Righty then. Exam season now.
Lots of studying to do. Which I will get back to soon.
For now though, go watch Chad Vader Season 1 (8 episodes) on Youtube!!!
A must for all Star Wars fans. Its amazing stuff!
Friday, November 23, 2007
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Lingua
It occurs to me that I am rather handicapped in Singaporean society. Perhaps it is the result of being weaned on the BBC World Service, courtesy of my father, or the constant drumming to speak proper English, also courtesy of my father. I have as such developed a taste and appreciation for the finer points of the English language, or perhaps more accurately British English. Yes, I freely admit it. The dry wit, the understatement, and the liberal use of sarcasm are all imprinted into the very soul of my command of English. I make no excuses for this. I did not even speak English until the age of 4. It was never necessary in Hong Kong. Naturally, being taught be expatriate kindergarten teachers did not help me acclimatise to the local scene.
It is a source of endless joy for me to be able to appreciate the finer things in life like poetry and The Economist. And surely a command of the English language brings with it manifold advantages in interviews and particularly a study of law.
Sadly though, it brings no predisposition in communicating with peers. It is not a mere issue of diction, and a tendency to use longer, if more precise, words. The crux of the matter seems to be style itself. Indeed, I would write and speak in a different form, often interspersing rhetorical questions into conversations. And it is occasionally doubtful if the appropriate message were conveyed at all.
At this fork on the road, I must confess I am not yet willing to surrender the thing that I love, the gentle caress of the English language in all its refinement and subtle charm, for a greater acceptance into everyday society.
While it seems that I have stepped out of my ivory tower into the crowd, I have clearly forgotten to change out of my sorcerer's robes.
P.S. The situation as regards to Chinese is even worse. Singaporeans must speak some of the worst Chinese in the world.
It is a source of endless joy for me to be able to appreciate the finer things in life like poetry and The Economist. And surely a command of the English language brings with it manifold advantages in interviews and particularly a study of law.
Sadly though, it brings no predisposition in communicating with peers. It is not a mere issue of diction, and a tendency to use longer, if more precise, words. The crux of the matter seems to be style itself. Indeed, I would write and speak in a different form, often interspersing rhetorical questions into conversations. And it is occasionally doubtful if the appropriate message were conveyed at all.
At this fork on the road, I must confess I am not yet willing to surrender the thing that I love, the gentle caress of the English language in all its refinement and subtle charm, for a greater acceptance into everyday society.
While it seems that I have stepped out of my ivory tower into the crowd, I have clearly forgotten to change out of my sorcerer's robes.
P.S. The situation as regards to Chinese is even worse. Singaporeans must speak some of the worst Chinese in the world.
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
377a, to repeal of to keep?
Just a quick bit on background. s377a of the penal code makes it an offence to have homosexual intercourse. It doesn't matter when or where.
Now on with the show. I caught part of the parliamentary debates on the news today, and before delving into the actual subject matter, I have to comment on the quality of the debate itself. I have watched (and judged) better debates at the secondary school level. Seriously, it was rather disappointing. To be fair, special kudos go out to A/P Ho Peng Kee and the NMP who proposed the repeal of 377a for actually sounding like they knew what they were doing.
Now on to the actual arguments proferred by both sides.
It has been said that 377a is discriminatory and unconstitutional. Personally, I will avoid the question of constitutionality for now, as I do not actual believe that Singapore has a de facto constitutional supremacy. For the record, I will state my opinion that the constitution has never truly been judicially interpreted in an objective manner. In fact, Singapore while being a state with de jure constitutional supremacy, did not have its own constitution till some time after independence. Strange how a a state with the constitution as the supreme law of the land can move on despite the lack of such a document. But enough on that and back to 377a.
As far as discrimination goes, the basic premise would seem to be that 377a criminalises something that is private in nature, and if we do not legislate against other activities in private, then we should not legislate against homosexual intercourse either.
The argument of discrimination however gives rise to certain rather odd problems. For one, discrimination must be against a certain identifiable and distinct class of people, such as a certain race or religion. It is illegal to do so in Singapore. It is however, a usually unexplained step of logic, to say that homosexuals are a distinct class in the same fashion. Do note at this point that in general, race is a matter of genetics at birth, and religion a matter of choice. As such, whether one believes that homosexuality is inborn or a conscious choice is immaterial on this point.
