textbook answers.

recently, on a sunny island there were two incidents of interest.

the thread of commonality running through these two incidents is that the authorities concerned have their key responsibilities related to security.

granted, one of the incidents pertained more to security than the other. the other incident, in this case, was more rooted in health and safety issues.

the first incident depicted the unsuccessful attempts by convicts to escape, literally, from trial. there was some assault on the security officers, and they almost got away - though they did not.

reminiscent of an incident that happened last year and caused a major ripple amongst the citizens, government and the region in general.

the second incident saw the deaths of two youngsters, the flames of their lives snuffed out by a sudden cardiovascular failure. this is not the first time servicemen lost their lives during training. this is something that happens in our time, as it did in our fathers'.

we have had servicemen dying from POW training and rappelling already. the half-marathon and plane crash incidents cannot be exactly classified as training and so they are not included here.

the bigger issue here is not simply if the medical professionals should carry out more sophisticated tests during the medical checkup. it is also not an issue of knowing what the training schedule is going to be like.

effectively, to know the training schedule, asking around people who have went through it would be very much qualified to relate their personal experiences and comments about it. most things do not change - there will still be physical training and tests, marksmanship, field survival, route marches... the lot.

how would knowing the schedule prepare the prospective enlistee? it is not as if the training objectives, procedures and what-not would be readily apparent to the layman (considering that he has yet to step into the system), nor would they be even to people who have finished the said training and passed out.

it is not as if there would be numerical figures for each training program that states how much pressure it would have on the cardiovascular system, how much energy it is expected to use, how much risk it would entail - these are not just "too medical" for any of the trainees, but i would expect only people who are medically-trained to be able to understand the implications of such figures.

the bigger issue here, then, is to consider the possibility that such cardiovascular failures may not be just a military issue - recall that sometime in june last year, a RJC student collapsed after a marathon, again attributable to the said heart failure. not sure if it belongs to the same family of failures though - am not doctor.

that is, the problem would be to investigate if the population at large is susceptible to this attack - which i believe it is - and the possible remedies and preemptive measures that are adequate for circumventing the occurrence of such attacks in the future.

in any case, the point of this entry is not to talk about the details of the incidents, or what kind of solutions may be suggested for consideration.

the point of the affair is that the population at large received somewhat textbook answers as replies to the occurrence of these two incidents.

for the first incident, it was:

"i've come to this place very often, and hence, i'm very familiar with the security procedures here. it shouldn't have happened. but now that it should, we should ask ourselves what we could do about it."

when i heard this reply, it was... what the...?

sorry dude, i don't think you need a first class honors person to say the same thing.

the second incident:

"we didn't find anything wrong with the safety and training procedures. however, this incident is a good time to alert both commanders and servicemen to the potential risks. medical procedures are better than it used to be, and training standards have not been relaxed, though our servicemen are less rugged than previous batches."

same comments apply. no first class honors needed.

my personal take on these two issues:

1) well, the question of what can be done has already been posed and it is also possible that what can be done has already been done / still being done. because these two incidents are linked to national and homeland security, it is reasonable that certain aspects cannot be revealed to the public on the basis that security may be compromised. that said, what has to be done - the internal audits and reviews - should have been progressing for a while for now.

2) well, we sure need the audits and reviews to be in place. however, by what standards or benchmarks are we basing these processes upon? are there internationally-recognized systems and standards that can be adhered to, and modified to suit local context? and if the standards are modified, is it possible to raise the standards to ensure a higher level of safety?

for example, we have the blood-alcohol concentration of 80mg of alcohol / 100ml of blood legal limit for drivers. is it possible to raise the standard here - in this case, to raise the limit by reducing the BAC to a lower figure, say 70mg? i'm just stating this as an example. i guess the 80mg mark is the standard which, when exceeded, would cause the driver to have unsatisfactory control and judgment with the vehicle.

3) though the replies do not make any difference to what has occurred, they must still be said. i guess that's what the general public is like - they are always dissatisfied with the explanations put forth by the authorities when something goes wrong. but these words still has to be said, regardless... that's politics for you.

at the end of the day, people vote with their hearts, not their minds. this statement i read somewhere in comment for the presidential race in the US.

that's pretty reasonable - can anyone attach a quantitative value to say, early return for troops? affordable healthcare? income distribution in favor of the poor / middle-class? economic reforms? reparation and reinforcement of bilateral ties? introduction of foreign policies that aim at long-term reduction of instability and civil strife in volatile regions?

its not as if one can have a value for each proposed change (that one can believe in) , sum them up (doing the same for all candidates) and arrive at two or more figures. then, compare, and see which is higher. then vote for the one with the higher score.

don't think that works!

almost...

usually, over the weekends, i would stay over at my grandparents' place. for two good reasons.

1) it is generally more comfortable than my own home.

