For more detailed explanations of terminology, kindly refer to the wonderful Coxford Singlish Dictionary. This is only a compilation of terms more frequently heard serving NS, along with NS-contextual descriptions and explanations.
NS - National Slavery
National Service is often described by many as 'National Slavery' as for two wholesome years you are chained to Singapore, neither willing nor able to escape. Going AWOL is not the prudent man's solution, for you will still have to serve your time after you are released from detention barracks. If you want to do it right, rescind Singaporean citizenship and obtain it elsewhere, most preferably in another nation without conscription.
Wayang & The Singapore Acting Foundation
Wayang, translated literally into 'acting', is an essential survival skill for NS. At the most basic level, wayang-ing is to pretend that you are actually working, while in truth you are skiving. In my experience, when you have typical regulars who play with workplace politics for your superiors, there is usually no correlation between doing your work well and getting rewarded for it, like getting off or early book-out. Therefore, it only makes sense to wayang your two years away since there is a limited amount of time served but an unlimited amount of work to finish. Related terms include 'eye power' and 'No Action, Talk Only'
Arrow
To 'kena arrow(ed)' is to get assigned a task. This is a fundamental concept of NS -- you will either be assigned sai kang (lit. shit work) or will have to do another person's work for him, most of the time. From cleaning toilets to moving crates, getting arrowed is something you should not endevour to achieve.
Garang
To be overtly enthusiastic. You should avoid being garang in NS, since other NSFs, or conscripts, will only see you as trying to boot lick. Similarly, regulars will only take advantage of your willingness to work by pushing their work to you.
Siam
To move out of the way. Can be used in conjunction with other terms, e.g. 'Siam arrow'.
Ninja
To disappear at work, usually to a secluded hiding spot. If you are seen less, you will be shot at, with arrows, less often. If you are so unfortunate as to be caught doing this, a plausible excuse such as 'I went to the toilet' or 'I was doing some work' might get you out of trouble, even if the regulars see through them. They've been in the Army for decades now; they've seen their fair share of stunts. However, they usually cannot be bothered with NSFs and they let us go. Of course, apply some common sense here, and if your superior is a savage man-eating, head-smashing bugger, try not to pull stunts too often. Try not to anger the hand which holds your leash. Legendary ninjas, typically experienced regulars, have been known to combine wayang and ninja skills to remain invisible in plain sight. Similarly, 'to throw smoke' is used to the same effect.
Chao Keng
Malingering, usually achieved with a polyclinic MC or Medical Officer's excuse letter. Deeply frowned upon by other NSFs, since they will have to pick up the slack you left by leaving. Unless, of course, all your NSF buddies have already chao keng-ed before you even entertained the thought.
Lan Lan
To suck it up and resign to fate. If you are unable to escape from the evil the SAF calls 'work', you have to just accept your misfortune. You would never survive NS otherwise.
Lan Lan Suck Thumb
refer Lan Lan
Du Lan
To feel extremely annoyed, with a tinge of anger. Maybe 'pissed off' would be more accurate. Frequently experienced after trying to lan lan suck thumb.
Monday, April 26, 2010
Thursday, April 15, 2010
"A picture is always more powerful than mere words. What is your view?"
An A' Level essay I did in 2008, mirrored from my main site. It is by no means perfect, but I feel that it is pretty damned good.
Q: "A picture is always more powerful than mere words. What is your view?"
There is a never-ending war of words between the believers who think words are more powerful than pictures and those who feel otherwise. It is a foolish argument, for each has its merits and shortcomings; prudence would only dictate that we utilise both mediums to their strengths. I must, however, for the sake of comparison, say that the picture currently has the upper hand, even if it is quickly losing its ground.
Certain forms of imagery are highly realistic, with photographs and fine art being prime examples. Photographs are deemed by many people as a powerful form of communication, as it replicates every detail, every emotion perfectly. They strike a chord close to each viewer's heart for viewers see an event, a person, instead of mere brush strokes or picture frames. This often has an effect of amplifying anything the image depicts, and increases the ability to evoke emotions such as shock, happiness and depression. With the literal, the message it tries to pass along is limited by the imagination of the reader or the language ability of the author. Pictures have the ability to raise the threshold levels of its viewers, while readers can only imagine what words are trying to convey. You need a heart of stone to say that pictures of Japanese videographer Kenji Nagai being shot in Burma, the Hindenburg as an inferno or the solemn yet triumphant raising of the American flag on Iwo Jima fail to move you. You, however, need only an ignorant mind to claim that these events, if described in words, fail to bring about any emotion in you.
Pictures also reign supreme over words in the efficiency section. Barring moving imagery such as animation, still images can be quickly understood and analysed by the viewer. This multiplies its power, as more people might have seen the picture in the same time it took a person to read a sentence. This is exactly the reason why we have towering (and sometimes annoying) advertising billboards slapped on with imagery, or pictorial logotypes of large corporations such as Nike and Pepsi. It is because of the efficiency pictures have which makes them more inviting to view. Surely any sane person would take a picture over a book to digest - we only have a few minutes to spare in our busy, busy lives. The picture is able to reach a wider audience than words, and this makes is superior.
