Until recently my children disliked learning Mathematics. They told me Maths was just too difficult. I said to them that Maths is, in many ways, easier than the other subjects they learn in school. Why is that so? They asked. I explained that in Maths, there is usually only one right answer. If you get that, nobody can say you are wrong. Consider most other subjects, even when you think you have done well in the answer, the teacher could still not want to give you full marks.
We all know what a molehill looks like, that is when we are being objective. At other times when we are less objective, a molehill looks like a mountain. It must be dealt with like a mountainous problem. Hence the saying "making a mountain out of a molehill".
At any rate, I prefer Maths than any other subjects. A 1 is a 1 here, there or anywhere, now, then or anytime. A molehill is a molehill sometimes, and a mountain at other times.
My children are beginning to like Maths now.
Saturday, September 4, 2010
Friday, September 3, 2010
Trouble Spouts From The Mouth
The majority of inter-personal conflicts stems from the mouth - unnecessary and uncontrolled gossiping. So many people are enjoying gossiping as a favourite pastime. Unfortunately most of these gossipers never thought of the consequences when their gossips got found out. Then we have strained relationships. Nobody likes to be gossiped about, especially when the gossipers speak as though they are the authority on the persons they gossip about.
A small and rather 'harmless' sounding gossip, when found out, could destroy decades of good relationship. It could pit parents against children, siblings against each other, good friends against each other, bosses against their employees and many others who should have been close to one another.
Think before you speak. Is it really necessary for that which you have just spoken?
Trouble spouts from the mouth? 祸从口出. Absolutely.
Silence is golden? Absolutely.
A small and rather 'harmless' sounding gossip, when found out, could destroy decades of good relationship. It could pit parents against children, siblings against each other, good friends against each other, bosses against their employees and many others who should have been close to one another.
Think before you speak. Is it really necessary for that which you have just spoken?
Trouble spouts from the mouth? 祸从口出. Absolutely.
Silence is golden? Absolutely.
Thursday, September 2, 2010
The Chattering Guest
There is an English saying "make yourself at home." It is said to a guest whom you have invited over to your home. Interpreted literally, it could mean that the guest is invited to treat this home of the host like it is his own, and therefore the guest may be free to do everything that he usually does in his own home. Depending on the generosity of his host, the guest may, in reality, be limited in what he can actually do.
One limit that is never tolerated is for the guest to actually usurp the authority of the host, when the guest starts to think, behave and talk as though he is the host himself. This usually happens when the guest is close in relationship to the host, like being a sibling of the host, a child, an in-law, or even close friends. So close is the relationship that the guest takes for granted that he has the authority of the host, or he thinks the host wouldn't mind him acting like one.
Sometimes we have a guest that invites his own guests over to his host's home, for dinner or for a stay. We may have a guest that commits his host to doing something, or to using some of his host's facilities. These are carried out without the prior permission of his host.
Sometimes the unknowing guest jumps to respond on behalf of and in the presence of his host when the response should have been given by the host himself.
The great thing is that the guest is rarely in a position to appreciate that he has committed the gravest mistake in the eyes of his host. This kind of guest lacks the ability to understand his position, his environment and his host's feelings. And, there are actually quite a lot of such type of guests around us.
In Chinese, we refer to this unthinking guest as "喧宾夺主". The chattering guest who usurps the power of his host.
One limit that is never tolerated is for the guest to actually usurp the authority of the host, when the guest starts to think, behave and talk as though he is the host himself. This usually happens when the guest is close in relationship to the host, like being a sibling of the host, a child, an in-law, or even close friends. So close is the relationship that the guest takes for granted that he has the authority of the host, or he thinks the host wouldn't mind him acting like one.
Sometimes we have a guest that invites his own guests over to his host's home, for dinner or for a stay. We may have a guest that commits his host to doing something, or to using some of his host's facilities. These are carried out without the prior permission of his host.
Sometimes the unknowing guest jumps to respond on behalf of and in the presence of his host when the response should have been given by the host himself.
The great thing is that the guest is rarely in a position to appreciate that he has committed the gravest mistake in the eyes of his host. This kind of guest lacks the ability to understand his position, his environment and his host's feelings. And, there are actually quite a lot of such type of guests around us.
In Chinese, we refer to this unthinking guest as "喧宾夺主". The chattering guest who usurps the power of his host.
