Ever held a job that you truly despised, so much so that the mere act of waiting for ‘quitting time’ felt like someone was dragging a cheese greater across your privates? Well, pity me because I have and I am in precisely such a position.
Without going into specifics, suffice it to say that I work for what is arguably the most loathed public service organisation in the South East Asia region. The entire department is driven by bureaucracy and red tape, such that I can imagine any number of First Assistant Secretaries (FASs) sitting in their private offices manipulating themselves to paperwork. Jokes aside, what drives an organisation to be so driven by forms, formalities, official procedure, and paperwork? Lawyers routinely make jokes about having chosen their profession owing to a deep-seated paper fetish. Well, you’ve opted for the wrong field my friends. Bureaucracy is the true calling of those who are .. err .. ‘stimulated’ by formatting (e.g. spacing, paragraph numbering), syntax, grammar, punctuation etc.
Every second day some tosser from Central Office sends out yet another round of templates specifically designed to suit some politician’s personal preferences. It’s not unheard of to have a Minister refuse to sign a document because there ‘five spaces instead of six’ between the words ‘Yours sincerely’ and his/her name. Seriously, what freaking difference does it make? Will your world end? Will your ‘old boy network’ ridicule you for not having learnt the finer points of presentation at any number of supposedly prestigious tertiary learning institutions? Is it because you are obsessive compulsive? Just how big is your damned signature that you need a whole six spaces to enable sufficient ‘signage area’ for your Anglo-Celtic name?
It beggars belief that so many public servants would hold such an unwavering belief in the power of ‘letterhead’. Just because a document is formally presented, grammatically correct in every way, devoid of mistakes in spelling/punctuation/syntax etc does not mean that its content is accordingly enhanced. Do you remember the kid in high school who had impeccable handwriting? Did this particular talent necessarily eventuate in more meaningful and coherent essay writing? Not particularly. Chances are that the kid was sexually frustrated and used the elaborate loops, curls, swirls and spirals in his/her cursive text as a subliminal expression of sexuality.
So there you have it. The entire public service is dominated at the upper echelons by people more emotionally connected to paper than their own partners. To these lonely and isolated individuals, human touch is no substitute for the inherent sensuality of caressing the tip of an expensive fountain pen across inter-office correspondence. Hmm, what could possibly better the subtle satisfaction of ‘officially corresponding’ with those equal or senior to your level within the organisation? After all, that ambitious State Director from Victoria (whose heavenly visage has graced the glossy pages of numerous internal newsletters) may not even know of your existence. BUT, just wait till she opens her internal mail tomorrow and sees your briefs – stiff, white, watermarked, sealed as ‘confidential’ and marked for her eyes only. The thought of your package in this woman’s hands fills you with indescribable pleasure.
In a situation such as the above, you ponder ceaselessly as to whether the recipient had thoughts of your instrument (of writing) moving gracefully across crisp white sheets (of paper). Although he/she sees naught but a mark (i.e. signature), you wonder whether the recipient acknowledges and appreciates the fluidity of your movements, the dexterity of your wrist, the fickleness of your fingers as you wonder whether everything has been done to their satisfaction.
Without going into specifics, suffice it to say that I work for what is arguably the most loathed public service organisation in the South East Asia region. The entire department is driven by bureaucracy and red tape, such that I can imagine any number of First Assistant Secretaries (FASs) sitting in their private offices manipulating themselves to paperwork. Jokes aside, what drives an organisation to be so driven by forms, formalities, official procedure, and paperwork? Lawyers routinely make jokes about having chosen their profession owing to a deep-seated paper fetish. Well, you’ve opted for the wrong field my friends. Bureaucracy is the true calling of those who are .. err .. ‘stimulated’ by formatting (e.g. spacing, paragraph numbering), syntax, grammar, punctuation etc.
Every second day some tosser from Central Office sends out yet another round of templates specifically designed to suit some politician’s personal preferences. It’s not unheard of to have a Minister refuse to sign a document because there ‘five spaces instead of six’ between the words ‘Yours sincerely’ and his/her name. Seriously, what freaking difference does it make? Will your world end? Will your ‘old boy network’ ridicule you for not having learnt the finer points of presentation at any number of supposedly prestigious tertiary learning institutions? Is it because you are obsessive compulsive? Just how big is your damned signature that you need a whole six spaces to enable sufficient ‘signage area’ for your Anglo-Celtic name?
It beggars belief that so many public servants would hold such an unwavering belief in the power of ‘letterhead’. Just because a document is formally presented, grammatically correct in every way, devoid of mistakes in spelling/punctuation/syntax etc does not mean that its content is accordingly enhanced. Do you remember the kid in high school who had impeccable handwriting? Did this particular talent necessarily eventuate in more meaningful and coherent essay writing? Not particularly. Chances are that the kid was sexually frustrated and used the elaborate loops, curls, swirls and spirals in his/her cursive text as a subliminal expression of sexuality.
So there you have it. The entire public service is dominated at the upper echelons by people more emotionally connected to paper than their own partners. To these lonely and isolated individuals, human touch is no substitute for the inherent sensuality of caressing the tip of an expensive fountain pen across inter-office correspondence. Hmm, what could possibly better the subtle satisfaction of ‘officially corresponding’ with those equal or senior to your level within the organisation? After all, that ambitious State Director from Victoria (whose heavenly visage has graced the glossy pages of numerous internal newsletters) may not even know of your existence. BUT, just wait till she opens her internal mail tomorrow and sees your briefs – stiff, white, watermarked, sealed as ‘confidential’ and marked for her eyes only. The thought of your package in this woman’s hands fills you with indescribable pleasure.
In a situation such as the above, you ponder ceaselessly as to whether the recipient had thoughts of your instrument (of writing) moving gracefully across crisp white sheets (of paper). Although he/she sees naught but a mark (i.e. signature), you wonder whether the recipient acknowledges and appreciates the fluidity of your movements, the dexterity of your wrist, the fickleness of your fingers as you wonder whether everything has been done to their satisfaction.
Yes, yes …. It stands to reason that public servants are in desperate need of a shag. However, God forbid that one should pursue an office relationship in such an uptight environment. The general behaviour of public servants is governed by the APS Code of Conduct, a legislative ‘ethical’ code that, although not prohibiting office relationships, ostensibly discourages overt expressions of sexuality. Public servants, much like accountants, are meant to be as bland as an English breakfast (e.g. cheese on toast, no spices aside from salt and pepper). How does one express individuality in an environment dictated by conformity? There is only one way to make yourself known of course, via the quality of your documents.
1 comment:
Great post. I think fundamentally the obsession with the superficial stems from the abject powerlessness and emptiness of the public service. We are captive to the whims of our ministers, so we look to one of the areas which is open to endless permutations - syntax. It also happens to be a top down process, viz it really comes down to satisfying the whims of your manager, their manager, etc. I think it also plays an important social role. It instils irrational obedience to authority. If you're focused on form and not substance, chances are you're going to ignore the more important, often glaring defects of your portfolio responsibility.
Surely the socialist public service is dead?
Post a Comment