University ranking
Our beloved university has slipped from 18th to 22th in The Times Higher Education Supplement. I think I'm supposed to care, but somehow I can't muster the necessary cognitive effort. Embedded as I am within quotidian school life, I'm unable to gain sufficient perspective as to how good (whatever the word means here) my school is comparatively.
As a mere undergraduate, I'm only concerned with aspects that have immediate impact on my person. Matters such as perceived prestige or quality of research aren't that important, as yet. I suspect standard of teaching is more or less homogenous wherever you go. Brilliant research is not necessarily indicative of thoughtful paedagogy. Maybe in some other places, I'll have smarter classmates, or just intelligent ones in greater number. But I'm not so brilliant as to yearn for their company. Smaller classes seem more conducive for learning, yet by implication that would mean that I'd have to speak a lot more (which I don't mind) and listen to the same old people spout nonsense (which is most painful). I'll settle for a good library, ideally at least three times the collection of our Central Library, and a larger canteen.
Received an email inviting me to attend some prestigious lecture by Charles Vest on the meta-university. I have no idea what a meta-university is, so I googled the term. According to the man himself:
"The internet and worldwide web will make possible global research collaboration, sharing of knowledge and collective creation of educational materials.
Local universities will not be displaced or replaced. Rather, teaching and the creation of knowledge at each university will be elevated by the Linux-like efforts of a multitude of individuals and groups all over the world. This tectonic shift can be thought of as the emergence of the meta-university.
Of course, scholars and teachers have always advanced their work collectively through conferences, seminars and correspondence. But the scale of participation, speed of propagation and sophistication of access and presentation that we will see in the coming years are unprecedented. One catalyst for this new dimension of global cooperation is MIT's OpenCourseWare initiative, which is making the basic teaching materials for virtually all our subjects available on the Internet at no charge to all teachers and learners.
The residential university will continue to be the best venue for bright young men and women to live and learn among dedicated scholars and teachers. Institutional quality will be raised through competition and adaptation of elements of the U.S. model. But the meta-university-the electronically enabled global collaboration of teachers and researchers-will rapidly advance and improve higher education everywhere."
Yes, MIT's OpenCourseWare. I have numerous OCW lecture notes in my personal folder, most of which I haven't read. The stuff's free anyway, so it's my civic duty as a typical Singaporean to download them extensively. In contrast, perhaps ironically, I rarely bother to save or print a copy of the ppt slides from my NUS courses. Not that the MIT notes are generally superior in any aspect however. Lecture notes are the same whether they are from Harvard or the Open University of Timbuktu.
In my opinion, the concept of a meta-university may just be that little ahead of its time, at least with respect to NUS. I assume the school admin wants us to be plugged into the meta-university superstructure. However, I do not quite see the point of being able to access course materials from other academic institutions when we can't even peer into the workbins of other NUS modules, much less download stuff. To use an analogy, it's like wanting or claiming to be an international telecommunications hub when the intra-national telephone service is virtually non-existent. In addition, faculty members often worry about infringing copyright regulations when they put things into their lecture slides or notes. Allowing the rest of the world to access their materials might be too much scrutiny for some.
Two Zaobao articles
Hmm, two interesting articles in today's Zaobao. It occurred to me that I could probably carve a niche for myself in the local blogopshere by commenting on Chinese articles, but I shan't.
Columnist Wu Weicai writes about the
Da Chang Jin (or
Jewel in the Palace) phenomenon. Since my mother is currently devouring the final episodes on VCD in her room (edit: finished liao), I suppose the craze is sufficiently palpable. A mainland Chinese television network was complaining about this foreign intruder that has gotten everyone hooked, so much so that no one wants to watch their big budget production on Han Wudi. The quick and ready response was that ordinary people have become sick of drama serials featuring famous emperors, prime
ministers and warriors.
