Logic of the Lightning Bolt II

The Youngpap blog has been receiving a lot of attention from the net recently. I must say it seems that most of the stuff they receive is flak. Nevertheless they are showing the testicular fortitude to stick it in. Well i will give them that; and nothing else.

The interesting thing is that these fellas seem to speak as if they are ministers from the government. When one tries to talk to them one gets the feeling that one is trying to talk to some fella at the ministry. In fact i must say they have mastered the logic of the lightning bolt very very well.

" would urge all young Singaporeans to read "A Little Red Dot" (MFA), "HeartWare"(EDB) and MM's memoirs. Having read these books, I begin to realised that Singapore is PAP and PAP is Singapore. There is no doubt about it."

I have no idea where the thing Singapore is PAP and PAP is singapore comes from. PAP is a political party ( as the men in white have always stressed, thus justifying the withholding of upgrading funds from Hougang and Potong Pasir). Perhaps the "young" dunno what the old is saying. Furthermore, to add some anecdotal evidence, I have read Mr Lee Kuan Yew's Memoirs and I do not think PAP is Singapore. Perhaps its because the fella is using elite logic, to that i must say, catch no ball.

"This voice has neither the fighting spirit nor right attitude. This voice is the voice that 33.4% of our fellow Singaporeans voted for to represent them in parliament."

So once again the opposition receives flak. No fighting spirit. Heh...our fren must have forgotten the many MPs who entered parliament without a baptism of fire or with some Minister to cover them in the GRC.

"One cannot claim that he is a taxpayer and should benefit from the likes of those in a PAP constituency when he voted for the opposition. "

Then one might as well not pay taxes or not serve NS, since the Ministry of NATIONAL development doesnt give two hoots about ur flat?

"are you criticizing because you honestly do not believe that the Ministers are entitled to a pay increase or is it because you are simply envious?"

This was said by the nicholas fella. A litigation lawyer. I am amazed that he feels the need to resort to ad hominem attacks. Perhaps he is learning the character assassination trick.

"Ministerial pay increments will pale in comparison to the prosperities and fortunes Singapore will be able to bring to its people. Because then, the man on their street will get his pay raise too. "

This statement is funny. Apparently the reader does not know that many singaporeans have seen their income stagnate in the past years. It was even featured in the ST. But ignore this. Assume that Singapore GDP grows again; will the proverbial "Man in the Street" necessarily benefit? Of course not! He will only benefit if his sector is expanding. If its not, at best he will get the same income, worst if his sector is being outsourced than he loses his job.

"Also, you talk about Public Service, who do You want in Public Service? A simple teacher or taxi driver to serve You and Me? Or someone who has the foresight and acumen, and of strong moral standing to take us into the future?"

Hoho...more "get out of my elite uncaring face" crap. Since they are oh so intellectually superior i guess they should read up on Chinese History. Liu Bang and Zhu Yuan Zhang were peasant and beggar respectively, yet both became the first Emperors of the Han and Ming dynasty.

"I can’t see why some forumers in our local chatrooms are questioning Ministerial pay rises and pegging our Minister’s pay to those in other countries."

Then i also cant see why Singapore always seeks to become the "Paris of the East" or have a "swiss" standard of living.

The latest post on that blog is regarding servant leadership. I guess its one of the sensible stuff that has come out of that blog for some time yet. However i find it ironic when the person uses the quote and hopes to see it in action in Singapore's context. Im afraid that i must be cynical in this regard as i dun believe that servant leadership is in fashion among our leaders. After all the mantra is that for our leaders to be our leaders, they do need to be paid more than the current 1.2 million. However for all u know, they may have defined servant leadership as being servant to money. Now that put things in perspective.

