Posted on by Kit

Educational Discrimination of a Different Kind

Educational Discrimination of a Different Kind
by Nathan Petrus

An issue which is commonly blogged about is educational discrimination on ethnic lines.

With such volatile competition, it is no wonder that another form of educational discrimination is normally ignored by the masses…

This is none other than discrimination by educational stream.

The following quote tells all:

“At lower secondary, students who score a string of As are considered suitable for the Science stream and the rest are placed in the Arts stream.” – NST Report

‘Tis indeed a sad but true fact in our country that the Arts stream is seen as a receptacle for “second-grade students”. The world of education in Malaysia is divided into those in the Science and Arts streams, with the former being exalted far above the latter. All students who do well in the PMR are siphoned off to the Science stream, while those regarded as less academically-capable are sent to the Arts.

The notion that the Arts is less academically-rigourous than the Sciences has no basis whatsoever. To be frank, it’s a load of rubbish. Yet many Malaysian parents continue to steer their children in the direction of engineering and medicine (with its related counterparts: dentistry and pharmacy). [it should be noted that most do not aspire for their children to be real scientists, with the exception of the field of biochemistry, which has received much press and government propaganda] And what of economics, sociology, anthropology, literature, history, et al? These are for the less intelligent, the less gifted… in other words the lower-class of the educational pyramid.

It evades me how and why this unacceptable state of affairs could come to being. Indeed, it has become a system that discriminates against those who are intelligent, but are more suited for the Arts. They have been told from the moment they step into school that physics is the realm of geniuses (Newton! Einstein! Hawking!), while literature is for idiots (or weirdos like Shakespeare, Chaucer and T. S. Eliot). [And what about Philosophy? It’s no wonder that there are zero faculties for the study of this vital subject in our local universities. For shame! For shame!]

But for sure, the infamous Dasar 60-40 (60-40 Policy) of the Ministry of Education has contributed to this completely flawed system. The unimportance of Arts to the policy makers is evident in their dismissal of the stream as only worthy of 40% of all upper-secondary students, while 60% must be channeled to the Almighty Science. My secondary school principal was so proud of the school’s policy of 100-0. Yes, there was no Arts classes in Form 4 and Form 5 in my school, and that was something to boast and celebrate about.

We now face the same question as Lenin, “What is to be done?”

First, we must reverse the damage of the ridiculous 60-40 Policy. By forcing more students into the Sciences, we have spat on one half of the whole world of education. Equality of the streams is vital for our survival!

Second, I propose the setting up of schools in the vein of the Maktab Rendah Sains MARA (MARA Science Colleges), but dedicated to the study of the arts. Yes, it is time that we have Maktab Rendah Sastera MARA (MARA Arts Colleges). If seperate institutions are unfeasible, then we should introduce arts subjects in these institutions. [Implicit in this proposal is the opening of these institutions to non-Bumiputras, but that is a issue that needs an article of its own.]

Lastly, and most importantly, we must rid ourselves of the stigma against Arts students. It is now the case that a student is automatically looked down on if he or she divulges that he or she is studying Arts. Parents must cease from discouraging their children from pursuing Arts subjects. Teachers must do the same for their students.

Let us hope that it is not too late. The time is ripe for a counter-revolution!

78 Replies to “Educational Discrimination of a Different Kind”

  1. Our younger generation is becoming very pathetic in arts, I am talking about the arts that you can’t value with money. Our schools are dumping ground for education plan went awry, mostly churning out vegetables. Beauty is in the eyes of beholder but when it is covered with shit not much things you can do about it, lets not talk about counter-revolution, we are in the stage of evolution.

  2. i might be one of the victim of this policy, where 10 years ago, it’s already a known fact that Arts stream is for not so good result, and science stream brilliant student..my parent strongly stress that I must go science stream despite my love for art… how much worth are 10 years of regret..i am just hoping, this generation of parents will just let their children choose rather than discriminating….because the pain will cost them their lifetime..

  3. Unless you want to replace the whole system with something like a credit point system whereby each subject has its’ own credit points and it is up to the individual student on which subject to choose. And when it comes to application of jobs, it is the cumulative points as well as the subjects that matter. There will no longer be an science or art stream. Just one common stream. But there are all the different classes. And so if you take arts at 8 a.m., you go to the art class. And when you take chemistry at 9 a.m., you pack your bag and enter the chemistry class. You have made a good point. Even in the science stream, you get students who score excellently and you get students who fail miserably. Being wise is better than being just a high mark scorer. Parents should give opportunities to their children to explore their interests. Let the kids discover what they love instead of what the parents love. This should be started as soon as possible. Come to think of it, the government is like the parent and the school going children in Malaysia is like their own children. If the ministers send their own children overseas because of the flexibility of studies over there, the ministers should also create a system whereby the Malaysian school kids have the same privilege here.

  5. Government need workforce to generate our country economy. General workforce. They have planned to get more ‘selected’ group to major in those skill sector and specialization. However, there are concern that these group ended up just above average or did not return back to Malaysia after they become the end product of Government investment.

  6. Most of us are ‘parked’ under general workforce. Some of us are lucky not to do well in school and later succeeded in society environment by offering our expertise in businesses. So, we do have an early advantage than those ‘spoon-feeded’ batches. We all are learning everyday about survival from the University of Public Learning.

  7. Those ‘spoon-feeded’ batches, they come home and found that they cannot ‘fit in’ into the working society due to their mindset and expectation. They demanded more than what the Government can offer since they so used to be ‘spoon feeded’.

  8. I absolutely agree with “Kurakura.” There is a total need to revamp the Ministry of Education. It shld start with the Minister himself. It is sad that we are not having the most qualified regardless of race, color or creed to helm positions within the ministry. This is evidential throughout the whole government machinery and all its related GLCs.

  10. For a person who is in the technical field for past 20 years, and from Science Stream, I came to relaize the following :-

    1. In the first 3 years after gratuation with a techincal degree, my salary out perfrom the other arts, management and accounting group
    2. Next 3 susequent years, I still remain a technical personnel and refuse to be the managment team, my salary is on PAR with them but my benefits, such as bonus and share is below them
    3. Further 3 years, I am well below them because I cannot start my own business nor could I get “sugar daddy”, who provide support or special preference to promote much faster in the cooperation…

    Guys, it doesn’t pay to be3 a technical expert.. Trust me…

  11. We are an Asian Tiger economy. nuff’ said.

    When you gear your economy to maximise profits and increase manufacturing power, you neccesarily need scientifically centred educational schemes. It’s the same for the original tigers: Taiwan, HK, Korea and Singapore.

    These nations are blindingly prominent cultural beacons today, as prosperity would allow for the leniency in choices.

    Little wonder that Western technical institutes are today dominated by immigrants, who value the social mobility science-based careers profer upon them over cultural achievements,

    Just take a glance towards the prominent Asian-American entertainers. The bulk of them are younger siblings, who, having older members of the family achieve a significant amount of prosperity, are given greater leeway in their choice of pursuit.

    In short: between economical and cultural pursuits, the majority would prefer the former when they’ve got lots to gain.

    Also, it’s interesting to note that plenty of business undergrads came through the science stream.

    So the question remains: How would Malaysians define their priorities? I think the irrelevance of the arts stream answers it quite conclusively.

    cheers

  12. hi loud8,

    It doesn’t pay much to be a technical expert but at least you are the last to be retrenched coz the only person that knows how to maintain or develop the technical systems are you .. :)

    It’s a give and take situation …

    However, I think it is common knowledge that there are major flaws in our education system related to our current discussion here:

    First, the unequal treatment of Science and Art stream in our secondary schools. The Art stream classes shouldn’t be used as a dumping ground. Besides this, our academic progress in economics, philosophy, literature, music etc instead of progressing and developing ahead, it has actually deteriorated.

    Second, even though some parties may argue that due to resource constraint and the need to develop the country urgently in the science fields like IT & engineering, we are not doing well here either. Our local graduates are coming out unemployed and not proficient in their respective fields. Why ? Bad selection criteria for student admission, out-dated education programs and unqualified lecturers.

    We can see with our eyes and think with our own minds. Why our country are still behind even though our leaders are saying everything is well and great.
    Which one is the truth? The words of our leader or everyday hard facts that hit you in the face.

  13. I was in the science stream and I suck at it. I am more of a art stream guy. I would like to suggest just by changing the name “ART” to “Economics/Finance”, It would make world of a difference and clear for their career path or educational path.

    Today’s competitiveness world, we need a group people in many technical field in order to success. Working together in unity to meet objective of our goals and also the countries.

    We need Doctors,Engineers, Businessman, Economist, Lawyers,etc,etc for our economic to prosper.

    THe last 20years., our educational system wasnt at its best, now there are so many type of packages, double degree in a short span of time, Phd,Masters, even trained in personal developement..just to compete in the market.

    Good luck to all..DAP..you want changes..start from yourself, the least get rid of the stigma..of being DAP..like Art Stream

  15. If you stream the A’s students too Science and “second-grade students” to liberal arts – and the first category of people become doctors, dentists, engineers, scientists, technicians, whilst the second category becomes accountants, lawyers, businessmen, politicians filling by preponderance the positions in government and corporations what kind of society would we get?

    The top 10% of the intelligence distribution especially at the helm of power – political or corporate – has a huge influence on whether our economy is vital or stagnant, our politics and culture healthy or sick, our institutions secure or endangered. Of the simple truths about intelligence and its relationship to education, this is the most important and least acknowledged.

    Arguably the progress of a society depends crucially on where we distribute the top ten per cent of gifted persons with high intelligence specially whether at places where they have control and influence on the lives and happiness of the rest of society.

    If you put your “second rate students” in the Arts, are you preparing an elite adequately for duty?

    (Here I am equating “second rate or grade” students with second rate or grade intelligence for purposes of simplifying illustration of argument, which is of course not necessarily true all cases : second rate or grade students may be of superior intelligence uninspired by the particular nature of academic challenge thrusted upon them).

    No wonder the political elites are half past six if the lesser brains are channeled to leadership position in politics through the arts!
    In Malaysia more than ever the emphasis on science is the leadership’s priority to supply manpower to form the industrial base.

    But what is good for that particular vision – some would say vain pretension – is not necessarily beneficial for the individual’s development having regard to his unique talents.

    Students should be streamed according to their natural talents and inclinations depending on which stream – science or arts – they display from their academic work relative strength and superiority.

    The development of a person’s innate and unique talent and interest in a field (whether Arts or Sciences) should be our first priority for without talent and interest, one cannot develop excellence.

    The priority to put the best brains in Sciences over arts is therefore a wrong and misconceived priority. We have to acknowledge the existence and importance of high intellectual ability in the top 10%, and think about how best to nurture the children or students who possess it – whether in Science or Arts – without partiality in relation to which field, except to the extent as dictated by their unique and particular interest, inclination and innate strengths as evinced in their schoolwork.

    In Malaysia we need not even ponder on these priorities. We should go back to basiscs and get English proficiency back on track and restore Meritocracy, the lack of which is the mother of all evils.

  16. Why would the country worry about priorities between sciences and arts and in which stream to channel the better brains when the country is not even bothered about the priorities between brain drain and brain gain; and nonchalent and indifferent to the educated of whichever streams emigrating and bring in, in their stead and dsiplacement, semi literate foreigners, issuing them ICs sio that they could vote for the ruling party? Lets discuss something else (other than Science vs Arts) more relevant in our context!

