Free Will My Ass

Many Christian philosophers' perspective of free will is so cringe, I really was reconsidering my religious belief upon hearing them.

Just to clarify:-

• First and foremost, there are good arguments for free will from secular and religious philosophers. I've heard a few and I have to rethink and reevaluate my deterministic world view (i.e. no free will) multiple times because of them.

• Second, determinism as argued by proper philosophers is very, very robust. There is almost nothing that could crack their arguments from a logical standpoint.

When many Christian philosophers tried and failed to argue for free will, their arguments are often convoluted and illogical (not using any form of logic, whatsoever). They usually boils down to two things: moral responsibility and free will is necessary for true faith.

The Bible is not a philosophy textbook. Scripture teaches not philosophy but obedience. And by definition, obedience necessitates giving up the choice to act otherwise. How are we free if one of the precursor for true faith is obedience. And by obedience, meant we have to give up our choice to do whatever we please. Therefore, how exactly are we free?

Moral responsibility is deterministic by nature. It is the fact that you know there are consequences to your action that compiles you to act or not act. Your moral responsibility is determined by whether or not you choose to accept the consequences. Having free will necessitates that there is no known consequence to each action, even when repeated.

Many compatibilists argue that free will exist merely because we feel free when we make choices. They don't argue if it inherently exist (like, does a triangle actually exist in the physical world), they argue that if it exist in our minds, then it is all that matters.

Lastly, whenever an opposing philosopher says a disclaimer that "they may be wrong", many Christian philosophers hop on that and say "how great it is for someone to admit they might be wrong" but never do they say "Christians may also be wrong" in return. This is the most cringeworthy, if you ask me.

I'm no philosopher, I know the tip of the iceberg in the free will debate. But these Christian philosophers and pseudo-philosophers are the worst at making a good solid argument and give Christian-oriented philosophy a bad reputation.

Free will itself has nothing to do with theology. Ask any theologian worth their salt, they would agree that free will is not written in Scripture but rather a theodicy that explains the problem of evil (which is a philosophical debate argued from a religious angle).

Omni-God argument is also a philosophical/theological argument to explain why Yahweh is the one true God but has many times forced to compromise due to contradiction in theodicy. While Omni-God argument can still hold (barely) against the logical problem of evil (using free will), it crumbles when talking about the natural problem of evil.

So, regardless, it stands to reason that if you want to argue for free will, religious or not, you need to conjure up a robust philosophical argument against determinists.

Sports Shooting and Marksmanship

I think we all appreciate the light-hearted meme-ing of Kim Yeji and Yusuf Dikec in their respective air pistol events. And we all know the joke around US not winning any medals in shooting (thus far).

But the truth is sports shooting (air pistol, air rifle, or even trap) is very different from military marksmanship, and military marksmanship is very different from gun ownership in the US.

Sports shooting is about precision, control, and consistency. Military marksmanship is about shooting down the enemy efficiently, i.e. fewer bullets used per kill. Both need good trigger discipline and good weapon handling skills. But the former is about winning a competition for a prize, the latter is about winning a military battle.

But vast majority of gun owners in US are neither sports shooters nor military marksmen. They are the abhorrent bunch of idiots who think gun ownership is a symbol of their freedom. These bunch are trigger-happy, arrogant, and poorly trained.

Private citizens who are expert marksmen do not show off, they are either veterans or sports shooters of some sort, both would respect firearms safety. These are the ones that don't go on the news, these are the ones that don't bring out their guns for no good reason.

If you ever played any FPS games, you would know. That in a panick, you will spray and hit almost no one. But when you are well positioned and had good anticipation of enemy approach, you'd have most, if not all, of your shots hit a target. So to speak, the trigger-happy bunch of idiots in the US, they would never make it big on the sports shooting stage nor become military marksmen.

While I would be really surprised if after all the shooting events concluded and none of the US athletes won a medal, I wouldn't count on any medals won by US in shooting being attributed to their freedom of gun ownership.

Batman and His Rogue Gallery

Some of Batman's most iconic enemies are actually the personification of one aspect of Batman's character turned up to psychotic levels.

Ra's al Ghul -- sense of righteousness. Batman was someone who would go to whatever lengths to serve his form of justice. And Ra's al Ghul founded the League of Assasins to bring balance / justice to the world.

