tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-230000012024-03-08T08:02:47.388+08:00The Bosonic StateMusings of a physicist.Jackson Tanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02267650599398779304noreply@blogger.comBlogger273125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23000001.post-78333205470733445442010-08-09T13:23:00.003+08:002010-08-09T13:33:57.018+08:00How many people outside Singapore has heard of the Youth Olympic Games?<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjMclN9f_vamkW01AO6pYm-nrZLPnNnySCfLZDsFyVFJvhfPL2Z6yhm_Qi8m9CK7sQdmgmScSkNtT26B2jiHYfA0-fj-wfg6EQyUn0Z7lArp2ftnahe_jj0p743DCqj4MEs5Lvn/s1600/yog.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="246" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjMclN9f_vamkW01AO6pYm-nrZLPnNnySCfLZDsFyVFJvhfPL2Z6yhm_Qi8m9CK7sQdmgmScSkNtT26B2jiHYfA0-fj-wfg6EQyUn0Z7lArp2ftnahe_jj0p743DCqj4MEs5Lvn/s400/yog.jpg" width="400" /></a></div><br />
This is the result of a quick and utterly unscientific poll of the people around me, both from my hall and my lab group, here in Canberra. Certainly, it does not represent "people outside Singapore". In fact, it is hardly a fair picture of the awareness of the Youth Olympic Games (YOG) amongst the people living in Canberra since I'm sampling a mix of academically-inclined, highly-educated community with a good mix of international students. Nonetheless it should still give a hazy sketch on how many people outside Singapore knows about the YOG.<br />
<br />
<hr /><br />
The reason why I did this poll comes from the general sentiments I've been reading about the YOG, especially on <a href="http://theonlinecitizen.com/2010/07/90-per-cent-not-interested-at-all-in-yog/">the enthusiasm (or lack thereof) of Singaporeans for the event</a>.<br />
<br />
The fact that Singaporeans are disinterested does not mean that the event will be a failure. What also matters is the enthusiasm of sporting fans and the international community. That, together with the apparent failure to excite Singaporeans, will be a fair measure of the success of the YOG.<br />
<br />
So far I have not heard of the opinions of people outside Singapore on the YOG itself. I have come across no polls about their awareness of the event, and news reports about it are scant to begin with. Hence, I did this poll to throw a bit of light on this question.<br />
<br />
<hr /><br />
More on the results: I've polled a total of 17 people. 11 (red) of them have never heard of the YOG. 2 (yellow) of them heard about it, but do not know that it is coming up or that it is held in Singapore. 4 (green) of them could answer where and when, though it must be pointed out that, of these four, one is a Singaporean and the other have been staying in Singapore for the past two years.<br />
<br />
And of the six who know about YOG, only one of them is an Australian (the other five are Asians of varying nationalities). The reason why he knows about it is because he is a sporting enthusiast and is acquainted with news about <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Youth_Olympic_Festival">the Australian Youth Olympic Festival</a>, which I believe is what the YOG is based on.<br />
<br />
I am more than aware that the sample size is way too small. However, I am not going out of the way to find out about the opinions of more people. Maybe some other people can do the same thing amongst their friends and we will have a better survey.<br />
<br />
<hr /><br />
It is kinda hard to comment on whether the results are good or bad. We need an equivalent to compare, and I do not know enough about sporting games to do that. Perhaps 35% of awareness is okay for this type of international youth games. But my guess is that it ought to be higher.<br />
<br />
Oh, by the way, happy 45th birthday, Singapore!Jackson Tanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02267650599398779304noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23000001.post-26970847650027988812010-03-30T15:51:00.002+08:002010-03-30T15:51:55.072+08:00The Secrecy of an Overseas VoteToday in my mail was an air-mailed letter from the Elections Department, informing me that my application to be an overseas voter was approved. Why they had to send me a physical letter when they could've saved some money and use email instead is puzzling to me.<br />
<br />
But anyway, this reminds me of a conversation I had yesterday with a couple of Singaporeans here in Canberra. Somehow, the elections came into the discussion, and we arrived at the issue of the secrecy of our votes.<br />
<br />
I am fairly confident -- not that I give a damn -- that the individual vote is secret. But it is widely known that, because vote counting is done independently for each polling district, the election officials (and the witnesses from each party) know the distribution of the votes for that district.<br />
<br />
Of course, this does not present too much of a problem in Singapore, since there are probably thousands of voters in each district. But as an overseas voter, my vote goes to the district I'm registered in (through my home address). And the counting of overseas votes is done separately when the votes are flown back to Singapore (assuming the procedure is the same as in 2006; <a href="http://www.elections.gov.sg/pressrelease/20060505.pdf">see PDF link</a>).<br />
<br />
So unless there are a million overseas voter flooding down to Singapore High Commission in Canberra when the election comes, chances are that I am the only one -- or at most, one of the few -- from my district amongst all the overseas votes coming from Canberra. In fact, in the 2006 general elections, there were only 137 voters in Canberra (<a href="http://www.elections.gov.sg/pressrelease/20060217.pdf">see PDF link</a>). How secret is my vote then?<br />
<br />
Even if overseas votes are counted on the constituency level and not separated down to districts, the size is still small enough to make some people worry.<br />
<br />
On the other hand, the oveaseas votes will only matter if the vote difference between the contesting parties is less than the total number of registered overseas voters for that constituency. Since it is unlikely that the vote discrepency can get <i>that</i> small, chances are that the overseas vote makes no difference. I'm not sure if they'll still be counted nonetheless though, but I doubt so since I cannot find any information on the overseas votes results.Jackson Tanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02267650599398779304noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23000001.post-6381072566524171602010-03-28T08:10:00.001+08:002010-03-28T08:10:56.503+08:00Earth Hour: A ConfessionNo, this is not a soppy apology by an environmentalist for not obeying this symbolic event. Quite on the contrary, I cycled to Chiefley Meadows on campus yesterday -- a 15 min journey through poorly-lit paths -- to join in the countdown at ANU.<br />
<br />
But that's not the point. The confession is on the fact that I realised I have been rather harsh on the organisers and supporters of Earth Hour. Previously, despite being an environmentalist, I have hardly been a huge supporter of Earth Hour, seeing it as a useless symbolic gesture that achieved little practical results. In my eyes, I saw it as a feel-good initiative for people to pretend that they had done their part for the environment.<br />
<br />
In fact, I have once written elsewhere that,<br />
<br />
<blockquote>I just think that this Earth Hour will not change people’s habit. First, with regards to the point of increase awareness, I do seriously think that the time for awareness is over.<br />
<br />
...<br />
<br />
The challenge for environmentalists now is to get people to be more environmentally friendly in their actions, either by persuasion or by coercion (e.g. through laws).</blockquote><br />
And my point was that Earth Hour does not achieve that, because it is at best an hour of fun and games for most people, and after that they will resume their normal energy consumption. And therefore, whenever someone calls Earth Hour an environmental action, I feel insulted because it kinda trivialises the changes I've made on my lifestyle.<br />
<br />
But on further reflection, I realise that my reaction is unjustified. Specifically, if I feel insulted, it is because I held an elitist view of the label "environmentalist" as well as the environmental movement. I treated it as some exclusive club where entry is earned by making significant changes to its members' lives. <br />
<br />
True, most people will not change their lives because of Earth Hour, but it may serve as a rallying call for people to join in. It may remind them to turn off the lights when they leave the room. It may persuade them to choose a more environmentally friendly alternative (e.g. CFL instead of incandescent bulbs). It may even convince a few to live a lifestyle that is gentler to the Earth.<br />
<br />
However slight each of their contributions are, they will add up and make a difference.<br />
<br />
And that, I now think, is a good reason to support Earth Hour. I should drop my severely stuck-up view of environmentalism and support action that helps the environment. After all, environmentalism is more than climate change -- which is under siege by scientifically-unfounded skepticism; there are many pressing environmental issues such as light pollution and vanishing biodiversity that Earth Hour will have an effect as well. <br />
<br />
And thus, the title of this post, Earth Hour: A Confession.Jackson Tanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02267650599398779304noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23000001.post-1052264088169709872010-01-06T20:41:00.002+08:002010-01-07T13:05:32.046+08:00Unacceptable to have Dolphins in Captivity at IR<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.spca.org.sg/images/whaleshark.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://www.spca.org.sg/images/whaleshark.jpg" /></a><br />
</div><br />
Resorts World Sentosa originally planned to import whale sharks for their oceanarium as part of their Integrated Resort attraction, but have backed off due to pressure from various organisation and members of the public. Whale sharks are not meant to be in captivity, and definitely not in an enclosure the size which the IR can afford.<br />
