The Other End of the Galaxy

One of the greatest writers of the twentieth century was Isaac Asimov. He was a scientist turned science fiction writer. Asimov came up with the three Laws of Robotics, which are heavily featured in the movie I, Robot, and all his other works involving robots. Asimov also wrote the Foundation Trilogy. He wrote three more books regarding this universe, but the original three are the most intriguing.

However, I only want to write in detail regarding the ending of the third book of the first trilogy here. Before I start, some background information: The trilogy starts with the Galactic Empire slowly crumbling under its own weight. So, a guy named Hari Seldon, a mathematician with the ability to calculate and predict possible futures, sets up two entities; one called Foundation, on a desolate planet called Terminus at the periphery of the galaxy, and another, called the Second Foundation, at another location which I will reveal later.

Although the Foundation was formed to restore civilisation, the Second Foundation was formed to ensure that the goal of the Foundation was achieved, in case something went wrong somewhere along the way. The Foundation was following a Plan written by Hari Seldon. Hari Seldon predicted the events which would occur in the millennium in which the Foundation would have to slowly restore civilisation to the galaxy. However, he couldn’t predict everything, lest the creation of a mutant. So the Second Foundation had to step in, to restore the course of the Foundation to the original Plan, by eliminating the mutant and by doing some interfearance of their own.

However, in exposing themselves, the Second Foundation had turned themselves into targets for extermination for the Foundation. To perpetuate their own survival and that of the Plan, they had to fool the Foundation into thinking that they had indeed been destroyed by the Foundation. This they succeeded in doing, for the Foundation did not know where the true location of the Second Foundation was. The Foundation, and any reader of the book, is only told by Hari Seldon himself that the location of the “other” Foundation is at the “other end of the galaxy”.

As the Foundation was based on a peripheral planet at the edge of the galaxy, many assumed that the planet at the “other end of the galaxy” would be at the periphery, just on the opposite side of the circle. When those planets were checked out, it was found that the Second Foundation was not found there.

After using this ruse, the Second Foundationers managed to fool the Foundationers by using another physical, geometrical truth against them. A circle has no end. So the Foundationers were fooled into thinking that the Second Foundationers’ home planet was the same as their own one for all this time. However, their home planet was at the “other end of the galaxy”.

The reason the Foundationers never found out where the location of the home planet of the Second Foundationers was simple; the galaxy is not flat. It is three-dimensional. In fact, it is in the shape of a double helix, and as a double helix has no end on either side, the “other end” would be its centre. But the major reason why the Foundationers could not figure out the location was much simpler. The Foundationers were physical scientists, experts in biology, chemistry and physics. To them, the “other end” of anything must have a geometrical connotation to it.

However, the person who gave them the hint, Hari Seldon, and established the Second Foundation, was not a physical scientist. He was a social scientist, and while his knowledge of geometry was probably undisputed (he used mathematics to calculate the possible futures), the only “other end” he cared about would be from a social view. As the home planet of the Foundationers was poor in resources, the other end socially would have been the capital of the Galactic Republic, which before the fall of civilisation, was the capital of the galaxy, and thus had a lot of trade flowing throguh it. It also just so happened to be in the centre of the galaxy.

To the Foundationers, they had a sort of mental block; they could not get past the physical side of things and they also failed to understand Hari Seldon, so they failed to find the correct location of the home planet of the Second Foundation.

When we hear someone saying something sometimes, we forget from what point of view he or she is saying it from. We think he or she is saying it from a physical point of view, but we might be mistaken, as it might be from a social point of view. We take people so literally that we forget to read between the lines, or rather, read the response from the perspective of the person saying it.

It’s a mental block for us. We only see things from one perspective, but not another. To different people, different words convey different messages. Some words are used as a way of identifying oneself from others, others to exclude other people from a conversation, by purposely withholding information from them. Not everyone has heard of every word, and certainly not every connotation of the word.

But sometimes it is the context we lose track of. Words, phrases, clauses and comments taken out of context, whether situations, conversation, or, as in this case, the people who said it, can cause the meaning of the phrase to be lost. While it may be a bit too hard for us to read between the lines whenever someone speaks, it would be prudent to bear in mind the original speaker of a quote so that the quote may be put in the correct context.

