Where do you "live"?

Being in the faculty geared towards the services sector (and a very touchy one to handle at times), one of my favourite activities is to talk to the people around me and find out what goes through their minds as their primary concerns, and their attitudes towards what happens around them. As a "go-getter" type of person going about my daily life, I always wondered why some people always made certain things look "smooth", almost as if things were falling into place naturally, while others struggled to decently match up to their peers. Also, it puzzled me as to why some people seem to stick to certain views, or even "tastes" in laymen terms, while others get swept away when a new wave hits town. In the end, I narrowed the causes down to the orientation a person has in the unwinding "timeline" of our lives. Where exactly are their thoughts? Are they "living in the past"? Are they forward looking? Or are they hedonistic? In this post, I hope to bring across the different characteristics of people with different time orientations and the impact on their lives.

What is a past oriented person? I would simply define it as anyone who uses his or her past experiences as a basis for evaluating most, if not all activities or choices in their daily lives. They will also compare what they see in the present with what they used to experience in the past. For example, a past oriented person would say, "in the past" or "this used to be". While such individuals tend to be associated with quite a few negative connotations, I personally feel that there is a benefit to being past oriented. Such individuals tend to take pride in their individuality as their world view tends to be shaped by their past experiences more so than people with other time orientations. Hence, they are less likely to be swept away by new fashion trends or any new fad that pretty much define today's commercialised society. Future pre-occupants in general do find a place in their awareness as they continue to compare the past with everything else that is and will be, but I don't usually hear of much actions being taken. Perhaps, the past has created an aversion for planning for the future and its uncertainties, contrasted against the past which has become known, fixed and impossible to change. Or maybe reminiscing on the past has drained them of the effort required to plan for the future. I wouldn't expect past oriented people to be the happiest of people either, as they require time to ease into changes which are becoming all too common in our current society.

Present oriented people are the ones we would associate with the term "hedonism". For one reason or another society as a whole seems to have quite a bad impression of such individuals. Especially odd given that most people would probably fall into this category. Present oriented people tend to focus more on the here and now. If I can describe their goal, I would say that they wish to experience the world around them. These individuals wish to experience things that make them happy or give them the "novelty factor". Hence, they are often at the forefront of fashion trends, or merely enjoying the moment with the joy it brings. Future pre-occupants are generally on the back of their minds as the temptations of the present are too much of a distraction, and hence even if they acknowledge the presence of looming problems, they may not take much action to intervene in it, given that their attention is directed towards the present. The past is also less relevant to them as they seek out to experience what is new to them. Hence, I would think that present oriented people are the happiest, but also less successful, and less likely to display individuality.

Future oriented people are the ones who worry about what will happen and are all about preparing for such eventualities. Especially in the domain of intervening to reduce their effects. Like good policy makers or investors, they forecast events and preempt themselves to reduce their losses or the take advantage of changes in the environment. Such people usually are the most high-achieving as they are adaptable to whatever comes their way since, well, they should have already prepared for it and all that's left is for things to happen and for their plans to be activated. However, such people will probably be the unhappiest of the lot, given that they always have additional worries from what they see to be happening in the future, which is always beyond our predictions. Also, they tend to lose their individuality given their need to constantly preempt themselves for what will happen next. 

Hence it seems, the 3 orientations in our timelines will always bring its benefits and harbour its costs. I believe it is not always a matter of choice as to which we are more inclined to be oriented to, however, depending on our goals, it might be possible for us to have our perception skewed towards what helps us attain our goals in life, be it remaining happy, achieving success in our careers, or being rooted in the things we believe to be most important in our lives. Perhaps, with some balancing of all 3, it is possible to lead a life that contains all 3 elements as well, as we partition our lives and lead each segment of our lives (e.g. career, relationships and leisure) based on one time orientation.

Should women serve National Service?

And so it happens that I was watching "talking point" on Channel News Asia, where the topic for the episode was whether women should be conscripted into the military. Hot potato just keeps getting passed around the room it seems. In a recent survey, it has been shown that the vast majority of women support the idea of national service in Singapore, which is the use of mandatory conscription of men into the military, Singapore Police Force or Singapore Civil Defence Force. However, it seems that when asked if they would serve in NS, only 10% said they will. Such disparity begets the question of whether it is right that the current system excludes women from NS liabilities. Is it a cultural factor? A notion of masculinity that links the military to men? Or are women liable to certain forms of discrimination in such a male dominated environment?

No, women shouldn't serve!