<br />
However, in its place RWS is <a href="http://wildshores.blogspot.com/2008/12/seven-solomon-dolphins-are-going-to.html">importing bottlenose dolphins</a>, which is just as bad, even though dolphins tend to strike an impression that they can get happy in captivity. This impression is <a href="http://www.acres.org.sg/campaigns_dolphins.html">not quite correct</a>. Unfortunately, with the Dolphin Lagoon already in operation at the Underwater World, it will be all but impossible to make RWS reverse this decision.<br />
<br />
I'm reminded of this unhappy incident after reading <a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/article6973994.ece">this article that suggests dolphins ought to be treated like a person</a>. That was a suggestion by a professor of ethics at Loyola Marymount University who have studied and published about this issue.<br />
<br />
From the article,<br />
<br />
<blockquote>The researchers argue that their work shows it is morally unacceptable to keep such intelligent animals in amusement parks or to kill them for food or by accident when fishing. Some 300,000 whales, dolphins and porpoises die in this way each year.<br />
</blockquote><br />
Indeed, if dolphins have such intelligence, how is it different, if we continue this practice of putting dolphins in captivity, from putting people in cages and ogle at them? Remember <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ota_Benga">the story of Ota Benga</a> and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_zoo">the existence of human zoos</a>?<br />
<br />
But like I said, the chances of preventing the dolphins from coming to the IR is pretty slim, especially with public acceptance of dolphin shows. Still, I suppose we can do our part by first being aware of the issue, and second, spreading the word. Personally, I doubt I will visit the IR.Jackson Tanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02267650599398779304noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23000001.post-18165936750920290202009-12-06T08:01:00.000+08:002009-12-06T08:01:49.875+08:00Crying Over Nothing<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_e-mail_hacking_incident">Climategate</a>, the recent row over the hacked emails of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, was an early Christmas gift to climate change sceptics. Immediately upon the release of the emails, sceptics pounced upon the details and cried foul over bias and conspiracy to suppress data that denies climate change.<br />
<br />
Now, for someone outside the sphere of scientific research, he or she might think that it is a very merry cooperation and everyone providing a polite slice of their knowledge and research in an orderly fashion. Yet this is quite far from the truth, as I myself have witnessed.<br />
<br />
Research is often messy. Too many a times researchers use published data and methods in their own studies without waiting for verification from other sources. Of course, publications being peer-reviewed, most of the time they are alright, but occasionally they may be overthrown by other researchers who pointed out flaws in reasoning or experimental methods. This is part and parcel of research, and it's pretty much accepted so long as the mistake is unintentional. Once in a while, there will be major upheavals -- such as the fabrication of cloning data by <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hwang_Woo-Suk">Hwang Woo-Suk</a> -- which may upset many studies that are based on the original publication.<br />
<br />
Furthermore, researchers may have bias. They may speak out strongly against certain approaches which does not quite conform with their ideas. Personally, <a href="http://thefermionicstate.blogspot.com/2009/02/my-project-stands-on-dangerous-grounds.html">I've encountered this problem before</a>. Some may be hostile, some may be polite; but a healthy research environment is able to tolerate conflicting viewpoints under the same roof. And an ideal researcher should be one that may disagree with a direction of research, but still allow it to go ahead.<br />
<br />
Such is the nature of research. And thus those personal emails naturally would contain information and communications that do not appear clean to a regular reader. It would take someone in the research environment to really sieve out real misdemeanour from personal disagreements. In fact, other than the initial outcry over words that suggested at fabrication, there is no concrete evidence of such actions. And the fact that sceptics cannot find anything definite after so long perhaps suggested that there is really none.<br />
<br />
If you still need an expert report on the situation, the top scientific journal <a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v462/n7273/full/462545a.html">Nature has found no conspiracy in the leaked emails</a>. In fact, with regards to the suppression of the publication, the editorial reports:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>In one of the more controversial exchanges, UEA scientists sharply criticized the quality of two papers that question the uniqueness of recent global warming (S. McIntyre and R. McKitrick Energy Environ. 14, 751–771; 2003 and W. Soon and S. Baliunas Clim. Res. 23, 89–110; 2003) and vowed to keep at least the first paper out of the upcoming Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Whatever the e-mail authors may have said to one another in (supposed) privacy, however, what matters is how they acted. And the fact is that, in the end, neither they nor the IPCC suppressed anything: when the assessment report was published in 2007 it referenced and discussed both papers.</blockquote><br />
And I think the most illuminating statement is "whatever the e-mail authors may have said to one another in (supposed) privacy, however, what matters is how they acted." It squares very well with what I've said above: that the research process is messy, and researchers have personal preferences; but ultimately, when they presented their data to the public, everything is cleaned up in a fair manner.Jackson Tanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02267650599398779304noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23000001.post-41702674722364388402009-10-24T12:04:00.002+08:002009-10-24T12:07:07.403+08:00350? Too Audacious a Target?Today is the International Day of Climate Action, an event organised by <a href="http://www.350.org/">350.org</a>. It aims, as I understand it, to raise awareness for climate change and the fact that we have exceeded the safe limit of amount of carbon in the air: 350 parts per million (ppm). The organisers advocate people globally to participate in an action that displays the number 350 prominently, and the <a href="http://www.350sg.com/">Singapore arm of the movement</a> intend to take an aerial photograph of supporters forming a massive 350 in Hong Lim Park.<br />
<br />
However, I see a potential confusion here. Firstly, from what I know, this ppm thingy is a measure of how much carbon is in the air. It is a number that takes into account numerous factors, including stuff like carbon removal by forests. If you perform an ideal experiment and measure the composition of the atmosphere, this number is what you'll get for carbon dioxide.<br />
<br />
Then there's another thing: carbon emissions, which is one part of this composition picture. Carbon emissions is the amount of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere by human activities. While this number is, of course, linked to the atmospheric composition, it is not directly connected. A drop in emissions today will not ensure a drop in carbon dioxide composition in the atmosphere tomorrow.<br />
<br />
Think of it this way: imagine a bucket with a source and a sink. While water flows in from the source, it is drained by the sink, and these two forms a balance. In an oversimplistic view, this is the pre-industrial age atmospheric carbon picture (oversimplistic because there are ice ages and all sorts of other factors that cause carbon composition to fluctuate) - with the source being the (natural) emissions, the sink being carbon removal capabilities like forests, and the amount of water being the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. In comes the industrial age, and the source is increased tremendously and the sink decreases. The water level thus rose and is still rising. So even if we turn off our "extra" source and put in more sinks, it's gonna be some time before the water level reverses and returns to the original level. In fact, there is <a href="http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/01/28/0812721106.short">a projection</a> which predict that this reversal will not come before a thousand years have elapsed.<br />
<br />
In short, carbon composition will lag behind changes in emissions. Already, the composition of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is 390 ppm, way higher than the target, and in all realistic hopes, 350 ppm is too fanciful a number to dream for. Looking at the top chart below, obtained from <a href="http://www.pnas.org/content/104/24/10288.figures-only?sid=659eb7fc-d266-41e4-b659-4c0ff1f1889f">an article</a> by Michael Raupach <i>et al.</i> in the <a href="http://www.pnas.org/">Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences</a>,<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.pnas.org/content/104/24/10288/F1.large.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="658" src="http://www.pnas.org/content/104/24/10288/F1.large.jpg" width="480" /></a><br />
</div><br />
we can see that we have to cut our emissions drastically to even achieve 450 ppm (dashed green line) in the next century. Even 650 ppm looks way far off (dashed blue line). The various A and B lines are projections based on different scenarios (of which, if you want to know, can be found in the article). Even if we switch to clean technology completely - as described by A1T (solid green line) - we cannot even reach 450 ppm in a hundred years' time (though we will be captured by the error bars of 650 ppm). But the most realistic projection is A1B (orange line), which is based on a balance of fossil fuel and clean technology.<br />
