End of January 2005

I have nothing to share.

But am blogging just because I realised that before this post, I hv been writing only once a month so far-July, Dec and January. So, must make at least 2 posts for January 2005.

I have been pseudo-contributing to Illustration Friday-honest! The illos for every week are all in my sketchbook. But, no time to actually paint them and scan and do touch-ups with MicPhoto.

Last week, I was a bimbo for a bit. Got a phone call from a recruitment consultant whilst I was cooking dinner. I updated my CV 2 weeks ago and was in an 'application-frenzy', applying for all jobs overseas, which I thought I was qualified for. I didn't keep track of the vacancies I sent my CVs for.

This guy called, from London. He didn't know what time it was in Malaysia. It was 9.30 p.m. He asked whether it was a good time to talk, I said yes whilst watching from the corner of my eye PIMA struggling with the steak on the griller. Then, he started asking the typical questions that recruitment consultants ask candidates. Then...

"So, tell me, why do you want to apply for a job in Anonymous Country?"

"I applied for it, not because of the Anonymous Country per se, but because of the job description i.e. job scope. I have been wanting to get into in-house blah3x....and this seems to be a good opportunity to do so blah3x..."

"Oh I see, so you are wanting to get into in-house, Ms Avatar. But the job you applied for is in an international law firm in Anonymous Country. So, are you only interested in in-house positions?"

*aaaaaahhhhh...wrong job! I was thinking of the wrong vacancy all this while??? Did i even apply for this job?*

"Oh..no...I am also interested in private practice. I am interested in both..." *trying very hard to sound convincing whilst slamming right hand onto upper part of face*

Anyway, the lesson to be learnt is - after sending your applications, bring the list of all the positions you have applied for together with the corresponding recruitment consultants, wherever you go...cos you never know when these guys will call you up. And, don't apply for more than 1 job in any 1 country. Gets too confusing. Trust me.

I have not heard from him since.

Disaster Relief

Sorry that this is a bit late for Illustration Friday. It's not only late, it's a bit sloppy (mixture of blue ballpoint pen, watercolour and Photoshop tips and tricks (Photoshop is with the help of PIMA of course, which left me gushing with "WOW!", "Splendid!" "Really...?!!!" "U THA best!"). BUT - I have grouses that are bursting out of me.

The pic above is supposed to illustrate the accompanying pic to headlines in the local newspapers nearly every day of last week after the tsunami tragedy started. I do not know whether this week is experiencing the same fate simply because I have stopped reading the newspapers this week for the reason you will find out below. I now only watch BBC and CNN on the telly and read the news on BBC and CNN websites to keep me updated with news on the tsunami tragedy. No printed material for me for awhile - i vowed, till the the media-hype as I am about to describe below, dies down, or rather, stop altogether.

The government, newspapers and various non-government organisations have set up charity funds to accept monetary donations from the public. I support this.

But what irked me last week was the fact that pictures of individuals representing corporations, handing over mock cheques to ministers and politicians etc. who are heading the various disaster relief funds, appear on the front pages and main pages of local newspapers. In addition, the names together with the corresponding sum of donations (only those that are higher than RM1,000) of donors to the newspapers' funds are listed daily in the respective newspapers.

It is as if the news of who-donated-how-much were equally important with the news of the victims themselves. The importance placed on the news of these donors does not seem to be necessary, I feel. It was like a competition between wealthy individuals, competing as to the sum that is being donated, and publicising the said gesture for whatever reasons. I know that at the end of the day, the victims would still benefit from the generous donations, but it still irked me as I can't help but feel as if certain groups of people are taking adavantage of this tragedy to publicise their generosity which perhaps is hoped to generate good publicity for the donors in the corporate world.

So, what exactly that irked me in this whole scenario, you may ask? The answer is two-fold:-
(i) The mock cheques; and
(ii)The ceremonies/functions (which I am sure have been carefully organised) in which the said mock cheques are presented (which of course MUST be in the presence of reporters and photographers from various newspapers and magazines present).

Would you blame me for being irked?