I’d like to continue a thought that was cut short during the EngSci Club candidates’ debate, as election season winds down.

The Class Rep Conundrum

As I mentioned, I think that one of my biggest failings as Vice Chair of the Engineering Science Club this past year was the lack of participation from and communication with the class representatives. Indeed, after the class reps were elected (and some were not even elected until later in the term), there was little to no communication between myself and the class reps. 

Granted, this year has been somewhat of a transitional year for the engineering discipline clubs, and for EngSci Club in particular. Following Engineering Society’s decision to take over class rep elections from the discipline clubs, we lost some control over what we could do and the relationship between class rep and discipline club became clouded.

Class Rep Election Issues

On the one hand, EngSoc claimed that elected class reps were accountable only to them, and their primary function was to attend EngSoc meetings and perform certain EngSoc duties such as serving on committees and informing their respective classes about EngSoc activities. The intent was to increase class rep participation in EngSoc, which has had dwindling numbers in recent years (an issue for another writeup). Unfortunately, this redefined role of class representative caused a rift to form between discipline clubs, class reps, and EngSoc.

EngSci, too, has traditionally had problems defining the role of a class rep - in particular, the first year class reps have historically had problems staying in the program at all. This year, one of our two first year reps left the program, leaving half of the class without a rep. Historically, EngSci club responded to this by electing extra class reps - four for each of first and second year.

This system had its advantages, and certainly mitigated the problem of class reps ‘dropping out’. EngSoc, however, in a bid to reduce numbers and increase the importance and prominence of the role, allowed only two reps in first year and one rep in second year. In fact, it was a concession on their part to even allow one representative per section in the first year class.

Class representatives have not had a clearly defined capacity, and having a single class rep (as was the case this year in both first and second year) meant that the onus was placed on the individuals to carve out their own role.

In the case of snap lecture-based elections, as was the case in the first year class, there was clearly no time within each candidate’s 30-second ’speech’ for their class to evaluate the candidates - especially when there were 9 candidates in the running. As I witnessed, the election became a farce, and the lecture-based voting (which lasted almost 20 minutes due to the elimination process forced upon us by the CRO) came down to a choice between ‘dude with funny name’ and ‘dude who said funny things’.

Next, in the case of the second year class rep, which was elected through an online voting system, new problems arise. Candidates were sought through the EngSoc digest - an infamous black hole of information, rather than through more direct means. They were then required to nominate themselves with a statement, through a nameless and faceless CRO. An election was then held on a given date online. In most cases, only one or two people nominated themselves, and even these only by repeated prodding. Further, by eliminating direct class participation as in lecture-based voting, the elections became even more of a joke. Turnouts in these class rep elections numbered in the high teens if a candidate was lucky, and in the 30’s if the election was contested by more than one candidate.

Now, I want to note that I am not taking anything away from these candidates - they surely had enough motivation to make a public statement to their class, and that is sometimes a difficult first step. However, there is clearly a flaw in the election process, as we have witnessed, and brings into question whether the elections give voters enough information to make an educated decision. If we are to judge the success of the system based on EngSoc participation, then the answer is a definite and emphatic no.

A reform is obviously needed. An idea was raised in the debates today - unfortunately I am unable to remember who suggested it (it was a candidate for vice chair). Nonetheless, I feel it is worth considering.

A class rep would be required to nominate themselves in advance, and prepare a statement that can be publicly posted, say, on the elections website, and then, after a certain period (with or without campaigning), elections should be held in the classroom, and perhaps with a short speech as before. This way, participation is larger and more proportionate, while motivated individuals will have more chance to become educated about their candidates. This, too, allows candidates more time to think about the position, rather than calling upon individuals in the heat of the moment right before a lecture.

Class Representatives as a Group

Another thing worth considering is the idea of a group of class reps instead of a singular person. I had always felt that the group of 4 class reps we had in my first and second year had functioned fairly well. Perhaps everyone interested in becoming a class rep should just form a class committee, and be given resources to run events. A prank event was almost done successfully in my first year, up until the point of funding and timing. I feel if the EngSci Club provided that extra bit of motivation, these events might have been executed successfully. 

We know that two class reps for EngSci probably isn’t enough - but is it time to consider four again? How about six, or more? In any case, a larger group would probably give more incentive for class reps to participate in events, and not put the burden of 150 people on one person’s shoulders.

Class Rep Accountability

The accountability problem, too, needs to be addressed. It can firmly be shown that EngSoc does not have the capacity to manage class reps for all the disciplines in all the years. As EngSoc has proven this year, they cannot even get their class reps to attend one meeting a month - the last few meetings of the year did not even have quorum (thus did not have enough voting members to pass legislation). Clearly, EngSoc is not the avenue we should be exploring in relation to class reps.

For the most part, engineers do not venture much outside of their own disciplines. EngSoc participants and atrium inhabitants aside, most engineers know only a handful of people outside their own class. To this end, it is nigh impossible for EngSoc to grasp the needs and feelings of the class representatives. Class rep elections and power should in fact, be returned to the discipline clubs. This approach has many advantages over EngSoc’s misguided reform - and should be duly considered by those in charge. 

First, discipline clubs form a natural ‘block’ of participation within engineering. Generally, engineers have the most ‘loyalty’ to their own discipline first, and engineering as a whole comes second. Especially for first years, who do not have a good bearing on the university’s social scene, throwing them into a hostile EngSoc meeting is probably one of the most intimidating things that can happen to you.

Discipline clubs, too, are smaller and easier to manage - upper year EngScis running the EngSci Club, for example, are much more likely to understand where first and second years are coming from than EngSoc, as many of these upper years are likely to have been class reps themselves. The smaller unit also means that more work can be done with less bureaucracy, something that turns class reps off of student politics. The smaller discipline club grouping simply allows more participation than does the larger EngSoc issue.

Discipline club executives can also help ease first and second years into larger student governments like EngSoc, and reduce the intimidation factor behind council meetings. An example of this strategy having success was this year’s Industrial Engineering Club (although much maligned by some EngSci’s, the Indies did indeed have a very well functioning discipline club system).

