The Abridged Ajani

Expand Post

Now, I have some reservations still about this scheme, before and after reforms - officially in-theory CIP is much-better now, but in-practice… I reserve my comment.

A few weeks ago I was approached by some other students to interview me about my opinion about the CIP scheme, the former whom identified themselves as doing this for a project. I guess I said a bunch of easily-misquotable phrases and all, but I was honestly giving them my personal opinion, even as it was completely politically-incorrect. Now I wish I had the actual transcript of the conversation but I do not, thus I will just rely on a potentially-fallible memory then.

I recall telling them that perhaps ‘they should scrap it (the CIP scheme)’. Immediately I was rebutted by this interviewer who obviously shared a very-different opinion from me. In an urgent tone he queried me. “But don’t you think that the CIP program has made you more aware of such issues and developed you into a better person etc. etc.” Something like this he said.

Okay, at this moment I thought I knew what was going on - I immediately sought to recorrect his idea of my perspective. To express what I told him in about twenty sentences into a few lines, this was the gist of what I said:

Oh alright, I think I know where you are heading. This is my view:

PREMISE: I am already aware of these issues; I am already-considerate; I am already a “better person”. (something like this declaration ought be be frowned upon in any other case, but I think I needed to make my point)

CONCLUSION: THEREFORE I do CIP to continue what I have.

This is your perspective:

PREMISE: I am not already-aware of these issues; I am not yet so-considerate; I can still be a “better person”.

CONCLUSION: THEREFORE I do CIP to accomplish what I have not.

It took a while before all the interviewers got my causality exposition. In fact, I had modified my actual premise before verbally-expressing it for better understanding, at the risk of myself sounding so arrogant. After they had understood my perspective a little better, I then introduced them to my real premise: that it was neither an issue or anti-issue for me to do CIP or not, it was just a non-issue. You want to do it? Fine. You don’t want to do it? Okay. You want to make those who don’t want to do it do it? No! You don’t want those who want to do it not do it? No! If you can catch what I mean by “non-issue”, I think you got my gist. I am not committing a special pleading fallacy when I told the interviewer that I “do CIP the conventional way”.

CIP does give us an avenue to continue/practice/put into action/commit/do (replace with a semantically-correct word of your choice) what we have already learnt or understood. The official stance of CIP by the Ministry, though, looks at it as that CIP gives us an avenue to learn/understand (replace with a semantically-correct word of your choice) what we have not-already continued/practiced/put into action/committed/done. Nothing wrong with that - just that the causality… Okay, fine.

I have found a new justification for the Ministry’s stance using economic concepts - this deals with the phenomena of positive externalities and market failure. Hmm, I’m not talking crap here - Freakonomics has taught one that economic concepts are beyond mere monetary markets and purchasing power. My stance on CIP actually works only in an ideal society. In a realistic society though, because of the nature of CIP itself being an activity with “spillover benefits” not just to the CIP doer himself; or perhaps even if I were to say that there are no benefits to the doer, the social benefit of CIP far outweighs the private cost of the doer. Hence, it is a “positive externality” in the sense that more people should enjoy the benefits of CIP, and where its supply is insufficient to meet the demand, legislation, in this context “recommendations” have to be put forward to encourage the provision of the CIP good hence. Therefore CIP should stay in all its guises - but this justification would work too for the pre-reforms CIP.

It is therefore a balance between causalities and externalities. I am not making a straw man fallacy here, rather a suggestion to what can work as a potential knowledge-based argument. I personally lean towards the non-issuification of CIP though: Hear, there shalst be no recommendations for CIP! I will not discount the fact that it is possible to learn from CIP too, in a “service learning” fashion - but my main issue? Have everyone learn from CIP to accomplish the causality, or just make it a non-issue and forget about externalities and all.

Collapse Post

Expand Post

Which Existentialist Philosopher Are You? created with QuizFarm.com

You scored as Albert CamusYou are Albert Camus, so you are one sweet absurdist. He built largely upon the framework of existentialists before him, but introduced the concept that life is absurd, but that we should continue living anyway. You have strong liberal leanings, although you annoy the Communists. You are susceptible to driving fast, and possibly crashing into a tree. Albert Camus 71% Jean-Paul Sartre 68% Friedrich Nietzsche 61% Martin Heidegger 46% Soren Kierkegaard 29% Not An Existentialist 14%

Well personally I am more familiar, and resonate more with Sartre and Nietzsche amongst the big existentialist names. Kierkegaard is fine, actually, but his “leap to faith” seems to just repeat what good ol’ Ecclesiastes mentioned a good few thousand years ago.

