NO MORE NEW YEAR RESOLUTIONS
Let's have life-long aspirations
Okay, tomorrow will be the first day of 2015. I hope you would not be trying too hard to keep your New Year resolutions. Giving up your bad habits? Trying to sleep more? Hoping to eat more healthily, to exercise more or to generally be a better person?
Well, experience tells us that making such resolutions are likely to fail. Perhaps, these resolutions are not worth making in the first place.
Don't get me wrong - it is always praiseworthy to try to improve ourselves, but I think we should not just want to do certain things from year to year.
Maybe, we should have some permanent aspirations which are common with everyone; and I think it should be an ongoing process for the rest of our lives. So, with that in mind, let me recommend the following simple life principles:
1. SEEK KNOWLEDGE
2. LOVE OTHERS
3. BE GOOD
4. DO GOOD
Let's strive to have a fruitful and fulfilling life!
Wednesday 31 December 2014
Friday 26 December 2014
Tuesday 2 December 2014
TRUE PURPOSE OF SCHOLARSHIPS
Published in the Forum Page of The Straits Times on 2 Dec 2014
Let me disabuse all scholarship holders, past and present, of the notion that they are special people who in some way deserve to be provided with an expensive free education in prestigious foreign universities (“Drop ungrateful scholarship holders” by Ms Estella Young and “How successful have programmes been?” by Mr Justin Wang Qi Wei; last Friday).
A scholarship programme is not about the recipients, their careers, their earnings or their ever-changing interests; it is about the maximisation of our national intellectual capital for the benefit of society.
Scholarship holders are very fortunate people who were given financial support by their fellow citizens to further their studies, in view of their desire, commitment and potential capability to serve as leaders in specific fields, either in public service or in the private sector.
Scholarships are awarded because there has been a meeting of minds and a common purpose between the recipients and society.
Those who harbour grandiose illusions about their own talents and a matching false sense of entitlement should never apply for a scholarship. Those who treat scholarships solely as opportunities to secure fame, prestige and an easy road to self-serving ends should abstain, lest they waste everybody’s time.
Those who, at the end of their studies, did a cost-benefit analysis of bond-breaking should ask for moral guidance.
Not keeping their end of the bargain after successfully completing their studies is not merely a breakdown of a transaction between the scholarship holder and the Government, but also a grave affront to the trust, honour and respect that we normally reserve for recipients who served our society humbly and dutifully.
Daniel Lee
Friday 14 November 2014
Book Summary
FREEDOM MANIFESTO
Why Free Markets Are Moral And Big Government Isn't
By Steve Forbes and Elizabeth Ames
Published by Crown Business (2012)
The battle for the soul of America is between the belief in free markets and the faith in government regulation. Adam Smith or John Maynard Keynes? Which will provide the best way to a moral society? According to the authors, apparently against popular sentiment, free markets is the way to go.
They cited several reasons for their advocacy for less government intervention and more market freedom:
(1) Citing the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, they contended that freedom was the original guiding spirit behind the intentions of the Founding Fathers.
(2) Quoting Adam Smith, they believed that if everyone is motivated by self-interest in a free market to satisfy the needs and wants of other people, these mutually beneficial exchanges will form an "Invisible Hand" that creates and allocates resources in a manner that will generate innovations and wealth, raises living standards and, by competing with each other, produces amazing new products which become readily available at a low price. On the other hand, the prime motivation behind government action is often merely political survival.
(3) By preserving our right to make free choices, a free system will create a wider array of new goods and services to meet demand. This will help to generate abundance from scarcity thereby fostering a prosperous society. In contrast, government regulation works by coercion which sometimes lead to undesirable outcomes.
(4) Free markets unleashes human ingenuity and creativity. In a process where successful products can soon become obsolete and learning from failure can lead to better products, democratic capitalism can lead to innovations that will help to solve real problems and improve the lives of many. On the other side of the coin, because the core competency of government is order and security, it leads to rigidity and stagnation.
(5) Free enterprise bestows personal autonomy which helps to empower people, whereas government support only traps people in a cycle of dependency and entitlement.
(6) Free markets reward people and companies for their ability to meet the needs and demands of society. Therefore, it promotes a purer form of meritocracy that allows people to move up the social ladder. Political cronyism, on the other hand, only channels privileges to a favored few, running the risk of encouraging corruption.
(7) Free market transactions are based on an inherent trust and cooperation between market participants and an optimistic view of human nature. The pessimistic assumptions of government prioritize the need to safeguard people, minimize risks and control chaos.
Notwithstanding the enthusiasm of the authors for free markets, I wonder what the latter can do to protect the environment, to narrow income disparity and to address controversial issues concerning health care, housing and finance.
FREEDOM MANIFESTO
Why Free Markets Are Moral And Big Government Isn't
By Steve Forbes and Elizabeth Ames
Published by Crown Business (2012)
The battle for the soul of America is between the belief in free markets and the faith in government regulation. Adam Smith or John Maynard Keynes? Which will provide the best way to a moral society? According to the authors, apparently against popular sentiment, free markets is the way to go.
They cited several reasons for their advocacy for less government intervention and more market freedom:
(1) Citing the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, they contended that freedom was the original guiding spirit behind the intentions of the Founding Fathers.
(2) Quoting Adam Smith, they believed that if everyone is motivated by self-interest in a free market to satisfy the needs and wants of other people, these mutually beneficial exchanges will form an "Invisible Hand" that creates and allocates resources in a manner that will generate innovations and wealth, raises living standards and, by competing with each other, produces amazing new products which become readily available at a low price. On the other hand, the prime motivation behind government action is often merely political survival.
(3) By preserving our right to make free choices, a free system will create a wider array of new goods and services to meet demand. This will help to generate abundance from scarcity thereby fostering a prosperous society. In contrast, government regulation works by coercion which sometimes lead to undesirable outcomes.
(4) Free markets unleashes human ingenuity and creativity. In a process where successful products can soon become obsolete and learning from failure can lead to better products, democratic capitalism can lead to innovations that will help to solve real problems and improve the lives of many. On the other side of the coin, because the core competency of government is order and security, it leads to rigidity and stagnation.
(5) Free enterprise bestows personal autonomy which helps to empower people, whereas government support only traps people in a cycle of dependency and entitlement.
(6) Free markets reward people and companies for their ability to meet the needs and demands of society. Therefore, it promotes a purer form of meritocracy that allows people to move up the social ladder. Political cronyism, on the other hand, only channels privileges to a favored few, running the risk of encouraging corruption.
(7) Free market transactions are based on an inherent trust and cooperation between market participants and an optimistic view of human nature. The pessimistic assumptions of government prioritize the need to safeguard people, minimize risks and control chaos.
Notwithstanding the enthusiasm of the authors for free markets, I wonder what the latter can do to protect the environment, to narrow income disparity and to address controversial issues concerning health care, housing and finance.
Friday 7 November 2014
Book Summary
CIVILIZATION - THE WEST AND THE REST
By Niall Ferguson
Published by the Penguin Group (2011)
Why did the civilization of Western Europe dominate the world since 1500? That is the central question this book seeks to address, and Harvard historian Niall Ferguson's answer is that the West developed six killer applications that the Rest lacked.
They are:
(1) Free competition in politics and economics;
(2) The Scientific Revolution which brought a new and reliable way of studying, understanding and changing the natural world;
(3) The rule of law as a means of protecting property rights and ensuring stable representative government;
(4) Modern medicine to allow major improvements in health and life expectancy;
(5) Consumerism which drives and sustains the Industrial Revolution and the mass production of goods;
(6) Protestant work ethic of extensive and intensive labor, high savings and capital accumulation.
The secret of these six applications lies in the fact that they provide the conditions for setting up the best available economic, social and political institutions which, in turn, triggers individual human creativity and ingenuity in solving the problems of the modern world.
It has been observed that the West has been losing its edge lately to China and other emerging powers. Whether this is the start of a decline from 500 years of world domination would depend on the quality of Western educational systems and the self-confidence and self-belief they engender.
CIVILIZATION - THE WEST AND THE REST
By Niall Ferguson
Published by the Penguin Group (2011)
Why did the civilization of Western Europe dominate the world since 1500? That is the central question this book seeks to address, and Harvard historian Niall Ferguson's answer is that the West developed six killer applications that the Rest lacked.