2) having said that, it means i'm under no restriction or curfew - well, i'm not facing any limits anyway, but the comfort factor is often the key in deciding where to stay over the weekend.

staying over is free - except for certain situations, where i have to help my grandfather out with some manual labor. the helping part is kind of the rent i pay, though i willingly oblige.

these manual labor usually include tasks out in the garden. considering that my grandfather is well over 80, it is no surprise that i'm asked to help out. now, some facts about him:

though 80, he drives like he's 18. this translates to (somewhat) reckless changing of lanes, jamming the brakes, and weaving in and out of heavy traffic.

he still has black hair. i have no idea how he manages that.

his temper is still fiery, though somewhat subsided compared to when i was young.

nevertheless, i was asked to climb on a ladder and help remove some dead leafs and twigs that were clogging a large "canvas roof" which is directly under the largest tree in the garden - our mango tree. the mangoes are generally sour... perhaps the weather and soil conditions do not allow for sweet mangoes. the tree is there "for display."

and so i climbed up the ladder, which is chained to one of the canvas' metal poles. the poles, all four of them, are L-shaped. the ladder is chained to one of the poles via a metal ring chain wound around the pole and one of the rungs. this would mean that it is secure, but not safe for climbing.

how could i miss that? my brain only told me that it was secure, and then it assumed that it was safe for me to climb. i climbed to a height of about 1.5m, and adding my height to it, my head reached about 3.3m.

frankly speaking, falling from 1.5m is no big deal. however, as i was clearing the dead vegetation halfway, the ladder "slipped" and i was hanging mid-air, holding tight to one of the metal poles that formed the roof's structure. for that split second, there was no fear of falling at all. no fear of anything at all.

what's the reason? i couldn't figure it out at all.

balls of steel?

i climbed to a nearby trunk of that mango tree and slowly got down. when my maid asked me if there was anything that happened to me, i replied, "only mosquito bites."

hmmm.

that's just a reminder to get me to pay attention to such tasks in the future.

PS. hmmm... i wonder how it's going right now. nah... just very random.

hotpot culture @ marina square - 050608

i don't know if you have been there before, but just my personal comments here.

perhaps, first, i should let you read what my friend, who went with me, wrote. it was very critical and rather humorous, the way the service and whole experience was depicted.

the link here... you can read it now, or later.

http://blueodyssey.multiply.com/journal/item/429/Something_to_take_note...

my purpose yesterday was to take some time to have a little celebration - first, for my own results and second, my graduation - finally. of course, i went there with a happier-than-usual mood, and that meant that i was more tolerant of substandard service. not that it was wrong to voice out your displeasure about service that sucks... there was the 10% service charge, so you have all the rights to complain if the service does not meet your expectations.

the hotpot's ingredients were basically no different from what you would get in a normal steamboat buffet like the ones at beach road / liang seah street area. however, the additional perk was a free flow of a la carte dishes... not really a perk considering that you paid for it fair and square.

the whole dining process was acceptable. the broth - or, MSG cube in hot water, as i called it - was, in accordance with what DK (the blogger for the link provided above) has said, thirst-inducing. i suspected that they used knorr brand soup cubes (or maggi, i have no idea because i only had knorr soup cubes in my own steamboat at home before). but i have no objections against such ready-made broths.

the most interesting thing of the whole lunch affair was perhaps the fact that the table besides us sat a lady who was completely dissatisfied with what has happened. my guess was that they ordered things that did not came - worse if the item was ordered twice and / or specific instructions were given to the service staff over there and they took no heed.

well, these two things happened to us.

item ordered twice - yeah, the shiitake mushroom affair. it's still, in both DK's judgment and mine, growing in japan.

specific instructions - no heed to it. this would have been acceptable if it was the hectic lunch hour, but no-no if it was around 1 plus, when the only customers were students like us, or people taking a leisurely lunch. though now, i'm not entitled to call myself a student.

i'm less critical of the part about the service staff asking us if we could converse in mandarin. that is perfectly fine with me, though personally, if i was a service staff, i would converse with the customer first in english, then if the situation requires another language / dialect, i would gladly oblige. that includes even my very broken hokkien.

i'm more concerned about service staff receiving little / no / inappropriate training in serving customers. granted, the language part was excusable - though, in singapore, it is reasonably expected that service staff at least be able to speak conversational - not competent - english. as any sensible service organization would know, the official language in singapore is english. given this fact, it would not be tolerable from the average customer's point of view to have service staff who cannot take orders / ask in english.

anyway, the lady that was previously mentioned did not make a big hoo-haa, but did proceed to reprimand the service leader about the poor service. of course, no obscenities or vulgarities were exchanged, but it was a tense moment. the service leader then got another round from our table.

key reasons were:

1) ordered item did not arrive - please tell the customer if it was out of stock, or in the midst of preparation, and some time is needed. and by preparation, it means that it was already in the kitchen, undergoing washing / cutting. thawing is not acceptable. and so does things like still growing in some other country / on the plane / lying in the warehouse.

2) insufficient chocolate for the fondue - no comments for this.

3) waiting too long for item(s) to arrive - suppose you are willing to wait a maximum of 10 minutes for your food to arrive. anything beyond that you start to feel irritated, agitated and cranky. it is a signal that nobody cares about you at all.

so the classic line yesterday was:

"I don't want to see the 10% service charge on my bill later."

which, of course, despite the service leader's attempt to pacify us with ice-cream, materialized. that was about a total of $6 savings for the three of us. and many apologies, too.

we did pay for our GST, of course. however, we didn't get to see the manager, whom we suspect instructed the service leader not to summon just because a customer wishes to see the manager. we went even a little abroad to speculate that the manager was busy playing solitaire, msn-ing or surfing *certain* sites... but that was just a little mischief on our part.

i was slightly displeased with the service, but it was mitigated by my "graduated - already" mood. NOT "graduating lor" mood. big difference.

well, that's what happened. am sure not to patronize that place again... the visit would be my "one night stand" with the outlet.

this is it.

Tan Shi Cong, BBus (Hons)

that's right, after 3 *seemingly* long years.