More sacred cows

Hi Gary
You have very specific sacred cows you wish to see slain: the recruitment of high-calibre statespeople to justify high ministerial salaries; the continuing dominance of the old man (a very sacred cow, indeed) in our local political scene; the Confucian style(?) perpetuation of public dependance on the government; and the withholding of our CPF as State capital for our national reserves.

I guess you want to hear my thoughts on these specific issues, which I am happy to oblige. I believe in sharing ideas, but I'm not in this discussion to rehash old debates. My interest is in writing as a craft, taking this opportunity you are presenting me with to weave stories, not perpetuate ideologies. Having said that, let's address your concerns:

1) High ministerial salaries: when they first decided to pay themselves huge amounts of money, I did not feel any poorer. When they reduced their payscales after the recent round of reviews, I did not feel any richer. I work for what I have earned and I can sleep soundly at night. I don't worry about whether they can do the same.

2) The old man did talk to us like children. Why did we listen to him as if we were children? Because, I suppose, we respected him for what he and his party did before. He tried to talk to us like children again, this past election. We didn't listen, did we? Who's standing in the corner now?

3) Confucius' analogy was that the emperor was the father of the kingdom. Unfortunately, that idea stayed with us, Chinese. We don't understand that democracy knocked this political concept out of the ballpark. In the emperor's day, the responsibility for the entire kingdom rested on his shoulders because he had the mandate of heaven. He decided everything for his subjects, who were free from the responsibility of taking care of themselves. Democracy took the mandate of heaven from the sole decision-maker and replaced it with the mandate of the people, and hence the responsibility of looking out for ourselves and each other fell squarely on our, the people's, shoulders. We have an unfortunate hybrid system now. But if we still depend on an elected Government for the sun and the rain to grow our crops, don't be surprised if all we get is fertilizer.

We must concede that the government has delivered the goods in all the big things. That's not what rankles our electorate. Where it's screwing up, and what we rail at it about, is its poor handling of domestic issues. Foreign workers arriving in droves, rising housing and living costs, breakdown of social mores and graces... do we really need policy from on-high to settle these household and neighbourhood affairs, or can't we just take some initiative and fix them ourselves? If we don't identify and take action on the things we can act on, then some dumb policy is going to drop from the sky because someone has to make some kind of decision before things get out of hand.

We're not disallowed from growing up. We have remarkably free media that allow us to air political dissent and satire (and a lot of embarrassingly childish prattle) openly, to a potentially massive audience, even though what we say can be easily traced back to us. Ironically, it's the American government that is proposing SOPA and PIPA and shutting down Megaupload. We are no longer a 'police state' either. In fact, we complain more now that our boys in blue would neither step in and solve our personal and domestic disputes for us, nor work to punish those we feel have slighted us somehow. Looks to me like we are the ones not willing to grow up.

4) CPF: my CPF is tied up in the monthly installments I have to pay for my HDB flat. Why does it cost so much? Well, it would have been cheaper if earlier generations of homeowners had been grateful for cheap housing, but instead they saw it as a way to make a quick buck. Who's the real estate genius who invented COV? Here's the official value of my flat: V. Here's what I have to pay to own my flat: CO + V. Instant and cumulative inflation with every resale. Now if I have to sell my flat at V (extreme cooling measures), I'll go bankrupt. As long as I want a roof over my head, I'm never going to see my CPF, let alone get it back. Whose fault is that?

Oh, btw, before I mislead you any further, I'm not -- as you have apparently assumed -- a woman. ;)

Sacred cows and OB markers

This is in response to Gary's stimulating comment in my previous entry. I have to create a new entry 'cos long-winded me wrote too much (as usual) and the comment box refused to accept it. So here goes:

Hi Gary
Sacred cows are figments of our imagination.They exist in both our minds and in the minds of our policy-makers. Slaughtering sacred cows is extremely difficult because although their time has come no one dares to wield the knife. Everyone is afraid of ghosts, of consequences. And since they've served us so well before, we're going to keep on preserving them because once they're gone, what would suffice to replace them?