In fact, a class rep’s first destination for information and advice should come from their discipline club. As we have seen, engineers will listen more to someone who has been through their own situation than those who haven’t - and again, discipline clubs have this advantage over the larger EngSoc. 

These things cannot happen, and class rep participation will continue to dwindle, if EngSoc continues to meddle in these smaller affairs. I propose that class rep elections and management be handed back to the discipline clubs, and done so explicitly, so that the roles of a class rep can be better defined. This year has demonstrated an incapacity on the part of EngSoc to manage these reps, and an uncertainty on the part of the reps themselves over whom they ‘belong’ or report to.

Discipline Club as a “First Stop”

This brings me to my other major point and the brunt of my re-visioning of discipline clubs - that of the discipline club’s role within the university’s social environment.

In the past year, Engineering Society has been actively pushing ways to get F!rosh more involved, through various schemes including the Skule Points initiatives and the class rep restructuring. It is yet to be seen how big of an effect this has been, but word around my particular sphere seems to be that the first years are less engaged than ever before.

So, if EngSoc is not the right avenue, as we have discussed before, we are logically left with the discipline clubs - the smallest cohesive unit of student government. As mentioned before, students are more likely to attend events within the same discipline - especially if their classmates are involved as well.

Where EngSoc has been alienating the discipline clubs for social activities, they should instead be promoting the discipline clubs. In fact, it should not be EngSoc’s job to promote events, so much as it is the job of the more ‘local’ and approachable discipline club.

Certainly, I have seen that many people in Engineering Science do not have any interaction with the Engineering Society - I only know of a few people in my year who even know all the officers’ names. They do, however, have no problems with identifying at least the EngSci Club. This identity issue alone lends credibility to the discipline clubs that EngSoc does not have. Thus far I do not think this has been addressed by EngSoc.

Critics may argue that what I propose will further divide engineers along discipline lines. On the face of it, this is certainly true. However, I am not proposing that the discipline clubs run all of the events. I am merely suggesting that the discipline clubs should play a more pivotal role in getting student interest in various activities which may be more suited to particular disciplines.

There would still be opportunity for EngSoc to step in, especially with the plethora of clubs and activities where people of all disciplines come together - but this may allow, for example, a ‘group’ of EngScis to go to an event and meet another ‘group’ of Civs. As it stands right now, individuals find out about events mostly from their classmates already - encouraging this in-class comaraderie should, in turn, boost participation by amplifying what already works best.

In fact, it may even be that bringing back interdisciplinary rivalries that have dwindled in the recent past will allow a greater sense of unity and increase participation. There are already institutions in place that can be used to a greater extent - Skule Points can be a good avenue to explore, if only we could have live statistics on discipline points, and if it were more ubiquitous. We already see that participation from the more reclusive types increase when there is some rivalry - the people getting involved in grad pranks in a bid to outdo the other disciplines is a good example of this phenomenon at work.

Thus, I feel it is necessary for the discipline clubs to be more proactive in working with their classes, to allow for larger class activities, and to regain control over the class rep system. EngSoc should take a step back and re-examine their role in promoting social activities, and perhaps give the discipline clubs a shot at this, now that EngSoc has proven itself to be more or less ineffective.

Originally published at kevin p. siu's blog. Please leave any comments there.

CUPE3903, “representing” graduate students, part-time faculty, and teaching assistants at York University and their three-month long strike charade is about to come to an end. After a government appointed negotiator finally told us what we all knew already - that the two sides are irreconcilable - Premier McGuinty finally decided to start the motions of back-to-work legislation.

Normally, I don’t have too big a problem with strikes - certainly unions have had their place in bringing much needed job security and improved working conditions - but in this instance, it was nigh impossible to feel any sort of sympathy for this union strike.

As a TA in the University of Toronto, I made $28.50/hour - a fairly hefty amount for little work and admittedly low standards of qualification. Granted, I am still an undergraduate, meaning my wages are lower than those of my graduate counterparts - who earn $36/hour plus health benefits (amounting to about $400 in medical coverage per year). York TAs, who work comparable hours in comparable situations, are paid a whopping $63.29 per hour. That’s right. Even as a graduated student, working in a full-time engineering firm, I would make no more than $40 an hour to start with - and that’s if I’m lucky.

CUPE3903’s demands have been wholly unreasonable, from the massive wage increases (they want in excess of 10% in the next 3 years - during the worst recession in decades, no less) to what they call “job security”. Let me elaborate on this point. The union wants part-time professors on one-year contracts to be given lengthier contracts based only on seniority, not qualifications. Many of these part-time professors lecturers are Ph.D. candidates or recent postdocs. The union claims it unfair that they don’t get the same security as tenure-track professors who have their Ph.D.s and established research fields.

On the face of it, increased job security seems something worth fighting for - something that even the students suffering from the strike could support. However, this demand of longer contracts comes with a condition of a shorter collective agreement. CUPE3903 refuses to sign a collective agreement longer than 2 years, while demanding that their faculty receive lengthy contracts of up to 5 years. Though unpublicized, most people know that the reason CUPE refuses to sign a longer collective agreement is so that their next round of bargaining in 2010 will coincide with all the other university CUPE unions province-wide. They’re just itching to go back to the picket lines in less than two years, along with a cohort of colleagues from around Ontario. With contradictory demands like this, it’s hard to take them seriously.

Moreover, CUPE3903’s hardline position has managed to drive a stake into Ontario politics. While McGuinty’s Liberals are in a no-win situation - alienating either the students or the unions, he can at least claim public opinion support in bringing back-to-work legislation to Parliament. The New Democratic Party, on the other hand, has been smoked out by CUPE to do something brazenly unpopular amongst us students. NDP Leader Howard Hampton has declared his support of the unions, and is solely responsible for holding up back-to-work legislation at Queen’s Park. In doing so, he has alienated one of his largest group of supporters - the students - in order to appease his core power base - the unions. It is yet to be seen how big of a political impact this will have on the NDPs, but needless to say, it won’t make the students any more likely to vote for them in the next election.

