Keeping our emotions in check, and balance
Friday, April 29, 2011
It might not be mere coincidence that I just finished my Emotions exam and this probably triggered some ideas leading to this post. Many people have spoken up on issues that surround this GE, amongst them rising costs of housing, massive influx of foreigners, transport woes, employment issues, wage stagnation, have been frequently debated, and have and will definitely turn up during the rallies that ensue for the next week.
Rallies are about riling up emotions, or at least emotions are definitely something that will be stirred up, unconsciously or consciously in rallies, with the ultimate goal of persuasion. The difference lies in the kind of emotions that are aroused and targetted in different rallies. For at the end of the day, after 2 weeks of listening to campaign, reading up on manifestos, tuning into issues that suddenly are in hot discussion, and doing ones own weightage of pros and cons for each party championing its cause, it doesn't necessarily translate into the actual vote on 7 may. And here emotions will serve as that extra thrust that motivates you to make that cross beside whichever party symbol you happen to be thinking about during those few minutes. The real struggle (for any responsible voter) starts only then.
But after hearing various rally speeches from representatives of different parties, I realised the difference in the choice of emotions the different parties mean to evoke. I listened to speeches given by Low Thia Kiang and Chen Shao Mao from hammer party. I listened to Sun party's Nicole Seah and Cheo Chai Chen in their rally. I heard the Rocket party's speeches. All very emotional, all reasonably biased but all took the tone of equality, addressing the people not as their people, but as the people. Some definitely catered more to popularism by inciting certain feelings of discontentment with the ruling party, some were willing to give credit to the ruling party for their work without showing any form of weakness in the midst. Points being brought across could sound assertive at times, but down-to-earth and you can sense the authenticity and the passion.
Then I heard Lightning party's candidate Lenny Low's speech and I finally understood why so many have found a nagging discomfort about the ruling party despite their reasonable ability to deliver. Even before nomination day, we have MM standing out to remind us that "Singapore is not Disney world", PM telling us "voting is not a game" and "urging Singaporeans to vote wisely and choose leaders who won't just win arguments but who can do better for the country", Dr Ng En Hen "warning voters of consequences of freak elections", and to sum things up, how "the PAP leadership sees "dark clouds" ahead". Yes it seems the future is bleak should the ruling party be hindered in any possible way of assuming full power. After many years, they have still chosen 'fear' as the emotion they want to rear up, creating feelings of insecurity and anxiety before introducing themselves as the solution, after which they manipulate feelings of 'gratitude', a typical stick and carrot strategy.
I got a glimpse of how these two are combined so skillfully in Ms Low's speech. She reminded us of how Singapore has gotten to this stage "under the leadership of the PAP", the "size of the challenge" that faces us ahead, all very familiar rhetoric aimed at putting the people in the hot seat when this time it was a reversal of role, before launching into content that deals more with the emotion of "gratitude", reminding us of how much the ruling party has done for the country, how ministers have made the ultimate sacrifice to serve the people, for example, by "giving up lucrative salary in private sector (referring to Teo Ser Luck)", "newer candidates... who have also very decent jobs.. but have decided to step up to the challenge of ensuring and securing the future of Singapore". I guess the much debated and controversial issue regarding ministerial salaries remains either ever elusive or conveniently shelved aside in this depiction of altruism and dedication on the part of these candidates. And we have everything to be grateful for this, by our continual endorsement of their insistent ways.
No matter how I try, I could not dispel the note of condescension in her tone, although Ms Low attempted to lace it with engagement. She sounds like a representative of the board of directors and CEO of a private firm lecturing the employees on the merits of the current leadership and why the employees should continue working in this firm, submitting, perhaps subjecting themselves to the management. I sensed their emotion of pride, very well-founded given the 'results' produced in terms of GDP figures in the past few decades, and I asked myself whether this pride that runs through her speech is a socially disengaging one about the success of the PAP, or a collective one documenting the success of the nation. No matter how I look at it, a leadership that harps on its successes, 'reminding' the people what could be lost without its team at the helm, constantly taking to manipulating the fear in people such that they do not step out of line, then trying to soften things by pointing out the "sacrifices" its leaders have made and the things that have materialised (ie. the upgrading and the shopping malls) in the hope that the people reciprocates with gratitude time and again, is becoming a very predictable pattern, and a very thought-provoking one. At the very least, it hints at the lack of confidence the current leadership actually has, despite its listing of accomplishments, its recounting of past glories, its promotion of self-enhancement. It intuitively senses that it still lacks something, something fundamental, something close to heart. The heart to serve, and to be a leader of integrity who serves the public, not a mercenary who pegs his wage to a private industry and rightfully claims it as a maintenance of integrity.