First, let us look at the arguments many have against the conscription of women. The military is an institution that emphasizes much on physical limits of individuals, of which men have always been known to be better at. After all, in combat, in the gruelling route marches and the tough strain on our physique, the innate strength of men is an overwhelming advantage compared to women, who weren't biologically hardwired for that. While this is a most logical answer for most, they are actually forgetting that there are many vocations in the military, such as support vocations (e.g. medical corp, clerks, logistics), which do not need individuals to undergo the tough physical training of combat units. Also, is it not possible that women can be trained to perform such duties as well? In Israel, mandatory conscription into the military includes both men and women. And this system has not shown any adverse effects on women in the military. In fact, I would believe that the arguments that hot blooded young men learn resilience and many other life's lessons from the military can also be applied to women if they so decide to join the military. And anyway, not all men are conscripted into the military as cavemen. Many of us were conscripted as individuals who failed their physical fitness test, or were obese. Yet military training allowed many able bodied men to eventually gain the level of physical fitness required of a soldier.

The second argument would probably be about discrimination against women. The military is indeed a place where masculinity is over emphasized. In fact, I would even argue that the greatest motivation for those serving in the military is based in masculinity associated with being a soldier. Is it possible that women would be discriminated against in the military? Well, no. Not by first hand accounts. Those who have served alongside women in the military have told me that not only do they not discriminate against women, they actually respect these women who "do the same thing that all the guys are doing". My brother would even say that these women put to shame anyone who does poorly in physical tests or other activities. The environment where women serve is largely different as well, as majority of Singaporean men (or generally, all civilised men worldwide) have had the notions of piping down on "men's talk" before ladies.

Another reason raised was the fact that women have to take much time off for childbearing. A rather valid argument, given our low birthrate. While it is true that childbearing puts a woman out of service for a considerable period of time, given the low birthrate of less than 2, assuming that each woman spends 3 separate years from gestation to giving birth to 3 healthy children without any further complications (which would be expected with our sophisticated medical science), what about the remaining 20+ cycles of reservist, and other high key operations that do not fall in those years?

Yes, EVERYONE should serve!

Should we then believe that Singaporean women should be sheltered from the harsh duties of protecting the nation while it is no secret that men literally give their lives serving in the military every year? Already, many Singaporean men are complaining that they are lagging behind their female counterparts at the workplace because 2 years of their prime have been given to the military. Not to mention the constant need to go for In Camp Training, to pass IPPT and failing which, to go for Remedial Training. All these disrupt the career of Singaporean men and has been cited as one of the reasons why foreigners are reluctant to employ Singaporean males. But this is another topic for another day. In the mean time, girls are free to concentrate on their work and whatever pleases them without having to balance between their commitments at the workplace and a certain camp in Singapore. Is it fair that all men, ABLE BODIED OR NOT, have to be conscripted into the military, while ALL women get off scott free?

Also, I believe that conscripting women into the military would, if anything, forge a stronger sense of identity among Singaporeans. As of now, only half of the Singaporean population would have a common experience to relate to with their fellow countrymen, but what if women were conscripted too? When all of us go through thick and thin together, wouldn't we be better able to forge a society that possesses a stronger national identity?

Finally, my brother raised a point which still lingers on in my mind now. In the strife for equality, many women have made arguments that have pretty much gotten them many well deserved rights. But when it comes to contentious issues like this, it seems the use of equality is shunned by those who advocate it. If women are to be equal to men in all rights, shouldn't women also bear the responsibilities taken up by men currently? This includes mandatory national service. If we never accept that women can and should serve in the defence of the nation, how can we come to terms with accepting them as equals? In the American civil war, it was known that blacks, who were seen as inferior races, or even sub humans, were not allowed to serve in the military because they were seen to lack the right to serve in the military. In my opinion, to say that women are incapable of serving in the military because they are weak, physically or mentally, is almost bordering on peddling the treatment of blacks in the American civil war, and the only cure to this stereotype is to get the vast majority of women to prove themselves in the military.

Don't make me laugh, you can't get everyone to do it!

Perhaps, the biggest barrier to realising this is the fact that majority of women would disapprove of it (and that the ruling party is taking a bashing on the polls). In the words of a lady, a former SAF regular, who called in during the talk show, "they don't want to serve NS, they want the guys to serve them". How aptly put. Is it justified that Singaporean men are called upon to readily give their lives for a nation where women would STOMP them for sitting on trains, for women who do not understand the environment in military enough to respect the men who have emerged from it?

For those who can't imagine women serving in the military, shouldn't it be fair if women can also be made to serve 22-24 months in places such as nursing homes, day care centres for the elderly, in VWOs etc?

On a final note, I would like to touch on the use of conscription. No one should be conscripted, but if we need conscription, everyone should be conscripted. After all, we should respect the rights of all people to decide what they wish to do, if possible. But in the spirit of fairness, and in view of our falling birthrate, it is my opinion that we should eventually conscript women to serve in National Service in future.