Another thing the picture has over words is the universal appeal it has. No translation is required for pictures, and this makes it powerful. Words, however, require a troublesome translation, and many translators would attest to the difficulties experienced in conveying the same exact meaning the author had in mind. Children's books always contain few to no words, and pictorial art can be understood equally by everyone worldwide, even if they fail to appreciate it. Pop art, such as Che Guevera or works by Andy Warhol, can be seen worldwide, from the streets of the USA to the alleyways of a very different country, China. Even the genius of our silent comedic heroes, Charlie Chaplin or dear old Mr. Bean as portrayed by Rowan Atkinson, use almost zero words to bring laughter to audiences all over the globe.
However, it would be folly to deny that words have the power to change. History has countless examples of this, such as Lincoln's famous Gettysburg Address, Martin King Luther Jr.'s "I have a dream" or Churchill's wartime speech. In a way, what is important for both pictures and words is the content, not the method of delivery. Words and pictures are merely mediums for communication, and on this premise the effect pictures and words have on power is non-existent for the power is carried by the content. A fitting analogy (do observe how imagery and words work in tandem here) would be this: power is carried by power lines, but power lines themselves have no power to call their own.
Words are also gaining ground on the incumbent, the picture. As the cliché goes, "A picture speaks a thousand words,". This is still mainly true in our modern society, but with the advent of technology this view is quickly eroding. The one unshakable power pictures had becomes threatened by photo editing tools such as Photoshop that undermine its credibility. One only needs to point to Reuters photographer Adnan Hajj whose altered photographs of Beirut burning caused quite the scandal. In our Internet-riddled age seeing will soon become "not-believing" as suspicions grow with every single such incident.
Perhaps in due time the cliché could be edited to say "A picture speaks a hundred words,", but it will still be a hundred times more powerful than a single, mere, lonely word.
Q: "A picture is always more powerful than mere words. What is your view?"
There is a never-ending war of words between the believers who think words are more powerful than pictures and those who feel otherwise. It is a foolish argument, for each has its merits and shortcomings; prudence would only dictate that we utilise both mediums to their strengths. I must, however, for the sake of comparison, say that the picture currently has the upper hand, even if it is quickly losing its ground.
Certain forms of imagery are highly realistic, with photographs and fine art being prime examples. Photographs are deemed by many people as a powerful form of communication, as it replicates every detail, every emotion perfectly. They strike a chord close to each viewer's heart for viewers see an event, a person, instead of mere brush strokes or picture frames. This often has an effect of amplifying anything the image depicts, and increases the ability to evoke emotions such as shock, happiness and depression. With the literal, the message it tries to pass along is limited by the imagination of the reader or the language ability of the author. Pictures have the ability to raise the threshold levels of its viewers, while readers can only imagine what words are trying to convey. You need a heart of stone to say that pictures of Japanese videographer Kenji Nagai being shot in Burma, the Hindenburg as an inferno or the solemn yet triumphant raising of the American flag on Iwo Jima fail to move you. You, however, need only an ignorant mind to claim that these events, if described in words, fail to bring about any emotion in you.
Pictures also reign supreme over words in the efficiency section. Barring moving imagery such as animation, still images can be quickly understood and analysed by the viewer. This multiplies its power, as more people might have seen the picture in the same time it took a person to read a sentence. This is exactly the reason why we have towering (and sometimes annoying) advertising billboards slapped on with imagery, or pictorial logotypes of large corporations such as Nike and Pepsi. It is because of the efficiency pictures have which makes them more inviting to view. Surely any sane person would take a picture over a book to digest - we only have a few minutes to spare in our busy, busy lives. The picture is able to reach a wider audience than words, and this makes is superior.
Another thing the picture has over words is the universal appeal it has. No translation is required for pictures, and this makes it powerful. Words, however, require a troublesome translation, and many translators would attest to the difficulties experienced in conveying the same exact meaning the author had in mind. Children's books always contain few to no words, and pictorial art can be understood equally by everyone worldwide, even if they fail to appreciate it. Pop art, such as Che Guevera or works by Andy Warhol, can be seen worldwide, from the streets of the USA to the alleyways of a very different country, China. Even the genius of our silent comedic heroes, Charlie Chaplin or dear old Mr. Bean as portrayed by Rowan Atkinson, use almost zero words to bring laughter to audiences all over the globe.
However, it would be folly to deny that words have the power to change. History has countless examples of this, such as Lincoln's famous Gettysburg Address, Martin King Luther Jr.'s "I have a dream" or Churchill's wartime speech. In a way, what is important for both pictures and words is the content, not the method of delivery. Words and pictures are merely mediums for communication, and on this premise the effect pictures and words have on power is non-existent for the power is carried by the content. A fitting analogy (do observe how imagery and words work in tandem here) would be this: power is carried by power lines, but power lines themselves have no power to call their own.
"We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender, and even if, which I do not for a moment believe, this Island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God's good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old." - Winston Churchill
Words are also gaining ground on the incumbent, the picture. As the cliché goes, "A picture speaks a thousand words,". This is still mainly true in our modern society, but with the advent of technology this view is quickly eroding. The one unshakable power pictures had becomes threatened by photo editing tools such as Photoshop that undermine its credibility. One only needs to point to Reuters photographer Adnan Hajj whose altered photographs of Beirut burning caused quite the scandal. In our Internet-riddled age seeing will soon become "not-believing" as suspicions grow with every single such incident.
Perhaps in due time the cliché could be edited to say "A picture speaks a hundred words,", but it will still be a hundred times more powerful than a single, mere, lonely word.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)