This is why there is much concern whether the ruling party has indeed become a ruling class, which has become disconnected from the people, and which has slowly alienated itself from the ideals that it has founded itself on. We need leaders that we can trust indeed; not leaders who value their label, but those who brand themselves based on sincerity, accountability and ability. If anything, I will say let's have diversity in the type of leaders we have in the parliament, one that will promote mutual policing and coevolution in the system to develop new adaptive features such that the Singapore system can progress to a next stage of evolution as a contantly changing organism in an environment fraught with harsh challenges.
This election, like all elections, we should keep our emotions in check, and balance.
Envoy of the Stars @ 7:27 PM
-------------------------------
讲故事
Thursday, April 28, 2011
大选提名日到目前为止，我看到几个现象，甚至可以用典故来比喻，可谓造福所有中文老师，在教以下几个成语/典故时多了个例子。
抛砖引玉：这是朋友Z说的。这次大选，反对派站出来的人多了，素质提高了，当时TPL被推为执政党新候选人时，所引起的正面/负面波动或许证明了Z的推断：如果你（人民）觉得自己比“我们”选出来的人更优秀，那就站出来。事实证明，无巧不成书。
倾巢而出：87个议席这回有82个竞选，各反对党可说是倾巢而出了。连唯一不战而胜的Tanjong Pagar GRC本来都可能面临竞选，只是最后以过了提交表格的既定时间作废。尽管有传其中另有内情，但“翻案”可能性很低。LKY亲自坐镇，谁与争锋。
硕果仅存：新加坡的开国元老，吴庆瑞、Rajaratnam等先后辞世，old guards里面只剩下LKY，说是“硕果仅存”也不为过，有人说宝刀未老，有说晚节不保，不管如何，套他自己的话，一切尚未盖棺论定。这次大选成为唯一不战而胜的集选区代表，也算是缔造了他的不败神话。自从1955年以来，一直守住阵地至今，创下纪录的非他莫属。
美人计：媒体总是拿双“玲”大作标题，而实际上她们各自隶属的党派也在Marine Parade对上了，年轻貌美自然招来诸多关注，对于一脚踩入政治圈的人来说，就看怎么去利用这份关注。目前为止，不管是有意无意，“美人计”是用上了，只是收效似乎各异：一个是令人不知所云的花瓶形象越发鲜明；一个却是能赢来才貌双全的赞誉。至少在形象设定与销售上，是强弱立判。
孤注一掷：反对主力都集中在集选区的争夺上，前任国会几个非执政党成员都各自转战集选区，可说是孤注一掷，冒着可能会暂别／永别政治舞台的风险。从镇守27年的Potong Pasir走出来的詹时中率队来Bishan-Toa Payoh竞选，亲自目睹他在地铁站前会见选民，佝偻着身子，会想到“晚景凄凉”四个字，但那股精神确确实实的有传达到。不管结局如何，仍是一条好汉。
破釜沉舟/背水一战：这次全城关注的热点之一，首推Aljunied集选区。大铁锤能否一“锤”定音，还是未知数。下了破釜沉舟的决心，派出了A组，由刘承强弃守旧地亲自带领，迎战杨荣文队伍，应该会是场硝烟弥漫的战役。May the best team win.
这届大选，故事性好强。
Envoy of the Stars @ 1:44 AM
-------------------------------
Curse of Expectations
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
"Sometimes expectations really curse us all."
We were talking about music and I was saying how I admire some of the works of certain lyricists or singers, because of their particular style of writing that never fails to enrapture and engage me. My friend, in his reply, said, "You will likely have some form of expectations when that person has new works." He even quoted a line from one of my favourite song: 接近带来期望，期望换来失望的恶性循环。
His words definitely ring a familiar bell, especially when I realised how much I have relied on this sense of familiarity and pattern of expectations when it comes to listening to music, or perhaps it's just that I took the liberty to tie it in with the recent ongoings in our country.
