Saturday, July 4, 2009
Hey all, sorry for the deluge of philosophical posts and E-Learning posts, so I might guess that you guys are a little bored right now. Sorry about that; it's why I'm posting this post now!
Anyway, as some of you would know, I went to help in Hwa Chong's Round One of the DSA. We had to arrive at school at 9, have lunch at 10. 30 a.m., more like brunch, although the chilli was quite okay. Urgh, after that, it was 3 hours of constant running, bringing the applicants to the respective venues where they were supposed to be held, then having a short break eating refreshments, and having the entire process re-enacted again. I did the first shift although I didn't have too, and I'm glad I did so; it made it much easier for the 2nd round of applicants. I felt quite sorry for those who slacked during the 1st round, as they looked helpless and in a total disarray. After that, I had to invigilate for some test paper, and were those pupils rowdy! Fortunately, we didn't get scolded by Mr. Tommie Chen or Mr. Krison Tan, as with the first shift taken by Adriel. It was an unplesant surprise though. After that, we had to wait for the pupils to finish their interviews, which was a total BORE, because each interview lasted approximately 10 - 15 minutes, which was really sian, to quote one of the P6 Students. While we waited for them to finish, Zheng Jie said something particularly interesting, which a few of you might know, and although it seemed trivial, it helped to brighten up what was an otherwise boring experience. I met a guy called Kevin from 1P4, seemd quite a nice guy even after knowing that we were from iSpark, so that was quite cool :). I thank those of you who were there with me, helping me, particularly Aloysius Oh for helping and doing double shifts when you could actually go home.
On a side note, Hwa Chong has defeated Raffles in a MSN Online Poker competition between only me and Lin Qi. It was five rounds, but we finished it in 4, and I won 3-1 xD. Can we have a half-day please? Haha, I was just joking, but it was good fun anyway (:
I'll probably be going to watch Transformers II: Revenge of the Fallen tomorrow, so if you guys want to contact me, SMS me, kay? Sigh, I'm tired, so sadly, I'll end here.
~Xin Jie.
Anyway, as some of you would know, I went to help in Hwa Chong's Round One of the DSA. We had to arrive at school at 9, have lunch at 10. 30 a.m., more like brunch, although the chilli was quite okay. Urgh, after that, it was 3 hours of constant running, bringing the applicants to the respective venues where they were supposed to be held, then having a short break eating refreshments, and having the entire process re-enacted again. I did the first shift although I didn't have too, and I'm glad I did so; it made it much easier for the 2nd round of applicants. I felt quite sorry for those who slacked during the 1st round, as they looked helpless and in a total disarray. After that, I had to invigilate for some test paper, and were those pupils rowdy! Fortunately, we didn't get scolded by Mr. Tommie Chen or Mr. Krison Tan, as with the first shift taken by Adriel. It was an unplesant surprise though. After that, we had to wait for the pupils to finish their interviews, which was a total BORE, because each interview lasted approximately 10 - 15 minutes, which was really sian, to quote one of the P6 Students. While we waited for them to finish, Zheng Jie said something particularly interesting, which a few of you might know, and although it seemed trivial, it helped to brighten up what was an otherwise boring experience. I met a guy called Kevin from 1P4, seemd quite a nice guy even after knowing that we were from iSpark, so that was quite cool :). I thank those of you who were there with me, helping me, particularly Aloysius Oh for helping and doing double shifts when you could actually go home.
On a side note, Hwa Chong has defeated Raffles in a MSN Online Poker competition between only me and Lin Qi. It was five rounds, but we finished it in 4, and I won 3-1 xD. Can we have a half-day please? Haha, I was just joking, but it was good fun anyway (:
I'll probably be going to watch Transformers II: Revenge of the Fallen tomorrow, so if you guys want to contact me, SMS me, kay? Sigh, I'm tired, so sadly, I'll end here.
~Xin Jie.
Labels: Council Events, Misc.
11:19 PM
Friday, July 3, 2009
Q: Lotteries have been called a tax on the poor. Ultimately at only a dollar or two a ticket, anyone can play the lotteries. However, many people become addicted to buying tickets and they can cause family/marital problems. Discuss this topic with a parent and get their view on lotteries and specifically lotteries in Singapore. Include at least one quote from an adult, one quote or reference from either an NPR presentation or YouTube video in your discussion. Your blog entry has to be at least 200 words in length and you must either support lotteries or condemn them.
I'll start off with a youtube video:
I'm sure many of you have seen this advertisement at home, while watching TV, or maybe heard it over the radio. It may seem boring after a while, watching the same advertisement again and again, but the underlying message is undeniably true. Gambling hurts the ones around you, the ones who love you the most. Playing the lottery is gambling, whether you try to deny it or not. Just with smaller stakes and higher returns. However, people do pay over a mere one or two dollars, sometimes even $50. Over a long period of time, you stand to lose more than you gain; what are the chances that you will win a prize, even a small one?
So what's so lucrative about gambling, some of you might ask. Well, people turn to gambling because of the high turnover rate. In Singapore we have 4D and Toto, and even if you bet two dollars, there is still a considerable turnover rate. Some might consider it an investment. What most are ignorant to, whether they are aware or unaware, are the chances that you'll win something, whether substantial or not. If we think about it, there are millions of people playing the lottery everyday. Perhaps they draw out a total of 8 numbers? Your chances of winning the lottery are so miniscule, that you'd probably never win a single grand prize in your lifetime even if you played the lottery everyday. This is the exact same reason why the people running the lottery make so much money out of it. The sheer odds of you winning the lottery are so huge that you'll probably get overwhelmed 99% of the time.
Moving on, I'm sure most of you reading this will have read the story Lottery by Catherine Lim. Here's just a brief re-cap for those of you who haven't:
Some of you might argue for the economical benefits of gambling and playing the lottery. But I say, is it not better to have a poor country and people of moral values than the most affluent countries with people committing all sorts of vices? Economics should never weigh more on any scale than morals and ethics; that's why they teach Civics and Moral Education in Primary School, and Economics only much later, when we have inculcated these values and have the proper discernment. Thus, I don't think that this is a valid point here, in the case of gambling.
