THE TOYOTA GT86

Enough said! Forget about the Porsche and get this car.

"42"

 
 
In the book "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" by Douglas Adams, an enormous supercomputer took 7.5 million years to calculate the Answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything.  The puzzling answer was "42"! 

If you ask your friends, your family members, your colleagues or even a passer-by on the street, the answer to this "ultimate question" can be highly variable. Some may say the answer lies in having lots of money, diamonds, Ferraris, Patek Philippes, big bungalows and such.  Some will swear it's to eat, drink and be merry. Some find the answer in God or religion.  The social types will list world peace, democracy, equality and freedom from poverty and hunger as their ultimate answers.  Yet others of a New Age temperament may cite contentment, inner peace and self-fulfilment.

The curious thing is that few people will ask themselves what the question was that they were answering. What actually is this "Ultimate Question".  Granted that the answer was "42", Douglas Adams himself wondered what was the question and in his book, a planet-sized computer using organic components was set up to find this elusive "Ultimate Question".  He named this computer "Earth"!

Implicitly, Adams seems to be telling us that earthly life and human existence are all about the search for meaning. It is to make sense of our finite life-span and our short appearance in this whole vastness of space and time. In short, the "ultimate question" is about what's the most important thing in existence. So, after a hundred thousand years, are we closer to uncovering the "ultimate question"?

What's the meaning of life and existence?  How should we live? Is trusting God all we need to do?  Is life a process of perfecting humanity.  Is love the unifying force of the Universe?

Whatever the question, if the answer to it is still "42", it implies that the Universe is an indifferent place with no clear meaning.  If we are string theory physicists, we may conjecture that our Universe is merely Universe No. 42 in a sea of parallel universes, each not aware of the existence of all the others.  In such infinite vastness, it seems silly to even think about such small questions of our life, our own universe and our everything.

Perhaps, all our philosophers, thinkers and spiritualists should drop all delusions of grandeur and return to the position of the existentialist; that of inventing meaning for each of our lives in our own way, however small and insignificant.

THE REAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SCIENCE AND RELIGION

Science

The process of science starts with an observation.  From this, a hypothesis is made as a general statement about the observation. Experimentation and further observations are made to determine whether the evidence contradict the hypothesis or not.  If not, it stands pending further testing and evidence.  Meanwhile, a logical reason or mechanism is offered to explain why the hypothesis is true.  This is called a theory.  The theory will help mankind to better understand the universe and create useful applications. If minor contradicting evidence is later found, the theory may be modified.  But, if major inconsistencies are found, the theory or the hypothesis. or both, may have to be abandoned.  The longer the theory stands, the closer it is to being an established fact; but it is always subjected to change depending on future evidence.  Scientific facts are defined by their tentative nature.  

Science is guided by two underlying principles: probabilistic induction and falsifiability. Simplistically, probabilistic inductive logic implies that if the same result is repeatedly obtained during experimentation under the same conditions, that result is likely to be a real one.  And, if a scientific hypothesis or theory cannot hitherto been proven wrong; that is, there is a lack of falsification, then it stands. 

Religion

Religious beliefs, on the other hand, are borne from absolute and unalterable ideas. Oftentimes, by the nature of the claims made, religious ideas are not amenable to proof or disproof, but consist of bald and permanent statements. It does not need any evidence to back their claims.  If contradicting evidence arise, they can be ignored.  In fact, it is considered laudable to persist in such beliefs in spite of the lack of supportive evidence or in the face of contrary evidence. Such persistence is sometimes encouraged as a sign of strength in religious faith.  

In religion, the guiding principles are that of faith, to ensure belief and adherence; and obedience, lest one risks entailing some kind of penalty, be it bad Karma or a passage to Hell.

Conclusion

In the final analysis, science is the human quest for truth; religions are various efforts to subdue the fears and anxieties of mortality by submitting to the comfort of ready-made doctrines. 

From the foregoing, science and religion seem to be poles apart and it appears difficult to reconcile their differences.  Attempts to heal this apparent conflict culminated in Stephen Jay Gould's idea of NOMA (non-overlapping magisteria).  NOMA divides the magisterium of science which occupies the empirical realm of facts and theory; from the magisterium of religion which provides the answers to the questions of ultimate meaning and moral value. These two magisteria are said to never overlap.