The way forward is for everyone to realise that the term 'sacred cow' only describes a method that once resulted in success, hence the mistaken belief that it will continue to bring us success no matter what. Whoever told us to slaughter our sacred cows recognised that new times require new methods, but I believe we were just as guilty of holding on to them too tightly to want to see them go. The paper chase, the rat race, the 5'C's, the materialism and petty jealousies, they're all our own creation. They arose out of the opportunities that once gave us skilled jobs and commensurate prosperity, and the belief that we deserved what we earned because we worked hard for it. Nothing wrong there, but it made us selfish -- equating poverty with laziness or cannot-make-it-ness or otherwise not-one-of-us-ness. Meritocratic policy may have been the starting point, but our mindsets turned it into the monster that it is today.

So is it with our so-called 'OB' markers. What do we really have to do to be guilty of crossing an OB marker? You'd have to be a clear threat to civil society before anybody starts taking notice of you. Anyone who threatens not the leadership itself but society's trust in the legally elected leadership, or attempts to fragment our society to gain support for their cause can expect action to be taken against them. But for us normal, ordinary citizens who lead normal workaday lives, what could we possibly do so wrong that could result in detention or exile?

The electon 'threats'? The cajoling? They're just rhetoric, empty words from a parent to a rebellious child throwing a tantrum. We have to get away from this relationship as quickly as possible because it's toxic to both of us.

If our society is going to grow up, we have to stop defining our relationship with our Government as parent-child. While we persist with this view, it doesn't matter who makes up the ruling party. PAP or Opposition, we're simply replacing one parent for another, and we'll be just as dissatisfied and disillusioned with the outcome either way. As long as we expect the Government to do everything for us (which basically means let the good times roll) and not take responsibility for ourselves, for our own situations, in our own circumstances, and bloody well HELP one another in times of need, we're setting expectations that NO government could ever fulfil.

It is heartening to see that we are indeed growing up. We've reached our rebellious teenage years where we chafe at Authority and think that our almighty Parent is suppressing us and curtailing our pocket-money and personal freedoms. Believe me, the government wants us to grow up as quickly as possible and be less of a dependent (i.e., pest) and more of a working partner. The government's current drive is active citizenry, where we finally come out of our individual, darkened little bedrooms (with signs on the door that say "Private: Keep Out") and recognise that we have family huddling around the living room. That's our community. Whomever they are, how many there are, it is our job to look after one another, and not entirely the Government's.

So what do we need a government for? As far as possible, it provides the necessary but normally unprofitable public works for us to enjoy, maintains the integrity of our sovereignity within the global community, ensures that we can define a common identity for ourselves, upholds justice and public trust within our borders, maintains peace among our peoples, that sort of thing. These are the really big things that we can't do on our own, but we work with our elected representatives to bring about.

Governments deal with generalities, not specifics. Micromanagement is what a government is worst at. The faster we learn to wipe our butts for oursleves, the faster the government can get it's nose out of our business and get back to doing its real job, leaving us to lead our lives the way we want... together.

Driven the wrong way

Lack of drive in Singaporean students a worry

I'm not sure I agree that Singapore students lack 'drive'. Singaporean students are notorious 'muggers', burning the midnight oil with their study texts, tutorial sheets and homework assignments. So, no, Singapore students are driven enough. The problem is that in our society, everyone -- adults and school kids alike -- is negatively motivated.

What I mean is, we do what we do for the wrong reasons. We work to avoid negative consequences, rather than for positive feedback. Our society is motivated by fear and punishment, and the fear of punishment. Have you noticed that you work harder at classes taught by teachers you fear most? The ones with the loudest voices, sharpest tongues and most creative punishments are high on your priority list; while the ones who encourage you and try to understand your problems and issues, well, their tasks can be postponed to another day. 'cos they understand.

It's also true of the adult world. Our society is full of warnings that threaten fines for social infringements, our citizens call for summary dismissal when they perceive our civil servants and ministers have let them down somehow (flooding, train delays, and escaped terrorists come to mind), and our workforce keeps its nose to the grindstone fearing the next economic downturn resulting in another round of retrenchments. But when things go well, our citizenry thinks it is their due; hence no word of thanks, no gratitude expressed.

With this kind of attitude, who wants to work any harder? Who would risk his ricebowl trying anything new, that may or may not be an improvement over the old ways that have worked well enough before? Why step out of our comfort zones and face being ridiculed or pilloried when mistakes -- and there will be mistakes -- occur?

Our society believes in getting it right the first time, and since it was already done right once by someone else, let's just keep doing the same thing over and over again, 'cause then we can't go wrong. Yes, I'm looking at you with a baleful eye, so-called "Best Practices".

