Stark naked!!

I have just returned home after having attended a most unusual event and one which my Facebook friends seem to blush when mention is made of it and they would quickly talk about something else. You see, I spent my holiday with the Taiwan Naturist Association and throughout my stay with them, I wore precisely what Godiva wore when she rode her snow-white horse through the town one fine day or so the story goes. 

It is natural to have some reservation about going to a resort with a naturist association.  Most reasonable people agree that there is no shame in nudity but when it comes to actually going starkers in full view of other people, most of us baulk at the idea.  Why we hesitate to go naked publicly (I mean in a situation where it is not unlawful to do so, such as in a naturist resort) is something that is not rational but we hesitate anyway.

I would like very much to believe that I am rational and driven by pure logic alone.  Now, logically, there should be no shame in nudity.  What harm can there be if nude photos of me circulate online?  In the first place, no sane person would want to circulate MY nude photos.    But supposing the photos are circulated, what harm can there be?  Absolutely none.  The only disadvantage I can think of arising from the circulation of one's nude photos is if one is applying for the post of Chief Eunuch in the Imperial Palace in the Forbidden City in the 19th century.  Photographic evidence that the candidate was not castrated before puberty will dash any hope he may have of being shortlisted for that post.  Those of us who do not have such lofty aspirations need have no fear.

From the very beginning of my time spent with the Taiwanese naturists, I found myself perfectly at home with nudity.  I did not feel the smallest embarrassment and I really felt no different than if I had been fully clothed.  The President of the Naturist Association was told that I loved having my photos taken (the rude expression currently in vogue which I find coarse and distasteful for such a person is "camwhore") and he very kindly obliged me by taking hundreds of photos of me both with my camera and his more sophisticated DSLR camera.  You would have thought that even the most diehard camwhore would be uneasy if he were in a state of deshabille and far worse if he were stark naked but I took to nudity as if I had been brought up a naturist and I felt perfectly comfortable.  The experience left me wondering if all of us are in fact natural naturists.  Who was it that first told us to hide our bodies with clothes and what made us listen to him dutifully and for so long a time?

I now have hundreds of photos of me alone and with others and if you look at the photos, you can see that I posed for them the same way any clothed tourist would pose for a photograph.  At no point was I conscious of my nakedness.  That's how natural nudity is even for someone like me who experienced naturism for the first time.

We Asians are generally camwhores and if you don't believe me, just observe a group of Chinese or Japanese tourists.  They will snap a pic with every two steps they take.  Unlike Western nudist resorts which strictly forbid photography, the Taiwan Naturist Association is more balanced - it allows the use of the camera but of course you should use your camera to take only your own photos or if you have the consent of other people, you may take a group photograph.  It's not every day that you get to go to a nudist resort and naturally for us newbies, we would probably want to take many photos and while I find it impossible to openly post the photos on Facebook or Twitter, they come in handy when I want to convince my unbelieving friends that yes, I did go to a nudist event.  Years ago, I was in a hot spring in Taiwan with my son and I wanted to take a photograph of us in the bath but I didn't want to offend the other bathers.  This time, I have more photos than I will ever need of me not just in a hot spring bath but on virtually every square inch of the two resorts I stayed in.

Like I have said, it's not easy to post photos from a nudist event online.  If the photo contains the faces of other naturists, I would not want to post them without their consent.  Most websites do not allow nude photos and so a bit of censoring is necessary.  However, it's easy for me to post the photograph below.  It was posted on the Taiwan Naturist Association's blog and I have their written consent to use it in this blog.

Now, let me explain the circumstances behind this photo.  Our group wanted to watch the sun rise over the Pacific Ocean and we went early one morning to the Eastern tip of Taiwan.  Just as we were lazing about on the beach, a beach ranger or patrolman came by on his buggy.  I expected some trouble but not only was there no trouble, the ranger lent us his buggy for us to pose on for pics.  I have countless photos of me riding the buggy with and without others on it.  The patrolman even helped us take a group photograph which is what you see below.  Will we one day be as liberal and tolerant as the Taiwanese?

One huge mistake many people make when they think of naturism or nudism is they link nudity with sex.  It's the non-naturist's obsession with sex that makes him draw such a link where none exists.  Having now attended a naturist event, I can say quite categorically that naturism is purely non-sexual.  I'm not saying naturists don't have sex.  That would be ridiculous.  Quite a few of the naturists I met went there with their spouses and they have kids of their own.  But it would be outrageously wrong to associate a nudist camp with sex and orgy.  Anyone who thinks that way needs a sex psychologist to help him deal with his own sex addiction.

Naturists are healthy people who are perfectly comfortable in their own skin.  Literally.   Naturism is all about self-acceptance.  Naturists accept their bodies and are not filled with shame, quite unlike the rest of us who desperately make it a point to hide our bodies and blemishes with cleverly designed clothes.

Photo: courtesy of Ms Chew of the Taiwan Naturist Association

Aircraft Disaster

The air crash of Silkair 185 happened more than 20 years ago but that event is still fresh on my mind.  I suppose it's because when an air crash is alleged to have been caused by the deliberate and suicidal act of a pilot, it puts the crash in the same category as the tragic September 11 event.

An Air Craft Investigations documentary on the fateful Silkair 185 flight

Taken from youtube.

Any air crash is one crash too many.  There are many questions in my head for which I need answers before I take another Silkair or SIA flight.

Everyone knows Singapore has a compulsory enlistment of 18-year-olds and some of them are required to serve in the Singapore Air Force.  Some are trained as pilots and so, there is always a ready supply of Air Force pilots in this small island state.  What I would like to know is how many of these ex-Air Force pilots fly commercial planes whether as permanent or temporary staff.  What are the airlines in Singapore that use one or more of these former military pilots to fly their planes? 

I fear these are questions which will remain unanswered.  No airline would be willing to reveal such information especially if they do use former military pilots.  What about the budget airlines?   I would expect these pilots do come cheap and they may be up for grabs by budget airlines.

Surely airline passengers are entitled to this information?  After all, it's our lives that are at stake here and we should be in the position to make an informed decision on which airlines we may fly and which to boycott.

For Singh Only!!!

National Service is a huge thing in Singapore around this time of the year as different batches of conscripts take the ferry to Pulau Tekung for their basic military training before they are deployed to different army camps.  But like everything in Singapore, the procedure for enlistment and all notices given to conscripts are extremely clear, succinct and well thought out.  Nothing is left to chance or ambiguity.   You won't find here any of the lapses we see in the neighbouring countries.

Conscripts are all given a detailed packing list of what they should take with them to the camp and what they should not.  They are also given a list of what they will be issued with when they arrive at the camp.

While running through the list, I spotted an absolutely hilarious bloomer.  Here they are:

Look at items 27, 34 and 76.  Military helmets are clearly marked "NOT FOR SINGH" and turbans the colour of which we are specifically told is green are meant "FOR SINGH ONLY".  Presumably that is to stop the other recruits from asking for their green turbans.

I find it amusing that MINDEF (the Ministry of Defence) can overlook such a glaring error which some may say borders on racism.  But I really don't think this error was deliberate and was motivated by racism.  I'm positive it's not.  There are many racist names used on Sikhs but "Singh" is not one of them.  This is clearly a case of ignorance.  For all we know, the junior clerk who typed out this packing list probably wrote another word instead of "Singh" but that word which I won't repeat here is a common colloquial word used to refer to a Sikh man when I was a boy but which most people today would consider racist.  His superior saw the mistake and told him off, "That's racist!  You don't call them that.  They are collectively called Singh".

