Freedom to Think, Vital to Question

There were 2 excellent comments in Thursday's Straits Times that resonated with me. They were both on an article by Ngiam Tong Dow about fostering creative ideas in the Singapore culture.

Freedom to think

http://www.straitstimes.com/ST%2BForum/Story/STIStory_337151.html

'The model in the Bible is one of fear and submission. Look to Greek philosophers instead.'

In his otherwise excellent article on Tuesday, 'Fostering the freedom to think', Professor Ngiam Tong Dow offers the Bible as a model of free thinking, as opposed to the Chinese imperial examinations. I beg to disagree. The model of behaviour in the Bible is one of fear and uncritical submission to 'the will of God'. A prime example is the story of Abraham who followed 'the will of God' and tried to sacrifice his own son. This is not an example of 'fostering the freedom to think'. If Prof Ngiam is looking for a model of 'freedom to think', he could look to that provided by Greek philosophers instead. In the dialogues of Plato, participants search for answers through the critical examination of one another's claims. To say they 'plead and argue' with one another is not the best expression either, due to its legal connotations, which have nothing to do with freedom to think as practised by philosophers.

Dr Panagiotis Karras

The second comment is:

Vital to question

http://www.straitstimes.com/ST%2BForum/Story/STIStory_337136.html

I WAS delighted to read Professor Ngiam Tong Dow's article on Tuesday, 'Fostering the freedom to think'.

The Chinese equivalent of learning or scholarship means 'learn and question'. A school is usually seen as a place where one's questions are answered, when it should be a place where one learns to ask more questions. If a student leaves a school with fewer questions than when he enrolled, he should demand a refund. A teacher who cannot answer all his students' questions is a poor teacher, and one who can, has poor students.

The Chinese model of a great teacher is a famous teacher who produces top students. A lifelong teacher will have failed if he does not produce a single student more prominent than himself.

Shouldn't a good leader also foster creative thinking and encourage questioning? Isn't it a sign that a great leader should step down when he starts to believe that wisdom stops with him? I believe this: Do not crown yourself. Let others do it. Do not allow others to remove your crown. Do it yourself.

Ee Teck Ee

Both comments resonated with me. Dr Karras struck a truth vein about the inhibiting restrains of Christian thinking. The problem with Christian philosophy is that you first have to accept the dogma that every one is born a sinner, and that Jesus died for our sins. This is alien thinking for me. If every one born a sinner, it speaks more about the kind of deity that the Christians worships than about people in general. This is why I find Christianity to be intellectually deficient and unsatisfying, although the bible does make interesting fiction reading.

I like the phrases Ee Teck Ee wrote:

A teacher who cannot answer all his students' questions is a poor teacher, and one who can, has poor students.

The Chinese model of a great teacher is a famous teacher who produces top students. A lifelong teacher will have failed if he does not produce a single student more prominent than himself.

Do not crown yourself. Let others do it. Do not allow others to remove your crown. Do it yourself.

So many choice quotations in such a short commentary!

Straits Times Forum - Charging laptops in the Community Centre

The Straits Times published one of my letters to the Forum (its in the Online edition and not the Print Edition). Read it if you are interested in my say:

http://www.straitstimes.com:80/ST%2BForum/Online%2BStory/STIStory_153523.html

I really loved the comments, especially the contrarian viewpoints that were offered. It is extremely interesting how very differently people can interpret my short letter from my original intention. When I wrote the letter, my thought processes were this:

- It only costs pennies to power laptops.

- There are more electricity draining equipment such as air-conditioners which are MUCH MUCH more expensive to run compared to laptops.

- CCs are funded by government money for the benefit of the public, especially poorer people. Come on, the Singapore government is super-duper rich. Just look at the PM's million dollar monthly salary. Why besmirch users for tapping into the power socket to power their battery drained laptops when it only cost pennies?

- I was also thinking in terms of the convenience provided to the casual user who may need to recharge his laptop once in a while. I am actually very thankful when I am outside to be able to find a place to charge my laptop battery so that I can continue using my laptop - especially at the end of the day (no thanks to lousy battery technology, most laptop battery can only hold 2 hours of charge). I sometimes do this at fast food restaurants (thanks, McDonalds).

- I am thus in favour that the publicly funded Community Centres allow users to recharge their laptops, and would like to encourage this behaviour.

Obviously, free facilities given in good faith should not be abused. Many critics against my letter state that providing free laptop charging will be abused by the public (and they really draw it to extreme conclusions). Unfortunately, the Singapore Government has been quite effective in teaching everyone that nothing is free (e.g. to get your free CPF $400 top ups during election year, you first have to put in $50 into your CPF account :-) ) and that free things will be abused.

Personally, I think we can encourage altruism in our society and not think so negatively about so many things. Call me the optimist :-)

Letter to the Straits Times Forum

The Straits Times Forum published a letter of mine in the online edition today. I had commented on an article written by Dr Andy Ho, the senior science and ethics writer for the Straits Times, which actually contain hidden biases favouring Creationism and Christianity over science (I am sure Andy Ho is a devout Catholic based on the position he has taken in his other opinion articles). I submitted my letter to the Straits Times last Friday (25 May 2007), and thought that it was rejected for publication. I was quite surprised that they finally published it today (2 June 2007), almost 9 days later.

http://www.straitstimes.com:80/ST%2BForum/Online%2BStory/STIStory_124926.html

I believe the free site on the Straits Times website contains only a 3-day archive for free access by the public. If you are interested to read what I wrote, you will need to visit the link before Tuesday (5 June 2007).

For some strange reason, the Straits Times has made every sentence ending in a period (full-stop) a paragraph on its own. In my original letter, excluding the bulleted points, I had a total of 6 paragraphs. In the published version, this ballooned into 13 paragraphs! The Straits Times published my letter without deleting a single word from my original.

Regards, NJ