9 years on

Well this place sure is equivalent to a desolate and barren wasteland in the far corners of the internet. 

Looking back at my posts from 9 years ago, I can’t help but feel disappointed at myself. I used to be involved. I wasn’t apathetic. I wrote about things I stood up for, about climate change, about history, about politics. 

And now... I just post inane photos on Instagram. 

But suffice to say, I am deep down the same cynical critic that I was 9 years ago that wrote about how History is written by its victors, and hence not entirely accurate; about how people support “trendy” politicians for the sake of it, and how we really can’t do anything about climate change if our governments don’t give a shit. 

And 9 years on, all I can say is: the world is fucked. 

(9 years on, I probably use more profanities loosely as well)

I’m not just disappointed in myself for letting my intellectual capability rot in the hellhole of social media and instant gratification, but with the rest of society and how it’s become a breeding ground for self-centred narcissists as well as bigots and racists who cannot back their arguments up with anything substantial. 

We are also a world where we definitely do not deserve the planet that we live in - we continue to take and take and never give back to the Earth. There continues to be so much excess, so much consumerism, so much misuse of time, resources, wealth. 

The human race is, for lack of a better word, disgusting.

1. The rise of the everyday narcissist 

This is the fundamental problem with society today. Either you want to tell the world what you’ve been up to, or people want to see what you’re up to. The vicious cycle that feeds into each other. There somehow is a need to share about everything under the sun. Instagram stories make it even easier, the story is gone after 24 hours so there isn’t much to hold back while posting - leave your judgement to the next story that you scroll on to.

Eating at a fancy restaurant? Let’s take a photo of the food, what a gastronomical experience! Went to the gym? Remember to take the selfie in the mirror, otherwise the workout didn’t happen. Went to Bali? Better take a selfie on the beach. Don’t forget to hashtag #blessed and #gratitude for all the meditation you are doing while posing for the 'gram'.

Social media profiles are a careful curation to showcase a certain aspect of your life you let known to the world. What makes people think that the world is interested to know about what they are doing? How significant do we think we are, that we think people are trying to find out what skincare routine we have, or which restaurant we ate at, or how we met our significant others?

We all think we are special. And I have got news for you - we are not. 

2. The rise of “woke culture”, the hippie, and the hypocrisy of it all

Let’s have a hypothetical character and call her Jane. Jane is a middle class, educated female who is a self proclaimed yogi and “loves to travel #wanderlust”. She adores her gay buddies and believes that love is love is love and also wants to go to India because she’s heard it’s such an amazing place. She goes, and takes a nice photo of herself in front of the Taj Mahal, gazing into the distance.

Back home, she makes fun of the South Asian construction workers and avoids them at all cost. 

This is honestly, taken from a real life example.

Everyone is eager to make a statement. Everyone is going to extremes just to portray a particular image about themselves.  You speak loudly and boldly about how you want to save the earth and the environment but also order takeaways in plastic bags every day. You claim to love all cultures but you avoid people of other races. You claim to be an independent woman but you complain when the guy makes you go Dutch for a meal. Hypocrisy at its finest. 

3. Excess - we don’t deserve this earth and what it has given to us 

Everyday, we are inundated with a constant stream of content, from “targeted advertising” that promotes a certain lifestyle. We strive and yearn for the latest gadget or trend, constantly fixating on the new and not having qualms about quickly getting rid of what we already have. 

We upgrade our iPhones every time a new model is released and we fail to realise the ramifications of that - the DRC is being exploited for tin, titanium, tungsten and gold - all of which are conflict minerals that are used for our smartphones. Despite the African country containing at least US$24 million in untapped minerals the country is still living in poverty and violence, all because the supply chain processes are informal and unregulated, and funds are being used for crime organisations in the country, further exploiting the poor and contributing to violence in the country. 

Apart from exploitation and misuse of resources, I think the narrative on how we are destroying our environment and climate has been written and talked about enough - if we still fail to see it, we clearly don’t deserve to be here. 

---

And that's all for my disillusionment.

Chase

"The world has achieved brilliance without wisdom, power without conscience. Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants. We know more about war than we know about peace, more about killing than we know about living."

- Omar Bradley

Lee Kuan Yew urges Muslims to 'be less strict'

http://www.mysinchew.com/node/51920

By Philip Lim

SINGAPORE, Sunday 23 January 2011 (AFP) -- Singapore's founding father Lee Kuan Yew has urged local Muslims to "be less strict on Islamic observances" to aid integration and the city-state's nation-building process.

