“Meaningless noise from talentless people with the sole aim of earning profits.” Is this a fair assessment of popular music today?

“All I want for my birthday is a big booty hoe!”

“Walk into the kitchen, yams everywhere.”

 

With lyrics like these flooding the airwaves, it is not surprising that the older generation often derides popular music today as “meaningless noise” and “just rubbish”. While some popular music nowadays are indeed superfluous and contain questionable content, they definitely do not represent the whole of popular music.

To say that all such music is “meaningless” created by profit-driven, “talentless” musicians is unfair because it discredits the effort, talent and messages of other more credible artistes.

 

There is a certain truth when critics, especially the older generation, claim that popular music nowadays is nothing but “meaningless noise”. Very often, we hear music on the radio with lyrics that make us cringe or simply fails make sense.

Take for example “Birthday Song” by 2 Chainz – “She got a big booty so I call her big booty” or the cringeworthily titled, “Sexy Bitch” by Akon – “I’m trying to find the words to describe this girl without being disrespectful – Damn, she’s a sexy bitch” Such songs are not only distastely, but they also insults the intelligence of listeners with obvious and illogical lyrics.

Additionally, many popular songs today are also about sex, drugs, money and violence. These songs are often produced with the aim of titillating and grabbing the attention of listeners, thereby generating profits. Furthermore, many artistes and record companies also employ “ghostwriters”, behind-the-scenes songwriters to help them write the lyrics of their music. As a result, it is not difficult to see why some have criticized the popular music industry as “meaningless”, “talentless” and profit-driven. However, this is only one aspect of popular music today – there still are many talented artistes out there who produce meaningful and insightful music.

 

First and foremost, popular music today can be creative, insightful and even thought provoking. Such music often involves the artiste exploring certain themes and ideas in society and entails intense reflection and introspection. Through insightful observations and provocative claims, the artiste also encourages the listener to become intellectually involved by examining his own beliefs and opinions on the matters discussed.

An example would be Kanye West’s “No Church in the Wild” with the lyrics:

“Human beings in a mob. What’s a mob to a king? What’s a king to a God? What’s a God to a non-believer?”

In this verse, Kanye explores the concept that power is derived from belief through a subversion and distortion of the Great Chain of Being. He implicitly suggests that oppressive political and religious systems can continue to thrive only because people choose to continue believing in them. The lyrics, in the form of successive questions, also prompt listeners to think and arrive at the conclusion themselves. In view of the insightfulness of these songs, it would be a gross injustice to call such forms of music meaningless and their creators talentless.

 

Popular music today can also serve to soothe emotional wounds for both the artiste and their fans. For the artiste, the process of writing lyrics that reflect genuine and profound emotions can often be a cathartic process where the artiste is able to come to terms with emotionally traumatic events. Similarly for the listeners, by immersing oneself in richness of emotion and experience represented in music, one can learn to better empathise with the full spectrum of human emotion and experience. Individuals can also gain a shared sense of connectedness and solidarity from music – by learning that others too have experienced certain painful emotions – heartbreak, confusion, identity, lost of loved ones, individuals feel less lonely and less isolated in their troubles.

An example would be Frank Ocean’s “Bad Religion” – a song that compares unrequited love with religion. The song deals with the loneliness and isolation of unrequited love, much like how a follower of God never truly knows if the relationship is reciprocated. Although profit can never be fully factored out of the equation, given that singing is still their source of livelihood, it can be said that the communication of emotions and healing of wounds is an more important aspect for these artistes.

 

Popular music today can also be used a medium for championing worthy causes and creating change. Because of the large audiences that they can reach, many popular artistes have made use of their music to spread awareness about worthy causes like world hunger and world peace. Others have also used music to reflect and bring attention to certain social issues such as racial inequality and gender discrimination.

For example, Tupac Shakur’s “Keep Ya Head Up” calls for the community to develop a greater respect for women given their constant sacrifice and integral role in society.

Hence, it is hardly fair to say that songs like these are meaningless.

 

Although trashy, superfluous songs continue to flood the airwaves because of their ability to attract and titillate listeners, it would be unfair to discredit the rest of the purposeful, insightful and creative music because of these “black sheeps”. While we may not be able to prevent such songs from being produced, a better strategy would be to better equip modern listeners with the media literacy and ability to discern between the two.

