(M&W) Football/Insulting Librarian

whoo!

Dead Ringers

As if we needed further proof that UK comedy kicks ass (arse just doesn't have the same ring), a couple of clips from Dead Ringers.

New-Look Weather Forecast

Mr Happy

life.

Funny thing, life.
When you ask it for oranges it gives you lemons.
When it gives you lemons, make lemonade.

But what if you only wanted oranges?

Re: Re: Of Fireworks and Meritocracy, and some other thoughts

Preamble

Original post here.

Well it turned out to be a scholarships rant. ^^ And only Wally was interested, apparently. But maaan... I think you've badly understood me. The rant was descriptive, not prescriptive; I think if you read closely enough you'll find that I'm describing the state of affairs as it is now, certainly not as it ought to be.

As for my own opinion, yeah, I do feel that more weight should be given to an applicant's financial neediness - US universities have a far more rigorous system than Singaporean scholarship boards (or at least the ones I applied to, apparently) and I think our system has a fair bit more to go. Or maybe the Singaporean boards didn't need to ask for my tax returns, number of siblings, family assets, value of home etc. because they already knew it all (that's a scary thought!).

[A note on financial aid for US universities: to apply for it, I believe all US unis require you to fill in a FASFA form (Free Application for Federal Student Aid, have I got it right?) and send in supporting documentation - it's a pretty comprehensive thing that's meant to assess your family income, expenses, assets and ability to pay fees. You have to submit tax returns, estimate your family's yearly expenditure, info on property, bank accounts, other assets, expected expenses, how many kids your family's supporting through university and their fees, all that stuff. True, it's a lot of info to provide, but it gives a pretty good - and fair, I believe - picture of your ability to pay.]

-----

More on Scholarships

I think there's a certain unfortunate conflict between the motives of many scholarship providers (at least, many in Singapore), and the loftier ideals that scholarships are supposed to uphold. After all, many scholarship providers here use their schemes to scoop up talent, fund people and then tie them down for a substantial period (usually 6 years). Yes, you get returns on your capital outlay like that which makes financial sense in a narrow way. But in the end the focus on returns inevitably leads to a focus on finding the brightest students. And brightest is not necessarily neediest - unfortunately it's often the opposite, for various socio-economic reasons (expanding upon this would be a whole new post but I'll get round to it someday; for now I'll just say that there is a small positive correlation between family wealth and educational achievement - which I feel is unfortunate, and reflects a failing on the part of our system).

And so scholarships - especially those where financial need is not explicitly a criterion - often go to those who actually could comfortably finance their studies, sometimes at the expense of those who can't. 

I do have a suggestion, one that I believe would make sense to everyone but the financial controllers at PSC. I think they should introduce a new class of bond-free scholarships, tenable for studying anywhere in the world. Sure, they're not adding value to Singapore's government; sure, they aren't directly attracting talent to fill the ranks of the civil service. But after all, the Service is charged with the mission of serving Singapore (the clue is in the name, duh), and one of the best ways it could do that, I feel, is to release our best minds out into the field, to whatever job best challenges them and fulfils their potential. After all, the cold brutal logic of the job market is, in short

• highest renumeration = most value created, and
• people are attracted to the highest renumeration offered.

The idea is, no matter where they are, the money spent on financing their education will be more than repaid by the economic activity they generate, wherever they may be (to say nothing of the more intangible good that would do to us as an economy and a society). And I'm sure, some will naturally enter the civil service, for whatever reason - job satisfaction, fulfilment, gratitude, loyalty, salaries... especially salaries...

-----

PSC

I didn't take up a PSC scholarship, as you guys know. I was extremely put off by the parochial, stiff way their thoughts were structured. I will never forget Dr Andrew Chew, (ex-)Chairman of the PSC, labelling me a "human rights activist". Nor, in particular, the manner in which he did it. Admittedly, the exact words escape me now, but I remember vividly the heavy accusatory tone he used. (I wish I could do what Joe did to Jaggers in Dickens' Great Expectations) He seized upon my application essay, in which I described myself as a humanist:

Secular humanism is perhaps a rather uncommon set of beliefs to adhere to, but I identify with its affirmation of humanity's self-worth, innate dignity and ultimate ability to shape its own destiny, and I strongly believe in the fundamental premise of humanism: having faith and respect in the humanity's ability to achieve excellence. This to me implies that I should both strive for excellence in my pursuits, and help others to do the same wherever possible.