Exams are just too close for comfort this time. CA1 and CA2 6 weeks apart. What is the faculty thinking? Maybe our seniors had it too easy and they're getting the wrong ideas on... promoting "studious, laborious, productive, scholastic students". From 2 months apart + pass/fail -> 6 weeks apart + quartile banding. 

Anyway, I was just speaking to some housemates who participated in the Inter-house championships and they were commenting on how they had joined under the impression that it was going to be a fun, friendly match, unlike Inter Faculty Games where people were out for blood (really! I've heard comments from other faculties about how Medicine is so competitive in IFG).

Well, the believers had it bad. They were all freaked out by the intensity of the competition. At the end of all their recounts and comments on the ensuing chaos and violence, I simply said, "welcome to medicine" and "that's why we're here now". Must bode well for our future healthcare scene.

Gods that walk today's world: do doctors and judges hold disproportionate power?

Just a few days ago, I was discussing about different ethics essay topics appearing in the examinations for year 1 medical students. Although I had intended for it to be last minute revision combined with crowd intelligence. However, an interesting conclusion was reached by my family, one that I had never seen despite similar facts being presented before me, or most of us who have ever been implicated in the healthcare system, or the legal system for the unlucky layman.

So, it was just a usual family discussion over dinner when my brother decided to make a statement I was told was commonly made in the legal circles. "Lawyers should not play doctor, and doctors should not play god", he proclaimed, loud and proud, much to my horror as he told me that no doctor has the right to remove patients off life-support, or to allow patients to refuse treatment that a doctor deems to be necessary for the patient's survival. While the horror wasn't due to my brother's opinion that "the plug should not be pulled", I was rather affected by how strongly he held onto his belief that doctors in the medical field (i.e. my self in the future) are attempting to play god.

Indeed, many would argue that deciding if people live or die should be a power that resides in divine powers. After all, if all men are to be considered equals in society, which is what most societies enforce with the rule of law, no one should have the power over the life of another man. However, it is quite apparent that doctors, in certain situations, end up taking charge of the fate of their often incompetent (e.g. patients being coma) patients, and a single statement from the doctor could well bring "good-willed" death to patients in the name of beneficence. If doctors are to be considered humans and hence equal to their patients, do they have the right to decide the fate of their patients without their consent?

Doctors  are not the only ones who wield such disproportionate powers. Judges can be said to wield power even greater than those of doctors. Judges, in their sentencing of individuals facing the death penalty, decide the fate of competent individuals who might have otherwise lead lives longer and potentially much more fulfilling than those of coma patients (who probably don't have social and family support as well) who are left under the charge of doctors.

It is worth noting the "distortions" within society caused by this. I can almost confidently say that many view doctors and judges as saintly figures, much like the way the view powerful religious figures. A survey conducted in the UK showed that doctors and judges are some of the most trusted people, with over 90% of those interviewed saying that they trust doctors. But some would argue that it is a matter of chicken and egg as we review how the opposite may be true as well, as these respected individuals are only conferred power because of their morality.

Less apparent to many is the impact seen in doctors as well. In judges, such information is not well collated (if at all) but I will not be surprised if it was the similar to those of doctors. It has been shown that doctors have high depression rates. Perhaps, taking on superhuman roles such as deciding on the fate of fellow human beings whose lives they see as equals has impacted the medical community adversely as much as it has made it respected. In fact, the jury system, which comprises the average man on the street, has been shown to churn out individuals who require counselling after they realised that what they have said in court lead to criminals being convicted of the death penalty. To make such decisions, to take on the role of divine powers, takes a toll on all who attempt it, lest he/she be ignorant or twisted, both of which people entrusted with such responsibilities should never be.

With all the pessimism stated above, perhaps, it should be appropriate to end off with a quote by William Shakespeare. "Be not afraid of greatness: some are born great, some achieve greatness and some have greatness thrust upon them". It is indeed a sad fate that doctors (and possibly judges) end up doing stretching their minds, and more so their conscience just to find the compromise and reach a decision on what to do. But eventually, someone has to get the job done. While it may be taxing for doctors and judges to be "playing god", it is only right that they, the most qualified people, take over these roles to ensure that the best outcome is reached presumably from their superior knowledge and experience (and in many cases, intellect). To have greatness thrust upon me one day makes me fearful, but when I reach that day, I will not give this power up to anyone who will not be in a better position to make the decision than me.

After all, this is what the profession is at its best. Doctors are but a candle burning on both ends: burning ever faster to shed light to the lost and bring warmth to cold, while draining itself of all that sustains the burning passion before it runs out.

