Nobel laureate got D in Chemistry class

I have stopped reading the newspaper for a few weeks now, quite regretfully. I wish I could start again, but I seem to have started enjoying the freedom of not being drawn to a stack of papers. But I am being disconnected from the world.

A newspaper article from The Straits Times May 10 2008 from Science section captivated me and I have kept the article with me till now.

Why?

"Would people have said I'd achieve anything? Probably not. Singapore has to take a few chances on young people who may not fit the cookie-cutter mould. 

For those who want to achieve something unique, you need to be in the right place at the right time and your eyes have to be wide open."

This speaks a lot to me, because I'm very far from the cookie-cutter mould.

I guess that's why God speaks so much to me. Because He uses people who are so unusable to the world. :) The moment I think I'm usable, I lose my usefulness. Humility's the key!! :)

 

I really really love dedication pages! Just last week I saw a dedication that goes: For Elsie, "Botanist by Marriage" and my heart just melted. That's love - loving what the person one loves loves. :)

Today, as I flip "Fundamentals of Plant Systematics" by Albert E. Radford, I see some very heartening words again.

"Systematics, as a natural science, is a continuing quest for truth and understanding as well as the never-ending pursuit of reality, organized and simplified.

James Bruce, a British diplomat, once stated that "to most people nothing is more troublesome than the effort of thinking." This text is dedicated to those students willing to make that troublesome effort."

Didn't your heart just melted? It is so true for me. Thinking takes up a lot of effort. I am often lazy to do it. But the rewards one would reap from thinking are plentiful and I hope to think more. :)

Strangely this book though Prof. recommended it, only has one edition till this day (from 1986). Is it because Systematics really is a dying trade?

How to write the Introduction by R. A. Day

"The purpose of the Introduction should be to supply sufficient background information to allow the reader to understand and evaluate the results of the present study without needing to refer to previous publications on the topic. The Introduction should also provide the rationale for the present study. Choose references carefully to provide the most salient background rather than an exhaustive review of the topic."

Rules:
1. It should present first, with all possible clarity, the nature and scope of the problem investigated
2. To orient the reader, the pertinent literature should be reviewed
3. The method of investigation should be stated
4. The principal results of the investigation should be stated

"If the problem is not stated in a reasonable, understandable way, readers will have no interest in your solution. Even if the reader labours through your paper, which is unlikely if you haven't presented the problem in a meaningful way, he will be unimpressed by the brillance of your solution."

"The lit review and choice of method should be presented in such a way that the reader will understand what the problem was and how you attempted to resolve it."

What to write in a discussion?

Again, taken from R. A. Day's book.

Components of the Discussion:
1. Try to present the principles, relationships, and generalizations showed by the Results. And bear in mind, in a good Discussion, you discuss; do not recapitulate the Results.
2. Point out any exceptions or any lack of correlation, and define unsettled points.
3. Show how your results and interpretations agree (or contrast) with previously published work.
4. Don't be shy; discuss the theoretical implications of your work, as well as any possible practical applications.
5. State your conclusion, as clearly as possible.
6. Summarize your evidence for each conclusion.

Show the relationship between observed facts.

Significance of the work must be stated.

Mad rush to clear algal bloom before Olympics in Beijing

Looks like it'll be quite awhile before the ecologists/biologists get out of job! Haha. :) Ops! So what do we have here? A problem with the food chain/web? Or a problem with pollution? But surely a problem of national pride as the water sports cannot go on with this mesh of protista not get cleared!

I don't know. I find this hilarious! Ops once again.

Learning is one thing, teaching another

Today, Alex needed help to guide 40 18-year old students in the Raffles Museum of Biodiversity and Research (RMBR) so he asked me, which I felt I wasn't qualified to do so, but decided to challenge myself.

And I realized, I don't have what I have learnt at the tip of my fingers and they've grown rusty from disused. I realized it was one matter to sit through a series of lectures and examination, and another to apply what I've learnt to a practical setting, such as arousing interest in students and guiding them around a museum, trying to help them appreciate the wonders of biodiversity.

The students were very attentive which I am grateful for, as that meant less worry for me in terms of control of people. Alex later told me they're from the top Chinese school in the South of Malaysia!

Some take home questions...
Can what I learn in theory be applied to the practical? When the situation calls for my knowledge, am I able to retrieve them in sufficient amounts to present them coherently? And do I have enough understanding to explain them precisely? Do I have enough confidence and preparation to promote enthusiastically and interestingly?

As I delve into myself to find words to explain a certain exhibit, I realized, how shallow it is, how I reach and find remnants and leftovers, and not much substantial.

Hmmm... my usage of the Chinese language is another matter, which I should address for my own good.

But being a museum guide might be the training I need.

Especially so, if I still want to work in a museum, whatever type, after graduation.

Oops! I just remembered being a tour guide is one of my dream occupations.

Etymology and Pedra Branca

I was so puzzled after I read Janadas Devan's column On Words on Sunday about the etymology of "sovereignty" and the context in which Malaysia used the word that I emailed him to clarify. He took the time to explain in detail and even cite examples, that I was able to think through what confused me myself. This I am very grateful. So here are my thoughts...

No, you don’t have sovereignty over Tibet. Sovereignty as we understand it today, did not exist at that time, so you cannot use the argument that we have sovereignty over this piece of land.

China’s reasoning is flawed.

So ICJ’s reasoning is flawed. Johor Sultanate did not have the sovereignty over PB.

The context of those times are fixed, we cannot project today’s context back into those days. Those days should have been understood by those days terms.

China has tributary relationships, vassalships, overlordships with many neighbouring states, but they did not have sovereignty over them, these states did not belong to China.

Johor Sultanate did not have sovereignty over PB as according to the terms of those days, to rule over a land, meant ruling over people there, but no one inhabited PB, hence, it was “no man’s land” as Singapore understood it.

Hence Singapore is etymologically correct

Singapore’s argument – PB doesn’t belong to anyone, no one is sovereign over it, until British took lawful possession of it in 1847

M’sia’s argument – PB part of Johor Sultanate

Hence, ICJ is flawed etymologically to support M’sia’s argument that PB is part of Johor Sultanate since 1512

What is etymology?
From Merriam-Webster: The history of a linguistic form (as a word) shown by tracing its development since its earliest recorded occurrence in the language where it is found, by tracing its transmission from one language to another, by analyzing it into its component parts, by identifying its cognates in other languages, or by tracing it and its cognates to a common ancestral form in an ancestral language

The root of the issue is that both country do not agree on the ownership of the land. Malaysia thinks it belongs to the Johor Sultanate, by virtue of its location. Singapore thinks it is no man's land as in those days rulership meant ruling over people, but there were no inhabitants on PB, until British took hold of the island, building Horsburgh Lighthouse on it.

But to me, I am so involved in this case, not for political reasons, but simply because Horsburgh Lighthouse is a historical architecture and gem. It was built by J. T. Thomson (the man we named Thomson Road after) in 1850, recorded in books, served a very practical and important function. This is a functional, important, historic piece of art, set on an island that is a paradise for bird watchers. There can be no better paradise island! For the hermit of course. I guess it will be pretty lonely as a lighthouse keeper.

I would want this lighthouse to be gazetted as a conservation site!