Of course his superior was wrong.  Calling a Sikh a Singh is rather offensive, I would imagine.  Supposing the SAF titled their Chinese menu "Food for the Chans, Lims, Tans and Chongs", wouldn't that be offensive to many of us who are the Chinese majority?  But that won't happen because we are the majority and we know what is offensive to us.

From my personal experience, Sikhs are a wonderful, peace-loving people with a huge capacity for tolerance.  They don't take offence easily and they are levelheaded and when someone makes an honest mistake, they will overlook it readily.

And this is an honest mistake.  It is easily overlooked and the Sikhs who see it probably just chuckle to themselves.  I've asked around and there are people who don't even see it as a mistake.  It is common for the Chinese in Singapore to know very little about other ethnic groups.  Many years ago, I saw a large group of Indians having a religious celebration in a field close to the pavement I was jogging on.  I asked a Chinese passerby what celebration it was.  He said he didn't know and it was a "Malay thing".  I quickly pointed out to him that they were Indians and not Malays to which he replied unapologetically with the monosyllabic "Same".  The Indians are the same as Malays?

I know of friends who would ask Indians who they know to be Christians if they are having a huge celebration for Deepavali.  When I quiz them further, they explain that Deepavali is an Indian festival.  I will remind them that Deepavali is a Hindu festival and no prizes for guessing what their reply invariably is.  "Same"!!! 

Finally, going back to the Sikh, almost every person I know thinks that "Singh" is the family name of every Sikh.  It's as bad as that!

Should Christian Morality be Imposed on the Laws of the Secular State?

We've heard the cries from some Christian quarters against the repeal of Section 377A which criminalizes homosexual acts between consenting adults.  What puzzles me is what blooming right has a Christian got to tell the secular state to legislate its laws or not to repeal its laws so that they conform to the teachings of the church?

Before I proceed, let me state clearly that I'm a Christian and I'm not just a pew-warming Sunday Christian.  I have served the Church from my earliest youth to the present day and I will, God willing, continue to serve the Church for as long as I am able.  However religious I may be, I'm not so egocentric as to expect the secular state to ensure that its legislation complies with the moral teachings of my church.

First, we must bear in mind that Singapore is a secular and not a Christian state.  Christians are only a small minority in this city state and let us not forget that.  The United Kingdom from where we got our Section 377A (the section originally came from a similar provision from the Indian Penal Code) has long de-criminalized homosexual acts.  They have even allowed for an official civil partnership of gay couples.  The United Kingdom has a State Church and its bishops sit in the House of Lords and so, the UK can more appropriately be called a Christian nation.

I have noticed that some of my fellow Christians openly oppose the repeal of Section 377A and from their firm stand and loud voices, one would have thought that the God of the Bible is obsessed purely with homosexuality and nothing else.  Of course, that is not so.  My church (as well as all the churches I can think of) is strongly opposed to gambling but nobody has raised his voice against the casinos.  My church (together with churches all over the world) is opposed to abortion but again, nobody has said a word against the killing of foetuses.  The church (all churches included) is dead opposed to divorce and any dissolution of the sacred rite of holy matrimony but again, I do not see my fellow Christians clamouring for an amendment in the Women's Charter to prohibit divorces.

In the heat of their anti-homosexuality rage, some Christians have gone to the extent of saying that those who are tolerant of homosexuality are not true Christians.  I have seen accusations levelled against a former Bishop of my church who, out of his Christian charity and kindness, has gone out of his way to help homosexuals who are rejected by many mainstream churches.

Why is there this rage against homosexuals as if homosexuality is the only thing the Bible condemns?  Most Christian groups are very quick to point out biblical verses that state that homosexual acts are sinful.  Some make references to the Old Testament where the condemnation against homosexual acts is very strongly worded.  But those of us who are Christians know that the Old Testament has similar strongly worded condemnations against the eating of shellfish.  Your common cuttlefish, prawns, lobsters, crabs and pork are all an abomination to our Lord God and anyone who eats any of these is firmly condemned.  Cleverer Christians will make references to the New Testament where some oblique remarks may perhaps be interpreted as a prohibition of homosexual acts.

What these Christians fail to consider is the fact that many other things are stated to be serious sins worthy of being struck dead by our merciful God.  Yes, it's all in the New Testament.  For example, in the Book of Acts in Chap 5 I believe, we read that Anaias and Sapphira (sorry but I'm typing this in the bathroom right now and I'm too lazy to google for the correct spelling) sold all the property they had and gave it to the church.  However, they kept a small portion of the proceeds of sale, presumably for their old age.  God took that to be a heinous sin and struck them both dead for not giving everything to the church.  Now, how many of us are guilty of this hideous sin of not giving EVERYTHING we have to the church?  Or let me put it another way: how many of us are gullible enough not to take that story with a pinch of salt and have given everything we have to the church?  I daresay not a single Christian has.  Do I hear my fellow Christians telling the Government to legislate so that Christians can't own property and everything we have goes immediately to the church?

Finally, every Christian will agree that the greatest sin is the sin of not accepting Jesus as your Lord and Saviour.  This is a universal truth for all Christians.  Should we legislate so that it's an offence not to accept Jesus as our Lord and Saviour?  After all, this is the single most terrible sin in all the teachings of the church and the Bible.  Do you see how absolutely bonkers one can get when one forgets that Singapore is what it is today because it's a secular state?  Let any religion bring it under its wing and that's the end of everything we love and cherish in Singapore.

It is easy to hit out at the gay community.   They are a minority and all of us married folks aren't gay so whatever law there is against them doesn't hurt us one bit.  Is it not clear that when we oppose the repeal of Section 377A, we are just being hypocritical and selfish?  Adultery is a sin too so why not legislate to make adultery a crime?  I know someone who is very loud against the repeal of Section 377A.  He says nothing about adultery and fornication which are equally condemned by the Bible.  His own daughter has given birth to a child out of wedlock.  The Old Testament has a penalty for such "sin" - death by stoning!!!  But this man who is a pastor seems more interested in keeping the outmoded law that criminalizes consensual homosexual acts between adults than to deal harshly with his daughter.  I'm not for a moment saying that he should be cruel to his daughter for having "sinned".  I'm glad he's on excellent terms with his daughter and the son born out of wedlock is treated very well.  But he should show the same kindness to homosexuals as he has shown to his own daughter.

My prayer for Singapore is that it will stay secular and it will be strong enough to repel the loud voice of the Christian minority.  Not all of us Christians are that hypocritical and selfish.  I remember when the issue of a repeal of Section 377A was first aired, I supported the repeal and a good Christian friend of mine was horrified.  She told me that I should be responsible since I was a Christian and a family man.  I asked her if she would feel the same way if the government was going to legislate so that it became an offence for a person to reject Christ.  Her reply was startling.  It would be great, she said, if a rejection of Christ was a jailable offence.  So, before you jump on the Christian bandwagon and scream your lungs out for the keeping of Section 377A, just bear in mind that the same people you're screaming with might very well be happy to see you in prison if you happen not to believe in the same things they do.

For some people, there is a bigger agenda than merely cudgelling homosexuals.

Jonathan Sacks' debate with Dawkins

This is a post that I wrote very late one night a few months ago but I left it in my list of unpublished posts.  I do not know the reason why I didn't publish it and I have totally forgotten the debate I saw between Dawkins and Sacks.  But since this is a personal blog of mine, I will just publish it without reading it through again and without listening to the debate one more time.

I just saw this debate between the Chief Rabbi, Jonathan Sacks and Richard Dawkins (click here) and I must say I'm extremely uneasy with Sacks' response.

