their creativity. Or reminded them that in the course of history the Jewish people have had their fair share of achievements and catastrophes that no one can entirely dismiss as not attributable partly to their culture which includes what Jewish mothers teach their children. But more importantly, he should have stated that the problem of creativity and its inhibition by established institutions (i.e. not just parents and teachers but also those in power) is not a new one. It has been there for time immemorial and the Jews suffer from that as much as everyone else. Einstein who was a Jew summarised it pretty much by saying that ‘It is surprising how creativity can survive formal education’. Just to put things in perspective, I’ve not read anywhere that Einstein had attributed his well-known creativity to his Jewish origin or his mother asking him about the number of questions he asked in school. But he did either switch off or drop out entirely from school! Of course, by that small example I am not recommending that mothers hope the same happens to their children. But I do mean to say that governments and established institutions may be the greater cause of the problem - something not apparent to many present at or who read about the Teacher's Day rally.
PM Mahathir of Malaysia said essentially the same last weekend when he talked about how policy makers earlier and Islamic influence in school in recent years affected the educational outcome of an entire race so dear to him. His equivalent of PM Goh's 'mother question' parable was one about no one daring to question Islamic interpretations that resulted in schools requiring students to play footballin long pants. To be fair, he also recognised that established institutional influences were not the only cause - laziness and taking the easy way out were some others. His honesty at this late a juncture when his motive is questionable did not help but nevertheless instructive.
For those who know what Singaporeans and the Singapore government are like (a generalisation, of course) the real reason why creativity is an issue was not really because they see the value of creativity and independent thought for its own sake. Though to be fair, some do see it that way. Like the Singapore PM alluded, the more important reason was to make Singaporeans more entrepreneurial (better term for making more money) in this environment of increasing competition so as to ensure Singapore’s survival in a more globalised world. Creativity and independent thought are just the means to get to that, hopefully. Therein may lie Singapore’s real problem but that is not said or worse may not be admitted. For the overriding desire to make money has never been a problem to them. Making less or not enough is. For those familiar with the topic of making money, it is perhaps not unfair to again generalise that that is also where the Jews excel. That attribute besides others is also the reason for some of their historical troubles but that is a separate topic. Perhaps, that was not a coincidence. For the PM must surely have a greater power of observation than to only notice Jewish mothers’ one question on their children’s schooling!
So why did the Singapore PM chose to use the above comparison? Instead of saying for example, that Sim Wong Hoo’s mother probably never asked him ‘how many marks he scored’ daily. He could have easily checked with Sim Wong Hoo if that was the case. Perhaps he has a basis for that. Perhaps as a race, the Jews are indeed more creative. For there can be many examples of that. The likes of Einstein and Feynman were some of that. And Goldman, Morgan and Salomon are good money making examples.
But one probably cannot but admire the Jews for their ultimate of all creations. Were they not the ones that came up with the nice notion that began with the claim that man is created in the image of God? Perhaps it does not matter to many that that claim was probably to get those with equally egoistic imagination (but may be less independent minds) to feel good enough to buy into the whole scheme which so happens include the notion that Jews are ‘the special children’ of God while all other humans are only ‘His children’. We all know what a vast institution and following that creative notion had helped create over the last 2,000 years.
Given the above examples, one can possibly understand how some people may be convinced that the Israelis are indeed more creative than say Singaporeans. Who else but an especially creative people would be able to come up with an idea that can make so many feel so good telling themselves that they are not their equal? Of course, the Bible did not really say that literally but then which one who follows that book read it that way? (Although here we are only looking for examples of Jewish creativity, one may wish to keep in mind that they also have other characteristics that may be partly the cause of less desirable events like the Exodus, the Holocaust and the sorry state of affairs in present day Middle East. Unless of course, one looks at those events simplistically and thinks it was someone else’s fault alone.)
But continuing with the same example above, we can also learn a bit more about creativity and its development. Other than Einstein, Galileo Galilei was probably the finest example. Galileo is not Jewish and God knows what his Greek mother asked him everyday (Singapore should get their best scholars on that one for the next rally). But I believe we all know about that little story of how Galileo tried to prove to the people around him that Copernicus' suggestion that the world was not flat and not everything revolved around the Earth was right. He did not say anything about his mother’s questions either but he undoubtedly displayed creativity and independent thought. But the government and people of his time backed by some creative but more stupid interpretation of the Bible insisted that Galileo was wrong. To which Galileo’s reply was "I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use". Of course, we all now accept that Galileo was right and the power operators of the institutions that persecuted him continued on with a smarter outlook than to contradict head-on with the likes of Galileo and science. But who knows that Galileo was sent into exile for that. And the fact that the suggestion that earth revolved around the Sun and not the other way round was first made 100 years before that. The guy who did that was less fortunate. He and his idea were burnt in a Christian ritual. God knows how many suffered the same fate as that guy and Galileo. Few or no followers of the Church will be told things like that. Too unimportant compared to the 'big picture'. This is but one example of what established institutions and men in power including governments can do to people and their creativity.
That is perhaps also where Singapore’s problem lies. And you will see the creativity behind the way it was made not so apparent. By that little parable about mothers, the Singapore PM may have managed to create an impression (sub-consciously at least) that the lack of creativity had more to do with the parents. When in fact it was largely because of the way the whole country was or had to operate for the last 36 years. Although the government of the time might have few other choices, it nevertheless was a major cause. For the country’s development since independence its leaders relied on 2 things that played a part in stifling creativity.
Firstly, Singapore’s early strategy for development was to rely on foreign MNCs and as LKY eloquently said ‘to act as a first world oasis in a third world surrounding' for the MNCs to operate out of. So the government put its best brains and resources into attracting and helping those MNCs operate from Singapore including giving them tax incentives their local entrepreneurs did not get. Given limited resources (as is always the case), it also effectively ignored its local enterprises and entrepreneurs. It was a case of the more equipped and better-endowed foreign companies getting premier support while the less developed local ones having to fend for themselves.
As we will see, it was also "first class support for those playing second fiddle and second class support for those fiddling on their own". Most MNCs by necessity required a work force that are more proficient with the mechanics of application and operation (to implement head office or foreign manager instructions) than one possessing a level of entrepreneurial or creative ability that may eventually threaten their employers’ existence. In other words, the MNCs were better served by having better doers than thinkers. Quite possibly, some of the foreign managers were doing it for selfish reasons. Expatriate life in a first world oasis is actually pretty good. The above elements combined to create a situation that was obvious to many Singaporeans: that the fastest and shortest path to a decent living was to work in the corporate world of the MNCs. It was the smart thing to do then. Having to operate in a mode desirable to their employer was a small price to pay for that advantage.
The Singaporeans who could not take advantage of that opportunity were the ones that were not educated in English the lingua franca of the MNCs. Or those that did not score well in the English tests conducted by the government. These people had to strike it out on their own. Sail the high seas, so to speak, the way their forefathers did for centuries, on their own. If you don’t believe this, you can talk to graduates of the original Nanyang University (Nantah). Although many of those involved would disagree (no differences in opinion allowed?), what happened to Nantah is a good example of what governments can or try to do to societies which can affect its people’s creativity. Nantah, an educational institution like many of the greatest in the west that Singapore tries to emulate, was formed spontaneously by a community of men and women that were proud of its past and hopeful for a brighter future. It came about unassisted by those in power then, the British. Its Chinese origin and focus, and relative closeness to communist thoughts practiced in China in the 50s and 60s made it a source of discomfort for another subsequent Singapore government. Which closed it down and reconstituted it in a social re-engineering exercise to manage dissent, and ensure future generations look at the world the way the government does. An exercise some politicians were cock-sure would guarantee Singapore’s future survival. It doesn’t matter how important it was to a people’s pride. Thus, a whole different language and world-view was closed in a way no modern government proud of its people (not to say their pride and creativity) had done before. At least not to my knowledge and if you don’t believe it you can go check with the Israelis. So much about encouraging diversity, differing views and confidence so necessary for creativity to even begin take root.
But that was not an issue then. Equipping and, more importantly to the government, moulding (see education ministry's motto below) children for the MNC world was top priority and paying dividends (monetary wise for the population and politically for those in power). So much so that most parents gladly cooperated by sending their children to English schools and accepting the closure of Nantah. Some even blindly go to the extent of imitating names and other practices similar to their future employers. Presumably that was advantageous. May be it was someone's idea of making Singapore look more like a first world oasis. It was a dubious necessity that needed no creativity but few cared. Like the PM would say, no prizes for guessing which the few that would be bothered by it are. But these people have undesirable (different) views. And they also 'happen' to be the ones that did not do so well in the English based environment and fell on the way side - treated almost like pariahs by their government and their more successful English-speaking neighbours. However it was easy to get rid of them because they don’t generate significant income for Singapore then. The easiest way to prove them wrong was to leave them to their own devices and see what happens. They will come running to the government for help one day and repent, or some thought. But hey, that’s not exactly Adam Smith’s laissez faire but close enough! Of course that was not the intent and so not noticed by the fathers.
The above category of people and their families, if not for their wealth if they were successful, would also form the so-called ‘heartlanders’ (with a not very positive connotation to it) their PM talked about not quite long ago. If one bothers to, one cannot but also notice that this group of Singaporeans is where the most entrepreneurial of its people had came from. They form the bulk of the local businesses that was not priority for the government. The Mustaffas and Kweks included. Had he done superbly in his English education, Sim Wong Hoo would now probably be only an executive (although may be a top one) in an MNC and not be heading Creative Technologies, a global company that the Singapore government so proudly extol in convenience. Sim Wong Hoo probably thanked his heavenly stars that his mother did not push him to earn an admired Queen’s scholarship, was not rich enough to send him to Cambridge, and did not name him Harry. And I doubt he would take issue with his mother not asking him questions the way Israeli mothers do. Of course, if his mother did do all the above and he has reason to be thankful, he would likely be thanking something else in imitation and not his ‘heavenly stars’ or his mother. May be that’s why Sim Wong Hoo’s mother’s tack of questioning was not analysed for a potential PM rally punch line.
Secondly, in the above situation the only significant Singaporean entity that can or may be allowed to identify and develop the creative and entrepreneurial spirit is the Singapore government and civil service. Better control. And as history had proven, that was indeed the case and in a number of instances they did do a very good job at it. SIA is a good example. But you don’t need an LKY or an Einstein to tell you that bureaucrats and governments, and creativity and entrepreneurial abilities don’t mix very well very long. And many Singaporeans can probably come up with a few cheeky comparisons of the different responses you might get from a Singaporean bureaucrat and a Singaporean Chinese businessman when you have a suggestion or a complaint. No contributions from me - it’s not my area of interest. Besides, they say that’s not so safe a creativity to display in Singapore.
But the best example of the limits of bureaucratic involvement is probably the recent case of DBS’ takeover bid of OUB. Goldman is one of the top money making firm admired and mentioned earlier that DBS paid top money for services in that cowboy-like misadventure that caused DBS shareholders another $2million to buy everyone’s scared silence. All because their supposedly top value service provider or professionals (clearly no one was paid enough to take the blame or say which one should) took a cheap swipe at their ‘Chinese businessman’ competitor. And remember the ‘they are worth every cent we pay them’ certainty just a few months before? That may be representative of Singapore’s problem. So is the fact that I’ve yet to see anything creative from Singaporeans on that incident so far!
Equally ominous is Singapore's education ministry’s seemingly creative motto: ‘moulding the future of our nation’. No prizes for asking questions on what mould means or what the future will be.
Now that the likes of China and India are open to the free market, Singapore (like many other developing countries) found that there are 2 choices: compete with the likes of China/India or the MNCs. The former is a downward journey. Over the weekend (many things happened in Singapore and Malaysia last week) LKY described this Singapore dilemma as 'squeezing between 2 huge convoys'. It is actually more like 'caught over-stretched for straddling 2 trains whose tracks are fast diverging'. That was what the 'first world oasis in a third world surrounding' strategy that worked well in the past was meant to do - straddling 2 worlds. But the China/India train is too far for Singapore to be go-between for the MNC train. So is their cost structure.