The great Aristotle was influential in his time, and his theories and philosophy were held in high regard by intellectuals many years after his demise, but he himself got many things wrong, and it is these wrong things that were incorporated into unchallenged dogma, both in religion and in science. Scientists try to fit their observations into the geocentric model (that the Earth is the centre of the universe and the sun and other planets revolve around it) just because "Aristotle said so", and the mistaken model gets propagated and became an error carried forward. Until someone decides to question that model.
People come to respect authority, the one that they put in place themselves through offering their unconditional acceptance and support. They expect the authority they esteem to be right, (of course they must be, or how foolish I would appear), that the high benchmark created will be "set in stone", incorruptible and infallible regardless of the weathering forces of time. There is a thin line between support and idolisation, and I would believe the former is when one still has his senses and are still making good use of it. What I mean is when one gives support to someone or some organisation, he looks the person up, hears what he delivers, smells his intention, tastes his ideas, and feels his heart. (obviously not literally). I also mean "sense" very much in the common and rational manner. Idolisation, however, generates a cycle of acceptance and allegiance, very much as though one has become blind to every other thing but the object of ones idolisation, and this more than deprives ones senses, in all sense of that word, of their noble work.
Of course, a person or an organisation becomes well-established as a figure of authority because of the merits they produced at first. But after setting that high benchmark, do they work incessantly to remain at that top through refining what they propose, or do they cover up their flaws after uncovering them later just to remain the incumbent. Can early achievements overshadow the many other mistakes and inaccuracies that follow? Aristotle influenced how future generations think with his dual processing method, of moving into a general, universal theory from details and using general laws to predict particulars. Very revolutionary and that's how we derived deductive and inductive reasoning. Yet the same person also created the aether, the weightless material that existed in the heavens and is supposedly responsible for the "circular motion" of the planets by driving them around much like wood chips in the river. Very elegant. Very compatible with the Greek notions of perfection and harmony in the heavens. Very wrong. However, great minds have been stumped by this very idea. 1600 years after Aristotle's time, renowned French scientist Rene Descartes also came to support the idea of the aether and believed this is the fluid that fills up the space in the universe, rejecting the idea of the vacuum that we now consider general knowledge. Even up to the 20th century, some scientists still believed the aether existed, until the Michelson-Morley experiment proved otherwise.
We get cursed by expectations that we develop. We mistake, possibly unconsciously in our bid to be consistent in our beliefs, that past glories may set the precedence for future excellence, and we pledge our loyalty and pin our hopes on the ones we have subscribed to. They can be giants in the academic field, influential leaders, successful people in their specialised niche, eventually earning or redeeming the rightful place as the authority. But it might be down to the role of supporters to reflect on the validity and relevance of these figures of authority, not to cause them to end up as tools that seek to perpetuate legitimacy in their specialisation and in the process, become authoritarian in imposing and insisting their ways.
At least one expectation will remain eternal and everlasting: That nothing is constant, and change will always come to pass. But then, whether we harbour this one expectation, is another cause.