He says the story of Abraham's sacrifice of Isaac was a firm teaching against human sacrifice.  Dawkins' point is this is a case of child abuse.  Dawkins is of the view that it is surely immoral of God to lead Abraham to prepare Isaac for the sacrifice and only stopped him before he plunged the knife into Isaac's breast.  In his book, The God Delusion, he suggests that any child who has gone through such a trauma would suffer some permanent psychological problems after that and he asks a legitimate question why God should do that in the first place.  It's wrong for Sacks to ignore all that and to simply say that it's a lesson to the Jewish people not to commit human sacrifices.  Sacks is so obviously missing the point.

Sacks does not consider (and I'm surprised Dawkins does not raise) the fact that elsewhere in the Bible, there is at least one instance when God countenanced a human sacrifice to himself.  Jephthah sacrificed his daughter to God after making a promise to God when the spirit of God came upon him.  As Dawkins puts it in his book, this time, God did not intervene to stop the human sacrifice.  I am a little disappointed that Dawkins fails to remember this case of human sacrifice to God.

Sacks uses a cheap trick to discomfit Dawkins and throw him out of kilter.  He accuses Dawkins of anti-semitism.  Asians may find this hard to understand because we don't owe Jews anything but in the West, people have this guilty conscience whenever a Jew brings in anti-semitism.  Sacks uses it unfairly on Dawkins and Sacks tells a blatant lie.  He says that when Dawkins speaks of the God of the Old Testament as a "homicidal, infanticidal, genocidal bully", Dawkins is guilty of anti-semitism.  Dawkins rightly points out that he is speaking about a non-existent being and he says nothing against the Jews.  Sacks says that this description of the Old Testament God is a stereotypical portrayal of the Jewish God for the first 1700 years of Christianity and it has resulted in the deaths of many innocent Jews.  It's therefore anti-semitic.

I'm surprised nobody points out the outrageous falsehood of what Sacks says.  I'm surprised Dawkins does not jump on Sacks for this piece of nonsense.

It is Sacks who is anti-Christian and dishonest.  To say that Christians or the Church, in order to rage against the Jews, portrayed the God of the Old Testament as a homicidal maniac for the first 1700 years of Church history is not just an outrageous lie; it's an anti-Christian polemic and a dishonest one too.  Any Christian who had dared then to say this of the God of the Old Testament would have been burnt at the stake for blasphemy.  That's because the God of the Old Testament is the Christian God.  The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is the God of the Christian Church.  What Dawkins says of the God of the Old Testament is not at all anti-semitic.  It may be blasphemous to Jews, Christians and Muslims but as Dawkins will say, blasphemy is an offence that has no victim.  To accuse Dawkins of being anti-semitic is cowardly and dishonest.  That may tug at the heartstrings of people in Europe who have such a heightened sensitivity to every whimper that comes from a Jewish rabbi but to most Asians, it sounds like an undignified wallowing in self-pity over something that happened a century ago in entirely unrelated circumstances and which is totally irrelevant to the motion of the debate.

Sacks is also unfair in another aspect of his argument.  Whenever Dawkins brings up an example in the Old Testament of God's cruelty, Sacks will stop him and ask him if he has read Jewish commentaries on these verses.  It may be heartening to see that Judaism has seen fit to re-write Scriptures by reinterpreting the troublesome verses but surely Dawkins has the right to read the holy book in the original version?  The Jewish commentators may decide to ameliorate God's character and nature so that it becomes something entirely different from what is actually reported in the holy book itself but that does not alter the fact that the holy book is wrong.  Sacks declares that it is heresy to read the Bible literally.  He explains that in Judaism, whenever the holy book conflicts with science, the part that is in conflict is no longer read literally.  That seems a rather clever way out of a predicament, doesn't it?  The Jewish Bible will be read literally until it conflicts with science.  Thereafter, it's not read literally but commentaries will be written to re-interpret the verses.  Frankly, I like this aspect of Judaism and I think it is laudable that rabbis take it upon themselves to correct the errors of their holy book by re-interpreting the erroneous parts.  I have said many times that this is precisely what all religions should do and it's a feather in the cap of Judaism that its rabbis do this.  But Richard Dawkins has every right to question the veracity of a holy book that needs to be revised according to scientific discoveries of men.

What Jonathan Sacks has done is to show that he really hasn't got a single logical leg to stand on.  He has shown that his version of Judaism is benign and moderate and the scholars of his school of Judaism go out of their way to reinterpret erroneous passages in Scriptures so that they are in line with science and truth.  The harsh bits of Scriptures are pared off, the ostensible evil of God is white-washed and reinterpreted and only that which is good, kind and pleasant is allowed to remain in the faith.  That makes his brand of Judaism a model religion for all religions to follow.  But that doesn't win him the debate.  It doesn't show Judaism to be true.  On the contrary, the fact that his brand of religion needs to be reinterpreted and corrected so that it can go alongside science is a confession that it is flawed since what is true has no need of correction or reinterpretation.

Thaipusam - Mortification of the flesh as penance

Happy Thaipusam to all Hindus.  I happened to be in Little India for breakfast when I saw the colourful Thaipusam procession.  I will let my photos do the talking.  Notice that there are people of all races in the procession.  There is an air of festivity, a lot of drum beats, music, singing and dancing.  Although the body-piercing procession can be quite frightening to the uninitiated, the mood of this festival of Lord Murugan's triumph over the evil demon Soorapadman is joyous and upbeat and not at all mournful.

The China workers are rightly punished

For some reason that I cannot understand, most netizens seem to oppose the government in everything it does.  A psychologist looking at this behaviour will probably understand it better but I'm not a psychologist.  It may very well be that we humans naturally take the side of the underdog and the government of any country is never seen as the underdog.

Take the example of the SMRT bus drivers from China who participated in a strike recently.  A few of them were prosecuted and some of them were repatriated.  Going on a strike is illegal in Singapore.  One may or may not agree with such a law.  The same applies to all laws.  Not everyone will agree with them.  But laws are not laws only because there is a universal consensus among all citizens.  And besides, these bus drivers are all foreigners from China.   Personally, I like many of the laws in Singapore but I don't like some.  It's the same with everyone and in every country.  But my duty to obey the law is not restricted to only laws that I personally agree with.

These China workers came to Singapore for an obvious economic reason.  They love it here.  They are paid considerably more here.  When their Malaysian counterparts are paid slightly more, they hit the roof.  They forget they are given accommodation while Malaysian bus drivers are not.  In their utter selfishness and egocentricity, they didn't factor in this additional cost.   They take it upon themselves to break Singaporean law.

I laud the government for taking a firm stand against these miscreants.  If the government hadn't done anything, it would mean that the laws in Singapore can only be broken by foreigners with impunity.  That would be totally unacceptable.  I have read what some Opposition parties have said regarding this matter and I think they should be ignored.  They will take a stand against the government anyway.  I don't care two straws about Hong Kong workers demonstrating in front of the Singaporean embassy.  They can stop work in Hong Kong for a year and demonstrate day and night for all I care.  Going on a strike and demonstrating are things up their street anywhere so they should go ahead and do what they are good at.  This is a free world.  Nobody forced these China workers to come to Singapore.  If they don't like it here, they can get the hell out and a repatriation order does precisely that - it tells them how to get the hell out in the speediest possible way.  They can't come here to work, enjoy the much higher remuneration, break the law here and hope to be let off because they are foreigners.

Singaporeans who take the side of these migrant workers should ask themselves what it is they really want.  Are we cutting our nose to spite our face?  I know there is a rabid, anti-government and anti-establishment culture among netizens everywhere in the world.  Let's be rational.  If we oppose a particular law, it's Parliament that should change it.  To allow foreign workers who come here for monetary reasons to break the law with impunity is to show scant respect for the process of law in Singapore.  The voice that decries our easy immigration policy and denounces foreign talent is the same voice that now says it's all right for foreigners to break our law.  Even if we must be insanely anti-establishment and contrary, we should at least, be consistent.