Phew mid-terms/CA1 is finally over... but I probably only got by well enough to be in the bottom quartile anyway. Strange that the school will think that giving us our quartile is going to help REDUCE COMPETITION among medical students. Save that load when you're talking to multi-talented, holistically developed students who go for international COMPETITIONs in sports and olympiads, or have been to other local sports and academic COMPETITIONs. The fact that we came in with stellar grades shows we outCOMPETEd everyone else on the bell curve. I'd be happier to know I'm still a long way from failing but sitting in the bottom quartile, which I suspect will be the case with the faculty stressing up an already academically inclined student population. 

On a side note, for anyone who actually bothers about knowing what I do/go through, this section will be shifted all the way from the front of my posts to the end of each post from now on.

Announced changes: Singapore education system

Wow it's been a long time since I posted on this blog! I guess I really meant it when I said the blog was for me to practice my GP before A levels haha. Whatever the case, the frequency, consistency, quality and content of my posts might vary quite a bit now that I have moved on to a new phase in life: med school!

I was just reading this post on RJ confessions about how the changes made to the education system are nothing more that a realignment on emphasis on achievements, rather than a solution to the problem of students being immersed into a competitive environment since their childhood. Well written, as expected of someone who has "jumped through the hoops" of our education system and made it into the "dream school" of so many parents (YES, I TOTALLLY AGREE THAT MANY PARENTS END UP CHOOSING THEIR CHILDREN'S SCHOOLS). But here's my 5 cents worth on this matter.

So, where does the problem truly lie?

Asians, being asians (especially the ethnic chinese in the Singapore context), place a strong emphasis on achievements. Already, it has become apparent to many westerners that their "yellow-skinned counterparts" are outperforming them in the academic arena at many levels. Quite a few years back, Shanghai was known to have blown the world away in a standardised test conducted across several countries, when students there were shown to be overwhelmingly proficient (here, we mean leagues ahead of even the second in line) in tests on reading, mathematics (and possibly other subjects). Also, in east asia, recurrent stories on extra tuition, cram school or any similar institutions have been a subject for many years that have passed and even more to come. The history of scholastic achievements and the strife for it in asian societies is longer than the history of paper itself, and today, confucian values still expound "working hard to bring glory to the family name". Under this system, children have to work hard to bring fame and parents have the duty to push them in that direction. How many times have we heard parents telling their children to work hard to "become doctors and lawyers" (the 2 most dignified professions here)? This is a culture we are talking about here, one as widely accepted as filial piety (which I most definitely support). Culture takes a long time to be diluted and eventually overturned. Perhaps this nation just hasn't had enough time.

Secondly, parents all want the best for their children. Or maybe, more correctly, they all want what they believe is best for their children. What in life can guarantee that more than a good education, to get them a good job, a good payslip, and with it the comforts in life? In this globalised world, to be "skilled" is to be irreplaceable, and hence, to achieve all that was mentioned before. Naturally, parents would assume that a school with a good name provides that education which secures the rest. It's not difficult to see why when almost half of law and medical school cohort here is from one single JC. Throw in a little economics on demand and supply and you can see how grade inflation sets in every year, and how it forms this vicious cycle that stresses up many students, and perhaps more importantly, their parents.

As we can see, much of the problem comes from people in the system, not flaws in the system. The education system was created to impart knowledge to students, and tests to stream out the weaker students who need extra attention, perhaps through additional years of education, so that everyone would be on a certain similar standing by the time they all start work, albeit at different ages. However, parents often misunderstand the system. To them, having their children placed into a different banding requiring "special attention" would mean years wasted away while their peers' children zoom ahead in life. Perhaps, even more parents would find it difficult to admit that it weighs down on their pride for their children to be seen as different from others, inferior to others, just the way the news reported that special needs students are not placed in special needs schools because parents do not want themselves and their children to be seen in a different light. Except in this case, the repercussions are less obvious, or less serious.

Is the tweak in PSLE scores into wider bands, and a greater emphasis on CCAs going to change anything? 

Yes. It is going to make tuition centres close down. Is it going to make education less stressful? No, rather, it will make education more stressful. A holistic education in the eyes of achievers means more things to learn, more things to be tested on, and more possibilities for bad grades to show up. In the end, the criteria for getting into top schools will only be changed from PSLE score of 2XX to PSLE score of 2XX AND proven proficiency in a musical instrument AND proven proficiency in sports  AND anecdotal evidence of "leadership" qualities. More to work on, not less. At the tender age of maximum 12, this system is arguably the worst version of educational achievements I know of. Sure, it looks impressive. Even I would want such a kid in my school. But just think about it, those CCAs that can become achievements are all financially draining. Sports would require coaches and music would require teachers, both of which schools are only able to afford at a limited extent. In the end, it is the parents who pay for extra lessons beyond the school. This simply perpetuates the rich poor divide. In the end, this just allows schools to select parents rather than students.

