Janet picks up her fortune cookie,
Then puts it down, turns to her friend:
“Don’t bank too much on youth. Your rookie
Season is drawing to an end.
John, things we would – when young – not think of,
Start to make sense when, on the brink of
Thirtydom, we pause to scan
What salves and salads cannot ban,
The earliest furrows on our faces,
The loneliness within our souls,
Our febrile clawing for mean goals,
Our programmed cockfights and rat races,
Our dreary dignity, false pride,
And hearts stored in formaldehyde.

– Vikram Seth, The Golden Gate

No worries – no anxiety. Just reading a very good book and felt those were awesome lines.

I wrote about this before when I received my first 13th month payment and I was confused about what it entailed exactly.

It’s time to kill this beast, as with other beasts that have stalked and skulked around our society menacingly and unnecessarily.

To help us in doing so, please read this post which clarifies the idea of the payment of salaries i.e. one is paid consistently for all days of work, so the 13th month payment is an entitlement and not a privilege.

For comparison, this is what the Ministry of Manpower has to say about it:

The Annual Wage Supplement (AWS) is commonly known as the 13th month payment. It is a single annual payment to employees that supplements the total amount of annual wage earned by them.

Payment of AWS depends on the contractual agreement between the employer and the employee i.e. whether it is provided for in the employment contract or collective agreement.

If it is not stipulated in the employment contract, AWS payment is subject to negotiation and mutual agreement between the employer and employee, or the trade union representing the employee.

That’s why some people have been short-changed by their employers or have been unfairly conditioned into believing the ’13th month payment’ is a bonus.

The Laremy Lee version.

1. Human beings are animals.
   That’s why you can learn a lot about humanity by watching Dog Whisperer. That’s also why we need rules and boundaries to maintain order, especially when…
2. Human beings are like currents – they follow the path of least resistance.
   Not everyone is altruistic enough to do that which takes effort to be done, hence the solution in (1).
3. Every child is a reflection of her/his parents. Similarly, every student is a reflection of her/his teacher(s).
   A lackadaisical child/student is the product of lackadaisical parents/teachers.
4. From (3), the way a child/student speaks is the exact same way her/his parents/teachers speak.
   A polite, eloquent child/student is the product of polite and eloquent parents/teachers. Ill-mannered, uncouth and impolite children/students…
   
   By the way, not to belabour the point, but this is also why the Speak Good English Movement will never succeed – because it addresses the wrong target audience.
5. In most situations, less is more.
   That’s why I’m ending here.

What are some of your hard truths?

Also, if anyone can design/customise a picture for me (i.e. include my picture as well) based on the original text, I’d be very grateful!

A long time ago, a friend asked why we write ‘Absent with Apologies’ on minutes.

“If it were me, I’d write it as ‘Absent with Glee’ instead,” she said, “because I’d much rather be absent from a meeting than in it!”

Thenceforth, I decided that if I were to ever run a company or an organisation, my first mandate would be to instruct my minute-taking minions to only ever write ‘Absent with Glee’ instead of ‘Absent with Apologies’.

Otherwise, they’d find themselves the next ones listed under the ‘Absent with Apologies’ column at the next meeting.

*

‘Absent with Apologies’ makes sense, because it’s much more polite than just being plain ‘Absent’.

But I’ve been absent from this space with both apologies and some degree of glee, because I’ve been busy, mainly with work.

On that note, I thought I’d share with everyone something that transpired in the classroom today – this is one of those things that has resulted in my absence.

If I can refer you to the picture above again, you can see I’ve listed out some principles for good idea design, especially ideas involving getting human beings to carry out things you want them to do.

I decided to write this down today because:

• I found myself repeating stuff I had said before yet again because the kids hadn’t really understood what I was telling them. Or perhaps what I was telling wasn’t making sense.
• This is something I’ve been thinking about for a while, and I think this is one of the easiest ways to understand what makes ideas work.

For those of you without image suppork, what is written on the board in the pig-ture is as follows:

Mr Laremy’s Principles for GI = EE.

1. Human beings are animals (piglets) – regulations/processes are needed (DON’T ASSUME THEY WILL DO IT).
2. Human beings are like currents – they follow the path of least resistance (MAKE IT EASY FOR THEM TO DO IT).

From (1) and (2): [Create] INCENTIVE [for them to do what you want them to do].

If you [yourself] won’t carry out the idea, don’t suggest it!

I hope there’s some kind of ‘meta’ element to this i.e. I hope what I wrote on the board fulfills those two principles.