To end off this post, I would say that a vice like gambling, and to be more specific, playing the lottery, must be condemned, for the banes it bring far outweigh the boons.
I'll start off with a youtube video:
I'm sure many of you have seen this advertisement at home, while watching TV, or maybe heard it over the radio. It may seem boring after a while, watching the same advertisement again and again, but the underlying message is undeniably true. Gambling hurts the ones around you, the ones who love you the most. Playing the lottery is gambling, whether you try to deny it or not. Just with smaller stakes and higher returns. However, people do pay over a mere one or two dollars, sometimes even $50. Over a long period of time, you stand to lose more than you gain; what are the chances that you will win a prize, even a small one?
So what's so lucrative about gambling, some of you might ask. Well, people turn to gambling because of the high turnover rate. In Singapore we have 4D and Toto, and even if you bet two dollars, there is still a considerable turnover rate. Some might consider it an investment. What most are ignorant to, whether they are aware or unaware, are the chances that you'll win something, whether substantial or not. If we think about it, there are millions of people playing the lottery everyday. Perhaps they draw out a total of 8 numbers? Your chances of winning the lottery are so miniscule, that you'd probably never win a single grand prize in your lifetime even if you played the lottery everyday. This is the exact same reason why the people running the lottery make so much money out of it. The sheer odds of you winning the lottery are so huge that you'll probably get overwhelmed 99% of the time.
Moving on, I'm sure most of you reading this will have read the story Lottery by Catherine Lim. Here's just a brief re-cap for those of you who haven't:
Ah Boh was a compulsive gambler, gambling without stop despite her and her mistress' many efforts to curb this addiction. Her addiction was so strong, that she believed in superstitions, that dreams could be translated into numbers, 'a spider was Number 3, and the act of defecation number 10'. She even weighed the family cat, and once,when her mistress' friend came to visit with a one-month old baby, she even put some rolls on the baby, and waited for the numbers to roll off, which she would use for the lottery. Worse of all, whenever a road accident occurred, she would rush off to take the car-plate number, ignoring the blood and twisted bodies of those who had been involved in the accident. While Ah Boh was busy wasting her salary away gambling, her elderly mother had to work, at the age of seventy, as she was not receiving any "pocket money" from Ah Boh. The most tragic event of all, is when a car knocks down her mother, but the first thing Ah Boh notices, is sadly, the car-plate number, and not the victims. Only when she notices the victim, then she starts weeping. But it does not stop there. The story ends like this: 'you will not be angry with me; I will buy you the most expensive coffin with the prize money, and burn a hundred joss-sticks for you everyday, and so you will not be angry with me.'It is tragic to see how the grip of addiction has on someone, and how even the death of a loved one cannot free her from that grip. Ah Boh, so addicted to gambling, spent all her money on it, leaving her poor mother having to work even at such an old age. We can see here how the vice of gambling hurts the ones around us, and this is ever so prevalent in gamblers, especially in addicted ones. Some might argue that the case of Ah Boh is too extreme, but even so, if we look at the advertisement above, it shows how seemingly normal people can fall prey to this hidden but still lurking enemy. Being a Christian, I don't believe in gambling, and have never seen anyone in my immediate family doing so, but it is a fact that compulsive gamblers do cause harm to those around them and inevitably to themselves.
Some of you might argue for the economical benefits of gambling and playing the lottery. But I say, is it not better to have a poor country and people of moral values than the most affluent countries with people committing all sorts of vices? Economics should never weigh more on any scale than morals and ethics; that's why they teach Civics and Moral Education in Primary School, and Economics only much later, when we have inculcated these values and have the proper discernment. Thus, I don't think that this is a valid point here, in the case of gambling.
"The economic profits of the gambling may be great, but not greater than the ethical issues that come along with it."A quote from my father when we talked about gambling. He also said that the concept was similar to the IR, and my family, being a Christian one, should not gamble, after that of which, he went back to work.
"I figure you have the same chance of winning the lottery whether you play or not."Wise words by Fran Lebowitz. Indeed, it is so, that the chances of winning the lottery are so minute that they are as good as nothing, and can be marginalised, since they are as good as nothing.
To end off this post, I would say that a vice like gambling, and to be more specific, playing the lottery, must be condemned, for the banes it bring far outweigh the boons.
Labels: E-Learning (:
8:02 AM
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Alexander Pushkin: Father of Russian Literature.
"Alexander Pushkin is Russia's most famous and influential Russian writer - as famous and influential as Shakespeare is to English literature."
And so I begin. Alexander Pushkin was born in Moscow, on 6 June, 1799. He was born of a considerably high social status, with royal blood in his veins. Strangely, French then was the language that set the upper classes apart from the peasants. However, while Pushkin spoke French, he started a new tradition: to write verses in Russian. Through this simple act, it made it literature available to everyone! Poetry was not only exclusive to the educated classes, but offered something to the people of Russia as well. Alexander Pushkin recreated the way how anyone thought about and treated, literature.
This immortalized Alexander Pushkin, and other Russian writers pay homage to him through their novels and short stories. Nobody can forget Pushkin because the most influential writers won't let anyone forge t- Pushkin started it all and each writer in turn has taken up the torch to pass to future writers. Russia has never let their great Pushkin die – anything Pushkin has become instantly recognizable by all - even his dramatic death by dueling has become a story to be retold in various forms.
The juvenile eagle, who's bred by the jail,
My mournful friend, with his wings stretching wide,
Is picking at bloody food right by my side.
He’s picking and looking at me through the bars,
Like having a thought that is common to us,
Like calling to me with a glance and a sight,
And wanting to say, "Let us fly outside!
We're free proud birds; it is time for the friends
To fly to the white of the rock in a haze,
To fly to the blue of the sea and the sky,
Where evenly dwell only tempests ... and I!"