This to him, he said, meant that I was a human rights activist. I was utterly dumbfounded. Whether he was baiting me by deliberately appearing naive in order to elicit a thoughtful response, or whether he genuinely believed that humanist equates to human rights activist, I will never know. What I do know is that in Singapore, particularly in the government, the term human rights activist, and more broadly activist, is an epithet used to describe those moths to a flame who seek and often fail to rouse public opinion against the establishment, or the government, or the order of things as they are. This makes the term a term of insult, especially coming from a senior civil servant.

I could not speak my mind that day, partly for fear of his health (he's not young!), and partly for the hope of leaving the room alive, intact, and a free man. Today, for whatever it's worth, I have a reply:

If human rights activist means I'm a heckler and a picketer, a disturber of the public order for lofty and misguided ideals, then no, I'm not a human rights activist. But from another perspective; if being human - being who I am, and believing in my humanity and therefore my ability to achieve distinction and escape mediocrity, and upholding those beliefs - if that makes me a human rights activist, then I'm proud to be one; only a witless fool would think otherwise.

Because how can you be human, and not believe in humanity? Because if you don't believe in humanity, you don't believe in yourself, and the only logical alternative is the loss of purpose and self-direction; worse, suicide. 

-----

End

I've gone way beyond Daniel's points, to another of my favourite pet peeves, the civil service. I believe everything's interconnected; I believe what Dr Chew characterised me as revealed in one masterstroke the mindset that he had, and also the deep interest he has in maintaining the established order of things, the status quo. I'm sure his mindset has hugely influenced many civil servants; he and many of those around him are no intellectual pushovers, they've undoubtedly got calibre and influence that I don't possess.

But with all due respect I disagree with Dr Chew and his ilk on that one fundamental point, the (lack of) importance they place on humanity, and I know this mindset permeates through to the way things are run here. I believe this is wrong - sure, they've given us prosperity, but at no small cost to our souls and our sense of perspective as a people (speaking not of an amorphous faceless nation, but a people) - and I cannot stay silent, because I know things are wrong, and silence is the refuge of a coward.

(This post is in sections for the convenience of those who want to comment; but I doubt there'll be many, I'm not an MP's son unlike a more illustrious RJC alumna ^^ and this is a far more esoteric issue. Who cares anyway?)

shh!

Don't tell me mom but I tried the vodka at home (neat, 1 shot) and it had no smell (as in whiffs of alcohol fumes) but tasted like rubbing alcohol. Crikey. I've never had vodka taste that odd before.

Larkin & Betjeman

As you can tell, I'm fuck-bored. So here are two poems, one slightly more serious and the other, wickedly funny. Best read out.

Best Society
When I was a child, I thought,
Casually, that solitude
Never needed to be sought.
Something everybody had,
Like nakedness, it lay at hand,
Not specially right or specially wrong,
A plentiful and obvious thing
Not at all hard to understand.

Then, after twenty, it became
At once more difficult to get
And more desired - though all the same
More undesirable; for what
You are alone has, to achieve
The rank of fact, to be expressed
In terms of others, or it's just
A compensating make-believe.

Much better stay in company!
To love you must have someone else,
Giving requires a legatee,
Good neighbours need whole parishfuls
Of folk to do it on - in short,
Our virtues are all social; if,
Deprived of solitude, you chafe,
It's clear you're not the virtuous sort.

Viciously, then, I lock my door.
The gas-fire breathes. The wind outside
Ushers in evening rain. Once more
Uncontradicting solitude
Supports me on its giant palm;
And like a sea-anemone
Or simple snail, there cautiously
Unfolds, emerges, what I am.