In any case, the writer insists that historical background aside, the crux of a good drama lies in its ability to resonate with its target audience. Which was the reason given for the lack of enthusiasm for
Da Chang Jin in Thailand, namely wider cultural differences. Seems obvious enough. Moreover, one realizes that dramas that have travelled well tend to be preoccupied with interpersonal relations and more often than not, set within the family context, something almost everyone can identify with. Singapore serials revolving around family relations have typically done well, but we've yet to produce a truly outstanding drama of historical fiction, combining both the universal story of interpersonal relations and a Singaporean (or at least, overseas Chinese) historical background. Having achieved that, this hypothetical drama might prove an invaluable cultural export.
I doubt people want to watch another serial set in the WWII period, where families and lovers become separated during the war, with one son helping the resistance movement, the other becoming a Japanese informant, the sister getting raped by a Jap soldier etc..., or one with Tan Kah Kee or Tan Lak Sai. That said, I have two suggestions. Anyone who has read enough early Singapore history would have been captivated by colourful accounts of secret societies and gang clashes that make
Gangs of New York look like playground bullies. We could do that, assuming we can muster sufficient funds and manpower to fuel this blockbuster. Otherwise, we could have a little something about the 1956 student riots, with....ahem...heroic portrayals of the young, idealistic protectors of the proletariat from the Chinese Middle Schools.
The second article is on PRC science. According to certain measures I'm too lazy to look up, Singapore isn't exactly blazing trails in the scientific arena, particularly in view of the amount of money we've poured into the endeavour. We publish lots of articles alright, but not many that other scientists wanna cite. In fact, we are lagging behind well-known research centres like Lebanon. Apparently, some Chinese academic institutions have this money-for-article scheme. For example, each reference in the Science Citation Index (SCI) earns the author(s) a cool 1000 yuan. Anybody with half a brain can see how this ill-conceived scheme will be abused, and indeed it has been. In general, there has been considerable debate over the suitability of no. of published articles and citations in SCI as criteria for determining academic prolificacy and standard of work. I wonder how it works in Singapore. What criteria do we use to evaluate the output of our best and brightest working in our research institutes?
KynTheMan's Guide to Effective Parenting
I feel I’m uniquely qualified to talk about parenting since I’m a child of two parents, and also happen to know many other parents or parents of parents. Anyway, I’ll try to keep this post from getting too long.
I was sitting in a circle for a supremely boring and inconsequential discussion during tutorial, helmed by a lecturer I find intolerably banal and unprofessional. The context within which the exchange occurred I’ve forgotten, but anyhow some students expressed a willingness to lie to their children rather than disappoint them. More specifically, they would maintain the Santa Claus myth if their kids believed in him. Which reminds of something by philosopher Slavoj Zizek (in an unrelated essay) I read just yesterday:
“Since our children (are supposed to) believe in him and we do not want to disappoint them, they pretend to believe so as not to disappoint us by puncturing our belief in their naivety (and to get the presents, of course).”
Anyway, I quite pointedly commented that they were hurting their credibility with their children, while carefully attempting to disguise any outward contempt for them. No one tried to defend his/her position, so that was that. Moving further along, a talking point was raised about the appropriate response to one’s child seeking advice regarding whether or not to help someone the child knew. To enable us to speak in general terms, the child’s query was not framed within a particular scenario.
Everyone who responded eagerly demonstrated their parental credentials by instructing the child in no uncertain terms how helping others is a moral imperative, that great joy is derived from lending assistance. I couldn’t help but interrupt the self-congratulatory festivities of presaged moral achievement. I asked if it were possible to tell the child to consider the situation before deciding. That given the situation, helping another could harm oneself or the helpee ultimately could be a possibility. Moreover, even if only benefits are to be reaped, circumstances might be such that helping simply isn’t a viable option. Even a child can understand this simple logic. But predictably, I raised the collective ire of my classmates who forced me to defend my argument by shooting question after question, meanwhile indirectly suggesting my incompetence as a parent. I don’t see why realism must be sacrificed for the purpose of a (over) simplified moral lesson, unless my classmates really do believe in what they preach to their kids.