Competing with the MNCs is more salivating - greater margins. Except that that’s not the way Singapore is used to or moulded for. That’s when the government discover that the past strategy of playing compliant but expensive brand-name bridesmaids to MNCs in a poorer neighbourhood does not work as well any more (last weekend PM Goh also spoke proudly about some westerner talking about Singapore's brand name). Does not matter if it comes with premier gown fitting service in the form of the government. For the MNCs, there are cheaper and better ones to be had in the likes of China. As LKY and the likes learnt quickly from Suzhou Industrial Park (SIP), the Chinese that remained in China are made of slightly different stuffs from those that came to Singapore. Never mind if SIP was supposed to be mutually beneficial - of course, with Singapore thinking it can get away with a 60% share.
So to continue to deliver, the government has to look for the edge the country needs to compete with the MNCs. Despite what it says, buying expensive foreign talents may not be worth it. There are other considerations. Surreptitiously it attempted to search for the traits displayed in the people it has ignored in the people it managed to mould which was of course glaringly absent. Saying that publicly would be admitting mistake and political suicide. The people that will be more willing to attribute their abilities or success to the government do not have what it takes. So, some better story had to be told. Like, Singapore is too small to have much home grown creativity (that is if they are not already dead). But equally small Israel was probably as instructive on governance as it was on creativity (and may be more). So someone decided that limiting the PM’s public comparison to mothers would suffice.
So the whole issue of creativity in Singapore may be a case where now that the need to meet is well apparent, the father is calling for his forsaken child to appear before him. Until that happens, mother’s tack of questioning may have to be called into question.
Everything above has to be true. I do not have the creativity or the depth of imagination to come up with the above from nothing. That’s because my Malaysian mother had never asked me how many questions I asked in school.
Thursday, August 23, 2001
Conversion and Dedication
Received this mail about 'conversion' from someone and decided to write an equivalent one about 'dedication' (at bottom)
The Conversion
An atheist was taking a walk through the woods, admiring all that the "accident of evolution" had created. "What majestic trees! What powerful rivers! What beautiful animals!" he said to himself.
As he was walking alongside the river he heard a rustling in the bushes behind him. He turned to look. He saw a 7-foot grizzly charge towards him. He ran as fast as he could up the path. He looked over his shoulder and saw that the bear was closing. He ran even faster, so scared that tears were coming to his eyes. He looked over his shoulder again, and the bear was even closer. His heart was pumping frantically and he tried to run even faster. He tripped and fell to the ground. He rolled over to pick himself up but saw the bear, right on top of him: reaching for him with his left paw and raising his right paw to strike him.
At that instant the atheist cried out "Oh my God!" Time stopped. The bear froze. The forest was silent. Even the river stopped moving.
As a bright light shone upon the man, a voice came out of the sky: "You deny my existence for all of these years; teach others I don't exist; and, even credit creation to a cosmic accident. Do you expect me to help you out of this predicament? Am I to count you as a believer?"
The atheist looked directly into the light: "It would be hypocritical of me to suddenly ask You to treat me as a Christian now, but perhaps could you make the bear a Christian?"
"Very well," the voice said. The light went out. The river ran again. And the sounds of the forest resumed.
And then the bear dropped its right paw... brought both paws together... bowed its head and spoke: "Lord, for this food which I am about to receive, I am truly thankful."
(This is what I sent back to sender of above mail)
Anything that is too stupid to be spoken is sung. - Voltaire
Voltaire forgot to say that they do the same with parables.
So here's a dedication to your story on 'conversion'.
The Dedication
A Christian was taking a walk through the woods, admiring all that the "father of Christ" had created. "What majestic trees! What powerful rivers! What beautiful animals!" he said to himself.
As he was walking alongside the river he heard a rustling in the bushes behind him. He turned to look. He saw a 7-foot grizzly charge towards him. He ran as fast as he could up the path. He looked over his shoulder and saw that the bear was closing. He ran even faster, so scared that tears were coming to his eyes. He looked over his shoulder again, and the bear was even closer. His heart was pumping frantically and he tried to run even faster. He tripped over a rifle and fell to the ground. He rolled over to pick the rifle up but saw the bear, right on top of him: reaching for him with his left paw and raising his right paw to strike him.
At that instant the Christian cried out "Oh my God!" Time stopped. The bear froze. The forest was silent. Even the river stopped moving.
As a bright light shone upon the man, a voice came out of the sky: "You worship me for all of these years; teach others about me; and, look down on others who do not believe in me. What do you expect me to do to help you out of this predicament? Did I not ask you to have faith as a believer?"
The Christian looked directly into the light: "It would be hypocritical of me to lose faith in You as a Christian now, but perhaps you could give me another chance to test my faith as a Christian?"
"Very well," the voice said. The light went out. The river ran again. And the sounds of the forest resumed.
And then the Christian dropped his rifle, brought both hands together, and with the Christian's head in both paws the bear could hear him say: "Lord, by being made the food of this bear I trust I shall be with you soon in eternal glory. For that I am truly thankful to Thee."
The Conversion
An atheist was taking a walk through the woods, admiring all that the "accident of evolution" had created. "What majestic trees! What powerful rivers! What beautiful animals!" he said to himself.
As he was walking alongside the river he heard a rustling in the bushes behind him. He turned to look. He saw a 7-foot grizzly charge towards him. He ran as fast as he could up the path. He looked over his shoulder and saw that the bear was closing. He ran even faster, so scared that tears were coming to his eyes. He looked over his shoulder again, and the bear was even closer. His heart was pumping frantically and he tried to run even faster. He tripped and fell to the ground. He rolled over to pick himself up but saw the bear, right on top of him: reaching for him with his left paw and raising his right paw to strike him.
At that instant the atheist cried out "Oh my God!" Time stopped. The bear froze. The forest was silent. Even the river stopped moving.
As a bright light shone upon the man, a voice came out of the sky: "You deny my existence for all of these years; teach others I don't exist; and, even credit creation to a cosmic accident. Do you expect me to help you out of this predicament? Am I to count you as a believer?"
The atheist looked directly into the light: "It would be hypocritical of me to suddenly ask You to treat me as a Christian now, but perhaps could you make the bear a Christian?"
"Very well," the voice said. The light went out. The river ran again. And the sounds of the forest resumed.
And then the bear dropped its right paw... brought both paws together... bowed its head and spoke: "Lord, for this food which I am about to receive, I am truly thankful."
(This is what I sent back to sender of above mail)
Anything that is too stupid to be spoken is sung. - Voltaire
Voltaire forgot to say that they do the same with parables.
So here's a dedication to your story on 'conversion'.
The Dedication
A Christian was taking a walk through the woods, admiring all that the "father of Christ" had created. "What majestic trees! What powerful rivers! What beautiful animals!" he said to himself.
As he was walking alongside the river he heard a rustling in the bushes behind him. He turned to look. He saw a 7-foot grizzly charge towards him. He ran as fast as he could up the path. He looked over his shoulder and saw that the bear was closing. He ran even faster, so scared that tears were coming to his eyes. He looked over his shoulder again, and the bear was even closer. His heart was pumping frantically and he tried to run even faster. He tripped over a rifle and fell to the ground. He rolled over to pick the rifle up but saw the bear, right on top of him: reaching for him with his left paw and raising his right paw to strike him.
At that instant the Christian cried out "Oh my God!" Time stopped. The bear froze. The forest was silent. Even the river stopped moving.
As a bright light shone upon the man, a voice came out of the sky: "You worship me for all of these years; teach others about me; and, look down on others who do not believe in me. What do you expect me to do to help you out of this predicament? Did I not ask you to have faith as a believer?"
The Christian looked directly into the light: "It would be hypocritical of me to lose faith in You as a Christian now, but perhaps you could give me another chance to test my faith as a Christian?"
"Very well," the voice said. The light went out. The river ran again. And the sounds of the forest resumed.
And then the Christian dropped his rifle, brought both hands together, and with the Christian's head in both paws the bear could hear him say: "Lord, by being made the food of this bear I trust I shall be with you soon in eternal glory. For that I am truly thankful to Thee."
Monday, August 13, 2001
Brainteaser for Asian Geniuses
I received a chain mail with supposedly Mensa Brainteasers that claimed that those that score high marks are geniuses. As the teasers had a number of items relating to the Bible and western history, and one on South African currency, I figured it was probably from some South African white out to 'prove' that people of his type are smarter than others (presumably blacks in his home country). The teaser was clearly stacked so that such a person will have an unfair advantage (and score higher). So I decided develop the below brain teasers that is more stacked in favour of Asians. That way we can have more Asian 'geniuses' and less white ones!
Subject: Re: Mensa Brainteaser
Try my MENSA test below.
May be we can give the below items to some westerner and tell them they are genius only if they get more than 6 correct, and see how they perform. Doesn't matter if you can't get them yourself. Anyone who wants answers to below can get from this self declared genius (if South African whites can do it so can I).
a. 13 S in M
b. 5 S in S F
c. 100 S in 1 R
d. 16 T in 1 K
e. 3 P in a S T T
f. 28 D in a L M
g. 15 P to a B G
h. K is the H B for the M
i. M is 8 T the S of I and O
j. 5 B of C C
k. K M is from I
Subject: Re: Mensa Brainteaser
Try my MENSA test below.
May be we can give the below items to some westerner and tell them they are genius only if they get more than 6 correct, and see how they perform. Doesn't matter if you can't get them yourself. Anyone who wants answers to below can get from this self declared genius (if South African whites can do it so can I).
a. 13 S in M
b. 5 S in S F
c. 100 S in 1 R
d. 16 T in 1 K
e. 3 P in a S T T
f. 28 D in a L M
g. 15 P to a B G
h. K is the H B for the M
i. M is 8 T the S of I and O
j. 5 B of C C
k. K M is from I
Friday, August 10, 2001
US Copyright Laws
From: Chee-Khiaw Cheng
bcc: friends, family
Sent: Friday, August 10, 2001 12:47 PM
Subject: U.S. Copy Right Laws
Below is an interesting example of how the big money makers are using the US Copyright Laws to their benefit. See how the real life use of such laws is different from their more noble aims as stated in the US Constitution :
The Constitution of the United States gives Congress the power to enact laws relating to patents, in Article I, section 8, which reads 'Congress shall have power . . . to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.'
I am not aware of any major scientific minds (of the fundamental science kind) that are too concerned about patenting their discoveries. Imagine Einstein and the likes suing kids in school to make an example of them!
The US are changing their patent laws to recognise 'first to patent' instead of 'first to invent'. US laws used to recognise that if one can prove that one had invented or discovered something ahead of others, the law will accord the rights to the invention to that person and not the one who makes a patent registration first. This reversal could be driven by developments in 'modern medicine' (big industry in the US & West) where pharmaceutical companies are analysing many traditional herbal medicines (esp. from developing countries) for active healing ingredients. Given the old interpretation, the pharmaceutical companies will not be able to claim that a particular 'active agent' extracted from a known herb is their discovery since the traditional users of those herbs will be able to claim 'first use' or 'first knowledge'.
So, do you think you should live by those laws?
Rgds
CCK
bkjchua@pacific.net.sg on 08/10/2001 01:15:47 AM
To: cheng_chee_khiaw@jpmorgan.com
Subject: Fw: e-book.htm
Chee Khiaw, Please forward this. Boycott Adobe! Ben
From: Benjamin Chua
To: Caitlin Pitt ; K & E Lammon
Sent: Friday, August 10, 2001 12:12 AM
Subject: e-book.htm
Read an e-book to your child, go to jail?
By Robert Menta- 12/26/00
A number of months ago I did a story called "Copyright Office Ruling Possible Setback to Fair Use". In that article I wrote this:
In an effort to give copyright holders more protection, the US Copyright office decided to allow only two narrow exemptions to a new federal law that gives copyright holders a whole new level of protection. The law, which makes it illegal for Web users to hack through any barriers, copyright holders put around their content, will be in effect for three years.
The Philips Expanium is a CD/MP3 player. Now available on Amazon for $199
This content, which extends to everything from music to books to films, caused a firestorm among libraries and universities who argued that the law is too broad and media companies could use the new law to restrict their traditional rights.
The point of the article was not that copyright holders don't have a right to protect their interests, they do. It was that the law allowed too much leeway for abuse by allowing copyright holders to use technology to redefine the concept known as fair use.
How? Well, the fundamentals of fair use essentially allow the person who purchases copyright material to share it with others. That means you the buyer can read the content to another individual, trade the content, copy the content on cassette, etc. Not only have we enjoyed these practices for decades, but we accept them as a matter-of-fact right.
