When she looks so much like her...

It's strange sometimes when you come across people who look alike but are completely unrelated. Years ago I know this person but has since been out of contact for a long while. She has a very unique look that i cannot easily forget. Might be the eyes, the nose or the lips, I don't know. Just that one of a kind look that you cannot find any resemblance in others. Or so I thought... until last week.

I was running a workshop and for some strange reasons I felt as if she is among the audience. Indeed, this lady (albeit a younger version) resembles her to the T... unless I put a microscope on her I wouldn't be able to tell that they aren't related. Even the body structure look alike, the way she stands, walks, posture etc. Can't believe it!

Theoretically speaking it is extremely possible for two unrelated persons to look identical, don't you think? Think about it, we have only two eyes with brows, two ears, one nose, one mouth, and a head of hair that has limited styling distinction apart from colour. Put all these components together and you can easily figure out that the permutation is not infinite.... 1 million at most? Since there are more than 1 billion chinese looking people in the world, it should then be very possible to find an identical (or similar) looking pair of people among 1000 or 2000?

For some reasons I fell into a whole slew of reminiscence about the past as a result of this encounter. But whatever it is life goes on...

When your life is like rut...

Face it, we never get to be happy every moment from birth to death. Those who claim that they do is simply lying... period. Sometimes we feel on top of the world, but sometimes we feel like beneath the ocean. At times we feel like a piece of useless rut only to be stepped upon. But is a rut really that useless?

When the weather is cold, a rut provides warmth to someone's feet. When the floor is wet, a rut provides the needed grip so oldies don't slip and fall. And outside my door, the rut makes sure the tiles are clean at home so my wife don't have to mop and re-mop each time we are home. Especially so now that she is close to delivering our 3rd child, she needs a break from all these chores. So... a rut isn't that useless afterall, or is it?

As the saying goes... there is a woman behind every successful man. Similarly... underneath every hero there is a rut like you and me. So when you think that you are like a rut at some point in your life, that is because you are doing something in service of others. To those others whom you serve, you are needed... even if you really feel like a rut.

When a disease called 'cynicism' infects you...

"I've done it many times, it won't work!"

"Gimme 10 good reasons why I should listen to you!"

"The leader should set example!"

"I've never been praised, so why should I praise others?"

Does all these sound familiar? If they don't, I'd be very interested to know which organization you come from so that I can visit the disease prevention department to learn a thing or two. Because these are 'diseases', call it 'cynicism' for the sake of simplicity, that I find it hard to cure, they are extremely contagious, and permeates through the file and rank in any organizations you can imagine. Or more accurately, these diseases are evident in places where human interact. They spread through verbal and on-verbal transmission mediums, and passed on from one to another regardless of age, race, colour or creed. Especially susceptible to these contagion is between people of different social or hierarchical status within human organizations - people higher up the chain of command spread to more at one go as compared to those lower down. Interestingly, unlike bird flu which has recently been found to infect human from birds, the 'cynicism' disease has so far been observed to remain humanly. So for this reason, there must be some undiscovered antibodies in animals that has kept them immune till this day. The origin of 'cynicism' is unknown, but evidence has it that it is observed since the beginning of homosapiens... okok... you get the drift here, I'm talking about cynical people who makes cynical remarks about anything and everything cynical or uncynical. But before I begin to turn cynical myself, I offer a few reasons why cynical people choose to be cynical.

Firstly, being cynical is an attempt to legitimize one's own failure or non-performance. When a person feels incapable about something, lack of innovation for example, he innately tries to find excuses to justify why he should not be seen as lacking in innovation but instead exposes all possible imperfections that led to his deficiency in the first place. This is especially evident through erecting "it won't work", "I've tried it before", "I'm not convinced" barriers to down play the originality of an idea when first surfaced.

Secondly, it is an attempt to prevent other's success. A cynical person never makes it easy for others to succeed probably due to "red-eye" tendencies which is also explained by Adam's Equity Theory. This person's world view is one of conflict, that when one rises others have to fall. Under the influence of such philosophy, the defence system responds by making sure others don't rise in the first place. Being cynical is probably the easiest and most effortless of all human activity, yet has the propensity to generate enough power to provide adequate defence for oneself.

Thirdly, it is an attempt to attribute failure to others. Especially evident in situations when mistakes are made, one conjures up all possible deficiencies in others and verbalize them in a way that led others to believe they were the originators of those mistakes.