ISS again

The message from NASA this morning read: " Wed Dec 05 7:20 PM, Visible: 6 min, Max Height: 60 degrees, Appears: SSW, Disappears: NE".  Sure enough, at precisely the minute, I spotted the International Space Station again, this time a lot more clearly.  First I took a pic of it but it was not clear as you can see below:

It's the white fuzzy dot close to the centre of the pic. It's fuzzy because I have unsteady hands. 

I then took a video clip of it.  It's moving to the left of the screen.  The erratic movement you see in the video is because of the movement of my camera.  I foolishly moved the camera to centralize the object which I ought not to have done.  The white dot seems sometimes to take on a life of its own and it flits about the screen.  Again, it's the movement of my hands and not the ISS which moves steadily across the night sky towards the left of the screen.  Here's the video:

May God bless our new Bishop

The new bishop who will be consecrated this week is someone my wife and I are fond of.  It was he who solemnised our matrimony and it was he who blessed our first home.  I will be playing with the church orchestra at his consecration service and I managed to rope my kids in.  Early this morning, my kids and I ran through the pieces.   My poor wife can only play the piano and pianists are always sidelined.  Only one person is needed to play the organ / piano. 

May God bless our new bishop.

ISS

Got this message this morning from NASA: "Time: Tue Dec 04 8:12 PM, Visible: 2 min, Max Height: 43 degrees, Appears: WSW, Disappears: NNW" and I immediately set my alarm to ring at 8pm.  When my alarm rang tonight, I went directly to the balcony armed with my camera and binoculars but the view wasn't good.  So I went to the children's playground and stood on top of a slide.  It was cloudy and I tried my binoculars but the range of vision was too limited.  Anyway, the International Space Station can be viewed with the naked eye.  So I stared at roughly the right clearing in the sky.  I ignored the red flickering light from a plane.  Sure enough I saw a white light in the sky.  I saw it for about a second before it disappeared behind a cloud.  It was soon 8:14pm and the show was over.  But I have seen the ISS with my naked eye.  It was just a brief white light, fainter and thinner than I thought it would be but it was the real thing.  It still amazes me that humans can place a space station into orbit which can be seen from the Earth.

Genesis tells us that God hung the stars and the sun on the firmament (sky).  How right it is to say we bear the very image of God in that we too are able to hang our own "stars" in the sky.  Truly, how great we are!

Quantum Quack

Deepak Chopra

File from Wikimedia Commons

Date: 13 November 2011

I really don't know much about Deepak Chopra except that I remember having seen his books on spirituality and faith healing ever since I was a boy.  As far as I am concerned, faith healing really means nothing more than quackery or shamanism and of course shamanism is just a longer word for the more familiar "sham".

PZ Myers puts it very well.  I couldn't help laughing when I read Myers description of Deepak Chopra as a quantum quack.  I'm inclined to think that term suits Chopra admirably because he does try to insert quantum physics into his mumbo-jumbo jargon of faith healing.  If you want to read PZ Myers' well-written post in his blog, there are two places in which his post appears:  here and here.  They are identical and it's prudent of him to have his blog in two places.  If one site shuts down, there's still the other site and we won't be deprived of his wisdom.

Myers is laughing at Chopra's review of Dawkins' book, The Magic of Reality.  In his review, according to PZ Myers and I have to depend on what Myers says since I make it a point never to read books written by witch-doctors, Chopra uses words such as "obnoxious" and "ignorant" in his tirade against Dawkins' book.

Having long ago seen a video of an interview of Chopra by Richard Dawkins, I can easily understand the reason for Chopra's burning anger for Dawkins.  You see, Dawkins exposed Chopra in an interview a couple of years ago and held him up as a charlatan and fraud.  If you are interested in seeing the interview, click here.

Observe how Chopra is very careful when he talks to Dawkins, a real scientist, about quantum physics.  He begins by saying that he employs the term "quantum physics" merely as a metaphor.  But when Dawkins is about to seize on that (presumably because Chopra claims to "use" quantum physics in his "healing"), Chopra immediately talks about some disagreement among physicists.  This is a common ploy used by faith-based people who try to find fault with science - they harp on the lack of consensus among experts in some esoteric scientific field (and there is always some area of science which is in dispute) and somehow they appropriate for themselves a vague validation of their faith even though the dispute among the experts may have nothing to do with the claim of their faith.

Jumping on the bandwagon of science's uncertainty is not uncommon for "spiritual" people.  Some New Age devotees make constant references to quantum physics and Schrodinger's Cat as some kind of validation for their New Age belief but in very vague terms of course. Apart from quantum physics, astronomy is another fertile ground for faith believers.  The origin of the universe is an exceptionally good area to go into.  I've heard an argument that the String Theory proves the existence of God.  My own bishop once mentioned dark matter in his sermon.

I have often wondered why religious apologists don't really make it clear how an uncertainty in science can possibly prove the truth of their beliefs.  Perhaps they can't afford to be any clearer because clarity on such a subject can make their whole argument appear ludicrous.  For us believers, ambiguity and haziness work to our advantage.  For example, my bishop did not explain how the postulation of dark matter by scientists can in any way forward the religious claims of the church.  If he were to say that scientists had to postulate the existence of dark matter to account for the mass in the universe when this mass is actually the mass of God himself, that would certainly make his point clearer but it would also at the same time elicit laughter from the congregation.  Perhaps my bishop meant to point out the fact that scientists were uncertain of many things in the universe and so it's not implausible that they might have overlooked God lurking somewhere in the background.  It is no good making any reference to science unless one shows clearly how that can affirm the truth of religious claims.  Chopra, at the start of the interview, claims he uses quantum physics as a metaphor for his faith healing.  What good is a metaphor to prove the efficacy of faith healing?  Anyone can use scientific metaphor but that means nothing.  A voodoo magician can call his needle a laser beam or a nuclear bomb but that won't change the fact that his voodoo needle has no effect at all.  But there is some good in making references to science even if one doesn't show how that can advance the religious cause.  Using scientific jargon in a sermon does lend some respectability to a mindless belief system that is not backed by evidence.  Parishioners usually don't pay close attention to a sermon anyway and there is no time given for questions and answers after a sermon.  Bear in mind that I am not for a moment saying that a mindless belief system that is not backed by evidence is necessarily false and untrue.  I make no pronouncement on its truth; I'm merely explaining the reason for this need to make allusions, however vague and unrelated, to the more difficult aspects of science.

I was once approached by a polite chap while I was walking on the Millennium Bridge and he invited me to see a short movie.  Now, at that time, what I really needed most was the toilet and as any Singaporean knows, as long as you are out of Singapore, it's very hard to find available toilets anywhere outside your hotel.  I thought to myself that if there was a movie, there ought to be a toilet too.  The chap led me to a plush and stately building not far from the Millennium Bridge and St Paul's Cathedral.  It was a building owned by the Church of Scientology.  The toilet was just as opulent as the rest of the building and having visited it, I thought it would have been churlish to just leave the building without at least obliging the guy by watching his movie.  The movie was screened in a small but well-furnished hall and although there were many seats, the only audience consisted of me and a Canadian man who was similarly accosted on the street.

The film with the preposterous title of "Dianetics" was hilarious and silly and it was all about the Church of Scientology's belief in faith healing.  The choice of the word "dianetics" is obvious.  It has a scientific ring to it.  Even the name of the church is calculated to give it a veneer of science.  But the film was far from scientific; it made medical doctors appear like conspirators who were out to harm patients.  The teaching behind the film was simply not to have faith in medical science but rather, to trust in "dianetics", ie their brand of faith healing.  At the end of the screening, the Canadian man and I were invited to buy a book on Dianetics which we of course politely declined.