A single lady who teaches parenting skills once told me that in reply to people who doubt her credibility as a non-parent, she says something to the effect of ‘as though people with lots of kids are necessarily good parents’. But I’ve also heard, from a family member I think, that many people enter marriage with certain preconceived notions about being a parent and what it takes to be a good one. They have a child, and suddenly things don’t turn out to be quite as expected, in both positive and negative ways. Then they have another child, who turns out to be very different in temperament from the older one, and at that point, they throw the parenting manual out of the window. I’ve read the skills workbook for a parenting program, and my thoughts were ‘yeah right, like that would have worked for me as a boy’. Not that these pointers weren’t useful, but they remain precisely that- merely pointers. For me, the surprising thing isn’t that bad parents actually exist in this world, but rather that good parenting is as widespread as it is, considering that many years of study are required to be qualified as a child psychologist, pediatrician or early childhood educator but only functioning organs are required to be a parent.
Is it just me, or do I get the impression that strangely enough, highly-educated people tend to be more conservative parents? There seems to be a distinct difference between how working-class parents and affluent types raise their kids. I think the term ‘conservative’ merits some form of definition, and I would take it to mean a certain insistence of control over their child’s social and moral development, to be imbued with values that working-class people tend to be more laissez-faire about. I know of someone who gives on-the-spot lessons whenever her pre-school boy encounters something she thinks is worth ‘processing over’. For example, her son watches TV and an apparently dead (or rather, left for dead) character revives. She delivers a lecture on how dead people remain lifeless in reality to ensure her child doesn’t get any wrong impressions about the nature of death. As one can imagine, there are A LOT of such lessons in their everyday life. Nothing intrinsically wrong in that I suppose, but I think she, as do many parents, underestimates her child’s intelligence. But more on that some other time.
Unsaturated content saturation
Others have expressed this sentiment more cogently and eloquently than I have.
Social critics have decried our postmodern generation as being chronically afflicted by entertainment, such that we have largely become apathetic, blase, cynical and disenchanted with the images perpetually flashing before our eyes. Perhaps I'm among the worst of the lot, because I crave for even more sensory stimulation of the fleeting kind. That is to say, I feel insufficiently entertained. I wonder whether I say this because I'm so deeply embedded in popular culture that I cannot distinguish the trees from the woods or that I've become addicted to unreal simulcra despite knowing better, or simply because as some sort of hyper-male, I'm defeated by the hard-wired instincts that make up who I am (like the stereotypical bored guy who cannot help but channel-surf). Ultimately I say this because it's about to rain very heavily and I cannot go out to run errands.
I've just finished reading
Propaganda and the ethics of persuasion by Randal Marlin. In the final chapter "Propaganda, Democracy and the Internet", he argues briefly, just as most people have suggested, that the sheer amount of information available, the useful, misleading and plain distracting, means that the efficacy of the Internet in promoting alternative perspectives, debunking propaganda, promoting democracy and all that nonsense might be exaggerated. He has a point of course, but I prefer the opinion of information systems analyst and social theorist, my cousin, who says something to the effect of "Internet got a lot of interesting stuff har? I let you sit in front of computer and just surf net for information, I see how long you can surf. Less than one hour you confirm sian already." Hmm, there's something about sitting in front of a computer monitor and reading for an extended period of time that makes it somehow very unappealing. In the quotation, my cousin also implicitly argues that the depth and breadth of online information that's accessed is limited by the depth and breadth of the user's mind. Which means that sadly my mind is only worth less than an hour.
I wonder how anyone can survive without cable TV. While the initial, and perhaps greatest, motivation for subscribing to cable was solely for the football, I realize (and I'm not alone in feeling this way) that there's often nothing to watch on telly. Unlike the woman who has nothing to wear despite bulging wardrobes, the deficient sense here is not one of lack of novelty but of interest. To push the analogy further, there are lots of clothes that I'd rather go naked than to wear. And with a tint of snobbery, I am surprised that so many people can tolerate, even relish, the abominable programs local free-to-air stations have the temerity to show. There are three television sets in my home, two connected to cable, two with external speakers to irritate the neighbours (though usually other family members) and all three with VCD players and the sundry. In total, there are six different places where I can watch a VCD, two for DVD. So many avenues for content delivery, so little actual content. The purpose of this entire paragraph is to persuade my friends to lend me VCDs to ease the passage of my passing days.
