"The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers." - Thomas Jefferson

***

The depths the local media has sunk to in their extended A*Star/Phillip Yeo publicity exercise is depressing. They've really outdone themselves this time.

(More detailed analysis may be found on the specialist blog Singapore Ink. - kopi, tea and lager, which lovingly chronicles the latest circus)

At least in the 21st Century, they no longer have a monopoly on news production, analysis and dispersal, and outraged parties who have been misquoted, misrepresented or scandalized by the nadir that they've sunk to can set the record straight.

With a performance like this, it's no wonder people, especially the youth, are getting turned off and apathetic.

Luckily I don't keep up with it any more, and never had the intention of joining it (despite the suggestions of many).


Someone: hahaha i love the ST
they are the leaders in intellectual thought
they are the true postmodernist

they can offer rival interpretations to anything
how can we beat them
we can't

rival interpretations to what mrbrown said to what mrmiyagi said to what wows said

Me: they're good at getting something from nothing
maybe they did the USP writing module haha

Someone: what? they probably proposed the course :P


Meanwhile, a comment seen on Singapore Ink:

"Person A: i really wonder if yeo did his NS

Person B: that’s how he know it make people more infantileZ haha

Person A: it explains his unwhiny character
he sits on his bitch chair and complains to the press and his lawyers

Person B: good Right
if you gotz initiative, if you have motivationz, if you are proactive - it means you’re whiny

Person A: hahaha

Person B: you can call him names
just don’t criticise his work

Comment by Scared kenna Sued"


Young Republic:

"Oh yes, on Philip's comments today: Yes but no. One very good reason why Singaporean Male ASTAR scholars might seem more 'infantile' is precisely because national service is an infantilising experience. And he may be right and Singaporean guys should really start reflecting on whether they have become whining, useless losers.

Alternatively, it could also be argued that because of two years of serving for an ungrateful organisation all out to exploit them, they have seen first hand why it might not be such a good idea to just listen to everything Philip says.

It could also be that getting thrust into truly alien environments, as opposed to their fellow elitist foreign scholar/female counterparts, has opened their eyes to opportunities that they had not known existed. ( Such as being inter-dealer brokers, whom rumour has it make hundreds of thousands of dollars per annum, if not millions, and are actually encouraged to go drinking and whoring nightly. But 'tis just a rumour....).

Or it could be that Philip just doesn't like the guys simply because we have more balls to actually disagree with him. To put it in another way, perhaps it could be argued that he likes the foreign-born scholars and the girls because they are more subservient and docile. And that to question his wisdom is most unwise- the role of the ASTAR bonded researcher is to just shut up and do whatever research is directed for them, never mind that it may not be where their passion truly lies or that they might have ethical doubts about the sort of work they are doing. All for the good of the economy and the security of this Republic.

One more thing. The following idea, ( somewhat tongue-in-cheek but you never know....) came about during breakfast chats with my family. Perhaps ASTAR should consider, as a real way to get real talent into Singapore, to start paying genuine top dollar for the top science graduate students from MIT, Caltech and so on. I mean, funding all these cheap slaves from poor Asian countries as well as Singaporeans whose parents don't earn megabucks, even if you are paying a million a piece for each of them, is not really going to bring about the super results that you want- the fact that they are all so willing to obey what you say, even when you know it's hot air, says quite a lot about their standard of imagination, or rather, the lack thereof. At most, they can be Master Test Tube Washers, churning out huge quantities of research no doubt, but alas, research that produces few genuine breakthroughs that we can keep as trump cards for Singapore.

Therefore why not just buy as many grad students as you can from all the prestigious universities? Money should not be an object; we can always grossly inflate the budget for hiring top talent, the savings for this of course coming from cutting back on frivolous spending like utility subsidies for the destitute or something. Pump extra incentives for coming here. Yes, doing even things like strapping yourselves to office chairs and sliding down long, long, long corridors is probably going to be much more frowned upon here than in Massachusetts. And of course there's other niggling things like, the lack of freedom of speech. But so what? You're coming to a nation that adores expatriates of all colour, even if those Failed-In-London-Try-Hong-Kong, or Perth-Impossible-Go- Singapore types.

Someone please rebutt the above and tell me what I've said is not true. I'm depressed by the above scenarios myself."

***

I set out to ascertain the veracity of the oft-heard comment that Malaysian hawker food tastes better than Singaporean hawker food. And so I put forward this premise to my panel of correspondents (I love all of you, really), and got some interesting theories. My usual methods of gathering information can be divided into 4 categories: research, observation, interviews and contributions. Not having been to Ma-laysia for many years, I had to rely on the views of my correspondents and my own speculations. Perhaps I shall be able to make my own observations if/when I go to Penang next month.

First we examined whether this premise was sound. A simple majority of respondents disagreed with the proposition, and a two-thirds supermajority (albeit from a smaller sample) thought that Singapore had better restaurants. Interestingly, no one thought that Singapore had better food (ie They all thought Singapore's offerings were either as good or lousier than Malaysia's).

