Elegy for A Friendship

Do not stand at my grave and weep
I am not there; I do not sleep.
I am a thousand winds that blow,
I am the diamond glints on snow,
I am the sun on ripened grain,
I am the gentle autumn rain.
When you awaken in the morning’s hush
I am the swift uplifting rush
Of quiet birds in circled flight.
I am the soft stars that shine at night.
Do not stand at my grave and cry,
I am not there; I did not die.

This is a poem by Mary Elizabeth Frye which is normally used as an elegy for departed friends and loved ones, often read at bereavements and funerals.

I find the prose uplifting and soothing. While someone may have died, the memory of him/her lives on as long as you choose to remember. Similarly, when something is gone, the concept of it must somehow remain somewhere in your memories, and sometimes, when you really try and see with your mind’s eye, listen with your heart,  you can feel it  around you, it is still there, it did not die ….

Here, I dedicate it to a friendship that was not to be.

The poem has been translated into Japanese and made into a song by Man Arai. Below is the song sung by Japanese tenor Masafumi Akikawa :

How Not to Choose a Life Partner

We’ve all read about how to choose a life partner (spouse). Well, now I have just read an article on what to avoid in choosing a marriage prospect.

Not exactly the most lightening list to go through, but here, in short, is how the advice goes (from the perspective of being given to a female) :

Never marry a man who has no friends. Now this makes a lot of sense. If a man has no friends, it shows his lack of ability to cooperate, empathise, commiserate and exposes his lack of or low social aptitude. Of course, ‘friend’ here excludes casual acquaintances and superficial associations such as school mates. Neighbours and office colleagues don’t count either. Deep friendships are borne of self-sacrifice and emotional engagement, an ability to team up with someone to achieve objectives and watch out for one another.

Avoid a man who shows no or little financial sensibility. Now, this shouldn’t mean “marry a rich guy”. It refers to a person being unable to manage money rationally – i.e. either overspends beyond his limit (a credit junkie) or stingy miser who insists on going Dutch on your 14th date, for a cup of Starbucks! Given today’s high cost of living, you don’t want some guy who’s going to live off you. But you also don’t want a guy who’s going to whine about every little household necessity you’re going to be jointly responsible for. Worse in this category are the penny-wise-pound-foolish types, and the ones who don’t understand the concepts of warranties, insurance and catastrophic incident costs.

No yes-men please. A guy who panders to your every wish and who bends over his back for you might sound like a dream catch. But that’s just what he is, a dream. And it could turn into a nightmare. Someone who doesn’t have committed stands on issues and principles probably haven’t considered life’s conundrums in much depth. He’ll likely spoil the kids and leave the problems to you in future. Don’t confuse this with a man who cannot openly discuss topics and issues and come to a considered compromise or even ‘agreement to disagree’. This is just as bad – he’ll bottle up and internalise all those differences and become a mental timebomb. On the flip side, you don’t want someone who’s always agitating for a fight over the smallest things, nor a moralizing pontiff.

Don’t marry mommy’s boy. This one’s self-explanatory. A man who still asks his mother’s opinion (or worse still, permission) for life’s decisions should not be thinking of getting married and living his own life. Now this excludes the special cases where the mom is a specialist in the area of consideration. Example, if she were a gynaecologist and the man consults her on matters relating to their future children.

Avoid the silent type – even the strong silent ones. Man was given the gift of speech and language. If a man remains reticent and makes little conversation throughout your engagements with him, he is likely to remain so after marriage. If you can’t talk and express yourselves (calmly) and often enough, you will not be able to resolve problems and differences amicably later on. So if you want someone who listens but doesn’t talk back, you need a pet dog or cat, not a man to marry.

Don’t marry a man without a sense of humour. Now, this is not a guy who laughs hysterically at slapstick comedy movies, but someone who is able to laugh at himself. A man who doesn’t take himself and life too seriously is likely to be less prone to undue depression, and will be able to bounce back when the chips are down. A sense of humour points to a high emotional quotient and is arguably one of the highest order of intellectual abilities. Don’t equate this with being easy-going or happy-go-lucky which are generally good traits if not too much so.

Finally, forget about the guy who don’t exhibit the traits of human decency – basic courtesy and respect for all individuals, compassion for animals, and empathy for others. Add on this, a sense of fairness, and the abilities to let go (not vindictive), give praise and help others.

