I've been meaning to write a bit about finally making a choice as to where I'm headed next year, but I always seem either preoccupied or more likely braindead when I'm at the computer to actually get down to it. I think maybe that's why those games on Facebook are as addictive as they are - when you want to relax and not be intelligent in order to do it, there's something about scrubbing your mouse up and down to clean your pet in Pet Society. It's the whole Mr Miyagi going "wax on, wax off", I suspect.
The things you learn when you least expect it. I told a young kid today that the last time I had students his age was when I was working in Thailand, when I would often ask, "Kow cai, mai?" which meant "Understand, no?" and I sometimes accidentally slip into Thai even today. And this Malaysian kid said that I could go ahead and feel free to keep the lingo. Soon enough there was some technical issue, and I went, "Kow cai, mai?" and he replied, "Eh sai!"
In other news I've learned that in order to say, "OK", you can also go, "Zero killed". How about that.
I've also been wondering that if I were to work in Yemen, say conducting a youth orchestra, and I wanted to encourage them, would I be guilty of emboldening the Yemeni?
One of these days when I'm done zigzagging I'll post more about my plans for New Zealand. All I'll say for now is that I intend to find the most ethically admirable woolen animal I can find, and bring it to my friends, shouting, "Holy sheep!"
Americans are likely to view the current crisis in Iran being familiar with the standpoint of protesters - and how that is a right of free speech and association they have come to enshrine. Malaysians on the other hand, will find the event of particular interest simply because it's the first time it's happened at that scale for an Islamic nation.
It's one of those things where no matter how it ends, it's going to have some upside to it. Americans are going to be made particularly aware that the Iranian government and the Iranian people can be two quite separate entities. More so than after the movements in Georgia and Nepal, Malaysians are going to be made more aware that peaceful protests, especially those done in protection of proper democratic ideals, are not just Western propaganda, and that so-called "illegal assemblies" are often the voice of the people. "I have a dream" sadly doesn't resonate much in this country outside of secluded lecture rooms. But there will be something eerily familiar about the Revolutionary Guard and Iranian riot police and it will not be so easy to see the videos and pictures as protectors of the people.
It's the first time I've seen YouTube take on a "breaking news" role:
- not from the channel, but the ticker at the top of every video I checked today, whether or not it had anything to do with Iran.
The world is changing. I just hope that once the dust settles, people have longer memories.
I still think my string experimentation shopping and experimentation spree once upon a time was far more caffeine inspired, but the current go on rosins isn't exactly decaf either. Curiosity, they claim, ended the feline's 9-run streak, and its that which has led me first to try the higher end "Superior" hand-crafted Colophane, which was supposed to be an upgrade from the Jade which I've always liked.
I then transfered the Jade to the violin, and used the new Colophane on the viola, which turned out to be a disaster. The viola bows in particular didn't react well - though they could produce a slightly better tone when at slow bow speeds, and when just the right amount of rosin was used, the bows were just careening off the highway with anything close to fourth gear. And for some reason the Jade on the violin just didn't match up to my old Bernadel.
Now here's where human nature takes away from life sometimes. The obvious thing was to go back to what I was using before, but the thing is I have a real life commitment to my viola compared to the violin, and the Jade, the so-called inferior rosin was in a plastic case while the new Colophane was in a hand-crafted wooden and magnetic case with the company seal emblazened twice. It took the viola a while to tell me in no uncertain tones not to aquit the book by its cover. And the new Colophane is working fine with the violin now, and the Jade was reunited with the viola... till I came across the Larsen.
So far so good. It's the first rosin I have tried - or for that matter, heard of - which has a version specifically for viola. It's not the same kind of bite that I hear the cello rosin has, but still, a good grip, without too much dust. We'll see how long this particular affair lasts... I think the last stop on this particular road will be the Andrea Bang. But for now, that will remain another journey entirely.
I find myself being unusually hooked to Britain's Got Talent. And mind you, not only because of Susan Boyle, who kind of lost me with the recent semifinals.
Then again, that's the real test of the show - whether you can live on when your novelty's worn out. Susan quite simply wouldn't have been the world class sensation she has turned out to be if she was slim and sexy. She's been called new age parable, but once the ugly duckling turns into the swan, whatever the swan does is somehow less impressive.