Of Doctors' & Lawyers' Salaries

The internet has been abuzz this few days ever since the impending increase in ministerial salaries was announced. Of course the spotlight has also been cast on youngpapblog.blogspot.com , which was set up in february. For some reason their post defending the increase in minsterial salaries has been making the rounds on the internet. Of course comments are flying fast and furious. But one thing has given me pause:

"Yet we see so many doctors driving fancy cars, living a luxurious life and some charging ridiculous fees. Yet I do not see you guys bitching about such doctors. Can you help me here to understand your double standard?"

Should lawyers be there to uphold justice? Yet they are the top earners. Where is your logic?

This comment was made by some fella in Dr Huang'g Blog. Naturally i am seeing a bit of red in this.

Its quite sad that doctors and lawyers have been dragged into this fray. Perhaps the purpose was to attract attention from the debate on ministerial salary, perhaps it was a belated defence. On a side note it was fortunate that the fella posted it on a blog where the several Drs there could easily rebut him.

To drag doctors and lawyers into this debate is pointless, for several reasons. Doctors and lawyers are subject to market forces; their income will depend on the amount of competition out there. As Dr Oz put it, if ur not happy with a doctor u can always go and look for another doctor. The same argument can be used for lawyers. I daresay if ur not happy with ur minister u cant look for another minister; sure there are the elections but because the elections work on the basis of the majority rule ur options are rather limited if u dun like said minister for some reason.

Doctors and lawyers also have the proverbial sword of damocles over their heads; one need to look at the ST forum now and then to find someone complaining about how horrible a doctor/lawyer is. A recent example would be a person complaining about being overcharged. Lawyers also do face flak from the clients they are supposed to represent if the client is unhappy with their service for whatever reason. There was also an instance where a law firm used entrapment on another law firm and complained to the Law society that the latter was engaged in touting.

But u may disagree saying that Dont civil servants get flak too? Well the distinction is that the consequences of the flak are different. For doctors they are hauled up before the Singapore Medical Council; for lawyers the Law Society. The civil service can just dismiss the complaints as the ramblings of the green eyed monster. Thus the lawyer and doctor face more pressure in this regard.

Therefore comparing ministers and doctors and lawyers is like comparing apples oranges and pears. This comparison in my opinion is worst than using Mr Durai as an example of why paying more for corruption wont work.

Now to part 2. This benchmark thing is a rather weird representation of what lawyers are earning. While there are lawyers who are rich, there are several other lawyers who are not. In fact there are lawyers leaving the legal profession feeling burnt out after working; there are those who feel that their effort aint worth the remuneration. Thats why there is a shortage of lawyers now.

With regards to doctors, they are not even included in the benchmark for minister's salaries! This is rather suprising if they are supposed to be reaping in the big bucks. Furthermore there are different types of doctors. General Practitioners (GPs) are not doing that well; there is a surplus of GPs and in turn they have competition from the poly clinics, this will definitely dampen their income.

In fact there are some news paper articles which said that doctors and lawyers are entering the grey area of multi level marketing. If this is true then its rather disturbing as these doctors and lawyers have decided to risk their reputation and future prospects by dabbling in something which is rather grey and hence rather dangerous. Perhaps this should highlight the fact that things are not so rosy as they seem.

Here we go again

During my Army days we had this song,

Here we go again, same old shit again.

Indeed never would i have thought that this song could actually be a portrayal of life in Singapore.

Just rewind back to the previous GE. After that transport prices rose and so on so forth. And Mr Tan Soo Khoon, former MP of East Coast told his colleagues that the people wont forget. Then now we forward to GE 2006, and then we had the increase in GST, the sudden increase of His Excellency's Mr SR Nathan pay. Now we have the increase in minsterial salaries.

Of course the ST is in action once again, continuing their nation building campaign, which i take to involve trying to convince people of the necessity of the pay increase.

http://kitana.wordpress.com/2007/03/25/just-pay-them-more-lah/#comments
http://onthereddot.com/ian/2007/03/23/the-service-in-civil-service
http://1moresg.wordpress.com/2007/03/23/its-a-rich-mans-world/#comment-402
http://nofearsingapore.blogspot.com/2007/03/poor-politicians-and-civil-servants.html

The above are links to several posts made by people with regards to this issue. In fact there are more still out there. Besides the argument that the civil service is a public service and getting people using money is not very right, i feel that there is another reason why this pay increase wont serve any purpose save fatten some pockets.

