opposing for the sake of opposing

i'd like to spend a few minutes ruminating on this strangest of singaporean inventions - opposing for the sake of opposing. we do many such similar actions: believing for the sake of believing, breathing for the sake of breathing, and living for the sake of living. but what makes opposing for the sake of opposing so worthy of disapproval? isn't the gahmen ruling for the sake of ruling also?

philosophically, this is probably a special case of the utilitarian proposition - the ends justifies the means - where the means and the ends are the same, i.e. it is recursive or reciprocal, hence illogical and absurd. in such a reading, members of the opposition are chastised when they use the means of opposing to achieve nothing but the ends of simply having opposed. this allegation strongly discredits the opposition's various objections against gahmen policies - how can an illogical argument hold any water? another implicit allegation within this label is that the opposition is serving no useful purpose other than to oppose.

however, this assertion has some implicit flaws as well. when the opposition "opposes" any policy, it does not simply "oppose"; it has to raise a movement during parliament and follow some procedures, or seek agreement within its party members to include such an objection within its manifesto if parliamentary objection fails. this would be the means to achieve the ends of opposing - albeit just a technical definition. those who believe opposing is a straightforward urge which immature children are likely to indulge in, well, opposing as a member of the opposition is definitely not something like that.

secondly, the opposing does not merely lead to more opposing - the gahmen is sorely mistaken if the opposition opposes various motions for no good reason. even the silliest of opposition measures (think dr chee's asking goh chok tong "where's the money") are directed at representing singaporeans. granted, not all singaporeans may feel so personally "represented" by some of their actions, yet the effort of our opposition politicians cannot be discounted: dr chee risked fines and jail for it. a slight reversal would look like this - why does the gahmen react so strongly to actions which merely amount to "opposing for the sake of opposing"?

this insight also extends to myself, strangely. today i ranted in objection about voting singaporeans who "don't know anything about singapore politics". my recommendation was a disdainful "don't know don't vote lah!" but! this would amount to a form of "opposing for the sake of opposing", attempting to bully some citizens into relinquishing their inalienable right to vote. especially so because i am easily incensed at pro-pappers who are simply so bought over by pap's condemnations and have lost all ability to respect the opposition. therefore to exemplify a legitimate form of opposition, i should be trying earnestly to show my fellow citizens what they might have missed; positive rather than negative action.

so here i would like to offer my sincerest apologies to fellow singaporeans whom i have taunted recently out of anti-pap exasperation. i would like to affirm that no matter how little you know about the gross fact-distortion which pap has committed against the opposition, you are entitled the right to vote even based on that lack of information. i am NOT (personally) accepting such a pap-advantage as legitimate electoral procedure, but to claim that these citizens do not "know enough" about singapore politics to vote is definitely out of line.

but all the same, i would invite fellow voters to visit the opposition's websites before unfairly judging them:
Workers' Party
Singapore Democratic Alliance
Singapore Democratic Party
Singapore Elections - a useful voters' repository
Check Your Poll Location - gahmen site

for those who suggest i am flouting the law against political blogging, i would like to emphasise that this is NOT party politics, but simply defending the opposition from the "opposing for the sake of opposing" fallacy. that's the main grouse i have against pap.

oxygenated

when i find it hard to finish reading up the oxygens in my email, is it because i'm allowing myself to drift away from god? no, the font is weirdly small in gmail, i have to revise, etc. but i don't see myself applying these excuses for my indulgent addictions.

when i do get to reading some of it, why does every affirmative line arouse some vestibule of doubt in my mind? questions abound:

1. why do we consider christ's love perfect?
   consider the anthropomorphic principle: because we are not capable of fathoming or imitating his type of love. if i were to go spread the word of god as he did, and end up getting brutally murdered, would anyone say i did that out of love for every single human being that ever existed, even if i claim it so? yet because he was god so his sacrifice fulfilled old testament prophecies and redeemed the world. how can there ever be a question or doubt to such logic?
   
   
2. why are we touched by the experiences of his disciples?
   do we truly identify with the trials and tribulations they went thru? the way the apostles mistook christ's promise of a kingdom... the way the apostles got scared and ran away... the way the apostles found renewed hope and zeal in the good news of easter... is that truly how we identify ourselves with them? or are we making effusive extrapolations which are not adequately substantiated?
   