It would be well and good if Singapore somehow froze in a time capsule at about the period when Mr Goh Chok Tong once confidently declared "more good years", but it hasn't. We've moved on and our society, as has the globe around us, changed and keeps on changing. Singaporeans fear change because we once had it so good. And now, despite all our hard work, all the promises, we feel that doing things the way we used to do them will bring the good old days back.

Those days are well past us now. We need Singaporeans to recognize that we live in a new world. The old promises no longer hold true and we must look for new promises grounded in our new reality. We need to find the courage to sail the winds of change once again, and we need to rebuild a strong core of skilled sailors brave enough to tough out uncharted seas ahead. With that in mind, change must begin in our schools...

Your turn: how should schools change, and how will these changes be constructive in developing a local core workforce that is ready for tomorrow? Today.

The heretic

I shall horrify everyone in my profession by posting a link to an article that begins:

"Taking notes during class? Topic-focused study? A consistent learning environment? All are exactly opposite of the best strategies for learning."

Go on, brand me a heretic, but I stand by the quotation... especially with regard to the subject of GP. Yup, Everything You Thought You Knew About Learning Is Wrong.

Personal experience failing through high school reinforces my belief that our cherished methods of 'mugging' do not work, or maybe they don't work for everybody. It's not about being naturally lazy, but focused studying narrows the mind and compartmentalizes the learning.

I won't speak for other subjects, but for GP, there are clearly identifiable long-term lifeskill goals beyond the Cambridge exam at the end of the year. While Sundem gives the example of learning for tennis, it applies to GP as well.

Some colleagues of mine demand that the kids capture every word they speak as if every class was a dictation exercise. We all know teachers like that. In GP, the kids are learning to deal with myriad views in a multiciplicity of layers but taking notes of what-teacher-says confines the note-taker to one point of view as if only Teacher is spewing gospel truth. The note-taking mind is not the questioning mind, and kids need to question everything.

I don't agree with topic-based study either. Although I'm not coaching tennis, I do see that ultimately the kids are engaged in a singular activity with rules and boundaries that define it clearly: they are writers. They may be sitting for an exam, but it's an exam that examines written expression primarily, and only supported by loosely defined topical content.

As a tennis player practices a combination of serves, volleys, backhand smashes and the like, writers are also engaged in bringing many skills to bear on their writing task. The demands of such a complex task need lots of practice in a holistic work environment that engages all skills simultaneously. They have to access a milieu of information given as new material, process it together with their prior knowledge, choose a course of action, and systematically show how their minds have worked through the problem to arrive at the conclusion they are trying to convince us of. Their only means of communicating with us: writing -- hence they have to be trained as writers.

That means the kids, when faced with 12 essay question choices should be able to select any one and respond with confidence. Preparing for 'favourite' question topics and pre-selecting for the kids what topics they can and cannot write on puts them at a severe morale disadvantage even before they arrive at their exam venue. Instead of having open, questioning minds, they enter the exam hall with a narrow range of topics they are confident of and question only their own ability to rise to the challenge.

How are the kids supposed to gain content knowledge, then? It's not by setting topical limits on what is expected to 'come out' this year based on 'past year' trends. You'll have equivalent success reading tea leaves and a crystal ball. You have to set them loose where they can access information on current affairs at random, the way we adults read the newspapers. We don't absorb information topically in real life, so we shouldn't expect the kids to do so either.

The kids learn by making connections. Often their own connections may be wrong, but that is where we come in to guide them. A random selection of news articles invariably trace back to common themes, reinforced through discussion either in oral form within large or small groups or in written essays, shared blog entries, forum postings and wikis, among many other methods of communication available to us today. However, any suggestion of a GP 'textbook' will be an anathema to the subject. Kids, being kids, will take such a tome as the only thing they need to read, and cut themselves off from where the real learning is... in the wild.

If we want to ground the kids on a baseline, we should be grounding them with values, not topics. The test is ultimately about making decisions and standing by them. Regardless of topic, we expect the kids to make judgments based on upright principles based on common human decency. When kids have a handle on their personal yardsticks to tell right from wrong, and what is constructive from destructive; when kids can see what constitutes the 'greater good'; when kids can defend their positions from solid moral beliefs; then we will have done our jobs as GP tutors.

He shoots... he scores!

The kids don't understand the concept of a balanced argument. To them, it's a black and white world. Argue for one position, then flip over and argue for the other position, then arbitrarily pick their favourite position to conclude.