IRB
Hmm, what are all these forms you expect me to fill, these reports I have to submit? All I want is to conduct a rudimentary, not-very-well controlled experiment to fulfil university requirements in order for me to leave this place with a certificate. And why are the vast majority of final year students doing research exempt from this nonsense? I don't have an unethical bone in my body lor, only got tarsal bone, carpal bone, etc...
Let's see.
"Include details on sample size calculation and the means by which data will be analysed and interpreted." Aiyoh, no need to calculate sample size one lah. I ask for volunteers, and if only two kittens sign up then I conduct my study with only two participants lor. I'll send the aggregated data to the fortune teller at my local temple for analysis and interpretation. He very zhun one.
"If samples of body fluids or tissues are taken as part of this research, state the amount and frequency at which these samples are taken." Why so many questions on biological samples? Since I have to go through the review board, then might as well collect something for fun. I need each male participant to leave me with a semen sample every two hours for twelve hours (as a side project, I'll be able to demonstrate unequivocally and decisively that excessive masturbation does indeed have harmful effects). Some female participants may be required to provide saliva samples to be extracted by the experimenter's mouth.
"Are the subjects vulnerable or in a dependent relationship with the researchers?" I do not know the guinea... I mean, research participants personally. But failure to achieve 100% accuracy in all 96 trials may result in prosecution or prostitution.
"Does the research challenge existing paradigms? Does it employ novel concepts, approaches and methods? Wah lau, ah ba den?! If not innovative then I do for what? To fulfil graduation requirements only meh? Based on my exhaustive literature review, I have yet to come across a study that requires male participants to produce semen samples every two hours.
"Will participants be deceived or misinformed about the project? If yes, what is the nature of this deception/misinformation? What ameliorative de-briefing procedures will be available?" I don't know why people always think we use deception in our studies, though to be honest, mine got little bit to facilitate the data collection process. In my recruitment flyers, I gave the impression that recipients have won a special lottery and must personally collect their prize money from my laboratory. Or else where got people want to volunteer? Once trapped in my laboratory, they will be coerced by scary-looking thugs into surrendering their respective biological samples. Eh wait, that part's under 'coercion', not deception.
Best of all, I have to submit my curriculum vitae. I find it depressing to look at my CV. All my qualifications and achievements cannot fill a single page. I also don't have special interests and abilities (at least not any I cannot be criminally charged with) like climbing mountains, helping out at old folks homes or setting up businesses from home, which so many dynamic young people seem to be doing these days. In comparison, I'm about as dynamic and passionate as a 90 year old woman with vaginismus.
Stray thought: Didn't realize that cross-dressing is an outward manifestation of creative thinking. Since our students are obviously lacking in the creative department, we should encourage them to dress up and walk down Orchard Road to stimulate their creative juices. Or maybe it's the other way round, in that the propensity to cross-dress and think creatively share a common biological basis. If that's true, then MOE has been looking in the wrong places. I propose a neurological study on local bapohs in order to isolate the factors that make them such innovative thinkers.
Reminder
Just want to remind readers not to forget to catch the first episode of my show tonight at 10 pm on Channel 56 (and to follow subsequent episodes religiously). Thank you for your support.
There was an article (or was it forum letter?) in Lianhe Zaobao a couple of days back I found rather intriguing. The writer employed a form of stream-of-consciousness commentary reminiscent of blog posts to make witty observations. In one of these comments, he said that he didn't quite see the point of having dental benefits for employees. In a post-industrial society, most people do not use their teeth to make a living. Instead, we tend to sit in front of a computer monitor for most of the working day, and our eyesight deteriorates as a result. As such, eye care benefits ought to be provided for employees, for them to invest in a new pair of spectacles or a Lasik procedure if necessary.
