TR EMERITUS

Written by Darkness of the brotherhood / The Asia Journalism Fellowship (AJF) organized a seminar recently. The point of moot centered on “Singapore Beyond Lee Kuan Yew”. See here for more details: “Yes we can (survive)”     Both Kishore and Ah Ho who runs a chain spa; spoke about a few issues – concerning whether if LKY suddenly kicks the bucket all of us would die or continue to live on.   Kishore said nothing new, quoting Samuel Huntington as the main montage: “The honesty and efficiency that Senior Minister Lee has brought to Singapore are likely to follow him to his grave.” That more of less sums up his contributions.   Ah Ho however had something fruitier to offer (hopefully it didn’t come with lashings of Geylang rojak sauce, as my brain seems to be somewhat unsettled); as not only did he raise doubts over whether the PAP can continue to advance its current one-party dominance by producing its future leaders in which Singaporeans may or may not support in the future. Where he described Singapore’s political equilibrium as “stable, but static”, and feels that a multi-party political system would serve to benefit Singapore.     But curiously he went on to cancel off what he said by endorsing the status quo ante when he added “intentionally dividing the PAP into two sister parties taking turns at the polls to lead the country, is an artificial, unworkable idea.”   He wax lyrical on the “internal self-renewal of the PAP”. Which I really had a hard time wrapping my head around; so I picked up the phone and spoke to some of those clever monkeys in the ASDF and since the voice on the other side sounded equally perplexed – I guess it must have something to do with the whole idea of kundalini power that my Yoga guru keeps talking about.   Now folks I am serious – I am not here to cause intellectual offence – but I have absolutely no idea what “internal competition” is and one reason why I am befuddled is because I’ve always had a very simple Simon idea of competition and it goes something like this; if there is only one chicken rice vendor in a food court, then I call that a monopoly and usually it serves up rubber chicken - its no good – if there is more than one, then we have a competitive run and usually that means the food offered is good (now you know why canteen food is so lousy) – that simplistic equation applies to everything from girl friends, hotels, cars to even whole idea buying a pair of slippers.   Now what Ah Ho seems to be saying has to be akin to the power of reiki crystals and magnetic mattresses as by equating the whole idea of “internal renewal” to free market competition what he’s forwarding is: it’s possible to remain lean, sharp and hungry without having to really compete – and if you don’t believe me check out the case study he offered, “We do not know the process by which Xi Jin Ping, a relatively unknown heir apparent to President Hu Jin Tao, was assessed, tested, and then given the mantle of succession. But a system of internal competition, evaluation, and selection clearly exists. And the system, however non-transparent, is sustainable and meritocratic – and it works.”   Yes, the key phrase there is – “we do not know,” the rest you can just as well throw out of the window – now you understand why I am not wholly convinced it’s such a good idea to equate internal renewal with the whole idea of competition – for one that idea flies in the face of common sense as what it is extruded from this line of thinking is something that is diametrically against the whole idea of Darwinian theory – the strong can only survive if the weak is continually whittled out through ceaseless competition – that's one of the most robust linchpins which makes possible the whole idea of natural selection; take it away, try to negotiate around it and whole logic of evolution breaks down completely - as what it says, is in practically every single instance without even a single exception; the impetus for change has always been EXTERNAL and not INTERNAL factors – that’s to say it comes from outside the system and never within – the problem is if we buy into the logic where change could come from internal factors - this suggest, during the turn of 19th century the dodo bird high council could have averted the extinction of their species if only they had the wisdom to consider munching harberdash geraniums instead of just sticking to fruit from the dodo tree – that has to be a stretch.   One other reason why I don’t buy into that idea is because it doesn’t broach the first principle a priori condition of every argument concerning perpetuation of species – the economy of fight and flight – the question remains only this: where does the motivation to get your fat ass off the sofa really come from?   Truth remains; most people including myself and this could just as well be successfully superimposed on most fortune 500 firms to political oligarchies – do not like to change!   