By: Vanessa Lur (19S06Q) and Isabelle Tan (19S03S)

Photos courtesy of Jynelle Ong (19S03B) and Jiang Jin Liang (19S06N)

Who can forget last year’s Spirit Week, which saw many Rafflesians donning Raffles themed tattoos and enjoying a whole week of dress down days? This coming Monday, Council is bringing us Spirit Week 2019, with a whole bunch of fun, never-before-seen activities planned out just for you. Now, we know you will have many questions whirling in your heads about this upcoming event. Before we get into that, let’s address the most important question — what exactly is Spirit Week?

Spirit Week (for the benefit of the Y5s and some ‘blurrer’ Y6s) is a week chock full of activities that encourage the celebration of our many communities in Raffles, from our classes, to our houses and even the whole school. Spirit Week occurs annually in Term 2, usually during the week after the J2s’ CT1s (almost like a rainbow after the storm!) This year’s Spirit Week will commence on the 8th of April and end with a bang with Team Raffles Night on the 12th of April.

To find out more about the upcoming week, we interviewed Spirit Week ICs, Megan Aw (19S03B) and Dai Xiang Rong (19S06O):

What is different about this year’s Spirit Week as compared to previous years’?

A: This year, the party’s going to be a little different. Shall we say… TOP SECRET? It will be held on Friday night, 5.30 – 8.00pm, at the Innovation Centre. Throughout the week, [you can] participate in the special bonding activities we have in store [for you], and you might or might not … be getting small… tokens from us, but you won’t understand what they’re worth unless you (and all your friends) are there at Team Raffles Night!

What should we most look forward to for this year’s Spirit Week?

A: Throughout Spirit Week, there will be a huge hunt for a little mouse called ‘Rikki’ (and his 10 friends). He’s hiding somewhere in school, and he looks like a little sticker. Hints will be released twice a day, once during morning assembly and once more on our Instagram page @rispiritweek19. To win, be the first to DM @rispiritweek19  (with a picture of yourself and at least 9 other people from your class posing for a picture with Rikki) to our Spirit Week Instagram!

If you don’t have the time to chase down Rikki and would rather focus on one of our smaller prizes, there will be a daily hint to finding Rikki’s 10 friends on our Instagram story! For these little mice, just DM a picture of yourself and the mouse in question to the same Instagram page :)

Why should Rafflesians participate in this year’s Spirit Week?

A: Because it’ll be exciting! And! Tons! Of! Fun! We know that for both batches, getting into the grind again with CCAs, MEPs, seasons and competitions can be really exhausting, both for the Y6s whose workload have steadily become heavier, and for the Y5s who are trying to assimilate into their new environment. Spirit Week this year intends to give everyone a chance to get together with their different communities and HAVE A BLAST. YOU KNOW YOU WANT TO :)

Use Spirit Week to take some time off, because even throughout what may be the busiest season of the year, no matter how different our talents, we’re all one Raffles, and we’re in this together!

How can Rafflesians participate in this year’s Spirit Week?

A: Let’s make it easy, here’s a bucket list.

Before Spirit Week ends:

1. Follow @rispiritweek19
2. Join the Rikki school-wide mouse-hunt (and the search for 10 of his buddies)
3. Complete class bingo on Monday
4. Find your old dance partner and join the dance mob on Tuesday
5. Wear your house shirt and play the games on Wednesday
6. Karaoke with your CCA on Thursday
7. Collect tokens of at least 3 different levels (How? Follow @rispiritweek19 to find out!)
8. Go for Team Raffles Night! (THE biggest party of the season!)

Any last words you would like to share with Rafflesians about spirit week?

*Sniff* Rikki smells something good… is that pizza? And off he scampers

Oh! He’s left a note behind!

P.S. If you catch me, I’ll share it with your entire class XOXO Rikki

So, if you are interested in winning the prizes that Council and Rikki have in store for you, remember to follow @rispiritweek19 on Instagram for more information. Raffles Press wishes all Rafflesians will have a fun and memorable spirit week!

By Kelly Leong (20S07C) and Sarah Lok (20A03A)
Photographs courtesy of Chloe Guai (20A01D) of Raffles Photographic Society

The 29th of March might have been just a normal day for most, but it was not the case for the RI Track and Field Team. With new personal bests, numerous medals and countless memories created as a team, the team truly blazed the trail that culminated at the National Stadium.

The atmosphere was nothing short of electrifying: school spirit ran high in the stadium, with the spectators ardently cheering for their athletes, waving flags and banners of their respective school colours. The excitement was palpable even at the gates into the stadium, for enthusiastic supporters could be seen engaging in extremely lively chatter. On the ground below the spectators, events happened concurrently: pole vault and high jump events on the field, running on the track and long jump near the sandpit.

One of the first golds on the track was attained during the exhilarating 100m sprint by Grace Shani Anthony (19S03N).

Bringing in more medals were the athletes in the 1500m race – which could not have gotten any closer – with Nedunchezian Selvageethan (19S06A) and Armand Mohan (19A13B) fighting for the top spot alongside another athlete. It was a nail-biting final lap, to say the least: in their bid to cross the finish line first, frequent shifts in ranking could be seen, alongside some physical contact. Selva remarked that the athletes “were prepared for a close race, but [they] stuck to [their] race plan and it happened for [them]”; Armand mentioned that the season had been a “tumultuous experience” for him – he was injured last year and had to get [back] into shape quickly, but it all worked out for him.

In between the track events, records were also broken in the stadium, with the most prominent being the high jump finals. This event saw students from all schools rallying to support an athlete from Victoria Junior College in breaking the high jump record: he eventually cleared the bar set at 2.15m – up 0.2m from the previous record of 2.13m – to reverberant cheers from the audience.

From the field and onto the track, the A Div Girls 4x400m finals saw two teams running neck-and-neck for the first half of the race, concluding with RI bagging the gold. Nicole Lim (20S03I), a runner both the 4x100m and 4x400m relays, commented that the “preparation was really tiring” and that the team had actually begun competing in December. “Everyone wanted the gold, so we motivated each other,” she supplied with a smile.

Concluding the season with a bang, the A Div Boys 4x400m finals — arguably the most heart-stopping, scream-eliciting event — had the top 3 teams evenly matched throughout, with the RI team clinching the gold by a mere margin of 0.02 seconds. Some audience members were silently transfixed with bated breath, whilst some began cheering even louder for the team.

When various team members were asked if they had any words for the school, all of them resoundingly responded with “Join Track!” – this bears testament to their undying team spirit and camaraderie. Boys’ Captain Joel Low (19S03I) sums it up well: “Our victory was in doing it together. There were a lot of injuries, but we’ve journeyed together and gained a lot – we learnt to push through and never give up, even when hope was bleak.”

With that, Raffles Press would like to congratulate Track and Field on their outstanding achievements in the 2019 season!

Results

A Division Boys
ARMAND DHILAWALA MOHAN – 3000m Steeplechase 3rd, 1500m 2nd
GARETH ONG BAO SHENG – Pole Vault 4th
HENG JEE KUAN – Pole Vault 2nd
JERED WONG JEN WENG – 110m Hurdles 2nd, 400m Hurdles 2nd
JOSHUA TIMOTHY D’CRUZ – 100m 4th, 200m 2nd
LEE JUN LONG MATTHEW – Shot Put 1st, Discus 3rd
LOW MING HERNG JOEL – Javelin 1st
MARCUS TAN LAI HE – 200m 1st, 400m 3rd
MATZ CHAN – 110m Hurdles 1st, 400m Hurdles 1st
NEDUNCHEZIAN SELVAGEETHAN – 800m 1st, 1500m 1st
PUA WEI KAI, JONATHAN – High Jump 3rd
RYAN NG KAI KIAT –  Discus 1st
SUN SHAO YAO, WALDEN – Javelin 4th
TAN KAI XIANG, ASHER – 5000m Walks 4th
TIM ONG KAI SHENG – Shot Put 4th
XAVIER EMMANUEL LEUNG – Javelin 2nd
4x100m Relay 2nd
4x400m Relay 1st

A Division Girls
GRACE SHANI ANTHONY – 100m 1st, 200m 1st
LIM XIN HUI – 2000m Steeplechase 2nd
LIM ZHI XUAN – 3000m 4th
VALENCIA HO TING YIN – 100m Hurdle 1st, Long Jump 2nd
4x100m Relay 2nd
4x400m Relay 1st

By Varun Karthik (19S06A)

If the name Darrion Mohan sounds familiar, it should. The Oxford undergraduate student questioned Malaysia’s Godfather Dr Tun Mahathir at an Oxford Union event where Mahathir was invited to speak. The exchange that the not-too-old-Boy had with Dr Mahathir over the geo-political bickering between Singapore and Malaysia — a mainstay of Dr M’s legislative agenda — went viral back home in Singapore.

But for many of us, this is not the first time we have seen a leader or an invited speaker  faced with difficult questions from the audience. Over the years, I have had the privilege of listening to many people, from diplomats to ministers to business leaders, speak. Often at the end of their speech is a question and answer session. A chance for direct interaction. I almost definitely know that there will be one angry, confrontational question asked at these sessions, particularly so for political leaders. After all, it’s self-selecting in a way, since most people wouldn’t queue to ask questions and hence those who do usually have a burning reason to do so. And honestly, I enjoy it. And although I have never queued to ask a question myself, I have had to question others and deal with questions as a debater.

In competitive debating there is something knows as Points of Information, or POIs. Essentially the opposing team gets to interrupt you during your speech and offer statements or questions not lasting more than 15 seconds. So the members of the opposing team would stand up to say something “point of information sir/ mam” and the speaker can choose to either accept the POI or wave them down.

I have fumbled with POIs when I’m on the floor, offered outright stupid POIs and still do both. But I have learnt a thing or two about making effective use of 15 seconds to possibly edge out an opponent in a debate, or at least not come across as stupid.  I am putting together the debriefs my debate coaches have given me about POIs with my own experience of witnessing multiple speeches to share my opinions about what I think is important for people to know when they go up to ask questions to invited speakers and guests. Emphasis on the word ‘ opinions’ in the previous line.

Set the bar low

When you are given the opportunity to ask a speaker a question, I think it is important to be acutely aware that the odds are against you. You are unlikely to spark some revolutionary change, kickstart an uprising, challenge the status-quo, dish out justice or change heavily embedded stigmas in society with one question. In fact, you are unlikely to even get the speaker to concede to you in any way

Politics, at the end of the day, is an highly orchestrated circus or theatre, depending on how much you follow the news. Politicians or even business and social leaders often have huge communication teams, PR firms, image consultants and advisers behind them, crafting and fine tuning their message to maximise demographic impact with the aid of polling figures and focus group discussions. Every speech they deliver is not written by them, but rather the work of dedicated teams of speech writers. Similarly every time they appear on talk shows and TV programmes, they have been likely been briefed by their team with ‘talking points’. So every joke or witty remark they make which might seem off the cuff really is anything but. (Justin Trudeau is not an exception)

So in the context of any audience engagement, they will likely have been briefed by their own communication teams and received talking points from their higher-ups. If it is a particularly hot topic of late, they will probably have worked first-hand on the issue and have almost definitely been told what to say or thought of what to say. So, you are probably not going to take them by surprise, change their mind or even get them to concede with a single question you ask. They know exactly how to respond to your question and are simply putting the bullet points that they have at the back of their head into coherent sentences. And even if, for some reason, they have not prepared to answer your exact question, these people did not get where they are by letting people run over them.

And sure, you might think that you are smarter than them and more eloquent than them. But you also need to realise that a back and forth exchange between you and the speaker is unlikely. In most instances by the time you reach the microphone to ask a question, there is probably a long queue extending behind you with many others eager to get their questions heard as well. So any smart rebuttals you had in mind will probably not have any time to be heard and the speaker’s words- even if it is based on fabrication and conjecture and fallacies- is likely to be final. Because you will not want to be known as the guy who hijacked the discussion or hogged the microphone. Darrion Mohan himself had to eventually pass the microphone towards the end of the exchange even as Dr Mahathir was making assertions about the Malaysian vessel being in disputed waters.

Simply put, do not go there disillusioned, thinking that a simple question is going to make the speaker disintegrate. Things are never that easy. So don’t try to change the speakers mind with the limited time you have. Instead, ask a question that allows the speaker to explain his stance, his motivations or opinions. Probably a better idea.

Don’t steer, Mahathir  

In most instances people asking the question probably have crafted it beforehand- you should have. You want to use all the knowledge you have and cover as much ground as possible, and so you write a mini-essay with multiple claims, multiple assertions and multiple clauses. Weird flex, but not okay.

With POIs in debates, people often have a tendency to rattle off for 15 seconds and at the end of the verbal diarrhea, they sit down with much satisfaction from having asked a killer question or having trapped the opponents. But the problem is, both the opponent and the judge do not understand any part of what you just said. Similarly, saying something that can be easily comprehended and understood is the baseline and anything that fails to does not mean that you outsmarted anyone. Extremely long sentences or paragraphs or narratives within a question are a complete no no. Run-on sentences only mean that is a high likelihood that you are incoherent and you will likely be dismissed at worst and at best, the speaker is going to catch onto a few key phrases that he did understand/ hear from your speech and he will use them to nicely lead him onto the talking points that he had already drafted out.

And often even if your questions are perfectly coherent, people have a tendency to pile on multiple assertions and pack questions with multiple parts into it. But the problem with that is every part you add to the question is another opening you are giving the speaker to take the conversation elsewhere. Kellyanne Conway is an extreme but great illustration of this.

She is always on the lookout for a word, phrase or opening of any sort to bring the discussion away from the intended course of the interviewer to wherever she wants it or at the very least, hinder any sort of discussion from taking place at all. So when an interviewer asks her about Trump’s lies about the turnout at the inauguration and says “ alternative facts or not facts, they are falsehoods”, she latches onto the word ‘facts’ and replies with “ do you think it’s a fact or not that millions of people have lost their health insurance plans under president Obama?” Definitely not the question being asked.

Back at the chambers of the Oxford Union, Mahathir pulled off the same old trick. The question he initially faced faced was two- fold. Firstly, what punishments was the Johor menteri besar going to face and secondly if Mr.M agreed that actions like those contributed to the perception that Malaysia was returning to the days of confrontational diplomacy, with a quote from Najib Razak. A quote. Yet, Mahathir’s first instinctive response is to tell him that he was free to choose Najib Razak and then ask if Mr. Mohan was Malaysian. Mr Mohan replied by stating that that was not what he has asked and the question was whether he wanted to return to fraught diplomatic ties with Singapore, quoting a full laundry list of examples including the high speed rail, the airspace, the maritime dispute, the crooked bridge and inadvertently mentioned water price revision as the last example.

Dr M then goes on a spiel about Singapore’s purchase of water at 3 cents per thousand gallons and the sale of it to Malaysia at 60 dollars per thousand gallons- conveniently turning an issue about International waters into one about tap water and along the way informs us on the exchange rates of Singapore, Malaysian and even American currency, the inexpensive nature of the water refining process, some statistics about the quantities of water sold, the exact years various water agreements were signed and essentially did everything except answer the real question.The last example that Mr Mohan used to back up an assertion at the heart of a much larger question becomes the only thing he tackles.

And yes, once again on the point I made previously about the fact that you do not want to be seen hogging the floor. So once Dr M successfully deflects the real question for a good three and a half minutes, Darrion goes back to restating the initial question but by now the real question is barely answered. The exchange on the real question lasts all of a minute and it becomes a battle of assertions in the dying moments of the exchange as Darrion repeatedly says he is going to pass the microphone. Mahathir gets away without committing to any real answer on what the Menteri Besar of Johor was facing.

If Darrion Mohan had asked the initial question without any mention of Najib Razak or if he had later chosen to omit any mention of the price-revision of water agreements, the outcomes could have been radically different.  And so the lesson is this: if you are really are asking a particularly hard question that the speaker might not be able to answer, then he has an incentive to deflect the question. So keep your questions nice and short and extremely, extremely specific, and the phrasing extremely, extremely tight.

Ask yourself, “will my question still stand without this? “ everytime you want to add something. If the answer is no, do not add it. Ask exactly what you want to ask and drop any controversial or jarring examples that can possibly be hijacked. And make sure you are very very clear about what you are saying.

As Harvey Specter once said, when someone is holding a gun to your head you should either take their gun, pull out a bigger gun or call their bluff or do one of a 146 other things. Your job, as the one holding the proverbial gun, is to given them as few options as possible to weasel out.

Brazen Confrontation

If you are going up to ask a question, I’m sure you have an extreme conviction in your question as well as extreme feelings for or against the person speaking or the issue you are raising. I get it, it’s okay to feel emotions. But I don’t necessarily think that you should channel those emotions and feelings into the questions you ask.

Firstly, the purpose of the invited speaker answering questions is often to enlighten the crowd, give the audience some insight into how they think and to share their knowledge and experience with us young minds. It is not a feedback session or a press conference or a TV show. And so while i’m all for hard questions, I do think that using the opportunity to make judgemental, close-minded statements defeats the purpose of inviting speakers.

Secondly, the optics. Unfortunately, there are already very prevalent , largely negative stereotypes about those who ask questions in a forceful, angry manner. This is particularly true for women but applicable to men as well. There is this stereotype of liberal, progressive individuals who are rather loud and forceful with their political beliefs, but rather unintellectual, annoying and empty. So at the immediate point at which you go up there with a little bit of sass, anger or attitude, you will just be dismissed as yet another SJW. Doesn’t help if your question is going to be about something like freedom of speech or gender pay gap either.

At this juncture I’m sure someone’s blood is boiling somewhere. But as much as I firmly believe against stereotyping people, I am also acutely aware that stereotypes are very much prevalent in many of our minds in both overt and covert forms and that is an unfortunate reality. A part of our minds that speakers can and will tap into. Which is why Ben Shapiro casually mentions “you are coming in angry already”  even before people start questioning, to the laughter of the crowd.

And frankly, it is distracting. If your question is of real value, the question will speak volumes for itself. But when you go there with a rather confrontational tone, you are displacing the question and the speaker’s response from the centre of attention, placing yourself under the spotlight. The question is no longer what people care about once it becomes a confrontation between you and the speaker.

The question, really is, what value do you bring with an aggressive tone? Nothing. The microphone will ensure that you are heard even if you do not yell and you are certainly not intimidating anyone. But you do give the speaker ammunition to dismiss you, cast yourself as a Bimbo and distract people from where the focus of the discussion should be. So, doing a simple cost benefit analysis should tell you that its probably not worth it. A carefully crafted and well thought out question delivered in a calm and composed manner will be more likely to elucidate a clearer and better response and do justice to the real question.

On a more “philosophical” point, I personally believe that discourse in society as a whole will benefit from less sick burns and more rational, cool-headed discussion and I think that starts from the simple things. When we invite speakers to share in the context of a school, the only aim is to educate the students and any direct engagements with the speaker are an opportunity to give students more insights and learn from the depth of knowledge and experience many of these speakers have. Questions asked, therefore, should be to further understand more about the complex world we live in, the speaker’s area of expertise or the speaker’s beliefs. Confrontational questions are hence antithetical to the very purpose of inviting a speaker but also can also be perceived as being rude and can reflect badly, on not just yourself but also the school, institution or body you are representing.

Questions?