Copyright holders, on the other hand, love to have everyone pay several times for the same content. Simply put, it makes them more money. In their greed, conglomerates and oligopolies have come up with the recent notion that you no longer own the book or CD you purchased at the store, you are only renting it. Therefore you are subject to multiple charges.
Prior to technology, there was no way to enforce this notion so it was moot. Fair use was fair use and no matter how many times the major music labels screamed back in the 1980's that cassettes were killing the industry, they found no sympathy in the courts or in the marketplace.
But now, with digital content like e-books and MP3 music, there is technology coming to put such a notion to practice. The ruling by the copyright office opened the door for the corporations to in practice take away the fair use rights of the consumer by fully protecting any technology that strips it. Publishers can now write legal clauses saying you are forbidden to do this and that with the content you purchased. If you override the technology that is supposed to prevent this with shareware you download from the Internet, you become a felon.
But come on, are copyright holder really going to put outlandish restrictions on how you use the books and music you buy? Will the abuses the libraries and universities fear actually happen? Folks, that is the point of my article to you today. It already started.
The example I am about to show you is quite atrocious, one I was alerted to in a recent posting on Slashdot. The posting points out the fine print in the licensing of Adobe's new e-book product Glassbook, a snapshot of which you will find below. Glassbook has taken a number of literary classics in the public domain and digitized them. They then put these restrictions on what they deem fair use. It is almost comical if not surreal:
Copy: No text selections can be copied from the book to the clipboard.
Print: No printing is permitted on this book.
Lend: This book cannot be lent or given to someone else.
Give: This book cannot be given to someone else.
Read Aloud: This book cannot be read aloud.
According to Adobe, if you read Alice in Wonderland from their e-book to your son or daughter, you have violated their copyright. If you use shareware to copy a passage of it for your kids book report, you have committed a criminal act as now defined by the US Copyright Office.
Remember the student in Oklahoma whose dorm room was raided because he downloaded music from Napster? (see Oklahoma Student to be Sacrificial Lamb in MP3 Wars). He just recently plead guilty to a misdemeanor in that case so he wouldn't drive his family bankrupt in legal fees. In an effort to exert their self-proclaimed rights, oligopolies and self-interest groups like the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) look for individuals to be their "examples". People they ruin to scare off others and dictate their vision of right and wrong. A vision solely driven by the singular goal of increasing profit.
Want to hear the ultimate irony? Adobe pulled the transcription of Alice in Wonderland from Project Gutenberg, a library of electronically stored books, mostly classics that can be downloaded for free and viewed off-line. The goal is to make these books free and accessible to all people, specifically those who have limited access to these works. Adobe downloaded the books for free, repackaged it, and are stripping away the open permissions that Project Gutenberg already endowed upon you. The right to freely read and pass on fine literature because it will better the world.
See what we mean by self-proclaimed copyrights? Take what's in the public domain, plant a flag on it like it was the Oklahoma land rush, claim ownership for your company, make up your own restrictions, and take people to court if they don't pay up. This is what the implications of the US Copyright Office's recent decision have brought upon us.
Our advice? Start by doing the worst thing you can do to Adobe's new e-book - don't buy it. Then go to Project Gutenberg's site and download a few stories.
bcc: friends, family
Sent: Friday, August 10, 2001 12:47 PM
Subject: U.S. Copy Right Laws
Below is an interesting example of how the big money makers are using the US Copyright Laws to their benefit. See how the real life use of such laws is different from their more noble aims as stated in the US Constitution :
The Constitution of the United States gives Congress the power to enact laws relating to patents, in Article I, section 8, which reads 'Congress shall have power . . . to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.'
I am not aware of any major scientific minds (of the fundamental science kind) that are too concerned about patenting their discoveries. Imagine Einstein and the likes suing kids in school to make an example of them!
The US are changing their patent laws to recognise 'first to patent' instead of 'first to invent'. US laws used to recognise that if one can prove that one had invented or discovered something ahead of others, the law will accord the rights to the invention to that person and not the one who makes a patent registration first. This reversal could be driven by developments in 'modern medicine' (big industry in the US & West) where pharmaceutical companies are analysing many traditional herbal medicines (esp. from developing countries) for active healing ingredients. Given the old interpretation, the pharmaceutical companies will not be able to claim that a particular 'active agent' extracted from a known herb is their discovery since the traditional users of those herbs will be able to claim 'first use' or 'first knowledge'.
So, do you think you should live by those laws?
Rgds
CCK
bkjchua@pacific.net.sg on 08/10/2001 01:15:47 AM
To: cheng_chee_khiaw@jpmorgan.com
Subject: Fw: e-book.htm
Chee Khiaw, Please forward this. Boycott Adobe! Ben
From: Benjamin Chua
To: Caitlin Pitt ; K & E Lammon
Sent: Friday, August 10, 2001 12:12 AM
Subject: e-book.htm
Read an e-book to your child, go to jail?
By Robert Menta- 12/26/00
A number of months ago I did a story called "Copyright Office Ruling Possible Setback to Fair Use". In that article I wrote this:
In an effort to give copyright holders more protection, the US Copyright office decided to allow only two narrow exemptions to a new federal law that gives copyright holders a whole new level of protection. The law, which makes it illegal for Web users to hack through any barriers, copyright holders put around their content, will be in effect for three years.
The Philips Expanium is a CD/MP3 player. Now available on Amazon for $199
This content, which extends to everything from music to books to films, caused a firestorm among libraries and universities who argued that the law is too broad and media companies could use the new law to restrict their traditional rights.
The point of the article was not that copyright holders don't have a right to protect their interests, they do. It was that the law allowed too much leeway for abuse by allowing copyright holders to use technology to redefine the concept known as fair use.
How? Well, the fundamentals of fair use essentially allow the person who purchases copyright material to share it with others. That means you the buyer can read the content to another individual, trade the content, copy the content on cassette, etc. Not only have we enjoyed these practices for decades, but we accept them as a matter-of-fact right.
Copyright holders, on the other hand, love to have everyone pay several times for the same content. Simply put, it makes them more money. In their greed, conglomerates and oligopolies have come up with the recent notion that you no longer own the book or CD you purchased at the store, you are only renting it. Therefore you are subject to multiple charges.
Prior to technology, there was no way to enforce this notion so it was moot. Fair use was fair use and no matter how many times the major music labels screamed back in the 1980's that cassettes were killing the industry, they found no sympathy in the courts or in the marketplace.
But now, with digital content like e-books and MP3 music, there is technology coming to put such a notion to practice. The ruling by the copyright office opened the door for the corporations to in practice take away the fair use rights of the consumer by fully protecting any technology that strips it. Publishers can now write legal clauses saying you are forbidden to do this and that with the content you purchased. If you override the technology that is supposed to prevent this with shareware you download from the Internet, you become a felon.
But come on, are copyright holder really going to put outlandish restrictions on how you use the books and music you buy? Will the abuses the libraries and universities fear actually happen? Folks, that is the point of my article to you today. It already started.
The example I am about to show you is quite atrocious, one I was alerted to in a recent posting on Slashdot. The posting points out the fine print in the licensing of Adobe's new e-book product Glassbook, a snapshot of which you will find below. Glassbook has taken a number of literary classics in the public domain and digitized them. They then put these restrictions on what they deem fair use. It is almost comical if not surreal:
Copy: No text selections can be copied from the book to the clipboard.
Print: No printing is permitted on this book.
Lend: This book cannot be lent or given to someone else.
Give: This book cannot be given to someone else.
Read Aloud: This book cannot be read aloud.
According to Adobe, if you read Alice in Wonderland from their e-book to your son or daughter, you have violated their copyright. If you use shareware to copy a passage of it for your kids book report, you have committed a criminal act as now defined by the US Copyright Office.
Remember the student in Oklahoma whose dorm room was raided because he downloaded music from Napster? (see Oklahoma Student to be Sacrificial Lamb in MP3 Wars). He just recently plead guilty to a misdemeanor in that case so he wouldn't drive his family bankrupt in legal fees. In an effort to exert their self-proclaimed rights, oligopolies and self-interest groups like the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) look for individuals to be their "examples". People they ruin to scare off others and dictate their vision of right and wrong. A vision solely driven by the singular goal of increasing profit.
Want to hear the ultimate irony? Adobe pulled the transcription of Alice in Wonderland from Project Gutenberg, a library of electronically stored books, mostly classics that can be downloaded for free and viewed off-line. The goal is to make these books free and accessible to all people, specifically those who have limited access to these works. Adobe downloaded the books for free, repackaged it, and are stripping away the open permissions that Project Gutenberg already endowed upon you. The right to freely read and pass on fine literature because it will better the world.
See what we mean by self-proclaimed copyrights? Take what's in the public domain, plant a flag on it like it was the Oklahoma land rush, claim ownership for your company, make up your own restrictions, and take people to court if they don't pay up. This is what the implications of the US Copyright Office's recent decision have brought upon us.
Our advice? Start by doing the worst thing you can do to Adobe's new e-book - don't buy it. Then go to Project Gutenberg's site and download a few stories.
Thursday, August 09, 2001
More Than A Brain Teaser
To: EDNA.TEO@bbl.be
bcc: friends, family
Subject: MORE THAN A BRAIN TEASER
Hi dear,
The below 'test' wants you to believe that 'according to MENSA, if you get 23 of these, you are a 'genius''. As you will see once you complete it or get the answers to this thing, you are actually being judged on whether you are a 'genius' based on a set of knowledge for which South African christians have an advantage. Reasons :
- 3 of the items relate to the Bible
- 2 of them relate to South Africa
- some to do with the U.S. but none of them has anything to do with Asia or other religions
So you can see how a South Africa christian would have an advantage. Does not matter if you know the Koran and Asia very well.
Very typical of many things in the west. They set the rules and tests. Everyone else try like hell to live up to them not knowing what they actually mean. If you believe them, 'Freedom House' (nice name heh?) says that Israel has greater democracy than Singapore. A Morgan in-house editor (American of course) quoted that to me in an exchange. Of course, it just 'happens' that white Americans are closer to the Israelis than Singapore, and it does not matter what happens to the Palestinians in Israel. For Freedom House, Palestinians don't count (may be partly because their Bible says the Jews are special and the Palestinians did not get special mention).
Other than the above test, white South Africans have other examples to offer. One of them (an Andersen consultant) told me 15 years ago that they could not let the black South Africans run the country because they would kill each other (the Zulus will kill the others, and vice versa etc.). As you know, South Africa had been run by the blacks for most of the last 10 years without the killings the whites claimed would happen. Also if one is to believe the whites in South Afica and Zimbabwe (ex-white Rhodesia), statistics would 'prove' that whites produce more per acre of land than blacks. It therefore imply that the blacks are inferior to the whites. Of course what they hope we all forget is that the whites had all the money (generated in large measure through slavery and white controlled natural resources) and best arable land (forcibly taken from the blacks over the last few hundred years). Out of desperation some blacks in Zimbabwe recently tried to re-occupy the better lands owned by whites. But the whites in South Africa and Zimbabwe now insist everyone should live by the law. Of course, it also means that they get to keep their ill-gotten wealth and best land, and the blacks will have to catch up the 'proper' way. After robbing the towns for centuries, the robber's children now want the law to come to town.
As is in many things in life, be careful with such tests.
Rgds
CCK
p.s. I got this 'test' about a month ago. One of the reasons I first suspected (and later confirmed after working out 28 of them) that the test was by South African christians, was the e-mail address that came with the test instructions I got - it had an e-mail address with a South African internet extension (".za"). The people who sent me the thing, of course, got my response to the above effect. That e-mail address (at the top of the spreadsheet) has been removed from the version you sent. May be someone took that out by accident...... In the meantime, let the world be tested for their smartness the South African Christian way. They'll be no smarter for it.
bcc: friends, family
Subject: MORE THAN A BRAIN TEASER
Hi dear,
The below 'test' wants you to believe that 'according to MENSA, if you get 23 of these, you are a 'genius''. As you will see once you complete it or get the answers to this thing, you are actually being judged on whether you are a 'genius' based on a set of knowledge for which South African christians have an advantage. Reasons :
- 3 of the items relate to the Bible
- 2 of them relate to South Africa
- some to do with the U.S. but none of them has anything to do with Asia or other religions
So you can see how a South Africa christian would have an advantage. Does not matter if you know the Koran and Asia very well.