They are:
(1) Free competition in politics and economics;
(2) The Scientific Revolution which brought a new and reliable way of studying, understanding and changing the natural world;
(3) The rule of law as a means of protecting property rights and ensuring stable representative government;
(4) Modern medicine to allow major improvements in health and life expectancy;
(5) Consumerism which drives and sustains the Industrial Revolution and the mass production of goods;
(6) Protestant work ethic of extensive and intensive labor, high savings and capital accumulation.
The secret of these six applications lies in the fact that they provide the conditions for setting up the best available economic, social and political institutions which, in turn, triggers individual human creativity and ingenuity in solving the problems of the modern world.
It has been observed that the West has been losing its edge lately to China and other emerging powers. Whether this is the start of a decline from 500 years of world domination would depend on the quality of Western educational systems and the self-confidence and self-belief they engender.
Saturday 1 November 2014
BOOK REVIEW
THE ENLIGHTENMENT VISION
By Stuart Jordan (2012 Prometheus Books)
The Enlightenment was an ethically secular and humanistic intellectual movement that swept through Europe and America from the mid-seventeenth century. Using the twin weapons of science and reason, it sought to improve life for everyone through the optimistic adoption of universal values such as freedom, equality, democracy and individuality. It launched the modern world as we know it today.
This volume is an evaluation of the validity, feasibility, success and prospect of the Enlightenment vision. Jordan's verdict is that the goals of Enlightenment are the correct ones but the surprising delay to their realization is caused by widespread ignorance of things already established and well-known but not properly transmitted. Since all reality is amenable to scientific investigation, all we need is more research in order to complete our human knowledge.
Since science is the investigation of the natural world through a process of imagination, observation, experimentation and rational thought, it will yield reliable knowledge about the probable outcomes of human action and guide our choices for the maximization of human welfare. That way, scientific knowledge can help to inform our ethics.
So far, Enlightenment's successes are many including the increased general well-being in most parts of the world, the advent of valuable technologies and the advances in democracy and human rights. On the other hand, the unjust economic distribution of wealth, the use of destructive technology and the damaged ecosystem tell us that the vision still has some way to go.
To the author, the eventual achievement of the vision's goals can by hastened by reforming education. Instead of providing mere training for the masses and reserving genuine education for the elites, all citizens should be given the opportunity to develop their capacity for critical thinking. He believes that our strong human survival instincts will drive us to make the right choices including the rejection of superstitions and unreasonable religious beliefs.
THE ENLIGHTENMENT VISION
By Stuart Jordan (2012 Prometheus Books)
The Enlightenment was an ethically secular and humanistic intellectual movement that swept through Europe and America from the mid-seventeenth century. Using the twin weapons of science and reason, it sought to improve life for everyone through the optimistic adoption of universal values such as freedom, equality, democracy and individuality. It launched the modern world as we know it today.
This volume is an evaluation of the validity, feasibility, success and prospect of the Enlightenment vision. Jordan's verdict is that the goals of Enlightenment are the correct ones but the surprising delay to their realization is caused by widespread ignorance of things already established and well-known but not properly transmitted. Since all reality is amenable to scientific investigation, all we need is more research in order to complete our human knowledge.
Since science is the investigation of the natural world through a process of imagination, observation, experimentation and rational thought, it will yield reliable knowledge about the probable outcomes of human action and guide our choices for the maximization of human welfare. That way, scientific knowledge can help to inform our ethics.
So far, Enlightenment's successes are many including the increased general well-being in most parts of the world, the advent of valuable technologies and the advances in democracy and human rights. On the other hand, the unjust economic distribution of wealth, the use of destructive technology and the damaged ecosystem tell us that the vision still has some way to go.
To the author, the eventual achievement of the vision's goals can by hastened by reforming education. Instead of providing mere training for the masses and reserving genuine education for the elites, all citizens should be given the opportunity to develop their capacity for critical thinking. He believes that our strong human survival instincts will drive us to make the right choices including the rejection of superstitions and unreasonable religious beliefs.
Thursday 23 October 2014
LIVERPOOL - THE CASE FOR DEFENDING THE INDEFENSIBLE
I'm going to do the impossible - defend Liverpool again (yes, including Ballotelli)!
Liverpool 0
Real Madrid 3 (should be many more)
So, what's my excuse this time? Well, for one, Liverpool should not be playing in this competition at all. Because last season's excellence was such an aberration, it is now a great curse in the sense that Liverpool will be facing Champions' League teams that Liverpool cannot hope to match. Our expectations of Liverpool's football have been too high because it is based on the free-scoring exploits of Suarez and Sturridge which now seem to be like some kind of romantic fantasy.
THE STRUGGLE
I struggle to describe the kind of football now being displayed by Liverpool.
What do you call the goalkeeper's lack of dominance in the 6-yard box? What do you make of the defenders' tendency to spend endless minutes making only square passes and back passes to the goalie? What is the term to use if footballers stand rooted to a spot on receiving a pass and puzzle over where to pass instead of moving the ball and running in some meaningful direction?
How do you comprehend the lack of cooperation among players such that when the ball is won, surrounding players do not quickly get into positions to provide options for a simple pass to be made. Inevitably, the Liverpool player holding possession of the ball has no choice, but to run into trouble and get dispossessed easily. How come simple skills like stopping a ball, making a simple pass, shielding the ball and shooting on target seem foreign to most of the players in red?
I have moved beyond the point of being disappointed with Liverpool.
In fact, I'm more disappointed in the players of Real Madrid. Aren't they supposed to be Galacticos? How come they are merely playing elementary soccer with short simple passes and highly-predictable attacking patterns? No fanciful flicks, no dummies, and no long dribbles. Not even a bicycle kick?
Yet, you have to give Real Madrid credit for playing simple, efficient football and winning easy to conserve energy for their upcoming domestic clash with Barca.
THE UNDERSTANDING
Ok, never mind Real Madrid; let's think about our beloved Liverpool: why do all Liverpool teams play in the same infuriating way in the Premier League era (from 20 Feb 1992) and not winning a single title for 22 years, despite different managers and players throughout the period? Why do great players from elsewhere become mediocre once they were transferred to Liverpool and once sold to other teams become great players again?
Yet, if such mediocrity have been prevalent for so long, why has Liverpool been always near the top of the table during the last 22 years? For that we have to give great credit to the tremendous effort of all the players and the managers involved despite their mediocre standard of football.
What's at fault is not the personnel. The real problem is a great irony. It seems that the past successes of the seventies and eighties had set the football culture of the club so strongly that their football philosophy today is the same one that they had 30 to 40 years ago.
THE CURE
In short, Liverpool are in trouble now because they have not moved with the times and are still playing 70's and 80's football! During those times in England, tactics, fitness and effort are king, but the modern game is much more technical.
So, to turn the corner, they need a full update and total revamp of their thinking about how to play the game. Let's hope such reinvention is in the works somewhere in the club.
I'm going to do the impossible - defend Liverpool again (yes, including Ballotelli)!
Liverpool 0
Real Madrid 3 (should be many more)
So, what's my excuse this time? Well, for one, Liverpool should not be playing in this competition at all. Because last season's excellence was such an aberration, it is now a great curse in the sense that Liverpool will be facing Champions' League teams that Liverpool cannot hope to match. Our expectations of Liverpool's football have been too high because it is based on the free-scoring exploits of Suarez and Sturridge which now seem to be like some kind of romantic fantasy.
THE STRUGGLE
I struggle to describe the kind of football now being displayed by Liverpool.
What do you call the goalkeeper's lack of dominance in the 6-yard box? What do you make of the defenders' tendency to spend endless minutes making only square passes and back passes to the goalie? What is the term to use if footballers stand rooted to a spot on receiving a pass and puzzle over where to pass instead of moving the ball and running in some meaningful direction?
How do you comprehend the lack of cooperation among players such that when the ball is won, surrounding players do not quickly get into positions to provide options for a simple pass to be made. Inevitably, the Liverpool player holding possession of the ball has no choice, but to run into trouble and get dispossessed easily. How come simple skills like stopping a ball, making a simple pass, shielding the ball and shooting on target seem foreign to most of the players in red?