It's unfortunate that almost all our so-called intellectuals, especially the younger generation, do not bother to read the Chinese paper. Not that I read it assiduously everyday, but I do make an effort to browse. The issues raised in the Zaobao forum and op-ed sections are often different from that of the Straits Times. Moreover, Zaobao columnists are far better writers than their ST counterparts, in terms of both content and style. Yet it seems only material from the ST emerges into mainstream consciousness.
Strangely enough, time seems to pass quickly when you spend only two days a week in school. And frankly speaking, I only learn stuff in about four hours of schooling per week. Three-hour seminars that devote half the time to student presentations are largely counter-productive. Like we pay school fees to listen to fellow coursemates present material either we are already familiar with or they don't understand themselves. And ironically, the presenters like to ask the audience if they understood what was said. Dumb.
Religious persecution
Note: In true supercilious fashion, may I say that before you write nasty things about me (which I doubt will happen actually), check to make sure that you've understood what I've said. But feel free to correct my errors. I tend to make inferential leaps when I blog. Also for obvious reasons, I won't elaborate too much on my points.
Some thoughts.
I don't study constitutions. But whether made implicit as an assumption or explicitly written, the overarching principle of state preservation should be present. Afterall, that's supposed to be the whole purpose of drafting a constitution. As such, the rights and freedoms enshrined therein are subsumed under and subject to state preservation, not to be confused with regime preservation. This is a debatable point, but the very existence of martial law ought to count for something in that respect. Perhaps rights are indeed universal and sacrosanct. Whether the state will respect them under national emergency is quite another matter, and power holders will have good reason to violate them when the situation calls for it. And yes, I do see the
potential for abuse.
A lot of ink has been spilled on the issue of terrorists exploiting Europe's open borders and respect for personal freedom. Yet to tighten security excessively and impinge on privacy is often seen as conceding ground to the Islamo-fascists (what a lousy term) who 'hate us for our freedoms'. To be honest, I have no insight into the motives of terrorists, while at the same
time, reject the facile explanations by columnists who know next to nothing about the people they make generalized conclusions about. Whatever the case, we accept that there are people who seek to subvert the state (or society) using violent means, using some form of religious ideology (whether they genuinely believe in it is a different matter) as justification. A stray thought: any group adamant on its right to congregate and practice their harmless beliefs to the point of civil disobedience ought to be treated with suspicion, which may be precisely why they feel so compelled to exercise their rights. But we have to ask ourselves if they might be returning tolerance with something less savoury. There must be something that makes them so worked up about the issue.
There is a sliding scale of insidiousness against the state. On one end we have homegrown terrorists, on the other we have people who deliberately violate minor laws as a general psychological FU in the direction of the pervasively-controlling state and those who complain loudly in kopitiams about public policy but do nothing. We might say that the more dangerous
individuals are those who do not reconcile personal beliefs with secular values (and more importantly, are willing to do something about it). That is, they much rather dwell in the City of God than in the City of Rome. If secular state or society presents itself as going against their beliefs, they will seek to change ('subvert' will be too strong a word) the state to suit
them. Of course the opposite occurs in that the state's (or rather, ruler's) newfound religiosity conflicts with the beliefs of the inhabitants. But that isn't my primary concern here.
Countries like Britain are justified in thinking that religious teachers who preach intolerance are particularly pernicious, since they foment and crystallize the nascent fears of their students into a destructive force, which in turn attracts the extremists among the social group. Once these preachers have garnered a large enough power base, one would logically expect them to exercise their influence against the state, so as to generate an effect disproportionately greater than their numbers. In my opinion, people like Luther, Calvin and Savonarola are really no different from certain influential clerics the Western world have low regard for. History is perhaps kinder to some members of the former group, but that's probably due to the antisepticizing effect of time and the fact that some of them actually won the ideological war. Savonarola is widely condemned because he crippled the scholastic humanism and artistic legacy of the Fiorentine city-state, which we are quite fond of. On the other hand, Francis Fukuyama once said the Muslim world is waiting for its Luther. I can see where he's coming from, but that doesn't detract from the absurdity of his argument. They already have their Luthers, but certain governments choose to disregard them. Perhaps with some sagacity, because one can easily imagine the bloodshed that would ensue should these thinkers have their way.