In this day and age, where science and technology, especially physical sciences and technologies take capture the minds of most of us, it is prudent to still consider that maybe it is not the only frontier worth taking on, or more than that, that the physical realm is not the only way a person may look at things.

Glass Ceiling

When we do something in life, we normally have a certain expectation of it. When it exceeds our expectations, we are often surprised at the results. When it is below our expectations, however, we normally get angry. This holds true for our academic test results as well. As we do a test, we are aware of how well or poorly we did it. When the results come out, we have a certain expectation of them, whether we expect to have done well, or whether we expect to have fared poorly.

Even for the best of us, this hold true. Sometimes, we screw up during a paper, and we expect to fare poorly for it. Other times, we feel that we have answered all the questions well and truly, and are not surprised when we do well for it. When reality meets up to our expectations, we get less emotional about it; even people who normally do well, when they feel that they won’t in a particular test, and when the results come out, they find that they did as poorly as they felt they did, don’t get too depressed. This is because they knew what was coming their way. The same goes for when they expect to do well and actually do so.

However, what really gets people emotionally unstable is when they find that reality and their expectations aren’t aligned in the same direction. This happens when they expect to do well, but instead do badly, or expect to do badly, but instead do well.
I have been in both situations before, but only once have I been in a situation where I expected to fare well but instead ended up faring badly, and twice when I expected to fare badly, but ended up faring well. Nevertheless, these things do happen and I’ll describe one incident in detail here.

The Australian Mathematics Competition is, in my humble opinion, one of the better mathematics competitions on the planet. It gives everyone due credit, and lets us know how well we fared. As not only the top 3 people in the year and region get recognition, the quiz gives everyone an idea of where they stand in their year and region, at least with regards to their mathematical capability.

While the top 0.5% do get prizes (the percentile varies according to year and region), the next 4.5% get high distinction certificates, while the next 25% get distinction certificates, with the next 30% getting credit certificates. Participants who achieve a certain amount of marks are awarded a proficiency certificate.

When the results came out, I was hoping to get a distinction. The last time I participated, I just scrapped in on a credit, while one of my classmates managed to outdo me and get a distinction himself. Hoping not to be outdone this time, I wanted a distinction.

So when I approached the notice board with all the results pasted up on it, I looked for all the results with “D”s at the end, marking those with distinctions. After figuring out where the Sixth Formers were on the list (we were right at the bottom of every category) I found, to my dismay, that my name was not there. To make matters worse, there were four other from the class next door who had made the grade.

So I looked further down the list to where the “C”s were. And I found many people with credits. To my utter horror, my name was not on the list again.

Ouch.

So I rechecked the list of people who had distinctions, then proceeded to check the list of people who had credits, then finally, to those who had proficiency certificates. Needless to say, my name was not on either three of the lists.

I was left wondering how on earth I was going to face my classmates without even a proficiency certificate to show for a competition which I had so badly wanted to join. Then, just out of curiosity, I looked further up the list to find out who had had prizes and high distinctions this year. Just one person managed to get a prize this year, while three had high distinctions.

It was up there that I found my name. I had pulled off what I had thought I would not be able to do. I had gotten myself a high distinction.

My mental block was that I thought I could not get a high distinction in my life, at least not in the AMC. I was hoping pretty badly for a distinction, but while I had dreamed that I would get a high distinction, reality kept telling me that the most I would get would be a distinction. So I had the equivalent of a glass ceiling, except that this glass ceiling was internal, made up inside my head. One can dream as much as one wants to, but when reality sets in and we realise that we are not capable of doing something, we lower our expectations and set our sights lower.

So low did I set my sights that when it came to looking at my results, I spent more time finding my name than the average person would. This is both literally and figuratively speaking. I didn’t bother looking at the “HD” results first, as I felt that I had had no chance at getting them, while I averted my eyes from them from the moment I saw the results on the notice board. To me, high distinctions were only for those who were very lucky, very good or for the very young. And I was neither three.

At least my judgement said so back then.

We always have an expectation of how well we will perform in any task. For me, this time round, I was pleasantly surprised. I didn’t expect to do this well, but I was happy I did. I practically had a spring in my step as I walked back home. Now, then came how to fool the class into thinking I didn’t do that well. But that’s another story....