After all, a huge portion of discourse that happens around us stems from questions- be it the questions you ask an invited guest, the questions an elected representative asks at a hearing or the questions you ask at the dinner table. Questions often spark conversations, break down the discussions surroundings huge issues into bite-sized, understandable pieces and allows for re-evaluation of our thoughts and our positions. Hence, better questions necessarily means better discourse on big issues like whether pineapple belong on pizza or the wetness of water as well as significantly pettier, more trivial issues like meritocracy, income inequality, immigration, gender equality and that sorta stuff.

On that note if you do have questions about anything you read in this article, want to pose me a difficult question or simple want to put any part of what you read into practice, do hit us up at press.raffles@gmail.com.

Cover image source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6DpJal9-mU

By Ruchira Ramaswamy (20S03A) and Coco Liu (20S06L)

Photographs courtesy of Megan Toh Jia Qi (20S03N) and Xanelle Tan Li-Shyan (20S03M) from Raffles Photographic Society 

It is claimed, in the CCA Previews’19 for Water Polo (Girls), that “It doesn’t matter if you’re not a fast swimmer.” Sounds like a long shot, something they’d say to encourage more people to go for CCA trials, because of course you have to swim fast to be in Polo, right?

Wrong. In fact, some players in the current team used to be non-swimmers. Of this, their coach, Mr Lim Yao Xiang, admits that, “In my 10 years of experience [coaching the RI Girls’ team], this batch has come the longest way.”

As team captain, Nicole Lim (19A01C), put it, “The biggest challenge was to accommodate for the swimmers and non-swimmers…The challenge really was to train not just individually but to work as a team.” Watching them now, launching swiftly into their warm-ups: sets of push-ups, squats and superman – or should we say, superwoman – exercises, it’s easy to see how far they’ve come – from a team with their individual differences to one with extraordinary teamwork.

As the stadium filled steadily with supporters for the Water Polo (Girls) Finals on 3 April and players took their positions along opposite ends of the pool, the pressure to defend their 12-year winning streak mounted. The game started off when the referee tossed the ball into the water. The pool instantly changed from a sea of calm to a raging battlefield, with swift, determined strokes as players from both teams scrambled for the ball.

Water Polo proved to be an intense game played at breakneck speed. Within a minute the Raffles team had scored their first goal. By the two-minute mark, the score had become 2-0 in favour of RI. By the end of the first quarter, RI had scored three more goals, while the opposition – Temasek Junior College (TJC) – made a few valiant but unsuccessful attempts. The second quarter continued in much the same way – RI had sneaked in three more goals before TJC made their first goal, after which RI retaliated by scoring yet another point. The first half of the game ended on a score of 9-1 in RI’s favour.

By the third quarter, RI had worked up an impressive score of 11-3. The last quarter of the game was filled with neck-to-neck dashes for the ball, and both teams going all out to score a goal. However, all valiant attempts were thwarted swiftly by the goalies. When the last minute of the game was announced, the atmosphere had heated up intensely, punctuated with screams of “Let’s go Raffles!”

As the horn blared, signalling the end of the match, Rafflesians rose in ecstasy, waving their green, black and white clappers. The pride and joy that radiated from the team was evident as they lined up to receive their gold medals. Team Captain Nicole noted with much delight, “This was our best game yet.”

Winning gold for the 13th consecutive year has been no easy feat for the girls. Apart from the physical rigour, the mental challenge was ever-present. Team member Christine Mok (19S03N) revealed that the team was immensely demoralised after a particularly tough competition against university teams at the Women’s Open. “We were worried not to see any improvement [in ourselves while watching] our opponents get better,” she said. The captain’s observations were along similar lines, stating that their performance depended on their confidence level – “sometimes we let the other teams get to us.” Furthermore, there was the continual pressure – “since last year” – to defend their winning streak.

But this is clearly a hurdle that the team has vaulted over, as they rejoice now with hugs, beaming smiles and, of course, endless photos. Their celebration culminates with them shoving their coach into the pool and diving in themselves, soaking up their well-deserved victory.

With that, Raffles Press would like to congratulate the Water Polo team on their outstanding achievement!

Team members

(1) Megan Cheah – 19S03D

(2) Georgia Lim – 19S06F

(3) Zoe Kee – 19S03H

(4) Christine Mok – 19S03N

(5) Jamie Foo – 20S06M

(6) Jane Poh – 19S03R

(7) Chia Han Hui – 19S03G

(8) Tammi Chia – 19S06L

(9) Ariel Lim – 20A01C

(10) Nicole Lim – 19A01C (Captain)

(11) Coline Staes-Polet – 20A13A

(12) Elizabeth Lee – 19S03C

(13) Oh Jiashang – 19S06L

Yu Yi Shan – 19S07B

Jamie Tan – 20S06R

By Emily Ni (20S03C), Ng Ziqin (20S03H), and Sarah Lok (20A03A)
With contributions from Caitlyn Goh (20S06O) and Cherie Goh (20S06O)

At a time when most were preoccupied with CT preparations and MEP applications, some sought to challenge the assumptions which Rafflesians might have of persons-with-disabilities (PWDs), remind us of the similarities we share, and underscore the need to build a more inclusive society. Aptly titled Common Ground, this two-week initiative was the inaugural collaboration between Raffles Interact, CA, and RECAS.

Here, Raffles Press highlights two main events that happened as part of Common Ground: Human Library and Y6 Assembly.

Human Library

For the uninitiated, a human library functions just like any other library–books are borrowed, stories are unfolded, and perceptions are changed.

The catch: The “books” are real, actual humans.

Held on the afternoon of 14 March (Thursday), the event aimed to help participants better understand PWDs. Three “books” were available for “loan”–Mr Stanley, a mouth painter; Ms Debra, the Co-Founder of Society Staples; and Ms Jacelyn, the Autism Resource Centre’s (ARC) Executive Director–in order to better understand PWDs in Singapore.

Mr Stanley

Mr Stanley was the first “book”, or speaker, at the human library. After an unfortunate motorcycle accident in 2005 left him paralysed from the chest down, he learnt to paint with his mouth despite the odds, and hopes to use his paintings to motivate those going through hardships of their own.

Although he admitted that it was hard to accept his situation immediately after the accident, he chose to pick up mouth painting after losing control of his arms as he “did not want his parents to feel sad”. Spending around three hours painting each day, Mr Stanley definitely works tirelessly at his craft despite the difficulties that come with mouth painting.

Ms Debra

The second “book” was Ms Debra, who shared about the work she does with her social enterprise, Society Staples, as well as about her personal life–in which she juggles her work and education whilst caring for her two brothers with Autism Spectrum Disorder. She chose to defy parental pressure to find a high-paying job, choosing instead to do good for the community through her social enterprise.

Caitlyn Goh (20S06O) termed Ms Debra “an inspiration” for her strength and dedication, explaining that “she [had] demonstrated that we can make a change if we try”.

Ms Jacelyn

Ms Jacelyn was the final “book” in the human library. Serving as the ARC’s Executive Director, she is highly involved in ARC’s social enterprises–our very own Professor Brawn Cafe and The Art Faculty–in helping to bring out the potential of individuals with autism.

As she did not know how to react to the behaviour of people with autism at times, Ms Jacelyn was initially apprehensive of interacting with them. Despite this, she decided to step out of her comfort zone, and joined the ARC after learning more about autism.

“I really liked the human library idea… as we get to ask our questions to each speaker freely and comfortably in a small group setting.” — Cherie Goh (20S06O)

Assembly

The last Year 6 assembly of Term 1 took the form of a panel with three guest speakers–Dr Alvin Tan; Mr Loke Jun Leong, Alumni Management Head of the Association of Persons with Special Needs (APSN); and Mr Nadi Chan, Director of Foreword Coffee–and was followed by a question-and-answer segment.

For students who rarely came into contact with PWDs, the talk offered the opportunity to learn more about PWDs and the existing efforts to integrate them into Singapore’s workforce.

“The government can provide resources but if societal norms do not change, then no progress will be made.” — Dr Alvin Tan

Dr Tan emphasised the need to avoid ivory tower thinking and instead, actively engage PWDs to find out their individual challenges, needs, and goals: just like how each and every one is an individual, PWDs are no different–measures and policies to help them can only be effective if they are tailored to their needs.

Additionally, Mr Loke Jun Leong brought in another aspect of integration of PWDs, speaking about the need to empower persons with mild intellectual disability (MID) through education. ASPN runs two primary schools, two secondary schools and a centre for adults. Its curriculum is geared towards toward employment, which Mr Loke described as a “main life goal” for persons with disabilities.

Emphasising the need for mindsets to shift, and for more people to start actively thinking about how to better aid PWDs, he challenged students to go a step further by thinking actively about how they can build a more inclusive society, instead of merely “being bystanders”.

“Lack of is not the equivalent of ‘cannot learn’ or ‘don’t have’. They [may be] … less developed in these areas, but they can be taught.” –Mr Loke Jun Leong

Mr Nadi Chan talked about how his company, Foreword Coffee, is adapting their workplace to create an environment which is more suited to PWDs. But above that, Mr Chan hopes to create a brand which goes beyond the notion of “support us because we hire PWDs”.

“We don’t want people to buy our coffee because we are a social enterprise; we want people to buy our products because they are of good quality, and then [they can] discover what PWDs can do when you give them the right opportunities and workflow”, stressed Mr Chan, expressing his hope to showcase the viability of PWDs working in the F&B industry through his company’s coffee outlets.

The Q&A segment offered students a chance to ask meaningful questions and gain deeper insights from the speakers’ responses, with a question asking the speakers how they would define inclusivity of PWDs in society.

Dr Tan reinforced the idea that that is how we should be thinking of persons with disabilities–not as people who “just can’t”, but people with strengths and weaknesses, triumphs and challenges.

He then went on to discuss the difference between physical inclusion and social inclusion. Thought-provokingly, he asked, “How do you define inclusion? Is it just about physical inclusion? Would just having a PWD in your class, in your school being that you’re in an inclusive school… you have physical inclusion but social exclusion.” He stated that this could not be ignored due to the nature of some disabilities, that are acquired from old age such as loss of sight, hearing and mobility. He asked, “(What happens) When it hits your grandparents, your parents, when it hits you? It will touch us… These are all things that we have to think through so it’s never something like “it does not involve me” “I’m not interested”. It will impact all of us.”

When asked what the most common misconception society needs to address about PWDs is, Mr Chan stated that some people perceive PWDs as people who “cannot work, have no social skills, and cannot be as productive as anyone else”. However, he believes that it is untrue, citing an example of one of his baristas being able to multitask better than him; he also added that we ought to remember that PWDs have potential, and that we should not limit their potential based on our own misconceptions of them.

“Sometimes, they just need a little longer to learn, [and] to adapt to have the skills. It’s not that they can’t, it’s just that they take a little longer.”

Closing Remarks

It’s safe to say that ‘Common Ground’ has helped Rafflesians to empathise more with PWDs, for it was a timely reminder for us to pay greater attention to the PWDs in our midst, and to strive for inclusivity in society as we continue striving forth towards forging a common ground.

By Megan Soh (20A01B), Jerome Tay (20S06Q), Rachel Leong (20A01E), and Huang Beihua (20A03A)
Photographs courtesy of Brian Choon (20S06D), Huang Beihua (20A03A), and the Raffles Photographic Society

It was clear from the Friday before that this was about to be a week like no other. Straying away from the traditional skit and reviving every Rafflesian from their sleepy stupor, live drums from Block D reverberated across the parade square as councillors stepped forth to declare what was in store. (Indeed, spirited announcements would be made throughout the week, but in case you missed them, here’s a refresher.)

Then Monday came, with all its jubilant decorations. Strung across the arterial walkway along the biodiversity pond were pennant flags that fluttered and flew in the wind, ready to brighten the bluest of Monday mornings with their vibrant hues. Streamers sparkled even under the perpetual darkness of Block H, while balloons proudly donning their green-black-white were a regular feature throughout the campus. What the ornaments accompanied was a smorgasbord of special treats lined up across the next five days. Centred around a different aspect of the Rafflesian experience each day, special activities promised to pepper the week with relish.

Welcome to Spirit Week!

Day One: Class day

The excitement started even before the day itself. A class bingo checklist was prepared and disseminated by the Students’ Council, encouraging classes to engage in activities that ranged from the ordinary but heartwarming (like complimenting a canteen stall owner) to the unusual and adventurous (such as a Fortnite dance!)

It was a pity, then, that a majority of those we spoke to could not complete the bingo game. “There was just no time,” Mark Sim (20S03O) explained. Meanwhile, the writers’ own classes eventually all decided that some of the activities were just too awkward to attempt. (If you did finish the game, though, good job! Hope you and your class had fun together.)

Be not mistaken, however: class spirit was definitely flourishing. What the day lacked in killer dance moves, it made up for with a delightfully animated buzz in the canteen as classmates gathered around long tables to enjoy some precious time together that didn’t involve dot products or ceteris paribus. While some talked and teased, others took the opportunity to snap ‘unglam’ shots of one another, and yet more chose to focus on their food or their phones, simply appreciating the company of their class. Council candidates, shuttling from table to table in their campaign groups, further added to this jovial atmosphere with their passionate initiatives.

Think not, however, that the class lunch is a singular event upon which the class spirit entirely rests. As Jesper Loo (20S03N) shared, it is but one of the many daily delights that altogether coalesce to define a class as an inseparable community. “I love being with my class,” he enthused in the feigned mockery that is only possible with familiarity and affection, “there are some really weird and crazy people who are really enthusiastic to volunteer other people”(to answer questions in their own place — something to which many of us can surely attest!)

Maybe that isn’t much, but maybe that is all a class really needs to be: a community of people who joke with one another, perhaps sabo one another, yet stand ready to support one another in times of need (as many can surely testify), and most of all, bring joy into the lives of one another. The class bingo, for all its creative suggestions, is still fundamentally a starting point, as the Council describes on their Instagram page, to help develop that sense of community.

Indeed, as Jesper commented with unembellished sincerity, “they are my source of happiness.”

Day Two: Orientation day

For some, Day 2 of spirit week was the much-appreciated excuse for old OGs to reconnect. For others, however, the notion of breaking the OG WhatsApp chat’s long silence asking to meet up was too fearsome to consider. Regardless, Orientation Day was a breath of fresh air from the normal routine.

From as early as 7am, OGlings were already seen frantically “chope”-ing seats in the canteen, hoping to secure the best views in the house. A sea of enthusiasts sporting white “Fjäll” and “Capriccio” shirts filled the area well before 7:20am in anticipation of the event about to take place: Batch Dance Flashmob. Starting with the Year 6s’ showcase, the affair was kickstarted with the quirky “La Da Dee”, followed by the intimate tango of “Two is Better than One”. The third song, “Sing”, provided a drastic change in ambience, as excited pairs owned the floor with powerful moves. The Year 6 showcase came to a thunderous conclusion with “Jumpstart”, as dancers (trying their best) ended with a synchronised jump and were answered with warm applause.

Shortly after, the canteen became livelier as more Rafflesians streamed in, curious to make sense of the commotion. Within a few short minutes, the Y5s performed their own batch dance, with a burning passion that rivalled that of the Y6s. It began with the nostalgia-laden “2002” and transitioned into the bold youthfulness of “Rewrite the Stars”, before coming to “When Can I See You Again?”, filling the audience with longing. There was no shortage of OGlings looking yearningly at their OG and indeed thinking, “When next would I see you again?” To wrap up, the dance crew gave their utmost in the delivery of “Lucky Strike”, and finished the morning’s event with exuberant cheers across the canteen.

Day Three: House day

Wednesday was a day of colours. As is tradition, the school was enlivened by a mosaic of bright colours as Rafflesians streamed in in their house shirts. This day, though, there was something different —— helium balloons, too wearing house colours, floated and flew, effervescing an air of lively lightness to a school burdened by heavy, earthly bags.

Indeed, those little spheres of joy—write a note about why you love your house, and they are yours—seemed to be the highlight of the day. By lunchtime, there was not one corner in the school where you would not spot a lone balloon without its human. “The balloons are quite cool,” one Rafflesian in queue for them, Alex Han (20S06H), commented, “they stand out well, and are not something you see everyday.”

And that was very much mission accomplished. As Amy Lin (19A01B), who helped organise House Day, explained, the objective of the day’s activities was simply to “cultivate house spirit, and to add liveliness to a mundane school life”. The blackboard carrying the notes of balloon-seekers, while humbler in comparison, no doubt splashed bits of joy on anyone approaching, with notes ranging from the sweet (”I love BB because of the people <33”), to the spirited (“WOLF PACK – ONE CALL!”), to the simply amusing (“I love my house cos it’s a comfy place to rest :D”).

It is of little surprise, then, that Loh Yih Hang (19S06B), a fellow organiser of the event, was elated at the success of the initiative. “It’s a very nice feeling,” he told us,  “[to come] out of the council room in the morning to see a canteen already full of balloons”.

Day Four: CCA Day

Participants in previous Spirit Weeks would recall a much different theme. Whereas previous years focused on CCAs alone (one could only sign up for Team Raffles Night with their CCAs), the newest edition of the Week is meant to celebrate every aspect of the Rafflesian experience, from the class, to the house, and more.

That being said, CCAs are still a cornerstone of almost every version of the Rafflesian experience, and by that spirit, the fourth day of Spirit Week was set apart for Rafflesians to spend time together with their CCA mates, and in the process flaunt their flair for karaoke.

Indeed, the Hodge Lodge took centre stage on the day, as at least four CCAs immersed the lounge with stirring renditions of pop hits. Amidst their busy duties coordinating the activity, two anonymous councillors shared “it was great” to see the Rafflesian community’s eager participation, adding that, as was expected, “[Council] put a lot of effort into it.”

Rafflesians were also encouraged to send in CCA vlogs or appreciative messages to the Team Raffles instagram page, in exchange for Level 1 tokens. (The authors didn’t send anything in, unfortunately, choosing to blame their insurmountable workload). Such a wholesome activity lends itself to this year’s focus: to foster a stronger Rafflesian spirit.

“We really hoped to brighten everyone’s mood and create more school spirit through the activities”, said the councillors. While the results were “quite early to say” from their perspective, who could say the activities did not spark joy at least a little bit?

Rikki Hunt

But how can we talk about Spirit Week without mentioning the crown jewel of all its activities? For Brian Choon (20S06D) and Khor Eng Yeow (19S06E), the main architects behind their classes’ quests towards Rikki, it was as much a story of personal friendship as it was one of class co-operation.

Connected by mutual adventures that accrued ever since their secondary school days in the same CCA, the veterans from the viral Sqkii hunt were natural partners from the offset. Dissecting each hint with expert precision, they quickly ascertained that the mouse must be hiding somewhere among the (blue) MR (near a toilet, away from the sun and staircases) lockers in Block C (far away from food), behind LT1 (on the other side of a projector/lecture theatre).

Then came Thursday. A hint from the previous night sparked a 6.30AM dash to the lockers by the pair, who decided the prize must be waiting inside either locker MR321 or MR210, the only two locked ones of consecutive digits in decreasing order. Even the lock itself proved to be no match for the pair: the password (an odd number) was quickly deduced, and the vaunted Level 5 token rightfully earned — all before morning assembly.