It comes as a surprise to some that the great Roman emperor and Stoic philosopher Marcus Aurelius persecuted the Christians, particularly in the general atmosphere of religious tolerance. And ironically his bronze statue is the only one surviving of the pre-Christian emperors because the Church thought it was of the first Christian emperor Constantine. One of the reasons given for religious persecution was jealousy and bitterness over the success of this otherworldly mystic cult as compared to the tranquility of Stoicism. Another reason was that early Christians celebrated natural disasters and other calamities as signs of the impeding Judgment. In general, early Christians, unlike the Jews who kept their beliefs private (not always), refused to participate in the ritualistic appeasement of pagan gods (which was in fact a secular practice few people genuinely believed in spiritually, a bit like singing the National Anthem in Singapore) and also destroyed idols, refused to pledge allegiance to the state and even actively sought martyrdom to the bemusement of local governors. In any case, only a very small number of Christians were martyred under Roman persecution.
I'm not condemning Christianity per se, but drawing parallels instead. As I suggested, subversion could perhaps be measured on a sliding scale and there are other groups that can potentially cause problems so long as spiritual and secular values are not adequately resolved. A/P Ho Peng Kee, a Christian, nearly lost his Nee Soon East seat in the last election (in the end, he was safe by a sizable margin) because of a 'misunderstanding' with temple elders. LKY himself was concerned enough to step in to resolve the issue. I thought it pretty amazing that the opinions of temple elders could swing an election in a certain direction. Actually it's a poor example but I just want to use it. Also, I realized that Singapore Soka Association has been involved in recent National Day Parades. SSA is an offshoot of Soka Gakkai International, an organization devoted to the practice of the Nichiren Shoshu school of Pure Land Buddhism. Soka actively seeks converts and frames its teachings not unlike evangelical Christianity, with the spreading of 'good news' and all that. SSA seems benign, but does involvement in NDPs count as a form of state sanction? What if City Harvest decides it wants to play a prominent role in national events? Not that I'm suggesting that CH has the potential to undermine the foundations of the state, heh.
At this point, some people may have affixed labels on me. I seem to be advocating a strongly authoritarian communist state, with a powerful centralized authority and the banning of religious groups, etc... Let's put it this way: I would not want to live a so-called ideal city-state, be it Rawlsian, Rousseauian or Platonic. Imperfection, irrationality and inconsistency, in my view, are necessary for a dynamic society. In the end, in case one of those blog-monitoring bureaucrats from our Government is reading this, I absolutely have to say Singapore is doing very well in its handling of religious matters. Very good, keep it up, those racist bloggers had it coming. I very pro-state one.
Test anxiety is a myth
Hmm, everyone seems to be mugging for PSLE, prelims and promos. And I overheard a conversation (that's what I always do: eavesdrop) between two exchange students bemoaning the difficulty of their mid-terms. See lah, in America slack rite? Come here then know the power of the 18th ranked university in the world. Contrarily, I'm understressed and overwhelmed by a humdrum existence. According to the Yerkes-Dobson law, it's just as bad as being overworked, almost.
I had a test last week and this passage was among the material covered:
"Some students blame their poor test scores on test anxiety. Horan (1995) analyzed the construct and concluded that test anxiety comes in three forms: adaptive, maladaptive and reactive.... Maladaptive anxiety may impair performance but, according to Horan (1995, p. 5), is rare: "In fact, my former students and I collected a bushel basket full of unpublished data from which we failed to identify a single individual with bonafide maladaptive test anxiety in a large class of graduate students who were approaching a final exam... No one's performance declined as a function of the test having implications for one's actual course grade!""
So, stop giving yourself lousy excuses and get down to work! Unless, of course, you know that you're gonna receive a particular grade whether or not you study. In that case, why waste time studying? Go watch TV or play games instead.
For some reason, I keep meeting people and having conversations right in front of the library entrance, and in so doing block other people's paths.
Me: Eh, rock star! You look so seh in the newspaper pics.
Friend: Aiyah, where got? Never smile, look sleepy, then seh already lor.
