TR EMERITUS

“Never talk about religion, race or politics! Never.” If you are wondering whether this time honored warning sounds reminiscent of how our government expects all bloggers to conduct themselves in the internet – well spotted old chap! And there are compelling reasons to suggest, why adhering to such guidelines would even serve us well. After all it doesn’t take the lateral to see how raising up contentious issues such as religion, race and politics often brings out the multi headed hydra of resentment, prejudice along with fanning hatred for the “other side” (besides its lousy for your personal insurance premium). It’s a scene that only gets played out too often these days. In denigrating cartoons which poke fun at Prophet Mohammed to even podcast making fun of Moslems by asking them whether they serve pork in a halal eatery (that just proves conclusively those racist who did it have an IQ of 5 index points below idiot!). Or when authors stray as they often do into religion, race and politics as Salman Rusdhie discovered when he publish his controversial tome, the satanic verses which earned him in a posthumous fatwah and a one way ticket to Tehran. What’s vexes me no end is; where does the line between religion, race and politics really start and where does it end? If it were simply a longitudinal truism that should do very nicely (thank you very much) to tell us what we can and cannot discuss. Others may claim, its common sense. The only problem is, there is nothing common about religion, race and politics and it makes even less sense. That’s only true if you believe ordinary objects, words and even a something as simple as name are divorced from all notions of religion, race or politics. The fact remains a whole world resides in the seemingly benign and ordinary. Even the ubiquitous French fries aren’t immune from being a cipher of the fractional minutiae. I remember they were re-baptized as “freedom fries” by American eateries 7 years ago to protest against the French stance against the Iraqi war. What’s even more extraordinary is this semantic fatwah lasted for nearly three years! No folks, it’s not easy to stay well clear away from religion, race or even politics not even when you are minding your own business munching quietly away on artery clogging hamburgers and French fries (sorry freedom fries, I mean). Nor does sticking to the staid and trite offer any security either: I am of course talking about literature that oasis of reason where even fellow detractors have a modicum of decorum to agree to disagree. Eventually every discussion about literature leads invariably to the proverbial, “what’s behind the brick wall?” Existentialism which questions personal freedom against the oligarchies: how personal freedom can be reconciled with notions of command and control? Somewhere along this discussion that pesky gay Alan Turing is bound to crop up along with fatwah leaden Salman Rushdie clutching a tome of “satanic verses.” That’s the cue for the Ayatollah brigade to start chanting, “death to the great satan! death to the great satan!” Yes, it’s dangerous to talk about books. We should be more specific and stick to only children’s books. They are safer, less likely to stray into the taboo domain of religion, race and politics. Anything unhinged from reality would be better than the serious enterprise of literature. Fairly tales are good, science fiction and fantasia would take us even further away from the feral world we live in to other planets. Surely no chance of religion, race or politics cropping up like demented Jack in the boxes in lalaland is there? But wait, errh wasn’t RR.Tolkien a fascist? A racist? In the “Lord of the Rings,” the evil Orcs are, in Tolkien’s words, are “squat, flat-nosed, sallow-skinned, with wide mouths and slant-eyes” (that just about describes everyone in my household except me along with 99.9% Asians living in the Greater Pacific). The enemy is the Dark Lord and he lives in the Black Land. The heroic protagonist and elves are, by contrast, undoubtedly blond, blue eyed and uncircumcised Aryans. Ideals of ‘blood’ and racial purity are always sloshing around Tolkein’s seemingly innocent narrative. For example, the Men of Gondor - “the high men” - are descendants of the Numenoriuns, the greatest of all warriors. Over the centuries, they have become ‘degraded’ because of breeding with inferior races. No Tolkien wasn’t a closet Nazi, he was simply lamenting the disappearance of racial “purity.” After all we all have a right to voice our anxiety about being swamped by non-Europeans, don’t we? Like poor misunderstood Hitler, Stalin and Idi Amin, Tolkein there were really just being true to themselves by being real traditionalist. Along the way of course they just bumped off a few million “inferior races,” build death camps and persecuted anyone that was remotely different from them! Yes folks see what I mean even keeping to trite fairytales doesn’t guarantee one the prospects not straying into religion, race and politics! Lament I do but wait……do I see a light? An oncoming freight train? No a beacon - I am saved! Yes, movies will do very nicely, why didn’t I think of that earlier? After all they are all “make belief” right? So divorced from reality, we have even coined the phrase, “like real?” Obviously a reference to the reality of reality and the illusion of reality, one which I am sure you would agree movies embodies the latter. Not only are we just going to keep the discussion to movies, but we are going to gut the religion, politics and race out of it all as well. That means no “babel” or Oliver Stone’s “Fahrenheit 9/11,” too incendiary (it will just bring down the building!). Besides the former has peek-a-boh reference played by a mute confused girl which are clearly suggestive of metaphor to describe the silent suffering of comfort women controversy. Though how it’s precisely related to that concept I am not quite sure, but you get what I mean anything to do with a mysterious black box has negative connotations. Besides it’s too dark there and after all we may all be lost in the forest only to fall into a hole. So out goes “Babel,” and in comes antiseptic