- Philip Larkin

-----

The Olympic Girl
The sort of girl I like to see
Smiles down from her great height at me.
She stands in strong, athletic pose
And wrinkles her retroussé nose.
Is it distaste that makes her frown,
So furious and freckled, down
On an unhealthy worm like me?
Or am I what she likes to see?
I do not know, though much I care,
xxxxxxxx.....would I were
(Forgive me, shade of Rupert Brooke)
An object fit to claim her look.
Oh! would I were her racket press'd
With hard excitement to her breast
And swished into the sunlit air
Arm-high above her tousled hair,
And banged against the bounding ball
"Oh! Plung!" my tauten'd strings would call,
"Oh! Plung! my darling, break my strings
For you I will do brilliant things."
And when the match is over, I
Would flop beside you, hear you sigh;
And then with what supreme caress,
You'd tuck me up into my press.
Fair tigress of the tennis courts,
So short in sleeve and strong in shorts,
Little, alas, to you I mean,
For I am bald and old and green.

- John Betjeman

(M&W) The Boy with an Arse for a Face

from mitchell & webb. zomg what will they think of next?

my job

Daily:

• Book in 0715.
  
• Open the office.
• Open doors.
  
• Unlock cabinets.
• Turn on comps.
  
• Log in to the emails.
• Clear unimpt mail.
• Stone.
  
• Collect newspapers (2x ST, 1x wanbao) around 0815
  
• Stone.
• Lunch.
• Stone.
  
• Book out 1730.

Regular:

• Mon/Wed/Fri: Water plants.
• Mon/when necessary: send staff car for servicing (call driver).

Occasionally:

• Send (snail) mail.
• Check that mail's been sent.
• Shred papers.
  

Monthly:

• Check upcoming birthdays for the boss to sign cards.

Yearly:

• Boss's birthday (DONE).

It's early days yet...

Re: Of Fireworks and Meritocracy

Original post (by Daniel) here.

Yeah, pooch, you've stirred up quite a hornet's nest there. And the hornet in me can't resist stinging haha. I've no doubt my reflections will meander quite far away from the original topic but will be fruitful nevertheless. I think most of my ramblings will address your point on meritocracy, but we'll see as it goes along.

-----

Yes I agree with Daniel that you could probably sacrifice a few firework displays and put the money to scholarships - I'm sure the financial returns to sponsoring someone's uni is, at the very least, quantifiable, compared to the financial returns to fireworks-induced patriotism. And frankly, if you need to resort to a fireworks display to induce patriotism you're bloody pathetic. Besides, who gives a flying fish about NDP? Not me, unfortunately. (2 of my aunts' families did go, though I am guessing it was more for the goodie bags - which were also bloody pathetic this year!)

I really must say this again: If our national pride has to be burnished by a fireworks display, however nice it might be, it is an external pride of the shallowest nature. I've never experienced national pride for the values our nation upholds - materialism and the pursuit of wealth, shallow-mindedness and bloody meanness (that says a Myanmarese maid must not be allowed out even to the market just because she stopped to chat with a fellow Myanmarese maid - yes this happened in my neighbourhood), a depressing small-minded mentality that requires the crutches of ordinal rankings to affirm itself (in pursuing international rankings of every sort - biggest port, 22nd-highest GDP, 2nd fastest growing Asian economy, 25th-best university...)

I've been saddened and sickened by Singapore, many times, because as a nation we don't ever seem to grow up, because we demand (and what's worse, receive) respect for what we've achieved rather than who we are and what we stand for - and that is a false respect which only extends towards the external trappings of our achievements and neglects the rot inside. The rot that is the cigarette-smoky piss-stained lift in my block, and by extension the mentality that smoked those cigarettes and made that mess, just to give you an example.

Singapore you aren't half what you're made out to be, and it's time someone with a louder voice than me told you that. But since no one's being heard I'll continue to shout for what it's worth.

-----

Returning to scholarships, Daniel says there ought to be 2 types - those given based on talent, and those given based on financial need. True that would be nice, but given the scarce resources available and the obvious need to minimise opportunity cost, you'd have to award the financial-need scholarships to the most talented ones (subject to a financial consideration, of course). The two would eventually coincide, and given the inevitably self-interested nature of any organisation, over time lofty ideals like Daniel's will sadly be subordinated to the imperatives of cost and value.