Very typical of many things in the west. They set the rules and tests. Everyone else try like hell to live up to them not knowing what they actually mean. If you believe them, 'Freedom House' (nice name heh?) says that Israel has greater democracy than Singapore. A Morgan in-house editor (American of course) quoted that to me in an exchange. Of course, it just 'happens' that white Americans are closer to the Israelis than Singapore, and it does not matter what happens to the Palestinians in Israel. For Freedom House, Palestinians don't count (may be partly because their Bible says the Jews are special and the Palestinians did not get special mention).
Other than the above test, white South Africans have other examples to offer. One of them (an Andersen consultant) told me 15 years ago that they could not let the black South Africans run the country because they would kill each other (the Zulus will kill the others, and vice versa etc.). As you know, South Africa had been run by the blacks for most of the last 10 years without the killings the whites claimed would happen. Also if one is to believe the whites in South Afica and Zimbabwe (ex-white Rhodesia), statistics would 'prove' that whites produce more per acre of land than blacks. It therefore imply that the blacks are inferior to the whites. Of course what they hope we all forget is that the whites had all the money (generated in large measure through slavery and white controlled natural resources) and best arable land (forcibly taken from the blacks over the last few hundred years). Out of desperation some blacks in Zimbabwe recently tried to re-occupy the better lands owned by whites. But the whites in South Africa and Zimbabwe now insist everyone should live by the law. Of course, it also means that they get to keep their ill-gotten wealth and best land, and the blacks will have to catch up the 'proper' way. After robbing the towns for centuries, the robber's children now want the law to come to town.
As is in many things in life, be careful with such tests.
Rgds
CCK
p.s. I got this 'test' about a month ago. One of the reasons I first suspected (and later confirmed after working out 28 of them) that the test was by South African christians, was the e-mail address that came with the test instructions I got - it had an e-mail address with a South African internet extension (".za"). The people who sent me the thing, of course, got my response to the above effect. That e-mail address (at the top of the spreadsheet) has been removed from the version you sent. May be someone took that out by accident...... In the meantime, let the world be tested for their smartness the South African Christian way. They'll be no smarter for it.
Sunday, August 05, 2001
The Incomparable Creativeness of the Corrupt
The Malaysian government has a scheme that allows citizens to use their EPF (compulsory savings equivalent to CPF in Singapore, if you discount the abuses done with it) money to buy personal computers. The official reason was to encourage the use of IT in the country. However, citizens can only buy their PCs through government approved sellers. Below is a sample of the real story behind the 'scheme' - an entry by a Malaysian in a discussion forum in The Star's (a local newspaper) website - another way for someone to make money out of the unwitting.
It reminded me of similar reports from Indonesia before 1997. The Indonesian education ministry actually considered implementing a ruling that each school-going child should visit a particular new theme park at least once in their school life. Such visits were supposedly good for the education of the kids and would cost more than US$10 per entry. Of course, the facts that the theme park was built by someone well connected with the corrupt government, and the poorest Indonesian families earned not much more than US$10 a month were irrelevant. Another recommendation considered by the ministry was that each school child should only wear school shoes of a particular make. Not clear what educational value shoes of that particular make would give but they were produced by a company linked to one of the President's sons. What an education the whole country got in 1997. It is sad to think that a government could do such things to its own citizens and get away with it for so long. May be for some it is as easy to live with lies as it is to lie to live.
The Malaysian's story below....
I would like to take this opportunity to share my experience with regards to this topic.
I have ordered a PC through one of Pos Malaysia's official vendor, HK COMP TECHNOLOGY SDN. BHD. (thereafter refered to as HK COMP) based on their broucher :- PIII 933Mhz, 64MB SDRAM, ASUS CUV4X Motherboard, Aztech Q3D 64Bit Sound Card, 2000W Subwoofer Speaker system and 17" Colour Monitor worth RM3450/=.
After nearly two months I eagerly received my PC from Pos Malaysia. To my suprise there was no 2000W Subwoofer speaker system. Instead there was only a 600W speaker system (no subwoofer). Of course I immediately called the HK COMP to inquire about the difference. They simply said that they have no stock at the moment and will exchange it for me when there's stock. What displeased me the most was the attitude of HK COMP of not informing me first before they delivered the PC. Won't you feel cheated? That's not all.
Then I discovered the sound card supplied was also different. Instead of the Aztech sound card it was a cheap CMedia sound card (cost about RM38 - I checked). Hey what's going on? When inquired, HK COMP just simply said that the CMedia sound card is the same as the Aztech sound card. What kind of excuse is that? Just because a Kancil has 4 tyres and 4 doors, does it make it the same as a Waja? What do they take me for? After much scolding they promised to send the 2000W Subwoofer speaker system and change the sound card FOC.
After using the 2000w subwoofer speaker system, I found that one of the speaker was not working properly. So I brought it back to their office to exchange it for a new one since it's still under warranty. As one of the staff brought out a supposely new speaker, I asked them whether was it new? Yes was the reply. Then I requested for it to be tested first. As they took it out of the box I noticed that it seems to have wear and tear marks on it. Hmmm... is it really new I asked. True enough, after testing it, one of the speaker was not working at all. After further inspection I can confirm that it has been used for quite sometime and most probably someone returned it and now they are trying to pass it off as NEW. Clearly unhappy I questioned their integrity and they have nothing to say. They proceeded to ignore me trying to be busy with other things. Out of frustation I just took one of the working (but USED) speaker and walked out.
I thought that was the end of my problems. Now comes the most shocking part. I discovered that the Motherboard supplied was also different from what was agreed. They gave me a ASUS CUV4X-C m/board instead of a ASUS CUV4X m/board. After comparing through the internet, the CUV4X-C has only 2 DIMM slots compared to 3 DIMM slots on the CUV4X. I haven't bombared HK COMP yet since it's the weekend. I would definately ask them to change it for FOC at my house or ask for a refund.
Now, what if I'm a new PC user. Do you think I would notice these things? NO WAY!
The questions is how are Pos Malaysia and Odasaja going to make sure that their vendors supply what they promised to the buyers and don't get shortchanged and cheated on the not so obvious parts of the PC? I feel that this is and issue of most utmost importance since we are at the mercy of the EPF PC scheme and we cannot change or choose what we need or desire. I know the reason Pos Malaysia got the rights to supply PC's because the government wanted to stop some unscruplous buyers from withdrawing their EPF money with no intention of buying PC's.
But now it seems that the plan has backfired. Now it's the vendor that is in the position to cheat and shortchange the customers. Please be wary of this and make sure that you throughly check what you are getting. I'm going to lodge a complain with the relevant authorities and warn everyone I know about the dishonesty of HK COMP. I hope that other vendors are more honest.
It reminded me of similar reports from Indonesia before 1997. The Indonesian education ministry actually considered implementing a ruling that each school-going child should visit a particular new theme park at least once in their school life. Such visits were supposedly good for the education of the kids and would cost more than US$10 per entry. Of course, the facts that the theme park was built by someone well connected with the corrupt government, and the poorest Indonesian families earned not much more than US$10 a month were irrelevant. Another recommendation considered by the ministry was that each school child should only wear school shoes of a particular make. Not clear what educational value shoes of that particular make would give but they were produced by a company linked to one of the President's sons. What an education the whole country got in 1997. It is sad to think that a government could do such things to its own citizens and get away with it for so long. May be for some it is as easy to live with lies as it is to lie to live.
The Malaysian's story below....
I would like to take this opportunity to share my experience with regards to this topic.
I have ordered a PC through one of Pos Malaysia's official vendor, HK COMP TECHNOLOGY SDN. BHD. (thereafter refered to as HK COMP) based on their broucher :- PIII 933Mhz, 64MB SDRAM, ASUS CUV4X Motherboard, Aztech Q3D 64Bit Sound Card, 2000W Subwoofer Speaker system and 17" Colour Monitor worth RM3450/=.
After nearly two months I eagerly received my PC from Pos Malaysia. To my suprise there was no 2000W Subwoofer speaker system. Instead there was only a 600W speaker system (no subwoofer). Of course I immediately called the HK COMP to inquire about the difference. They simply said that they have no stock at the moment and will exchange it for me when there's stock. What displeased me the most was the attitude of HK COMP of not informing me first before they delivered the PC. Won't you feel cheated? That's not all.
Then I discovered the sound card supplied was also different. Instead of the Aztech sound card it was a cheap CMedia sound card (cost about RM38 - I checked). Hey what's going on? When inquired, HK COMP just simply said that the CMedia sound card is the same as the Aztech sound card. What kind of excuse is that? Just because a Kancil has 4 tyres and 4 doors, does it make it the same as a Waja? What do they take me for? After much scolding they promised to send the 2000W Subwoofer speaker system and change the sound card FOC.
After using the 2000w subwoofer speaker system, I found that one of the speaker was not working properly. So I brought it back to their office to exchange it for a new one since it's still under warranty. As one of the staff brought out a supposely new speaker, I asked them whether was it new? Yes was the reply. Then I requested for it to be tested first. As they took it out of the box I noticed that it seems to have wear and tear marks on it. Hmmm... is it really new I asked. True enough, after testing it, one of the speaker was not working at all. After further inspection I can confirm that it has been used for quite sometime and most probably someone returned it and now they are trying to pass it off as NEW. Clearly unhappy I questioned their integrity and they have nothing to say. They proceeded to ignore me trying to be busy with other things. Out of frustation I just took one of the working (but USED) speaker and walked out.
I thought that was the end of my problems. Now comes the most shocking part. I discovered that the Motherboard supplied was also different from what was agreed. They gave me a ASUS CUV4X-C m/board instead of a ASUS CUV4X m/board. After comparing through the internet, the CUV4X-C has only 2 DIMM slots compared to 3 DIMM slots on the CUV4X. I haven't bombared HK COMP yet since it's the weekend. I would definately ask them to change it for FOC at my house or ask for a refund.
Now, what if I'm a new PC user. Do you think I would notice these things? NO WAY!
The questions is how are Pos Malaysia and Odasaja going to make sure that their vendors supply what they promised to the buyers and don't get shortchanged and cheated on the not so obvious parts of the PC? I feel that this is and issue of most utmost importance since we are at the mercy of the EPF PC scheme and we cannot change or choose what we need or desire. I know the reason Pos Malaysia got the rights to supply PC's because the government wanted to stop some unscruplous buyers from withdrawing their EPF money with no intention of buying PC's.
But now it seems that the plan has backfired. Now it's the vendor that is in the position to cheat and shortchange the customers. Please be wary of this and make sure that you throughly check what you are getting. I'm going to lodge a complain with the relevant authorities and warn everyone I know about the dishonesty of HK COMP. I hope that other vendors are more honest.
Thursday, July 19, 2001
US Advantage via the USD
Sometime in 2000 I had a discussion with 2 friends on the Asian Financial Crisis and the strength of the US market then (Greenspan's 'irrational exuberance' was still very much alive then). There were people predicting that the Dow would reach 20,000 where the average PE would be 40. That seemed odd to me as PEs in Asian markets were reportedly less than 10 - for me the obvious thing was for money to flow into Asia but that was not happening.
But my 2 friends assuredly explained my observation by saying that the Asian Crisis was caused by corruption and bad management of Asian companies, and people were willing to pay a 'premium' for American stocks because they had better management practices. One said that American companies for example know when to cut loses if investment returns were bad but Asian management do not. But I said that I didn't believe such 'west is better than east' stuff (to me people are the same everywhere).
This was despite the fact that a lot of people were already warning about the 'unreal' economics behind the internet boom. Although I could not explain it, I said that I suspect the strength of the US economy could also have something to do with the US dollar. This is on top of the benefits accrued to it by whacking Iraq in the 1990 Gulf War and getting $90 billion payments from the stupid Arabs, Japan and Europe (for expending all of America's old armaments on Iraq! In accounting lingo, it was deriving income from fully depreciated assets).
Some months later I received the below mail from one of them who happen to be an economist.
In subsequent discussions with this friend, I suggested that the 'USD advantage' may also explain why the Europeans had created the Euro (I was still quite 'blur' about this topic then), and why the US wants to whack Iraq (there were already 'speculations' that it was partly because Saddam Hussein was asking for oil payments in Euros).
But this friend told me that he does not think the above 'advantages' are real as the market is 'free'.