In drown shoes had found a mistake;
With his fast brush, an artist made correction;
But the shoemaker went without a break:
“I think the face a little crooked is shown…
The breast’s much bared, as I’ve understood...”
Here Apelles stopped him (his patience gone):
“Friend, judge the things not higher than a boot!”
Mid friends of mine, I too see one, the clever;
I do not know in which a subject ever
He’d be an ace, tho’ his words of strong roots,
But just a fiend brings him to judge men’ level:
Let him make judgment only for their boots!
Of ancient native rites and things:
I gladly free a little birdie
At celebration of the spring.
I'm now free for consolation,
And thankful to almighty Lord:
At least, to one of his creations
I've given freedom in this world!
So what do I like about Alexander Pushkin? He revolutionised Russian literature - he brought poetry to a then illiterate Russia. He didn’t make poetry exclusively for the “higher” class people; he made it available to all. Also, as we can see from the above poems, he didn’t write just about the luxuries of high-society life – he wrote about the seemingly small people in our society that it’s made up of. Although Alexander Pushkin was born of a higher social status than most people, he could empathise and feel for and with the “average” Russian citizen. Despite his short life of 37 years, he made full use of it and wrote many poems, several of which were recognized by influential authors at that time. His literature works were widely recognized by all, even by other influential writers themselves. And because Alexander Pushkin made the first step, he pioneered the start of the golden age of Russian Literature. Making it available to all, not just exclusive to the educated classes. And for that, Alexander Pushkin is immortalized forever in the history of Russian literature must be realized as the founding father of Russian Literature.
Sources:
"Alexander Pushkin is Russia's most famous and influential Russian writer - as famous and influential as Shakespeare is to English literature."
And so I begin. Alexander Pushkin was born in Moscow, on 6 June, 1799. He was born of a considerably high social status, with royal blood in his veins. Strangely, French then was the language that set the upper classes apart from the peasants. However, while Pushkin spoke French, he started a new tradition: to write verses in Russian. Through this simple act, it made it literature available to everyone! Poetry was not only exclusive to the educated classes, but offered something to the people of Russia as well. Alexander Pushkin recreated the way how anyone thought about and treated, literature.
This immortalized Alexander Pushkin, and other Russian writers pay homage to him through their novels and short stories. Nobody can forget Pushkin because the most influential writers won't let anyone forge t- Pushkin started it all and each writer in turn has taken up the torch to pass to future writers. Russia has never let their great Pushkin die – anything Pushkin has become instantly recognizable by all - even his dramatic death by dueling has become a story to be retold in various forms.
“Prisoner”
I'm sitting by bars in the damp blackened cell --The juvenile eagle, who's bred by the jail,
My mournful friend, with his wings stretching wide,
Is picking at bloody food right by my side.
He’s picking and looking at me through the bars,
Like having a thought that is common to us,
Like calling to me with a glance and a sight,
And wanting to say, "Let us fly outside!
We're free proud birds; it is time for the friends
To fly to the white of the rock in a haze,
To fly to the blue of the sea and the sky,
Where evenly dwell only tempests ... and I!"
“Shoemaker”
Once a shoemaker, on the art’s creation, In drown shoes had found a mistake;
With his fast brush, an artist made correction;
But the shoemaker went without a break:
“I think the face a little crooked is shown…
The breast’s much bared, as I’ve understood...”
Here Apelles stopped him (his patience gone):
“Friend, judge the things not higher than a boot!”
Mid friends of mine, I too see one, the clever;
I do not know in which a subject ever
He’d be an ace, tho’ his words of strong roots,
But just a fiend brings him to judge men’ level:
Let him make judgment only for their boots!
“A Little Bird”
In alien lands I keep the bodyOf ancient native rites and things:
I gladly free a little birdie
At celebration of the spring.
I'm now free for consolation,
And thankful to almighty Lord:
At least, to one of his creations
I've given freedom in this world!
So what do I like about Alexander Pushkin? He revolutionised Russian literature - he brought poetry to a then illiterate Russia. He didn’t make poetry exclusively for the “higher” class people; he made it available to all. Also, as we can see from the above poems, he didn’t write just about the luxuries of high-society life – he wrote about the seemingly small people in our society that it’s made up of. Although Alexander Pushkin was born of a higher social status than most people, he could empathise and feel for and with the “average” Russian citizen. Despite his short life of 37 years, he made full use of it and wrote many poems, several of which were recognized by influential authors at that time. His literature works were widely recognized by all, even by other influential writers themselves. And because Alexander Pushkin made the first step, he pioneered the start of the golden age of Russian Literature. Making it available to all, not just exclusive to the educated classes. And for that, Alexander Pushkin is immortalized forever in the history of Russian literature must be realized as the founding father of Russian Literature.
Sources:
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Pushkin
- http://eeuropeanhistory.suite101.com/article.cfm/importanceofpushkin
Labels: E-Learning (:
9:28 AM
Monday, June 29, 2009
All the World's a Stage by William Shakespeare
All the world's a stage,
And all the men and women merely players;
They have their exits and their entrances,
And one man in his time plays many parts,
His acts being seven ages.
At first, the infant,
Mewling [sobbing] and puking in the nurse's arms.
Then the whining schoolboy, with his satchel
And shining morning face, creeping like a snail
Unwillingly to school.
And then the lover,
Sighing like a furnace, with a woeful ballad
Made to his mistress' eyebrow.
Then a soldier,
Full of strange oaths and bearded like the pard,
Jealous in honor, sudden and quick in quarrel,
Seeking the bubble reputation
Even in the cannon's mouth.
And then the justice,
In fair round belly with good capon lined,
With eyes severe and beard of formal cut,
Full of wise saws and modern instances;
And so he plays his part.
The sixth age shifts
Into the lean and slippered pantaloon,
With spectacles on nose and pouch on side;
His youthful hose, well saved, a world too wide
For his shrunk shank, and his big manly voice,
Turning again toward childish treble, pipes
And whistles in his sound.
Last scene of all,
That ends this strange eventful history,
Is second childishness [complete senility] and mere oblivion,
Sans [without] teeth, sans eyes, sans taste, sans everything.