Wednesday, September 1, 2010
Love Test
This is a test I have used with friends, and the result is quite startling.
If you have been married for a long time, the longer the better but let's say at least more than ten years, so that you have a reasonable expectation of your partner's feelings and temperament. Ask yourself this question:
"If there is really a next life, would you want your spouse now to be your spouse again in the next life?"
Give yourself an honest answer.
Here are my interpretations of the answers.
1. If you answer yes, and if your answer is instantaneous without a second of doubt, then you can claim that you truly love your partner.
2. If your partner also responded with the same affirmative and instantaneity, then both of you are in a truly great love. Congratulations.
3. If you take less than 5 seconds to respond with an affirmative, you probably still love your partner enough to want to have another go.
4. If you take more than 5 seconds to respond, no matter what answer you give, I believe you already have some doubt on your relationship and you are wondering if it is worthwhile to even think about having another go.
5. If you are still thinking, after this long, don't worry, most of the people I test with are found here.
I have found this test to be more meaningful than straight in the face proclamation of "my love for my partner is deeper than the deepest sea."
If you have been married for a long time, the longer the better but let's say at least more than ten years, so that you have a reasonable expectation of your partner's feelings and temperament. Ask yourself this question:
"If there is really a next life, would you want your spouse now to be your spouse again in the next life?"
Give yourself an honest answer.
Here are my interpretations of the answers.
1. If you answer yes, and if your answer is instantaneous without a second of doubt, then you can claim that you truly love your partner.
2. If your partner also responded with the same affirmative and instantaneity, then both of you are in a truly great love. Congratulations.
3. If you take less than 5 seconds to respond with an affirmative, you probably still love your partner enough to want to have another go.
4. If you take more than 5 seconds to respond, no matter what answer you give, I believe you already have some doubt on your relationship and you are wondering if it is worthwhile to even think about having another go.
5. If you are still thinking, after this long, don't worry, most of the people I test with are found here.
I have found this test to be more meaningful than straight in the face proclamation of "my love for my partner is deeper than the deepest sea."
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
The Chinese Are Doing Fine With NEP Part II
"If there was no NEP I wouldn't be driving this taxi". A chatty Chinese Malaysian taxi driver full of resentment once told me. He is not alone in expressing hate towards the Malaysian social program to transform the well being of the politically powerful majority Malay race.
The taxi driver might well be right about his own life without NEP. Nobody knows. In the larger context, can the NEP be responsible for the existence of all Chinese taxi drivers, or for that matter, all the Chinese underclass? The answer must be emphatically no. Look, there are still Chinese taxi drivers in Singapore, Hong Kong and Taiwan, all successful and predominantly Chinese states.
The NEP has severely handicapped the Chinese Malaysians community as a whole, that itself shouldn't be in doubt. However, it is when faced with life's biggest challenges that humans thrive in survival. In this regard, the Chinese Malaysians work harder than the politically favoured race to compensate for the deliberate constriction of their achievement by their government. The end result is that the Chinese Malaysians continue to perform well against all odds.
As long as the politically protected and favoured group can gain wealth through government decree with ease, perhaps the stated NEP goal of handing over 30% of the nation's wealth to this group on a plate will never realise, as the disadvantaged group will always work harder to ensure their own economic survival, and in the process raise their overall wealth share ever higher. But no worries, the Malays will get their 30% or more eventually, when their population ratio increases to a level that the Chinese ratio becomes insignificant.
The taxi driver might well be right about his own life without NEP. Nobody knows. In the larger context, can the NEP be responsible for the existence of all Chinese taxi drivers, or for that matter, all the Chinese underclass? The answer must be emphatically no. Look, there are still Chinese taxi drivers in Singapore, Hong Kong and Taiwan, all successful and predominantly Chinese states.
The NEP has severely handicapped the Chinese Malaysians community as a whole, that itself shouldn't be in doubt. However, it is when faced with life's biggest challenges that humans thrive in survival. In this regard, the Chinese Malaysians work harder than the politically favoured race to compensate for the deliberate constriction of their achievement by their government. The end result is that the Chinese Malaysians continue to perform well against all odds.
