I'm not very knowledgeable about the options I have in the NS (National Service), except for SISPECT (something to do with specialists), OCS and being a clerk. By default, most of the people would end up being in SISPECT, with the better ones going on to OCS. You can’t even opt to be a clerk, unless you have a medical condition that doesn’t enable you to carry out your duties (I might fall under this category).
My brother asked me during dinner if I would like to join OCS. I made up my mind long ago already on this issue: no, I’m just not interested. That’s when he proceeded with his screwed up logic of why I should go OCS, because of the respect, the pay, the position, the exposure. He went on to challenge me by giving him my reasons on ‘why not’. Apparently my ‘not interested’ argument failed miserably. He’ll go on asking “ Don’t you want more respect and better pay?”, like I said before, he has pretty screwed up logic. The worse part which came inevitably wasn’t entirely unexpected – my father had to chip in his input.
He went from what the purpose of NS is (on topic) to Malaysia’s sultans (‘on’ topic still) within fifteen minutes. I got to hand it to him, I’m not capable of rambling on for that long if I know the person who I’m talking to just can’t be bothered to listen. Thankfully, I managed to catch the main point of contention: everyone should serve to the best of his capability, and it’s not an issue of whether they like it or not. He pointed out that (some important person) criticized lawyers in the past who failed tests intentionally so that they would only go through two years of training instead of three for officers. The argument is as follows: since they're more capable, they shouldn't be so selfish and should instead continue to serve the nation.
I didn’t say anything at all ; I didn’t need to. They conveniently forgot that they’re in OCS, not someone who’s NOT INTERESTED in NS at all. I don’t want to control people, I never got a kick out of being higher ranked than others, but I wouldn’t mind the higher pay. In my opinion, such positions should be left to those who are REALLY passionate about it, because they would be the ones who would flex the most muscle out of it. You can't fit a square into a circle; it's pointless to do so.
History was repeating itself. My brothers felt that they’re “superior” beings all because they were the heads of their uniformed groups back in secondary schools, where as I was merely just in charge of the Secondary Ones, which in my opinion was a very sought after position already. This morning they asked if I got put in any effort in squash upon finding out that I didn’t make it into the team (something I chose not to say for precisely this reason). My interested waned out drastically for personal reasons which I hadn’t shared with anyone yet.
Understanding is underrated more often than not, self-assuming beliefs happen to be the reverse. I refused to explain myself – none of those narrow-minded people would ever get it. I am going to serve the nation by going for NS, but I can’t be bothered (tentatively) to try to make it to OCS.
Putting yourself in other's shoes is that difficult. It's nothing to do with the size.
Army: We are the unfortunate, led by the unqualified, doing the unnecessary, for the ungrateful.
Sunday, March 30, 2008
Sunday, March 23, 2008
Eagle
I decided to flip through my old DVDs (not my physics notes) and picked "Enemy Of The State". It is an action-packed movie featuring Will Smith who had to run from the NSA because he was holding on to tape recording of a murder by accident. The agency was able to track him down using satellite images and tracing phone calls.
In one scene, Gene Hackman mentioned how agencies were keeping tabs on phone calls, and be capable of filtering out keywords from conversations, such as "bomb" or "Allah". This is in effect, one of the most potent weapons the government has to combat terrorism, both domestic and foreign. By enabling the Patriot Act after 9/11, law enforcement agencies were given the abovementioned capability, which includes emails too.
This is a very sensitive issue indeed. Privacy used to be a right, and keeping secrets is soon losing that status too. People are worried, unnecessarily or not, about what the government can actually do with the information they are receiving. That's when you'll have conspiracy theories sprouting junk like the government wanting more control of the population, just like how they "encroached" on people's liberties by enforcing gun control. A climate of paranoia was omnipresent for those who understood what was entailed.
Their baking recipes stored in emails are going to be seized, and then exploited by a retired agent living on pension to make big bucks. Men in suits might get turned on for free by the sexually suggestive messages people are sending to their lovers via mobile phones. Organizations known by only three letters would be fully aware of everyone's travel plans to whichever exotic country and by what means. They are so all-knowing, they even know what kind of pathetic grades lazy kids score for their exams.
~~
If it is anything, it would be terribly boring to sit down and leave a headphone on for hours in a row, and stare at a computer screen to check out who's having cybersex, who's the biggest hit on Facebook and what not. The poor geeks have to sift through heaps of rubbish daily, which is both an eye sore and an horrific assault on their ear drums, in hopes of detecting potential threats. They have to remain tight lipped about their occupation to family members and friends, all in the name of national security. In the local context, it is factually proven to be effective. Some racist blogger was fined under the Sedition Act. A blog that I used to frequent alot for tremendous entertainment value became stale, and people who commented were suspicious that the blogger was told off by the *relevant* authorities because he was insulting the government outright. He was probably invited down to have a good cup of coffee *somewhere*.
Freedom of speech can be defined easily but only so by sensible and open minds. I'm not speaking out against it not because I'm their posterboy for surveillance, neither is it due to me being cowed in fear.