Needless to say, they were “just [so] thrilled”. “We spent almost an hour at the lockers,” Brian recounted, “it’s like our hard work paid off!” For the pair who “are full of ideas,” as Brian described, and “would do anything to go for this reward”, the achievement certainly and deeply “reaffirmed [their] working relationship”.

Team Raffles Night

Team Raffles Night— a highly anticipated event and a fitting conclusion to Spirit Week. Before its commencement, the Innovation Centre was filled with student councillors bustling around, making the final preparations, looking somewhat frazzled but surely in high spirits (ha!). Around fifteen minutes later, hordes of students streamed in, the atmosphere began to heat up and by 6pm, the place was packed with Rafflesians looking for a way to de-stress after a tiring week of school.

Upon entering the Innovation Centre, one could smell the tantalizing aroma of food wafting through the room (it was later discovered that the blessed fragrance came from trays of flavourful yakitori), hear pop music blaring through the speakers and see Rafflesians milling about trying their hand at the variety of games available such as Dizzy Bowling, Ping Pong Pong, Pyramid Toss and Rebound. Fairy lights coupled with helium-filled balloons (in green, black and white, no less) adorned the walls and ceilings while the dimmed lights helped set the cozy ambience right.

Many had come after an exhausting session of CCA and hordes of students, still clad in exercise gear, took the opportunity to bond with their peers by playing games as a team. Some even snuck out from CCA camp; it was hilarious to hear the councillors have to make an announcement: “fencing team, fencing team, please go back to camp now.”

At the far end of the room, students were settled in the ‘cosy corner’, laid out on soft bean bags and picnic mats. Away from the rambunctious activity of the game stations, they were able to engage in heart-to-heart talks, play board games and enjoy the spread of snacks available. To top it all off, a photo booth situated at the entrance of the Innovation Centre served as a popular spot for students to take insta-worthy shots as a lovely momento.

Needless to say, the games were the heart of the event. From watching people fall over their own feet in Dizzy Bowling, struggling to regain their balance, to seeing tennis balls ricochet off tennis tables and into cardboard boxes in Rebound, and to breaking out into pseudo-outraged barks of laughter when you realize your friend doesn’t know you as well as you thought he/she did in Friendship Trivia, it was evident that everyone was having a whale of a time. Merriment and good cheer filled the room as everyone eased into the enjoyable momentum of the night.

Councillors also amped up the excitement with special activities held frequently at the centre of the room, consisting of human bingo, physical challenges such as a push-up competition (yes, water polo boys, we’re looking at you) and house cheer contests. Undoubtedly, the most engaging activity of all was the batch dance challenge, where songs from both Y5 and Y6 orientations, Fjall 2018 and Capriccio 2019, reverberated through the room and couples performed the various batch dances with gusto, much to the excitement of the audience. It certainly rekindled heartwarming orientation memories and brought back much nostalgia for both batches (albeit sparking a sense of wistfulness from those who had long forgotten the dance).

Many were also queuing up for free prizes that they could claim with their tokens, including wristbands, box files, Griffles plushies and water bottles. Temporary tattoos were also available for those who wanted to show their love to the school and were given out as prizes too – nothing screams Rafflesian pride more than an “I Love RI” sticker on your cheek, after all. Lucky draw winners also stood to win three KOI gift cards (worth $10 each), two Starbucks gift cards (worth $20 each) and Zebra highlighters.

Though not everyone won prizes, the greatest reward of the night was being able to enjoy a fun-filled evening with one’s friends and schoolmates. Under the neon disco lights (flashing from a 10-hour long YouTube video playing on the computer screen because we are cost-conscious) and the latest pop hits (faux-clubbing of some sort?), Rafflesians built up firm friendships and solidified strong bonds. With every failed attempt at a game and every bout of raucous laughter, friends grew a little closer and the Rafflesian spirit a little stronger.

Special thanks to the Student Councillors for organizing this memorable event! Team Raffles Night was truly a night to remember, as well as a great way to end off Spirit Week. We hope that everyone left with hearts full and spirits high, revitalized and recharged for the reality of school life that we (sadly) have to return to.

***

Hopefully, this fun-filled week has left everyone with a deeper sense of belonging to the family that we call Raffles. With every day dedicated to an important aspect of our JC life, Spirit Week serves to remind us of our Rafflesian identity, as well as foster deeper relationships with the people all around us who are part of our own stories. Let us endeavour to keep the spirit of Team Raffles soaring high even beyond this initiative, so that we can all foster stronger bonds and “keep our colours flying”!

By Mabel Yet (19S03Q)

Photos courtesy of Modern Dance

In the final moments before they headed backstage, the dancers huddled in a circle with their arms around each other, in a bid to soothe one another’s jitters. As they soaked in the warmth of familiar company, one by one, the dancers poured their hearts out to their team, with some finding it a struggle to sum up the past few months of blood, sweat, and tears they’d invested into their countless practices. Nonetheless, their energy remained high as they chanted “MODMODMOD MOD DANCE!” for the last time, before breaking apart and disappearing backstage. And what a show it would be.

On 12 April, Modern Dance gave a spectacular performance, entitled 2613754410, at University Cultural Centre (NUS) for the Singapore Youth Festival (SYF), with the overarching theme of something we encounter all the time—numbers.

“Are we much more than these numbers or have we allowed ourselves to be defined by these labels that the numeric system has created for us?”

The audience watched with bated breath as the dancers made their way onstage in single file, standing in a row to face the audience, looking slightly sinister in the shadow of the dim light. At once the theatre was thrown into complete darkness, before the spotlight was cast upon the dancers, all the better to reveal their colourful outfits which were chosen in tandem with the theme of their performance. As Lyn Tan (19S06M) explained, “the outfits represent [their] very unique and different […] personalities, contrasting [their] individuality with the homogenizing effect of the numbers […] in today’s systems.”

Tension started to mount as the dancers took turns to step forward and announce a string of numbers, their movements deliberately sharp and contorted. For most in the audience, the numbers seemed as random as those you’d pull out from a lottery hat, but Hannah Wong (19S03Q) revealed that “the chain of digits was actually a combination of the numbers that made up [the dancer’s] identity in real life, from their birth dates to their postal codes”, thus subtly drawing attention to how personal this performance would prove for them. As the last dancer Cherilyn (19S06S) took her place back in the line, the dancers jolted into motion as one; the visual effect was of their entrapment by the numbers they’d just spouted, as they jerked against the invisible chains that bound them in futile resistance.

As the dancers leaped and twirled with grace, their theme of being oppressed by numbers was consistently woven into their performance. The team wanted to portray a “master-servant kind of depiction”, with Cherilyn struggling to break free from Claire’s (19S03B) clutches, depicting how numbers exert their dominance over us. Indeed, the push-and-pull dynamics of the two as they interacted with each other onstage had the audience completely captivated.

On the other side of the stage, the dancers stood in a row, then broke apart one by one, gliding across the stage, twirling madly as if in straining to escape the embrace of their numbers. They were then tugged offstage by an unseen force, their arms sweeping in front of them, as if eventually succumbing to their master. Despite the multiple changes in formations and mood throughout the performance, the dancers nevertheless kept up the appearance of fluidity throughout, transitioning seamlessly from one setting to the next.

Halfway through the performance, it was both disturbing and poignant to see every master-servant pair enter the stage from the wings in dramatic succession. Much like leading a savage animal, the ‘masters’ had their palms pressed firmly against their ‘servants’ foreheads, denying them of any humanity or agency whatsoever. Backs slouched, eyes trained on the floor, writhing helplessly against their masters, the ‘servants’ moved with slow laborious steps in a contorted manner, as if every step forward was a chore. Such was meant to incite a sense of unease in the audience, signifying the peremptory control our own numbers have over us.

Suspense grew as the performance approached its climax, with the dancers ominously chanting “1234567890” barely above a whisper. Each number had the dancers launching into a different formation, moving with sharp, mechanical movements while keeping in sync with one another.

The growing urgency with which they recited these same digits while keeping their voices low kept the audience on the edge of their seats. “Initially, we spoke “1234567890” out loud as we did the movement, and one week away from SYF, our laoshi (teacher) felt that we were lacking in energy”, Hannah shared, “so we […] made changes by speaking the numbers at an inaudible volume [instead]”. This last-minute change, however, made the dance even more haunting for the audience, reflecting the ubiquitous presence of our numbers and their silent control over us.

As the music gradually faded out into its last few notes, the dancers crowded tightly around Cherilyn, consuming her in their embrace. As silence reigned with iron fist, the audience held their breath as Cherilyn fought through and declared in desperation, her voice echoing across the theatre: “I am more than just my numbers.” Released from the grip of her numbers, she then dropped to the floor, drawing the piece to a dramatic close. This poignant conclusion was an apt representation of the exhaustion from trying to break free from our own numbers. In the stillness of the theatre that followed, the audience to was left to contemplate if they, too have allowed themselves to succumb to the numbers with which our lives are revolved around.

Behind the scenes

Behind the 6 short minutes onstage was, of course, many months of hard work and frustrations, with the dancers having to quickly adapt to changes while not letting them affect their morale and synergy as a team. Despite the obstacles faced in choreographing and perfecting every formation, the team took each one in their stride, pouring their time and effort into the art they love.

For instance, Hannah revealed that “[our] team member injured her knee [prior to the performance], so a junior had to step in to cover her [in the] last minute”.

“We had to overcome the [disappointment] that our batchmate couldn’t perform anymore, and […] help the junior learn the steps and not be too nervous about having to step up suddenly,” she added.

Indeed, the months of hard work manifested itself in the synergy of the team during the six minutes onstage. In group contemporary dances, especially, the biggest challenge would be to “keep the energy and synergy of the dance up”, Ariel Lee (19S03A) explained. “[We had to] try to synchronise our breathing [before dancing] and also “feel” each other and always “let the group bring you up”.

Being the first and last SYF conquered as a batch, the dancers were visibly emotional when they finished their piece, overwhelmed by a mix of gratitude, relief, and nostalgia. They had given their all to put up a mesmerizing performance, and knew that the hard work they invested and the sacrifices they made were well worth it.

To quote Modern Dance instructor Mr Goh (translated from Chinese):

“Your time on stage is that short– before going onstage, you should be stricter with yourselves, aim high and put in your best; when performing, you should enjoy the precious, limited time onstage and afterwards, you need to be willing to forgive [yourselves]. Only then will you earn something [from the process].”

With that, Raffles Press would like to congratulate Modern Dance on attaining a Certificate of Accomplishment!

By Isabelle Tan (19S03S), Vanessa Lur (19S06Q) and Yoon Shwe Yee (19S03B)

Many Rafflesians would know of the sleek-looking cat with a glossy coat of grey and black fur lurking around the Y5-6 campus. He responds to the name Teddy and is most frequently spotted at the Crib, staring down the humans that pass him. Recently, Raffles Press stumbled upon a journal in the Crib, with the name Teddy scratched onto its hard cover, seemingly belonging to our feline friend. With the help of this mysterious diary, Raffles Press follows our feline friend around for a day to find out what an average day looks like through Teddy’s eyes.

Hello readers! I am Teddy, the beloved school cat of Raffles Institution and hopefully familiar to most Rafflesians. You can recognise me from my grey and black striped fur coat and I am cute, cuddly and love belly rubs! Many humans see me and think I sleep all day long; while I do enjoy my beauty rest, I’m much busier than you’d think! So what does the great Teddy do all day? Follow me throughout my day to find out:

10.53am

Three humans have just entered my lair. They don’t seem to have any food on hand, so I lose all interest in them right away and go on the defensive.  I growl at them to show them that it’s my territory. Honestly, if they don’t bring offerings, why bother coming to visit me? I wonder what they’re doing sitting so close to me. Oh well, it doesn’t matter. My eyes are struggling to stay open. It’s time for my very first nap…Defending my territory has sapped my energy, and I need to rest for all the trespassers I’m sure I’ll see later. Though they seem slightly suspicious sitting there staring at me, they can be dealt with when I awake…

11:23am.

Argh, here I am trying to take a nap and those humans playing foosball are so noisy! Whatever, I guess that’s nothing new. I am certainly used to the ruckus (why are you humans always so loud?). Not saying I like the noise though! Seriously, you’ve got to give a cat some peace and quiet once in a while!

11:54am

A guy and a girl have just entered my crib. They head straight in my direction. The guy is approaching me hesitantly and looks nervous to touch me. His hand is hovering awkwardly above me. The girl tries to reassure him and tells him that I am friendly and that I don’t bite. Of course I don’t bite! This is highly insulting! Why are some humans so scared of me? Just give me a belly rub or scratch my head and everything will be fine!

12:24pm

I hear a loud sound from the lockers. Who’s there? What’s happening? Stay away! Oh, it’s just someone opening their locker. How boring.

12:43pm

The three humans keep staring at me… How strange! They are shoving black coloured devices in my face and seem to be observing my every move. I shall turn away from them to continue sleeping in peace.

1:05pm

Yes! The foosball players have finished their game. Finally some peace and quiet for me! Wait, they’re walking over. They are probably going to apologise for the loud noises. Oh, they are scratching the back of my neck. That feels so good! Apology accepted guys! Oh no, where are you guys going? Give me a belly rub!

1:47pm

Another human has approached me! He’s stroking me as he uses his black coloured device. Am I not worth your fullest attention? Come on! Look at me! Am I not the cutest cat ever?

2:35pm

It’s time for a bath! I take many baths throughout the day to keep myself clean. I can’t stand being filthy and even a speck of dirt has to be licked off straight away.

3:05pm

Ahh, that was a good rest! It’s time to wake up and stretch. Let’s take a walk to stretch my limbs.

3:20pm

The walk has gotten my paws all dirty and gross. Time for another bath!

3:50pm

I am bored again. Looks like it’s time to explore. I jump up to the table where the three humans are sitting at. Its hilarious how that shocked them. You should see how startled they were when I jumped up! Why are they still here? Stop staring at me! I get that I’m cute but this is getting creepy!

4:35pm

Oh no, a human is heading for my favourite table! I must protect my territory! I leap after him and get ready to fight. Oops, he is just switching on the light. I sit back down on the floor and pretend nothing has happened. Nobody saw that and no one shall speak of this again.

4:50pm

I am bored once again. Let me head over to my favourite tree and sharpen my claws. I scratch the tree trunk daily to sharpen my nails and keep them in shape. Oh no, I have scratched the bottom of the trunk so many times that it’s sanded down and useless. Guess I have to jump up the tree trunk for a better spot.

5:16pm

I spot a mysterious plant on my walk! I sniff and paw at it to investigate its origin. Hmm, should I take a taste? Ooh, it tastes good! They’re a little hard to pull out though.

5:32pm

I walk over to the Council store room. Hello? Anyone there? Can somebody let me in please? I cautiously poke my nose around the door, wondering if I can go in. Darn it! It is closed and I can’t find an opening. You guys should really install a cat door for me. I wonder what sort of yummy food you are hiding inside from me.

5:39pm

Oh what’s that over there? Some styrofoam boxes filled with ice pops! I must investigate further. I accidentally brush against the box and it creates the most horrible sound! It practically makes me jump three feet into the air. How embarrassing! I certainly hope no one saw that. I walk away from the boxes warily. I catch my breath as I lean against the wall and take a rest to recover.

5:48pm

I sit near the council room, resting my paws. I guess that’s enough investigative work today. Oh look it’s Mr Pigeon over there! Should I go over to say hi? No wait, don’t go Mr Pigeon! Its upsetting really. Mr Pigeon and his friends never seem to want to be near me. I just want to make some friends. Just because I don’t have wings doesn’t mean you can ignore me…

6:00pm

Ah that was enough action for the day. I guess it’s time to head back and sleep again!

Dear humans, I guess this is where my narrative ends. I am too tired to write any further and it’s time for another nap. Sleeping is such fun, isn’t it? It’s my favourite pastime! I hope that this diary entry was interesting enough for you! Remember to give me a belly rub (and preferably some cat treats) the next time you see me! Till next time!

By Phang Yeu Yeou (19A01A), Sarah Lok (20A03A), and Ng Ziqin (20S03H)

On the 4th of May, Raffles Press headed down to NEX to compare three bubble tea stores and the eight drinks we bought from them—Tai Gai (台盖), Yuan Cha (源茶), and PlayMade by 丸作—in order to decide which of the eight would emerge superior to the others. We evaluated the drinks along the lines of taste, price, visual presentation, and most importantly—“would we buy this again?”.

Bubble Tea Reviewer Profiles!

Yeu Yeou: The one with more adventurous tastes than not, and the most reflective (indecisive) critic of the trio. She is not adverse to experimenting with her drinks (sometimes), and appreciates it when bubble tea stores go out of their way to try novel combinations to great effect. Despite only being a bubble tea convert in recent years, she now frequents Brawn Cafe’s gong cha department on a biweekly basis. She also prefers her milk tea to contain more milk than tea, though she has no qualms with pure tea that doesn’t pretend to be what it isn’t.

Sarah: The one who is a social bubble tea drinker. She rarely frequents bubble tea stores, and is usually found drinking water, kopi C siew dai peng, or watermelon juice. With a dislike for overly sugary drinks, she is Ziqin’s polar opposite in that she only takes her bubble tea with 0% sugar. Makes rather quick decisions with regards to what she likes, and is highly open to trying a variety of new flavours (even though her next cup of bubble tea is contingent on her friends’ future drink decisions).

Ziqin: The one who has only ever ordered one kind of bubble tea in her whole life: Milk Tea with Pearls. A girl who believes that the classics are classic for a reason and who usually needs to be dragged out of her comfort zone kicking and screaming (at least food-wise). She has no idea why she signed up for this bubble tea review. Prefers natural flavours over artificial-tasting ones, but was also–up until recently–a 100% sugar bubble tea drinker. Usually knows what she likes and sticks with it, but will admit to occasionally being surprised by an unexpected new favourite or two.

First Stop: Tai Gai (台盖)

Nestled in NEX’s basement, the first thing we noticed as we drew closer to the store was the availability of seats (that the other chains sorely lacked, and which sent us scurrying to the rooftop for seats). The ambience was decidedly cafe-like, with the photobooth-like decor and the implied invitation to linger contributing to the store’s laid-back vibes all around, and we were able to secure a table for ourselves–despite not making a move to purchase a drink for around 30 minutes–without getting chased out. The demographic here was the youngest of the three stores we’d visited, with customers mostly in the teens-20s age group.

We’d heard much about Tai Gai’s fruity series, and were eager (albeit laden with misgivings) to start our review off on such an unorthodox foot. Unfortunately, the drinks’ sizes and sugar levels are non-customisable, so if you’re someone who likes that aspect of your bubble tea, then you may want to take that into consideration.

To their credit, they also had the most interesting lids of the three stores we visited, with hard plastic lids (to drink the cheese foam through) for their fruity tea series, and a bear-shaped one that managed to capture our hearts and win over our affections. That commitment to the aesthetic and attention to detail carried over into other aspects as well—from the cardboard holders around the drinks (as seen in the photo below) to the huge rectangular paper bags to cart all our drinks home in (as seen in the photo above)—all branded with the Tai Gai storename, of course.    

Pulpy Strawberry Kiss ($6.80)

We first got a taste of what we were getting into when one of our reviewers took the last three samples of this particular drink to our table to try. Although another one of our reviewers immediately began critiquing its consistency, we proceeded to buy it anyway, armed with false confidence in online strangers who’d given it positive reviews.