To remain silent when the cynicism disease is flying around is a dangerous and irresponsible thing to do. Because the very act of remaining oblivious is indirectly promoting the contagion - so if you are not the murderer, you are the accomplice. Let me offer a few tips if you happen to be caught between the act:
1. "Did you just have 'cynicism' for lunch?"
2. "I can see 'cynicism' written all over your forehead!"
3. "I just had a flu jab, do you need one for 'cynicism'?"

When I reflect on my before and after...

As of last October, I have completed what I once thought was an unattainable feat - part time masters degree. After 1.5 years, it's finally over... with icing on the cake... high distinctions!!!

I remember the many occasions where coursemates and myself criticized the modules and lecturers for what appeared to be an attempt to rationalize what is and is not "value for money". On reflection, I think we (or me at least) may have been too myopic in the moment to make those criticisms. It is not for euphorical reasons that I am saying this now that I have completed the program. It is through some deep before-and-after self reflection that I think this program has not only achieved its intended purpose, but also provided me with a platform on which I can grow.

What is my biggest change before and after? It is my competence in critical thinking. For a start, I realize I am asking not only more questions about things that happen around me but also asking right questions. Not only does it facilitate my own learning on a particular subject area, it helps others around me learn too. Some of my colleagues see a change in me - not physically but mentally in terms of my thought processes. I was told that I have an innate sense to want to "break the code". For good or for bad, I think it does reflect the deeper and broader level of engagement I now do as compared to 1.5 years ago. From not knowing what questions to ask, to asking more and asking right. This transition took me 1.5 years and more than 20K. Is there a way to shorten it and make this transition more economical? I am not sure, neither do I think the result will be the same by taking short cuts.

So what exactly did I do in this 1.5 years that led me to this state? The essays and research assignments. Period. I did many essays across a multitude of topics. And every essay requires me to be inquisitive, to argue, to challenge assumptions, to be critical and not take what others say for granted. 10 essays and 1 research project to be exact and almost 50,000 words in all. Doing this over and over helped condition my thinking process to a way typical researchers would. If I was merely given a procedure on how to research, I would never have come this far. If not because of that repetitive exposure to research materials and continuous conditoning of my thinking process, I bet I wouldn't have benefitted enough to say that my money and time were indeed well spent.

Critical thinking therefore is a skill, or a capability, that cannot simply to taught. Because it is about a way of thinking, changing it requires considerable effort and time. One has to learn it, given some guidance, and through deliberate and rigorous experiences, condition it to a point where it becomes an unconscious competence. There are many books and training out there that teaches "critical thinking skills". Yes, they do provide a method or structure, but what is worth noting is that the investment of money and time you put in to be a "critical thinker" is way beyond what you would pay for that book or that workshop. So don't be fooled by persuasive and quickie marketing words. Get real!

When it's really never too old to learn...

Further to my May 7 post, I'd committed to learn 张惠妹's "听海"... I've done it! This is a wonderful piece I love so much. It wasn't easy when I started, almost got my fingers twisted with all the sharps and flats, and strange fingering positions. Whoever arranged the piano scores must either be a genius or a bully. But alas I managed, somehow through brute force, my fingers are conditioned and 'memorizes' all the nooks and crannys. Though not perfect, I can at least throw the scores away and play at will.

Through my piano adventure, I discovered a strange phenomenon. I cannot play it with deliberate consciousness. The moment I focus on my finger movements, I screwed it up! The moment I focus my mind on something, anything, I screwed it up! So in a way, it is the fingers that 'memorize' the pieces, not my mind. To play well and smooth, the mind needs to be 'off-duty'. No wonder I feel that playing piano can relieve stress, because the mind goes 'off' for a while.

The piano really is an instrument that you either love or hate. My 4 year old got so pissed that he surrendered and wanted to stop his lessons. My 5 year old girl needs to be coerced before she would practise it. I think you need to fall in love with it first before even thinking about touching it. I must confess that I am in love with the piano, and unless my fingers got jammed between the keys, I will continue to do so for however long it may be. I certainly hope my kids are as in love with it as me, so I started them on a ritual to hug and kiss the piano before their daily practise... silly eh?

My adventure isn't going to stop here, more to come. For every piece that I am learning now, I prepare the next. So my next in line is... "那年夏天". I don't even know who sang it, but is another beautiful piece that I can't wait to get my hands on.

When organizational capability is made so simple...

Last weekend, I attended a lecture by Prof Lens Cairns from Monash University on organizational capability. I am glad I did listen to his short talk!