Previously SM Goh talked about the top talent leaving and how there was a leak. Many of us were up in arms and believed that the leak was for all sorts of reasons to do with how undemocratic singapore is and so on. I admit i was one of those who had some sympathies to that view.

However a more persuasive view was that having a free economy, many people are thus exposed to the global market and thus have more opportunities for them. Thus it is unrealistic to expect us to fix the "leak" in the civil service. This is because, like the situation whereby singaporeans leave for better pastures, civil servants will also leave for better pastures if they feel like it. This is due to the global competition for talents; irregardless of whether they are in a pte company or civil service. Thus u can increase the pay all u want but as long as the fella decides to leave he will leave.

And as Ben, author of 1moresg has pointed out, 1.2 million a year is more than what other people are seeing in a life time. If i remember correctly if u can hit 200k a year u are already in the top income. And as Kitana has pointed out its not as if we have Ministers quitting for the pte service.

Next point, what about the pay of teachers and those civil servants who are not that senior? I do not think that they are earning that much cash. However the ST has somehow given me the impression that the focus is on the admin service. As they are harping on the fact that the pay for minsters is below dunno what benchmark. So will the lower grade civil servants be left out? Ur guess is as good as mine.

Every Cloud has a Silver Lining

The release of the GCE O level results has seen the hopes of some realised, while there are those whose hope has been crushed (so it seems). However an issue that cropped up was that of students applying to polytechnics despite the fact that their grades were sufficient for entry into a JC.

As a result several students who expected to qualify for certain polytechnic courses did not qualify due to the competition from the aforementioned students. As expected some parents took to arms, writing to the forum decrying that it was unfair for the top students to deprive people of their places in poly and so on so forth. The Mainstream Media capped it of with an article in the Sunday Times, which carried some comments from the said students which i found abit insensitive, but thats not the point here.

Yes it is indeed sad for those students who were banking on getting their favourite courses, but did not get them. However, having failed that, i hope they can learn some lessons from this and stand up and fight again. Sure you may not be able to take the course u want now, but there are other options (which have nothing to do with the Northeast Line and so on) which one can explore. Not getting what one wants is a common thing in life; be it in love, sex, money so on so forth. And we should not blame those students who chose the poly route. They are also pursuing their dreams, its not as if they woke up one day and decided to make u miserable.

But now to the next part. I see this trend as a good thing. For years people have been under the erroneous assumption that polytechnics are for those who cannot make it to JC. Thats bull. I never liked the fact that people tend to throw the "go to poly" line whenever they were unhappy with someone's result. And i never saw any point in perpertrating the poly is like that, jc is like this kind of nonsense. Such divisiveness only serves to drive a barrier. Poly and JC each serve their own purpose in the grand scheme of things.

Thus this new trend could help shift the erroneous mindset with regards to a poly education; hopefully in time to come, people will see that poly, and ITE, is merely another route to the end point and do not attach any of the nonsensical notions that "top scorers" should stick to JC and so on so forth.

Man of Straw

Just yesterday one of my friends said that he felt "angsty" after reading about how some people felt that the debates in parliament were rather inconsequential since everything is fait accompli. This prompted another friend to respond that things arent that bad, and he used the USA as an example of how democracy is not that good, saying that the people there complain about everything and anything and so on so forth.

Now this brings us to the point, it seems that everytime someone brings out the point that Singapore should open up and all, there are those who will use examples like the USA to show that democracy doesnt work all the time and so on. Another commonly used example is Taiwan, where the antics of the politicians do make for entertaining reading.