Yet, in everyday life, we know that the concerns of science and religion do intersect but often at a less than friendly angle.  The statement: "God does not exist" is a scientific hypothesis because it is falsifiable. As soon as God appears or is proven to exist, that statement will be falsified.  This is the implicit statement of science about God.

Religion's God statement is: "God exists!"  True to form, God's existence cannot be disproved because you cannot prove a negative: that God does not exist.  This statement is therefore not falsifiable and does not qualify as a hypothesis.  

And so, the chasm between science and religion remains.

BRUCE LEE REVISITED - MY TRUE HERO

In celebration of the Year of the Dragon 2012, this documentary movie was released to pay tribute to the dragon himself - Bruce Lee.

Bruce Lee is my hero for the following reasons:

1. He did not only want to be just good in his craft, he wanted to be the best; and he was willing to work his pants off to achieve that.

2. He was often the spokesman and fighter for the weak and the downtrodden.

3. He always used his brains first.  He would not fight you unless your provocations left him no choice.  He was also an original philosophical thinker in his own right.

4. If there ever was an innovator, he was the one. He did not believe in fixed fighting styles. He invented his own moves and was willing to learn from others while thinking all the time how his moves could be improved and adapted to actual fight situations.

5. In our present flap over racism and bigotry world-wide, we will do well looking up to him.  Although he was a Chinese in America, he was full of self-confidence and had high esteem for his own culture. Yet, he was open to teaching this martial arts to students of every stripe as long as they were willing to learn.

OBAMA VS ROMNEY DEBATE 3

This was a largely disappointing 3rd round of presidential debate.  It did not look like 2 candidates trying their best to leave a lasting impression before the actual voting.  There were no sparks, no real edge to their arguments and even less commitment.  It appeared that both were trying to play it safe. But, it told us what we already know - Obama is by far the better speaker and has the advantage of on-the-job experience for the last 4 years.  The only thing working against him is the not-so-rosy economic data.

Romney, on the other hand, appeared unsure and lacking in fresh ideas regarding foreign policy.  His lack of confidence and experience showed up when he seemed to trip up at the beginning of each sentence.  He was only in his element when he strayed into talking about his economic plans and his business acumen.

So, the verdict of this presidential election hinges on the mood of the electorate, whether a change in direction in the economic policies is desired and whether they are ready to bet on a relative newcomer or stay the course and continue with their faith in Obama.

OBAMA VS ROMNEY 2012 - a Singaporean's opinion

 

First Presidential Debate

 An aggressive Romney focused on the poor economic performance in the US over the last four years.  A strangely inhibited Obama failed to convincingly discredit Romney's plans.

 

Vice-Presidential Debate

Biden's arrogance was a turn-off in contrast to Ryan's creditably cool, calm and respectful demeanor.

 

Second Presidential Debate

Many analysts gave this round to Obama.  But, Romney's clear listing of Obama's poor economic record, strong stand on China's unfair trade practices, successful attack on Obama's anti-oil, coal, and gas policies and his explanation of how a tax cut and a balanced budget can co-exist if the economy expands; are all good substantial arguments.  On the other hand, Obama sounds rather nasty and quarrelsome; and nobody remembers what he really said about his plans for the next 4 years  The incumbent's reiterating of Romney's "47%" off-the-record gaffe, his successful brow-beating of Romney into backing down on the Benghazi issue, and the moderator's poorly disguised favoritism towards the president suggest that the Obama camp now appears to be a little desperate.  If the President had won this second debate, it is more down to style and experience than anything else.

How this presidential campaign is unfolding comes as a big surprise to me.  I would never have imagined that wooden Romney is now having the upper hand over slick Obama and he seems destined to score an upset victory come November!

A REVOLUTIONARY FOOD TRAY RETURN PLAN

Despite much effort in the past, the unique problem of unreturned food trays in food centers remains unresolved in Singapore.