I have moved beyond the point of being disappointed with Liverpool.
In fact, I'm more disappointed in the players of Real Madrid. Aren't they supposed to be Galacticos? How come they are merely playing elementary soccer with short simple passes and highly-predictable attacking patterns? No fanciful flicks, no dummies, and no long dribbles. Not even a bicycle kick?
Yet, you have to give Real Madrid credit for playing simple, efficient football and winning easy to conserve energy for their upcoming domestic clash with Barca.
THE UNDERSTANDING
Ok, never mind Real Madrid; let's think about our beloved Liverpool: why do all Liverpool teams play in the same infuriating way in the Premier League era (from 20 Feb 1992) and not winning a single title for 22 years, despite different managers and players throughout the period? Why do great players from elsewhere become mediocre once they were transferred to Liverpool and once sold to other teams become great players again?
Yet, if such mediocrity have been prevalent for so long, why has Liverpool been always near the top of the table during the last 22 years? For that we have to give great credit to the tremendous effort of all the players and the managers involved despite their mediocre standard of football.
What's at fault is not the personnel. The real problem is a great irony. It seems that the past successes of the seventies and eighties had set the football culture of the club so strongly that their football philosophy today is the same one that they had 30 to 40 years ago.
THE CURE
In short, Liverpool are in trouble now because they have not moved with the times and are still playing 70's and 80's football! During those times in England, tactics, fitness and effort are king, but the modern game is much more technical.
So, to turn the corner, they need a full update and total revamp of their thinking about how to play the game. Let's hope such reinvention is in the works somewhere in the club.
Monday 20 October 2014
IN DEFENCE OF BALOTELLI AND LIVERPOOL
Much criticism of Liverpool has ensued since their away win at QPR last Sunday. Unfairly, the brunt of the negative comments was directed at Balotelli. Before we join the chorus of condemnation, let's look at Liverpool's performance more objectively.
My assessment of the form of Liverpool is that, at this moment, they lack energy, enthusiasm and passion in their play. Contrary to popular belief, their weakness is not just in defense - the whole team whether in defense, midfield or attack is rather lethargic and is unable to impose themselves in all their matches this season. The fact that they were still able to salvage all three points against QPR despite a rather mediocre performance and jump up to fifth place in the table actually is a point to their credit.
Late in the game against QPR, just when they seemed destined to settle for an undeserved draw at 1-1 and then at 2-2, they came back each time to pull ahead. That actually speak volumes about their strength of character and fighting spirit.
Goal No. 1 - QPR 0 Liverpool 1
Their first goal was the result of Sterling's sheer professionalism when he took his free kick quickly when everyone was still arguing over the foul on him and having their backs to the ball. The much-maligned Johnson was similarly aware of the situation, received the pass from Sterling and crossed towards the far post of the QPR goal. Richard Dunne stuck out a foot and misdirected it into his own net. Balotelli did contribute to this goal by lurking at the far post and arguably, we can say that Dunne must have felt compelled to intervene because of Balotelli's positioning and presence.
Goal No. 2 - QPR 1 Liverpool 1
Vargas was able to score with a free header because Enrique had lost concentration and left his post there.
Goal No. 3 - QPR 1 Liverpool 2
This was a beautiful individual effort by Coutinho with an angular grounder into the far post net after a Liverpool break.
Goal No. 4 - QPR 2 Liverpool 2
This was the match's softest goal when Vargas' low header from close range trickled past the legs of Joe Allen. Slow motion replay clearly showed Allen losing concentration at the crucial moment. Though his positioning was correct, he had one arm on the post and was looking down at the field! When he looked up, the ball had already rolled past the line through his legs! Mignolet was not to be faulted.
Goal No. 5 - QPR 2 Liverpool 3
Off a poor free kick by QPR at Liverpool's end, Liverpool broke with a through-pass to Sterling who crossed towards the far post only to strike Caulker's near striding foot into the QPR goal. Again, we must wonder whether Caulker might have felt obligated to intervene because Balotelli was at the far post ready to apply the finishing touch.
So, rather than a very poor performance, Balotelli had played crucial parts in their fight-back. In a game when Liverpool had few clear shots, Balotelli had one shot blocked by a QPR defender, one shot saved by the goalkeeper's legs and a near post flick that failed to come off. I know he was roundly criticized for missing the sitter when Lallana's shot rebounded off the keeper, but one must remember that his positioning was good enough in the first place to afford him the opportunity to miss.
So, yes, Liverpool was mediocre, but they had the heart to go on to win the match through sheer grit when all seemed lost. The lack of sparkle in Balotelli's play was no better and no worse than his team mates'. In fact, elementary individual defensive errors by Enrique and Allen had put their team in difficulties quite unnecessarily. In a certain way, Liverpool fully deserved to win and Balotelli needs to be given more leeway.
I bet they will give Real Madrid a good fight soon in their upcoming Champions' League match!
Much criticism of Liverpool has ensued since their away win at QPR last Sunday. Unfairly, the brunt of the negative comments was directed at Balotelli. Before we join the chorus of condemnation, let's look at Liverpool's performance more objectively.
My assessment of the form of Liverpool is that, at this moment, they lack energy, enthusiasm and passion in their play. Contrary to popular belief, their weakness is not just in defense - the whole team whether in defense, midfield or attack is rather lethargic and is unable to impose themselves in all their matches this season. The fact that they were still able to salvage all three points against QPR despite a rather mediocre performance and jump up to fifth place in the table actually is a point to their credit.
Late in the game against QPR, just when they seemed destined to settle for an undeserved draw at 1-1 and then at 2-2, they came back each time to pull ahead. That actually speak volumes about their strength of character and fighting spirit.
Goal No. 1 - QPR 0 Liverpool 1
Their first goal was the result of Sterling's sheer professionalism when he took his free kick quickly when everyone was still arguing over the foul on him and having their backs to the ball. The much-maligned Johnson was similarly aware of the situation, received the pass from Sterling and crossed towards the far post of the QPR goal. Richard Dunne stuck out a foot and misdirected it into his own net. Balotelli did contribute to this goal by lurking at the far post and arguably, we can say that Dunne must have felt compelled to intervene because of Balotelli's positioning and presence.
Goal No. 2 - QPR 1 Liverpool 1
Vargas was able to score with a free header because Enrique had lost concentration and left his post there.
Goal No. 3 - QPR 1 Liverpool 2
This was a beautiful individual effort by Coutinho with an angular grounder into the far post net after a Liverpool break.
Goal No. 4 - QPR 2 Liverpool 2
This was the match's softest goal when Vargas' low header from close range trickled past the legs of Joe Allen. Slow motion replay clearly showed Allen losing concentration at the crucial moment. Though his positioning was correct, he had one arm on the post and was looking down at the field! When he looked up, the ball had already rolled past the line through his legs! Mignolet was not to be faulted.
Goal No. 5 - QPR 2 Liverpool 3
Off a poor free kick by QPR at Liverpool's end, Liverpool broke with a through-pass to Sterling who crossed towards the far post only to strike Caulker's near striding foot into the QPR goal. Again, we must wonder whether Caulker might have felt obligated to intervene because Balotelli was at the far post ready to apply the finishing touch.
So, rather than a very poor performance, Balotelli had played crucial parts in their fight-back. In a game when Liverpool had few clear shots, Balotelli had one shot blocked by a QPR defender, one shot saved by the goalkeeper's legs and a near post flick that failed to come off. I know he was roundly criticized for missing the sitter when Lallana's shot rebounded off the keeper, but one must remember that his positioning was good enough in the first place to afford him the opportunity to miss.
So, yes, Liverpool was mediocre, but they had the heart to go on to win the match through sheer grit when all seemed lost. The lack of sparkle in Balotelli's play was no better and no worse than his team mates'. In fact, elementary individual defensive errors by Enrique and Allen had put their team in difficulties quite unnecessarily. In a certain way, Liverpool fully deserved to win and Balotelli needs to be given more leeway.
I bet they will give Real Madrid a good fight soon in their upcoming Champions' League match!
