miscarried

My friend so nicely put it: it's almost like I suffered a miscarriage.

To put things in perspective on how stuck SGH's HR policy is: it's like I joined Al Quaeda and Osama doesn't think I'm a very good terrorist, and therefore I'm not suitable. Not that Moral = Al Quaeda; my main point is management people aren't necessary there because they deserve it. My take is, from one management to another, you can't start questioning another organization's capability to manage because... Let's just say Moral's management most probably isn't the only unfit one around.

So it's said that I don't 'take my work seriously' so I guess we have to start from the start on what is it exactly I didn't take seriously.

Home Help Service West is a service providing services to elderly who are home-bound, so we send people down to the elderly's house to do stuff for them, which primarily consists five components: daily meal delivery, personal hygiene [2x a week], housekeeping [4x a month], laundry [ad hoc basis; clothes usually collected during meal delivery rounds] and to and fro escort for medical appointments. Of course, Moral doesn't provide such services for free; Moral is able to claim for each service rendered to each client from NCSS, i.e. NCSS subsidizes each client to an amount based on the subsidy they are entitled to, either 75% or 50% of the charge. So Moral graciously absorbs the remaining 25% or 50%, or so my manager led me to believe for the greater part I was there with her incessant whining that the clients need to be grateful because we're making a loss for them blah blah blah; turns out that MCYS foots the portion that NCSS doesn't, this little tidbit coming from my manager's mouth [hope people seeing are seeing a trend now?].

So my job essentially is to decide that someone is crippled enough to be placed on the service, and to assess their financial situation, in what we call 'means-testing', through collecting relevant financial documents like payslips and CPF thingies and then getting the Client's signature [thumbprint more often than not] on both a contract and the means-testing application form. NCSS requires both forms duly signed and filled up, approved by the social worker and the manager, with relevant supporting documents, before it can honour the payment for each client. For some reason, NCSS thinks that only a social worker is qualified enough to do the assessment and means-test.

How do I decide that someone is eligible for the service? Till today, I have no idea. There is simply no clear set of criteria I can work from. NCSS hasn't been that helpful either. My manager? Not social work trained, only notion of assessment is to sound sympathetic when talking about the clients, but dropping them at the slightest excuse. I did do my own research, consulted some journals and textbooks and came up with some forms and criteria, but it's a mixed bag; homebound-ness has a psychological component; the slightest wound can fell some people, while there are those determined few that refuse to let death or disability get in their way of living their lives, which gets tricky because people do make noise when clients are not at home and all.

'People' make noise when some clients are not deservedly 'homebound' by their books. They make noise when clients are feeding our food to the birds and demand I go check it out [like what am I supposed to do? ask the client? stake out?]. They make noise when I reject clients they referred on very valid grounds. Cutting a long story short, no fixed set of criteria, people thinking they know best, manager who doesn't know best.

Essentially, I'm just a glorified signature collector, so that Moral can claim the subsidies from NCSS. It doesn't really make a difference if I'm at the job or not; there can always be someone else more willing to get the signatures everyone seems to want to orgase over.

Intermittently, NCSS asks for statistics, beyond the ones they require every 6 monthly. So the stats are to prove whether the service is working or not. For Home Help, 4 sets of figures are required for every service, and a fifth set where all the services are combined. An example:

For the Meal Delivery Service
1. N [number of people] were referred for the quarter.
2. Of N, N1 were deemed eligible.
3, Of N1, N2 received the service.
4. Of N2, N3 stayed in the community at the end of the quarter.
Therefore, the N3 people are still in the community thanks to Home Help Service.

There was a meeting where NCSS got an expert to come along to discuss about service KPIs. At the table, I mentioned that between [3] and [4] required a considerable leap of faith, which everyone just laughed off. The expert came along, practically mentioned the same thing, albeit less dramatically, and everyone started groveling. So I hope this just goes to shows how meaningless the things NCSS ask for are.