controversy free: “The sounds of Music.” Can’t go wrong with squeaky wire brush clean Julie Andrews and “Doe Rah Mi” yodeling midgets can we? No chance of controversy here, after all she plays a catholic nun. You can’t get safer than that can you? No chance of religion, politics or race entering into the storyline either – it’s a wholesome family yarn about the benefits of yodeling, starch collars and why nuns choose to wear curtains instead of real clothes. Wait a second the sounds of music. Eerh wasn’t that set in Nazi Germany? In a little in breeding enclave somewhere in the Bavarian Alps, none other than the spiritual locus of the Nazi creed, where Adolf Hitler even built an Alpine retreat called the Berghof. And near by the Untersberg, a peak said to contain the immortal soul of the King Charlemagne, who had conquered most of Christian Europe in the ninth century—a role model of Hitler’s and one for whom he felt a mystical attachment too. In reality, the hills were certainly alive with the sounds of music along with of the yelps and screams of Jews as they were marched off to concentration camps. As for Julie Andrews and the benign sauerkraut gobbling nuns; they weren’t as innocent as we are led to believe either. Since Vatican’s complicity with the Nazi’s even managed to earn their CEO, the happy title of “Hitler’s Pope.” No I am afraid the sound of music doesn’t quite cut it in the controversy free department. It’s far too racially and politically volatile, we simply have to bid, “Auf Weidersehn” to those insufferable Nazi saluting singing good to boot midgets. I guess nothing these days is controversy free, not if one has to interact with the world, community and people. One element of maturity is the realization most of us we don’t necessarily seek out controversy for the sake of controversy. Granted there are racist, bigots and even the terminally illiberal and righteous who believe they have the right to talk down to people or dictate how others should live, behave or even think, but fortunately, they are in the minority. For the vast majority of humans - most of us are simply trying not to give up on ourselves and others. All too often we’re hoping that we are doing, saying and thinking the right things. Though sometimes when I try too hard by smiling at strangers in the MRT, I come across as a crazed suicide bomber or worst still a Prudential insurance agent trying to hit my monthly sales quota. (trust me I prefer the former, at least they have to decency to go off in a flash, while the insurance agents keeps hounding, stalking and squatting outside my doorway). Most of us are just trying to make our lives worthwhile, not only for ourselves, but also for our loved ones and the broader society at large - It’s a subtle and slow process fraught with all sorts of hazards - reaching out often is. One always runs the risk of rejection or coming across as awkward. All too often we may declare those who have different views from us are hopelessly incorrigible and simply choose to cut ourselves from them. So there we find ourselves, where I am in my silo, you in yours and the greater they, in theirs. Each to his own to fashion the known world, each nurturing their own prejudices and illusions as to what represents the truth. Why? Because we daren’t touch of on those subjects where angels fear to thread religion, politics and race. Is it such a wonder that we continue to amble along like the blind wondering why we cant even make sense of the times we live in? Or why we still continue to fear the things we do. (By Astroboy & Keith Ho / Socio / Politics / Satire – EP 995438- 2007 – The Brotherhood Press) Hey did you miss out on this BP article? This is generated by our new auto-bot crawler - check it out The Incredible Koreans      Read More →

By Defennder, Guest Columnist The Singapore government has long bragged that Singapore practises meritocratic values.  After all, they award generous scholarships to those who excel academically and it’s often true these people have a bright future in the country.  Indeed, a meritocratic model of governance seems like an ideal working model despite the criticism of some that it breeds elitism and turns academic life into a stressful rat’s race.  For some time, critics have warned that the criteria for meritocratic judgement cannot simply be academic performance (since straight-A scholars have been known to flunk real life tests), as well as the fact that smart students tend to come from families whose parents are already well-to-do and educated to begin with.  Now a new line of reasoning may bolster the critics’ case.   The Washington Post published an article today reporting the results of a study showing that poverty impacts the cognitive facilities of the student and hence hinders academic performance: "Children raised in poverty suffer many ill effects: They often have health problems and tend to struggle in school, which can create a cycle of poverty across generations. Now, research is providing what could be crucial clues to explain how childhood poverty translates into dimmer chances of success: Chronic stress from growing up poor appears to have a direct impact on the brain, leaving children with impairment in at least one key area — working memory." Critics have long warned that Singapore’s over-emphasis on early indicators of academic performance of young students is premature, or that the economic situation of most of the lower-income families find themselves in often put these students under considerable duress which impedes their academic performance and hence lowers the likelihood that they could depend on good grades to pull their families out of poverty.  Now evidence exists to support such a view.  Don’t be mistaken, though.  I’m not claiming that neither the education ministry nor schools provide sufficient financial assistance to students in terms of subsidising school fees, giving away used textbooks etc.  But what has been assumed implicitly was that the current meritocratic system offers everyone an equal to succeed so long as they performed well.  