Camus - hmm, I have heard of this name. Perhaps the only reason why I would resonate with him is for his idea of the ‘absurd’ (which Kierkegaard mentioned before him), but it is not one of the most fundamental things in my existential style. Sartre lags close behind a really tight 3% - must be a slightly-skewed answer I gave there I think. But who cares? Sartre is but another “empty” vessel without intrinsic meaning. :p

Try the quiz, all ye existentialists - it’s quite fun actually, some of the questions are really absurd (meaning weird), heh.

Collapse Post

Expand Post

The Tibet 2008 Olympic Games are over in China!

Collapse Post

Expand Post

Debt of Honour: Singapore’s Ties to Myanmar’s Junta
By
Benjamin Cheah

The crisis in Burma is escalating. For the first time in two decades, the people are taking to the streets. It started with protests against the doubling of fuel prices, and the sharp increase in prices of essential goods and services. *1 It has now become a call for democracy, and freedom. The military has seen fit to respond with tear gas, arrests, beatings, and live rounds. State television claims that there are nine dead. Witnesses believe that the true toll lies in the hundreds. *2

The source of this turmoil lies with the junta in power. After seizing power in 1962, the then-State Law and Order Restoration Committee embarked on the ‘Burmese Road to Socialism’, an economic policy that has done nothing but to impoverish the people. The people are kept in line through intimidation, systematic rape, arbitrary detention, forced labour, and other tools of state terror. The junta and its cronies virtually control the nation’s wealth, making tremendous profits from sales of drugs, gems, and timber. This combination of poverty, inequality, and repression has exploded into the situation we see today. *3

That the regime was responsible for this is not in doubt. However, it could not have accomplished this without the assistance of other governments. In particular, one country has provided significant economic and military assistance to the junta, enabling it to restore ‘law and order’ while fattening its bank accounts. That nation is the Republic of Singapore.

Above the board, Singapore has done a lot of business with Myanmar. SingTel was the first firm to provide Burmese businesses and government offices with the ability to establish inter- and intra-corporate communications in over 90 countries. At the same time, all computers, software, e-mail services and telecommunications devices in Burma must be licensed, a nearly impossible feat in itself. Coupled with the prohibitively high cost of computers in Burma *3 , and it can be inferred that the regime is intent on denying communications technology to the Burmese political opposition. This act serves to further enrich the Myanmese elites, and strengthen their grip on power.

Singapore invested S$1.57 billion in Myanmar in 2005, making her the largest direct foreign investor from the Association of Southeast Asian Nations. Since 1988, Singapore has invested about S$2 billion in Myanmar, mostly in tourism and the military. *4 Given that the junta’s cronies virtually control the legal economy, it’s safe to say that these monies have gone into their wallets, and into producing arms and ammunition. A substantial portion of Singapore’s investments has gone into Asia World, a Burmese construction company, which is owned by drug traffickers and money launderers. *3, *4, *5

Lo Hsing Han is the chair of Asia World, founded in 1992. Ostensibly a successful businessman, he has served as ethnic advisor to former Burmese Prime Minister Khin Nyunt, and continues to oversee his drug operations in Burma. It has been alleged that Asia World has been used as a front for drug trafficking. *3, *5 His son, Steven Law, is the firm’s managing director, and runs various other firms, which happen to be subsidiaries of Asia World. *3, *5 He also reportedly handles his father’s financial activities. 3 Steven Law married his Singaporean business partner, Cecilia Ng, in 1996. Using her connections to the government, she allegedly launders money for Burma’s drug barons, in addition to other legitimate business dealings. *3, *5, *6, *7

It has been further reported that Singapore allows Burmese drug barons to travel freely, the junta’s generals to visit Singapore for medical treatment, in addition to turning a blind eye to shady financial practices. *3, *5, *6, *7 There is no doubt that a connection exists between the junta and the government of Singapore.

