Mindhacker 101

A number of readers have emailed me to ask that I blog more about mindhacking. Separately, I have noticed that some of my readers seem to be fervent Buddhists (see readers comments' over here). So today I will blog about mindhacking, and inject some Buddhist perspectives into it.

As our starting point, we'll use karma, as explained in Buddhism. If you think that karma is superstitition or hogwash, this is not a post for you and you can stop reading right about here (because the rest of the post is predicated on the basis that the Buddhist explanation of karma is correct).

For the rest of you, let's proceed.

Buddhism tells us everything in the universe comes into being purely as a result of the combination of causes and conditions. In other words, there are natural causal laws that operate throughout the universe.

Karma is just one of those natural causal laws. The distinguishing feature is that karma is based on intention. For example, suppose you drive a car and knock someone down. The karmic consequences depend on your state of mind. Did you accidentally knock him down, or were you deliberately plotting to kill him? The physical effect - a dead man - may be the same, but the karmic consequences will be very different.

Buddhism tells us that there is no escaping karma. It is not something that operates only from Monday to Friday; it does not close shop or stop work after 6 pm. Every intention, every thought has karmic consequences.

Let me say that again, because the point is very important - every intention, every thought has karmic consequences. Everything happening in your life now is the consequence of some combination of thoughts and intentions you have had, sometime in your past.

It is a universal law, you see. Even death is not an escape. Accumulated karma that hasn't fully expressed itself in this lifetime will simply follow you into the next.

Actions (or more precisely, deliberate actions) can, in Buddhism, be broadly categorised into three groups. There are positive or virtuous actions (which will lead to positive and desirable consequences, such as experiences of happiness). There are negative or nonvirtuous actions (which will lead to suffering and pain). Then there are actions which are neither virtuous nor nonvirtuous (these lead to neutral feelings and experiences).

Buddhism understands that the average mortal has little control over his mind. Intellectually, we may know that it is a good time to be kind, compassionate, patient, loving, forgiving, peaceful etc etc. In reality, we find it difficult to be kind, compassionate, patient, loving, forgiving, peaceful all the time, or even some of the time.

Thus Buddhism teaches a systematic process towards enlightenment. The earlier steps of the process focus on guarding our body, speech and mind from engaging in negative actions (for example, lying, stealing etc).

At this point in time, we'll stop to look at the basic proposition again - every intention, every thought has karmic consequences.

For example, if you are a kind, loving person who constantly thinks kind, loving thoughts, the universe will deliver into your life the karmic consequences of those kind, loving thoughts. If you are an angry, violent person who constantly thinks angry, violent thoughts, the universe will deliver into your life the karmic consequences of those angry, violent thoughts.

Every intention, every thought has karmic consequences. The universe will always ensure that.

Now suppose you are a perfectly "average" person, with an average family, an average job, average wealth, average health, average sex life, average friends, an average home, with an average everything, and if you were asked to honestly describe yourself, you would say:

"I am quite an ordinary person, with average levels of ability, my luck is neither very good nor very bad, and I expect to have an average number of successes and failures in my life. I suppose I can't say that my life as a disaster, but of course I am not particularly happy or I don't feel completely fulfilled either."

So those are your self-beliefs. Those are your thoughts about yourself. Next, suppose that through mindhacking you manage to rip this set of beliefs out of your head. Maybe not all at once, but step by step, over weeks, months or even years - through mindhacking. So that you end up believing, say, something like this:

"I am a highly successful person, furthermore I am extremely lucky, I am always in the right place at the right time. I have outstanding ability, I have a wonderful family, I am a happy person, everything is always working out fine for me, in fact, better than I expected. I'm really grateful for all the good things I have, and I feel blessed."

Now, let's go back to the basic Buddhist propositions again - every intention, every thought has karmic consequences. This is a universal law of cause and effect. Your thoughts and intentions are the cause of everything that happens in your life. The karmic consequences of your thoughts will always be delivered into your life. Because the universe will always ensure that.

How would your life change, if you held on to that new set of thoughts described above?

Baca Selengkapnya »»

Miscellaneous Rambles By Mr Wang

I have some wise readers. One of them is Dr Oz Bloke (yes, he's a real doctor). Commenting on my recent post about local university admissions, he wrote:

The way I see it, Singapore's priority is in ensuring the country's progress and the country's survival. The citizens of Singapore are secondary.