They are even more meaningless considering you have a manager who doesn't know how to produce them, and the reluctant social worker who makes them up.

Towards the end, there was the issue with some old accounts: apparently our auditors [KS Chan] had to audit some collated figures for 2006 [when I wasn't there yet] and the only reference was like reams of reams of paper. Manager got into her usual high-panick-nothing-to-be-done-mode. KS Chan who probably thinks that accountants are god's gift to the world, and that he's god's gift to accountants, decided that the only way was to transfer everything to soft copy [that's like 400 clients x 30 days x 5-6 mths x 5 services] and 'can't we just get more social workers to do it' because god forbid, the accountant actually has to pore through paper work to verify stuff. I think the issue was resolved several temp staff later and some very, ahem, creative accounting.

So can I be forgiven for not taking a job that doesn't take me seriously seriously? A job where I have to learn whatever that needs learning on my own, and make up the rest?

But I do take the job seriously. I take my clients very seriously. And it's very disappointing when I don't seem to see the same seriousness around. I seriously think the service is severely understaffed; we service an area from Redhill/Commonwealth all the way through Chinatown to the Beach Road area. Lunch delivery starts at about 1030 and ends at 1, which is an awfully long time to wait for your food. There was, and still is, abit of an issue with clients living in some areas having to receive both lunch and dinner in one delivery. There's no fruits, or when there is, usually rarely, or when NCSS or some VIP is making a tour, it's usually only bananas. I personally find the food edible, so do most of the clients because they don't have a choice, but it's definitely not worth the $3.50/meal that NCSS subsidizes for each client, and that's the whole shady deal of outsourcing the food to this department called Moral Enterprise, which is very enterprising to say the least. The staff were not trained to escort clients, and quite frequently late for appointments; resulting in some clients actually missing their appointments. There was even the issue of getting clients to fix appointments at nearer hospitals so we didn't have to travel so far. Internal communications was archaic and involved many layers. Housekeeping sessions were random, and the default offered to the clients was 2x/mth [because if you offer 4x a mth and fail to meet that quota, you don't claim a cent at all, unless the client stipulated he/she wanted a lesser frequency].

It's almost like doing Home Help and biting off such a big pie so that you can tell people because we are doing it, like the same way my forms are properly needed so that my manager can sign them because there's really the only bit of managing she manages to do.

fart hard, queef proud

Disclaimer: I've taken to whining here because people just can't seem to get me, or they're more engrossed in their own crummy interests, which is nothing wrong lah, but it would be nice to have had someone who did cared.
-

So for those that don't know: my latest attempt at getting gainfully employed has been botched, thanks to my conniving, scummy, petty ex-management [i use the word loosely; they are, in fact the furtherest you can get from management].

Not sure what was in the letter they wrote, but the bits I garnered include 'not taking my work seriously', 'no sense of hierarchy' and also about my reports, or the lack of them.

I'm quite grateful to the MSW head [now ex-head] for doing all that she could, trying to fight for me and all, even calling up my ex-manager to get more details [and I was told that slimy bitch had the cheek to appear all gracious and big-hearted].

I don't regret whatever I did at Moral. It's not difficult to get a good/satisfactory testimonial. But there is nothing respectable about getting a good testimonial from such an organization. I just feel indignant that HR is stuck up enough to disregard the disrepute of Moral, that haggy ex-boss can disregard all the good things I've done or tried to do, and disregard the fact all the obstacles I faced, one of which was herself. If I do regret anything, it's that I stayed too long, probably in hopes that change could come, and I did not demand to be sacked when they told me to go.

Contrary to the common perception, I do have a sense of hierarchy. Top of my hierarchy are the clients, and unlike NCSS or Moral, does not include the need to showboat, the need for the bottomline at considerable client expense, the need for personal comfort and luxury.