Singapore has a predominantly Chinese population, with minority races including Muslim Malays and Indians, and Lee has always stressed the importance of racial harmony.

"I would say today, we can integrate all religions and races except Islam," he said in "Lee Kuan Yew: Hard Truths to Keep Singapore Going," a new book containing his typically frank views on the city-state and its future.

"I think we were progressing very nicely until the surge of Islam came and if you asked me for my observations, the other communities have easier integration -- friends, intermarriages and so on..." he stated.

"I think the Muslims socially do not cause any trouble, but they are distinct and separate," Lee added, calling on the community to "be less strict on Islamic observances."

During the book's launch on Friday, the self-described "pragmatist" warned Singaporeans against complacency, saying the largely ethnic Chinese republic was still a nation in the making.

Describing Singapore in the book as an "80-storey building on marshy land," Lee said it must contend with hostility from larger Muslim neighbours.

"We've got friendly neighbours? Grow up... There is this drive to put us down because we are interlopers," he said, citing alleged Malaysian and Indonesian efforts to undermine Singapore's crucial port business.

Singapore was ejected from the Malaysian federation in 1965 in large part due to Kuala Lumpur's preferential policies for ethnic Malays, and has since built up Southeast Asia's most modern military to deter foreign aggression.

Turning to local politics, Lee said the ruling People's Action Party (PAP), which has been in power since 1959 when Singapore gained political autonomy from colonial ruler Britain, will someday lose its grip on power.

"There will come a time when eventually the public will say, look, let's try the other side, either because the PAP has declined in quality or the opposition has put up a team which is equal to the PAP... That day will come."

"In the next 10 years to 20 years, I don't think it'll happen. Beyond that, I cannot tell."

Lee said that despite a survey showing the contrary, he believed Singaporeans were not yet ready for a non-ethnic-Chinese prime minister.

"A poll says 90 percent of Chinese Singaporeans say they will elect a non-Chinese as PM. Yes, this is the ideal. You believe these polls? Utter rubbish. They say what is politically correct," he stated.

He also defended the policy of promoting marriage between highly-educated Singaporeans, a policy seen by critics as a form of social engineering, and dismissed the notion of love at first sight.

"People get educated, the bright ones rise, they marry equally well-educated spouses. The result is their children are likely to be smarter than the children of those who are gardeners," he said.

"It's a fact of life. You get a good mare, you don't want a dud stallion to breed with your good mare. You get a poor foal."

People who are "attracted by physical characteristics" may regret it, he said.

Lee also revealed that he had donated to charity all his earnings of S$13 million ($10 million) since stepping down as prime minister in 1990 after 31 years in power.

Singapore's cabinet ministers are the highest paid in the world as part of a strategy to prevent corruption and attract talent from the private sector.

Lee, who holds the special title Minister Mentor, now serves as an adviser to his son Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, who came to power in 2004.

Amid all the hard-edged talk, Lee showed his tender side when asked about his late wife Kwa Geok Choo, who died aged 89 in October last year.

"It means more solitude. No one to talk to when the day's work is done," Lee said in the book, the result of exclusive interviews with journalists from the country's leading daily, The Straits Times.

Wikleaks? More like Wikileech!

Here's an interesting video-- a debate between journalists on the nature of investigative journalism, as well as whether Julian Assange is in fact committing a crime.

"Publishing classified information is what journalists do" -- one of the quotes in this video. While it is true that what journalists around the world (mostly) aim to do is to report and disseminate the truth, "classified information" takes "truth" to a whole new level. Besides breaching government secrecy acts, it severely harms diplomacy in international relations.

Some may argue that the truth behind government conspiracy theories should be made known to the public (in the name of democracy and freedom of speech/access to information which honestly I feel is far too overrated), there has to be a certain amount of control and consideration on Assange's part, in which his actions may have huge rippling effects on international diplomacy. Even Singapore hasn't been spared.

As a (very self-censoring) writer, I feel that even though the Wikileaks documents provide massive amounts of information that is simply screaming to be written about, journalists have to practice discernment over what should be revealed versus what should be kept as a government secret (although it really is no longer is a secret now that Wikileaks has revealed virtually everything).

Perhaps I only feel this way because I have been brought up in Singapore, where even though I do value being told the truth, the wider picture of the "greater good" to maintain diplomacy and peace in society and with our ASEAN neighbours is still more important to me. And obviously also because whatever we write without discernment will have serious ramifications. But consider this -- while Wikileaks acts as the watchdog of the government, is there anyone to watch them? Instead of being 'Wikileaks', are they really, rather, "Wikileech", where Assange is leeching off this new found Robin Hood fame to profit from a book he is set to publish? Like a leech that is both a boon and bane, Wikileaks shines light on the truth, but is ultimately a pest that the government has to get rid of.

