Powered by glolg
Display Preferences Most Recent Entries Chatterbox Blog Links Site Statistics Category Tags About Me, Myself and Gilbert XML RSS Feed
Tuesday, Dec 23, 2008 - 03:39 SGT
Posted By: Gilbert

Back To Me

"...If your desired altitude is six thousand degrees, your nose should point down six degrees..."

- An adult giving a kid some early instruction in aviation, unavoidably overheard on a bus.


Never let a fragment of your psyche and two hamsters do the job when you can do it yourself, they say. Thankfully, the layoff at least allowed me to make a bit of progress on my FYP.


Either Way Also Cannot

An interesting excerpt from page two of Saturday's Straits Times:

"...Recession Budgets are easy for (political) opponents to attack. If it is seen as being tight-fisted with giveaways, the opposition can cry: 'Not enough!'

If the Budget is liberal with lots of giveaways, the opposition can turn around and say, 'Too lax! This will ruin the country in the future.'

... And one thing is for sure - even Singapore's pretty tame opposition will take the opportunity to blame the Government for the recession."

 Keeping in mind that the writer was referring to politics in general, with examples from the United States and Britain, the point conveyed appears to be that the ruling party will get the short end of the stick no matter what. But what then is the alternative? The opposition lauding a tight budget for being prudent, and cheering the largesse of the incumbents if a generous budget is proclaimed?

As Catch-22 situations go, it is just as likely that incumbents could downplay the opposition for being lax, irrelevant and useless if they kept quiet, and attack the opposition for splitting national solidarity during difficult times if they were so bold as to raise questions about budgets or state reserves etc. Another measure of whether a government is fair game for criticism on an issue would be if it had previously taken credit for the good times - it is somewhat less convincing to use, say, the "helpless small open economy" excuse, if prior boom years were chalked up to good domestic planning and leadership.

So this appears to be an argument that does not actually mean much about anything, though heavens know, I have used it often enough myself; even a passably comprehensive assessment of a government's merits would probably be too unwieldy for the usual broadsheet. For example, take an investment agency that has taken a paper loss, which in these days is most of them. The right question is probably not how much it has lost, but how much it has lost compared to the average agency.

In the same vein, comparing governments is often a business of recognizing the tradeoffs. Singapore, for instance, is commonly held to be fast-paced, stressful, conservative, somewhat sterile, with strict laws and a high cost of living. But it is also known to be stable, relatively prosperous, clean and safe. Not perfect, true - but does a perfect country exist? It would be more productive to ask if a country has maximized its potential, with as many liberties and privileges accorded to its citizens as is sustainable, and no unnecessary burdens or sacrifices placed upon them.


Law By Law

A few months ago, I brought up the issue of wealth and justice in passing, and concluded that it was often next to impossible to disentangle the outcome of a case from the resources available to the parties involved - otherwise, how would high(er)-priced lawyers be able to justify their fees? Recently, no less than the renowned criminal lawyer (that's a lawyer who specializes in criminal cases, not a lawyer who is a criminal, folks) Subhas Anandan saw fit to publicly raise the issue, as regards to the compounding (i.e. to agree, for a consideration, not to prosecute or punish a wrongdoer for) of offences.

Let it not be said that the authorities are slow to respond, as Attorney-General Walter Woon responded in a couple of days, saying that "There is no such thing as one law for the rich and one for the poor, nor one for the well-connected in Singapore." (though he did in fact admit that "compensation naturally favours richer people", but compounding is enforced at the discretion of the judge in the public interest).

Leaving that aside for the moment, the Ministry of Law itself got into the act, chiding Mr. Anandan for not knowing better, and:

  1. First, points out that the Attorney-General's Chambers considers many factors before deciding to prosecute (uh huh, no surprise here and does not directly answer the main question i.e. is wealth/status one of this factors?)
  2. Then points out that Mr. Anandan's example of a company director was erroneous as he was quite the rich guy (having driven a Mercedes), and the courts did not allow compounding in his case
  3. Suggests that Mr. Anandan's methodology of citing isolated cases is incorrect
  4. And reiterates that all are in fact equal before the law (assuming equal access to legal resources, presumably)
Now, Mr. Anandan was not going to take that lying down, and soon pointed out that:

