Padd Solutions

Converted by Falcon Hive

Walk the talk? That's all talk.

Posted by moses @ 03:51 • , , , , , • 0 comments


I might sometimes be guilty of this myself, but I try hard not to be. I have very little respect for people who don't do as they say, people who don't keep their word. But, of course, at the same time, I'm not sure I like Chigurh-style honour either. I guess the choice is often between two evils. As they say, there is no such thing as a free lunch; no such thing, perhaps, as genuine kindness.

Another quip that is often repeated is "Talk is cheap". It sure is. It's much cheaper to talk about integrity than to actually practice it at the cost of giving up the advantages you get by being unprincipled. And, ironically enough, when some people are caught red-handed, they'd be full of it – they'd be full of remorse, warning others not to follow their example, reshaping themselves anew as moral leaders.

But what if they had never been caught?

On a related note, you might expect that I don't believe in things like Corporate Social Responsibility. Well, no surprises here – you'd be right on the money. Corporate Social Responsibility should have a new marketing name: Bull Fucking Shit.

By definition, corporations don't have any sense of social responsibility. Anything they do is for profit or for the bottom line. Why, a company is not an individual with a moral compass. It's a collectively profit-oriented entity composed of business people who employ workers. In fact, Adam Smith, the grandfather of capitalism himself, killed the idea of Corporate Social Responsibility centuries ago by stating that it is self interest that motivates people to work; that good arises out of selfishness by virtue of the invisible hand, which ordains that more social benefit will come out of it than loss.

Of course, today, it's all about dressing it up. The concept of the invisible hand is one of the earliest moral pretences that have been constructed to justify profit-seeking and selfishness in the consciences of people. Another example is the capitalist or conservative ethic: You 'deserve' every penny you earn and don't 'deserve' every penny you don't. In other words, poor people are generally lazy and morally bankrupt people, and that's why they are poor. Evidently, circular logic is sometimes needed to forget the nagging feeling that something isn't right.

And it's actually easy to see what is wrong, if only we'd wrest ourselves from our conditioning. When selling bread, the baker might not be concerned about feeding you, being concerned instead about getting paid. Nonetheless, the baker needs your custom and you need his bread. You exist within a community whose members are interdependent and are thus inevitably working for each other's benefit. Individualism and selfishness are the main reason why there is inequality and poverty. The invisible hand is a myth, and people, by the non-principle of selfishness, go on to create systems that seek to maximise their respective individual benefits even at a terrible price to others. Is the good of a Warren Buffet greater than the good of a hundred people without adequate health care? Is the good of one American or European greater than the good of a hundred Africans?

Therefore, all the moralising hides a serious moral lapse that was born when our imaginations took a leap of faith away from the reality of interdependence.

Speaking of morality, we can probably agree that lying is generally immoral. But is the alternative then to be honest?

Sometimes people have candid moments that betray their true interests, especially when pressed. At a recent conference, a business representative warned that more regulations against corruption would force companies to maintain profits by engaging in more corruption. In a letter to the newspaper, the Singapore National Employers Federation (ST, Sept 30) resisted calls to implement fair employment practices for women, particularly pregnant women, citing the need to maintain profits. These are moments of honesty where we can clearly see that companies are not interested in society insofar as it is not profitable to be.

Does their honesty make it better? The Singapore government argues that it is better than corrupt governments in the region because it is open about paying senior politicians astronomical salaries based on salary estimates of (overvalued) private sector executives, rather than letting them engage in backroom deals. Is it right in saying so?

I contend that being honest about it is no better. Exploitation is exploitation. Injustice is injustice. Dressing them up does not change the fundamental wrongs. The only better way is to say good things and act accordingly.

That said, on a personal level, I do appreciate people who do not mince their words. It is much less tiring to deal with even outright meanness than having to guess what people's true intentions are.

Unfortunately, if we do not engage with hypocrites, some of whom might be living around us, how many people and parties do we have left to deal with? Would we be able to do anything?

Looks like we all have to be willing accomplices in this nauseating game. Personally, I have to reserve my contempt to those who have proven themselves to be completely untrustworthy. Sometimes, or perhaps most of the time, there is no choice but to single out only the worst offenders.

Sometimes, it's hard to be optimistic about this world.


Why I write

Posted by moses @ 10:16 • , , , , , , • 0 comments


I think George Orwell has covered the general reasons very well. But there are specifics that I could get into when I speak for myself. And in light of a few recent conversations and my own reflections, I think it's good to write them down now. For my future self, if nothing else.

There's actually a dualism here. One aspect is why I write how I write, and the other is why I write at all. Even though the latter precedes the former, I find it somehow more apt to talk about the former first.