As long as the politically protected and favoured group can gain wealth through government decree with ease, perhaps the stated NEP goal of handing over 30% of the nation's wealth to this group on a plate will never realise, as the disadvantaged group will always work harder to ensure their own economic survival, and in the process raise their overall wealth share ever higher. But no worries, the Malays will get their 30% or more eventually, when their population ratio increases to a level that the Chinese ratio becomes insignificant.
Thursday, August 26, 2010
Tale Of The Black Cat
Once there was an old priest who acquired a pet black cat. The cat was so fond of its master that it wouldn't stay a foot away from the priest all day. It would go around the legs of the priest rubbing its fur against the master's legs. Therein arose a problem. When the priest was in the midst of conducting the mass, the cat would still be circling around the master, causing the priest and the congregation to lose concentration on the progress of the mass.
The priest then ordered that the cat be caught and caged just before the start of the mass, and only released after the mass was over. This procedure was repeated like a ritual each time the mass was celebrated.
One day the priest died. A new priest was posted to the church. The cat was not particularly in favour of this new priest and hardly ever went close to him. But the ritual to get the cat caged before the mass continued as it had become a ritualistic tradition that must be done each time before the mass.
And then the cat died. The church went about to find a replacement black cat, so that the cat could again be caged just before each mass as it was a traditional thing to do.
And the tradition continued unstopped.
What is the moral of the story?
If something has been done long enough, it can become accepted as a good practice, or if you like it another way, it is that if you tell a lie often enough, it can become accepted as the truth.
The priest then ordered that the cat be caught and caged just before the start of the mass, and only released after the mass was over. This procedure was repeated like a ritual each time the mass was celebrated.
One day the priest died. A new priest was posted to the church. The cat was not particularly in favour of this new priest and hardly ever went close to him. But the ritual to get the cat caged before the mass continued as it had become a ritualistic tradition that must be done each time before the mass.
And then the cat died. The church went about to find a replacement black cat, so that the cat could again be caged just before each mass as it was a traditional thing to do.
And the tradition continued unstopped.
What is the moral of the story?
If something has been done long enough, it can become accepted as a good practice, or if you like it another way, it is that if you tell a lie often enough, it can become accepted as the truth.
Saturday, August 21, 2010
Australia Chooses
Today Australians decide which party is to govern them for the next three years. Opinion polls are predicting a 50-50 race to the finish between ruling Labour Party and the opposition Liberal Party. There is a chance of a hung parliament, or a minority government being installed with neither major party being able to garner enough seats to govern on its own.
Australians rarely elect a government with an overwhelming majority. They know that the best way to make the government work honestly and watch every step of the way is to install an effective opposition who will be put in power at the next general election should the current government make more than a few mistakes or break a few election promises.
You get the best government when the government understands it could fall the next time if it does not perform now.
Tonight there is a real possibility that Julia Gillard, our first female Prime Minister, may also become the shortest serving Prime Minister ever, and a Prime Minister never elected by the people.
It is Australia's D Day.
Australians rarely elect a government with an overwhelming majority. They know that the best way to make the government work honestly and watch every step of the way is to install an effective opposition who will be put in power at the next general election should the current government make more than a few mistakes or break a few election promises.
You get the best government when the government understands it could fall the next time if it does not perform now.
Tonight there is a real possibility that Julia Gillard, our first female Prime Minister, may also become the shortest serving Prime Minister ever, and a Prime Minister never elected by the people.
It is Australia's D Day.
Friday, August 20, 2010
Tyranny and Benevolence Of The Majority
When I graduated from primary school, it was customary for graduating students to request their teachers and fellow students to write autographs. I have since lost my autograph book. But some words left in there were simply too powerful to be forgotten. Among them were one left by my Year 4 teacher, Mr Ng Moh Kuan. He said this:
待人要厚，待己要薄。Translated, it means 'Treat others better than you would treat yourself.'
In those times, it was indeed possible to find occasions when you would treat others better than you would treat yourself. I remember my grandparents and parents would reserve the best foods and drinks for guests. It was not uncommon to find chickens served only when guests came. Even as kids we were not allowed to consume those delicious soft drinks that suddenly appeared at home as they were brought in for guests only. With precious little resources, still I know my grandfather would have donated money or materials to others that we would not have given ourselves.
