What is Happiness?

What does it mean to experience true joy? Happiness can mean different things to different people. For example, wealth or power may mean the world to a person, whereas for someone else it may mean just being able to live a normal, healthy life.

Many people think that happy people are either wealthy or own branded stuff and that having them brings happiness. Thus, they squander their youth, desperately trying to achieve this perception of happiness. In truth, these qualities are not responsible for a person's happiness or unhappiness. Happiness is not derived from material goods or money. As once aptly put by Philosopher Spike Milligan, "Money can't buy you happiness".

Some people think that true happiness does not lie in material objects, rather, from one's imagination. They give examples like: A man has a Toyota car. His neighbor living on the right owns a Mercedes while the one on the left a rickshaw. When he looks right, he feels unsatisfied and but when he turns to his left he feels happy. As such happiness does not lie in one's possessions, but in imagination. Thus, people are always advised to compare themselves with those who have far fewer belongings, like the poor in Africa or Cambodia.

However, I beg to differ from this way of thinking. It is absurd that true happiness should lie in feeling superior to the poor. Not only is it unkind to derive happiness from the under-privileged, this definition of happiness implies that being "better" than others is happiness. I ask you, how can true happiness be attained from looking down on someone? It would be extremely condescending, showing that you do not genuinely pity them ,but rather, relieved at not being as poor as them. We must adopt the correct attitude when striving for happiness and not just think of ourselves. As Philosopher Judi Singleton once commented, "Happiness is when your mind is thinking through your heart".

Instead, I feel that happiness depends wholly on a person's attitude towards life. For example, if you are satisfied with just leading an average, healthy life with your family, you will be able to attain happiness easily, compared to those who hunger for status and riches. To me, happiness is to be able to be satisfied with whatever you. If you are content with life, you will have achieved what you want and hence, happy. On the other hand, if you forever hanker after worldly possessions, you will continue to want more, more and yet more, never being able to truly know what it is like to be happy. "To be truly happy and contented, you must let go of what it means to be happy or content"---Confucius.

Singapore's IR Casino: Boon or Bane?

Recently, there have been numerous news reports on the upcoming opening of the Integrated Resort's casino. Purported to open in 2 days time, the casino is supposed to be a money-maker and job creator. However, many people have spoken against it.

Let us first look at both sides of the situation. Singapore's 40-year old ban on casino was lifted in 2007 in view of the new casinos being built in Marina Bay. Initially, it raised a hue and cry from conservative Singaporeans, including the mainstream religions. Singapore's Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong explained that Singapore could no longer afford to maintain his father's ban on casino gambling because its tourism industry was facing a serious slowdown, citing falling statistics of tourism revenue. Furthermore, other neighborhood countries like Malaysia and Thailand are likely to get in on the action too. He emphasized the need to change or risk being left behind. "We cannot stand still. The whole region is on the move. If we don't change, where will we be in 20 years?"

He also argued that the two casinos would be a boon to Singapore, doubling the number of tourists here to 17 million, increase tourism revenue three-fold and create nearly 100,000 direct and indirect jobs. Finally, he assured the public that the government would shelve the idea should it prove too dangerous.

On the other hand, Singaporeans are worried that casinos in Singapore would make them more susceptible to the temptations of gambling and eventually, addiction. However, the problem is that there are absolutely no statistics for Singapore as of yet to form a conclusive case. Furthermore, according to the Institute of Policy Studies (IPS) more than 83 percent of Singaporeans are willing to have the casino built here.

Personally, I support the construction of the casino. Merrill Lynch, a US company, estimates that Singaporeans spend $760 million online annually. Hence, it does not matter whether we build the casino in Singapore or not. As my father summed up,"Gamblers will always find a way to gamble, be it online or in person". As for the social and moral implications, "if you don't want to play, just stay away". Though there undoubtedly will be repercussions, the pros definitely outweigh the cons. Hence, I support the construction of the casinos.

Singapore: True-Blue Democracy?

Though we Singaporeans may proudly declare ourselves as democratic citizens, do we truly mean what we say? Are we really a democracy, being allowed freedom of speech, rights and so forth?Are we allowed to contest against the government's ruling freely?

The People Action Party (PAP) has been in power ever since 1959 general election, when Lee Kuan Yew was elected as Singapore's first prime minister. They have been the Singapore government for over 50 years with no other political parties to contest, to challenge, to oppose them. They and they alone have made all important decisions ranging from health reforms for the elderly to how the Singapore budget should be spent. In recent years, the baton has been passed on to current prime minister, Lee Hsien Loong, coincidentally, Mr. Lee Kuan Yew's grandson. The control of Singapore has changed hands and has come a full circle. Knowing this, do we really believe in our hearts that Singapore is a fair, authoritative state or do we secretly think it to be authoritative and oppressive?

Of course, many have tried over the years to dispute PAP's right to power. However, they have all fallen, mainly due to the Internal Security Act (ISA), Part XII of the Singapore Constitution, the government still employs. This policy gives them the right to "enact legislation designed to stop or prevent subversion." For example, Chia Thye Poh, the longest-serving political prison in the whole of Singapore history, was detained under the ISA and was imprisoned for 23 years without trial for allegedly conducting pro-communist activities against the Government, subsequently being confined to house arrest for another nine years.