If the NDPs take a political hit in the next election, their already fragile existence may become life-threatening for the party - and CUPE3903 will have had no small part in making the NDPs look irrelevant to the public in the midst of a massive recession. NDPs losing power means less sway for CUPE, and some would wonder how they’ve gotten themselves in such a mess. It all seems to me like the unions have bitten off more than they can chew, asking for the moon when we can’t even see the sky.

I wonder, too, whether CUPE3903 really represents the graduate students and the TAs and the contract faculty. In my experience, having attending a couple of union meetings for the sister union at the University of Toronto, the meetings are dominated by the union leaders, whose jobs are paid for by the union, and whose only tasks are to fight for more demands and get more publicity. There is no room or any voice for dissent, and generally, the leaders are preaching to the converted. The people who attend union meetings are usually the most hardcore, or even militant. These are the ones who really believe in striking until all their demands are met. Most of the moderate or conservative types stay away from union meetings because of these attitudes. With such a biased attendance, it was no surprise to me when I read news reports of CUPE3903 members voting to reject York’s latest offer. What I wonder is whether those who voted even bothered to read the contract, or just decided to do what their all-too-aggressive leaders told them to do.

What’s even more puzzling is the lack of student input in the whole issue. When a striking union of less than 5000 members holds over 50000 students hostage in a 3-month long strike, one would think there would be more of an outcry in the media - but reports have been mostly docile from the students, not outraged. If I were at York right now, I would be demanding a full refund from the university, and in addition demanding that the union compensate me for lost time - the opportunity cost of a few lost months of education plus lost time in the summer for employment. Not to mention all those people who still have to pay their loans, or the exchange students who have become disgusted at the whole system in the ordeal.

Have the unions become irrelevant? What are the students doing? Will there be another strike in 2010?

Originally published at kevin p. siu's blog. Please leave any comments there.

If you were at the University of Toronto yesterday and you missed the memorial we set up on Front Campus, click here for the photos.

Front campus was turned into a memorial bearing 628 crosses, each representing one person from the University of Toronto who died in the Great War.

Originally published at Unavoidable.ca. Please leave any comments there.

[Political opinion below. Reader beware?]

$300 million later, Stephen Harper and the Conservatives have little to show for it but a meagre 1% increase in popularity and a dozen more seats in Parliament. While he claims to have gained a mandate to govern with his new ’strong minority’, little has changed in Ottawa. The Liberals will still cower in big votes for some time while they recover and regroup; the NDP’s will continue to make big noises and do little; and the Bloc will continue to dawdle around as always.

The major newspapers are all calling for Dion’s head, justifiably so, but all agree that Harper will keep his job. The fact is, Harper suffered a huge blow yesterday when he failed to win a majority government, even with the weakest Liberal opposition in more than a century. A couple years from now, when there will undoubtedly be another election after the Liberals regroup and finally grow some backbone, voters will once again show their lack of confidence in this compromise of a Prime Minister. When that time comes, it’s likely that Harper will be defeated, if he’s still the Prime Minister by then. Voters will be tired of listening to his attacks and cynicism, and give him a run for his money.

Dion, of course, will be gone. His stoic speech may hold the party over for a while, but the fact is, he gave the Liberals their worst result in living memory. When all is said and done, it’s more than likely that Dion will be only the second Liberal leader not to be Canada’s Prime Minister. His ideas may have been far too ahead of his time, especially in an era of economic uncertainty. One day, voters will embrace a green plan. One that is less complicated and expressed in more eloquent terms than Dion’s broken English could muster.

This election, however, was Harper’s to win. Harper’s rise to political power has been an improbable one, and although his shrewd political maneuvers have certainly helped him on the way, it has mostly been the Liberals’ mistakes that gave him the country’s top job. From Paul Martin’s dithering campaign to the internal power struggles to the sponsorship scandal, the Conservatives have been feasting on the skeleton of a party. Through two terms, Harper has failed to define himself as someone Canadians can embrace. He has alienated voters as well as the opposition.

When Harper leaves power, his legacy will be likely one of scorn rather than reverence. He leaves behind a trail of debris where politics is concerned. Harper brought to Canadian federal politics the now-familiar negative attack ads, complete with ominous music and gloomy graphic art. He survived, not won, two elections without promoting any policy, without standing on any political platform. His party benefited from the best possible timings, and yet could not be trusted enough with a majority government. For what it’s worth, he won by Americanizing Canadian politics. Instead of promoting big ideas, or debating policy, he pointed fingers and endlessly smeared his opponents.

What has been made clear by this election is that at least some degree of political reform is necessary. With the lowest voter turnout in history (59%), it is obvious to everyone that the system isn’t working. Our antiquated First Past the Post system failed to represent Candians’ interests, and the Parliamentary dialogue between parties has broken down. The final results show that 51% of the electorate voted for combined centre-left parties (Liberal, NDP, and Greens), compared to the Conservatives’ 38% (the only right-leaning party). Despite this, we will be entering our second session of the most conservative government in a century.

Electoral reform proponents have been trumpeting proportional representation for years. However, this proposal has never received any traction, likely due to its complexity and ambiguity. (How do you decide which people go to parliament in proportional representation? How are regions represented? How do you ensure individual accountability?) Many of the benefits of proportional representation can be had by instead implementing an Instant Run-Off or Preferential voting system. While it adds complexity to the ballot counting, it is certainly less of an overhaul than proportional representation, with less of its associated costs and uncertainty. This would solve the biggest problem we have in today’s political atmosphere, with a united right and a fracture left (or conversely, a decade ago with a strong left and a fractured right).

What is also needed is a better check-and-balance mechanism. Unlike in the United States, where there are three separate elected legislative branches (the President, the Senate and the House of Representatives) each keeping the others in check, we have in Canada only a misrepresented House of Commons and an appointed Senate. Whatever the reforms are, it is clear that an appointed Senate is no longer appropriate. Since this “Upper House” already exists, simply making it an elected body will not be difficult. Doing so also increases the accountability of our government, and can serve to keep the House of Commons in check. It will also give voters more confidence in our leaders, yielding a greater chance of productive majority commons, given that there is an elected Senate to keep the House in check.