Hi,
I remember your question about the advantages the US enjoys because of the special status of the US dollar as a global reserve currency. One such benefit is called seignorage - though it is a benefit accruing not exclusively to the US government. The Americans simply could benefit from it more than any one else on earth.
Rgds,
Yin Sze
Seignorage
Seignorage is the difference between the value of money and the cost of its production. In the classic example, the sovereign holds the exclusive right to create money and thus profits from minting coins that cost him less to produce than their face value. He himself spends the coins into circulation. How does this differ from seignorage in our fiat money system?
Seignorage from Federal Reserve Notes
The U.S. government has the exclusive right to issue Federal Reserve notes. As of November 2000 a total of $550 billion in notes were outstanding with an annual replacement cost of about $450 million. The present value of those costs, continued indefinitely and discounted at 5%, is about $9 billion. The seignorage resulting from the monopoly on note issue is therefore worth about $550 billion - $9 billion = $541 billion. Is this a true windfall for the U.S. government? In order to understand the answer to this question, we need to look first at the details.
Acquiring the Notes
The Fed buys the notes from the Bureau of Engraving and Printing at the Treasury at a cost of about 4 cents each. It sells them at face value to banks on demand. The Fed is required by law to pledge collateral at least equal to the amount of currency that it issues. Most of that collateral is in the form of Treasury securities owned by the Fed.
The term collateral here is only symbolic. Treasury bonds do not represent a claim on the real assets of the government. They are merely interest-bearing IOUs that are guaranteed to be repaid at maturity in legal tender, more Federal Reserve notes.
Effect of Cash Withdrawals
Consider what happens when a bank buys Federal Reserve notes from the Fed. Its deposit at the Fed is debited accordingly. However the Fed's reduced liability to the bank is balanced by an equal increase in its note obligations. The sale of notes is a reversible transaction. Banks can sell notes back to the Fed and regain deposits at any time. The Fed simply swaps two liabilities as it buys and sells notes to banks.
Now consider what happens when the public increases its cash holdings by withdrawals from banks. Since a bank's vault cash is a part of its reserves, net withdrawals of cash reduce the aggregate banking system reserves. In order to support the Fed funds rate as set by the FOMC, the Fed must replenish those reserves. It does so by buying Treasury securities in the open market, thereby restoring deposits to the banking system.
In effect, the public trades some of its Treasury bonds to the Fed for the additional cash. The public foregoes interest earnings on those bonds in proportion to the cash it holds. Those bonds become assets of the Fed, and remain as obligations of the Treasury. The Treasury must pay the Fed to redeem the bonds when they mature.
Maturing Treasury Bonds
How does the Treasury cover the redemption of maturing bonds? If it has a budget surplus it retires them with the available surplus. Otherwise it rolls them over, i.e. sells new issues to pay for the old.
If the Fed owns the maturing bonds, there are two options. The Fed can simply debit the Treasury's account at the Fed in exchange for the bond. In that case the Treasury must replenish its funds by selling new bond issues to the public. The purchase of new T-bonds would result in a loss of banking system reserves if the Fed did not replenish the reserves by buying more bonds from the public. Thus the Fed must replace the bonds in its portfolio as fast as they mature simply to maintain its control over short term interest rates.
The second option is for the Fed to roll over its maturing bonds directly with the Treasury. The new bonds are paid for out of the proceeds of the maturing bonds. Whether the public or the Fed owns the maturing bonds, the total supply of T-bonds outstanding remains unaffected by the redemptions.
Reducing the Treasury's Interest Cost
When the public increases its cash holdings, the Fed's portfolio of T-bonds increases while the public's ownership of T-bonds decreases. This reduces the interest cost on government debt because the Fed rebates most of the interest earned from its T-bond portfolio to the Treasury. Other things equal, the more cash the public holds, the lower is the cost of servicing the national debt.
Seignorage vs Deficit Spending
In a sense the concept of seignorage in a fiat money system is incongruous. The government has unlimited spending power and thus has no need for seignorage. Normally it covers any shortage in tax revenues with the sale of bonds, paying whatever interest rate is demanded by the buyers. Under extreme conditions as in wartime, the Fed could be required to buy them. In effect deficit spending would then be funded from newly created money rather than recycled money. To avoid the obvious inflationary implications, special controls would be needed to restrict the amount of credit creation by the banking system.
A Case of Real Seignorage
Real seignorage exists for those Federal Reserve notes that have migrated overseas, an estimated 60% of the total issued, or about $300 billion. At a cost of a few cents each, those notes bought foreign goods and other assets at face value for the U.S. As long as the notes remain overseas, those purchases are virtually cost-free. An interesting question then is: who is the actual beneficiary of that seignorage?
But my 2 friends assuredly explained my observation by saying that the Asian Crisis was caused by corruption and bad management of Asian companies, and people were willing to pay a 'premium' for American stocks because they had better management practices. One said that American companies for example know when to cut loses if investment returns were bad but Asian management do not. But I said that I didn't believe such 'west is better than east' stuff (to me people are the same everywhere).
This was despite the fact that a lot of people were already warning about the 'unreal' economics behind the internet boom. Although I could not explain it, I said that I suspect the strength of the US economy could also have something to do with the US dollar. This is on top of the benefits accrued to it by whacking Iraq in the 1990 Gulf War and getting $90 billion payments from the stupid Arabs, Japan and Europe (for expending all of America's old armaments on Iraq! In accounting lingo, it was deriving income from fully depreciated assets).
Some months later I received the below mail from one of them who happen to be an economist.
In subsequent discussions with this friend, I suggested that the 'USD advantage' may also explain why the Europeans had created the Euro (I was still quite 'blur' about this topic then), and why the US wants to whack Iraq (there were already 'speculations' that it was partly because Saddam Hussein was asking for oil payments in Euros).
But this friend told me that he does not think the above 'advantages' are real as the market is 'free'.
Hi,
I remember your question about the advantages the US enjoys because of the special status of the US dollar as a global reserve currency. One such benefit is called seignorage - though it is a benefit accruing not exclusively to the US government. The Americans simply could benefit from it more than any one else on earth.
Rgds,
Yin Sze
Seignorage
Seignorage is the difference between the value of money and the cost of its production. In the classic example, the sovereign holds the exclusive right to create money and thus profits from minting coins that cost him less to produce than their face value. He himself spends the coins into circulation. How does this differ from seignorage in our fiat money system?
Seignorage from Federal Reserve Notes
The U.S. government has the exclusive right to issue Federal Reserve notes. As of November 2000 a total of $550 billion in notes were outstanding with an annual replacement cost of about $450 million. The present value of those costs, continued indefinitely and discounted at 5%, is about $9 billion. The seignorage resulting from the monopoly on note issue is therefore worth about $550 billion - $9 billion = $541 billion. Is this a true windfall for the U.S. government? In order to understand the answer to this question, we need to look first at the details.
Acquiring the Notes
The Fed buys the notes from the Bureau of Engraving and Printing at the Treasury at a cost of about 4 cents each. It sells them at face value to banks on demand. The Fed is required by law to pledge collateral at least equal to the amount of currency that it issues. Most of that collateral is in the form of Treasury securities owned by the Fed.
The term collateral here is only symbolic. Treasury bonds do not represent a claim on the real assets of the government. They are merely interest-bearing IOUs that are guaranteed to be repaid at maturity in legal tender, more Federal Reserve notes.
Effect of Cash Withdrawals
Consider what happens when a bank buys Federal Reserve notes from the Fed. Its deposit at the Fed is debited accordingly. However the Fed's reduced liability to the bank is balanced by an equal increase in its note obligations. The sale of notes is a reversible transaction. Banks can sell notes back to the Fed and regain deposits at any time. The Fed simply swaps two liabilities as it buys and sells notes to banks.
Now consider what happens when the public increases its cash holdings by withdrawals from banks. Since a bank's vault cash is a part of its reserves, net withdrawals of cash reduce the aggregate banking system reserves. In order to support the Fed funds rate as set by the FOMC, the Fed must replenish those reserves. It does so by buying Treasury securities in the open market, thereby restoring deposits to the banking system.
In effect, the public trades some of its Treasury bonds to the Fed for the additional cash. The public foregoes interest earnings on those bonds in proportion to the cash it holds. Those bonds become assets of the Fed, and remain as obligations of the Treasury. The Treasury must pay the Fed to redeem the bonds when they mature.
Maturing Treasury Bonds
How does the Treasury cover the redemption of maturing bonds? If it has a budget surplus it retires them with the available surplus. Otherwise it rolls them over, i.e. sells new issues to pay for the old.
If the Fed owns the maturing bonds, there are two options. The Fed can simply debit the Treasury's account at the Fed in exchange for the bond. In that case the Treasury must replenish its funds by selling new bond issues to the public. The purchase of new T-bonds would result in a loss of banking system reserves if the Fed did not replenish the reserves by buying more bonds from the public. Thus the Fed must replace the bonds in its portfolio as fast as they mature simply to maintain its control over short term interest rates.
The second option is for the Fed to roll over its maturing bonds directly with the Treasury. The new bonds are paid for out of the proceeds of the maturing bonds. Whether the public or the Fed owns the maturing bonds, the total supply of T-bonds outstanding remains unaffected by the redemptions.
Reducing the Treasury's Interest Cost
When the public increases its cash holdings, the Fed's portfolio of T-bonds increases while the public's ownership of T-bonds decreases. This reduces the interest cost on government debt because the Fed rebates most of the interest earned from its T-bond portfolio to the Treasury. Other things equal, the more cash the public holds, the lower is the cost of servicing the national debt.
Seignorage vs Deficit Spending
In a sense the concept of seignorage in a fiat money system is incongruous. The government has unlimited spending power and thus has no need for seignorage. Normally it covers any shortage in tax revenues with the sale of bonds, paying whatever interest rate is demanded by the buyers. Under extreme conditions as in wartime, the Fed could be required to buy them. In effect deficit spending would then be funded from newly created money rather than recycled money. To avoid the obvious inflationary implications, special controls would be needed to restrict the amount of credit creation by the banking system.
A Case of Real Seignorage
Real seignorage exists for those Federal Reserve notes that have migrated overseas, an estimated 60% of the total issued, or about $300 billion. At a cost of a few cents each, those notes bought foreign goods and other assets at face value for the U.S. As long as the notes remain overseas, those purchases are virtually cost-free. An interesting question then is: who is the actual beneficiary of that seignorage?
Wednesday, July 04, 2001
Another Exchange on God & Bible
(Below exchanges triggered by this other exchange
http://cckplanetblog.blogspot.com/2001_06_01_cckplanetblog_archive.html)
From: yinsze@jmsassoon.com.sg
To: cheng_chee_khiaw@jpmorgan.com, bkjchua@pacific.net.sg
Subject: Re: Some quotations - some interpretations needed
Hi,
I don't really know what this debate is all about, but I felt compelled to make a few points. We can argue till the cows come home but I don't believe science can ever prove nor disprove the existence of God. Science deals with what is observable and measureable, and has nothing to say about the spiritual world. I think even the best scientific minds have not been able to make any claims - based on science - about such questions as the soul, or life after death. Since God cannot be observed and measured, science shrugs it off and implicitly denies its existence. Is that the right approach? I don't know. If we think that the scientific method is our only valid window to the world, then I suppose we will just have to wait until science has something to say about the spiritual world (we may have to wait a long time). Some people choose to believe that there is a God and some don't, and I believe there are highly intelligent (ie, scientific) people on both camps. I have met highly articulate, well-read, knowledgeable people who happen to believe in God, and vice versa. What has science got to do with it? Nothing. Has God discouraged men from improving his quality of life through research and development? Not that I know of.
And about that 2,000-year old book. What can people who lived 2,000 years ago teach us? We now have hand-held devices that contain more information than what all those guys had ever known. We may be a lot more knowledgeable than those guys back then but I believe "human nature" has not changed one bit (or byte) after all these years. Men still kill, rob, rape, plunder and lie as much as before, if not more so. Read the Bible as a scientific text and you are bound to be disappointed. May I suggest that you read it with an open heart - perhaps then the words would begin to come alive, and you would not miss the forest for the trees. You know how rapidly books of the past become obsolete and irrelevant. Karl Marx's stuff once has the whole world all worked up but now it's a joke - no one gives a damn. And that was no more than 150 years ago. But the Bible seems different. I do not proclaim to know much about the Bible, but it has already revealed to me enough truth about human beings that I begin to wonder about the people who wrote it more than 2000 years ago. The greed, fear, lust and treachery portrayed in those pages are no different from the stuff you read in The Straits Times yesterday. The way the Bible and belief in God has changed the lives of people I know is nothing short of amazing. These people might have been dumb, irrational, spine-less, can't-think-for-themselves -- and yet it is obvious to me that the outcome of their belief is ... good.