Can Capital Punishment be justified in today’s world?

Capital punishment, which refers to the act of sentencing a convict to death, has been in existence as long as there has been crime and laws. The death penalty serves as the ultimate punishment a state can impose on an individual, and is traditionally reserved for crimes that are particularly serious and heinous, such as murder, rape or treason.

 

However, in today’s world where there is increased emphasis on justice, liberty and individual rights, it is my opinion that the death penalty is no longer justified because it is both principally unsound and unfeasible as a matter of practice.

 

“Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.”

Such are the exact words enscribed on Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that was established by United Nations General Assembly. It is shocking then, that many of the countries that practice capital punishment are the same countries that played a central role in drafting this article. The death penalty is an outright violation of an individual’s liberties and right to live because it involves the state forcibly terminating and individual’s life against his free will. Such a practice of state-sanctioned murder is also unjustified and unprincipled because it violates the sanctity of life. The state played no part in the creation of an individual’s life, how then can it be allowed to power to decide on when and how it should be terminated?

 

Some proponents of capital punishment believe that the death penalty is justified because it is a form of retributive justice, where the criminal deserves to die because he has committed an equally horrendous act such as murder or rape. In my opinion, the concept of “retributive punishment” is merely a euphemism for the primal desire of revenge. Two wrongs does not make a right – executing the offender will not revive the victim, nor will it benefit society in any way. Individuals seeking to dish out “retributive justice”, often the family and close relatives of victims, merely wants to satisfy their desire for revenge.

 

Capital punishment is also unjustified due to the fallibility and inherent biaseness present in the judicial system. In the judicial system, an individual can be sentenced to death based on the decision of a judge or a jury. However, being a system that is depends on human judgment and discretion, the judicial system can never be infallible. This is because every single person, regardless of their character or moral strength, is susceptible to biaseness, prejudices and misjudgments. Very often, an individual may not even be aware of his or her own biaseness and inclinations. Judges and jurors are no different – although they are presumably individuals who possess exceptional integrity character, at the end of the day, they are ultimately still human and are still fallible to our common afflictions of being prejudiced and biased. Studies in America has shown that African American convicts are 3 times as likely to be sentenced to death to their counterparts of other races and that prosecutors were more likely to seek a death sentence when the race of the homicide victims are white. Because of the fallibility of the judicial system, there is always a risk of innocent individuals being sentenced to death for crimes they did not commit. In such situations, the irreversible nature of the death penalty makes it impossible to restore justice, because a life, once taken away, can never be restored. It is towards this end that I believe the death penalty should be abolished – every innocent life lost is one too many, and if such an imperfect form of punishment is unable to avoid such a risk, it should arguably be abolished.

 

From another perspective, the death penalty is also unjustified because of its inhumane nature. On July 2014, Clayton Lockett, an inmate on death penalty, took 43 minutes to die after a failed execution attempt by the Oklahama State Prison. During the agonizing 43 minutes, Lockett writhed and convulsed in apparent agony, even rising on an occasion to speak of the intense pain. While some may argue that under ‘normal circumstances’, the individual would not have felt anything because he would be unconscious, the very fact that such an incident has not only happened once, but at least 3 times in the past year shows that such incidents are not isolated anomalies. Furthermore, even if the actual execution proceeds as planned, the months and years leading up to it is also arguably a form of psychological torture. Due to the inefficiency of the state prison systems, hundreds of inmates are still pending on the execution lists. These inmates live in constant fear and uncertainty; not knowing which day would be their last. The inhumanity of such a form psychological torture, more than anything else, should be a reason why compassionate human beings should call for the abolishment of capital punishment.

 

Last but not least, many proponents of capital punishment also cite its ability to deter future crime as a reason to continue its practice. However, no significant research or evidence has been produced to justify such a claim. In this instance where the state is actively terminating the life of an individual, the onus should rest on the state to prove that the justification of deterrence is valid. But studies done so far have all failed to show any causation or even correlation between the capital punishment and crime rates. In fact, in Western European countries where the death penalty has been abolished, crime rates have been consistently on the decline for more than three decades.

