Epiphanies from abroad

We live in a world filled with insanity

A world where we are no longer allowed anonymity;


Everything and everyone is connected in some way or form

But it seems to love them all is an exception to the norm;


 I think it’s possible to be over-educated

It’s a place in time where nothing original is created;


We make the most out of every opportunity to achieve everything

forgetting the real key to life is not wanting anything;


Possessions are worth nothing if the only price we put on it has a dollar sign

because the most expensive thing to ever lose is time;


If in order to achieve something, someone else has to lose

Then only our moral compass will determine what we will choose;


If you were to ask me which is more important, the heart or the mind

I’ll say to you, what does it matter if we don’t use them to be kind?


Why it’s good that we all don’t believe in the same thing

As the years keep rolling on, there appears to still be a sense of doubt in our minds. Now more than ever – as has been said before in every generation – we struggle to find the distinction between right from wrong. There is nothing that makes us more human than the inability to distinguish right from wrong.

Doubt. That is what it comes down to. Doubt from inexperience to be more precise.  We can turn to our gods, our logic, our parents or whoever we choose to seek counsel with but deep down we are all aware that no matter who gives us their suggested answer, it is hard to wholeheartedly believe it to be right since ultimately whatever they say will run through our individual filter more commonly known as our individual perspective.

I’m glad I don’t believe in all the same things as you. And you should be too.


Perhaps for the reason we learn to trust. If people – all of whom believe in different things – believe the same thing to be right, it is quite possibly the closest to the truth we may ever get to. Collective consensus.

Not believing in the same thing helps to rid ourselves of an evil intention – to have power over people. Power blinds us. It forces us to assume that things can only be accomplished at the expense of something or someone. But on the contrary, all our needs can be catered to and provided for if only we allow for everyones voice to be heard.

The question now becomes: How can we ensure our diversity is not adversarial but collective harmony in the quest to find the truth?

Why the CPF debate is the perfect example of our lack of political rights

For those who are following the situation regarding our CPF currently, you might feel frustrated. And so you should. It is testament to the lack of political and social rights Singaporeans have in our own country; contrary to what they might have you believe.

Manpower Minister Tan Chuan Jin, states that the current CPF system is valid. In fact, he justifies this by stating that the CPF system is the way it is because it is formulated from a “dignity perspective” as the government wants to ensure people can support themselves, as they grow older.

We do not need a highly intellectual rebuttal to counter his argument. Simple logic will allow us – Singaporeans – to prove to the government that if the CPF is meant to aid our retirement or old age, then what the government is currently doing is counter-productive.

Our CPF in comparison

Let’s put this into a little perspective. As cost of living continues to rise in Singapore (and in the world), it seems counter-productive to have less control of our money.

For instance, between Hong Kong and Singapore, Singapore has been ranked the more expensive city-state. Yet our compulsory contribution is significantly higher at 20% compared to 5% income capped at $1k, which means we have significantly less money to spend now – as income rises – while our draw out age continues to rise. As a result, family planning, quality of life and overall welfare would inevitably decrease.

It is definitely understandable for the government to look out for out future, and the future of our state. But if Singaporeans can’t enjoy the financial freedom our salaries offer, why would Singaporean citizens be invested in Singapore’s future?

Furthermore, Hong Kong enjoys full withdrawal at the designated age compared to our monthly withdrawal for life. This would allow Hong Kong citizens to invest further should they choose to, as they would have the funds for it. We wouldn’t have such a luxury if our payouts were monthly.

But ultimately, as I would like to point out, we should have the luxury of choice when it comes to choosing how we want to spend our money – especially during our retirement years.

We are Singaporeans

The government does well to promote Singaporeans to the world as hardworking, savvy and smart. So why then should the government control how much we choose to take out of our CPF when the time comes? If the government promotes us as highly capable individuals, then they should trust the way we plan our finances for our future. And if we don’t, teach us, don’t treat us like children.

Furthermore, my parents – like many of your parents or you yourself – have worked hard to amass the amount of money that is in their CPF (or at least what remains of it since they used most of it to pay for our HDB flat). Shouldn’t they be entitled to the money they so rightfully deserve?

Also if the government doesn’t allow them the basic social right to control their own finances, they are suggesting that Singaporeans are not smart enough to do so. Is that what the government is insinuating?

