Padd Solutions

Converted by Falcon Hive

What is freedom?

Posted by moses @ 13:09 • , , , • 0 comments


They don't get freedom, do they?

People are crying foul over a Singaporean academic being denied a teaching place at NYU because of her anti-gay stance, asking "What academic freedom?".

Truth be told, that's almost good question. They don't seem to have a good idea what freedom really means, so they should be asking "What is academic freedom?".

To be fair, a lot of Americans don't get it too. Freedom doesn't mean the freedom to do whatever you want. That has never been the case, since no country on earth has no penal code whatsoever (enforcement is a separate question). Many reasonable people also believe that you don't have the freedom to say anything you want anywhere, freedom of speech or no.

Best of all, one freedom often eats into another. Ireland just passed an anti-blasphemy law in an age where countries are abandoning those. Ostensibly, it's done in the name of freedom of religion. However, it erodes one's freedom to say some things that are relatively harmless.

Which freedom do we uphold?

So let's get straight to the point. There are good principles in this world, and we should follow them. Academic freedom doesn't mean the freedom to be intolerant towards other people at the side – think about a teacher who secretly favours students of one race over those of another, for example. The much-repeated quote about evil growing where good men and women do nothing about it applies here as well. Intolerance, if left unchecked, breeds intolerance. Many people would be opposed to having a teacher who openly expresses or advocates racism. They know, or at least intuit, that it's not healthy for the society to allow intolerance to fester in an especially sensitive area – where young people are receiving their education. Why should anti-gay people get a pass?

Gay activists and liberals are not quashing academic freedom in being opposed to such a pedagogue (and part-time demagogue?). They are not about to have someone who is lacking in social credentials be placed in a position that carries a clear social responsibility. And, above all, they are for the freedom to coexist.

As for questions of meritocracy, whether academics should get positions based solely on merit in their fields, whoever said that meritocracy is necessarily good anyway? A completely meritocratic society would be exceedingly cruel. The strong would lord it over the weak undisputed – so much for the development of civilisation (recall Hammurabi's Code, set down thousands of years ago).

I'm sympathetic to the fact that some pedagogues are smart but messed up and we shouldn't waste their talents. If they're that good, give them their positions, but they should not be allowed to publicly express their harmful beliefs during their tenure. Incensed by this recommendation? As it is, you're not allowed to do insider trading so that the financial market can function properly. In a similar vein, you shouldn't be allowed to sabotage the development and maintenance of a tolerant society. And when it comes to being able to make money, people are all for controls like intellectual property rights. I say that there is another kind of 'intellectual property right' in academia: Students have the right not to have their intellect polluted by intolerant views while learning.

And, finally, let me say one more thing. Would you be surprised to find out that some of the same people crying for freedom in this instance would be crying foul if other people took the liberty to do things that they don't like? Why, you needn't look beyond this case to witness that. They want freedom in academia? Why is the law against being a homosexual still there?

Maybe it's freedom unless they disagree with your sexuality...


Crime, punishment... action!

Posted by moses @ 12:53 • , , , , • 2 comments


You might recall an article by Kishore Mahbubani fairly recently about why Singapore is successful at dealing with crime. Recall that for illustrative anecdotal support, the dean of the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy recounted how he was almost mugged in Switzerland.

Really? Switzerland has criminals? No kidding! The little heaven of Toblerone chocolates actually harbours shady characters – unlike Singapore, apparently. On the bright side, they were nice enough to walk away when challenged. Maybe there’s hope for the Swiss yet.

The dean then proceeded to point out an essential reason why Singapore does not have such a problem – there is no poverty in Singapore.


The eradication of poverty in Singapore is a result of a combination of many policies: economic growth and development, universal education and health care, formal and informal social safety nets. All these policies have to work together. Fortunately they do.
- Kishore Mahbubani

Since some of us might well have forgotten, let’s remember the police slogan: Low Crime Doesn’t Mean No Crime. Catchy, isn’t it? Keeping that in mind, let’s reevaluate reality.

Switzerland’s Human Development Index (HDI) is ranked 10th in the world, while Singapore’s HDI is 28th. For some reason the Swiss still have a problem with crime while Singaporeans don’t.

On another note, Singapore’s GINI index is 42.5 according to 1998 data, 78th among 127 countries in income equality. And it actually rose (income inequality increased) to 48.1 in 2000. Do you think these indicate that there aren’t a sizeable number of poor people in Singapore?