But with Harper’s ironclad rule, will he listen to cries of electoral reform? Or will he ignore them, turning his back on promises of reform and accountability, and his political youth when he, too, called for change?

Originally published at Unavoidable.ca. Please leave any comments there.

Are you voting?

…

If the answer was no, you should be ashamed. Even if you live away from home, you can vote at your local residence. So you should have no excuse not to vote! The elections are Tuesday! Go go go!

Originally published at kevin p. siu's blog. Please leave any comments there.

Are you voting?

…

If the answer was no, you should be ashamed. Even if you live away from home, you can vote at your local residence. So you should have no excuse not to vote! The elections are Tuesday! Go go go!

Originally published at Unavoidable.ca. Please leave any comments there.

…

What shrewd politicians the Republicans are. Jumping on the youth and female political bandwagon, they announced Alaska Governor Sarah Palin will serve as the next VP Candidate for the Republican party. O_O Just when I thought Obama had that election stuff all sealed. Looks like it’ll be closer than the Democrats would like.

Originally published at kevin p. siu's blog. Please leave any comments there.

…

What shrewd politicians the Republicans are. Jumping on the youth and female political bandwagon, they announced Alaska Governor Sarah Palin will serve as the next VP Candidate for the Republican party. O_O Just when I thought Obama had that election stuff all sealed. Looks like it’ll be closer than the Democrats would like.

Originally published at Unavoidable.ca. Please leave any comments there.

When you hear politics, you cringe, you shut down, you close your eyes and you change the channel, because politicians just don’t get it. For our generation, we have hardly known what it feels like to listen to a politician, and want to believe in them. We have become complacent, because the politicians, from the richest and most well-connected classes of society, have stopped caring about us.

Barack Obama’s speech at the Democratic National Convention just made me cry. Tonight, his speech brought to America, and more importantly, to the entire world, a hope that we can grasp. In the chaos of wars, climate change, poverty, disease, and all sorts of social upheaval, Obama gave the world a reason to believe in America.

For as long as the United States of America has existed, it has been the beacon of hope for the world. Whether we agreed with them or not, we saw in the American people a great sense of pride, and always strove to meet their standards. The great country, one of the only on Earth founded on principals of freedom and justice, has been moral inspiration for many generations.

In the last decade, America has let down the world. Their moral standards have fallen, and their authority has waned. The great nation has fallen in danger of becoming a police state, becoming lost in the war on terror. They have failed to take leadership on global issues concerning not only their citizens, but of the very environment they exist in. And everyone in America stood by to watch, because the politicians weren’t worth listening to.

Politicians like George Bush, who cares more about his next golf shot than pending economic collapse; John McCain, who talks like he’s a war general when he ‘graduated’ at the bottom of his class and is turning senile; even Hillary Clinton, who speaks volumes about her supposed policies when she’s been one of the most two-faced politicians for the last 10 years. These politicians have made people cynical, have turned people off - to an extent that you can’t even talk about politics to your friends without them rolling their eyes.

When you hear Barack Obama speak, you realize he’s not like any of the others. He’s not from the privileged class, and he’s not from the richest families. He is a politician not because his dad was, and not a politician because his companies could benefit - he is doing what he does because he believes in what he does. And while he’s been attacked by other politicians for his ‘lofty rhetoric’ instead of sound policy, today, he delivered a speech to change all of that. He backed up his charismatically spoken words with concrete plans for the future.

Tonight, Obama’s speech gave hope to me, and perhaps much of the worldwide audience, that American values still have a place in the world, and that America can still save itself from falling into obsolesence. On the 45th anniversary of Martin Luther King Jr.’s speech about civil rights, Barack Obama seems poised to lead America to a future that the world deserves.

All that’s left is to elect him.

Originally published at kevin p. siu's blog. Please leave any comments there.

When you hear politics, you cringe, you shut down, you close your eyes and you change the channel, because politicians just don’t get it. For our generation, we have hardly known what it feels like to listen to a politician, and want to believe in them. We have become complacent, because the politicians, from the richest and most well-connected classes of society, have stopped caring about us.

Barack Obama’s speech at the Democratic National Convention just made me cry. Tonight, his speech brought to America, and more importantly, to the entire world, a hope that we can grasp. In the chaos of wars, climate change, poverty, disease, and all sorts of social upheaval, Obama gave the world a reason to believe in America.

For as long as the United States of America has existed, it has been the beacon of hope for the world. Whether we agreed with them or not, we saw in the American people a great sense of pride, and always strove to meet their standards. The great country, one of the only on Earth founded on principals of freedom and justice, has been moral inspiration for many generations.

In the last decade, America has let down the world. Their moral standards have fallen, and their authority has waned. The great nation has fallen in danger of becoming a police state, becoming lost in the war on terror. They have failed to take leadership on global issues concerning not only their citizens, but of the very environment they exist in. And everyone in America stood by to watch, because the politicians weren’t worth listening to.

Politicians like George Bush, who cares more about his next golf shot than pending economic collapse; John McCain, who talks like he’s a war general when he ‘graduated’ at the bottom of his class and is turning senile; even Hillary Clinton, who speaks volumes about her supposed policies when she’s been one of the most two-faced politicians for the last 10 years. These politicians have made people cynical, have turned people off - to an extent that you can’t even talk about politics to your friends without them rolling their eyes.

When you hear Barack Obama speak, you realize he’s not like any of the others. He’s not from the privileged class, and he’s not from the richest families. He is a politician not because his dad was, and not a politician because his companies could benefit - he is doing what he does because he believes in what he does. And while he’s been attacked by other politicians for his ‘lofty rhetoric’ instead of sound policy, today, he delivered a speech to change all of that. He backed up his charismatically spoken words with concrete plans for the future.