I admit one of the concerns that motivated me to think about this is the prospect of having my character read from my writing. I've said that I'm an optimist – I always come back to what I've written before, if mostly only in the form of personal reflection; I always ask myself if I still think so, because I mean it all. No doubt some things will change, and there's no shame in that. However, to prove the opposite immediately is to become a joke. On that note, how am I a positive person when most of what I write is criticism or negative things? Do I not seem like a mere malcontent, a Dostoevskyite underground man who turns to cyberspace to vent his frustrations like many other ineffectual people?

Firstly, I have a dialectical and critical viewpoint. This is a school that is rooted in Hegelian dialectics, an ultimately positive stance that looks towards an end – the unity with the Absolute. In Marxist terms, it means to hold on to the hope for a better society, rejecting the notion that we should accept the status quo as a given and as the best possible path. Critique is to dispel the myths and wrongheadedness that keep us in our alienated state, preventing us from reaching for that better, more universal state. This is why being negative about the absurd and the unjust is being positive. We reject the bad because we hope for the good.

At the same time, I'm influenced by Schopenhauer's pessimism, by the idea that there can perhaps be no end point; that life is a constant flux, a never ending struggle and a cycle of creation and destruction. It sounds almost Schumpeter, but not at all. It merely informs me that we must be prepared to witness our progress destroyed, to face constant reverses and to keep rebuilding with that hope in our minds. The cycle itself is not live-giving. We are the source of our vitality through our struggles.

Thus, I want to provoke thought. Too many of us have laid it aside, having to contend as we do with the dry and mundane struggles of everyday life. Who can think of the state of society? And what influence can we possible have? The latter is a difficult question, but there is one important truth to realise: Nothing will come of nothing. If there is no beginning, there will never be progress.

This is why I write how I write.

But to speak on a more artistic level, I write in themes, which can be seen from the accompanying pictures. I have already explained the philosophical basis behind my style of writing, but I'm aware that this will not overpower the quick, sharp impressions that one gets from what is seen before the eyes. It's difficult to keep recalling the deeper reasons, and as human beings we give in to the immediate sentiments. Hence, it would be good to remember that judging the author's character from the writing is never an exact science.

I would like to be more precise, though, because I think I have to be committed to what I write. I'm not writing as an artist who is merely seeking to explore certain emotions and themes. Nothing I write is not genuine. However, reading beyond what is conveyed by the text itself cannot yield conclusions with any certainty. If the theme is rebellion, the content is certainly about rebellion, but it is not necessarily about the author being such a typical rebel – and I think this example is apt, since it references my most overt attempt to provoke a rethinking of attitudes.

Hence, lest the immediate negative sentiments simply put people off, I feel that it's time to state the purpose of my writing.

The other aspect of why I write is much more mundane, but crucial nonetheless – why do I write at all?

Although writing may appear to be completely unproductive to the very practically minded, I don't think it is. It's easy to be cynical about the fact that many do the same thing, to little or no effect. However, at the very least, I find it good practice for an activity that I enjoy and may turn into something that has more tangible results in the future.

But more importantly, yes, it allows me to give voice to my feelings, which may in another perspective be called venting. This is the most personal reason of all, one for which people should rightly feel that they don't have to be concerned. I have feelings on many matters, and living in a topsy-turvy world triggers them. It's only healthy to express them rather than bottle them up. I think this is a very legitimate reason to write, for which no one should ever be faulted. 

That is very valid, and it is very personal. But, at the same time, I hope that it is able to coexist with my more public reason for writing, which gives me the impetus to continue putting effort into what I write.

I had considered giving up. As I've mentioned, there are mundane everyday struggles to contend with, which include the concern that I might be misjudged by what I write. Who knows how a potential employer, for example, might read into it? But even as I reflected on my reasons, I found a source of inspiration that helped me to be persistent.

Well, why should we let the new age of the meek smother us?



Army Strong

Posted by moses @ 00:33 • , , , • 0 comments


What do some people ever do? They only criticise – the sort the 'can do' macho types hate. Well, unfortunately, I'm one of those annoying ones. I just can't help but be contrarian.

And this time I'm going say that contrary to the popular saying, mandatory military service or national service does not turn boys into men, at least as far as I can see. It simply keeps boys as boys.



Why is there a need for such a process in the first place? What's wrong with being a boy? Military personnel seem to approach this question from a particular angle when answering – to wean kids off their parents and make them tough and independent people.

So we've established that they want to turn mummy's boy into a military man. Is it, therefore, manly to be in the military? I suspect most military people have never really bothered to ask themselves what exactly makes a man. Or maybe they have, but the answer they come up with is manifestly stupid: If you march around, follow orders and shoot guns, you're manly.