  17. As much as I don’t like discrimination, I must say that there is some justification in the widely perceived superiority of natural sciences in their rigour as academic disciplines over arts, humanities and social sciences. This has something to do with how these subjects are currently practised. As a PhD student in the philosophy of science specialised in epistemic and methodological issues of science, I think there are good (philosophical) justification for the claim that mathematics and natural sciences are the paragon of human rationality. It’s very hard to generalise about the academic rigour of different subjects in arts, humanities and social science (AHSS, which are lumped together as ‘arts’ subject in Malaysia). It seems to me that to the extent to which these arts/humanities/ss subjects adopt the methodological principles (though strict application of the same methodology may be impossible) of natural sciences, they are academically rigorous. For this reason I think economics is a very rigorous AHSS subject that parallels physics in the natural sciences, given their mathematical and statistical content. History, sociology, and law can also be rigorous given their application of various forms of inferences similar to those used in natural sciences (though in less formalised forms). However, I’m aware of the fact that AHSS subjects are also influenced by less rigorous literary subjects. To the extent to which AHSS subjects are influenced by literature, they will themselves become less rigorous. We can see such influences in some traditions of historical, and sociological studies. So it is hard to generalise. It depends much on the tradition of approach adopted. For example, within philosophy there is a world of difference between the analytic tradition, which is more akin to maths/science and the continental tradition, which is heavily influenced by literature and capitalises on vague, loose, sometimes incoherent arguments. I think the analytic tradition is the true heir to Western philosophy as practised by Plato, Aristotle, and Thomas Aquinas. However, it is not very accurate to say that analytic philosophy is more rigorous IN VIRTUE of its proximity in style to the reasoning and inferential methods of natural sciences. In fact, it’s the other way round – modern natural sciences are rigorous because they have developed in highly specialised forms the canon of general scientific methods and inferences left by (analytic) philosophers (e.g. the canon of inductive inferences developed by philosopher John Stuart Mill and the canon of probabilistic reasoning developed by Rev. Thomas Bayes). Perhaps it is instructive to note that modern science is the offspring of philosophy – metaphysics and epistemology gave birth to physics, chemistry, and biology in the 17-18th centuries, philosophy of mind to psychology, and philosophical logic and philosophy of mind to computer science and artificial intelligence in 20th century. In theoretical physics, the fine line between philosophy of physics and physics is blur and you can see both physicists and philosophers contributing to research in this area. In short, it seems to me that whether a subject of inquiry is rigorous depends on whether it uses rigorous methods. The natural sciences are widely (and, in my view, rightly) perceived as the paragon of rationality because they apply the rigorous methods left to them by philosophers with great sophisitication. It does not mean that non-scientific subjects cannot be rigorous. They can insofar as they adopt similar methodology. However, the CURRENT realities are such that, whilst there are still rigorous forces in economics, philosophy, history, sociology, law, etc., we also see irrational forces exerting their influence from the literary side. And it seems that the latter foces dominate many of the AHSS subjects. So it is little wonder that many people have the impression that AHSS are less academic or less rigorous. As a student in one of the AHSS subjects, I must say (even if I don’t likt to say) that this general perception is mostly correct. As a science student in my secondary education (and I’m still very interested in maths and science) I can testify to the fact that science subjects require more stringent standards of rigour than most of the AHSS subjects as they are currently practised. We cannot bury our heads in the face of realities and cry injustice when this perception is quite justified given the way many of the AHSS academics practise their subjects. What we can do is to improve the rigour of these subjects by weeding out the influence of literary subjects. While linguistic is a respectable science, I think literary subjects are not strictly speaking academic subjects. The lack of rigour is intrinsic to the nature of these subjects. The common feature of all ‘real’ academic subjects is the effort to reach the truth – i.e. to find out what really is the case, in the mathemtical world, the physical world, the social world etc – and thus requires rigorous methods. Fine art and literature are mere expressions of sentiments and emotion, rather than rigourous effort to find out what the fact of matter (‘matter’ should be interpreted broadly to included non-physical area, such as mathematical and logical truths) is.

  18. I think Jeffrey has pointed out something very important: ‘Here I am equating “second rate or grade” students with second rate or grade intelligence for purposes of simplifying illustration of argument, which is of course not necessarily true all cases : second rate or grade students may be of superior intelligence uninspired by the particular nature of academic challenge thrusted upon them’. It’s high time for our society to take such a proper perspective on grades and don’t brush people off simply because they failed to make the grade – they may even be more intelligent than those who brush them aside.

  20. Most of us here have gone through school, college and university and so our children. We know that good students usually have multiple interests and it is an undeniable fact that students who are inclined to science stream are more able than those in the arts stream. For example, if you put a science student to an arts stream school, the chance is that he will do it well as well but not vice versa. I am talking about subjects like physics/ mathematics vs history/ literature; the ability of the former is easily transferable to the latter but not the other way round.

    The economics reason plays a role in the student’s choice of subjects and hence career. From the micro point of view, if the family is filthy rich, the kid has a luxury to make a choice of whatever subjects so he wishes. Education/degree is more a decoration than a tool for bread winning. From a Macro point of view, it is only when a country is rich enough that there is always plenty of fund to promote the culture for the arts stream people especially the fine art people. It is important that the fund is sufficient to support this kind of people.

    On the other hand, science stream people especially the practical science people do secure employment easier upon graduation as they are linked directly to the productivity/wealth creation of a society, and kids do want to work and have a good career path after their schooling. The income is not only for him but also for his other members of the family. Kids born with a silver spoon are not included in this discussion. This phenomenon applies to advanced country like Australia. Take an example for my kids about five years ago. They are Aussie graduates and work in Australia.

    1. Son and daughter in law; Medical doctors: Medical degree; had job immediately upon graduation. No competition. 40 vacancies and only 39 graduates applied; Demand exceeded supply.

    2. Daughter; Dietitian: B Sc degree; had job three weeks after graduation through a reasonable competition of 1:13

    3. Son in law; Electrical engineer; B E; had job three months after graduation; competition unknown; private enterprise.

    4. Son; Business Service Manager: Master of Commerce, Economics/ finance; had job seven months after graduation through a tough competition of 1:75. ( more monks, less porridge situation ). He attempted science subjects in school but unfortunately, he just couldn’t make it.

    I do know how the ability of school works is in the science stream and arts stream since I have childen of both category.

    A classmate, (a very smart school boy of science stream I know) of my son who was also qualified for medical school instead had chosen to study commerce/ law degree in which he did it very well. He is currently extremely successful in a career in investment banking in London, and of course enjoys big fat income which is better than what a medical doctor earns. That shows a science fellow has no difficulty in switching to arts/ commerce subject, but unlikely the other way round.

    Having said that however interest is still very important in the pursue of study because once one has a basic need ( money ), the job satisfaction and the growth of one’s career is important after one acquires a degree, and continuous education is essential to keep one always at cutting edge in this ever competitive world.

    “The time is ripe for a counter-revolution! “in this country – For this, I would think meritocracy irrespective of race, getting the right people for the right course irrespective of race; improve the standard of English across the board are perhaps more in priority than the worry about the science and the arts stream in our education system. Just maintaining the good standard of English language usage has made tremendous economic progress for both Singapore and India.

    Lastly, for the good of the country, please do not simply stamp qualifications out because of race. Pass is pass and fail is fail; as simple as that; calling a spade a spade and don’t try to fool ourselves. This is also a right time for counter-revolution!

  21. In the good old days, that was the method of separation as without certain subjects like Add Maths and Physics one could never do engineering in local universities.

    Nowadays especially for UK varsities, they don’t bother what subjects you have at A levels as long as you have enough. To study medicine in Canada, you need to have a basic degree but I don’t know if it has to be a science one.

    In the UK one can enrol for Chartered Accountancy if you have a basic degree.

    I believe the early streaming is done in Malaysia as most undergrad courses cannot provide make-up courses if you do not have the basic foundation and not really on account of superior intelligence.

    Based on my own experience I would suggest that an engineer would be able to do an accountancy course but not the reverse.

    But if you study the salary progress of engineers and accountants, the majority of the latter have a better chance of earning more income than engineers who remain low in the pecking order of most companies.

    In my A level year I had a classmate who opted out ofthe Science class as he wanted to read Law.

    I think parents can do more to encourage their children to pursue their dreams with more passion instead of trying to get them to become doctors, engineers, accountants and lawyers.

    Looking at the millions that top sportsmen make, I would have been happy if a few of my children had taken up a sports career but they all opted for the academic route.

  22. To Lee Wang Yen (LWY), thanks for the posting, your following points are well taken:

    · methodological principles and application of logic of natural sciences (esp mathematics) are more “rigorous” than “AHSS, and hence in this sense, natural sciences are widely perceived superior in their rigour as academic disciplines over arts, humanities and social sciences;
    · “History, sociology, and law can also be rigorous given their application of various forms of inferences similar to those used in natural sciences (though in less formalised forms)”.

    In some ways I think they should teach basic philosophy as first subject. (Don’t have to go deep as Le Wang Yen) but general philosophy (as distinct from philosophy of science) does cover logic (fallacies), nature of meaning, language use, language cognition, and the relationship between language and reality etc which provides the methodological principles and application of logic before reading economics, sociology, business, law, arts, humanities and social sciences.

    Being partial towards Literature, it becomes almost natural that I would not agree entirely with what LWY said about fine art and literary subjects.

    To recap what LWY said: ““while linguistic is a respectable science, I think literary subjects are not strictly speaking academic subjects. They may be valuable on various grounds, but not on academic grounds….The common feature of all ‘real’ academic subjects is the effort to reach the truth – i.e. to find out what really is the case, in the mathematical world, the physical world, the social world etc – and thus requires rigorous methods. Fine art and literature are mere expressions of sentiments and emotion, rather than rigourous effort to find out what the fact of matter (’matter’ should be interpreted broadly to included non-physical area, such as mathematical and logical truths) is”

    To me a layman, academic objective is to quest, ferret out and determine the truth. (The ultimate objective of education is to make a better and wiser man with skills to acquire knowledge and ferret out the truth if you will). LWK is probably of the position that truth is empirically verifiable, the best chances of reaching it via rigorous reasoning?

    This is where we part ways of looking at truth. Whilst rigorous logic and reasoning can often arrive at the truth, it is not all the time and sometimes the Irrational discerns the Truth (if you accept the wider definition of Truth as something not necessarily needing to be empirically verified). Lao Tzu “the Tao” defies logic but he claimed he had the truth. Rightly or wrongly, I take the position that if I read Shakespeare, Keats etc it would not be a handicap – indeed it may be a great help, add another dimension – in the quest for Truth.

    But on this subject, you know about the great judge Lord Denning who had a very integrated knowledge of law and handed down cause cause célèbre judgments : he had a double first in mathematics (the rigorous part that LWK says) but was also a master of the finest in English Literature with a firm grasp of Western philosophy as practised by Plato, Aristotle, and Thomas Aquinas, Jeremy Bentham and son John Stuart Mill whose thoughts influenced the development of the Common Law.

    But one does not have to be a mathematician like Lord Denning to have the necessary academic discipline to search the truth.