I think that's what I really like about it more than shows like American Idol, or Survivor, or America's Next Top Model. There's a certain reality about it, in some ways like watching a sociological experiment in motion. After a low-key audition setting, some shine even better on a massive stage in the semifinals: like last year's winner George Sampson. And it seems that the life stories that come onto the stage matter as much as the performance itself, George being rejected, dancing on the street to earn money for petrol and dance lessons and coming back to conquer the competition. Susan's story of never-been-kissed, taking care of her mother, fulfilling a life-long dream. Most times this adds charm to the show, but sometimes people take advantage of this aspect, prime example being Eugene the Librarian's act intentionally focusing on creating a duckling ugly enough for us to vote on the mirage of a swan.
So all in all it's not always about talent. Or not just about talent anyway. I've never put much stock in talent alone, partially I suppose because I see a lot of young students with plenty of talent but no real dedication to put it to use. And there are times I've worried that a certain superficial showmanship takes over actual ability, like the two string acts which I've seen thus far: the Bond-ish group Escala and Vanessa Mae-esque Sue Son - neither of whom would have, or at least should have, moved upwards in the competition if music was the prime criteria.
Part of the cost of having a multi-angled variety show of course, is that it gets a bit diluted - as my sister rightly pointed out about Shaun Smith, he's good but he wouldn't last long in American Idol. Last year's Ben and Becky were alright, but then when a judge remarks on "perfect form" it's not exactly the microscope you might see on Dancing With the Stars. And that's not expected either - we're catering to a much wider audience, and the significance of that is that the most common denominator is one's personal story. Then only verify with talent. Cue Susan Boyle.
And for that reason I'm glad you can't break your way to the very top with just-so skills on an electric violin. You can make it half-way but so far a good heart seems to outlast other apparent body parts in the very end.
I just hope that my personal favourite this season doesn't lose out because he doesn't have as amazing a life story... and that he manages to fill a large stage as much as he did during the auditions.
There will, of course, be those who think that my blog title is a little off in a grammatical sense, that it should be "scholarships" or "the scholarship". But the thing is (and yes, I can start a sentence with a conjunction too), the essence of what we call "scholarship" is not a financial grant but the spirit of academic pursuit, the chase of knowledge and fidelity to intellectual maturity. The grant many of us know as the "scholarship" is one of the ways of acknowledging that a person has displayed the potential and earned the chance at being recognized as a scholar (and at a higher level, graduate and teaching assistants). Malaysians tend to forget coveted positions like that of the Queen's Scholar, not just for the financial opportunity it came with, but the responsibility of conducting a career that gave back respect to the award.
But of course the money is important, I know that first hand. And therein lies the conflict between how these two aims not only coexist, but are on each other reliant. It is in this line of thought that I refer you to Ong Tee Keat's comments on reviewing PSD scholarships in today's Star:
Currently, Ong said, the selection is based on four criteria - merit (20%), race (60%), Sabah and Sarawak citizens (10%) and students from underprivileged groups (10%).
He said if meritocracy was part of the criteria, the students’ co-curriculum [sic] activities and interviews should not be included for consideration.
"Meritocracy means it should solely be the students’ results and not any other areas," he said.
If I could take a moment to be self-serving, there is a part of me that wishes that were true. I'd like my current applications to be entirely reliant on GPA, and there's a personal statement - the substitute for an interview - for a New Zealand government doctoral scholarship that's giving me more than a bit of stress. But I understand where Ong Tee Keat is coming from, with all these Chinese students (let's face it, he's saying it on behalf of the MCA after all) with spectacular SPM results who can't get into medicine. And he's right that on an academic level at least they probably earned the level of scholarship more so than some of those who actually got it.
The problem is that he's saying the wrong things, even if they are for the right reasons. Meritocracy does not preclude the use co-curricular activites nor the role of an interview. Leadership ability and the application of theory into practice, for which we have co-curricular activies, are important elements of a scholar. Just as interviews are important not only to assess one's communication skills but to know (especially in our memorization-based public schooling system) that one has skills of analytical thinking that match or balance with the academic results. We need to produce scholars that enter the major academic institutions of the world not to promote our great skills of memory, but to lead intellectual discussions and debates essential to thorough research.
I suspect that Ong knows this, or least he knows that results really isn't what meritocracy is about. Or rather what meritocracy is against. Meritocracy is in truth against the abuse of subjective areas like co-curricular activities and interviews to put people in who shouldn't be there.
More importantly, you can't say that meritocracy is "part of the criteria" - you either have it, or you don't, and all the criteria which any student cannot earn renders it moot.