This is not the end. The Singapore government has armed the regime. Singapore Technologies has built a state-of-the-art cyber warfare centre in Yangon. With it, the regime’s secret police can intercept a spectrum of communications, from telephone calls to faxes to e-mail, from over twenty countries *3, *5, *9, allowing them to keep track of political dissidents. On October 6, 1988, hundreds of mortars, munitions and military supplies were shipped to Yangon. They were marked “Allied Ordnance, Singapore”, which is a subsidiary of Chartered Industries of Singapore *3, *8, *9 , now part of ST Engineering. The shipment also included license-built Swedish rockets, violating an agreement with Sweden that required authorisation for arms exports. *3, *9 The following year, Singapore acted as a middleman for a shipment of grenade launchers and anti-tank weapons from Belgium and Israel. *3, *8 In 1992, Singapore brokered a $1.5 million shipment of mortars from Portugal, violating a European Commission arms embargo. *3, *8, *9 In 1995, Chartered Industries of Singapore built an arms factory in Burma, now used to produce weapons for the Burmese military. *9 Singapore has armed the regime.

These incidents are just the ones documented in the public domain. There could have been other shady deals in recent times, one of which could have surfaced to sting Singapore.

On the 27th of September, a Singaporean was shot by Myanmese riot police. *10, *11 According to a photograph of a recovered rubber bullet *11, there are two legible English words inscribed on it: ‘control’ and ‘rubber’. The official language of Myanmar is Burmese, with little attention paid to the English language; it is therefore highly improbable that the round was made produced locally. Europe and the United States have enforced sanctions against Myanmar, and have no reason to ship non-lethal ammunition to Burma. China, India and Thailand, Myanmar’s largest trading partners, probably would not use English markings on ammunition, because there is little reason to mark ammunition in a language that ordinary workers probably could not read. But Singapore uses English markings on ammunition. Therefore, I suspect that the round was made in Singapore, and exported to Burma. There, it was used to shoot a Singaporean in the leg. If nothing else, this must be poetic injustice.

The Singapore Government has allowed the junta and its cronies to get richer and richer, while the people have to bear with Third World living standards and systematic oppression. Singapore has turned a blind eye to international criminal activity operating out of Myanmar, whose ringleaders visit Singapore every now and then. Most damning of all, Singapore has sold weapons to Burma, the same arms that the authorities use to keep the junta in place. Singapore is therefore indirectly responsible for the current state of affairs in Myanmar.
The world is watching. Singapore currently holds the chairmanship of ASEAN. ASEAN has condemned the junta’s response to the protests. *13 Singapore, in particular, is engaging in ‘quiet diplomacy’, and is backing United Nations envoy Ibrahim Gambari in his attempt to defuse the situation. *14 But this is not nearly enough.

If Singapore truly wishes for an end to the crisis, and is genuinely concerned about the people of Burma, it is her duty to send a strong message to the junta. Singapore must declare, and cease, any and all arms exports to the military regime. Singapore must also impose economic sanctions on Myanmar, in particular targeting strategic resources and supplies destined for the military and the police. Singapore must withdraw all investments in firms linked to the regime, and its cronies. Singapore must also investigate all reports of money laundering on local soil, and prosecute the guilty to the fullest extent of the law. All assets belonging to the junta and its cronies must be frozen. Finally, Singapore must bar the Myanmese drug barons and junta members from setting foot in Singapore. These actions would send a more direct message to the junta than any other action by most other nations.

Singapore owes the people of Burma a debt of honour. Singapore has the means to expunge it. What she needs is the political will to clean up the mess the government has created.

http://leounheort.blogspot.com/

Sources:
1.) “Q&A: Protests in Burma.” BBC News. 27 Sept. 2007. 30 Sept. 2007 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7010202.stm.
2.)”THE TORRENT OF BAD NEWS.” Yangon Thu. 29 Sept. 2007. 30 Sept. 2007 http://www.moeyyo.com/MM/archives/001004.html.

