This post is dedicated to ranting, ranting about the need to sound professional almost all the time.
1. Letter in a bottle
We all want things to be in order, in a certain format/style, wherever, whenever. Does growing up really mean that one has to give up style in expressing oneself? This was during Newton's times.
2. The Telegraph
One may argue that the concept of a standard universe was destroyed along with Napoleon Bonaparte. It did, however, come back with Otto von Bismarck, as he gloriously led Prussia into victory in 1871. That to me dawned the glorification of machines. A British would argue otherwise, that the Industrial Revolution that happened in Britain made use of sophisticated machines since the start of the 19th century, and even spread technology of steam and rail to Europe and India.
3. The rise of the Speed-post
Speed-post (the snail mail in its fastest form) travel by air. In my primary and secondary school, which really wasn't so long ago, I had learnt how to write a formal and informal letter. That was how speed-post worked. You either write a formal letter, or an informal one.
4. The rise of pager
Message in the shortest form. You can page a person by dialling the receiver's pager number (which is like a mobile number). What the person does is to find a public phone to return your call. Occasionally, "happy birthday" or codes can be sent.
5. The rise of the email
Email started to get popular in the late 1980s. It was so new, nobody really used it. When someone did use it, it was for leisure purposes, for the novelty of it. It was the new cool, I remembered. I also remembered typing my friend's name in the "To:" field. Amazing. Even a three-year-old knows how to email now, I kid you not, without making the mistakes I made when I was 11.
6. MSN: The rise of instant chat
It was in the 1990s, when it became such a big thing. I was in primary school, and dating a boy in class, through MSN chats. All sorts of crap language we used. lol. nvm la, stil gt tmr 2 solv e prb.
7. Ding-dong! Sms!
In case you're wondering, that's a famous ringtone for SMS in Singapore. SMS got really popular in the late 1990s. They were used for informal purposes. Texting became a big thing only after Starhub started its 700-free-sms-per-month scheme for $10, in 2003. SMS language was very popular for a period of time.
8. Friendster - the prehistoric Facebook
That was a platform where one could add as many friends as one could find, to show off to the world how popular one was. The profile page could be decorated, and description could be made. It was in the beginning years of the millennium.
9. Blog!
Gone were the days when one had only one audience. A blog offers incredible viewership. Initially started as an online diary, it quickly deviated towards pro-blogging - making money, and sharing expertise online.
10. What's App/BBM
If you don't know what BBM and what's app are, you're quite outdated. BBM stands for Blackberry Messenger, which allows one to instantly write to a Blackberry user overseas for free (similar to email, but friendlier). What's app is an application for groups of people from anywhere in the world to "msn" and sms at the same time. One can share pictures, weblinks and whatnot, and one sends it to another person's phone number instead of email address. Currently, it's still very new, and considered cool to be part of.
Alas. I'm still cool. But I really dislike the fact that there are so many rules in writing that has evolved with non-verbal, written communications. I think creativity and personality are really important, and I'm not prepared to give them up in my letter formats and styles.
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
Saturday, February 25, 2012
Giving in India
I'm writing on giving/gifting in India, on how, and why, it is done, amongst merchants, towards both religious and secular institutions. I'm going mad because there isn't enough sources for me to write on. Yet, there are more than what I require, for me to consolidate, gather, and make sense of. Big terms like Social capital by Pierre Bordieau, Sanskritization by M.N. Srinivas, Credit by C.A. Bayly, and vicarious ritualization by Milton Singer, got my brain overheating. And off I go in search to make sense of these vague terms. Other than my secret glee of knowing the names and works of these scholars (anthropologists, sociologists, ethnologists, historian), all these seem transient. So transient, the next semester I would be looking at a bunch of different names.
I somehow feel that I'm a paparazzi following the works of these scholars. I dream them, read them, memorize them, recite them, apply them. Gosh.
As if I would need any of these when I graduate. The unfortunate thing is that I take a long time to remember what they say, and eternity thereafter to forget what they say. The education system about force-feeding, vormitting, and carrying on, isn't really what I'm apt at.
Significance: It is understood that Indian merchants spend a lot of money on giving, through the ages, much more than their Western counterparts. It is also noted that generally, they give to religious causes, education/public works and infrastructure, and political causes.