Envoy of the Stars @ 6:52 PM
-------------------------------
大蒜、鱼鳔、鱼头
Thursday, April 21, 2011
“大蒜来了！大蒜来了！”阿嬷口操福建话捧着一锅大蒜鱼头汤到桌上。
大家你看看我，我看看你，然后一起看着大蒜鱼头汤。
阿嬷为了准备这道大蒜鱼头汤着实费尽心思，邀请了一家老小一起来吃。她对这道菜的美味引以为豪，其中最重要还是因为她掺了大蒜。每次她提起汤里有大蒜，大家都会说好，只是有些说得大声，有些说得小声，其中还参杂一些笑声。
爸爸不喜欢吃大蒜，觉得有没有大蒜，食物也照吃。有大蒜很麻烦，因为他要认真打蒜。蒜他吃不惯，除非打成蒜泥。
每个人却在看着爸爸，等他开头。爸爸说，好你们跟我头。说着，就要动筷。
哥哥却突然捞起锅里浮在汤面上的鱼鳔说，我自己有鱼鳔。
爸爸指着汤说，这里有大蒜。你现在有自己的鱼鳔当然很重要。不过你的鱼鳔还得跟我头对上，头不对就坏事了。
说完，把鱼头放在自己的盘里递给了哥哥。
哥哥拿起筷子正要夹一点鱼头放在自己盘里，被爸爸阻止说，要吃从盘里吃。不要拿去乱放。
哥哥静静说，你拿你的头，我拿我的头。
爸爸气急败坏地说，你头在那里，我头在这里，不就成了对头？
六岁的妹妹兴奋加了句，我也要头，我也要头！
阿嬷有点慌了，以前汤里放大蒜，大家都很冷静，也很安静，都是乖乖往自己盘里装蒜。不爱蒜的叔叔婶婶就把它放在一边，只拿鱼鳔泡汤。怎么今天这道大蒜鱼头，哦不，是大蒜鱼头鱼鳔汤竟会引起这么多争论，难道是味道不比以前好？还是因为最近几年鱼鳔放多了，大家开始比较喜欢吃鱼鳔。看每个人都从汤里拿出鱼鳔盛入盘里，阿嬷不知该感到欣慰，还是该为鱼头叹息。
爸爸依旧指着自己盘中的鱼头说，头在这里。把头一分为二，头还会完整吗？
大家看着爸爸盘里的大蒜鱼头，又看看自己盘里现在放着的鱼鳔，心里想着同样的问题：到底要鱼头在哪里呢？
Envoy of the Stars @ 2:14 AM
-------------------------------
日常生活
Thursday, April 14, 2011
我匆匆忙忙地想从拥挤的人群中脱逃。地铁站来来往往的人潮，小贩中心成群结党的呼啸，突然变成感官上无法负荷的纷扰。小孩子在游乐场绕圈子奔跑，上班族在工作上绕圈子奔跑，像上了发条的一个个玩偶，今天一过，明天又要再上紧。看似依循着某种规律和许多条看不见的轨迹，看似想冲破的那许多系着自己的绳线，既想不被干扰，继续过着预想得到，无异常的日子，又想着如果有什么什么发生能够为平稳而沉闷的生活带来些许冲击也不错，最好不要太惊天动地，但也要适度精彩，刚刚好就好。不过这只能是一种奢求。如果习以为常的东西突然消失，熟悉的家园突然变成荒岛，如果发条突然上不了...
日常生活，既是幸福又是冗长，久而久之，就这样变成漫长的身在福中不知福。其实幸福很平淡，所以容易被忽视。只有当失去过日常生活的可能，才会迫切想恢复日常生活的基调。现在最深感体会的，当属日本。而世界依旧持续转着，不管是对于相信末日不远的人，相信着希望尚存的人，努力做好自己的人，有心为他人谋福的人，日常生活还是要照过，失去日常生活的人为了找回失物也在重新找过。
在打开家门前，回头往外看了一眼。突然，外面并没太吵。
Envoy of the Stars @ 4:39 PM
-------------------------------
爱情与面包
Sunday, April 10, 2011
看了《单身男女》后，我突然觉得这个年代的感情很奢华很浮夸。两个男主角为赢得伊人青睐各出奇招：便利帖攻势、魔术招数博君一笑，一番浪漫后，再转用金钱策略，又是送车又是买楼、外附高级家具；可以随便吃nine course餐，可以苏州香港两地跑像搭德士一样，浪漫与实际兼顾，很理想，很梦幻，但很难产生共鸣。这么大的排场，应该是高薪族和有钱人的专属领域，或许也符合一般白领女生麻雀变凤凰的内心渴望。