  1. The example of the company director was to illustrate the strange outcome whereby compounding was denied, but the accused was eventually fined $1000 anyway, which moreover led to the victim losing $8000 in compensation (recap - the issue was that jail time is more or less mandatory for road rage, but in this instance a fine was thought appropriate as the attack was not premeditated [erm, how many road rage incidents are?] and the accused had shown genuine remorse and tried to compensate the victim [don't they all?])
  2. On bringing up isolated cases, the point is why these cases exist at all, since they appear to be in the public interest. But well, the Attorney-General's Chambers are "privy to confidential pieces of information which are not meant for circulation in public", which sometimes is why some cases are compounded when usually they would not have been. But "The AGC is an institution of integrity. And if the AGC tells me they have such information, I (Mr. Anandan) will accept it as such."
What does the second point mean? It seems to say that despite a case being in the public interest, the public prosecutor may decide that certain facts that affect the decision are too private to reveal, although to do so would surely clear a lot of air and save a lot of trouble; though not completely analogous, I would certainly be pissed if I were convicted (or if someone who wronged me were cleared) of some crime based on evidence that could not be heard.

I have previously acknowledged that coming to a scientific conclusion on whether wealth etc affects sentencing is very tough, as no cases are exactly the same, and indeed it may be that the well-heeled and well-connected simply have a greater propensity to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, and a greater capacity for remorse to boot.

Unfortunately, it is unrealistic for judges to emulate the traditionally blind Lady Justice, and preside over cases where no actual identities are known and only relevant facts are (publicly) supplied, without the whole system being radically overhauled (and also having judges cut off from the news for long periods). However, as with blind auditions in symphony orchestras, the effects may be... surprising.


Ip Man

N.B. You may have been in Computing and Economics too long when a friend SMSes to ask if you would like to watch Ip Man, and the first thing that comes to mind is Internet Protocol Man or Intellectual Property Man?

In fact, Ip (or Yip) Man was a Wing Chun master and Bruce Lee's sifu, and the movie was based on his deeds in his early life, especially the Japanese Occupation (though likely with a good dose of dramatic license taken). But who really watches martial arts movies for the plot? It's all about the kicks and flips and chain punches, man.

It should eventually cross the mind of viewers of such movies on the actual efficacy of martial arts, though, and while most of the scenes in Ip Man were well done, I was never quite sold on the chain punching with a wheel-like motion. Another fair question is then on which is the best martial art, but before that, it would be appropriate to ask, what are martial arts for nowadays? Fitness and conditioning is one thing, fun is another, self-cultivation a third, but what makes martial arts unique is its ability to control, subdue and physically hurt another person in combat.

This was obviously very practical in less civilized (and less technologically-advanced) ages, but the development of personal sidearms in particular somewhat reduced its utility - it would be rather silly to spend decades smashing one's limbs into dummies, only to be shot in the face in one's first encounter. Incidentally Ip Man did disarm a careless police officer in the movie, but it would be a foolish martial artist who argues with a submachine gun at ten feet. (Ip Man did have to give up his house without a fight presumably for this reason)

Of course, it is not true that every confrontation begins with a quick-draw out of a holster, and being able to stand one's ground in a spontaneous messy situation would still be useful - though any responsible sifu would probably teach that negotiation, and failing that, flight, should be considered before unleashing the fists of fury.

Here, let us assume that one's stints in the Debating Society and Cross-Country Club are inapplicable, perhaps because one is cornered, or has to play the part of protector etc, for discussion's sake, and the opponent(s) are implacable. It may be that fights are bound by certain codes (for instance, local gangs supposedly frown upon kicking and hitting the face), to minimize unnecessary losses (as animals often engage in ritual non-serious contests to determine territorial or breeding rights) from escalation of violence. The martial artist must then decide on the length (and depth) he is willing to go to in order to win, knowing the circumstances - and that any fight is still possibly fatal.

If the penalty for defeat is certain death, in a war for example, then I suspect that using the very techniques forbidden in competitive martial arts (i.e. biting, eye-gouging, small joint manipulation, groin attacks) would be most rewarding (indeed a sharp kick to the groin has been touted as a great defence for women against would-be rapists), as would be using any improvised weapon at hand to gain an advantage.