In fact, empirical observation suggest in the absence of EXTERNAL factors forcing change; organism usually calcify and fossilize, that's where they usually go, if left to their own devises, they receed back to that place where they die just a little - the comfort zone.   In certain cases they may even resist change very much in the way Samurai once banned gunpowder to perpetuate their class politics using the highly stylized cult of the sword – this suggest, if change comes, usually, its not because we will it out of our consciousness; but rather it’s out of sheer necessity and most probably desperation that compels us to change – my point is form always follows function and never the other way round as Ah Ho would have us all believe. Here we see the clearest manifestation of the Darwinian rule of thumb in action: the rule of the survival of the fittest  – it matters little whether it was the Mongols who once had to shortened their bows by 50% because their siege techniques eventually shifted from foot to the horse which made possible regional conquest – or even why the AK-47 remains today the preferred weapon for child soldiers; as since there are only 8 moving parts; it’s the world’s deadliest lego plug and play toy – or even why Detroit bought wholesale into total quality management (TQM) thoughtware during the 80's which allowed them to reverse the market trend against Japanese auto car makers – my point is all these improvements that we commonly see would not have come about by sheer conscious decision  - in every single case, function exerted an overpowering influence to transmute form. And this theory applies to even a political hegemony - it's not possible to inure a group of people with a common share philosophy of excellence; if there is no mother of extinction event threat - given time, they will go complacent, sedentary and supine - the safety nets must be removed to make it a very dangerous game where ever thing can be lost in one throw of the dice.   This suggest the moot point of attempting to fashion a mountain out of a molehill by promoting the whole idea of “internal renewal” and somehow equating it to real market forces led competition is not only a dead end; but it could also explain why elites regularly run themselves into dodo hall of fame – as at the heart of the anatomy of failure, lies the corrosive habit of mythologizing not only their own keep, but also outrightly defying the circumstances that may threaten it by legitimizing a set of dreamy raison that have absolutely nothing to do with their success; even in the face of incontrovertible evidence – and it matters little what that myth might have once been, could well be rival factions in Easter island who once mindlessly bleached their island white with ceaseless competition to build useless stone figurines which they firmly believed held some cosmic key to their redemption, never ever once asking whether this might be the road to perdition or salvation? Or even the Mandarins who once believed their haughty way of life could somehow magically repel ball and gunpowder when white barbarians suddenly sailed into Canton harbor with their warships one morning in July – or even a group of people who one afternoon even believed it’s somehow possible to perpetuate an entire system on the cheap without having to subject their desiderata to the intellectual rigors of how others may choose to see the world differently from them – in every single case that makes up the pithy pathos of the extinction event, remains not the cogency of their arguments but rather their blind insistence that sheer will power alone to believe in what is expedient rather than what is necessary, cogent and jugular; holds the key to their their survival - sounds quaint, irresistible even in its prose, but that's only because you didn't know there lies the true horror as that in itself sets into motion the full terror of the irreversible extinction event.   You don't need anyone to bring you down; you are your worst enemy - all we have to do is wait for the ball to fall - trust me, today is the day when I know it's game over.   Darkness 2009   [The Brotherhood Press 2009 - this essay is sponsored by the Interspacing Mercantile Guild]    Read More →

By Fang Zhi Yuan When two groups of women slug it out with each other openly in public, who is the biggest winner? Well, it appears that the SPH journalists and by extension the PAP government are the only real benefactors from the recent AWARE debacle. Few Singaporeans were even aware of AWARE's existence previously, but given the extensive coverage given by the media on the rampant mudslinging from both sides, AWARE has found itself in a limelight which it rather not be. The fracas first broke out in the aftermath of AWARE's tumultuous AGM a few weeks ago which saw a group of newcomers coming literally from nowhere to seize control of the organization. The befuddled Old Guards who found themselves squeezed out of every position contested in the exco started questioning the motives of the new leaders who had remained tight-lipped over the agenda. The ensuing confusion allowed the media