Then as society became better off, proportionately the community spirit of 'treating others better' waned. However, it would still be commendable if we could at least treat others as well as we would treat ourselves. And so we have the saying of treat others as you would want them treat yourself. The Chinese equivalent is 己所不欲，勿施于人, or do unto others what you want them do unto you.
In many communities around the world, the ability to treat others, particularly those vulnerable sections of the community, fairly has become the benchmark for a great community. Throughout history, many great people have said something to the equivalent of this,
"The greatness of a nation is measured by how it treats its weakest members."
And who are the weakest members of a community? There are many possible ways of identifying them. A good way is to determine if they have any representative voice in the larger community. The weakest members are usually those without a voice, as they are often the minority class and therefore lacking in representation.
When we are in a position of power, when we are the majority, it is easy for us to look after ourselves. How we treat those minority amongst us is what measures us apart.
There can be tyranny, or benevolence, of the majority.
The difference between a pariah and a great nation. So said great people of the past.
待人要厚，待己要薄。Translated, it means 'Treat others better than you would treat yourself.'
In those times, it was indeed possible to find occasions when you would treat others better than you would treat yourself. I remember my grandparents and parents would reserve the best foods and drinks for guests. It was not uncommon to find chickens served only when guests came. Even as kids we were not allowed to consume those delicious soft drinks that suddenly appeared at home as they were brought in for guests only. With precious little resources, still I know my grandfather would have donated money or materials to others that we would not have given ourselves.
Then as society became better off, proportionately the community spirit of 'treating others better' waned. However, it would still be commendable if we could at least treat others as well as we would treat ourselves. And so we have the saying of treat others as you would want them treat yourself. The Chinese equivalent is 己所不欲，勿施于人, or do unto others what you want them do unto you.
In many communities around the world, the ability to treat others, particularly those vulnerable sections of the community, fairly has become the benchmark for a great community. Throughout history, many great people have said something to the equivalent of this,
"The greatness of a nation is measured by how it treats its weakest members."
And who are the weakest members of a community? There are many possible ways of identifying them. A good way is to determine if they have any representative voice in the larger community. The weakest members are usually those without a voice, as they are often the minority class and therefore lacking in representation.
When we are in a position of power, when we are the majority, it is easy for us to look after ourselves. How we treat those minority amongst us is what measures us apart.
There can be tyranny, or benevolence, of the majority.
The difference between a pariah and a great nation. So said great people of the past.
God Why Do These Things Happen?
Today I attended a students' work exhibition at my children's school. One of the work books my daughter showed to me was her religious education activity book. As a student of a Catholic school, religious education is part of the curriculum that my daughter learns.
On page one of her work book, my daughter wrote these words. "God, why do you allow tsunamis to happen and kill so many people?".
I was quite curious as to why my daughter asked this question. So I asked. She said her religious education teacher talked about God's love for us. However, there are times when we do not know why certain things happen that appear to show otherwise. Still, we must not lose faith, and we can remember these situations when God's love appear to be missing us so when we meet Him face to face one day, we can ask Him such questions.
I get a lot of mixed feelings from my daughter's response. However, what strikes me the most are two feelings. The first is to persevere in faith in the face of adversity. The second is to confront what we do not know head on, instead of hiding behind untenable explanations to support our own interpretations of the situations.
Such as this one, tsunamis victims have to die because they live in sins. What a load of rubbish.
I would rather accept that I don't know my God, than to act as His interpreter.
On page one of her work book, my daughter wrote these words. "God, why do you allow tsunamis to happen and kill so many people?".
I was quite curious as to why my daughter asked this question. So I asked. She said her religious education teacher talked about God's love for us. However, there are times when we do not know why certain things happen that appear to show otherwise. Still, we must not lose faith, and we can remember these situations when God's love appear to be missing us so when we meet Him face to face one day, we can ask Him such questions.
I get a lot of mixed feelings from my daughter's response. However, what strikes me the most are two feelings. The first is to persevere in faith in the face of adversity. The second is to confront what we do not know head on, instead of hiding behind untenable explanations to support our own interpretations of the situations.
Such as this one, tsunamis victims have to die because they live in sins. What a load of rubbish.
I would rather accept that I don't know my God, than to act as His interpreter.