Of course, race is the hot button when it comes to these discussions, the big taboo. But real meritocracy wouldn't even take into account Sabah and Sarawak, and even the need-basis is often not part of the picture, if someone is truly in need but has not earned the level required. If there are two people for one scholarship award, and one has more need, that's only when it should be taken into account. If there is one scholarship award and no one qualified, then it should not be awarded.
In the end it's not about seeing more Chinese getting PSD scholarships, or I should say it's not just about that. It's not about whose SPM results got them what. It's about who have already graduated from having PSD scholarships and whether they have made their country proud with their public service - that is, after all why they call it the Public Services Department. It's about making sure that whoever it is who gets these scholarships, whether it be 100% Malay or 100% Chinese prove their academic capabilities (and not just their spending abilities), their scholarship, their ability to come back with the title of scholar, proving beyond a doubt that they have given back in stature as much as they have been given in stipend.
It's an accomplishment for anyone to get a Trekker to say, hey, that was a pleasant surprise. By and large, surprises in Trek history stand in the category of "uh oh" rather than "oh cool". William Shatner's infamous comment to hyper-energized fans that, "For crying out loud, it's just a TV show!" was perhaps the best (or worst) example, but the extension of the franchise to Voyager, Deep Space 9 and worst of all, Enterprise at best divided the fans into niche areas. Certain Republicans say, who liked a certain interpretation of the leadership in war themes of DS9, or a more hormonal reaction of others to Seven of Nine's body-hugging wear, or more accurately the body that was hugged by the wear of Jeri Ryan.To take up that challenge of taking Trekdom by surprise was certainly not the final frontier, but certainly one which no man had successfully gone before. And so here's kudos particularly to Alex Kurtzman and Roberto Orci for putting together a screenplay which managed to change the very makeup of the Star Trek formula: that you can have all those existential questions, the exposition of self and self-conflicts, without going into a monologue. Somehow they managed to put the purpose-driven, self-discovery core into what is essentially not only its regular science fiction genre, but create a great action movie at the same time.
The actors for Kirk and Spock did well (Zachary Quinto managing to exist as the latter without much side-effects from his Heroes fame) but the one I really thought did well was John Cho as Sulu. Think about it - this is the guy from Harold and Kumar - well connecting with some comedic moments and once again with pleasant surprises in his more serious scenes.
J.J. Abrams gets his own nod simply for keeping the pace going, and not getting into the regular trap of digging too far into Star Trek folklore. He could introduce all the major characters - Kirk, Spock, Sulu, Bones, Scotty, Uhura - for the benefit of those who may not know much about Trek, and at the same time not boring those who know enough about the topic to challenge most university faculties in terms of depth of knowledge in one's specialized area. He managed to introduce Kirk's rebellious, shoot-from-the-hip nature while at the same time enhancing those already familiar with space's favourite cowboy.
His skill of juggling the seemingly impossible dawned on me when I realized that he managed to include Spock's father - iconic in his own right not only in the original Star Trek series but in reprisals later in The Next Generation - without having to drive himself into that side alley at all. In fact, he was always referred to as Spock's father (rather than to involve another specific name: Sarek) which made perfect sense to the other characters who weren't ever introduced to Sarek. Not only does this come back to what it means to have a movie - to move - but it goes one further in allowing for Trekkers and non-Trekkers to have something to talk about after the show. It's enough to act as an introduction to those new to Star Trek, and Trekkers are always keen on discussing their sometimes scarily involved knowledge of the series.
After all, it's not for nothing that I, for example, am a bit of the resident expert on all things Voyager. Never mind that I used to have the script pretty much ingrained in my head. We used to hang out at this place and I remember once at 11pm (when the re-runs aired here) friends wondering whether we should rush back to catch the show at nearby home. So they asked the cafe owner to switch to the channel for all of 10-15 seconds - with no sound - after which I could tell them about the entire episode and whether it was worth it to catch it again. My criticisms of the film are few: Scotty was a bit over-the-top perhaps, they could have expanded the climatic scene, and the CGI while good still couldn't match some of that of the Enterprise-E. Nonetheless, like how a movie should be a movie, this review is just that - that I'm looking forward to a re-view of the show, with its spirit that with any luck will live long and prosper in more episodes of the intrepid crew.
I've never seen a clearer reason why teacher accreditation is necessary. I shudder to think of over one thousand people who have seen this thus far thinking that this is "B minor"... or any other minor. From a series of "Expert Village", to boot.
For those interested, she's not exactly playing out of tune as much as she's playing the Locrian mode thinking it's B minor - in a sense C major, starting and ending on B.