3.)Kean, Leslie, and Dennis Bernstein. “The Burma-Singapore Axis: Globalizing the Heroin Trade.” Covert Action Quarterly (1998). 28 Sept. 2007 http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Global_Secrets_Lies/BurmaSingapore_Drugs.html

4.)”The Associated Press: Foreign Investment in Myanmar Dropped 12 Percent in 2005.” BurmaNet News. 11 Jan. 2006. 28 Sept. 2007 http://www.burmanet.org/news/2006/01/11/the-associated-press-foreign-investment-in-myanmar-dropped-12-percent-in-2005.

5.)Ellis, Eric. “Web of Cash, Power, and Cronies.” The Age 29 Sept. 2007. 30 Sept. 2007 http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/web-of-cash-power-and-cronies/2007/09/28/1190486569946.html?page=fullpage.

6.)McKenna, Michael. “Singapore’s Hand in Golden Triangle: Australian.” Singapore Angle. 23 Nov. 2005. 28 Sept. 2007 .

7.)Casanier, Francois. “Kun Sa’s Surrender, a Narco-Dictatorship in Progress.” Khun Sa’s Surrender, a Narco-Dictat. 13 Jan. 1996. 29 Sept. 2007 http://www.ibiblio.org/obl/reg.burma/archives/199606/msg00168.html.

8.)Ashton, William. “Myanmar and Israel Develop Military.” Myanmar and Israel Develop Military. 29 Sept. 2007 http://www.ibiblio.org/obl/reg.burma/archives/200008/msg00005.html.

9.)Barnes, William, and Bruce Hawke. “The BurmaNet News: July 23, 1998.” The BurmaNet News. 29 Sept. 2007 http://www.burmalibrary.org/reg.burma/archives/199807/msg00515.html.

10.)”MFA Says It’s Appalled by Violent Act Towards S’Porean.” The Straits Times 28 Sept. 2007. 28 Sept. 2007 http://www.straitstimes.com/Latest%2BNews/Singapore/STIStory_162149.html.

11.)Htike, Ko. “Ko Htike’s Prosaic Collection.” Ko Htike’s Prosaic Collection. 28 Sept. 2007. 28 Sept. 2007 http://ko-htike.blogspot.com/.

12.)DSCF7041.JPG. 28 Sept. 2007 . (From source 11, under post on 28 September)

13.)Pereira, Derwin. “Asean Rebukes Myanmar Over Use of Force.” The Straits Times 29 Sept. 2007: 1.
14.)Pereira, Derwin. “Important to Avert Violence: Goerge Yeo.” The Straits Times 28 Sept. 2007: 7.

Please spread the word. And don’t forget: October 4th is the International Bloggers’ Day for Myanmar. Click here for more details.

↔ ↔ ↔ ↔ ↔ ↔ ↔ ↔ ↔ ↔ ↔ ↔

Lending Our Voices
By
Ajani Mgo

It is easy for one to disagree with the actions of the Burmese clergy. After all, they seem to be the main force behind all the peaceful protests, which have led to some lives lost by the actions of the junta. By Buddhist principles, it can be easily said that the monks are breaking them - indirectly, lives are being lost in this process.

Also, should politics and religion ever come together? I believe this to not be permissible in democracies. Democracies should rely solely on the will of the people, not influenced by any organisation but the citizens alone. This mixing of politics and religion, too, is something some have rejected, thinking that in Burma’s case this is what is happening. However, Burma is not a democracy. It is difficult for the people to rise up spontaneously without the backing of an authority, as all revolutions so far have occurred with some form of political pressure, applied by non-political groups, in cases where no other political powers are present - English “Glorious Revolution”, Soviet “Bolshevik Revolution”.

Then in the case where democracies, whole or partial exist, these, I then believe, ought to be the duty of solely-political groups. The clergies and revolutionaries can all step aside, let the will of the collective people take command.

Yet are the monks really breaking Buddhist vows? I wonder if any bodhisattva (one seeking the path toward enlightenment) should allow himself/herself to safely sit in monasteries, while the junta carries out human rights abuses against the people. You see, the Burmese abuse is nothing new - ever since the current junta took over in 1988, such abuses have been commonplace. All these while for the most time, monks have been sitting in monasteries passively, while outside, people are suffering under the rule of the junta. Indeed, now by their actions to break out of silence and into active “Saffron Revolution”, many Buddhists, inside and outside Burma alike, have seen it as the duty of the monks.