Wednesday 8 October 2014
MOVIE REVIEW
"THE BABADOOK"
Opened 25 September 2014
As I sat down at the start of this psychological horror movie, I couldn't help noticing that the theatre was half-empty. For a movie that had just started its run three days before, this was surprising given the rave reviews and the critical acclaim it had garnered from audiences elsewhere.
At the end of the show, the audience seemed to be taken aback by its rather unexpected and abrupt ending. I detected a whiff of disappointment in the air. Perhaps, our local audiences had been conditioned to expect horror movies to proceed in a certain way: some shocking moments, some realistic CGIs, some sudden sound effects, some blood and gore and climaxing in a prolonged adrenaline-filled final fight scene when the evil would be finally defeated. Strangely, none of these played any part in this movie.
The story centers around a widow, Amelia, and her six year- old misbehaving and hyperactive son, Samuel. The sexually-repressed Amelia leads a depressing life of constantly having recurring dreams of the car accident which took her husband's life, of working as a carer of dementia patients, of keeping her son out of trouble, of boringly channel-surfing late night TV reruns, of having an almost non-existent social life and worst of all, of being totally consumed by her inability to get over her husband's death.
Like most 6 year-olds, Samuel, believes in the existence of monsters. He spends much of his time making weapons to fight these imaginary monsters. Having dropped out of school, he has plenty of time to make his mother's life even more miserable by constantly asking for attention and making a nuisance of himself.
One fateful night, Samuel insists that his mother read him a frightening story about a monster called Babadook from a book he found lying mysteriously in his book shelf. From that moment on, his obsession with monsters has a new name.
The odd thing is, as time goes on, instead of reassuring his son, Amelia appears to increasingly believe in the Babadook herself and starts to hear voices and loud knocks on the door. She went back to read the book and discovered that it tells the story of impending tragic events of her own life; of being possessed by the Babadook, of her killing her dog, then her son and finally of slitting her own throat with the kitchen knife.
She is horrified but the more she dreads the events becoming true the more she hears and sees evidence of the Babadook. It culminated in her actually seeing the monster dressed in disguise in a dark cloak and a top hat with piercing eyes, razor teeth and black bristles for hands. When the monster finally leaps from the ceiling into her screaming mouth, Amelia knows that she is being possessed.
Amelia begins to speak in a deep voice and act violently, refusing to care about her son, hurling vulgarities at him, kicking down a door and chasing him with the knife. At the crucial moment when she is at the point of suffocating her son, she suddenly let go and vomits black goo. Has she finally got rid of the monster? No, as her gasping son says, "you can't get rid of the Babadook!".
And so the monster comes for one final confrontation with Amelia with Samuel safely tucked behind his mother's back. Instead of Samuel going against his possessed mother, it is now the love of the mother and son against the monster. When all seem lost in this battle of wills, in her desperation, Amelia repeatedly and loudly denies the Monster's reality. And ... it works!
The monster suddenly collapses into a whimpering pile of clothes. As his mother approaches it to lift the clothes, the boy protests "no, no, mummy, no". Remember, the book says: "and once you see what's underneath ... you're going to wish you were dead"! But his mother lifted it anyway!
The truth is finally out. If we pay close attention to the scariest scene when the mother read out the lines in the pop-up children's book, we can see all the clues to the whole story:
"If it's in a word or if it's in a look"
"You can't get rid of the Babadook!".
(Interpretation: The monster is in your thoughts and imagination.)
"A rumbling sound,
Then 3 sharp knocks.
That's when you know he's around.
You'll see him if you look.
The Babadook, dook, dook!"
(Interpretation: He'll appear when you want him to.)
"This is what he wears on top.
He's funny, don't you think?
See him in your room at night,
And you won't sleep a wink."
(Interpretation: He's not quite what he appears, but you can't get him out of your mind.)
"A friend of you and me."
(Interpretation: The Babadook is a creature that arose from the relationship between mother and child.)
"Take heed of what you've read.
I'll soon take off my funny disguise,
... and once you see what's underneath ... you're going to wish you were dead"
(Interpretation: This is a warning that the truth behind the Babadook is quite unpalatable.)
So, what's underneath the Babadook is actually Amelia herself. Amelia IS the monster.
Apparently, six years ago, her husband was killed in a road traffic accident while sending her to hospital to deliver Samuel. Since the accident, Amelia has associated Samuel's birth with her husband's death. Perhaps unjustifiably, she blames her son for taking away her beloved husband and harbors a secret wish to end her whole miserable existence by killing everyone. Yet, Amelia cannot face the fact that she is having such an unacceptable thought and feels compelled to create an external monster as a bogeyman to assume responsibility for her guilt. Being previously a writer of children's books, she is likely to have made the pop-up book herself detailing her plans.
The Babadook that Samuel knows is slightly different. To him, the monster represents the thing that prevents his mother from loving him. At his age, he doesn't quite understand his mother's behavior towards him, but he knows it is related to his father's death on his birthday. That's why Samuel's birthday was never celebrated.
In the last scene, the pair is shown digging for worms in the garden, putting them onto a plate and offering them to the monster now still hiding in the basement room. Mother and son seem to get along much better, but the monster never dies.
Director and writer Jennifer Kent has offered this final scene as the key to the whole story. Her powerful message is that there is a Babadook in each of us, in every household and in every relationship, representing an unspeakable horror that we are too cowardly to face. It is the presence of a Babadook that depresses us and makes us miserable. So, in order to to make peace with ourselves and find the road to happiness, it is essential to at least acknowledge, if not to confront, our monsters bravely.
That is the lesson that we should all learn. Thanks to this great movie!
"THE BABADOOK"
Opened 25 September 2014
As I sat down at the start of this psychological horror movie, I couldn't help noticing that the theatre was half-empty. For a movie that had just started its run three days before, this was surprising given the rave reviews and the critical acclaim it had garnered from audiences elsewhere.
At the end of the show, the audience seemed to be taken aback by its rather unexpected and abrupt ending. I detected a whiff of disappointment in the air. Perhaps, our local audiences had been conditioned to expect horror movies to proceed in a certain way: some shocking moments, some realistic CGIs, some sudden sound effects, some blood and gore and climaxing in a prolonged adrenaline-filled final fight scene when the evil would be finally defeated. Strangely, none of these played any part in this movie.
The story centers around a widow, Amelia, and her six year- old misbehaving and hyperactive son, Samuel. The sexually-repressed Amelia leads a depressing life of constantly having recurring dreams of the car accident which took her husband's life, of working as a carer of dementia patients, of keeping her son out of trouble, of boringly channel-surfing late night TV reruns, of having an almost non-existent social life and worst of all, of being totally consumed by her inability to get over her husband's death.
Like most 6 year-olds, Samuel, believes in the existence of monsters. He spends much of his time making weapons to fight these imaginary monsters. Having dropped out of school, he has plenty of time to make his mother's life even more miserable by constantly asking for attention and making a nuisance of himself.
One fateful night, Samuel insists that his mother read him a frightening story about a monster called Babadook from a book he found lying mysteriously in his book shelf. From that moment on, his obsession with monsters has a new name.
The odd thing is, as time goes on, instead of reassuring his son, Amelia appears to increasingly believe in the Babadook herself and starts to hear voices and loud knocks on the door. She went back to read the book and discovered that it tells the story of impending tragic events of her own life; of being possessed by the Babadook, of her killing her dog, then her son and finally of slitting her own throat with the kitchen knife.
She is horrified but the more she dreads the events becoming true the more she hears and sees evidence of the Babadook. It culminated in her actually seeing the monster dressed in disguise in a dark cloak and a top hat with piercing eyes, razor teeth and black bristles for hands. When the monster finally leaps from the ceiling into her screaming mouth, Amelia knows that she is being possessed.
Amelia begins to speak in a deep voice and act violently, refusing to care about her son, hurling vulgarities at him, kicking down a door and chasing him with the knife. At the crucial moment when she is at the point of suffocating her son, she suddenly let go and vomits black goo. Has she finally got rid of the monster? No, as her gasping son says, "you can't get rid of the Babadook!".