Conclusion

So there you have it. Good advice for anyone looking to get hitched or take a relationship to the next level. For guys, just flip the gender nomenclature and it applies just as well.

The golden rule though is that you should keep all these in mind before letting yourself get infatuated with the other party. Otherwise, lust and strong emotions take root, and clarity in observation and thought becomes difficult.

Love, as they say, is blind afterall.

The Great Singapore Escape (or the Story of Complacency)

On February 27th, 2008, at 4:05pm, alleged Jemaah Islamiah (JI) terrorist Mas Selamat Kastari escaped from Singapore’s Whitley Road Detention Centre (WRDC), a top-security prison for incarcerating alleged threats of the highest order to the Republic’s safety. WRDC is managed by the powerful and (hitherto) much-feared Internal Security Department (ISD) under the purview of the Ministry of Home Affairs. Detainees here typically get imprisoned under orders of the ISD without need for evidence and trial under the normal judicial process accorded to citizens under the Constitution.

This event marks one of the darkest moments in the history of security enforcement in the Republic of Singapore. For almost two months, Singaporeans waited for the report by the ‘independent’ Committee of Inquiry set up by the Ministry of Home Affairs itself to investigate the escape. I’ve marked the the word independent within quotation marks, because out of the committee of three(3), one is a current Home Affairs Deputy Secretary Dr Choong May Ling (one of the highest ranking civil servants in the Ministry) and another is a former Commissioner of Police (Mr Tee Tua Ba) who is now an ambassador. The third person is retired judge Goh Joon Seng.

Now it is clear as day to many that having Mr Tee, a former subordinate of Minister of Home Affairs Wong Kan Seng and ex-colleague to many in the Ministry and Police forces, makes it awkward if the investigation points to culpability at the highest levels. Likewise, for Deputy Sec. Dr Choong. In fact, it is worse in her case because we do not know if she might be in some way responsible herself, and thus couldn’t possibly be expected to incriminate herself. By including them, Mr Wong seems to have precluded any culpability at the highest levels of the Ministry. We are not questioning the integrity of the committee, but the public expect any doubts to be removed.

But enough on that Committee structure – it is formed and its work has been done. The COI’s report was readied for release to the public and Parliament on April 21st, 2008. Alas, it was not the full report but the Executive Summary that was released. The reason simply being that details contained therein might jeopardize national security. Well, considering the various theories put up and the possible scenarios in which the Ministry painted the way Mas Selamat could have escaped, it is hard to argue with the Minister’s decision not to release those details. I’m sure the litany of blunders would make Singapore, in particular the Republic of Singapore’s security forces, the laughing stock of the world and terrorists plotting the annihilation of Singapore.

[ I'll write more on those blunders in a future post. Then maybe not. For the excruciating stomach ache due to laughing too much when re/reading the details of the Executive Summary and press explanations might be too much to bear. ]

In short, the Summary, which was briefed on by Mr Wong Kan Seng (who is also a Deputy Prime Minister) to Parliament on the same day, explains the escape as a ‘confluence of factors’ that resulted in no particular individual being responsible. At least not criminally responsible. But Minister Wong promised that disciplinary action would be taken against the persons involved – which essentially means the Junior ISD officer and the two guards watching over Selamat at the time of escape. And of course everyone up to the ‘management’ will be dealt with. How ? I have no idea. Perhaps the usual transfers out of the department, or/and letters of reprimand; a black mark in their work records that means many years of non-consideration for promotion, a sub-average performance appraisal which translates into less than average salary bonuses, etc. etc. But again, these are for the lower and middle level officers. What about the officers at the higher/highest levels ? The Director of the ISD and the Superintendent of the Detention Centre ? What about the Ministry officers, the directors of facilities (the report alluded to various physical deficiencies in the WRDC), security procedures, deputy secretaries overseeing the ISD itself ? What about the Ministry’s highest ranking officer, the Permanent Secretary Benny Lim, himself a former Director of the ISD ? Does not the ‘confluence of factors’ point to systemic problems in the way which the Ministry and ISD runs and are managed ?

Wow, that seems like a long list. Are we on a witch hunt ? Well, did anyone feel the James Gomez affair was a witch-hunt (or more like a witch-burning since the ‘witch’ was already identified) ? Mr Wong ? Your views, please. Did you not ask Mr Gomez to step down and take responsibility ? Did you not say, “Sorry, also must explain.”. Incidentally, Mr Wong, your “sorry” in Parliament, in my view and the views of many I know, does not constitute a sincere apology. Therefore, many Singaporeans are still waiting for your sincere “sorry”, after which we will consider if it necessitates further “explanation”.