Third block

Second block's over.

Third block: Mental blocks

In God's eyes

When I first thought about this topic, it was more out of following the theme than as a real post. That was about two months ago.

Now, however, I really want to write about this topic; I am not doing this out of duty, as I originally would have, but out of a sense of sharing, for I realised something I was not originally aware until only recently. This is not to say that I had no knowledge of it at all, but what goes on in the mind and what goes on in the heart are two completely different things.

Here goes.

===============================================

People say that first impressions are always the biggest. So when we go for interviews, we dress up to look our best. We make sure that we don’t have a body odour, and that if we do, we “take care” of it. Even when we go out with a group of friends, we dress up, wanting to look our best. The reason for all of this is because we want to make sure we make the right impressions, and give out the correct messages when we go out.

Part of our survival as a species is being able to tell that which is safe from that which is not. Our instincts have not only expanded to our food and where we set foot, but to other people as well. We judge people as they come our way. As we aren’t in mortal danger from being butchered by someone all the time, it is less our physical health we are concerned about, but more our social health.

The first thing we do when we see a person is judge him or her. Sometimes, when we hear that he or she does something less “desirable” or doesn’t do something “desirable”, we stereotype the said person. He or she is either not “cool” enough or too “dangerous”. We keep our distance from them and we see them as inferior to us. Being with them, or even just being associated with them, is thought of as detrimental to our social standing; being associated with someone not “cool” enough makes us look bad among friends, while being associated with someone too “dangerous” often gets us in trouble with our elders and our family.

We try to tell those who are “safe” from those who are “unsafe”, but without talking to them first, we are only able to judge people by the way they look. So comes what is known as prejudice, which is taken from “pre-judge”. We develop prejudices towards other people as we grow up, a result of our experiences and what we have been taught by our elders. We judge people by the colour of their skin, the clothes that they wear, the accessories they have, the people they hang out with and the things they do. Sometimes, we judge correctly; certain people do or wear certain things to make a statement. They want to be heard or seen doing it. Other times, things are not so simple. Nevertheless, we choose to look only on the surface before passing judgement.

However, when Christ came down to earth, he did not choose who He interacted with or who He loved based on their physical appearance or association. He talked to “sinners”, those who did not follow the Jewish law, and he talked to the Pharisees and the Sadducees, the teachers of the Torah, well versed in it. He interacted with those considered too bad to be considered to be on par with everyone else, but He also interacted with those who considered themselves above everyone else. He did not choose to stay away from people because they were not good company, or did not support his cause; instead, He reached out to them.

Christ interacted with both Jews and Gentiles. It was not possible back then for a Jew to marry a Gentile under certain situations, but the greatest difference was that the Jews were God’s people, set aside by God, while the Gentiles weren’t. As Christ came down to die for all people, He did not differentiate Jew from Gentile. He even drank from the utensils of a Gentile woman once.

Christ, too, told us to love our neighbours as we love ourselves, and said that this even extended to our enemies. Indeed, everyone who is loved would reciprocate, but the ability to love someone without any response is what really brings the best out of everyone concerned. The person who has to initiate contact has to find the strength to do so, while in the end, the person who receives it is able to grow, as he or she knows that he or she is not alone in this world.

When we see a person for the first time, what do we see most about him or her? And what do we do about our “knowledge”? Do we pass judgement on a person immediately? Do we look at a person’s piercings and get turned off immediately? Do we look at how a person dresses and bring out the fashion police inside of us? Do we watch a person’s actions, and from there, decide whether he or she is worth interacting with or whether he or she is not worth our time?

We normally do.

But not everyone does what they do out of choice. There is always a choice, but sometimes, this is the lesser of the two evils. The other alternative might be much less desirable for everyone involved. So people get involved with things which we cringe our noses at and speak in ways which even the least conservative of us would disapprove. But without getting to know them, we have no idea as to why they are in such a situation.

When we stretch out our hand to them, and show that we care, regardless of whether they are the downtrodden, or the oppressed, or the poor, regardless of whether they are poor materialistically, in the spirit or in other ways, we show that we care, and we give them a chance to change. By not stretching our hand out to them, we drive into them the desire to not to change. Sometimes people will just stay the way they are to spite us, and force us to accept them.

Sometimes we do the same.