 

400 years ago, the public trials and executions of ‘Witches’ were prevalent and widely accepted as integral part of life. Proponents of the trials similarly justified these actions using the arguments of retributive justice and deterrence. Looking back, we cannot help but be astounded at the foolishness and absurdity of such barbaric actions. Capital punishment is the same – as we enter a new age of enlightenment and awareness of individual rights, I contend that this ancient practice should be left where it rightfully belongs – in the past as a parcel of history.

‘Having choices is not always desirable.’ Discuss.

“To be or not to be – that is the question”.

The dilemma and conundrum faced by man when confronted with different choices has always been a central theme in the human experience. But while the proliferation of choices in modern society has brought about significant benefits and improvements in human welfare, as with all good things in life, too much of it may actually bring about surprisingly adverse impacts.

 

The increased in available choices and options have certainly improved the living conditions and welfare of those fortunate enough to reap their benefits. Free trade and globalization has allowed the common consumer to enjoy an increased variety of goods and services at the convenience of their local grocery stores. More choices, in this aspect, leads to greater happiness and welfare as consumers are able to choose different goods and services to satisfy their varying tastes and preferences.

 

Choices are also the basis on which the free market economy works. Through the proxy of the price mechanism, choices allow resources to be allocated efficiently to those who value them to most by virtue of their willingness to pay for it. By allocating limited resources to satisfy unlimited human desires in the most efficient way, welfare in the society is also maximized.

 

Choices are also the cornerstone of a liberal democracy. Citizens exercise their power of choice by electing a government that they believe in and trust to be able to do a good job. The ability of citizens to choose different governments forces those in power to be held accountable to do a good job.

 

But while the ability to choose has certainly proved beneficial, to what extent does ‘more choices’ become ‘too many choices’? In order words, when does the proliferation of choices lead to adverse impacts?

 

Walking into a local supermarket to purchase a bottle of barbeque sauce, I was confronted with at least 20 different varieties of the condiment: “Teriyaki”, “Honey Mustard”, “Smokey Sweet”, “Black Pepper”, “Full flavour”, “Reduced Fat”, “Reduced Flavour”, “New recipe”, “Traditional taste”… What was originally meant to be a five-minute trip ended up taking more than twenty minutes as I poured over the descriptions and labels for each flavour before ultimately making a choice.

 

Such is the common problem faced by modern consumers who are seduced by choices at every turn of the aisle. Wheel a trolley through any modern supermarket, and it is not hard to understand what some call the ‘tyranny of choice’. Potato chips come in at least 30 different varieties while there are at least 10 types of different toothpastes (and that doesn’t even include ‘sensitive’ varieties).

 

“Trop de choix tue le choix” – There is a French saying, that “Too much choice kills the choice”. Too many options are detrimental because they often lead to paralysis and debilitate the decision-making individual. Several social experiments in the United States have demonstrated that consumers are less likely to make a decision when confronted with more choices: Consumers were more likely to purchase a type of jam when they had to choose between 6 varieties as compared to a intimidating 24 different flavours. This is because when making decisions, consumers find the need to consider the benefits and costs of every possible option to decide on the best possible outcome. This is all good and well when we are choosing between three or even four options, but when confronted with an overwhelming number of choices, consumers tend to go into a state of paralysis – and end up not choosing any option at all. This has led American psychologist Barry Schwartz to coin the phenomenon as the “Paradox of Choice”. Closer to home, many students often experience this “paradox” when faced with 12 difficult questions in their GP examinations. In this case, the detrimental effects of too much choice is perhaps all too familiar.

 

Too much choice can also be undesirable when they lead to reduce happiness and decrease satisfaction. Choices, by right, served to increase happiness by allowing consumers to choose courses of action or options that please and benefits them the most. However, when faced with an overwhelming number of choices, consumers tend to have exceedingly high and even unrealistic expectations. They are fixated with the idea of choosing a ‘Perfect choice’, be it in the form of a perfect vacation or a perfect tasting potato chip. However, in reality, such ‘Perfect Choices’ do not exist. Very often, the options we end up choosing often fall short of our idealistic expectations. This leads to unhappiness and a lack of satisfaction because reality falls short of our expectations. Even when the decision we have made are arguably good decisions, we remain unhappy because we imagined them to be better. Such an unsatisfying and unhappy approach to living can be detrimental to our psychological wellbeing. A 2010 study by the University of Bristol found that 47% of respondents felt that life was more complicated then 10 years ago and 42% reported lying awake at night trying to resolve problems. It is perhaps safe to say that we live in a world with too much option when an individual is forced to choose between happiness and choice.