Questions
Hyperboles: Highlighted in Neon Green - Exaggerated parts that either state something repetitively or exaggerate it (e.g. "Sans" and "mere oblivion". I said the latter is exaggerated because of the fact that mere is an understatement for oblivion, thus emphasising every thing else. )
Personification: Highlighted in Dark Blue - Giving something a human quality
Metaphor: Highlighted in Red
Simile: Highlighted in Pink
Symbolism: Highlighted in Light Blue
[xxx]: Synonym
Why I liked this poem:
Well, to understand why I like this poem, you've got to understand what this poem's about. Basically, this poem's about a man who's cynical about the 7 stages of a man's life.
So in the first age, man starts of as an infant, crying and puking, as all infants do. Since it's the opening paragraph, there's not much figurative language there...
In the second age, the man becomes a schoolboy. There's starting to have some figurative language. I chose "shining morning face" as a piece of figurative language because I draw a connection to the sun, with the words "shining" and morning. It's categorised as a metaphor because it's without the words "like", as or "then". Creeping "like a snail" is obviously a simile, with an explicit connection drawn through the word "like".
Progressively, the man becomes a lover. He falls in love with another woman, albeit his mistress, and sings woefully to her. It's a short age, and the only piece of figurative language I can find is "like a furnace", which is a simile.
Now, we come to the fourth age. The man becomes a soldier now, fighting for his country. I can't find much figurative language here, except that he's "bearded like the pard". I don't know what a "pard" is, but there certainly is a connection drawn.
In the fifth age, the man becomes a judge in the court. It seems that there are two metaphors here, "fair round belly" and "eyes severe". Both metaphors give the parts of the body a "human" trait.
As we approach the end, the man has now retired. He has little care in the world, whistling and wandering around. Four metaphors here, "slippered pantaloon", "youthful hose", "big manly voice" and "childish treble". The metaphors are described with human traits, and it seems to me that the poem is mainly dominated with metaphors.
Finally, we reach the seventh age. All pieces of figurative language found here are hyperboles, exaggerating that particular stanza. I found "mere oblivion" to be a hyperbole as it compared oblivion to other things, emphasising those things through the use of comparison. "Sans", which means without, is repeated, thus emphasising the fact that the man is now without many things.
So, I chose this poem, essentially because of it's title, which was what drew me to read it in the very first place. Hwa Chong students are encouraged to have a perspective of the world, as aptly named this poem. Well, being the cynic I am, I partly agree with this poem, about how life is, especially the second age, as I can relate to the feelings of a schoolboy. Life now does seem kind of boring and tedious. However, the narrator (if there was) seems to be over-pessimistic about this story. Some of you might find this strange, but I tend to motivate myself by telling myself that I have a lot of homework, so that I will increase my work-efficiency. Strange, huh? Well, in this case, if we apply the same logic, we will be encouraged to live a more fulfilling life instead of wasting away, and so, i like this poem because it is quite similar to me as poems go.
~Xin Jie
All the world's a stage,
And all the men and women merely players;
They have their exits and their entrances,
And one man in his time plays many parts,
His acts being seven ages.
At first, the infant,
Mewling [sobbing] and puking in the nurse's arms.
Then the whining schoolboy, with his satchel
And shining morning face, creeping like a snail
Unwillingly to school.
And then the lover,
Sighing like a furnace, with a woeful ballad
Made to his mistress' eyebrow.
Then a soldier,
Full of strange oaths and bearded like the pard,
Jealous in honor, sudden and quick in quarrel,
Seeking the bubble reputation
Even in the cannon's mouth.
And then the justice,
In fair round belly with good capon lined,
With eyes severe and beard of formal cut,
Full of wise saws and modern instances;
And so he plays his part.
The sixth age shifts
Into the lean and slippered pantaloon,
With spectacles on nose and pouch on side;
His youthful hose, well saved, a world too wide
For his shrunk shank, and his big manly voice,
Turning again toward childish treble, pipes
And whistles in his sound.
Last scene of all,
That ends this strange eventful history,
Is second childishness [complete senility] and mere oblivion,
Sans [without] teeth, sans eyes, sans taste, sans everything.
Questions
- How are the figurative language used in the poem? Give the specific word(s), explain what type of figurative language it is and why the poet chose to use this figurative language?
- Tell us why you like this poem in no less than 100 words.
Hyperboles: Highlighted in Neon Green - Exaggerated parts that either state something repetitively or exaggerate it (e.g. "Sans" and "mere oblivion". I said the latter is exaggerated because of the fact that mere is an understatement for oblivion, thus emphasising every thing else. )
Personification: Highlighted in Dark Blue - Giving something a human quality
Metaphor: Highlighted in Red
Simile: Highlighted in Pink
Symbolism: Highlighted in Light Blue
[xxx]: Synonym
Why I liked this poem:
Well, to understand why I like this poem, you've got to understand what this poem's about. Basically, this poem's about a man who's cynical about the 7 stages of a man's life.
So in the first age, man starts of as an infant, crying and puking, as all infants do. Since it's the opening paragraph, there's not much figurative language there...
In the second age, the man becomes a schoolboy. There's starting to have some figurative language. I chose "shining morning face" as a piece of figurative language because I draw a connection to the sun, with the words "shining" and morning. It's categorised as a metaphor because it's without the words "like", as or "then". Creeping "like a snail" is obviously a simile, with an explicit connection drawn through the word "like".
Progressively, the man becomes a lover. He falls in love with another woman, albeit his mistress, and sings woefully to her. It's a short age, and the only piece of figurative language I can find is "like a furnace", which is a simile.
Now, we come to the fourth age. The man becomes a soldier now, fighting for his country. I can't find much figurative language here, except that he's "bearded like the pard". I don't know what a "pard" is, but there certainly is a connection drawn.
In the fifth age, the man becomes a judge in the court. It seems that there are two metaphors here, "fair round belly" and "eyes severe". Both metaphors give the parts of the body a "human" trait.
