So I’m trying something a little different this year with my students.

In the past, whenever I wanted to show them something creative to students for the purposes of school work (and also just to generally expose them to good aesthetics, intelligent design, etc.), I’d e-mail them to ‘push’ the info to them.

That doesn’t work because students don’t always check their mail (or e-mail from me tends to be ignored… I don’t condone this but I don’t blame them either.)

Also, we have a school-based Content Management System (CMS), but students have to ‘pull’ the info from the site.

And knowing how human beings are like i.e. we follow the path of least resistance, it ain’t gonna happen… (in this case.)

So based on some feedback several of my ex-students gave me last year, I thought I’d set up musee.sg in my own personal capacity to ‘curate creativity’.

I think teaching creative thinking isn’t enough; people also have to be immersed in a creative environment or at least exposed to creative things on a regular basis to become creative too.

So students and anyone who’s interested in this can:

• Follow le Tumblr (it’s the first time I’m messing around with Tumblr BTW);
• Follow le Twitter; and/or
• Become a Facebook fan.

I thought I’d use social media because it just pushes everything to the students who are always on Tumblr/Twitter/Facebook anyway.

BTW I’m developing this organically so everything’s a bit spartan now in terms of design and stuff.

Also, organic means that it might die or it might evolve, but what the hell – let’s see where this goes.

Appreciate any support if you can spare some!

• Tragedy and comedy (and the relationship between the two); and
• Societal ethics, especially with regard to recent news that has been making headlines in Singapore.

I’d like to do an extended post on this that explains how and why the above-mentioned concepts can be taught/learnt.

Unfortunately, I don’t have the time and I don’t think I’ll ever get back to doing this.

Nevertheless, I’m placing this post as a marker of my own thoughts and also if anyone else might be interested in this.

Further reading:

• Fleming, Rudd. “Of Contrast Between Tragedy and Comedy.” The Journal of Philosophy 36.20 (1939): 543 – 553.

In other news, HIMYM is the new Entourage.

Related links of interest:

1. We Can’t Stop Talking About Race in America.
2. Dangerous Liaisons: Tennessee Williams and David Mamet on the damage that we do.

• Unattainable Earth | the space between the rain – drops.
  “For him, the understanding will arrive one Sunday afternoon weeks later when he is with his wife, walking the circular concrete path around a pond in the Botanic Gardens. He will look out over the pond and then remember the image, of his foot next to hers in the water. Their feet were so close, centimetres apart, but they never touched”.
• Knowledge | Nature: International Weekly Journal of Science
  “Because they had to rely on memories of memories, the past was hard to know. And if you did not know the past, how could you learn from it? How could knowledge be preserved other than by memory?”
• My Lost Year: A Brief Memoir of Disconnection and Return | The Bygone Bureau
  I’m always nostalgic for the ’90s.
• FML: The Couple That Need (sic) To Take Up Scuba-Diving Together | Cowboy Caleb: A Gonzo Journal
  “One of my pals has a new obsession which he never fails to share every single sordid detail of, every day, without fail, with me.

  He has gotten it into his head that his wife of 1 year, is having an affair.

  ‘Is it because your wang can no longer achieve tumultness (sic)?’ I ask”.

• Rescue | Waiter Rant
  Bar the title, I think it’s quite interesting detective fiction.

While waiting for my sister to finish her shopping, I jotted down some notes on my phone using Evernote.

It would’ve remained in Evernote were it not for this article which echoed what I wrote.

This is an expanded version of my thoughts.

***

Why are there more salespeople/sellers than shoppers?

For every one shopper around, there are five salespeople standing around not doing anything.

And this isn’t an isolated incident – I’ve seen it happening in almost every shopping mall I’ve gone to (and I’ve gone to quite a number, no thanks to sister dearest).

It’s the same for the roadside hawkers, the bazaar stall-holders and the security guards, to name a few professions that have a multitude of workers.

I’m no economist, so my analysis may have some flaws.

But I think there are a number of factors for the scenario I’ve outlined above, namely: the Indonesian population size, employment rates, the lack of a minimum wage and a lack of training.

For one, there are so many people in Indonesia (imagine MRT crowds during rush hour – but for the whole day) that they’re employed to do the most menial of labour.