Greek vs Roman Mythology

The Differences and Similarities of Two Fascinating Cultures

Taken from this website, was fascinated yet confused after visiting the Pompeii exhibit at the National Museum.

The Greek and Roman Mythologies have fascinated human beings for centuries, inspiring books, movies, research, and conversation among those who want to learn more and who want to share the fables of the Gods and Goddesses. Their stories (myths or mythos, depending on the origin), their triumphs and failures, and their imminent Immortality has been the influence of many other religions, including Paganism and Norse Mythology.

Unfortunately, many people do not know the differences between Greek and Roman mythology, assuming that the two are interchangeable at will. In reality, the two are very different from one another, and capture almost opposing life values that are central to the people of the time. Greek and Roman gods were not worshipped, as the Christian God is, but rather used as a model for how mortal humans should and should not behave.

The Greeks came first, some 1,000 years before the Romans. Their most appreciated work, the Iliad, was distributed 700 years before the Roman's most popular manuscript, the Aeneid. The Iliad was based on at least 300 years of myths and stories, which were gathered from the tales passed down by mortal observants, which certainly correlates with the Christian Bible. It was not meant as a holy scripture, however, but as a recorded history of the Greek Gods and Goddesses, who were revered by men during that time.

The Greeks were focused primarily on life on earth, versus the eventuality of the afterlife. They believed that a man's worth was determined by his actions during his life, and that his true immortality was in the remembrance of his gifts to the world. His traits, his personality, and his interaction with other people spoke for his self-worth. Gods and Goddesses were based on human personality traits - such as Love, Honor, Dignity, and Hatred - and their actions in myths were symbolic of the actions of men. Many myths involved a mortal or a deity snatching something back from the Underworld, which illustrated their belief that the afterlife was not of any concern, and that it was the physical world that was important.

Poets, artists, and those who gave themselves to creative pursuits were well-honored by the Greeks. They held creativity above physical works in the mortal and mythical world; myths reflected those personal traits and were meant to expose the positive and negative aspects of humanity. Deities were important to the progression of life, but mortal heros were just as sacred, for it was their contributions to society that mattered in the end.

Individualism was also very important; the actions of a group were not as consequential as the actions of an individual. Men were responsible for their own well-being, and could not be bothered by the mistakes of the masses.

Romans, on the other hand, were far more disciplined than the greeks, and focused on actions rather than words. Whereas the Greeks revered the poet, the Romans held up the warrior as the epitome of sanctity, and rewarded bravery and risks taken by both mortals and deities. They strongly felt that good deeds on earth would be well-received in Heaven, and they strove to earn their place among the Gods in the afterlife. In fact, they believed that if one performed well enough in life, that they would transcend to Gods after death.

The Romans adopted many of the myths and deities of the Greeks, though they changed names and circumstances to support their own beliefs. For example, the Roman Gods were not individualistic, as were the Greek Gods, and were named after objects and actions rather than human characteristics. Myths were rooted in the brave, heroic acts of the Gods, and rarely displayed the lives of mortals, because mortal life was not as important as that after death.

Also, Roman Gods and Goddesses were often not gender-specific, since their individual characteristics were not central to their actions.

Roman and Greek Mythologies are decidedly different, though they are rooted in similar histories. A study of their individual characteristics illustrates the values and beliefs of the Greeks and Romans respectively, and can offer a better understanding of how these myths and anecdotes originally came about.

Asian Pride?

I'm sure most of you have heard this song. And I'm sure most of you like it. I actually find it really annoying. But I digress.

As I'm sure all of you know, "Like a G6" by Asian-American group Far East Movement has made it to the #1 spot on iTunes as well as the American Billboard Hot 100. And suddenly, you hear it everywhere-- on the radio and in clubs, and see the song's lyrics on Facebook and Tweets. And with that comes the exclamation "ASIAN PRIDE!"

Uhm. Okay. Asian pride? Why? Have we not, over decades, tons of Asian pop that we ought to be proud of as well? With all due respect to Far East Movement (as much as the song annoys me to no end), we have so many more singers and groups that have stellar vocals and songs (with better lyrics, definitely) that have been around for ages. They are good performers and have made the #1 spot, not in America or on iTunes but perhaps in say, the Tokio Hot 100 or the RTHK Asian Charts in Hong Kong. So why do we revel in Asian pride only when we receive affirmation from a Western country?