As we approach the end, the man has now retired. He has little care in the world, whistling and wandering around. Four metaphors here, "slippered pantaloon", "youthful hose", "big manly voice" and "childish treble". The metaphors are described with human traits, and it seems to me that the poem is mainly dominated with metaphors.
Finally, we reach the seventh age. All pieces of figurative language found here are hyperboles, exaggerating that particular stanza. I found "mere oblivion" to be a hyperbole as it compared oblivion to other things, emphasising those things through the use of comparison. "Sans", which means without, is repeated, thus emphasising the fact that the man is now without many things.
So, I chose this poem, essentially because of it's title, which was what drew me to read it in the very first place. Hwa Chong students are encouraged to have a perspective of the world, as aptly named this poem. Well, being the cynic I am, I partly agree with this poem, about how life is, especially the second age, as I can relate to the feelings of a schoolboy. Life now does seem kind of boring and tedious. However, the narrator (if there was) seems to be over-pessimistic about this story. Some of you might find this strange, but I tend to motivate myself by telling myself that I have a lot of homework, so that I will increase my work-efficiency. Strange, huh? Well, in this case, if we apply the same logic, we will be encouraged to live a more fulfilling life instead of wasting away, and so, i like this poem because it is quite similar to me as poems go.
~Xin Jie
Labels: E-Learning (:
8:09 AM
Friday, June 26, 2009
Book Read
The Boy who Dared - A Novel Based on the True Story of a Hitler Youth.
Q20: What lesson did you learn from the story?
I'll start with a brief introductory quote:
‘Day 264:
It's morning. Soft gray light slips over the tall redbrick wall. It stretches across the exercise yard and reaches through the high, barred windows. In a cell on the ground floor, the light shifts dark shapes into a small stool, a scrawny table, and a bed made of wooden boards with no mattress or blanket. On that bed, a thin, huddled figure, Helmuth, a boy of seventeen, lies awake. Shivering. Trembling.
It's a Tuesday.
The executioner works on Tuesday.’
Such is the life of Helmuth Guddat Hubener. Some might think that this book centres around the theme of something somewhat like Prisonbreak, of a boy trying to escape from prison to find a better life. Sadly, it isn't so. This is the story of a boy who fights alone for justice, truth against the German Nazi government, headed by Hitler. This is the story of a boy, who gave up his bright future to fight for Germany against the tyrannical rule of Hitler and the then German Government. This is the factual account of someone who stood up for a "taboo" concept, and was prosecuted, tortured and eventually murdered. Quite a change from the typical adventure novel, where the protagonist gets the fairy-tale ending.
So, what have I learnt? To keep promises. To stand up for the truth. And, most importantly for me, to stand up for what I believe in. This might sound slightly strange, with how Helmuth endured more than a day’s worth of continuous torture by the Gestapo (German Police, much like Russian KGB). With how the shabby living conditions were for him, as you can see from above. With how Helmuth was mercilessly guillotined in prison. Well, I shall stop the grotesque details, even though there are much more. Fact is, Helmuth is an example for us to follow. I'm not saying that we should endure the extreme conditions that Helmuth faced, but to follow his example. In the story, Helmuth has pact, somewhat similar to a brotherhood with 2 others, Karl and Rudi. Helmuth, Karl and Rudi, together they gave out pamphlets showing the brutal truth of the tyrannical rule of the Nazi government. The pact was that if anyone of them got caught, he would not divulge the names of the others. Helmuth endured close to 40 hours before he divulged the names. Some of you might be going ‘Boo’, since he DID give out the names. Well, if you read this factual account, you might change your mind:
‘… was stripped naked, forced to stand outside, knee deep in snow, ... guards poured water on his hands, let them freeze, and then hit his hands with a club. “To warm them up,” he says. “Broke all my fingers.” ’
Can you imagine 40 hours of such torture? Let’s face it, the only way a person wouldn’t divulge would be that he was already dead at the end of the torture. This is additional information, but the translator for his leaflets gave up and ratted on Helmuth after 15 minutes. From here, we can see the iron will and pure grit of Helmuth, and that is to be admired.
So why, you may ask, did Helmuth start the anti-Nazi actions in the first place? It is ironic that his step-father, Hugo Hubener is a Rottenfuhrer (don’t ask about the weird title), quite high up in the Nazi party. Helmuth did this primarily because he was unhappy with the fact that the Nazi government was withholding the truth from the people. On the radio that his brother bought from the black market, Helmuth heard the British radio reporter from the German BBC Channel, report their losses faced in the war against Germany. Helmuth was outraged that Hitler refused to divulge such details to anyone, while the British were willing to proclaim their losses, albeit sadly, on a wide platform, in other words the radio. (Of course, this is not the lone example of how the German government withholds the truth from the German people.) Helmuth finds that the torturing of the Jews and anyone who opposes Hitler is despicable and thus wants to set an example for the rest of the German population to follow. He has dreams for a revolution that will never materialize during his lifetime, but has left a legacy in his death. He has stood of for truth, what he has believed in, and that is all that matters.
Q26: If that story happened in a foreign land, compare that land to Singapore.
The setting in the story is vastly different from that of Singapore.
When I first saw this book, I thought this would be a novel of a youth, and the climax would be the key to whether he got his freedom or faced death. Typical for a fictional adventure novel. However, this story is NOT fictional, sadly, and that has to be taken into account.
