Abortion

A lot of people said that the Bible does not say anything about abortion. Indeed there is no specific mention of abortion as the population before 1st century is sparse. In today's world, the population is 7.4 billion as at August 2016 (Wikipedia). Heavy pollution occurs in hugely populated cities. More and more forests have been cleared for human habitation and food cultivation. More species have gone extinct. What then is the Christian point of view in abortion.

Roman Catholic prohibits abortion. They probably based on  Exodus 21:23, Deut 5:17, Gen 25:21-22, Psalm 22:9-10, Psalm 139:13-16, Psalm 22:10-11. It is valid during the 1st century.

Gen 1:28. God created man to subdue and dominate over God's other creation. Does God create plants and animals so that human can destroy them?

Deut 22:6 talks about caring for the birds. You take the eggs but you don't kill the mother.

Leviticus 25:1-55 talks in length about Sabbatical year. Why is it so? Why the land need to rest?

Exodus 23:10-11 talks about letting other animals to eat.

Leviticus 19:9-10 talks about leaving some for the poor and desolate. Why not leave some for other plants and animals?

The above quotes has no relationship to abortion. What is portrayed is the need to maintain balance with the world we live in. We look at human as more important than environment. We multiply so much so that nature have to give way to support human. This is not what "subdue and dominate" means.

In our effort to support humans, we destroy vast stretches of forest. We produced vast amounts of rubbish. We pollute many rivers and seas. We over fished. We don't allow earth to replenish itself. Is this what the Bible taught us to do?

The only way to live in balance with environment is to control the human population.

Abortion is not the best way to control human population.  The best way is contraception. Abortion comes about due to bad human behavior and ignorance. There is no need for abortion if the proper preventive actions were taken. But due to unforeseen circumstances, there is a need for abortion. It must not be a norm. It should be under exceptions.

There are a lot of arguments about at which stage of pregnancy should abortions be prohibited. I think it should be very early stage. It is cruel to abort when the baby is well formed.

Cycling Two Abreast on Roads

Recently the Active Mobility Bill was passed on the second reading. Soon enough there are cyclist who question the reason for the limitation "cycling two abreast will be allowed on all roads with at least two lanes in that direction, except those with bus lanes during the bus lane operational hours".

Now, before we talk about the new bill on this topic, lets just see the existing laws regarding cycling on roads.

The title of Article 7 is "Travelling abreast prohibited". Article 7.1 specifically indicate bicycle cannot ride "on the right of another vehicle". There is no explicit definition of vehicle in the article. According to Oxford Dictionary (and others) it generally means "a thing used for transporting people or goods". It is quite clear cut that bicycle cannot be excluded.

Article 7.2 then restricts Article 7.1 by prohibiting "cycling on the right of any two other bicycles proceeding abreast".  There is absolutely no ambiguity about cycling abreast in this two article.

Unfortunately, those who have bias always ignore Article 7.1 by treating "vehicle" as equivalent to cars, lorries and buses. Furthermore, they read the word "two other bicycle proceeding abreast" as that the law allows two cycling abreast not withstanding that Article 7.1 already prohibits and that it is taken out of context.

It is quite confusing why the specific article mentions two bicycle. It is assumed that overtaking 2 bicycle is still allowed due to the fact that the space taken by two bicycles is small enough. Obviously, those  who are biased towards cycling abreast take it as cycling two abreast is allowed.

Article 7.2 actually refers to the prohibiting of the third third bicycle with respect to the first two (while the second bicycle is overtaking). "Proceeding abreast" was interpreted as cycling abreast. However, "proceeding" could also means "begin a course of action" in addition to "move forward". Anyhow, Article 7.2 is not about allowing, it is about prohibiting and the subject is on third cyclist. Naturally, when you are biased you tends to read the words that conform to you bias instead of open interpretation.

With the biased understanding of "two cycling abreast" being allowed in the old law, they objects to the idea of "putting restrains" in the Active Mobility Bill". They event question why it is not stated in the bill. However, LTA already specifically indicated that it is "key regulation for on-road cycling in the Road Traffic Act".

LTA never specifically explain why cycling abreast is not allowed on certain roads. I have done a bit of measurement and come out with an explanation.

According to an article in asiaone (dated 2012-08-28), Mr. Francis Chu measured the width of roads around Toa Payoh, Ubi and Buona Vista. He concluded that "standard car lane width to be 2.8 Meters" but it can be as wide as "4 Meters".