There is a notion of hierarchy delineated by someone's seniority, experience and accomplishments, none of which I had first hand encounter with at Moral. The person who hired me was the director for the Tanjong Pagar Family Service Center and he seemed alot more interested in the bottomline of his centre; quite possibly only hiring me so that he could second me out to Home Help, I was told he charged alot more than what I was being paid and classified it as training fee but I only ever saw him like once on a consultancy basis, and I was the one who requested for it because I needed to whine about the job. My own executive director I've heard and personally experienced for myself, is the archetypal model of NATO, more interested in the colour of his hair, and the number of cronies he surrounds himself with. The Chairman and CEO I've heard from at least 3 sources, one of which is the aforementioned ED, are computer idiots who have their emails printed out to them where they probably make their vermilion comments. The fat one is a doctor. I wondering if he's still practicing [Lalala]. My own manager is hardly social work trained and barely competent enough to make managerial decisions; in fact, all the time I was there, I can't seem to recall any decision she has made. I have heard rather good things about the EIPIC centre's executive director and the ED for the Bukit Panjang FSC, who is kinda estranged from Moral because he refuses to 'play' along to the whole culture of pandering which the EDs seem to gleefully indulge in.

I also vaguely realize, there is the notion of hierarchy as delineated by the person who pays you. Considering that the person who pays me doesn't really get the money by productive means, but rather through donations and handouts, I supposed there is an onus to use the money for which it was donated for, in which case, yar, clients at the top of the hierarchy makes sense? There is also the hierarchy that comes with family members, something I experienced way too much of, which seems to be an in-thing in our fine meritocratic country, and which I rather not ever come across again. As the new MCYS ad [which I still think after watching it like 7 times is contrite though the conception is good] says, family is imperfect. So I say, it's best to keep the imperfections within the family?

Yes, I do know about hierarchies.

And I tire. WIll carry on the rest tomorrow.

why i am not a christian

Ironic.

Bishops warn of reiki danger:"

'Reiki therapy finds no support either in the findings of natural science or in Christian belief,' said the USCCB doctrine committee in a document issued Thursday.

In health terms, using a therapeutic technique that has no scientific basis 'is not generally prudent,' said the eight bishops on the committee, which in the past has issued guidelines on how to minister to 'persons with homosexual inclinations' and frequently asked questions about why only men are ordained.

-

and

'There is a radical difference between Reiki therapy and the healing by divine power in which Christians believe: for Christians the access to divine healing is by prayer to Christ as Lord and Savior, while the essence of Reiki is not a prayer but a technique,' the bishops said in a statement.

"

I suppose the enemy of your enemy is your friend.

i'd be surprisingly good for you..

As long as your cause is just and right..

senseless

Senseless senseless death.

Noone should have to die like this, except certain elder statesmen.

sdu + sds

So the Social Development Unit and the Social Development Service is going to merge.

The SDU caters to graduates, while the SDS to non-graduates. [sheesh, who comes up with these names].

So now graduates can stand a chance to meet non-graduates, who by the way, outnumber graduates almost 3:1.

Wah, the non-graduates get a good deal man.

And LKY is so gonna throw a fit.

ls xmas special

or biting the hand that used to feed me. See how I spill the dirt on how degenerate the Thye Hua Kwan Moral Society is ermmm right after I finish my physiology and molecular biology homework.

Before that, feast on this letter from the ST Forum.

"Society aims to serve Singaporeans of all backgrounds
I REFER to Ms Grace Chua's article, 'DBS' charity tie-up draws flak' (Dec 5). The article mentioned Thye Hua Kwan Moral Society. Kindly allow us to clarify our position.

Thye Hua Kwan Moral Society provides a holistic range of services to meet the needs of Singaporeans. Indeed, our welfare homes and centres have been serving people in need for the past 30 years - regardless of their ethnicity, religion or class.

We are happy that people from diverse cultural and religious backgrounds feel comfortable using our services.