Scarecrow -- make people fear. Batman's moniker was basically a theatric, making people fear him. Scarecrow used hallucinogens to cause people see what they fear.

Riddler -- high intelligence and mysterious. Batman was genius-level intelligent. So was Riddler. And Batman played on the mysterious nature of his existence to stay in the shadows. Riddler worked around mysteries and riddles to fool the police and give Batman a hard time

Two-Face -- split personality. Batman was a serious, no-nonsense person who fights crime with all his strength, mind, and wealth. Bruce Wayne, his alter ego, was a playboy, eccentric billionaire. Two-Face was a former District Attorney who got split personality disorder.

Bane -- super-human strength. While Batman was not Superman level, he was depicted as stronger than most humans in the DC universe. Bane used "PEDs" to go above and beyond super-human strength.

Joker -- psychologically broken. Batman's childhood trauma permanently broke him. He never really let go of the psychological trauma, he was just high-functioning. While he took the right side of justice, Joker chose the opposite, murderous side.

Clown Master (The End)

I've decided to stop playing live chess after playing it daily for nearly two years. I realised, as an untrained/unschooled chess player, I have reached my peak at 1500 and reached a rating where my performance is reflective of and consistent with.

Any further playing won't improve my chess and I don't have the time nor need to study a chess course to improve. All playing nonstop does would be draining my energy, time, and worst of all my mental health. I have gambling addiction tendency, if I have a losing streak, I would lose sleep just to try to recoup the lost rating, but more likely I would end up in a vicious spiral down.

On a romantic note, my favourite number is 14 and I end in the 1400s (read: fourteen hundreds). And even more poetic is I stopped at 1445, where the sum of the digits is 14. From now onwards, I would only play bots or occasional OTB clown chess.

Still a Clown Master though.

Bridge Diagram Bullshit

Even before I converted to Christianity, I've always thought the bridge diagram used during gospel sharing is fundamentally and philosophically unsound. It's such a fallacy that using it is as if we thought the listener is a 3-year-old or an idiot, if not both.

- What if I am an atheist who doesn't believe God could possibly exist? What good would it be to "reach God" and why would it matter if I am "never good enough to reach Him/Her/Them/It"?

- What if I am a nihilist who doesn't believe there is inherent meaning or purpose in life? What good would it be to know something that is not provable?

- What if I am a hedonistic free-thinker who find the pleasures of the materialistic world in the present is all I wanted and doesn't care what holds for me beyond my death? How would telling me about "life after death" benefit my present?

Such evangelistic methods only stroke the ego of the "evangelists" to seem superior above the "ignorant" non-believers. And they could only convince the naive, ignorant, paranoid people, who would jump on any religious belief that they thought could serve their agenda in life (most of the time it's wealth-related).

I did not convert to Christianity because of the bridge diagram and I continue to reject the use of it when I share my faith with others who had ears to hear. I'm a rationalist and a logician, I use reasons and logic to explain my opinions, belief, and faith. And God has always blessed me with the words and opportunities to do so.

Israel-Palestine

Palestinians were indeed forcefully displaced in a region where they have spent decades, if not centuries, living in. While it is true that Jews used to live in the same place nearly 2 millenia ago, they were cast out by Romans and more or less permanently displaced before the time of nation-states.

But it is not Jews' fault that they needed a national home or a nation-state of their own, they were facing persecution in wherever they went for seemingly unfounded reasons. The problem was the Balfour Declaration and the promises and bargaining terms with Arab leaders around WWI period where the Brits over promised themselves, the French, the Arabs, and the Jews for a piece of land that the Arab-Palestinians were already living on.

For the Palestinians, it is hard to constantly live in an environment where you were displaced without thinking your homeland was overtaken by foreign invaders, therefore it makes it harder to establish a state. Furthermore, having two separate enclaves in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, it would be nigh impossible to effectively govern a state where its lands are not connected.

For the Jews, on the other hand, they would feel they won back their ancestry homeland and took back Jerusalem. They would feel they won the struggle and redeemed themselves as the "chosen people". And in an effort to defend themselves in order to not lose again, like in the first century CE, they just retaliate against any military aggression from their neighbours. You call it aggression, they call it self-defence.