But in spite of all this, everyone is good on the inside. In spite of what we wear, say, do or who we choose to interact with, people are good on the inside. When we allow our prejudices towards people to get in our way of truly knowing them, we deny ourselves a chance to get to know them better, and a chance for them to change. We deny ourselves a chance to change someone for the better.

When people sleep, everyone looks the same. Even the biggest gangster on the block looks like an innocent kid all over again. People have different styles and positions while sleeping, but that doesn’t mean that we are all that different – we are all very much the same, as when we sleep, we dream, and we become the small kid we once were.

In God’s eyes, everyone was and is equal. No one is more deserving than the rest, and no one is less deserving than the rest. Sure, even Christ left when things got too hot for Him (except at the garden of Gethsemane, but that’s another story) , only an insane person would hang around when there are people threatening one’s life, but He did what He did, without prejudice towards other people.

Closing Two Eyes

Rules are made to be broken. Well, records are, especially those set by athletes, but as for rules, I'm not too sure. Being in the discipline business for too long has certainly rubbed off on me: I'm probably more legalistic than most, with little sense of practicality. And then there's the factor known as my upbringing - I grew (and still grow) in an environment where discipline is highly emphasized. Therefore, closing two eyes when it comes to any rule breaking business is foreign to me.

My penchant for rules is so well known, that when I have to break them, even my classmates can't believe their ears. I have this very anti-liquid paper stance in school - no liquid paper in school, no matter what the reason. So when one day I had to borrow liquid paper to "liquid out" a portion of my bio report, on my teacher's orders, my neighbour was so shocked, instead of empathizing with me and quietly lending her liquid paper to me, she said, "What? Can you say that again?"

It's hard enough doing something completely unnatural, or maybe even counter-intuitive, which breaks my own moral fibre. The determination I needed to ask once was already ripping my conscience apart. To ask another time, however, was a bit too much for me. Besides, her apparent refusal to lend it to me sort of reminded me of my stance on liquid paper in schools. So instead of repeating myself, I just mumbled,"I'd rather die than ask for it again." As for as I could tell, she didn't hear the last comment, but I also knew that I wasn't going to be asking her for liquid paper again, at least in school.

So I have closed two eyes when it comes to certain occasions, and gotten myself into trouble. But we often find it easier when we justify it, or when we say that after ignoring the rules,"I feel better", or when we aren't the ones who are enforcing the rules. Rule breaking is often easy, especially when we don't understand the reason why rules are there in the first place. Rule enforcing, however, seems like a perpetual uphill task for the enforcers.

But seriously, if I were to close two eyes, and look the other way, there are serious implications for everyone involved. I'd get the berating of my life from the teachers, lose trust here and there, my classmates who choose to break the rules would get punished, etc.

Closing two eyes, while easy to do, isn't easy on the conscience. When we are entrusted to do something, we know we have to do it to the best of our ability, just as we would expect of someone who we entrusted to do something. Just as we would be furious at someone who betrayed our trust, we too, can expect a good toasting if we betray someone else's.

Not everyone is entrusted to carry out a task by a person. Representatives, regardless of status, are entrusted by the majority of an institution to represent them. The police is entrusted by the people to maintain law and order. The government is entrusted by the people to ensure national, personal and financial security, among other things. When we close two eyes and look the other way, forgetting our duties to those we are responsible to, we will find it exponentially harder to gain back their trust, for people find it easier to remember us by what they find amusing. Unusual. Bizarre. Then, when we require their help, we will find that it would be extremely hard to come by.

Not everyone is in the discipline business, but everyone's life is influenced by rules and discipline. Everyone has their own set of rules, regardless of what they do, who they work for or what they believe in. When we close two eyes and look the other way, we disrupt this fabric known as the peace of mind of other people. First it starts out small, then as it goes on, people get more and more daring. It might only be peace of mind initially, but it might grow to property damage, and might get even worse after that. Nip it in the bud, as some people would say. Once cut out early, the desire to go forth and do even more devious deeds normally goes away. Normally.

Sometimes, disciplining backfires. Instead of discouraging the culprit and others from doing the bad deed in question, it might only strengthen the resolve of the person in question and encourage interest in other people. So while we can't close two eyes and look the other way, we need to also ensure that our methods of disciplining don't backfire. Fighting fire with fire might not be the best idea in this case. A fine balance needs to be struck between retribution and rehabilitation.