Now say we accept that homosexuals are a distinct class, and thus can actually be discriminated against. It is also a fact of life that certain forms of discrimination are legally enforceable and even desirable. Children are not allowed to vote, smoke, drink etc. This works on a justification that children need to be protected from themselves, being unable to make certain mature decisions, and to protect society as well.
It is the second of these arguments raised that is usually applied against the case for repealling 377a. 2 arguments have surfaced in the parliamentary debates.
the first is about how repealling 377a would send a message that the government condones homosexuality, and that threatens the family unit. there seems a be a drastic lack of logic in this argument. firstly, government repeal of 377a does not necessarily send a message of acceptance. Prostitution is legal in Singapore. Are we then saying that the government accepts and even encourages prostitution? Secondly, there is the implicit floodgates argument that homosexuals are all suddenly going to emerge from the woodwork once 377a is repealled. Given the studies on Singaporean attitudes toward homosexuality that those against repealling 377a cite as support, this is hardly going to be the case.
the second argument raised was one that defied rational thinking. one MP raised the argument that where 2 camps were in opposition, like the camps to keep and repeal 377a, the solution would be to maintain the status quo. In essence, the MP was saying, when people debate, do nothing! it would be intellectually irresponsible to simply aribtrarily declare one side the winner , then say we'll keep the status quo. But at least, there is a reason for doing so. By stating that conflict of opnion leads to a maintenance of the status quo is to implcitly deny any possiblity of any progress whatsoever, and is patently ludicrous, even by conservative standards. No contested issue, or any issue at all, will ever get a 100% vote of confidence. By that singular statement, all progress grinds to a halt.
Also for the record, I would like to state that I believe homosexuality is immoral. Yes, you read correctly, I think homosexuality is morally wrong. However, there is a huge step to take from saying something is morally wrong to saying that we should legislate against it. Once again, back to prostitution. It is morally wrong. It damages the family unit. Its legal.
Also, it is far harder to take the position that allowing homosexual adults to have consenting intercourse will destroy family units, mostly because there won't be family units to destroy. And also no future family units to be torn about by skeletons in the closet.
It has of course been argued that the law serves to preserve a minimum standard of morality. The usual questions asked of this are whose morality, and why.
2 coutnerpoints to this. the first stems from the other school of though which states that the law is but a means of preserving society and continued development. it has no business in morality.
the second argument is perhaps more controversial, but in many ways stronger. there are many moral issues in life. we do not legislate on many of them, if not most, unless there is a clear social harm to be prevented. and most importantly, it may very well be immoral to take away someone's freedom to choose his or her sexual orientation, even though the choice is the immoral one. in essence, keeping 377a may very well be the greater evil.
on this note, it is important to keep separate the debates on gay marriage, gay adoption, and the rights for gays to have private consensual sex. the former 2 have clear social effects that may very well give a very different answer than that of 377a.
as it stands now, there are 2 clear conclusions from the events unfolding.
1. our MPs need a lot of debate practice, and possibly a course or two on logic
2. society has not matured to the point where we can be rational about emotional issues like 377a
so please, if you are a clear-thinking person, sign the petition to repeal 377a.
if you haven't matured enough for that, there's a similar petition to keep it to be signed.
also note that this writer does not think the petitions will affect the decision.
Now on with the show. I caught part of the parliamentary debates on the news today, and before delving into the actual subject matter, I have to comment on the quality of the debate itself. I have watched (and judged) better debates at the secondary school level. Seriously, it was rather disappointing. To be fair, special kudos go out to A/P Ho Peng Kee and the NMP who proposed the repeal of 377a for actually sounding like they knew what they were doing.
Now on to the actual arguments proferred by both sides.