    I say to all students of humanities and even Literature what my wise professor once told me eons ago – whatever subject you study, get a grounding in basic philosophy first : it is the mother of all disciplines! :)

  23. For the sake of prestige and showing-off, many academically weak students sign up for the Science Stream after PMR every year. They keep getting single digit marks for their Maths and Science school tests and exams. Not every Abu, Ah Seng and Arumugam has an aplitude for Maths and Science– their brains and mind-sets need to be of a certain “configuration” eg. disipline and willingness to slog and sweat over solution of technical problems. So the Arts Stream is perhaps the better option for those students who are inclined to “take it easy”. For those who really dislike books, the Technical Stream is the best option

  24. It is a fallacy to believe that one stream is superior to the other.
    Each requires different skill sets.

    The practice of streaming occurs as most local Us do not have the means to provide basic courses that enable you to join arts or science courses without some knowledge in the subject.

    For example in the UK, most courses do not require specific subjects at A levels just the correct number will do for most universities except the top ones.

    Parents need to encourage their children to pursue their passion instead of wanting them to become only doctors,lawyers, engineers and accountants.

    Engineering may be considered a tough option but in the long term most accountants do better for salaries.

    Nowadays, even good singers earn more than the so-called smart professions and don’t forget the 100,000 pounds per week earned by top footballers.

  25. Well, the top 10% of malaysia’s most intelligent students are streamed overseas and never to come back.
    so in actuality, it doesnt matter if they were streamed to the sciences or the arts, because in the end, they will still all be transferred to another land where our good gov would not hav to deal with them.

  26. i disagree with k1980, that is discriminating the art stream student. what by the meaning by take it easy???

    art stream is only studying others subject than sciences subject..i think art stream student is sometimes more success than others stream student…

  27. Just to amplify a bit on what I posted earlier on May 23rd, 2007 at 5:31 pm.

    I assume logic is a methodology of the principles of correct reasoning.

    But what is valid reasoning may not be true: for example:
    Major premise: Dogs are brown.
    Minor premise: Rover is a dog.
    The conclusion in logic is Rover is brown.

    This is not the truth because the major premise “Dogs are brown” is untrue.

    I assume Literature, though dwelling on feelings, sensations, the intuitive and subjective and often introspective perceptions, can help me in getting the major premise right – that some dogs are brown, some black, some white, some mixed etc.

    The methodology of correct reasoning is but a tool but for the shaping of the product of truth we also need the correct ingredients and raw materials, which Literature helps abundantly to provide.

    And why the Irrational may discern the Truth?

    Take another example:

    Major premise: Dogs are brown.
    Minor premise: Rover is brown.
    Conclusion: Rover is a dog.

    The methodology of reasoning here is flawed : the fact that Dogs are brown, Rover is brown, does not logically mean Rover is a dog because cats and bears may also be brown though they are not dogs!

    Yet though methodology/logic is invalid and irrational, yet the conclusion – that Rover is a dog – may be true.

  28. It is in the culture of our society that science students are more superior that arts/humanities students. Majority parents still have the mentality that a good carreer means carreer as a doctor/engineer/pharmacist etc, which is not really true. People’s mindset certainly need to change on this matter. Arts students are no less brilliant than science students in any ways. Science & Arts are two different field of studies and it is not fair to discriminate on this line.

    As a student studying a commerce & arts degree in Australia right now, I came across all these. I was in the science stream during my secondary schools, not that I chossen it, the school stream me into it. My classmates (majority) had a perception that the only reason you’ll study commerce/business in Uni is either you cant cope with science subjects or you have a family business to take over, which is very narrow & naive to me. They often think that the so called arts subjects are easily than science subjects like Biology, Physics, Chemistry, which is again not accurate by all means.

    Besides that, people generally have mis-perception that arts=drawings. When I told people that I’m doing commerce/arts, they always thought I’m doing something related with seni/drawings. This really reflect how narrow-minded they are…

    Government should really work on these matters seriously…

  29. “Maths and Science– their brains and mind-sets need to be of a certain “configuration” eg. discipline and willingness to slog and sweat over solution of technical problems” – K1980.

    Lets more the moment assume that is right. What kind of “configuration” of mindset is suited for those in Arts and Humanity stream? If discipline and willingness to slog and sweat over solution of technical problems are demandedin maths and science, can the comparatively lesser “discipline and willingness to slog and sweat over solution of technical problems” for the Arts inclined be adequately compensated by greater imagination and creativity in configuration of mindset? Do you agree that in Arts, imagination and creativity play a greater role?

    Assuming you do, would imagination and creativity be of greater importance for success in life? Lee Wang Yen said above “The common feature of all ‘real’ academic subjects is the effort to reach the truth – i.e. to find out what really is the case…” Do you think or not think imagination and creativity will equally if not help more the effort to reach the truth – i.e. to find out what really is the case…”?

  30. To Jeffrey,
    Thanks for your very thoughtful comments. I’m with you on many points.
    My rejection of fine art and literature as academic subjects has to do with my belief (which I think is well justified) that these subjects, unlike real academic subjects like maths, physics, economics, history, are not concerned with the search of truth (i.e. to find out what the world is like in its logical, mathematical, physical, sociological, and religious realms). That’s the main reason for my view that fine art and literature are not academic subjects. It has nothing to do with the verifiability criterion of factual (synthetic) meaning. In fact, I reject the verifiability as well as the falsifiability criteria of factual meaning. These criteria cannot be used to distinguish science (as asserting something factually meaningful) from non-science (as asserting something factually meaningless), because even natural sciences cannot satisfy these criteria.
    My reason for saying that fine art and literature are not academic subjects is simple: these subjects are not concerned with truth while real academic subjects are. This is sufficient to set fine art and literature apart from physics, maths, sociology, economics, history etc. When you read Shakespeare’s Hamlet, you’re reading a story invented by a famous author. You’re not trying to find out what is the fact of matter in the world (in its mathematical, logical, physical, sociological etc realms). Of course, if Hamlet contains a lot of information about the historical and cultural milieu of England and you’re mainly reading for the purpose of getting a better picture of the history and culture of Victorian (is it Victorian?) England while more direct and reliable historical accounts were unavailable, then I think your reading of Hamlet should not be seen as studying English literature but as part of your studies of the history of England. The same should be said of those who study Aristotle, Plato, and even ancient religious literature. They may say that they are studying literature. But I think these studies are academically valuable in virtue of the fact that they are studies of philosophy, history of philosophy, and theology, not in virtue of the fact that they are studies of literature. Apart from playing a role in providing materials for real academic subjects like history, sociology, philosophy, theology etc, literature does not have intrinsic academic value. So there is really no need for university programmes in literature insofar as Aristotle is studied in a philosophy course, the Old Testament in a theology course etc.
    However, this does not mean that literatue has no role whatsoever in education. What I say is only that literature and fine art have no academic value if we understand the objective of academic subjects as the search for truth. If that is how we understand academic pursuit (i.e. the pursuit of truth), then we must say that the goal of education is broader than purely academic pursuit, given that the search for truth is not the only objective of education (though it is certainly one of its primary objectives). The acquisition of various skills and the the nurture of characters are other important goals of education. Thus there may be a case for studying some literature and fine art in primary and secondary education – it may help us develop some useful skills (e.g. in our use of language [but I’m a little bit sceptical about this too. It seems that the study of language subjects would be sufficient. It seems that most literature encourage bad epistemic {i.e. from the perspective of truth-seeking}practices, e.g. the use of exaggeration and wild association]).
    When I say that most ‘real’ academic subjects share the common concern for truth, this doesn’t imply that truth is their only objective. Physics is not merely concerned with finding out what matter and energy are. It is also concerned about how to make things work in this world. Thus a vital part of science is (rightly) devoted to the development of technology (i.e. the production of useful tools and instruments). But in order to know how to make things work, one needs to know how things work in the world. Thus the instrumental objective of science depends on the epistemic (i.e. the truth-seeking) objective of science. I know there are some instrumentalist (or antirealist) philosophers and scientists who claim that the only purpose of science is to help us make tools that work, and that it doesn’t matter whether the theories that led to these technological results are approximately true or not just so long as these theories produce workable tools and results. There are good arguments against this instrumentalist view, which the space and context of this posting do not allow me to get into.
    In short, given that real academic subjects are concerned with the search of truth (at least as one of their objectives) and that fine art and literature are not, the latter are not real academic subjects.

  31. To Student2007,

    As an arts/humanities student myself, I also don’t like the fact that arts, humanities and social science subjects have been widely perceived as ‘easy subjects’ lacking in academic rigour. But unfortunately, it is a fact. We may not like this fact, but a fact is a fact and we cannot deny it simply because we don’t like it.
    Many AHSS subjects as currently being practised lack the kind of rigour we see in natural sciences. Such a generalisation about the rigour of AHSS may be unfair to those analytic philosophers and economists who prize hard, rigorous reasoning. But I must say that the generalisation is generally true – it is generally true that AHSS is not academically rigorous, though there are some exceptions such as analytic philosophy, economics etc. What we can do is to do our part in weeding out the literary influence from AHSS and thereby making them more rigorous.
    Given that Malaysia is still a developing country (and I would add, the current condition of AHSS), the education and research policy of prioritising and emphasising natural sciences (including maths) makes good sense.

  32. To Jeffrey,

    I think what you wanted to say was that a deductively valid argument may be unsound (it does not make sense to say that an argument is true or false. A statement/proposition can be true or false. But an argument is valid/invalid, and sound/unsound). You’re surely correct that a deductively valid argument can be unsound.
    In maths we are dealing mostly with deductive arguments/reasoning. In science, history, social science, etc, deductive logic is insufficient. The most important rule of reasoning in non-mathematical academic subjects and our ordinary life is inductive reasoning (which includes abduction).

    What your second example shows is a case of (to use some technical terms in epistemology) true but unjustified belief. As what Plato argued (and continued to be defended by many current epistemologists), what we are after in our pursuit for knowledge are not simply true beliefs, but justified or warranted true beliefs. This is because one may end up with some true beliefs using non-truth-conducive means (e.g. irrational means, invalid inference, emotional sentiment). But the obtaining of these true beliefs is a matter of fluke or luck – it won’t lead to truth-conducive epistemic practice that will lead to the acquisition of mostly true beliefs in most situations in the long run, which are what we are after in our inquiry.

    Logic (both deductive and inducitve) and scientific methodology are not fool-proof. Yes, they are imperfect. They will not lead to infalliable truths. But insofar as we are happy with approximate truths and mostly reliable scientific knowledge that grows and accumulates, logic and scientific methodology are the best tool we have in the pursuit of truth.

    By the way, the truth of the generalisation in the major premise of your first example is the sort of thing that we can find out via empirical science through the use of inductive inferences. For example, we infer from observation and our background knowledge to some generalisation which may later be given the status of scientific law or theorem. Once established inductively as a scientific law or theorem, we can then deduce some specific observable predictions. This is a rough picture of how induction/abduction and deduction work in science. So I don’t see why science cannot give us the raw materials we need in deducing predictions. In any case, literature certainly cannot provide us with justified belief in or knowledge of your so-called raw materials (i.e. the truth of the premises one use in deducing scientific prediction).