In any case, the juxtaposition of the student and the ideas on the board is quite unfortunate, but you have it on good authority that this is her default look… LOL.

Just a heads up: I’ll be speaking at the upcoming WriteCamp Singapore 2011 on “Singapore Literature: Where we should be going”.

In the talk – which I’m giving in my own personal capacity – I’ll discuss:

• Why Singapore Literature needs to be taught in Singapore schools,
• Why this hasn’t been happening, and
• What Singaporean writers should do to reverse this trend.

–

When is WriteCamp and what’s it about? From the SWF website:

Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2011
Time: 2pm – 6pm
Venue: Seminar Rooms 1 and 2, National Museum of Singapore
Price of Admission: FREE!

WriteCamp is SWF’s take on the “unconference” – a dynamic, user-generated series of workshops and talks where presenters share their knowledge to small, passionate audiences.

Each session is typically 30 minutes, with two or three sessions running concurrently so that audiences have the luxury of choice while speakers have to keep their talks snappy and insightful.

Topics can cover the craft of writing, tips on publishing, or other writing-related subjects.

Apart from fun networking and the buzz of spontaneous creativity, Writecamp promises to shed new light on writers and writing too!

Have an idea for a talk? Send it to writecamp.swf@gmail.com with your topic and contact details and we’ll get in touch with you if it’s selected.

Please join me, either as a listener or as a speaker, if you can. You can sign up for the event here or browse the SWF website for more details.

See you there!

Elyot: (seriously) You mustn’t be serious, my dear one; it’s just what they want.

Amanda: Who’s they?

Elyot: All the futile moralists who try to make life unbearable. Laugh at them. Be flippant. Laugh at everything, all their sacred shibboleths. Flippancy brings out the acid in their damned sweetness and light.

Amanda: If I laugh at everything, I must laugh at us too.

Elyot: Certainly you must. We’re figures of fun all right.

– Noel Coward, Private Lives.

Also relevant:

…we have to…be able to laugh at ourselves – because if we can’t laugh at ourselves when you (sic) are standing on a pedestal (sic), somebody is going to knock you (sic) down.

– Lee Hsien Loong, Prime Minister’s National Day Rally Speech 2006.

My latest article on POSKOD.SG.

Ten Steps to Effective Online Commentary.
A guide to online criticism and debate. (Mostly criticism.)

So, you’ve got an Internet connection, an opinion and some spare time on your hands.

Congratulations! Like everyone else and their blogs, you are now a media hub.

Before you commence e-hurling your iNtellectualism @ the rest of the world, here are ten steps to effective online commentary, the cyber-Singaporean way.

1. Increase your Internet presence.Set up a website on socio-political issues in Singapore and give it a cerebral, subtle and unique moniker, something like Socially Political SG: Thinking About Socially Political in Singapore.What you have to say is, after all, very ‘niche’, and no one thinks about critical issues affecting our nation in as classy or as astute a manner as you do.
2. Read widely.Turn to Google and Wikipedia for all your edificatory needs.Besides being the only scholarly sources that can be found on the face of the earth, they are also the most reliable, according to teenage students who take a great deal of pride in referencing “en.wikipedia.org” and “ehow.com” in their homework submissions.
3. Participate in community discussions on a consistent basis.Trawl other websites and forums every hour and leave comments on other posts, regardless of whether or not your advice is sound and/or logical.Bear in mind that we are a democracy, and democracy, as translated from the Greek, means ‘many people shouting loudly at each other in a self-important fashion’.

   Moreover, your counsel serves to affirm and validate the existence of ‘netizens’.

   Never underestimate the value of this, even if netizens do not seem to mention their appreciation of your beneficence, or worse, if they seem to respond negatively to what you say.

(continued…)

So after the first round of the Singapore Presidential Election 2011 (PE2011) results came out last night, I posted this status update on Twitter and Facebook:

If there’s gonna be a recount, can I also recast my vote?

Subsequently, I received comments/@replies to do with breast-beating and vote-splitting.

I also had the pleasure of reading similar-sounding status updates around the same time.

.  .  .  (or maybe -_- ?)

To clarify:

1. When I posted that update, I meant it as a tongue-in-cheek critique of the decision to proceed with the recount.

   I was fully aware that a recasting of the vote was and is impossible (although I think a run-off vote might be a good idea in the future so that the candidate that is elected goes into office with the support of a clear and distinct majority).

   What I meant was: look, if the difference was 100 votes, I’d wholeheartedly say yes to the recount. But if the difference was 7000 votes, how far off could the vote-counters have been?