They know that they cannot retreat, too. TIME reads, ‘ “We must not retreat,” vows a 23-year-old monk in Rangoon. “If we retreat, we fail.” ‘ In fact, I should think this be true, too, for the various world governments. If they retreat out of Burma now, they all fail.

I am unsure if the revolution now will indeed bring change. The effectiveness of the pressure applied onto the government by the monks is dependent on how the foreign countries support them. I will suppose the people all want change - change that is truly revolutionary, change that will make Burma democratic. Yet with peaceful protest, and having no armaments at all, there is very little the monks and the people can do, save for some symbolic action. This junta, which only understands deterrence, but not diplomacy, will need tough action to bring about its downfall. Already, the US has applied economic sanctions but it will take a collective action of all the world’s democratic governments to bring about this junta’s fall. Of course, this is not to suggest war or anything, but it is to say that the pressure of the monks alone are not enough.

I see three forms of ending for Myanmar.

One, the world will just retreat in the end, with the junta stopping the crackdown, after the former appeals to the Burmese people to go back to their homes and monasteries, the soft-line approach, which basically solves nothing, placing Myanmar back to where it started from the 1988 protests then.

Two, the junta will promise some democratic reforms. To which extent and how fast the enactment? It remains hard to predict. Despite having nearly twenty years of absolute control, they have so far no effective Constitution drafted even.

Three, and the best case scenario, and also the hardest to achieve, is the complete end of the junta, as elections are called for in Myanmar as democracy returns to the land, just as it already ought to so long ago, before Aung San the Burmese nationalist hero was assassinated by yet another military junta many decades before.

The Burmese, after first taking to the streets, have been rounded up and arrested. They have lost their voices, and it is our duty as peace-loving men and women to lend them ours - we cannot let the junta think, by just silencing the dissent, that the problem has been solved. We wish to see reforms, we wish to see peace, we wish the Burmese good luck.

I personally support this particular petition by Avaaz.org. It goes to the UN, where we can as citizens of the Earth tell our governments collectively that we are willing to continue shouting for our friends in Burma, so that the UN would find support and not give up on Burma. Certainly, nothing is ever going to be enough, nothing significant - but they (the Burmese) have no mouth, and we must scream on their behalf.

Collapse Post

Expand Post

Think that it is a disgrace to be caught looking for food in bins, scavenging for leftover waste food, feeling that it is only fit for a beggar? Then you are very-much misunderstood.

The freegans, who self-style themselves as that, are believers in the “free lunch” philosophy. They will only eat food they can scavenge for free from supermarket dustbins. No purchasing, no picky eating; these bunch of people are firm anti-capitalists, and from their name “freegan” (portmanteau of “free” and “vegan”), it is already a statement against the exploitation of human workers, animals and the environment.

Trust me, these guys do not live in just the developing world. In fact, freeganism seems to have a huge following from the heart of capitalist giant America (they call it “dumpster diving” over there) and first-world Britan. Many of them adopt a motorhome as their primary tool for their urban forages - it offers true mobility in the real style of a scavenger, and the freezers and refrigerators that come equipped within are fantastic places to stock their prize.

The food they manage to hunt on their raids seem to be of a high standard. Choosing to raid the bins nearby supermarkets, where fresh foods shelved only for a few days has been dumped into, they do get a fair share of poultry, vegetables and bread. The foodstuffs are washed thoroughly and disinfected from the packing down. Often, the food is either still-fresh or just-expired. Despite the giving of much of the waste food at the end of the day to charities and food banks by most supermakets, a lot of food still goes into the bins for the freegans to take.

Supermarkets do not usually like the freegan way. They have been known to install barbed-wire fences to deter freegans from taking away the food in their backdoor bins, citing “freshness” as a priority for them, to justify their disapproval of the freegan lifestyle, which they seem to think have no strong opinion on it.

Of course, the freegan lifestyle is not without its critics amongst the general public. Some say that freegans are actually no different from well, beggars and scavengers, just choosing to “sugar-coat” their actions while they are actually just eating from the bin. Critically, others consider the hypocrisy of freegans, who cause the waste to be present even, by not purchasing food from supermarkets in the first place, which cause the latter to have to dump the unsold food in the end, making freegans responsible for causing under-demand rather than the firms’ over-supply. That being said, the freegan lifestyle, however, will live on for those who stick to the principles of ethical eating - there is such a thing as a free lunch.