故事大概如此：男人A多年钟情于女主，在终于得到女方注意两人第一次约会当晚，却难以抗拒美人诱惑而爽约，陪着另一个女人过夜。女主却仍然爱他。这样一个有智慧、有情趣、有情调、有钞票、有外貌的男人A，唯一缺点就是太风流不能控制自己的欲念，典型用下半身思考类型。然而，人们往往忘了有些人有情调正因为他会调情，而且是跟很多人，所以一旦要专一他也就变得单调。你喜欢的情调，正是让你觉得和他不搭调的地方。既然条件如此优渥，要用什么才能让他忠诚？女主在男人求爱时说的“太快了”，既是缺乏信心，也是害怕伤害，不过有爱就有伤害，多次只差临门一脚，说是性格不合，其实是不够放心去爱。
另一边厢，女主在潦倒时候遇到善解人意又温和贴心的男人B，懂得鼓励懂得聆听，会亲自下厨又会为伊奋斗，可以谈心事可以谈纯爱，但也正因为电影太简单地划分了多情男与痴情汉的区别，让人觉得偶像剧色彩太浓，怎样都无法投入。
但始终，火星男和贱男，一个痴心绝对一个一心多用，一个唱《我愿意》一个用《爱很简单》，以旁观者的角度不管怎么看，女主喜欢的是《爱很简单》而不是《我愿意》。最后，以“我愿意”报答了对方的《我愿意》。爱人与被爱，女主衡量过，all else held constant，她选择了后者。很现实的决定，却也多少反映了当今都市男女的爱情观点。
我看到的却是缘分不到，时机不对。有些相遇，可能发生太早，可能来得太迟，太早就不懂得应对，太迟就没有机会。有时不是对方如何，而是自己如何。撇开一切不想太多，电影毕竟是电影，娱乐性质最重要，所以知道它虚幻，你可以去看吴彦祖和古天乐，我可以去看高圆圆，大家都把看客的身份做好，看看就好。
Envoy of the Stars @ 2:29 AM
-------------------------------
把悲伤留给自己
Thursday, April 07, 2011
有一个朋友在我们一行人酒足饭饱后，在KTV包厢唱着歌，在听到身边另一个人不断诉说自己的辛酸事时，平静地说道：朋友，把悲伤留给自己。他并没有趁机点唱那首歌，我却记住那句话。好知易难行的一句话。
多年以后，我和另一个朋友D吃饭时，D像是突有所感地冒出同一句话：“和朋友难得出来，就应该说些开心的。把悲伤留给自己。”
我突然想起了在KTV说出那句话的朋友，才发现一晃两年已没看到他了，在那个瞬间脑中似乎浮光掠影般浮现了他的身影，看起来不知流露多少萧索、多少孤傲。朋友的眼中总是深邃却混浊，可能是喝多了，可能是看透了，我始终无法猜透的，却是他放荡不羁的轮廓下藏着多少秘密。他不愿多谈他的事情，就算有人问起，他说时也是非常淡然。
和一些人，话不须说得太多，一起相处的时间也不多，他们似乎还是多少能了解你是什么样的人，经过许多年，这层了解似乎没瓦解。或许，因为我们是同类，只会默默关注着把悲伤留给自己的彼此。
Envoy of the Stars @ 11:59 PM
-------------------------------
谈钱伤感情？
Sunday, April 03, 2011
“谈钱伤感情啊！”友人禁不住向我抱怨。她的故事非常似曾相识：托朋友买了东西，朋友一口答应后，从国外回来时却跟她名正言顺地说除了兑换率以外，另外要跟她收东西总价值的3%，因为“银行也是这样行事的”，而且因为皮箱太满装不下，东西是空运来的（跟着朋友的朋友自己想运回国的物品），所以也要担上空运费，是额外一笔开销，结果朋友要付的总数比先前拟定好的多出十多元。让她格外不满的不仅是这笔钱，更是“朋友”马后炮行径，起初并没说要收“手续费”，但现在讲好听是送上一点意思，show abit of appreciation，讲难听点就是趁机敲诈。
友人气鼓鼓地说：“终于让我看清朋友的真面目。”
我心平气和地说：“有时用一点钱，看穿一个人，严格算起来，也是满划算的。”
友人听了，依然按捺不住说：“不过这样一来，也就很难跟那个人继续做朋友了吧。”
我沉默不语，然后才说道：“那要看你对朋友的理解是什么了。”
“不过，如果说大家一起吃饭，吃完了要分摊，却多出一些零钱，那又怎么办？”