   Was it not a waste of the vote-counters’ and the electorate’s time with a decision that was logical in theory but not in practice?

2. Most importantly, there was no self-recrimination going on when I made that update.

   I think it was a fair contest (to a certain extent, of course – and educated readers are already aware of the extents I am referring to).

   However, there was much recrimination on the parts of others.

   Many people were complaining about how the vote had been split, and if Tan Jee Say and Tan Kin Lian hadn’t contested, Tan Cheng Bock wouldn’t've have had his vote share eroded, and he would’ve become the elected President instead.

   I agree that the vote was split in that there were four candidates, so each candidate garnered a share of the vote, however large (or small) it might’ve been.

   But to quote a friend on Facebook:

   Democracy means I suck thumb and accept this Tan.

   There were four candidates; we voted; the Tan of our choice didn’t get in – deal with it.

P.S. To preempt any criticism regarding the picture at the top of my post: yes, I’m also aware that Sparta used to be an oligarchy…

P.P.S. Yawning Bread and Yee Jenn Jong have quite interesting takes on PE2011.

When I go into the polling booth tomorrow, I’ll be voting for Tan Jee Say.

I’m a bit late – I guess that makes me a swing voter? Heh.

Nevertheless, the decision to vote for Tan Jee Say only crystallised early this morning, after I did some long and hard soul searching.

In short, my decision has been based on how:

• We need leaders who have the vision and the moral courage to do what is right and stand up for things that are wrong – not managers who do what is easy and follow the status quo, even in the face of possible wrong-doings.
• Gravitas is extrinsic but ethics and morality is intrinsic; the former can be learnt, but the latter… Well, the latter can be ‘learnt’ too. But if you don’t have a heart, you just don’t – and people can see it.

Last but not least – and this is the most important reason of all – it’s time we did the right thing.

We spend so much time telling our children to do the right thing: be upright people; tell the truth as it is and not what you hope it to be; care for your fellow human beings; don’t cut corners; serve your community and nation with pride.

Imagine if I go into the polling booth on Saturday and place a cross next to a candidate who:

• Will not hesitate to curtail a person’s freedom, or at least, will perpetuate the ignominy of taking away a person’s dignity; or
• Will be easily satisfied in preventing transparency rather than enabling it; or
• Will allow discrimination against ordinary human beings like you and me to carry on unabated, or at least, fail to prevent hatred from spreading; or worse,
• Does not even have the courage to order his child not to skive or shy away from meaningful but laborious service?

If I vote for a person like that, how do I, in all good conscience, then go into class on Wednesday morning and look my students in the eye and say: hey kids, I did the right thing?

I’d be a morally bankrupt individual if I did that.

So come Saturday, I’ll be voting with my conscience, and I’ll be voting for Tan Jee Say. Come with?

(NOTE: For the young ‘uns, the title of this post and the image is a reference to a song by the Sex Pistols.)

I’m quite tired of people hijacking the event popularly known as the London ‘riots’ for their own agenda.

Some examples:

• “This justifies the strict laws against rioting and protesting we have in Singapore”.
• “This is why we need to love our government, regardless of whoever is in the government”.

I don’t think those two claims are relevant or appropriate to the situation.

The first misses the larger point – this is not a riot, but simply a case of looting and theft carried out by opportunists who have purposefully disregarded social mores and notions of prop(ri)erty.

The second claim entails a blind subservience without moderation or calibration; a one or the other approach seldom makes sense, especially in contexts like these.

In my opinion, the most pertinent issues that seem to have conveniently been forgotten are:

1. How this scumbaggery has been wrongly labelled a ‘riot’ or a ‘protest.
   This merely legitimises the actions of the looters and thefts and encourages them to be bolder in their impunity.
2. How everything including the kitchen sink is wrongful fodder for blame with regard to these acts of “feral” scumbaggery.
   When in actual fact, the adage of “Those who criticise [the younger] generation forget who raised it” has never rung truer.

These articles may flesh out my arguments better:

1. The UK riots and language: ‘rioter’, ‘protester’ or ‘scum’?
   (via Yu-Mei)

2. Britain’s liberal intelligentsia has smashed virtually every social value.
   (via Andrew)

BTW with regard to the second article, I disagree with the portion on the “destr[uction of] the traditional nuclear family”.

I think the traditional nuclear family is ONE of the ways in which the problem of “a world where the parent is unwilling or incapable of providing the loving and disciplined framework that a child needs in order to thrive” can be resolved.

Also, I’m advocating a moderate approach to parenting/discipline – it’s okay to ‘let children be’, but at times you really have to rein them in.