I know, in today's computer age, it seems ludicrous that some higher being (ie, God) would send his son down to die for us. And being the Son of God, he didn't really die anyway - as you know, he was resurrected. Superficially then, the Bible would appear to be no more than a consistent, well-written historical textbook. But suppose for a moment that there is God and He wants to save us from our sins. If He had not sent Jesus down to do the things he did, do you think there is any chance that anyone of us born-sceptics would ever believe in an unseen, unheard God? Not way! If God really want us to believe in Him (for whatever reasons), is there any other way He might have done so? Perhaps not. Anyway, I was struck by the fact that Jesus had a really difficult time convincing the people of his time despite all the miracles he performed. You may ask, why would God want to save us, why did He leave allow women and children be killed in wars and earthquakes, why did He let a cute 2-year old English boy be brutally murdered by a couple of ten-year olds, why did He allow someone like Hitler to kill so many millions before he ended his own life? I don't have answers to questions like that. I used to think that I must have satisfactory answers to such basic questions before I can believe in anything. But my ego has since been deflated along with the economic downturn. I don't fully understand how panadol can help bring down my fever, and yet I have been taking it faithfully each time I fall ill. Must I understand everything about God before I believe? Can I?
Thanks for bearing with my confused thoughts.
Rgds,
LYS
To: yinsze@jmsassoon.com.sg
bcc: friends, family
Subject: Re: Some quotations - some help for confused thoughts
Hi my friend,
Science does not attempt to and cannot prove or disprove the existence of God. I don't think science like you claim denies God's existence. So I am not surprised that many scientists do believe that God exists. But it will be very difficult for most scientists to believe that one of the many religions practiced by humans is the only truth about and only way to God as some religions claim. This is a very important difference - as you will see below.
As we know very well, science is not the only window to the world. Like you alluded to, imaginations like that of many fanatics, lunatics, cheats, racists and writers like Hitler and Harold Robbins in this world are some other ways to view the world. But science is the only one we know of that has any credibility and has withstood the test of time. By science here I mean the broad approach of accepting a view as more accurately representative of nature than another if that view stands up better to observation, measurement, repeatable testing, and corroboration by other findings, as opposed to a particular scientific view or theory (the latter was what Richard Feynman was referring to in his quotes).
The scientific method has enabled us to piece together a knowledge base (not an individual theory or observation) that can help us make decisions on the following:
1. Believe in the existence of God(s) - may be we should not split hairs here.
2. Believe in a particular religion
3. Believe that that religion represents the only truth about and only way to God
Each of us may make a decision on some but not necessarily all of the above. But my view is that it is only reasonable to make our decision in the order above and not juxtapose them. For e.g. one can decide that one believes God exists but choose not to believe in any particular religion. Or one can believe in God and a particular religion but decide not to believe that that religion represents the only truth about and way to God. But one cannot believe that one's religion represents the only truth and way to God, but do not firstly decide for example that God exists.
I think that to make a decision on each of the above, one has to rely not only on one's own personal feelings and experiences alone but also on empirical observations and knowledge about the world around us. It is the latter where science has contributed much - everything about science is empirical. Thus an empirical observation that there are no more good people who are Christians than there are good people who are Muslims, Hindus or Buddhists may not be a scientific discovery but is nevertheless scientific in that we can subject that observation to measurement and corroboration with information we gather through our daily life (if we bother to observe beyond our little circle).
We must also appreciate that humans may make decisions subconsciously based on very selfish and less objective reasons. For example, one may think that a religion is closer to the truth because that religion happens to fit in to his believe that he is more special than everything else in this universe. Or that the religion happens to address his fear that he may end up at the wrong end of the world. I think you alluded to those human tendencies in your note.
Although none of the decisions above is necessarily less important than the others, it is nevertheless simpler to disprove any claim to the latter ones than the first using empirical evidences available to and in a way not dissimilar to that employed by science. (added later: That is because the first claims only that God exists while religious texts usually claim that and more. The more a religion claims the more opportunity we have to verify those individual claims and by extension the voracity of the whole text - by association. For example, a religion may claim that the world is of a certain age, that humans are created in the image of God, or that a certain event had happened. If any of those claims is found to be unreasonable or inconsistent with the knowledge we gathered through science or through our increased knowledge of the world made possible by the many inventions of science, then by association we have some basis to doubt all its remaining claims. For example, that its words are the words of God or that it is the' ultimate' truth.)
If we appreciate the considerations above we would be better able to address some of your views:
- you claim that God has not discouraged men from improving his quality of life through research and development.
You are not incorrect. For we see that happening around us everyday already (empirical observation). But that claim does not in any way help us in making any of the 3 decisions above.
- you seem impressed with the Bible because it seems different as it has revealed to you enough truth about human beings that are no different from the stuff you read in The Straits Times yesterday.
Well, I do not disagree that humans had not changed much in instinct in the last couple of thousand years. That would be the same with all other animals. Scientific findings indicate to me that if someone had lived 100 million years ago, had known and was willing to document the basic instincts of sharks, you would be impressed with how accurate that would have been with what you can learn today from the Discovery Channel! For that matter if you had bothered to find out, you would learn that Sun Tze's Art of War's and the Tao Te Ching's documentation of the behavior of humans and more had remained largely relevant today as it was 2,000 years ago. I will not be surprised if it is the same with many other texts from other cultures. You would also find the Kamasutra extremely accurate and relevant in depicting human sexual acts despite the years. That Harold Robins' books are as accurate in capturing lusts as any book except that his books will not last as long for the reason that it offers no other psychological rewards like the promise of a better life at the end. The fact that the Straits Times can also document human behaviors as well as the Bible also goes to show that it is no miracle to be able to do so. So does the above help one make any of the above decisions? I don't think so.
- You observed that the Bible and belief in God had changed the lives of people you know is nothing short of amazing and it is obvious to you that the outcome of their belief is good.
I do not disagree that there are many good Christians and many lives were changed by the Bible or by believing in God. It is just that I had come across and read about many good non-Christians throughout my life too. Some of them will undoubtedly claim that their lives were changed by a different experience than yours. For me, they are also beacons of hope for the human race. I do not notice any statistical difference between good Christians and good non-Christians. To me that is uplifting but not amazing. It is consistent with statistics on religious followings around the world and so can be scientifically proven.
I also read about dogs and dolphins that saved lives. Birds that remain faithful to their partners for life. Animals that do not kill or consume other animals in their whole life. Animals that don't lie. To me that is goodness no less than that any human can lay claim to. Are they religious in the way as to believe in one of man's religions? Are they also blessed by the Bible? This bit I do know: they can't read our books and I'm not sure they will be that impressed with those well-documented human behaviors. You see, your observation that humans still kill despite all the godly attempts you thought were made to change man proves all the more that we humans are not just not much different from other animals but we are worse. Other animals that kill do so only when hungry but we kill for that and more. If that is the case, are we closer to God as some religions claim? My empirical observations above make me think otherwise. If that is the case, should I believe in those religions?
If, as you claimed, your religion's believe that God had tried so hard to change man (the mechanics of how that is done is not important) but had so far failed, does that raise some questions about your belief?
- you said you don't fully understand how Panadol can help bring down your fever, and yet you have been taking it faithfully each time you fall ill.
I do the same too. Both of us know that there are enough empirical evidences that Panadol works better in curing fever than many other methods - you may not know why but that is still a scientific approach. But that does not mean that other generic Paracetamol pills do not have the same effect. Neither does it mean that we should not be conscious of the possibility that an overdose of Panadol will kill us.
Does that say anything about faith? Yes, a lot: be careful where you place your faith. You would be better placed if the faith is better supported by empirical evidences and you take a broader consciousness. For depending on which 'pill' you happen to try, your faith may be on a different 'brand' from others. That does not mean your 'brand' is any more effective or closer to the truth.
- Lastly, I also do not understand everything. But that does not stop me from making the following decisions: that I tend to believe that God exists. But I also believe that believing in a religion and believing in God are not the same. I am willing to make a decision on one but not the other. I also believe one decision comes without an expectation of reward while the other may, and that it is dangerous and arrogant to believe (as some religions claim) that one religion has the sole right of way to God.
Rgds
CCK
p.s. I don't think the economic downturn has anything to do with our above topic but you are free to make any correlation you wish.
To: yinsze@jmsassoon.com.sg
bcc: friends, family
Subject: Re: Making decisions on incomplete information
My friend, my comments in blue italics below. Rgds CCK
To: cheng_chee_khiaw@jpmorgan.com
Subject: Making decisions on incomplete information
Hi Chee Khiaw,
It's good that we have broad common agreement on the role of science in our lives.
Your last paragraph summarises quite neatly your views on religion and God. Your views are obviously well thought out, consistent and extremely logical. Your caution about misplaced faith is certainly worth noting, as men had so often killed or condemned others in the name of God. I fully agree that blind faith is not only stupid, it is also downright dangerous.
Allow me to summarise your views/beliefs: It seems you prefer to watch from the outside rather than to get involved or closer to God since you do not know which is the correct way.
(What makes you think that not choosing a religion or following the Bible is watching from the outside and not getting closer to God?)
Empirically, as the end result (judging by the actions of various religious people) is similar, there are no obvious reasons to favour one religion over the other. You do believe there is a God (or Gods) somewhere out there. And He happened to create man among other living things, and the man he created is no different from or better than the many other creatures that walked the face of this earth.
(How do you define better? Who decide what it is better? Is that you or God?)
The best you can do under the circumstances is to use your head and live life the best you can: in a nutshell, you do your own thing while God does whatever He does. Period. There is nothing wrong with that - or is there more to it?
(I'm not very sure of that as I do not fully understand how He works. I am quite certain that the way I live now is what He wants me to. And may be everyone else too. Just that some just don't get it, like you said about others who do not believe in the Bible. Just wonder what makes you think that what I am doing has no relationship with what God does? Everything I do has something to do with Him. Don't forget: He is God. So, are you talking for Him or something else?)
If you do believe in God, then it begs the question of the connection between man and God. Morality issues aside, the very fact that man is able dominate his environment like no other living creatures on earth suggests that we are not in the same category as the other animals. The intellectual capacity of man is a quantum leap compared to other living things here. I find it difficult to accept the argument that man is no different from the other animals.
(Not sure what you mean by 'dominating his environment' although I'll disagree. Man may be better able to manipulate or adapt to the environment but not dominate it. God dominates it not you or me - by definition. Thinking it is the reverse may be too arrogant and presumptuous about man's ability especially with respect to God's. Also, what makes you think being able to manipulate or dominate the environment as you claimed is God's wish and not the Devil's? You see, God may not mean for man to egoistically think that they can dominate His environment. That may actually mean the end of the beautiful world He has created. Even if that is the case, is that domination and possible eventual destruction possibly meant as a curse for everything else and man is just the means to do so? If that is the case, man may be special but definitely not in His image. Also, could your claim that man is 'quantum leap ahead of other living things here' be because man had killed off our closest competitors against God's wish. Could that be the Devil's work? What makes you think that having the relatively higher intellectual capacity than other living things 'here' says anything about man being closer or special to God? Arrogance? What makes you so sure 'here' is of such significance to God's scheme of things? What makes you think that man's level of intelligence is anything to be proud of or amazed about? May be in His cosmos i.e. 'here' and EVERYWHERE ELSE, something else is right now looking at you and arrogantly saying that you are no better than an ant with respect to its ability. Well, may be not because it probably knows better not to be as arrogant as man.)
As you noted, man may even be evil when compared to many animals. That is true, and because of our sin we cannot "see" or get close to God. Christians believe that Jesus is the bridge between man and God. The only bridge. And the fact that man is a sinner in no way suggests the "failure" of God. Man can choose to do good or evil and many men had chosen the latter, despite God's attempts to reach out to them. I suppose God can just wave His hand and all the evil doers will simply vanish into thin air - but I am not privy to the reasons why God chose not to do that.