The UN and the major global powers struggled to provide a good and clear solution for both sides to settle, let alone live in peace. One of their proposed solutions made Israel-Palestine look like a mismatched jigsaw puzzle.

And then the hostility of Arab states didn't help Palestinians either. They want the Jews out of Israel-Palestine entirely, therefore they would not want BOTH to settle down. They only want Palestinians to settle down. So, instead of helping the Palestinians, their aggression against Israel made Palestinians' lives worse. Their actions ultimately forced Israel to be even more aggressive towards Palestinians, with heavier blockade and retaliation.

Repeal 377A

Are laws set to liberate people or are laws set to restrict people? Are laws set to protect people or are laws set to oppress them?

The whole idea of repealing Section 377A is, in my opinion, about whether this particular law is there to restrict people or to give them freedom. I personally feel that it now oppresses people more that it frees/protects them. So, I would think repealing it makes more societal sense in the country we live in.

It is not, and never should be, about whether homosexuality destroys the institution of marriage, whatever the fuck that is. The 'institution of marriage' is not found in the Bible. It was established by clergymen of different faiths by interpreting religious texts. It is a human creation.

How I know it is a human creation? Because different faiths interpret this 'institution' differently. Jewish and Christian scriptures mentioned on multiple occasions of men having more than one wife. King David, King Solomon, Jacob/Israel, to name a few. Islam allows men to have up to four wives and I genuinely wonder how that came about. So where does it explicitly say "monogamy between one man and one woman is the only God-instituted law"?

While I accept that Jews, Christians, and Muslims all agree homosexuality is a sin, we are not living in a Jewish, Christian, nor Islamic state. So, the call to protect the 'institution of marriage' is really the religious people trying to oppress those who don't believe in God and/or believe that homosexuality is wrong.

To throw in a curve ball, if you want to institute your religious beliefs in marriage, you should accept the whole canon. Where adulterous women must be stoned, where polygamy (specifically "one man, many wives") is allowed, where a widow will become the dead husband's brother's wife, where barren women are frowned upon. Pretty sure these laws would look very ancient to many of you.

Death Penalty vs Anti-establishment

Thoughts after reading this article: -

Potential of being unfairly treated aside, what did they expect in this case? They knew the punishment of drug trafficking is death penalty. It is not something that the MHA decided out of thin air, they knew the consequences of their actions and still they did what they did.

Sure, death penalty is harsh for drug trafficking. Some would argue it is inhumane. But the laws are established for a long time already. It baffles me when idiots like Kirsten Han come to these offenders' defense and come up with extremely convoluted reasons to stay their execution.

If it was a legit reason, it is still up to the Court to decide what to do with the convicts. Yet at the end of the day, their reasoning boils down to -- these convicts were too stupid to understand the law and were unjustly treated in prison. Talk about negative stereotypes

Why don't these "human rights activists" sue the prison guards and MHA instead? Why use this as grounds for changing the sentencing? Just because the prison mistreated the inmates, if proven to be true, doesn't mean the inmates now suddenly became innocent.

And what I hated most about such cases was the extremely discombobulated argument of systemic racism. They, most of them Malays, argue that because many police officers are Malays, they were racially targetted by the police. Like, huh? You would've thought it was the Chinese that racially targets the minorities but no, they are literally saying Malay police officers targetted Malay drug traffickers because they are all Malays. What kind of stupid is this really?

Also, why wasn't such injustice brought up during their original court case? Did they not plea guilty? Or are the "HRAs" saying that they were coerced to confess? If it's the latter, why was it not mentioned? These "HRAs" who gave the convicts a false hope of reversing their death sentence are saying -- these people did commit the crimes but because death penalty is inhumane therefore the convicts must be unjustly treated in prison. It doesn't really hold water, does it?

Besides, what the "HRAs" chose not to do was to petition to repeal the death penalty in Singapore's laws. Why not? Many countries abolished the death penalty a long time ago, why didn't they raise this issue and get support to make the case that Singapore should be doing away with it too? If you ask me, I'd say that's because these "human rights activists" are not concerned about human rights. They are only concerned about making the Government and the legal system the enemy of the people so that they look like they are the David fighting the Goliath. Because they are not human rights activists, they are anti-establishments advocates.