<br />
Now, much as I advocate environmentalism, I feel uncomfortable about brandishing 350 as the number. In all honesty, no climate scientists are able to tell you in certain terms what the magical number ought to be. In fact, 350 ppm is the lowest safety limit I've heard of; other predictions range up to 650 ppm, but I think that number is really skirting the cliff's edge. Nonetheless, that is already a difficult target to reach, as evidenced by the chart above. So there is no reason for inaction. <a href="http://thebosonicstate.blogspot.com/2009/10/right-to-be-right.html">Especially if you care</a>.Jackson Tanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02267650599398779304noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23000001.post-2189395275302820242009-10-15T00:01:00.001+08:002009-10-15T00:01:00.455+08:00The Right to be Right<i>This is a blog post for <a href="http://www.blogactionday.org/">Blog Action Day 2009</a> on the topic of climate change.</i><br />
<br />
Environmental action often entails a change in lifestyle, most of which involves some inconveniences. For example, sorting out recyclables from trash and bringing them to the nearest recycling bin necessitates hassle. Buying <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_fluorescent_lamp">compact fluorescent lamp</a> which are more energy saving will result in a higher initial cost. Spending a night without air-conditioning will lessen the comfort of your sleep.<br />
<br />
These undertakings of an individual alone have hardly an impact on the environment at all. The consequent reduction in <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_footprint">carbon footprint</a> is a drop in the entire ocean of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Alright, sure, there is the typical argument that the collective effort can have a marked change - as exemplified by events such as <a href="http://thefermionicstate.blogspot.com/2008/03/earth-hour.html">Earth Hour</a> - but this argument does not induce much motivation in many people. This is an unfortunate truth - that a cumulative reward at the cost of compromise in personal lifestyle, particularly when the reward demands others to do the same, is not embraced by most people - and the past calls for environmental efforts have demonstrated that. Moreover, it is a vicious cycle: if most people does not want to take action, then there will be no collective benefit, and thus there is no practical incentive for the individual to be green, thereby sinking the situation into a deeper inertial hole. Some say it is up to governments to take action, but let us not forget that the government is subjected to people's desires, so there is only limited wiggling space for them to impose environmental restrictions on the people.<br />
<br />
Such a dilemma reminds me of a course I took during my last semester at NUS. It was a geography module called Environmental Sustainability (module code: GE3239), and the lecturer once mentioned that Singapore unsheathes the argument that the effects in restricting our emissions is so negligible on the global scale that it matters very little how much we try to quell our carbon output. This is an iconic pragmatic argument, and it is not wrong in that perspective. After all, that bit Singapore contributes is truly minimal and it is the grand total of greenhouse gases (GHGs) in the atmosphere that counts. The climate does not go looking at the per capita emission.<br />
<br />
Then is there any reason for the individual, which, in such a position, differs not so much from Singapore in the example above, to go green? There certainly is: environmental action grants the person a moral right to, at the very least, make a environmental statement. In the end, climate change is going to affect us all in some ways or other, and it would be hypocritical for one to be concerned if he does not observe and reduce his carbon footprint. Regardless of how small one's contribution is to the environmental cause on the large picture, in doing so he allows himself to say that he is concerned, that something has to be done, that it is unfair for the US to have such disproportionately high carbon output. One's effort will not make any practical difference if others do not do their part, but it gives him the right to be right.<br />
<br />
Making an effort for the environment does not entail an upheaval in lifestyle. Steps can be small, little at a time, a bit here and there, and all in all one can shed his carbon footprint by a significant share. Below is a suggested list of a few actions that you can do - all of which I personally do - to slash your carbon emissions. These actions are not the typical feel-good <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slacktivism">slacktivisms</a> such as Earth Hour or clicking one button on Facebook.<br />
<br />
<ul><li>Go vegetarian or <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semi-vegetarianism">semi-vegetarian</a>. Meat turns out to be a major carbon source, and cutting it not only benefits the environment, but also your health. Join the ranks of Albert Einstein, Sir Paul McCartney, Christian Bale and Carl Lewis.</li>
<li>Bring an environmental bags or regular plastic bags when shopping. In addition, I always tuck a small, folded plastic bag into a compartment in my sling pouch or backpack, in case I wanted to buy something on the spot.</li>
<li>Turn off the computer monitor, put the computer to standby or hibernate/shut down, as opposed to letting it idle off when you need to leave it for a period. How long a period it should be is up to you; for me, it is roughly one minute, five minutes and fifteen minutes respectively.</li>
<li>Try without the air-conditioner. It is a major electricity hog, and most people do not <i>need</i> it. And there are some nights, especially rainy ones, in which a fan is more than sufficient. You do not have to swear it off - Singapore's heat can be notorious - but how about raising the threshold of your heat tolerance?</li>
</ul><br />
These actions address more than mere climate change, which is the topic of this year's Blog Action Day. Certainly, climate change is one glaring symptom of this environmental disease, but other environmental issues (which may share the same root cause as climate change) ought not be neglected. Examples: depleting resources, vanishing biodiversity, destruction to coastal habitats, overfishing; and the actions listed above do address these issues and more. So do take heart and take action.Jackson Tanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02267650599398779304noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23000001.post-76780929913052668812009-07-30T22:51:00.001+08:002009-07-30T22:53:32.713+08:00The Paradox of Thio Li-Ann's Anti-Gay Stand(Disclaimer: this post is not a writeup arguing for gay rights. Neither is this an opinion concerning Thio's withdrawal. It won't even be a rebuttal of her arguments. Any attempt at these is merely a repetition of what many others have written. Also, what is argued below is my own guesswork, and anyone with a better idea are welcomed to correct me.)<br /><br />One of the recent news that has been hitting the headlines online is <a href="http://theonlinecitizen.com/2009/07/thio-li-ann-withdraws-from-nyus-appointment/">Thio Li-Ann's withdrawal from New York University as a visiting professor</a> due to two reasons: low enrolment for her class and a hostile environment, both of which probably stemmed from her public anti-gay stand. Her arguments against gay rights were often ridiculed by many netizens for their gaps in logic. In fact, <a href="http://theonlinecitizen.com/2007/10/377a-serves-public-morality-nmp-thio-li-ann/">her parliament speech regarding the repealing of section 377A</a> were so flawed that even the conservative Straits Times, often accused of filtering forum letters in favour of opponents of gay rights, has an editorial which lambasted her (<a href="http://journalism.sg/2007/10/27/the-devan-ci-code-janadas-exposes-li-anns-thiology/">here is an article commenting on this</a>).<br /><br />Yet, she held on to them and insisted on her opposition to gay rights. I find this situation rather curious, because she, being a professor of law, ought to either have an excellent argument for her case, or see that she is wrong. This paradox has baffled me for quite some time, but I think I've figured out why she stuck to her weak arguments: it is <b>a consequence of trying to argue in Singapore's secular setting but retaining her stand that comes from her personal belief</b> (and interestingly, <a href="http://www.yawningbread.org/arch_2009/yax-1036.htm">she has attacked Singapore's secularism recently with a straw-man argument</a>).<br /><br />I remember reading an editorial at the start of this year in either Science or Nature (can't remember which) - considered by many as the top two journals in science - in which the author argues that the Obama should appoint scientists in his administration because they are trained to make "correct" judgements. His point is that a proper science training should teach the scientist not to favour, assume or even expect a particular conclusion before the experiment. A scientist, in positions of power, will therefore analyse the situation objectively based on all avaliable data and make a stand based on his analysis. This will ensure that the decision made is the best possible for the country. He contrasts this with lawyers, which are trained to pick up a particular stand and construct arguments to support it. This is, of course, rather an unfair opinion against lawyers because there is a difference between one's derivation of his stand and one's academic training, but his underlying assumption about decision-making is clear: in choosing a stand, we should analyse the arguments before making a conclusion.<br /><br />There is also the joke that puts economists in the same bad shoes. It goes like this: a mathematician, a statistician and an economist were at a job interview. They were asked what two plus two is. The mathematician says, "four", and the statistician says, "on average, four". The economist, on the other hand, surreptitiously asks the interviewer, "well, what do you want it to be?" The punchline is about the wrong way of making a stand: choose the conclusion you want, before finding arguments to prop it up (and ignoring evidence that contradict that stand).