My mum works in the civil service. If the government trusts her to be part of a functioning government, then there should be no reason why they can’t trust her with her own (retirement) money.

The money we earn for our retirement is our human right

Who is anyone to suggest to another how they should spend their retirement money? They only have one life, and it shouldn’t be for the service of a government. That is what our taxes are for. If our government cannot understand this, then Singapore is going down a very slippery slope filled with potential human right potholes.

As Zygmunt Bauman said, social and political rights are two sides of the same coin. Deny someone their social right, and they would feel like their political right has been stripped away from them as well. We can be grateful for all our government has done for us – I know I truly am. But when they take away our social freedom, they take away our dignity, which Manpower Minister Tan Chuan Jin is apparently fighting so hard to protect.

I think it is time for our government to reconsider what they think the CPF means to its citizens.


Creativity is our sanity

Our creativity is our own. No one can take that away from us. It can neither be replicated nor stolen from within our depths. It is our own, and ours to keep. It is constantly evolving with each progressive or regressive step we take. No wonder our creativity is the cornerstone to our sanity.

Creativity allows us to express ourselves with complete freedom. Like our soul, it cannot be restricted in any way or form. Through the expression of our creativity, we are able to seamlessly merge who we are, and who we want to be – including everything in between.

Creativity has the potential to overcome culture, society and a formal education. The truly creative don’t learn to be creative neither do they listen to people who dictate where their creativity should flourish. Instead, they learn only to be the best version of themselves in order for creativity to maximize its potential.

We cannot be creative if we are not ourselves. We cannot give the best gift we could give to this world if we work within the confines of another man/woman. We should not stifle ourselves because someone tells us to.

Freedom is oxygen for our creativity. And creativity is the lifeblood of our sanity.

To do good is to first be safe

Like any animal, human’s basic – or perhaps first – instinct is to survive. The value of one’s life as opposed to another is presumably higher. Of course this is not to discount moments in life where we suddenly feel the desire to give up our own life to protect another, for example, our child, our parents or maybe even our close friends. But fundamentally, I think our right to live takes precedence over another’s.

So in order for someone to do good for others, something has to be fulfilled. A person needs to feel safe before he can help someone else. Hence, in order for generosity, cooperation and kindness to flourish, we should ideally create a society that encourages everyone to feel safe.

However, this is extremely difficult. We are a society that thrives on, depends on and expects competition. It is the only way we see ourselves progressing. Ironically, competition does not allow a person to feel safe – even if a person is living a life of excessiveness. This is because in competition, we are constantly looking over our shoulders trying to stay ahead of someone or looking ahead trying to beat someone. Ultimately, someone loses. And when someone loses, he no longer feels safe and therefore loses the ability to commit to helping another person. If you take away someone’s sense of security, you force him to focus on himself because he has to find away to become safe again.

You cannot make the world a better place when the quest for survival is a constant state of nature for both the rich and the poor, the hungry and the well-fed, the haves and the have-nots. If competition is highly regarded, then no one is the winner since the game has no final whistle.

If there is a God

If there isn’t a God, then we could sure use one. How else can we stop the evils in this world if we ourselves cannot draw the line between good and evil?

It would be particularly helpful for a God to dictate for us certain paths that cause conflict between the mind and the heart. It would be useful if he/she could play the role of a referee and tell us the rules of this game we call life, should we make a mistake. And it would be especially useful if he/she was a fortune-teller and tell us if there ever will be a world with complete harmony because if not, then we are certainly wasting our time trying to create one.

But if we were to want a God to provide us with the answers, we must be willing to give up our freedom. How many of us are willing to do that? To want a God is to want to be dependent. And as Rousseau once said, dependency destroys freedom. Therefore expecting autonomy while still believing in a God would only lead to the demise of one’s sanity and thus the opportunity to have (perceived) freedom.

If there is a God, then it is clear he/she is a non-interventionist. God has perhaps only given us the essentials of being a human and let us free into the wilderness of the abyss to fend for ourselves. It is God’s way of telling us to do what we will with the gift he/she has given us – the gift of life. But when this is all over, we have to accept the consequences of all our actions. And pay the price in the after-life. But this is only if God exists.