Friday, 15 of November 2013, will be a day I will not forget easily. To mark the end of the module ES2007S, we ordered in pizza. I had one slice. I thought I was satisfied. I was wrong. On the way home, I could not get the taste of the pizza out from my mouth, the smell from my fingers, the thought of it from my mind. The torment grew until I had succumbed to my temptation. That night, I Elisha Aslivatham, ate one and a half extra large Meat Lovers pizza. Oh how wonderfully horrible it was.

Well the semester has come to an end, and with it, ES2007S too. Among all the modules I have taken this semester, I truly enjoyed this module the most. Not only did I get to know more different and interesting people, I also got a firsthand experience on how to prepare and what to expect for my future job. There were some teaching sessions that really opened my eyes and changed the way I thought about some things. I especially gained a lot from the lessons about personal branding, resumes and application letters and the one on assertive skills.

I knew that first impressions always mattered, but I did not know that there was so much more to it. I knew that sometimes being different from the masses could be good, but I never really knew to portray my differences as my strengths. Most of the times, I felt that ‘being in the crowd’ was always better than ‘standing out from the crowd’. During the class on personal branding, Dr Radhika taught us how to use our USP’s to not only stand out from the crowd, but to also create a positive impact on our future employers, colleagues etc. Mind-blown.  I also felt that the lesson on application letters was very helpful (honestly I really did not know that there was actually a need for application letters, but I found out how important they really were.)

But I think that the lesson that I really gained most from was the one on assertive skills. In the past, I was usually quite submissive. But after entering army, I began to become more aggressive. (Actually I did not really know I was being aggressive, but a lot of people would tell me to ‘relax’ after I say something I mean). Due to this, I was quite apprehensive to speak to people I do not know cause I was afraid that they would fine me aggressive and just have a bad impression about me. The lesson taught us how to be neither submissive nor aggressive and still manage to get things done. I really felt that this lesson helped me. Now I have the proper skill set to talk to new people.

Besides these, there were many more points that I learned from the whole course that I felt was very good, like for example, ‘starting with an opening story’ (which I did above). The projects allowed us to work with people that we would not usually work with, which made us practice the skills taught. So I truly believe that this course has helped me to become a ‘potential professional communicator’. In conclusion, the module was not only fun, but very practical in molding a better communicator. 

Team Project: Proposal writing

We had to come up with a proposal regarding a particular issue in Singapore which we were concerned about. After creating the proposal, we had to present it to the class too. We were divided into teams of two to three by drawing lots. My group members were Edmund Yap and Yip Kin Wai, and our chosen topic was about safety of cyclists on the road.

I have had the pleasure of working with Kin Wai before for another presentation. Thus I kind of ‘knew’ him. However, I had not worked with Edmund before. As such, I did not really ‘know’ him. But after working with him for a few weeks, I understood him better and the three of us became good friends although there were some misunderstandings along the way between the three of us. These misunderstandings we not because of our character differences, but rather due to the lack of understanding about what we really wanted for our project.

We were given the opportunity to choose the issue with which we were concerned with. Automatically, each of us suggested ideas which were very interesting to us. The only problem was that each idea that each of us suggested, did not interest the other members of the group. We decided that we would think about other ideas and relay them to each other before our next class. But due to our busy schedules, all three of us did not think of better ideas to suggest. So, as time was running out, we came to an agreement that our topic would be about road cyclists. Although we all agreed on that topic, none of us were actually passionate about that topic. Since none of us were really passionate about that topic, during our initial research stages, we procrastinated a lot. This lead to our work being backlogged. Because of the backlog of work that we had, we eventually had to rush through a lot of things which caused us to be a little frustrated which also created some misunderstandings between the three of us. But nonetheless, we managed to press on and complete the assignment with anyone getting injured.

To me the root of the problem was that none of us could agree on a single issue. I can understand that, as the three of us were very different people and had very different interests. I feel that we made a wrong choice by arbitrarily choosing a topic just so that all of us could agree on it. I feel that it would have been much better if each of us could somehow take the time to really show how much passion we had for our own topics, which could probably have interested the other members of the group too.  This would have been a better alternative rather than the path we chose. What do you guys think?

intercultural conflict

About three semesters ago, I met this very complex individual from one of the modules I was taking. This guy (let us call him ICM), was Indonesian Chinese Muslim. So he was born in Indonesia, his ethnicity was Chinese and Islam was his religion. Together with him, we had to work on a project with another Singaporean guy who a very staunch Christian (let us call him Guy). Being guys, we managed to click quite well and easily. But one day something happened, and it kind of broke the relationship between ICM and Guy.