Kids, argumentative writing obeys the rules of soccer. Your team's goal is at the other end of the field. You score points when you score at that end. You lose points and enrage your supporters when you score goals at the end you are defending. There is no half-time switch over (in case any smart alec should raise that observation).

Always approach your argument with a single-minded purpose. Your audience needs to see the clash, the conflict and the eventual victory. True balance is in respecting the rules of engagement, and not in attacking both goalposts on the pitch.

Chasing happiness

Working on a Application Question exercise with the kids. That is, take two articles discussing a similar area of concern, extract relevant points from both from which to spin off a short essay in 20-25 minutes. It's a sort of hand-held practice for Term Paper research and writing. A US high-schooler should ace this test, no problem.

The two stimulus readings are abridged versions of the following:
Foley, Michael. "The Age of Absurdity". Chapter 1.
Cohen, Roger. "The Happynomics of life".

The question the kids had to respond to reads:
[Using the above two readings, blah, blah...] How much emphasis does your society place on the pursuit of happiness? Do you think this is beneficial?

[And, no, I didn't come up with the question, or select the articles either].

Often, the kids' responses show a huge misconception about the nature of the exercise. Without even looking at the question they simply tear into the two articles, looking for one to agree with and one to refute, using examples drawn from the kids' own local experiences.

But unless the question specifically asks for agreement with one author or another, there is no necessity for the kids to do so. And the exercise is meant for the kids to draw points from the articles to support their own observations of their local society expressed in an essay, not the other way around.

For a teaching guide, I came up with my own response to the question. I over-wrote (as usual) but under time pressure, the same as the kids would face under exam conditions. Caution: There is no standard author citation system, but the kids aren't expected to adhere to any due to time constraints -- a brief name-drop does the trick. I'm not entirely happy with it 'cos it turned into more of a rant than I intended; lots of loose ends too and an extremely forced conclusion due to timing-out. But it'll do to show the kids what they can do with focus and more importantly, an approach to the question with clear intent.

Guess what, kids? It's model essay time!

Intruder alert!

Gaaahhh! A creepy face at my window!

Dumb birdbrain is quite insistent on getting past the window pane and INTO MY ROOM!

Momo, the watchcat, scares off the intruder.

WANTED

for attempted housebreaking

Jimmy McPigeon

Reward: 1 pigeon pie

Lost in space

Let's see our PW committee approve this project: Canadian teens send Legonaut 15 miles into atmosphere. It's a conflict, isn't it? Elevation vs gravity. It's a risk, isn't it? OMG, so many risks involved, least of which is losing the investment of $400 worth of equipment if things didn't go as planned.

But all they'd ask is, "what's the point?" Fine. Let's go reinvent another hypothetical "Amazing Race", then.

Standing in a river

It feels strange that I been on campus long enough to watch about two generations of staff move on, and I'm still here. Is it inertia, gravity, or am I one o' them folks who don't see that the grass is greener over yonder?

Oh, what brought this on? Had dinner with colleagues. Such a lot of food, too, as Elim's pix (below) would attest:

And, as Liz remarked, that was just the tip of the iceberg.

Good to know that among us colleagues, our culture of feasting and making merry has remained constant throughout. But if you look at Liz's pix below...

apart from the dark, brooding figure hidden behind a pillar, these are all new faces representing the latest incarnation my rather fluid social circle.

"You could not step twice into the same river; for other waters are ever flowing on to you" (Heraclitus). Word, ancient Greek philosopher dude, word.

Conversation starter

Today's GP session was aimed at shifting attention away from the most boring person in the classroom -- teacher -- and getting the kids stimulated enough to have a proper, focused, discussion in the form of a real conversation instead of the usual random picking of names from a list or a round-robin and forcing the poor, unlucky individual to blurt something before going right back to mental lala-land for the rest of the period.

We fall back on the ol' traditional methods because as teachers, we feel it's our responsibility to keep the information flowing. If there's a question to be answered and everyone is avoiding eye-contact with us, we prompt, cajole and finally give in and call the kid who looks most likely to be falling asleep from the whole leaden atmosphere. We keep our classes quiet only to be pressured into being the one making the most noise.

The kids, themselves, only feel obliged to respond when it's their turn (however that may be arranged) and once they've said their piece, they mentally check out of class with great relief. Wait for bell.

