Are You Smart Enough for the Smart Watch?

When I noticed the sudden wave of tech articles on Apple’s new gizmo, it felt as if I was at the cusp of a revolution.  The next big thing I should write an article on; the next big thing to wrap my mind around.  Maybe it was Tim Cook’s snazzy presentation cum video introduction to the Apple Watch.  It was almost as if Apple had succeeded in landing a man on Mars. 

In actual fact, smart watches have been around for some time, with Samsung, LG and Sony having blazed the trail with their own offerings that operate on Android.  Hell, it’s been around since the early 2000s, with PDA watches by brands like Fossil though it’s only been in recent years with the flourishing of smartphone technology that people have begun to sit up and take notice of this issue.  Come to think of it, I even remember those Primary school days where the coolest thing I witnessed was a boy on the school bus showing off his digital watch, which had a calculator attached to it.  Those were the days of not-so-smart smart-watches.

PDA Watch by Fossil

The Once-Uber-Cool Calculator Watch

I suppose one of the biggest reasons why people are only now taking smart watches seriously is simply because this time it’s Apple.  Time and again, Apple transformed the way we relate to technology, essentially redefining computers, phones, music devices, tablets and what not.  Time and again, critics had to eat their own words for lampooning newly launched Apple devices.  Apple has always had the last laugh – at least that was the case with the Mac, the Macbook, the iPod, iPod shuffle, the iPhone and the iPad.  Maybe the Apple Watch's next.

Will the Apple Watch transform our lives in any way?  Some say that it might encourage a culture of addiction to smart devices, a whole generation of distracted individuals who can never tear themselves away from their devices.  This distraction breeds anxiety, and moves us even further away from the deep connection and communication we need so badly.  It’ll force us to stay connected 24/7, we’ll never be able to switch off mentally, and work like balance will become an ever-distant dream.  And in the long term, maybe we’ll even lose our ability to communicate face-to-face in ways unmediated by smart technology.

Oh wait, except that that’s actually already happened.  Are we not already hopelessly addicted to our iPhones and iPads?  Just yesterday I was in church and I could easily see one-tenth of the congregation glued to their smart devices.  And as far as I could tell, they were scrolling through Facebook or Whatsapping, not checking their online bible or paying much attention to what was an excellent sermon on the spiritually empowering practice of being honest with ourselves and articulating our deepest yearnings to Jesus.  I couldn’t believe people would come all the way down to church just to surf their iPhones, in the comfort of their homes.  But I digress.

Arguably, most problems related to smart technology could be solved quite easily.  Sure, the smart devices encourage you to be distracted all the time.  But you could easily switch off the notifications.   Sure, smart devices make it too easy to constantly Google and read up on random things as soon as a question pops up in your mind.  But you could just as easily park aside that compulsion and just do it when you do get to your PC, where you can do a proper research on whatever piques your interest.  Sure, smart devices monitor you and constantly advice you on what you should do, but…ok, you get my point.  We could just say no.

Except we can’t.  We just can’t.  While we’ve evolved brains capable to developing these amazing forms of technology, we haven’t evolved the capacity to use it without being controlled by it.   Some futurists would say this is not the point – we live in the “Hybrid Age” or “Cyborg Age” – where technology is not separate thing but an intimate part of who we are, what we do and how we think.  Such a view, however, sidesteps the fact that much of the smart technology we have today were invented for needs that were arguably non-existent.  They did not grow organically out of a specific need the way, say, the invention of the light bulb was.

This isn’t disruptive technology.  It’s just technology for which we haven’t the ability to exercise control over.

Singapore's The Most Expensive Place to Live - Again??

Is Singapore Budget 2015 a step in the right direction?  If so, do you think too a little too late?

Click Here to Read up on the Singapore Budget.

Click Here to Read up on the Economist Report.

My Afterthoughts:

What I think I didn't really consider while making the video were the various constraints the government works under.  Frankly, it's easy to blame the government for making Singapore the playground of the rich at the expense of ordinary Singaporeans who find it increasingly hard to make a living.  

Yet, knowing how pragmatic the Singapore government is, it's quite unlikely they would have done it had they not seen, or at least perceived,  significant benefits accruing for Singaporean.  As of now, the government's pre-emptively clarified that social mobility will remain a key tenet of public policy, even as it seeks to be a magnet for global wealth.  Again, Singapore wants to have its cake and eat it too.  How Singapore will manage these diametrically opposed forces will remains to be seen ;-)  

I think time is not on their side though, given how local politics have turned against the ruling party in the last few years. 

Well, I suppose we'll wait and see.

