change of dynamics

Thursday, January 19, 2012

auspicious packages

Hello it's been three days.

It is absolutely glorious to wake up on a weekday at 11am.

I perused (warning: lots of other pretentious words coming up) the news this morning.

And found two pieces that I feel compelled to respond to.

One, auspicious dragon fish and chinchilla (or dragon cat).

I'm not sure which organisation it was, guess it's SPCA, but this 'please do not purchase chinchillas cuz they live up to 15 years' tweet has been circulating to tell people not to buy "auspicious" animals like these for one year and then dispose of them after the year is over.

I was just thinking that ST might have influenced previous people who didn't know about chinchillas to GO GET ONE PRONTO. Which is vair bad. Not good advertising things like this. What's more, it had a third-of-a-page coverage, together with the dragon fish. I'm guessing the fish is less likely to suffer the same fate since fish by default has a good connotation to it. But chinchillas surely need more care and attention and SPACE in the house to run about - I have no idea what chinchillas do, I'm guessing they DO run? Hur.

Okay did some vair extensive research aka Wikipedia:

Chinchillas require extensive exercise. Chinchilla teeth need to be worn down as their teeth grow continuously and can prevent the chinchilla from eating if they become overgrown. Wooden sticks, pumice stone and chew toys are good options, but conifer and citrus woods (like cedar or orange) should be avoided because of the high content of resins, oils and phenols that are toxic for chinchillas. Birch, willow, apple tree, manzanita or kiln-dried pine are all safe woods for chinchillas to chew.

So yup. High maintenance.

Please, tolong sikit, don't get pets just cuz they are "auspicious". They are not going to be "auspicious" forever.

--
The other issue is closer to human beings.

My dear MP says that the ministers' pay should be "[pegged] to the average Singaporean at a level where Singaporeans can aspire to".

I have issues with the use of the word 'aspiration'. I have tried to come up with something for the last ten minutes but kinda failed I think in getting the main point because I'm not sure if my argument is sound enough. And being a highly sensitive topic I thought I should be extra careful so that there is only one sole intended interpretation which hits the mark. The gist of it is that I don't think aspiration alone can count towards anything much because there are still various rounds of stringent tests to go through. Furthermore, surely the huge amounts of time one needs to put in and consistent rigour throughout at that should be a main factor in the pay consideration. (Oh hooray I managed to get that out in three minutes, so much for ten minutes of long-winded grandmother story.)

I also don't like the fact that the Workers' Party suddenly shoot pattern at the Parliamentary debates. They wanted PAP to be transparent and lay out every single rule in the book, yet they are not emulating that policy themselves - why?

(Train of thought has ended. Can't think of anything else to carry on.)

Still on politics but different sub-topic, I recall a friend who blogged that she detested being called 'a government mouthpiece' just because she is under a scholarship from a government company. It is interesting to see how the direction of cause and effect is REVERSED - the COMPANY seems to be the one influencing one's apparently gullible decisions, rather than the fact that it's because HE/SHE respects what the company does, does not mind (or mind but just grins and bears it anyway) being bonded as long as HE/SHE can get the scholarship, and seeks out that scholarship HIM/HERSELF. Surely he/she can think for him/herself, what makes you think he/she is such a puppet?! Also, I still marvel at how supporting the opposition means 'standing up for the rights you believe in'. How come supporting the non-opposition cannot mean that? And mind you, I'm all for having a credible opposition to challenge ideas, but the arguments must be valid in the first place. (Disclaimer: This is a general sweeping statement.)

Suddenly only chooahqi can phrase her arguments in a much better (may still suck, but I was much worse in articulating cheem things like these before) manner than previously. Now let's see what Mr Dragon brings in terms of expanding my curiosity and knowledge about politics.

(As usual posts about politics must have other unintended interpretations disclaimed first. So stressful.)

Labels: Commentary, Laadeedums, Newsworthy

my pretty little red butterfly.
2:00 PM