DEFINING THE UNDEFINABLE 

Part 4

WHAT IS ART?

Art is a form of expression extolling particular responses to, modes of or interpretations of human experiences; seeking to provoke the physical senses and mental processes into further diverse and unpredictable secondary responses in an effort to enrich and enlarge the full totality of the human experience.

DEFINING THE UNDEFINABLE

Part 3


WHAT IS LIFE?

Life is the one-time ownership of time and space between birth and death, affording you the opportunity to figure out what it is all about, to decide what to do and to do it until you get it right.

NICE MOVIE - CRAZY RICH ASIANS

Let me give you the verdict at the outset - you will enjoy this movie because it is so full of fun. Despite the inevitable cliches, the exaggerated show of decadence and the deliberate silliness, it manages to introduce some freshness in weaving together the three threads of a familiar love story, an undisguised ridicule of the laughable pretentiousness and the mad antics of the so-called super-rich and a re-exploration of the conflict between Asian family values and the Western pursuit of individual happiness.

So, it is still worthwhile examining the three questions that occupy your mind when you stumble out at the exit as the closing credits roll:

(1) In this day and age, are the so-called Asian values of hierarchy, authority, seniority, tradition and family still relevant in the face of a globalised world built around individual autonomy, freedom of choice and the universal pursuit of happiness? If the predictable ending is to be believed, the answer seems to be a NO.

(2) Is it necessary to be rich, never mind super-rich, to live satisfying and fulfilling lives? If large parts of the movie mine laughter by laughing at the excess and superficiality that money buys, the movie seems to answer NO to that question too. But seriously, if true love and happiness on the one hand; and a life of wealth, comfort and power on the other; are mutually-exclusive choices, how would or should we choose? I think that really depends on you.

(3) And the last and a politically-charged question: is the possession of wealth an accurate measure of a man’s (or woman’s) talent, self-worth and especially his worthiness for respect and self-respect, never mind the secondary question of whether which has more merit - old money or new money? To be polite, let’s just say that it is unsafe to give a clear answer to that, though it is pretty clear in our minds! Since money and talent are two of the most sensitive and contentious issues in Singapore, an honest answer here will probably be an unwanted one.

DEFINING THE UNDEFINABLE

Part 2

WHAT IS LOVE?

Many people think that love is an inexplicable and mysterious feeling that you have for another person. It seems that when you love him or her, you just know it; without knowing how or why.

I think a little differently. I think love is a spontaneous attraction or disposition towards a person whose mere presence makes you happy. I think love can be explained and can be recognized and understood, but it must be defined in the context of a relationship. Loving a thing or an object is diametrically different. So, in a loving relationship, you will find at least these seven features:

(1) You have a natural fondness for that person, a fondness not dependent on any specific quality or characteristic. 

(2) You accept him/her the way he/she is and you will never try to change him/her to fit your preference.

(3) You have genuine respect for his/her freedom and opinions and you will never try to dominate, override or disregard his/her free will and autonomy.

(4) You appreciate him/her as someone special and treasure him/her above everyone else.

(5) You are naturally kind and helpful towards him/her and you will do everything in your power to protect, satisfy and ensure his/her happiness.

(6) Loving someone does not entail possessing him/her.

(7) Your love for someone is not dependent or conditional on him/her loving you back.

If any one of these features are missing, it is possible that you don't really love him/her.

Lastly, must love be forever? ........... sadly, no! Love can fade. Love can be lost. Love can disappear. And, like everything else, love can die.

DEFINING THE UNDEFINABLE
This is a series that defines comprehensively and objectively difficult-to-define words and the concepts they represent.

Part 1

WHAT IS RELIGION?

Religions are emotional attempts to placate anxiety about human mortality or to provide existential consolation through a tenacious adherence or loyalty to a set of cultural beliefs, rituals and communal behaviour, to be defended at all costs. Their central ideas are focused either on an unalterable fundamental principle or varying concepts of a supreme supernatural being or beings that have absolute control over human destiny. Characteristically, such ideas are neither grounded in reason nor reality, so a scientific or logical evaluation of religion is not possible.

TRUMPKIM FEVER II

Whatever the colour of your shade,

Let your heart be free from hate.

Whatever palette you choose to use,

Never be deceitful or obtuse. 

TRUMPKIM FEVER I

Source: https://www.crossed-flag-pins.com

Source: https://www.crossed-flag-pins.com

No one  seems to have noticed that both the American and North Korean national flags have the same basic colours of red, blue and white. Both parties should realise that there is much commonality in their national psyche! I hope this will put them on a more friendly frame of mind to bring their two countries together onto the path of peace and mutual prosperity.

THEY ARE NOT COUNTRY TRUMPKIMS

The Dems said he is Forrest Gump,

Yet Heaven dotes on Donald Trump.

We called Kim a mad Rocket Man,

But he is really a savvy statesman.

Now, on the twelve of June,

They are going to call the tune.

Watch how bigly they will score

In the lovely island of Singapore.

A nuclear peace for the human race

Will put all detractors in their place.

Neither a simple country TrumpKim,

They’ll win Nobel prizes in a whim.

THE REAL CAUSES OF POLITICAL MANICHAEISM
AND THEIR REMEDY

https://www.straitstimes.com/forum/letters-in-print/graciousness-charity-vital-for-healthy-debates

"I hope that we in Singapore can do better by being committed to respectful, reasonable and robust discourse with one another," says Straits Times Forum contributor Zhang Jieqiang. 