Thye Hua Kwan Moral Society values and respects every individual. We aim to provide culturally-sensitive services that respect our clients' values and beliefs. For instance, our meal services for the needy include food prepared in accordance with the strictest religious requirements, depending on clients' needs. Our counselling services aim to help clients find solutions that best fit their situations. Our staff come from different countries, creeds, language groups, race and religions.

Thye Hua Kwan Moral Society seeks to promote social cohesion. All our Centres and Homes observe equally the festivals of Christmas, Hari Raya, Deepavali, Confucius' birthday, Vesak Day and Lao Zi's birthday. Our agencies have also partnered with other organisations, servicing different ethnic and religious groups. The Society itself has been partnering the Inter-Religious Organisation (which has 10 religious groups as its members) and the four self-help groups - Mendaki, Eurasian Association, Chinese Development Assistance Council and the Singapore Indian Development Association - to organise the annual Inter-Racial Inter Religious Harmony Night since 2004.

We hope this helps explain Thye Hua Kwan Moral Society's position.

Dr Lee Ngak Siang
Chief Executive Officer
Thye Hua Kwan Moral Society"

again

I know I've said this before but I'm gonna say this again: Governments are the biggest terrorists; terrorism is beyond the singular act of terror; terrorism is that memory of that singular act of terror and that lingering possibility of its recurrence. Governments make this memory and this possibility very real and concrete by their omnipresent security measures, which are ultimately useless in what they are supposed to do.

-

For those who are wagering, here is the revised list of the likely ways I'm gonna die, in decreased order of likeliness:

1. Shot to death by airport security
2. heart giving way
3. Shot to death in the midst of a killing spree

I totally cannot understand the airport liquids policy. It's obviously a knee jerk reaction after some terrorist brought some combustible liquids onto the plane but what good does it actually serve?

Let's see. So the rule is you can't bring liquids in those big opaque containers which shampoos and what nots generally come in: all your liquids have to be packed in a clear plastic bag and in bottles not more than 100 ml each and not totaling 1 litres or something like that.

From personal experience, it's totally not ok to bring a bottle of branded shampoo in but you can take the shampoo back out, empty all its contents into transparent containers conveniently available cheaply at the stores outside, and whiz right past security.

So what if you can see the liquid? Do the security guards have bionic stoichometric eyes that can tell that the whitish milkish liquid is liuid sarin? I suppose you should ban all liquids. Oneday some terrorist dude is gonna invent combustible blood and I'd love to see what security measures we are gonna take.

-

Closer to home, we have our ever-vigilant MRT security, either the omnipresent middle-aged uncles/aunties stationed after the gates on the Concourse, or our very dependable SWAT-ish cops making their rounds around the station and on the train.

Of course those SWAT-ish cops are different from those that let Mas Selamat go, nor were they involved in any of the recent escapes. Very dependable and reliable people. They travel in teams of 4 and walk around MRT stations carrying their really mean looking guns, watching and watching. Each MRT station must be about 3-4 football fields big, and they open for like at least 16 hours a day. I know I can count on them to keep me safe at every square inch of the station, all 16 hours of the day, or at least when they start work, which is generally after morning peak hours because we all know that terrorists work 9 to 5.

The auntie/uncle security guards are even braver. I'm not sure what they could do if I actually turned violent and a couple of them acknowledged that to me too but yet they hold their ground. And they really hold their ground. The entire MRT concourse must be at least 100 metres across and I'm sure everyone that passes by the gates is profiled and screened, and not just the unfortunate few that happen to walk infront of them. And they have bionic eyes too! I carry really big bags and within my bag is usually always another bag and I've been checked a few times and I always marvel how someone can open my bag, see another bag and decide that it's not a bomb. Genius.