I actually believe the overriding concern of scholarship providers (e.g. PSC) is self-interest and self-perpetuation; would-be scholars have to show their personality and leadership skills - like all those testimonials and 'anecdotes' for PSC, for instance, and the personality profiling they do. And you hear of scholars coming back to be high-flying leaders and managers in the civil service, military and police, promoted over the heads of non-scholars but also (and partially because of that) under tremendous pressure to perform. Simply put, scholarship providers want to see returns; they want bang for their buck, they want leaders to carry on with the system. And that is a partial economic explanation for the motives of scholarship providers; that's also why 'leadership' is valued as much as, if not more than, intellectual capability (demonstrated or potential). Which is a pity, for then scholarships lose their main purpose - to encourage the ideals of scholarship (n.) or the pursuit of knowledge. In my opinion, yes, many scholarships have already lost their main purpose (though not all, I think some are still pretty good - there's the Jardine scholarship right? and others I can't think of right now.)

-----

And on Daniel's examination of meritocracy, many people have pointed out that the socio-economic profile of scholars is changing; it wasn't uncommon to hear of Presidents' Scholars with taxi-driver fathers and hawker mothers. Now it is, and I can venture an explanation - self-selection. It's said that birds of a feather flock together; that's the same concept. Generally, good students do well because their parents are educated and have a general idea of how to guide them, in their early education and attitudes towards learning. They get past PSLE and into a good school (and this is where most parents reduce or stop their involvement in their kids' education - apart from nagging ^^). Then good teachers take over, and a competitive school environment stimulates educational growth because decent students come together, egg each other on, and become genuinely good. They get into a good JC (or these days, an IP programme) and ace their A levels, before going on to apply for scholarships which are, after all, evaluated by their predecessors and seniors. You could call this inbreeding; certainly the average RJ student is middle-class, has parents in professional jobs, lives in at least a large HDB if not a condo, and so on. And most importantly, has friends and peers (and later on in life, colleagues) who come from the same background as him/her.

Personally I was fairly atypical for RI/RJ, and it particularly stung whenever JX talked as if we all had money to burn - just because you learn music DOESN'T MEAN YOU'RE LOADED. I certainly didn't, and wasn't - I survived on an allowance of 100-120 bucks in RI before it became patently impossible and was bumpted up to ~150 in RJ. I was always fairly conscious that most of my friends lived in landed homes, paid quite a bit for tuition and actually went overseas for holidays (none of these apply to me). And subconsciously I guess it might have prodded me to work a bit harder just to prove I deserved my place there among company that I didn't otherwise fit into. It's not something I dwell on, and I don't get any hangups over Remus's place being 35 times the size of my family flat (built-up area only, I believe); but maybe it's something that should finally be recognised, that not all RJ student's a rich kid.

Family income is certainly an important factor in education (if you can't afford it you can't have it) but it isn't the most important. We have fairly rigorous schemes that basically mean MOE subsidises lots of smart kids in the top JCs and secondary schools; I think at least 3/4 of RJC gets it. To be honest, I know at least in my schooling years my family income was never been enough to qualify to pay tax. And so I think I can offer myself up as proof that it's still possible in Singapore for people to succeed based on sheer merit (though I'm not suggesting that I'm particularly meritorious or anything!). Though no doubt it's getting harder; as time goes and generations come and go, class distinctions of HDB | Condo | Landed are becoming increasingly permanent, cast in stone, and I'm afraid this has got to be addressed starting with a paradigm shift in the mindset of heartlanders.

That's a point that requires further elaboration for it to stand properly but I'm tired and I've just rescheduled a coffee appointment to 9 saturday morning - this morning (I'll really need the coffee) - so I've got to sleep now.

work

Obviously I'm not going to be posting much about NS now, work in the office being what it is (repetitive, un-discuss-able, dull as ditchwater). Had so much time the last couple of days that I

1. finished off Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, which I thought I'd never do,
2. got to know my upperstudy decently well - I daresay better than any other 3-day-old acquaintance (what kind of word is upperstudy? O.o)
   
3. KO'd in the afternoon today -.-
   

I'm not complaining!

the office: first day.