to step in to take advantage and control of the situation to milk it for maximum publicity. The journalists had a field day depicting a "cat fight" involving various outstanding prominent women in the community. Unfortunately, what should remain as a purely internal matter ended up with both sides hanging out their "dirty linen" in public to dry for all to see which the journalists gleefully obliged. Not a single day passed without the AWARE fiasco being splashed on the headlines of most national papers be it some mumblings of discontent from a long-serving member or sensational revelation of the backgrounds of the new exco members. More incredibly, DBS stoked the controversy further by issuing a rather curt public admonishment of its Vice-President Josie Lau through the media for "insubordination" in accepting the position of President at AWARE. "AWARE" and "Josie Lau" collectively became one of the most searched words on Singapore's search engines. Even Singapore men who usually showed little interest in AWARE's activities felt fit to jump into the fray with some writing to the ST Forum to express their support for the Old Guards. Blogosphere wasted no time in hitching on the bandwagon with many blogs expressing their dismay and outrage at the "constitutional" coup launched by right-wing Christian conservatives to take over a supposedly secular, liberal and non-discriminatory NGO in order to further its own agenda. Josie Lau thought she managed to secure a coup by clarifying the stance of her new exco on CNA "Talking Point", but her non-committal responses to questions of sexuality left more doubts in the minds of viewers instead. While supporters of both sides continue their shadow boxing over the internet, have anybody stopped and pondered over the real agenda of the media? Have we been unwittingly fooled and misled by the media again? With due respect to AWARE, it has only 200 plus members and cannot claim to represent the interests of the majority of the female population in Singapore. So why is the media kicking up a fuss about? Is the media circus surrounding the AWARE saga another ploy to distract Singaporeans from more pressing issues at hand such as NEA's role in the Geylang Serai food poisoning outbreak, GIC's policy of giving out low-interest or interest free loans to its staff and the Public Order Act to further curtail our civil liberties? Obviously the internal affairs of AWARE have been blown out of proportions by the media to lessen the heat on the PAP government whose various missteps were put under  intense public scrutiny of late. Regardless of the outcome of the AWARE's EGM on 2 May, there will be no winners, only losers. The battle can be fought and won over the elections, but the war has long been lost. The brand name of AWARE which was built up painstakingly over the years was tarnished the moment its leaders chose to speak to the media instead of one another. In a moment of folly, they have allowed the media to hijack their cause and set the agenda for their own vested interests. Who are the real winners then? The mainstream media which has seen a leap in their readership to reverse a declining trend and ultimately their political masters who must be relieved that the attention of Singaporeans remained focused on AWARE instead of themselves.  Read More →

By U Aung Mein, Guest Columnist (Editing done by Eugene Yeo) Introduction The recent Ren Ci fiasco has thrown up a series of disturbing questions about the handling and use of money by Buddhist monks or Bhikkhus. In an article published on The Sunday Times (read article here), Ming Yi defended his substantial expenditures on the grounds that we are now living in the modern world. He said: "A lot of religious people, not only myself, are very different now." Is it morally correct for Buddhist monks to spend money given to them by the laity on luxurious items? To answer the above question, we must first acquire some basic understanding on the history and practice of Buddhism. Two schools of Buddhism - Theravada and Mahayana Buddhism was founded by the Indian prince Siddhartha in the 6th century BCE. after which he became known as the "Buddha" or enlightened one. There are two major schools of Buddhism today - Theravada (School of the Elders) and Mahayana (School of Greater Vehicle) from which Ming Yi belonged to. Though both schools believe in the common Buddhist tenets of the Three Dukkhas (suffering), Four Noble Truths and the Eightfold Path to Enlightenment, they have different regulations pertaining to monastic practices of Vinaya. The precise origins of Mahayana Buddhism are something of a mystery. The historical record shows it emerging as a separate school from Theravada during the 1st century BCE. Some scholars have suggested that Mahayana is an offspring of Mahasanghika, a now-extinct Buddhist sect formed about 320 BCE after the Second Buddhist Council which led to the first great Schism of Buddhism (read more here) The Theravada school subsequently established itself in Ceylon (now Sri Lanka) from