Pedlars of superstition and faith healing usually resort to masking the silliness of their superstition with science.  They may use names which sound scientific but people should be on the alert when they see mumbo-jumbo dressed in sci-fi garb.  The New Age beliefs draw heavily on such scientific-sounding words.  Whether they advocate the use of the mind to make things happen by magic or they talk about being in direct contact with intelligent beings from other planets - the contact is always a human channeller who endeavours to speak in a strange voice that can be pretty hilarious to the uninitiated - the names and ideas are almost always identical with what you find in science fiction.  Older beliefs aren't so fortunate.  They are stuck to ancient and sometimes barbaric concepts such as the propitiation of a God by blood sacrifice but these older religions too do not let the scientific grass grow under their feet - their defenders and apologists tap deeply into the more difficult and less settled areas of science such as the String Theory and dark matter as I've mentioned above.

If I may go back to the video of the interview of Chopra by Dawkins, notice how Chopra moves from saying that he uses quantum physics as a metaphor for his faith healing to his direct attack on science as "arrogant".  It is clear to any viewer of the video that Chopra starts out intending to accord to his faith healing the respectability of science.   But when Dawkins makes it hard for him to carry on with this charade, he takes a different stance and attacks science with a viciousness that shows quite unmistakeably that his faith healing and science are really poles apart.

A charlatan though he may be, Chopra is probably an honest man.  This is my view of faith-based people.  They genuinely believe the truth of their belief system.  What has Chopra to gain by cooking up a false belief system if he doesn't himself believe in it?  These faith-based people are truly sincere and well-meaning and while they may cloak their beliefs with the respectability of science and may make allusions to science or use scientific jargon as a metaphor, they will not hesitate to attack science altogether if it stands in the way of their faith.

Chopra was a medical doctor before he went into faith healing. Non-medical people are often of the mistaken notion that medical doctors are scientists with a scientific frame of mind.  Time and time again, we see medical doctors believing in ludicrous superstitions and faith healing.  If you scour through this blog, you will see a few examples that I have brought up including that of a brain surgeon who came up with the most nonsensical statement about life after death.  See this.  It is not that medical doctors are more susceptible to believing in nonsense; they are just no different from the average person when it comes to falling prey to evidence-less belief.

I know a medical doctor who is a fervent advocate of creationism including the belief that the earth is only 6000 years old.  Actually, young-earth creationists (as they are called) believe in more than just a 6000-year-old earth.  They believe in a 6000-year-old universe!  All I had to do was to show her the compelling evidence for evolution and for an earth that exceeds 4.5 billion years in age and she immediately accepted the obvious truth.  But not everyone is willing to abandon their cherished belief in creationism even a whole universe of evidence is shown to them.

Some features of the human anatomy mirror the truth of evolution.  To believe that a Divine Being created humans out of nothing or, as Genesis tells us in its allegorical language, out of the soil of the earth is to believe that this Divine Being was guilty of a bad design.  What I find incomprehensible is the fact that medical doctors who are students of anatomy do know all about these anatomical flaws that are perfectly consistent with and explicable by evolutionary theory.  How then can these doctors abandon their knowledge and insist on being creationists?  Her reply was interesting - a doctor's main goal is to heal the body.  When you look at the flaws in the "design" of the human body, you do not ask philosophical questions like "Is there really a Divine Maker who is guilty for such architectural and design flaws?" but rather you address your mind purely to the treatment of the body bearing in mind at all times the flaws that are inherent in our bodies.  They have too much to think of in the treatment of the human body to bother about our origin and to link what they know of the anatomy to evolution or to see the implausibility of creationism.

For Christians who can't read books written by atheists such as Richard Dawkins and Jerry Coyne, both of whom are evolutionary biologists, a good book to recommend to them is Francis Collins' The Language of God.  Collins is a devout Christian who accepts the truth of evolution.  He's of course the greatest genetic scientist and is the first person to have mapped out the whole of the human genome and his book shows from a genetic standpoint why evolution is absolutely true.

This dissociation of one's knowledge from one's belief is something I have observed for a long time.  When I was a student living on campus, the student in the room next to mine read what was then called "Double Physics".   That means he majored in Physics and did some other Physics course so he was to all intents and purposes an expert in Physics.  One evening, I got a friend of mine who was an expert in Chinese calligraphy to write for me poems for the dead that were used in Chinese funerals and I pasted them on my door.  Now, this Physics student was a Malaysian Chinese and he could not read a word of Mandarin but when he was told the significance of the poems pasted on my door, he was livid.  He told me that I would bring bad luck to my neighbours and since he was just next door to me, he would be the target of the evil one.  I reasoned with him that as a Double Physics student, surely he wasn't superstitious?  He looked startled and confused when he replied, "What has Physics got to do with the evil forces?"

I removed the poems from my door and pasted them on my desk in my room.  Well-meaning friends told me I would fail my exams because of that.  And mind you, they were not joking!  They truly believed that some funereal poem pasted at one's door or desk could attract evil forces.

I really don't know what Deepak Chopra teaches nor do I care.  Those who argue that you must examine in detail a belief before dismissing it are wrong.  I can't examine the teachings of all the 20 million shamans, witch-doctors, bomohs, tang kees, snake-oil pedlars, charlatans and faith healers in order to dismiss each and every one of them.  It's enough for me to dismiss them all unless they can produce reasonable evidence to support their claim of healing through supernatural means.  Give me the evidence for the efficacy of your snake oil and until you do that, have the decency not to align yourself with real scientists or use their terminology or a tacky imitation of it.

Meritocracy - the fairest of them all.

 Every year, the Ministry of Education sends certificates of academic achievement to students in primary and secondary schools offering them encouragement, scholarships and bursaries.

For an island so small that you can't run a marathon in a straight line in without hitting the sea, Singapore has done extremely well by any account.  It has zilch natural resources but today, Singapore outstrips almost all other countries in the world, including countries which are many times its size and have a far longer history than this young nation that hasn't even hit 50.  If you want the facts, here they are:  Singapore is the 6th best country in the world to be born in (Cllick here) and it comes in fifth in the world on education (Click here).

How did Singapore achieve this?  It all began with the vision of one man who decided that the country should be ruled by nothing else except meritocracy.  You shall sow what you reap.  If you are excellent in your studies, your work, etc, you deserve to be richly rewarded.  Your colour, creed, culture, social rank and ethnicity do not count one bit.  It's a nation without aristocrats.  Everybody is given a clean slate and you are judged by your performance with the clinical fairness that no other nation on earth can equal.

But not everybody wants meritocracy as recent developments have shown.   We must not discount the power of jealousy, that green-eyed monster that gnaws one's soul deep within the breast.  People are clamouring for the abolition or the revamping of the PSLE, the bastion of Singapore's meritocracy.  The PSLE is the nation's most important examination for 12-year-olds; it's a just, fair and bias-free secondary school placement examination.  I have discussed the examination elsewhere in my blog and you may read about it in the following links:

PSLE - Let this be the final word
What do parents want?
The Road to Mediocrity
Choosing a secondary school

One can't blame the government for listening to the voice of the majority.  Naturally, as in any examination, the majority always occupies the middle ground.  That's what happens in a Bell curve.  The majority will be somewhere in the "average" or middle part of a graph.  That means the majority of students won't rank among the top 3% in the PSLE examination.  That means the majority can't get into the nation's top school.  That means the majority won't be featured in the local news after the PSLE results are released every year because the majority won't be among the top students.