<br /><br />So are the arguments of the opponents to gay rights formed as such? Assembled top-down from the conclusion instead of constructed bottom-up from basic principles and evidence? Are these people like the accused lawyer in the editorial or the economist in the joke? Not necessary: they may have a different premise. Gay right proponents may have the premise that there ought to be no discrimination based on sexuality. But opponents to gay rights, such as those who have been in the spotlight recently like Thio, may have the premise that goes: "the Bible is right". If we start from this premise, it is naturally a conclusion that being gay is wrong.<br /><br />Now, all this is fine and good <span style="font-style:italic;">if</span> one applies that conclusion to oneself, but the problem comes when one tries to apply the conclusion to others, on a society-wide setting. There will inevitably be contradictions which springs from differences in premises. So in a country like Singapore we practise secularism - meaning all arguments that are forwarded in society must either be independent of system of belief or applies to all systems of belief. As a result their arguments will no longer work, because not everyone can accept the premise that "the Bible is right". Consequently, these opponents try to find an argument that is founded upon secular premises to support their stands so they can push their ideas upon the society.<br /><br />But that is precisely what the economist did.Jackson Tanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02267650599398779304noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23000001.post-33040007686401654722009-06-14T20:25:00.000+08:002009-06-14T20:25:00.333+08:00Meteor Attack!I noticed this news yesterday from the Daily Telegraph:<br /><br /><blockquote><span style="font-size:180%;"><a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/scienceandtechnology/science/space/5511619/14-year-old-hit-by-30000-mph-space-meteorite.html">14-year-old hit by 30,000 mph space meteorite</a></span><br /><span style="font-size:130%;">A schoolboy has survived a direct hit by a meteorite after it fell to earth at 30,000mph.</span><br /><br />Gerrit Blank, 14, was on his way to school when he saw "ball of light" heading straight towards him from the sky.<br /><br />A red hot, pea-sized piece of rock then hit his hand before bouncing off and causing a foot wide crater in the ground.</blockquote><br /><br />Wow!<br /><br />...<br /><br />Right.<br /><br />Okay, the subtitle of the article is "A schoolboy has survived a direct hit by a meteorite after it fell to earth at 30,000mph." The first question that pops into my mind is: how on Earth does the boy or the newspaper know that the meteorite is going at 30,000 mph? That's about 10,000 m/s, which is damn bloody fast. It can cover the length of Singapore in about 4 seconds. And second question: direct hit? Even if it's granular sized, the kinetic energy and momentum involved would've blown up his hand. And then the article also threw up some numbers which, if you'd think about it, is highly fishy.<br /><br />Definitely, either this is a sham that made it to the news, or there are gross inaccuracies in that article, which is rather shameful because The Daily Telegraph is somewhat a reliable source of news. I searched around and found a more reliable analysis of this article by someone from Discover magazine:<br /><br /><a href="http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2009/06/12/a-boy-claims-he-was-hit-by-a-meteorite/">A boy claims he was hit by a meteorite</a><br /><br />Okay dudes, all the more reason to carry an umbrella even if it is not raining.Jackson Tanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02267650599398779304noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23000001.post-629814202463008252009-05-28T23:20:00.002+08:002009-05-28T23:26:33.966+08:00More Opposition MPs: How Will This Change Voting Patterns?In what is probably the biggest change in the political system in recent years, the government has announced that the lower limit for the number of opposition members of parliament <a href="http://theonlinecitizen.com/2009/05/breaking-news-9-opposition-mps-including-ncmps-to-be-allowed/">will be raised from three to nine</a>. This means that, in future elections, if the opposition parties capture less than nine seats, the rest will be filled up with <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-Constituency_Member_of_Parliament">NCMPs</a> from the losing team with highest proportion of votes.<br /><br />The first question that springs to my mind is, why does the government do this? I mean, are the PAP MPs looking for more targets to abuse in parliament? Well, there is the most straightforward possibility that the PAP really wants more checks and balances against themselves. Uh... okay, scrap that.<br /><br />Obviously, this move will ultimately benefit them in some ways. But how? It seems to be a response against the rising voices of "checks and balances" and the employment of it as a rationale for supporting the opposition in elections. So PAP is trying to say, "Yo! You guys there who vote for the opposition because of the 'checks and balances' reason. There's no more need to do that with this new change!"<br /><br />Now, does this hold water? It comes down to what it all means when people say they want "checks and balances". Basically, to me at least, it seems that this "checks and balances" imply that the PAP cannot pass bills in parliament at will. That is, the PAP controls less than two-thirds of the seats in parliament. In this case, the new measures cannot convince a rational individual to forgo "checks and balances" as a consideration when voting. Even with nine opposition MPs, they still cannot block any bill if the PAP MPs vote unanimously. What's more, NCMPs have limited voting powers.<br /><br />However, is that all to "checks and balances"? Could someone want "checks and balances", and yet mean something less than a third of opposition MPs in parliament? It could very well be, if this person assumes "checks and balances" as more questions asked in parliament sessions. More specifically, they want bills to be scrutinised. They want "failures" like the recent losses in Temasek Holdings to be dissected. They want issues to be debated more thoroughly. And perhaps, they trust PAP MPs to vote on their individual capacities on non-partisan matters.<br /><br />So how much votes will this new change bring for the PAP? Definitely, those hardcore fans of either camps are not going to budge. PAP is aiming at the middle of the spectrum, at people who may vote for the PAP, but at the same time lean towards the opposition for "checks and balances". For the person who takes that to mean "less than 66% of MPs belong to PAP", it's not gonna work. But how much does this group of people comprise in the electoral roll? How many people interpret "checks and balances" as the second meaning? How many people have no idea of what they want when they demand "checks and balances"?<br /><br />On a side note, I welcome the new change to smaller GRCs, so long as it does not <a href="http://ephraim.blogspot.com/2009/05/smaller-group-representation.html">imply an increase in the number of ministers</a>!Jackson Tanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02267650599398779304noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23000001.post-2355533446418346552009-05-02T21:21:00.002+08:002009-05-02T21:29:57.585+08:00The Aftermath of the AWARE WarAs with all wars, there is celebration on the side of the victors, and bitterness on the side of the defeated. But as these emotions fade, what will emerge is the vast destruction done to the people and the infrastructure. Lives lost, buildings bombed, resources wasted... a scene of ruin that greets both sides.<br /><br />In a similar sense, a war has broken out in Singapore's civil society, a struggle for power for one of Singapore's most prominent interest group. The dispute in AWARE has culminated in the EGM, which dragged overtime for several hours, and eventually tilted against the favour of the new AWARE committee, <a href="http://theonlinecitizen.com/2009/05/more-than-a-thousand-turn-up-for-aware-eogm/">triggering their resignation</a>.<br /><br />But what has been destroyed in this AWARE war? One thing for sure, Constance Singam has identified that <a href="http://theonlinecitizen.com/2009/04/constance-singam-that-trust-is-gone/">the trust that was implicit in the organisation is gone now</a>. Like a shattered vase, there is no way to restore its original state; even with masterful reparations, cracks will forever be there.<br /><br />But I think it goes beyond that. The trust amongst different interest groups in society may be under strain. And I am not talking about groups that sit on opposite sides of an issue, like evolutionists and creationists. After all, AWARE does not fight for gay-rights, yet it was on this issue that triggered the entire affair. This has shown that even if a group is only tangentially concerned with a minor issue, it is liable to be taken over by other groups. So the lesson that other groups, observing this AWARE war, can learn is to guard themselves against such a takeover by any other groups with an alternative motive. And with that, the trust is gone. And maybe... maybe, it's not so bad a thing after all.<br /><br />But what will this mean, beyond all that trust and everything? Is society more polarised between pro-gays and anti-gays now? Will the battle for gay rights be more difficult now? Is it really a victory for supporters of the so-called Old Guards, especially when there were signs of rowdiness and rude interruptions? The words, the insults and the name-calling... how much of this whole saga can we call it a step forward for democracy?<br /><br />Is this war really over? Or will it lead, just like World War I, to another more devastating showdown?Jackson Tanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02267650599398779304noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23000001.post-69186902621688424112009-04-25T11:59:00.003+08:002009-04-25T12:42:28.695+08:00The Problem with the New AWARE EXCOUndoubtedly, you would've heard of the whole nasty business that is going on in AWARE right now.