Now, I think the climax of the story is the court trial. It shows the mistreatment of the opposers of the government, how they twist their youthful and immature actions against them, and how they bend the law to achieve the result that they want. It shows how Hitler and his supporters have ultimate control over "average" people, and the pure helplessness of them. The prosecutor constantly twists Helmuth's words; even Helmuth's lawyer works for the Nazi party. However, Helmuth stands up against all these, but is slaughtered in the process. Sad but true. Helmuth does fight back, but what use is it, when the government doesn't even take what you say into account? There would be no one willing to testify for Helmuth, as the government strikes fear in the hearts of the Germans, and they do not dare to oppose it, for fear of the wrath of Hitler and the Gestapo. Strikingly similar to Animal Farm, just more extremist. In the end, all that matters is that Helmuth keeps his promise to Karl and Rudi - He takes the blame by "confessing" that he masterminded the plot alone and that Karl and Rudi were just blindly following him. As a result, his punishment is multiplied threefold, and he is sentenced to death. Although he will die, Helmuth has kept his promise to Karl and Rudi - he has triumphed in death. This is tragic, but admired. Helmuth is a admirable war hero, and I want to follow him in standing up for what is right, and to keep my promises to my friends. And this, I feel, is the climax.
Q48: Did you like the way the story ended? Why or why not?
To be honest, I didn't, and I don't think anyone will. I found it hard to accept that Helmuth had to die, at the end of all his struggles. But, I realised that his death would have made a more significant impact on other people than if he lived. Helmuth's death revolutionised his step-father's deep rooted concepts of the Nazi ideology, and he started doing things he never used to do: go to church, spend quality time with his children, and so on. He has become an example of the cruelty and unfairness of the German "monarchy", and through his death, people have become more aware of this. In a movie I watched, Valkyrie, there were a group of people who attempted to assinate Hitler. Similarly, they failed and were shot to death by a firing squad, although they were loyal to the end. It was just by the tiniest of margins that Hitler survived, although all the other people in the building didn't. Due to this, may I say, fluke, they lost their lives. Both non-fiction, both with the same ending. A harsh reality, but nonetheless, sobering. We cannot change history, but we can change our actions that will mould the future. Having to die for standing up for the truth is kind of extreme, as in the extreme conditions of Germany in that time, but the concept remains the same. The outcome is ultimately affected by the setting. I'm sure there will be some who say that they would have done the same in Helmuth's shoes, but saying something and putting that something into action, are two entirely different things. Most of us now wouldn't have the moral courage to stand up to death, and face it coolly and calmly like Helmuth did. As he stood there for the last 18 seconds of his life, he thought about the life he had, the 17 years that he had lived, extremely short compared to the general population. Although I want to change this part of the story, I shall not, because it's ultimately non-fictional, and I'm sure Helmuth would have preferred it this way too.
~Xin Jie
The Boy who Dared - A Novel Based on the True Story of a Hitler Youth.
Q20: What lesson did you learn from the story?
I'll start with a brief introductory quote:
‘Day 264:
It's morning. Soft gray light slips over the tall redbrick wall. It stretches across the exercise yard and reaches through the high, barred windows. In a cell on the ground floor, the light shifts dark shapes into a small stool, a scrawny table, and a bed made of wooden boards with no mattress or blanket. On that bed, a thin, huddled figure, Helmuth, a boy of seventeen, lies awake. Shivering. Trembling.
It's a Tuesday.
The executioner works on Tuesday.’
Such is the life of Helmuth Guddat Hubener. Some might think that this book centres around the theme of something somewhat like Prisonbreak, of a boy trying to escape from prison to find a better life. Sadly, it isn't so. This is the story of a boy who fights alone for justice, truth against the German Nazi government, headed by Hitler. This is the story of a boy, who gave up his bright future to fight for Germany against the tyrannical rule of Hitler and the then German Government. This is the factual account of someone who stood up for a "taboo" concept, and was prosecuted, tortured and eventually murdered. Quite a change from the typical adventure novel, where the protagonist gets the fairy-tale ending.
So, what have I learnt? To keep promises. To stand up for the truth. And, most importantly for me, to stand up for what I believe in. This might sound slightly strange, with how Helmuth endured more than a day’s worth of continuous torture by the Gestapo (German Police, much like Russian KGB). With how the shabby living conditions were for him, as you can see from above. With how Helmuth was mercilessly guillotined in prison. Well, I shall stop the grotesque details, even though there are much more. Fact is, Helmuth is an example for us to follow. I'm not saying that we should endure the extreme conditions that Helmuth faced, but to follow his example. In the story, Helmuth has pact, somewhat similar to a brotherhood with 2 others, Karl and Rudi. Helmuth, Karl and Rudi, together they gave out pamphlets showing the brutal truth of the tyrannical rule of the Nazi government. The pact was that if anyone of them got caught, he would not divulge the names of the others. Helmuth endured close to 40 hours before he divulged the names. Some of you might be going ‘Boo’, since he DID give out the names. Well, if you read this factual account, you might change your mind:
‘… was stripped naked, forced to stand outside, knee deep in snow, ... guards poured water on his hands, let them freeze, and then hit his hands with a club. “To warm them up,” he says. “Broke all my fingers.” ’
Can you imagine 40 hours of such torture? Let’s face it, the only way a person wouldn’t divulge would be that he was already dead at the end of the torture. This is additional information, but the translator for his leaflets gave up and ratted on Helmuth after 15 minutes. From here, we can see the iron will and pure grit of Helmuth, and that is to be admired.
So why, you may ask, did Helmuth start the anti-Nazi actions in the first place? It is ironic that his step-father, Hugo Hubener is a Rottenfuhrer (don’t ask about the weird title), quite high up in the Nazi party. Helmuth did this primarily because he was unhappy with the fact that the Nazi government was withholding the truth from the people. On the radio that his brother bought from the black market, Helmuth heard the British radio reporter from the German BBC Channel, report their losses faced in the war against Germany. Helmuth was outraged that Hitler refused to divulge such details to anyone, while the British were willing to proclaim their losses, albeit sadly, on a wide platform, in other words the radio. (Of course, this is not the lone example of how the German government withholds the truth from the German people.) Helmuth finds that the torturing of the Jews and anyone who opposes Hitler is despicable and thus wants to set an example for the rest of the German population to follow. He has dreams for a revolution that will never materialize during his lifetime, but has left a legacy in his death. He has stood of for truth, what he has believed in, and that is all that matters.
Q26: If that story happened in a foreign land, compare that land to Singapore.
The setting in the story is vastly different from that of Singapore.