Teaching JC2, there is a unique circumstance I can leverage on to gear tutorials towards a more free-flowing, spontaneous exchange of ideas between different students, with most everyone engaged throughout the discussion. First, there is the time limit that is their final exam (as of today, nine months, tops). Second, we can always keep reminding them how little time we have left to get them ready for the finals -- that makes them really antsy. In physics, we call this 'potential energy'.

The switch transforming potential to kinetic energy is in me lowering my status by sitting down so that my head doesn't tower over anyone else's. I distribute the discussion material and tell them that I haven't prepared anything for the discussion, showing them a blank tutorial worksheet as evidence. It starts out as a painful silence. They might beg to revert to the old call-random-person routine again to break the tension but I refuse, remaining silent. Tick, tick, tick... kids, that's the sound of seconds ticking away to your final exams. Wanna learn something? Better venture something.

Now's the time to be sensitive. If there is a vibe of growing rebellion, order a reprieve and allow them to 'rehearse' their discussion in smaller groups first. Don't bother organizing, they can organize themselves. Otherwise, the bolder individuals would offer tentative stabs at the discussion material, and that's when I can swing into action. Take what they offer, rephrase it, contextualize it, focus it, encourage them and thank them for their contribution, and always throw the thought back for someone else to nibble. The next offering may be for a different thought, but that's fine, do the same as before and throw it back. It's important that it appears that I am listening intently to the speaker 'cos the other kids will feel more at ease to offer their thoughts and so it spreads.

It's important that the energy built up is passed on quickly between participants in the conversation. Speed keeps the discussion interesting, and the more participants there are, the less likely anyone is going to lose interest.

Will the discussion be monopolized by the more vocal kids? It's inevitable, but try often to encourage the more quiet kids to make an offer during lulls. Hopefully they'll pick up and join the crowd, or we just have to hope they're listening and taking notes 'cos they're not naturally the gregarious type.

Apart from the pain of awkward silences at first, it's a risky operation. Depending on how boisterous a tutorial group can get, it may look to others that classroom discipline has gone out the window. Kids may misinterpret your intentions and complain that you don't come to class prepared, or that you're not teaching the content in a systematic manner that they can understand, or that the lesson is not focused on the exam enough. Or you could have a really 'duh' class which takes the silence as an opportunity to catch up on some other fiercer teacher's homework or take a nap 'cos it seems like a better use of their time. Ah, all the hazards of student-centered learning, depending on how perverse the student centre can be.

But we ARE prepared, though we tell the kids we aren't. Nevertheless, improvising responses on the fly can be quite stressful for the I-must-know-all-the-answers kind of teacher. Thankfully I'm quite prepared to celebrate my ignorance, so that doesn't bother me in the least.

But it is difficult to learn subject content this way. Ideas keep moving faster than it takes to write them all down. So what's the point? In these discussions, the kids learn to listen to one another and view a focused topic of interest from a multitude of their own perspectives. They learn to share ideas with one another, and that shared ideas can be built upon to create bigger, better ideas. They learn to learn, and maybe that's the most important lesson of all. Once they've got that figured out, they're ready to take their finals, and free themselves of their dependence on teachers forever.

Whose Internet is it?

I am watching some watershed events unfolding now that may have long term repercussions on the Internet and how it is to be used to share information.Where once the online community freely traded, bartered and "appropriated" information, what we are looking at today is that suddenly the market has dropped in to regulate the chaos.

Although SOPA and PIPA were bloodied by an online revolt last week, they have in effect taken a time-out to regroup and figure out how to come out swinging again. But while we were distracted with the rhetoric, big business and the feds acted and took down Megaupload -- hardware, software, wetware and all. And, as the online rebels predicted would happen, similar file-sharing sites have opted to self-censor in order to evade the copyright avengers' threat radar.

The message is clear. Henceforth, no one will transact information with anyone else without the exchange of hard currency. The market has come to the 'net and, whether directly or indirectly, we will pay for what we wish to share and for what we wish to take. It may not have gone that far yet, but if the free users of the 'net don't make their voices heard, that will be the direction it'll go once we accept this incident as a legal precedent.

Here's the thing: who owns the interwebs and can hence act with impunity on it? Can we free users continue to flout legally established copyrights and enjoy others' works without paying them their due; or can big business take away what we claim is our right to share any kind of information as we please?