Yeu Yeou: I like strawberries, but I didn’t like this drink as much as I’d hoped to. They’d have fared better by my review if they’d included actual strawberry chunks—as they did with the pineapple drink from the same series—instead of mashing them all into a gooey pulp. Not a bad drink on the whole, though perhaps erring on the side of syrupy sweetness. A drink for those who prefer their desserts in drink form, or who otherwise want the taste of strawberries without their concomitant acidity.

Sarah: Whilst I liked the flavour and texture of this drink, I felt that the foam didn’t go too well with its strawberry flavour. This drink would also be better if it had a customisable sugar level.

Ziqin: Very pulpy and instantly recognisable as strawberry, but there was a weird syrupy aftertaste. Actually got better when I came back to it later on to compare with the other drinks. Maybe because the ice melted and it got more diluted?

The Verdict: This drink is proof that second chances can be a good thing. For the more health- or sugar- conscious out there however, you’ve been warned. Still, the price point might be a little steep–at $6.80, this was the most expensive drink we tried all day, albeit admittedly among the largest.

Subliminal persuasion from the decor.

Pulpy Pineapple Kiss ($2.00 after the discount)

A wild card we’d not originally intended to get, we were persuaded into giving the drink a go by the cashier who very slyly directed our attention to the sign advertising it for just $2 with any additional purchase. As any self-respecting kiasu Singaporean would, we leapt at the chance to score a $4+ discount—especially after being informed that it was the second last day of the promotion.

Yeu Yeou: I’ll be the first to admit that I was the most skeptical about the concept of fruit teas before today (seeing as I don’t care for even ordinary fruit teas sans milk on a day-to-day basis), but I was strangely enthralled by this drink. I’m partial towards pineapples, and I loved that they included actual pineapple chunks (not too chunky) in the drink. Unlike the strawberry kiss, this drink managed to retain the full force of its pineapple essence without tipping into a sugary disaster, though it’s certainly still more smoothie than tea. The cheese foam also paired better with the pineapple than it did with the strawberry, perhaps because both have that ‘umami’ quality to them that the strawberry lacks. A zesty drink that feels like sunshine in liquid form.

Sarah: This drink is for all the fruit lovers out there, especially so for those who have an affinity for pineapples. I had my initial doubts regarding the combination of the pineapple flavour and the cheese foam (and questioned Yeu Yeou’s and Ziqin’s seemingly impulsive decision to purchase another drink) but they actually managed to coalesce well together. Additional satisfaction was definitely derived from it being $2.00.

Ziqin: I will admit, I went “oh no” right after we paid for this because I thought we had made a bad choice with the impulse buy. But it was surprisingly good, actually even better than the strawberry. This hit all the right notes. Fresh, sour, tropical. Loved it. Combined very well with the cheese foam (which tasted more like cheesecake than cheese). I might actually buy this again, even at full price.

The Verdict: Sometimes spur-of-the-moment decisions end up working out for the best after all. How’s that for a life lesson?

Beary Co Co ($4.80)

With its endearingly cute and Instagram-worthy cover—coupled with one of the reviewers proclaiming the bear as her favourite animal—we knew that we had to get this drink. The other occupants of Tai Gai didn’t even bat an eye as we played with the flashlight function on our phones to get the above photo—perhaps having to bear witness to such a spectacle more than once before had long since hardened them against our brazen social infraction.

Yeu Yeou: Nostalgic! The drink to try if you want to relive your childhood, or if you’ve got the taste buds of a child yourself. It helps too that the pearls are small and unobtrusive, almost as if they were made for sliding down your gullet; if you yourself are averse to pearls as I once was, maybe give this drink a shot? Taste-wise, the cocoa was richer than I expected, and yet not at all heavy as some chocolate drinks tend to be. Also, I’m partial to bears and aesthetic presentation, so I’ll definitely be returning for this drink.

Sarah: I initially anticipated for this drink to be extremely thick (due to the sheer amount of chocolate in it), but was pleasantly surprised to find that it was not the case—the proportions of this drink’s constituent ingredients are just right. This is one drink I’ll be buying again (sometime in the future).

Ziqin: I thought the bear silhouette projection was a little underwhelming, but taste-wise, I really loved that rich cocoa taste. This drink reminded me of clumpy hot chocolate powder and childhood, and I mean that in the best possible way.

The Verdict: When in doubt, nostalgia can warm even the flintiest of hearts, for no one ever gets too old for chocolate.

Second Stop: Yuan Cha (源茶)

If Tai Gai gave off cafe-like vibes, Yuan Cha was strangely reminiscent of a a herbal wellness store. From the green and white colour scheme to the walls of bamboo poles, it felt as if by walking into the shop space, we were subscribing to a healthier lifestyle (or as healthy as one can get when it comes to bubble tea).

While Tai Gai and PlayMade seem targeted towards a younger, more adventurous demographic, Yuan Cha’s focus—according to their website—is on the brewing of that quality cup of tea. Surprisingly, the demographic here appeared to be not much older than the other two stores’ (from the limited time we spent there), consisting mostly of adults in their 20s-30s (and even one baby!).

This time round, we were able to customise the drink size, and gladly chose to get all drinks in a size medium to save our rapidly expanding bladders. On the cashier’s recommendation, we decided to get one milk and one non-milk drink for comparison.

Milk Tieguanyin with QQ Rainbow Topping ($3.50 before GST)

Additional specifications: Medium, 25% sugar

The milk tea was significantly less thick vis-à-vis other bubble tea outlets, with the tea greatly overpowering the milk. We had originally planned to get the QQ yam topping as it was recommended by several food blogs, but were unfortunately informed that it was out of stock.

Yeu Yeou: Absolutely despise. I’ve no objection to the toppings, but milk tea where the milk is there but barely present just tastes like wet socks to me. Also, I can scarcely taste the yam toppings (no matter how chewy) because of how distractingly vile the milk tea is. Then again, I almost never get the standard milk tea with pearls combination, so if that’s your taste profile, then take my words with a grain of salt. A drink for the non-ambitious.

Sarah: Although the tea overpowered the milk in this drink, I quite liked its consistency as it was not overly thick. Furthermore, the rainbow toppings–albeit slightly tasteless–were extremely chewy.

Ziqin: Ouch. Harsh words, Yeu Yeou. But yes, this was probably the drink which tasted the most like my usual order. I liked the strong tea taste and the QQ rainbow topping had a pleasant texture (it was very fun to chew).

The Verdict: Mixed reviews. Hamlet was wrong. To tea or not to tea, that is the real question.

Plum Vinegar Oolong Tea ($3.80 before GST)

Additional specifications: Medium, 25% sugar

This drink was yet another notable point of contention between the reviewers: one loved it, one was indifferent, and one despised it.

Yeu Yeou: Maybe I’ve just got a stronger stomach for the sour side of drinks, but I don’t see what all the angst is about with this drink. It’s good tea, nothing bad about it. In fact, I love what they’ve done with this combination, being a fan of sour plum and vinegar and oolong myself. Also, from personal experience, it’s the easiest drink of all those we’ve tried today to stomach after a heavy meal (or too many rounds of drinks—not advisable).

Sarah: I probably don’t have the taste buds for this—the combination of the sour plum vinegar and its overly strong aftertaste was sadly just not my thing.

Ziqin: I was the last person to try this and it wasn’t as bad as Sarah’s reaction would suggest! The first thing that hits you is the vinegar. There’s an Oolong aftertaste after you swallow it. Very refreshing. (Fun fact: I actually used this as a palate cleanser in between drinks while we were close ranking.)

The Verdict: Mixed reviews again. This is exclusively for those who enjoy sour plum, vinegar, oolong, or an amalgamation of the aforementioned items.

Third Stop: PlayMade by 丸作

In sharp contrast to the other two, the ambience at PlayMade was decidedly more like an NYC street: rush rush rush with a queue that snaked on for fifteen-people long. Neither was there much of a designated area for people to queue or wait for their drinks without somehow obstructing the way of those who just wanted to cut through. Curiously enough, we noticed that athletes (or at least people appropriating athleisure gear) formed the bulk of the queue—perhaps due to its proximity to Anytime Fitness just one level above? However, with the store providing customers with a live showcase of their pearl-making process, the wait was made slightly more bearable.

Another thing that set this store apart from the rest (and particularly Tai Gai) was the ordering protocol: we had to order through an interactive interface, that allowed us to customise everything from the size of the drinks to their sugar level to the amount of ice to the type of pearls—though it still wasn’t enough for some of us (see below).

By this point our taste buds were well and truly exhausted, and so we thought to simplify things by matching the pearls with their respective drinks, particularly since the sheer diversity of their pearls was marketed as the selling point of the brand. Do note however that not all pearls advertised are in stock, though you can always count on pink cactus/black sesame/burnt caramel to be available. We also got all our drinks in a medium size for the same rationale as Yuan Cha. If for no other reason, the spectrum of colour of our drinks also made for a fun picture (see below).

Burnt Caramel Latte with Burnt Caramel Pearls ($5.10)

Additional specifications: Medium, full caramel, less ice

Despite ordering the drink at full caramel strength, we were sadly disappointed by the lack of caramel flavour in the drink itself.

Yeu Yeou: Yet another drink that falls prey to being more sugar than flavour—I’ve ordered this exact drink (give or take the pearls) twice before, and yet I don’t recall it being quite so… tasteless. If this is indicative of a recent scaleback in caramel from the branch, consider it a future pass from me.

Sarah: The caramel taste was unfortunately absent in the tea, and I could only taste the caramel in the pearls. Nothing really struck me about this drink, so I probably won’t be drinking this again.

Ziqin: This also tasted a lot like my usual order, but not in a good way. It tasted like regular milk tea to me. There was a very strong caramel taste in the pearls but I don’t like caramel and anyway the pearls were a little too sweet.

The Verdict: If you think you can’t go wrong with caramel, think again.

Black Sesame Milk Tea with Black Sesame Pearls ($4.50)

Additional specifications: Medium, 25% sugar, less ice

A beige drink with black pearls, this drink could almost be mistaken for the timeless classic of milk tea with pearls. One sip, however, is all it would take for this drink to imprint its individuality on your mind (and your tastebuds).

Yeu Yeou: Easily the drink with the most interesting texture for me, seeing as the sesame powder isn’t fully mixed into the drink, but rather collected in sediment flakes (that no amount of shaking will dissolve into the drink, don’t even try), giving the drink a rather gritty (but not to the point of choking) sensation. I particularly like how the pearls behave almost like pandora boxes in a sense—chew on them for long enough, and they’ll explode in a sensation of sinful sesame delight. Definitely tastes more like black sesame than burnt caramel tasted like burnt caramel.

Sarah: The drink was slightly reminiscent of black sesame tang yuan. I enjoyed the mixture of the milk tea alongside the sesame powder—easily one of my favourite drinks of the day. No idea where Ziqin derived the apparently plasticy taste of this drink from.

Ziqin: I maintain that this drink left a weird, plasticy taste in my mouth. Also, there was too much milk. I’m usually a fan of black sesame desserts (like black sesame tang yuan), but this gets a no from me. Had to take a big sip of the Sugar Plum Vinegar Oolong Tea right after drinking this to reset my tastebuds.

The Verdict: Seeing as the texture of this drink is a point of contention, picky eaters (drinkers?) beware.

Pink Cactus Smoothie with Pink Cactus Pearls ($5.40)

Additional specifications: Medium, less ice

The store’s signature, if their marketing is to be believed, and a drink we couldn’t afford (in more ways than one) to pass up. One of our reviewers was especially keen to have the others give their opinions on the drink, with the two having hitherto never tried it before.

Yeu Yeou: It’s got a rather unique taste that I’m a fan of—potent, refreshing, and not easy to find elsewhere (no, Bandung doesn’t quite taste the same). My main gripe with this drink is that you can’t tweak the sugar level to make it less overpoweringly sweet, and it baffles me why they wouldn’t include that as a menu option. That said, it’s a very pretty drink, and a cheaper alternative to the Starbucks pink drink if that’s your aesthetic.

Sarah: Although I really liked the colour of the drink, I found this smoothie too sweet for my liking (even though I had only taken a few sips out of it).

Ziqin: The colour reminded me of Bandung and the taste, of liquified candy. Maybe if you have a very sweet tooth. *reaches for Sugar Plum Vinegar Oolong*

The Verdict: Know someone with a sweet tooth? Great. This drink is definitely suited for those with an innate propensity for (highly) sugary drinks.

Overall Rankings

After arduous rounds of deliberation, coupled with stares and not-at-all-discreet photography from curious onlookers seated at the tables around us, we made our final judgment on the overall ranking of all the drinks we had bought. To no one’s surprise, after our mixed reactions to various contentious drinks, our individual rankings were strikingly different from one another’s, and the only way we were able to achieve a “consensus ranking” was to number the drinks (as seen in our photo captions below) and tally up the points, with the drink with the lowest points emerging victorious. Read on to see which was the champion drink of the day!

Final Ranking

1. Tai Gai’s Pulpy Pineapple Kiss (4 points)
2. Tai Gai’s Beary Co Co (7 points)
3. Tai Gai’s Pulpy Strawberry Kiss (13 points)
4. PlayMade’s Black Sesame Milk Tea with Black Sesame Pearls (16 points)
5. TIE: PlayMade’s Pink Cactus Smoothie with Pink Cactus Pearls; Yuan Cha’s Plum Vinegar Oolong Tea (17 points)
6. TIE: Yuan Cha’s Milk Tieguanyin with QQ Rainbow Topping; PlayMade’s Burnt Caramel Latte with Burnt Caramel Pearls (18 points)

* Final Note: Don’t try this at home, kids. From personal experience, symptoms of booboo tea overdose include, but are not limited to: Vomiting, fever, and excessive saliva production.

By Huang Beihua (20A03A) and Sarah Lok (20A03A)
Photos courtesy of Mr Patrick Wong

Despite our denial, the life of a student journalist is markedly different from that of a paid professional. We are fortunate not to risk having someone set their dogs on us, for example, and rejections of our articles—even if churned out on Google Docs in late-night frenzies—are exceptions rather than the norm. Yet, the safe harbour of school does not so readily exonerate student-journalists from the keeping abreast of the meteorology in the open seas beyond, and as the field of journalism as a whole braces for the digital era ahead, it is only too appropriate that student journalists must, too, consider and discuss the challenges and opportunities it heralds for ourselves.

Enter Pressing Ahead. Now in its fourth year, Pressing Ahead is the only conference of its kind, bringing together JC journalism bodies from all over the island, allowing student journalists from various schools to share their perspectives and the discuss the issues they face. With the eager participation of 7 schools, namely: Anglo-Chinese Junior College (ACJC), Catholic Junior College (CJC), Hwa Chong Institution (HCI), National Junior College (NJC), Raffles Institution (RI), River Valley High School (RVHS), and Victoria Junior College (VJC), the latest iteration was no different.

The event commenced with an opening address from Press Chairperson Loh Lin (19A01D), who introduced the theme of this year’s conference: “Preparing for the Multimedia Newsroom”. This theme was chosen as the digital age presents a significant challenge for journalists: with the multiplicity of ways in which people access their news–from the traditional print newspaper to tweets and even Instagram stories (as followers of @rafflespress on Instagram could attest to)–journalists will have to continuously adapt and learn new skills to keep up. Framing this in a school context, Lin explained that “as student journalists, we need to figure out how to continue telling stories about our communities, to inform our peers and make them care in more interactive and engaging ways”.

An icebreaker, in the form of the classic game “Who Am I”, soon followed the speech. The familiar game certainly did not disappoint: the lecture theatre’s figurative ice was dissolved in warm chatter as the game progressed, with participants either taking on second or third identities to continue the fun, or simply leaning back and sharing with one another their unique school experiences. Extra laughter was had at the expense of participants who had to guess particularly obscure characters, or who were otherwise not familiar enough with pop culture figures to extricate themselves from their confusion. A game of Spyfall followed, and so did the growth of new friendships that would continue as the day went on.

The theme of the conference was explored in greater depth by guest speaker Mr Yeo Sam Jo, a multimedia correspondent at The Straits Times. Mr Yeo certainly didn’t beat around the bush: by tackling the common impression of journalism as a profession for which writing was the only requirement, Mr Yeo clarified that writing was, in fact, “just 20% of it”. Indeed, as he shared, “what drew [him] into journalism as a whole were the human interest stories.” “You don’t forget those people’s names”, he remarked poignantly.

By quoting buzzwords in corporate settings (such as “disruption”, “change”, and “revolution”), Mr Yeo elucidated how social media is a disruption to the pre-existing media paradigm: its rapid-fire nature may compromise the quality of a story, whilst the proliferation of fake news forces journalists to be extremely certain about what they report. However, as a counterbalance, he expounded on how leveraging on technology can propel us towards the future of journalism, citing examples of data analytics and interactive visuals that are now ubiquitous topography in today’s press landscape. The headlines you see on a casual visit to straitstimes.com might just be one of several versions randomly presented to different readers to gauge their popularity, whilst gigapixel-sized pictures and striking visuals enable readers to not just “read [about an event] in black and white, but rather, see it happen.”

The applause that followed was sufficient to show the audience’s appreciation—and no, it was not because food (lunch came immediately after) was finally a reality. As Raffles Press member Kelly Leong (20S07C) described, his sharing was “interesting and humorous”, whilst Eliora Joseph from the NJC Press enthused that Mr Yeo was “insightful [and] informative”, highlighting that his “sharing on his SPH career and stuff were quite fun [to hear about]”.

Eager to put concepts of a multimedia newsroom into practice, participants embarked on group breakout sessions following lunch’s brief interlude. Participants were tasked to synthesise two random prompts drawn from a bag–such as “Procrastination” and “Vending Machines”–and present their idea for a multimedia news item incorporating both ideas. They also had to angle it such that it remained relevant to their schoolmates, whilst retaining some elements of engagement. As Lin, who helped organise the conference, explained, the skills the activity hoped to cultivate were “transferable to coverage-writing, which demands for the reporter to put a fresh spin on an event through human elements, while upholding authenticity.” After two hours of hard work, the groups did not disappoint with the ideas put forth: they ranged from the novel (debating whether the True Endgame lies with the Avengers or the A levels), to the nostalgic (charting an individual’s journey through JC by interviewing several students on their first and last days of school), to the nonsensical (arranging a school mascot rap battle to empower students to read SingLit).

In his closing speech, Mr Patrick Wong, the teacher-in-charge of Press, sentimentally recounted that, “when I was in NJC, there were no mobile phones, no Internet”. It was, as he put it, “a very different world”.  Student journalists, then, are now “writing in a very different time”, with the need for continual adaptation to its unique challenges and opportunities being nothing short of a necessity.

Yet, the spirit that unites (student) journalists across time has scarcely changed–to listen to the stories worth listening to and to report on stories worth reporting on. With that being said, Mr Wong’s hope for the multimedia newsroom is simple: to stay true to our aspirations, and to “keep the flame going”, Pressing Ahead into the digital era.

By Benjamin Lim (19S03I) and Ng Ziqin (20S03H)
Photos by Benjamin Lim (19S03I) and Megan Toh (20S03N) from Raffles Photographic Society

The Raffles spectator stands were a sea awash with students in house shirts. They were cheering, they were screaming, they were waving green/black/white inflatable clappers. The Student Councillors and RI Y1-4 prefects, clad in green, were leading supporters in the more popular (and more memorable) school cheers like Raffles Dynamite and Say Ra. Vibrant white lights glared down from the high ceilings, sharpening the technicolour reds, blues, blacks and greens of the players’ uniforms. The atmosphere felt charged, crackling with an energy that verged on visibility.