My New York Times contribution on Civic Freedom in China

While Singapore and China are obviously two very different societies, they both share a philosophical commitment to the strong centralised leadership.  Fundamentally, my NY Times comment was directed at the instinctive approach most NY Times readers took, which was to evaluate China from the lens of the west.  While not finding excuses for the deeply authoritarian approach taken by leaders of both countries, I think finding tangible political solutions and working towards a more egalitarian and free society for all first requires looking at the world from the Other's point of view.

The gist of my New York Times Comment:

Mark Chia

 Singapore 3 days ago

Well the problem is from a Chinese point of view, or at least what Singapore's Lee Kuan Yew claims it is in his recently published book "One Man's View of the World", it is said that a country can only prosper if there is a strong centralised authority. Mind you "Zhong Guo", the Chinese term for China, actually translates as "Central Kingdom". For centuries, the world was interpreted as a series of concentric circles with the Emperor at the centre. When the Emperor's power is unshaken, only then will there be true stability and prosperity for the nation. China may no longer be a monarchy, but having lived with the only system it ever knew for several thousand years, you can't expect things to change after less than a century since the CCP took power.

Why am I saying all this? I'm not finding excuses for the authoritarian approach of the Chinese leadership. But I think until we begin to understand how the political cosmology works in China, our response to the issue will be little more than a profound feeling of outrage mixed with helpless resignation. If Lee Kuan Yew was right, I wouldn't be surprised that from the Chinese leadership, nipping dissent in the bud comes from a wellspring of 'good' intentions. Well we all know where that leads us.

Click here to read the article.

Screenshot of NY Times article and my comment

Singapore horses around in the Year of the Goat

While we were all still distracted by the recent Lunar New Year celebrations, Singapore got one step closer to being the Monte Carlo of Asia.  Titled the China Equine Cultural Festival Singapore Cup, the event makes no bones about their intended clientele: well-heeled, well-travelled and well-endowed billionaires hailing from the world's second-largest economy of the world.  Looking at the pictures of the event, it's surprising it didn't get much attention in Singapore's mainstream media.

Photo Credit: Yahoo News

Clearly, it's not about the horses. As  Jaipragas reports, the affluent Chinese want to be "known as owners of stallions, owners of internationally renowned stallions".  That, I suppose, was the main point.  For who among those 500 or so Chinese guests - who are minimally "chief executives and above" - would really have a genuine interest in the sport of horse-racing? 

This reminds me of the time I inadvertently found myself seated with a table of civil servants from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, while attending a wedding.  Amidst struggles to find a topic suitable for small talk, I stumbled upon the curious discovery that learnt that the F1 race in Singapore was a for some strange reason a major portfolio item for this ambitious young chap who works at the Vietnam 'Desk'.  I was always under the impression that the F1 race was a Singapore Tourism Board initiative, as portrayed by the mainstream media.  In all honesty, the only people I ever knew who'd ever attended the race were friends who got free tickets, given away by friends of friends of friends who were working for some company which was one of the sponsors for the race.  I've always wondered: Who on earth would pay $8000 per ticket to watch cars zip by?  

But of course, that painful wedding dinner small talk turned out to be much more educational than I expected.  Just like the ridiculously expensive F1 Race, the China Equine Cultural Festival Singapore Cup is, well, not about the Equines.   It's a highly elaborate marketing and tourist revenue-generating machine where political and economic bigwigs rub shoulders and broker future business deals.  From that perspective, this investment taxpayers in Singapore have so unwillingly invested into suddenly makes complete economic sense.

Photo Credit: Reuters, Asiaone

Interestingly though, unlike the Singapore Grand Prix F1 Night Race, the publicity for the horse race has so far been muted and it's not immediately clear how involved the Singapore government really is.  In contrast to the Singapore Grand Prix which seems to target a broad range of international globetrotters, the elite Horse Racing venture is positioned to attract a very select target group.  Check out how they've planned the test-bed this inaugural event!  

Yet, while all this makes sense from an economic and geopolitical point of view, I do think the issue is a lot more complex when domestic political, social and historical factors are considered.

Firstly, how will the local Chinese take to this ostentatious display of Mainland Chinese wealth?  As Tash Aw pointed out in her Lunar New Year reflection in the New York Times, there's already a growing tension arising from the "two-way xenophobia" between Mainland and Local Chinese.  How will local Singapore Chinese take to the success of a group of Chinese they've gotten so used to denigrating as culturally and economically inferior?  How will they respond to the ostentatious counter evidence staring them in the face?  To some extent, I suppose it's a good reality check for most Chinese in Singapore, though I doubt we are yet ready to stomach this incredibly humble pie.