    No doubt imagination is essential in academic breakthrough. It is also true that there is some measure of creativity in literature and fine art. However, given that such a creativity can be cultivated in a much more productive and epistemically proper way through playing chess, puzzles, and bricks, and through solving mathematical problems and computer programming, I don’t see why we need literature and fine art to help us in this respect. Of course, literature and fine art are perhaps very good recreative activities. I have no problem at all for the use of these subjects for this purpose.
    My main problem with literature is that it seems to promote bad epistemic practice: it encourages the use of exaggerated language and emphasise rhetorical aesthetic at the expense of objective, fair, and reasonable perspective and the clarity of thought.
    I think a kind of literature where the aesthetic element is constrained within the bounds of good epistemic practice of clear, objective, precise, and logical thinking would be ideal. But even such a kind of literature will still have no academic value. However, it will at least be a better form of recreation.

  34. The singaporeans keep reinventing themselves. Inviting more capable leaders of thoughts, strategists in. And where are we?

    We keep circling round and round and round. And the circle gets smaller and smaller until everything becomes stale and turns bad.

    Bye-bye 2020. If by 2009 global recession starts setting in, we’re indeed going to sink.

    Time’s not on our side. KLCI boom is just window dressing and defies fundamentals.

  35. On the question whether in reading literature one could try to find out what is the fact of matter in the world (in its mathematical, logical, physical, sociological etc realms), let me if I may cite a few examples:

    Shakespeare plays teach values (I don’t know if one would consider values a “fact of matter in the world” though I know values are important in Life).

    On example : “The quality of mercy is not strain’d,
    It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven
    Upon the place beneath: it is twice blest;
    It blesseth him that gives and him that takes” – Portia in Merchant of Venice.

    John Keat’s poem “Ode on a Grecian Urn” begins with “Thou still unravish’d bride of quietness, Thou foster-child of Silence and slow Time, and ends with the famous lines: “Beauty is truth, truth beauty, – that is all Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.’
    The equivalence of beauty and truth is found in the philosophy of Friedrich Schiller: that beauty is when the subject’s true inner nature (its “truth”) is truly expressed. We do not know who the figures are on the urn, what they are doing or where they are going. They are transfixed – forever reaching for something they cannot grasp or attain. Is that Appearance versus Reality? In a letter to his brothers Keats himself said he tried to express his theory of “Negative Capability” through the poem. He said (I quote) “what quality went to form a Man of Achievement especially in literature & which Shakespeare possessed so enormously – I mean Negative Capability, that is when man is capable of being in uncertainties, Mysteries, doubts without any irritable reaching after fact & reason”…

    Albert Camu’s books (eg Kaffir) and Catcher of Rye novel by J. D. Salinger explore the boundaries of Jean-Paul Sartre’s Existentialism.

    Another example – the plays of George Bernard Shaw . Androceles & the Lion seeks to find out “what the world is like in its…..religious realms” in relation to questions like what religion means to different people and why there is religious persecution in a setting of Roman persecution of Christians thrown to the wild beasts in the Coliseum. His play “Man & Superman” deals extensively with the institution of marriage and will enlighten those who seek to find out “what the world is like in its…..sociological realms.

    American author Ernest Hemingway, for example, uses metaphors to reflect his life experiences and opinions. The ocean in The Old Man and the Sea is a metaphor, which represents Hemingway’s personal view of life. Hemingway believes that in life everyone must find their own niche and uses the metaphor of the ocean and the boats on it to demonstrate this.

    Even our own Hikayat Hang Tuah expound the virtues of the values (feudalistic) of blind loyalty to the Sultan…..

    It may not be all the time literature seeks in matters of “truth” about the physical world but it does seek the truth in the metaphysical and ethical world.

  36. Dear Jeffrey,

    Thanks for these citations. Wow! You’ve got an impressive grasp of the literature!

    As I said in an earlier comment, literature may provide some materials for real academic subjects such as history, philosophy, ethics, etc, as what your citations confirm. Insofas as one is reading literature for these purposes (history, philosophy, ethics etc), she is more properly seen as studying history, philosophy, ethics rather than studying literature. Apart from providing materials for these real academic subjects, literature has no intrinsic value as far as the academic objective of truth-seeking is concernedcon.

    As my experience in reading convoluted and largely confused (as well as confusing) continental philosophy (an approach to philosophy that uses the style of literature) and theology influenced by continental philosophy shows, literature is a bad genre for serious academic discussion, be it philosophy, theology, history etc. We can do philosophy, theology, history etc a better service by the approaches that adopt methodology similar to those used in science. Therefore, this shows that even the limited value of literature (in providing materials for real academic subjects) is not that valuable after all.

  37. Thanks for the response and elucidation Wang Yen.

    Thus far I agree with your following points:

    · ‘As what Plato argued (and continued to be defended by many current epistemologists), what we are after in our pursuit for knowledge are not simply true beliefs, but justified or warranted true beliefs’.

    · ‘Logic (both deductive and inducitve) and scientific methodology are not fool-proof. Yes, they are imperfect. They will not lead to infalliable truths. But insofar as we are happy with approximate truths and mostly reliable scientific knowledge that grows and accumulates, logic and scientific methodology are the best tool we have in the pursuit of truth’.

    Whilst I also agree that creativity and imagination may be cultivated by “playing chess, puzzles, and bricks, and through solving mathematical problems and computer programming”, I am however for the moment not convinced that this “epistemically proper way” is the preferred way for the development of a all rounded human being in lieu of literature and fine art.

    Then you said “..//…. I think a kind of literature where the aesthetic element is constrained within the bounds of good epistemic practice of clear, objective, precise, and logical thinking would be ideal. But even such a kind of literature will still have no academic value..//”

    There is truth in SOME but not all literature “promoting bad epistemic practice: it encourages the use of exaggerated language and emphasise rhetorical aesthetic at the expense of objective, fair, and reasonable perspective and the clarity of thought”.

    You have said, “I think a kind of literature where the aesthetic element is constrained within the bounds of good epistemic practice of clear, objective, precise, and logical thinking would be ideal.”

    I think there are some good literatures (novels & plays) with straightfoward language with minimum aesthetic element. One example I cited earlier is the George Bernard Shaw’s plays.

    The other statement “But even such a kind of literature will still have no academic value” is however not agreed – the expression academic value meaning (I take it to be) the value of getting at truths (in your words) “ to find out what is the fact of matter in the world (in its mathematical, logical, physical, sociological etc realms)” .

  38. I think it is important to distinguish between mere mention or reference to a certain subject and a serious study of (at least a small aspect of) that subject. Literature of course relates stories that raise issues in ethics, philosophy, and is set within some cultural and historical milieu. But I don’t think it is appropriate to treat Hamlet as a piece of serious ethics just because a character in that play does something that raises ethical questions or makes some remarks about ethics. Literature may be good material that provides some stimulation or create some awareness so that we begin to think about certain questions or at least begin to develop an interest in these questions. I don’t deny all these benefits. That’s why I say literature can be good and valuable recreation.
    Having said that, we must not fail to see that when questions about ethics, philosophy, history, etc. are raised indirectly or touched on directly in a piece of literature, they are often mentioned or alluded to in passing, and in very loose, vague, inchoate, and many a time even incoherent form. They are good for creating awareness but cannot be seen as a piece of serious academic work that will help us to find out truth even about the metaphysical and ethical worlds. To find out truth about the metaphysical and ethical worlds, the best place to go is still serious articles and books of analytic philosophy, such as Loux, ed. Metaphysics: Contermporary Readings. London: Routledge.
    Many literati claim that they are doing acadmemic work when they read/write fictions or plays that have some element of philosophy, ethics, politics, religion, history etc. But this only reveals the kind of low standards and lack of rigour they have about academic activity (and thereby dishonouring serious subjects like history, philosophy, theology, political science etc).
    I don’t think these activities of the literati are academic at all. I cannot claim that I’m engaged in scientific studies if I watch a news programme that reports the discovery of a new planet. Mere reference to/mention of or allusion to a subject matter is very different from a serious study of that subject matter.

  39. Dear Wang Yen,

    I see where you are coming from based on your last posting at May 24th, 2007 at 12:13 am.

    To use a homespun analogy, you’re saying Literature is but a mirror of so called reality (whether history, philosophy, ethics etc) – so, the argument proceeds, why if one’s objective is to grasp (or have a snapshot) of that reality, wouldn’t it be good epistemic practice to look direct at the reality than the look at the mirror to reflect it, when the mirror itself does not purport to be a reality but a mere reflector and what more a mirror is subject to distortion of blemish on surface or distendment of surface due to heat or cracks?

    How do I find the words to answer you? Though you may think it absurd but the nearest I can express it is for some of us, we actually think or feel we see clearer the object as reflected by such a mirror than if we were to gaze at the object itself direct. That is the value added that Literature provides (for us). I grant you it could be value judgment.

  41. And Wan Yen

    I have had some exposure (albeit not in depth) to Continental Philosophy if you mean the philosophical traditions of certain 19th and 20th century philosophers from mainland Europe – works from Plato, Søren Kierkegaard, Friedrich Nietzscheof all the way to Baron de Montesquieu, Stuart Mill to more contemporary Karl Popper. .and I agree with you that the potpurri of literature you find there (especially when Theology come into the picture in studies on Thomas Aquinas and Milton’s Paradise Lost), you can really hate literature. However, I venture to think that you may and could possibly take a different view had you really studied and majored in literature and had a run of it not from that ancillary kind mentioned – but really the great works of literal figures, as those majoring in Literature do and can testify to what I say.

  43. I was referring to Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Karl Barth etc and continental philosophers and theologians who expound their works.
    Continental philosophy is a misleading label. It suggests a kind of geographical divide, which is not really the case. There are American continental philosophers as well as analytic philosophers in the European Continent, especially in Germany, Austria, the Netherlands, and Scandinavia. In fact, the modern champions of analytic philosophy are the group of logical positivists at the University of Vienna. Karl Popper and Mill are analytic philosophers. Though I reject logical positivism and logical empiricism, I think analytic philosophy is great.

  44. I posted another comment on the problem of literature despite its involvement of some elements of philosophy, history, religion, politics, etc. about 20 minutes ago. But I wonder why that piece has not appeared while my three later postings have already appeared.

  45. It happens. In my experience, 75% of time, posting of comments instantaneous, 25% deferred, sometimes more than 1/2 a day or more! The uploading of comments doesn’t seem consistent all the time for this platform Word Press. This disrupts, in running exchanges, the sequence/thread of comments and counter response and sometimes creates confusion in the engagements.

  46. Yes, the comments we put do not seem to be real time. They are put in moderation for quite a long time.

    “I think parents can do more to encourage their children to pursue their dreams with more passion instead of trying to get them to become doctors, engineers, accountants and lawyers.
    Looking at the millions that top sportsmen make, I would have been happy if a few of my children had taken up a sports career but they all opted for the academic route.” H J Angus.

    Sometimes, it is a luxury that one could pursue his dream with passion, many have to take education as a means to get out from the poverty, or to improve their living condition. It is a more secured way for the kids to pursue the conventional profession like doctors, engineers, accountants and lawyers. The demand for this type of work is constantly there. Those who are in this kind of profession are likely to live comfortably. After all, passion could be nurtured.