Now let’s not hark too much on the past shall we ?

So let me move further to the next issue which is responsibility and accountability.

What ? You thought I was finished ?

Not yet.

According to the Westminster System, which I am told the Singapore system of government adheres closely to, there is a constitutional convention of Ministerial Responsibility (or, for the pedantic, Individual Ministerial Responsibility), which essentially states that a cabinet minister is accountable for and bears the ultimate responsibility for the actions of their ministry or department.

Wikipedia explains it thus :

This means that if waste, corruption, or any other misbehaviour is found to have occurred within a ministry, the minister is responsible even if the minister had no knowledge of the actions. A minister is ultimately responsible for all actions by a ministry.

It further explains that,

Even without knowledge of an infraction by subordinates the minister approved the hiring and continued employment of those civil servants. If misdeeds are found to have occurred in a ministry the minister is expected to resign. It is also possible for a minister to face criminal charges for malfeasance under their watch.

So what say you, Mr Wong ? Do you think you are answerable for the incompetency and complacency that has set in in your Ministry, in particular the WRDC which is overseen by the ISD ?

Will you do the right thing ?

Will you do the honourable thing ?

Will you behave the way which I have been made to believe Lee Kuan Yew’s whiter-than-white, incorruptible and no-nonsense PAP, which runs this government and country, will do ?

Here We Go Again

Some things change, some things remain the same, and some things, well, just repeat themselves. Like the ridiculous property bubble that has been building up in Singapore over the past one year. Remember 1995-97 anyone ?

Crazy prices, crazy rents.

And then, there is the soaring price of petroleum. It might as well have been helium.

Don’t even get me started on the food prices.

And here’s the bottomline: Singapore, which practically imports all its food and all of its energy needs, is in a very precarious position should the trend of inflation of commodities continue to rise. Make no mistake about this. No Singapore government or media mouthpiece will be putting it clearer to you. I will.

My prognosis for the economy (Singapore’s and the world’s in general) :

Rampant Inflation

World inflation of basic food and commodities, aggravated by environmental problems and diminishing wild seafood supplies, will continue to see prices rise. Food-related protectionism is already starting to become a political necessity in many third-world food-producing countries – India and Vietnam are restricting rice exports…. Rice, soya bean, wheat and basic grain prices have been going up in the double-figure percentages over the past months. Expect more.

Property Bubble Collapse

The property bubble in Singapore will come to a head as early as in Q2/Q3 if not by 2009. Why ? The past year’s launches and large price rises have been driven by foreign speculators and large numbers of en-bloc takeovers. The mass-market is driven by PRs (yes they can buy HDB flats in case you still didn’t know) and filter-down effect rentals from the influx of new foreigners and existing ones ‘downgrading’ from private apartments and condos, driven out by ridiculously increased rents. This cannot be sustained, the scarcity of land in Singapore notwithstanding. There is no fundamental strength in the Singapore economy other than from the volumetric increases in the resident population (I don’t believe for a moment that investors give much of a damn to the casino story) as well as the growth of the financial industry which as we’ve seen recently could be turned upside down overnight. Coupled with rampant inflation, and a badly underbuilt and inefficient public transport infrastructure, this flouncy property market cannot be sustained in the near-to-mid term. Will the crowd continue to come to Singapore ? I doubt so, not the right kind anyway. It will be a matter of time before the party comes inevitably to a precipitous end.

As for the decoupling proponents, I say forget the Asia story, the nexus of Asian economies still is the US economy. A US recession is coming and it will impact the Asian economies, especially Singapore.

With that, I leave you with some selected paragraphs clipped from a NYTimes article on the US Federal Reserve Bank and its chief Ben Bernanke. I hope I didn’t spoil your day, if I did, just blame Alan Greenspan.

The roots of the current crisis:

“During the first years of the new century, Greenspan lowered the fed funds rate to 1 percent, which was exceptionally low. Low rates were partly an attempt to revive the economy after the dot-com fiasco. In an illustration of how one bubble seems to beget another, however, the Greenspan rate cut greatly stimulated the housing industry. In particular, since adjustable-rate mortgages are determined by short-term interest rates, low rates paved the way for the explosion in ARMs, the very mortgages that lately have been defaulting at an epidemic pace.