GST Hike

People who detest the GST hike are people who live in relative luxury, who spend WAAAAYYYY too much above their salaries, and who are unnecessarily in credit card debt.

So instead of blaming themselves for overspending, they criticise the G for increasing the GST. They failed to understand that GST are relatively invisible in our day-to-day living as most of the taxes are included in the price tags from the things we buy. They failed to come to terms with the fact that the more you spend, the more GST you pay. And they failed to recognise that anyone who is frugal, they may be only paying 4-5% effective GST, if not less, after taking into account the GST vouchers.

What they are saying is, "I want to live in high SES but I don't want to live with high-SES level taxes". That seems illogical to me, because true high SES, true high-spenders, they don't care about GST. They buy what they want because they can afford it.

COP Hearing

Having watched (pause and watch during my free hours throughout the past two days) all of Pritam Singh's session in the COP hearing. Here's my thoughts:-

1) I don't think Edwin Tong's train of questioning is uncalled for. That said, I don't know how he could've phrased them better or delivered them better. I'm no lawyer.

2) I think him not wanting to be interrupted is justified -- the transcriber need to hear them clearly. Edwin interrupting Pritam in return is not uncalled for as well. Because Pritam could be digressing (in Edwin's POV) and he didn't want to waste time on what's not germane and only allow time for Pritam to elaborate if he saw fit to paint a fuller picture.

3) I think Pritam for the most part was well composed and very civil with Edwin in answering his questions and elaborating on his views. And Edwin for the most part was as respectful as a cross-examiner could be.

4) Why Edwin told Pritam to "answer the question" is really for the record -- because no elaboration is relevant if Pritam didn't make it known he agrees or disagrees in the first place. His elaboration will only make sense for a reader of the transcription if they knew his stand.

5) Idiots like WUSG, who only look at snippets which show (out of context) Edwin as obnoxious and Pritam as witty and smart, should really go watch the whole 9 hours. I personally would think the clips from Today and ST are more representative of the full hearing session.

[edit]

6) Now I watched the whole 9 hours, I can only say this: Pritam was assisting the committee to inform about his side of the narrative. There are times where he got impatient with the allegations brought forward by Edwin, which he admitted that they were, at the least, fair.

7) You can see when Pritam was getting impatient -- when he quipped with snark. But to be very honest, that could very well be how he responds to suggestions that he didn't want to admit is true or untrue.

8) I stand by my opinion that the COP wish to be informed enough to ascertain the truth by evidence provided from all angles. Pritam's evidence is important because ultimately he was the one that RK's side identified as the mastermind. Pritam, of course, has to defend against that.

9) As an onlooker, I think Edwin made many logical suggestions (which all were rejected by Pritam) that a layperson would interpret and conclude from the information that was contemporaneously brought forward. So, it stands to reason that Edwin would bring those forward.

10) I think Edwin has the right to be blunt and harsh on Pritam solely as a cross-examiner which wanted to make sure Pritam was consistent to his evidence. Which, mind you, contradicted RK's side's. And Pritam understood very well this was coming, which is why he had prepared for it.

11) You can tell, in between breaks and questions, Edwin was not antagonistic towards Pritam. They greet each other, they showed a little of their casual selves when they spoke in err and wanted to correct their words.

12) Therefore, I believe Edwin said what he said because he was told a different narrative and he wanted to hear from Pritam but trusted him to be robust with his evidence. Edwin's objective, it stands to reason, is to get Pritam to either crack or prove RK's side false.

13) Though the outcome is muddier than ever, I think Edwin appreciated Pritam's robustness to submit his evidence that is internally corroborated. The onus is now on the COP, with what they now know, to ascertain what was the true story.

Greyscale

The photos I took and posted are in so-called ‘black-and-white’ but they are never actually ‘black’ and actually ‘white’. The term ‘black-and-white’ is, to be more technical, grey monochrome. Monochrome means ‘having one colour’ and it can be any colour but there can only be just one. Greyscale, however, is how I want my photos to allegorically represent reality.

Almost everything in the world is never truly “black and white”. There is always something in between. And greyscale is a better description to what the world, as we know, is. The only thing I can think of that is truly black-and-white is text printed on paper. And even that can be debated to be not exactly true.