Like most other people, I belong to the majority.   My kids did not get featured in the newspapers after their PSLE results were released.  But I'm different from the majority in that I'm genuinely happy for the top scorers.  I like to read about them, their grit and determination, their hard work and sometimes, their struggles against the odds.  I like to give them pride of place in the nation for achieving the country's top scores in our most important examination.  And I like them to be role models to younger students.

But not everyone shares the joy of these top students who aren't our own kids.  Some of us are bitter and jealous.  We want the PSLE abolished or its importance to be reduced.  We don't want publicity given to these deserving top students.  We suggest that secondary schools take in students based on criteria which aren't clear and well-defined (possibly in the hope that our kids can enter top schools based on the ambiguity of the rules since we feel certain that they can't get accepted into top schools if the rules are fair and clearly spelt out).

It's not just that we are being utterly selfish and unjust when we ask for all this.  We are also ruining the nation.  We are in fact uprooting the very thing that has ensured Singapore's progress and command of the world's stage.  We are asking for the abolition of meritocracy.

I don't think the government will abolish meritocracy.  Meritocracy is synonymous with Singapore and is so deeply entrenched and intertwined in our very nature and identity that it is inconceivable that the government will give in to however loud a voice of envy we can muster.  But what I fear is small inroads may be made into our bastion of meritocracy and this is never a good thing.  And I see a start of it in the blocking out of news on the top PSLE students.  All institutions, media stations and newspaper publishers have stopped publishing the top results. Would this abate the flame of jealousy that rages in the hearts of some parents?  Would this satisfy the bitter majority?  I don't think so.  My wife just informed me that at her yoga class, some of the parents were speculating on the "real reason" for the blacking out of news on the top PSLE students.  One mother said she was certain the Ministry of Education did this because the top PSLE student this year was a foreigner and the Ministry did not want to agitate some Singaporeans who were concerned about foreigners taking over jobs in Singapore.

Instead of being grateful that the Ministry is trying to soothe feelings of jealousy that some parents have of kids brighter than their own, some of us postulate a totally different reason and again, it's one that speaks of jealousy and flies in the face of true meritocracy.  So what if the top student is a foreigner?  He still deserves to be given full recognition for being the top.  Meritocracy does not look at a person's colour or nationality.

Ultimately, the path of meritocracy is the only path to take.  It's the path Singapore has forged on its own and we reap the rewards today, to the envy of the rest of the world.  Let us not change our course.

365 Project

I started my own 365 project 5 days ago after seeing many other such projects by people all over the world.  It's an interesting idea and one that should be up my street.  After all, I carry a camera everywhere I go and even when I haven't got my camera with me, I'm sure to have my camera-phone with me.

The good thing about the 365 project is it acts as a photo-journal of a person's life.  The rules are clear:  you have to take at least a photograph a day and post it on the web.  You should not post a photograph taken on a different day.  That sounds easy enough.

But although I'm very much a camwhore, if you'll pardon my use of a word that sounds incredibly rude but has since gained universal acceptance, I did rack my brains yesterday as to what pic to take.  The rules for a 365 project are wide enough - it can be any pic and it doesn't have to be a photograph of a scenery.  As it happened yesterday, I had just read a novel and so I took a pic of it.  Not much artistry in that but it serves to tell a story of my life - on 26 November, I completed my reading of a novel.

There are countless books you have read in your time but you probably can't recall even a small fraction of them ever again.  With your own 365 project, it gets woven into that huge tapestry of your life.  It doesn't matter if you aren't artistic; I'm not at all artistic in my photography.  Most of the time, I use only my camera-phone and even if I use a proper camera, it's always a compact camera.  But what attracts me to this 365 project is its usefulness as a graphic record of my personal life.  I do keep a daily diary of everything that happens in my life but the 365 project makes it all come alive.  A picture does paint a thousand words.

Here's the link to my 365 project:  My 365 project

The Grass is Not Always Greener on the Other Side

It is common for people of any nationality to think that the grass is greener elsewhere.  That's because it's natural for us to see other people's lives through rose-tinted glasses but when it comes to our own problems, we magnify them.  Singaporeans are no different.  You hear the most complaints from taxi drivers.  The government is blamed for just about anything that happens.  We have no natural disasters and things really are hunky-dory here unlike in Malaysia where everything that can possibly go wrong in a third-world nation goes wrong there.  And yet people here continue to complain.  Even minor floods become a big issue and the government is given a rap on the knuckles.

I used to say that complaining Singaporeans should be made to live in Malaysia for a year and they are sure to return with gratitude in their hearts for all that they are blessed with here.

Before I go on, I must make it clear that I'm not a pro-government man.  By nature, I tend to be anti-establishment and I do have a lot of respect for many Opposition Party members in Singapore.  When I hear of someone joining the Opposition, I KNOW he's not doing it for selfish or monetary reasons because in my books, selfish and money-minded people don't join the Opposition.  But at the same time, I believe in being truthful.  Things are wonderful here and when you look around you, there really is no place on this planet that most of us would rather live in than good old Singapore.  Forget politics, forget how "paternalistic" the government may be.  The fact is they have done a good job.  OK, they are paid a lot but they have done a good job.  Just look across the Causeway or look at Indonesia and think.  Our leaders may be paid a lot but they don't take a penny more than what they are legally entitled to.  I prefer this sort of open honesty.  But the bottom line is they have done a really good job.  And is it so wrong to reward those who have done an excellent job?

And I'm not the only one who says this.  The Economist has just reported that Singapore is now the 6th best country to be born in.  Just look at the list:

If this is not a firm and unequivocal affirmation of how well Singapore has done, I don't know what will satisfy people who refuse to see that the grass here is the greenest in the whole of Asia and it's the 6th greenest on the planet.  If you throw in the other factors which I'm sure the Economist Intelligence Unit failed to consider such as how delicious our food is, I think Singapore will easily outstrip Switzerland.

But there will always be the rabid naysayers who can't see anything good about Singapore even though you have shown them the facts and I always wonder why they remain here if they dislike this place so much.

I will show you one more piece of evidence and this time, I believe even Chee Soon Juan will concede that the government has done a fantastic job.

In 1988, the Economist Intelligence Unit did the same assessment and Singapore ranked 36 together with East Germany.  Malaysia followed at No. 38.  USSR was No. 21 and even India beat us and tied with Mexico to stand at No 27!  China (yes, Commie China) then ranked 32.

What does that tell us?  In just 25 years, Singapore managed to raise itself to No. 6 in the list of the best countries to be born in.  I don't know about you but I think anyone with an ounce of gratitude in his system will have to acknowledge that the government of Singapore has done a magnificent job.  And the next time there is a minor flooding in Orchard Road, just smile and remind yourself that we're No. 6 and kudos to the leaders for this.

NOTE:  The above information is obtained entirely from the Economist.  At least there can be no dispute as to the reliability of the facts stated.

Why I disagree with Tan Jee Say

I have just read Tan Jee Say's facebook post, "Is Every School a Good School?" and I must say I disagree with him in two major areas.  First, this is what he says:

The widening gap between the top and other schools mirrors the increasing income disparity in Singapore. When wealth is concentrated in the hands of the few, it reflects an unequal society that is harmful to its long term development. Similarly when talent is retained in just one or two top schools rather than spread among many schools, the development of our young becomes lop-sided and works against a balanced and holistic development of society.

He then goes on to say this:

The first step for the education minister to take is not to pretend that every school is a good school.  He will then re-discover what his school teachers used to tell him and what teachers everywhere tell their pupils, that honesty is the best policy.

In his post, Tan says that some traditionally good schools have become second tier or even third tier.  He implies that something should be done by the education minister to stop the increasing disparity between schools.

The two major areas I disagree with him are:

1.  The income gap - that a widening income gap must necessarily mean a bad thing and
2.  The disparity in talent between schools (ie. all the talent seems to be concentrated in one or two schools) is "harmful to [Singapore's] long term development".