我脑中立刻浮现不久前发生的事情。同样是吃饭后分摊，四个人大概是52.25元，一个人给个十三元，最后两毛五分看谁有零角的就出。搞了半天，明明我一个人就给了15元，结果还是不够，显然有人付少了，折腾半天，付少的A大概是钱不够（希望是如此）而终于开口叫其中一个B帮忙先出，明明还缺几块B却在钱包里挖个半天才拿出两毛五分，感觉像是非常慷慨地帮忙付了额外的两毛五分，但桌上依然缺了A少付的两块钱.. 结果我该找的钱都没拿回，A拍了拍我的肩说：“谢啦。下次。下次还你。”那天，是我第一次认识A，在那桌人里，我跟A是最不相熟的。（所以他开始才会找B）类似这种情形，真的不胜枚举。我当然不喜欢吃哑巴亏，但我也希望买个信心。即使是对于不太了解的人，既然有缘一块吃饭什么的，如果在我能力范围内，可以付得起，算是交个朋友也还可以。（当然，这种朋友是不是朋友还言之过早）
换个方式说，如果谁都不想吃亏，那好，请每个人另外付个五分钱，最后的五分再另外由猜拳决定。不要笑，这样的情况也是有的... ... 那时听到那个人的建议，我真的觉得：果然，一种米养百种人。我不相信这只是钱的问题，区区五分钱，我们连十多元的饭都吃了，会付不出？（夸张的是，稍后去续摊时大家买一杯咖啡都要五元。）归根究底，就是大家自己认定说如果多付，就是吃了闷亏，别人不一定会谢你，还会把你当凯子。一旦有这种想法，就说明：其实你和在场的人的关系并没有很好。有的人可能会辩驳：没啊！我们关系是很好，只不过对钱财处理比较敏感。对于这些想算清楚的人，当然应该尊重他们的立场，大家坐下好好算算，各不相欠，落个完美结局。不过，往往这些很有金钱概念和思想坚持的人在说出“一起平分”前，如果有哪个人“抢先”把额外的几毛钱一人承担了，那些人的坚持也会突然消失，话到嘴边也会硬生生吞下去。
有个朋友曾经对我说：我们这年纪的人，银行户口里大概都会有几百到几千块（当然会有outliers），关键是你要把钱花在哪里。我是认为：人这辈子吃多少，穿多好，有一半是注定的。但怎么用自己赚回来的钱，却是有所选择的。有些人对朋友（甚至家人）很“吝啬”，一杯茶的钱都不肯出，也不想请，对女人却很大方。有些人感觉一毛不拔，处处节省，却会在你需要的时候拔刀相助。这之间没对错，只有不同标准。
我很庆幸自己有几个可以不用太介意钱的朋友，跟他们相处时，交情摆前面，出去玩时钱依然是实际问题，但我们都一起克服。这从中学时期到现在都没变过。那时候，泡在游戏中心打电动、玩桌式足球，我们都是把钱凑在一起，大家也不计较谁玩多谁玩少。光是轮流看彼此玩，在旁边说话大笑也很过瘾。我们那时当然不会有钱，有也是辛辛苦苦积存下来的零用钱、红包钱等，但大家一出去玩就不会在意这些，花了下次再存回来，这次你不够大家一起请吃饭，下次轮到自己不够，大家再想办法。没有人真的记住谁欠谁的，谁出最多。这是一种默契的考验，信任的考验。而这其中的裁判和见证是时间。我们这组人很清楚，每个人家境都不一样，每个人的零用钱数目也不同，但没有人会特别想占谁的便宜，没有人会觉得比较有钱的人付多点是理所当然的。大家通过不同的管道，受到不同的教育，遭遇过不同的经历，认识“朋友”这个概念，却不约而同地都认定了朋友的重要。钱和感情不能说毫无关系，要维持关系多少还得出钱，从简单的吃饭到出游，就算是坐下来叙旧也要买饮料，但钱不会左右真心朋友的关系。大家一起玩闹嬉笑，不敢学李白的千金散尽还复来，但手头上的钱也花了不少，积存下的却是一种今时今日，钱买不到的友谊，而且随着时间流逝，依然不断升华。
俗话说：钱是万恶之源。其实，用钱的不就是人嘛。钱的价值，也是人定的。但人的价值呢？
“不过有朋友向你借钱时怎么办？”友人又问道。
“我也不是没帮朋友先付过接近四位数机票钱。他后来还分期付款还给我。”
“！”友人通过msn传来的惊叹号格外显眼。过了几秒，电脑荧幕上才出现一个“？”
“也没什么。就是信任。”
Envoy of the Stars @ 1:15 AM
-------------------------------