However, using those examples are rather weak. Of course on first glance it seems that the case for Singapore democratisation is gone case; after all, is US not the foremost democracy in the world? Is Taiwan not much like Singapore? However it is not entirely correct to use the USA and Taiwan as a basis for comparison.

The USA's brand of democracy is different from the version Singapore has adopted. In Singapore the President is a ceremonial figure; in the USA our friend Bush does participate actively in the running( some might say screwing) of the country. Furthermore, the USA has a long tradition of democracy; in fact the American War for Independence began cause the English colonists felt that the British government's attempt to raise taxes on them was an attack on their rights of self government. These people actually wanted independance in the beginning, Singapore on the other hand wanted to be part of Malaysia and thus the Republic came into being cause we got booted out by the Malaysians. Furthermore, other, perhaps not so crucial differences; the size of America and the fact that they have more resources than us and the identity which allows them to weather crisis after crisis (the American Civil War, Pearl Harbour, 911 Attack).

But what of Taiwan then? Small country like Singapore, perhaps an even shorter tradition of Democracy (Democractic reforms were only insituted after Chiang Ching Kuo, son of Chiang Kai Shek took over)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiang_Ching-kuo. Then if Singapore can be said to have a siege mentality, they too have even more reason, by virtue of the fact that they have a very HUGE neighbour in the North threatening to kick their butt. Does that not make Taiwan a basis for comparison?

Yet there are several differences. This has to do with the history of the Island as compared to Singapore. The different groups on Taiwan have totally different agendas with regards to their sovereignity; as a result things have become rather acrimonious between the groups. While in Singapore different people have different agendas, the differences do not arise with regards to Singapore's sovereignity.

The island of Taiwan was ceded by Qing China to Japan during the Treaty of Shimonoseki, after Qing China got her butt kicked by Japan during the First Sino Japanese War (1894-1895) When the Japanese took over Taiwan, there were insurrections naturally. However the Japanese, hoping to show the skeptical West that they could govern a colony, put in much effort to develop Taiwan. The relationship between the Japs and the taiwanese was relatively cordiale, as compared to how the Japs were feared in South East Asia. During World War II, Taiwanese did fight in the Imperial Army. These local Taiwanese, thus did not mind the JAps as much as the guys from China did.

Then came the Nationalists. Led by Chen Yi, the Nationalists plundered Taiwan during the Chinese Civil War, resulting in discontent against the KMT. Eventually we all know that KMT was kicked out of the Mainland and Chiang Kai Shek was forced to set up shop in Taiwan. These group of people who were forced out of the Mainland were people who had experienced the cruelty of the Japs during World War II, and also saw themselves as Chinese. In fact Chiang Kai Shek never intended to set shop permanently in Taiwan; he intended to use it as a base and stepping stone whereby he could retake the mainland.

Thus in Taiwan u have two groups of different people coming from different points in history. With this historical baggage it is no wonder that their democracy has often been heated and seen to be ineffectual as both sides do not want to come to a common consensus. The KMT group, seeing themselves as Chinaman, are inclined towards reunification; while on the other hand, the pro-independent group see themselves as Taiwanese and dun want anything to do with the Chinaman. In Singapore, despite all the gripes about the system and all, i do not think there is a group who are so into reunification with Malaysia. Even Chee Soon Juan would balk at that suggestion i think. So at the end of the day everyone works towards Singapore's interest, albeit in different ways.

Thus if one wants to make a comparison, the logical one would be of course, Switzerland, which is a small country surrounded by many others, with a multi ethnic make up. Or we could use Finland as another country to compare. In my opinion, the use of Taiwan and USA to prove that democracy is not viable is merely a "strawman" kind of argument. Not to mention that despite all the chaos Taiwan has a Lee Ang, but thats another issue entirely.

Much Ado About the ST Forum III

Sometimes i just do not know what to say. While I hold the view that there are too many cols in the SAF who are not doing any good, I believe that among the black sheep there are some white sheep. However I must say i do not know what to think about Col Benedict Lim, the public affairs director for MINDEF. He has yet posted another letter to the forum;

NSmen recognised in various ways

I REFER to Mr Lee Chee Tong's letter, 'Give lowly paid NSmen a 'bonus'' (ST, March 9).