 

To be or not to be – that remains the question. It appears that choices have been, and will continue to be a central aspect of human life. However, while Prince Hamlet only had to contend between two courses of action, the modern consumer has to contemplate between 57 different varieties every time he decides to purchase anything. Perhaps the key towards happiness in such a sea of choices is simple ‘To be’ – to choose an option, never look back, and stick with it.

People, not the government, should decide how to organize their lives

Imagine a world without governments where individuals are free to act as they wish.

Depending on your ideological inclinations; such an idea can be  either immensely exciting or terribly frightening.

Regardless, given the increased attention and debate surrounding government intervention in the lives of its citizens, such a discussion is highly relevant and important. In my view, although the government should play an active role in the organization of the lives of its citizens, a line has to be drawn –highly personal issues like religion and sexual orientation should still be left to the individual.

 

“Solitary, poor, nasty, bruttish and short” these are the words used by Thomas Hobbes, an 17^th century political philosopher, to describe the condition of man in his most natural and primal state. This has been the principal justification behind the establishment of a government as well as the exercise of its powers to organize the life of citizens. Given his selfish and hostile nature, it is thought that every man, in the absence of government intervention, will pursue his selfish interests without regard of the people around him. What results is a chaotic, uncertain and hostile environment where individuals harm and exploit one another to further their own interests and satisfy their own desires. In such a chaotic environment, cooperation and collective action cannot take place because individuals lived in constant fear and suspicion of one another. The government, as postulated by Hobbes, was thus created from the people’s desire to avoid such a mutually undesirable situation – by ceding certain liberties and freedoms to a central authority, it was hoped that peace, stability and order could be achieved. Government intervention is therefore justified, on grounds of establishing order and stability in society, which in turn provides a basis for mutual cooperation.

The most direct and relatable form of such an organization of our lives is in the form of laws established by the government. To rein in our ‘selfish’ and ‘bruttish’ tendencies, laws are drafted to protect individuals from each other and to discourage unconducive behaviour in society. For example, laws against injury, murder, rape and theft are present in almost every modern society. These laws effectively make use of punishments to rein in and repress the tendencies of individuals to commit such offences. To this end, the government is effective because (by virtue of its security apparatus) it possesses an overwhelming monopoly of force and power. With stability and certainty in the society, individuals would then be able to interact and cooperate without fear. Such has been the basis underlying trade, commerce, and the growth of human civilization for the past centuries.

 

Another important reason why governments should play an active role in the organization of citizens’ lives concerns the nature and aim of a state. Individuals, due to their disparate nature and different upbringings, vary in terms of ideals, practices as well as tastes and preferences. It can thus be said that no two individual will possess the same desires and ideals of his good life. Amidst such a sea of differences, the role of the government, or the state, is to facilitate the achievement of the common good, an ideal situation that is desired and beneficial to most members of society. Often, this requires a compromise because the common good for society may not always align with the self-interests of every individual. Government intervention and forced-organization is therefore required because self-serving individuals will never compromise on their personal ideals to achieve collective welfare. A simple and relatable example would be the case of waste disposal. While we would all agree that a clean and rubbish-free environment would be beneficial to the general welfare of society, self-seeking individuals will find it much more convenient and efficient to simply dump their rubbish carelessly on the ground. Government intervention is thus needed to ensure their individual interests are held in check to achieve outcomes that are beneficial to the entire society.

 

Despite the merits and justifications of government intervention in the life of its citizens, surely there should be some limits to the powers a government possesses?

