Don’t Give Me That Bu…

…reaucracy! Honestly… am i the only one that’s sick and tired of coming to the end of an hour-long queue just to be given the finger… that points to another queue i have to go through just to get one bloody signature. And yet this is what many major organisations have come to. All that red tape. And queues. Damn those queues. Excuse my French, you might say that bureaucracy is in fact inevitable when an organisation becomes more complex. The departmentalisation, hierarchial compartmentalisation, degree of authorisation, all seem quite impertinent for work to take place ‘effectively’ and productively. But does all the paperwork and restrictions and waiting time involved to complete a somple procedure, worth the amount of output from the employees? I personally think it just gives way to more unwanted politics, whether within or between departments, and will eventually lead to the destruction of innovative ideas and remove the proactiveness of the working staff.

Of course, you’ll have hardly any problems with this when you’re at the top of the board. This is for the little man… who is usually too caught up with bureaucracy he forgets what his job objective really is. Bureaucracy is what keeps ideas from flowing within an organisation, as they often have to tunnel through stringent procedures and eventually gets eradicated by the selection and distortion of information that goes on in the middle.

Take the government for instance.
If someone comes up with a complaint which is supposed to get to the top of the political board, it usually doesn’t get there. Either a certain assisstant or secretary finds the complaint too small (diff in perspective) or too controversial(has to cover his own back), or the person who wants to give an opinion gives up because he was asked to take a number… like 8 times.. to get his voice heard. If that continues to happen, how will feedback ever help to improve our system of government. it’s probably why it’s so hard for an opposition party to rise up against the party in power- they are the ones who have to go through the paperwork and make sure they don’t get sued along the way. The party in power… well they’re already at the top… it won’t be that hard to make the others’ lives a little more difficult.

I guess hwat the Man at the top has to do is think again about what his organisation is committed to and what is really needed to get to his goal. Personal goals of individual managers will always create a diversion of such goals so a low context culture has to be fostered to a certain extent, such that only healthy competition is encouraged and fresh ideas won’t be held ack for selfish reasons.

life’s too short for queues and paperwork. Why not spend the time dealing with people directly instead. Don’t make work impersonal. It takes all the fun out of it.

Don’t even Blink

We probably think too fast for our own good. Honestly, am i the only one who can’t seem to keep up with how fast technological innovation is going? Talk about creative destructionism. Each ‘new and improved’ formula that insists will make your life easier is like a T-Rex in a china shop of technology that is, quite literally, “so 5 minutes ago”.
When i saw the ad launch the newest in ipod technology- the new ipod shuffle(well, it’s the latest I’VE heard about so far), i winced. I was just playing around with the thought of buying their previous edition of the ipod shuffle.didn’t that just come up only a few months ago?

The rate of creative destructionism is going at a very scary rate. Merketers have to know that consumers don’t get sick of their products that easily. The stiff competition that each company faces drives them to invent and reinvent their products such that there is always a ‘newest’ form of technology, and no one ever stays ‘hip’ enough because by the time they finish showing off what they bought off the ‘newest’ catalogue, an even newer one is being delievered and behold… your mp3 player becomes well.. so last generation.

So next time you buy something, remember to fully appreciate its technology and what it can do for you. The next product that comes up often takes away the beauty of a previous design, which is just as ingenious and worth taking a bit of time to enjoy it.

Doing it All For “Yew”

Here’s something you’d probably never read in The Straits Times and would most likely never see in any local publication in the near future either: A letter of scornful derision accusing the Singapore government of “the misrule of law”, comparing MM Lee to dictators of Nazi germany and Communist Russia (New York Times 2007). Such opinionated, and not to mention blunt, views against the judiciary system and ruling party have been going on for years since then, but only beyond the shores of our homeland- recently Singapore was also condemned to being the 146th, out of 168 countries, on the Reporter’s Without Borders’ (RSF) index of press freedom. Quote: RSF has said Singapore’s low ranking stems from “the complete absence” of independent print and broadcast media, the opposition’s lack of access to those media, and other factors.

How sorely pathetic- that we can claim to be the only first-world country to be placed among developing economies in an area which is so important for the development of human rights, something the people so bravely fought for and led to our very own Republic not too long ago.

All this censorship of critical views against the way Singapore is being run is evidence of the power of the Almighty Gatekeepers of the mass media- which, inferring from the countless lawsuits placed against foreign newspapers and opposition parties, would be our very own ruling political party, the PAP. But it seems the pressure placed on newspapers and news channels, even reality shows, to stamp out any information that might affect our national security and racial harmony, spills over to news that affect our rights to criticise our own government, or accept any opinions from other countries as well.