<br /><br />Personally, my take is this: the initial silence and lack of communications to the public, as well as the hostilities towards and dismissals of the previous EXCO members, are all worrying signs. Moreover, it is evident that there will be a change of ideals, but the new EXCO has yet to announce this agenda of theirs. Recent press conferences did shed some light on their directions, but this is only weeks after the takeover, and there were still many burning questions yet to be answered to satisfaction.<br /><br />This seems to signal a "I know best, so just shut up and follow" attitude which is disturbing to say the least. Since AWARE is an activist group, communication ought to be one of the most important facet of its operations. Even as I grant the new EXCO a chance to prove and establish themselves, they have been utterly disappointing thus far.<br /><br />Many of the new EXCO members have expressed concern with AWARE's pro-gay stance, which is of course valid. But AWARE is not about gay rights; it's about female rights. These people - as well as the supposed coordinator of the takeover, <a href="http://theonlinecitizen.com/2009/04/toc-developing-story-thio-su-mien-comes-out/">Thio Su Mien</a> - were outspoken against gay rights with their frequent letters to the press, but they have done nothing similar for female rights, as far as I know.<br /><br />AWARE has done much for feminine rights in Singapore. I hope the upcoming EGM will clear up certain hazy issues and allow us to, at the very least, know more about the new EXCO's plan for this organisation.<br /><br />By the way, if you too find the new EXCO's actions questionable, here are two links to a website that seeks answers from them and a petition that you can lend your support to:<br /><br /><a href="http://www.we-are-aware.sg/">http://www.we-are-aware.sg/</a><br /><a href="http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/gender-equality-for-all.html">http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/gender-equality-for-all.html</a>Jackson Tanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02267650599398779304noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23000001.post-26656080984980860532009-02-19T12:37:00.001+08:002009-02-19T12:37:00.236+08:00Election in 2009? The Chances InvolvedThe recent updates to the <a href="http://www.straitstimes.com/Breaking%2BNews/Singapore/Story/STIStory_339868.html">electoral rolls</a> and <a href="http://www.straitstimes.com/Breaking%2BNews/Singapore/Story/STIStory_340117.html">polling districts</a> suggest the possibility of an election sometime in the near future, perhaps in this year. This will probably place it within the current financial cesspool.<br /><br />So what chances are the PAP taking by having it at this moment? There are numerous incidents which reflects unfavourably to the governing authority. From Mas Selamat to GST increase to ministerial pay hike to the <a href="http://theonlinecitizen.com/2009/02/gic-lost-33-billion-according-to-sources/">enormous losses of our sovereign wealth funds</a>, there are plenty of issues that can invoke the ire of Singaporeans.<br /><br />Indeed, these are rich fields for the opposition to harvest on. It wasn't too long ago that these happened, and if the opposition reminds the people properly, the voters will no doubt possess some dissatisfaction of the PAP when making their choices. However, the emphasis here is on "properly", because there is the danger of harping on it so much that it becomes another James Gomez incident.<br /><br />Nonetheless, I think these factors pale in comparison with one single concern of the people: the economy. Like it or not, economy is always a chief factor in the voter's mind, and this is not restricted to Singapore. Even in the recent US election, the <a href="http://www2.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=805477">economy is the top priority</a> in many people's mind. The polls showed both candidates close in the race until the economic diarrhea. The only exception I can think of in recent times is the 2007 Australian elections, where the excellent economy failed to secure Howard his re-election bid, but then again there were numerous other elements (some related to money) that overrode this factor.<br /><br />This is the key strength of the PAP, and this economic crisis gives them a good chance. After all, with their financial security at stake, most people are less likely to take risks. Indeed, the PAP has a very legitimate claim that they have excellent track record in managing the economy, and this argument will sell rather well at this time. After all, I can easily imagine people saying, "Who cares about what our sovereign wealth funds have lost, so long as I can have my job secure and my investments recover?"<br /><br />Furthermore, the PAP has a powerful argument that, in this crisis, there should be no dilly-dallying in parliament. Bills which will help the economy ought to pass in the greatest efficiency and the presence of opposition members in parliament will only serve to hinder the speed at which help reaches Singaporeans. Certainly, the opposition can counter by saying that any good policies will not face any delays and bad policies are better not passed. But this is a dangerous line to tread because all this while they have been telling the people to vote them into parliament so as to scrutinise such policies. I'm not arguing against the merits of having opposition in parliament; I'm merely highlighting the delicacy of the issue.<br /><br />And needless to say, any special financial assistance by the government to the people will reflect well on the PAP during the election. In fact, it kills two birds with one stone: instead of a recession package and an election package later on, they can combine both into one.<br /><br />I'm not sure what the opposition can do with regards to the economy. One possibility is to draft up a detailed and viable economic plan that will help Singaporeans in this current recession, and publicise it thoroughly and extensively. Even if it doesn't get passed in parliament - and it probably won't - it will show that the opposition is not there just to oppose. They can propose sound and viable ideas on their own, and therefore their presence in parliament won't jeopardise the country's route to recovery. The point is to let people know that they are well-equipped with economic knowledge, though usual problems (e.g. media bias) remain.Jackson Tanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02267650599398779304noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23000001.post-4275148498809178572008-09-30T19:37:00.000+08:002008-09-30T19:44:59.214+08:00An Old Warrior Passes OnThis morning, Singaporeans woke up to the <a href="http://theonlinecitizen.com/2008/09/a-true-son-of-singapore/">news of the passing of J. B. Jeyaretnam</a>, the veteran political warrior who experienced an entire spectrum of political ups and downs of Singaporean oppositional politics.<br /><br />While I may not agree with some of his views and actions, there is no doubt that he has impacted Singapore politics more than most other politicians. In fact, his shattering of the PAP's complete hegemony of the parliament in 1981 was considered, in the analysis of Singapore's political history, a critical event, a spike on the political radar just like Singapore's independence.<br /><br />Many people, I believe, are looking forward to his return to Singapore politics, and see this warrior fight once more three years later. Indeed, I wonder how things would've been like. I'm uneasy with his confrontational style, but, just like in science, until someone finds a way that works, all ways to change the Singapore political scene are equally valid.<br /><br />May he rest in peace, and his legacy lives on.Jackson Tanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02267650599398779304noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23000001.post-91512520640906150002008-09-23T10:20:00.000+08:002008-09-23T10:21:16.425+08:00Building a Space ElevatorJapanese scientists and engineers <a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article4799369.ece">have set their sights on one of the most challenging tasks of a hard science fiction concept: the space elevator</a>.<br /><br />The <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_elevator">space elevator</a>, first popularised by Arthur C. Clarke in his novel <i>Fountains of Paradise</i> (an excellent read, if anyone's interested), appears to be a highly inexpensive way to travel to space, or at least to low-orbit space. It is a popular idea in science fiction and has also made it to scientific journals, being quite solidly based in proper physics.<br /><br />The basic idea is that we connect a point on Earth to a geostationary satellite directly above it. This connection can be a tower (which is not feasible due to the weight) or merely cables that pulls a lift between these two points that are stationary in the reference frame of an Earth-bound observer. However, if we consider the Earth base as an anchor point and the cables plus satellite as a system, this system will start to swing sideways because its centre of mass is not in geostationary orbit, so we have to extend and attach some sort of mass beyond the satellite to counter this. In the novel, the construction started from the satellite and went both ways - up and down - simultaneously in such a way that the centre of mass stays in the orbit.<br /><br />Of course, the cables will have a Coriolis force acting on it. On top of that, the length of the cable implies, even if it is of low density, a very strong tension throughout the cable. Therefore, this is the leap in this science fiction concept: a lack of such lightweight yet awesomely strong material. However, these Japanese scientists seem to have the solution: carbon nanotubes. But I think there is still a huge challenge since carbon nanotubes may not be strong enough yet, and mass production of large scale nanotubes are nowhere near a reality. Of course, this still does not take into account the multitude of engineering feats that has to be performed.