on discipline, effort and happiness.

a disclaimer: i use "he" only to avoid long repetitions of "he/she" and "his/her". it gets irritating.

some people appear to have it so easy. you know, the kind who doesn't seem to be doing anything, but is somehow fitter, smarter, more charismatic and just better than you are. how does he do it? is he some kind of imba pro kia? or was he just lucky to be born with that "x-factor"? faced with such a person (or people, even!), it is easy to simply hang one's head, sigh, and bemoan the fates that blessed him instead of you.

but under that veneer of effortlessness lies a culture of discipline and commitment. it is more than likely that this person is very clear on what he wants, and works hard behind the scenes to achieve the goals that he has set for himself. he sees no need to display his life to anyone else; and indeed, the fruits of his labour speak for themselves. it is this type of person, hardworking, confident and possessing of vision, who will go far in life.

what does that have to do with happiness? simple: i believe that doing all these things, and living this sort of life, would naturally lead to a person's individual happiness and sense of fulfillment. Logically, living like this would reduce the amount of comparison that a person does daily; instead of surpassing others, his goal is now to surpass himself and bring himself even further along the road to his dreams, than ever before. the tangible results of his hard work, which by this definition will be directly related to the person's interests and ambitions, will likely give the person a sense of satisfaction at making steps towards achieving what he wants to achieve, and becoming the person he wants to be, in life. this, i reason, is the path to happiness.

so stop comparing yourself to others and start working. you can do it too!

lock blogged at 12:33 AM
...

Exquisite torture in a fancy hotel.

Well that's what it felt like to me anyway. having to sit through 1.5 hours straight of boring talk was irritating. not even army makes you go through that lor. (lectures cut at abt 45 min for a 1-5 min toilet break. depending on your sergeant's mood.) some more i was hungry and there was so little food. grrr.what's a tea session without a huge buffet spread. this is Singapore man. ><

ok joking aside, i really had (and still have) some misgivings about the way tourism is going in Singapore. it seems to me like a very single-minded and high-handed approach. from what i heard today, STB's methods and activities seem to centre around bringing high-profile events to Singapore, and developing/redeveloping various places to better cater for an expected boom in tourism arrivals in the coming years.

I have no problems with the events thing. Over the years we have had various artistes, bands, and musicals coming to perform in Singapore, including Eric Clapton, Tokyo Kosei, the Phantom of the Opera and the Nutcracker. we have the Mosaic Music Festival, we have Biennale, we’re going to have F1 racing and soon we’ll have an upcoming Youth Olympics to host. We're even hosting a segment of the 6-party talks over the North Korean issue. All this is well and good, and will likely lead to a more vibrant exciting life in Singapore. What i dislike is the concept of redevelopment, or as i view it, commercialisation.

is commercialising everything really the best way to increase tourism in Singapore? I mean, sure, it ups the tourism "receipts" and generates revenue for Singapore, but i feel it is slowly but surely eroding what is truly unique about Singapore. First the National Stadium goes, replaced by a Sports "Hub" (overused term), then we have the Singapore Flyer (it ISN'T unique please!) which just smacks of plagarism, and then we have the Lake District (:O!) that's going to turn the Chinese Gardens and Lakeside area into some mega shopping mall - beside amazing waterfront condos.

Ok. i know it's progress. and i'm probably an old stick-in-the-mud who refuses to embrace change. but still. is this the place, the country we're really expecting the tourists to visit and remember? a place where everything is engineered, commercialised, and built specially to appeal to them? where's the uniqueness in that? The landscape, i've always believed, is a reflection of a nation's culture. Sydney has its Opera House, we have our Esplanade. Miami has its Palm Beach, we have our Chek Jawa. Cambodia has its Angkor Wat, we have our Sri Mariamman Temple (ok not really but you get the idea). Why are we deliberately modifying the Singaporean landscape to resemble others'? Why are we even starting to name our new towns (districts?) like other countries'?

Does Singapore still have a cultural identity, or have we already thrown our heritage away modifying our unique aspects to court foreigners and to make them spend more money?

Worse, is the Uniquely Singapore programme alienating locals in their own land?

lock blogged at 1:32 AM
...

a few reasons why i hate economics.

humans? what humans?
there's no such thing as a human being in econs. there's only "labour" and "human resource". why is this so? it makes it easier for economists and policymakers to play around with the numbers when it doesn't seem as if the numbers are affecting real people. adjusting tax rates, interest rates, modifying salary structures, CPF rates etc... all this has a direct impact on the lives of human beings, affecting their livelihood, their quality of life, and in a very real way, their happiness. in the even that "unpleasant measures" have to be taken for the sake of "growth" or "the greater good", it's just somehow easier to "reduce labour costs" and implement measures that "affect the labour market" than it is to fire people and cut their wages.

the numbers game
under the current system of economics, the success of a economy and an individual is measured in very numerical terms, the former in the form of percentage points of GDP growth, and the latter in the form of personal worth (eg. material wealth). i wonder if we've actually lost sight of the entire point of pursuing economics in the first place. it's not about the charts, the calculations or the numbers or whatever. it's not about oneupmanship, "my country is better than yours". it's about allocating resources in the best way to maximise human satisfaction and welfare. which i take to mean making as many people reasonably well-off and happy as possible. somehow that goal is lost amid the rush to achieve greater growth, and to achieve the so-called 4 macroeconomic aims.

yes i know those aims, once fulfilled, are supposed to lead towards the proper allocation of resources. but does it, really? it seems to me like societal welfare is becoming more of a by-the-way kind of thing, something to consider afterwards and to implement only when possible. what i see is econs for econ's sake, especially here in singapore.

greed is good... not
when it's not econs for econ's sake, it's econs for greed. in this respect, i have to admit that most of the fault comes us and not from the system itself. no matter how perfect the system, someone will find some way to manipulate it for personal gain. the 1997 (1998?) Asian financial crisis was a direct result of human greed, not a failing in the system itself.

but what about the type of trading commonly practiced now? why does the system allow for things such as short-selling and hedge funds? are they ethical? don't they, more than anything, encourage greed at the expense of the nobler ideals of economics? how does that work, then?

sustainability
and lastly: the system of economics practised today just does not take into account the long-term viability of the economy. what matters is only today's growth, this year's GDP. it matters not that i'm belligerently industrialising, polluting the environment and destroying resources that could be utilised in the future, abandoning agriculture even though there will be repercussions later on in the form of food shortages and high inflation, so long as today, my GDP growth is good. the measure of success is just too narrow and too shortsighted. Economists themselves acknowledge this, but have never actually bothered to find a better yardstick, let alone to push for economies to work towards one.


it's no longer about the people in today's economy: it's about the numbers. they don't care about you, they care only about revenue and profits and growth. so either you fend for yourself, or you drown. depressing.

lock blogged at 10:41 PM
...