i received a poorly drafted request for advice the other day via email. it went :

'Yesterday, we had fwd thru the Appln for Sect 14 for the above to Legal Svcs. Wd appreciate if this case be cleared asap and also wd appreciate if you cd caution Sec to *** once it has been supported by Legal and floated out to ***.'

i attempted to talk the talk. my email response :

'Yr email ws incmprhsible, nd im not sre wt u mean by 'if you cd caution Sec to ***'.

Regardless, I had already cleared the application yesterday afternoon, prior to your email.

Regards.'

sadly, my boss refused to approve my reply. when i confronted him over his inexplicable decision, he rationlised his decision by asserting that my client used 'recognisable short-forms.' presumably, i, on the other hand, was guilty of unrecognisable shortcuts. the problem with working in the civil service is that no one has a sense of humour.

i subjected my body to much abuse this weekend.

i had chicken rice; followed by katong laksa with a fried egg, french fries, and fried sausage; followed by a sinful italian dinner to celebrate my mum-in-law's birthday; followed by a sinful 6 course chinese-fusion family lunch, which included such delights as large slabs of fried foie gras, wasabi tempura prawns, fried carrot cake, etc; followed by a hawker fest dinner of 2 roti prata with egg and cheese, 1 roti prata kosong, 1/2 a packet of carrot cake, 1 packet of chicken chop noodles and french fries.

in between i also played basketball while running a fever, fighting a cold, and with two broken toes. i also sustained a sprained finger and did something to my back while attempting to intercept a pass by sticking out my foot. this shall be a week of detoxification and austerity.

on the radio this morning, two dj's carried out a prank which involved waking someone up in the morning, in a fashion that might render alarm clocks out of vogue.

dj : "hello, is this simon?" (i can't remember what his name was, for the life of me. but it was some nondescript job, like 'simon'. no offence to the simons out there.)

simon (sleepily) : "yes."

dj : "i'm calling from the exam office. you missed your paper this morning."

simon (wide awake. and very, very excited.) : "har? what paper?"

dj : "you took a maths paper last friday? there was a problem with the paper. everyone had to redo a paper this morning. you mean no one told you?"

simon : "no! got paper?"

dj : "this is a very important paper. the school needs everyone to take all their exams. you didn't take your exam. maybe i can ask you the questions over the phone?"

simon : "har! over the phone?"

dj : "yes. question one, is your answer a, b, c or d."

simon : "har! then question neh?"

dj : "i can't tell you the question what - what if you go and check the internet for the answer? you just anyhow guess."

simon : "har! er... d!"

dj : "question 2. is you answer a, b, c or d."

simon : "har! really no question ah!"

dj : "yes"

simon : "har! d!"

dj : "question 3. 1, 2, 3 or 4."

simon : "har! no more a, b, c ah?!"

dj : "different type of question."

simon : "har! er.. 4!"

dj : "ok based on the questions so far, your answers are all wrong."

simon : "har!! all wrong!?!"

the funny part is that the guy actually sounded really surprised that he didn't get them right. he didn't sound half as shocked when the djs informed him it was a stunt that his girlfriend put them up to. kind of reminds me of how i used to do my chinese mcq questions. and maths. and science. etc.

i was just informed that the comments function on this blog hasn't been working for some time now. might be because i fiddled with some settings a while back, trying to stop people from advertising viagra and other penis enlarging products through the comments section.

apparently i not only put paid to all-natural, money-back, satisfaction-guaranteed penis paraphernalia, but also to other comments which don't tell me that 'The more inche$ your penis has, the more times you are a man. Make it big with Penis Enlarge Patch. '

anyway, the good news is that comments are enabled again; the bad that we will likely suffer more adverts for penile peripherals.

resist. the. temptation.

my wife recounted a hilarious conversation to me while i was showering. the last detail perhaps falls into the 'too much information' category, but, for those who have been fortunate enough to gaze upon my visage, is a detail sufficiently evocative of splendour to warrant inclusion into my blog. and render upon my readers sleepless nights, for one reason or another.