Once you start accepting the above as the predominant strategy of the Singapore government, you will be able to accept the policies they come up with.

Ask nothing about what your country can do for you. If you want something, you will have to fight for it.

Personally I would have thought that being a citizen comes with certain responsibilities to the nation eg national service, loyalty, taxes, etc. However the government seems to say that we should expect nothing in return. In fact the expectation of nothing in return is "good" for the country and thus "good" for me.

I am not eloquent enough to express what I feel. But I do know that I have given up thinking so much about what Singaporeans should have, and how Singapore should care for Singaporeans etc. It's every man for himself.

Poet-playwright Alfian Saat put it more succinctly, several years ago. He wrote: "If you care too much about Singapore, first it’ll break your spirit, and finally it will break your heart." With hindsight, he would have added, "And you could suddenly lose your job too."

Anyway, at a personal level, I agree with Dr Oz Bloke. In fact, I already realised it many years ago. When I say "personal level", I mean the way I think, plan and make decisions about my own life.

I usually place little weight on the possibility that the Singapore government might actually do something good for me. If it happens, that's a plus, but before it happens, you certainly don't want to count on it.

In fact, disbelieving the government was probably one of the best career decisions of my life. In contrast, making the mistake of trusting in the wrong government message could well hurt you for a long, long time - click here for an example.

Personally I have little to complain about - I know that. Personally I'm smart enough and sharp enough to get by quite well on this little red dot. But I know that many others are not so fortunate. When I look at the bigger picture, I do find it hard to " give up thinking so much about what Singaporeans should have, and how Singapore should care for Singaporeans" (Dr Oz Bloke's words).

That's why I often write posts like these - 1, 2, 3 and 4. I guess somewhere deep down inside I subconsciously still harbour some foolish hope that the Singapore government is going to do the right things for these people. Maybe I need to do some mindhacking here, and just rip that silly thought out of my head, once and for all.

The government isn't here to care for you - the ministers have already told you straight in your face that they're doing their jobs just for the money. What did you think - they would serve the nation out of a sense of patriotism, of loyalty? Remember Lee Kuan Yew's words. "Those are noble sentiments, but we live in the real world."

I guess I just hate unfairness and injustice. When I was a Deputy Public Prosecutor, I was like that too. Some other DPPs would regularly leave office at 6:30 pm. I would work obsessively to 10 pm, 11 pm, trying to fix unfairness and injustice everywhere I saw it. Believe me, there's plenty to fix within Singapore's criminal legal system.

Any DPP who regularly goes home at 6:30 pm is either too stupid to see the unfairness and injustice, or has decided to close his eyes to it. You can't always blame them. It does get emotionally exhausting. It can even make a grown man cry. When the tears run out, you just grow numb. Or cold, like a robot.

As I write this, I now recall what an older, more-experienced DPP once said to me. He saw me looking frazzled and angry at work, as I worked feverishly on a case trying to squeeze some fairness out of the system. In a kind tone, he said something like this: "If you care too much about this job, it’ll break your spirit, and it will break your heart."

Maybe he had been reading Alfian's poetry, LOL.

And maybe the best way is really just not to care. On that note, here's one of Alfian's poems, entitled "Apathy":

Apathy

There are no extra drugs
In our coffee.
We sleep with our lights turned off.
On the television we watch
With tabloids on our laps: the news,
Yesterday's news.

What are revolts? Rashes on a map.
Strikes are some dishevelled men
Handy with paint and plywood.
Conspiracies? Only in yellowed novels,
Stalked in thriller aisles beside
That other elusive delusion, romance.

Numb does not describe us,
We have nothing to offer for thawing.
We still fly our kites
In designated parks.
We watch our ports in wonder
And still think of ships loaded with wealth.
To the camera we still proffer smiles.

To the orators who slammed
At the tin-sheet sky with their fists,
To the rabble-rousers and rebels,
The ones who weighed the strength
Of a rock in their hands,
The ones weeping from tear-gas,
We owe them nothing.

The window offers another view.
Our hands do not tremble
As we part the curtains
To witness a riot of sunlight.
The pandemonium of traffic,
Yesterday's traffic.