<br /><br />This space elevator, if ever built, will serve as a very cheap mode of space travel. Not only does it save the need to launch a space shuttle that gobbles fuel like an F1 race car, it also conserve energy just like a typical lift: as a lift comes down, it'll pull a weight of slightly smaller mass upwards, which will in turn act as a gravitational battery when the next lift goes up. It will also cut down the cost of space travel (to beyond geostationary orbits) by moving the launch site to the satellite, which bypasses a tremendous part of the energy consumption.<br /><br />Personally, I'm sceptical about the plausibility of pulling this off. The material of the cable remains the greatest challenge, and I think carbon nanotubes are still way off from being a satisfactory material for such a construct. Moreover, as witnessed by the multiple failures in the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), new toys present new problems of their own, and this space elevator can be pretty disastrous if it fails in the wrong way. On top of that, such grand projects are bound to be costly, and I doubt Japan can pull it off by themselves. The LHC is funded by a collection of wealthy nations; I'm not sure if the space elevator will be any less.<br /><br />Well, on the bright side, even if I'm wrong, at least there's a chance I can visit space in an environmentally friendly way. And what's more, the base station on Earth has to be on the equator (an off-equator geostationary orbit projects a sinusoidal curve on Earth's surface), so there's a chance the base station is in Singapore. If we reclaim southwards furiously enough, that is.Jackson Tanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02267650599398779304noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23000001.post-43462361991580855612008-06-09T21:21:00.002+08:002008-06-09T21:52:15.602+08:00A Case of Similar AttractionsOn <a href="http://www.straitstimes.com/Free/Story/STIStory_245827.html">today's Straits Times</a> (via <a href="http://www.myapplemenu.com/singapore/">SingaporeSurf</a>), there was an article on the tourist attractions in Singapore being too expensive for most Singaporeans (digression: sounds like a contradiction to me, but that's just my phrasing; the holy Straits Times will never make such a lousy mistake). Well, well... it just sounds like those other articles that cling onto my brain with the same lifetime as an excited atom, until I hit upon this quote,<br /><br /><blockquote>Ms Isabel Cheng, a spokesman for the Singapore Zoo, Jurong BirdPark and Night Safari, said that admission rates are 'relatively low' compared to similar attractions in Australia and the United States, and that the experience one gets is worth the money.</blockquote><br /><br />Okay I know too little about attractions in the US, and yes, relatively is a relatively ambiguous term. But compared to similar attractions in Australia? I'm not so sure. Of course, it does come down to how you define similar.<br /><br />If we're comparing tourist-traps of both locations, like WhiteWater World and Warner Bro. Movie World in Gold Coast, yeah then perhaps that sentence makes sense, for an entry ticket into these places can cost up to hundreds per person and few hundreds a family. Singapore's, on the other hand, "would set a family of four back by $125 on average."<br /><br />However, if we compare the same kind of attractions, like zoo to zoo, then I think it may not be quite on the mark. I remember going to the Melbourne Zoo (up to the gate, but not into it) and the entrance fee was like only A$20+ per person. Night Safari? You can always walk into the wilderness for free and get friendly with the kangeroos... or if you wish for a safe journey of higher yield, the Bonorong Wildlife Park I visited in Tasmania allows entry at about A$15+ per person. And many attractions like nature reserves and parks are free. The same goes for the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floriade%2C_Canberra">annual Floriade festival in Canberra</a>.<br /><br />This reminds me of a discussion with Yao while walking through Floriade. Surely, the state government has to put in few hundreds of thousands of dollars at least in the creation and maintenance of this festival. Could Singapore do the same, with that grand scale and stunning variety? Our conclusion: maybe, but how much will the entrance fee be?<br /><br />So I do think that the statement by that spokesman may not be quite right, depending on how it's interpreted. Of course, there's the second part on the value of the experience, and I think the judgement is best given by the individual.Jackson Tanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02267650599398779304noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23000001.post-1259671206607619592008-04-22T09:30:00.003+08:002008-04-22T09:58:40.083+08:00A Disappointing Report on Mas Selamat's EscapeAfter one month of tedious investigation by the Commission of Inquiry, the report on Mas Selamat's escape is finally released. No, wait. Not the full report, but just the executive summary. Okay, I think Ministry of Home Affairs got me here: when they said they <a href="http://www.asiaone.com/News/AsiaOne%2BNews/Singapore/Story/A1Story20080312-54008.html">"promised to give the public a full account"</a>, it is not equivalent to the complete report. How silly of me to assume so!<br /><br />In any case, I've briefly glanced through the summary (yes, I'm that free despite my upcoming exams), and to be honest, I thought much of it was just telling us the obvious. It just acts as an official and substantiated confirmation of what many already knew: unsecured window, negligent guards.<br /><br />The non-working CCTVs is something new, though. However, the summary does not go into details of these non-working CCTVs. For example, is it clear to any persons who see the CCTVs that they are non-functioning ones? And how widespread is this news of non-functionality? Do the guards know? Does Mas Selamat know? Non-working CCTVs are actually okay, in my opinion, so long as its lack of functioning is unknown to the "watched". The <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panopticon">construct of the panopticon</a> is, after all, one of the best surveillance concept ever conceived.<br /><br />Another piece of information worth thinking about is the conclusion that Mas Selamat has been planning his escape and is just waiting for the right time. This is drawn from the fact that Mas Selamat emerged from the Locker Room with two sets of clothes. It is not clear to me what happened in exact, but I think the details are not of importance. What I am more concerned with is that, if Mas Selamat has planned it well, he would've informed and sought external help, and as such, it still puzzles me why the authorities firmly believe he is still in Singapore, and more so in the forests. Personally, I believe it is far likelier that he is off Singapore soil or, if not so, hiding in some obscure urban area. But then again, ISD made it sound like they have some intelligence we don't, so I suppose it is a waste of effort to speculate so much.<br /><br />I know the COI was suppose to investigate on the detention centre and that only, but I was actually hoping that there were some checks into the poor coordination beyond the installation itself. Specifically, I think many people are concerned with the lack and delay of information from the police, and the immediacy (or lack thereof) of the clamp down across the borders. If the COI did not touch this, this probably means that we will never know, unless there is another inquiry, the reason why there is such poor coordination between the authorities and the public.<br /><br />To be honest, I am a bit disappointed by the summary. It reveals far too little information and is not wide enough in scope. I think we can only be satisfied for now to listen to any further revelations in the parliament.Jackson Tanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02267650599398779304noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23000001.post-58401126778363528422008-03-09T20:47:00.002+08:002008-03-09T20:54:59.082+08:00Three Thoughts on the Mas Selamat FiascoWith Mas Selamat, who probably has more posters of himself than the entire population of Singapore, still at large, many questions have been raised and pretty much none answered. Lots of accusations and <a href="http://www.luckypolls.com/10013/should-wong-kan-seng-resign-for-kastaris-escape">demands of resignation</a> has been thrown all over, but beyond these political mumbo jumbo, I observed a few aspects of this fiasco which interests me. First is the conspiracy theory that he was killed; second is the question as to whether he's still in Singapore; third being the holy grail of all questioners: how did it happen? Here are my takes:<br /><br />In the lack of information, it seemed that some people has taken <a href="http://singaporerebel.blogspot.com/2008/03/greatest-jailbreak-or-boldest-story.html">to speculate and believe the possibility that Mas Selamat was killed</a> inside the detention centre and the authorities spun this story to cover it up, fearing the backlash of human rights activists and whatnots.<br /><br />It hardly need to be said how absurd this is. Suppose this were true. Then a few weeks later the JI members, wondering why their ex-leader has yet to come back to them, will start making noise, and then the whole cover-up will be exposed. To avoid this, the authorities can "catch and kill Mas Selamat" some time later, but that would pose problems with regards to the autopsy and all. And of all that, wouldn't it be simpler to just announce that he has died by unnatural causes like heart attack? Or if that's medically dubious, then say that he choked on a chicken wing. Sure, there may be some questions raised, but as compared to this?<br /><br />In any case, I truly believe that he has escaped. Now, is he still in Singapore? It all depends on whether it was a planned course or a spontaneous event. If it's the former, then he would be far away from Singapore by now. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that his best chance is to leave Singapore immediately before the authorities can raise the alarm, which is ASAP. If it was spontaneous, i.e. the chance just came and he fled, then he's probably still in Singapore (but of course with help) until the authorities cannot maintain the high level alert.<br /><br />And the golden question of it all: how did he escape? I do not know for sure, though <a href="http://mrwangsaysso.blogspot.com/2008/03/independence-of-inquiry-commission.html">the supposed Independent Commission</a> is to shed some light on this. But given official statements so far, I think one can do a Sherlock Holmes and pieces them together. We know that he escaped through a toilet. We also know that MM Lee mentioned something about complacency. We know that he's due for a family visit (i.e. the place is open to certain outside people). Now, if we assume, very reasonably, that there are two different kinds of toilet - one for outside people (and maybe the ISD people there) and one for inside people (like Mas Selamat) - and keeping in mind <a href="http://www.straitstimes.com/Latest%2BNews/Singapore/STIStory_214434.html">MM Lee's praise of winning the trust of the guards</a>, I think the puzzle sort of comes together.<br /><br />So that's my thoughts. And if anyone's wondering, I do not think that <a href="http://theonlinecitizen.com/2008/02/29/why-a-lapse-of-four-hours-before-public-was-notified/">the four hours lapse</a> is unreasonable. Oh, one more thing: I didn't receive the MMS of his face... how did the government know that I'm bad at recognising people?Jackson Tanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02267650599398779304noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23000001.post-52550222143955460072008-01-20T18:44:00.001+08:002008-01-20T18:45:05.072+08:00How Wrong is the Principal?Following <a href="http://www.straitstimes.com/Free/Story/STIStory_195402.html">a Straits Times report</a> of a principal dealing harsh words to a group of secondary 5 students, both the <a href="http://mrwangsaysso.blogspot.com/2008/01/27-hapless-girls-and-one-unhappy.html">online</a> and <a href="http://www.straitstimes.com/ST%2BForum/Story/STIStory_197871.html">offline</a> worlds have exploded in a furious mash of voices <a href="http://theonlinecitizen.com/2008/01/20/principals-who-put-down-students-have-no-place-in-educating-our-young/">condemning the acts of the principal</a> and <a href="http://iamnotageek.blogspot.com/2008/01/inept-principal-who-told-her-students.html">dishing out voices of support and sympathy to the students</a>. There were <a href="http://stressed-teacher.blogspot.com/2008/01/your-results-suck.html">very few voices to the contrary</a>, and even these are defending the general case and not the principal in specific. To me, it appears as if most people have jumped into conclusions, for I can yet determine if the principal spoke out of self-interest or did she, as <a href="http://www.straitstimes.com/Latest+News/Singapore/STIStory_196894.html">the Minister of State for Education</a> explained, meant well as she was giving the students a wake-up call. Certainly, she was wrong, but depending on whether she had ill intentions or not, she could be wrong in very different ways.<br /><br />There are two possibilities: the principal wants a nice record for her school and herself because of it being a crucial factor to her salary and resume; there is also the possibility of the principal being truly concerned with the students, but chose very wrong words indeed. Both, of course, are wrong, but they are wrong in very different ways. There is also a common wrong in that she implied a low stature for the ITE, but I shall ignore this for the moment and consider the two possibilities.<br /><br />Now, the first possibility seems to be the conclusion of most people's reasoning, for it was written in the newspapers that "she also stressed that she wanted 100 per cent passes in her school." Now, this is a very tricky sentence. First and foremost, we must note that it comes from the journalist's reporting, which may not reflect and may comprise a sensationalisation of the actual situation. Secondly, it is not clear where the source of this claim is. Was it from all the 27 students the principal spoke to? Was it from parents, who are more prone to overreacting as all parents will? Was it from one student, who may have misinterpreted the principal's words, for she could've very well said something like, "I want all of you to pass your exams" - a well-meaning sentence?<br /><br />As for the second possibility of using wrong words, she might've made a poor decision in choosing to say what she said and doing what she did. Yes, it's wrong, but in my opinion - and I surmise many will agree with me - that this wrongness is not as dire as the first possibility, for after all it emerged from a true concern of the students. In fact, this can also explain the ITE comment. How likely is she to commit such a mistake? I don't know, but I know it is easy to make a comment (especially to a large crowd) and have it misinterpreted, having it happen to me numerous times.<br /><br />I'm definitely not supporting the principal, but I'm not faulting her either. At least not yet. In my opinion, there is still a lot unknown to us. All these while, we have not heard the principal defend herself (other than in the initial report), for example. Therefore, for now, my conclusion is that there exists the possibility (and significant probability) that the principal is well-meaning but employed flawed words. It could be otherwise, of course, but how do we know?Jackson Tanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02267650599398779304noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23000001.post-38830587246447674682007-11-25T06:06:00.000+08:002007-11-25T06:07:20.438+08:00Thoughts on The Australian Federal ElectionsAfter a lengthy campaigning that began long before I arrived in Australia, the federal elections here has finally concluded, with what the nationwide newspaper in Australia, The Australian, calls it a Ruddslide. Opposition leader Kevin Rudd, of the Australian Labor Party, swept off long time Prime Minister John Howard to ascend the throne.<br /><br />Not that I have a particular interest in the elections, but being here you can't help not noticing the major headlines. And it is quite fascinating to observe several trends in Australia and see how they compare with Singapore's:<br /><br />1) Everyone says it is a landslide victory for Labor and a devastating defeat for Howard's coalition. Base on projections, the seat count gives Labor 84 and the coalition (Liberal + National) 48. If I recall correctly, someone was not happy with a victory of 82 against 2.<br /><br />2) Labor supporters appear to be everywhere, and support for Liberal is quite invisible. But that just means that Liberal supporters are more silent than the Labor opposition. Similarity in Singapore? Election rallies, remember?<br /><br />3) Howard may even lose his own seat in Parliament, with the Labor candidate gaining a slim margin over him in his seat of Bennelong. Of course Lee Hsien Loong was nowhere clear in losing, but his 66% is... erm... not a very proud victory by Singapore standards.<br /><br />4) The ballot here involves putting priority your preferences. That is to say, if there are three candidates, you rank them in order of your preference. I think what happens is that during the voting counting the one with the lowest vote will be eliminated, and the votes going to them in first priority will go to the voters' second choice. Needless to say, this kind of system is hardly necessary in Singapore. We're still looking at reducing the number of walkovers...<br /><br />5) The voters have to vote for members of parliament and members of the Senate. With a 82-to-2, there's no absolute need for that in Singapore; it's all the same.<br /><br />Ah well, that pretty much sums up my thoughts on this interesting event.Jackson Tanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02267650599398779304noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23000001.post-11217876442424661192007-10-14T08:54:00.000+08:002007-10-14T09:04:55.239+08:00Blog MigrationDue to some reasons, I will be changing the title of this blog and, because I want to retain all the previous posts in this blog, the URL as well. That is, I am moving this blog instead of creating a new blog.<br /><br />However, a direct change of URL will cause many readers to be lost, especially those who do not visit this blog frequently. As such, I'm creating a transitional blog, which will house my postings for the time being and, in due time, announce the new blog URL. The transitional blog is at:<br /><br />http://ablogintransition.blogspot.com/<br /><br />I will leave this blog up at the old URL for about three weeks before changing it. So please change your bookmark to the transitional blog, and then again when the new blog URL is up. I'm terribly sorry for the inconvenience caused.Jackson Tanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02267650599398779304noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23000001.post-71488973214311622352007-10-04T11:45:00.000+08:002008-12-11T12:19:40.042+08:00Free Burma!<a href="http://www.free-burma.org"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiZpIDEPdInoSNQJ7SbR4fzXZ6IJY80WwFDxz1QHdecXaYSwxAKeHswntW25WE6rKWtlvSc3v5ZRhycqOrkS_V-IcjM6uw-hNchg5ZxBXghLJQ6osVS7OZP7165v3kNGzifUQ5U/s400/Banner+11.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5117322726304642162" /></a>Jackson Tanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02267650599398779304noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23000001.post-58698215602209324602007-09-26T08:15:00.000+08:002007-09-26T11:52:48.341+08:00The Feeling of the Present and of HistoryA drama is unfolding in Burma as I write. Monks and nuns, the most respected class of people in the Burmese society, are in open defiance against the ruling junta. Could it be just like two decades ago, when similar incidents culmulated in Aung San Suu Kyi's electoral victory? Right now, as it unfolds before the world's eyes, no one can guess where it will lead.