华语 Cool

I've told some friends this, but for some reason, I've grown to appreciate Chinese, whether as a language or as a culture, so much more since I've been overseas for school. I mean, I was never one of the those 'too cool for Mandarin' type of 'banana' Chinese Singaporeans who sneered at those who were not fluent in English and spoke the 'Cheena' language (I saw so many in my course in poly). I speak Mandarin at home, come from a Chinese secondary school, listen to Mandopop, and twice participated in Chinese freakin' poetry recital competitions! But I was still very much Anglo-leaning, in that I craved and consumed mostly Western pop culture, spoke mostly English outside of home, and of course, wanted to head to a Western country for uni. I prided myself in being reasonably bilingual, but the relationship I had with Chinese was one more of utility.

My opinion changed when i headed to the U.S. Somehow, being submerged totally in English became really limiting, even slightly oppressive. And I found myself listening so much more to Chinese music. Stefanie Sun I already loved, but I think the musical love of my college life has to be Tanya Chua (More on her music in an upcoming post, soon, hopefully). I paid closer attention to the lyrics and really grew to appreciate the poetry of it. I youtubed Taiwanese variety shows to watch occasionally. I reveled in heading to Chinatown and getting to speak or try to speak Cantonese everywhere I went. I felt humbled whenever I'd attempt to speak Mandarin to Chinese internationals, but I was always keen to try (The best is this year, where I got to know this American student who's incredibly fluent in Mandarin, and participated in those international Mandarin debates for non-native speakers representing Yale. Wow, I was so humbled by his knowledge of Chinese idioms!)

Also, coming from a young country, I was amazed at the history of New York, just in its architecture for example. The gorgeous brownstones certainly have so much more character than our HDBs! Of course, America was the minor league when I got to Oxford. How utterly mind-blowing it was to see these grand colleges, all built when Singapore was, as we know so well from history textbooks, a mere fishing village! But my point is that seeing all this history in the U.S and especially here in the U.K., I found myself thinking about how as amazing as all of it was, China's got 5000 years worth of history! Beat that, suckers! hah. I don't know, I guess it just brought to me clarity on how deep Chinese history and culture is, and I find myself now wanting to visit China really badly.

This year, I've been reading so much about the Enlightenment in relation to my politics tutorials, and to read of all these thinkers and their universalised theories of good/right and sit in class hearing my tutor talk about them like they're the be all and end all of political theory... I don't know, it irked me slightly because I just felt all of it were developments in reaction to very culturally specific historical occurrences and thus cannot or should not claim to speak for all of men... (ugh, I swear, this made more sense going through my head during tutorial!) I guess my point is that it made me want to find out if Chinese philosophy provided any counter-points, especially since it developed in such different conditions compared to the Western Judeo-Christian world (I'm sure other non-Occidental cultures, like the Islamic world, have really different ideas too)!

Perhaps this new-found appreciation of all things Chinese occurred because something that becomes rare always becomes more valuable. Perhaps it was because once away from Singapore, one can break free from the negative socioeconomic connotations of the language (Ang mo pai4 vs'cheena piang' is essentially cosmopolitan vs heartlander recast in linguistic terms, no?). Perhaps it's because going to places where a lot of people are monolingual, one develops pride in being able to speak two languages. Perhaps it's because, in line with the previous statement, it feels shiok to be able to have fun with friends and shout vulgarities in Chinese in foreign countries without anyone else knowing what we're saying. Whatever it is, I'm glad because it has allowed me to appreciate the language and to want to explore the culture so much more.

I've tried taken concrete steps to do so. For the last summer vacation, I had quite a reading spree, if anyone who follows me on Twitter would notice (how I flatter myself!). I think I read something like 15 books in those four months. And I wanted to read some Chinese books actually. I remember Michael Pollan's The Omnivore's Dilemma was constantly out on loan in the library, but the Chinese one was available, so I thought: Hey, why not! But I soon gave up =( It seems like 99% of the books in Chinese are printed the up-down, right-left way, which I found so difficult to get through! So, fail for me on that attempt. For now though, I'll just continue to listen to my Mandopop and marvel at the lyrical wonders of Xiao Han, and continue to hone my Cantonese skills at Chinese provision shops/restaurants. I promise though that this summer, I [i]will[/i] get through at least one book in Chinese! I just need to search harder for one that reads from left to right! The pilgrimage to ancestral lands will have to wait a bit though, as I'm not sure when I'll have the money to do so! Ah, I so regret not doing the Beijing Olympics...