Irony of explaining how they give: They have given to various causes through the ages. However, Rudner argues that the Chettiars stated giving to secular causes only because of the British, and calls it religious endowments (Palsetia also uses the term in Parsis), which connotes an extremely capitalistic slant. Similarly, Douglas Haynes argues that there is a shift from offering tribute to giving philanthropy, because of the British, arguing that it is clever politics at work. Milton Singer proposes that it has to do with Hinduism, that it is the effect of Sanskritization, as opposed to the Weberian thesis on Hinduism being incompatible with capitalism.
Is there a dichotomy between religious giving and secular giving, or is it an extension of giving in general? If so, is it linked to Hinduism?
Why they give:
1.Religious – Hinduism, want to get to heaven
2.Economic – advertising par excellence, networking, creditworthiness
3.Social – altruism might bring forth fruits that might be valuable
4.Reputation – part of the “vicarious ritualization”, increasing one’s social capital
5.Political – want their names to be kept forever, either in names of buildings, or knighthood, or political titles
*Note: motives can never be generic and they are very often guesswork. Avoid postulating the exact reasons they start out with. Rather, look at a list of reasons for giving.
Is there a pattern to the giving across India? Could the pattern be extended to Asia in general (NAKS)? Why or why not? Is this form of giving similar to the Western concept of philanthropy? Why or why not?
"I'm your biggest fan I'll follow you until you love me, papa-, paparazzi" - Lady Gaga
I somehow feel that I'm a paparazzi following the works of these scholars. I dream them, read them, memorize them, recite them, apply them. Gosh.
As if I would need any of these when I graduate. The unfortunate thing is that I take a long time to remember what they say, and eternity thereafter to forget what they say. The education system about force-feeding, vormitting, and carrying on, isn't really what I'm apt at.
Significance: It is understood that Indian merchants spend a lot of money on giving, through the ages, much more than their Western counterparts. It is also noted that generally, they give to religious causes, education/public works and infrastructure, and political causes.
Irony of explaining how they give: They have given to various causes through the ages. However, Rudner argues that the Chettiars stated giving to secular causes only because of the British, and calls it religious endowments (Palsetia also uses the term in Parsis), which connotes an extremely capitalistic slant. Similarly, Douglas Haynes argues that there is a shift from offering tribute to giving philanthropy, because of the British, arguing that it is clever politics at work. Milton Singer proposes that it has to do with Hinduism, that it is the effect of Sanskritization, as opposed to the Weberian thesis on Hinduism being incompatible with capitalism.
Is there a dichotomy between religious giving and secular giving, or is it an extension of giving in general? If so, is it linked to Hinduism?
Why they give:
1.Religious – Hinduism, want to get to heaven
2.Economic – advertising par excellence, networking, creditworthiness
3.Social – altruism might bring forth fruits that might be valuable
4.Reputation – part of the “vicarious ritualization”, increasing one’s social capital
5.Political – want their names to be kept forever, either in names of buildings, or knighthood, or political titles
*Note: motives can never be generic and they are very often guesswork. Avoid postulating the exact reasons they start out with. Rather, look at a list of reasons for giving.
Is there a pattern to the giving across India? Could the pattern be extended to Asia in general (NAKS)? Why or why not? Is this form of giving similar to the Western concept of philanthropy? Why or why not?
Saturday, February 11, 2012
in view of february
[please be informed that this is my last posting till March; unless my blogger itch comes on rapidly]
1. Good health, for myself and my loved ones.
2. Happiness and peace for myself and my loved ones.
3. Happily ever after, with him.
4. To know that you care for me (whomever you are, something thoughtful, like a smile or an sms, would be very nice indeed)
5. Hoping that I'm never in dire lack of money (been lucky so far).
6. Good grades for exams.
7. I wish JX and I could be friends again. Sigh.
8. Catch-up with the girls of my life (secondary, jc, church)
9. That I've the courage to go back to [where my heart had been for the longest while]
10. That I could have more courage to face up to the world and to myself, and not having to avoid people, to do what I desire, without thinking so much
1. Good health, for myself and my loved ones.
2. Happiness and peace for myself and my loved ones.
3. Happily ever after, with him.
4. To know that you care for me (whomever you are, something thoughtful, like a smile or an sms, would be very nice indeed)
5. Hoping that I'm never in dire lack of money (been lucky so far).
6. Good grades for exams.
7. I wish JX and I could be friends again. Sigh.
8. Catch-up with the girls of my life (secondary, jc, church)
9. That I've the courage to go back to [where my heart had been for the longest while]
10. That I could have more courage to face up to the world and to myself, and not having to avoid people, to do what I desire, without thinking so much
Is Singapore degenerating?