A bicycle generally measures 0.5 to 0.75 Meter wide. Lets take the shortest width as standard. In order to be safe from swings and water grills on the road, it is generally advisable to cycle just to the right of the double yellow line. That is about 1 meter from the curb side. Now there is a campaign to promote 1.5 Meters safety gap between cyclists and other fast moving vehicles. Assuming, the safety measures are all in place, the total distance that other vehicles must move will be 1+0.5+1.5 = 3 Meters. Even with the widest of road lanes, other vehicles will have to end up partially on the second lane or opposite lane.

If cycling two abreast, then you have to add another 2 Meters (bicycle width plus safety distiance). The total gap (5 Meters) will be wider than any road lane width. Therefore, defining cycling two abreast on "at least two lanes in that direction" is appropriate safety measure rather than restriction.

On single road lanes and bus lanes (multi lanes are not excluded), the safety distance for one cyclist is already 3 Meters. It will be dangerous for other vehicles to overtake. They generally have to go on to the other lane to pass safely. Many cyclist feels the pressure when other vehicles overtook them too close. They do not realize that they have the rights to be on the road so is other vehicles. I do know that it is flesh against steel. Motorcycles also face the same issue. but because their speed is equal to cars, they feel less intimidated because less vehicles overtake them and they are not blocking others.

Cyclists cannot expect other vehicles to follow them because even the slowest speed limit (40 KPH in HDB areas) is also faster than the average 30 KPH that a cyclist can do (except some very good ones). While overtaking bicycles, the other vehicles are also restrained by other vehicles in the same direction or opposite direction. It is inevitable that they sometimes misjudge the safety gap and go uncomfortably close to cyclists. It is not bias on the driver part because they do it to other drivers too.

There are many drivers who question the reason for allowing cyclists on roads. They even say "cyclist do not pay road tax". We can understand their frustration because cyclists used to obstruct their ways. However, cycling on roads are explicitly allowed by law. Cyclists have the right to use roads. It is a matter of accommodating each other.

With the above reasoning, cyclist should be glad that it is now explicitly allowed two abreast on certain roads and not whine about cycling abreast on all roads.

One last thing. Roads are designed for commuting, it is not specifically designed for convoys. Many cyclist like to use the road for recreation/sports in a group. There is no law against travelling in convoys/groups. Remember that cyclists are not travelling faster than other road vehicles which could easily out run them. Out of courtesy, you should consider that they need to overtake you thus try to give way to them whenever possible as a cooperation between road users. There is no law against cycling in groups that does not means you sacrifice other's right to move faster.

I myself am cyclist. I advocate mutual acceptance rather than biased toward cyclists. I do full heartedly support the campaign of having cycling paths on roads. That will alleviate a lot of issues.

Pedestrian Crossings Away from Intersection

Pedestrian walk ways are usually running along roads. Pedestrian Crossings usually cross at the junctions or intersections. Recently, Singapore constructs some pedestrian crossing 20-30 Meters down the road. This blog is to explore the pros and cons of such crossings.

First lets discuss on what type of crossings that are used.

1. Non-signaled crossings
2. Signaled crossings
3. Zebra crossings

Non-signaled crossing usually are built on small roads where there are much less traffic. Pedestrians cross at their own risk. Signaled crossings are generally on more busy roads where there are needs to stipulate a period of time where pedestrian can cross safely. It has two divisions. One is non-automated. You have to press a button to trigger the change of traffic lights. This is usually on very busy roads where priority is given to vehicles. The other one is automated signaling. This type will automatically alternate between pedestrian and vehicular signal. Zebra crossings near intersections are rare. It is usually constructed near schools and where multitudes of pedestrians cross at a certain point.

We now talk about where will the crossing be built. Most of the crossings are built at the point where the junctions or intersections are joined. Some are built further away from the junction.  Zebra crossings are usually built much further in.

The following are discussions specifically on pedestrian crossings that are built further in instead of at the junction itself.

Non-signaled crossings are usually built across car park exits and small roads. It may be just an opening to the road or is built on raised platforms with ground markings on both sides.

Pros

• It allows vehicles to turn in first rather than wait at the junction thereby blocking other traffics.
• It allows pedestrians to see the vehicle coming in thus avoid ambiguity.

Cons

• Vehicles used to think that they have the right of way thus pedestrians has to always avoid crossing when the vehicle is moving in.
• Vehicles exiting to main roads used to block the crossing while waiting to exit to the main road as there is no signboard or marking on the ground indicating that it is a crossing.
• Vehicles don't bother to slow down when the crossing is not a raised platform type.
• Pedestrians used to avoid such crossing especially when they are already walking along the road on the pedestrian walk way.
• This type of crossing will be useful only when there is little vehicle traffic otherwise either pedestrians is unable to cross or vehicles still blocks the main road traffic.

