singzeon.

13 July 2013:

Recently I've adopted a 'don't care' attitude.

Not to studies, but to current affairs. Those who know me would know that I rather love current affairs. Not only do I read frequently to be aware of various happenings, I also engage in debates about it. (Just like with GY back then.)

But recently I've been rather uninterested in it. Various controversial issues have arose in the past months: Shane Todd, hawker centre-town council saga and etc. Yet, I completely skipped those articles when I read about it in newspapers.

N recently asked me about the hawker centre incident. I told her that I didn't care. And that actually surprised myself. Because under normal circumstances, I would probably be most concerned about it, getting to know everything that transpired and forming an opinion.

But no. I was utterly uninterested with it. I viewed it as unnecessary politicking from both sides which should have stopped a long time ago. And of course, I ignored every hint of the issue be it in newspapers or online.

I find it rather ironic, really. Back then I was mocked at or even labelled weird for being so interested in such things. Now, when everyone's warming up to the idea of current affairs mainly for GP's sake, I am shutting off. And that's not the best thing to do, of course.

Because then I may probably lack the most current examples during GP essays. Although it isn't a linear 'if have current examples then will score for GP', I'd like to think the using newest material is most beneficial.

And actually, there's an even bigger issue regarding my disenchantment with current affairs. Mainly, I am losing touch with the rest of Singapore or the world. Back then I at least felt that I knew things, I was slightly more confident in that sense.

Now, I am slightly insecure in the intellectual sense, where what if I don't know the latest things? Personally, I don't really have high opinions of people who don't bother to read up. I won't exactly look down upon such people, but I'll feel their apathy is incorrect.

Yet, it seems like now I'm going to dislike myself. Weird, isn't it. And as a history student, I of course question why. Why am I suddenly so uninterested?

I really can't figure it out, but I suppose maybe it's because of schoolwork. JC workload is markedly more than secondary school where I could have time to actually read newspapers and ponder over issues. Now I barely have the time.

I must confess, though, that I am rather addicted to certain iPhone games from time to time. And yes, what follows is 'If you have the time to play those games, why not use it to read about current affairs?'

I think it's partly because I feel so tired while doing work that I seek instant gratification through those iPhone games. Reading about current affairs requires a certain amount of analysis and thinking-through. I certainly have no intent to do that after a long day of school.

As a result, I turn to iPhone games which give me temporary pleasures and discard my interest (label me all you want) of current affairs that requires a bit of work.

Above all these may be excuses to some people. Ultimately if I really was so passionate about it I think nothing can stop me from reviving that dead interest. I really don't know; and don't really bother to know.

As a side note, I am lagging badly on TIME Magazine issues. I read it furiously during the June holidays to catch up the backlog but now with schoolwork resuming it seems like I'm gonna leave it aside again. I really don't wish to let it all go to waste.

~

I went to watch Cook a Pot of Curry by Alfian Sa'at just now. It definitely did not disappoint me. I was very impressed by almost every aspect of things, even the lighting and sound and set. As a theatre person I guess I notice even more stuff than others.

So yes, I was spazzing over almost everything to those who went with me. Many thanks to putting up with someone so impressed with so many things. But yes, it really was good, I felt. Some compared it to Cooling-Off Day but since I didn't watch that, I couldn't compare.

I really must say the cast was fantastic. They were really superbly natural on stage. For a moment it really felt I was being this eavesdropper on this group of people who were talking amongst themselves. It was that good.

The lighting, too, was good. I don't know how many people actually noticed but there were certain features to the lighting. There was a central circular spotlight. Then there was squared localised lighting. And there was the screen. (Okay that's not exactly lights.)

My main point is that when they did fade outs, it had a particular sequence which made it so aesthetically pleasing. And lighting was used to illustrate an effect at least once. Normally people would overlook lighting in a production but this one deserves plenty of attention.

And how could I forget the set. CW really did a fantastic job out of it. It was simple yet meaningful. The set was rather plain, but precisely that created an intense feeling when mixed with everything else.

Also it was very ingenious of him to use hidden doors. The side panels actually have doors that would open at appropriate times; otherwise the panel would look like one whole piece. And come to think of it, that's rather unique.

Because in a theatre setting normally the stage would just have wings where people just walked in and out. There wasn't things like doors at the side where they were the only points of entrance or exit.

And also the whole atmosphere of the set gives it a very unique setting. This play is unique in the sense that it's an ensemble of various different voices that are being dramatised and represented by six people.

In that sense, it does not have a fixed setting. Or rather, maybe it can be said that there was no setting. Because these tiny snippets are taken for their content; their setting (of the interview) has no associated meaning.

Therefore, how is one supposed to do up a set? In the simplest way ever! The set was like a white box. People entered and exited to grumble and sing songs and lament. It was like Hong Lim Park. Regardless of the nature of the event, the grass and scenery remains the same.

It's almost as if the set is a neutral element in this play. Maybe that was why it was white in colour? (If only I could ask CW, hahah.) It was there like a sort of Hong Lim Park. There's a fixture for anyone to use, which the cast did to their full abilities.

When you're ready you enter, when you're done you exit. Indeed this set has so much meaning and significance, I think people neglect it most of the time, sadly. So really, kudos to CW for coming with such a simple yet meaningful set to complement a splendid production.

~

As we were on our way home, ZH remarked something which made me think about it for long. I had said that I saw people from Ministry of Education coming to watch the play. I don't know if it's in their official capacity or what, but they were pasting tags that revealed their identities.

He said something like 'I wonder how would they react? Because these are all feedback from the people.' Immediately, I thought: is the government watching such plays? Definitely the MOE isn't needed to react or consider such things, it's not their job.

But what about other departments of the government? Or the government in general? Previously the common view is that all these works are merely rubbish or some biased anti-government rantings, at most. Therefore they were to be disregarded.

This time, however, is rather different. The main difference is that this play was conceived from personal interviews that the playwright did. Meaning, these views aren't the playwright's imagination. They are real, genuine views of ordinary citizens!

Therefore, I really would think that the government shouldn't 'don't care' such works any more, if they used to. Otherwise no matter how 'consultative' they become they would still be in their glass dome pretending to know what's going on.

TTFN.