1. Details in my head are vague, but I remember reading this short article in ST this week, regarding this guy who has written a new book on Lee Kwan Yew. In that article, one part caught my attention. LKY had been asked of what he thought of others, particularly westerners, in saying that he was authoritarian. LKY's reply was that he wasn't, and testament to the fact was that all of his introduced and implemented policies throughout his career had garnered, supposedly, at least 60% approval from the public. How he came to that is not the issue; it's more of the question of what exactly he perceives as being authoritarian. One definition describes the word to mean "expecting unquestioning obedience"; there's no premise for the word to include a measure of popularity for actions taken under that style.

I don't think he's authoritarian; I believe he just has this unflinching ability to undertake bold but necessary steps for long term progress despite sometimes flying in the face of public opinion. Still, I feel that his answer to the question seemed to miss the point in such an obvious way, only he could get away with it. How would I have side-stepped the question and diverted it to the argument of popular approval, though? I'm not sure.

2. I remember when I was still serving my two months in Tekong, on booking out and watching the Pacific on one of the weekends, I felt much more connected to the fatigue and stresses of the US soldiers on screen than an ordinary person. (though by that I do not at all imply that I know what they went through, simply a comparison) Now though, having watched another episode yesterday, my imprint through my short stint in the Navy so far has seemed to quickly remove any such feeling in me, which I find quite interesting. It brings about a tinge of regret as I realise I hardly slog as much as those in the mud vocation, but I must say, I'm nonetheless still entirely grateful to having been posted to the Navy. My confirmed vocation is C2, where large amounts of environmental data in the battlefield are fed to me to filter to gunners, nav crew and others. Seems to be a promising vocation where my CV is concerned. Also, it's confirmed I'll be posted to an LST.

3. Two weeks ago, (I just happened to remember that I should post this up) the same bunkmate (whom I shall name X) from the previous post had asked to borrow my Dove soap. I was once more hesitant, but I agreed to it anyway. About 20 minutes later when I wanted to take my shower, I looked around for the bottle, but it appeared he hadn't passed it back yet, despite finishing his shower. I peeked into his locker, which was wide open, and it wasn't there either. So I asked him where it was, and he swore he passed it back to me. He checked his cupboard, and then mine, and then made what seemed like a half-hearted and irritated look for it. Asking around, nobody seemed to have seen it, until he asked a third time and a bunkmate (let's call him Y) responded saying someone else (Z) from another bunk had taken it.

Apparently, the X had left it on the table right next to the door when he came back. He forgot about it and left to do his own stuff, and along the way Y popped in and asked to borrow it. Z sitting nearby (for some reason) agreed, and it was whisked away. Now knowing this, X then went to retrieve it and passed it back to me, exasperatedly saying he had "no idea why Z passed it to Y, despite knowing it was not at all his property", before concluding with a hasty 'sorry'.

I detest this. Odd and irritating as it may have been for Z to allow someone to take it despite it not being his property in the first place, it is entirely missing the point to bring it up to me before apologizing. It's obvious that he's trying to reallocate the blame as effectively as a toddler might. If I lend him my property, it's now his responsibility to take care of it. It's just like if your dad lends you his car, he doesn't give two hoots about the robber who drove it off when the car was left with the ignition keys in, he'd bring you to hell and back for leaving the car keys inside.

Such people who apologize like that leave an entirely bitter taste in my mouth. The apology itself is insincere, and knowing the flawed reasoning behind it stings of insulting my intelligence. If I ever do that to anyone of you for a mistake I've made, you have full right to tell me off.

4. This brings me to another thought I've had swimming around for some time. Why is it that while we find obvious flaws in the argument that women should cover themselves up so as not to tempt men, we at the same time say that if you've left behind your wallet at the hawker center table and it gets stolen, it's simply your fault for leaving valuables behind to tempt would-be thieves? So far, I can't see how both premises are visibly different such that two totally different conclusions can be reached, and I'd really appreciate it if someone could point out the differences in the situations to me.

5 comments