Signaled crossings are usually built at intersections. Some are even built on side roads like those near Admiralty MRT at junction between Ave 7 and Ave 6.

Pros

• It allows alternate period where vehicles and pedestrians can move.
• On less busy roads it is usually a non-automated signaling where user just waits for their turn to cross. No conflicts.
• On busy roads vehicles usually have the right of way till pedestrians change the signal by pressing a button. Yet to see one with sensors to detect people waiting. Good for improving vehicle traffic.

Cons

• Again this is only feasible if the vehicle traffics at the junction is not heavy otherwise there will be two sets of traffic within a short distance for the vehicles (at the junction and crossing)
• Pedestrians are still responsible to watch out for traffic. It does not equals to pedestrians have the right of way. This is evident at a court ruling that pedestrians are 15% liable to damages because the injured did not look out for traffic.
• Pedestrians tends to rush across when the signaling shows that it is less than 10 seconds before change.
• Older people might not cross in time. There are some junctions that allows longer time of crossing when user tap their senior citizen cards on the reader.
• People actually stopped in the middle of the road to chit chat.
• Can you imagine the dilemma of pedestrians who need to cross over to the other side across the intersection? The person need to walk 30 Meters down to the crossing. Wait for the signal, then cross it. Walked another 30 Meters down to the intersection then walked 30 Meters further down to the other crossing. Waited yet again before crossing then finally another 30 Meters to continue the original direction. 120 extra Meters just to cross the two roads. Older designs means they only have to do a L shape crossing. In some countries, they could even cross diagonally.
• Pedestrians could potentially block the walkaway. Intersection crossing usually have road islands where people can wait thereby freeing the walk ways for other users. 
• Think also for drivers. They wait at the junction for signals to cross the junction. Before they could accelerate, another traffic light is right in front. 
• On heavy traffic, vehicles will have a bumper to bumper queue across the junction (making a right turn). Each vehicle takes 3 seconds to respond to the traffic change or the front vehicle's movement. This means they probably have to wait another 9 seconds to clear (3 cars within 30 meters). 9 seconds could means that the traffic light at the junction could already changed thus causing traffic blockage at the junction because they cannot cross in time. it is even worse if the intersection is a yellow box. You may say that they should wait at the junction. You think they will wait if there is a very long queue? They are not wrong to move into the junction.

Zebra crossing. It is yet to see one such crossing so near to intersections. Again, this will cause more issues at busy roads since pedestrians are given priority.

All in all pedestrian crossings away from intersections is only feasible where the traffic is not heavy. It cause more issues to both pedestrians and vehicles at busy junctions and intersections. 

Pedestrians usually take the shortest distance to cross roads. They will ignore the crossings if they have to walk extra 60 Meters. This means more people will take risks and thereby causing unnecessary accidents.

To Observe without Evaluating

"The ability to observe without evaluating is the highest form of intelligence" - Jiddu Krishnamurti

Krishnamurti was groomed to be world teacher by Theosophy organization but withdraw from it. According to Wikipedia he constantly stress the need a "revolution in the pyche of every human being and emphasized that such revolution cannot be brought about by any external entity, be it religious, political, or social." He even said "I used to be an atheist until I realized I was god".

In a 1929 statement he said "Freedom is pure observation without direction, without fear of punishment and reward. Freedom is without motive; freedom is not at the end of the evolution of man but lies in the first step of his existence. In observation one begins to discover the lack of freedom. Freedom is found in the choiceless awareness of our daily existence" (Wikipedia). This statement has quite a close connection to the quote. His purpose is to stress the ability to observe without limitations of any form.

Since he has quite a close association with psychology, the quote is basically a psychological term adapted to his philosophy. In psychology, it is a practice to "observe without evaluating". In other words to observe without conclusion. The facts collected this way reveals the truth about the subject being observed an not the observer's opinion. This practice is also used in many other fields.

The beginning of the quote "The ability to" and the last part of the quote "is the highest form of intelligence" is probably Krishnamurti's "conclusion." In his purest sense, one should not come to any conclusion (evaluation). By adding the extra words, it is already a conclusion. But by the word "observe without evaluating", it has no value except for the fact that it is a sort of practice or action. Inevitably, the quote must have some value (conclusion) so that people will see and accept its value thereby appreciate the practice or action.