 

Ronald Reagen, an ex-president of the United States, once said “The government exists to protect us from each other. Where government has gone beyond its limits is deciding to protect us from ourselves.” – On highly personal issues such as religion, sexual orientation or even euthanasia, my view is that individual autonomy should still be respected. But what constitutes ‘highly personal’ matters? This can be defined as actions concerning the individual without any harmful consequences on others or the society in general. Such decisions can be in the form of religious inclinations, sexual orientation or even an individual’s decision to sell his organs or end his own life. As controversial as they sound, governments should avoid moralistic interventions in these aspects of personal life, as a matter of principle and of practice.

 

In terms of principle, such interventionist practices can be seen as a violation of an individual’s freedom and liberty. While the ‘social contract’ between citizens and the government involved the cedeing of certain liberties to the government in exchange for security – these liberties only apply to actions that may compromise on the welfare of others. In issues like euthanasia and the selling of organs, although they often seen as controversial and ‘immoral’, they are actually completely harmless to all parties in society.

 

In practice, governments will also find it increasingly hard to adopt such a stance: as societies and states become increasingly diverse, the residents of these cosmopolies will have increasingly disparate ideals and beliefs. By hoping to organize personal life by promoting a certain set of ideals, the government risks alienating minority groups and widening rifts in society. Such oppressive policies, like the decision by Beijing to ban Muslim Uighurs in Xinjiang from respecting religious practices like fasting, will ultimately result in counterproductive backlash reactions, as seen from the resultant spike in violent ‘terrorist’ reactions.

 

In modern politics, there is often a perceived antagonism between freedom and government intervention, liberty and state control. I believe this is a mistaken way of thinking – There is a certain ambivalence and between Freedom and Government intervention. While true freedom is unattainable without a certain degree of state control, too much of it and freedom is also lost. Such is the challenge faced by governments worldwide.

Legalizing LGBTs/Repealing 377A

Many lament the lack of rights given to the LGBT community in Singapore, with some even comparing it with the discrimination of African Americans in the early 1800s. Indeed, on what basis does the law criminalize a person’s sexuality, especially if such inclinations are likely biologically inherent rather than the product of conscious choice.

But while it is hard to find any convincing moral basis to criminalize homosexual behaviour, the practical considerations of repealing Section 377A of the Penal Code are much more complex.

First and foremost is the difficulty of drawing the line if 377A is repealed: Essentially, once homosexuality is legalized, it would lead to a lot more potentially-dividing issues down a natural progression. For example, if homosexuality is legalized, doesn’t it follow that they should be given the right to form a civil union (get married)? Once same sex marriage is legalized, then comes the issue of whether they can raise a child? The question is: where then should the line be drawn? The problem with legalizing homosexuality is that it opens a can of worms that our society does not seem ready to address at this point in time.

This leads us to the second concern which is managing of public opinion. For every liberal-minded youth championing for LGBT rights, there will be two people asserting that decriminalizing homosexuality will lead to an erosion of societal values and family structure. This is especially pertinent in a country as religiously and culturally diverse as Singapore – different individuals from different backgrounds have very different views towards homosexuals, and to repeal 377A at this juncture risks inflaming a very large portion of Singaporeans and creating a conscious divide in society. With this in mind, it is thus impractical for the government to push through with legalizing homosexuality as it would mean fighting against normative social values to force Singaporeans to comply with something they are strongly against.

History has shown that a society’s laws always follows its normative values – this should be no exception. As society evolves and our normative values change, a day may come where most Singaporeans would be in favour of legalizing LGBT and that would be the time 377A will be repealed.

(While it is technically illegal to engage in homosexual activities in Singapore, in practice the government rarely polices this actively and generally leaves LGBTs alone)

Master your own fate

“You can’t blame me, i was born forgetful!”

“Well…I really didn’t mean to hit her, but you know how i’ve always had a short fuse”

Many of us have friends, family members or know people who regularly justify their bad behaviour with their ‘personality’ or ‘inherent inclinations’. Some of us might even have employed such tactics to defend our bad habits and actions. But exactly how valid are these justifications? Are we born enslaved to our traits and inclinations; living a life predetermined by our personalities at birth OR is there a way for us to master our own fate?

When it comes to an individual’s traits and inclinations, Scientists are at best divided about the conflicting theories of nature and nurture. However, i am not going to discuss the question of nature vs nurture today, reaching a justifiable conclusion on such an issue would requires decades of extensive research. Rather, the subject that I would like to discuss today is the extent that our personality affects our daily actions.