Addendum: As much as I've waxed lyrical about the beauty of Chinese and all here, I'm not of Camp 'All Chinese S'poreans should be able to speak Mandarin, if not shame on you". It's cool if you don't, you just don't need to look down on people who do. I do recognise the fact that Mandarin is in no way inherent to Chinese S'poreans. Like all things on our island, the assertion of Mandarin as our 'native' mother tongue was very much engineered by our leaders to achieve their desired social/political goals.

On democracy and the emergent state

While reading the chapters on the Vietnam War in Henry Kissinger's Diplomacy for my history class earlier, I was struck by these 2 sections:

"Unlike democratic theory, which views truth as emerging from a clash of ideas, Confucianism maintains that truth is objective and can only be discerned by assiduous study and education of which only a rare few are thought to be capable. Its quest for truth does not treat conflicting ideas as having equal merit, the way democratic theory does. Since there is only one truth, that which is not true can have no standing or be enhanced through competition. Confucianism is essentially hierarchical and elitist, emphasizing loyalty to family, institutions, and authority."

"In the West, political pluralism had thrived among cohesive societies where a strong social consensus had been in place long enough to permit tolerance for the opposition without threatening the survival of the state. But where a nation has yet to be created, opposition may appear as a threat to national existence, especially when there is no civil society to provide a safety net. In these conditions, the temptation is strong, often overwhelming, to equate opposition with treason."

Now, Kissinger was talking about Vietnam or Indochina in the 1950s in these sections. But, which other Southeast Asian state could he have be referring to just as well? Gee...I wonder...

Singapore's political situation in the 60s was hardly as precarious as that of Vietnam, but still, as a newly-independent state, wary of both Malaysia and Communist influences, and with Confucian values as its foundation, one can see how and why the PAP government was able to successfully engineer a siege mentality in the populace which gave it legitimacy to crush opposition under the name of national security. The problem perhaps is that the trope of the nation under siege has been used time and time again such that we have been conditioned to dismiss the merits of having a strong opposition. Obviously though, this is just a breakwater that will not stand the waves of time. Civil society is developing in Singapore. The number of local political blogs and the alternative viewpoints they offer are testaments to that. So, then, it all comes down to a clash between democratic theory and Confucianism? Maybe there is legitimacy to both forms of government-running. Singapore's economic success is prove that the latter works, I suppose. The question is: Which one serves the state, and which one serves the people?

Singapore soccer makes international news

What a surprise to find a Singapore headline on Soccernet.com's homepage whilst on my daily visit to the site. Too bad it wasn't for qualification into the World Cup or something. Maybe next time.

Jordan and Singapore battle with broomsticks
January 29, 2009
Jordanian soccer players attacked their Singaporean counterparts with bottles and broomsticks after losing an Asian Cup qualifier on Wednesday, Singaporean newspapers reported on Thursday.
A Reuters witness at Singapore's national stadium heard loud shouts for police assistance moments after both teams had walked into a tunnel leading to their changing rooms, and saw police rushing into the tunnel.
"The Jordanians attacked with whatever they could find, like broomsticks, plastic bottles, dustbins and even a metal electric fan," the Straits Times paper quoted Singapore's team manager Eugene Loo as saying, after he witnessed the minute-long brawl.
The punch-up followed a tense game that Singapore won 2-1, which revitalised the city-state's Asian Cup qualification campaign. The teams were escorted out of their changing rooms and into their buses separately afterwards, a Reuters witness said.
"I'm disappointed that the Jordanians resorted to violent behaviour. We were only walking back to our dressing room to celebrate our victory when they rushed out to whack us - they were totally crazy," the Straits Times quoted Singaporean midfielder Mustafic Fahrudin as saying.
Singapore, known for its lack of violence, also saw rare crowd trouble in the Asian Football Federation Cup semi-final match last month when Singaporean and Vietnamese fans clashed.

I'm sure this was a Newpaper frontpage headline. Congrats Singapore for the victory, and for your brief moment of infamy!

Down with the moral majority, cause I want to be the minority!