And leadership? Does anyone with a rational mind actually believe that primary school students are capable of leadership? As a child, I have only seen prefects, the epitome of leadership, being selected based on how obedient they are, or how academically inclined they are. None of these have anything to do with leadership. In fact, I would argue that obedience is the lack of leadership, and primary school teachers are the worst judges on this issue. And if student leaders are selected by academic aptitude, aren't we back where we started off?

What can we do? 

Nothing really. It is just depressing to know that this is the fate of being born in Singapore, or asia, as a matter of fact. Competition is cutthroat even in our childhood and adolescence. Which, for better or for worse, feels like a reflection of life beyond school. In our lives as working adults, there will always be competition. Everyone wants the best jobs, the best pay, the most glorified positions and occupations. Not everyone can have what they want, just the way not everyone can get into the school of their dreams, unless they really are exceptional individuals. In the end, it is just the law of nature that there will be gainers and losers because everyone is so inherently different in terms of physical prowess, intellectual capability or other qualities we can use as a yardstick for "accepting" students into top schools. Systems are just rules and boundaries within which us innovative humans will compete, and as long as that competitive spirit lives in us, there will be no end.

Is there really no hope?

Well, there is. If the world around us cannot change, we can change ourselves. Rather than trying to find a school with a fancy badge, we should get parents to try to find a school that can develop children to their full potential. Allow students to take up the educational route that gets them to the proficiency of their peers, not the other way around. Rather than give them tuition to send them into brand name schools, why not send them to other schools that will make up for the need for tuition? Also, stop glorifying these coveted schools. "A school for every child's needs" should be the motto of our education system and those who dwell in it. Parents need to realise that every student should be intellectually stimulated according to their individual capacity, lest we turn them off by stretching them beyond their limits. Every school can be a good school, provided it caters to a child's needs. Throwing students of all academic aptitude into the same school would only hold back the brightest and overwhelm the weakest. The government should also be sure that allocation of teachers is done in a way that would allow the vast majority of students to learn better. Having good teachers posted to elite schools should only happen if they are the only ones who can further push the already proficient students to become exceptional, and just not to help them grasp basic concepts that they could well have learnt on their own without attending lessons.

"Be a doctor, be a lawyer!"

Finally, I would like to share my own experience. I have probably lived my life in the "Singaporean Dream", being born to parents who worked their way up the social (or in our modern world, the financial) ladder, all while raising their only 2 children to join the "Singaporean Dream Professions" of a doctor and a lawyer in our prestigious local universities. But never once in my life, or in my brother's, have we been forced into living our parents' dreams. They would speak of trying for X secondary school, but emphasise that it was not the only place to be. My mother herself believed that should there be a need to, it was for the best interest for her children to be sent to the Normal Academic stream rather than the express stream if need be, so the extra year of studies can help us reach our end goal. I am thankful that we never resorted to that, but today, what I see is the exact opposite. Do we really believe that being where we don't belong will make us better? I was from a top government secondary school and JC, and every year, I am not surprised that a good number of DSA students have to retain or do badly for their O and A-levels. I have known many RJC students who lacked any opportunity to participate in much CCA because of the stiff competition there, and I certainly do not think RJC has done their talents justice. In the end, I believe that what each student can achieve depends on where they really want to be, and not where they are at present. As my brother aptly phrased his view on students he met through a series of interviews by the Public Service Commission, it's not that some JCs produce particularly exceptional individuals, but to some, by the mere fact that they are from coveted institutions, they already have a quality imbued into them that others do not possess: confidence! So whoever you are reading this, if the facts don't say otherwise, if you know you have something to offer, always keep your head held high and your spirit strong! Once you have proven yourself, where you were from makes little or no difference anymore. If you reach here, I congratulate you on your patience, and I wish you all the best for your pursuits as students, or that of your children's as parents.

Should scientific research be largely driven by commercial interests?

In 18th century Britain, an infectious disease, the smallpox virus, had taken the lives of many. Almost one in three who were infected were killed, while the rest were badly disfigured by the resultant scars left by the the infection. All that came to an end when a country doctor, Edward Jenner, created the first vaccine that was to rid the world of this disease. By the late twentieth, the smallpox has been extinct based on the World Health Organisation, but that again, Edward Jenner's gift to the world. After the discovery, he had refrained from patenting the vaccine as he feared that the cost of producing vaccines would be increased by his patent and the vaccine out of reach from the average person. Today, it would be unimaginable that any pharmaceutical conglomerate would squander millions on research and clinical trials just to leave out the opportunity to file patents and secure its revenue. Indeed, living in a world described as such, it is no wonder many lament that the pursuit of science has been commercialised at the expense of the welfare of society. However, to undermine the positive role of commercial institutions would be naive as we should also realise that all organisations exist to serve a purpose in society.