For example, the security guards at the apartment of my sister’s friend (whom we stayed with) doubled up as gate-openers and barrier-lifters.

And the bus conductors (on the one harrowing bus ride we took) doubled up as safety- and security-ensurers, door-openers and stop-announcers.

But aren’t these jobs that can be done easily with technology and maybe one person, at most, to operate the technology?

Now I’m not exactly advocating that human beings be replaced by machines, but if you think about it logically, a shift toward technological replacements is one of the solutions to a decreasing population.

But back to my point: why are the Indonesians not making use of technology to do this work so that their people can be more productive and/or utilised more effectively?

Perhaps it’s political – that is, to make sure that everyone is employed, or unemployment rates are low, people are employed en masse to do these jobs.

The corollary of this: three to five people are paid on one person’s wage. This depresses wages and reduces their collective standard of living.

And if this practice of frivolous employment is allowed to go on unchecked, there is little incentive for companies to invest in technology to increase productivity.

***

At the same time, there are so many people concentrated in just a few occupations – the roadside hawkers are the most obvious, because they are EVERYWHERE.

You might argue: hey, demand and supply, man. The market will decide whether or not these phatties stay in business.

Ok sure. But if the roadside hawker goes out of business, what other options does he have? Be a bus conductor, a security guard or sell clothes at bazaars?

Which means that if the Indonesian government doesn’t do these three things:

• Institute a minimum wage so that employers are forced to employ lesser people and utilise more productive methods instead,
• Invest in technology to increase productivity, and
• Conduct proper training so that workers can be employed in a multitude of jobs,

the poor Indonesians are never going to escape from this vicious cycle of low wages and a low quality of life.

***

Sadly, this issue of employment, low wages and productivity is happening in Singapore too.

It’s most obvious in the construction and services industry in Singapore; Alex Au has written a post about this before.

What’s worse is that people are actually brought in from overseas to work as construction labourers and service staff.

“But Singaporeans don’t want to do these jobs!” – that’s the oft-quoted argument that Singaporeans themselves have unwittingly bought into because it’s been repeated so many times.

If you’re one of these Singaporeans, let me tell you a story.

Back in university, when we’d spend our time sleeping all day and staying up all night, one of the truth or dare games we’d play while drinking was “How much would you have to be paid to do x?”

Where x, of course, is something that the people at the table would be most disinclined to do.

One of the most hotly-discussed Xs was “butt sex with a guy”; all the guys at the table then were/are heterosexual, so our preferences have never been to have butt sex with men (but we have no prejudice against anyone who is open to this idea).

As the question went around the table, and the answers ran the gamut from $1000 to “You pay me how much also I will never do it!”, one of the guys weighed in with his expert opinion on the subject.

“$100,” he intoned in a low voice.

There was a brief silence before we all broke out into laughter.

“Very low lei!” someone else said. “Are you sure you’d be doing this unwillingly or not?”

My point of the story is this: anyone can be bought for a price.

If you pay someone enough to do something – where “enough” is enough from her or his perspective – she or he will do it.

So the amount you pay to someone to get her or him to work for you will translate into the numbers of and the quality of people you get.

But isn’t that what we’ve known all along, especially in the case of political salaries in Singapore?

While trying my best not to sound stupid: HEY EVERYONE, IT’S MY BIRTHDAY TODAY! WOO HOO!

Haha!

Anyway, as I’m writing this you might be thinking about sending me birthday greetings.

You might even be contemplating – dinosaur-gods forbid – giving me a present.

Whatever the case, I’d like to ask for a favour from all of you.

Two, in fact, since today is a special day for me, and I don’t often ask for favours.

Could I please trouble all of you to do the following two things for me?

1. ‘Like’ the Checkpoint Theatre page on Facebook, and
2. Sign up for the Checkpoint Theatre mailing list.

It may not seem like much to you, but it means the world to me.

Thank you in advance for making this special day even more special for me, and I hope you all have a great day too!

(A quick disclaimer: this is not targeted at anyone, dear reader, so please don’t take it upon yourself to feel hurt.

However, if you feel that the information is useful for your own development – good on you, starfish [1]! LOL)

So while we’re still on the topic of leadership [2]: I think it’s very important for leaders to have vision.