It has been said that 377a is discriminatory and unconstitutional. Personally, I will avoid the question of constitutionality for now, as I do not actual believe that Singapore has a de facto constitutional supremacy. For the record, I will state my opinion that the constitution has never truly been judicially interpreted in an objective manner. In fact, Singapore while being a state with de jure constitutional supremacy, did not have its own constitution till some time after independence. Strange how a a state with the constitution as the supreme law of the land can move on despite the lack of such a document. But enough on that and back to 377a.
As far as discrimination goes, the basic premise would seem to be that 377a criminalises something that is private in nature, and if we do not legislate against other activities in private, then we should not legislate against homosexual intercourse either.
The argument of discrimination however gives rise to certain rather odd problems. For one, discrimination must be against a certain identifiable and distinct class of people, such as a certain race or religion. It is illegal to do so in Singapore. It is however, a usually unexplained step of logic, to say that homosexuals are a distinct class in the same fashion. Do note at this point that in general, race is a matter of genetics at birth, and religion a matter of choice. As such, whether one believes that homosexuality is inborn or a conscious choice is immaterial on this point.
Now say we accept that homosexuals are a distinct class, and thus can actually be discriminated against. It is also a fact of life that certain forms of discrimination are legally enforceable and even desirable. Children are not allowed to vote, smoke, drink etc. This works on a justification that children need to be protected from themselves, being unable to make certain mature decisions, and to protect society as well.
It is the second of these arguments raised that is usually applied against the case for repealling 377a. 2 arguments have surfaced in the parliamentary debates.
the first is about how repealling 377a would send a message that the government condones homosexuality, and that threatens the family unit. there seems a be a drastic lack of logic in this argument. firstly, government repeal of 377a does not necessarily send a message of acceptance. Prostitution is legal in Singapore. Are we then saying that the government accepts and even encourages prostitution? Secondly, there is the implicit floodgates argument that homosexuals are all suddenly going to emerge from the woodwork once 377a is repealled. Given the studies on Singaporean attitudes toward homosexuality that those against repealling 377a cite as support, this is hardly going to be the case.
the second argument raised was one that defied rational thinking. one MP raised the argument that where 2 camps were in opposition, like the camps to keep and repeal 377a, the solution would be to maintain the status quo. In essence, the MP was saying, when people debate, do nothing! it would be intellectually irresponsible to simply aribtrarily declare one side the winner , then say we'll keep the status quo. But at least, there is a reason for doing so. By stating that conflict of opnion leads to a maintenance of the status quo is to implcitly deny any possiblity of any progress whatsoever, and is patently ludicrous, even by conservative standards. No contested issue, or any issue at all, will ever get a 100% vote of confidence. By that singular statement, all progress grinds to a halt.
Also for the record, I would like to state that I believe homosexuality is immoral. Yes, you read correctly, I think homosexuality is morally wrong. However, there is a huge step to take from saying something is morally wrong to saying that we should legislate against it. Once again, back to prostitution. It is morally wrong. It damages the family unit. Its legal.
Also, it is far harder to take the position that allowing homosexual adults to have consenting intercourse will destroy family units, mostly because there won't be family units to destroy. And also no future family units to be torn about by skeletons in the closet.
It has of course been argued that the law serves to preserve a minimum standard of morality. The usual questions asked of this are whose morality, and why.
2 coutnerpoints to this. the first stems from the other school of though which states that the law is but a means of preserving society and continued development. it has no business in morality.
the second argument is perhaps more controversial, but in many ways stronger. there are many moral issues in life. we do not legislate on many of them, if not most, unless there is a clear social harm to be prevented. and most importantly, it may very well be immoral to take away someone's freedom to choose his or her sexual orientation, even though the choice is the immoral one. in essence, keeping 377a may very well be the greater evil.
on this note, it is important to keep separate the debates on gay marriage, gay adoption, and the rights for gays to have private consensual sex. the former 2 have clear social effects that may very well give a very different answer than that of 377a.
as it stands now, there are 2 clear conclusions from the events unfolding.
1. our MPs need a lot of debate practice, and possibly a course or two on logic
2. society has not matured to the point where we can be rational about emotional issues like 377a
so please, if you are a clear-thinking person, sign the petition to repeal 377a.
if you haven't matured enough for that, there's a similar petition to keep it to be signed.
also note that this writer does not think the petitions will affect the decision.