The Straits Times
Sep 24, 2007
Man's skimpy attire in TV ad is disgusting

I wrote to Mocca.com on Sept 18 to voice my and my friends' disgust at the tasteless, vulgar advertisement that is being shown frequently over our television channels at all times of the day. I got a reply from the customer service saying that contrary to our opinion, they had been receiving favourable feedback.

Whilst I agree that people have different interpretations of advertisements, I am wondering who the perverts are who think that this commercial, featuring a skimpily-dressed guy trying to sell his flat, is tasteful.

If majority of Singaporeans think this advertisement is all right, then I am very sad. It means Singapore's moral values have gone down the drain!

Could we have a consensus on this advertisement? If the majority thinks it is disgusting, then Mocca.com should take it off the air.

Vivien Koh Swee Hoon (Ms)

So the "conservative majority" our MIW love to cite does exist! I haven't seen this commercial, but apparently, people can "have different interpretations", but you're a "pervert" if you do. Naked body parts, eugh! We're supposed to be shameful of our bodies, cause viewing them is a SIN! No more bra ads! No more bikinis and briefs in pools! Oh and of course, majority rules! Who gives a rat's arse about minority rights, right? That's the beauty of democracy!

Maybe Ms. Koh is a brilliant satirist.

Scaling Ivy Towers

Aug 17, 2007
President's Scholar follows in dad's footsteps
By Ho Ai Li

IN 1974, then Raffles Institution student Ko Kheng Hwa received the President's Scholarship from the late Dr Benjamin Sheares.

Now managing director of the Economic Development Board, Mr Ko will return to the Istana tonight with his wife, Madam Hoong Suet Kun, to see daughter Stephanie, 18, receive the same award from President SR Nathan.

The Public Service Commission, which awards the scholarship, said Stephanie - from Hwa Chong Institution - is the first recipient to have a President's Scholar as a parent.

There are four President's Scholars this year. The others are Sergius Wat, 19; Kaan Hung Leng, 18; and Liu Chen, 21, all from Raffles Junior College (RJC).

Stephanie, who will study medicine at Cambridge University in Britain, said: 'It's the satisfaction you get as a doctor, dedicating your life to helping people.'

As former vice-president of the Hwa Chong Students' Council, Stephanie helped organise many events. She also represented the Singapore Chinese Girls' School in basketball.

Fellow President's Scholar Hung Leng also has a 'scholar dad'.

Her father, Mr Kaan Quan Hang, a senior engineer, studied in Australia on a Colombo Plan Scholarship. Her two siblings also went overseas on government scholarships.

Unlike them, Hung Leng is staying here and studying medicine at the National University of Singapore to keep her father and housewife mother, Madam Tan Bee Geok, company, she said.

Hung Leng, from Raffles Girls' Secondary (RGS), excelled in fencing and playing the piano.

Her former RGS and RJC schoolmate Liu Chen is also well-versed in sports and the arts. A national taekwondo brown belt champion, she also plays the piano and double bass.

She moved here from Shandong, China, in 1997 with her father, Mr Liu Luo Sheng, a business consultant, and mother, Madam Xu Bao Li, a private tutor.

'I had heard that it's hard for an ex-foreigner to get a government scholarship. I'm glad I proved them wrong,' said Liu Chen, an only child who became a Singapore citizen two years ago. She will study economics at the University of Chicago.

The thorn among the roses is Sergius Wat, whose father, Mr Wat Tat Chuen, is a general manger in a construction firm. His mother, Madam Ang Poh Choo, is a housewife. His older brother is a Singapore Armed Forces scholar.

Sergius, concurrently a Singapore Police Force scholar, said he wanted 'to help people in a very real way.'

Helping people comes naturally to Sergius, a scout and recent winner of the HSBC Youth Excellence award for his charity work. He will study government at Harvard University.

hoaili@sph.com.sg
___________________________________________________________________

I can't help but have a feeling of unease when reading such an article. It's got nothing to do with the abilities and talents of Ms. Ko; I'm sure that her academic and extra-curricular achievements more than justify her receiving the scholarship. It's just that does Ms. Ko, with a dad who's a managing director, need a scholarship to attend a top university?

Of course, such merit-based scholarships aren't meant to help students afford expensive overseas education; their primary aim is to seek out top talents at a young age so they will join and hopefully stay in the civil service. But giving money to the already rich, however deserved, just doesn't sit well with me. It perpetuates a cycle where the rich and richer (in every sense of the word).