Some has written that Singapore is getting from first-world to third-world with the MRT power outage, flooding, ministerial scandals.
The government says this is normal in other countries. We face a huge percentage of migrant workers, because Singapore is unable to support itself. And the citizens are blamed for the falling birth rate.
On birth rate: The government was the one who introduced the stop-at-two campaign. It was overwhelmingly successful, because of many reasons. The three-or-more campaign started did not work because:
1. not enough effort is put into it - in publicity, incentives, etc
2. the primary incentive of having a child is gone - mothers have to work and take care of the child, worry about his/her grades, send him/her to tuition and a range of whatnot classes, from ballet to arithmetic
3. it's too stressful to live in Singapore, so why create a human to suffer with you?
4. (most important) It's too costly to support a child while having to support a house, (car), bills (utilities, phone/internet), parents (father and mother). It's actually more dystopic than this, because one cannot afford to be ill because healthcare is so expensive it wipes out all your savings. And if one is on long-term healthcare support, then... Who's even thinking about getting married, which costs?
It all boils down to money. And society.
If conditions favour having children, why not have them? It's precisely because the structural support isn't there. Very strangely, it's far more favourable to have children in India (esp boys), because all one has to think of is to send the child to a public school, and ensure that the child gets married, work, and support his parents. And not be a wife-beater. There aren't so many considerations - if the child fails in school, then too bad; he's not cut out for it, God has a way for him.
In Singapore, everywhere you go, it shouts, "If you've no certificate, you're dead." No, you aren't. You just have to find out what you're good at. But wait a minute, everyone else has a certificate, whether it's a good or lousy one. There comes the big problem. You're not ahead of others if you have a cert, you're behind everyone else if you don't (C.Seow, 9/2/2012).
Is Singapore degenerating?
What about the poor people in Singapore? Arguably, the poorest of poor isn't the foreign labourers. It's fellow Singaporeans, those who are at the bottom of the Gini coefficient. And it's quite apparent that these Singaporeans are either old, or do not have a good qualification, or for some reason are unable to give as much manual labour (arthritis, deformed backbone, or anything else). Such Singaporeans have to compete with the much cheaper foreign labour. There aren't any incentives to hire Singaporeans in this case, unless the person is willing to be paid as much as the foreign labour. The pay difference, if I'm not wrong, is around $21 (foreign) vs $50 (local) per day in a construction site. It's about the same in factories.
So what now? The progress which was much celebrated around the world has created a vicious cycle, and only the government can help, by either giving more incentives to employers for hiring locals (eg in tax-relief), or disincentives (not preferable, but quite a Singaporean method). This is important because this affects how we see our leaders of the country. This is exceptionally important because from 1965 to 2007, Singapore has been progressing linearly, save for the 1998 Asian financial crisis, and it's a consensus amongst the public that life is unhappier as compared to yester-years.
The government says we shouldn't compare ourselves with US president, or even other Asian ministers, regarding pay. Should we compare ourselves against ourselves, and strive to be the utopia of the world again, for a greater Singaporean population?
And every sound politician knows this: you can't afford to do worse; you can only do better. Better than other countries, or preserve status quo in the country's standing against the world. And even Machiavelli knows this: you keep the people happy, well-clothed and well-fed, and you as the leader won't be questioned.
That was why Lee Kuan Yew was such a great man. He gave the poor a real chance, and real help, to stay in HDB, have a toilet of their own, schooling opportunities for everyone, and made sure the entire island had affordable and comfortable transport, when there was nothing except debris and riots to begin with (post-WWII). Hell-yeah, there was no free press, no free-and-fair election, high ministerial pay. But few made noise.