Sadly, as the article shows, this isn’t necessarily the case. What apologists of the existing education system were mistaken on was the impression that so long as you give the child sufficient financial assistance for their education, they would be judged solely on their academic merits.  If they can’t do well, it must be because they are lazy.  Or if they aren’t lazy it may be due to the fact that intelligence may reside in hereditary factors.  Unfortunately, a crucial factor was left unconsidered: stress. "For the new study, Evans and a colleague rated the level of stress each child experienced using a scale known as “allostatic load.” The score was based on the results of tests the children were given when they were ages 9 and 13 to measure their levels of the stress hormones cortisol, epinephrine and norepinephrine, as well as their blood pressure and body mass index. “These are all physiological indicators of stress,” said Evans, whose findings were published online last week by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. “The basic idea is this allows you to look at dysregulation resulting from stress across multiple physiological systems.” "The subjects also underwent tests at age 17 to measure their working memory, which is the ability to remember information in the short term. Working memory is crucial for everyday activities as well as for forming long-term memories." “It’s critical for learning,” Evans said. “If you don’t have good working memory, you can’t do things like hold a phone number in your head or develop a vocabulary.” When the researchers analyzed the relationships among how long the children lived in poverty, their allostatic load and their later working memory, they found a clear relationship: The longer they lived in poverty, the higher their allostatic load and the lower they tended to score on working-memory tests. Those who spent their entire childhood in poverty scored about 20 percent lower on working memory than those who were never poor, Evans said. “The greater proportion of your childhood that your family spent in poverty, the poorer your working memory, and that link is largely explained by this chronic physiologic stress,” Evans said. “We put these things together and can say the reason we get this link between poverty and deficits in working memory is this chronic elevated stress.” Indeed one may even argue that the meritocratic model of education may itself be exacerbating the problem, since children are placed under more stress to perform and succeed in Singapore’s highly competitive education system.  At the same time, what has been done to alleviate the living conditions of children whose parents work in lowly blue collar jobs, earning the bare minimum without the benefit of a minimum wage?  The government has long derided welfare as nothing more than a dirty word, but as the article shows, a lower standard of living and constant worry for the future well-being of the family may create the conditions which induces chronic stress which in turns impedes the ability of these students to do well.  They are hence stuck in a vicious cycle of poverty. Think of the children of elderly or middle-aged folks who collect cans and scavenge cardboard boxes for a living.  Has their poor and low standard of living (along with uncertainty for their future) prevented them from succeeding academically? Or the children of blue-collar workers, whose parents are not guaranteed the social safety net of a minimum wage, and whose jobs are easily outsourced to the thousands of migrant workers who enter our country’s borders every year? Indeed the article concludes: The findings indicate that education standards and other government policies that aim to improve poor children’s performance in school should consider the stress they are experiencing at home, Evans said. “It’s not just ‘Read to our kids and take them to the library,’ ” he said. “We need to take into account that chronic stress takes a toll not only on their health, but it may take a toll on their cognitive functioning.” Much has been said about how the ruling party has long treated its citizens to be nothing more than worker ants, constantly reminded that academic success at a young age is crucial to climbing up to a higher level of the socio-economic ladder.  Sadly, this may be nothing more than a pipe dream. Defennder blogs at Furry Brown Dog  Read More →

Young Malaysians are increasingly relying on the Internet for information and to keep themselves up-to-date, according to a recent survey by market research company Synovate. According to Bernama, Synovate said about 45 percent of the Malaysian youth interviewed in the survey said they planned to use the Internet more than other media. "Young Malaysians are definitely turning to the Internet more for their information and entertainment needs and it's not surprising that the Internet is slowly becoming the medium of choice," said managing director of Synovate in Malaysia, Steve Murphy. The fourth annual Synovate Young Asians study looks at what's in the hearts and minds of the region's youth, revealing their media consumption, purchase habits, attitudes, favourite singers and cartoons. It covers 12 markets across Asia, including Japan and Vietnam for the first time. Besides Malaysia, the other markets were China, Hong Kong, India, Indonesia, South Korea, the Philippines, Singapore, Taiwan and Thailand. The survey, supported by Microsoft Advertising, MTV and Yahoo!, found that young Malaysians were active bloggers with close to half (48 percent) spending a portion of their time blogging. "Malaysians in general have embraced blogging and bloggers alike as a way of expressing themselves and this virtual form of communications has certainly had an effect on the nation's youth," Murphy said. "A total of 21 percent of Malaysian youngsters create and update their blogs regularly and this figure is expected to rise," he said. The survey also found that young Malaysians aged eight to 24 spend an average of 1.2 hours a day on email, one hour and thirty-six minutes a day as part of online communities, two hours and 48 minutes on instant messaging and two hours and 36 minutes on other Internet activities. Read rest of article on Malaysiakini  Read More →