Sad to say, it is the latter to whom our digital playground belongs. Unless we have been able to build our Internet access infrastructure ourselves from scratch, our computers, operating systems, browsers and even our networks are store-bought (or subscribed to) from big business. While it served them to let us in and play for free, or at least cheap, they've decided that now we can't get enough of what we have, it's time to start making us pay for the privilege. Oldest marketing trick in the book.

'Revenge!' scream the hacks of Anonymous, who activate their LOIC to down the websites of the Authorities like the DOJ, MPAA and RIAA with DDoS attacks. Juvenile, and hurts no one that matters. No one visits those websites voluntarily, anyway. It's all just vandalism and venting.

There's one way we free users can take back the 'net, though. Last week's revolt showed us the way. But I doubt many of us would like it. If a 24-hour Internet strike worked well enough to make the legislative body rethink we'd sheepishly accept their hare-brained scheme to take away our freedom; think of what a whole summer's boycott of Hollywood blockbusters would do to make the moguls see what our freedom is worth.

Yes, I'm saying the heck with all the delicious, to salivate over, fanboy-orgasmic blockbusters! Though we may once have been frothing at the mouth downloading their trailers while waiting for opening day, now we won't even buy their pathetic 3D high-def Blu-Ray DVD releases after they bomb at the box-office.

But what will we do for entertainment then, you ask? I say, support all indie productions, all low-budget, freely-distributed online content made by amateurs who don't expect to be paid for their work but are happy enough just to be watched or heard. Lots of that around, since the Internet can make us media producers in one way or another. A few stalwarts still even blog text. Ahem.

So, Hollywood blockbuster boycott that will bankrupt the greedy major studios in 2012 and show them who the Internet really belongs to? Anyone?

Caveat emptor

The issue of high ministerial salaries for our government representatives is bound to hit a sour note among the electorate, but it seems to me that answering one bad argument with another does not help make the debate any more constructive.

'Chye tow kway' is a common breakfast dish sold cheaply in hawker centres in S'pore. The question is, what does it represent in the above cartoon? I think it stands for peace, prosperity, opportunities for all regardless of background and heritage, and a strong international standing in the global community. I don't know if it's because of high salaries for ministers that's how these enviable national qualities have come to be, but I do know that they are worth a lot more than a mere plate of chye tow kway, whether it costs $1.50 or $10.00.

But if the cartoonist is willing to consider what we have as cheaply obtainable, he's taking his life, comforts and freedoms for granted. What we have today, many people are still deprived of; many are still fighting and shedding blood for it; while some -- like us -- are finding it a constant struggle to maintain. I know of someone who gave away his birthright for a bowl of lentil soup. Don't give yours away for a plate of chye tow kway.

Property J-V

So much for my earlier protestations of financial prudence. The Wongs are determined to sink money in property... and we are now committed. In a three-way joint-venture, we've pooled our resources to purchase a SOHO unit in an upcoming waterfront development.

Location is easily accessible as it incorporates a public transport hub; offers immediate access to a mega shopping and entertainment complex; and proximity to outdoor recreation and watersports facilities. The inclusion of an additional 'shareholder' spreads the cost outlay and risk to a more bearable load. And because the unit is a SOHO, the rental pool opens up not just to tenants looking for a place to stay but also to businesses looking for office space as well. Or even a combination of both.

It also helps that the units in this development are selling fast. All the while we were looking at the showroom, the in-house announcements kept us up-to-date with unit numbers just sold. It wasn't long before a familiar number boomed over the in-house speakers, sealing the deal.

Here's hoping that at least our new piece of real estate can eventually pay for itself. Either way, it looks like voluntary retirement is still a long way off.

Laughter is not necessarily a prerequisite

Satire is a bi*ch. Execute it well -- and you're a major broadcaster -- score an Emmy nomination. But if your're a fourteen-year-old, you could piss off an entire community and attract a lot of online rage. Kid's vid ostensibly spoofing Chinese New Year has infuriated netizens who, as usual, are baying for blood over the outrage.

The grating put-on ABC accent; the raw, in-your-face treatment; the disjointed jump cuts; and the inane dialogue between white-shirt and green-shirt (which effectively doubles the number of irritating on-screen characters to hate) are all designed to set the viewer's teeth on edge.

But the fact that the negative responses drawn now number in the thousands shows how easily and royally our self-righteous community defenders have been punked. I'm impressed with the vid's ability to annoy. I'll be more impressed if the juvenile perp can turn this tide of negative popularity into his advantage.