Fixed!
Well its been a bloody long hiatus for me for a bloody simple reason. Somewhere along the way, for some obscure reason, my posting template code was no longer acceptable, and caused some unknown error.
Now, I've been a lot of things in this relatively short life: gymnast, debater, economist, lawyer, philosopher ... but I have never been a software engineer, so forgive me for not getting something like that right sooner.
But now I'm back, and I'm better (or badder) than ever. So watch out!
Now, I've been a lot of things in this relatively short life: gymnast, debater, economist, lawyer, philosopher ... but I have never been a software engineer, so forgive me for not getting something like that right sooner.
But now I'm back, and I'm better (or badder) than ever. So watch out!
Saturday, June 23, 2007
Falling Sick ETC
Heaven forfend if one should EVER fall ill or get injured. EVER.
The sad fact is I'm gonna be nagged and nagged and nagged about how I don't take care of myself, how I should do this or that and that and not do that and that and this, and so on and so forth, and more of the same and less of something else, all the while I'm getting an open wound cleaned up and trying my best not to writhe in pain.
I mean really. Is there a POINT to all the nagging? Mom cares. Yeah we know. We don't need the reminders. And its not really necessary to tell me how things can get worse. Doctor's kid remember? Mom SHOULD know about this at least. I'm certain adding stress and frustration and general unhappiness to the mix is going to help the recovery process. Really certain. Yep, the rest cure is naught but a myth.
And of course, things must always be SOMEBODY's fault (read: me) so lets take the opportunity to browbeat and berate while he can't move anywhere, because he's on the treatment table and focused primarily on not feeling pain right now. And oh yeah, there's a need for running commentary on whether the condition has worsened or not, while the doctor himself is less than 6 inches from the wound and apparently satisfied.
Gah! I need fresh air, and to leave the house more often. Gah!
">
(<$BlogItemCommentCount$>) comments
The sad fact is I'm gonna be nagged and nagged and nagged about how I don't take care of myself, how I should do this or that and that and not do that and that and this, and so on and so forth, and more of the same and less of something else, all the while I'm getting an open wound cleaned up and trying my best not to writhe in pain.
And of course, things must always be SOMEBODY's fault (read: me) so lets take the opportunity to browbeat and berate while he can't move anywhere, because he's on the treatment table and focused primarily on not feeling pain right now. And oh yeah, there's a need for running commentary on whether the condition has worsened or not, while the doctor himself is less than 6 inches from the wound and apparently satisfied.
Gah! I need fresh air, and to leave the house more often. Gah!
">
(<$BlogItemCommentCount$>) comments
Saturday, April 14, 2007
Informal Release of Comms 101 Grades
It is with a certain wry amusement that I contemplate my grade for this particular course. A B+, of all things. Vis a vis the trepidation evidenced by the palpitations of my heart when I had to look up the result on the net, I find myself in a rather nebulous position.
Certainly, this grade is rather below expectation, and has a negative bearing on my grade-point average (GPA). Its going to take a rather Herculean effort to keep it at its current perfect standing. Or rather, it would take one, if my exams were not quite so finished.
But quite beyond the practical repercussions of this grade are the principles of fairness and justice. And it seems to me that both these principles have been grossly violated in the process of my receiving such a grade.
Now, I do not pretend to be the best communicator in the world. I personally know a handful who I would prefer before myself. That list, I also concede, is not exhaustive. Nevertheless, it is also true to say that none of those people are in my class, which then makes the grade all the more bewildering.
I suppose it would make some kind of perverse sense if the highest grade in class were a B+, whcih would then suggest that the criteria for grading were rather too strict. Yet I suspect it is not the case. Rather, I do suppose some sort of favouritism was at work and merit had little to do in determining grades.
Yet at the end of the day, I do not suppose it truly matters all that much beyond my GPA. Life moves on, and a new semester in the very elect Law Double Degree Programme beckons. It does seem that the interviews speak for my communications skills. Perhaps now I do have to set myself a goal to go to the World Universities Debating Championships, just to make a point.