<br /><br />There is something that appears fundamentally different between knowing an event in history and an event unravelling in the present. In 1988, students took to the streets. Military suppressed them. Thousands were killed. It triggered elections. Aung San Suu Kyi won. The military refused to recognise election results. Their rule continued. That is history. It is as I know it. I was too young then to know it as it unfolded. I read it later in my life. I read it, as a piece of history, compressed and summarised. Time flowed in different beats: unimportant days were swept away in words no longer than a few seconds, and moments of importance were granted paragraphs after paragraphs that took minutes to read. The scaling of time when cast into words is twisted out of linear proportion.<br /><br />But with the present, time is time. It is not scaled. It is not contorted. It is not shortened to slim boring periods and lengthen to fit critical events. One day is one day. One week is one week. One month is one month. The present becomes alive. Yesterday nuns took to the streets. Last week monks did so. Suppose a revolution were to come in a month's time. This month will not be a day long. It will not be a week long. It will be a month long. A month is a month. It is not like pages of a history book. Even if nothing goes on during this one month, time plods on unrelentlessly, unceasingly, unhurriedly.<br /><br />That is, perhaps, why events unfolding as I read in the newspapers feel more real than events of the past. When I read an article about John Lennon's death there is a detached feeling about the whole incident. It is not as if I have not felt the loss of a great singer, but this loss feels muted. It feels as if the concrete of history has solidified. But when Luciano Pavarotti died, the concrete of history may have been laid, but it is still wet. Maybe this is the reason why people often say that times are getting more and more difficult.<br /><br />Where will the events in Burma head from here? Will it be like two decades ago, a repetition of history? Or will a fresh chapter of democracy enter Burma's life? There is no flipping of pages to the important future events this time.<br /><br />Feels so real, doesn't it?Jackson Tanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02267650599398779304noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23000001.post-52041179930261917212007-07-14T20:06:00.000+08:002007-07-14T20:10:41.022+08:00The Government's Forced Prostitute(This post evolved out of my comments on a post entitled <a href="http://theonlinecitizen.com/2007/06/30/monopoly-of-the-elites-silence-of-the-lambs/">Silence is not always golden</a> on <a href="http://theonlinecitizen.com/">theonlinecitizen</a>. The post criticises the lack of scrutiny by Singapore's mainstream media on the government.)<br /><br />In recent weeks, a chain of non-replies from the government concerning many issues, <a href="http://www.blurty.com/talkread.bml?journal=sleepless77&itemid=161258">the termination of Alfian Saat as a relief teacher</a> for example, has infruriated many bloggers. Even moderate bloggers like Bernard Leong <a href="http://bleongcw.typepad.com/simple_is_the_reason_of_m/2007/06/civil_service_s.html">advocated for more openness</a> in the government's reply and letters to the media. And as inevitable as the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics">Second Law</a>, the mainstream media gets <a href="http://theonlinecitizen.com/2007/06/30/monopoly-of-the-elites-silence-of-the-lambs/">a beating for not scrutinising the government over these matters and not pursuing the non-replies</a>.<br /><br />With regards to the non-replies and silences of various government departments regarding numerous affairs, I believe it is something on which the government has to seriously change its attitude. Such attitudes, more than just make people lose faith in the government and the civil service, can propel others to believe in alternative (and not necessarily true) explanations. This may be dangerous as it propagates falsehoods on the government and undermine the trust between the civil service and the people. And with no official explanations, they can hardly be blamed.<br /><br />However, I do not agree with criticising the media for not playing the role of the watchdog like in so many democratic countries. I do not deny - in fact, I strongly support - the concept of the media being the watchdog of the government. Being a proper, massive organisation with professional journalists to probe and analyse various aspects on and reports of the government and its actions, hardly any other is better at fulfilling this role. However, at this point I'd like to emphasize the need, if thus is the case, for more media organisations to emerge. Left to its own, a media organisation will inevitably adopt a particular stand or point of view, so a greater number means a greater variety, leading to a more balanced airing of different perspective on a single issue. It is as pointless as the current situation if the media turns from the government's lap dog to a mad dog which bites at everything the government has.<br /><br />However, I can hardly fault the media for taking up the role it took. The rules and regulations governing the media - the Newspaper and Printing Act - effectively gives the government the control of information. The media, in my opinion, can only take a small portion of the blame, if at all. After all, which media would like to see its readership fall? Which journalist would like to work under a heavily scrutinised and censored environment? Blaming the media is like shooting the hapless messenger. Of course, there are always those who are truly sincere in their flattering of the government, but we must caution ourselves against a hasty generalisation just as much as believing everything the media prints.<br /><br />Of course, one could argue that the journalists ought to sacrifice themselves for their journalistic pride and freedom of expression. Yet, if these employees of the media can be kicked aside and replaced so easily, can we blame them for being concerned with their jobs and income? After all, if they are unwilling to write favourable or refrain from criticising the government, someone else would be willing to do the job, and the situation on the whole remains the same. Or, can we blame them for bowing down now, so that they can stay longer to push the boundaries of these regulations as far as they could go? Let's not forget that, these people are in the public, their faces known, unlikes the criticising mass of the netizens who are largely anonymous, and whose job is not directly affected by what he or she writes.<br /><br />Instead of shifting the blame onto the media, I would instead focus my criticisms on these regulations that bind the muzzle of the watchdog. The media is not, as David Marshall once famously said, "poor prostitutes" of the government. If anything, the media is a forced prostitute of the government.Jackson Tanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02267650599398779304noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23000001.post-5869009491471580742007-07-12T18:15:00.000+08:002007-07-12T18:17:48.497+08:00Movie Review: Harry Potter and the Order of the PhoenixHarry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix was the first movie I've watched in a cinema outside Singapore. A little on this: I went to the Dendy Cinemas at Canberra Centre on 110707, the first release date globally (and a day before Singapore). Yao rightly commented that this was probably the only moment you can see kiasuism in Australians; the queue outside the cinema was pretty intimidating when we arrived half an hour before screening time. This, however, can be understood as the cinema was free seating.<br /><br />Back to the film, Phoenix is done quite well as a whole. In my opinion, it scores better than The Prisoner of Azkaban, which was too quirky and cliche to my taste, and The Goblet of Fire, which saw a very rushed pace and off-character acting. In terms of storyline, Phoenix did very well in building up the profile for Umbridge. It started off slick and smooth, and progressed at an excellent pace. But once it neared the end, things started getting too fast. I have read the book so I could at least follow what was going on, but Yao, who never, was quite lost at the end. It appears to me as if the director took his own time to develop the character of Umbridge and stew the plot into the appropriate mood, and then suddenly realised he was running out of time and flipped through the last few chapters. And suffering from the same flaw of GoF, the supposedly emotional and touching part was quite blundered. It just didn't fit into the flow, like a jarring rock breaking the surface of a smooth river. And there wasn't even the "mourning" part; it was as if Harry took a bowl of Forgetfulness Potion.<br /><br />One of the major challenges that I thought would trip the filmmakers was building up Umbridge, but they amazed me: Dolores Umbridge was successfully ported to screen. Of course, there were some minor differences between the Umbridge from the book and the film, but the essence of her character was very well captured. Imelda Staunton, who plays Umbridge, brilliantly nailed the character's wickedness and provocativeness, sizzling with nastiness that would make one feel like stamping a boot into her face. Another excellent portrayal is Alan Rickman's of Severus Snape. Although he has quite limited screen time, he really did shine with what he was given. Undoubtedly, fans of Rickman and supporters of Snape will be thrilled. Helena Bonham Carter's performance as Bellatrix Lestrange was pretty good as well, but she could've gotten a larger slice of screen time. In fact, considering that the film is slightly more than two hours, the directors could've loosen up the pace of the ending which would, at the same time, give her more time on screen. Finally, whether it was because of irate fans or not, Michael Gambon's Albus Dumbledore was closer to the books now, and I think he did fine with that character.<br /><br />For someone who has read the book, the story was adapted quite well; for someone who hasn't, he or she may be a bit lost at the end, but the movie is otherwise excellent. In fact, I would even say it is the best Potter movie so far.Jackson Tanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02267650599398779304noreply@blogger.com0