So I got to camp early today and ended up going to the old bunks at the basic training centre block. Ahh now that the course is over I'm entitled to look back with some nostalgia, I guess. And I saw the 30SCE people and the instructors from my batch heh =)

Left for the office and reached about 7:15 - my upperstudy/predecessor ('upper' for short, on this blog, no names yet I guess) and the PA (as in the boss's actual PA) were there already and I got shown around the morning routine and the cabinets/files/whatever. That lasted till nearly 9. The boss asked me into his office for a short chat around then, nothing much, just the usual where were you from where're you going to after this ack scholar arh? For the rest of the day it was random computer work (I only watched, being the noob) till 10+, preparing for a birthday party for the boss till 12+, the party itself and clearing up (yeah, 2x 3SG dumping eggshells and cake, rinsing cups, wiping tabletops etc. ^^) then misc errands and stuff along the way. That's a "busy" day xD so I can see how a good book might come in handy on slack days haha

Yeah my upper is a nice guy, easy-going, just a bit reserved, humorous, tad geekish, no probs getting along with him. The PA's also not bad, auntyish, but (argh!) mainly speaks chinese. Which is the only drawback of an otherwise great relaxed office environment. Otherwise... it's pretty free-and-easy (obviously within limits)... there's stashes of food in lots of places... my upperstudy's configured firefox to search wikipedia from the search engine box - a true mark of geekdom; even I haven't done that haha. The only person I've met other than myself who surfs wikipedia for fun. Going to Imperial to study Chem on an A*Star - O.o pro.

Alright so that's that for my colleagues and the office. Bringing my mp3 player and a book down tmrw, it'll come in handy at least on the long bus ride back home heh.

irksome.

I often start a rant-type post (like this one) on a nucleus of a thought and slowly expand on it till it gets rhapsodic and complex and (hopefully) comment-provoking/-worthy.

This one started off when I noted the irony of China beating Singapore at table tennis yesterday at the women's finals; I'm no patriot or sportsman as many of you know, but the Olympics are such a monumental commemoration of the human spirit that as a humanist it's impossible for me not to get caught up in it. And for Singapore to get only its second medal ever... that's quite a neat piece of awesomeness.

Well yeah when I mentioned 'irony' I meant the incongruity between expectations and reality, namely the expectation that the Singapore team would actually be Singaporean, and the darkly amusing reality that it wasn't, really. Reminds me too of the Commonwealth Games I'm not too sure how long back (2006?) when the Singapore-assembled badminton team of Chinese mercenaries beat England and were much trumpeted at that time.

On the one hand it does seem incongruous that we're burnishing our sports record by importing players (especially PRC Chinese players), but on more reflection I can't just condemn this out-of-hand. True, to market this as an achievement of Singapore sport is being rather economical with the truth. However to proceed to the other extreme, and reject the Singaporean-ness of their accomplishment (or their nationality), is rather small-minded. I can't agree with either.

[That's the problem with a sophisticated stand. You can't agree with either extreme and you end up setting out your own position which no one understands because of the very human tendency to express the world in polar opposites of black/white, good/bad, right/left and forget the possibilty of grey, amoral and centre... This I blame on Zoroaster xP and I'll explore this one day.
Where was I?]

Yes I'm sure instinctively something in every one of us rebels against the idea that this medal is wholly and deservedly Singaporean - I'm not disputing the validity of the achievement, I'm examining the right to count it as ours. I mean, admittedly I don't know the details but the whole team (and coach) were born and bred in China, and, what, brought over here by some through some sports council thing or other? So to claim this for Singapore seems a tad rich.

On the other hand to reject it entirely seems a tad rich too. Well for a start, a silver's a silver and this one's ours, so what's the problem eh? Less frivolously, the team have devoted a fair bit of time and energy to playing for Singapore, and to question their nationality and motives is to discount all that they've put in.

Moreover - and this goes right to the very heart of Singapore's existential struggle with its foreign population - scratch any Singaporean hard enough and you'll find immigrant in that blood. Why then should we have such a problem with migrants in our midst? Singaporean Indians have problems with expat Indians, lots of Singaporean Chinese resent PR Chinese, and everyone is deeply suspicious of the Filipino nurse, the Korean student, the Malaysian accountant. It's all awfully hypocritical, and reflects a closed-mindedness, a meanness of nature that seems to be ingrained in the Singapore mind.

What we are today is a direct result of the pains our forebears took to get here. And I think that by extension, to resent those who're taking that very same path now, is to reject our own heritage and who we are. That is just one of the existential contradictions that underlie Singapore's tortured national soul.

I've gone very, very far from the Olympics. You might wonder what I feel about the medal. I'm sure I'm happy for the players' personal achievement. But more than that, I feel that questioning their nationality or the Singaporean-ness of their victory (regardless of the final outcome, a silver is a victory too) is missing the point; maybe this medal should be taken as both an affirmation of, and a reminder of the pressing need for, inclusiveness in Singapore society.