Some may argue that scientific research driven by commercial motives would make the products of scientific research too expensive for majority of society. There is some truth in the statement, as we frequently hear from opponents of certain fields of bioethics. Intellectual property rights that restrict the use of scientific discoveries and their associated products made in the corporate world have created monopolies that, given the freedom to make the most of their investments, have sold off their products at prices that more than cover for the cost of research and production of drugs, further widening the income gap by rewarding the rich with profits at the expense of the poor who are unable to obtain treatment. This was the basis when India disallowed the patenting of drugs in its domestic market, allow an Indian firm to produce generic drugs that have gone on to become the greatest supplier of drugs to fight HIV in poorer nations. While the move probably gained much support from the layman, this has removed the incentive for pharmaceutical corporations to invest in the research of drugs in India. If this had been done in more countries, it would be possible that corporations may no longer see any possible gain in researching into new drugs that would result in better cures, causing them to each wait for an opportunity to free ride on others efforts, which is especially notable in India where drug research is anemic, if even existent.

Opponents for profit driven scientific research also bring up the argument that profit motive degrades the moral values of researchers. History has shown us that it is not a far-fetched claim. Thomas Edison, known for his works in physics, most notably in the discovery of the direct current which brought electricity to households, was ruthless in his competition with George Westinghouse. Westinghouse's push for the alterating current threatened to rival and even take over his direct current supply lines as the dominant form of supplying electricity to households. This drove him to hold public campaigns on the dangers of the alternating current. Many would have heard of his famous experiment where he executed an elephant that had killed its carer, simply for the purpose of demonstrating the potential dangers of using his rival's works. These days, news of unethical practices in the research sector comes in the form of falsified research documents and experiments. These practices taken together are counter productive in the the pursuit of knowledge in the academic arena and are indeed a hindrance to the progress of science. However, many also fail to realise that in the business world, there is no place for incompetent work. Businesses eager to create new products and production methods are almost always open to scientific research that best suits their needs. In the example of Thomas Edison, Westinghouse's alternating current eventually became the staple for distribution of electricity due to its ability to transmit electricity across long distances to reach out to more households. Also, researchers who flaunt their falsified work are quickly discovered, just as the truth behind South Korean scientist Hwang Woo Suk's fraudulent experiments had been made know to the world soon after its release that had many crown him a great scientist of our times. In cutting edge times we live in today, we should never doubt the efficiency of the world to quickly sieve out the best solutions to our problems, as well as isolate and condemn those that threaten to halt our progress.

On the contrary, the ability of commercial organisations to increased rate of research has not been acknowledged enough. Corporations, with their great financial might, are able to command the wealth of societies and invest them into the development of new technologies and drugs. Corporate research and development efforts today account for over 70 percent of all research work done worldwide. Indeed, it is notable that militaries worldwide, with their push for more effective communication devices have been less successful than their counterparts in the corporate world, who have developed water resistant, dust-resistant and scratch proof phones more than capable of carrying out communication functions. Few can dispute that corporate research has been much too successful in this arena.

Also, the participation of commercial organisations ensures that scientific knowledge is turned into usable products. The pursuit of science by itself is only a process of gaining knowledge to catalogue the workings of the physical world. The business world, however, is more concerned with creating products to supply the need of society. After all, only products needed by society will be able to sustain corporations and bring in profits. By combining the two, we are able to ensure that the pursuit of knowledge is translated into progress in society when the knowledge gained by scientists are in turn used to build new objects with practical uses in society. For example, the understanding of the basis of cancer is a subject of research in many universities, as much as it is a widely researched field in corporate research. However, until now, not a single drug for treatment of cancer has originated from universities. This is because universities are institutions of learning and exploration of the frontiers of our understanding of the world but it does not play a role in, or have a responsibility to help solve the problems of mankind. Corporations, however, are sustained by the continued patronage of customers. This ties them in with the needs of the community and makes their work skewed towards the needs of the people. Thus commercial interests are not necessary for scientific research to take place, but it is almost always necessary for scientific research to benefit society.

Finally, commercial interests help in the democritisation of technologies. Few organisations in the world take on research and development roles. Other than universities and educational institutions, it could be argued that the only other organisation that undertakes scientific research at a large scale are governments, being one of the few organisations with the incentive and financial might to do so. However, unlike governments, commercial organisations help to spread technologies to more communities around the world in order to increase its profits. Many of us would be familiar with the development of military technologies by governments worldwide, especially in the field of unmanned aerial drones for surveillance. These technologies have played a crucial role in the wars against insurgents. However, their usage in civilian populations has not seen much of an increase despite rapid development of such technologies, and their possible applications in fields such as crowd surveillance by private security firms and land surveillance by investment firms. This is because countries that have developed these technologies feel that the technologies are strategic and should not be "leaked" to the public. Profit motive of corporations, however, would bring about the widespread use of any product from scientific research undertaken by corporations. This is because corporations are not bound by obligations to restrict their sales to interested individuals or organisations which are viewed as rivals, being protected by intellectual property rights. Hence, it is only when scientific research is driven by commercial interests that it would be truly possible for there to be widespread use of developed technologies.