First and foremost, this writer does not believe in using personality traits to justify bad behaviour: Not only is such a practice irresponsible, it also undermines our free will and encourages a poisonous attitude of resignation to fate in the long run.

Just plain irresponsible
Sure, our personality can affect our inclinations to an extent, but ultimately the decision to perform an act still rests upon our conscious mind. To defend poor behaviour and bad actions with your ‘personality’ is simply an act of transferring blame and avoiding responsibility for your actions.

To illustrate using an example: John, who has a laidback personality, prefers to spend his time watching television at home. However, when he skips work to slack at home, he has made a conscious choice and should thus bear full responsibility for it.

By blaming these our actions on our personality, we are effectively transferring blame from ourselves to our ‘personality’. Not only will this pass off to others as irresponsible and cowardly, a more toxic consequence is that it removes all incentive to correct the mistake and change. After all, how can we change our personalities?

We always have a choice
What many people don’t realise is that even though our personality predetermines some of our inclinations, this does not mean we must or ought to act in a certain way. For example, even if i am by nature a very disorganized person, this does not mean i should or can mess up everything that i come across. What comes naturally to you does not always mean it is something that you should do. Society has certain conventions and rules to maintain stability, and just because your inclinations point the other way does not mean you can flout these rules. Despite our inclinations, we always have the power of conscious choice, and to exercise this power to make good decisions is what distinguishes rational human beings from lower animals.

The determinism trap
Determinism refer to a school of thought that argues that every that happens is predetermined by nature and cannot be changed by humans. While there is no way to find out the validity of this philosophy in the foreseeable future, the problem with it is that it encourages resignation and inaction: If everything is predetermined and human action is insignificant, there will be no point in doing anything at all. What will happen will happen, we can just sit back and relax, right?

Wrong. Such a toxic attitude, or what I call a determinism trap, will put innovation and progress to a complete halt. With such thinking, Thomas Edison would not have worked so hard and there would be no light bulb; The Wright brothers would not have put in so much effort and we might still be crossing oceans on ships. In the determinism trap, individuals will lose all motivation to work hard and innovate – and society will stagnate.

On an individual level, such thinking also removes our motivation to correct our bad habits and behaviour. Since everything is predetermined, there is no point trying to change right. When we resign to fate, our bad habits gradually pile up as zero attempts are made to change and improve them. Hence, we see that such thinking becomes toxic as it impedes our personal progress and development.

Ultimately, I think the point of this post is to argue that despite all our personality flaws and nasty inclinations, we always have the power to improve and change for the better. Just because you are born lazy does not mean you should contend yourself with being lazy. Defy what was endowed to you. Become better than that.

I choose to believe that we are masters of our own fate.

“Do you want to know who you are? Don’t ask. Act! Action will delineate and define you.” – Thomas Jefferson

Scholarships: An Introduction

For many JC students, scholarships are often both a source of excitement and concern: “Should I take up a scholarship?”, “Which scholarship should I take?”, “Is a government scholarship right for me?” are many of the common questions confronting aspiring students across the island.

Choosing a scholarship can be a daunting task.

Apart from the fact that there are literally hundreds of different scholarships from varying organizations to choose from, scholarships decisions are important because of how they impact our future: To those taking bonded scholarships, it is a decision that will determine a large part of your career and working life. To others, scholarships may mean the difference havin study overseas. There are a hundred different reasons why scholarships matter, but one thing is for sure: it is imperative that we are as fully informed as possible to make an intelligent and matured decision.

But ironically, despite the increasing number of scholarship talks held as the ‘A’ Level Examinations looms ever nearer, many students find that the very questions that they care most about are often unanswered.

Now fret not – in my upcoming posts I will try my best to address some of the most commonly asked questions and shed some light on the different types of scholarships and how you can make a choice that will best benefit your future development. For those hoping to get a scholarship, I will also be covering how you can maximize your chances of getting that desired scholarship.

Ultimately, I think something that we should all remember is that: Scholarships are not everything. Just because you did not get one doesn’t mean your life is over or that you might be inferior to others. Conversely, even if you ultimately manage to receive a scholarship, this does not mean that you are better than others.