More pointedly though, this particular course instructor I have not held in high regard from the first lesson. And there may yet be something to be said and done about the matter. Do not rouse sleeping serpents, for only the deadly dare slumber so openly.
">
(<$BlogItemCommentCount$>) comments
Certainly, this grade is rather below expectation, and has a negative bearing on my grade-point average (GPA). Its going to take a rather Herculean effort to keep it at its current perfect standing. Or rather, it would take one, if my exams were not quite so finished.
But quite beyond the practical repercussions of this grade are the principles of fairness and justice. And it seems to me that both these principles have been grossly violated in the process of my receiving such a grade.
Now, I do not pretend to be the best communicator in the world. I personally know a handful who I would prefer before myself. That list, I also concede, is not exhaustive. Nevertheless, it is also true to say that none of those people are in my class, which then makes the grade all the more bewildering.
I suppose it would make some kind of perverse sense if the highest grade in class were a B+, whcih would then suggest that the criteria for grading were rather too strict. Yet I suspect it is not the case. Rather, I do suppose some sort of favouritism was at work and merit had little to do in determining grades.
Yet at the end of the day, I do not suppose it truly matters all that much beyond my GPA. Life moves on, and a new semester in the very elect Law Double Degree Programme beckons. It does seem that the interviews speak for my communications skills. Perhaps now I do have to set myself a goal to go to the World Universities Debating Championships, just to make a point.
More pointedly though, this particular course instructor I have not held in high regard from the first lesson. And there may yet be something to be said and done about the matter. Do not rouse sleeping serpents, for only the deadly dare slumber so openly.
">
(<$BlogItemCommentCount$>) comments
Saturday, April 07, 2007
School Uniforms
In a time and age where the buzzword is creativity, society reaches an impasse. Do we encoruage our children to conform, to maintain the cohesive and efficient machine our forefathers have built, that has led to such rapid growth and prosperity, or do we forge a new path?
The collective societal psyche seems to suggest the former. Humans it would appear are almost always resistant to change, especially when things are well. What does this say of the role of trouble in the advancement of human civilisation?
The writer, however, would put forward the notion that it is time for a change.
The global economy has moved on. Our place in it is not what it was before. Whether one prefers Samuelson's S-curve analysis or other models, the conclusion remains the same. Regardless of government statements, we are now a developed nation. Along with this promotion comes a shift from manufacturing to service industries being our primary engines of continued prospertiy, and these new industries require above all else fresh ideas.
The concept of creative thinking, or thinking out of the box, is not new. And it is simple enough to understand that ideas from out of the box are best formulated from without. The problem of course is that we all live within a box, with some of us oocasionally managing to breach the walls of the box to take a walk on the other side, and return richer for it, im mind if not in matter.
To enhance our competitiveness in this new paradigm, we need to thin the walls of our box, relaxing the constraints on what is and what is not an acceptable notion, of what can and cannot be tried out. We need to accept the reality of failures as a viable, nay, a vital part of success. We can't always be the best, and in many areas that we so tout, we no longer are.
Therefore, we need to remove the oldest and most pervasive symbol of societal conformity and thinking within the box, the school uniform.
The school uniform is supposed to be an equaliser of sorts. Rich or poor, all school children wear one. Yet other accessories have crept in, from shoes to watches to school bags to ensure that the income gap is made manifest. There is simply no good way to keep the income disparity between students hidden. More importantly, there is no reason to. Let us not pretend that the poor are not among us. It is the fastest way to breed apathy. One, after all, cannot show compassion to what one is told does not exist.
The school uniform is also supposed to be about neatness and presentability. We, however, have the misfortune of having some of the most unsightly school uniforms this side of the Earth. The artistic acumen of their designers is truly deplorable. Perhaps some of them are colour blind.
On the other hand, a school uniform expresses conformity and stifles orginality. Putting one on symbolically shackes our future to thinking the same thoughts as those who came before them.
This is not to say that there should be no school rules to enforce certain modes of behaviour to ensure that the school runs without problems, or that there should be no emblems to show belonging to one school or another, but the school uniforms have to go. Let RFID tags identify students for security reasons. Better still, embed them in the school badges so there is a practical reason for punishing students for not wearing them.