Li'l Amos is no gormless Ris Low (I refuse to dignify her nonsense with any links) who gets by on say-anything, dare-anything for the sake of amassing flung tomatoes. His vid was carefully scripted, performed and edited. Yes, it was a performance, not mocking Chinese New Year as people get on first impression, but a self-deprecatory caricature of ignorant, multi-generational overseas Chinese who have lost their roots and think America is where culture comes from.

Personally, I didn't find his subject matter funny. But comedy is such that laughter is not necessarily a prerequisite to getting the comic's point across. I appreciate the effort taken in the portrayal of this character who only a mother could love. I admire the kamikaze approach which caused so many people to reexamine their culture and beliefs and conclude that their 'rootedness' was so much superior to a fictional character's. Dudes, you let a fourteen-year-old play his game... and win.

If he is a good S'porean child, he would take this experience to heart; be contrite and learn from his elders; and never be heard from again. I sincerely hope he isn't. This kid knows comedy. He may not have found a schtik that works for him yet, but he deserves to be nurtured. The Force is strong with this one (ed. like it was with Anakin Skywalker).

In the meantime, I'm proving I know what my Chinese heritage is all about. This New Year, apart from stuffing my face with delicious MSG-laded grub and gaily handing out red-packets of greenbacks to grubby-fingered children, I have also 1) played second dragon segment bearer in the staff dragon dance item, and 2) tried my hand at the venerable art form of Chinese calligraphy (below).

I think it means, like, "smooth sailing ahead", or something. Anyway, that's my wish for you too! Happy CNY!

Trust issues

I'm sure whoever's in charge of RAMS would shake their head in disapproval. Kids charging eyes shut headlong into their friends whom we hope will catch them in time before they careen into a wall or stray furniture.

NYeDC is working on trust exercises, very important for building team coordination and group spirit. Although thratre allows individual performers a chance to shine, how brightly anyone can shine depends entirely on everyone involved; backstage, onstage, upstage, downstage, all working together with near telepathic precision to make the whole production shine.

Trust is being able to cope with the deprivation of one or more of our senses, keeping faith that our teammates are there to offer strength where we are weak and vice versa.

The trusty 'mirror' exercise. No one leads, no one follows. Movement is both spontaneous and shared between two dynamic, yet coordinated bodies.

Friends bear each other's weight. Friends don't let their friends fall down. Kids haven't quite figured out the point of this game: support is mutual. Instead of one supporting the weight of the other, both should be able to take on an off-balance position such that gravity acting on one falling body itself provides the force to prevent the other body from falling. Ok, complicated concept.

One thing I like that's different about our training programme this year is the discipline of updating a journal of personal reflections after each session. It's a great way to focus on the various random thoughts we've had while doing the exercises or during rehearsals, and coalesce them into useful and coherent ideas before they are forgotten like so much smoke in the wind. Wonder why we never thought of doing it before?

In other news, Mengs has arranged a crew of staff -- including yours truly -- to dragon dance in celebration of CNY at this Friday's event. I settled for third segment from the head. I don't think any of us were prepared for the dragon to have to swoop so vigorously. It always looked easy and graceful when other people do it. Our respective spouses and girlfriends are busy massaging our aching shoulders as we speak...

A tangle of limbs

Once in a while, I catch my boys in rather... unmanly poses.

Could they both be exhausted from fighting over the same spot on the sofa, or could they just be really, really good friends?

Technological progress goes backwards

Been have a major problem hosting my collection of 'model' (i.e., self-written under test conditions) essays in such a way that make them easily accessible via hotlinks in my blog entries. And since I'm cheap, for free.

In desperation, I went back to search my once old reliable, GeoCities, which Yahoo killed off quite a while ago. I found Geocities.ws, which after experimenting a while works the way I like. Upload file, make a hyperlink, model essay pops out in a new tab. No fuss, no muss, and FoC. Yay!

Will be transferring my archive from Skydrive (which I couldn't hyperlink to properly) to the new host real soon. Will also be updating the links in my previous posts, though that could take some time yet.

For today, just be satisfied with this:

The question asks us to comment on a quote from Huxley: "Technological progress has merely provided us with the most efficient means for going backwards."