- First of all, in Singapore, we encourage racial harmony. Anyone who tried to start a racial riot would be arrested immediately and interrogated. However, In The Boy who Dared, school children are taught to discriminate against Jews, and there are even tests to differentiate between the "higher race", the Aryans, and the Jews. Jews are so constantly discriminated that people actually have come to accept he discrimination of the Jews; it is now "okay" to do so. Worse still, the government even approves this and this is also taught in the German education system.
- Our laws or somewhat just. MPs or Cabinet members are not above the law, unlike in the book, where they can twist the law to their advantage. Our law enforcement, although cannot be said to be 100% corruption-free, is considerably decent and not controlled by the government. In Singapore, we don't have spies lurking everywhere, hearing out for anti-PAP supporters. Our law enforcement is not corrupt; justice is generally served in the end, unlike the book where the few good people are either sent to concentration camps or killed.
- Singapore is democratic, to an extent. That's why we have the Opposition Party, Worker's Party, etc. Unlike in Germany, if you give out leaflets or anything similar to that that are allegedly "demoralising to the German morale", you are arrested by the Gestapo for high treason and sentence to jail for probably most of you life; even worse, death. Helmuth paid the high price for standing up for what he believed in: truth. In Singapore, he would have been immortalised; we would have statues of him and whatnot. However, in Germany, he is prosecuted, tortured, and eventually killed. Even listening to non-German radio broadcast (by the 'Extraordinary Radio Law'), you can even be arrested and jailed. The stark difference is striking; this shows the immense influence of a political leader over his entire nation. The Germans constantly live in fear, and in the hope that they can live another day. Perhaps we Singaporeans are more relaxed and complacent, taking everything that we have now for granted.
When I first saw this book, I thought this would be a novel of a youth, and the climax would be the key to whether he got his freedom or faced death. Typical for a fictional adventure novel. However, this story is NOT fictional, sadly, and that has to be taken into account.
Now, I think the climax of the story is the court trial. It shows the mistreatment of the opposers of the government, how they twist their youthful and immature actions against them, and how they bend the law to achieve the result that they want. It shows how Hitler and his supporters have ultimate control over "average" people, and the pure helplessness of them. The prosecutor constantly twists Helmuth's words; even Helmuth's lawyer works for the Nazi party. However, Helmuth stands up against all these, but is slaughtered in the process. Sad but true. Helmuth does fight back, but what use is it, when the government doesn't even take what you say into account? There would be no one willing to testify for Helmuth, as the government strikes fear in the hearts of the Germans, and they do not dare to oppose it, for fear of the wrath of Hitler and the Gestapo. Strikingly similar to Animal Farm, just more extremist. In the end, all that matters is that Helmuth keeps his promise to Karl and Rudi - He takes the blame by "confessing" that he masterminded the plot alone and that Karl and Rudi were just blindly following him. As a result, his punishment is multiplied threefold, and he is sentenced to death. Although he will die, Helmuth has kept his promise to Karl and Rudi - he has triumphed in death. This is tragic, but admired. Helmuth is a admirable war hero, and I want to follow him in standing up for what is right, and to keep my promises to my friends. And this, I feel, is the climax.
Q48: Did you like the way the story ended? Why or why not?
To be honest, I didn't, and I don't think anyone will. I found it hard to accept that Helmuth had to die, at the end of all his struggles. But, I realised that his death would have made a more significant impact on other people than if he lived. Helmuth's death revolutionised his step-father's deep rooted concepts of the Nazi ideology, and he started doing things he never used to do: go to church, spend quality time with his children, and so on. He has become an example of the cruelty and unfairness of the German "monarchy", and through his death, people have become more aware of this. In a movie I watched, Valkyrie, there were a group of people who attempted to assinate Hitler. Similarly, they failed and were shot to death by a firing squad, although they were loyal to the end. It was just by the tiniest of margins that Hitler survived, although all the other people in the building didn't. Due to this, may I say, fluke, they lost their lives. Both non-fiction, both with the same ending. A harsh reality, but nonetheless, sobering. We cannot change history, but we can change our actions that will mould the future. Having to die for standing up for the truth is kind of extreme, as in the extreme conditions of Germany in that time, but the concept remains the same. The outcome is ultimately affected by the setting. I'm sure there will be some who say that they would have done the same in Helmuth's shoes, but saying something and putting that something into action, are two entirely different things. Most of us now wouldn't have the moral courage to stand up to death, and face it coolly and calmly like Helmuth did. As he stood there for the last 18 seconds of his life, he thought about the life he had, the 17 years that he had lived, extremely short compared to the general population. Although I want to change this part of the story, I shall not, because it's ultimately non-fictional, and I'm sure Helmuth would have preferred it this way too.
~Xin Jie
Labels: ACE
4:48 PM
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Q11: Will having fun make you happier than studying?
To an extent, yes. In the long run, though, studying will make us happier. Some people might protest against this and say that I'm a killjoy, etc. etc. , but fact is, just "having fun" just isn't feasible as mugging, so that we can have a better future. This may sound really cliched, but it's true, and neither you or I can deny it.
As we all see in television dramas, wastrels (as they call those people in the dramas) never come to a good end. They either go backrupt, or realize their mistake and work hard for their future, and so on. Having fun, is well, fun, and mugging obviously isn't. But, in 10 to 20 years time, we'll be able to reap the fruits of our labour. Gambling, alcoholism, lust, etc. etc. will not contribute to your wellbeing, or even happiness. Sure, there's fun for a while, but after that, it becomes an addiction. And everyone knows that addictions are bad, and they do not make you or the people around you happy. In fact, the addiction causes you and your family to become sad, which in case you do not know, is an antonym for the word, happy. Anyway, addiction is besides the point so I will not talk about it any further.