We fall asleep under a moon
Whse luminous nakedness
Makes no ripples
Among the grey clouds.

We sleep on headlines
Plumped like pillows,
Stuffed with cotton;
Plucked by the hands
Of the silent and dying,
From the gaping mouths
Of the silenced and the dead.

This poem is taken from Alfian's second book of poetry, A History of Amnesia, which was shortlisted for a Kiriyama Asia-Pacific Book Prize.

I think I'm probably rambling a little. I don't even know what this post is supposed to be about. I'm a little tired. I just took my last CMFAS paper today - yes, the last of those annoying exams that I discovered too late I didn't actually have to take.

Oh, I passed. Isn't that nice. I've already got my results, because the exam is computer-based. You get 2 hours to click your way through 100 MCQ questions on a computer screen, and then the computer instantly calculates your score. Your exam certificate is printed out and you collect it from the exam invigilator on your way out of the room.

Very efficient. MCQs are inherently efficient. Your opinions are unnecessary, your ideas are unwanted. Just click on (a), (b), (c) or (d).

I just read this on Alfian's latest blog post. It's funny:

After reading the ST yesterday, my Mum had a talk with me. I'd expected the usual nagging about the number of times she had told me to steer clear of the political and to be a good little quiet boy.

But while putting on her tudung, on her way out, she said:

'Alfian, if you live in Singapore, you must be like a robot. If they tell you to walk straight, you walk straight. You stray from the path and they will get you. Last time the government said stop at two children, and then they told us to have three or more. Singapore is like that.'

If only we were robots, and not real, live human beings. Then we wouldn't be asked to breed for the sake of the economy. Like pigs, ducks or chickens. Oh, don't forget to lay the right number of eggs.

Baca Selengkapnya »»

Youth Film Festival

Gerald Giam is organising this and asked me to help publicise. If you're between 13 and 35 years old, you can make your own short film (no more than 5 minutes) and submit it for this festival. Oh, you don't need any fancy equipment - you could even just use your handphone. More details here.

Baca Selengkapnya »»

An Old Post of Mine

Here's something I wrote in April last year, on my old blog, about university admissions. Seems that it's still quite topical:

Stupid Title

The ST Forum has a letter from the Ministry of Education which tries rather unconvincingly to argue that foreign students in our local universities do not actually displace any Singaporeans.

Regrettably, the title of the letter - "Varsity Place for Every Singaporean Who Qualifies" is already stupid. If you cannot see the circularity of the statement, just compare it to phrases such as "Vitamin C for Everyone Who Eats an Orange" or "Death for Everyone Who is Hanged" or "Child For Woman Who Gives Birth".

OF COURSE every Singaporean who qualifies for a varsity place will get a varsity place. The question is - who should qualify? What is the criteria? How many varsity places are there? How many of those varsity places go to foreign students? How any varsity places are left for Singaporeans to qualify for?

I don't know why it is so difficult for them to admit that every place that went to a foreign student could have instead gone to a local student. Why can't they just admit that, and say that nonetheless they want to admit a certain percentage of foreign students per year, because there are certain benefits blah blah blah.

Instead they keep making statements like:

However, [the local universities] must continue to attract high-quality foreign students, while providing places for every Singaporean who qualifies for admission

. ... statements which implicitly, stubbornly and stupidly deny the plain, obvious fact that:

(1) the number of Singaporeans who can qualify for admission

is directly affected by

(2) the number of varsity places actually available to Singaporeans

which is directly affected by

(3) the number of varsity places given to "high-quality foreign students".

Full text of the letter below:

April 26, 2006
Varsity places for every S'porean who qualifies

I REFER to Mr Tan Thiam Chye's letter, 'Varsities: Talent-centred or citizen-centred?' (ST, April 24).

Our universities are Singaporean institutions whose objective is to serve Singaporeans. The Government's first priority in university education is to provide an affordable, top-quality education to citizens.

The three universities - National University of Singapore, Nanyang Technological University and Singapore Management University - are already admitting one in every five local students to their undergraduate programmes. We are committed to increasing this to one in every four local students in a few years' time.

We are also significantly increasing bursaries and study loans to Singaporean students who need financial assistance.

Our universities are reviewing their tuition fees for future batches of foreign students, with a view to widening the gap between local- and foreign-student tuition fees.