And so the monster comes for one final confrontation with Amelia with Samuel safely tucked behind his mother's back. Instead of Samuel going against his possessed mother, it is now the love of the mother and son against the monster. When all seem lost in this battle of wills, in her desperation, Amelia repeatedly and loudly denies the Monster's reality. And ... it works!
The monster suddenly collapses into a whimpering pile of clothes. As his mother approaches it to lift the clothes, the boy protests "no, no, mummy, no". Remember, the book says: "and once you see what's underneath ... you're going to wish you were dead"! But his mother lifted it anyway!
The truth is finally out. If we pay close attention to the scariest scene when the mother read out the lines in the pop-up children's book, we can see all the clues to the whole story:
"If it's in a word or if it's in a look"
"You can't get rid of the Babadook!".
(Interpretation: The monster is in your thoughts and imagination.)
"A rumbling sound,
Then 3 sharp knocks.
That's when you know he's around.
You'll see him if you look.
The Babadook, dook, dook!"
(Interpretation: He'll appear when you want him to.)
"This is what he wears on top.
He's funny, don't you think?
See him in your room at night,
And you won't sleep a wink."
(Interpretation: He's not quite what he appears, but you can't get him out of your mind.)
"A friend of you and me."
(Interpretation: The Babadook is a creature that arose from the relationship between mother and child.)
"Take heed of what you've read.
I'll soon take off my funny disguise,
... and once you see what's underneath ... you're going to wish you were dead"
(Interpretation: This is a warning that the truth behind the Babadook is quite unpalatable.)
So, what's underneath the Babadook is actually Amelia herself. Amelia IS the monster.
Apparently, six years ago, her husband was killed in a road traffic accident while sending her to hospital to deliver Samuel. Since the accident, Amelia has associated Samuel's birth with her husband's death. Perhaps unjustifiably, she blames her son for taking away her beloved husband and harbors a secret wish to end her whole miserable existence by killing everyone. Yet, Amelia cannot face the fact that she is having such an unacceptable thought and feels compelled to create an external monster as a bogeyman to assume responsibility for her guilt. Being previously a writer of children's books, she is likely to have made the pop-up book herself detailing her plans.
The Babadook that Samuel knows is slightly different. To him, the monster represents the thing that prevents his mother from loving him. At his age, he doesn't quite understand his mother's behavior towards him, but he knows it is related to his father's death on his birthday. That's why Samuel's birthday was never celebrated.
In the last scene, the pair is shown digging for worms in the garden, putting them onto a plate and offering them to the monster now still hiding in the basement room. Mother and son seem to get along much better, but the monster never dies.
Director and writer Jennifer Kent has offered this final scene as the key to the whole story. Her powerful message is that there is a Babadook in each of us, in every household and in every relationship, representing an unspeakable horror that we are too cowardly to face. It is the presence of a Babadook that depresses us and makes us miserable. So, in order to to make peace with ourselves and find the road to happiness, it is essential to at least acknowledge, if not to confront, our monsters bravely.
That is the lesson that we should all learn. Thanks to this great movie!
Monday 6 October 2014
Saturday 4 October 2014
HK PROTEST UNNECESSARY
A letter published in the Voices Pages of Today newspaper on 4 October 2014
It seems nobody wants to risk his democratic credentials by breathing a word against Hong Kong’s pro-democracy protest. I, for one, have reservations about it.
First, ironically, occupying the city, disrupting life and business and inviting trouble does not seem too democratic. It also appears to do more harm than good to Hong Kong’s stature as a financial centre and tourist destination.
Foreigners who cheer the protest may not be so pure in their intentions too, as they may have their own agenda.
Second, the promise of political freedom is only for 50 years (from 1997). In 33 years’ time, Hong Kong will be under Beijing’s full control.
Understandably, China wants a say in the selection of the territory’s Chief Executive, to prevent any bad surprises or disruptions to a smooth transition.
Third, Hong Kong is already part of China. There is no escaping its fate as a legitimate Chinese city. Whatever democratic concessions that can be won now will at best be temporary.
Fourth, if one remembers the Tiananmen Square incident, a worry is that any further escalation in the protest may force China’s hand. Drastic action by the central government may result in violence and loss of life.
The protest is premature and unnecessary. Whether the vetting committee will be biased or not is still a question.
Between a committee to screen nominees for the Chief Executive election, with citizens voting directly, and the present situation of a 1,200-strong committee electing the Chief Executive, I think Hong Kong residents will be better off with direct elections in 2017.
A letter published in the Voices Pages of Today newspaper on 4 October 2014
It seems nobody wants to risk his democratic credentials by breathing a word against Hong Kong’s pro-democracy protest. I, for one, have reservations about it.
First, ironically, occupying the city, disrupting life and business and inviting trouble does not seem too democratic. It also appears to do more harm than good to Hong Kong’s stature as a financial centre and tourist destination.
Foreigners who cheer the protest may not be so pure in their intentions too, as they may have their own agenda.
Second, the promise of political freedom is only for 50 years (from 1997). In 33 years’ time, Hong Kong will be under Beijing’s full control.
Understandably, China wants a say in the selection of the territory’s Chief Executive, to prevent any bad surprises or disruptions to a smooth transition.
Third, Hong Kong is already part of China. There is no escaping its fate as a legitimate Chinese city. Whatever democratic concessions that can be won now will at best be temporary.
Fourth, if one remembers the Tiananmen Square incident, a worry is that any further escalation in the protest may force China’s hand. Drastic action by the central government may result in violence and loss of life.
The protest is premature and unnecessary. Whether the vetting committee will be biased or not is still a question.
Between a committee to screen nominees for the Chief Executive election, with citizens voting directly, and the present situation of a 1,200-strong committee electing the Chief Executive, I think Hong Kong residents will be better off with direct elections in 2017.
Friday 19 September 2014
BLUEPRINT FOR A NEW MERITOCRACY
This letter was published in the Voices Page of Today newspaper on 19 September 2014.
If meritocracy is the engine that drove Singapore from Third World to First, perhaps the real significance of SG50 is the reinvention of meritocracy so that a new version serves us for the next 50 years. Our aim should be the optimization of our human capital to bring about maximum improvement in our lives.
The Prime Minister’s call for a cultural shift, from a credential meritocracy based on paper qualifications to a performance meritocracy that values actual competence, is just the trigger for such a transformation.
As we recover from the initial confusion such an idea caused, we must think about how to proceed. I suggest that we take three vital steps.
Firstly, we must abandon the belief that intelligence is fixed and is the sole determinant of ability. We should believe that intelligence is fluid and can be increased through education, irrespective of the starting point. That should be the main role of schools. Examinations should only be used to gauge teaching and learning adequacy, not to judge or classify students.
Secondly, we should give up the notion that an intelligence quotient as represented by exam grades determines entry to university courses and suitability for jobs. Instead, the genuine interests and strengths of students should be identified and cultivated in school and made the main entry criteria.
Thirdly, university access to certain prestigious and lucrative professional jobs, such as in medicine, law and engineering, should be open to all ages as long as one is willing and able to undertake and pay for the rigorous training needed.
With these measures, the stress and expense of intensive tuition, the narrowness of studying to the test, wasted time from over-preparation for exams, manufactured exam results and the pain of irrelevant, hollow credentials will gradually fade away.
They will be superseded by the advent of true passion, commitment to lifelong learning and real expertise. People who thrive in such a system would fully deserve the respect they would naturally be shown. Others would know that they succeed because of both their wits and their diligence.
The elitism inherent in the credential system would eventually give way to a more egalitarian performance culture where everyone may have a chance to fail, but also every opportunity to succeed.
Daniel Lee
Tuesday 16 September 2014
THREE TRULY LIMITING IMPEDIMENTS TO A PERFORMANCE MERITOCRACY
(Published as 'Three Main Reasons For Paper Chase' in the Straits Times online forum page on 16 September 2014)
Education Minister Heng Swee Keat's three breakthroughs in fostering a performance meritocracy, lifelong applied learning in the workplace and an expanded definition of success, as well as his action plan of encouraging all citizens to learn at every stage and in every way in a climate of mutual respect are to be commended.
Sadly, in reality, there are three major impediments to such a rosy outcome. In fact, these are the three main reasons why people chase after paper qualifications in Singapore.
