A simple comment

I sat through my "Sociology of Education" lecture on the 16th October 2007, and the topic was on Sports Education. My lecturer gave an example about how a sportsperson representing Singapore would receive $1 million from the state if he/she became a Gold medallist in the Olympics. Rounding off this example, she said, "$1 million from the state. It is alot. But (how about) over Life?" Most students laughed. It was a smart joke, or was it not?

I probably left the lecture with less than what I should on Sports Education. However, I left the lecture theatre with a few important lessons from the particular example stated above. These are the issues that arise as a result from the lecturer making a statement such as above:

1. The lecturer has an authority over students in terms of knowledge pertaining to her expertise, which is Education and its impacts on society. There is a problem when this authority spills over into areas beyond her expertise, and in this case on wealth management. She is clearly wrong and I will demonstrate why later.

2. The lecturer has indirectly sent out the message that even "striking a windfall" is of no use. This further implies that one has to work for the rest of his/her life, in vain. It has an air of pessimism.

3. Subtle messages such as those above are subconsciously accepted by the students.

4. This is another example of how powerful the school serves as an institution that restricts social mobility and reinforces inequality.


I believe why my lecturer thinks that $1 million is unable to last a lifetime is because of economic problems such as that of inflation. She probably hints a little about an alteration of lifestyle to that of luxury, I do not know. However, I beg to differ. Consider this simple scenario:

I put the $1 million into a well diversified portfolio** which yields an annual return of 5%. This is a figure that is sustainable in the long term.

$1,000,000 X 0.05 = $50,000/yr = $4167/mth

This is monthly income for no work done. Note also that the $1 million is still present.


Clearly, my lecturer speaks from the point of view of a spender, rather than a money-saavy investor. Without an intention to mislead, my lecturer's simple and seemingly harmless comment is that capable of reinforcing wrong perceptions about investments. What about statements such as these:

1. I just lost $______.

2. Investments is risky.

3. I am not interested in such things.

These are rife. Instead of engaging in such a topic with people whose vocabulary on investments are as such, seek those out who are financially literate and a whole new world of possibilities will open up before you. If there are financially illiterate people, there must be those who can take you to wealth you never knew you had.

Finally, a simple comment as above is capable of reinforcing a whole audience's social positions, unless their conscious attentions are brought to this problem. My dear reader, please do remember that words are this powerful, and be consciously selective of what you digest.

**It is important to note that acquiring assets for strategic long term purposes and speculation are two different things. The latter is gambling. The former is what should be done, ie through discipline, system and consistency.

Mapping yourself into statistics

This post is dedicated to Fang Ling.

Fang Ling did the DISC personality test for me about one month ago. She was so sweet, having typed out every single question for me in order that I can do it conveniently on my computer.

These are the four personality constructs:

D - Dominant/Driver
I - Influencing/Inspiring
S - Stable/Steady
C - Compliant/Correct

Turns out that I am an I/D (I followed by D).


Some other interesting results:

Full D's forms only 3% of the population. Hitler is one of them.
Full I's forms 11%
Full S's forms 67%.
And Full C's forms 19%.
(The percentages may not be accurate, however the proportions sufficiently illustrate the point I will make in the following paragraphs.)


It is interesting to take such tests. I love my results. However, in mapping the statistics, this is precisely one of the reasons why the majority of the world are proletariats (See my article "Bourgeoisie and Proletariat" dated 12th December 2007).

Further, was in the library with Scott and Janice. I can't remember how we got onto the topic but Scott mentioned that most of us are effectively bilingual. This brings to mind questions such as what it does mean to be effectively bilingual. Does it mean that we must be fluent in both English and Mother Tongue? Does it mean that our use of the languages are considered effective so long as we use it in the Singapore society where most people do not practise precision language? Rather than argue the definition of "effectively bilingual", let us turn our attention to the English educated. English educated, English educated, English educated. It is undisputed that so far, they remain the Bourgeoisies (ie. elites) of the society. Makes for easy reference point. Map the statistics. Matches nicely.

