I was roaming around marina square a couple of days ago when i realised the space that Giant used to occpy was replaced by John Little. I find it amusing because a little john could defeat a giant. ha ha ha.
Ok its lame.
Thursday, May 31, 2007
Sunday, May 27, 2007
unsw
I applied for UNSW too, in september last year. When i reached the fair organised by IDP Australia, UNSW booth was filled with people. However, the booth for their sydney campus only. As for the Asia campus, only 2 to 3 were seen enquiring on the course of studies. The reason was simple for me to apply to the sydney campus and not the singapore campus, the cost and the opportunity to study in an overseas institution.
The cost is of the same as the asia campus, i see value added should i go to australia and study. There, i will gain new insights, perhaps opportunities that can't be found in Singapore. Though foreigners may prefer coming to Singapore for its bilingual or bicultural expierences, but as i am born here, i do not value it as much as gaining exposure in another country. I have this notion that if i mix too much with my fellow people, i will be sterotyping alot of stuffs. Therefore, going overseas will be like a fresh breath of air sniffed.
It kind of sad that UNSW flopped barely months after it started. As to how much damage it inflicted to both the university and Singapore, i would say more on the university. In a newspaper article, it says that the new vice chancellor wants to focus more on research and therefore, axed many of its non academic staff. In research, one has to constantly pick himself up after failure and also be determined no matter how ardous or tedious the task may become. The insignificant enrollment for its pioneer batch is just a minor setback. Which business doesn't need months to break even? Giving it up when it doesn't even try hard give me the impression that the university isn't ready nor have the stamina for long haul research which rewards can only be evident in years or even decades.
For Singapore, this is definitely a setback for the vision and aim to be a world class educational hub. People do not remember how successful you are but should you fail, that one failure will be forever etech in people's mind. This is definitely not just a blip but should be asked some real deep questions. Are the government set too high a standard which it may be doing so in order to give a good value for taxpayers' money. Secondly, why the government doesn't seems to enthusiastic in defending the move of letting unsw go? Most importantly, is it the case of trying to sink into oblivion once things go awry? I remembered once we were trying to set up some techo -IT centre or something, but after the dot com bubble burst, none was heard from it.
If unsw is an insolated case, then at least we can seek consolation in it. However what if the pertinent flaw is the negotiation and the projecting of figures that lead to the miscalculation of such ventures? Is it because our officers from EDB are a bunch of quitters that didn't aggressively seeking a compromise with the unsw officials or that our EDB people are forever rigid in not making any compromise? Or is it a case of government scholars miscalculated the projected number of students or returns and end up with an unrealistic figures that ended up in a doom venture? This is of the most concern because these are fundamental flaws. I shudder to think that our Integrated resorts or F1 would end up in such a way as of unsw.
Lastly, my consolation to the students. But a word of advice: go to australia for that different perspective.
(by the way, i was accepted but i rejected the offer of going to sydney as they didn't offer me golden jubilee and so, my finance couldn't make it)
The cost is of the same as the asia campus, i see value added should i go to australia and study. There, i will gain new insights, perhaps opportunities that can't be found in Singapore. Though foreigners may prefer coming to Singapore for its bilingual or bicultural expierences, but as i am born here, i do not value it as much as gaining exposure in another country. I have this notion that if i mix too much with my fellow people, i will be sterotyping alot of stuffs. Therefore, going overseas will be like a fresh breath of air sniffed.
It kind of sad that UNSW flopped barely months after it started. As to how much damage it inflicted to both the university and Singapore, i would say more on the university. In a newspaper article, it says that the new vice chancellor wants to focus more on research and therefore, axed many of its non academic staff. In research, one has to constantly pick himself up after failure and also be determined no matter how ardous or tedious the task may become. The insignificant enrollment for its pioneer batch is just a minor setback. Which business doesn't need months to break even? Giving it up when it doesn't even try hard give me the impression that the university isn't ready nor have the stamina for long haul research which rewards can only be evident in years or even decades.
For Singapore, this is definitely a setback for the vision and aim to be a world class educational hub. People do not remember how successful you are but should you fail, that one failure will be forever etech in people's mind. This is definitely not just a blip but should be asked some real deep questions. Are the government set too high a standard which it may be doing so in order to give a good value for taxpayers' money. Secondly, why the government doesn't seems to enthusiastic in defending the move of letting unsw go? Most importantly, is it the case of trying to sink into oblivion once things go awry? I remembered once we were trying to set up some techo -IT centre or something, but after the dot com bubble burst, none was heard from it.
If unsw is an insolated case, then at least we can seek consolation in it. However what if the pertinent flaw is the negotiation and the projecting of figures that lead to the miscalculation of such ventures? Is it because our officers from EDB are a bunch of quitters that didn't aggressively seeking a compromise with the unsw officials or that our EDB people are forever rigid in not making any compromise? Or is it a case of government scholars miscalculated the projected number of students or returns and end up with an unrealistic figures that ended up in a doom venture? This is of the most concern because these are fundamental flaws. I shudder to think that our Integrated resorts or F1 would end up in such a way as of unsw.
Lastly, my consolation to the students. But a word of advice: go to australia for that different perspective.