Where do we find all these people I wonder? Probably from the same places our ministers crawled out from.

all i ask of you

sigh

Perfectest wedding vow. Ever.

my god

So I was approached by some Christian missionary dude. Maybe he thinks I need some God in my Godless life but most likely he must have been really that desperate to approach a Godless One as me. He did have a new approach though: he presented the God of that Holy Trinity — the Father, the Son, and the paraclete as the God the Mother for did the Holy Bible not say that God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, ...' So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them" (Genesis 1:26-27). Is it also not said, in the Old Testament in hebrew, that God is Elohim, or Gods.

All I see in Elohim is a big 'Hello Him'. It's a refreshing new trick these missionary types are doing: gender-typing their messages; probably the females will get the God the Father message although personally I prefer that too. God can be a frickin unicorn, I wouldn't be blerdy interested [only slightly].

I do have an issue with the Church though; the House of God wallows in abject luxury while the People of God get to indulge in the glow of poverty. Good one there.

So I just wanted to move on politely and not hurt anyone's feelings so I nicely told the guy I believed in Science and that blerdy nutmeg have the cheek to say 'do you noe that alot of scientists are now turning to God?'. No I did not know that, and I don't really care.

I know maybe in religion, you believe whatever your pastor/priest/church/monk/PAP MP tells you. Believing whatever a scientist says is not Science just because a supposed person of Science is involved. Believing what anyone tells you after evaluation of what has been said: that is Science. Science is really the religion of experiencing something and then expanding this experience to possibly probably stand for something else. Alot of people hold Science strictly to the empirical senses but I give myself more leeway, as long as it's an experience, emprical or otherworldly, discrete or intangible, then it's an experience and I'm gonna believe in it probably-ly until the next best experience/evidence comes along. In short, the only way I'd believe in God is a cold day in Hell and I'm there without my winter wear or God is screaming at my face and hurling megawattic thunderbolts of doom or LKY and his clan drop dead suddenly. [God, if you're listening, personally I prefer the third one.]

gotta be somebody - nickelback

So true [to me, at least].

noise

world of pain

This is the life.

I have a paper at 10 and I am at the gym now doing some general chest
work.

It's abit weird. I'm walking around the gym carrying a thick stack of
notes and alternating between reading them and the weights but it's
not too bad cuz there's only 3 other ppl at the moment: one guy who's
jus loitering around and one auntie with her personal trainer.

Was at the gym yesterday too, for combat and another class called
sculpt abs. Sculpt abs ytd was a whole new world of pain: in the first
14 minutes of warm up, I sweated more than I did for the preceding hr
of combat. The class is called sculpt abs but you only actually do the
abs in the last 15 mins. The rest of the time is spent moving all your
body parts at once. With weights. On a board.

Recently my gym was bought over by another not so reputable place and
already you can see the beginnings of a class action suit. They are
turning all the floor in all the branches to a hideous purple, their
corporate colour apparently. There's less machines, and more people.
They upped their membership consultants to 800%; I already am a member
and I was approached twice, once when I was leaving the gym. Duhz.

The gym used to be my happy place, this place I can go to and leave
all my free radical thoughts and issues at the door. And I hope it
stays this way.

work ethic

Ok, am typing this on the iPhone so you will forgive the typos and the
general prissiness.

Today's the second day since I was kinda sacked and I am still kinda
pissed. General summary: tendered at the start of last mth, the
director spoke to us a week later and promised a whole slew of changes
to better help our clients, none of them happened in the days to come
and maybe I got kinda exceedingly rambunctious about it, on Thursday I
was informed they would be honoring the letter, making my last day
Friday. Effectively I was blind sided and told it's for the best.
Technically it wasn't a sack: I'm told it's a 'small industry' and my
career is still fledgling. I'd rather they sack me though, at least
I'd get some compensation and my conscience is clear; small industry
or not, a black mark by this org counts for nothing. They had the gall
to ask if I wanted a testimonial. Any number of my clients would be
glad to write a testimonial for me(if they were literate) and I could
not be more honored. Clients are always the most important not because
of awards or recgonition but because you have chosen to be in this
industry, that's the least you can do. And this is not something I can
say about the org.