Our influential MM does add something to that : “There’s nothing that you’d want to read which you cannot read in Singapore” Sure Mr Lee. We can read anything we want online. Even about the many naughty things that people have said about you and your beloved country. It shows that there is a limit to how little someone can do to censor online media- its accessibility in a technologically competent country like ours makes it easy for dissenters to make their point known. But the fact that we are left to depend on online sources like non-profit websites and blogs shows how little information politics filtered through the mass media in Singapore. So how much constraint of the flow of information and knowledge is really considered reasonable?

That is not being the answer You Tandoori Twit!

something someone probably should have said that would probably have prevented the spaceshuttle Voyager from crashing, or the Bay of Pigs invasion from being quite an embarrassment. The following ( well… just the 1st 3 minutes actually) is a comedic dramatisation (love Mind Your Language… classic Brit humour) of the ill-effects of Groupthink… coupled with a few hilarious racist jokes:P Of course this is a much more light-hearted example of what could happen if a group was exposed to defective decision-making. Talk about the illusions of invulnerability- the group of international students thought they’d be infallible once they put their heads together. Even though there was no questionable act of self-censorship (they were more than eager to put each other down:)), there was an incomplete survey of alternatives to the answers. Having poor prior knowledge to the English language they based their answers on insufficient information available. Furthermore they were probably too pressured by the need to finish their assignment in a hurry and so the members kind of ignored the consequences to their actions.
Imagine if these same problems were put to more important decision-making- if alternatives weren’t fully evaluated or the group was thought to be invulnerable to mistake, and worse still if one member knew about a problem but didn’t dare put forth his suggestions. It has happened in history before, and i’m not sure if our increasingly high-context culture is helping with preventing Groupthink.
Being in an in-group where members share similar experiences and expectations and come from the same culture leaves much room for mistakes. As the group is valued over the individual i don’t see how it can be conducive to having a complete evaluation of a group’s decisions- these decisions have to be made under more than just a ‘so-we-have-a-mutual-understanding’ nod and ‘now-stop-asking-questions-that’s-rude’ frown from the boss. This puts too much pressure on the individual to conform and leads to self-censorship… a.k.a mass suicide. The political and eonomical repercussions such mistakes will render will be horrendous to say the least.
So watch out for the Mindguards… the little minions in each group who rationalise warnings (if they even let any in) and tell you the group is invincible. In other words… if someone’s being a twit… do tell him. But put in a small pat on the back to soften the blow.

“Yeah so I met Him at this Party…and…

…he seemed like a really nice guy and I was lonely…. it just happened.”
Like we haven’t heard that one before. Of course, after 6 long months of riding an emotional roller-coaster this same conversation usually ends with a “…it turned out we weren’t that compatible after all. Oh well… so… when were you having that gathering again?”

When I read the headlines ” Non-Professionals Organising More Singles’ Parties in Singapore” (Channel NewsAsia- Feb15),

Hey… I Saw That!

One study at UCLA indicated that up to 93 percent of communication effectiveness is determined by nonverbal cues. Another study indicated that the impact of a performance was determined 7 percent by the words used, 38 percent by voice quality, and 55 percent by the nonverbal communication.
Something more mindblowing: According to Malcolm Gladwell, in Blink: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking, first impressions about people are formed practically instantaneously, or perhaps subconciously, as snap judgements rely on the thinnest slices of experiences.

I guess it’s not hard to believe. I tried something to test the power of a first impression recently. In a baggy t-shirt and tattered jeans and slippers, I entered a Louis Vuitton outlet at Takashimaya shopping centre. Of course they let me in… I was after all a potential customer. Well… the well-dressed salesgirl didn’t quite believe so. No no… it’s not like how the normal ones in the department stores react when you touch their perfectly arranged displays. Those are the ones who stare at you so hard that you’d start checking if your fly was up and your armpits to see if you smelled ok. And usually it comes with a sneer so wicked you could see cracks in their makeup. No… these were ‘trained’ salespersons. But then you could never miss the subtle twitching of their well manicured eyebrows as they try to smile. It was surprising to me how the nuances of each nonverbal cue was so obvious… i could tell they were really trying to hide their distaste. You can never miss the oculesics involved… the eyes never lie.

I can hardly blame their distress. Dress seems to serve a major function in nonverbal communication. People read it as a sign of character and place in society, and not dressing according to the cultural norms or unwritten dress codes can be seen as a sign of deviance. Woe to me… my wardobe tells a tragic story. It’s almost cruel how the world is so caught up with visual communication that we can’t give a suitable impression without first making a fashion statement. Or showing some incredible cleavage.