The government controls all forms of media. Singapore Press Holdings (SPH), which publishes Singapore's most widely read newspaper the Straits Times, Mediacorp, Singapore's local TV station and local radio stations. Hence, we read what the government wants us to read, watch what the government wants us to watch and hear what the government wants us to hear. All media is carefully screened by the Singapore government and passes through strict censorship.

But of course, there are two sides to every matter; Singapore's government has sacrificed democracy and freedom for its people for economic progression. It's hard to imagine that we were simply a third-world, puny island with no natural resources to draw on but ourselves. Now, we have clean water, good living conditions and are in the top 30 countries in the world in terms of Gross Domestic Product per capita (person). We have come a long, long way and for this, we have the PAP to thank for. Its efficient government has slogged and suffered, doing its utmost to make Singapore what it is today.

I conclude now that I have presented both sides of the matter. My conclusion is that Singapore may not be the true-blue democracy it perpetuates itself as but it is certainly governed by one hell of of an efficient party.

Tensions Flare between Google and China

Source: google.cn

Tensions at at an all-time high between the democratic internet republic of Google and the communist red china, causing Google to alter its policy on censorship of its China search engine, google.cn, search results. Let us take a closer look at why this is so.

Google has accused China of gross misuse and abuse of the Internet. One prime example, Google's spokesman's claims, is that there has been "a highly sophisticated and targeted attack" on Google and over 20 other major business companies worldwide. Sources pinpoint the hackers' motives as stealing the former's software code. "A primary goal of the attackers," as quoted from Google, was accessing the Gmail accounts of Chinese human rights activists. 

Even more shockingly, this is not surprising. Why should it be? After all, Chinese hackers launch cyber-attacks on businesses, and even government agencies routinely, almost on a daily basis. China has also demanded that Western governments aid them in snooping and prying on alleged human rights activists' email accounts and in their efforts to censor discriminating political online content. In this way, China is making human rights a nothing more than a farce, using the supposedly freedom of speech and opinions native to the Internet as cold, hard evidence to prosecute democrats.  Though Western countries have simply gone along with these policies in the past, Google has taken a bold step forward by it refusal to comply with Beijing's conditions, a refusal that marks the beginning of the fight for Internet freedom of speech.

Reflection:
I disapprove of China's heavy political censorship of the Internet. I believe that people should be allowed to know what they want to know, what they want to think, not what the government wants them to know and wants them to think. Hence, I support Google all the way for daring to be the first to oppose China. 

Furthermore, I find China's methods to restrict online political content and to keep tabs on human rights activists far too extreme and uncalled for. After all, haven't they heard of privacy? As human beings, we should be entitled to our individual privacy, something nothing should take away from us.  

Google Vs China - Clash of the Titans

 Source: Google

Nearly 2 weeks has past since the recent showdown between Google and China over Beijing's censorship rules.  The massive argument resulted from strict censoring of the Internet in china, censoring that returned thousands of blocked websites for certain "taboo" search terms in China, such as "dalai lama" or "Tiananmen Square". As such, China's censorship policy is directly contradictory to Google's motto of providing free and unrestricted information to anybody and everybody in the world. Hence, the discontentment of Google. 

Furthermore, China is infamous for pioneering the development of sophisticated cyberspying and cyberattacking/hacking apparatus. This is  justified by the steep rise in hacking originating from China of not only human-rights organizations, but more importantly and shockingly, foreign businesses and governments as well. As such, China is considered as dangerous as they own the latest hacking tools that most countries are not even aware of yet. Because of this, the moderate tension between the two civilizations, China and Google, has spiked into a full-fledged fight.

Due to the difference in view of the dissemination of information online and contradictory practises between the two titans , Google and China are at loggerheads with each other, with Google debating whether or not to pull out of the China market since China refuses to compromise. Who will win the Internet war? Google or China? Only time will tell… (watch out for my next post)

Reflections:

I feel that the main issue of the article is whether or not Google will decide to pull out of the China market due to the difference in opinions on how they should operate. Related secondary issues would be China's sneaky, behind-the-scenes tactics and how it is fast emerging as one of the most technologically advanced nations in the world. Also, I can infer that the writer of the article in Newsweek favors Google slightly over China as the former is depicted as the innocent party while China is portrayed in a bad light. However, I would take the point of view of the writer as I have sourced for and read many articles on the World Wide Web concerning this incident and found that most of them take the stand of the writer. I believe this is because they feel China should be more transparent about their methods to keep track of organizations and individuals alike and also more democratic and not ban certain website from being accessed, just because they are contradictory to China's view. 

Furthermore, I feel that modern China strikes a far cry from the once rural, isolated nation.  There was once, a few decades back, when China depended heavily on business from Western capitalist countries the USA. However, over the years, China's own internal market has expanded tremendously; its exports to non-Western countries significant and capital vault vast. No longer is it the agricultural, backward nation it once was. In fact, China's urban, public sector generates more revenue than the rural, private sector. It is on par with the US. However, because of the great leap forward for China, China is less willing to accommodate itself to Western ideas, companies and governments. In a sense, China feels it is one of the world's major powers and wants to be treated as such, becoming cocky and focusing more on internal dynamics, less focused outwards as it climbs the economic ladder. Once a upon a time, it would not have dared to oppose such a massive company like Google as it relied heavily on foreign business. Now, it faces straight up to Google and dares to push for their own ideals.