It seems as though we seek confirmation and approval from the States, using them as a benchmark for good music, so much so that when an Asian American group sings an English song in an American (hip hop) style and wins American affirmation, we get ecstatic. Is this really what we call being proud to be Asian? Why aren't we proud of our own homegrown artistes in Singapore or in the rest of Asia, and instead end up lambasting those who listen to Mandopop as 'cheena' or 'lian'?

Why are we proud of these American-born Asians when we aren't even proud of, say, Ah Du (阿杜) in China? Or are Singaporeans just confused on their affiliations, wanting to associate themselves too much with the Western world, Mcdonalisation and Consumerism that we fail to see true 'Asian-ness' and be proud of it?

NB: I just watched the video and its full of Americanised culture.. so seriously. Asian Pride? Maybe. But only to a very limited extent.

Gaia

I have taken up a keen interest in the environment recently.. and no, it isn't just a phase where I decide to carve a niche for myself as a hippie, mother-nature-loving environmentalist but rather something that has been going on for about half a year now. Attempts to decrease my own carbon footprint have been rather successful-- no cravings for meat, although I do (unwillingly) eat pork or beef about once a month because someone dear to me tells me it is 'good for my mental health'. And of course I would love to end up anaemic, wouldn't I? My future spouse will also be most elated to know that I have made the decision (albeit a really tough one) to stop purchasing leather goods (yes go on, reel from shock for a few seconds).

As most will come to realize, however, environmentalism alone is not enough to save the world. As much as we would like to believe that every person can play a part in 'saving the earth', households contribute approximately only 9 per cent of carbon emissions. While of course industrial pollution amasses a total of over 50 per cent, with transport at about 20 per cent. There is really little or nothing individuals can do as opposed to what large corporations can achieve if they cut down on their carbon footprint.

But there are other larger forces at work, political and economic. Governments that are the only ones who can really shape the future of the earth. What good is environmentalism; re-using paper bags or double-sided printing, if governments are uninterested in fighting global warming?

I am heartened to know that there are governments around the world who have invested heavily in research and development for alternative forms of energy. However, carbon emissions have remained the same in 2010 as compared to 2009, with Asian countries being the biggest contributors of carbon emissions. This not only includes China as the largest carbon emitter in the world but also India, another developing country and even South Korea. In fact, scientists believe that emissions are likely to resume their upward track and scale a new peak in 2010.

Thankfully, there have been changes. South Korea has recently invested US$8.3 billion in an offshore wind farm and China has its own Tianjin eco-district, a joint project with Singapore, no less.

But China and India's carbon emissions still stand high. Although signatories of the Kyoto Protocol, the two countries are not yet obliged to abide by the carbon cap as they are STILL a developing nation... and will continue to be for at least another 5 years. But there is a loophole. The West is no longer seen as the main culprit for its greenhouse gas emissions for the very fact that they have outsourced their production to countries like China and India the 'developing nations' that can afford not to abide by the carbon cap. The United States has countless outsourced productions in China. So although it seems like the ever-revered West is making advancements in sustainable technology and that they are the 'leaders in fighting against global warming', some have really exploited the loophole in the Kyoto Protocol. Is there, then, really a way we can keep to the targets of the carbon caps?

Geo-engineering is a potential solution. It seems dangerous, and pretty elusive, but with the right amount of research and investment it could spell an end to global warming. Carbon sequestration can serve as one of the ways countries like China can cut down on their emissions. As one of the richest countries in the world, I'm sure the Chinese will be able (and are daring enough) to partake in geo-engineering effort and investment. They were, after all, the first to create a storm when they decided on cloud seeding.

But of course, adequate knowledge is necessary before attempting to alter the environment. Geo-engineering has been banned in several countries and has been widely criticised as being an 'international manipulation of the environment'. Hypocritical, I would say, considering that man-made changes are needed to counter pollution that is man-made in the first place.

Our earth is the only element that remains immutable. Everything else has remained relatively transient, even the most powerful men in the world will not live forever. Earth has witnessed the changes over the centuries--wars, death, disaster, military and industrial activity that has destroyed the earth's surface. And we know all we are doing is but contributing to the planet's demise. The ice cap has melted 4% over the last at a rate of 230 gigatonnes (230,000 billion kilograms) a year. We need collective action and the work of politics to fight against global warming, this is what our era needs to see, this is the war we are fighting against, not a war of religion or for oil, but one to sustain life and the world we live in.