Well, I'm sorry, but brawling is manlier. There's nothing manlier than getting up close and personal when fighting, yes? But try it and you're likely to end up in jail. And which real man wants to listen to someone's stupid orders anyway? But they make it a point to ensure that you obey them. So I guess the authorities don't like real men too much.

But let's cut them some slack here. I'm sure some military people have thought this through and do come up with a much better answer: A man is a man because he's an active and independent decision-maker who is diligent enough in pursuing his goals. Essentially, he doesn't need others to tell him what to do and is capable of putting himself on track to get what he wants.

Now does military training accomplish that?

No need for others to tell him what to do? There's a common phenomenon in the army – collective stupidity. During national service training especially, intelligence is at a premium. Most of those in charge can only shout and threaten to get things (frequently just orders from above or by-the-book stuff) done. Those below them are so afraid of doing the wrong thing that their initiative drops to negligible levels and they frequently lose the use of their common sense. And then there's the chain of command. At best, if you do make your own decision, you'd better damn well be sure that it produces the right results. Otherwise, you can't hide behind the chain when the blame game starts. So in this the training is mostly a failure.

Capable of putting himself on track to get what he wants? Threats are the most significant motivator in the army. Without sufficient initiative in the process, how does anyone claim that he has put himself on track to get a desired result? I'm really not sure how the military method is supposed to teach you the necessary independence and diligence. As much as writing "I will not be late for school" 100 times on the black board teaches you punctuality, I guess. So in this the training is mostly a failure as well.

Since we can determine no part of the training that can clearly turn boys into men, what does national service actually do?

The answer is it seeks to wean boys off parental dependency by substituting it with indoctrination in ways of thinking that are actually very boyish. As I said, real men don't need some guy shouting at them to get things done. Children might, though. And real men don't have to surrender their capacity to think to a system that demands complete obedience.

Nonetheless, if you are obedient to some other authority and you've been conditioned to make your bed through threats and punishments, then maybe you really don't have to be mummy's boy anymore. So I guess it does something.

Still, it doesn't turn boys into men.

But, as some might ask, why am I spending time complaining about this? Well, I do have some decisions to make about what I want to do with my life for the next few years. So I'm off to be a man now, and you 'can do' macho types can save your ire for someone else.

Anyway, I'm sure you have some boots to clean before you fall in as per routine orders.

And this is what I have to say

Posted by moses @ 13:05 • , , , , , , • 0 comments


Wow, I can hardly believe this. Check out what Prime Minister Lee had to say to students:
It is not all about grades, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong told undergraduates at the end of a dialogue on Tuesday. They should also be charged up about other issues and causes, like their counterparts in the United States, India or China, he added.

'If you look at the best students in dynamic societies such as the US, India or China, they are not just bright, they are passionate, idealistic, driven, out to change the world for the better and to make a mark for themselves.'
However, what will make the difference is when Singaporeans live overseas and are exposed to a different environment, he said. 'You see how other people live, and you cope with the different circumstances, and from that we hope you get new tools in your toolbox to solve problems.'
So we're supposed to bring the student scene from overseas here?

Somehow I really doubt they'd like protests and rallies much. A half-hearted attempt at change as usual? I guess so.

But, hey, why not try, right? So let's look at the ways through which we can participate, starting from the running of our daily lives.

I'm just going to focus on one aspect (but lessons for some others can be drawn from it), since a related issue has been around for some time: How to exercise some rights in the face of a private company's monopoly on a public service.

Consumers don't like monopolies for obvious reasons. They are price setters and might severely reduce the consumer surplus and create deadweight loss since they are producing at far below the Pareto Optimum in order to maximise profits. Economic jargon aside, I think all of us can at least intuit that monopolies can get away with doing things like setting much higher prices due to the lack of competitors.

So what happens in the case of a natural monopoly, where the set-up costs or any other barrier to entering the market is so high that there can only be one effective provider of a service? The government should then step in by nationalising the company, subsidising it or setting price controls to safeguard the interests of the public. Which measure is taken might depend on how vital the service is.

Unfortunately, the price isn't the only aspect where the public stands to lose when a vital service is run by a monopoly.

The private sector can get away with many things the public sector can't. Racial discrimination, for example, is not nice, but private companies reserve the right to not serve anyone for any reason. Your influence as a consumer in a free country lies in your ability to take your custom somewhere else. If a company is given to bad practices, they lose business. Simple as that.

This understanding is probably as entrenched in Singapore as in the USA. Some countries favour regulations to restrict bad practices, but Singapore has a 'one of the freest places to do business in' reputation to maintain, right?