To take all views into perspective, scientific research should be largely driven by commercial interests, but actively monitored by organisations accountable to the people. Commercial interests are crucial in guiding scientific research towards improving the lives of people and not simply be for the intellectual pursuits of scientists not accountable to the general population. However, as with all systems, corporations have their Achilles heel, which is their susceptibility to dishonest practices. This is why there is a need for them to be monitored. After all, in a world where more than half of the world's largest economies are transnational corporations, it would be easier to ride the wave of corporate expansion and tap on their plentiful resources rather than attempt to fight them.

Is the poor an inevitable feature in every society?

The dust has finally settled. Disgruntled men and women who rallied on the streets in demonstrations unseen in western societies in recent years have been displaced from news headlines as other conflicts like the territorial disputes in East Asia, and the aftermath of natural disasters on unprecedented scale hog the attention of the media and investors. But we should not stop pondering about the rich poor divide that has segregated nations of peace loving people and thrown societies into chaos. Have the poor really been compromised on certain grounds that should warrant a makeover in the way we run the capitalist free society? Indeed, it has brought about problems that stem from the inequity supported by this system, but in my opinion, there are few other ways to promote efficient societies that bring us the material standard of living that has lifted the masses out of abject poverty that was the characteristic of the late 19th century and early 20th century.

Income inequity does bring about problems. Income inequity has the potential to destabilise societies, putting the economic engine to a halt. When faced with great income inequity, workers who take a smaller share of the economic pie often lose their productivity by taking part in strikes call for by labour unions, be it the white protesters in Wall Street or the blue collar workers in the Foxconn plant in China. Most modern economies are built on the assumption that welfare of people in society should be supported by a basic level of material wealth that promises to relief them of problems like malnutrition, sickness and exposure to the elements of mother nature. This is the most basic goal of most governments even though it is never written in any charter or constitution. All that is threatened when the state of the economy is thrown into a standstill by the unhappiness of men and women who feel the have been left behind by the affluent high society.

Also, income inequity can translate into a setback to the aim for equality among men. For ages, men of great financial clout have been able to bend the will of fellow men, to subject groups of people to their control and to force those around them into submission. That is why the French Revolution was founded upon the principles of "Freedom, Equality, Fraternity", to reverse the grossly imbalanced world that had lasted through centuries. Today, that revolution is being reversed by the ridiculous inequity that exists in capitalist societies. The free market was never a place for equality. In the free market, businesses follow the lead of the "money vote", of which each man holds unequal amounts of depending on their purchasing power. Even political systems have become slaves to money. In the super PAC of Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, Sheldon Adelson - the CEO of a major player in the global gaming industry - had donated a stunning USD 36 million, and was quoted saying "I'm against very wealthy people attempting to or influencing politics, but as long as it's doable, I'm going to do it". It seems even democratic systems that had hoped to represent the voices of most if not all citizens equally through a system of "one man, one vote" had failed to rid itself of the influences of the wealthy.

However, we should also realise that inequality is an important driving force for progress in society. In capitalist societies, inequality arises because individuals are paid differently depending on their ability to carry out tasks assigned to them as well as the number of tasks they are willing to devote their time to completing. Such tasks usually aim to create value in society, as individuals work as an integral part of a firm that supplies society with the goods and services that improve the lives of people. But without an incentive, few individuals would probably have chosen to work less or give up on working as not all share this inspired vision. Inequality of income gives people the reason to work harder to achieve a better life, depending on their goals. By promising a greater share of the country or organisation's financial gains, people are motivated to work harder than their peers as they realise that society recognises their additional contribution and rewards them proportionally.

Also, job prospects are different for every job, and the nature of jobs themselves vary. In occupations that demand high level of skills or intelligence, high salaries are given to attract people to undergo the necessary training and to enter the field. For example, the training process of a doctor is notoriously long, spanning at least 5 years at a university. Some jobs also require talented individuals due to the large impacts of their decisions. In a study where CEOs were followed and their daily decisions studied, it was found that an average CEO makes 120 decisions a week of which around 50% are done within 9 minutes.This represents a tremendous strain on the concentration and analytical capabilities of individuals in such posts, where they have to make possibly multi-million dollar decisions within time constraints dealt to them by the large number of problems competing for their attention. Without the possibility of making up for the losses involved in terms of taking up a less taxing job or spending the lengthy training time on leisure activities or on an alternative career, few would be willing to devote themselves to these jobs.