The collective societal psyche seems to suggest the former. Humans it would appear are almost always resistant to change, especially when things are well. What does this say of the role of trouble in the advancement of human civilisation?
The writer, however, would put forward the notion that it is time for a change.
The global economy has moved on. Our place in it is not what it was before. Whether one prefers Samuelson's S-curve analysis or other models, the conclusion remains the same. Regardless of government statements, we are now a developed nation. Along with this promotion comes a shift from manufacturing to service industries being our primary engines of continued prospertiy, and these new industries require above all else fresh ideas.
The concept of creative thinking, or thinking out of the box, is not new. And it is simple enough to understand that ideas from out of the box are best formulated from without. The problem of course is that we all live within a box, with some of us oocasionally managing to breach the walls of the box to take a walk on the other side, and return richer for it, im mind if not in matter.
To enhance our competitiveness in this new paradigm, we need to thin the walls of our box, relaxing the constraints on what is and what is not an acceptable notion, of what can and cannot be tried out. We need to accept the reality of failures as a viable, nay, a vital part of success. We can't always be the best, and in many areas that we so tout, we no longer are.
Therefore, we need to remove the oldest and most pervasive symbol of societal conformity and thinking within the box, the school uniform.
The school uniform is supposed to be an equaliser of sorts. Rich or poor, all school children wear one. Yet other accessories have crept in, from shoes to watches to school bags to ensure that the income gap is made manifest. There is simply no good way to keep the income disparity between students hidden. More importantly, there is no reason to. Let us not pretend that the poor are not among us. It is the fastest way to breed apathy. One, after all, cannot show compassion to what one is told does not exist.
The school uniform is also supposed to be about neatness and presentability. We, however, have the misfortune of having some of the most unsightly school uniforms this side of the Earth. The artistic acumen of their designers is truly deplorable. Perhaps some of them are colour blind.
On the other hand, a school uniform expresses conformity and stifles orginality. Putting one on symbolically shackes our future to thinking the same thoughts as those who came before them.
This is not to say that there should be no school rules to enforce certain modes of behaviour to ensure that the school runs without problems, or that there should be no emblems to show belonging to one school or another, but the school uniforms have to go. Let RFID tags identify students for security reasons. Better still, embed them in the school badges so there is a practical reason for punishing students for not wearing them.
Saturday, March 10, 2007
Right. So I suddenly feel a need to recap everything thats happened to me over the past couple of weeks.
1. Grandfather passes away on Valentines day.
2. Debate tournament postponed until September
3. Cascade of papers and presentations (though this is nothing new)
4. Hovering somewhere between heartache and heartbreak
Well, to tell the truth, its not like there is anything to DO about any of this. The doing is never the problem. Its the doing nothing that is. And well ... I hate doing nothing.
">
(<$BlogItemCommentCount$>) comments
1. Grandfather passes away on Valentines day.
2. Debate tournament postponed until September
3. Cascade of papers and presentations (though this is nothing new)
4. Hovering somewhere between heartache and heartbreak
Well, to tell the truth, its not like there is anything to DO about any of this. The doing is never the problem. Its the doing nothing that is. And well ... I hate doing nothing.
">
(<$BlogItemCommentCount$>) comments
Wednesday, March 07, 2007
To say that I'm rather upset is quite the understatement.
The clinic operated by NTUC in school is quite ludicrous indeed. I suppose some illustration is in order.
The entire purpose of taking time out of an otherwise busy schedule to make an appointment would be to save time in future, so one does not have to spend time waiting in the queue. The practice is universal among clinics. I really ought to know. My dad runs one and I grew up around one.
So yours truly makes an appointment for 12pm on Wednesday to see the doctor to do what would be a 15 min medical checkup at most. As of now, I've been waiting for 29 min, having arrived 3 min early because I did not want to miss my appointment and have to wait.
But as it is, I am wondering if any such appointment was noted down. I am rather perplexed by the situation. If the situation should persist, I would have to wonder if the clinic has a policy on appointments at all, seeing that I have just been leapfrogged. On e gentleman took a particularly long time with the doctor, for him to be the previous patient, but its within the realm of possibilities.