We're losing our transparency, efficiency, accountability, and social security for the poor. We're slowly losing our friendliness as well. The world looks and feels treacherous, we can't get married, we don't want children, and we want to migrate to a less stressful place, after years spent on this island. Unless something can be done asap, politics is going downhill from now on.
The government says this is normal in other countries. We face a huge percentage of migrant workers, because Singapore is unable to support itself. And the citizens are blamed for the falling birth rate.
On birth rate: The government was the one who introduced the stop-at-two campaign. It was overwhelmingly successful, because of many reasons. The three-or-more campaign started did not work because:
1. not enough effort is put into it - in publicity, incentives, etc
2. the primary incentive of having a child is gone - mothers have to work and take care of the child, worry about his/her grades, send him/her to tuition and a range of whatnot classes, from ballet to arithmetic
3. it's too stressful to live in Singapore, so why create a human to suffer with you?
4. (most important) It's too costly to support a child while having to support a house, (car), bills (utilities, phone/internet), parents (father and mother). It's actually more dystopic than this, because one cannot afford to be ill because healthcare is so expensive it wipes out all your savings. And if one is on long-term healthcare support, then... Who's even thinking about getting married, which costs?
It all boils down to money. And society.
If conditions favour having children, why not have them? It's precisely because the structural support isn't there. Very strangely, it's far more favourable to have children in India (esp boys), because all one has to think of is to send the child to a public school, and ensure that the child gets married, work, and support his parents. And not be a wife-beater. There aren't so many considerations - if the child fails in school, then too bad; he's not cut out for it, God has a way for him.
In Singapore, everywhere you go, it shouts, "If you've no certificate, you're dead." No, you aren't. You just have to find out what you're good at. But wait a minute, everyone else has a certificate, whether it's a good or lousy one. There comes the big problem. You're not ahead of others if you have a cert, you're behind everyone else if you don't (C.Seow, 9/2/2012).
Is Singapore degenerating?
What about the poor people in Singapore? Arguably, the poorest of poor isn't the foreign labourers. It's fellow Singaporeans, those who are at the bottom of the Gini coefficient. And it's quite apparent that these Singaporeans are either old, or do not have a good qualification, or for some reason are unable to give as much manual labour (arthritis, deformed backbone, or anything else). Such Singaporeans have to compete with the much cheaper foreign labour. There aren't any incentives to hire Singaporeans in this case, unless the person is willing to be paid as much as the foreign labour. The pay difference, if I'm not wrong, is around $21 (foreign) vs $50 (local) per day in a construction site. It's about the same in factories.
So what now? The progress which was much celebrated around the world has created a vicious cycle, and only the government can help, by either giving more incentives to employers for hiring locals (eg in tax-relief), or disincentives (not preferable, but quite a Singaporean method). This is important because this affects how we see our leaders of the country. This is exceptionally important because from 1965 to 2007, Singapore has been progressing linearly, save for the 1998 Asian financial crisis, and it's a consensus amongst the public that life is unhappier as compared to yester-years.
The government says we shouldn't compare ourselves with US president, or even other Asian ministers, regarding pay. Should we compare ourselves against ourselves, and strive to be the utopia of the world again, for a greater Singaporean population?
And every sound politician knows this: you can't afford to do worse; you can only do better. Better than other countries, or preserve status quo in the country's standing against the world. And even Machiavelli knows this: you keep the people happy, well-clothed and well-fed, and you as the leader won't be questioned.
That was why Lee Kuan Yew was such a great man. He gave the poor a real chance, and real help, to stay in HDB, have a toilet of their own, schooling opportunities for everyone, and made sure the entire island had affordable and comfortable transport, when there was nothing except debris and riots to begin with (post-WWII). Hell-yeah, there was no free press, no free-and-fair election, high ministerial pay. But few made noise.
We're losing our transparency, efficiency, accountability, and social security for the poor. We're slowly losing our friendliness as well. The world looks and feels treacherous, we can't get married, we don't want children, and we want to migrate to a less stressful place, after years spent on this island. Unless something can be done asap, politics is going downhill from now on.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)