Not a Vision [3], mind you – that’s one of those Singaporeanisms that need to die a quick but painful death because of the meaningless torture that people are put through because of its useless ineptitude.

Leaders need vision in terms of:

1. Foresight (looking to the future):
• Being absolutely clear about where organisations/departments are at present, both in terms of their achievements and their uselessness ESPECIALLY when pitted against other organisations or departments (i.e. Insightful Foresight).
• Being perceptive with regard to where their organisation or department needs to go to be less useless and more successful.
2. Insight (looking at the present):
• Being nimble enough to:
• Realise that everything has the potential to go wrong and potentially blow up in one’s face, and
• Make changes on the fly, even if it means retracting a prior decision that has proven to be useless and putting something meaningful in its place, at the risk of meeting with resistance from others (i.e. Insightful Hindsight).
3. Hindsight (looking at the past):
• Being reflective enough to consider whether anything is going wrong, and
• If something has gone wrong, being humble enough to admit this and then working on fixing the problem so that it doesn’t happen again (i.e. Reflective Foresight).

Of course, all smart-alecky material is nothing without a smart-alecky diagram to go along with it, so here you go:

LINKS

[1] good on you, starfish!
[2] still on the topic of leadership
[3] a Vision.

That plus this picture I recently saw floating around on Facebook comparing the difference between a boss and a leader [1] inspired me to write about this topic.

The content of the visual is more or less spot on, but it’s also quite ugly. So I thought I’d create my own visual for posterity:

For the less visually-inclined, the difference between a boss and a leader can be summarised as thus:

1. A boss drives employees, whereas a leader coaches them.
2. A boss depends on authority, whereas a leader utilises goodwill to get things done.
3. A boss evokes fear, whereas a leader generates enthusiasm.
4. A boss says “I”, whereas a leader says “We”.
5. A boss merely places the blame on someone when there’s a breakdown; a leader fixes the breakdown to make sure it doesn’t happen again.
6. A boss knows how it’s done but a leader shows how it’s done.
7. A boss uses people but a leader develops people.
8. A boss takes credit whereas a leader gives credit where it’s due.
9. A boss commands; a leader asks (difference is in the tone of instruction).
10. A boss says “Go” but a leader says “Let’s go”.

Is this true for you?

In any case, come back again tomorrow for part 2.

LINKS

[1] difference between a boss and a leader

When I attended the City Night Songs rehearsal on Mon night, I was reminded of something that Scott Adams, the creator of Dilbert, once wrote about finding success in life:

If you want an average successful life, it doesn’t take much planning. Just stay out of trouble, go to school, and apply for jobs you might like.

But if you want something extraordinary, you have two paths:

1. Become the best at one specific thing.
2. Become very good (top 25%) at two or more things.

The first strategy is difficult to the point of near impossibility. Few people will ever play in the NBA or make a platinum album. I don’t recommend anyone even try.

The second strategy is fairly easy. Everyone has at least a few areas in which they could be in the top 25% with some effort.

In my case, I can draw better than most people, but I’m hardly an artist. And I’m not any funnier than the average standup comedian who never makes it big, but I’m funnier than most people.

The magic is that few people can draw well and write jokes. It’s the combination of the two that makes what I do so rare.

And when you add in my business background, suddenly I had a topic that few cartoonists could hope to understand without living it…

– Scott Adams, “Career Advice”

Why was this suddenly so poignant?

Well, traditional theatre requires actors to be good at one thing and one thing alone: acting.

But the way the actors have to multi-task for City Night Songs is friggin’ amazing – they’re not only actors in the traditional theatrical sense, but they’re dancers and musicians too.

Having to do all these things consecutively (and sometimes, concurrently) is no easy task, and that they were cast to star in their various roles also points to their versatility and talent.

So if anything, you can be assured that these multi-talented actors are gonna put up a great show over the weekend.

(click here if you can’t see the embedded video)

And coupled with a fantastic script that has Huzir Sulaiman as both dramaturg and director, you can see why I’m looking forward to seeing the show in its full glory.

See you there!

Isn’t anyone going to nominate me for this award after all the trauma (part 1 and part 2) I’ve had to undergo???