Collapse Post

Expand Post

Typing an old essay one fine day into the computer, I realised that my left hand started to hurt way more than the right. My fingers were almost numb and I stared into the screen.

“Why is it that my left hand hurts more?” I ask.

“Could it be because I type more with my left hand?” I ask again, and this shall be the hypothesis for this report.

Rationale

Ever since the typewriter was introduced, keyboard layout has been quite a subject of debate. The QWERTY layout we use today is argued to be outdated for the typists of today - we value typing speed more than mechanical efficiency, the latter a problem extinct in computers today. The Dvorak Simplified Keyboard (shown below) is the most well-known alternative existing today.

How do statistics measure up, then?

Assumptions

The document-in-question is an English-medium work. Common, modified touch-typing techniques are used optimizing comfort and speed, instead of the fixed techniques taught to beginners.

Perfect typing is assumed. This means that there are absolutely no mistakes done in the course of the typing that has to be corrected, unrecordable in the final result.

The left hand is used to type 12345qwertasdfzxc.

The right hand types characters 7890uiophjklbnm,.?” and is used to hit Backspace and Enter.

Which hand taps the Shift and Space keys, as well as the keys of 6ygv, depends on the relative position of your hand currently. For the sake of simplifying the experiment, they will be considered to be of equal probability.
Typing efficiency argued to be independent of handedness since we learn typing usually with both hands at once and the muscles involved in writing do not generally affect typing. Otherwise, the finger strength and pressure is not counted to be significant in causing handache from long periods of typing.
Of course, all that occurs on the common QWERTY keyboard patented by Christoper Sholes in 1868.

Analysis of Current Research

Using statistics gathered from a study done by Professor Robert Edward Lewand, I attempted to add up the sums of relative frequencies of letters for each hand.

Left hand total: 0.54181
Right hand total: 0.39359
Equal probabilities total: 0.04967

Therefore, it seems that the left hand is used more indeed - even if I am to count the equal-probability as a right-hand thing.

However, his research only gathered information on solely letters, and no punctuation, numbers and capitalization data was included.

Experiment

I have decided to use just one piece of work to decide it - the exact essay that I was typing, of course, since that was what inspired me to this report.

Using an online analyzer which boasts to count not only letter frequency, but also punctuation, capitalization and whitespace, I shall attempt to reproduce an experiment similar to that of Professor Robert E. Lewand.

Results

The analyzer threw up a long list of character frequency counts. I have removed some of the invalid character counts e.g. â and ™ before formatting the list below that it is now.

And after the mathematics…

A relatively tough fight here… But it still seems that I did use my left hand more - so much for the pain! Yet there is still a possibility of the right hand having been used more, if what happens is that the “Equal Probability” is not so equal after all…

Evaluation

A highly-simplified and reduced experiment, this test could have been done better. The Shift key, for instance, could have been considered a seperate statistics from “Equal Probability”, and recompared with the rest but it would take alot more time than would have been necessary.

Perfect typing, hmmm… The Backspace is a right-hand only thing, even if we consider Delete. Even the perfect touch-typist will not have perfect typing, so the numbers could tilt a lot to the right hand realistically-speaking.

Also, I’m not exactly sure, but I simply went on to assume that handedness plays no role in the aching process.

Conclusion

The results of the experiment seemed in favour for a hardworking left hand and a lazy right hand, but it is an experiment that is in much need for review if it is to be considered as a reliable source to quote from.

My friend has pointed out though, in this age of mobile gaming, WASD is what ought to be given a damm about really - and they are a left-hand thing!

A strong hand does give you many advantages next to typing, especially when you are getting a little bored and together with a bunch of quirky guys… You can use it for arm-wrestling! Now what were you thinking?

Conclusion: You can focus on building up your left-hand moving speed to achieve higher typing efficiencies, but remember to do the right thing with it too!

Also Check Out…

If you want to ponder a bit about the ideal keyboard layout, you might like this site!

Collapse Post