Tonight, Obama’s speech gave hope to me, and perhaps much of the worldwide audience, that American values still have a place in the world, and that America can still save itself from falling into obsolesence. On the 45th anniversary of Martin Luther King Jr.’s speech about civil rights, Barack Obama seems poised to lead America to a future that the world deserves.

All that’s left is to elect him.

Originally published at Unavoidable.ca. Please leave any comments there.

I heard this on the radio today, thought I’d share it.

—

One day, Plato asked Socrates, his teacher and mentor, “What is love?”

Socrates replied, “Plato, take a walk through the wheat field nearby. Without turning back, walk forward, and pick the most magnificent stalk of wheat you can find. However, you are allowed to pick only one.”

Plato followed Socrates’ instructions, confident that he would find the best stalk of wheat in the field. Before long though, he returned empty-handed. Socrates asked, “Why have you picked nothing?” Plato replied, “I had found the most magnificent stalk of wheat as soon as I walked into the field, but since I was only allowed one pick, and I could not turn back, I thought I could find a better one further ahead. However, I could not find a better one as I kept searching, so I returned with none.”

“And that is love,” said Socrates.

Some days later, Plato asked Socrates another question. “What is marriage,” he asked. Socrates answered: “Go to the woods, and as before, without turning back, bring me back the best and strongest tree in the forest. Again, you’re only allowed to choose one, so choose wisely.”

Plato walked through the woods, and returned soon after with a tree. However, the tree was not strong nor tall. Socrates asked him, “Is this the best tree in the forest?” Plato answered, “No, but I didn’t want to return empty handed like last time, and while I’m sure there are better trees in the forest, I felt I could not afford to miss the opportunity at this tree.”

“And that is marriage,” said Socrates.

On yet another day, Plato asked, “What is an affair?” Socrates answered, in his usual way, “Head to the woods, and look for the most beautiful flower. This time, you’re allowed to look wherever you want, and you can retrace your steps if you must.” Plato, given these instructions, went into the woods full of confidence. In a short time, he had found the most beautiful, most colorful blooming flower in the forest, and picked it out of the soil for his return. As he returned, however, the flower began to wilt. When he arrived, Socrates asked, “Is this the most beautiful flower in the forest?” Plato answered, “Yes, I discovered this most beautiful of flowers, but as I returned, the flower began to lose its color and beauty.”

“And that, is an affair,” said Socrates.

Now older and wiser, Plato asked Socrates once more, “What is life?” Socrates pondered for a moment, and told Plato, “As before, go to the woods, and find the most beautiful flower there is. You can go anywhere, and pick as many as you want.” Remembering all his previous experiences, Plato walked into the woods again. But after three days and three nights, he had still not returned. Socrates, with a bit of concern, went out in search of Plato. Before long, Socrates had found him, in a makeshift camp that Plato had set up. He asked Plato, “Have you found the most beautiful of flowers?” Plato pointed to a flower right next to his camp site, and said, “That is the most beautiful flower in the forest.” Socrates inquired, “Why have you not picked it yet?” Plato answered thoughtfully, “If I pick it, it would wither like the last one. But even if I don’t pick it, it will wither and die sooner or later. So while it is in full bloom, I will live beside it, admiring it from here. When it finally wilts, I will look for the next most beautiful flower.”

Socrates took this in, and said, “Now you understand the essence of life.”

Originally published at kevin p. siu's blog. Please leave any comments there.

I heard this on the radio today, thought I’d share it.

—

One day, Plato asked Socrates, his teacher and mentor, “What is love?”

Socrates replied, “Plato, take a walk through the wheat field nearby. Without turning back, walk forward, and pick the most magnificent stalk of wheat you can find. However, you are allowed to pick only one.”

Plato followed Socrates’ instructions, confident that he would find the best stalk of wheat in the field. Before long though, he returned empty-handed. Socrates asked, “Why have you picked nothing?” Plato replied, “I had found the most magnificent stalk of wheat as soon as I walked into the field, but since I was only allowed one pick, and I could not turn back, I thought I could find a better one further ahead. However, I could not find a better one as I kept searching, so I returned with none.”

“And that is love,” said Socrates.

Some days later, Plato asked Socrates another question. “What is marriage,” he asked. Socrates answered: “Go to the woods, and as before, without turning back, bring me back the best and strongest tree in the forest. Again, you’re only allowed to choose one, so choose wisely.”

Plato walked through the woods, and returned soon after with a tree. However, the tree was not strong nor tall. Socrates asked him, “Is this the best tree in the forest?” Plato answered, “No, but I didn’t want to return empty handed like last time, and while I’m sure there are better trees in the forest, I felt I could not afford to miss the opportunity at this tree.”

“And that is marriage,” said Socrates.

On yet another day, Plato asked, “What is an affair?” Socrates answered, in his usual way, “Head to the woods, and look for the most beautiful flower. This time, you’re allowed to look wherever you want, and you can retrace your steps if you must.” Plato, given these instructions, went into the woods full of confidence. In a short time, he had found the most beautiful, most colorful blooming flower in the forest, and picked it out of the soil for his return. As he returned, however, the flower began to wilt. When he arrived, Socrates asked, “Is this the most beautiful flower in the forest?” Plato answered, “Yes, I discovered this most beautiful of flowers, but as I returned, the flower began to lose its color and beauty.”

“And that, is an affair,” said Socrates.

Now older and wiser, Plato asked Socrates once more, “What is life?” Socrates pondered for a moment, and told Plato, “As before, go to the woods, and find the most beautiful flower there is. You can go anywhere, and pick as many as you want.” Remembering all his previous experiences, Plato walked into the woods again. But after three days and three nights, he had still not returned. Socrates, with a bit of concern, went out in search of Plato. Before long, Socrates had found him, in a makeshift camp that Plato had set up. He asked Plato, “Have you found the most beautiful of flowers?” Plato pointed to a flower right next to his camp site, and said, “That is the most beautiful flower in the forest.” Socrates inquired, “Why have you not picked it yet?” Plato answered thoughtfully, “If I pick it, it would wither like the last one. But even if I don’t pick it, it will wither and die sooner or later. So while it is in full bloom, I will live beside it, admiring it from here. When it finally wilts, I will look for the next most beautiful flower.”