But what happens when it's a monopoly? You can't take your custom anywhere else. You can simply not buy the service at all, but you don't really have a choice if it's a vital service. And – I'm getting to the issue itself – public transport is vital service.

SMRT has seen fit to enforce absurd restrictions on the consumption of food and drink within its vehicles and premises. Fair enough, many people might think. But as I've mentioned before, they've gone to such lengths as to fine someone for having a sweet in her mouth.

I've personally been told that even drinking plain water is not allowed. So they're saying that if someone feels dehydrated, she is not allowed to hydrate herself with good ol' H2O on their property? Even if the water spills, how much trouble would it be to clean up a small puddle of water, if needs cleaning up at all? Can you imagine telling your guest that he is not allowed to drink even plain water in your house?

Here's a tip: There are rules, and there is crazy enforcement.

Some things just aren't worth enforcing to such an extent if you don't want to be a major jackass. The government seems to know this sometimes, as shown by its present stance on 377A. SMRT doesn't.

Maybe it's not that big a deal, but its attitude constitutes giving bad service, especially since they can charge you a significant amount of money for a trivial thing. Money-making scheme much?

And despite public criticism, it has persisted with the practice. This is good evidence that it knows it's in a position to not have to back down on things, unless the government intervenes, which it probably won't do because again Singapore needs to promote business freedom.

And SMRT can do this because it's a monopoly facing an inelastic demand curve as a vital service provider. You still have to take its trains even if you don't like its policies.

I really dislike the idea of bending over for such companies. Many people don't either. So this is how you can exercise some rights: Flout the rule.

Oh, no, but that's bad or illegal!

But in what other way can we resist? When Rosa Parks flouted the rules, was she wrong?

This is the concept of civil disobedience – when you have no say, you refuse to obey.

However, although civil disobedience is meant to be visible as a political statement, I'm not suggesting we make martyrs of ourselves. It's not worth it to have to pay fines for stupid reasons just to make a statement that might not change anything, given the way things work here. Instead, we disobey quietly. Go on with eating and drinking simple things when the staff isn’t watching. It's not that difficult.

We make our actions visible as anonymous individuals acting in concert. They'd probably know that they can't stop people from doing it when they're not looking. Maybe they will let it go. Maybe they will continue and look like idiots. Maybe they will attempt to stop it with more ridiculous measures that would make the issue more manifestly absurd in the eyes of the public and draw increasing and harsher criticism. It's a lose-lose situation for the company.

But maybe the best thing is for their measures to actually be counter-productive. Instead of helping to maintain cleanliness and reduce costs, their anal-retentive policies should actually make their property dirtier. It would probably make them rethink their position.

To that effect, let's surreptitiously but intentionally spill stuff like soft drinks and create all sorts of mess when we can. It's time to punk a company that thinks it has free rein.

This is how we resist. This is how we learn not to take it up the ass because we have no say.

Dickens in the Heartlands

Posted by moses @ 11:34 • , , , , • 0 comments


Yesterday, I saw a programme on TV where a woman was crying as she told a group of young people about her plight: She could barely make ends meet and at least one of her kids had to drop out of technical school because she couldn't afford the fees. She couldn't even afford the fares for public transport.

The first question that came to my mind was why is this even on TV? To advertise the fact our society doesn't take care of its less fortunate members very well? Do people watch shows like this to cry a tear and then move on with their lives after a needed catharsis? Is this the reality TV version of Aristotelian tragedy?

Then it occurred to me that, if the programme does show that the system leaves something to be desired when it comes to ensuring the welfare of low-income groups, maybe the point is to encourage the public to help by giving to charity. Yes, our system has left these people behind, so please help them.

And that is more evidence that, in some ways, we might well have failed to evolve much from our Crown Colony days.

Recently, I believe, someone famous wrote in the newspaper extolling the virtues of hard work and practically asserting that poor people have the responsibility to pull themselves up by the bootstraps. That could've come straight out of Nashville Times in all its redneck glory.

We've come so far only to think that laughable stuff like that passes for clever social commentary? But perhaps we've come to where we are precisely because we think so, driven by the need to prove something – to prove that we're better than others.

We're so motivated by the need to win, or to not lose, that such a mindset is a distinctive characteristic of us as a people. It may seem funny, but it has a sinister side – we don't care enough about those who lost.

But I think life isn't all about winners and losers. Even businesses nowadays are focusing less on competition in the workplace and more on moving together as a team. Why should a republic not have that approach? Is our idea of moving together hand-in-hand to wave flags and sing patriotic songs together? Screw that. Where's the real solidarity?