With her privileged background, Ms. Ko must have had all the best resources available for her to blaze her academic trail. It starts with a good pre-primary education. Then, enrollment into a 'branded' primary school would have been set up through legacy, buying of expensive property within 1km of chosen school, the capacity of parents to volunteer/contribute to the school in every possible way, etc. With said enrollment, one is immediately statistically likely to get into a top-ranked secondary school, where opportunities are abound. Similarly, one is then statistically favoured to get into a top JC. Along the way, maids, enrichment programes, interaction with fellow smart students, etc. all play their parts. The breathing of rarified air continues through to Ivy towers.

With wealthy and highly-educated parents with scholarly credentials, Ms. Ko would have been told that she had the capability to achieve anything she set her mind on from a young age. The sky's the limit. Achieving As and attending prestigious foreign universities aren't lofty, impossible dreams; they're practical targets locked in probably at a very young age already (Once again, kudos to Ms. Ko for her achievements. Not everyone with the tools use them wisely of course). So, is it not that the system was already in her favour from the get-go? That elitism breeds elitism?

Of course, every so often, ST will highlight some some child of hawkers/taxi-drivers/other blue-collar occupations who defied the odds to receive such scholarships. But that's just it, no? The odds are very much stacked against such cases from happening.

In this day and age, can a typical 6-year bond for these these scholarships for overseas study really tie talents down? I'm sure that the monetary penalty for bond-breaking is pittance for most cases (Private firms are also likely to pay them out to poach talents.).

I venture that such scholarships should come with variations. For example, for students whose annual household income is above $200k, he/she (henceforth 'he' for convenience) should be expected to fund the entirety for his college fees. He would still receive the award and get its associated prestige. His contract with PSC/governmental bodies would be bond-free. For those with household incomes above 100k, they pay 80% of school frees; the rest is covered. The bond then is two years (They also have the option of paying full fees and going bond-free). And so on and so forth.

It's just an idea. Some will argue that the top talents, with the global market at their feet, will thus not be attracted to these scholarships if they're not all-inclusive packages. But I say: For these mega-wealthy talents. is free tuition really the draw? I'd think that the promise of a fast-tracked career in the civil service, withs its attractive 'SR9 and MR4 pegged to the top 15 earners of 6 key jobs in the market' salary and the chance to lead and serve the people of Singapore would be draw enough. It should be.

Top US universities like Harvard, Princeton or MIT all do not believe in merit-based awards too, because they believe in getting an economically diverse student body. If you're good enough to get in, you get in. If you're rich enough to pay, you pay. Does this turn rich top students off and do they then apply to lower-tiered schools who give merit awards as bait to attract them? Some might, but most don't. The Harvard brand is reason enough to pay. So should the PSC brand. (Private corporations are free to give out merit/whatever-based scholarships, of course.)

I guess it just irks me that state money is pumped into a scholarship system which is by and large advantageously set up for the already rich, while local unis do pathetically little in terms of making education affordable for needy students. All they offer are loans or payment through CPF. They do offer a very limited number of grants, but it comes with either vague ("needy" - defined as?) or ridiculous qualifiers (One bursary for NUS's qualifier is household monthly income of <$1000. I mean, seriously.). (The lack of school funding for financial aid for local unis is linked to low endowments, which is partly due to the weakness of alumni relations. But that's another topic altogether.)

Perhaps then, I don't know, the millions of dollars spent each year by govt bodies could be put to use to help needy students instead. Help break the circle; equalise the playing field. Pipe dream, but we never know till we try.

Train Etiquette Part Deux

What is it with MRT rides and moral dilemmas? On the same day as this incident, I faced a quandary of my own. It was not rush hour, but the train was still packed like NTUC FairPrice on the last day before 7% GST took effect. Because I had boarded an east-bound train at an 'ulu-er' (local speak for remote) stop, I found a seat before the slave rats of Raffles Place/City Hall/Bugis flooded the train. At one of these stop, this woman entered the train and situated herself almost right in front of me. She was in her late 30s/early 40s and she had a slightly conspicuous belly.