Of course, patriotic Malaysians would dispute this claim. nw.t blithely claimed, for example, that: "i've known many singaporeans who feel that malaysian hawker food is way better strangely enough, most of these singaporeans are well travelled individuals who have been up and down regularly, as opposed to your cossetted schoolmates who have been up to KL once or twice in their lives". Curiously, those who championed Malaysian food all tended to be passionate in the extreme about it.

On the other hand, my sister has been spending a few weeks in Kuala Lumput, and she says that Malaysian hawker food is just different - not better, and that Singapore has more variety (perhaps the Malaysians gain advantages from specialisation). And that Malaysian servings are small.

First, the statistical aspects of this problem must be examined.

I suspect that the deified view of Malaysian hawker food may be due to selection bias. Passionate defenders of Malaysian food likely have their favourite food outlets, which they then compare with those in ordinary Singapore neigbourhoods. As for the matter of comparing the best outlets that each nation has to offer, I do not have enough data and so am unable to do an analysis. Perhaps one of the Singaporean variety food shows can do a special feature on this.

Another reason for the better perception of Malaysian food is the same reason why PRCs seem so much smarter than Singaporeans. Since the population of China is so much bigger than that of Singapore, the most mathematically able (say) 1% of Singaporeans is numerically equal to the top 0.003% of PRCs. It is thus no surprise that PRCs seem so much smarter. Malaysia has a bigger Chinese population than Singapore, so it would not be surprising if they had better hawkers. Some might point out that Malaysia is a large country, yet the geographical distribution of the Chinese population in Malaysia is not uniform - KL and Penang, for example, are majority Chinese, and they tend to be concentrated in the urban areas.

The above 2 reasons also account for why Singaporean men think that Singaporean women are uglier than Japanese and Taiwanese women - not only are there more of the latter, the men's impressions of foreign women are formed from watching Japanese and Taiwanese AV.

Another reason might be that Singaporean and Malaysian hawker food is qualitatively different. Some people might prefer Malaysian-style Hokkien Mee or Char Kway Teow to the Singaporean variant. So we're not actually comparing the same thing here.

I think my final theory might account for most of the difference: since people agree that Singapore has better restaurants, maybe the good cooks in Singapore become restaurant chefs, while those in Malaysia stay as hawkers. And since restaurant food is more expensive than hawker food, the poor Malaysian country bumpkins (heh) don't get to savour the "Taste of Singapore".

And now, I shall speculate about why Malaysian hawker food might taste better.

There is a great deal less regulation in Malaysian. Hawkers thus have freer reign in doing their thing, the most obvious aspect of which is lower hygiene standards. One may observe the same phenomenon in Singapore - the good stalls tend to get "C"s and "D"s hygiene ratings. It is also no surprise that the food in Singaporean foodcourts tends to be mediocre, standardised and franchised as it is (lowering the perception of Singaporean food further). Also, dirtier food is more authentic, so it tastes better. However, one needs a strong stomach in order not to get sick, and many of my respondents complained about how Malaysian food made them sick. So it depends on how willing one is to get sick, I suppose.

There is also the ambience factor. Gritty atmospheres tend to add to the hawker food experience - witness how people flocked to Glutton's Square opposite Centrepoint when they re-opened it a few months ago.

Other theories: Malaysian hawkers use more MSG and oil, being less health-conscious; ingredients are cheaper so they put more of them; Singaporean hawkers cook with less love and are more bo chap when they cook; the Chinese in Malaysia feel beleaguered because they are a dwindling minority: to them cooking is an expression of their cultural identity and ethnic pride so they put more effort into it

The most exotic theory I heard went something like this: Malaysian food has more "wok hei" (the fire of the wok) since their woks are more seasoned, "like how claypots get better the older they are". This is because:

"1.) malaysian hawkers are poorer leading to a slower wok replacement rate
2.) they may not be older but still more seasoned cos malaysian hawkers work longer hours
3.) the wok may be more seasoned cos the fire used is hotter"

Erm. Right.

Other comments:

"one thing's for sure..malaysia very hard to find decent hainanese chicken rice
something to do with the rice - too small"

"i find singapore does clear/soupy stuff better in general - like porridge or teochoew muay
but malaysia does better with more flavoursome/deep fried stuff

in any event, i don't deny that singapore does some things better, but with a panoply of different styles and varieties, it's hard to make an objective comparison
but certainly, the geographical disparities that KMalaysia offers lends itself to a wider variety of styles"


As always, I welcome more views on this issue from respondents.

A response from nw.t can be read below this post.

***

Lego Harpsichord - "With the exception of the wire strings, this instrument is entirely constructed out of LEGO parts--the keyboard, jacks, jack rack, jack rail, plectra, soundboard, bridge, hitch pins, tuning pins, wrestplank, nut, case, legs, lid, lid stick, and music stand are all built out of interlocking ABS (Acrylonitrile-Butadiene-Styrene) plastic bricks and related pieces."

Teenage whore. - http://teen4sale.blogspot.com/ - Someone sent me this. I don't know if it's real.