And solidarity with people on the lower rungs is shown first and foremost through social policy, not through charity. Charities did not lift poor workhouse children out of their miserable poverty. Legislation and social programs did. If there's any real determination to pull people up, it would be done on a public capacity, where it is most effective.

But, wait, doesn't the government have policies to help poor people? Heck, it makes sure we hear about those all the time.

Without having to get into a detailed discussion on policy, we can ask a very simple question: Why could that woman not afford to send her child to school?

Isn't it well known, even here, that education is a key factor in social mobility? Why are there cases where people cannot afford it? Especially when it's technical school, not university. Technical school is where people are trained specifically to work for a living. Surely there's no excuse? We can afford to lose $40 billion on stupidly managed investments, we can afford to provide free education to people who would otherwise not have it.

And simply giving handouts, as the government sometimes does (especially if elections are looming), doesn't do much. This is where people who are supposedly for a more equal society often damage their own cause. In fact, here, that could be a symptom of our terrible mindset – people who ask for handouts might often be more interested in tangible short-term gains. They want to get something, but they want it immediately in cold hard cash. That's not how the bigger problems are solved. 

We can hear it from Prof. Eugene Tan of SMU again:

All too often, the larger and more important messages intended by the various budgetary measures are drowned out by the noise of Singaporeans calculating and comparing their budgetary "gains" or "losses".

This "what's-in-it-for-me" mindset may unwittingly lull Singaporeans into sacrificing long-term benefits for short-term gains. 
Instead, a stronger social safety net may encourage Singaporeans to be less risk-adverse and to manage the pluses and minuses of globalisation. More may be willing to take entrepreneurial risks if they can count on a social safety net. The Budget must be seen as more than just a spreadsheet of the state's revenue and expenditures in the new financial year, with goodies thrown in for good measure.

It plays a critical role in keeping our social compact resilient and preparing society not just for tomorrow, but for many tomorrows.
Word.

And, after all, do we really want to live in a country resembling England during the Industrial Revolution, where a class of winners leaves the losers in the dust, only throwing the occasional coin to the latter 'out of the goodness of their hearts'?

Sadly, we might not even realise how close we might be to such a picture. It all looks very nice on the outside. We've also turned image-consciousness into a skill and covered the mirror with a painting.

Andy, you're a star

Posted by moses @ 05:08 • , , • 0 comments



I guess.

You've probably heard that statement many times by now. And if you're reading this, you're probably past the age when my words are going to do much, if you need them at all. Still, I find it good to reflect.

"Just be yourself" is the mantra that self-help gurus go by. I agree. But that is in the sense that I think one should be as frank as possible, if not entirely sincere.

On the other hand, just being themselves doesn't quite turn out as well as many people wish. Do you know what the problem is?

They aren't prepared to live with the consequences of just being themselves.

Some people think that by just being themselves, friends would naturally come. Yes, the friends you do have would likely be real friends. But that's a truism: If you remain a certain way, the friends you'd have would be those who don't mind you for who you are. And there might be just two or three of them. Nobody said anything about how rich your social life would be.

Of course, I have to be fair to self-help guides – they do generally give tips on how to make oneself more endearing. But that single message seems to be what gets digested and thrown about the most. Well, on its own, I don't think it's all that meaningful. There's a reason why they are called "self-help". Just being whatever you start off with isn't going to help your lonely self win hearts and minds. You have to help yourself, and change.

That doesn't mean be someone you're not, though. When you change, you shouldn't just change superficially. Change your mindset. Change fundamentally, maybe philosophically. Be yourself, but be a different self.

Just being yourself is also often understood to be good because everyone is unique anyway. You are special, so who cares what people think? Whatever floats your boat. Being your own individual is the right way to go.

Well, is it? I think so, but to say only that is a big oversimplification. The truth is you ain't cool just because you are yourself. If you want to have a good number of friends, you'd better align at least some of your interests and your habits such that you do get friends. Again, the problem is in what constitutes "floating your boat". Does having just a few friends who share your interest in tetherball, and who are almost exactly like you, float your boat?

"You're special" might be intended to help someone build self esteem. But if they had self esteem issues in the first place, I doubt it's going to help. Besides, confidence and self esteem are built by results as well. If you have many friends whom you genuinely enjoy interacting with, you'd feel better about yourself than if you don't. If, on the other hand, being your old self hasn't really produced results, then throw all those feel-good statements out. They are a lot worse to depend on than propofol.

And you know what doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results constitutes, right?

So, if I were to give some advice to a young kid, I'd say pick the right interests, hobbies and mannerisms. Think about being an individual after that.