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.

As if we were God's spies

“...and we’ll talk with them too—
Who loses and who wins, who’s in, who’s out—
And take upon ’s the mystery of things
As if we were God’s spies. And we’ll wear out
In a walled prison packs and sects of great ones
That ebb and flow by the moon.”

- King Lear; William Shakespeare

In today’s world; who’s winning and who’s losing—who’s in, who’s out? What is the mystery of our universe? In light of recent developments in the Korean peninsula, I can’t help but realise the differences between how Asia and Europe handle historic legacies and events. Many say Asia is the new Europe, boasting a collective continent as a whole that is rich in culture as well as a rapidly growing economy. But there are more differences between the two continents than we know.

Europe; for one, has a largely homogeneous Western race. Sure there are the different Palaeolithic and Mediterranean types; but they are largely just... white.

Asia, on the other hand; has a myriad of different races that can easily be identified. We have the Oriental East Asian races (China, Japan, North and South Korea), South Asians (Indians, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, Nepalese—who are a different colour all together, similar to the Mongolians) and an even wider array in Southeast Asia—Malay, Indonesian (yes they are different, and even in Indonesia itself there are countless numbers of different indigenous and racial populous), Burmese, Vietnamese, Eurasians... the list goes on.

The heterogeneity of the different races in Asia thus constitutes many different cultures. Despite many sociologists stereotyping Asian culture into a particular mould where we are said (and written) to be collectivistic and hierarchical (I can’t deny it though, Asian society prides itself on the basis of values like filial piety and respect; these are not only so for East Asian types but also in South Asia—the caste system is undeniably hierarchical); different religions as well as Western influences coupled with cultural flows internally largely shape the multitude of different cultures in Asia today.

This probably then affects the way Asians do business. Asia has been one of the largest business hubs in history; where in the 1820s we accounted for 3/5 of the world’s total GDP. Chinese businessmen, Indian merchants and Southeast Asian artisans ruled the seas. Albeit eventually falling behind due to Western industrialisation; Asia today is gradually and rapidly taking back its share and cementing its global presence with China and India—two of Asia’s giants; and Japan, who although suffered badly in the 1980’s bubble burst is still one of the largest players in the global economic scene with undisputedly advanced technology well beyond any other country in the world. Our diverse economic strategies that combine capitalism with our culture and ideology have made us different from laissez-faire Europe. It is easy to describe the EU’s economy in one sentence but not Asia’s.

Going back to the issue of historic legacies, it is most intriguing how differently Asians handle memory of war. As I quote Brahma Chellaney, author of Asian Juggernauts; these are “shadows of history” that Europe has “done a better job in coming to terms with”. While in Europe there is a regional consciousness of condemnation of war crimes like the Holocaust (even in Germany where they commemorate Auschwitz, the then-Nazi concentration camp established for Jews); Asia on the other hand commemorates its “war heroes” (contentious point; but shan’t elaborate; refer to blog post “It is written”, haha) – Japan built Yasukuni shrine to remember the kamikaze pilots who died in WWII. It’s therefore about using history as a tool for nationalism versus using it as a reminder to prevent racism, exclusion, and oppression.

What has this got to do with recent developments between the Korean conflict, you ask. Well much of what is happening in Korea today is a result of how we as Asians handle what has happened in history. While the Berlin wall has fallen, representative of the decomposition of European differences between Capitalism and Communism; the Korean War is still unfortunately still ongoing, with even further escalations in conflict today. It saddens the world to see how a country can be so divided based on mistakes made in history that have uncontrolled ramifications today. There are still two Vietnams, two Chinas and two Koreas because we can’t seem to let go of ideals that were in fact propagated by Westerners.

That being said, all these are a result of Western imperialism and colonialism. Enforcement of Western decisions on Asian countries has very much divided us. It was American administrators who separated Korea at the 38th parallel; a result of Western political division by who else but the Soviets and Americans. With the North ruled by the bear and the South by the eagle; the country still remains divided today as a result of differences in Western ideology that is now deeply entrenched in Asian minds. Borders in Asia were drawn up by Western colonialists, who drew the lines between Thailand and Malaysia resulting in the minority Thai-Muslim population in Southern Thailand deeply isolated by predominantly Buddhist Thailand.

The events in history are so connected its scary. Everything we do has endless ramifications. As they say, the flutter of a butterfly’s wing may cause a tornado on the other side of the world. Such is the mystery of our universe.

Chemistry? It's all in the mind

By Charlotte Philby (The Independent, 13 September 2008)

"Love at first sight" is defined as a condition in which someone feels romantic love for a stranger immediately upon meeting them. Brain imaging shows that when this happens areas of the brain involved with dopamine, a hormone and neurotransmitter, are activated. Dopamine has important roles in behaviour and information processing, in activity, motivation and reward, sleep, mood, attention and learning. Hence intense romantic love is associated with neuronal reward and motivation pathways in the brain, particularly in areas involved with addictive behaviour such as compulsive gambling.

Love deactivates a set of regions in the brain associated with negative emotions, social judgement and "mentalising" (assessing other people's intentions and emotions), and bonds individuals through the involvement of the reward circuitry.

Romantic love has much in common with behaviours in other mammals and in birds: it is the third of three behavioural repertoires associated with reproduction: sex drive (to find a mate), attraction (to find the best mate) and attachment (to allow time for successful reproduction). To science, romantic love is not a particular emotion and does not use a functionally specialised area of the brain. It enables the individual to make a more efficient use of time and resources for successful reproduction. It is believed that "love at first sight" is an extreme extension of the normal romantic bonding process.