The first impediment is the belief that intelligence is fixed and determines the ability of people. So, if intelligence cannot be boosted through learning, schooling becomes merely a mechanism to classify and stratify people. The PSLE, the O-, N- and A-level exams, the SAT and university exams become part of an intelligence-test marathon.
Knowing that their potential will be prematurely and unfairly labelled, students' main priority in school is to play the exam game by over-preparation and intensive tuition, as credentials are the only proof of their intelligence.
The second impediment is the belief that suitability for jobs and university courses is related mainly to intelligence. So, students can qualify to study certain courses only if their exam results are good enough or at least better than other applicants'. If not, they have to settle for other courses that they may not be suitable for.
There is also a tendency for those with good results to choose courses based on the prestige conferred to them or the potential high income associated with them, and not according to their interests or strengths.
Lastly, certain prestigious and lucrative jobs are being treated as professions that require deep and special knowledge and skills. Therefore, only people with the relevant degrees and credentials are admitted to these privileged and protected fields. If students do not get admitted into these university courses in the first instance, it is difficult for them to enter later.
So, without removing these three impediments, people can only believe their economic destiny will still be predetermined early in their lives, and that the only way to good jobs and a good life would be to secure good credentials in the first place. Seemingly, no amount of belated effort, enthusiasm and lifelong learning is going to change that.
Daniel Lee
Thursday 11 September 2014
A PURPOSEFUL UNIVERSITY LIFE
(Background: This Straits Times Forum letter published on 12 September 2014 is in response to a National Post article "University should be a place for soul-searching, not just money-grubbing" by David Brooks at http://ww2.nationalpost.com/m/wp/blog.html?b=fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2014/09/10/david-brooks-university-should-be-a-place-for-soul-searching-not-just-money-grubbing)
I refer to last Wednesday's article "The commercial, cognitive and moral purpose of university life" by David Brooks. It has restated the oft-repeated distinctions between the different purposes of university education as if they are mutually exclusive or even in conflict with one another.
Nothing could be further from the truth. I would say that tertiary education is the activity that progressively teaches you how to gather, understand and utilize information to hone your mind, to cultivate your interests and to motivate you to become a useful member of society. It also helps you to create your self-identity and to make sense of the world so that you can respond to it morally.
Such a deeper and enlightened experience would endow you with useful skills to be a productive person in your future career, to be able to make better life decisions and to be a morally-reliable citizen; all in one process.
So, it is not either one or the other purpose being the flavor of the current times, but rather the harmonious integration of all three purposes that makes university education so rewarding.
The reason why universities seem to be singularly absorbed into the commercial ethos is that students have now adopted a narrow and misguided view of education as a launchpad for getting ahead. In my view, the fault of their failure to instead embark on a authentic journey of self-improvement, intellectual excitement and moral awakening lies almost solely with the students themselves.
Daniel Lee
Wednesday 3 September 2014
MOVE TOWARDS PERFORMANCE MERITOCRACY
A Straits Times Forum Page letter published on 4 September 2014
I BELIEVE Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong's call for a "culture shift" is not a call for perfect parity between graduates and non-graduates in terms of job opportunities, promotion prospects or starting pay ("Culture shift a matter of degrees"; last Saturday). Neither is he saying degrees and paper qualifications have become worthless.
His real message is that one should not go on a paper chase just for the sake of it.
To progress, you need to know what you are good at and interested in, master your skill in it and advance your expertise continually.
If paper qualifications and degrees help in this process, you should pursue them. If not, you can do it through apprenticeship, self-study and work experience.
So, credentials by themselves are not crucial; they are important only insofar as they boost your competence. If your credentials are irrelevant or do not help you to be a better worker, then your degree or qualification would be worthless.
In effect, PM Lee has clarified for us the definition of a new "performance meritocracy", which values people for their qualities, competencies and contributions as workers and leaders in our economy, whatever their fields or credentials. In such a meritocracy, discriminating between graduates and non-graduates becomes irrelevant.
In fact, we should move from our present elitist "credential meritocracy" to a more egalitarian "performance meritocracy" based on competence and expertise.
One practical measure to help foster the new meritocracy is to minimise the income disparity of the top performers in all fields. This would rationalise the system of rewards and inspire Singaporeans to work harder by valuing excellence in all fields, rather than over-rewarding only certain prestigious fields.
Daniel Lee
Daniel Lee
Tuesday 2 September 2014
UTILITARIAN VIEW OF EDUCATION SHORT-SIGHTED
My Forum Page letter published in The Straits Times on 1 September 2014
(Background: This letter was written in response to another Straits Times Forum Page letter written by Dr Anne Chong Su Yan published on 28 August 2014 advocating a 'no-frills' university education in Singapore. In it, Dr Chong opined that a utilitarian view of the purpose of higher education is justified in the light of the limited national financial resources and the contention that most freshmen would have already known where their strengths and interests lie. So, she thinks that from the get-go, they should get on with acquiring 'the skills and knowledge to enable them to support themselves and their families, as well as contribute to the nation's economy', without having 'to take up irrelevant modules they have "no real interest in and no aptitude for", only to obtain an F grade that will be discounted later'.)
I disagree with Dr Anne Chong Su Yan ("Stick to 'no-frills' education"; last Thursday) on two counts.
My Forum Page letter published in The Straits Times on 1 September 2014
(Background: This letter was written in response to another Straits Times Forum Page letter written by Dr Anne Chong Su Yan published on 28 August 2014 advocating a 'no-frills' university education in Singapore. In it, Dr Chong opined that a utilitarian view of the purpose of higher education is justified in the light of the limited national financial resources and the contention that most freshmen would have already known where their strengths and interests lie. So, she thinks that from the get-go, they should get on with acquiring 'the skills and knowledge to enable them to support themselves and their families, as well as contribute to the nation's economy', without having 'to take up irrelevant modules they have "no real interest in and no aptitude for", only to obtain an F grade that will be discounted later'.)
I disagree with Dr Anne Chong Su Yan ("Stick to 'no-frills' education"; last Thursday) on two counts.
Friday 29 August 2014
IN LOVING MEMORY OF MY MOTHER
17 June 1930 - 29 August 2012 (2nd Anniversary)
17 June 1930 - 29 August 2012 (2nd Anniversary)
I'm happy for you, mother,
Back with dad, you're together.
For recently, I heard your banter.
Recalling old times so tender.
You loved durians, I remember;
Also a super popiah devourer,
A great chocolate sundae eater,
And a fierce crab-claw crusher.
This mortal divide is no bother,
As love is the great conquerer.
Forget your gentleness, I'll never;
Cos' I'm your loyal son forever!
Sunday 24 August 2014
THE PERSISTENT DISLIKE FOR FRUITS AND VEGETABLES AND ITS CONSEQUENCES
The fifth and latest edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) had renamed "Feeding Disorder of Infancy or Early Childhood" to "Avoidant/Restrictive Food Intake Disorder" (also known as Selective Eating Disorder (SED)). Not only has it broadened its diagnostic criteria, it is also a reflection of the realization that the eating disorder that prevents the consumption of certain foods is not merely a phase of childhood that can be outgrown with age, but can persist throughout the adult lives of people so afflicted.
Perhaps, the most infuriating and puzzling symptom of this disorder for parents of afflicted young children and even adult offsprings is their dislike and persistent refusal of fruits and vegetables. While the World Health Organization recommends that everyone eats five portions of fruits and vegetables a day, these victims may take zero portion for months, years or even whole lifetimes!
Such a chronic lack of fruits and vegetables will have dire health consequences.
WHY THE DISLIKE?
There are a few reasons for the persistence into adulthood such child-like aversion towards fruits and vegetables:
1. Complacency.
Victims feel that they are young and invincible and are indifferent to future health problems. They assess their health by how they presently feel, not by evaluating their diet and lifestyles in the light of widely known medical evidence.
2. Victims place a higher priority on their work and social activities over their health.
When they feel that they can hardly cope with their busy lifestyles, they eat for comfort or to merely suppress their hunger. So, they skip breakfast and eat whatever is quickest to buy and most convenient to eat. Soon, foods devoid of fruits and vegetables like instant noodles, cracker snacks, delivered fast foods and pizzas become their staple food.