Marina Bay Sands Integrated Resorts

Secondly, how will Singaporeans in general take to the government cozying up with Mainland Chinese wealth?  Admittedly, horse racing, which is one of the few  forms of gambling open to Singaporeans, and which is hugely popular with Local Chinese, will probably be more popular with Singaporeans than the F1 Race would ever be.  Yet, from a racial standpoint, will this provide more fodder for those already worried that Singapore's already becoming increasingly sinicised, possibly raising tensions between the different ethnic communities?  Lets also not forget that as secular as Singapore might seem to the world, religion still plays a very big role in the lives of ordinary Singaporeans.  Just recall the furore caused by religious groups over the government's plans to raise up two gambling-centred Integrated Resorts, which by the way caters primarily to rich wealthy Chinese foreigners.    

Can the Singapore government pull off this new venture while successfully navigating the rising anti-foreigner (particularly against Chinese Mainlanders) in Singapore?   How will the government, which has so far been rather silent about its involvement, pull it off without making it another PR disaster with Singaporeans?  No wonder the media silence over this major event.

Should America do it the Singapore way?

Photo Credit: NY Times

Obama believes that acts of violent extremism, whether ISIS-organised or lone-wolf attacks, are a reflection of both political and economic disenfranchisement.  To paraphrase Obama, if they had a chance at school, got a job and if they were accepted as full and equal members of society, they wouldn't have resort to violent acts of terrorism.  You would think that such a holistic approach to in the war against terrorism would receive widespread support.  But unfortunately for Obama, according to the NY Times article on the speech, his critics abound in within the US and world at large.

Some say Obama's a hypocrite, saying all that and working with so many human rights perpetrators within his international coalition against terrorism.  Some say he's projecting his own political agenda onto the issue.  Some say he's just deliver the usual Obama special: a smooth and savoury feel good speech.  And then of course there are the Republicans spoiling for a fight and calling for a stronger military response against the tyranny of terrorism.

Egyptian Coptic Christians awaiting their grizzly death by execution

But I think beyond the noise of attacks against Obama, a strong force  driving the criticism is really a fatigue for feel good, but ultimately simplistic responses to the threat of terrorism.  Yes, economic disempowerment can make one an easy target for conversion to radicalism.  But there're just as many popular and successful highflyers among the 15,000 converts, as there were alienated and unemployed individuals. And besides, as far as we can tell, ISIS never promised political or economic empowerment.

Interestingly, Singapore's response has been a decidedly communal and religious.  Senior Minister of State for Home Affairs and Foreign Affairs, who was also at the aforesaid Summit, laid the blame squarely on radical Islamic ideology.  Extremists do not have the interests of Singapore at heart and must be dealt with as such, they say.  Apart from stepping up homeland security against organised and lone-wolf terrorists, the state must actively work with moderate muslims in combatting what they regard as false teachings.  This is what a growing voice of concerned critics in the western coalition have been saying all along: radicals breed radicals.  Yes, in the immediate context, it is a (international) security issue.  But as many critics seem to be pointing out in an increasingly loud voice, it is fundamentally an ideological war.

Certainly, the Singapore approach presents a few advantages.  It avoids the homogenisation of the Muslim community, casting them as it were a monolithic entity of disenfranchised immigrants.  It allows the state to tackle radical Islam on the ideological front head on while remaining secular.  This stems from an extremely intelligent division of labour: MUIS, the state-controlled Islamic body monitors any signs of radical ideology and nips it in the bud; the Ministry of Home Affairs uses state machinery like Secret intelligence and the Internal Security Department to hunt down the threats before Singapore (and the world) ever gets to hear of it.  Unless of course they're like Mas Selamat who took a toilet break and became Singapore's most wanted in over a decade, though story probably deserves another blog post of its own;-)

Most certainly, Singapore sits as an unsuitable candidate for Obama's human rights campaign against terrorism.  The Singapore approach does gloss over inequalities which some argue the Muslims do face, and which can fuel a sense of political, social and economic isolation.  The Singapore approach also highhandedly defines good doctrine as largely one that serves the interest of the state.  But Singapore has managed to succeed where the US has failed precisely because it takes liberties with well, human liberty.  

Is it right?  Probably not.  Does it work? Probably.  
Will we regret it in years to come?  You decide.

My response to a NY Times on Hong Kong was identified as one of NYT's Top Pick!

Original NY Times Article: Giving Up on Hong Kong

Hong Kong's Liberal Studies Curriculum: The Battleground for Political Power

Photocredit: SCMP

According to a recent South China Morning Post*, the compulsory Liberal Studies curriculum of the public education system in Hong Kong is under mounting pressure to adopt a more pro-Beijing stance.  Liberal Studies, a subject compulsory students in Hong Kong, advocates the nurturing of knowledge and skills the global citizen of the 21st century needs.  The idea was first mooted in the early 2000s and has since 2009 been one of four compulsory subjects, in the same ranks as Chinese Language and English language.  On any ordinary day, no one would decry the importance of such a subject which aims to help get students future-ready.  And as a response to the much criticised rote-learning mode endemic in the Hong Kong curriculum, it is surely the solution, not the problem.  So why the sudden shift in the Hong Kong Education Department's stance towards Liberal Studies?