To put all views into context, the poor is indeed an inevitable feature in society, if poor is to be defined in relative terms with their counterparts of the same day and age. It is impossible and even dangerous to imagine a world where everyone enjoys the same material wealth in spite of differences in their contribution to society. At the same time, it would foolish to think that high income inequality can be sustained in the age of the individual, where people are more vocal about their personal needs and wants. To walk the fine line between both is perhaps the eternal challenge of developed nations. But more importantly, while it may be true that sentiments against the rich in the countries mentioned are worthy of our attention, we should also remember that these same protesters are probably enjoying a much higher material standard living than our predecessors. After all, the industrial revolution had done so much to lift humanity out of poverty that even with the inequality that exists, the poorest of today might well be richer than some of the richer individuals of the past. In that aspect, all of us in the developed world are the same.

Is history anything more than the study of warfare?

If one were to ask the man on the street about historical events, many would probably build on their knowledge of the wars fought in the past. Indeed, warfare is one of the few events that span the history of all cultures, and more often than not, one that is remembered and discussed by individuals in the years after the  warriors who waged it have passed on. Yet it would be foolish to simply think of history as the study of warfare alone. History is the attempt by man to record the events of a generation to preserve it in our cultures so that those who come after us would be able to relive our times through the lenses of historians. History at its best is the story of the progression of mankind from simple existences shaped by nature's will to the sophisticated beings who have learnt to change the world around us. It is the collection of such revolutionary events that forms what we now know as history.

The history of mankind is one of his triumph over more than himself. History shows us how mankind has learnt repeatedly over the centuries about pandemics, from the black death plague that wiped out more than 30% of the population of 14th century Europe to the 1918 flu pandemic that killed between 20 to 50 million people. These catastrophic events have shaped the world in profound ways, teaching mankind lessons that served as guidelines for the generations that came after. For example, it was not until the peak of the 1918 flu pandemic that medical practitioners realised that the flu virus was spread via droplets of body fluid inhaled by individuals near a patient. Prior to that, masks worn by physicians had only covered their mouths but not their noses, rendering them vulnerable to the disease. By studying history teaches us to review the events and the knowledge that our forefathers had sacrificed their lives to learn as they soldiered on to adapt to the fickle mood of mother nature.

History is also a study of the cultures of the world. More often than not, it is the events of the past that shape the mindsets of conservative member in society, who make up the bulk of many societies even in the western world that most consider to be modern and liberal in embracing new age thoughts on alternative lifestyles, innovation and immigration. The conflict between Israel and the Arab states may be a relatively recent conflict, but its roots in religion is not. The competition of opposing forces to gain control of Jerusalem had been an ancient conflict that runs back to medieval times, into the crusades, and into the rise of Islam and Christianity. In and East Asia, the powerful thoughts of Chinese philosopher Confucius still defines social norms such as the young taking care of their retired elders. Around the world, it could be argued that almost every region works on a patriarchal society because the social norms had become part of society since the invention of agriculture which put women out of their roles as gatherers and effectively made men the providers of the family. If we are to explain the trends of today few would argue that the best place to begin searching from is the very texts that describe our humble beginnings.

History is also a source of inspiration for individuals and states. Nation states with a rich history are known to tap into their wealth of historical achievements to forge a national identity and establish the a sense of national pride that unites the nation. It is understandable that if history was to serve as a reference for our cultures, it would also reflect the common ancestry shared by majority of the people in nations due to the geographical limitations to immigration until recent times. At the individual level, the use of characters displaying heroic qualities have often been used as a motivation for people in sectors like the military, governance and healthcare. 

Finally, the study of history is the study of human nature. History, through its collection of stories on characters and organisations, reveals to us the way people think and act. The study of warfare mentioned previously is but a portion of this. The study of warfare shows us how conflicts arise from the contrasting views and conflicting interests of different civilisations and nations. It has shed light on the rational and irrational behaviours of people that have lead to changes in society. The Taiping revolution in Qing dynasty China, an example of warfare, would be an example of how irrational behaviours have fuel conflicts that had such a profound impact that a page in history had been specially dedicated to it, while the intricate twists and turns of strategies employed in warfare the epitome of the potential of the human mind. It is no wonder that students who study history are taught about conflicts and their resolutions (if any has been reached), for history is the very embodiment of what the humanities aim to do: to reveal to us more about ourselves.

Thus, the study of history is not merely about warfare. Warfare is but a rich source for us to understand and extract lessons to apply to our current contexts. Warfare is only studied in history because we have understood that history is about the developments that have shaped the world of man that we see today, and wars are arguably the strongest forces that have pushed us to the pinnacle of all organisms, forcing us to innovate and create in order to best our opponents and promote development of our societies. History by itself is more subtle, yet more profound. It is the collection of all that has made the world what it is today.