C@Ox's Higher Educational Supplement

To me, a year ends when I return home to Singapore for my family's annual Christmas party. To miss the party would result in my being disowned, so it's become something of an annual tradition that I leg it all the way home from wherever I am in the world to attend the party (apart from the years when I was already home, of course). I don't celebrate New Year's, because I have enough late nights drinking throughout the year that another one is pretty meaningless, especially when it seems like everyone else is out and so everywhere is crowded, overpriced, and generally unpleasant.

So I'm already mentally in 2006. I've been working alternately in the NUS library and the Singapore National Archives, and I haven't really been enjoying either place as much as the British National Archives at Kew, but there's still been a lot to learn. The NUS central library's Singapore-Malaysia Collection is an unparalleled source on Singapore, and they put the collection on open shelves, so it's easy to browse and see what they have (which most libraries back in Oxford don't do). It's been very fruitful working in there.

Surprisingly, though, the more I work in the NUS library, the more I realise that it's not a very good library at all. It's barely decent. Apart from books on Singapore, the holdings are merely adequate. Also, given the renovation a few years ago, I was under the impression that it had revamped and rejuvenated the library, incorporating new technology and making the place more user-friendly. I was wrong. Having been researching in there on and off since I was an undergraduate and the library hadn't been renovated yet (I'd go there when I was home for my holidays to work), the renovations seem more like a glossy facade, a new shiny coat of paint on an old and ageing vehicle.

For one thing, key equipment in the library is antiquated and/or broken. The few microfilm and microfiche machines all look twenty years old, and both microfiche machines were broken. I had to hold the lens in place to make it focus properly. Given that much archival stock in one or either format, that's very disappointing.

Another is the lack of basic amenties. There were no lockers; then again, the undergraduates just left their laptops on the tables and wandered off. I realise this is Singapore, but that's really bad practice. I could have helped myself to half a dozen laptops in the past few days. There were no laptop locking bars, and powerpoints were few and far between.

Neither was there a book or document holding facility. Usually, when researching, you don't finish everything in one day, so you can request a document to be held for a period of time- a week is about standard. However, there was no such facility. Just to go to lunch, I had to return a set of books and microfilm and then re-request them afterward.

Furthermore, their policies were a little lax. People could bring waterbottles in and many sat and drank as they read. When I called up a rare book, I was shown into what looked like an unused conference room to read it. No one asked about the waterbottle and pens I had in my bag. The room itself had rare and valuable books stacked haphazardly around, as if half read. Perhaps this is because of a high level of trust of the students; perhaps I'm just used to paranoia on the part of librarians and archivists. Then again, it only takes one accident to ruin a document.

I suppose the primary reason for all the above is because the library is geared toward undergraduate users. As such, they will probably be borrowing books, not requesting archival documents or rare/valuable books, like I was. Neither would they be using microfilm or microfiche. However, I was under the impression that NUS was trying to become a world-class research facility. I suppose I am wrong.

The emphasis on undergraduates goes too far, I think. The library is remarkably insular. Almost everything requires a membership to use, and memberships are only available to staff, students, and people who are willing to pay sums which graduate students can't afford. For example, I've never been to a large public (as in, funded by the government) library which didn't have public internet terminals. You can't even do internet searches as part of your research- you need a username and password to do anything except search the catalogue. Even many private universities allow non-members to use some facilities. It's all about dissemination of knowledge and education. It benefits society at large. When you're funded partly by the taxpayers, I don't see why you can't set aside a few computers for open access. It's no loss. Priority could still be given to students. In the rare event that, say, someone who can't afford to attend NUS is still willing to come all the way to Kent Ridge to use the library, why not let them?

In the end, there is only so far a very pleasant, comfortable environment, open shelves, and ahelpful staff can go. There was little else about the NUS central library which appealed to me. I spent much of this term complaining about the lack of resources in England in general; however, I realise that for all of Oxford's lack of funding and resources, there is something much more there. I get the feeling of a much greater respect and appreciation for my work in the Oxford community. My impressions are, of course, just that, but at the same time there has been a long tradition of the social sciences and humanities being underfunded and underappreciated when compared to the sciences and engineering in NUS. I wouldn't be surprised if this extended to graduate studies today.

Anyway, from what I understand, SMU's a better university with a nicer campus and more dynamic and progressive leadership. Why go to NUS when there's a better university right in the heart of downtown Singapore?

Boring, Boring Potter

Against my better judgement, I went to watch Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire. I didn't like the movie, but not for the reasons I expected. All in all, it was a well made movie, with good acting and frenetic pacing. It's actually a pretty good movie, even if it isn't as good as the third one.

I didn't enjoy myself because, inexplicable, I was bored. I go to movies generally to experience something I couldn't in real life. Whether it's fantastic, magical, thought-provoking, funny, or exciting, I expect it to be something that transcends life. That was the problem with Harry Potter: it's more boring than real life.

Perhaps I am the problem. I live in a place much more beautiful than Hogwarts: Oxford. I cycled home this evening through the Radcliffe Camera, and it was a cool, foggy night. The beautiful medieval buildings around me were covered in a hazy glow, and ahead the gargoyles stared down at me from the University Church while the battlements of the colleges surrounded me. A gentle breeze swept through the square, tickling my neck. Nights like these are typical in Oxford. What has Hogwarts to offer, when they film the movies here, and thus only offer pale reflections of my reality?

Dragons? Voldemort? Spells? What terrors do they hold in an era when taking the subway or a bus is more terrifying? When one lives in a period of terrorism and extremism, your daily life is saturated with the fearful and the unknown. And considering what I went through this summer, don't get me started on how peaceful the scenes in the lake were by comparison.

Perhaps I'm a snob (likely) and perhaps I lead an extraordinary life (lucky). But I found myself playing "spot the British actor" (Look! It's David Tennant! Hey, it's Shirley Henderson! Isn't she 35? How is she playing a teenager?) and "spot the Oxford location" (the room where they learn to waltz is clearly the Divinity School; one of the external shots was clearly the Bodleian's Old Quad; and I think I recognised New College as well) to keep myself amused. I guess I'm lucky. The books I'm reading on the passions and riots of Singapore's history entertain me far more than this movie, and I get to read those books every day. I should've watched The Constant Gardener- the Pharmaceutical industry seems to me to be a far scarier villain then Voldemort!