For years I have been hearing of organizational capability, but no where have I gotten anywhere near how I understand it to be now that I have heard from Prof Lens. His use of a simple model (developed in collaboration with Prof John Stephenson of Middlesex University) to illuminate the concept has never been easier for non-academics to understand this concept. And now that I find this model so meaningful and illuminating, I have started to use the same model to help me out when I do learning programs in my own organization. My audience found it meaningful and easy to understand too.

Prof Lens drew a 4-square diagram with 'problem' and 'situation' on each axis as I reproduce below:

The area indicated by 'Y' in the diagram defines the circumstances where familiar problems occur within familiar situations. The ability to operate well in the 'Y' zone, be it individually or as an organization, is not capability but merely competence. Explicit skills such as technical know-how are knowledge that enables one to operate within this 'Y' zone comfortably. The area indicated by 'Z' defines circumstances where unfamiliar problems occur within unfamiliar situations. The ability to operate well in the 'Z' zone is what capability is all about. The skills that enable one to operate within the 'Y' zone are not necessarily those that enable us to be operational in the 'Z' zone. The challenge to individuals and to organizations then is in determining what skills and knowledge are required to enable the kind of 'Z-ness' in order to operate within the context of unfamiliar problems in unfamiliar situations. With the significance of knowledge economy and globalization in full swing, change is arguably the only thing that we can be sure of. Under such changing environment, problems and situations are likely seen as unfamiliar ('Z' zone). In other words, individuals and organizations are sure to be confronted with more unfamiliar problems and unfamiliar situations. Therefore, organizations and individuals alike, we are not capable unless we exhibit qualities or have the right knowledge that enable us to operate in such ever changing environment. That is organizational capability, or 'Z-ness' as Prof Lens puts it. This, I thought, was so enlightening! It is not that I have never seen this model before, but to hear it from Prof Lens in layman terms makes it so meaningful and easy to understand.

However, my ever inquisitive mind never stop working in the midst of enlightment. How does the model account for the transitional states between 'Y' and 'Z'? Isn't 'Y' once 'Z' yesterday, and 'Z' becoming 'Y' tomorrow? When inquired, Prof Lens responded (as what I have understood) that this model is not intended to reflect such transitions because doing so would add complexity to the model and hence make it difficult to truly understand the difference between competence and capability.

For me, the ability to grasp the capability concept has significance in my professional and personal capacity. As my work is in corporate learning, I am now be able to position learning initiatives in a way that tunes in well to the changing organizational rythm. As a parent, I am more conscious of the kind of development that is essential for my children to prepare them to face the changing world.

Thanks, Prof Lens.

When death is ever so imminent...

Just a few days ago, I hear of a friend's niece returning to Singapore from Australia and went straight into the hospital for some serious medical problems. She is only 29, just completed her studies, but ran into some health problems that is life threatening. She apparently had extremely low blood platelets, kidney failure, blinded, brain hemorrhage, and lung failure. She passed away yesterday. The cause of her whole series of problems has yet to be determined.

Yet a few days ago, the newspaper reported of a female employee who worked on her laptop for hours, then collapsed and passed away.

A few years ago, I had a fellow colleague (in his late 20s) from my department who ran into a major road accident in the US. For months he has been warded in ICU in the states, and later on returned home presumably for recovery. He was re-warded upon into a local hospital for blood infection problems, and passed away soon after with his luggage still unpacked.

When I was in my 20s, I had a schoolmate who passed away after he was allegedly stabbed in the stomach while he was returning home from a night out. He was a close friend of mine, so the lost I felt was bad and I didn't really know how to deal with losing a friend at that time.

As I think of these cases, as well as the many other lost of lives around the world be it young or old age, I feel a sense that death is ever so imminent and omnipresent. It is like death is always around us waiting for the chance to pounce. One wrong doing or a single lie may possibly unhook death from its hanging above our heads and drop right on us anytime anywhere. Honestly, I am not worried about the fact that one day I will die because I believe one have to come to terms with the fact that one will have to die one day, like it or not. Resisting it and be overly worried about it is only going to bring misery for as long as one is still alive.

I believe in the buddhist way of thinking, death is actually to be celebrated. I remember at my father's wake a few years ago, the monk encouraged us to hold our tears in front of my father's altar and explained that death to a buddhist represents a form of relieve from worldly sufferings, and hence is to be celebrated for his passage to the 'western' world. Of course I tried very hard, but failed to hold my tears on several occasions however hard I tried.