    For the sports career, or singing career, one has to be really good to be on the very top. The top places are very limited. For a successful sportsman, there are thousands of those who couldn’t make it, and their lives could be very miserable. My neighbor ( father and son ) are professional golfers. I was very impressed, but the wife ( mother ) told me that the life was very hard as they could not win big and the expenditure for the tournament was very high. They hardly could make ends meet and have to pick up some odd jobs. I understand it alright as I have been playing golf for the past twenty over years and hardly could win anything, but luckily I play for leisure and not for living. Playing sports for living is another ball game. When money is hard and so the life, whatever passion could be gone.

    Having said that, one could make a lot of money and fame if one is really good and on top at one is doing, for example, Jimmy Choo, the shoe maker whose success is an envy for many people. The key word is “Good “and “top“and that is not easy and it is exceptional.

    What We are really talking is about the probability; the conventional way has a higher percentage of success whilst the exceptional way has less.

    Just like there is an echelon of people who always discourage children to study and say; “why bother to study? One makes more money by doing business! “True, but how many are really successful in business; for one success, how many throats have been cut. Are you the one who can go against all odd? For young people, career guidance is a serious matter for one to ponder.

    Ironically, most of the time, it is when one has made the day and has the resources then one only could think of passion.

  47. Dear all who have commented,

    Many thanks. I am humbled by all your thoughts and reflections upon this little article of mine. What you all have said has certainly contributed much to my knowledge of this subject/issue.

    Kudos especially to Wang Yen and Jeffrey who have taken much time to state their views in lucid detail.

    I apologise for not being able to respond personally to you all at the moment. However, I promise that I will channel the input I have received through your comments towards future musings of mine upon this subject (which will come in a while… I’ll let you guys know).

    Once again, thanks to all.

  48. While I think it is irresponsible to pursue one’s passion when doing so renders him unable to make ends meet or support his family, we will not go far with an obsession with wealth, which is characteristic of many Chinese Malaysians.

    If financial reward is the main motivating force driving so many of us into medicine, engineering, law, accountancy, it is little wonder why we lack real ingenious mathematicians, scientists, and thinkers that make significant contribution to pushing back the frontiers of human knowledge.

    With so many practitioners and so few researchers, not to mention top-notch ones, our society won’t go far. Chinese are notorious for their narrow-mindedness and self-centredness. What we care the most is ‘my own financial security’, ‘my comfortable life’, and ‘my family’s income’, and will do everything to secure all these. With these self-centred considerations as our guiding principle, the choice between becoming a doctor and becoming a mathematician or a theoretical physicist is obvious.

    If becoming a mathematician or a sociologist or research economist or a theoretical physicist means less income and less financial security than becoming a doctor, engineer, lawyer etc, there is no reason why we should not go for it.

    And what’s wrong with someone who, because of his love for others and his passion to serve them, chooses to become a social worker, a pastor, or a teacher? Are they or their jobs less worthwhile just because they earn less than doctors, lawyers, or engineers? I’m very ashamed of the self-centredness and narrow-mindedness of my own ethnic group.

  49. Financial reward shouldn’t be the main motivating factor especially when one has no particularly liking for the work he does…..

    One works (say) 7 hours a day, imagine not liking what one does, and in many cases hating and being stressed by what one does, just to earn the extra money to provide substitute satisfactions that money could buy, appears to me to be a roundabout arduous way of trying to be happy but end up having poor health instead due to stress.

    On the other hand if one has a liking and passion for one’s calling, one can put in the extra hours at home after work (when it is m music instead of drudgery), meet deadlines of work commitments to employers’ or customers’ satisfaction without the stress but the sense of pride and challenge of a work well done, where the hours spent in working (after working hours) are themselves a pleasure.

    In my personal opinion, it is best to prioritize passion and interest in one’s chosen career (with financial reward per se, taking second position) because it holds the maximum prospects of excellence.

    It matters not if one’s chosen career is business, academic research, doctor, lawyer, cobbler, hawker, travel writer…It is so not only because it maximizes chances of being able to make significant contribution to ‘pushing back the frontiers of human knowledge’ or the difference of abstract benefit to society, nation, the world or humanity or one’s own personal development and growth.

    It is also (ironically) relevant from financial reward point of view over longer run.

    The world does not owe anyone a living : it pays you what you give back in terms of provision of services or goods. If owing to passion you always give back to the world services and goods superior to one it pays you, what do you think will happen?

    You become dependable and sometimes even indispensable. The world will always look for you, reward you for being there. You would have a niche. For your work has come to stand for excellence and a badge of your personal integrity for not taking others for granted and giving back more than what you take from others.

    When you don’t think of riches as main priority, ironically wealth will look for you, and even if the nature of work is such that there is not much money can be made from it, no matter how successful one is in the chosen field, the chances are remote that one would ever be destitute or in want of money.

    On the other hand it is the singular obsession with money (without pride and integrity in or liking of one’s work) that causes downfall of many a wealthy man who gives shoddy and substandard product or service, breaks the law, commits crimes (corporate crimes) as a result of the mud raking pursuit of money.

    True, the economic environment as it impacts on one’s work may change but given passion chances are there that one could innovate, take a different track of how things are done to overcome the challenge and triumph in the end.

    Again there may be a ‘lucky few’ to whom making money as in business is also an interest and passion (where the desire for making money and passion of his work to make money appear to intersect).

    For these, whether they remain financially successful depends on whether they overreach or exceed prudent level of risks in what they do. Whether they are an all rounded person and acquire other forms of wealth (in terms of development of personality, wisdom, relationship) is however another question.

  50. “ If financial reward is the main motivating force driving so many of us into medicine, engineering, law, accountancy, it is little wonder why we lack real ingenious mathematicians, scientists, and thinkers that make significant contribution to pushing back the frontiers of human knowledge “ – Lee Wang Yen –

    Honestly speaking, financial reward is the major motivating force to drive people to go to school. The argument is that practical science subjects would enable potential candidates to get employment easier in the market; first thing first, get an employment to get income first, talk about richness later. The richness of a country is basically measured by the educational level of her people. In the remote parts of Africa where kids have to go to hard labor at a very young age; no chance to go to school; hence poverty haunts them from generation to generation and so the country. For the developing country like ours, the general educational is better, but since science subjects are linked with the demand of productivity and the people who study science subjects have better chance to come out financially better. For the advanced developed country where the fund is ample, the requirement for all kinds of people is more balance, however, the preference for the conventional jobs like doctors, engineers, accountants and lawyers still prevails.

    There are now about 80000 graduates unemployed in our country and the government is blaming them taking wrong courses primarily relating to non science subjects. This is a burden to the families and also the country. If you are unemployed for more than three years without a chance to practice what you learn, then whatever you study in the university is either obsolete or diminished. You are back to square one and whatever passion you have could be just gone. This is a cruel hard fact. It is no fun when one’s children can never leave the nest where the old parents have to keep on feeding.

    As regards to the research and pushing back the frontiers of human knowledge, talking is easier than what actually happens. Are there many openings of such kind of things in our country? Where is the fund to support this kind of research activity? See, we are talking money again. R & D needs fund, and when our parliament is leaking, and the high court is flooding, are we in the ability to do such research work? First thing first, go and repair those junks first before we want to push the frontiers of human knowledge.

    In overseas, the competition to enter into research field is very keen, passion itself is not good enough and one has to be very outstanding. My son is a kind of medical specialist now in UK, and is trying to get into some kind of very renown medical research institute, yes with less pay to do some sort of stem cell growth research, but the competition is very keen; you can keep dreaming on but you may not get it as you are not the only one in the world. Anyway, the result shall be known in a couple of months.

    “ Chinese are notorious for their narrow-mindedness and self-centredness. What we care the most is ‘my own financial security’, ‘my comfortable life’, and ‘my family’s income’, and will do everything to secure all these.”

    “ I’m very ashamed of the self-centredness and narrow-mindedness of my own ethnic group” Lee Wang Yen

    This is a very unfair statement to the Chinese people in Malaysia and Singapore who have perhaps single-handedly without any external support to build so many Chinese schools including the Nanyang University in the early days. Some hospitals in KL and Singapore were also built by the Chinese rich people; recently there is one hospital in Singapore being donated by a sum of three billion S Dollars by a Khoo family. In fact the Chinese people are the ones who grasp the principle of getting from the society and returning to the society. They believe good deed would bring good luck to their family line. They do not simply spend extravagantly to themselves like children or the second wife’s wedding party.

    There is one thing for sure; if you don’t have money, everybody is avoiding you like plague. Yes, “My financial Freedom” is an important target anyone should aim for.

    Br proud as what you are and don’t ever feel ashamed!

  51. “ One works (say) 7 hours a day, imagine not liking what one does, and in many cases hating and being stressed by what one does, —-substitute satisfactions that money could buy, appears to me to be a roundabout arduous way of trying to be happy but end up having poor health instead due to stress.

    On the other hand if one has a liking and passion for one’s calling, one can put in the extra hours at home after work (when it is m music instead of drudgery), meet deadlines of work commitments to employers’ or customers’ satisfaction without the stress but the sense of pride and challenge of a work well done, where the hours spent in working (after working hours) are themselves a pleasure. “ –Jeffrey –

    It is a fallacy to say that one who works with passion enjoys a better health than the one who does not. Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, the great composer, passionate with his work died at an age of 35 on his piano. Dragon Lee, very passionate about his Kung Fu film died at about the same age. I would rather relate poor health with overwork whether it is work on passion or work on necessity. How one looks after one’s own health is the key.

    If there is choice, everybody would like to combine passion with work. Just like my Yoga teacher who is passionate about Yoga and runs successfully a chain of Yoga schools and is making good money; I told him that he was a very lucky man that he could combine his passion with bread winning. Yes that is a luxury and not everybody has a chance for that. And it is true that if you are really good everyone would try to get you and business flourishes and money comes naturally. Again, the key word is “good “. Sometimes you can have passion but you may not be very good at it as it has something to do with aptitude or inclination or an edge over the fierce competition.

    Some people may be very obsessed with money, but I believe majority just want to attain some kind of financial freedom and enjoy a reasonably good standard of living. For that you need a good job ( related to the demand of what you learn and acquire ) for a start with a higher than average income in order to have sufficient saving for investments such that one could get oneself out of the rat race as early as possible. The ideal state will be finally your money is making money for you and the recurring income is able to sustain your need. That is also a kind of passion.

  52. Nowhere in my previous comments did I suggest, as what Kingkong is trying to portray me as saying, that money is not important, or that the society does not need rich people. What I was referring to was an OBSESSION with wealth. I think Jeffrey’s excellent posting has said it all: passion and a sense of calling should be the primary motivating force and great financial reward may follow as a natural consequence.
    I agree with Kingkong that it makes good sense to prioritise science subjects in Malaysia, given that it is still developing. But it’s high time to get more people into research. Where are all the financial resources for doing research? In UK, many scientific research projects are funded by industries that stand to gain from them. A substantial portion of taxpayers’ money has also gone into the allocations for various national research councils. Is Malaysia really so lacking in these resources? I don’t know, but it seems to me that much depends on what the government and the business tycoons prioritise. But I don’t think business tycoons and industrialists in Malaysia can afford to continue to fail to see the importance of the symbiotic relations between industry and research in this era of knowledge economy.
    You can always cite some examples of generous Chinese businessmen in Malaysia and Singapore. But, as what Kingkong said earlier in relation to another point (we are talking about probability [or more precisely, statistical generalisation, rather than categorical exceptionless universal generalisations. Cf. All Chinese are XXX with Many Chinese are XXX, the latter of which was what I mentioned in an earlier comment]). Yes, there are always exceptions. There are always some exceptionally successful sportsmans, exceptionally successful AHSS graduates in developing countries, exceptionally successful businessmen who did not do well at school. But as what Kingkong rightly pointed out, they are exceptions. LIKEWISE, the citing of a few generous Chinese tycoons who have contributed to charities does not show that my remark that many Chinese Malaysians are narrowed-minded and self-centred in their obsession with wealth is unfair.