I am rising above. On Monday I stayed the whole day to finish some
paperwork, which couldn't be finished in such short notice despite
snide comments from the manager like 'have I found a job yet?'(I dun
have any brothers who run any coy so no) and we're all fated to get
together( yeah very tragic karma at work) and so forth. And despite
asking if I would come back to visit, I learnt there are explicit
instructions diseminated to my ex colleagues that I have no right to
be in the office. I am rising above.

it runs in the family

Founding father of Singapore, our first Prime Minister, revered Minister Mentor and now professor in Genetics explains:

“That is the way the world is. I have explained this. I think I lost votes after I explained the awful truth. Nobody believed it, but slowly it dawned on them – especially the graduates – that yes, you marry a non-graduate, then you worry about whether or not your son or daughter is going to make it to the university!”

Paraphrasing,

Graduate + Graduate = Graduate
Graduate + Non-Graduate = Poly Grad
Non-Graduate + Non-Graduate = CDC client

Graduate + Graduate + Non-Graduate = ??

Of course the old guy knows what he's talking about. Prime ministering runs in the family.

pregnant

where being right is wrong

The other day I was at Clarke Quay there were this lovely string trio [?], in both looks and skills, performing to an oblivious audience, performing in spite of an oblivious audience, bravely soldiering on. The show must go on I suppose.

-

So I had a letter published in the ST today [big big somemore]:

NCSS should focus more on its clients

I REFER to Ms Ang Bee Lian's letter 'Govt benchmarking social workers' pay' on Sept 26.
I have been a social worker for almost two years. While I am not seeing the kind of salary that Ms Ang refers to, I acknowledge that there has been some positive movement in that regard.

However, I feel that the National Council of Social Service (NCSS) can do more for the people.

The biggest issue is the structural way NCSS divides the services of a population within distinct demographical categories, like age or physical condition. Each group is further divided into specific needs and services, like home nursing, meals delivery, family counselling and so on. Such a model is not comprehensive, as considering how diverse people are, there inadvertently will be needs an individual faces that existing formal services do not provide.

A corollary for such a framework is that social service organisations are set up around these services that NCSS has earmarked due to the funding. This inadvertently results in agencies becoming very specific and not going beyond a certain duty to fill up any possible service loophole, either because they lack the resources or, for whatever other reasons, because it is not 'in the service guideline'. While specificity often leads to specialisation and efficiency, the precursor is economies of scale, which most social service agencies are unable to achieve.

A third offshoot is a duplication of assessment that results from a client being referred from one agency to another. Each agency requires its own separate assessment. While a specific service will assess a client differently, there are common facets like financial and background information that can be better shared. For example, multiple financial testing requires multiple collection of financial documents from the client and the family.

While NCSS has gone some way to supporting social workers, I feel we can be better supported by focusing on the clients.

Chen Lingshen

As with all things online, there will always be idiots and as of now, here's the only idiotic comment:

I think the writer, being a rookie, does not understand how the sector works.

Such embarrassment, hearing these comments from these young social workers who are passionate but don't go deeper into what they see or hear on the surface.

My next question to these rookies are: so what are you going to do to facilitate change in your position?

The idiocy of this idiot screams so loudly I don't think I even need to speak for him.

Edit. Apparently someone replied that idiot:

what embarrassment about these comments? quite sensible perceptive observations made by Chen Lingshen.

(1)"the National Council of Social Service (NCSS) can do more for the people"
nothing embarrassing about this fact.

(2)"the structural way NCSS divides the services...inadvertently will be needs an individual faces that existing formal services do not provide". correct again. such rigid divisions means this is not in my service guideline, not my area, so results in multiple referrals which hamper the efficiency of the system.

(3) clients `referred from one agency to another. Each agency requires its own separate assessment' - waste of resources and hassle for people requiring fast help.
Rookies? - better than fossilised veterans who are moulded to the old rigid inflexible system. we need more such refrshing views.