Of course his job is rather unenviable, no one wants to defend a premise or build bricks out of crap, so maybe we just have to give it to him for being able to withstand all the ridicule his comments always attract from netizens.
However if i may add he also forgot that besides monetary benefits, NS men are also recognised in various ways:

1) By Employers. When an employer has to choose someone for a job, being a NS men definitely gets one recognised by the employer
2) By the public. In a crowded MRT, if the member of public is pissed and wants to write about how rude and selfish people are, the NS men will be given due recognition.
3) When a recruit walks ard in town, there will be those who give him due recognition with pitiful looks, scorn, etc

Alternative Theories

Recently, yawning bread's latest article http://www.yawningbread.org/arch_2007/yax-719.htm talked about how the National Council of Churches is hoping to expand the prohibition against consensual sex between gay men to include lesbianism. Nothing new in fact, the Christian leaders and some christian fellas have always been decrying homosexuality; now and then their letters to appear in the ST.

Mr Alex has already made a rather good post on the issue; and this post is not to talk about the move by the NCCS to encourage the criminalisation of lesbianism and to perpetrate the hate against the homosexual community. This is merely an attempt to give some kind of commentary on this whole issue.

A recent storm over aaron's blog brought up the issue of whether homosexuality is natural or unnatural. Apparently scientific consensus is that homosexuality is natural and has naught to do with nuturing or psychological or so on so forth. Having had encounters with christians of various denominations, there are those who hold the belief that everything that happens is up to the will of God.

Therefore if a Christian takes the premise that homosexuality is natural, then it should follow that he will reach the conclusion whereby God made the person who is homosexual. Thus if God made the person that way, then isnt it rather sinful to hate the person? And by questioning the person's existence, are they not going against the will of God, for by the will the homosexual person exists

Of course there are those who deny the scientific evidence. Then assume the person is not born gay. Assume it is psychological. Now some encounters with christians have shown that they believe that everything that happens to them is by the same said Will of God. So in that case shouldn't it also follow that the conditions which brought about the person's homosexuality are a result of the said divine will? Therefore it appears that by going against homosexuality these fellas will also be opposing the will of God!!!

Of course there are those who will say that God made the man that way to test him, to test us so on so forth. Kinda like the love the sinner but hate the sin logic. But it was this logic which so obsessed the inquisitors that to "save" a person's immortal soul, they would stick him with hot pokers and then fry him on a stake.

Much Ado about the ST Forum II

This appeared in the ST Forum page in print today.

Check cutoff grades before applying to school

Actually main gist of the letter, as espoused by the title, is sound. The writer is merely trying to highlight the fact that Singaporeans should do more research on the courses they are interested in. This in itself is sound advice which i feel that most people should follow, rather than waiting for their results to appear and then realising that they dont make the cut and are in deep trouble. Of course perhaps the situation in the letter 'Poly route shut for average students' (ST, March 8), could be different from what the writer believes to have happened, for example perhaps at that point in time the cut off was lower but because of a sudden increase in the number of applicants with higher grades the cut off was raised or something to that effect. This does occur; in 2005 those who had a B3 for GP during the A levels were shortlisted for Law interview, but in 2006 there were those with A2 who were not shortlisted for the Law interview in NUS.

However i am slightly perturbed by the second part of the letter.

Second, there are plenty of letters to ST Forum, asking the authorities to look into this, that and the other.
We're supposed to be a First World nation, mature and leading the way. Yet when something doesn't go our way, our first instinct is to ask the authorities to look into it, rather than be proactive and do something ourselves.
Please, let's not be a nation of whingers. Rather than pass the buck, try to come up with an alternative solution.