Oh shit, I thought to myself. It was one of those situations, like when you see a baby in neutral clothing, it's almost impossible to distinguish its gender. Should I or should I not give my seat up? Not giving up a seat to a pregnant lady? Educators will lament the failings of our country's Civics & Moral education (not that they don't anyway). Giving up a seat to a mistakenly identified as pregnant lady? Male sizist supremacist, how dare you! Not every woman with a belly is pregnant, so fuck you! Besides, the Singaporean 'fear of embarrassment' trait lives strong in me.

So, a judgment about the status of the lady had to be made before I could make the seat-giving-up decision.
For the case: The belly, of course.
Against: The old[er] age. Yes, advances to modern medicine has enabled women to give birth at increasingly older ages. But still, you don't see many pregnant 40 year olds in Singapore, do you? The belly was only slightly protruding. She had slightly thick arms and legs, which though by no means fat, were more in line with the look of a hearty lady with a thick waist and thus, belly; usually, pregnant women have bellies, but their arms remain proportionally slim, at least in the early stages of pregnancy. The lady seemed very vivacious, talking energetically with her friends, in a sort-of callous physical manner which seemed unlikely for a mum-to-be fearful of upsetting the stomach/baby. [Note: These are all personal opinioned generalisations on pregnant women. So any mum/mum-to-be reading, I apologise should it be inaccurate in any way!]

This debate raged fiercely in my mind as I remained seated, now closing my eyes permanently (I had begun to nod off even before she boarded), as if trying to create an excuse for my conscience should she really be pregnant. Still, I opened them halfway every ten or so seconds, as if to check if a 'Yes/No, she's pregnant' neon sign had miraculously appeared on her.

Then, salvation arrived. I think it was two or three stops after boarding when pregnant(?) lady alighted the train. Those pangs of guilt slowly began ebbing away, and I slept soundly for the rest of the train journey home.

Who says what goes up must come down?

And so it begins... again.
___________________________________________________________________

Aug 2, 2007
SBS, SMRT seeking bus, train fare increases
If approved, transport fares could rise by up to three cents from October
By Christopher Tan, Senior Correspondent
PUBLIC transport operators SBS Transit and SMRT Corp have applied for fare increases. If approved by the Public Transport Council (PTC), bus and train fares will rise by up to 1.8 per cent - or around three cents - from October. PTC chairman Gerard Ee confirmed yesterday that the two companies have submitted their applications. The council is likely to decide by the end of this month if rises are to be allowed, and if so, by how much. The current system uses a formula to calculate by how much prices can go up - by pegging the adjustments to the health of the economy. Based on the formula, the system allows for incremental fare increases rather than a single big hike. It also allows for reductions if the economy plunges into a deep recession. The most recent fare increase was in October last year - then, they went up by between one and three cents per trip on buses and trains. Back then, the operators blamed high costs - in particular the high price of fuel and manpower - for the need to raise their fares. Today, the companies are citing the same reasons - manpower and energy - for their fare increases. SBS Transit, part of the ComfortDelGro group, for instance, called its cost increases 'significant'. 'Energy costs, for example, rose by 20 per cent or $20.3 million last year - having already increased by 41.2 per cent in 2005,' SBS Transit spokesman Tammy Tan said. 'Manpower costs, the company's largest cost component, also increased by about $12.1 million during the year.' SBS also pointed out that it had invested heavily in buses as well as commuter services. It spent $135 million on new buses in the past two years. And it has rolled out an online bus arrival system, which helps commuters to plan their journeys better. SMRT pointed out that the increase in the goods and services tax as well as the 1.5 percentage point rise in employers' CPF contributions will pull down its earnings by about $11 million a year. It said the fare increase, if kept to this year's cap of 1.8 per cent, would only partially offset the company's total cost increases. SBS is proposing to keep children and school student fares as well as concession pass charges unchanged. SMRT also said it is proposing no rises for children and students. In addition, it is not asking for rises to all bus cash fares. SMRT is also waiving any increase to the first fare band of its MRT single-trip ticket, which costs 90 cents. It added that it would extend its senior citizen concession hours to match SBS'. Both operators said they would come up with schemes to help the poor cope with any fare rise. The Consumers Association of Singapore (Case) was not entirely convinced. Case executive director Seah Seng Choon pointed out that transport companies are enjoying 'good returns'. For instance, SMRT achieved a 39 per cent rise in net earnings to $37.94 million in the first quarter. 'With such significant increase in net earnings, commuters would certainly expect it to show clear justifications for any need to hike fares at this point in time,' he said.