Socrates took this in, and said, “Now you understand the essence of life.”

Originally published at Unavoidable.ca. Please leave any comments there.

For the past summer, I’ve been working at the University of Toronto, with Professor Parham Aarabi and his startup ModiFace, which does facial recognition and related technologies. It’s been an enjoyable summer, and I’ve learned far more in this short period than I have in the past two academic years at the university. Although I’m not sure if that says more about the school or about the work I’m doing. The next couple of articles will be devoted to what I’ve seen over the summer. This particular one contains some ponderings about my views of startups.

It’s an unavoidable fact that in my wanderings with the computer world, I’ve come to hear a lot more about startup companies than the average Joe. After all, nearly the entire computer industry is based on a few highly successful startups. Thus, I’ve been ever fascinated about the startup world, the supposedly wonderful world of lawlessness (in the no-bureaucracy sort of way). Admittedly, I didn’t actually work at one of those fancy Silicon Valley jobs with the extravagant parties and CEOs in T-Shirts, but I did catch a glimpse into a similar sort of organization. These are the startups that have the business types all scrambling, trying to figure out what makes them so great. What business school and case studies will never teach you, of course, is what it’s actually like to be in a startup.

Actually, I never intended to work at a startup. I signed on as a “Research Assistant”, that most venerable of all job titles in the academic world - it means you’re the monkey at the bottom of the chain pushing buttons so that the suits at the top become rich and famous.

Therein lay my first lesson about startups. Professor Aarabi, as smart and hard working as he is (more on that later), still had far more things he wanted to do than he could do. Evidently, at these small companies of just a handful of employees, you are always short on manpower, but big on ideas. For Jeff (my computer neighbour) and I, there was always a new project to work on, no matter how quickly we did our work (and we definitely became highly proficient at our work, especially on the web programming front).

The constant need for more manpower can never really be underestimated. To be successful - certainly in a startup - you have to be willing to put in the work. The old adage that you need to work hard to succeed is never truer anywhere else. For someone in charge of such a small company, it is nigh impossible to delegate to others, since the ideas, the visions, and the skills are all exclusively theirs. It was not uncommon for Professor Aarabi to whip out an idea out of the blue and have it fully implemented in code within hours, even if those hours were (for us) overnight.

Startups need to be nimble. You never know what your customers will want next, and you never really know who your next customers will be. Whatever the case, you need to be quick on your feet to survive in a startup world. There are millions of startups, especially in this “Web 2.0″ technological age. There will be competitors, and you always gotta stay ahead by moving quickly.

I got so used to this quick pace of work that, when I took a step back and reflected on my previous experiences, and the experiences of some of my friends at some rather larger banking-type corporations, I was surprised to see how much I’d accomplished in such a short time. I was astonished by the lack of efficiency and expediency of these large moving dinosaur companies. How on earth do they survive at all?

What’s great at a startup is that there are really hardly any rules. There’s no chain of command to report to, there’s no proposals and reports to write, there’s no big evaluation of teams, there’s no use of big clumsy software, and there’s definitely none of all that bureaucratic nonsense in a big company. This point has probably been beaten to death by the esteemed writers in all the tech journals I read, but it should not be lost on the business-y types that efficiency is extraordinary when there’s no rules to follow.

It was great, because I could choose my own tools to write my software, use my own styles and conventions, and leverage any experience I’d had plus any ideas I could come up with quickly. This made things a lot quicker (for me), and a lot less stressful. The whole experience became satisfying very quickly, even if the work I was doing was not what I’d envisioned.

ModiFace’s apparent success had me wondering for a while. I wasn’t really sure how successful such apparently simple technology could be. (Well, simple for the users, but there’d been a lot of programming to make it so simple) If you’re starting a business, it turns out the most important thing is not how good your idea is - plenty of people have great ideas every day that don’t amount to much - but it’s how you can sell your idea, and who you can sell your stuff to.

ModiFace had found their niche pretty well. Facial detection technology, while groundbreaking and by no means an easy problem, is not the most attractive of all the crazy emerging technologies of today’s world. It hardly makes any noise in the science and tech world, and to investors, it’s not immediately clear where revenue could come from. The genius of all this is not to market to an already jaded bunch of nerds/geeks who have seen all the Web 2.0 startups, but is to go for the solid, middle-to-old-aged-stay-at-home types - a demographic virtually untapped by the Web 2.0 “revolution”.

Another strategy also well employed by startups nowadays is to market to other small companies. Not as glamorous in terms of fame, but definitely bigger in the fortune department. For example, IBM stopped selling computers to consumers long ago, but they make an f’n killing on selling to businesses. Startup 37signals also doesn’t give a damn about consumers - they’re a virtual unknown outside the tech business industry, but they also make millions easily through other startups rather than individuals.

Given this much thought (there’s a lot more in my head where it came from!), I almost want to find some great idea and venture into that startupland myself. Getting a good idea… easier said than done though.

Originally published at kevin p. siu's blog. Please leave any comments there.

For the past summer, I’ve been working at the University of Toronto, with Professor Parham Aarabi and his startup ModiFace, which does facial recognition and related technologies. It’s been an enjoyable summer, and I’ve learned far more in this short period than I have in the past two academic years at the university. Although I’m not sure if that says more about the school or about the work I’m doing. The next couple of articles will be devoted to what I’ve seen over the summer. This particular one contains some ponderings about my views of startups.

It’s an unavoidable fact that in my wanderings with the computer world, I’ve come to hear a lot more about startup companies than the average Joe. After all, nearly the entire computer industry is based on a few highly successful startups. Thus, I’ve been ever fascinated about the startup world, the supposedly wonderful world of lawlessness (in the no-bureaucracy sort of way). Admittedly, I didn’t actually work at one of those fancy Silicon Valley jobs with the extravagant parties and CEOs in T-Shirts, but I did catch a glimpse into a similar sort of organization. These are the startups that have the business types all scrambling, trying to figure out what makes them so great. What business school and case studies will never teach you, of course, is what it’s actually like to be in a startup.