   
3. why is every christian journey one of repentence and renewal?
   are we really that sinful? recalling such theories as internalisation and externalisation of responsibility, what function, then, does guilt serve? the 40 days of lent and all that repression... is it truly helpful, or am i just revising psych a lil too much? how does shame and judgment comingle to make us better (by what standard, too) people? where do abstract stuff like faith, hope and love come in? how do they work?
   
   
4. what is that fluffy sensation i get when i somehow recognise some of the sharings?
   when you feel some tingling beneath your skin, that somehow soothing allusion to "deep inner peace", how is that quantifiable? is that truly what i seek? why? why bother? is that not a somewhat positive form of addiction? but is losing one's self-mastery to such positivity (which once again begs further definition) really such a suspicious act as to warrant all my doubting? especially when i have far less respectable addictions to deal with... am i justified? or is either way destined to feel emotional and irrational anyway?
   
   
5. why am i so sceptical about "life-changing" experiences?
   am i simply jealous? am i simply evil and mistrusting? am i trying too hard to obtain indisputable proof, proof which a jealous, evil and mistrusting secular world would demand, and still not be satisfied when they see it? is not the conversion of an chronically irrepentant ex-convict a miracle? is not the willingness of once megalomaniacal assholes to surrender their pride to the lord (or anything else "respectable" enough) something to give good cheer for? is not the serendipity of a CDD 'A' level score still managing to squeeze into NUS god's sign? or am i too caught up with the social factors which allow such dramatic changes, with deconstructing these maudlin expressions of human fickleness, with my forcible attempts to tear the wool out of my corneas?

where am i going with this? should i truly take a REAL break, take PROPER stock, and do what i think i should do? trust my conscience! how could i, after all that i've doubted! and thus i may have oxygenated my ability to belief - hanging in midair indefinitely, somewhat aspirated yet still preposterously uninspired.

may god have mercy on my soul (if i still have one).

obedience

somewhere in milgram's report, he quotes someone as saying that "obedience has caused more misery and hardship than rebellion in history", referring to the insignificant nazi minions who carried hitler's crazed dreams to fruition (without these "insignificant minions", we would never have heard of hitler, really). i wondered if that meant someone as quarrelsome and disagreeable as myself would actually produce less misery and hardship than all those pap sycophants out there. of course, equating pap to the nazi is hardly fair la.

unfortunately, i turned out to be quite obedient too. that very night, i sat on a front row seat aboard the a1 shuttle back to pgp. along the way, i thought that i got the best seat, since it would be nearest to the pgp entrance when i get off, thus insignificantly saving me a few steps. strangely, the driver would refuse to open the front door when he finally stopped at pgp. "alight behind," i think he retorted. at that very moment i felt very indignant, and contemplated requesting that he open the front door in a less-than-threatening manner. but weirdly, like milgram's test subjects, the nazi minions, and the pap sycophants, i meekly headed for the rear door, with a slight frown and some cognitive dissonance.

perhaps walking a few more steps was simply too insignificant an inconvenience to risk a nonchalant argument with a bored bus driver? perhaps the glazed eyes of my fellow commuters extinguished some of the revolutionary fire burning in my heart at that moment? perhaps the exertions of trying to trick myself into revising the whole day had enervated me to the point of apathy? so many perhapses, but the most poignant one would be this: i probably lacked the resolute belief (what others may call zealous conviction) in that particular fight for that particular cause. and this hollow deficit of deliberate consonance probably rings true in almost every other area of my life: religion, education, love, etc. deliberate consonance... what a strange term to use in place of free choice.

and thus i conclude: for me obedience signifies a lack of consonance with fighting that authority. obedience indeed could allow much misery and hardship to proliferate.

tonight i mourn

i thought i was going to sleep, but the thought didn't really appeal to me. it's these mindless thoughts that keep one awake, only to realise that one wasn't truly awake, only staring with open eyes. so what if your neurons fire upon sensory stimulation? so what if you believe you have vision? what matters is that we never truly experience truth. even when we attempt to live life the fullest we can. it may simply be the best lie you've ever told yourself.

and with that in mind, i attempt to change the world. no wait, the world is big. it's got 6.5 billion people. i'll start with singapore. and what a place to start! everyone's a mindless robot. if i had for one moment believed that i wasn't thinking, i just need to look around me to console myself.