  Well actually, not sudden at all.  There's always been a level of criticism from pro-Beijing politicians.  But the political climate in HK has become a minefield, more so since the Umbrella Movement in December 2014 (and Feb 2015).  Priscilla Leung, a hitherto pro-Liberal Studies HK Lawmaker, argues in Foreign Policy that while the subject equips HK youth with an awareness of the issues, the youth lack the necessary maturity and awareness to participate meaningfully in politics.  It has also been said that many Liberal Studies teachers have used the subject to advocate their own (oftentimes anti-Beijing) political beliefs, which defeats the diversity-orientated and balanced approach the curriculum preaches.  That may well be true since quite a number of Liberal Studies teachers were said to have participated in the Umbrella Movement.

Photocredit: MOE, Ngee Ann Primary School

Actually, in Singapore, we too have our own version of Liberal Studies.  At the Secondary School level (Sec 3-4), there's Social Studies which seeks to foster an interest in local and regional politics while at the Junior College level (17-18 years) there's General Paper and Project Work.  All are examinable subjects (i.e., taken seriously by Singaporeans), and both aim to foster critical thinking skills, global awareness and in general, prepare Singapore youth to be take their place in the world of tomorrow.  In recent years, Character and Citizen Education, as advocated by Ministry of Education led by Heng Swee Keat, also seeks to promote greater awareness of social and political issues, both locally and globally among Singapore youth.  I've taken a loom at the Liberal Studies curricula and the only real difference seems to be the fact that CCE is ultimately tied to Singapore's economic competitiveness, whereas Liberal Studies, is, well, Liberal Studies.  CCE by MOE was never fundamentally about creating a more politically informed and robust society.  Do you think the same concern would be true for the Singapore Government?  Would the Ministry of Education be worried that the increasing emphasis on 21st Century Core Competencies would politicise the youth of Singapore?  

Well,  in the first place, content in Singapore subjects is highly centralised and constantly regulated by the MOE Headquarters.  Unlike Liberal Studies which leaves a lot to the teacher, Singapore's MOE defines very clearly what the issues are and what the conclusions should be.  Critical deconstruction of racial and religious topics are unashamedly flagged to MOE teachers as too sensitive for classroom talk.  Issues like Human Rights, Political Freedom, Gender and Sexual inequality are rarely discussed.  If at all, Singapore would typically be painted in a positive light.  If negative, geopolitical constraints are usually trotted out to explain critical analysis needs to take a backseat.    I would say that teachers themselves are put through a rigorous selection process, weeding out ones with controversial ideas.  Let's not forget the fact that teachers are bounded by the Instructional Manual for Civil Servants in terms of airing their political views.  The appraisal system itself also seems to reward those who toe the line, with its emphasis on getting teachers to examine how they have contributed to National Education (i.e. officially endorsed views on politics, society and history).  I could go on and on about that...

Of course, I'm simplifying matters.   The explanation for the youth-led Occupy Central movement which brought the financial hub of Asia to its knees, and made the Central Government in Beijing lose so much face, cannot be reduced to the effects of one curriculum subject.  Multiple factors come into play, with geo-political and economic conditions of our milieu intersecting at the right time.  If Liberal Studies were to have taken place during the era of prosperity under British Colonisation, would the same have happened?  While back then, there wasn't necessarily more political autonomy, the British did allow a climate of intellectual freedom and political expression.  For a people who have tasted 'sugar water' how can you expect them to go back to 'untreated water'?  For what compelling reason would they willingly give up their sense of autonomy and agency?


To be sure, the Singapore government's been quite successful in keeping the economic and political impetus for such movements at bay. That's not even considering the legal constraints instituted the system has to prevent organisation or participation in such movements.  Most Singaporeans seem quite comfortable with leaving politics to the 'professionals', choosing  rather to go about their daily lives.  Periodically, Singaporeans are told that they shouldn't be so politically apathetic, but then, when they do they are told they don't understand the issues well.  The politicians from the ruling party may be right - judging by how xenophobic and silly local debates like the CPF issue.  But then, how could they understand when it's never really been openly and unabashedly debated in the first place?  Inevitably political maturity involves letting go of control, but who would want to?  I wouldn't.

But I do wonder.  If anything, at least in the HK situation, we have a sense that the critical thinking curriculum works with the students putting theory into action.  However poorly you think they understood the issues or applied their understanding, at least they did.  But tightly controlled Singapore, MOE and its teachers may never really know if whatever they preach about 21st Century Skills (e.g. critical thinking, awareness of local and global issues, etc) really works beyond the official line defined by civil servants? 

* For some reason, the link to the SCMP seems to be broken.  This alternative link goes to a political blog which saved that article.