Actually, I never intended to work at a startup. I signed on as a “Research Assistant”, that most venerable of all job titles in the academic world - it means you’re the monkey at the bottom of the chain pushing buttons so that the suits at the top become rich and famous.

Therein lay my first lesson about startups. Professor Aarabi, as smart and hard working as he is (more on that later), still had far more things he wanted to do than he could do. Evidently, at these small companies of just a handful of employees, you are always short on manpower, but big on ideas. For Jeff (my computer neighbour) and I, there was always a new project to work on, no matter how quickly we did our work (and we definitely became highly proficient at our work, especially on the web programming front).

The constant need for more manpower can never really be underestimated. To be successful - certainly in a startup - you have to be willing to put in the work. The old adage that you need to work hard to succeed is never truer anywhere else. For someone in charge of such a small company, it is nigh impossible to delegate to others, since the ideas, the visions, and the skills are all exclusively theirs. It was not uncommon for Professor Aarabi to whip out an idea out of the blue and have it fully implemented in code within hours, even if those hours were (for us) overnight.

Startups need to be nimble. You never know what your customers will want next, and you never really know who your next customers will be. Whatever the case, you need to be quick on your feet to survive in a startup world. There are millions of startups, especially in this “Web 2.0″ technological age. There will be competitors, and you always gotta stay ahead by moving quickly.

I got so used to this quick pace of work that, when I took a step back and reflected on my previous experiences, and the experiences of some of my friends at some rather larger banking-type corporations, I was surprised to see how much I’d accomplished in such a short time. I was astonished by the lack of efficiency and expediency of these large moving dinosaur companies. How on earth do they survive at all?

What’s great at a startup is that there are really hardly any rules. There’s no chain of command to report to, there’s no proposals and reports to write, there’s no big evaluation of teams, there’s no use of big clumsy software, and there’s definitely none of all that bureaucratic nonsense in a big company. This point has probably been beaten to death by the esteemed writers in all the tech journals I read, but it should not be lost on the business-y types that efficiency is extraordinary when there’s no rules to follow.

It was great, because I could choose my own tools to write my software, use my own styles and conventions, and leverage any experience I’d had plus any ideas I could come up with quickly. This made things a lot quicker (for me), and a lot less stressful. The whole experience became satisfying very quickly, even if the work I was doing was not what I’d envisioned.

ModiFace’s apparent success had me wondering for a while. I wasn’t really sure how successful such apparently simple technology could be. (Well, simple for the users, but there’d been a lot of programming to make it so simple) If you’re starting a business, it turns out the most important thing is not how good your idea is - plenty of people have great ideas every day that don’t amount to much - but it’s how you can sell your idea, and who you can sell your stuff to.

ModiFace had found their niche pretty well. Facial detection technology, while groundbreaking and by no means an easy problem, is not the most attractive of all the crazy emerging technologies of today’s world. It hardly makes any noise in the science and tech world, and to investors, it’s not immediately clear where revenue could come from. The genius of all this is not to market to an already jaded bunch of nerds/geeks who have seen all the Web 2.0 startups, but is to go for the solid, middle-to-old-aged-stay-at-home types - a demographic virtually untapped by the Web 2.0 “revolution”.

Another strategy also well employed by startups nowadays is to market to other small companies. Not as glamorous in terms of fame, but definitely bigger in the fortune department. For example, IBM stopped selling computers to consumers long ago, but they make an f’n killing on selling to businesses. Startup 37signals also doesn’t give a damn about consumers - they’re a virtual unknown outside the tech business industry, but they also make millions easily through other startups rather than individuals.

Given this much thought (there’s a lot more in my head where it came from!), I almost want to find some great idea and venture into that startupland myself. Getting a good idea… easier said than done though.

Originally published at Unavoidable.ca. Please leave any comments there.

Why is everyone so surprised that those oh-so-pretty opening ceremonies at the Beijing Olympics were faked by the Chinese government?

Yes, they:

• Had the 9-year-old girl lipsync over the voice of the uglier-but-can-sing-7-year-old girl;
• Made elaborate CGI fireworks to show on their broadcast instead of showing it live (which would have been impossible due to the complexity of the fireworks);
• Trained their opening ceremony performers in a military style boot camp with squalid conditions for a year;
• Used fake ethnic costumes on children to pretend that they are a nation of diversity and tolerance (see Tibet, the Falun Gong, Taiwan, and more for examples of how this isn’t the case).
• Promised protesters would be allowed but arrested and sentenced them off to “re-education camps” instead.

Indeed, these would be atrocious acts of deception and oppression - in any other country. In China, it’s business as usual. The Chinese are used to this, and everyone in the country knows there are “issues”. But what the Western world sees as important issues, are simply not part of the Chinese conscience. The Chinese population, ever so obsessed with having ‘face’ and determined not to be embarrassed, would willingly pretend nothing of the sort had happened.

The word on the street in Beijing is that people are proud of their country hosting the olympics, despite all the controversy. The Chinese population is generally so loyal to their government (is it brainwash or genuine loyalty?) that they would lambast Western critique rather than look at themselves critically.

I detect a faint sniff of hypocrisy whenever I hear these loyal Chinese vent on the radio shows about how unfair the West is in their criticisms of Chinese policy - yet, I can’t help but wonder, listening to a radio station here in Toronto, why aren’t you living in China?

Originally published at kevin p. siu's blog. Please leave any comments there.

Why is everyone so surprised that those oh-so-pretty opening ceremonies at the Beijing Olympics were faked by the Chinese government?