____________________________________________________________________

Some statistics well worth noting:
SBS Transit__________Year 2005_________Year 2006
Profit before Tax...........63.3 mil............... 67.3 mil
Profit After Tax.............51.1 mil............... 56.1 mil
http://www.sbstransit.com.sg/downloa...6_6MAR_ALL.pdf


SMRT______________Year 2005_________Year 2006_________Year 2007
Profit before Tax...........83.9 mil.............. 124.1 mil............. 142.3 mil
Profit After Tax............126.6 mil............. 103.6 mil............. 135.8 mil
http://www.smrt.com.sg/investors/doc...report2006.pdf

I guess this is what happens when you have a state-monopolised yet privatised 'free market' for a crucial public service. And still, you see no buses appearing for 15 minutes, then 3 of the same at once in 2 minutes, and trains only get more packed, even in off-peak hours. And what of the revenue generated by advertising from the no-one-asked-for-it-but-we'll-count-it-as-an-improvement-in-transport-service TV Mobile? Can that not be used to offset such energy or manpower cost increments?
Methinks we should all buy those SMRT shares, people.

Check out The Online Citizen for a detailed report on fare increases over the years.

Train Etiquette

It was the first time I wished I had kept with the times and gotten myself a camera phone; the perfect scenario for a STOMP/ST citizen reporter to arrive at.

I was on the morning rush hour train heading for an 8am(!) dental appointment. Standing, I was facing this seated couple. Chinese, early 20s, bespectacled, heartlanderish. Almost immediately after they sat down, they pulled out a matching pair of [Leading Global Fast Food Chain] fish burgers and nonchalantly began to consume their food. It was probably not the first time they were committing this act of daredevilry, for they went about it in a matter-of-fact and methodical way. The girl ate first; she somehow split the burger into many bite-sized chunks and put them into her mouth piece by piece (less of a mess this way), while continuing to chat with her boyfriend, oblivious to the stares of the commuters around her. It was only when the fair-complexioned, shorts-wearing girl finished her burger that her man commenced chomping on his. He had been holding her burger box, you see. Like I said, they made a well-oiled machine.

If only I had a camera phone; STOMP/Straits Times netizens would have a field biting their heads off if they had seen pictures. Me? As a firm believer in efficacious snack consumption on buses (though I do draw the line at the MRT), who am I to judge?

Anyway, once both finished their burgers, they packed their trash into a plastic bag, and continued to chat happily. The rest of us went back to our music/naps/TODAYs and My Papers/admiration of the MRT floor and our footwear, probably bemused by their brazen behaviour, reserved usually for know-it-all, laws-don't-apply-to-me secondary school kids. It distinguished that day's train ride from the monotony of the usual commute.
__________________________________________________________________

The story doesn't end there though. A few stops later, when the 'What's $5000 in fines to us' couple had already finished their breakfast, a pregnant woman, henceforth referred to as Maternity Lady, boarded our carriage. As there were no seats (Ours was one of the newer trains with seats slashed for more standing room; plus again, rush hour), she stood by the handgrab pole nearest to the one I was holding on to. Now, I'm not sure if the seated passengers facing Maternity Lady were displaying trademark Singaporean lack of civic-mindedness. Many were sleeping, and given the hour, I'd give them the benefit of the doubt that they weren't feigning it.

Out of the corner of my eye, I saw our gruesome twosome (GT) discussing something (Yes, I was still sneaking inconspicuous peeks at them, fascinated at how . . . blatant their disregard for laws/stares/norms was, something very unusual for Pavlovian locals). Then, male half of GT stood up, signaled to Maternity Lady, and generously offered his seat. Female GT looked up at him, eyes fawning with adoration at his gentlemanly ways (Ok, I might be editorialising just a tad). Maternity lady declined, however, saying she'd be alighting soon. Guy GT promptly sat back down, to the dismay of scavenger-like office aunties nearby. GT went on with their merry conversation, probably pondering whether to get more traditional hawker fare like chee cheong fun or ham chim pang for the next day's breakfast.

Moral of the story? [Overstatement] There are no good and evil people, only good and evil acts. [/Overstatement]. Or perhaps, [J.K Rowling]Every one is born with the capacity for good and evil. It's our choices which determine who we are. [/J.K Rowling]

Yeah, something like that.