To bag the championship trophy and defend their 15-year and 8-year long streaks (for the Boys’ and Girls’ Teams respectively), the two Raffles Table Tennis teams would have to defeat Hwa Chong Institution (HCI)—a long-time and formidable rival—at Our Tampines Hub.

Both the Boys’ and the Girls’ Table Tennis Finals involves three Singles and two Doubles matches, where each Single/Double match would consist of five consecutive games. To win a match, the Rafflesian teams would have to win three out of the five games, which would prove to be hard against redoubtable opponents.

Boys’ Team

The finals began well for the Boys’ Team, with vice-Captain Shawn Chua (19S03N) winning the first Singles within three games. His sheer confidence and great ability (exhibited through his returning of extremely low service balls and high balls) gave strength and hope to the Rafflesian supporters who cheered the team on, with the chants of “Let’s Go Raffles, Let’s Go!” resonating brightly and clearly in the packed arena.

Within the large supporter base for our Boys’ Team, Marsha Shahrin (19S02A) and Benjamin Yew (19S06R), who had both rushed down to the competition venue after their tutorials ended, explained how they “came down because they wanted to support their classmate and good friend Lee Yong Ning (19S02A)”.

Empowered by the supporters’ chants and cheers, the Boys’ Team became even more motivated to bring pride back to the school, and fought even harder for the golden trophy. Though the subsequent Doubles match with captain Lucas Seah (19S03T) and Chan Junhe (20S06N), who played against formidable opponents, was lost to HCI 3-1, this did not shake the team, who saw the setback as inspiration to fight back harder. Cheers from both the Boys’ Team and the stands further fueled this motivation.

Dominic Koh (20S06M), who played the next Singles, was ruthless and unforgiving. The usually imperceptible sounds of the paddle hitting the ball were made audible—a testament to his strength.

The next match would prove to be critical in determining the fates between the two institutions. If the next Doubles (played Gong Dong Dong (20S06E) and Jensen Koh Wei (20S03A)) was lost to HCI, the overall score would be at 2-2, resulting in another Singles match—which would generate even more uncertainty in predicting which party would be victorious.

With both the RI and HCI teams fighting valiantly, the fourth match was certainly more fierce than the previous three. As the scores for both teams rose one after the other in close pursuit, there was no one team that lead the scoreboard for long.

Each game ended off in a deuce (a situation in which both teams are at matchpoint, and the winning score is increased by two points), and with Raffles narrowly winning the first and third games.

During the fourth set of the final match, Dong Dong and Jensen managed to persevere and maintain their poise. Each low-ball was deflected back to the opponents, and each smash duly returned. This intensity continuously built up as HCI’s Table Tennis team also returned the Rafflesian team’s smashes. Spurred by the supporters’ cheers, Dong Dong and Jensen eventually won 13-11, thus clinching the championship trophy and bringing the Boys’ side of the National School Games to a close.

Girls’ Team

Meanwhile, on the other side of the blue Nittaku dividers, the A Division girls were holding the fort against the HCI Girls’ Team. This was probably the question on everyone’s minds: Would the defending champions come out on top once again?

Captain Dorothea Ban (19S06A) won the first Singles game with ease, taking the win for her team after the first three games. Next came Doubles pair Megan Tan (20S03I) and Flora Wan (20S06P) who also put up a strong fight, though they lost 1-3 against the HCI team.

Third-match Singles player, Li Qinan (20S06P) was warming up in the ring outside the playing area, bouncing nimbly from foot to foot as she conferred with her coach. Minutes later, she walked into the arena, determination splashed across her face like warpaint.

With superhuman speed, she reached out for several balls that would have seemed too far or too high for the average human. Like Wonder Woman’s metal bracelets, her paddle deflected every strong ball that her opponent hit at her. The referee kept flipping cards, the numbers kept climbing up on both sides, and before anyone knew it, RI had won the game with a score of 11-8.

The players had to switch sides for the second game, each player standing in front of their opponent’s teammates. Game 2 ended with the scores being exactly reversed, 8-11, in HCI’s favour.

The players switched sides yet again before the third game, where RI trounced HCI decisively with a score of 11-2. Then the fourth game, which evoked a sense of deja vu when HCI beat RI 11-5. By this time, this reporter was convinced that there was something seriously wrong with the side of the table further from the RI spectators; the player who started from that side always seemed to lose.

In any case, with the scores tied at 2-2, the fifth game would determine the outcome of the match. RI won 11-6, narrowly winning the match 3-2. Li Qinan pumped her right fist and yelled “SOH!” every time she scored a point.

“It’s just to show your 气势 (Chinese for ‘momentum’). Different players yell different things. Another common one is ‘Joleh!’,” explained Dai Yuting (20S03H), a member of the table tennis team, when asked what her teammate’s spirited exclamation meant.

Her match done and dusted, Li Qinan climbed out of the playing area, making way for her teammates Cayla Tan (20S03J) and Lydia Jiang (19S03K) to take centre stage. HCI had won one match. RI had won two. Would this be the last match of the competition? The suspense in the air was stifling.

The scene was reminiscent of a World War I battleground. The narrow strip on either side, demarcated by the ubiquitous Nittaku barriers, were the trenches. Meanwhile, the playing area in the middle was No Man’s Land. Every point, every game, every match won, an inch of territory earned, counting towards the final victory.

As the last Doubles pair, Cayla Tan and Lydia Jiang played valiantly, showing remarkable chemistry as they fended off their opponents’ fast balls in tandem. Their talent was evident from the execution of several masterful shots which hit the edge of the table. Despite close calls and minor setbacks, such as in the third game which ended off in a deuce that RI lost 10-12, the pair played on with composure and confidence.

The final game of the final match ended with the RI team’s 11-6 victory. Emotions were running high. The RI girls could not contain their excitement—the instant the eleventh point was scored, they rushed from the sidelines into the competition zone, crashing through the blue barriers in their way as if they were flimsy cardboard dividers to swarm their teammates in celebration.

After all, what could man-made barriers possibly count for against the combined forces of nine jubilant girls?

Said Dorothea Ban (19S06A), the Girls’ Team Captain, about her team’s victory: “I have no words. Everyone has played very, very well and I’m very proud of everybody. It’s been a tough journey since the start of season and everyone has worked hard. I’m really proud of it. No words are enough to describe how happy I’m feeling right now.”

The Girls’ team had successfully defended their status as the Table Tennis champions for the eighth year running. But beyond the stellar results, behind the overexposed lighting, between the Nittaku dividers, brewed a very real, very heartwarming story.

It is this reporter’s opinion that when you get to the heart of it, there is very little difference between sports and art. If the tournament were a symphony, then the table tennis’ girls’ spirited refrain of “All the way!”–which they shouted from the sidelines through every game until their voices were hoarse and their throats sore–would be the persistent, underlying ostinato, telling an evocative story of teamwork.

Conclusion

Since both the A Division girls’ and boys’ matches concluded early, members of both RI A division teams headed two courts down to cheer on the RI B Division boys, who were playing against the HCI B Division boys’ team in the last match of the day. They were joined also by the Y5-6 spectators, as well as the table tennis players and supporters from Raffles Girls’ School. It was truly a sight to behold, as Rafflesians from RGS, RI Y1-4 and Y5-6 stood united behind the RI B Division team, alternating between chants of “All the Way!” and “Fight Back!”.

“It was the first time in my five years of [attending] match support that RGS, RI Y1-4 and Y5-6 banded together to cheer together as one big Rafflesian family,” said Jeremy Lee (20S03H), whose class had been designated to attend the table tennis match as their match support activity. “They didn’t need Councillors or PB to tell them to cheer. They did it themselves. It was quite amazing.”

Summing up the Table Tennis Finals in 2019: There was hard work. There was teamwork. There was sportsmanship, and there was showmanship. As far as entertainment is concerned, who could ask for more? Will next year’s Table Tennis Finals be able to top this? Only time will tell.

Members of the Boys’ Team

Captain: Seah Wen Kai Lucas (19S03T)
Vice-Captain: Shawn Chua Kee Yang (19S03N)
Lee Yong Ning (19S02A)
Chan Junhe (20S06N)
Dominic Koh (20S06M)
Gong Dong Dong (20S06E)
Jensen Koh Wei (20S03A)

Members of the Girls’ Team

Captain: Ban Yinyi, Dorothea (19S06A)
Vice-Captain: Jiang Wenjie Lydia (19S03K)
Flora Wan Yuxin (20S06P)
Li Qinan (20S06P)
Lu Hua Yu (20S06F)
Megan Tan Yong Ling (20S03I)
Tan Wan Yi Cayla (20S03J)

By Coco Liu (20S06L)
Photographs courtesy of Chee Yun Hui Julia (20S03D) from Raffles Photographic Society

It is easy to mistake bowling for a low-intensity sport. After all, compared to other sports like badminton or track and field, bowling is played at a much slower pace. There aren’t any furious sprints or rapid rallies–just a player, a ball, and ten pins.

To not rectify that misconception here and now would be to do an enormous disservice to the sport. Indeed, as schools all over Singapore congregated at Orchid Country Club on 23 April 2019 for the second and last day of the quartet event (with the singles and doubles events already over) of the National School Games Bowling Championships, the tension in the air was palpable.

A note for the uninformed: bowling is as much a mental game as a physical one–with each shot, bowlers have to have intense focus, concentrating on the the adjustments to be made, the mistakes not to be made, and the targets to be hit. It didn’t help that the oiling patterns on the lanes for this competition were unexpected, pushing the teams’ adaptability to the limits. For some players, like Sarah Yeo (19S03Q), who had achieved gold in the singles, doubles and overall categories as well as 2nd runners up in the quartet event last year, there was also the added pressure of defending her titles. Indeed, no one present could doubt that the mental challenge involved was formidable.

And yet, through it all, the team supported each other through thick and thin. If a player managed to score a strike, they would shout “WHAT TEAM?”, followed by the echo of “RAFFLES!” from the rest of the team and the supporters; if a player scored a spare, they would shout “RAF-” and the rest would respond “FLES!”; and even if the player scored neither of those, the rest of the quartet team would still give each other high fives in support. Even members of the team in the adjacent lane from a different school would occasionally high five the RI team in a display of sportsmanship.

This team spirit carried over into the team’s synergy as well, such as in how the Boys’ team actively covered for each other over the course of the competition, such that the stronger players at any moments would make up for the shortcomings of the weaker players. On the first of the four days, Josh Ho (19S06J) finished 1st and Jeremiah Khoo (20S06S) finished 7th, covering for Perry Wong’s (19S03F) 13th place standing and Tan Gian Sen’s (19S06O) 19th place standing. But on the second day, the latter two flipped it around, climbing to 7th and 12th respectively, making up for the fall of Josh and Jeremiah to 9th and 15th respectively. Even under the mounting pressure of ACJC rising in the standings, the boys continued to have each others’ backs, allowing them to defend the school’s position and coming in a respectable first runners-up.

Even so, this outward display of staunch camaraderie under less than enviable conditions was but a surface glimpse into what the teams possessed in spades–a visible and distinctive spirit at their heart, so strong that it overpowered the competitiveness and the mental challenges that the competition presented.

And this was not an easy competition—as noted by Perry Wong (19S03F), Captain of the Bowling Boys’ team, “the very experienced bowlers usually come from ACSI or ACJC…we never really stood a chance—some of these people are in team Singapore’s bowling team [or] have been training for many years.”

In spite of such gloomy odds, however, the team had the maturity to take stock of their blessings and maintain a positive outlook on how far they’d come. Naturally, “the J2s wanted to do well so as to make the most out of their last National School Games and to step down from the CCA without any regrets,” explained Sarah Yeo Su Ting (19S03Q), Captain of the Bowling Girls’ team.  “However, we realised that we placed a lot of unnecessary pressure on ourselves for results when in fact what was more important should be making the most out of our last experience bowling together as a team.”

Perry also added, “[the junior batch] spread positive energy around when the team was feeling down after a bad day because they cared more for the team spirit rather than a trophy. [And] most other years, our spirit gets overpowered by the AC supporters, but this year it felt very different. We might lose out in terms of numbers, but this year, we sure showed that our spirit is so much stronger.”

At last, when the competition had concluded, both the Boys’ and Girls’ teams came away with a commendable overall first runners-up. Yet beyond their respectable results, the story at the heart of RI Bowling—of team spirit, perseverance, optimism, and sportsmanship—is one that transcends boundaries, resonating in each and every athlete as an exemplification of the spirit of sports.

RESULTS

BOYS

Overall

JOSH HO XINGCHONG – 7th
PERRY WONG XING BO – 9th
TAN GIAN SEN – 11th
KHOO BOO CHENG JEREMIAH – 16th
MUHAMMAD ADLI ABIDI B ABDUL JABAR – 53rd
LIM WEI JUN – 54th
HONG JIA JUN ATHAN – 61st
CHIENG YU-XUAN ALBERT – 62nd
IRWIN TEO JIN KAI – 74th
TAN LUN HAO DANIEL – 75th
SIM TENG YANG MARK – 76th
LAM CHENG EN JOEL JEROME – 93rd

Singles

JOSH HO XINGCHONG – 1st

Quartet

JOSH HO XINGCHONG, TAN GIAN SEN, PERRY WONG XING BO, KHOO BOO CHENG JEREMIAH – 2nd

Reserve

ERNEST LIM

Overall: 2nd

GIRLS

Overall

YEO SU TING – 1st
DANIKA KAUR TEO LING – 7th
CHING MIN-FON PASCAL – 14th
GRACE YAP – 17th
VALERIE LAW – 19th
LIM QI HUI – 25th
EMMA LEE JIA QI – 35th
SIMONE ONG MEIQI – 41st

Doubles

VALERIE LAW, YEO SU TING – 2nd

Quartet

DANIKA KAUR TEO LING, CHING MIN-FON PASCAL, VALERIE LAW, YEO SU TING – 2nd

Reserves

JOANNE TAN HUI LI
SHENTAL ANG

Overall: 2nd

By Emily Ni (20S03C) and Valerie Tan (20A01E)
Photos courtesy of Joel Leong (20S03O) of the Raffles Photographic Society

The Raffles Asia Programme Symposium returned for its thirteenth edition this year, held in the Performing Arts Centre on the 24th of April. Featuring a host of research projects produced and delivered by students from the Humanities Programme, together with a keynote address by Ms Karen Chan, Executive Director of the Asian Film Archive, it promised three hours of discourse surrounding Asia.

The symposium opened with a speech by Ms Ng Mei Sze, Dean (Career & Higher Education). Quoting Sir Joshua Reynolds, she postulated that “all objects have blemishes”, and only those with “an eye for long laborious comparison” would be able to see them. And yet, details could be distracting; a scholar of the Humanities would have to learn to “be comfortable in the dynamism” in order to effectively study the world around them.

The keynote speaker for the afternoon was Ms Karen Chan, executive director of the Asian Film Archive. She stressed the importance of film as a site for historical and cultural discourse, as well as how it allowed Southeast Asian filmmakers to document and interrogate the notions of nation, identity and history. When interviewed afterwards on what she hoped students would take away from her presentation, she only asked that students “be more willing to explore Asian cinema instead of just looking at Western cinema”. Indeed, her keynote address gave an in-depth exploration of Asian cinema and its major movements, attesting to the fact that cinema in Asia is truly rich in culture and history.

Following that, the student keynote presentation by Bryan Ge (19A01B), Andrew Lau (19A01B) and Nihal Ahmed (19A01B) applied Osumare’s theory of “connective marginalities” to explore how Asian-Americans have used hip-hop to resist the ‘model minority myth’ in society. Additionally, they referred to the theory of ‘performative authenticity’ to argue that the portrayal of nuanced and genuine Asian-American lived experiences is mutually exclusive with commercial appeal. The presentation skillfully balanced entertainment and thoughtfulness, revealing insights about the use of music as not only an expression of identity but also as a subtle form of resistance.

After a short tea break, participants made their way to different venues to watch the student research presentations. With 15 presentations on diverse topics, they served as testaments to the students’ ability to unpack a multitude of complex issues about the world around them. Raffles Press will now explore some of the breakout sessions.

The Colour Conundrum: Discourse on Skin Colour in Singapore

Presented by Naia Nathan (19A01A), Aaron Tan (19A01B), and Rachelle Chua (19A01B)

This breakout session examined the unconscious prejudice that lives underground, but nonetheless exists in Singapore: colourism, where people discriminate not by race, but by skin colour (though the two are closely related). The presenters analysed discourse of dark skin in Singapore to explore the power structures that shape it, arriving at four different factors that led to the perpetuation of colourism: colonialism, Chinese dominance, advertising and politics. These factors do not, however, exist in isolation; colonialism foregrounds Chinese dominance, which is amplified by advertising, while politics enables everything else by generating an atmosphere of apathy and fear.

Colourism is not inevitable, the presenters stressed; it is not an amorphous, ever-present phenomenon with nebulous origins. Instead, it has clear roots in power structures upon which contemporary society is built, and could be a direct result of the way they interact. Perceptions and assertions with discourse continue across time, and are simply perpetuated by different structures to different ends. Discourse has power, they concluded, and it supports power imbalances that we take for granted—power imbalances that we should not be content with, and that we should strive to change in search of a society that is truly “based on equality”.

A question was raised during the Q&A segment with regard to whether the situation surrounding colourism was getting better or worse in Singapore: What is the state of racial relations in Singapore now, and how can we change these circumstances? It’s hard to say, the presenters responded, but we can all do something about it. We can challenge or question the power structures upholding these discourses, or perpetuate new positive discourses of our own.

The presentation thus ended on a hopeful note: Despite the colourism that still prevails in Singapore, there may come a day where it fades away, if we all play a part in changing the discourse that surrounds it.

Apostasy Laws in the Middle East: For God or For Government?

Presented by Carina Lee (19A01A), Moh Jin Yin (19A01A), and Andrea Suki (19A01B)

Apostasy is a word that many of us have never come across. This, coupled with the seemingly far-flung region of the Middle East, makes this a relatively foreign topic to some of us who may not be Muslim.

Apostasy is defined as the abandonment or renunciation of a religious or political belief of principle. Countries in the Middle East, such as Sudan, have enacted harsh laws, and even the death sentence, to punish apostates. This breakout session sought to explain the validity of these laws, as well as to explore the relationship between religion and the government.

The presenters first investigated the Islamic textual basis for criminalisation of apostasy in today’s society. Islamic law is a hierarchical system. The Qur’an is the most important and primary source. It is followed by the hadith, a record of Prophet Muhammed’s sayings and traditions. While the proponents of apostasy criminalisation cite the hadith, the presenters argued that this was flawed, as the Qur’an (the primary source of Islamic Law) is meant to be understood as all-encompassing and all-sufficient, with no extraneous resources required, not even the hadith. Additionally, over the course of their research, the group uncovered the view that the Qur’an espouses freedom of religion, contradicting the criminalisation of apostasy. The presenters hence concluded that the basis of citing religious text to justify the criminalisation of apostasy is questionable, and turned to historical evidence and events to find justification for the criminalisation of apostasy.