I'm embarrassed actually; he says it much better than i could ever hope to.

-

On a relatively unrelated note,

The general consensus is that the letter was 'very well written', that I was very brave to have written it. My bosses were livid. [Edit. I have since been cleared cuz I didn't mention the company name] Tomorrow, all these will be forgotten until NCSS replies, which will go along these lines: they'll denounce me as a wet behind the ears rookie, full of passion but ultimately myopic and misguided, list down their accomplishments probably in terms of how many people have benefitted from their services and the high percentage of positive evaluations, and mention how NCSS strives to keep ahead and relevant and pretend it never happened.

I'm not actually say anything new or brilliant, or made up; these are things everyone has been saying but not to NCSS, or they're not listening, or something. [Edit. I've just been informed that Case Management communicates with NCSS directly and they're able to implement changes every 3 months. Power to Case Management I say; You can be a Case Management too if you're above 60, lack social support and have one chronic medical condition]. I'm just saying what alot of people are saying but not saying to NCSS. Which is what irks. Things didn't just suddenly become like that overnight; it should have taken a hell lot of indifference for things to become what they are today.

Abit of clarification: NCSS doesn't actually provide the service or set up the agencies that do; what they do is demarcate the specific services by deciding what gets funding and what not, divide it into geographic regions and you kinda tender for it; you're free to set up your own agency providing any service you want but obviously why do something for free when funding is just a soul's sale away. You get this nice groovy service manual to follow and are required to submit stats every once in awhile purporting to the efficacy of your service but actually meaning nothing; you also have to provide any other stats, colour coded in technicolour, that the great powers at NCSS needs to set policy. I must have missed the fine print somewhere because you are also required to get your comments and observations ignored and you can't speak to someone higher ranked [at NCSS] than you directly. [I don't know where this notion of rank came about actually: technically the politicians appoint the civil servants and the power of politicians comes from the people; therefore politicians are the lowest ranked and therefore civil servants, and psuedo civil servants aren't that far off too?]

Years ago, I attended a meeting where the SINDA-FSC director was present. He was rather quite disdainful of education and prided himself on his years of experience. He was particularly proud of his 'experienced' corp of volunteers in this service implemented, boasting that they were able to make thorough and complete assessments with just an hour. How this is related to the current mess I don't know but I just think that experience or education, neither one is more important than the other. You need a theoretical basis as a guide how to proceed; yet a guide will never cover every possible situation that you will encounter. Experience and education to me are just the same facets of probably-knowing something; I say probably-knowing because I don't think we can really ever know anything [and even this I don't know for sure]. I think the day I do know anything for sure is the day life ends.

Yet another common comment is so 'why am I not doing anything about it' or 'what solution do i have to offer'. I don't know? I wrote a letter didn't I? And I did give up the pursuit of a discipline [psychology] that I am thoroughly in love with for one [medicine/genetics] that is no doubt just as exciting but with a much longer, more uncertain and onerous journey because I believe it's for the best. I did design a database to store client records; I spent and am still spending droplets of time I manage to squeeze out from my laden schedule of work and school learning from scratch computer languages like MYSQL, PHP and HTML in the hopes that I can bridge at least a few services together. My system is not perfect, but it will be eventually. I really really would like to think I did and am still trying to do something about it. I actually don't quite understand the logic that when you criticize, you must have an answer. Afterall, I'm not the one that's being paid an obnoxious amount of money here.

But I actually do have an answer, and it doesn't involve raising taxes or implementing surcharges. I suggest, rather than a service-centric model, we should adopt a client or geography-centric model: that is a social worker is assigned to an area, and the entire gamut of needs of persons in that area is the responsibility of that social worker [TM]. When the social worker feels that the client requires services that the social worker is unable to render, he/she can refer to an organization providing that specific need.