Yes, they:

• Had the 9-year-old girl lipsync over the voice of the uglier-but-can-sing-7-year-old girl;
• Made elaborate CGI fireworks to show on their broadcast instead of showing it live (which would have been impossible due to the complexity of the fireworks);
• Trained their opening ceremony performers in a military style boot camp with squalid conditions for a year;
• Used fake ethnic costumes on children to pretend that they are a nation of diversity and tolerance (see Tibet, the Falun Gong, Taiwan, and more for examples of how this isn’t the case).
• Promised protesters would be allowed but arrested and sentenced them off to “re-education camps” instead.

Indeed, these would be atrocious acts of deception and oppression - in any other country. In China, it’s business as usual. The Chinese are used to this, and everyone in the country knows there are “issues”. But what the Western world sees as important issues, are simply not part of the Chinese conscience. The Chinese population, ever so obsessed with having ‘face’ and determined not to be embarrassed, would willingly pretend nothing of the sort had happened.

The word on the street in Beijing is that people are proud of their country hosting the olympics, despite all the controversy. The Chinese population is generally so loyal to their government (is it brainwash or genuine loyalty?) that they would lambast Western critique rather than look at themselves critically.

I detect a faint sniff of hypocrisy whenever I hear these loyal Chinese vent on the radio shows about how unfair the West is in their criticisms of Chinese policy - yet, I can’t help but wonder, listening to a radio station here in Toronto, why aren’t you living in China?

Originally published at Unavoidable.ca. Please leave any comments there.

The following has been extracted from conversations at the dinner table of some upper-middle class Chinese-Canadian immigrants who originated from Hong Kong. These are highly educated graduates of the prestigious Hong Kong University. They are… afraid, of China.

—

To many of these folks, China - at the eve of the Beijing Olympics - is still a land of backwards culture, with a corrupted authoritarian government, and disgustingly low standards of living. These upper middle class immigrants feel that much of the mainland is still uncivilised. Coming from the former British colony, of course, they are used to being at the centre of Asian economic boom, as well as living at a much higher standard than their mainland brethren.

There is a great divide amongst the ‘mainlanders’ and the ‘Hong Kong-nese’. The natives of Hong Kong feel as if their land has been invaded by the uncivilised mainlanders since the 1997 absorption into China. They feel a great contempt when they see mainlanders not living up to their cultural standards.

From Hong Kong’s perspective, the mainlanders are a rude bunch who feel entitled to ‘plunder’ the accumulated wealth of the rich city. They walk into stores feeling entitled to the most humble of services, communicating through nothing but their native Mandarin - even though Hong Kong’s economy has always been based on the well established Cantonese and English.

The mainlanders feel no sense of guilt or shame when they ask for welfare. Recent mainland immigrants to Canada even exhibit this behaviour. One of the women at this dinner table related her experiences as a translator for the Canadian government.

These immigrants, they think they deserve all the welfare and benefits of this country, as soon as they step foot in it. Even though they contribute no taxes, the first thing they demand upon arrival is, ‘how do I get the free money from the government?’ They have no respect for the law or culture of the land, only enough knowledge so that they can evade the government rules whenever possible.

It’s not just taxes, or welfare, either. Well established environmental rules in both Canada and Hong Kong have no bearing on these mainlanders. According to some of these witnesses, the mainlanders seem to be most of the ones introducing harmful exotic species to the local ecosystems - especially in our rivers and lakes.

And of China itself, a unique perspective can be gleamed from these pseudo-insiders. As a Hong Kong Chinese, one can blend in fairly well into a major mainland city like Beijing or Shanghai, giving all the insights of an insider - but all the while experiencing it as an outsider.

To the Hong Kong Chinese, the mainland is so full of contradictions it is alarming. Stories bounced back and forth at the dinner table of kids panhandling on streets, with ever more clever tricks to fool tourists - such as using props and actors to gain more pity. They speak of store workers who find a way to fool customers. In one instance, the store clerks appeared to count 10 pairs of socks to the customer as they checked out, but upon opening the bag when the left the store, the customer only counted 8.

The living standards in China have not improved by much in the last decade, though the foreign newspapers have made much news of it lately. To get treatment at a hospital, you still have to be well connected - and rich. The great communist experiment has long since failed, and everyone does their part to gouge as much money from each other (especially from tourists).

To gain entry into a hospital emergency room, you must pay an entrance fee. Still, that only guarantees you entry. Once you get to the emergency room, you realize that you’re at the bottom of a waiting list that never moves up. There are hundreds of people in these rooms, waiting for emergency treatment that may never come. Doctors here are as corrupt as anybody else. They may say they want to treat every patient, but in reality, they only want to treat those with money.

To get treatment with any degree of speed, you will have to know someone who can let you in through the back doors (this, too, requires a ’small fee’). By the time you get to the doctor, you’re already broke and tired of the corruption. The doctors, of course, will tell you what’s wrong. But trusting their treatment requires yet another leap of faith. Do you take the pills they give you? Or the needle they’re about to stick into you (or your kid)?

The degree of trust in your doctor, like most everything else in China, depends on how much you’re willing to pay them. They can sell you those magic pills for a couple of dollars, but you can bet that they’re made of nothing good for you. If you want to be safe travelling in China, it’s best to bring along your own pre-prescribed medication from overseas.

The food? Many Western countries have bans on imported Chinese foods. With discerning eyes, many Hong Kong Chinese living here in Canada can still find many made-in-China food products at those shady Chinese supermarkets, or in Chinatown. It’s best not to touch any of these products. You don’t really want to know what’s in the soy sauce (here’s a hint - it’s not soy, but it is something else that’s black). Heck, even the eggs have been known to be faked in the mainland. Saavy visitors will know never to shop for food at supermarkets in the tourist area. They always go to where the locals eat. It’s not much cleaner, but at least you know what you’re eating.

—

Think of all the tourists who are going to end up in Beijing for the Olympics. Sure, China will put on a great facade for the visitors like they always do (remember the reports of them spray painting the grass green?), but China is still a long way from the standards we’re used to. The verdict from the pseudo-insiders of Hong Kong say the mainland is still not culturally ready for life as an industrialized nation.

Originally published at kevin p. siu's blog. Please leave any comments there.