This is not to suggest that being Stable/Compliant or bilingual (which is supposed to aid in your mobility to success) are the direct factors that impedes your growth. Being bilingual is supposed to be a good thing, so what is wrong? The underlying factor, I guess it is up to you, my readers to draw the connection.

In conclusion, while we are proud to be who we are, it is important to have just a little bit more self-awareness and match that little awareness to your surroundings. Act on that little bit, and it will help alot.

Bourgeoisie and Proletariat

Had a great lunch with Venka who is my client and his girlfriend on the 11th October 2007. The three of us major in Sociology. What dominated the bulk of the lunch session is the topic below:

I honestly haven't got an idea what kinds of classes, perceived to exist, are out there in the working world. "Blue collar", "White collar", "Middle", "Lower", "Upper" seems common enough. However, as far as I see it, there are only two classes in society that really matters. They are the Bourgeoisie and Proletariat.

The society's view of classes appears to be as such:

- Upper / Elite
- Middle
- Lower


This is how I view it:

Bourgeoisie:
- Upper / Elite
Proletariat:
- Middle
- Lower

We will now take a look at the middle class, which forms the majority of society. It matters because the majority of the cream of the crop of our schooling system, ie University students, are fighting to enter this class. Examples of vocations or jobs in this class are Teachers, Engineers, Doctors etc. They are indeed a cut above toilet janitors, hawker centre cleaners, construction workers etc. However, I put forth to you the fact that middle class workers have to turn up for work the following day, from 8am to 5pm or 9am to 6pm or any other figures, anyway. This question follows: Have these people the autonomy or freedom of choice to stop working?

In a world where the medium of exchange for goods and services is money, I present to you the following scenario: I swim often. And I swim often enough to imagine money entering my pocket even as I am swimming or taking a dip in the pool. Dear reader, replace the activity with any that is of particular passion/ interest to you. Can you stop working? With money entering your pocket while pursuing your passion, definitely, you can stop working.

Let me now draw my line that marks the difference between the Bourgeoisie and Proletariat. The line is The Freedom of Choice, in the most general sense.

The phrase "Middle class" is merely a phrase constructed, perhaps socially or politically, with the sole purpose of giving hope and pseudo-status to poly graduates, ITE graduates, any other graduates and ironically, University graduates. Why have our cream got to fight with the supposed lower classes for exactly the same status?

The Middle class is merely an illusion. I reiterate that the only two classes that matters are the Bourgeoisie and Proletariat.

Bourgeoisie has freedom of choice.
Proletariat does not have freedom of choice.

Lastly, there is no point engaging in such academia work if it does not apply to you, my reader.The only way to enter the Bourgeoisie class is to have automatic-income-generating business or investments, which allows you to live the simple scenario as presented above.

I do what I do because I am able to pull my friends and family from the Proletariat into the Bourgeoisie. It is possible to become a Bourgeoisie. You can too.

To be educated

It is the end of my examinations and I self reflect once again what I have learnt this semester. This post is dedicated to Emerson who is my dear tutee, as well as Samuel Chee. Wrote this in Emerson's notebook on 4th November 2007, and I am reproducing it in full:

Education ==> Educated
What does it mean to be educated?
Life is made up of extensive problem solving.*
If education does not teach you to solve problems, what does it do?
To solve problems = Finding solutions
Therefore, you are adequately educated if you have the means to find solutions.

At Secondary 4 level, you are able to
- Read and Write
- Mathematics
- Minimal exposure to humanities (Which means more is required as at this moment you only memorise what is scripted. You need to critically ponder over what is said in the textbooks)

There are many ways to solve problems. They are:
- Read up by yourself; You can read and write
- Ask people with the relevant knowledge; Communication skills are important here
- Pay others to provide you with the relevant expertise; Something overlooked but may be relevant to you one day

In conclusion, always expect problems to surface. Always expect problems to be of different natures. It is not surprising. Therefore are you capable of sourcing out solutions to solve these problems?


*Samuel Chee, who is one of my best friends in Primary school, said this back then. This statement surfaces to ring in my ears when the going gets tough. Such wisdom.