And beyond what we see, our morals and values aren't black-and-white. Philosophy isn't black-and-white. Religion isn't black-and-white. Sexuality isn't black-and-white. Even our understanding of the world is not black-and-white. So why should we believe that there is black-and-white in our lives? We don't live in a binary, dichotomous world. There are a lot of ‘grey’ areas in what we see, believe, hear, understand, and learn.

Therefore, as I document the lives I encounter on the streets, I present/process them in grey monochrome while keeping the authenticity of the moment intact. It is to tell the viewer: hey, the world is grey and everything is complicated. Simplicity is a lie and embrace reality as it is complex. Nothing in the universe is ever simple, not even single-celled organisms.

It is not that I don't have the knowledge/know-how to process photos in colour. You might even think “this is the simplest way to process photos, it's just lazy". What I want is to focus on the greyscale — that reality is grey and never as simple as ‘black-and-white’. So that anyone who views them will not reduce reality and water it down to simpler terms and forms.

Photography Gear Opinion

In my short few years of using a wide range of Canon cameras, I can say this about Canon system (but applies to any brand, mostly):

1. Never jump into a new system as it gets newly released.

- When EOS M first came out as their first MILC, I just got into taking photography more seriously and I bought it. It is an okay entry-level system but knowing what came after, it's really underwhelming after that.

- And when EOS R first came out into the full-frame mirrorless camera scene, it was the case too. It's only when the R5 and R6 came out that the brand became on-par with the state-of-the-art (with Sony).

2. Lenses can last a long as time, save $$ by buying second-hand.

- I bought second-hand lenses as much as I bought brand new. Unless there are damages, all you need mostly is spending a significantly small amount to service them. If you buy new, you'd service them anyway.

- Newer lenses are always better in optics and functionality but it is not the be-all-and-end-all.

3. Buy lenses based on what you need and not what you want

- I only bought a zoom lens because I was using it for event shooting

- I got one prime telephoto and one telezoom, both for birding. I got the zoom later because I wanted more reach than the prime but not spend 20k on a 600mm f/4.

- I use my prime lenses extensively and swapping them based on what I wanted to take.

- I do have lenses that I bought that I seldom use and regretted buying.

4. Megapixels is not everything and I find the MP war between brands dumb.

- Buy a Sony A7R IV or A1 and you get crazy amount of megapixels. But it is not the only reason why they are good cameras.

- I generally find it a hassle to process large MP photos and you get pretty good photos even with <18MP cameras. It's the brain behind the camera that counts most.

5. Sensor size is not everything.

- I used APS-C cameras and I'd still choose my 7D-II over a 6D-II or 5D-IV because I wanted the 10 FPS it offers. The full frame equivalent DSLR is the 1DX-II and 1DX-III, which is overkill for my level of use.

- If full frame is objectively, unambiguously better than a cropped sensor, then wouldn't medium or large format be even better? Why stop at FF?

- Side note, full frame is referring to 35mm film size (36 x 24 mm), or the 135 film and it was considered small back it the good old days of film photography.

- If like me, you crop your photos to get the best composition in birding and sports photog, then the benefits of a FF is mostly neutralised (less the benefit of the DOF and the light capture).

- Perhaps proponents of only using FF cameras are just gear envy snobs.

6. The best camera is the one you are using

- I don't always shoot with a FFMC or DSLR. I use my phone camera almost as much as my DSLR/FFMC, because I don't always carry my Canon cameras with me.

- Just because the camera isn't as good in specs doesn't mean it can't take a good photo. Like I said, it's the brain that is most important.

Trinity Cult Centre

When a church worships the pastors more than Jesus, it is no longer a Christian establishment but a cult that congregates in a temple for idol worship.

In the name of evangelism, they make the church a desolate place where blashpemy is seen as divine revelation. Twisting their decadence as reward, a prize to chase after.

Believing wealth proves their anointing but know next to nothing about what the Bible says. Trusting wisdom of man over the wisdom from ancient of times. The information has always been there but they either purposefully ignore it entirely or deliberately twist the text to fit their sermons.