One of the complaints in the social services is there's not enough resources, which is actually the same complaint in every other industry. I don't think there's not enough resources; it's just that everyone, every organization, every industry demands their own set of resources. I call this the Food Court Rice Theory [TM]. When I go to the food court near closing time, there's alot of stores who have run out of rice and have to close for the day yet there are also many other stores who still have lots of rice left. Or or or how mornings, the roads are practically jammed but if you look inside each car, you'll see there's most likely only one, at most two persons in each car that sits five people. Or you see the roads going towards the city is clogged yet the roads coming from the city is empty. Or you can never get a taxi when you need one yet taxi drivers spend a good part of their jobs waiting at taxi stands. Obviously resources are not being used all that well. And coming from my Food Court Rice Theory is the final piece of my solution: where possible, the social services should not set up a specialized service but utilize existing commercial sources [TM]. Why do we have to send food all the way from Henderson to Beach Road when there's so many eateries littering the area? Why can't we use taxi drivers who are free to send clients for medical appointments? Of course, my idealism requires alot of micro planning, coordination, and a quid of human kindness and initiative, which is the bit where it will all come apart.

-

Actually I don't know I struggle so much for what. If I just shut up and do my job, receive my [relatively] obnoxious pay, spend my pay, and live happily ever after, I would be living happily ever after instead of this mess I'm in: feeling pissed, feeling pissed that I'm pissed, career's in limbo, all plans derailed. Nothing's gonna change, moone else cares, and it doesn't matter that I care, and noone cares that I care.

-

I kinda think at the end of the day ideals are important. Sure, they don't put food on the table, and power to you if your ideal happens to be the same as putting food on the table, but ideals, even if you never meet them, make you you.

jbj

Crappiest crap:

"
CONDOLENCE LETTER FROM PRIME MINISTER LEE HSIEN LOONG ON DEMISE OF JB JEYARETNAM
30 September 2008
Mr Kenneth Jeyaretnam
Mr Philip Jeyaretnam

Dear Kenneth and Philip Jeyaretnam
I was sad to learn that your father, Mr Joshua Benjamin Jeyaretnam, has passed away.
Mr JB Jeyaretnam was a Member of Parliament for Anson constituency from 1981 till 1986, and a Non-Constituency Member of Parliament from 1997 till 2001. He used to engage in heated debates in the House. Perhaps it was because he and the PAP never saw eye to eye on any major political issue and he sought by all means to demolish the PAP and our system of government. Unfortunately, this helped neither to build up a constructive opposition nor our Parliamentary tradition. Nevertheless, one had to respect Mr JB Jeyaretnam’s dogged tenacity to be active in politics at his age.

However, our differences were not personal. In 1993, one of you (Kenneth) wrote to Mr Goh Chok Tong, who was then Prime Minister, to say that you found employers in Singapore reluctant to offer you a job, and your only explanation was that the employers felt the authorities would not welcome your employment because of your name. Mr Goh replied with a letter which could be shown to prospective employers, to say that the government did not hold anything against you, and that employers should evaluate you fairly on your own merits, like any other candidate, because Singapore needed every talented person that it could find. Mr Goh had previously made the same point to your brother Philip, whom he had invited to lunch. I am therefore happy that both of you have established yourselves in Singapore.
Please accept my deepest condolences.

Yours sincerely
Lee Hsien Loong
"

Obnoxious main points in the letter:

1. the PAP is always right.
2. Good riddance, loser.
3. Kenneth and Philip, you are not like their father. Keep it up.

-

Wah, our president is even more power:



I suddenly very proud he is social work trained lor. In 2 sentences, he can draw more blood than other people's 2 paragraphs. Who knew the old guy had it in him?

ebook reader

Uber cool ebook reader [it's the thinnest one on the top].



Yar, obviously I want one too.

[Yes, although I quite like the smell and feel of physical books, I quite prefer my shoulders not giving way from carrying like 2000 books plus the laptop.]