If death is to be celebrated, then in the buddhist point of view it is like a gift. We celebrate when we get a gift at the right time and right place, like a b'day gift on b'day in a b'day party, or x'mas gift on x'mas day under the x'mas tree. Which also means that claiming the gift of death will also have to depend on the time and place as well; gift of death on death day in a death party... make sense? Unfortunately, while some 'spiritual' forces may know when and where the gift is going to arrive on us, we are not able to know it ourselves, unlike b'day and x'mas day. Which is why it always seem arrive in shocking ways, leading to grieve and sadness as a result of our inability to anticipate the gift of death bestowing on our loved ones in advance.

The only preparation we can do is to think about what we want to be remembered for on D day. Then live a life that is compatible with those words in the eulogy.

When some get confused about the freedom of choice...

The local papers recently carry some debates about the issue of homosexuality as a result of MM Lee's suggestion to relax the law. As I read these debates, as well as MM's rationale, I see both camp's (for and against) arguments as being sound and logical from each of their points of views. While we are not at the stage where everyone has to choose sides, I hold a view that there are in fact very fundamental reasons why homosexuality is not to be encouraged... again, this is just my personal opinion, not about discrimination here.

I believe the key contention is in the misunderstanding of the law of choice. Proponents often make justification for their cause based on freedom of choice, and as long as the choice that one makes is not against the law, the choice made is personal and legitmate. So as long as 2 consenting adults of the same sex choose to marry each other, this choice harms no one and breaks no law and hence should be virtuous and not to be condemned. Under the influence of western ideology, such individuality ideals have over the centuries diffused into many nations through education, travel, trade, and media. In modern societies especially democratic ones, individuals regard freedom of choice as an entitlement and have upheld and defended it at all cost. If this is indeed the case, the argument for homosexuality threads dangerously on a single freedom of choice ideal, and the moment freedom of choice is exposed, homosexuality argument will then be invalid.

The westernized conception of 'choice' is narrow and individualized. Its construction begins with individual consciousness, going through a process of individual decision-making, and end with a decision. Anything that happens henceforth belongs to the 'consequence' construct. Which means 'choice' and 'consequence' are distinct and treated differently. In so doing, 'choice' alone is irresponsible because as long as a 'choice' is seen as legitimate, it need not consider 'consequence'. That is not to suggest that the emerging argument for homosexuality is irresponsible, in fact it has taken into consideration that the 'choice' for homosexuality harms no one and breaks no law, so responsibility is not oblivion. But the question is, are these the only considerations and responsibilities individuals carry?

The fact that we are born human (or living things for the sake of argument) carries with us the untold law of choice. This law of choice rejects the notion of individual freedom of choice, and it is this natural law of choice that provides the last line of defense against the ultimate extinction of humankind. This defense cannot hold by itself, it is through human that it becomes defensible. It is the duty of every human being to uphold this defensive wall against threat, just like what animals would when faced with extinction. Basing arguments on individual freedom of choice is therefore myopic and self-serving, because the law of choice tells us that whatever choice we make, we cannot shake away our duty to continue human existence.

While we sometimes make choices because we think we are psychologically different from others, and we see that difference as being unique and unchangeable, but no matter how different one is, the last line of defense reminds us that we are the same species afterall. Can proponents accept a world that is completely homosexual? If not, what is it that make it reason enough to have just 'some' homosexuality? Because it is just 'some' so therefore it is acceptable? Is this not a self-centered stance? In fact I would ask the same series of questions to people whom are against marriage and procreation. Can you accept a world that bears no babies? If not, what is it that make it reason enough for you to not procreate? Just because babies guarantee you sleepless nights? Self-centered stance again? Ok ok so the noble argument is that we don't want to bring life to this world only to end them up in broken families and suffer in society, but is it not our own doing that broken families and societal problems exist in the first place? So we break families and stirr up the society at will, then try to be noble in not wanting others to suffer? Any lamer excuse than that?

Supposing it is completely acceptable for a world devoid of new offsprings from this point on, where do you think those that pass will reincarnate? Become animals, insects, or just wander our neighbourhood as spirits? So some suggest that psychological makeup is to be blamed for homosexual tendencies and is unchangeable, are we then suggesting that a person with a psychological tendency to kill can kill at will or be permanently locked up? If it is due to genetic makeup, I am curious to know how homosexual genes got passed on through homosexuals in the first place!

I am sorry if my writing is offensive to some, it is not my intent to discriminate. But non-discrimation does not mean I am oblivious to the natural law of choice.