It truly is rather harrowing how badly run the place seems to be. Given my current less-than-sunny disposition, a series of complaints to various authorities may just be necessary to ellicit a response.
While I write this, my appointment has just been leapfrogged a second time. Perhaps it is just the waiting. I am singularly unused to having to wait very long to see a doctor, and I have waited half an hour to see one of the most established orthodontic surgeons in Singapore. That was rather understandable since I failed to make it on time for my appointment, and the surgeon in question shows up at that particular branch of the clinic twice a week. And I waited half an hour.
At this point in time, I've waited more than that to see a GP for a silly medical checkup. I may have noted before that most of the adults I know happen to be medical practitioners. This is becoming most upsetting.
Well, the actual checkup took less than a minute. The doctor's nice and competent, but the administration ... most upsetting.
On the bright side, I wrote a blog entry.
In Hong Kong, service like this is suicide. That's all for now.
">
(<$BlogItemCommentCount$>) comments
The clinic operated by NTUC in school is quite ludicrous indeed. I suppose some illustration is in order.
The entire purpose of taking time out of an otherwise busy schedule to make an appointment would be to save time in future, so one does not have to spend time waiting in the queue. The practice is universal among clinics. I really ought to know. My dad runs one and I grew up around one.
So yours truly makes an appointment for 12pm on Wednesday to see the doctor to do what would be a 15 min medical checkup at most. As of now, I've been waiting for 29 min, having arrived 3 min early because I did not want to miss my appointment and have to wait.
But as it is, I am wondering if any such appointment was noted down. I am rather perplexed by the situation. If the situation should persist, I would have to wonder if the clinic has a policy on appointments at all, seeing that I have just been leapfrogged. On e gentleman took a particularly long time with the doctor, for him to be the previous patient, but its within the realm of possibilities.
It truly is rather harrowing how badly run the place seems to be. Given my current less-than-sunny disposition, a series of complaints to various authorities may just be necessary to ellicit a response.
While I write this, my appointment has just been leapfrogged a second time. Perhaps it is just the waiting. I am singularly unused to having to wait very long to see a doctor, and I have waited half an hour to see one of the most established orthodontic surgeons in Singapore. That was rather understandable since I failed to make it on time for my appointment, and the surgeon in question shows up at that particular branch of the clinic twice a week. And I waited half an hour.
At this point in time, I've waited more than that to see a GP for a silly medical checkup. I may have noted before that most of the adults I know happen to be medical practitioners. This is becoming most upsetting.
Well, the actual checkup took less than a minute. The doctor's nice and competent, but the administration ... most upsetting.
On the bright side, I wrote a blog entry.
In Hong Kong, service like this is suicide. That's all for now.
">
(<$BlogItemCommentCount$>) comments
Thursday, March 01, 2007
Alrighty then. Its been a pretty long while since I wrote something new. So I guess I should, before the blog feels neglected. And the last thing I need is a blog whining for attention. There are enough other things doing that. *Glares at LTB project*
This one's also a shout-out to Theresa, if she ever actually visit.
I guess today I'll talk about the quality known as magic. Increasingly, I feel the burden of magical expectation upon my shoulders. I'd just like to declare once and for all that I'm not a magician nor a miracle-worker. I may know a miracle-worker, but thats about as far as it goes. Referent power ... as my LTB textbook says.
OK. My brain's kinda fried and there's a rend in my soul, so I'm gonna stop here before my rather less friendly alter-ego makes an appearance.
Peace.
">
(<$BlogItemCommentCount$>) comments
This one's also a shout-out to Theresa, if she ever actually visit.
I guess today I'll talk about the quality known as magic. Increasingly, I feel the burden of magical expectation upon my shoulders. I'd just like to declare once and for all that I'm not a magician nor a miracle-worker. I may know a miracle-worker, but thats about as far as it goes. Referent power ... as my LTB textbook says.
OK. My brain's kinda fried and there's a rend in my soul, so I'm gonna stop here before my rather less friendly alter-ego makes an appearance.
Peace.
">
(<$BlogItemCommentCount$>) comments
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)