    ‘Don’t ever feel ashamed’ could be a very dangerous maxim. I’m sure this is the underlying principle that guided Samy’s response to the leakage issue. Kit Siang: ‘It’s incredible that there are so many problems after RM100 million worth of renovation. It brings shame to our country.’ Samy: ‘Nothing to be ashamed of! Leakage is normal. It happens in other countries too.’ ‘Don’t ever feel ashamed’ may also be the maxim that best explains Bung-Said’s behaviour and their subsequent responses to criticism. A sense of shame (when it is due) is very important to maintain our moral awareness. So I think I’m quite well justified in being ashamed of some undesirable features that characterise many Chinese Malaysians (note: I didn’t say ‘all…’).

  53. I think Kingkong is right that being very good at a certain field is a pre-requisite for pursuing that passion as your career. Otherwise, it would be more sensible to pursue it as a hobby.
    Financial freedom is also important. But that depends on how you define ‘reasonably comfortable living’. If that means having an average income that is sufficient for the support of a family, and at the same time you’re really good at a certain field, I think you should pursue it as a career even if it doesn’t lead to great financial reward, one that enables you to live a luxurious life. Of course, that depends on what your values are. For a hardcore materialist, what I say in the previous sentence is an anathema.

  54. “ One works (say) 7 hours a day, imagine not liking what one does, and in many cases hating and being stressed by what one does, —-substitute satisfactions that money could buy, appears to me to be a roundabout arduous way of trying to be happy but end up having poor health instead due to stress.

    ‘On the other hand if one has a liking and passion for one’s calling, one can put in the extra hours at home after work (when it is m music instead of drudgery), meet deadlines of work commitments to employers’ or customers’ satisfaction without the stress but the sense of pride and challenge of a work well done, where the hours spent in working (after working hours) are themselves a pleasure. “ –Jeffrey –

    It is a fallacy to say that one who works with passion enjoys a better health than the one who does not. Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, the great composer, passionate with his work died at an age of 35 on his piano. Dragon Lee, very passionate about his Kung Fu film died at about the same age. I would rather relate poor health with overwork whether it is work on passion or work on necessity. How one looks after one’s own health is the key.’ – Kingkong

    I don’t think what Jeffrey says (as quoted by Kingkong) amounts to a claim that ‘one who works with passion enjoys a better health than the one who does not’. What Jeffrey says could be interpreted more charitably in this way: ‘ALL ELSE BEING EQUAL (i.e. given that all the relevant factors involved in one who works with passion and one who does not are the same, e.g. both have the same life style etc), one who works with passion enjoys a better health than the one who does not’. The qualifier ‘all else being equal’ is important and it pre-empts all Kingkong’s arguments againts Jeffrey on this point. True enough, those who take good care of their health are more likely to enjoy good health, whether they are passionate about their work or not. But this does not refute’s Jeffrey’s point, which can be interpreted as saying that, given that both (the passionate workers and the workers who have no passion) take good care of their health (and share other relevant factors), the passionate workers are more likely to enjoy good health than those who have no passion for their work. Given this charitable interpretation (and I think it is important to always take the most charitable reading allowed by the text), I think what Jeffrey suggests is very plausible. Of course, it is yet to be established statistically in empirical studies. But for the purpose of our discussion here, the general impression is good enough.
    The ‘all else being equal’ qualifier derives from the principle of controlled experiment, without which one will not be able to exclude the interfering factors.

  55. “my remark that many Chinese Malaysians are narrowed-minded and self-centred in their obsession with wealth —“ Lee Wang Yen

    “‘Don’t ever feel ashamed’ could be a very dangerous maxim. I’m sure this is the underlying principle that guided Samy’s response to the leakage issue. Kit Siang: ‘It’s incredible that there are so many problems after RM100 million worth of renovation. It brings shame to our country.’ Samy: ‘Nothing to be ashamed of! Leakage is normal. It happens in other countries too.’ ‘Don’t ever feel ashamed’ may also be the maxim that best explains Bung-Said’s behaviour and their subsequent responses to criticism. A sense of shame (when it is due) is very important to maintain our moral awareness. So I think I’m quite well justified in being ashamed of some undesirable features that characterise many Chinese Malaysians (note: I didn’t say ‘all…’). Lee Wang Yen

    “Chinese are notorious for their narrow-mindedness and self-centredness. What we care the most is ‘my own financial security’, ‘my comfortable life’, and ‘my family’s income’, and will do everything to secure all” Lee Wang Yen

    I was a bit puzzled why “ Chinese Malaysians “ was brought into the discussion and you feel so ashamed of your own ethnic group. You can’t change your color, your black hair and no matter where you go, you still belong to your own ethnic group. Why should you feel ashamed of your identity when your community people are working hard to save money? If you don’t feel proud of your own identity, no one will feel proud for you. If you feel ashamed of yourself, no one will look up at you.

    Samy should feel ashamed because he failed his responsibility to the project management of the country and tax payers suffered a big loss and he still keeps on denying his faults. Bung Said’s behavior is down right sexist and he should be ashamed of as a MP of the country.

    But not the Chinese Malaysians who are deprived of much opportunity play on an unequal level to try to get ends meet. For a Chinese Malaysian’s earning of one dollar, thirty cents has to go feeding the parasites. Life is indeed very tough for the Chinese Malaysians who have to live without any subsidy; naturally they have to be very careful about their money. Chinese Malaysians have to cough out more for their kids’ private or overseas higher education which you know is very costly because their kids stand less chance to enter a local university. What shame do you have when your community member has to take care of his own money? Government is always a single biggest employer of a country, and our government has intentionally avoided Chinese Malaysians into the services. It is indeed more difficult for Chinese Malaysians to earn a living. Before you condemn your own community, please give a thought of their situation. You know Kit has been voicing out in the country about this inequality and discrimination continuously. When you know that you are on your own and there isn’t any subsidy or handout to be received, you have to be extra careful about your money for the raining days. Is that guilty?

    As regards to whether work on passion is healthier or not, there is no scientific study to verify, Mozart and Dragon Lee which I quoted are cases to dispute otherwise. There is one thing for sure; come to pay day, employees all over the world whether work on passion or work on necessity share the same joy!

    There is a popular Chinese saying which goes this way:-

    When you have money it does not mean that you can have everything, but without money, you really can have nothing.

  56. As I see it, the debate is not on whether money is important in considering careers to be embarked upon. It is. To say the opposite that money is not important is to renounce the many comforts money provides and to invite the many difficulties not having money invites. Without money, how could anyone maximize the bountiful possibilities that Life itself offers? To renounce money may be ok for the few who has mastered the art of living simply with joy but for the majority not so inspired, it is to abjure life itself. Money then is important, and it is settled: no argument on that.

    But isn’t the discussion and debate here about weighing which should be prioritized – monetary rewards and job satisfaction – where both cannot be found in one and a choice (or at least a weightage) has to be made between the two – monetary rewards or job satisfaction – when canvassing two or more available choices of career/calling when one embarks on it, especially at (but not limited to) the beginning of one’s career?

    I thought that was the point of argument, isn’t it?

    As I understand it, what Lee Wang Yen and I appear to find common ground, is that, when confronted with having to make a choice between considerations of monetary rewards or job satisfaction, it is wiser for the latter to be given more weightage (for the reasons I have set out in my earlier posting).

  57. A sense of shame when it is due is important for moral awareness and improvement. Being ashamed of one’s (or one’s community) narrow-mindedness and/or self-centredness will lead to repentance and improvement in these areas. Being ashamed of a certain undesirable feature of a certain person or a certain community does not mean total dismissal or total denial of the worth of that person or that community. As a matter of fact, I do feel proud about the diligence and resilience of the Chinese community. So no total effacement of the worth of my own ethnic group was implied in my previous comment. Samy should feel ashamed of his irresponsibilities that have led to his failures, not because he should totally deny his own worth, but because such sense of shame should be there to lead to repentance and improvement on that area of his shortcomings. Bung-Said should feel ashamed for the similar reasons. For this reason, we should be very careful in our criticisms of Samy and Bung-Said. Don’t speak as if they are totally worthless. Such exaggerated diatribe is very unhelpful.
    Regarding the question of the correlation between passion and health, my point is simply that your arguments against Jeffrey do not work given a charitable intrepretation of Jeffrey’s comment. In debates, a rebuttal of someone’s point by failing to take the most charitable reading of that point will render that rebuttal something akin to a straw-man argument.
    I’m not sure whether all who receive the pay will share the same joy. In any case, this does not cast any doubt on the plausibility of Jeffrey’s suggestion that all else being equal, one who works with passion is better off than one who does not.
    Having said that, I do think that a lot of your points that reflect your primarily practical concerns sound very sensible though. Although I’m not a pragmatist, I do think that pragmatic considerations are apropriate and even important to a certain extent.

  58. We do have some concurrent points and to consolidate our debate, I shall put down as follows:-

    1. Money is important. Settled; no argument.

    2. Best scenario; possess both monetary reward and job satisfaction or passion. Settled; no argument

    But not everybody is so lucky and a choice must be made;

    a. Good monetary reward but less job satisfaction.

    b. Good job satisfaction but less monetary reward

    I would think that this becomes a personal choice depending on one’s personal need. The one who needs money more than job satisfaction would choose a. and vice versa. Agree?

    If it is agreed, then happiness has something to do with your personal choice, and it is not necessarily to be specifically PASSION or job satisfaction. In other words, you set up your objective in life or career and you are happy if your objective is achieved.

    3. You are happy if your objective is achieved be it money or job satisfaction. Can I say settled; no argument.

    I would say health is the way how you look after it; that is another issue.

    I am not convinced with Lee Wang Yen’s debate is how he chipped in “Chinese are notorious for their narrow-mindedness and self-centredness” and followed by “ he was ashamed of the self-centredness and narrow-mindedness of my own ethnic group.”

    You have to prove rigorously the statement of their narrow-mindedness and self-centreness and even then they and the obsession of wealth are not a crime. Aren’t they? If we don’t do anything wrong, we don’t commit crime and we don’t hurt people, why and what should we be ashamed of?

    We agree that both Samy and Bung-Said should be ashamed of what they did, and as regards to the criticism we just leave as it is. Borrowed from TDM’s words,” there are many ways to skin a cat! “

    My dear gentlemen, that is all for the time being and good night!