According to the Bible, God sent Jesus to save us from our sins so that we may again be one with God. It does not mean that Christians do not sin. But it does mean that the ball is now in our court, and it is up to us to respond to Him, and He will take it from there.
It is of course most comfortable to do nothing. We live our lives the best we can and we do not need to be apologetic for any of our actions. The downside to this strategy is that you may well miss out on your one and only chance to be with God. I'm sure, as you have done very well on your own so far without needing God, not being with God may seem like no big deal. But how do you know? Can you be sure of that? An adopted child would surely long to know who his biological parents were.
(What makes you think that I do not need God or am not already with Him? What makes you think that I am doing nothing about it? Remember I started these mails. Simply because I disagree with you? Are you speaking on God's behalf or could it be something else you are speaking for? What makes you think that it is God's intention for you to know who He is? What makes you think he has given you the capability to do that? May be He doesn't care one hoot about you. But that does not make you feel good. So you decide on the opposite. For Him.)
What are your downside risks should you decide to accept Jesus as your Saviour and later discover that the whole thing is no more than a hoax? Well, you simply walk away. A bit embarrassed perhaps, but definitely wiser for it. But, on the other hand, you might discover things you otherwise might not have known.
(My downside risks should I accept Jesus as my Savior is clearly documented in your views and presumptions. I just discover it and I walked away wiser a bit earlier. But I am not sure God cares about that either)
The 3 decisions you have spelt out concerning God may not be mutually exclusive. (Of course they may not be mutually exclusive - especially if you don't care to differentiate them) If there is a God who created you, it is entirely possible that He may have some plans or instructions for you that may preclude you from practising other religions. (Why should you doubt that God have some plans or instructions for you when Everything IS His Plan? Now, you are not so sure who He is or what?) Seen in this way, religion is inseparable from God. We only get to know God through prayer (ie, religion). A religion, believing in Jesus Christ for instance, is a way towards God. And as you know, Jesus said that he is the only way to God. So there is this rather inflexible nature of Christianity - Jesus is the only way to God - which you find intellectually disagreeable. (That is a contradiction you must reconcile, not me. I have already done that.) But whoever said God has to make His ways agreeable to man? (For the same reason, what makes you think that man can only get to know God through prayer or through Jesus? To be able to state that with certainty you have to know everything about Him. God's creation knowing everything about Him? Isn't that arrogance and a contradiction?)
You seem to think that being a Christian is a rosy experience that ultimately leads one to eternal life in Heaven. Far from it. That's why there are many backsliders - people who kind of dropped out after a while. Essentially, to accept Christ means to submit your will to Him - and that's not an easy thing to do.
(Where did I say or imply that being a Christian is a rosy experience that leads one to eternal life? I only said that being one may be driven by the expectation of eternal life. Now you are also speaking for me. But that's OK - as long as you are not speaking for God)
As for myself, I have finally decided to take the plunge, based on the above considerations and the experiences of other people. I told myself that I have limited time in this world. It is not possible for me to find out and compare different approaches and religions before deciding on one. (Why must you decide on one religion? why not decide that any or no religion is fine as long as the end result is good? Isn't that more good than just good? Oh, but the Bible says otherwise? Is that bad, good or more good?) I will simply have to make a decision based upon incomplete information - something that happens to us all the time in our daily lives, like taking panadol (the right dosage, of course). Have I done the right thing? At this point, I don't know. But I do know that I do not want to regret in the twilight of my life for not taking that initial step when I had the chance, and the life to live it. (That shows that you may be no different from the other animals. You see, they also make many decisions in their lives with insufficient information - actually they have less since their intelligence is lower than man's as you claim - and I don't know of anything that shows that they lived their lives with regret or they did not live it in life! Isn't that more amazing? Other animals living with less information but still no signs of regret or of not living life to the fullest? But they don't count? Or you know damn sure they do have regrets in not believing in your religion?)
My friend, You are right that we make decisions with incomplete information for we can never have complete information. That is by definition available only to God (I am actually quite surprised you, a believer in God, seem to be a bit unsure if that is the case). But whatever little reliable information I do have allow me to see what I shared with you above. I hope you live a good life but I don't wish you to think that others (animate or not, here or elsewhere) have less right to that than you do. That is what I hear from my heart. I would like to think that it is God's message for me but I am not sure. Although I have no one 2,000 years old paperback book to corroborate with, I however find that this whole existence is an open book much more beautiful than the one you seem to only take from. And if God is to be better understood, will one paperback that revolves only around man be the answer or will it necessarily have to be through His entire creation? As you said in your first mail, to see the forest and not the tree? To see His whole creation in context and not with man in the centre?
Rgds,
Yin Sze.
To: cheng_chee_khiaw@jpmorgan.com
Subject: Thanks for your considered views
Hi Chee Khiaw,
Thanks for your spirited response. I apologise if I had put words in your mouth or appeared to have belittled your convictions. I was merely trying to clarify things for myself. As you can see, I have a lot to learn about such things and my faith is tiny. Those are some of the issues I have been struggling about and it is good to hear your more considered views, which I hope will help me understand these things a bit better.
Rgds,
Yin Sze.
To: yinsze@jmsassoon.com.sg
Subject: Re: Thanks for your considered views
Hi mate,
Same here. We learn everyday - even from those (and I don't mean only humans) we think are insignificant.
Rgds
CCK
http://cckplanetblog.blogspot.com/2001_06_01_cckplanetblog_archive.html)
From: yinsze@jmsassoon.com.sg
To: cheng_chee_khiaw@jpmorgan.com, bkjchua@pacific.net.sg
Subject: Re: Some quotations - some interpretations needed
Hi,
I don't really know what this debate is all about, but I felt compelled to make a few points. We can argue till the cows come home but I don't believe science can ever prove nor disprove the existence of God. Science deals with what is observable and measureable, and has nothing to say about the spiritual world. I think even the best scientific minds have not been able to make any claims - based on science - about such questions as the soul, or life after death. Since God cannot be observed and measured, science shrugs it off and implicitly denies its existence. Is that the right approach? I don't know. If we think that the scientific method is our only valid window to the world, then I suppose we will just have to wait until science has something to say about the spiritual world (we may have to wait a long time). Some people choose to believe that there is a God and some don't, and I believe there are highly intelligent (ie, scientific) people on both camps. I have met highly articulate, well-read, knowledgeable people who happen to believe in God, and vice versa. What has science got to do with it? Nothing. Has God discouraged men from improving his quality of life through research and development? Not that I know of.
And about that 2,000-year old book. What can people who lived 2,000 years ago teach us? We now have hand-held devices that contain more information than what all those guys had ever known. We may be a lot more knowledgeable than those guys back then but I believe "human nature" has not changed one bit (or byte) after all these years. Men still kill, rob, rape, plunder and lie as much as before, if not more so. Read the Bible as a scientific text and you are bound to be disappointed. May I suggest that you read it with an open heart - perhaps then the words would begin to come alive, and you would not miss the forest for the trees. You know how rapidly books of the past become obsolete and irrelevant. Karl Marx's stuff once has the whole world all worked up but now it's a joke - no one gives a damn. And that was no more than 150 years ago. But the Bible seems different. I do not proclaim to know much about the Bible, but it has already revealed to me enough truth about human beings that I begin to wonder about the people who wrote it more than 2000 years ago. The greed, fear, lust and treachery portrayed in those pages are no different from the stuff you read in The Straits Times yesterday. The way the Bible and belief in God has changed the lives of people I know is nothing short of amazing. These people might have been dumb, irrational, spine-less, can't-think-for-themselves -- and yet it is obvious to me that the outcome of their belief is ... good.
I know, in today's computer age, it seems ludicrous that some higher being (ie, God) would send his son down to die for us. And being the Son of God, he didn't really die anyway - as you know, he was resurrected. Superficially then, the Bible would appear to be no more than a consistent, well-written historical textbook. But suppose for a moment that there is God and He wants to save us from our sins. If He had not sent Jesus down to do the things he did, do you think there is any chance that anyone of us born-sceptics would ever believe in an unseen, unheard God? Not way! If God really want us to believe in Him (for whatever reasons), is there any other way He might have done so? Perhaps not. Anyway, I was struck by the fact that Jesus had a really difficult time convincing the people of his time despite all the miracles he performed. You may ask, why would God want to save us, why did He leave allow women and children be killed in wars and earthquakes, why did He let a cute 2-year old English boy be brutally murdered by a couple of ten-year olds, why did He allow someone like Hitler to kill so many millions before he ended his own life? I don't have answers to questions like that. I used to think that I must have satisfactory answers to such basic questions before I can believe in anything. But my ego has since been deflated along with the economic downturn. I don't fully understand how panadol can help bring down my fever, and yet I have been taking it faithfully each time I fall ill. Must I understand everything about God before I believe? Can I?
Thanks for bearing with my confused thoughts.
Rgds,
LYS
To: yinsze@jmsassoon.com.sg
bcc: friends, family
Subject: Re: Some quotations - some help for confused thoughts
Hi my friend,
Science does not attempt to and cannot prove or disprove the existence of God. I don't think science like you claim denies God's existence. So I am not surprised that many scientists do believe that God exists. But it will be very difficult for most scientists to believe that one of the many religions practiced by humans is the only truth about and only way to God as some religions claim. This is a very important difference - as you will see below.
As we know very well, science is not the only window to the world. Like you alluded to, imaginations like that of many fanatics, lunatics, cheats, racists and writers like Hitler and Harold Robbins in this world are some other ways to view the world. But science is the only one we know of that has any credibility and has withstood the test of time. By science here I mean the broad approach of accepting a view as more accurately representative of nature than another if that view stands up better to observation, measurement, repeatable testing, and corroboration by other findings, as opposed to a particular scientific view or theory (the latter was what Richard Feynman was referring to in his quotes).
The scientific method has enabled us to piece together a knowledge base (not an individual theory or observation) that can help us make decisions on the following:
1. Believe in the existence of God(s) - may be we should not split hairs here.
2. Believe in a particular religion
3. Believe that that religion represents the only truth about and only way to God
Each of us may make a decision on some but not necessarily all of the above. But my view is that it is only reasonable to make our decision in the order above and not juxtapose them. For e.g. one can decide that one believes God exists but choose not to believe in any particular religion. Or one can believe in God and a particular religion but decide not to believe that that religion represents the only truth about and way to God. But one cannot believe that one's religion represents the only truth and way to God, but do not firstly decide for example that God exists.
I think that to make a decision on each of the above, one has to rely not only on one's own personal feelings and experiences alone but also on empirical observations and knowledge about the world around us. It is the latter where science has contributed much - everything about science is empirical. Thus an empirical observation that there are no more good people who are Christians than there are good people who are Muslims, Hindus or Buddhists may not be a scientific discovery but is nevertheless scientific in that we can subject that observation to measurement and corroboration with information we gather through our daily life (if we bother to observe beyond our little circle).
We must also appreciate that humans may make decisions subconsciously based on very selfish and less objective reasons. For example, one may think that a religion is closer to the truth because that religion happens to fit in to his believe that he is more special than everything else in this universe. Or that the religion happens to address his fear that he may end up at the wrong end of the world. I think you alluded to those human tendencies in your note.
Although none of the decisions above is necessarily less important than the others, it is nevertheless simpler to disprove any claim to the latter ones than the first using empirical evidences available to and in a way not dissimilar to that employed by science. (added later: That is because the first claims only that God exists while religious texts usually claim that and more. The more a religion claims the more opportunity we have to verify those individual claims and by extension the voracity of the whole text - by association. For example, a religion may claim that the world is of a certain age, that humans are created in the image of God, or that a certain event had happened. If any of those claims is found to be unreasonable or inconsistent with the knowledge we gathered through science or through our increased knowledge of the world made possible by the many inventions of science, then by association we have some basis to doubt all its remaining claims. For example, that its words are the words of God or that it is the' ultimate' truth.)
If we appreciate the considerations above we would be better able to address some of your views:
- you claim that God has not discouraged men from improving his quality of life through research and development.
You are not incorrect. For we see that happening around us everyday already (empirical observation). But that claim does not in any way help us in making any of the 3 decisions above.
- you seem impressed with the Bible because it seems different as it has revealed to you enough truth about human beings that are no different from the stuff you read in The Straits Times yesterday.