From what i found out, what makes it easy to see through a lie sometimes is because of the incongruence of the mind and the body. One part of us probably wants to defend our dignity or pride, but another (some call it the conscience) tries to tell the truth. So it culminates in assymetrical gestures or nervous ticks that makes it easy for other people to see through the lie. So i guess you can say exhibiting nonverbal cues are a manifestation of the subconscious as is interpreting first impressions. Feeling vulnerable are we? Of course.. we are as susceptible to misinterpreting these cues as we are capable of getting a misguided impression of a stranger. What we consider to be perfectly innocent might be provocative to another of a different culture. We should always be careful about gaining closure from personal constructs and not be biased about the information we select from a first encounter.

With all that visual distraction… what with clothes and nonverbal cues and cleavage, it’s definitely easy for us to forget what the person is really trying to say. Clothes should not define social representation… and sometimes we select the wrong visual information to assess someone’s character. And cleavage… well… might be fun to watch but… oh who are we kidding there’s nothing wrong with it at all 😛

If there was anything the Chinese were Good at…

…It would be retelling their history in the most thrilling and engaging epic movies a country could make. Red Cliff 2 is one such movie: it’s tale of warring China is grandiose yet heartwarming, as throughout the drama many themes grow close to home.

Well, you might say more of the Asian home as opposed to just any home. The ang-moh’s of the world probably couldnt fully comprehend tthe nature of Asian honour and it’s foundation in the Chinese culture, or relate to the ‘backstage’ roles that women have to play in a still male-dominated society. And what’s all that nonsense with the poetic discourse they all seem to adopt? If we were to take a social constructionist perspective on the movie, the representation of themes through the eyes of the Chinese wouldnt be able to communicate quite as effectively with other parts of the world: we couldnt expect others to fully interpret such cultural constructions.

And yet the world is undoubtedly fascinated with the mysteries of the Chinese culture, with the elegance of the martial arts and the spine-tingling drama in its history (not to mention the exotic beauties of the Orient). Also, can we really say they are ignorant of the themes of lust and love, ties of family and friends, and loyalty to the country? Red Cliff 2 incorporates all these within its scenes, so maybe even if they really couldnt relate to its themes, the eye-popping cinematography and enchanting personalities on screen would keep just about anyone glued to the movie. After all, the movie isn’t just a proclamation or representation of Chinese culture, it’s purpose is to capture the audience and to make it top in the box-office… so maybe it is communicating its purpose quite effectively after all.

In Red Cliff 2, Cao Cao (lusty but brilliant commander who deserves to be arrogant about his brilliance), Zhu Ge Liang |Takeshi Kaneshiro|(genius man with godlike omniscience and a fan) and Zhou Yu|TonyLeung|(noble, suave commander with a delectable wife) become engaged in a nail-biting battle of wits (Cao Cao against the combined forces of the other 2 wants to occupy the cliff they are protecting). Both sides at first try to take on the pragmatic perspective to understand his opponent’s behavioural patterns and moods, and since both sides have never met since the challenge for battle was accepted, it is quite impressive to see how zhu ge liang seems to take on the upperhand at this communication game. Silence also seemed to take on a huge role in communication- it kept both armies on their feet. However, destruction becomes unavoidable when Xiao Qiao (titillating babe of the East) ends up in Cao Cao’s territory) and the war takes it’s final, full-fledged flight.

Cao Cao, while portrayed as an arrogant commander overconfident that he will win the battle over what he assumes is against a fool and a coward, is really an outstanding communiator with regard to his army. When his army was dispirited under a typhoid epidemic that swept the area, he knew just how to appeal to their sense of longing for home to get them to stand up to fight for him. It is incredible how his use of pathos could keep dying men from spitting at the face of war in their depression albeit cause them to give their lives for him! Of course, his ignorant army was probably influenced by ‘Idols of the Cave’ where they saw him only as a benevolent and wise commander, thus his use of ethos appealed to them more than it should have. Cao Cao’s understanding of his audience is nevertheless worthy of praise. Zhou Yu and Zhu ge liang on the other hand, made use mostly of logos to keep their generals confident of their chances in the war. Their intelligence was the army’s mainstay, and their sincerity and allegience to the soldiers helped where etho was concerned- their generals would gladly entrust their lives to them both.

In whichever way the war ended, i saw in these characters the Power of a leader who knows his people, where he is able to drive them where he sees fit, whether it be for better, or worse, of the population.