However, they must continue to attract high-quality foreign students, while providing places for every Singaporean who qualifies for admission.

Good international students create vibrancy and diversity that will benefit and spur on our own students, and ensure that they receive a quality university experience.

Likewise, the universities must attract the best faculty they can get, Singaporean and foreign.

Without this international orientation, our universities cannot be the first-class institutions that Singaporeans deserve.

Lim Chee Hwee
Director, Higher Education
Ministry of Education

Baca Selengkapnya »»

Knowledge & The Working World - Part 1

As my regular readers will know, I recently made a career switch from law to investment banking. Commenting on this, a reader wrote:

"Given his legal background Mr. Wang is probably starting off his IB career in the structuring side focusing on the legal risk aspects of credit derivative contracts. Naturally, the IB team will want to have an experienced lawyer to navigate the legal risks that can be a tricky portion of credit derivative contracts.

Acquiring an understanding for evaluating the credit risk of reference entities and counterparties will probably take somewhat longer. Meanwhile, the mathematical valuation and pricing aspects of credit derivatives will probably elude him for quite a while, given that one needs a strong foundation in applied mathematics in order to grasp the nuances of this field."

In case you got lost in the technical jargon there, this is what the reader meant to say: Mr Wang may have moved from law to investment banking, but (a) he has probably been hired for his legal knowledge, and (b) he's probably clueless about the other, non-legal areas of investment banking.

Apparently, a logical deduction. However, it relies on certain implicit assumptions. These assumptions are commonly made in Singapore and aren't always correct.

In Singapore, we often tend to think that a person doesn't know anything about anything, unless he holds proper qualifications in it. By proper qualifications, we mean that he has gone to school, taken a course, passed his exams and been awarded a certfiicate, a diploma or a degree. Preferably one recognised by the Ministry of Education.

Of course, this line of reasoning can go wrong for any number of different reasons. For example, a formal course may not actually teach anything relevant to what the supposedly-qualified person is really doing in his job.

Or skills acquired in one particular field or discipline may turn out to be surprisingly transferable to another apparently unrelated field or discipline.

Or a person may acquire quite considerable expertise without any formal training at all - for example, through self-learning, practical work experience, or because the subject-matter happens to be his favourite hobby.

Last weekend I decided to organise my rather chaotic bookshelves and categorise my books according to topic. This picture shows a stack of banking and finance-related books that I've been reading over the past few years.



(Note: this stack of book excludes my law books on banking and finance - those are in another stack).

I could be wrong, but I suspect that my banking & finance textbooks are more than all the banking & finance textbooks that an undergrad student at SMU or NTU would have to read, over 3 or 4 years, in order to get a degree in Banking & Finance.

Now of course, I have not read all of my books with the same vigour and rigour that a university student, mugging for his exams, would have read his textbooks.

After all, my reading is not for the purpose of passing exams. My books are more for my leisure reading.

I started reading those books when I was a lawyer advising on banking and finance. I thought that it would be interesting to know what all those bankers were talking about.

Or sometimes a certain point would come up at work, and it would puzzle me, so over the weekend, I would just pick up the relevant book, zoom straight to the relevant chapter, and investigate that point. And if that was interesting, I'd just go on to read the next chapter as well.

As the years passed, I just ended up reading more and more.

And suddenly, I realise that if I add it all up, my total knowledge about investment banking is .... Very Not Insignificant. (Pardon the twisted language. I'm trying not to sound boastful here).

So while law is still my professional forte, I've come to understand enough about other areas of the financial world to feel comfortable in an investment banking environment. I know enough to engage constructively with the traders, the structurers, the salespeople, the quants, the lawyers, the accountants, the credit officers, the tax advisors, the economists, the relationship managers, the compliance personnel ... and whoever else I need to engage with.

To function effectively, I don't need to know everything that all of them know (which would be impossible and impractical). I just need to know enough about what each of them knows.

In Part 2 of this series, I will share some thoughts on information and knowledge networking. You might also call it "Why You Don't Need To Know It All, To Know It All".

Baca Selengkapnya »»

Should Citizens Get Priority for University Admission?

I have not been following this matter closely. But my understanding is that this year, many Singaporeans haven't been able to secure a place in our local universities. This is despite scoring A-level grades which, in previous years, would have enabled them to do so quite easily.