Pulling wool over people's eyes

Every so often, we find ourselves having to lie to pull ourselves out of a potentially sticky situation. However, there are times when we find ourselves at the other end of the lie; we find that we have been lied to. Sometimes, it is just a white lie, lies which are used to avoid embarrassing the person lied to. Then of course there are times where the lies are designed to cover up our, or their, devious deeds. Then of course, there are the lies which are just told for the entertainment of those who know the truth. These lies, which border on practical jokes, while rare, have been seen in action twice during my brief tenure in Form 6. There have probably been more occasions, but I will only delve into two here.

First up was the big, long one. Two of my classmates, Chun Hwa and Shiau Sing, who share the same surnames, said they were cousins. I was sceptical, but as it seemed genuine, I just played along. I got really sceptical when one of their grandparents passed away this year, and only one of my two classmates disappeared, while the other one just kept coming to school. I swear I could smell something fishy was in the air, but like I said, as it seemed genuine, I did nothing to allay my doubts.

Unlike me, however, some of my classmates were utterly convinced that it was the truth. It probably had something to do with the fact that they had the same surname, for starters. Then, of course was the fact that Chun Hwa looked like the responsible type who seemed like he could never tell a lie (I nearly died typing this). I mean, would you consider a person who is the chairman of one of the more active associations in school untrustworthy? Considering his co-curricular activities and ability to persuade teachers, I thought he might be more trustworthy than he has shown himself to be.

On this particular situation, however, it took two to tango. Shiau Sing and Chun Hwa, both of them being jump students (read: skipped one year of primary education), looked (and still look) rather innocent (I almost died typing this as well) so it looked like they wouldn't lie about the truth. Of course, this was before I saw Chun Hwa in a different light. I can't talk about the details, as it "never happened", but ever since then, I knew that Chun Hwa was not as innocent as he was originally cut out to be. As for Shiau Sing, well, after sitting beside her for an entire year, I have found out that she is not as innocent as her face looks. As the saying goes, one should not judge a book by its cover.

Nevertheless, one fine day, when the two of them had had enough fun fooling around with the heads of 6A, they decided to let the cat out of the bag. So when the class finally reassembled, cries of Sonia going, "Chun Hwa, how could you?" were rampant. When I asked Chun Hwa himself as to the reason for the commotion, for I had not found out yet, he told me that he and Shiau Sing were not cousins. I smiled very broadly. I had been fooled to a certain extant, but I wasn't surprised at this outcome. Best to say that we should question everything we hear.

Now for the second round of wool pulling. The main characters this time round are Sonia and Wai Ling. But first, for some background information. Wai Ling, who is more diligent than most (myself included) was going for MPT 5&6 (read: prom night), a surprising decision for me, but then again, I am no great judge of people. Then there was talk as to who should be her escort, how she would look that night and the kind of things which girls talk about when they get together. In a Form 6 Bio class, where the boy-girl disparity is 1:3.5, hearing these kinds of things, even for guys, are normal.

So when talk of Wai Ling's escort started, Sonia decided to mess up the heads of everyone in 6A. She spun a tale that Wai Ling was going out with someone from next the door, the Physics class. The best part: Wai Ling played along. So she went and "tarik harga", saying she would refuse to tell us, and at the same time, Sonia would say that she did have a date. To make it look real, Sonia finally said that Wai Ling was going to go out with Yee Seng.

And, of course, Wai Ling played along. Rather than flatly denying it, as some people would, she just very gently pushed it aside. Then Jamie, who thought that Sonia was telling the truth all along, said that if Wai Ling wanted to keep it quiet, then Sonia shouldn't have blabed on her. I was surprised to say the least, and on this occasion, I left my guard down, assuming I had heard the truth. However, when one of my classmates went over to the Physics class to congratulate Yee Seng on his "catch", he just looked completely blurr. That was when it the truth started to come out, and when those who believed that Wai Ling was indeed going out with Yee Seng ended up in awkward positions.