Now, observation is fact (data) collecting. What do you do with the facts? Without forming conclusion, what is the use of facts? What is the good of having large amounts of facts without conclusion?

Sherlock Holmes (a fiction figure by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle ) said "you see but you do not observe". He made this comment when Dr. Watson admit he did not know how many steps let up to the sitting room of 221B Baker Street. Obviously, Sherlock Holmes have a keen observation ability. But what can Watson do with the knowledge that there are 17 steps? It is just one fact that by itself does not have much use. It has to be put together with many other facts to produce a result. In other words, it has to produce a conclusion. Sherlock Holmes is able to put all the observations together to produce an analysis to solve crimes.

Krishnamurti may have a purpose in his quote. It is, in my view, just a part of his broader philosophy to encourage people to not be limited by external factors (religious, political, personal) that may obstruct one's view of reality. By the quote itself, one cannot easily grasp what is the purpose of the quote.

I do not agree with his view that religion limits one's view of reality. One can be religious but still able to see reality itself. I accept this quote's value but not his full philosophy.

Also by not taking the values of religion, he is already not open. By holding an absolutism view, he is excluding the values of religion (including politics and personal views) thus putting his philosophy in an exclusive view. Surely, this is not what "freedom" means. His freedom is "free from". It should be "free to". The former is restrictive, the latter is inclusive.

In actual fact "free to" is already limiting. You only choose what you want but all are available to choose. "Free from" is you already say certain area is out of bound before you choose what is within bound.

Most people, especially those absolutist/authoritarian, prefers "free from" because it is less troublesome and less confusing for their followers and they have control. However, it goes against the idea of "freedom".  For him to choose "free from", he is trying to control of what can or cannot be included instead of his own ideology of "freedom". He did form a group of thought by his own ideology. The ideology dictates that one must be free from "external factors."

Why do I talk in length about Krishnamurti's ideology? His ideology actually interferes with this quote. By excluding, he actually evaluates when observing. He already conclude that external factors interferes with freedom (in this case "observation"). That is evaluation. He is stepping on his own feet. He says but does not practice what he says (說而不練).

华人

https://zh.wikipedia.org/zh-hans/Talk:海外華人说 “儒家文化强调对尊长的服从，信仰对祖先的崇拜，由此产生了强烈地对故土的留恋感和民族自豪感，“忘了祖宗”成了最难听的骂人话，生儿子延续香火是最大的生活希望。儒家文化圈各民族的移民总是怀念故乡，很难和当地文化融合，自己人之间却有很强的互助性，在移民地形成自己的文化岛。新生一代的海外华人就是在这种强烈的 "你们不可忘了祖宗！" 的绝对服从下长大的，造成了新生一代的海外华人的国籍身份的矛盾和困境，而且大部份老一代的海外华人都对国籍身份有很大的不了解及误解。”

儒家文化说的没错但他只代表中国国民。为甚么这样说呢？就拿国籍身份说起。当你成为一个国家的公民你就要宣誓对这个国家忠诚。虽然祖宗是中国人，你的根就改变了。你就需把这个国家当成你的祖国你的家乡。中国有55个少数民族他们也成为中国国民难道你也说他们忘了祖宗把自己当成中国人吗？还是你不当少数民族为中国人吗？

中国人把移居外国的人还当中国人就是以为祖宗是中国人那他后代永远是中国人。美其名为“华侨”，“海外华人” （不包括华裔）。中国少数民族移居外国那他们就什么人都不是了。可以这样说吗？如果不可以那为甚么移居外国华族就这么特别呢？

说穿了就是把一个民族错当一个国的国民。中国不只是华夏民族而已。他已经与蛮夷族共存而成为一国。华夏民族后代也移居外国与其他种族共同创国而不当自己为中国人。我们是华族后代不过不是中国人。我们以自己是华族为荣而不是以中国人为荣。这中国籍贯的东西就成为前代的历史。当我们出生时我们的父辈就以经不是中国人了。说我们忘祖那还有理由吗？

清明节又名寒食节乃春秋战国时晋文公为记念介子推而创。后来才演变为祭祖。尊宗敬祖为儒家传统。祭奠就成为必做的事。祖坟在中国是世代的先人都埋葬的地方。那么祭祖就表示去祭拜所有先人。那么如果先人迂居后就地埋葬那么后人祭祖时就无法祭拜所有先人。这就表示后人没有尊宗敬祖? 中国人就从来没逃难过？逃难后无法回祖地埋先人不就另选葬地？说海外华族后代不回中国祭祖就无尊宗敬祖的说法也太勉强了吧。