That I certainly agree, but I do not think that the lack of charity or grace is the reason why debates often degenerate into mutual demonization, ad hominem attacks, name-calling and accusations of bad motives. There are three main reasons why such degeneration occur:

First, people get into debates with the wrong frame of mind. They think that debates are about winning and losing, so they will do or say anything, however ridiculous or unreasonable, to maintain indefensible statements at all costs. Sometimes, in a mistaken effort to save face or to appear to have a superficially amicable outcome, they would suggest having a very unsatisfactory and pointless "agreement to disagree".  In reality, debates are about exploring ideas from both sides so that each side can benefit from a clarification and enrichment of their own thinking and learn new ideas from others.

Second, people engage in debates with the wrong ends in mind. They want their own views to prevail and therefore, all their inputs into any debate are designed to support their own original stand. Ideally, they should present their views in the hope of receiving a contrarian rebuttal with the aim of re-evaluating their own stand. Perspectives and views don't "belong" to anyone and people should be able to adopt and abandon views at will depending on how a debate proceeds.

Third, people in some societies or cultures wrongly think that a debate is a quarrel or an adversarial conflict that is best avoided. This is because of the basic assumption that people are incapable of changing their minds or their views. They expect everyone to be afflicted with an irreversible and highly tenacious dogmatism. On the contrary, the whole point of debate is to seek to change one's own mind for the better, with the help of your debating partner(s).

In short, you go into a debate not to win, but to learn; not to prevail, but to explore; not to change the mind of the other, but to see whether your own mind should be changed in the light of arguments from others.

So, political or social Manichaeism is not the outcome of a lack of charity or grace. Rather, whether in America or Singapore, it is because people got into debates without knowing what debates are all about! Until and only if political and social discourses are informed by an enlightened understanding of the true nature and spirit of "debate", they are destined to be both frustrating and counter-productive everywhere.

Opinion

HAS MALAYSIA STOLEN SINGAPORE’S THUNDER?

Can Singapore respond by re-inventing itself into a truly blind meritocracy?

Malaysia’s new enlightened political leadership will abolish its GST from 1 June 2018. Despite potentially crippling losses and huge debts arising from the 1MDB corruption scandal of its previous Government under Najib, Mahathir the old-new Malaysian leader has stayed calm and has reassured his people that he is confident of recovering most of the lost money and that he will be able to boost his country’s stock market and its economy. He had also worked fast - restoring business confidence, hastening investigations into the wrongdoings of the previous administration, removing the allegedly corrupted leaders of his civil service and releasing the much-wronged Anwar Ibrahim within days of his election victory. One can’t help but stand back in admiration.

Meanwhile in contrast, for its more celebrated neighbour across the Causeway, the star of Singapore seems to be dimming. It looks increasingly jaded and seems to be immersed in a political and social malaise and stagnation. It appears to be doing the opposite - it is increasing its GST from 7 to 9 % some time between 2021-2025. Its politics, politicians, civil service and Government policies have all stayed almost unchanged since the heyday of Lee Kuan Yew. The much anticipated emergence of its 4th generation political leaders seems to be facing a prolonged gestation and the longer this delay goes on, the more people will wonder if there is a lack of political talent in the PAP itself. Usually, a true natural leader will select himself and announce himself through his sheer presence, charisma and moral and intellectual authority. To date, no one’s light is shining through. Worse, there is no evidence of political competition among the party’s stalwarts. Every contender sounds the same and says the same things and they never contradict party policy or each other. None of them has his own political character or personality. All they show is a monotonous conformity. Is this a symptom of the party’s lack of real fresh blood, ideas and vitality? If so, it is particularly worrisome for the future of Singapore. If not, let’s hope this is just part of Singapore’s unique culture.

Its superstar, the late Lee Kuan Yew, modernised Singapore and brought it from the 3rd to the 1st world within one generation. He was able to do so because he dared to change Singapore’s society from its backwater in the 50’s into a modern society in the 90s. But a seeming lack of confidence had caused the country to misinterpret his legacy by trying to preserve his policies as far as it can, in form, in substance and in spirit. That, I think, is the exact opposite of what Lee Kuan Yew’s legacy really is! 

He had shown us a pioneering spirit of going where no man would or could, by following his own intuition of “what works”. He showed loyalty to neither doctrine nor principle. If something worked, he carried on; if something doesn’t, he changed course. What brought Singapore success was not an LKY formula, but an innovative spirit to seek the best way of doing something and to always change for the better. He did not stand for doing the same things in the same way over and over again.

The country seems anxious about the uncertainties of its future. Yet it is averse to and fearful of change. Part of the reason for the decline in Singapore’s stature seems to be a lack of political competition and a diminishment of intellectual vigour in Singapore. There is no real contest of ideas in its society and the all-encompassing PAP seems intent on discouraging political participation by its people. 

I see no spark in Singapore society except for them to continue on this plateau. Perhaps, the only way for it to jump onto a new rising curve is for the PAP to re-examine its priorities. Should they stop thinking about preserving their own dominance and start thinking about reforming the politics of this country for the national good? Should they counterintuitively work to reduce that dominance by levelling the political playing field and truly liberalising the country’s political system in the hope of harvesting the best political talents wherever they may arise, not for PAP, but for Singapore? 

Right now, the Singapore Government has identified as its urgent task the fight against social and economic inequalities in the country. In my opinion, the pre-requisite for fighting such inequalities is to introduce a truly blind meritocracy into its political system - blind to party allegiance or political ideology, blind to race, language and religion, blind to gender, blind to educational credentials, blind to social class, background and connections and blind to past prejudices. A blind meritocracy in the political sphere will promote a culture of  blind meritocracy in all other areas of life here.

Only then can we hope to catch up with the political and social maturity of our now glittering neighbour, Malaysia, and re-light our own beacon.