Hell, I know. I'm sure people like Wally and Peck are like ^^ wtf watch the sport screw the thinking lah. Alright man, I get the picture. Just a thought...

adminspechood

Woohoo yup my hunches and the rumours were confirmed; I've got a desk job for my next posting, which'll last all the way to ORD. Yes I'm an admin spec w00t!

end of course/some reflections

It's the end of the course, it's the middle of August, it's the end of all strain, it's the joy in your heart.

(5 bucks says no one other than Adam will figure out where the quote in italics came from, and even he'll have trouble. No googling you cheating fuckers. =P)

Well yeah, I've got another wholly meaningless promotion come Tuesday, although it does mean my allowance goes up from a corporal's starvation wage of $550 haha. Last week was spent in a kind of bored stupor as we all waited for Friday afternoon. Boring lectures, mind-numbing area cleaning, that sort of thing. Can't quite tell if they're training sergeants or domestic helpers; but then again sergeant comes from the French for servant. Well well.

-----

Bookout. Crashed YO again, I'm such a fixture there that Mr Lim forgot I'm technically an alumnus already. The quality of their playing is going down, sadly, and I hope they don't get jaded (as they already seem to be). Some things can't be compromised on - meticulous attention to detail, sheer brutal concentration of effort... It's an orchestra and a team effort, and I can't see that happening. Doesn't help that I see most of the newer 2nds are aspiring soloists rather than orchestral players. Well they've got the superficials - they play loud, they get most of the notes in mostly in tune - but they've a long way to go in their musical development. Lacking subtlety, contour, shades of dynamic contrast and articulation... In fact that's true for most of the players. Bassoons and some of the lower brasses - I was astonished to hear their accompaniment figure for the Weinberger Polka turn into a drone! Dragging out the notes in a fast dance, what were they thinking? Actually this begs the question: were they thinking?

And it's a pity that there isn't enough Czech music heard, generally. I can only think of Dvorak, Smetana... Janacek, Martinu, Suk (yeah of played-to-death Serenade for Strings fame, gahhh) and Fibich (a few bland symphonies) - and of course Weinberger. But it's distinct enough to recognise, or should be... like Bohemian crystal, fine, delicate and twinkling in the light. Beautiful, shapely melodies - tunes in every sense of the word.

Enough. ^^

-----

Sent David off at the airport; hey man if you read this drop me a note haha. And yeah take care and all that. Left rather early cos I didn't fit any of the social cliques that were forming up, and was feeling rather more pillar-ish than usual. Ah well.

Otherwise... catching up with sabby (wow 2 hours talking over coffee O.o)...

I should get a large map of the US and mark out all the unis that my pals/friends/acquaintances are going to - it's a lot easier for England cos nearly everyone's ending up in London or Cambridge heh. Crikey. There's a sizeable bunch of us on the East Coast, and a couple of lonely souls way out in Stanford heh. It's a nice vicarious excitement I feel - true I'm not going this year, but lots of you are and it's pretty much awesome.

And yes my offer still stands - if any of you applying this year need help (UK or US), just drop a comment or send an email along and I'll do my best.

Yeah, true Wally, I was rooting for the UK not too long ago, but who gave me the full financial aid? =P Ah well man... yeah I do retain some vestigial ancestral regard for the old colonial sahibs ^^ and of course I couldn't live without British comedy - horribly sharp, horribly witty - and the BBC is brilliant and I've picked up my feel for the richness of the English language from there; but the US is an exciting place to be, it's where the action is, it's open and receptive, and it's given me an opportunity to escape mediocrity in a way that's never happened to me before. It's opened up doors to a future I never dreamed of. And well... I'm hugely grateful.

new link: chase me, ladies

zomg fucking ROFL! Chase me, ladies, I'm in the cavalry: A 24/7 rolling news service for professionals.

notice

I've just gone off a convo with a friend and junior, and that reminded me of something I've been thinking of for some time... It's about that time of year when lots of J2s - besides gearing up for A's - are window-shopping for overseas university & scholarship applications (or should be!).