I will deal with the income gap first.  I don't see how a widening income gap can necessarily mean that something is amiss and the government has to take active steps.  There is no denying that the rich are getting much richer but the proper question to ask is are the poor getting poorer?  In other words,  is the standard of living of the poor in Singapore worse than it used to be 30 years ago or even 40 years ago?

I don't have hard statistics but I'm willing to bet that the poor in Singapore are now far better off than they used to be.  Almost every household now has a tv set and a computer.  Just look around you and you will be amazed to see cleaners and construction workers with iPhones.  Let's not even talk about luxury goods.  Malnutrition used to be a major problem among the poor in the past.  Today, nobody is malnourished in Singapore.  It would be ridiculous to pretend that the poor in Singapore are worse off now than they used to be 30 years ago.  That just simply doesn't square with our daily observation.

But what if the rich are getting richer?  Frankly, I don't see a problem with that.  If I were the kind of person who would allow the green-eyed monster to grow within me, of course I would be furious that the rich are getting richer.  But I'm not the jealous sort and I'm happy to see my neighbour zooming by in his Ferrari while I ride my trusty bicycle so long as he doesn't run into a puddle and splash water on me!

Let me give a simple example.

Assuming Mr Chan is a poor man in the 60's or 70's and he earns $200.00  a month.  I have increased the earnings of the poor in the 60's to take into account inflation.  The poor probably earned much less in those days but then things were cheaper so the figure of $200 would be about right after taking into account inflation.  The sum of $200 represents his purchasing power in today's terms.

Now, let's assume Mr Wong is a rich man in the 60's or 70's and he earns $3000.00 a month.  Again, I have increased the sum to take into account subsequent inflation.

The income disparity between Mr Chan and Mr Wong is only $2800.00 a month.  But Mr Chan is probably malnourished and is very much deprived of all the comforts of life.  Mr Wong has a good life but still, it isn't what we today would consider a luxurious lifestyle.  In other words, people in those days generally were worse off irrespective of whether they were rich or poor.

Let's say the government does nothing in terms of investment and development.  The income disparity between Mr Chan and Mr Wong probably wouldn't differ very much even today.

Now, let's turn to today's world and look at what Mr Goh (a poor man) and Mr Sim (a wealthy man) earn today.  Mr Goh earns $1,000.00 a month (which is what would be considered poor by Singapore standards today).  But Mr Goh has an iPhone, an iPad, a computer, a lovely tv set and he goes on a holiday once a year.  His lifestyle has improved tremendously.

Mr Sim, the rich man of today, earns $300,000.00 a month.  Of course his lifestyle exceeds the wildest imagination of average folks.  He's the typical chap who zooms past my bicycle in his Ferrari.

The income disparity between Mr Goh and Mr Sim now stands at $299,000.00.  It's a huge income gap but what does it tell us?  It tells us that the country has undergone a huge development and both men are happy and well.  It tells us that the government has done a great job and the country enjoys a plump and healthy economy.

But you may say that Mr Goh has every right to complain about the huge disparity between his income and that of Mr Sim.  But has Mr Goh the right to begrudge Mr Sim his wealth?  Let's assume that Mr Sim is one of the deserving rich who earns his money legally.  He has worked hard all his life.  He had excellent PSLE results, went to the top school, then to a top faculty in a top university.  He's got a high IQ too and he has business acumen and he knows how to invest his money.  Should Mr Sim's income be reduced so that we can have a smaller income gap?  Of course not.

The income gap is really a red herring when we are looking for clues of a mismanaged society or a society that is unjust in its distribution of income.  The income gap is not a good indicator of these things.  Rather, the proper question we should ask is whether the poor are taken care of.  If the poor aren't better off today than they used to be before, then I agree that something ought to be done.  But that is not the case in Singapore.

The same applies to schools.  I have spoken at great length in other posts on this blog about the PSLE and schools in Singapore and I won't repeat myself.  What I want to say is the Minister of Education is honest when he says all schools are good.  It all boils down to the definition of "good".  If your idea of a good school is a school that wins top international awards, has more than half its students with straight As in the A-levels and beats all other schools in the world when it comes to getting places in Ivy-League universities and Oxbridge, then yes, RI is the ONLY really good school in Singapore.  But that is not how we should determine if a school is good.

The wonderful thing about the Singapore government is its belief in meritocracy.  That's what makes Singapore such an enviable country internationally and it's what makes Singapore such a great nation.  I have listed the many achievements of RI on the international stage and it's very hard for me to think of any school in other countries achieving that sort of greatness and this is an indictment on the other countries.  Imagine an RI in Malaysia.  Can there possibly be an RI in Malaysia?  Of course not.  The bumiputra policy will ensure that a large percentage of the students are admitted on the basis of race and not merit.  Within a year, the Malaysian RI will probably do worse than our worst Secondary School.

For me, a school is good if the right students are in it.  RI is only a good school if top students are enrolled in it.  Average students should go to schools that are catered for their needs.  Viewed this way, every school in Singapore is a good school, even a school for students with mental impairment because such a school is good for such students.  Each school is tailored to the needs of different segments of society and no one school is better than the rest.  In that sense, all schools in Singapore are good.  It is when we want RI to take in mediocre students as well that we are trying to ruin RI and turn it into a bad school because that's not what RI is meant for.  I have explained elsewhere in my other blog posts that nothing hampers teaching as much as having students with a hugely diversified intellectual capacity.  Teachers will have to pitch their lessons somewhere at the average level and still, good students will be held back by the slower pace of learning and they will be bored while slow students will find the lessons too difficult.  That is why I have said elsewhere that the PSLE is a time-tested gauge of which secondary school a student should rightly go to.  It redounds to the credit of the Singapore government that it could come up with an school-placement examination that is so impartial and incorruptible.  I really hope the government will re-consider any plan to shelve or revamp such an excellent and fair gauge that has served the nation well for decades.

If we are honest about it, it's really jealousy that makes us rebel against a system that has worked so well for Singapore.  Whether it's the question of the income gap or the differences in schools, we should be honest and ask ourselves what it is that we really want.  Do I want RI to admit mediocre students only because I know my kid will do badly and yet I want him to be in RI?  But is it fair to put my kid in RI and displace a student with a better PSLE score?   Some parents have suggested that we look at education in a holistic way and we should value "other" aspects of education and not just academia.  But we know that's being hazy and unclear.  How does one have a fair test that measures the "holistic" and non-academic part of education?   Of course it's impossible and in the end, the selection of a student becomes arbitrary.  It will be open to corruption and abuse.  The PSLE is the only fair and impartial test that we can possibly have.  Nothing else will do.

The same questions should be asked when we clamour for a reduction in the income gap.  Do I want the deserving rich to be deprived of some of their wealth because I haven't got it?  Do I want his Ferrari to be taken away because it's so much faster than my bicycle?

We'll never be happy if we are always consumed by jealousy and envy.  We really should just take it easy and enjoy life.  Life can be pretty good when you get around on a bike.  Besides, cycling greatly reduces your carbon footprint and it increases your cardiovascular health too!

 Photo taken in Utrecht, Holland.

The Road to Mediocrity

Here's today's front page news in Today:

No more naming of top students for national exams

Move in line with recognising students' holistic development and all-round excellence, says Ministry of Education

by Ng Jing Yng

04:46 AM Nov 21, 2012

SINGAPORE - Amid the national angst over the Primary School Leaving Examination (PSLE) - and the Government's constant assurance that every school is a good school - the Ministry of Education (MOE) will stop its practice of announcing the top-scoring students in the release of all national examinations results, starting with the PSLE results tomorrow.