They start all campaigns in overt zealousness and vigor, yet oblivious to the obnoxiousness of their behaviour. Thinking they act according to God's will, they execute their cult leader's greedy agenda above all else.

To appear righteous, they make ostentatious, superfluous statements. They give only to expect more in return. They have nothing to offer to the bigger community of God other than their self-important, self-assumed moral superiority.

To a cult whose leader has god complex, more can be said. But nothing that I say would damage the reputation and image more than what the cult had already done upon themselves.

One Year of COVID-19

The whole idea of airborne transmission is so vague that, technically speaking, aerosol transmission can also be regarded as airborne transmission. It's not like there is absolutely no moisture in the air.

If after vaccination/inoculation, people are still susceptible to infections but will be asymptomatic and can pass the virus on, isn't it safer to not be vaccinated (for now) so that we have a higher chance of identifying cases earlier? I'm not an anti-vaxxer but it seems the vaccines are ineffective to contain the pandemic at this juncture.

Split team arrangement at work exposed many lazy people who doesn't do much when they are working on site. Yet some of these mofos could still get promoted and many hardworking ones didn't get the opportunity. What the holy fuck.

The pandemic is not going to end soon. Especially after looking at how many people resorting to merely 'thoughts and prayer' to "fight" the pandemic but never doing anything useful to help the situation. Think about it, if God gave us this pandemic, do you really think just by praying to Him will make Him lift it off? God scattered Israel during the Babylonian exile and the Jewish diaspora, you think He gathered them back after incessant 'thoughts and prayer'? No chance.

The longer this pandemic drags out because of people rushing to resume travelling overseas and gathering with others, the more opportunity the virus get to mutate and be more resilient and contagious. Basically, the more defiant humans are, the more we are incubating a super virus.

History textbooks and classes often teach about wars, conflicts, and great men who did great things. But often disregarded is the fact that the greatest agent of human history is not humans, it is diseases.

Of loss and of pain

A week ago, I was at the scene of a fatal accident where I saw the victim laid lifeless on the road. There was nothing I could do to undo the accident. There was nothing I could do to help with the situation. The whole incident happened and ended before I reached the scene. I couldn't even contribute as a witness because what the police saw is exactly what I had seen.

Many times when I felt I am invincible, God reminds me that I am powerless in times like this. That I can remain safe and sound not by my own merit but solely by His grace. It humbles me, puts me to my place. I am only human, I am not Superman.

Death is most painful not to the one who died but to the ones who lost a loved one. There is nothing romantic about it, loss of a loved one is always painful. It is painful even if it is just an abandonment, let alone death.

Yet, sorrow cannot power our lives. Grief must end, one way or another. And hope is all that we have to live for another day in our fragile physical bodies. Lest our ego blinds us to think we are immortal, we shall not tempt fate.

A Tirade of Rants

1) plastic is not always bad. Humans throwing them away unnecessarily makes it bad. It is the humans that are bad, plastics are innocent. You don't blame the gun or blade that do the killing right? You would blame the human that pulled the trigger or swung the blade. So don't fucking point the finger elsewhere when you should be fucking blaming yourself.

2) eating meat is not always bad. Excessive meat eating makes the demand higher and the agricultural practice worse over time. Humans have been eating meat, veg, and fruits since 10,000 BCE. It is human indulgence that is bad. So if every human fucking stick to eating anything that is food, everything would be fine. It is humans that are ruining everything.

3) vegans are jerks. Eating 100% veg and fruits is perfectly fine, I've tried vegetarian diet for a while before and I felt fine. But vocally advocate to not touch animal produce is absolutely ridiculous and impossible. You know the farmers that tilled and harvested the veg and fruits? They are animals too! Don't fucking eat anything.

4) US-styled democracy is overrated. Democracy is NOT the same as freedom! You want freedom? You should live in the mountains and forest in an anarchy. Read Hobbes' 'Leviathan' before you do. THAT is the motherfucking freedom you want and deserve.

Freedom is a State of Mind

Many people who say they want freedom don't even realise that 'freedom' is a spiritual concept, a state of mind. There is nothing that can prove you are free or not.

Are you free when no one is bounded by any law but everyone has to defend themselves in an 'each to their own' anarchy? Or are you free when everyone is bounded by many laws but everyone can sleep safely at night?