The earliest known incident of punishment of apostasy occurred in the years following 623 AD. Warfare was rife between Arab tribes and the Muslims. Some apostates deserted and allied themselves with the Arabs. Thus, the execution of apostates became a way to preserve the Islamic community. Furthermore, the period was meant to reflect most faithfully the ideals of the Qur’an. This would seem to point to the fact that in an ideal Islamic community, the persecution of apostates was permitted. Therefore, the presenters argued that it was crucial to understand apostasy laws within specific socio-political contexts.

The session then inspected the government’s role in criminalising apostasy. As a result of the constant upheaval and unrest in the Middle East, governments often find their legitimacy threatened. In such cases, it is beneficial to governments to portray themselves as defenders of the religion, through the criminalisation of apostasy. This is doubly advantageous, as it also invests in them a divinely-ordained status. In both ancient and modern time periods, portraying themselves as divine protectors of Islam allowed governments to legitimise their regime and gain greater authority and power. Criminalising apostasy thus became a highly effective way of getting people to comply with the government. Governments could use religion as a tool for political suppression—when publicly discrediting messages that could harm state authority, the government was able to disguise it as the protection of Islam, allowing them to silence any opposition and maintain their hold.

Finally, the presenters concluded that the perception of the structure of Islamic Law, as well as the religious deference of the Middle Eastern governments, create a climate where religion and apostasy laws can be used to forward political interests.

Contesting Voices: Social Media and General Elections in Singapore

Presented by Ryan Lim (19A01A), Fang Yihang (19A13A), and Ng Shang Wen (19A13A)

Social media, to many of us, is nothing but a platform to connect with friends and follow the lives of celebrities. It may hence surprise us that more politicians have started using social media to present authentic images of themselves, engage with their electorate and argue against their opponents. This breakout session thus sought to understand the influence of social media on Singapore’s elections, as well as its different uses and limitations.

Social media, the presenters argued, acts as an alternative source of information for the electorate, as mainstream media tends to elevate the ruling party (the PAP) and present the opposition negatively. The liberalisation of online spaces means that social media is seen as a means of genuine political participation and campaigning. However, there was no direct correlation between party performance and social media use, putting forth two questions to the audience: Is there a need to use social media to be successful? And what makes some efforts more successful than others?

The presenters argued that greater accessibility is only true insofar that a party has established credibility and conducted on-the-ground work such as regular house visits. Only then can social media—and a consistent use of it—act as a complement for outreach efforts on the ground.

The session then turned towards the voters, analysing their use of social media during election periods and the impact of doing so on voting behaviour. Voters continue to rely more on mainstream media for election news, using social media to consume information rather than express opinions—there is only a vocal minority, whose sentiments may not reflect voting behaviour. Nevertheless, social media could have flight-to-safety or swing effects, playing a minor role in determining voter behaviour.

The presenters concluded that politicians’ attempts to use social media to garner support must complement on-the-ground presence and reinforce overall credibility. Furthermore, social media is secondary to mainstream media, which voters trust more for election news, but sentiments expressed on it by the vocal minority can influence voting behaviour. Overall, the presentation offered insights into the role of social media beyond what our generation understands it to be, and proved that its role of affecting political discourse may well expand in future election cycles, changing the ways politicians campaign and interact with the nation.

Monsters, Magic, and Militarism: Charting Japanese War Memory in Hayao Miyazaki’s Animated Films

Presented by Alyssa Loo (19A13A), Kuang Shane Qi (19A13A), and Yu Ke Dong (19A13A)

Japan’s war memory has evolved tremendously in the last half-century, going from warmongering aggressor in World War II, to constitutional pacifist in the wake of the war, and now an unwilling belligerent since the early 2000s.

Animated films have long been used as tools to present historical narratives, and in this respect, the presenters discussed their choice of animator, Hayao Miyazaki. His films are profound in their nuanced, deliberate portrayals of war, reflecting and responding to existing narratives.

Set in a world destroyed by the Seven Days of Fire, Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind foregrounds Japan as a victim of the war, and dramatises the devastating effects of nuclear technology. It denounces that the Tolmekian’s actions, paralleled with the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, were callous and atrocious, rather than altruistic. Nausicaä has a firmly pacifist message, seeing the beauty in the world and communicating the belief that it is possible for Japan and the world to escape the cycle of destruction.

Howl’s Moving Castle is profoundly affected by Japan’s stance in the 2003 Iraq War, and portrays Japan as an unwilling belligerent. Howl’s anti-militancy is contrasted with Sullivan’s aggression, which mirrors the pressure the U.S exerted on Japan. In the end, Howl’s participation parallels that of Japan’s definitional and moral distortion. The film represents Japan’s uneasy and tumultuous journey to remilitarisation, and reflects popular sentiment: the mass public did not support Japan’s involvement in the Iraq War.

Finally, The Wind Rises portrays Japan as an aggressor, and deliberately subverts nationalistic myths. The main character, Jiro, is disappointed when he sees his legacy of destruction caused by the Zero Planes he helped to build. This comes at a time where Japanese nostalgia and nationalism was at its height, with advocates for increased military spending and a return to the glorified Japan of the past. Miyazaki uses the perversion of Jiro’s pacifist, idyllic dreams by war to undermine wartime nostalgia and denies the Zero Plane its eminence in Japan’s history.

The contradictions in Miyazaki’s films represent the public struggle of coming to terms with war, and how history and narratives can be a part of forging national identity.

Closing

This year’s symposium was truly thought-provoking, and everyone in the audience left with new questions and perspectives to ponder on. It again underscored the need for a more conscious understanding of this region of ours, and served as a reminder of how discerning eyes and minds were important in making sense of the world around us. It is also essential that we initiate the conversation by ourselves, as people living in and shaped by Asia, and not just rely on Western interpretations deemed superior—ultimately, one can only gain an authentic learning experience of the very world we live in by going out to explore it ourselves.

By Sophia He (20S03H) and Huang Beihua (20A03A)
Photos by Julia Chee (20S03D), Geng Heqin (20S06S), Jia Junran (20S06H), and Louise Tan (20S06D) of the Raffles Photographic Society

On the 26th of April, Raffles Institution Piano Ensemble (RIPE) invited their members and audiences alike to step away from the dull monotony of academia and routine, and into a rediscovered realm of fantastical imaginings, whimsical landscapes, and childlike wonder. In the gently dimmed light of LT2, audiences were treated to a kaleidoscope of pieces from romantic classics like Rachmaninoff’s “Romance and Valse”, to nostalgic film tracks like “Over The Rainbow” from The Wizard Of Oz.

Immediately upon entering the LT, decorations immersed the audience in a dreamy atmosphere—one different from the usual dreaminess the venue is known for—from the moment they set foot in the lecture theatre. Fairy lights shone like stars as they spelled out the night’s theme in calligraphy, while origami flowers in vibrant colours hinted at the joy of innocence the music would later invoke.

The two grand pianos that took centre stage (literally) would soon cede their spotlight to the two narrators of the night, as Pan Liyu (19S06D) materialised in a cloak, heralding a story that would, in the CCA’s unique tradition, eventually connect the repertoire with its plot. Limping onto the stage, Liyu introduced himself as the weary Lord of Dreams seeking a worthy successor in an overworked student, portrayed by Zhang Shi Tong (20S06G).

After waking the burnt out student from her peaceful slumber with Mozart’s “Overture to The Magic Flute, K.260”, she was introduced to the world of fantasy with two Japanese pieces: a Kimi no Na wa medley by Radwimps and “Morning of the Beginning” by Foxtail Grass. The lyricality of both pieces and the frivolousness of their lilting melodies set up an ethereal atmosphere befitting the narrative, and the seamless transition between pieces lulled the audience even further into the mesmerised ambience pervading the LT.

The Lord of Dreams then led us to Norway, with a convivial rendition of “Anitra’s Dance” from Peer Gynt, Op.23, a series of music written for the eponymous play. Vivid and evocative, the performance invigorated the audience with its fresh, energetic notes before segueing to another piece from the same suite, “Morning Mood”, depicting a sunrise in the play’s fourth act. Contrary to the typical morning mood of a student, the music suffusing the LT was calm and serene, as the pianists caressed the keys with exquisite care yet expert skill to paint a dawn full of promise and possibilities.

Returning from the far-flung Nordic lands, the student, reluctant in her wanderlust, was compelled to create her own paradise in their place, with inspiration from the elegant melodies of Gabriel Faure’s delicate “Dolly Suite”. The result was a journey down memory lane with “Someday My Prince Will Come” by Frank Churchill, a piece whose clear, crystalline high notes evoked the purity and innocence of a simpler time. The simple and sweet melody, however, quickly gave way to “Rose Adagio” from Sleeping Beauty, a more complicated piece that the pianists nevertheless handled with effortless ease. Rose-coloured lights gently veiled the stage as complex cadences cascaded smoothly from one to the next, before the tune concluded in a sweeping melody that left the audience in awe for more.

And more did come, in the form of an expert arrangement of “Bohemian Rhapsody” by RIPE’s very own Bryan Ge (19A01B) and Justin Liu (19S06S). Their realisation of the song’s grandiose soundscape managed to bring to life, with only the use of the traditional keyboard, one of the most iconic rock anthems of our time.

Indeed, the versatility of the pianists was apparent in their immaculate performances across an astonishing variety of genres, and the repertoire tonight reflected their confidence. Wesley Lam (19S05A) also greatly appreciated how the Ensemble took care to interweave the more classical pieces with contemporary ones, and was awed by the members’ effort in sourcing pieces from diverse origins.

The pianists’ great adaptability, however, manifested not only in the genres of their performance. Returning from the intermission, extra music sheet stands materialised on the stage, as guest performers from Chamber Ensemble joined the now-familiar pianos in the “Piano Quintet in C Minor” by Ralph Vaughan Williams. The mellow piano proved to work flawlessly with the new additions, as the meandering song of the violin underlined by the double bass all worked together to weave into being one sweeping, melancholic tune.

That was, as the audience would discover in the following song, not all that there was to the already impressive coordination the performers were capable of. “Romance” and “Tempo di Valse”, from the Russian virtuoso Sergei Rachmaninoff, demanded seamless trust and cooperation between pianists as a trio of them sat together to bring the score to life. The pieces demanded even physical contortion as arms crossed over each other multiple times to reach the keys they needed, but in typical brilliance, they worked flawlessly as one to realise the works’ nuances.

The ever-inquisitive student, returning from her sojourn in 20th Century Russia, then embarked upon an ambitious crossover (arguably the best since Infinity War), fusing the structured classical works of Mozart with the careless abandon of late 19th Century ragtime. The frenzied rhythms and controlled chaos of the short, crisp notes transitioned flawlessly at exuberant pace from one to another, and, as the programme booklet pronounced, “liv[ed] out Mozart’s dream”.

The dexterous pianists then wasted no time in delving into the perennial classics of our time: “Over the Rainbow” from The Wizard of Oz, and “Stars” from Les Miserables. The familiar tunes were skilfully reinterpreted and brought to life, with their emblematic melodies stirring up first tendrils of nostalgia, and then the solid conviction only the righteous at heart could hold. The musical dreamscape then took a more contemplative turn with “Epilogue” from La La Land. The popular musical’s overarching conflict between optimism and regret was expressed immaculately in this oneiric piece, as the performers, opposite each other on their separate pianos, alternated between solo lines of pensive reflection, almost as if an intimate conversation was taking place.

This enchanting journey through beautiful, diverse dreams would eventually have to end somewhere, and, when the conclusion arrived, it arrived spectacularly with the Greatest Showman Medley. Blending slower and faster pieces alike, the spellbinding voyage through the sensational film took us from the hopeful and passionate “Rewrite the Stars” to the fiery resolve of “This Is Me”, before the pianists rose together, and took a bow to deafening applause.

After bidding his budding apprentice farewell to pursue her own fantastical dreams, the Lord of Dreams then called upon his buddies of old for a final round of merrymaking with the Undertale Medley, as arranged by Jin Minyue (19S06H). This unexpected encore had audiences enraptured with the dynamism of the players, as members of the departing Y6 batch came together to celebrate their time together not only as members of the Raffles Institution Piano Ensemble, but more importantly, as fellow musicians. As the musicians took turns stirring the ivory keys into their jubilant dance, they skipped, shuffled, and laughed under the effusive, vaguely carnivalesque air of their reverie’s culmination, before they would awaken reluctantly to a world void of the collaborative music-making that had brightened their Tuesday afternoons for so long.

Then, it was time to go on our separate ways. Members of the audience slowly (and reluctantly) stood up on their way out, while the stars of the night returned backstage to clean up and to bask in the accomplishment of a job well done. Outside, lingering listeners remained at the photobooth for some last memoirs before they returned home, for a sequel to this dreamland, to the fanciful landscape they had journeyed to, to innocence and wonder rediscovered, and to the reverie that enthralled and enraptured.

Concert Repertoire

Overture to The Magic Flute K.620
Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart
Performed by Samuel Foo, Soh Wen Wei, Zhou Yi Rui, Low Chen Yi

Kimi no na wa Medley
Radwimps
Performed by Liu Haixuan, Tan Rui Zhe

Morning of the Beginning
Foxtail Grass (arr. Samuel Foo)
Performed by Pan Liyu, Samantha Wong

Peer Gynt, Op. 23
Edvard Grieg
III. Anitra’s Dance
Performed by Claudeon Susanto, Rachel Lim

I. Morning Mood
Performed by Zhang Shitong, Megan Hon

Dolly Suite, III. Le Jardin de Dolly
Gabriel Faure
Performed by Zhu Jieshuai, Wan Yuanjun

Someday my Prince will come
Frank Churchill
Performed by Yu Jia Lin, Yuan Ruoqing

Rose Adagio from “Sleeping Beauty”
Tchaikovsky
Performed by Pan Liyu, Zhu Jieshuai

Bohemian Rhapsody
Queen (arr. Justin Liu, Bryan Ge)
Performed by Justin Liu, Bryan Ge

Intermission

Piano Quintet in C Minor, I. Allegro con Fuoco
Ralph Vaughan Williams
Performed by Samuel Foo, Fan Yiting, Roger Zhao, Ng Woon Ngee, Jacinda Soh

2 Pieces for 6 Hands: Romance and Valse
Sergei Rachmaninoff
Performed by Jin Minyue, Shirley Chee, Zhou Yirui

Ragtime Alla Turca
Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart
Performed by Zhang Ming, Zhang Yuchi

Over the Rainbow from “The Wizard of Oz”
Harold Arlen (arr. Melody Bober)
Performed by Liu Haixuan, Tan Rui Zhe, Tan Jun Xiang, Low Chen Yi

Stars from ‘Les Miserables’
Claude-Michel Schonberg
Performed by Samuel Foo, Soh Wen Wei

Epilogue from ‘La La Land’
Justin Hurwitz (arr. Tan Yuxuan, Wan Yuanjun, Samuel Foo)
Performed by Tan Yuxuan, Wan Yuanjun

Greatest Showman Medley
Pasek and Paul
Performed by Shirley Chee, Samantha Wong

By Megan Soh (20A01B), Mah Xiao Yu (20A01B), and Coco Liu (20S06L)
Photographs courtesy of S Rahul (19S06A) and Ting Hou Yee (19S03S) of the Raffles Photographic Society

24th April 2019 was a special day. Red and white balloons  lined the staff lounge windows, flowery decorations hung from the walls, and a mini-buffet with an array of Chinese snacks was set up in the middle of the lounge. In one corner, unabashedly belted out Mandarin songs into a microphone. Others milled around with drinks and snacks, occasionally exclaiming at the sight of old friends and colleagues who had left the school. It was like Chinese New Year, only come two months late.

At the centre of it all sat an 82-year-old lady, surrounded by a ceaseless stream of teachers and staff—past and present—who had come to wish her well. Their heartfelt words and gentle gestures were reminiscent of children paying homage to their elderly mother, speaking of the depth of the love and respect they held for her.

She is Auntie Ah Huay, and this was her retirement party. But who is Auntie Ah Huay?

The name might not ring familiar with most students, but during her time working in RI, she was a beloved   of the staff room: beyond her duties as a cleaner, she was a motherly figure of warmth and selfless devotion to the teachers.

Every morning, Auntie Ah Huay would rise before the sun to make her arduous journey to school. In addition to the walking, she would take three different buses, regardless of the weather and her declining health. Once in school, she would take on the essential tasks of making coffee, cleaning the teachers’ tables, clearing the trash, and keeping the staff room in order. She has been doing this tirelessly for 37 years, since the school’s Mount Sinai days.

However, her impact reaches far beyond the scope of her work. Through small, thoughtful gestures, she has touched the lives of the people around her, making the teachers’ days that little bit brighter.

“She [would] always reserve a portion of the food  for me,” recalled Mr Simon Quek (HOD/Economics). “She would make it a point to let me have a banana or an apple and leave it on my table.” Like a doting grandmother, she would often leave food on teachers’ tables or share the little treats that she bought. Several teachers also said that she would often inquire after their day and ask if they had eaten—“nagging” them to do so if they had not and reminding them how important it was to take care of their health.

Even though Auntie Ah Huay does not speak English or Mandarin, only Hokkien, both she and the teachers would make an effort to understand one another, using gestures or simple words. The language barrier did not stop friendships and strong bonds from blossoming between her and the teachers. As Mr Faisal Ali, former Head of Staff Wellbeing, aptly put it, “we understood so much despite saying so little.” Mrs Nicola Perry (ADH/English Lit & Theatre Studies), who barely understands Hokkien, told us of how Auntie Ah Huay would always come up to her and compliment her hair, for example, with the Hokkien word swee. “She’s always very quick to appreciate, and to give recognition, and to be kind […] To me, she’s a personification of kindness,” she said. And while Auntie Ah Huay is generous with her compliments, she herself remains humble. Ms Umarami (ADH/Knowledge Skills) recounted to us how the teachers would praise Auntie Ah Huay for her permed hair during the Chinese New Year period and how Auntie Ah Huay would act shyly in response. It was these small but special interactions and moments that everyone around her treasured. “She always made an effort to perk us up in special ways,” said Mrs Dayna Chia, a former teacher who returned to RI for this event.

Despite her advanced age and the physical challenges—she sometimes has trouble walking due to weakness in her legs—that come with it, Auntie Ah Huay values her independence and always took pride in her job. Oftentimes, her work was “invisible”, but it was no less crucial for the staff room and the staff, with a far-reaching and long-lasting impact.

“She has taught us about duty,” said Ms Eva Hor (HOD/Student Well-being), the initiator of the event. “Everyone to her is an individual who is deserving of her time and energy. She looks after every person, looks after the smallest detail about everyone […] That’s what she has taught me: to care for [one another].”

Perhaps what is most heart-warming is the sheer volume of people who turned up—despite the initial estimated turnout of 60 people, eventually, around a hundred guests came to celebrate Auntie Ah Huay’s retirement with her. From RJC’s former principal Mr Winston Hodge (2001-2007) to former teachers currently teaching in other schools, as well as retired staff members, the event was an opportunity for the guests to meet and reconnect with their friends whom they hadn’t met in a long time. It could be said that Auntie Ah Huay is a beacon, a rallying point who brings everyone together.