3. Laziness.
Some victims spend most of their time cooped up in their rooms stuck with their computers and electronic devices, lying in their sofas or beds. To them, going to the kitchen, opening the fridge door, washing and cutting or peeling some fruits to eat seem so much of a chore. It would seem much easier to reach for the chips and chocolates on their table.
4. Never eating home meals.
Perhaps, by force of habit or as a form of rebellion, some victims eat out every meal of the day, every day of the year. Even when they are home early, they may call for delivered fast foods to be eaten in their rooms, spurning the home-cooked vegetable dishes eaten by the rest of the family.
5. An acquired taste for sugar and salt.
Victims base their food decisions on taste and appearance, not on their nutrient or health benefits. Due to the commercialization of food, widespread advertising has caused victims to associate sweet and salty foods with their modern lifestyles and reject as more disagreeable the blander and potentially more sour and bitter fruits and vegetables.
6. Ignorance.
Despite the many campaigns, advertisements, books, magazines and TV programs that inform about the benefits of fruits and vegetables, many victims choose to ignore such advice either because they lack education and do not understand the science behind them or they are bored by their repetition.
SO WHAT ARE THE CONSEQUENCES?
It is widely known that fruits and vegetables provide numerous nutrients that help to lower the risks of cancer, heart disease, diabetes and obesity. Therefore, a deficiency of fruits and vegetables may increase the risks of these serious diseases.
If we refer to the largest prospective cohort study of 500,000 participants in Europe on the relationship between diet and chronic diseases called the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC) Study (1993 to date), we can deduce the following key findings regarding the intake of fruits and vegetables:
1. The high potassium from fruits and vegetables prevents high blood pressure.
2. High dietary fibre (including from fruits and vegetables) protects against bowel cancer.
3. Obesity (which may be caused by a high-calorie, high carbohydrate diet in contrast to a diet rich in fruits and vegetables) increases the risk of developing a number of cancers.
4. Increased fat intake (in contrast to a high fruit and vegetable diet) increases the risk of breast cancer.
5. Dietary flavonoid (found ubiquitously in vegetables and fruits) is associated with reduced gastric carcinoma risk in women.
6. Reducing the consumption of processed meat (perhaps by correspondingly increasing fruit and vegetable consumption) can reduce the risk of cardiovascular diseases and death from cancer.
7. An increase in fruit and vegetable intake reduces the risk from all causes of an early death.
8. The consumption of at least five daily servings of fruits and vegetables (together with not smoking, being physically active and moderated alcohol intake) was estimated to lengthen life by 14 years.
But, I guess with the increasing petulance of the younger generation and the undying indulgence of their parents, this will continue to fall on deaf ears.
The fifth and latest edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) had renamed "Feeding Disorder of Infancy or Early Childhood" to "Avoidant/Restrictive Food Intake Disorder" (also known as Selective Eating Disorder (SED)). Not only has it broadened its diagnostic criteria, it is also a reflection of the realization that the eating disorder that prevents the consumption of certain foods is not merely a phase of childhood that can be outgrown with age, but can persist throughout the adult lives of people so afflicted.
Perhaps, the most infuriating and puzzling symptom of this disorder for parents of afflicted young children and even adult offsprings is their dislike and persistent refusal of fruits and vegetables. While the World Health Organization recommends that everyone eats five portions of fruits and vegetables a day, these victims may take zero portion for months, years or even whole lifetimes!
Such a chronic lack of fruits and vegetables will have dire health consequences.
WHY THE DISLIKE?
There are a few reasons for the persistence into adulthood such child-like aversion towards fruits and vegetables:
1. Complacency.
Victims feel that they are young and invincible and are indifferent to future health problems. They assess their health by how they presently feel, not by evaluating their diet and lifestyles in the light of widely known medical evidence.
2. Victims place a higher priority on their work and social activities over their health.
When they feel that they can hardly cope with their busy lifestyles, they eat for comfort or to merely suppress their hunger. So, they skip breakfast and eat whatever is quickest to buy and most convenient to eat. Soon, foods devoid of fruits and vegetables like instant noodles, cracker snacks, delivered fast foods and pizzas become their staple food.
3. Laziness.
Some victims spend most of their time cooped up in their rooms stuck with their computers and electronic devices, lying in their sofas or beds. To them, going to the kitchen, opening the fridge door, washing and cutting or peeling some fruits to eat seem so much of a chore. It would seem much easier to reach for the chips and chocolates on their table.
4. Never eating home meals.
Perhaps, by force of habit or as a form of rebellion, some victims eat out every meal of the day, every day of the year. Even when they are home early, they may call for delivered fast foods to be eaten in their rooms, spurning the home-cooked vegetable dishes eaten by the rest of the family.
5. An acquired taste for sugar and salt.
Victims base their food decisions on taste and appearance, not on their nutrient or health benefits. Due to the commercialization of food, widespread advertising has caused victims to associate sweet and salty foods with their modern lifestyles and reject as more disagreeable the blander and potentially more sour and bitter fruits and vegetables.
6. Ignorance.
Despite the many campaigns, advertisements, books, magazines and TV programs that inform about the benefits of fruits and vegetables, many victims choose to ignore such advice either because they lack education and do not understand the science behind them or they are bored by their repetition.
SO WHAT ARE THE CONSEQUENCES?
It is widely known that fruits and vegetables provide numerous nutrients that help to lower the risks of cancer, heart disease, diabetes and obesity. Therefore, a deficiency of fruits and vegetables may increase the risks of these serious diseases.
If we refer to the largest prospective cohort study of 500,000 participants in Europe on the relationship between diet and chronic diseases called the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC) Study (1993 to date), we can deduce the following key findings regarding the intake of fruits and vegetables:
1. The high potassium from fruits and vegetables prevents high blood pressure.
2. High dietary fibre (including from fruits and vegetables) protects against bowel cancer.
3. Obesity (which may be caused by a high-calorie, high carbohydrate diet in contrast to a diet rich in fruits and vegetables) increases the risk of developing a number of cancers.
4. Increased fat intake (in contrast to a high fruit and vegetable diet) increases the risk of breast cancer.
5. Dietary flavonoid (found ubiquitously in vegetables and fruits) is associated with reduced gastric carcinoma risk in women.
6. Reducing the consumption of processed meat (perhaps by correspondingly increasing fruit and vegetable consumption) can reduce the risk of cardiovascular diseases and death from cancer.
7. An increase in fruit and vegetable intake reduces the risk from all causes of an early death.
8. The consumption of at least five daily servings of fruits and vegetables (together with not smoking, being physically active and moderated alcohol intake) was estimated to lengthen life by 14 years.
But, I guess with the increasing petulance of the younger generation and the undying indulgence of their parents, this will continue to fall on deaf ears.
Saturday 9 August 2014
HOW AND WHY GOD CAN CO-EXIST WITH EVIL - PART 4
AN OBJECTIVE PHILOSOPHICAL EVALUATION
The whole effort of religion is a human attempt to try to find order from a chaotic world. We can't accept random events of suffering and evil. We disbelieve that misfortunes are chance events. We want a worldly existence full of meaning and justice, yet all evidence points to the contrary. Are we left only with the the feeling of depression and abandonment as in existential philosophy?
So, despite the foregoing explanations, questions persist. Why is there evil and suffering at all? Why are they so hard to bear? Why doesn't God prevent them? And when they happened, why didn't God relieve or remove them? Does God know about my suffering? Or is God powerless or indifferent? Does God love me at all? How can He bear to let humans He love suffer so much?Or does He even exist?
SOME BIBLICAL CONTRADICTIONS
1. Isaiah 45:7 (KJV)
7 "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things."
Does God create evil?
2. Amos 3:6 (KJV)
6 "When a trumpet sounds in a city, do not the people tremble? When disaster comes to a city, has not the LORD caused it?"
Is God responsible for natural disasters?
3. 2 Thessalonians 1:8-9 (KJV)
8 "In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:" 9 "Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;"
Does God ruthlessly punish and take revenge on those who don't know him or don't obey him?
WHAT ARE WE TO MAKE OF IT?