Because of the nature and content of this entry, I might have attracted readers I'm not acquainted with. Or maybe they were already here entries before. And because of that, they're capable of finding out who has tagged (very simple process), and they're also able to find out who's been reading my blog, who might be potentially subverted by the toxic in my posts, if any.
That's you.
20 8 5 25 / 1 18 5 / 23 1 20 3 8 9 14 7.
In one scene, Gene Hackman mentioned how agencies were keeping tabs on phone calls, and be capable of filtering out keywords from conversations, such as "bomb" or "Allah". This is in effect, one of the most potent weapons the government has to combat terrorism, both domestic and foreign. By enabling the Patriot Act after 9/11, law enforcement agencies were given the abovementioned capability, which includes emails too.
This is a very sensitive issue indeed. Privacy used to be a right, and keeping secrets is soon losing that status too. People are worried, unnecessarily or not, about what the government can actually do with the information they are receiving. That's when you'll have conspiracy theories sprouting junk like the government wanting more control of the population, just like how they "encroached" on people's liberties by enforcing gun control. A climate of paranoia was omnipresent for those who understood what was entailed.
Their baking recipes stored in emails are going to be seized, and then exploited by a retired agent living on pension to make big bucks. Men in suits might get turned on for free by the sexually suggestive messages people are sending to their lovers via mobile phones. Organizations known by only three letters would be fully aware of everyone's travel plans to whichever exotic country and by what means. They are so all-knowing, they even know what kind of pathetic grades lazy kids score for their exams.
~~
If it is anything, it would be terribly boring to sit down and leave a headphone on for hours in a row, and stare at a computer screen to check out who's having cybersex, who's the biggest hit on Facebook and what not. The poor geeks have to sift through heaps of rubbish daily, which is both an eye sore and an horrific assault on their ear drums, in hopes of detecting potential threats. They have to remain tight lipped about their occupation to family members and friends, all in the name of national security. In the local context, it is factually proven to be effective. Some racist blogger was fined under the Sedition Act. A blog that I used to frequent alot for tremendous entertainment value became stale, and people who commented were suspicious that the blogger was told off by the *relevant* authorities because he was insulting the government outright. He was probably invited down to have a good cup of coffee *somewhere*.
Freedom of speech can be defined easily but only so by sensible and open minds. I'm not speaking out against it not because I'm their posterboy for surveillance, neither is it due to me being cowed in fear.
Because of the nature and content of this entry, I might have attracted readers I'm not acquainted with. Or maybe they were already here entries before. And because of that, they're capable of finding out who has tagged (very simple process), and they're also able to find out who's been reading my blog, who might be potentially subverted by the toxic in my posts, if any.
That's you.
20 8 5 25 / 1 18 5 / 23 1 20 3 8 9 14 7.
Saturday, March 15, 2008
Angle
My father just came up to me and told me the same old things everytime I'm on to the computer too much. It's hardly surprising considering the fact that I've been on from 9am to 6pm for the past 3 days, and he just happened to not have any work this whole March holidays.
I could usually summarize what his speech to a tenth of the time he took to deliver it, but one point caught my interest. He went on from me playing to the pair of shoes I'm wearing to school. It's a standard issue provided by SAF, which all guys will get to wear during PT. Mine's unique though. The sole is so darn sexy smooth with zero grooves to hold on to anything, and it looked as though it went through the shredder. So my dad said something about how we must present ourselves appropriately, although we needn't conform to everything. It's funny how much he drifts isn't it? That's why I usually zone off within five SECONDS of his diatribe (NOT THE POINT).
Biological diversity is and will always be a celebrated phenomenon by ecologists. The more species of birds present the better, and best if the dodo came back. Cultural/religious/ethnic diversity is more of a point of contention - not everyone will ever like each other, but it's there to stay. What truly polarises us would be individualism. There's the norm, and theres the wacky bunch who we can only label with the word "weird". If I'm didn't recall wrongly, Charles Darwin once commented that the normal distribution of any characteristic would be a bell curve, with the maximum being in the middle and minimum being at the ends. This simply means that there will be the same percentage of people getting 4 A's annually, the same proportion who are born with that blasphemous genetic defect and the same lot of unfortunate few who would suffer from poor IQ. All this being said, this implies that there would always be some who, well, deviate from normal behaviour.
We're most certainly clueless about ourselves. In the Middle ages, kleptomaniacs were probably executed alongside thieves and autistic kids would then be conveniently called retards.
I've heard too often (like you do) about one commenting on another's eccentricity. It is so interesting, because you don't get to observe it everyday and it's simply not within your self-defined parameters of the acceptable. This spells bad news for the truly tragic ones - those with behavioural problems that we do not comprehend.
I saw the list of students my class had to take for CIP at Clementi Town primary. Next to their names were remarks such as "Behavioural Problems", "Weak", "Very Weak" and so on. They are condemned already, so to speak. It is part and parcel of the grading society uses, but it is irrelevant to them. Their immediate need, is to be understood, not labelled. Then we'll ask the favourite question: Why? Circumstantial causes? Genetic makeup? Or just... weird?