I believe the above is akin to a horse,a dead horse which has been flogged over and over again. Singaporeans are whiny, shouldnt whine about this and that. However while i do agree that some of the stuff on the forum are more whiny than others, its not fair to tar every letter with the word whine. There are letters which do highlight concerns that are of public interests. Yes, sometimes it is entirely based on anecdotal evidence, but its kinda like theory and practical; there are times when through practical the theory is found to have failed. Issues regarding the efficiency of public transport, police force do require people to direct queries to the relevant authorities. Contributions to society should not be limited only to providing alternative solutions but should encompass constructive criticism of the system so as to highlight issues of public interest.

Lets face the facts; in Singapore the government pervades most spheres of life, so its natural that we go to the authorities if we have any query or so. Furthermore, i wonder what the writer means by being proactive and doing something ourselves. I always felt that people who highlight issues in the Forum are already being proactive since they have not waited for someone else to write. Perhaps the impression that the Forum is full of crap stems from the fact that the editors have a funny selection criteria for getting forum letters. Furthermore, while there is certain stuff whereby we can play a greater role, for example with regards to charity work; what if we have views on issues relating to defence and security? If i am not happy with the 10.6 billion in defence, how am i supposed to show my unhappiness besides writing to the relevant authorities? Lead a protest?

Much Ado about the ST FORUM I

This was posted on the online ST forum today.

Youngsters today lack loyalty to and respect for teachers

I am prompted to write this letter after reading 'Encourage students' loyalty to teachers' (ST, Feb 27) by Mrs Joanne Chia and 'Promote visits by ex-students' (ST, March 1) by Ms Alicia Yeo Soh Khim.
I graduated from Tampines Primary School 17 years years ago. All the while, I've been keeping contact through greeting cards and e-mail with three of my primary school teachers. Two of them had retired and the third is teaching at St Nicholas Girls' School.
Other than using high technology (that is, SMS and e-mail), I even meet one of them occasionally for a meal or tea and catch up on each other's lives. Over the years, this 'mentor~student' relationship has grown and we are now 'mutual friends'.
It seem that many youngsters today lack this loyalty to and respect for our teachers.
Wan Yin Hwa (Miss)

Now i do not know ST policies. Do they decide on the title of the posts or is the title decided by the poster? For if u look at the title, and read the post, it appears that the content does not have any relevance to the post. However, this post is proceeding on the premise that the writer decides the title. This is because of the line "It seem that many youngsters today lack this loyalty to and respect for our teachers. " Unless Straits Times has decided to add sentences in a person's post, i will make a reasonable assumption that the title was the writer's.

Which brings me to the main point. As i said earlier, it appears to me that there is no correlation between the title and what is written. If she is trying to make a point that youngsters are disrespectful, then i must say she has not succeeded, notwithstanding the fact that i believe such a statement is totally bollocks.

Take a look at her examples. She talks about how she has been keeping in touch with her teachers and all, and then goes on to conclude that youngsters lack loyalty and respect. This i believe is an example of a logical fallacy, known as the non-sequitor, it does not follow. Just because one doesn't visit teachers or keep in contact with them does not necessarily imply any lack of respect on part of the fella. Furthermore i fail to understand why the word "loyalty" is being bandied about. I find it abit funny that the word "loyalty" is used with regards to a teacher-student relationship.

Thus, while it is good that she keeps in touch with her teachers, i do not see her point in using her example to criticise the young fellas today. If she had wanted to do so she could have used other evidences, for example, students going out of control in classes and so on so forth. Of course no one expects her to write a GP essay on the Forum but at least provide a logical statement. At least the letter did not appear in the Main papers.

ST forum is something of a joke with people treating it as a "Uncle Agony" for all sorts of problems. If the editors in ST want to compete with the internet, then they should start to publish more logical letters rather than the usual fare that they are dishing out. Since Singapore wants to be First World then i believe the ST forum should also strive to be first world. If not, then they should not cry foul should Mr Wang and KTM become more popular than them. As some people like to say," There is no free lunch in this world". If they want to compete, than they should work for it.