It was an enormously boggling process for me, trying to understand all the terminology, wondering US or UK, navigating through countless uni websites and rankings, bugging friends "eh where're you applying?", discreetly sucking up to teachers (e.g. making intelligent comments, doing my darndest for essays, trying my best not to fall asleep in Mr. *'s classes), ranking and reranking my uni choices, and generally fantasising about college in some funky place.

Yup, I know how it feels. And I know there're a few of you who're regular visitors here =) So... if any of you need advice or help, just drop me an email, sms, bug me on msn, or even comment on this post, no worries. I'll be glad to help anytime I can.

Just remember I'm recruiting for Yale haha.

Alright good luck to all you dreamers! I was there once...

not bad, not half bad

Wow. By most standards this's been a whirl of a week. Let me get the boring stuff out of the way; I've just been through the last field camp (out of five) of my course... another 2 more sleepless nights. This was exciting, I was visited twice by snakes (or possibly a very friendly one) in my first night in my shellscrape, and once by some waterfowl-ishlike birdy-thing in the morning (if I'd been a bit more dilligent in my birdwatching maybe I'd still remember what it's called heh). And yes, got to see lots of cool engineer equipment, tanks, bridges, vehicles, funky stuff. Yup.

Now. Zomg. My hunch was confirmed... Wow. Congrats Daniel and David. Man... I'm massively honoured to have had the privilege of crossing intellectual swords with you guys in the years I've known you, of taunting you Daniel while the train roars past between Toa Payoh and Novena and I fake deafness to your voice, and of laughing at you David while you write - no, wrestle with your inner debater demons while we write - GP essays. President's Scholars. Woah good stuff. It cheered me to no end; you guys really, really deserve it more than anyone I can think of. And yes it's been amazing to've known you - gawd David'll be 2 years my senior at Yale ^^ unghhhhh haha but yeah. Woah. Good on you both.

Other than that, yes I'm seeing light at the end of the tunnel, my course is coming to an end, and I'm looking forward to a long weekend (Monday off w00t!) with CS Lewis, Thomas Pynchon, some random poems... what the hell, whatever I can find lying in my bookcase at home. And yeah I note, slightly gratified and bemused, that the SSO's going to attempt an interpretation of Nielsen's Symphony no. 4 'Inextinguishable' on Aug 30th - which I'm sure will disappoint me (haha I'm always disappointed at the concert hall) but nevertheless tempts me. Hehe we'll see, we'll see... One of my favourite pieces. They'd better have 2 noisy timpanists.

Wow. President's Scholars... not bad, not half bad at all.

personality profiles

haha Char I just went over to your blog, randomly clicked on the personality type screen-cap, and went and did the MBTI test. So I found out I'm introverted, intuitive, thinking and judging (INTJ). I think I've done personality tests often enough (rather I've been forced to - RI, RJ, Civil Service College...) and that's the result I usually get.

It amuses me that I (allegedly) have the same personality type as Hannibal Barca, C. S. Lewis, Isaac Newton, and - get this - Gandalf. And also that anyone could, purely on the basis of a 76-point questionaire, claim to be able to tell me about me, when I've spent the last 19 years grappling with the same issue. (Not all the time, granted; I'm not an egomaniac.)

At the same time, though, it's striking how uncannily accurate the descriptors seem. For instance,

(from an INTJ profile I found)

Personal relationships, particularly romantic ones, can be the INTJ's Achilles heel. While they are capable of caring deeply for others (usually a select few), and are willing to spend a great deal of time and effort on a relationship, the knowledge and self-confidence that make them so successful in other areas can suddenly abandon or mislead them in interpersonal situations.

This happens in part because many INTJs do not readily grasp the social rituals; for instance, they tend to have little patience and less understanding of such things as small talk and flirtation... Perhaps the most fundamental problem, however, is that INTJs really want people to make sense.

Hell, yes! That's me all right... although I suspect this is something similar to how uncannily accurate horoscopes seem at first sight. (cf the Forer Effect: skepdic and wikipedia)

-----

And yes, another thing... I find it disturbing that these personality tests are used and trusted to the extent that they are. I'm sure the (similar) 16PF evaluation is a pretty big part of PSC's selection criteria... and that the army does a similar evaluation in the computer test thingy that everyone does after the medical screening.