Wai Ling did have an escort that night, or rather she escorted someone onto the stage that night; someone lucky from the Physics class, who ended up with two girls despite being in a predominantly male class (She and one of my other classmates did so, the other with someone from the History class. But that's another story). But the reason why Wai Ling's story seemed so credible was something similar to the first situation : Wai Ling's a jump student, and Sonia was Secretary to the Exco of the Prefect Board. Again we see a similar pattern: one "innocent", and one "trustworthy".

Sometimes, we tell lies because it is in our culture to do so: offending the host of any event is not the best thing to do on any occasion, and is generally frowned upon. However, trust and faith, gained through time, should not be misused to lie: practical jokes, no matter how funny they may seem then, often have very long and far reaching consequences. In the end, the boy who cried wolf ended up losing all his sheep.

But then again, some people have very good poker faces. Just goes to show one should question everything, and not judge a book by its cover.

Wandering eyes

The Internet is a big place. Every computer linked to the Internet has an IP, but what we see most of the time on our computers are not IPs, but are websites. Some websites are easier to design than others, especially, if there is already a generic template for them. This is especially true for forums and blogs. However, most of the information on the Internet is rubbish, and it takes a while for us to sift through the rubbish and find the real gems. Not if you do know where they are...

The Prefect Board of USJ 12 for the term 2005/2006 was well known for one thing - digitilisation. So much so that most of the Cabinet members (now called exco) had started their own blogs after they left school. They had their own blogs until recently, when they combined all their blogs and contacts, forming one big blog with many contributors entitled "Ourcoffeestops". (URL: http://ourcoffeestops.com/)

You may go there yourself, but it used to be (and still is) one of my more informative stops when I surf the Net. It helped me keep abreast with what I was missing out by doing Form 6, as well as figure out what the more prominent members of my Form 5 batch are doing. Reading posts is one thing, but until recently, I had yet to read the writers' profiles. I have to say, some of the information I read was totally unexpected.

For starters, there was Ying Wei and Chirstopher's comment on his comment. For the record, they are "Despite his good photography skills, nice voice, handsome countenance (I nearly died typing this), he’s still wondering why life has been so unfair to him: He’s still single.". Well, not to say that Mr. Siah is not handsome (I don't know, I normally don't look at guys and judge whether they are handsome or not), but I would think it prudent to let the ladies decide for a change. I know, Chris had a lot of fans in school, and as such he could be in a good position to determine whether a guy is good looking or not, but I really feel that they should have let the ladies decide, or let one of the female contributers of Ourcoffeestops write that comment instead.

Then of course, is Chris' comment on his comment. that "I nearly died typing this". As if I did not spray enough spit on the screen when I read Chris' comment on Ying Wei, I sprayed even more spit when I read that. Not that I wouldn't nearly die doing the same thing, I just think I would die writing that any other guy is handsome. I am heterosexual, thank you very much, and very conservative while we are at it, so for me to say that another guy is handsome just feels completely alien to me.

Speaking of female contributors to Ourcoffeestops, it was not so much one of them who caught my eye, but more of where she studied. Irna is, if I am not mistaken, ethnically Malay, so when I read that she was studying at Methodist College Kuala Lumpur (MCKL)...let's just say that my eyeballs nearly rolled onto the floor. I myself am a Methodist, and I don't go to MCKL. One of the other contributors of Ourcoffeestops is a Methodist as well, and he doesn't go to MCKL either. And we both would have gotten discounts if we had decided to enroll there.

What really had me surprised was the fact that MCKL is run by the Methodist Church, a Christian denomination, and there, a Muslim was studying, while a great number of Methodists, who enjoy discounts if they decide to enroll there, decide instead to got to private colleges, or in my case, Form 6. As we all know, evangelising to Muslims in Malaysia is banned, so when you see a Muslim in a Christian college, it really gets one thinking. Maybe we aren't that backward after all. Maybe there is still hope for everyone to get a good education regardless of who is teaching.

But then again, there are a few factors which may allow Irna to pursue her education there without JAWI coming down on her. Firstly, she is a Singaporean, so I guess she is not as racially polarised as Malaysians are. Then, maybe because she is Singaporean, JAWI may not have any say over her education, so maybe she could get away with it. And then she is probably more religiously tolerant the most Malaysians...so much for us Malaysians being the most racially or/and religiously harmonious people on Earth.