“Given how fast-paced school life is and how busy everyone is, everyone’s always got to be somewhere, at any given time,” said Mr Gavin Swee (History), “It’s very significant how we have just taken one afternoon to come down and hang out…this kind of camaraderie and warmth is what makes Raffles such a great place to teach and work at.”

When we finally managed to secure an interview with Auntie Ah Huay after the crowds began thinning out, we were pleasantly surprised by her cheerful demeanour and vitality. She had nothing but praise for the principals, teachers, staff and students. She told us about how well she was treated by everyone and that no one ever looked down on her, even recalling fondly how students would sometimes hold her hand and walk with her, or help her carry heavy things. She explained that this motivated her to stay on and serve the school.

“I used to look after the plants [in the staff lounge],” she joked with us in Hokkien. “Now they’re dying.”

Even though this event was supposed to be about Auntie Ah Huay, to celebrate her contributions in more ways than one, her selfless and caring nature towards the people around her continued to shine through it all. During our interview with her, she kindly urged us to help ourselves to the food, and even personally gave us red bean pastries to snack on. We were deeply touched to have experienced first-hand what exactly it was that made her so well loved among everyone she encountered.

Perhaps the best way to describe her is, as Mr Adrian Tan (HOD/Knowledge Skills) put it, “[she embodies] what Martin Luther King said: ‘Not everybody can be famous, but everybody can be great, because greatness is determined by service.’”

Raffles Press would like to thank Auntie Ah Huay for all that she has done for the school and wish her a happy retirement as well as good health and spirits. Indeed, she has taught us a lot and left a deep impact that will surely be felt for a long time to come. May we continue to bestow upon others the kindness and warmth she bestowed upon us!

By Phang Yeu Yeou (19A01A), Benjamin Liew (20A03A), and Tay Jing Xuan (20S03C)
Photographs courtesy of Raffles Judo and Raffles Photographic Society

The anticipation in the dojo was electric as spectators and competitors alike geared up for the A and B Division bouts of the 2019 Judo National School Games Finals. Throngs of eyes and ears turned themselves onto the mats, as spectators pressed themselves against every free inch of space along the fences to better take in the action, while the judoka restrained themselves to occupying just one side of the mats.

And what a spectacle it was! Raffles Press brings you inside each athlete’s personal journey through the sport, in order to give you the rundown on the thrilling throws and takedowns of this year’s finals.

Before each judoka stepped onto the mats, some physical (and mental) preparation was in order. By the side of the mats, training partners rehearsed their drills for the last time during warm-ups, entering and re-entering their throws with fanatical determination, yanking their partners’ lapels up and pressuring them down over and over like clockwork. Teammates sought reassurance from one another, and coaches patted their proteges’ backs while issuing well-meaning reminders. Belts were re-tied, spectacles and competitors’ tags were taken off, and the wooden floor reverberated with the impact of judoka bouncing up and down to keep their footwork loose and limber. Most arduous of all was the wait, as competitors never know if the bout before them would finish in six seconds flat or extend into golden score for nine minutes (as some bouts actually did). And then, it was time to face the music—three bows (once before the mats, once before the inner square, and once to your opponent), and the game was on.

Bronze Medal Bouts

A DIV GIRLS (LIGHTWEIGHT): CHIA YEE WEI

The action finally commenced, with RI’s first judoka, Yee Wei, stepping up for the bronze medal lightweight bout against her NYJC contemporary. Her aggressive determination to come away with a medal was apparent as she ran through her warm-up routines, but this was tinged with apprehension; the stakes at this stage in the competition were understandably high.

At the referee’s cry of “Hajime!” (begin!), Yee Wei promptly burst out of the starting blocks, grappling with her opponent as they fought to get a grip. Cheers of personal support from teammates all around the dojo rang out amidst the roar of the crowd as they sought to both advise and encourage her: “calm down, Yee Wei!”, “don’t rush”, and “balance!” However, despite her valiant efforts, she was eventually overpowered by her opponent and forced onto her back for 20 seconds, resulting in a win by ippon (a full point) to NYJC. Visibly disappointed, Yee Wei left the mats following a short hug with her opponent. Her efforts, however, did not go unnoticed by supporters and teammates alike; rapturous applause lit up the sports hall all the same.

A DIV BOYS (EXTRA LIGHTWEIGHT): JED GOH

With the resolution of the bronze medal bouts for the girls, it was time for the boys to duke it out on the mats. Jed, squinting without his spectacles, walked up to face his opponent with a steadfast expression to start off the first bout of the boys’ category. Silence rang out around the halls as the two faced the other down—which of the two would walk away with a bronze medal around their neck?

Starting off with a bounce on his feet and a grip on the opponent’s collar, Jed dodged multiple attempts at sweeping and reaping by CJC’s fighter, pinning him face down on the ground before a “Mate!” (stop!) pulled them apart. They resumed the bout with a calculated search for openings, striking at each other’s sleeves to get a good grip—until Jed was pulled onto his back and over his opponent’s leg to score an ippon for CJC in the thirtieth second. While Jed jogged back to his starting position and hugged the other judoka in a show of sportsmanship, the Raffles crowd stayed silent amidst ecstatic screams by the other team, stunned by the sudden hiza guruma (knee wheel throw). Nevertheless, there was no lack of encouraging shouts and pats on the back as he left the mats.

A DIV BOYS (LIGHTWEIGHT): ZHANG CHEN

Next to take up the gauntlet was Zhang Chen, a fresh face amongst the Raffles team but no less competent for it, having DSAed into RI via Judo. He stepped onto the mats, resolve and nervousness intermingled and etched on his face. As the bout began, he strode forward with purpose, aggressively grip-fighting with his HCI opponent, eyes darting wildly as he probed for an opening with deceptively lazy gestures. Despite his best attempts, his opponent was eventually the first to make the most of an opening; an ippon after 30 seconds was enough to clinch that coveted medal for HCI, leaving Zhang Chen sitting dejected on the mat as his opponent celebrated with the HCI supporters. His tenacity and aggression were noticeably appreciated by the crowd, however—win or lose, the Raffles supporters stood behind him nonetheless, with appreciative applause ringing out as he left the mats.

A DIV BOYS (MIDDLEWEIGHT): XI WENHAN

A close fight up until the very end, Wenhan certainly didn’t make it easy for his opponent, sweeping him off his feet with cleanly executed—albeit unsuccessful points-wise— minor techniques. The roar from the Rafflesian crowd grew more and more deafening with every attempted throw by the ostensibly well-versed Wenhan, with the sentiment “not if, but when” growing stronger with every passing second. But with every attempt to score a point, Wenhan’s HCI opponent defended and dived well as the clock ticked down. Finally, with 10 seconds remaining and against the run of play, his opponent launched a deadly counter-attack that left Wenhan sprawled on his back—the bout was over. A sense of stunned disbelief settled on the crowd. The disappointment on Wenhan’s face was palpable, with that single moment costing him dearly. Credit where credit is due, however—the sheer tenacity he possessed to fight until the very end was commendable in itself.

Gold Medal Bouts

A DIV GIRLS (FEATHERLIGHT): VALERIE LU

The first of the A Division Gold medal bouts, Valerie’s bout was to prove prophetic for the rest of the bouts to come. A pensive look followed Valerie onto the mats, though her condition was soon to worsen. Having suffered an injury to her wrist in the trainings leading up to finals, she nevertheless hiked up her sleeves and got down to business regardless. Valerie began the match by sticking it close to her HCI opponent, engaging in close-quarters grip-fighting without abating multiple times. Her morote seoinage earned her a waza-ari (a half point), though it wasn’t enough to secure her the win. Other throws were committed to, but overturned by her opponent due to Valerie herself overturning into the throw.

At last, disaster struck: A blow to her leg caused Valerie’s injury to be aggravated, and first-aid had to be called to the scene. The atmosphere took on a more sombre note, as concern for her safety temporarily overshadowed her teammates’ desire to see her bring home a medal. In spite of the pain, Valerie drew upon her reserves of strength to see the bout through to the end, and eventually triumphed with an ippon-winning throw with 24 seconds to go. Despite having to hobble awkwardly off the mats after her bout’s conclusion, her dignity shone through in the pride with which she carried herself at earning her gold medal despite the setbacks—a sentiment which the crowd and her coach fully shared in, as the latter carried her out of the dojo after the bout’s conclusion.

A DIV GIRLS (EXTRA LIGHTWEIGHT): YONG WEN YING

A walking paradox, Wen Ying took her spot opposite her opponent with the gait of a seasoned soldier, despite the decidedly apprehensive look on her face. The bout began, and a nerve-wracking hold for an almost-waza-ari in the first 30 seconds of the bout piqued the crowd’s bloodlust, prompting full-throated chants of “Hold! Hold! Hold!” from Rafflesian spectators around the dojo, but alas her HCI opponent managed to escape the hold to regain her footing and her chance at gold.

After a near-scare around the 2:10 mark—at which point her opponent had almost managed to throw her down for an ippon—smooth footwork and a strong defence soon gave Wen Ying a golden window of opportunity within the next 30 seconds. Veering dangerously close to the boundary, she pushed back into her opponent with all her might and dove straight at the chance for a full-bodied ippon, earning herself jubilated screams, a thunderous round of applause, and a gold medal. Her own elation was evident for all to see as she left the dojo at a sprint to share a round of hugs with her friends and teammates, who wasted no time in congratulations and “I told you so’s”.

As Wen Ying herself would share with us later, this moment carried special pride for her, being her first—and last, at least for the foreseeable future—gold medal of her judo career. Well-played and well-deserved, indeed.

A DIV GIRLS (LIGHTWEIGHT): XEN-EL GOH

Next to start the bout against HCI was Xen-El, dogged determination studding her every move as she fought to get a secure grip on her opponent. Cheers from the team and alarmed gasps from the other school followed her dive to the ground, where both judokas wrestled valiantly to get each other on their backs. However, even with Xen-El’s well-timed sweeps and firm hold on the other’s lapel, an uchimata (inner thigh throw) executed by her opponent at the 20th second saw her on the ground to score an ippon for HCI. Although disappointment was evident on her face and the Rafflesian team, her courage and technique were equally indisputable—no matter the results of her bout, it can certainly be said that she put up a strong fight throughout her entire match.

A DIV GIRLS (MIDDLEWEIGHT): KOM HWEE RU

Great expectations were entertained—and answered—for Hwee Ru’s bout; even before her name had been announced, the Rafflesian team had riled itself up in anticipation in chanting her name with all the vigour and exuberance of their utter confidence in her abilities. And little wonder that she was a crowd favourite—seeing as she was the only girl from her batch to continue the sport.

Striding confidently onto the mats, the command of “Hajime!” had barely been issued before Hwee Ru seized her grip and her gold medal in flipping her opponent in a complete revolution over her shoulder, in a textbook-perfect rendition of a morote seoinage (two armed shoulder throw). 6 seconds: that was all it took for Hwee Ru to claim her ippon and the A Division Girls’ overall gold. In a split second, everyone from the Raffles team (and even some from other schools) within the halls had deserted their composure entirely; the dojo exploded with people leaping to their feet, and the halls thundered with the disbelieving chorus of shrieking and hollering all at once.

Adrenaline still racing after her bout, Hwee Ru revealed after the fact that she’d “felt both nervous and excited” during her bout, “because if I win [the team] wins”. Adding to her stress was the fact that she had never won any championship title in the past, aside from a match she had participated in three years ago. Knowing now how her winning throw within those six seconds had secured the school’s championship title, she shared, “I felt so [agitated] that when I stepped out of the mats, I wanted to start crying, and then I actually did.”

Yet, even as she acknowledged her own contributions to her batch’s victory, she was quick to set the record straight that the rest of the team had worked equally hard, too. “I feel very proud of my teammates, especially my Y6 seniors, who stuck it out for super long. I know it’s a title we’ve been meaning to win for so long, and I feel like everyone worked super hard this year and they didn’t give up even when they were on the verge of breakdown,” she said. “There was a lot of team spirit. Even when they had CTs or other commitments, they still made it a point to come down and train, knowing that training as a team would help the team a lot more.”

Grinning, she added, “Shoutout to Tongchen (A Division Girls’ captain), who has been my training partner for the past 5-6 months, for keeping up with my unnecessary demands and for learning to breakfall for me because I’m a left player!”

A DIV BOYS (EXTRA LIGHTWEIGHT): TEH GUANG ZHE

With the conclusion of the girls’ bouts for the day, it was time for the boys to step up, and for Guang Zhe’s turn to compete. Donning a HCI gi, the Judo team captain’s appearance on the mats elicited a round of applause and excited chants of his name from the crowd. The two opponents circled each other like sharks, hands darting in and out to seek an opening in the other’s defences and latch onto their lapels. It was to prove an exercise in patience for all involved. Although Guang Zhe fought well and hard—not once did he back down from nor follow his opponent’s multiple attempts to throw him onto the ground—the bout persisted in a stalemate for the first minute, much to the gnawing anxiety of all watching. It seemed as if they were evenly matched as every attack made was blocked by Guang Zhe’s agile instincts, until HCI’s fighter caught him off guard to score a waza-ari for his school at the midpoint of the bout.

There was desperation in both Guang Zhe’s and the Rafflesian team’s eyes to make a comeback and overturn the scores as time ticked down to 30 seconds, to 20, and then to 10. Despite running himself ragged with increasingly explosive entries, it was not to be. While HCI drew a shido (penalty) for excessive defensiveness, the medal ultimately went to the opponent for his earlier waza-ari. Even so, it was indubitable that the RI Judo captain had played remarkably, a sentiment staunchly shared by all as roaring cheers accompanied him back to his team.

A DIV BOYS (MIDDLEWEIGHT): JUN WEI

Jun Wei’s bout soon asserted itself as the bout to watch, not for its judo techniques (though no less gripping than the other bouts’ had been) but for the way his bout managed to unite the usually disparate St. Joseph’s and Rafflesian camps into cheering for him and him alone. We were soon to discover that the reason for this was that Jun Wei had DSAed from SJI into RI, as both schools cast aside their established school cheers and chanted instead the time-honoured athlete’s cheer as one: “Let’s go Jun Wei, let’s go!”

Although HCI’s fighter was a formidable opponent, Jun Wei was undeterred by the tricky situations he was forced into—he was caught in a leg lock by the other judoka and yanked down to the ground to be flipped onto his back, but with deft technique and strength he pulled himself out of the trap and back onto his feet. The next 1.5 minutes saw them repeating that same pattern of grappling and throwing each other to the ground on their fronts to no avail, all indicative of evenly matched skill and defence.

There was no sign of a point throughout this protracted battle, apart from a shido for HCI, until Jun Wei’s attempt to pull his opponent to the ground was countered and a waza-ari was obtained by the other team. Then came the last minute of their bout—with not much time left at all, Jun Wei pressed on, attempting throw after throw when the other competitor left an opening. All were overturned, however, and the bout’s victory was thereafter awarded to HCI. Nevertheless, Jun Wei fought brilliantly till the very end, and his resolve and quick thinking earned him his fair share of plaudits once off of the mats.

Other Notable Bouts

A DIV GIRLS (HALF-HEAVYWEIGHT): YANG TONGCHEN

Tongchen did not play at finals, having already won gold the previous day.

A DIV GIRLS (Raffles Represent): GLADYS TAN

A DIV BOYS (Raffles Represent): AIDAN LI

Closing Words

The Judo team truly reaped their rightful rewards of their labour that day—the boys’ team emerged as runners-up, while the girls clinched their hard-earned overall National School Games Judo champions of 2019 with four gold medals and one silver medal.

The medals they received weren’t the only things that would stay with them for the rest of their lives, though. A Division Boys’ Captain Teh Guang Zhe (19S03E), who has trekked through his Judo journey for six whole years, said, “It’s especially memorable for us seniors, since it’s the last year we’re [competing in interschools]. It’s also a different venue this year, but although the atmosphere was different, I can still feel the spirit of Judo, which is something I will hold dear to my heart.” He added that the team has “trained (their) hearts out” and that he was immensely proud of them, whether they had won a medal or not.

Sporting a broad grin to match after the prize ceremony, A Division Girls’ Captain Tongchen shared her pride for her batch’s efforts: “It was a hard fought victory—our batch wasn’t that talented, but we made up for it with hard work. Along with the help of Hwee Ru, we regained the title [of champions] from last year. [Earning the title of champions] was a touching moment for all, and it really was a dream team combination this year.” To her batch, she added that they did a good job and that they played very well, having done “nice throws” and “follow[ing] through with [their] principle of doing good judo and winning bouts with beautiful technique.”

Raffles Press would like to congratulate the Judo team on their remarkable achievements, and wish the Y6 judokas all the best in their future endeavours!

By Alyssa Marie Loo (19A13A) and Kuang Shane Qi (19A13A)
Photos courtesy of Alyssa Marie Loo (19A13A)

Home to around 100,000 graves since its opening in 1922, Bukit Brown became the epicentre of heated debate in Singapore in 2011 when the Land Transport Authority announced plans to exhume the Chinese cemetery for a highway. Now in 2019, 4000 exhumed graves and a completed Lornie Highway later, Bukit Brown’s area space and grave numbers may indeed have shrunk, but public interest in conserving its history, stories and inhabitants have only grown.

Although the graveyard is only a short trip from the RI campus, following the ridge of the Macritchie Reservoir, it is a world of a difference: finding the small road leading into the cemetery is hard enough, much less navigating its uneven hills, broken paths, and overgrown vegetation.

Luckily for us, we had an expert guide, Mr Darren Koh. He is a proud ‘Brownie’ of All Things Bukit Brown (atBB), a heritage group that conducts guided walks, collects research and stories about the site, and advocates for the preservation of the cemetery.

As a Malaysian and a lawyer, Mr Koh is not the one you’d expect to be wearing a neck towel, wielding a hiking stick and bashing through a forest to give niche tours on Singapore’s graveyard history. But regardless of his day job or nationality, one thing that he has always been interested in is the act of telling stories—and what place offers better stories to tell than Bukit Brown? In a 2015 interview with atBB, he said, “There is much to be told from the stones: they tell of the person. From the research, we get the story to enable us to link the person from the past to what it means today. That is the job of the storyteller—that’s why I love it when people get the stories!”

Raffles Press (RP) had the chance to conduct our own exclusive interview with Mr Koh (DK), surfacing his insights on the heritage conservation debate surrounding Bukit Brown.

RP: What is your opinion on Bukit Brown being exhumed?

DK: My opinion on Bukit Brown being exhumed? Well… sad. It is a loss to Singapore of a link to her history, her past. It is a past that is rich in personalities and cultural exchanges that unfortunately has been lost over time. The Singapore of today seems pretty antiseptic: the attractions are curated by ‘official-dom’, and everything has to be neat and nice. Unfortunately, the real world is not like that, and for some Singaporeans travelling or working abroad, it can be a bit of a culture shock.

Perhaps it is time to revisit the past and learn what real life was like, to understand how in a time where the world was facing so many disruptions, you could not rely on a government to plan its way for everyone to succeed; the reason why it’s called a ‘disruption’ is that all plans fail. The pioneers had few plans and succeeded by being resilient and resourceful; they “thought outside the box” because they had no box of preconceived ideas to hem them in. And that’s how they succeeded.

RP: Is the exhumation an inevitable process of development?

DK: Is it an inevitable process of development? No. It only is if you continue to fallaciously frame the debate as a binary issue: heritage or development. That is such an easy cop-out. Brilliance would be framing the challenge as one of heritage WITH development.