I guess my main peeve is that the uncritical acceptance of these test results, and their use to filter out potential candidates for corporate - or worse, civil service - jobs, results in an accumulation of similar personalities in positions of responsibility, and also increases the potential for groupthink.

I mean, assuming those tests are accurate, and certain personality types are favoured over others for certain types of jobs (particularly leadership), isn't it at least likely that similar people think in similar ways, aim for similar goals, that sort of thing? And then where'd diversity - from which springs richness of ideas and intellectual competition - come from? True they might use similar methods (as in patterns of thought) but arrive at different ends; but can that be guaranteed?

Well I'm sure it's not the only criteria for selection - especially in the PSC - but considering also that the more criteria you impose the less variance you're going to get (I'm sure there's a theorem somewhere in statistics that states that, but I'm way too lazy to puzzle out the actual maths!), I'm afraid it's quite possible that the more rigorous, objective and "scientific" an interview process is, the more it'll work against the organisation.

Ideas, anyone? Do I have a case or a bag of hot air?

books

I went to Borders (both stores!) today and blew a third of my monthly salary on books (thank goodness I had discount coupons haha). At Wheelock I picked up Ovid's Metamorphoses, Harold Bloom's The Best Poems of the English Language (an anthology - the DH Lawrence tortoise porn anthology, Adam and ZH you'll remember...) and a box set of CS Lewis (Mere Christianity, The Screwtape Letters, A Grief Observed, The Problem of Pain, Miracles, and The Great Divorce). From the Parkway branch, Pynchon's Gravity's Rainbow (the Vintage edition with the funky cover) and Saramago's The Gospel According to Jesus Christ (extremely, extremely heretical; extremely, extremely mindblowing).

I wanted to get Oranges Are Not The Only Fruit and some French lit in translation, but Oranges and Perec's Life: A User's Manual wasn't available and I didn't feel up to the challenge of Marcel Proust's In Search of Lost Time. No way. Colossal. While he waited for World War I to end he expanded Volume 2 (out of 7!) from a mere 500,000 to over a million words. Wow.

-----

I'm just waiting for time to dive into all this literature and be lost in wonderment. I've talked about my backlog of unread books... it's a huge stack on my table and in my bookcase. I'm an unrepentant bibliophile.

I've always loved to read. Maybe it's cos of how I blew my childhood instead of kicking ball or watching TV. Maybe it's the attraction of all the imagined worlds that you can be absorbed into, how your person can be forgotten, left behind, subsumed for an afternoon while you're out listening to the Wife of Bath or breathing in the fumes of perfumed crows in Colombia.

People don't read enough, I think, or they don't respect the pursuit of worthy literature. Something has got to be very terribly wrong if Winterson's Oranges is special order, while Jodi Picoult fills 6 - that's right, six - shelves. Well yeah, better Picoult than nothing, but still... Why don't people aspire to read better, to lift themselves out of their existences for a fleeting glance at eternity and humanity?

Well I guess I'm being a bit priggish when I suggest Pynchon is superior to Picoult. I can't say what makes for great literature, because I don't know. Craftsmanship? The use of the language? of words? The evocation of a reality and of a human existence far more substantive, more brilliant and imbued with meaning than our own?

I'm not in a position to say; all I can say is I deeply love the worlds that books construct out of nothing but ink, paper, and the finest wisps of imagination. And I'll be back to my books as soon as I can.

my week.

This has been one heck of a week. Had a sleepness Monday night digging holes and laying fake explosive charges on a road for some scenario mission thingy. The details would bore both you and me: you in the reading and me in the recounting. Then Wed-Fri was 3 full days of some practical test/evaluation thingy. Other than that, a bird shat on my back, and the guard duty list came out - without my name on it. These 2 events may or may not be related.

I should explain the last point: I was supposed to get 3 extra duties - including a weekend guard duty - they even got as far as giving me the dates - but strangely when the list for August came out my name wasn't on it. Amazing. My dad always said bird droppings are a good omen. O.o

-----

What else can I say? I've been too tired to have many amusing or interesting thoughts. Guess I should get back to reading the Economist and use my McKinsey Quarterly account more actively, among other things. I am perilously devoid of a healthy reading diet and current-affairs analysis. The Straits Times isn't the best way to cultivate a mind - especially a mind that's been in fallow for as long as mine. And I'm often given to understatement.

I should like some good company this bookout.