anyway, this conversation went as follows -

wife's colleague #1 : "my dog is in heat."

wife's colleague #2 : "what's that mean?"

which, i suppose, is a pretty funny question in and of itself. but it gets better.

wife's colleague #1 : pause "it means that she will get excited by a male dog."

a reply which, though i suppose empirically accurate, might not be biologically perspicuous enough to, say, put her in the 99th percentile of her veterinary school cohort. had she chosen to be a vet, instead of a lawyer. though i do suppose this would depend on the school she went to. and, while on the topic of female vets, did i ever mention my observation that, for some strange reason, girl vets tend to be exceptionally cute? i'm not the only one with that theory. but anyhow.

wife's colleague #2 (brightly - refering to the tenor of his voice rather than his cognitive capacity) : "oh! are they married?"

i had a new colleague join my office several days ago, someone whom i had already known from school days.

the day prior to his arrival, i was in another colleagues room, about to open a pack of marks and spencers assorted chocolate biscuits, when my boss walked by. a conversation ensued.

boss : "do you know our new colleague is joining us tomorrow?"

myself (caught by surprise, holding my chocolate biscuits) : "er... yes sir."

awkward silence

myself (holding out packet of as yet unopened biscuits to boss) : "biscuit, sir?"

boss : "no thanks." long pause "so, is he as handsome as you?"

now, as i am sure readers of my blog are aware of by now, i am blessed with numerous and varied talents. amongst those talents numbers a devotion to honesty and integrity. and so -

myself : "no sir, not as handsome." pause "but perhaps his work is better, sir?"

for the record, the latter caveat is a notion so unlikely as to be almost preposterous. but, however, modesty, as well as the desire to give a sporting chance to an as yet unannounced colleague (yet other examples of my numerous and varied blessings) compelled me to prevaricate. though, since i phrased it as a mere possibility, i had not been drawn into a lie. have i previously mentioned the nimbleness of my wit, the keeness of my mind, my graciousness in a social setting, and my quickness of thinking?

now, my boss is an old acs boy, and suffers from the same - how should i phrase this, politely - partiality, of the mind, that afflicts most acs boys and causes them to, on occasion, make judgement calls that others may have opportunity to call into question.

boss (staring at me) : "well, i suppose he can't be handsome, seeing as he's not from acs."

now, the exigencies of talking to someone who is your direct superior dictate that one has to be deferential, even in the face of a statement that is wholly baffling.

me (gently) : "but i'm not from acs, sir."

boss (staring at me even harder) : "and what premise does that disprove?"

and with that parting salvo, he stalked off. saving me from the possibly taxing task of having to, diplomatically, scatter asunder whatever existing misconceptions he may have been under.

the monotony that makes up mornings in court was broken up yesterday, albeit unwittingly, by the (not quite qualified) defence 'counsel', who was, to his credit, clearly trying very hard.

his attempt at mitigation started off with an astoundingly selfless declaration of : "i plead guilty on (the accused's) behalf". it ended with an equally incomprehensible "without further adieu, your honour, thank you." unfortunately, whatever was sandwiched in between those two revelations was not a great deal more cogent.

even more unfortunately, the judge decided to spend 5 minutes elucidating on the differences between, and appropriate usages of, the words 'ado' and 'adieu'. and how an understanding of such a distinction would greatly aid this defence representative in his drafting of future mitigation pleas.

my wife also recounted this incident she witnessed in court.

judge : "i see that the accused has a ferrari, a maserati, and a porsche."

prosecutor : "yes."

judge : "and where are these cars now?"

prosecutor : "they've been repossesed by the bank."

judge : "oh."

pause

judge (curiously) : "and so, what's the accused driving now?"

on a separate note, national days are awesome. we should have more of them, at least 2 a month. and also, we should get a half day off the day before each national day.