Unlike Malaysians, Singaporeans are Singaporeans first, then Chinese/Malay/Indian second. Although there are many things we can learn from Singapore in terms of racial integration, there are certain aspects of Singaporean life we can do without, such as labeling of people, from "super-spreaders", used during the SARS outbreak, to "normal stream students", referring to students who do their secondary education in five years instead of four.

The Internet is wide, with a vast amount of information. Sometimes our wandering eyes find something we laugh at, other times, we find something we didn't already know, or something which really catches us off guard. It is up to us to find the gems, and savor the sight while we are there, before going back to the daily grind of life.

In his eyes'

Homosexuality is now becoming more and more rampant these days. On top of that, it is also becoming more accepted as well. This is not helped by laws allowing same sex marriage or religious leaders who are homosexuals. Celebrities who lend a hand or their name to these causes are also not doing common sense any good either.

One fine day, I had a conversation with one of my classmates. He said that we should accept homosexuals for who they are. I flatly objected to this. He then went on to say that this was the way they were born, that they could be that way because of their genetic disposition and that different people have different dispositions. I then went on to say that God created man and wife, Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. I then appealed to him through science - if everyone was a homosexual, there would be no more humans left on the planet. To this, his only defence was , "No-lah, you can't say that," on top of asking me to open my mind.

For some purpose or other, there are male and female people on this planet. Any biologist would tell you that while sexual reproduction is less productive than asexual reproduction, sexual production generates new genetic recombinations, allowing a species to survive in adverse conditions. So instead of people just splitting into two when we need offspring, our Creator decided instead that two people were needed for any progeny to be formed.

But there's a catch - the two adult individuals have to be of different sex. So from a biologist's point of view, homosexual behaviour is non-beneficial because it inhibits variation, preventing the creation of new traits which may be transferred to the next generation.

Like I mentioned earlier, if everyone was a homosexual, there would be no more people left on Earth. This is due to the fact that we need people of different sex for procreation. Even homosexuals themselves are from parents of differing sexes. Then, where would this leave the human population? If we just fulfill our own personal desires for lust (of people of the same sex) then what about the more important aspect of the survival of our species, Homo sapiens? No male can have children with another male, and the same too applies for females, naturally born males and females, that is.

And what about when we see our Creator, what will He say? After creating male and female people in this world, and showing to us, through the animals and plants that males are supposed to mate with females, not males with males or females with females, we blatantly object to His Will and do whatever we like? Shouldn't we be thankful that we are alive today, that we are of one sex or another, and that all our sexual organs are functioning properly and that we know which sex we belong to? Why then should we go against His Will, and do something blasphemous, unnatural and impure?

And then there is this statement which needs countering : Everything in life is right, its just a matter of perspective that makes it right or wrong. We need to listen and accept other people's perspective, even if we think they are in the wrong. Well, for starters, if everything was matter of perspective, then it would be alright to do anything we wished, even stealing or bribing? Or having as many wifes as we want? Sure, when it comes to certain things in life, such as culture, we learn to listen to and accept other people's culture, but that does not mean that we must do so in everything we do.

Contrary to common belief, there is right and wrong. And homosexuality is wrong. If we were to just write it off as a matter of differences in opinion, then this sort of argument would expand beyond homosexuality. In fact, it has already done so : in Los Angeles, if I am not mistaken, there is now a petition to make prostitution legal. What's next? Legalised drug abuse? People who are allowed to fulfill whatever whims and fancies they have, even though they may be unthinkable now? All because, we have differences in opinion?

Laws are set for people to have certain things in life, certain things which money cannot buy : peace of mind, security and fairness. Take the numerous reasons why prostitution is illegal, for example : who's going to take care of all the babies who are born? Is the state going to pay for all of them? What about the families which are broken up by men or women with wandering eyes? Thus, we have laws prohibiting prostitution, to avert all of these problems.

In my classmates eyes', homosexuality is okay, as the individual might be made that way. However, when we consider the consequences of making homosexuality legal, maybe it is not such a bright idea after all - it could be the start of a new form of moral decay : Legalised Moral Decay.

(Writer's note : It has come to my attention that it is possible for homosexuals to reproduce, albeit only lesbians. The technology exists to fuse two ovums together. However, that would mean no more men, and this is still unnatural.)