which it is spread to Myanmar, Thailand, Laos, Cambodia and Indonesia by Buddhist missonaries while the Mahayana became popular in northern Indian, Kashmir, Afghanistan and subsequently China, Korea, Vietnam, Japan and lastly Tibet where its amalgation with the local Bon religion led to the emergence of an unique sect - the Vajrayana or Tibetan Buddhism. In Singapore, the majority of Buddhists still belong to the Mahayana school especially the elder generation though there is an increasing interest from the younger generation in the Theravada school of late. The Patimokkha (monastic code) according to the Theravada school of Buddhism Under the Theravada tradition, fully ordained Bhikkhus have to observe 221 precepts or training rules while novice monks or Samaneras have to keep 10 basic precepts. One of these precepts explicitly forbids both Bhikkhus and Samaneras to accept or hoard money: "Jatarupa-rajata-patiggahana veramani sikkhapadam samadiyami  (I undertake the precept to refrain from accepting gold and silver)" It is also an offence for Bhikkhus to "pick up" or "consent to the deposit of gold or silver (money)" "Should any bhikkhu take gold and silver, or have it taken, or consent to its being deposited (near him), it is to be forfeited and confessed."(Nis. Paac. 18; BMC p.214) "Should any bhikkhu pick up, or cause to be picked up or consent to the deposit of gold or silver, this entails Confession with Forfeiture." (Nis. Paac. 18; Paat. 1966 Ed. p.42) "A monk, who accepts gold or money or gets another to accept for him, or acquiesces in its being put near him, commits [an offence requiring Confession with Forfeiture.]" (Nis. Paac. 18; BBC  p.116) "If a bhikkhu himself receives gold and silver (money) or gets someone else to receive it, or if he is glad about money that is being kept for him, it is [an offence of Confession with Forfeiture.]"(Nis. Paac. 18; Nv p.11) Bhikkhus are only allowed to keep four basic requisites of robes, shelter, food and medicines to maintain their physical bodies for the purpose of practising meditation with the eventual aim of freeing oneself from all defilements. All Bhikkhus are to recite the reflections on the four requisites daily: "Reflecting wisely I wear the robe, only to protect myself from cold, heat, gadflies, mosquitoes, wind and sun and creeping things and also for the purpose of covering the aprts of the body that cause shame." "Reflecting wisely I use almsfood not for play, not for pride, not for beauty, not for fattening, but merely for the sustenance and continuance of this body; to cease discomfort; and to be able to practice the holy life, thinking "Thus I will destory old feelings (of hunger) and not create new feelings (from overeating). I will maintain myself, be blameless and live in comfort." "Reflecting wisely I make use of dwellings, only to protect myself from cold, heat, gadfiles, mosquitoes, wind and sun and creeping things; and as a protecction from the perils of weather conditions; and for the joy of seclusion." "Reflecting wisely I make use of medicinal requisites that are for curing the sick, only to counteract any afflicting feelings (of illness) that have risen and for maximum freedom from disease." For laypeople: "A lay-person should never offer money directly to a bhikkhu... even if it is placed inside an envelope or together with other requisites. They should either deposit the money with the monastery steward, put it in a donation-box or into the monastery bank account." Every monastery will have a lay attendant or kappiya who is in charge of handling the finances of the Bhikkhus and Samaneras and so technically speaking, they do not possess any monies in their names. Keeping the precepts in the modern world Some had argued for the relaxation of the rules governing the use of money by Bhikkhus on the grounds of inconvenience. It is my personal opinion that the precepts left behind by the Lord Buddha should be adhered to as closely and strictly as possible. There are many Bhikkhus who live within their means without possessing a single cent and still able to travel extensively over the world to teach the Dhamma (Buddha's teaching). Bhikkhus should bear in mind aways that the respect accorded to them by the laity is not because of the saffron robes they don, but due to the reverence they have towards the Buddha and the Dhamma which he left behind for us. Let us bear in mind the last exhortation of the Lord Buddha before he passed away into Parinibbana: "Transient are all compounded things. Strive with diligence."   References: 1. Access to Insight 2. Wikipedia 3. Navakovada: Instructions for newly ordained Bhikkhus and Samaneras (EDITORS' NOTE: The author is a Burmese currently working as an engineer in Singapore. He spent 3 months as a novice monk in a monastery in Myanmar when he was 5 years of age. The opinions expressed in article are entirely his own and should not be misconstrued as promoting any religion. This site will continue to be kept secular and non-sectarian in nature).      Read More →