Note that while in the movie it was said (in response to the jibe that Wing Chun is a woman's art) that what really matters is the person who uses the martial art and not his or her physical attributes, I would beg to differ. Yes, the smaller guy wins if he has an AK-47. Yes, the smaller guy wins if the bigger guy is an uncoordinated oaf. Yes, the smaller guy may win even if the bigger guy is an accomplished fighter, if he is more skilful, or gets the drop on him. But once a certain level of competence is reached on both sides, size (and determination) does matter a lot. As they say, 一胆二力三功夫 (first courage, second strength, and finally skill)

One analogy is basketball - one can point out Muggsy Bogues and Spud Webb as counterexamples, but really being well over six feet is almost a baseline requirement for the big leagues. Closer to the point, take boxing, or wrestling, or indeed any contact martial arts competition; the weight classes are there for a good reason, that being a 250 pound heavyweight landing a solid hit on a 110 pound flyweight ain't pretty. Moreover, how much damage is the flyweight going to do? True, there are always exceptions, but that's why they are called exceptions to the rule.

So, taking away forbidden techniques, what is the best martial arts for an unavoidable and unarmed one-on-one fight in an enclosed area? I would say that the best answer would be found from real-life mixed martial art competitions (discounting the unverifable kung fu masters in the mountains), where superbly conditioned and trained fighters duke it out to see what actually works, and what doesn't (see a classic boxer vs wrestler bout). There have been non-direct attempts to resolve the issue, like Fight Science, but it appears their methods are quite flawed (see linked article).

Some example MMA fights:

The evolution of such contests is interesting - arts that focused almost exclusively on striking (e.g. boxing) would be at a loss once grabbed, and indeed quite often a fight would end rather simply on the ground, either though active punching ("ground and pound") or some sort of choke or joint lock. Hardly the all-action styles we get used to in the movies, but to be fair showing two sweaty, contorted guys rolling about on the floor for several minutes probably wouldn't sell many tickets.

Still, there is at least one saving grace for striking styles, as going to ground is a big no-no when more than one opponent is involved, using common sense. The SOP in such cases would be to try and align oneself such that one faces as many opponents as possible (possibly using the terrain), since not everybody has the ability to sense an attack from the back as in the movies, opponents probably won't consciously aim to make one look good by attacking one at a time, and moreover a roundhouse kick would likely stop at the first guy hit and not scatter men like tenpins.

Really, the odds against multiple opponents are not ideal if they are any good at all, and in such a case it is advised to identify the group leader as early as possible and try to take him out first (and quickly). Oh, and have I mentioned to run for it if any opening shows itself?

As for the overt anti-Japanese sentiments, what can I say? It is somewhat hard to critique the response of people who may have experienced at first hand the horrors we only read about, and well, let's just say the Japanese are going to be the generic bad guys in Chinese films (but then, probably vice versa too) for some time to come anyway.

"...You see, my friend, in France they exhibit foreign clowns, and in foreign parts French clowns."

- Mr. Batulcar to Passepartout, in Around the World in 80 Days



comments (3) - email - share - print - direct link
trackbacks (5) - trackback url


Next: Downgrading Expectations


Related Posts:
Sleepless in Singapore
Less Than Magical
Eating Words
A Matter Of Perspectives
Come Ten Twenty Issues
Back to top




3 comments

C.Wenhoo said...
What I mean is, if the director/writer were a little smarter (like me), he would have taken the high road, whether he secretly want to murder the japanese anot, and made Ip Man out to be a peaceful kind of hero.

then audiences, both western and eastern, would all clap hand say yah, lidat then call true hero. now just degenerate into another rambo rack up kill count movie.

and hey, you never know what kind of influence movies can have on kids these days.


December 23, 2008 - 13:17 SGT     
Ham G. Bacon said...
I LIKE RAMBO! SQUEEEEE!


December 24, 2008 - 03:15 SGT     
C.Wenhoo said...
...and hamsters.


December 24, 2008 - 16:15 SGT     

5 trackbacks

Trackback by เกมส์รถถัง
เกมส์รถถัง - [bert's blog]


July 10, 2014 - 07:11 SGT     
Trackback by Recommended Studying
Recommended Studying - [bert's blog]


August 30, 2014 - 05:40 SGT     
Trackback by dota2
dota2 - [bert's blog]


October 6, 2014 - 00:21 SGT     
Trackback by property valuation
property valuation - [bert's blog]


October 11, 2014 - 19:57 SGT     
Trackback by argan oil benefits
argan oil benefits - [bert's blog]


October 20, 2014 - 05:36 SGT     

Copyright © 2006-2024 GLYS. All Rights Reserved.