  59. I don’t think one will necessarily be happy when he achieves his objective. A miser who sets out to achieve his target of accumulating wealth may end up very miserable even if he achieves his objective. Achieving your objective may or may not lead to happiness. It depends on the nature of the goal you’ve set and how you achieve it. Happiness is something to do with the process (as well as the end result), not merely the end result. One who works with passion enjoy both the process and the end result. One who set out to achieve wealth without passion in his work may be very miserable or at least feels less happier (than the passionate worker) in the process, even if he achieves his objective in the end result. The joy of the financial reward is outweighed by the misery of the process. But, all else being equal, the passionate worker will enjoy both the process and end result. That’s why I said earlier that Jeffrey’s suggestion that all else being equal, one who works with passion is better off than one who does not sounds plausible.
    As I said, a general impression, unless it has been shown otherwise, is good enough in the context of such informal discussions here. I think Kingkong, Jeffrey, and I have been using this implicit principle in our discussions. That’s why all three of us have been alluding to general impressions that are yet to be statistically established through empirical studies (e.g. Kingkong’s generalisation from Mozart, Dragon Lee etc to the link between overwork and poor health, Kingkong’s generalisation that ‘Some people may be very obsessed with money, but I believe majority just want to attain some kind of financial freedom and enjoy a reasonably good standard of living’, Kingkong’s remark that ‘For the sports career, or singing career, one has to be really good to be on the very top. The top places are very limited. For a successful sportsman, there are thousands of those who couldn’t make it, and their lives could be very miserable’, and Kingkong’s claim that ‘.. one thing for sure; come to pay day, employees all over the world whether work on passion or work on necessity share the same joy!’,
    Jeffrey’s general impression that passionate worker is overall better off than someone who works without passion, and my generalisation from my many observations to the claim that Chinese are notorious of their self-centredness). All these are statistical generalisations (note: by statistical generalisations here I do not mean generalisations that have been concluded from carefully controlled statistical studies. The term ‘statistical generalisation’ [‘X% of A’s are B’] is a technical term in logic that is contrasted with universal generalisation [‘All A’s are B’, or ‘for all x’s, if x is A, then x is B’]) that are yet to be established by empirical statistical studies. And there are contexts where only generalisations that have been established by careful statistical studies are admissable. However, ours is a context of informal discussion and to require one’s discussant to prove his one generalisation rigorously while using lots of generalisations himself, some of which have been asserted with a tone of certainty (e.g. ‘…one thing for sure…’) sounds unfair.
    As I see it, we have to feel ashamed for some morally undesirable features of ourselves and our community. The morally undesirable is a general class that includes what is morally wrong (doing what one ought not to do) and what is morally bad but not wrong (‘infravetetory acts’ in technical philosophical term). We should beashamed of our morally wrong and morally bad actions or attitudes, for this will lead to repentance and help us to do morally good actions or hold morally good attitudes in the future. One who holds a utilitarian view of ethics will think that there is nothing morally wrong or bad so long as I don’t do anything that actually hurts anybody. When Kingkong says that there is no reason to feel ashamed since the Chinese have not hurt anybody, this may reflect a utilitarian view of ethics. I reject utilitarianism and hold an objectivist view of moral values. But I don’t think we have the space to get into a debate on the philosophical issues of ethics. When Kingkong says that there is no reason to feel ashamed because the Chinese are not commiting any crime in what he sees as their legitimate focus on the accumulation of wealth and what I see as a narrow-minded and self-centred focus, he assumes that only crimes should lead one to feel ashamed of oneself. But I think morally wrong or bad actions or attitudes, whether they are crimes or not, are sufficient to give one a reason to feel ashamed, unless we are happy to define our moral standards according to what’s defined as criminal or non-criminal in a country’s (which country?) laws.

  60. What is implied by one of Kingkong’s remarks is that one will not be happy if he needs money more than job satisfaction but chooses to work for more job satisfaction than monetary reward. There is a grain of truth here.
    However, much depends on how you understand the ‘need’ of money. If it means whatever that is sufficient to support oneself and his family, I would say that the proposition of the implication is true. If, however, it means whatever that is sufficient for our quest for a luxurious life, then I’d say that that need cannot be satisfied and the process of satisfying that need may well lead to more dissatisfaction and miseries.
    If one needs a lot of money to satisfy his desires for luxury, then he may not be happy even if such a need leads him to choose a job that offers more monetary reward than job satisfaction. This is because one will not be happy when his choice of doing something based on his need is made on the basis of the wrong assessment of his real need. One who thinks that he will be happy only if he lives a luxurious life because he thinks that a luxurious life is what he needs may be wrong (and thus still be unhappy even if he has chosen to do something in line with that perceived need), because human beings may be constituted (psychologically [and spiritually, if you do not hold a physicalist view]) in such a way that they are happier to enjoy what they do with passion (when doing so does not render them unable to make basic ends meet) than to enjoy an extravagant life.
    Whether this is so we’ll have to look at what psychologists, sociologists, anthropologists, philosophers, and theologians have to say. Can anyone enlighten me on this question: what do these scholars have to say about the question? I vaguely remember (but could well be wrong) that Abraham Marslow (a psycologist?) seems to support that view (i.e. human beings are so constituted that they are happier to enjoy what they do with passion when basic needs have been satisfied than to enjoy a luxurious life that goes well beyond basic necessities).

  61. errata: third paragraph: ‘If one needs a lot of money…even if such a need…’ should have been ‘If one THINKS THAT he needs a lot of money…even if such a PERCEIVED need…’

  62. In short, satisfying real needs will bring more happiness than satisfying perceived but not real needs. So it is not true that someone who perceives that he needs money more than job satisfaction will be happy if he chooses to do something that will result in more money than job satisfaction. I vaguely remember (but could well be wrong) that Abraham Marslow (a pychologist?) seems to have found out in his studies that our real need (beyond basic material needs, which I interpret as an income that is sufficient to support oneself and one’s family) as human beings is a sense of self-actualisation (interpreted as job fulfilment in the contexts of most people) WHEN BASIC MATERIAL NEEDS HAVE BEEN SATISFIED. Those who perceive that they need a luxurious life well beyond basic material needs may thus be out of touch with their real needs (beyond basic material needs) of self-actualisation, which will bring them true happiness.
    But as a Christian I’ll say that I believe that the highest level of satisfaction comes from one’s relationship with God. As Augustine says, ‘Thou O God hast made us for Thee, and our hearts are restless until they rest in Thee’. Of course, that is my religious conviction, which I think has very good philosophical justification. So I would say that self-actualisation is only the second highest level of happiness.

  63. This Abraham Maslow was a humanist pychologist. His main contribution to psychology is his Hierarchy of Needs which seeks to explain personality and motivation. At the lowest base of pyramid, what he calls Deficit needs (Physiological and safety/security) in relation to which individual does not feel anything if they are met, but feels anxious if they are not met. Higher up are ‘being needs’ (belonging/love and esteem needs, valuation given to one-self by other people etc) which when fulfilled, they don’t become irrelevant but motivate further as continuing driving force.. At apex is self-actualization ie reaching one’s full potential, at which individual is supposed to embrace the facts and realities of the world (including themselves) rather than denying or avoiding them, creative and spontaneous in their ideas and actions, rivetted to solving problems whether personal or others as an intellectual exercise and emotional gratification, have a system of morality that is fully internalized and independent of external authority, have a discernment and are able to view all things in an objective manner etc. If not mistaken, he later came out with three other groups of needs (above) actualization (not too sure)? : (i) the need to acquire knowledge, then the need to understand that knowledge (ii) the aesthetic needs (the needs to create and/or experience beauty, balance, structure, etc.) and (iii) self-transcendence needs – sometimes referred to as spiritual needs (As spiritual needs in Maslow books appear to be higher than actualisation, it seems to be similar to what you said about “So I would say that self-actualisation is only the second highest level of happiness”. This level covers both the religious, the agnostic and the atheist, “transcendence” in latter two groups is where the individual is aware of not only his fullest potential, but the fullest potential of human beings at large and probably empathize with their plight in relation to the Human Condition.

    Probably relevant to what has been discussed is Maslow’s theory about unfulfilled Deficit needs that can become redirected into neurotic needs. For example, children whose safety needs are not adequately met may grow into adults who compulsively hoard money or possessions. Note: Unlike other needs, however, neurotic needs do not promote health or growth if they are satisfied.

    Maslow’s work is interesting but has shortcomings : concepts not well defined, neither easily testable nor susceptible to experimental verification, and more important, difficult to predict particular individuals, particular behaviours in particular situations : eg that are people who put satisfaction of higher needs more important at the expense of basic needs not satisfied.

    Another thing is Maslow work focuses more on personality and motivation and behavioral patterns, probably any reference to happiness is oblique and ancillary in contrast to (say) the work of Edward De Bono (of Lateral Thinking fame) who did one piece of work/research squarely on the “Happiness” purpose and wrote a book on that.

  64. Thanks, Jeffrey, for this piece of information. Do you think that, when one’s basic needs have been satisfied, the real need will be job satisfaction rather than more money, much more beyond basic needs?

  65. Unequivocally Yes.

    But one has to remember that I am not representative. My case was worse. When I was very young (23 or 24), when even basic material, monetary, physiological and safety/security) needs were not satisfied, I had my priorities mixed up, inverted the Maslow pyramid, and prioritized job satisfaction, way above monetary rewards. I won’t presume it works for everyone and certainly won’t recommend for general application.

  66. But I suppose you would think that the real need is job satisfaction when basic needs have been satisfied, and that this is true of most people (if Maslow is correct on this point).

  67. “But I suppose you would think that the real need is job satisfaction when basic needs have been satisfied, and that this is true of most people (if Maslow is correct on this point)”.

    Yes I suppose for most people, it is and maybe ought to be so from the rational standpoint.

    I took a different path but lets sharpen clarity of context.

    “Basic needs” is relative. I would rephase : Then I wasn’t exactly without a roof and simple food on the table. (Was poor) But I had financial obligations which dictated that I should prioritize better paying job to meet these commitments. Instead at 2/24 I ventured into business for job satisfaction (even though there were great risks and I was hardly making enough to survive initially) though had I accepted other jobs offered to me, the salary was good and sufficient to meet basic needs of mine and those whom I had to take care.

  69. It looks like we have agreed most of the points. We all like job satisfaction or passion and monetary award in unison. But if there is no choice, it depends on individual’s need to prioritize whether money or job satisfaction whichever is needed to come first.

    We quoted most of the time a particular case to disprove a general statement. That is correct because the validity of a general statement has to be proved rigorously.

    As regards to happiness in relation to life objective, I would think in this way:-

    There are many subsets of objectives in life or career. The happiness derived from the incremental improvement in many phases of life. In a way the happiness is enjoyed through the process of achieving the objectives and the excitement is in getting the end result, however this happiness will fade soon and hence you have to set a new set of objective for another series of incremental improvement and the process goes on and on. The total happiness or satisfaction at the end of the day is the total objective you have achieved in your life or career. By then hopefully, one has accumulated sufficient wealth or investment for one’s retirement and the children are independent enough to leave the nest for their own lives, and yet one still could enjoy good health and quality life.