We had just finished a project meeting and we decided to go for lunch together. We knew that ICM was Muslim so we were finding food places that were ‘halal’. To our surprise, ICM told us that we could go to any food place just also long as they did not serve pork or lard. He told us that he could eat food that was not certified ‘halal’ which is even prepared by non-Muslims. Although I was kind of surprised, I felt that it made our decision so much easier so I did not bother much about it. Guy on the other hand was flabbergasted and could not believe what he had heard. Guy asked ICM if he was a true Muslim or was just a Muslim so that his family could do business in Indonesia. At that ICM became a little defensive but still managed to tell Guy in a nice tone that he believed in Islam.

But Guy still was not satisfied. He went on to question ICM, asking him if he knew what ‘halal’ and ‘haram’ was? ICM told Guy that he knew what it was, but Guy believed that he did not, so he began to explain it to him. Guy said that besides pork and lard, food was considered ‘halal’ only if they were killed mercifully and that if the shop did not have the ‘halal’ sign, he should not eat there as he would be committing an act of sin. At this, ICM got very angry and told Guy to ‘F*** off’. Then Guy got angry and they actually started quarrelling, and eventually we went our separate ways without having lunch. After that incident, Guy and ICM rarely spoke and it was very awkward for me.

I understand where Guy was coming from. Being a very staunch Christian, he believed that ICM should do as what the Muslims in Singapore are doing, which is to only consume food that was labelled ‘halal’. But according to ICM, it is perfectly fine, as in Indonesia, not every shop which serves ‘halal’ food has the ‘halal’ sign. I think Guy should have tried to understand this fact and not impose that ICM follows our Muslim culture here in Singapore. I felt that Guy was also rude about the comments he made and he should rephrase them so it would not be very offensive.

What do you guys think?

Resolving Interpersonal Conflict

This hypothetical situation is about a conflict between 2 people regarding the use of money. Jack and Jill were two working class adults who were dating each other. Both of them earned a comfortable living as they were doing very well in the careers. Jack preferred the ‘simple life’-he did not crave expensive branded goods nor did he see a need for them. On the other hand, Jill preferred the ‘high life’-keeping up with fashion trends and craving expensive branded goods. One would think that their individual love for different lifestyles was the root of the problem-but that was not the case. In fact, their relationship worked out very well, (as a give and take system), as Jack loved to buy expensive goods for Jill, as what made Jill happy also made Jack happy. And although Jill knew that Jack did not like branded things, Jill would occasionally buy branded goods for Jack. Up to this point there was no conflict with regards to money.

One day, both of them were taking a stroll a when a man approached. The man was old and was wearing dirty clothes. He asked Jack and Jill if they could spare him some change as he had not eaten anything for a few days as he had no money. Jack felt pity for the man, took out five dollars and gave it to him and the man went away thanking Jack. This was when the problem started. Jill was shocked that Jack actually gave the man money. So Jill confronted Jack, asking him why he did what did. Jack said that he felt pity and that something had pinched at his conscience. Jill said that the man could have been lying and that giving the man money was a wasted of money. Jack said that he understood that the man could have been lying, but said that he did what he did in order to have a clear conscience in the event the man was telling the truth. He told Jill that it was weighing between ‘the man telling the truth but not helping him’ verses, ‘the man telling a lie and helping him’. Jack felt that he rather been cheated of five dollars then to not help a person who truly is in need. Jill did not understand Jack and felt that what Jack did was very stupid. The argument carried on until Jack and Jill was so frustrated with each other that Jack called Jill a ‘woman with no conscience’ and Jill called Jack ‘a stupid man’. The name calling caused emotional hurt, and this conflict took a toll on their relationship. So what would have been the best way to avoid the conflict?

I empathize with both of them as I understand where they are coming from. In my opinion, one possible way to avoid this conflict would be that instead of giving the man five dollars, which is actually quite a bit, Jack could have given a lesser amount, maybe like a dollar. This might have seemed ‘less wasteful’ to Jill, and Jack would still feel that he helped someone, (in a way they reach a compromise). Hopefully this would avoid the conflict in the first place.

What are the other possible ways to avoid this conflict totally?