We have 3 options:
1. We can go on asking: why can't we be free-willed beings in a world without evil, living a life of moral goodness and mutual love, cooperating with God and enjoying His glory?
2. We can accept the Christian faith as it is and trust God whole-heartedly. But, this only works if your acceptance is true and sincere. Pascal's Wager will not do.
3. For those who somehow could not accept the Bible story or could not betray their intellectual honesty, you can assume that this may be the only life you've got and make the best of it and be the best person you can be despite the uncertainty, randomness and indifference of this existence.
AN OBJECTIVE PHILOSOPHICAL EVALUATION
The whole effort of religion is a human attempt to try to find order from a chaotic world. We can't accept random events of suffering and evil. We disbelieve that misfortunes are chance events. We want a worldly existence full of meaning and justice, yet all evidence points to the contrary. Are we left only with the the feeling of depression and abandonment as in existential philosophy?
So, despite the foregoing explanations, questions persist. Why is there evil and suffering at all? Why are they so hard to bear? Why doesn't God prevent them? And when they happened, why didn't God relieve or remove them? Does God know about my suffering? Or is God powerless or indifferent? Does God love me at all? How can He bear to let humans He love suffer so much?Or does He even exist?
SOME BIBLICAL CONTRADICTIONS
1. Isaiah 45:7 (KJV)
7 "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things."
Does God create evil?
2. Amos 3:6 (KJV)
6 "When a trumpet sounds in a city, do not the people tremble? When disaster comes to a city, has not the LORD caused it?"
Is God responsible for natural disasters?
3. 2 Thessalonians 1:8-9 (KJV)
8 "In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:" 9 "Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;"
Does God ruthlessly punish and take revenge on those who don't know him or don't obey him?
WHAT ARE WE TO MAKE OF IT?
We have 3 options:
1. We can go on asking: why can't we be free-willed beings in a world without evil, living a life of moral goodness and mutual love, cooperating with God and enjoying His glory?
2. We can accept the Christian faith as it is and trust God whole-heartedly. But, this only works if your acceptance is true and sincere. Pascal's Wager will not do.
3. For those who somehow could not accept the Bible story or could not betray their intellectual honesty, you can assume that this may be the only life you've got and make the best of it and be the best person you can be despite the uncertainty, randomness and indifference of this existence.
HOW AND WHY GOD CAN CO-EXIST WITH EVIL - PART 3
WHY GOD CAN CO-EXIST WITH EVIL
(Morally justifying God's tolerance of evil)
1. Augustinian Theodicy
In the beginning, God created a perfect world without evil or suffering. When Adam and Eve disobeyed God, it allowed evil to enter the world. Evil and suffering thus become the just punishment for this original sin.
Furthermore, according to the Augustinian tradition, any killing, suffering and pain as inflicted upon an enemy when encountered in a just war is positively justified.
2. Irenaean Theodicy
Humans are created in a two-stage process: made first in the image of God whereby the potential for moral perfection is bestowed; and secondly, made in the likeness of God when perfection is actually achieved. To complete this second stage, humans need to have free will and must experience suffering. Such evil is necessary to allow humans to develop as moral agents in this process of spiritualization and soul-making.
3. Eleonore Stump's Theodicy
In her view, the natural evils of disasters, disease, old age and death work to humble humans and make them realize their own frailty and the temporary nature of their satisfaction with themselves and their worldly possessions. This may help them turn their attention to spiritual things and make it more conducive for them to accept the gift of salvation from God.
4. God's Mysterious Plan:
Like a form of predestination, all events have been willed by God. He has a plan whereby each episode of suffering and evil serves a purpose, either to punish us for our misdeeds, to teach us a valuable lesson, to test our faith or free will, to liberate us from more pain or to serve a higher historical purpose or greater good; so just trust God that everything happens for a reason. If life is considered as a whole, misfortunes fall into a certain pattern such that the suffering will not be more than you can bear, the good will eventually exceed the evil and in cases of apparently undeserved or uneven distribution of suffering, the joys of heaven will more than compensate for those. So, each episode of suffering only has a (human) meaning if we attach our own meaning to it, because ultimately, God's plan is beyond human understanding.
WHY GOD CAN CO-EXIST WITH EVIL
(Morally justifying God's tolerance of evil)
1. Augustinian Theodicy
In the beginning, God created a perfect world without evil or suffering. When Adam and Eve disobeyed God, it allowed evil to enter the world. Evil and suffering thus become the just punishment for this original sin.
Furthermore, according to the Augustinian tradition, any killing, suffering and pain as inflicted upon an enemy when encountered in a just war is positively justified.
2. Irenaean Theodicy
Humans are created in a two-stage process: made first in the image of God whereby the potential for moral perfection is bestowed; and secondly, made in the likeness of God when perfection is actually achieved. To complete this second stage, humans need to have free will and must experience suffering. Such evil is necessary to allow humans to develop as moral agents in this process of spiritualization and soul-making.
3. Eleonore Stump's Theodicy
In her view, the natural evils of disasters, disease, old age and death work to humble humans and make them realize their own frailty and the temporary nature of their satisfaction with themselves and their worldly possessions. This may help them turn their attention to spiritual things and make it more conducive for them to accept the gift of salvation from God.
4. God's Mysterious Plan:
Like a form of predestination, all events have been willed by God. He has a plan whereby each episode of suffering and evil serves a purpose, either to punish us for our misdeeds, to teach us a valuable lesson, to test our faith or free will, to liberate us from more pain or to serve a higher historical purpose or greater good; so just trust God that everything happens for a reason. If life is considered as a whole, misfortunes fall into a certain pattern such that the suffering will not be more than you can bear, the good will eventually exceed the evil and in cases of apparently undeserved or uneven distribution of suffering, the joys of heaven will more than compensate for those. So, each episode of suffering only has a (human) meaning if we attach our own meaning to it, because ultimately, God's plan is beyond human understanding.
HOW AND WHY GOD CAN CO-EXIST WITH EVIL - PART 2
HOW GOD CAN CO-EXIST WITH EVIL
(Defending the logical possibility of God's tolerance of evil)
1. Alvin Plantinga's free will defense:
It is God’s decision to endow his creations with morally significant free will which is crucial if He is to have a meaningful relationship with them and to enable them to do good and love one another. But, the natural consequence is that the moral choices afforded by such free will render the elimination of much of the evil and suffering in this world impossible. That is because our free will may be misused by us and lead us to make bad moral choices to hurt each other and hurt ourselves such that we actually deserve having the resultant misfortunes. So, you can't have free will without also having evil and suffering.
2. Dualism of Good and Evil:
Good and evil are like 2 sides of a coin. You can't have one without the other. They are necessary complementary opposites with God responsible for good and Satan responsible for evil.
3. Evil does not exist:
Evil as an entity does not exist. Like coldness, coldness as an entity does not exist but is a condition of varying degrees of absence of heat. Heat certainly exists as it is a form of energy associated with the motion of atoms or molecules and capable of being transmitted. So, evil is merely the absence or deficiency in goodness and therefore has nothing to do with God.
4. Karma:
This is the principle of causality where the future of an individual is influenced by his present intentions and actions. Good intentions and good actions give good karma leading to good future outcomes while the opposite leads to suffering and evil.
HOW AND WHY GOD CAN CO-EXIST WITH EVIL - PART 1
I have 2 premises:
1. The Christian God is characterized by being omni-benevolent, omniscient and omnipotent. This premise is crucial because It is only with these qualities that God could create the world and all its creatures, be the master of all existence and be able to make good the promise of salvation and eternal life in heaven.
2. There is plenty of evil in this world. By evil, I mean both moral badness and wickedness, as well as events causing injuries, harm, misfortune, loss or destruction and illnesses that cause pain, suffering and death. This is a factual premise as evidence is readily available in history, current affairs as well as our daily personal experiences.
Perhaps, the greatest stumbling block to faith in the Christian God is the apparent irreconcilable contradictions between these 2 premises. We wonder how an all-loving God can allow his creations to suffer evil, how an all-knowing God can fail to prevent or stop evil and how an all-powerful God can be powerless against evil forces.
I shall attempt to show how and why God and evil can co-exist and evaluate the sufficiency of my efforts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)