As demand for mortgages swelled, banks began to engage in highly dubious lending practices, including issuing mortgages without verifying the income of borrowers. The Fed, which apart from its monetary role is also one of the federal agencies that regulates banks, was warned that standards were slipping. Greenspan, however, ignored the warnings, and the speculative lending continued, reaching a peak during Bernanke’s first year. Thus, in both of its main areas of responsibility — monetary and regulatory policy — Fed laxity has seemingly contributed to the current mess. Bernanke deflects such criticisms, partly because he maintains that the mortgage fiasco had many fathers and partly because he has a scholar’s disdain for perfect-hindsight-type judgments.”

You can’t fake it:

“Once again, Milton Friedman changed the profession’s understanding, this time by deciding that, in the long run, the Phillips curve was wrong. Printing money (or as Friedman famously quipped, dropping bundles of bills from a helicopter) would spur the economy only temporarily. At first, as the money supply expanded, businesses would hire more workers and produce more goods. The economy would be “tricked” into operating at a higher gear. But after a while, workers would insist on wage hikes, and companies would jack up prices. The higher prices would cool off the economy again. So the net result of printing money would be just inflation — no gains in production. In the long term, neither the Fed nor anyone could spur an economy to grow faster than its “natural rate” — which is determined by all those other factors: productivity, population changes, technological advances, demand for exports and so forth. “

On theFed’s proclivity to pander to market expectations:

“In recent years, a highly watched futures contract has developed that enables investors to bet on the outcomes of Open Market Committee meetings rather like Las Vegas bookmakers laying odds on the Super Bowl. The result is a weird hall of mirrors. Investors scrutinize the every utterance of Fed officials and vote with their dollars, whereupon the committee must either fulfill investors’ expectations or risk a market crash. Though the committee members that I talked to (half of the current group) denied that they feel obligated to ratify the fed funds futures, none dispute that it is a factor.”

And if you’re looking for a way to predict Bernanke’s and the Fed board’s decision:

“The committee also consults academic formulas that derive the theoretically “correct” fed funds rate according to the level of inflation and other economic indicators. The most famous of these formulas, known as the Taylor Rule, correctly predicts the decisions of the Federal Open Market Committee about 85 percent of the time.”

Northeastern University and Startup Sue Google

Northeastern University of Boston and an associated startup company have filed a suit against Google for infringing its distributed search patent on Nov 6, 2007 . The patent, which relates to a system of distributed databases for processing search queries more quickly, was filed in Dec 1997 by Kenneth Baclawski and assigned to Northeastern University. It can be seen at the US patent office’s website here : US Patent No. 5,694,593.

Baclawski is an associate professor at Northeastern and his company Jarg, the co-plaintiff, holds the exclusive licence to use the patent.

The suit was filed in the East District Court of Texas, which is known for awarding judgments favourable to patent owners.

Google is purportedly using a vast network of distributed computers and servers to process their search algorithms and queries. If this patent suit is successful, it will mean a financial windfall for Northeastern University and Jarg, and a major blow to Google.

Unlike typical patent troll companies such as NTP (which sued Blackberry’s Research In Motion (RIM)), the plaintiffs in this case involves a university which gives it some credence. Jarg also seems to be bona fide startup, and according to its claims, was alerted to the potential infringement by another party (albeit a law firm).

Given the potentially huge financial implications of the case, I’d expect Google to put up a vigorous defense against the suit.

The merits of the case however, would need further scrutiny as the idea of distributed computer processing has been around for a while and extends into many fields. One popular example is the SETI@Home project which lets home PC owners participate in the search for extraterrestrial signals from outer space. The case is an interesting one and might run into some of the fundamental aspects of computer software patents, perhaps bringing up for judicial scrutiny again, the issue of whether algorithms can be patented.

One of the obstacles facing the plaintiffs would be the secrecy with which Google guards its internal workings and search technologies.

Another is the financial and legal firepower Google can unleash on challengers in something as sensitive to its core business as search. Jarg Corp’s President Michael Belanger reportedly took 2 1/2 years to find a law firm willing to take on the case on a contingency basis (ie. it gets paid only if the suit is won). Quite obviously, despite the potential financial rewards, the Google behemoth is not something every law firm wants or has the financial muscle to take on.