everyone hates the pap. you'd think that's because they've done a good custodian job and imposed good stern rules to keep singapore in good shape. wrong. they've used every possible short-term strategy there is to maintain their hegemony they could ever think up and used it on the poor populace. once upon a time, we singaporeans were tough, we fought for our independence, we fought against racial injustices, we shed blood daily to build the nation (now we hire bangladeshis). today we are just a desolate people long ago succumbed to the brainwashing powers of the men in white. with their keen sense of indoctrination and materialist massages, the hegemon had no trouble imprisoning the 4 million hardy dogs in their own minds. sph, ns, cme, cpf, hdb, coe, erp, gst, isa... i think there were at least 2 dozen other cold faceless acronyms that have come to dominate our reality.

if any singaporean truly believes s/he understands her/is reality, let her/im stand up! oh no, we don't even have the courage any more - our knees have gone to jelly. who knows which phantom sniper would shoot your head off when you say lky should just die. who knows which sycophant is gonna sack your sorry civil servant ass when you decide to spoil your worthless vote. who knows when the day will come when one of your outspoken friends would get locked away in sentosa without any warning. is this all we are capable of? fear? cowering in the false prosperity of the incorrupt party? clamouring for puny upgrades to overpriced hdb flats we will never be able to pay off in our pathetic lifetime? bloodthirstily scanning coe prices for the right time to scrap a mint-condition car so that you can get that next one to show off to your other bloodthirstily coe-scanning friends? and of course, nothing beats mugging your brains to mush just to score that flimsy A on a worthless certificate.

yes, tonight i mourn, for the reality that i was going to allow myself to escape from (through sleep). the only problem is, morning always comes too soon, and before anyone can begin thinking, i'm stuck in the daily routine yet again. the melancholic wailings of a semi-subservient loser... what ever the fuck did i bother to type this for. small wonder i keep my private addictions and pretend to pretend they don't exist. small wonder a small part of me dies away every morning.

and you know what? it was easter. perhaps the hopelessness i see in the country is the reason i over-exert myself in css. perhaps the hierarchical nature of the church seems a great proving ground for my liberal socialist ideologues. i am treating my religion like an opiate - to soothe my wounded idealism and to escape from the harsher reality.

why don't i just go play guitar instead.

cursory concern

"hey."
"sup."
"life sux man... my girlfriend is giving me trouble."
"geez... poor you."
"it was only making eyes at some babe across the street. what's the big deal really?"
"yeah."
"she does that with cute guys, so i'm entitled!"
"mm hmm."
"not like i'm gonna go pick that girl up or something, you know."
"nah."
"ogling is perfectly normal practice among guys."
"i guess."
"i'm just being a normal guy."
"of course."
"so it's her being oversensitive! girls..."
"tsk tsk."
"dude, thanks so much for clarifying with me!"
"sure, anytime."

and so girlfriend-trouble guy goes on ogling. what do you think will happen to his relationship?

there is a socially imposed requirement to "care for others", even when one does not really feel like it. when someone requests for small acts of concern, it is duly given out of obligation, and the requestor is thus placated patronisingly. what then, is the point of such cursory concern?

to the cursor's benefit, not everyone is in the right mood or mode to give advice or listen. it's a tough life and everyone is busy dealing with their private sorrows. isn't it good enough that i bother to listen? unfortunately, it may result in further sorrow, where concern turns sour. what if you received cursory concern? the cursor, so long as such response is doled out consistently with no explanation or disclaimer, is not in benefit but ought review such lack of responsibility.

to the requestor's deficit, most problems ought to be dealt with personally. or should they? why are we a society if we are supposed to feel so alone? if we are capable of social relations, why not make the most of it? the requestor, so long as the requesting is genuine, is not in deficit although greater caution should be taken when approaching others for advice. yet, such stability of thought may not be present, so greater onus rests on the acceptor to be attentive.

are you guilty of cursory concern? or have you been a victim?

criticism gone awry

today i shall critique the practice of essay-writing for 20-30% of a typical arts module's grade. to be fair, it's a pretty established standard of grading, with much proven results in its efficacy. however, various intrinsic problems do exist and these are often exacerbated by the extenuating factors unique to nus.