Me: Your album sold everywhere leh. Sembawang, HMV all got. Next time famous already don't forget me.
F: (grunts) You leh? Why are you still in this gui di fang? Haven't graduate meh?
Me: No lah, final year. You look so sian like dat how to be rock star. Must do more glamorous things mah, instead of everyday sleep and watch porn.
F: Watch porn not good meh? I go home sleep liao.
Part 2: Chinese girls
[Part 2]
I caught a music video late last night on Channel 51, which I hardly watch, while channel-surfing. There was this ugly bloke with gorgeous ladies. The girls looked like mainland Chinese. I thought to myself: couldn't the director have gotten a better-looking actor to star in the MV? Then I realized the guy was actually the singer. His name: Sun Nan.
My friend commented today, "Pretty girls stay in China. The not-so-pretty ones come to a little island in Southeast Asia. And they are predominantly found in three places: NUS, NTU and Geylang." Rest assured that this is not representative of our usual conversations. We prefer to discuss political geography, theatre, comparative philosophy, and stuff like that.
I thought the comment wasn't fair. The putative lack in beauty might be attributable to a perceived lack of sophistication. Moreover most of them are here to study and thus concentrate on achieving academically to the detriment of their appearances. In that respect, PRC students in Singapore are learning, for better or worse, from their Singaporean sisters. So much so that I can actually see the changes with my own eyes. And one Singaporean girl has already given me an indication of insecurity ('Their complexion is so fair!").
I'm fond of telling people about this Chinese lass from Shenyang whom I spent some time (working) with. She doesn't look too bad, but I could almost smell her rusticity at first (even though Shenyang's a town of some size). Then, bit by bit, little to little, she began to change her image. Nowadays, she isn't afraid to show her navel and wear bright-coloured sporty attire. To tell the truth, she belongs to a distinct minority, but it's at least something. I hope she doesn't read this, or she might think I've been following her.
She once asked if I was Taiwanese. I was afraid that she might attack me and threaten me into revealing Taiwanese military secrets, so I said no and asked her why she asked. Well, she had thought my Mandarin was uncharacteristically fluent for a Singaporean. My Mandarin fluency has been steadily deteriorating since I left the bastion of Chinese learning that's my secondary school, and my grasp of the language is nowhere near the standard I would like. Which made me wonder what kind of Mandarin other Singaporeans she'd been in contact with were using.
Maybe I'm precisely the archetypal bicultural elite the Government have in mind when they implement their language learning policies. But I don't feel as if I have anything to gain from having a certain level of proficiency and comfort in both cultures. I don't envision myself doing business in China, neither am I going to be a Chinese teacher. Besides, writing opinion pieces in Chinese is never gonna win me the same level of influence as compared to say, a serious English blogger. In essence, what I'm saying is that the advantages to be gleaned from a meticulous study of Chinese language and culture are nugatory in relation to the exacted costs. So, what for?
I was watching Fei Yu Qing's
Qing Yin Yue yesterday, again something I don't normally watch. Wu Sikai was the guest. A conversation between him and the host was unexpectedly revealing in that both of them evinced an understanding of historical (in the widest meaning of the word) evolution with regards to their art, a quality I'd thought lacking in Chinese pop music. I had wondered why people up to ten years older than me listened and still listen to the same music I grew up with. As if Chinese pop was non-existent, or a non-entity between the late 70s and 1988. Prior to that, the airwaves were dominated by songs now best described, and immediately recognized, as 'music belonging to our parents' generation'.
Going by their suggestions, Chinese pop underwent a profound sea change between 1987-89. A whole generation of singer-songwriters had emerged, penning melodies and lyrics of a different dynamic to what had preceeded. Familiar names such as Qi Qin, Wang Jie, Zhang Yu Sheng, Wu Sikai himself, just to mention a few, collectively transformed the listening habits and preferences of consumers. The contemporary Chinese pop song was born: more personal, a little more direct, and just that bit more ku qing. Wu Sikai said half in jest that while they were undeniably talented, their looks made it quite difficult for them to appear on television.