Are you free when everyone can express their opinions without consequences, including death threats, discrimination and insults? Or are you free when everyone is protected by restrictions to expression and no one gets hurt?

Are you free when no one is employed and not controlled by corporations but have no money? Or are you free when everyone is employed and being controlled by the employer but have enough money everyday?

Are you free when everyone is equally rich (or equally poor) and no one owns the means of production but everyone works for the state? Or are you free when the rich owns the means of production and exploits the poor but the poor has a chance to earn a sustainable living with little to no state control?

I am leaving church

I believe in the concept of community. I believe unity brings strength. But looking at how decadent the community has become, I have lost faith in that community. To that end, I choose to leave that community, stand on the outside and watch it burn.

I used to think this was a fertile soil where knowledge would bring depth and develop one's character. I used to believe there is much wisdom waiting to be harvested. But now I think this is a desert beyond salvation. The expansion of the Sahara brings not life but death. The sand of a barren desert cannot bear fruit.

There is nothing I could do and no longer any that I would do to try and stop the spread of an innate disease that comes from deep within. The assumed infallibility of the leadership is like cancer, it corrupts and it doesn't stop corrupting until everything is corrupted. Like a forest fire, it will keep burning until everything become a wasteland.

What comes to waste is not the lives the community fails to reach but the lives within that it corrupts. I already failed on my part and I would only keep failing if I kept trying.

The community stops being a community and has progressed to being a cult. Where it is the leaders the adherents worship and held as a god in their midst.

Poverty Line

International poverty line set by the UN is USD 1.90 per person per day, or SGD 2.60. If PAP Govt are to follow the UN's guideline, they will never come up with a policy that actually help anyone in SG. SGD 2.60 per day means a family of 5 have an annual income of less than S$5000. It's impossibly hard to be below this benchmark in SG.

So when MP Jamus Lim asked why PAP didn't set a poverty line, that's because it will either be at the IPL or way higher. And in SG, while it's pretty easy to earn more than the IPL, it is not easy to have sufficient income for day-to-day living. So, following the IPL will benefit almost no one but setting a line too high and many will be disenfranchised.

Not setting a poverty line is a strategy to make sure the policies made benefit as many people as possible without setting an unreasonable cut-off. Are the policies made perfect? No. But do they work? You tell me.

Dr. Mahathir Hates A Certain Country

Dr. Mahathir wrote:
“Lihat Melayu negara jiran.
Melayu lagikah negara mereka?”

Translation:
“Look at the Malays of the neighbouring country.
Is their country still Malay?”

That particular line would stir emotions of malays from all regional nations, Malaysia included. M's intent, no doubt, is to make Malaysia malays feel they are in a better position in Malaysia than anywhere else. And at the same time make malays of other nations feel like they are second-grade citizens.

What impact was he seeking, though? To rile up malays of other countries and stir racial enmity there or to garner malays' support for his 'Warrior' party in Malaysia?

Regardless of the impact he sought, the sentiment is there. M still hate other nations in the region doing better than Malaysia, especially the one(s) where malay exists. Because no matter how Malaysia boost special rights to malays (or how systemically racist they are), they can't do better than that 'neighbouring country'.

Because he still thinks a pro-malay Malaysia would be superior than a non-malay country. For whatever reasoning he came to that conclusion is unknown. But contrary to his belief, Malaysia is not as successful as certain neighbouring nation(s). It's safe to say M is salty that he can't reverse the disparity in economical success in the region to tilt in Malaysia's favour.

He is a sore loser, and as a politician, he is not willing to take drastic measures to make Malaysia more successful than others. In fear of losing the malay vote. Which is fully understandable.

Then my next question would be what malays, in Malaysia or not, think of M's sentiments? Singapore's malays wouldn't and shouldn't feel bad about themselves. Because Singapore is multiracial and multicultural and malays have the smarts, means, and opportunities to be successful here. Even without special racial rights, they do just as well as other races here.

Furthermore, not all Malaysia malays would agree with M as well, especially those who believe in their own capabilities and potentials. They don't need M to tell them how to get better in life.

At the end of the day, he said what he said because he is jealous of the achievements of other nations and the achievements of malays outside of Malaysia.