I find it remarkably funny that my PAE class called me "emo" instead of my name, as I didn't talk much to them - I didn't want to. I can't blame them nor hate them for something they don't understand. And then there's my CCA in which I'm gradually transforming into just another fixture. Maybe we just don't click one bit.
I must be a really weird person, considering the fact that I belong to the minority that is constantly mesmerised by my computer game. I like playing it so much I wish had a laptop to do so in school. You don't need to be a detective to figure out that I'm an addict, but what gives. I also have a huge propensity to laugh at everything around me, ranging from dirty ones to religious/racial and personal ones. I'm mean in that sense, but I can't help it. Well you get the idea of how (not very) queer I am.
Eh you're seriously damn weird leh.
o[^-(-.-)-^]o
..
I could usually summarize what his speech to a tenth of the time he took to deliver it, but one point caught my interest. He went on from me playing to the pair of shoes I'm wearing to school. It's a standard issue provided by SAF, which all guys will get to wear during PT. Mine's unique though. The sole is so darn sexy smooth with zero grooves to hold on to anything, and it looked as though it went through the shredder. So my dad said something about how we must present ourselves appropriately, although we needn't conform to everything. It's funny how much he drifts isn't it? That's why I usually zone off within five SECONDS of his diatribe (NOT THE POINT).
Biological diversity is and will always be a celebrated phenomenon by ecologists. The more species of birds present the better, and best if the dodo came back. Cultural/religious/ethnic diversity is more of a point of contention - not everyone will ever like each other, but it's there to stay. What truly polarises us would be individualism. There's the norm, and theres the wacky bunch who we can only label with the word "weird". If I'm didn't recall wrongly, Charles Darwin once commented that the normal distribution of any characteristic would be a bell curve, with the maximum being in the middle and minimum being at the ends. This simply means that there will be the same percentage of people getting 4 A's annually, the same proportion who are born with that blasphemous genetic defect and the same lot of unfortunate few who would suffer from poor IQ. All this being said, this implies that there would always be some who, well, deviate from normal behaviour.
We're most certainly clueless about ourselves. In the Middle ages, kleptomaniacs were probably executed alongside thieves and autistic kids would then be conveniently called retards.
I've heard too often (like you do) about one commenting on another's eccentricity. It is so interesting, because you don't get to observe it everyday and it's simply not within your self-defined parameters of the acceptable. This spells bad news for the truly tragic ones - those with behavioural problems that we do not comprehend.
I saw the list of students my class had to take for CIP at Clementi Town primary. Next to their names were remarks such as "Behavioural Problems", "Weak", "Very Weak" and so on. They are condemned already, so to speak. It is part and parcel of the grading society uses, but it is irrelevant to them. Their immediate need, is to be understood, not labelled. Then we'll ask the favourite question: Why? Circumstantial causes? Genetic makeup? Or just... weird?
I find it remarkably funny that my PAE class called me "emo" instead of my name, as I didn't talk much to them - I didn't want to. I can't blame them nor hate them for something they don't understand. And then there's my CCA in which I'm gradually transforming into just another fixture. Maybe we just don't click one bit.
I must be a really weird person, considering the fact that I belong to the minority that is constantly mesmerised by my computer game. I like playing it so much I wish had a laptop to do so in school. You don't need to be a detective to figure out that I'm an addict, but what gives. I also have a huge propensity to laugh at everything around me, ranging from dirty ones to religious/racial and personal ones. I'm mean in that sense, but I can't help it. Well you get the idea of how (not very) queer I am.
Eh you're seriously damn weird leh.
o[^-(-.-)-^]o
..
Saturday, March 8, 2008
Grasp
One queer thing that I can recall when I was 8 was this conversation I had with my uncle. He told me that all the medicines that were prescribed to us contained drugs. I was revolted at that notion, because drugs were associated to something evil in my mind.
One definition of what a drug is as follows: "chemical substances prepared and sold as pharmaceutical items, either by prescription or over the counter." Being clueless, I protested back to my uncle "nooo it can't be! why would doctors wanna poison us?" over and over again, unconvinced that medicines contain drugs still. I ought to congratulate Singapore's efforts to combat drug abuse for that.
Our understanding of the world around us is premature. This is so, and will remain to be so forever. A person is recognized to be knowledgeable because he knows not only what others know that they don't know, but also what others don't know what they don't know. There's nothing amazing about knowing what others hope to know, even if they do not do so in due time. Phew.
One definition of what a drug is as follows: "chemical substances prepared and sold as pharmaceutical items, either by prescription or over the counter." Being clueless, I protested back to my uncle "nooo it can't be! why would doctors wanna poison us?" over and over again, unconvinced that medicines contain drugs still. I ought to congratulate Singapore's efforts to combat drug abuse for that.
Our understanding of the world around us is premature. This is so, and will remain to be so forever. A person is recognized to be knowledgeable because he knows not only what others know that they don't know, but also what others don't know what they don't know. There's nothing amazing about knowing what others hope to know, even if they do not do so in due time. Phew.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)