中国已是一个马列主义国家。中共开始时还称自己为中华苏维埃共和国。当时儒学根本就是“封建思想”与马克斯思想格格不入。后来才演变为中国式马列主义而加入一些儒家思想。近来儒学才稍微提高。那么尊宗敬祖思想还在提倡吗？文革十年有何人敢祭奠？中共领导人在位时又有谁去祭祖？ http://www.aboluowang.com/2015/0404/537931.html “维稳”行动说明并非开放。把政治放在儒学之上的情况下祭奠就式微了。中国人自己以经如此，外邦人又如何？

台湾人可能不同意我说法。可是在大陆还没开放的几十年你们又做到什么？近来又有什么大量的回中国祭奠动作呢？有多少台湾大陆后裔每年去中国祭祖？还是只需一生祭一次就够了？ 在这情况下又何能讽刺数百年前已经离开中国的海外华族没到中国尊宗敬祖？

最后，家祭也是尊宗敬祖的方式之一。难道一定非墓祭或祠祭不可？

http://www.huayuqiao.org/articles/shcheong/shcheong02.htm 也有讲解。
李光耀一生都不敢回老家祭祖 原因曝光不就是对祭祖的不瞭解。

To be Right or to Win

To be right is a desire to get the correct facts. To win is a desire to be on top of others. These are two different things. However, people tends to confuse between the two.

A person who desires to be right is one that seeks the fact and dispels wrongs and myths. It is very different from self-righteousness which is an attitude that one thinks that he/she is the only one that is right.

A very good example of "to be right" is  "the earth is round" belief. In early days most people beliefs that the earth is flat and if one ventures beyond the edge, the person will fall over. A person who suggests that the earth is round is unthinkable. He will be considered mad or is branded "idiot". Pythagoras is the first Greek who suggests spherical earth. Magellan sailed round the earth to prove it. Space travel has already debunk the myth yet there are still groups who insists that the earth is flat (Flat Earth Society).

Why does Magellan waste so many years trying to prove the earth is round? Has he nothing better to do? He probably have the "wanting to prove what is right" attitude.

There is nothing wrong to want "to be right". Humanity progresses because of these people. They have a theory and they proves that they are right.

Mao ZeTong started the cultural revolution (文化大革命). Thousands if not millions were tortured and died because of his desire to keep himself at the top. Is cultural revolution the right thing to do? At that time the people simply idolize him and did not try to see for themselves whether it is right or wrong.

The above example is a typical "to win" attitude. A person who desires to win will do anything to win including wrongs and lies. They have no regard for others. They will do anything and everything to put down others and keep themselves at the top. Unfortunately, this is human nature. It is the survival of the fittest attitude. It does not matter what damages were made as long as they win.

Throughout history, this "to win" attitude caused untold misery to others especially by those who is in power. They are afraid of those "to do right" people so they suppress everyone and mercilessly purged them into submission.

These "to win" people will aim for the top. They back stab, they spread lies, they suppress truth, they kill just to climb to the top. These people are everywhere.

Would you rather be one that "aims to be right" and accept your mistake when you are proven wrong or simply insists that you are right and try to argue your way out just to win?

My motto is "If you insists that you are right, you stopped reasoning".

Typical Response of SMRT

The first time I entered this particular bus service 963, it smells of strong petroleum odor. I thought maybe it is a faulty one thus did not feedback.

On 29 Sept boarded a 963 SG5780L and it has the same smell. So I feedback to SMRT about it and it replied

"With the information you have provided, I have highlighted your feedback internally for necessary checks and action. At the same time, I have also informed our Maintenance Department to step up on the cleaning regime on our buses."


On 6th Oct boarded the same bus SG5780L the fume was choking. Feed back to SMRT again and the reply is

"Please allow me to share that during our inspection on 3 October 2016, the bus was free from petrol smell. Nevertheless, we will continue to remind our staff to ensure this bus is cleaned on daily basis to remove unwanted smell during journey."


On 10th Oct boarded the same bus SG5780L again. This time the fume is still strong but not as bad. Immediately feedback but probably forgot to tick "need a reply". There is no reply.

Today 24th Oct. Boarded the same bus the fifth time. It still smells. Had to drop off at Bukit Batok because it really gives me eye sore and headache.

Do I feedback again. No. I never feedback beyond the third round. Why waste time? I feedback directly to LTA.

Now if LTA also behaves the same way as SMRT then perhaps I should go to Public Forum and vent my frustration.