'The people who completely abdicated their responsibilities and behaved completely dishonourably". K Shanmugam, SC

The recent heated debate on Aaron's and Kitana's blog has merely proven a simple fact; that prejudice is, has and will always be a part of Human society. In the past there were the persecutiongs against Christianity, then the persecutions against different Christian sects, then against Jews, against the afros, and now against homosexuals, radicals so on so forth.

It matters not whether such hate is warranted or logical. In fact we often try to warp logic to our own ends. Cherry picking examples to support our view and ignoring other considerations is a common tactic. By ignoring other views and being solely focused on ur view, u effectively abidicate the ability to think critically and make ur life easier. For example when discriminating against certain groups, is it not easier to just say, They are evil/ immoral/ homo and i hate them" or " God told me to do this/ the book says i must do this" and thus having convinced urself with this logic then u continue to perpetrate a cycle of cruelty upon others without batting an eye lid.

So enough said. Yes the above doesnt seem to have any relevance. But i like Mr Shanmugam's quote cuz u can adapt it to such a situation," The people who completely abdicated their thinking abilities and behaved completely deplorably/idiotically" And since we are talking about prejudice, i am reminded of a song i used to listen to in the days when i was a noob in jc.

Where is the Love?

What's wrong with the world, mama
People livin' like they ain't got no mamas
I think the whole world addicted to the drama
Only attracted to things that'll bring you trauma
Overseas, yeah, we try to stop terrorism
But we still got terrorists here livin'
In the USA, the big CIA
The Bloods and The Crips and the KKK
But if you only have love for your own race
Then you only leave space to discriminate
And to discriminate only generates hate
And when you hate then you're bound to get irate, yeah
Madness is what you demonstrate
And that's exactly how anger works and operates
Man, you gotta have love just to set it straight
Take control of your mind and meditate
Let your soul gravitate to the love, y'all, y'all
People killin', people dyin'
Children hurt and you hear them cryin'
Can you practice what you preach
And would you turn the other cheek
Father, Father, Father help us
Send some guidance from above
'Cause people got me, got me questionin'
Where is the love (Love)
Where is the love (The love)
Where is the love (The love)Where is the love
The love, the love
It just ain't the same, always unchanged
New days are strange, is the world insane
If love and peace is so strong
Why are there pieces of love that don't belong
Nations droppin' bombs
Chemical gasses fillin' lungs of little ones
With ongoin' sufferin' as the youth die young
So ask yourself is the lovin' really gone
So I could ask myself really what is goin' wrong
In this world that we livin' in people keep on givin'in
Makin' wrong decisions, only visions of them dividends
Not respectin' each other, deny thy brother
A war is goin' on but the reason's undercover
The truth is kept secret, it's swept under the rug
If you never know truth then you never know love
Where's the love, y'all, come on (I don't know)
Where's the truth, y'all, come on (I don't know)
Where's the love, y'all
People killin', people dyin
'Children hurt and you hear them cryin
'Can you practice what you preach
And would you turn the other cheek
Father, Father, Father help us
Send some guidance from above'
Cause people got me, got me questionin'
Where is the love (Love)Where is the love (The love)Where is the love (The love)Where is the love
The love, the love
I feel the weight of the world on my shoulder
As I'm gettin' older, y'all, people gets colder
Most of us only care about money makin'
Selfishness got us followin' our wrong direction
Wrong information always shown by the media
Negative images is the main criteria
Infecting the young minds faster than bacteria
Kids wanna act like what they see in the cinema
Yo', whatever happened to the values of humanity
Whatever happened to the fairness in equality
Instead in spreading love we spreading animosity
Lack of understanding, leading lives away from unity
That's the reason why sometimes I'm feelin' under
That's the reason why sometimes I'm feelin' down
There's no wonder why sometimes I'm feelin' under
Gotta keep my faith alive till love is found