Well, I do not disagree that humans had not changed much in instinct in the last couple of thousand years. That would be the same with all other animals. Scientific findings indicate to me that if someone had lived 100 million years ago, had known and was willing to document the basic instincts of sharks, you would be impressed with how accurate that would have been with what you can learn today from the Discovery Channel! For that matter if you had bothered to find out, you would learn that Sun Tze's Art of War's and the Tao Te Ching's documentation of the behavior of humans and more had remained largely relevant today as it was 2,000 years ago. I will not be surprised if it is the same with many other texts from other cultures. You would also find the Kamasutra extremely accurate and relevant in depicting human sexual acts despite the years. That Harold Robins' books are as accurate in capturing lusts as any book except that his books will not last as long for the reason that it offers no other psychological rewards like the promise of a better life at the end. The fact that the Straits Times can also document human behaviors as well as the Bible also goes to show that it is no miracle to be able to do so. So does the above help one make any of the above decisions? I don't think so.
- You observed that the Bible and belief in God had changed the lives of people you know is nothing short of amazing and it is obvious to you that the outcome of their belief is good.
I do not disagree that there are many good Christians and many lives were changed by the Bible or by believing in God. It is just that I had come across and read about many good non-Christians throughout my life too. Some of them will undoubtedly claim that their lives were changed by a different experience than yours. For me, they are also beacons of hope for the human race. I do not notice any statistical difference between good Christians and good non-Christians. To me that is uplifting but not amazing. It is consistent with statistics on religious followings around the world and so can be scientifically proven.
I also read about dogs and dolphins that saved lives. Birds that remain faithful to their partners for life. Animals that do not kill or consume other animals in their whole life. Animals that don't lie. To me that is goodness no less than that any human can lay claim to. Are they religious in the way as to believe in one of man's religions? Are they also blessed by the Bible? This bit I do know: they can't read our books and I'm not sure they will be that impressed with those well-documented human behaviors. You see, your observation that humans still kill despite all the godly attempts you thought were made to change man proves all the more that we humans are not just not much different from other animals but we are worse. Other animals that kill do so only when hungry but we kill for that and more. If that is the case, are we closer to God as some religions claim? My empirical observations above make me think otherwise. If that is the case, should I believe in those religions?
If, as you claimed, your religion's believe that God had tried so hard to change man (the mechanics of how that is done is not important) but had so far failed, does that raise some questions about your belief?
- you said you don't fully understand how Panadol can help bring down your fever, and yet you have been taking it faithfully each time you fall ill.
I do the same too. Both of us know that there are enough empirical evidences that Panadol works better in curing fever than many other methods - you may not know why but that is still a scientific approach. But that does not mean that other generic Paracetamol pills do not have the same effect. Neither does it mean that we should not be conscious of the possibility that an overdose of Panadol will kill us.
Does that say anything about faith? Yes, a lot: be careful where you place your faith. You would be better placed if the faith is better supported by empirical evidences and you take a broader consciousness. For depending on which 'pill' you happen to try, your faith may be on a different 'brand' from others. That does not mean your 'brand' is any more effective or closer to the truth.
- Lastly, I also do not understand everything. But that does not stop me from making the following decisions: that I tend to believe that God exists. But I also believe that believing in a religion and believing in God are not the same. I am willing to make a decision on one but not the other. I also believe one decision comes without an expectation of reward while the other may, and that it is dangerous and arrogant to believe (as some religions claim) that one religion has the sole right of way to God.
Rgds
CCK
p.s. I don't think the economic downturn has anything to do with our above topic but you are free to make any correlation you wish.
To: yinsze@jmsassoon.com.sg
bcc: friends, family
Subject: Re: Making decisions on incomplete information
My friend, my comments in blue italics below. Rgds CCK
To: cheng_chee_khiaw@jpmorgan.com
Subject: Making decisions on incomplete information
Hi Chee Khiaw,
It's good that we have broad common agreement on the role of science in our lives.
Your last paragraph summarises quite neatly your views on religion and God. Your views are obviously well thought out, consistent and extremely logical. Your caution about misplaced faith is certainly worth noting, as men had so often killed or condemned others in the name of God. I fully agree that blind faith is not only stupid, it is also downright dangerous.
Allow me to summarise your views/beliefs: It seems you prefer to watch from the outside rather than to get involved or closer to God since you do not know which is the correct way.
(What makes you think that not choosing a religion or following the Bible is watching from the outside and not getting closer to God?)
Empirically, as the end result (judging by the actions of various religious people) is similar, there are no obvious reasons to favour one religion over the other. You do believe there is a God (or Gods) somewhere out there. And He happened to create man among other living things, and the man he created is no different from or better than the many other creatures that walked the face of this earth.
(How do you define better? Who decide what it is better? Is that you or God?)
The best you can do under the circumstances is to use your head and live life the best you can: in a nutshell, you do your own thing while God does whatever He does. Period. There is nothing wrong with that - or is there more to it?
(I'm not very sure of that as I do not fully understand how He works. I am quite certain that the way I live now is what He wants me to. And may be everyone else too. Just that some just don't get it, like you said about others who do not believe in the Bible. Just wonder what makes you think that what I am doing has no relationship with what God does? Everything I do has something to do with Him. Don't forget: He is God. So, are you talking for Him or something else?)
If you do believe in God, then it begs the question of the connection between man and God. Morality issues aside, the very fact that man is able dominate his environment like no other living creatures on earth suggests that we are not in the same category as the other animals. The intellectual capacity of man is a quantum leap compared to other living things here. I find it difficult to accept the argument that man is no different from the other animals.
(Not sure what you mean by 'dominating his environment' although I'll disagree. Man may be better able to manipulate or adapt to the environment but not dominate it. God dominates it not you or me - by definition. Thinking it is the reverse may be too arrogant and presumptuous about man's ability especially with respect to God's. Also, what makes you think being able to manipulate or dominate the environment as you claimed is God's wish and not the Devil's? You see, God may not mean for man to egoistically think that they can dominate His environment. That may actually mean the end of the beautiful world He has created. Even if that is the case, is that domination and possible eventual destruction possibly meant as a curse for everything else and man is just the means to do so? If that is the case, man may be special but definitely not in His image. Also, could your claim that man is 'quantum leap ahead of other living things here' be because man had killed off our closest competitors against God's wish. Could that be the Devil's work? What makes you think that having the relatively higher intellectual capacity than other living things 'here' says anything about man being closer or special to God? Arrogance? What makes you so sure 'here' is of such significance to God's scheme of things? What makes you think that man's level of intelligence is anything to be proud of or amazed about? May be in His cosmos i.e. 'here' and EVERYWHERE ELSE, something else is right now looking at you and arrogantly saying that you are no better than an ant with respect to its ability. Well, may be not because it probably knows better not to be as arrogant as man.)
As you noted, man may even be evil when compared to many animals. That is true, and because of our sin we cannot "see" or get close to God. Christians believe that Jesus is the bridge between man and God. The only bridge. And the fact that man is a sinner in no way suggests the "failure" of God. Man can choose to do good or evil and many men had chosen the latter, despite God's attempts to reach out to them. I suppose God can just wave His hand and all the evil doers will simply vanish into thin air - but I am not privy to the reasons why God chose not to do that.
According to the Bible, God sent Jesus to save us from our sins so that we may again be one with God. It does not mean that Christians do not sin. But it does mean that the ball is now in our court, and it is up to us to respond to Him, and He will take it from there.
It is of course most comfortable to do nothing. We live our lives the best we can and we do not need to be apologetic for any of our actions. The downside to this strategy is that you may well miss out on your one and only chance to be with God. I'm sure, as you have done very well on your own so far without needing God, not being with God may seem like no big deal. But how do you know? Can you be sure of that? An adopted child would surely long to know who his biological parents were.
(What makes you think that I do not need God or am not already with Him? What makes you think that I am doing nothing about it? Remember I started these mails. Simply because I disagree with you? Are you speaking on God's behalf or could it be something else you are speaking for? What makes you think that it is God's intention for you to know who He is? What makes you think he has given you the capability to do that? May be He doesn't care one hoot about you. But that does not make you feel good. So you decide on the opposite. For Him.)
What are your downside risks should you decide to accept Jesus as your Saviour and later discover that the whole thing is no more than a hoax? Well, you simply walk away. A bit embarrassed perhaps, but definitely wiser for it. But, on the other hand, you might discover things you otherwise might not have known.
(My downside risks should I accept Jesus as my Savior is clearly documented in your views and presumptions. I just discover it and I walked away wiser a bit earlier. But I am not sure God cares about that either)
The 3 decisions you have spelt out concerning God may not be mutually exclusive. (Of course they may not be mutually exclusive - especially if you don't care to differentiate them) If there is a God who created you, it is entirely possible that He may have some plans or instructions for you that may preclude you from practising other religions. (Why should you doubt that God have some plans or instructions for you when Everything IS His Plan? Now, you are not so sure who He is or what?) Seen in this way, religion is inseparable from God. We only get to know God through prayer (ie, religion). A religion, believing in Jesus Christ for instance, is a way towards God. And as you know, Jesus said that he is the only way to God. So there is this rather inflexible nature of Christianity - Jesus is the only way to God - which you find intellectually disagreeable. (That is a contradiction you must reconcile, not me. I have already done that.) But whoever said God has to make His ways agreeable to man? (For the same reason, what makes you think that man can only get to know God through prayer or through Jesus? To be able to state that with certainty you have to know everything about Him. God's creation knowing everything about Him? Isn't that arrogance and a contradiction?)
You seem to think that being a Christian is a rosy experience that ultimately leads one to eternal life in Heaven. Far from it. That's why there are many backsliders - people who kind of dropped out after a while. Essentially, to accept Christ means to submit your will to Him - and that's not an easy thing to do.
(Where did I say or imply that being a Christian is a rosy experience that leads one to eternal life? I only said that being one may be driven by the expectation of eternal life. Now you are also speaking for me. But that's OK - as long as you are not speaking for God)
As for myself, I have finally decided to take the plunge, based on the above considerations and the experiences of other people. I told myself that I have limited time in this world. It is not possible for me to find out and compare different approaches and religions before deciding on one. (Why must you decide on one religion? why not decide that any or no religion is fine as long as the end result is good? Isn't that more good than just good? Oh, but the Bible says otherwise? Is that bad, good or more good?) I will simply have to make a decision based upon incomplete information - something that happens to us all the time in our daily lives, like taking panadol (the right dosage, of course). Have I done the right thing? At this point, I don't know. But I do know that I do not want to regret in the twilight of my life for not taking that initial step when I had the chance, and the life to live it. (That shows that you may be no different from the other animals. You see, they also make many decisions in their lives with insufficient information - actually they have less since their intelligence is lower than man's as you claim - and I don't know of anything that shows that they lived their lives with regret or they did not live it in life! Isn't that more amazing? Other animals living with less information but still no signs of regret or of not living life to the fullest? But they don't count? Or you know damn sure they do have regrets in not believing in your religion?)
My friend, You are right that we make decisions with incomplete information for we can never have complete information. That is by definition available only to God (I am actually quite surprised you, a believer in God, seem to be a bit unsure if that is the case). But whatever little reliable information I do have allow me to see what I shared with you above. I hope you live a good life but I don't wish you to think that others (animate or not, here or elsewhere) have less right to that than you do. That is what I hear from my heart. I would like to think that it is God's message for me but I am not sure. Although I have no one 2,000 years old paperback book to corroborate with, I however find that this whole existence is an open book much more beautiful than the one you seem to only take from. And if God is to be better understood, will one paperback that revolves only around man be the answer or will it necessarily have to be through His entire creation? As you said in your first mail, to see the forest and not the tree? To see His whole creation in context and not with man in the centre?
Rgds,
Yin Sze.
To: cheng_chee_khiaw@jpmorgan.com
Subject: Thanks for your considered views
Hi Chee Khiaw,
Thanks for your spirited response. I apologise if I had put words in your mouth or appeared to have belittled your convictions. I was merely trying to clarify things for myself. As you can see, I have a lot to learn about such things and my faith is tiny. Those are some of the issues I have been struggling about and it is good to hear your more considered views, which I hope will help me understand these things a bit better.
Rgds,
Yin Sze.
To: yinsze@jmsassoon.com.sg
Subject: Re: Thanks for your considered views
Hi mate,
Same here. We learn everyday - even from those (and I don't mean only humans) we think are insignificant.
Rgds
CCK
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)