It is quite a difficult question involving nested layers. The trick is to identify a fixed point or two that you can orbit your variables around. My first fixed point is to lock technology down as a general concept without being tempted to get specific with it; while the second is to keep the interpretation of "going backwards" focused on our escalating conflicts over resources. In truth, such a vague quotation can be interpreted in many ways, but a good argumentative looks for parameters within which truth can hold. Even so, I had to exceed the word limit in order to do this question justice. Completion time: 1hr 15min.

Condo dreams go poof

Our recent explorations in the property market required a chat with our FA. Since he knows our current financial situation, he could point out to us our one big dealbreaker: for the condo penthouse we're looking at, there's no way any bank will loan us that kind of cash to pay for it.

Looking at us, because we haven't finished paying off our current property, the bank will only loan us 40%, tops. If the loan went in May's name, legally the bank can only loan her no more than 35% of her monthly income.

Either way, to make up the difference between the asking price and what the bank is prepared to finance, we'll have to go find a friendly neighbourhood ah-long who would only be too happy to bridge the gap for us, and throw in a free exterior paint job every month as his kind are wont to do.

Thankfully, we kept cool and didn't get pressured to sign anything last night. Otherwise we'll have to get bitten by a vampire in order to live long enough to finish paying what we would be owing to pretty much everyone. Even if we work nights.

A nest in hand

The Wongs are looking at a condo development not far from where we are currently staying. Walking through the developer's mock-up apartments, it's hard the not be tempted by the clean, shiny surfaces and slick ideas for making small spaces look larger than they are. The sales talk and concept drawings are likewise persuasive, promising a resort-like environment where life away from work can be a permanent vacation. Big sigh.

Particularly droolsome is one of the penthouse units with an open skylight for staring out into space at night to observe the heavenly bodies in their nocturnal progressions. For the asking price, all fixtures and fittings are thrown in, except lighting -- almost move-in condition already upon completion of infrastructure construction.

The plan: two Wong households occupy a single penthouse which includes a downstairs studio apartment. Our existing HDB apartments are to be rented out, the proceeds of which will finance the loan for the condo unit.

The Wongs have lots to think about and discuss before the night is over. Our sales rep can't hold the unit too long and has given us 24 hours to commit...

This is not a decision to rush into, though. Other people doing the math for us is likely to overlook or understate important variables that may cause us to regret any over-enthusiastic autograph signing at this time. Fortunately, the Wongs are also willing to err on the side of caution and seek more objective advice on the current and near-future property situation.

My bottom-line is this: I haven't yet finished paying for one, and I'm not keen to start paying for another. For me, living off rental income is counting eggs before they're hatched. It's a caution that's holding me back from being rich, but then I don't like the potential money pit I'm looking at right now.

"Pay no attention to the man..."

For all the forward-thinking that we undertake on the kids' behalf to train them in survival skills for the 21st century, sometimes all they want to do is just pass their exams.

Just took over a new class due to some internal shuffling. Perhaps it wasn't the best strategy to go all meta-subject on them right at my introduction. I thought since they'd already been trained for a year in the subject, they would appreciate a behind-the-scenes look at what they have actually been learning, and what they will be taking away with them once their finals are over.

If it were me, I'd personally like to know that what I'd learned are skills for apprehending the unknown, integrating new knowledge with prior knowledge, making key decisions by appraising available options, and for dealing with information overload. For this bunch, it was all too much, too fast. Shall we just say that they went Yahoo all over my Gulliver?

I realize that my classes can be something like "Magic's Greatest Secrets Finally Revealed". My fellow magicians may hate me for the show-all; tell-all, but I don't care -- that's my schtik; my claim to infamy. But I forget that for the kids, sometimes it's more rewarding to simply marvel at the magic than see the Wizard for what he truly is -- gears and levers; smoke and mirrors. It's all really just clever engineering.

The kids still firmly believe the myth that hard work will pay off. It does, but only if the work objectives are clear; the work crew is organized; the right tools are applied to the right job; and all activity functions according to a systematic process. Incessantly picking at rocks isn't necessarily going to net you a pretty diamond because that's only the beginning of a long chain of other complementary activities that eventually lead to the final product. Likewise, endlessly practicing past exam papers isn't necessarily going to score you an 'A' (especially in GP).

So what should I do with this lot? First, I have to shed their perception of me as a snake-oil flogging huckster by proving my credibility as a true magician. When they are finally dazzled and convinced, then I can come back in with my you-can-do-it-too sales pitch. Implication: expect a few more 'model' essays in the days to come...