The question then arises - should Singaporean citizens get priority for university admission? After all, a high proportion of university places now go to foreign students.

I was rather surprised by these two bloggers' opinions on the matter - Bart JP and Aaron Ng. They didn't seem to think that citizens should get priority for university admission.

But of course citizens should get priority.

Let's take it one simple step at a time.

Should a country and its government provide education opportunities for its people? Certainly.

That's a big reason why citizens pay taxes. So that the government can build kindergartens, primary schools, secondary schools, universities etc.

After all, we want our citizens to be well-educated, don't we? Our economy needs a skilled workforce, doesn't it? (Duh. That was so self-evident that it's absurd I even have to point it out).

Next question. When is a Singaporean citizen good enough to deserve a place in our local universities?

Well, if you had access to the relevant data, you could simply check the "market rates" from previous years. They would be a good indicator.

For example, if you looked at data from the past five years, you could say: "To get a place in NTU Engineering, you should score at least ____. To get a place in SMU Business, you should score around _________. To get a place in NUS Law, you must usually score _________." Etc.

Check with your junior college principal. JC principals usually keep track of such things. The "market rates" may vary a little from year to year, but typically they wouldn't fluctuate that much.

But apparently, this year the "market rates" did jump wildly. Like the Shanghai stock market, the market basically went mad. Previous years' rates no longer apply. Everything went haywire. University places are sharply short; and at least part of the reason is that local universities are absorbing an ever-increasing number of foreigners.

The basic point still remains. It is the responsibility of the government to provide adequate education opportunities for its citizens.

And right now, it seems that the education opportunities are simply not enough.

So it looks like we just might be beginning to revert back to the 1970s, when Singapore was a 3rd world country and many citizens didn't have a chance for higher education.

So much for progress.

Anyway, how did this rather surprising turn of events come about - that students scoring quite decent grades are simply not able to get a place in our universities?

Heh. Actually there's nothing surprising about it. Look at our property market. Look at our residential rental rates. Look at the crowds on our MRT trains and in our food courts. Look at the endless jam on the CTE.

And then look at our university situation.

See the pattern? Due to a massive intake of foreigners in recent years, our resident population has exploded. We've become the 2nd most crowded country in the world. And our current infrastructure just can't cope.

To their credit, both the URA and the LTA already saw this coming and they've been scrambling to make the necessary changes.

But the Education Ministry didn't see it coming. Neither did the local universities.

And that, simply, is that.

Ask not what your country will do for you. Because in Singapore, the answer is - not much.

Baca Selengkapnya »»

Stop Right There, Mr Alfian Saat

Alfian Saat is a very talented person.

I've met him before - only once. That was years ago. A small group of Singapore writers were having an informal, impromptu supper at a kopitiam after a literary event at the former National Library. Alfian and I were both in that group.

Alfian was still a medicine student at NUS then. At that time, he had published only one book - One Fierce Hour. But even then it was already pretty evident to me that he was extraordinarily talented.

In subsequent years, he went on to write more and more - poetry, short stories and plays - winning just about every award there was to win in Singapore. After graduating from NUS, he never did pursue a medical career. I hear that he's currently a full-time playwright.

The very unusual thing about Alfian was that his writing was heavily political and anti-establishment - and he was apparently able to get away with it. The establishment (meaning the National Arts Council and other government bodies) not only permitted his works to be published and performed, but gave him grants, awards and so on.

Occasionally, I wondered where the government would draw the line. But Alfian is Alfian, and I know that he will constantly be pushing boundaries and exploring his political interests. For example, check out this very recent photograph of Alfian with, gasp, none other than political exile Francis Seow:

Recently, it seems that someone somewhere in the Singapore government has decided that maybe enough is enough. Alfian was working as a relief teacher in a secondary school, and the principal was very happy with his performance. However, the Ministry of Education insisted that Alfian's contract be abruptly terminated.

The principal was mystified. Alfian was puzzled. When pressed for an explanation, the Ministry itself simply gave meaningless answers obviously designed to hide the truth (whatever the truth was). See for yourself.

Since the Ministry gave such meaningless answers, we can only guess what the real reason behind Alfian's termination was. My guess is as good as yours. And your guess is ....?

Baca Selengkapnya »»