(by the way, i was accepted but i rejected the offer of going to sydney as they didn't offer me golden jubilee and so, my finance couldn't make it)
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
Anything whatever
This is the latest marketing fad/ gimmick by some drink company. It aim to prick on the consumer sense of curiosity so that they will try them out. However i think it didn't manage to convince me to part with my dollar as i am a skeptic who won't try it out unless they tell me what is inside first.
But a trip to the supermarket make me wonder something. Supposedly such drinks were spiked or something went wrong during the manufacturing process with a particular flavour. How are they going to recall back that flavour given it may be anything or whatever things?
Here come the loophole of getting the flavour you want. I suspect there is a manufacturing code or something that differentiate what flavour it is. If we know what is the code for that particular flavour, we are able to get what flavour we want and the marketing gimmick fails!
If they didn't have any form of differentiation, then bless them should something went wrong because they need to recall every single can. Imagine they need a particular flavour of batch xxx manufacture on date yyy, huge logistics problem!
Man in Pink
I have just read my cousin post on gays. This debate (sort of) was brought up again during an interview with the young PAP where MM Lee spoke of that its genetics or something that cause gay to be gay. When debating about gays issue, i have a question. Should we separate physical with mental.
I supposed when MM Lee says that, he meant mental. But what about physical? Does a gay consitute a gay should he engage in anal sex, engage in anal sex but his mind was not on it, or engage in it and his mind was on it. In another word, should a man engage in that but believe he is not a gay, then is he a gay? Sorry if this is sound stupid because i really is confuse at this point.
My "brush" with gay was quite a happy one, definitely not like my cousin who i supposed, spooked by the "sliding tackle". Happy in a sense there is mutual respect between my friends in pink and me. Personal encounter with them was that there are as human as we are. They didn't appear feminine or "gayish". Rather, they are humourous, intelligent and definitely matured. Perhaps their long time persecution by the society shaped how they look at life itself.
Socially speaking, in Singapore context, we aren't accepting them, not ready. Even if we did, its a case of " it doesn't happen to me" syndrome that we are accepting them. I believe no matter how matured a society is, acceptance will happen, albeit at face value as we can't separate the mental with the physical. I think one can accept that gay is a gay in term of his way of thinking, as in, he think he is a gay. However we aren't ready to accept when the physical part comes into play. That is the reason why people cringe when men kiss men or other actions.
Of course you may ask, then what is it that people are more willing to accept lesbian and not gays? I believe this is due to gender. Female has longed been view as a fairer, weaker sex. Therefore, they are dismissed or view with less disdain compared with males who have traditionally been associated with propagating , protecting.
Economically, the presence of gays will spice things up. The latest GDP figures suggest service take the lead. They are really more creative and they generate ideas. As Singapore opts to be a service and creative hub, we cannot afford to misplace the man in pink.
I have read a post on why men have nipples, which is vestigial on men. The reason is still unkown. It is still in question on whether do our ancestors breast feed the offspring and hence, the nipples. Perhaps this can shed light on whether gay can be able to procreate babies in the future, with the aid of technology and advancement in medicine.
Maybe until then, with this new found ability, humans are more willing to accept gays as who they are, regardless of mental or physical.
Well, some plants and insects are known to be single sex, so nothing is impossible.
I supposed when MM Lee says that, he meant mental. But what about physical? Does a gay consitute a gay should he engage in anal sex, engage in anal sex but his mind was not on it, or engage in it and his mind was on it. In another word, should a man engage in that but believe he is not a gay, then is he a gay? Sorry if this is sound stupid because i really is confuse at this point.
My "brush" with gay was quite a happy one, definitely not like my cousin who i supposed, spooked by the "sliding tackle". Happy in a sense there is mutual respect between my friends in pink and me. Personal encounter with them was that there are as human as we are. They didn't appear feminine or "gayish". Rather, they are humourous, intelligent and definitely matured. Perhaps their long time persecution by the society shaped how they look at life itself.
Socially speaking, in Singapore context, we aren't accepting them, not ready. Even if we did, its a case of " it doesn't happen to me" syndrome that we are accepting them. I believe no matter how matured a society is, acceptance will happen, albeit at face value as we can't separate the mental with the physical. I think one can accept that gay is a gay in term of his way of thinking, as in, he think he is a gay. However we aren't ready to accept when the physical part comes into play. That is the reason why people cringe when men kiss men or other actions.
Of course you may ask, then what is it that people are more willing to accept lesbian and not gays? I believe this is due to gender. Female has longed been view as a fairer, weaker sex. Therefore, they are dismissed or view with less disdain compared with males who have traditionally been associated with propagating , protecting.
Economically, the presence of gays will spice things up. The latest GDP figures suggest service take the lead. They are really more creative and they generate ideas. As Singapore opts to be a service and creative hub, we cannot afford to misplace the man in pink.
I have read a post on why men have nipples, which is vestigial on men. The reason is still unkown. It is still in question on whether do our ancestors breast feed the offspring and hence, the nipples. Perhaps this can shed light on whether gay can be able to procreate babies in the future, with the aid of technology and advancement in medicine.
Maybe until then, with this new found ability, humans are more willing to accept gays as who they are, regardless of mental or physical.
Well, some plants and insects are known to be single sex, so nothing is impossible.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)