    “ When Kingkong says that there is no reason to feel ashamed because the Chinese are not commiting any crime in what he sees as their legitimate focus on the accumulation of wealth and what I see as a narrow-minded and self-centred focus, he assumes that only crimes should lead one to feel ashamed of oneself. But I think morally wrong or bad actions or attitudes, whether they are crimes or not, are sufficient to give one a reason to feel ashamed, unless we are happy to define our moral standards according to what’s defined as criminal or non-criminal in a country’s (which country?) laws.” Lee Wang Yen

    Again is “a narrow-minded and self-centred focus” so morally wrong or bad actions or attitudes that you have to be so ashamed?
    I thought those narrow-minded and self-centred people are usually happy people as they live in their own world and compliment one and other, they may be misfit to a larger group of the members of the society but they are harmless.

    I think we should be more accommodating.

  70. You point is that, when passion and job satisfaction cannot be had simultaneously, one should opt for the choice that will lead to the satisfaction of the need that he thinks he needs the most (be it job satisfaction or more monetary reward).
    I think this point is questionable given Maslow’s psychological studies that show that, when one’s basic material needs have been satisfied (which is the assumption all three of us base our arguments on), human beings are constituted such a way that their real need is higher level satisfaction, the highest of which is self-actualisation (interpreted as job satisfaction in most contexts). I’ve already provided detailed explanation of this argument, including the crucial distinction between perceived and real needs, which has already cast serious doubt on your point. You’ll have to argue against Maslow in order to get your point through.

  71. As I said, happiness is not confined to end result (i.e. the achievement of objectives), it has to do (and many people will argue, to a greater extent) with the process before you get to the end result.

  72. The verfication/falsification and confirmation/disconfirmation of a general statement is not as simple as citing one counterexample, as you suggested. First of all, strict verfication and falsification apply only to analytic statements, which are what we deal with in mathematics. When you say that the citation of a counterexample should disprove a general statement (this is strictly speaking false, because general statement includes universal and statistical generalisations. You should have written ‘universal generalisation’, for a statistical generalisation cannot be falsified by a counterexample), what you have in mind is strict falsification, something we can only use in analytic statements (such as mathematical statements). But our discussions are on synthetic rather than analytic statements. When we are dealing with synthetic statements (e.g. emprical statements), strict verification and falsification do not apply. This has already been shown in the bankruptcy of logical positivism/empiricism. What we have are the notions of confirmation and disconfirmation, which correspond to (but is different from) verification and falsification. Philosophers of science have spent plenty of time to develop accounts of confirmation that could be applied to scientific statements in particular and empirical statements in general. One of these theories is Bayesian abduction. According to this theory, the disconfirmation of a hypothesis (making a general statement for example) is not the citing of a counterexample (that is falsification and cannot apply to synthetic/empirical statements), but has to take into considerations various criteria such as yielding the data, scope, simplicity, and fit with background theories.

  74. “A statement is true/false. A statement cannot be valid/invalid “Lee Wang Yen.

    It is merely a choice a word. I can go along with your word true/false. No big deal.

    Abraham Maslow may be a great American psychologist, but he is dead now. The interpretation of his work depends on how one looks at it from which angle of view one chooses. I assume we are not experts in this field, and our interpretation may not be that correct. A citation of his work does not necessarily mean that it is true.

    Life is an analogue and not digital as either one or zero. There is a mixture of passion and monetary reward in work or business which one engages. Then one tries to seek a balance between the two whether it is more of this or less of that depending on one’s need. Abraham Maslow emphasized a lot on need, as what he said before one reached the state of self-actualization, one had to get the basic steps of physiological, safety, love/Belonging, Esteem right in that order. But that is his model if my interpretation is correct, however in actual life, it may be deviated as Jeffrey said his was an inverted pyramid and advised people not to follow.

    The key is personal choice, and I wouldn’t say it is a “should “. If you think you are comfortable with it, go ahead and do it. After all one decides his own destiny. One does not need to check whether one’s action is conformed to the steps of Abraham Maslow before one does anything. Your own gut feeling is the key, and no one could decide for you.

    As you realize in previous posting, most passion stuff appears in hobby but monetary reward appears in work on necessity. An angler may spend a lot of money, and time to fishing as a hobby, (he could get up in the morning at odd hours fishing in the middle of the Straits of Melaka, but couldn’t get up in time for work). Asked to be a full time fisherman is a no, no. Why? He can’t earn a living on that.

    The luckiest person is the one who can combine passionate hobby with bread winning as I mentioned in my previous posting, the Yoga teacher with a few Yoga schools to run.

    Again, this is my opinion and is not a “should “case.

  75. That a statement is true/false and that an argument is valid/invalid is not merely a choice of word that any language user can decide on his own how he wants to use it. Given that the words ‘statement’, ‘argument’, ‘valid’, and ‘true’ had already been used to mean what they meant by the English speakers before logicians analysed the kind of evaluation appropriate for a statement and an argument respectively, and given that the logicians could not ignore the previous meanings of these four terms and decide there and then arbitrarily to give completely different meanings to the four terms, the logicians who analysed the appropriate evaluation of argument and statement HAD TO conclude it only makes sense to say that a statement is true/false and that an argument is valid/invalid. It is true that language is conventional, but it does not mean that each and every language user is free to give any word any meaning she likes. A language user can coin new words, but has to use every word that has been used in the past in that language community according to the meanings that have already been given to these words. Otherwise, you would need to give a large number of words in that language different meanings and as a result speak a language that no one understands. This is because, as philosophy of language indicates, language is a systematic nexus of semantic and syntactic rules. A change in the semantic and syntactic rules of one word will result in the corresponding change of the semantic and syntactic rules of many other words related to it. If you change the meaning of the word ‘human’ by altering its semantic and syntactic rules, then some of the original syntactic rules that link ‘human’ to other words such as ‘man’, ‘woman’, ‘Chinese’, ‘person’, ‘student’ etc will no longer apply and as a result the meanings of these other words will also be changed. GIven that these four terms had already been used before the logicians analysed them, the logicians had to analyse them according to the meanings already given to those words (or risked getting a conclusion that only applies to these few logicians but not to other English speakers) and had to conclude that it only makes sense to say that a statement is true/false and that an argument is valid/invalid.
    A simpler response: when a physicist tells you that it only makes sense to say that ‘A is the velocity of B’ and ‘X is the speed of Y’ and not the other way round, you cannot reply by saying ‘whether velocity or speed (or mass or weight), it is my choice of words’.
    If any language user can ‘choose’ the meaning of words by his own decision, then Bung-Said can say that they have chosen to use ‘bocor’ in a way that does not have the connotation other speakers of the Malay Language give to it, and thus have not committed the offence others say they have.
    That a psychologist who has conducted careful empirical studies on a subject is dead is no good reason to dismiss his claims. Newton is dead. Eistein is dead. And so are many scientists and mathematicians. Of course, I’m not saying that Maslow is infallible or that he must be correct. Even scientists are not infallible. Even Eistein revised Newton’s theory. But this (the fact that scientists are not infallible) is not a good reason to reject current theories of science out of hand when you have no competing theories that enjoy better empirical support in place of the current ones. The same could be said of Maslow’s theory. To argue against him, you’ll have to conduct empirical studies that get a conclusion that contradicts his, and at the same time enjoy stronger empirical support. Alternatively, you should cite another psychologist whose work( which has equal if not more empirical support) contradicts Maslow’s conclusion.
    Some hobbies cannot be careers in our current social setting. None of my previous comments implied that all hobbies can be careers. You must have inferred it from my statement that we’d better relegate our passions that we are not really good at to hobbies rather than pursue them as our careers. But I wonder how you inferred from this claim to the claim that all hobbies can be careers, which you then set up as a straw-man and attacked it by your story about the fisherman. That inference is simply invalid. If you didn’t make this inference then one wonders how the story of the fisherman is relevant to my earlier claim.

  76. Yes, ultimately everyone has to made her own choice. But that does not mean that every choice is rational. Making a choice without taking into considerations results of serious empirical studies (unless they have been shown otherwise) is a sign of irrationality. A builder is free to ignore the latest findings of engineering science and insists on his own gut feelings and choice. But he risks building something that may collapse. One is free to ignore the results of a careful psychological study and insists on his own gut feeling and choice, but doing so risks losing or failing to attain the well-being that could have been attained by taking those results into considerations.
    Science and social science are not infallible. But experience tells us that they are reliable. This does not mean that every case of making a choice that ignores well-established theories will lead to troubles. But given the reliability of science and social science, one is more likely to live a better life by taking well-established scientific results seriously. Yes, psychology is still relatively less developed compared with hard sciences like physics and chemistry, but it is the best scientific channel we have in understanding human beings. In any case, it is more reliable than the pronouncement of Kingkong’s own gut feelings and what he asserts with certainty.

  77. I came across this piece of interesting interview of P G Lim by China Press, a prominent lawyer, our first lady ambassador and UN representative. This interview appeared on 1st June 2007 on the China Press, page A21. Thinking that it might be helpful and relevant for young people who may be at the cross road of their career path, I translated it out for your reading pleasure.

    P G Lim at the age of 92 is still a very graceful lady and enjoys her good health, between work on passion and work on necessity, she had this to say.

    To be a musician who enjoyed the glittering lights, and thunderous applause from the audience, this was the passion that P G Lim had and she wanted badly to be a musician. However, when she grew up, she did not become a musician, but rather a prominent lawyer.

    “In my era, it was very difficult for an Asian to be a successful musician; it was as difficult as trying to climb up to the sky. My father told me if I ever wanted to be a musician, the most I could achieve was to be a good music teacher.”

    P G Lim also has a master degree in Music and between music and law; she opted to be a lawyer for the sake of better prospect.
    “ In those days, I was not very willing to do it, but my father was the bread winner, and I had no choice but to read law, but I have no regrets to become a lawyer; I could help people with my law qualification; and if I couldn’t find a job, at least I could work in my father’s law office. “

    Time is the best witness, and the passion that P G Lim dropped off in pain proved to be worthy. Based on her intelligence, oratory skill, and broad knowledge of laws, she has become a prominent and respectable lawyer and had helped many people. She enjoyed a very successful career and good life.

    The interview was carried out in her home and looking at the grand piano, the reporter asked: “Do you still play piano?” “I am now aged and my fingers are not so flexible, and I have reduced my playing time.” as she replied.

    This is a classic example of practical approach to a real situation when circumstances do not give one a choice for work on passion. One can still, have a successful career, good life and live up to a ripe old age of something over 90 and still enjoy good health in spite of choosing work on necessity.

  78. PG Lim is not necessarily a classic example to the rest of us of ‘practical approach to a real situation when circumstances do not give one a choice for work on passion’.

    She belonged to a different era when it was truly difficult for an Asian to be a successful musician. Then again who knows? You may want to consider some caveats here:

    Had she pursued her passion, she might have become a world renowned pianist;

    if she did not become one, then again it might because her so called passion was not true passion. Enjoying the glittering lights, and thunderous applause from the audience does not reflect passion as much (as say) a talent or love of music and joy in sharing it with the world.

    she had the talent – and analytical skills to become a great lawyer and most important, the pedigree. She comes from a family of Oxford/cambridge trained lawyers. Her brothers were famous lawyers : Lim Kean Chye of Ipoh and Lim Kean Siew of Penang. Whilst she said she had the passion for the piano, she did not say she did not have greater talent and as much passion developed later on as a lawyer. This is not a mere hypothetical argument. I should know. I knew her beyond mere acquaintance.

Leave a Reply