Let's have a case study (assume it's real):
Person A is the richest man (although not exactly smart) on Earth (I'm not implying anything about Warren Buffet), and he indulges in alcoholism, has 8 wives, 23 children, and throws the wildest parties ever seen in the history of man. He is the head of a chain of supermarkets named Tasko's, which he inherited from his father, and makes a yearly revenue of 15 billion pounds, without a care in the world as all decisions are made by his nineteenth son. He is distant from everyone else in the world and prefers to spend his money on himself only. He has everything he wants and can dream of, but is he truly happy?
Person B is university graduate, with a great social life and a girlfriend. He plays volleyball abd hangs out with his friends every Saturday afternoon and studies in the Nan Liang Technical University, and goes to do community work fortnightly. Although he isn't exactly a President's Scholar with straight As, he works hard for his exams and has considerably good grades that he is satisfied with. Still, with his grades, he is able to hold a job as a white-collar office worker. Is he happy?
Who do you think is more happy? Person A has more fun as compared to Person B, but I'm sure all of us know who will be happier at the end of the day without me having to say it explicitly, but Person B will obviously be the one with the fairy tale ending. Need I say anymore, we all know what the verdict is, but I shall re-emphasise to show my point: studying will be more beneficial to us in the long run that just purely "having fun".
~Xin Jie
To an extent, yes. In the long run, though, studying will make us happier. Some people might protest against this and say that I'm a killjoy, etc. etc. , but fact is, just "having fun" just isn't feasible as mugging, so that we can have a better future. This may sound really cliched, but it's true, and neither you or I can deny it.
As we all see in television dramas, wastrels (as they call those people in the dramas) never come to a good end. They either go backrupt, or realize their mistake and work hard for their future, and so on. Having fun, is well, fun, and mugging obviously isn't. But, in 10 to 20 years time, we'll be able to reap the fruits of our labour. Gambling, alcoholism, lust, etc. etc. will not contribute to your wellbeing, or even happiness. Sure, there's fun for a while, but after that, it becomes an addiction. And everyone knows that addictions are bad, and they do not make you or the people around you happy. In fact, the addiction causes you and your family to become sad, which in case you do not know, is an antonym for the word, happy. Anyway, addiction is besides the point so I will not talk about it any further.
Let's have a case study (assume it's real):
Person A is the richest man (although not exactly smart) on Earth (I'm not implying anything about Warren Buffet), and he indulges in alcoholism, has 8 wives, 23 children, and throws the wildest parties ever seen in the history of man. He is the head of a chain of supermarkets named Tasko's, which he inherited from his father, and makes a yearly revenue of 15 billion pounds, without a care in the world as all decisions are made by his nineteenth son. He is distant from everyone else in the world and prefers to spend his money on himself only. He has everything he wants and can dream of, but is he truly happy?
Person B is university graduate, with a great social life and a girlfriend. He plays volleyball abd hangs out with his friends every Saturday afternoon and studies in the Nan Liang Technical University, and goes to do community work fortnightly. Although he isn't exactly a President's Scholar with straight As, he works hard for his exams and has considerably good grades that he is satisfied with. Still, with his grades, he is able to hold a job as a white-collar office worker. Is he happy?
Who do you think is more happy? Person A has more fun as compared to Person B, but I'm sure all of us know who will be happier at the end of the day without me having to say it explicitly, but Person B will obviously be the one with the fairy tale ending. Need I say anymore, we all know what the verdict is, but I shall re-emphasise to show my point: studying will be more beneficial to us in the long run that just purely "having fun".
~Xin Jie
Labels: ACE
1:54 PM
Saturday, June 20, 2009
Q5: Could there ever be a perfect world and what would it be like?
Response
Humans will never achieve perfectness. No matter how close we get to it, we always fall short. Electronic devices do fail; in the end, nothing in this world is perfect. Why? The answer to that question is simple: we live in a flawed world; all good things come to an end eventually. Flowers wilt shortly after reaching they bloom.
In a perfect world:
Response
Humans will never achieve perfectness. No matter how close we get to it, we always fall short. Electronic devices do fail; in the end, nothing in this world is perfect. Why? The answer to that question is simple: we live in a flawed world; all good things come to an end eventually. Flowers wilt shortly after reaching they bloom.
In a perfect world:
- People would take everything for granted. We take Singapore's pleasant weather, you haven't been to Dubai yet) for granted, and even complain that it's "too hot". Compared to Dubai, Singapore is much, and here I emphasise, MUCH better. So why do people take things for granted? We humans tend to make comparisons (results, etc. etc.) and make sweeping statements. Those people that have done community work in the suburban areas of Singapore will know how fortunate we are in our present state. If everything in our world is perfect, we will treat things as normal, and when things are "less than normal", we will be unhappy (Just like how we feel on a bad hair day as compared to other "normal" days). This would lead to an innate sense of complacency within humans, and arrogance when dealing with minors.
- There will be nothing to strive for. In a perfect situation, what would there be to strive for? There's no such thing as 101/100 for any test; even if there were bonus questions, perfect would mean getting those questions correct too. Life would be meaningless, without any goal in life. We would be like robots, just working to ensure the continuation of the future generation. Things would remain stagnant, without any hope of progress. There wouldn't be any drive in life without anything to strive for. Here's a simple analogy: In electronic games, once you have "completed the game", it seems meaningless to continue further and you just restart the whole game. Why? Because there isn't any thrill in it anymore; you would just be repeating the same process over and over again. So why restart? Because there is something to strive for; a hope, a DREAM that one wants to accomplish. Humans are driven by the want to progress, whether in terms of social relationships, results, even Science and technology. Even Obama's theme for his presidential campaign was centred around the theme of "Hope" (Yes We Can!). The Americans wanted a change for the better, and Obama gave them what we wanted. America might be headed in the right direction, but even he is not perfect.
- Life would be... un-natural. We weren't supposed to be perfect. There wouldn't be a point in a perfect world. Humans were meant never to be perfect, but always to strive for perfection. We will always fall short, despite how close we are. We might become like 0.999... , never achieving the perfect 1. Some might argue mathematically that it's the same, but that's beside the point. We weren't meant for perfection, and never will be. In the end, no one is perfect, and will ever be.
Labels: ACE
2:57 PM