intrinsic problems
essay grading depends on subjective objectivity - i.e. the objectivity of one single marker such that this person represents the yardstick and determinant all rolled into one. the subjectivity stems from individual bias, assuming that the marker (if there's only one) is either a) not exposed to sufficient broadness in the field/module, b) holds personal prejudices/preferences where opposing views are pertinent, c) susceptible to moderating judgment based on personal relations (or the lack thereof) with the student, d) inordinately influenced by environmental factors (emotions, memory, fatigue, comfort, stress, etc) at the time of marking, or e) unable to "sufficiently understand" the expression used by the student. these 5 factors represent some of the more common pitfalls of subjective grading in general, but are neither exhaustive nor meant to be significant simply due to its multiplicity. each factor may exist in varying levels per different markers, though an objective way to measure these biases may not be possible thus far. put more simply, the marker's objectivity is often dubious and little transparent effort is invoked in most grading; whereas for instances of transparency, it is not standardised and may contribute to inter-module/field/faculty systemic biases.

whew. what a mouthful. just think about it... some markers are affected by the standard of the student's language (esp. in FASS) while others demand elaboration/conciseness all in one bite. another common problem is... that more often than not, it is more than one marker grading the papers. even when the marker's demands are understood, is that then an objective standard? of course, that's assuming that objective grading is desirable in the first place!

systemic bias, as touched on above, is an even more insidious problem with even lesser attention paid. what if faculties are getting disproportionate grades? but yea, i do see that this argument truly borders on being alarmist and unnecessarily sceptical. the only problem is that such doubts hang in one's mind until disproved.

extenuating factors
the most prominent one is the fact that we are doing an average of 5 modules per 13 week (lectures-tutorial) semester. essay questions are usually only released from the 3rd week onwards, where in any case most are not able to choose a proper question until more immersion in the module is properly acquired. deadlines are usually around the 10th-12th week, owing to administrative deadlines imposed upon the teaching staff. this equates to about 6-10 weeks at most for 5 essays (assuming each module requires one essay). the workload in itself is not necessarily asphyxiating, but most students are also called to participate in extra-curricular activities, i.e. hall stuff, society matters, church/temple, family commitments, part-time jobs, friends and lovers. coupled with most arts modules being only marginally related to each other (most departments do not offer sub-field specialisation) with an emphasis on broad-based learning, quite a lot of odds are stacked against us!

personal factors also play a large role. students are only nominally trained to do research for arts essays, while grading methods are not often availed to them. the lack of knowledge, skill, support, and confidence are very debilitating personal factors which often conspire to throw students into fits of absurd panic, wailing stress, and pitiable depression. are we trying to make these students feel worthless?

quid pro quo
so why go nuts for an institution that simply oppresses everyone indiscriminately? lecturers and tutors also have to sift thru mountains of material just to give us that non-descriptive grade. if grading is only more or less arbitrary, does it matter how much effort you commit to lit reviews or referencing? do you have confidence in a system that saps you of your own confidence? or are most of us happy robots willing to be ordered by a system that operates on misdirection, ambiguity, and superstition?

quid pro quo, students are not inclined to produce top quality work. surveys are often fabrications, and some of these "innovations" extend even to citations and so-called interviews. the lack of scientific objectivity in grading is leading to a parched social science academe. grading constitutes a major source of socialisation for aspiring social scientists as they learn about the intricacies of producing scholarly research. if they spend more time exploring the system's kinks and working the bell curve, are they still capable of studying what they set out to study? or have we become rational pragmatists in the game of deconstruction for exploitation's sake?

BUT! this critique does not represent a rejection of the system. just a long-winded lament for the countless hapless students who have been indelibly scarred by the ruthless hopeless impositions of society. yes, we are eulogised, so now let us march forth with valiant honour till we meet an untimely aneurysm. god save the undergrad!

ode to the crashed harddisk

in a term not too far ago
as far as my memory would show
the songs of an undistant past
the stories i once thought would last
but what patent nonsense!
oh what artful magnificence!

for the lost may yet be found
as sure as a watch tightly wound
is toward an eventual stop bound
only what sleeps deepest within
granted immunity from the recycle bin
would relish existing again

so there it goes, this hard drive
across the fairway and out of my life
when they call for your backing up
you must learn to not ever bochup
some say you'd remember if you care
but i say i forget and i still don't care

it's painful to lose 3 seasons of spongebob, 15gigs of pure aural pleasure, 2 years of photographs, photoshop works, mind-bending ideas, and everybody's birthdays. but guess what? i've learnt the importance of memory. and that is something i would never forget.