It's time for a fresh approach. I'm proposing a counter-intuitive solution. Instead of persuading reluctant people to return their trays after their meals, we should do just the opposite.  That is, we should tell people NOT to return their trays after eating!

This novel system works this way:  A diner eats his meal with all his food in a tray. He finishes his food, leaves his tray on the table and walks away.

When a second diner comes along and wishes to sit at the same table, he has to clear that tray away lest he has nowhere to put his food later. In so doing, he also reserves the table for himself. A cleaner, now re-designated  a tray manager,  puts a numbered reservation sign on the table for him. 

After returning the tray to a tray-return station, the second diner then proceeds to get his food and returns to eat at his table. When he finishes his food, he can just walk away. 

The process then repeats itself.  In effect, every diner will return one tray during the meal experience, though the tray returned is not his own. A diner has the option of refusing to clear the tray on approaching a table, but he will have to pay a $2 tip on the spot to the tray manager who will gladly do it for him with a wide smile! 

This system has several advantages.  

First, one way or another, all food trays will be cleared eventually since every diner will clear away one tray. There is no need to broadcast reminders through speakers as clearing trays become a systemic obligation. 

Second, the problem of a tight labour market for cleaners can be overcome as fewer cleaners or tray managers need to be deployed. The incorporation of tips in the system may also motivate more people to join the cleaning industry.  

Third, clearing the trays for others gives people an uplifting feeling of pride that they are performing a useful service for others and for society at large.

Fourth, the immediate reward of an official table reservation in exchange for cooperation provides a positive psychological reinforcement to habitualize the practice.  By the way, this also solves the other perennial problem of people reserving tables with packets of tissue.

And last, over time, people will gradually learn the golden rule of caring for others in the same way that they expect others to care for them. Such an educative effect of 'love thy neighbor' may slowly spread by contagion to other areas of our lives.

This is an opportunity to trigger a general reawakening of our collective civic consciousness. Let us adopt this food tray initiative and start a social revolution!

IF YOU EVER FEEL DOWN, LET THESE FAVORITE SONGS OF MINE CHEER YOU UP!

20 big ones from the wonderful 70s and 80s.

EDUCATIONAL IDEALS NO MATCH FOR PRAGMATISM   

This is my letter published in the Voices column of the Today newspaper in Singapore on 29 September 2012.

(Background: In the keynote address at the Ministry of Education work-plan seminar, on 12 September 2012, Singapore's Minister for Education, Mr Heng Swee Keat,elaborated on the four key attributes of a Student-Centric, Values-Driven Education: (1) “Every Student, an Engaged Learner” regardless of background or ability, to be supported by; (2) “Every School, a Good School”; (3) “Every Teacher, a Caring Educator”; and (4) “Every Parent, a Supportive Partner”.)

Despite our Education Minister's good intentions in his new initiatives, I worry that his four slogans would be paralysed by hard realities.

"Every student, an engaged learner" is more likely to remain as every student fully engaged to try to become an exam expert. "Every school, a good school" would probably not supersede every school being an examinations centre.

"Every teacher, a caring educator" may not replace the impression that every teacher seems to care more about worksheets. And "every parent, a supportive partner" makes us smile because every parent is more likely to support the tuition industry.

The Education Ministry is taking on forces it cannot tackle by itself, with three interlinked structural factors working against it.

First, our society is materialistic. Much of human activity here is channelled to generate wealth and economic growth. So, education's main aims are seen as vocational and economic.

Higher qualifications are deemed as a passport to good jobs with good pay and a comfortable life.

If only good exam grades get you into good tertiary institutions, then that is the priority, never mind the learning.

Second, meritocracy is deemed as one of the irrevocable tenets of our society's success. Unfortunately for pupils, meritocracy is defined narrowly as academic excellence. Thus, exam expertise becomes the most important skill needed to be a winner in Singapore.

Third, our national psyche is centred on pragmatism, a realistic approach that is concerned with life as it is and not as it should be. A pragmatic society's values are dictated by the country's prevailing social, political and economic conditions.

If the key to material fulfilment and to endorsement by our meritocratic system is exam expertise, then the whole education process would predictably be hijacked into one great effort of strategising for maximum exam results.