Which is partly why I mentioned Sun Nan in the beginning. I'm not that familiar with the music scene on the mainland, but I get this sense that Chinese artistes are still, for want of a better word, stuck in the post-89, pre-99 musical era. And they still retain their lack of sophistication, or rather world-weariness, which is either naive or charming depending on where you stand.
Part 1: Mao Zedong
I'll ramble on, this time on disparate topics. I also predict that only three people will read this post to its bitter end. On second thought, maybe I should divide this post in two. I assure you the second part will be much more reader-friendly. By the way, why argue about Christian teachers proselytising to children and racism in blogs when we can discuss something far more interesting like Communism and Chinese culture?
[Part 1]
PRC celebrated its 56th National Day yesterday, didn't catch any media coverage of it though.
The prefaces of mainland Chinese textbooks are amusing reads. They usually begin with a reference to Mao Zedong and end with a quote from Jiang Zemin. This generally applies to books by the People's Publishing, the other publishers are far less explicit. My anthology of Chinese literature classics is actually prefaced by Jiang Zemin himself. Whether or not the contents of the book have anything to do with CCP ideology, they'll find some way to squeeze in Marxist and nationalist apologetics.
A sample from a literature text (my translation):
"Comrade Mao Zedong, in
The Role of the Chinese Communist Party in Volkskrieg, said that, "Learning our historical heritage and employing Marxist theory for critical summary is one of our goals for learning.... We are Marxist historicists. We should not cut off history. From Confucius to Sun Yat-sen, we ought to evaluate, inherit and propagate this valuable heritage."......Jiang Zemin in the 14th People's Congress once pointed out, "We must inherit and develop the rich literary and cultural traditions of the Chinese people, while also absorbing all the useful products of human civilization. In order to create an advanced spiritual civilization for humanity, [the above] must be integrated into the praxis of our lively socialism.""
Hope you derived as much fun reading it as I did translating and typing it. Somehow I doubt it.
While I haven't done any research, my feeling is that the Chinese are quite embarrassed by the excesses of Mao's leadership. At least I don't sense any rose-tinted hankering for the 'good ol' days', like the Russians seem to do nowadays. I don't know what opinion the layperson has of the librarian from Hunan, but I can assure you that he's pretty intelligent, though sadly misguided like the very best among us. His considerable military and strategic achievement are an indication. His philosophical thought, which is the focus here, is another. While not really to my surprise, some have argued that Mao is strictly less of a philosopher in the Marxist sense (though certainly an adherent of materialist dialectics) than a thinker in the Chinese epistemological and metaphysical tradition. That's perhaps due to our greater familiarity with his political writings than his philosophical musings. The links between the two can be rather tenuous though, in that I don't see how he can jump from Heraclitus and rationalism, or more appropriately in this context Zhou Dunyi, to Marx and his own brand of political philosophy just like that.
Following in the footsteps of political gadfly (refer to today's Zaobao) Li Ao, I will reproduce select quotes from Mao. Just for kicks.
"All knowledge originates in perception of the objective external world through man's sense organs."
"Knowledge begins with practice and theoretical knowledge is acquired through practice and then must return to practice."
"If you want to know the taste of a pear, you must change the pear by eating it yourself. If you want to know the theory and methods of revolution, you must take part in revolution. All genuine knowledge originates in direct experience."
"Whatever is written in a book is right- such is still the mentality of culturally backward Chinese peasants... Of course we should study Marxist books, but this study must be integrated with our country's actual conditions. We need books, but we must overcome book worship."
"What is universal in one context becomes particular in another. Conversely, what's particular in one context becomes universal in another."
You might ask: why the obsession with such cheena stuff? Personally I don't care much about Mao, since he died before I was born. Unfortunately I carry a part of his name (not my parents' idea), and by extension a cultural imprint. At least thankfully I wasn't named after Chinese political leaders like my cousins. That, coupled with my association with a school with a history of Communist leanings (though I'm inclined to think the students were more Chinese nationalists than communists), would have meant that scrutiny by the ISD was inevitable.