This means that the PSLE, N- and O-Level results will be released to the media in a manner similar to that of the A-Level results, with the focus on the performance of the whole cohort.

The practice of naming the top student for each ethnic group will also be scrapped.

The media will also be encouraged to highlight the performances of students from a variety of schools who have done well not only in the exams but also in other aspects as well.

Responding to media queries, an MOE spokesperson said yesterday: "MOE and SEAB (Singapore Examinations and Assessment Board) will no longer list the top-scoring students in the release of all national examinations results."

She added: "This is in line with the importance of recognising our students for their holistic development and all-round excellence, and to balance the over-emphasis on academic results."

Nevertheless, she stressed that this "does not mean that academic achievement will no longer be celebrated". Students who ace the exams will still be recognised through Edusave Awards and scholarships, and schools may continue to celebrate their pupils' achievements, the spokesperson said.

"Through the change, we hope to foster a better balance in emphasis and help parents and students understand that academic performance is just one aspect of a student's overall development and progress. Each student deserves to be commended for his efforts and progress."

The move could cause some primary schools to have a last-minute rethink on how they are going to laud their pupils' academic achievements tomorrow.

At MacPherson Primary, for instance, its top three students and their PSLE T-scores would traditionally be announced to all the pupils and parents present to collect the results.

Principal Rostinah Mohamad Said said come tomorrow, the school will still announce their top students but their results will not be publicised. "We will also mention about other non-academic achievements such as leadership qualities so as to signal to parents the importance of holistic development," she said.

Nevertheless, Yishun Primary Principal Chan Kwai Foong said his school will not depart from its tradition of announcing its top three students and their letter grades. "It is only fair to recognise the children who performed well," said Ms Chan, adding that she also always commend the entire Primary Six cohort for having done their best for the exams.

A teacher, who has produced many PSLE top scorers in her 20-year career, welcomed the MOE's move, although she noted that the ministry's past practice of publicising the PSLE top scorers brings "a lot of glory and pride" to the schools.

Whether the move will alleviate the stress on students sitting for PSLE remains to be seen, she said. Parents are very resourceful and the information on the top PSLE scores will eventually be circulated, she pointed out.

Ms Samantha Chng, 38, whose son took the PSLE this year, felt that high stakes will continue to be placed on the national exams for 12-year-olds, as long as the scores are used to decide which secondary schools the pupils go to.

The MOE's latest move comes after it revamped the Singapore Youth Festival such that schools will no longer compete for awards. While Ms Chng wondered if the MOE was too overzealous in its bid to reduce competition among pupils and schools, Mountbatten MP Lim Biow Chuan, who chairs the Government Parliamentary Committee for Education, felt that such moves are in the right direction.

On the changes to the way PSLE results will be announced, Mr Lim said: "MOE is trying to signal that children can still be talented in other areas apart from academics but there is a limit to what MOE can do, parents must act upon it themselves."

Link to Todayonline: Click here


There will be no more awards for Singapore Youth Festival and there will be no more publicity for top students in the PSLE.  These are some of the measures that the Ministry of Education has taken to give a more "holistic" picture to exams and competitions.

One of my kids studies in NUS High School of Mathematics and Science which is traditionally a school that does not do well in the Singapore Youth Festival (SYF).  Another kid of mine is in another school which traditionally does exceedingly well at the Festival.  I'm talking only about the String Ensemble Competition since both my kids play string instruments in their schools.  As everyone knows, NUS High is a specialised school with very few students.  They tend to excel in Mathematics and Science but they aren't really that good when it comes to music.  And it's not their fault.  There are very few students to begin with and it's not easy to find from this small pool of students enough boys and girls who are talented in string instruments to make up an ensemble.  The fact that they are willing to participate in the Festival despite their inadequate number testifies to their strength of character.  When they appear on stage for the SYF competition, you can hear a gasp of surprise from the audience because there are so few of them and that will be followed by a thunderous applause more out of sympathy because everyone knows they can't possibly do well.

Unlike NUS High which welcomes any student who can hold a musical instrument, my other kid's school is extremely stringent in its selection of students for the ensemble.  The students have to go for a rigorous audition and they are very carefully selected.  The preparation for the SYF is extremely back-breaking.  Students who fail to meet the standard expected are axed from the competition.  Failure to attend just one of its many practice sessions results in immediate expulsion from the competition.  I can tell because when both kids were preparing for the competition, my kid from NUS High always went home early while the other almost lived in the school with countless rehearsals that stretched into the night.

When NUS High gets a bronze award which is really a sympathy award, everyone is jubilant.  The school gives each participant a special certificate of recognition.  As an aside, I should mention that NUS High is indeed an excellent school and the support the students get from the principal is incredible.  But there was one year when the school of my other child got a Gold award at SYF and everyone was close to tears.  The reason was they wanted to get the Gold with Honours award.  Two years later (the competition is held once every two years), they got their Gold with Honours and they felt vindicated!

What I want to illustrate from this is just as in the field of education, not everyone can be at the top of everything.  But top achievers must always be given the accolade and recognition because, well, they are brilliant and they work hard.  A nation that has excellence as its goal must laud excellence.

The students themselves are very supportive of others who do better than themselves.  I've been to concerts held by the string ensemble from my son's school and I have seen the support given by NUS High's ensemble members who attend the concert.  They are genuinely effusive in their praise of the performance by that other school.  I have also been to concerts in NUS High and I have seen ensemble members from my son's school and they too are supportive of the performers in NUS High.  Recently, I posted in my blog about RI's superb achievement even in non-academic areas such as debating and an RI debater corrected my error when I said that Singapore was represented by only RI boys.  He pointed out that there was a Hwa Chong boy in the team.  You may want to read that post and the comments here.

You see, there is no jealousy among the boys and girls.  They generally encourage and support one another.  Why then is there a need to play down on the publicity given to top students who really excel, whether it's education or music?

It all boils down to the parents.  Many parents are of the view that they MUST get their kids into a school that does extremely well in a particular area.   What they fail to understand is that the PSLE is an excellent and time-tested gauge of which secondary school a kid should go to.  A kid who goes to a school not suited for him will do worse even if the school generally produces good results.  We should not bite off more than we can chew.

These parents clamour for a few things.  One of them is to have the PSLE scrapped or revamped.  Others call for the opening up of top schools to mediocre students.  As I have already shown in my earlier post, you can't do that without turning a top school into a mediocre school, in which case, the same parents wouldn't want their kids into such a school.  You can't have it both ways.  Now, the Ministry has decided that there'll be no publicity given to top students.

Top students will still be top students.  Publicity of top students only serves to give inspiration to the average and weaker students who will then try to emulate these top students.  It gives students in Singapore something to aim for, some goal to pursue and it encourages hard work.  It gives impetus for further improvement and it's a booster to weaker and lazier students to keep the nose to the grindstone.  Singapore should not apologise for focussing on excellence because this is what has put on the world map not just of academia but other fields too.  Recently, an NUS High boy won the world's top mathematics prize.  An RI boy won it for Chemistry.  As I have mentioned in my previous blog post, a group of RI boys won the World Schools Debating Championship held in Dundee.  These are top world prizes and it is no mean feat for Singapore to achieve it when you consider how tiny our population is.

I fear that all the new measures will take away our edge on the world stage.  We should give more publicity to top students so that the rest of us can buck up and have these students as our inspiration.  There will always be envious parents with a dog-in-the-manger mentality who may suggest that there should be no top schools because their own kids can't get in anyway and there should be no publicity given to top students because their kids will never make it to the limelight.  It is for the government to take stock of what we have built up for ourselves and decide whether we are willing at this point in time to please just a few loud and jealous parents, forget our success story and take the road to mediocrity.