I will give two examples from England: the Queen Mary College University of London has an interesting quadrangle amongst its buildings. Unlike other quadrangles which have buildings on four sides of a lawn, this one is one four sides of a Jewish cemetery. They have plaques telling the history of the Jewish people and how the cemetery came to be where it is. They didn’t exhume.

Another is found in Newcastle, England. There are still parts of the ancient Roman wall that used to surround the ancient parts of the city. When a new housing development came up right by one of these walls, instead of tearing it down, they incorporated the walls into the development, making it part of the walls around the development. Again, heritage WITH development.

RP: There have been efforts to digitise the culture and memories from heritage sites, but do you think these initiatives are effective in preserving cultural memory?

DK: They help, but no. We are humans… we are sentient, sensual beings. There is a difference between reading about a tomb, and actually being there among the trees, hearing the crackle of twigs at your feet, and hopping up when the ants get too invasive. I invite you to visit the digitised record of the tombs that were exhumed because of the road. www.bukitbrown.info is a pale experience compared to walking in Bukit Brown itself.

RP: What’s your most interesting experience/encounter at Bukit Brown?

DK: Most interesting experience? Once, at the end of a walk, someone put up his hand and asked, ‘Do you happen to know where Block 3 Division B, plot 450 is?’ Something rang in my mind and I asked, ‘Why?’

‘My relative is buried there and I don’t know how to find him.’

‘3B, Plot 450… that’s near Essel Tan…’ I said to myself, and the person said, ‘THAT’S HIM! That’s my uncle!’

Thankfully I did know where Essel Tan was, and I reunited him with his Uncle’s and his grandfather’s tombs. It was a very touching moment, watching him pay his respects to his uncle and his grandparents… and to know I was given that opportunity to link them back together.”

Despite the swarms of mosquitoes and the fear of an impending thunderstorm, we found Mr Koh’s tour both exciting and enlightening. With his expert navigation, we trekked through dark foliage to find hidden graves in forest clearings, learned how to read stories just from gravestones, and discovered the dark stories behind some of the affluent Chinese businessmen of early Singapore. While Bukit Brown certainly had been a point of intellectual interest from its conservation controversy, it was only thanks to Mr Koh’s storytelling that we could see Bukit Brown for what it truly was: a monument to history, family traditions and Singapore’s early memories.

Raffles Press would highly encourage attending a guided tour hosted by one of atBB’s Brownies. Available tours are posted on atBB’s Facebook group regularly; sign up for one, and you might just see the Bukit Brown cemetery come to life.

By Clara Shen (20A01A), Gabrielle Ng (20A01E), and Jermaine Wong (20S03R)
Photos courtesy of Raffles Photographic Society

With High Hopes by Panic! at the Disco blasting in the background, the atmosphere at the OCBC Aquatic Centre is lively but tense, as competitors and spectators alike anticipate the sounding of the starting signal. It is the fifth day of the National Schools Swimming Championships, and our swimmers are preparing for their final face off against fierce contenders from other tertiary institutions.

At the stands, our supporters are easily identifiable by the sea of green and white balloons they are waving excitedly in the air. It was certainly heartwarming to see a crowd of fellow schoolmates joining in camaraderie to cheer on our swimmers, who have been training hard for this very day and need all the energy they can get to complete this final stretch. Today, they expect, is going to be a day of triumphs after all the trials and tribulations they’ve been through. Yes, the stakes are high, but the spirits of the team and their supporters are also at an all-time high. After all, there is nothing more exhilarating than a sport in which fraction of a second could mean the difference between a gold and a silver.

The RI girls achieved outstanding results, with Chelsea Khoo (20S07A), Megan Ng (20S03Q) and Shae-Lynn Tan (19S03F) clinching 1st, 2nd and 4th positions respectively for the 50m backstroke event. In the subsequent 100m freestyle, the girls’ team continued to impress as both participants, Cherlyn Yeoh (19S03N) and Tang Yee Teng (20S06C), attained a spot on the podium with Cherlyn winning the gold medal, and Yee Teng, the silver. Vice-captain Kathlyn Laiu (19S05A) also did the school proud by achieving 1st in the 200m breaststroke with a timing of 2:50.53, a whole 10 seconds faster than the girl who came in 2nd.

The highlight of the event was when the girls’ swim team which consisted of Chelsea, Cherlyn, Elizabeth, and Kathlyn came in first in the 200m freestyle relay, to rousing cheers. Their remarkable display of teamwork has once again proven that swimming is a team sport as much as it is an individual sport. Charging with full steam ahead, the relay team clocked an admirable timing of 1:49.31, nearly ten seconds ahead of the silver.

From the boys’ team, Ethan Lim (19A01C) finished as 1st runner-up in the 100m freestyle event after an extremely close contest where he was pitted against strong swimmers from ACSI and CJC. Up next was the 200m butterfly, where Jaryl Yeo (20S06I) gave his all and won both the bronze medal, as well as the approval of the crowd. Although he later confided in an interview with us that “losing second felt bad”, his coach still reaffirmed that “it was a good race” as his timing of 2:10.25 in this event was a personal best. The support from his family, who has been by his side since the start of this journey, and from his friends who came down to cheer him on that day, also encouraged and comforted him.

The boys’ swim team, comprising Daryl, Ethan, Glen, and Rhys, put up a good fight in the 200m freestyle relay, placing a close second behind ACSI with a timing of 1.36.22. This particular relay was an intense fight between RI and ACSI, with our swimmers maintaining a marginally close distance behind. Although ACS(I) may have performed better in the boys’ division this year, several swimmers we spoke to were confident that with hard work and determination, RI could be crowned double champions next year.

Of course, behind these remarkable achievements are months of both mentally and physically demanding trainings where many swimmers had no choice but to sacrifice the time they had for sleep and for completing their schoolwork. With training sessions either once or twice a day in the morning and afternoon, it is easy to see why these athletes face difficulties juggling their CCA and their studies. As Jaryl also shared with us, “During this whole period, I didn’t go out with my friends. [When I had] free time, [I would] just sleep.”

Overall, the team delivered outstanding results in fruition of their months of hard work, with the girls landing a gold medal with 216 points, and the boys attaining a silver medal with 159 points. This would not have been possible without the collective support from teachers, coaches, family, and friends who have journeyed alongside our swimmers.  Our swimmers had truly put their limits to the test, going beyond their mental and physical barriers to bring glory to the school. With that, Raffles Press would like to congratulate the Raffles swim team on their impressive achievements!

By Megan Soh (20A01B) and Jermaine Wong (20S03R)
Photos courtesy of Celine Chung (20S06H) and Fallon Thng (20S03B) from Raffles Photographic Society

There was no better way to end off a long school week than to attend Spark 2019, a concert organized by Raffles Community Advocates (CA) that aimed to raise awareness of the Deaf community in Singapore. Promising a night of music, dance and theatre, the concert hopes to spark a positive change in attitudes towards the Deaf by bridging the gap between the hearing community and the Deaf community.

Michele Pek (20A01A) and Tan Yanning (20A03A) were the vivacious and bubbly emcees who kept the mood of the concert upbeat and vibrant throughout. They started off the event by introducing the audience to sign language, including how to say hello and how to applaud in Singapore Sign Language (SgSL), which would later come in handy when showing our support for performers of the Deaf community.

First up on the agenda for the night’s musical adventure was an acapella performance by our very own Raffles Chorale, who performed rousing renditions of High Hopes by Panic! at the Disco and Shelter by Porter Robinson. Their incredible harmonizing ability coupled with powerful beatboxing ability truly displayed their prowess, wowing the audience. During the second song, Shelter, CA members entered the stage and did song-signing along with Chorale’s performance. This meant communicating the message and emotions of the song to members of the Deaf community among the audience through sign language, as well as their facial and body expressions, by reinventing and re-interpreting the lyrics of the song. Chorale’s impressive performance, incorporated with the meaningful song-signing by CA members, made the performance a truly impactful one that set the stage for the rest of the acts to come.

Next up was a performance by Ms Lily Goh, who specializes in mallet percussion and song signing. She is also the founder and director of Extra0rdinary Horizons, an enterprise run by the Deaf which aims to help them better integrate into society. She performed Happy Mallets, a cheerful, jubilant piece that immediately put everyone in high spirits and really sparked joy (aha!) among the audience. Her skill was impeccable, as was exemplified through her flawless performance. She was later joined by Janika Oh (19S05B), a Y6 percussionist who plays for Raffles Rock, for the second part of the performance.Together, they performed a mallet percussion version of River Flows In You by Yiruma. This one was a lot mellower and more melodic, and throughout the performance the audience marvelled at how Ms Goh and Janika managed to add their own touch to the song and give it a whole new flavour that was uniquely theirs. It was truly music to the ears.

While most of us would not be able to fathom the idea of dancing to a song without being able to hear the music, Mr Donny Laurence is no stranger to this. Being born deaf did not stop him from developing passion in both dance and drama, and performing for numerous local arts events. Guided by an SgSL interpreter, he performed a solo dance to Never Say Never by Justin Bieber.

Exuding confidence and charisma, his movements were timed perfectly to the beat of the song, and perhaps what was most heartening was how much he looked like he was enjoying himself on stage— the mark of a true performer. For the second song, Ms Lily Goh came onstage to join him, and together they danced to True Colours by Justin Timberlake and Anna Kendrick. Apart from having great chemistry, their actions and facial expressions projected so much emotion that deeply touched the audience, as seen by the vigorous applause in SgSL.

Dr Azariah Tan resumed the night’s musical journey with classical piano pieces “Chopin Etude in G-flat”, “Chopin Etude in E” and “Fly Me To The Moon” by Frank Sinatra. A talented pianist who was diagnosed with a condition that left him with only about 15% of his hearing at age 4, he now has a doctorate in Piano Performance and a double masters in Music from the University of Michigan. Exuberant and joyous, the first piece was filled with light, jaunty tunes that was fast-paced and scattered with staccatos. The second piece started out soft and mellow, and as the song progressed, it increased in volume and pace, eventually culminating in a resounding crescendo before lapsing back into a slower, more gentle pace and style.

Finally, the third piece perked the audience up again with its cheerful and playful notes. Dr Tan played with such precision of skill (he played flawlessly with no mistakes) and such immense emotion, a chord was struck within the audience, who gave him a thunderous round of applause, with some audience members even yelling “Encore!”. Initially planning to head backstage after his solo performance, Dr Tan decided to play an additional song in response to the audience’s overwhelming reception. It was absolutely heartwarming to see the huge smile on his face—it was evident that he was deeply touched. The encore song was defined by a sweet and beautiful melody which left the audience with a lingering sense of sweetness and a hint of wistfulness, a sort of yearning for more. The power of music to evoke all sorts of feelings in people was well and truly illustrated by Dr Tan, who took the audience on an emotional rollercoaster in just the short span of four songs.

Following the splendid solo performance was piano duet of Mozart’s Sonata for Four Hands in D major, played by Dr Tan and Ms Nicole Tay (20S06L). While the piece started off fast and lively with a main melody of ascending and descending scales, the mood changed towards the middle, alternating between Dr Tan’s low fortissimo and Nicole’s high pianissimo; and grew suddenly loud towards the end. The two then began the next section of the sonata, a more joyous one played relatively allegro, with juxtaposition of dynamics in the pianists’ call and answer staccato chords.

Up next was a short play by Raffles Drama from Raffles Girls’ School titled No Different, based on the life story of Ms Charlene Wong, a former member of TOUCH Silent Club. When the stage was first lit, six girls in white shuffled around in a seemingly haphazard manner. The narrator, present-day Charlene, recounted memories from her childhood while her younger self, donning black in contrast with the white of the other actors, acted it out. After she described numerous instances of feeling different from her friends and family, the audience soon found out that Charlene is deaf and unable to speak—not because she cannot, but because she doesn’t know how.

Next, we were introduced to “him”, whom she first met and befriended in primary school, and started dating in polytechnic. Although she felt misunderstood by her peers in polytechnic, faced difficulties finding her first job, and had to explain her condition to various people she met; “he” was always there by her side. Simultaneously, the girls in white surrounded young Charlene in a circle and pointed at her, but “he” stood by her the whole time like a true mans.

Deaf culture is also a big part of Charlene’s life, with her younger self linking arms and prancing around the stage with friends from the Deaf community. She then joined TOUCH Silent Club, where she met new people and challenged herself, and gave birth to three children—two hearing sons and one deaf daughter. At the same time, young Charlene was shown with her arms around her two sons while her daughter played with her hair, then holding her daughter’s hand as they explored the stage together.

The play’s final message: We, the deaf and the hearing, are no different. After the play, Ms Charlene Wong herself came on stage and signed to the audience, thanking everyone who had made the concert possible and urging all of us in the hearing community to be inclusive to the deaf so that they can gain more confidence and contribute back to society.

To conclude the concert, Raffles Street Dance Batch ’18 dazzled the crowd with their complex and beautifully choreographed arrangements. As rhythmic heartbeats signalled the start of Are U There? by Mura Masa, the dancers jerked their bodies in tempo with the music. Gracefully widening their circle and stepping into a new formation, they executed complicated steps while keeping their bodies compact and close to the ground. After a fast-paced sequence, the lights dimmed and the dancers filed offstage.

As the second track, Team by Iggy Azalea, began, a different group of dancers in coordinated denim and black outfits took their places on stage. Pulling off body pumps to the beat, the dancers exuded charisma and confidence. For their third piece, the batch’s performance to the well-known Where Is The Love? by The Black Eyed Peas featured the use of spotlights that complemented the fervour of their interpretation.

Abruptly, the lights cut off. Come Alive, a track from the musical The Greatest Showman, immediately had the audience singing along. Setting a playful mood, the dancers shimmied cheekily with their partners and launched themselves nimbly into the air to perform daring splits and lunges. They then shifted into a line and started clapping as all the other acts joined them back on stage. Simultaneously, the performers signed “applause” in SgSL and bowed one last time as the final verse of Come Alive played in the background.

To end the night, Ms Ang Chiew Geok from TOUCH Community Services, who has worked with the deaf for over 20 years, came on stage to say a few words. “I need to slow down for the interpreter,” she quipped, while thanking Raffles CA and the other groups of people who had organized and attended the concert. Ms Ang also shared more about Project Serve, an initiative under TOUCH Silent Club that aims to help integrate deaf youth into the hearing world with the support of the hearing community. Following which, concert ICs Rachel (19A01D) and Shao Chi (19S06K) delivered CA’s final thanks to everyone who had made Spark a success while the CCA chairs presented them with flower bouquets and chocolates. Spark 2019 was a truly memorable concert that filled up our hearts with song and dance. But more importantly, it has sparked a positive change in the mindsets and attitudes of Rafflesians especially towards the Deaf community. Igniting the flames of change is no mean feat, but Spark 2019 has definitely set the path alight for future efforts towards heightened awareness of the Deaf community in Singapore.

By Shervon Lee (19S06A)
Photographs courtesy of Koh Jia Hao (20S06M) of Raffles Photographic Society

As the students strolled into Kallang Squash and Tennis Centre on the 30th of April, they were greeted by the sharp thuds on the walls. With practiced grace, the squash girls continued their warm-ups, hitting the ball at length along the wall. Soon enough, the referees took their seats in the middle of the stands and the girls filed out of the court, glowing with sweat and determination. In the silence that followed, the first player Eda Lee (20S03Q) held her racket up. With a swift stroke, the ball was served, and the championships were in play.

This year, Raffles was up against long-time rivals Anglo-Chinese Junior College (ACJC) once again. Having taken the championship from ACJC last year, the team was back to defend their title. It was not going to be easy, as ACJC girls are formidable rivals, and the line-up especially promised some difficult match-ups. However, the squash girls calmly took their seats on the stands, their eyes fixed on Eda as she darted around the court with agility.

Despite the strong front put up during the warm-ups, Eda lost the first set narrowly, by a score of 9-11. The squash team’s nerves were palpable as they cheered loudly for Eda to “take it back”. Despite the tough competition, Eda pulled through, heeding the team’s calls with a win of 11-8.

A spectacular service made by Eda.

Taking advantage of the momentum, Eda’s sharp shots echoed in the spectator stands. With every drive, smash and drop, she inched closer to victory. Finally, Eda emerged victorious, to the raucous cheers of the spectators. They had one win in the bag now, and with two strong senior players, Nicole Tong (19S06E) and Sneha Sivakumar (19S03J) up next, Raffles didn’t have much to worry about.

Having had years of practice under their belts, Nicole and Sneha played their respective matches with ease, both bagging the win with wide scorelines. With their eyes alert and legs ready for a far lunge anytime, the two hit the ball flawlessly to attain every point. The spectators cheered loudly when Sneha stepped out of the court. The championship was theirs, but the team was not satisfied. Ashley Fok (20S07C) stepped into the court, visibly nervous.

Luckily, her nerves soon proved unfounded, as she clinched the next two sets with quick hard drives that hit the glass wall behind her. However, it was not an easy two sets. Ashley’s opponent smashed at every opportune moment; one of the particular difficult shots to return saw Ashley whacking the ball against the back wall and relying on brute strength to get the ball back to the front.

Ashley faltered in the third set, losing 8-11. By then, her shirt was drenched in sweat, and her determination was wavering. “There were moments where I felt like giving the point up,” she recounted, “but hearing the cheers of encouragement from my team, class and supporters really spurred me on to push through my exhaustion, point by point.” And push through she did, eventually emerging victorious, with the final set score mirroring the one she had lost, 11-8.

By then, the spectators were finally getting a hang of the game and the intensity. The excitement grew as Ang Hwee En (20S03M) stepped into court. Up against the strongest player in ACJC, Hwee En had a difficult game ahead of her. She started out strong, clinching the first set with ease with a score of 11-5.

However, the next set caught Hwee En off guard, and she lost 5-11. Hwee En returned to the third set with renewed energy. With quick volleys and long shots, she fought back from a point deficit of 8-1 to 8-8, before pulling to a deuce of 10-10. However, she eventually lost the set.

In a tough position now, Hwee En had to win the next two sets to clinch the victory for herself. Impressively undeterred in the face of defeat, Hwee En kept her cool and played even harder than before. In between almost every point in the last set, both players were seen doubling over to catch their breaths. Even to someone who may not fully understand the sport, the fatigue could be felt from outside the court. Hwee En’s efforts ultimately paid off, and she sealed the championship, ending the finals with a bang.

“I’m very proud of y’all!” Captain Nicole practically shouted to her team right before the prize presentation ceremony, beaming widely. “I think all of y’all fought very hard today, good job!” Her excitement was contagious, as the rest of the team grinned just as hard, slapping each other on the back despite the sweat.

Fluid strokes that send the ball flying quickly towards the wall, followed by the gentle thudding of the ball as the opponent returns. That’s squash, to the average supporter in the stands. To the athletes, however, squash meant hours of training, fighting against overwhelming odds on court, and pushing through the exhaustion in your legs to run for every ball.

With this being the second consecutive gold for the team, the juniors are definitely determined to keep the championship gold next year as well. “We will continue to train hard and motivate each other,” Ashley said determinedly. Adding on to that, Hwee En only had a thumbs up to give, as she was catching her breath from her tiring game.

Raffles Press congratulates the team on the win, and wishes them all the best for their interschools next year!

Results