While it’s nice to imagine that Singapore is a socialist utopia, let’s not kid ourselves. Probably the main reason why Singapore has a low crime level is the long arms and iron fist of the law. You face a fine of $1000 for cycling in the underpass at East Coast Park, for example. And the authorities are pretty darn good at catching people too. A woman was apparently caught and fined $30 for having a sweet in her mouth on the MRT.

Okay, let’s not deride the good job that our law enforcement is doing. After all, it must be pretty efficient to prevent all those proles from committing crimes like it’s second nature (unless they’re potential Slumdog Millionaires with long bootstraps).

Not to mention those criminal foreigners taking advantage of the busy ports to pass through Singapore.

I have come across a Latin American bag-snatching team in a Singapore restaurant... The odds are actually stacked against Singapore maintaining a low crime rate. Our port and airport are among the busiest in the world. It is only natural that a high number of potential criminals pass through Singapore. If we were an isolated island in the South Pacific, we could create an idyllic domestic environment. But we are not.
- Kishore Mahbubani

Why I am an optimistic pessimist

Posted by moses @ 13:21 • , , , , , , • 0 comments



Maybe some people are just born with it, y'know – that enthusiasm that follows them wherever they go. It seems as if they're about to find a pot of gold at the next turning. Well, good for them. I think it's great. But sometimes we gotta wonder if it's true. After all some of us don't find the pill-popping sort of happiness all that worthwhile.

It's another slow day today, and with it comes too much opportunity to think. I grew up here, but increasingly I find that this place feels less and less like home. Whatever reason I have to be here seems to decay with each passing year or even month, and the result is I don't feel like I belong anywhere now.

Alienation (remember Brecht?). With such a sentiment pervading my thoughts, I find imperative to recall some things I learned over the course of the past year or so. The wonderful thing, I think, about my education is how I don't simply learn about particular subjects. In fact, I'd say that I'm neither a good philosophy student, a good politics student nor (especially) a good economics student. It's shaping up to be something like the professional toilet that is the Liberal Arts. I realise that its legacy will be how I think and how I am – and those will probably be the keys to the future.

And a great truth that I learned from many of the books I read and the lessons I had is our alienation from ourselves and our surroundings. Apt enough considering my present situation. Who are we and why are we here? These aren't questions that common wisdom devotes a lot of attention to. It is said that where there's a will there's a way. But Schopenhauer and the Buddhists taught that where there's will there's suffering. How well do we know ourselves and our purpose? And, consequently, do we act accordingly?

I will offer no other purpose here other than to be happy. Perhaps, to be more precise, to be eudaimon. What are we doing to achieve that end? Or, perhaps more pertinently, why do we do what we are doing now? Is it in accordance with our purpose? And do we really understand ourselves when we make decisions?

For that matter, I think we might never. But the first step is to recognise that we don't, to realise that we are our own worst enemy, that we have to constantly struggle against ourselves to achieve our purpose. The first step to finding our way is to realise that we're lost – as individuals and as a whole society. Our situation is expressly disconcerting. That is why I am a pessimist.

And here we return to the question of why. Knowing that we're often misguided, we must ask ourselves why we do what we do. Why do we desire this and that? Why do we work? Why do we spend? What is our reason for doing something? Is that really our purpose?

Do we really want this and that?

If people ask themselves why, they probably wouldn't be building a few more shopping malls with the same bunch of shops. They probably wouldn't be working hard to pay credit card bills for things they don't need.

Why are we letting others tell us what we want, what our purpose is? Why do we just listen to people who tell us what exactly we have to do to achieve our purpose? "Buy this and life will be perfect." As the Marxist critique suggests, why do we care so much about the exchange or the relative value of things and so little about what use we really have for them?

Maybe we find that we do want something. Then we should ask ourselves why as well. Does wanting something make us happy, or does it make us miserable? As we must sometimes not listen to others, we must sometimes not listen to ourselves. As I said, we are fighting against ourselves, struggling with our own will. Learning to let go is as important as learning to be determined.

But the good news is we don't have to renounce the world or our will. As long as we realise our purpose and constantly ask ourselves whether what we do is in accordance with it, we don't have to be constantly lost.

And, on the other hand, realising our purpose also changes how we choose to see things. The truth is nothing to celebrate about, but we don't have to crushed by it. We can nevertheless celebrate life, appreciate the things in it, big and small. We can transcend the bleak world of things by understanding it and choosing to see the good that it contains. Thus we would overcome our pitiful selves, who are slaves to the topsy-turvy world – we become Übermenschen.

The right way lies in the combination of understanding reality and celebrating what we have as per our purpose; in living in our time, understanding its fatal flaws and working towards a better future. This sounds almost like it's coming from a good Hegelian man. That is why I am optimistic.