The acquisition of life and social skills, critical thinking, cultural and moral values can practically be dismissed as trivial.

But the more effort, time and money our pupils spend on honing exam skills, the less adequate they are likely to become mature, functioning, smart and moral citizens - a double whammy of high stress and poor preparation for life and employment.

"OUR SINGAPORE" CONVERSATION

                                                                -my solutions and a quick conclusion to it!

 

A unique national dialogue was launched by our Prime Minister at the recent National Day Rally.  He urged our citizens to come together in a national conversation and appointed our Education Minister Mr Heng Swee Keat as chairman of a 26-member Our Singapore committee.

Mr Heng said: "This national conversation will first and foremost be about putting Singaporeans at the heart of our concerns. It will be an opportunity for Singaporeans to come together, and ask: What matters most? Where do we want to go as a country, as a people?"

The conversation is said to need to accomplish three goals: 

1. To reaffirm all that is good and relevant.

2. To re-calibrate areas where the country has gone off-course.

3. To refresh and innovate by charting new directions.

 

According to an on-line poll conducted by Yahoo Singapore, the major issues for such a national conversation are as follows:

1. Cost of housing 28% 

2. Manage flow, integration of foreigners 21%

3. Widening income gap 17%

4. Education (competition/stress in schools) 8%

5. Cost/access to healthcare 8%

6. Political/electoral reform (ISA, public assembly, GRC system) 4%

7. Social graciousness (online/offline) 4%

8. Tackling baby woes (parental leave, early childcare) 4%

9. Inclusive society (GLBTs, marginalised, single parents) 3%

10. Public transport crunch 3%

So far, the Conversation seems to lack focus.  Also, most participants merely express their opinions on certain issues, but they did not directly discuss or challenge the views of others.  A lot of questions being thrown up went unanswered.  But, the true spirit of 'conversation' dictates that there should be an interaction of perspectives and an engagement of opposing  positions.  Perhaps, it's the usual Asian dislike for confrontation and the fear of the loss of face that is the cause of such responses.  Or there may be more skeptics than suspected whose dismissal of the whole exercise has resulted in a general lack of enthusiasm.  In any case, if the Conversation goes on in this way, it's going to take forever and I can forsee no fruitful outcome.

I also happen to think that this situation is unlikely to improve even if we give it more time (1 to 2 years as stated officially).  In fact, interest and enthusiasm are likely to wane if this initial response is anything to go by.

In view of the above scenarios, let me attempt a 2-minute quick analysis and solution to "Our Singapore" Conversation using a doctor's perspective:

 

Our country's problems can be likened to a patient's illness:

Symptoms: 

1. Anxiety about affordability of housing and healthcare.

2. Fear of being displaced by foreigners in jobs and access to infrastructure.

3. Feeling of being marginalized in the quest for prosperity and national participation.

4. A dysfunctional education system.

5. Dissatisfaction with public transportation and our political system.

 

Signs:

1. Regressive and uncivilized social behavior. 

2. Suppression of the biological instincts of marriage and reproduction.

 

Analysis:

1. All signs and symptoms seem to be separate and unrelated.

2. Actually, they are inter-linked.

 

Diagnosis:

1. Unthinking materialism

2. Narrow view of meritocracy

3. Idealism overwhelmed by pragmatism

 

Inspired Hypotheses:

1. Tinkling with isolated measures to suppress each individual sign and symptom are not long-term solutions.

2. Rectifying the underlying structural sociopolitical imbalances and dysfunctions may do the trick.

 

Treatment:

1. To educate and enlighten that a fulfilled life consists of much more than satisfying material wants alone. Knowledge, friendship, love, self-esteem, self-actualization and morality are far more important.

2. To widen the concept of meritocracy into one of holistic functionality in our society.

3. To re-introduce the enduring values of the best of humanity into our national psyche. Reaching for "what should be" will be given more emphasis that merely recognizing "what is".

If the above can help our country save time in mere conversation, we can start implementing the solutions earlier and our nation can better face our present and future challenges.  Much work remains to be done.