Thursday, August 19, 2010
Know-who, Know-how And Now-how
Many years back a retiring executive of Telenor, a Norwegian telecommunication company which held substantial shareholding in the Malaysian telecommunication company Digi, made this interesting observation about how businesses were conducted in Malaysia. He said that many business people were keenly aware that to do business in Malaysia, you first need the 'know-who' to win the business, and then followed by 'know-how' to get the work done.
This executive had just returned from Malaysia after his posting at Digi. He concluded, through his observation, that the Malaysian way of conducting business did not follow closely the 'know-who' to 'know-how' sequence as people would like to believe. It was more like a 'know-who' then followed by 'now-how'.
So what is the difference between 'know-how' and 'now-how'? For a start, 'know-how' suggests that the company getting the business from 'know-who' would still know how to go about getting the work done. As for 'now-how', the company that just won the business from 'know-who' would probably be praying for some divine guidance on how to get the work completed.
Go figure the difference.
This executive had just returned from Malaysia after his posting at Digi. He concluded, through his observation, that the Malaysian way of conducting business did not follow closely the 'know-who' to 'know-how' sequence as people would like to believe. It was more like a 'know-who' then followed by 'now-how'.
So what is the difference between 'know-how' and 'now-how'? For a start, 'know-how' suggests that the company getting the business from 'know-who' would still know how to go about getting the work done. As for 'now-how', the company that just won the business from 'know-who' would probably be praying for some divine guidance on how to get the work completed.
Go figure the difference.
Sunday, August 15, 2010
The Chinese Are Doing Fine With NEP
A successful Chinese Malaysian entrepreneur developer claimed that the Chinese Malaysians are doing 'much better' with NEP (New Economic Policy of Malaysia which discriminates against the non native population in favour of the native Malays). Implied in his message is that the Chinese should not be demanding more from the majority Malay race. He quoted statistics showing that eight out of ten richest Malaysians are Chinese, and the majority of the small business people are also Chinese. One such successful 'Chinaman' even bought a house from this developer and spent a further RM40 million on improvement. All these prove that the Chinese are doing better under the NEP. He said it in response to recent Chinese demand for the much abused NEP to be abolished.
The businessman's statement lacks credibility, and is also wide off the mark.
Coming from the mouth of someone who is already successful in making use of the current warped system, it could be understandable that he prefers not to rock the boat. This reminds me of a time during the mid eighties, when Asians began to migrate in large numbers to Australia. This caused sections of the Australian community to resent the changing demography and a hot debate about whether or not Asians should be accepted in Australia broke out in the newspapers. The debate raged for weeks. I followed with keen interest every argument presented by both sides of the divide. One piece from an Asian Australian caught my attention. He too was against Asian immigration, he felt that Australia was better off if it remained European in character.
I was quite bemused with the writer's shallow argument. And so I decided to respond by writing to the editor. I simply quoted the Asian's writing and said this: "Can I suggest that the writer who supports a ban in Asian migration demonstrate his real support for his view by leaving Australia voluntarily?"
The editor gladly published my reply. I remember it was placed as the top piece of the day under the Asian Immigration debate section.
Yes. Such is the hypocrisy of people who are comfortable with a wrong policy simply because it has benefited them.
Coming back to the Chinese developer entrepreneur's argument on why the Chinese should not demand more. I say this argument is utterly flawed.
By asking for the NEP to be abolished, the Chinese are not demanding for more share of the economy. They are demanding for fair treatment, which isn't the same as asking for more share of the economic pie. They want the government policies to be fair, transparent, free of corruption, accountable spending, raise the education standard, freedom of religion, equality for all people, rule of law and a just judiciary. In short, the Chinese want a functioning democracy. The same Chinese people would still demand the same of their government if they were in a 100% Chinese country and thus have 100% ownership of the economy.
If having a functioning democracy means the Chinese as a group gets less than the current share in Malaysia's wealth, so be it. Why would the Chinese accept a lesser proportion of nation's wealth? Because having a functioning government system means that every citizen gets treated fairly. There can be no complaint of unfairness. And if you are treated fairly, you are likely to be more motivated to work harder for your community and your country. If there were transparency of government then you can take or plan actions which you know will lead to a predictable outcome. If there were no corruption, the people's tax money can be spent productively to improve public health care, education and infrastructure. If there were rule of law, the Malaysian public would feel less vulnerable, knowing that the laws are on the side of those who are right. And if the judicial system were fair, the people and the investors can take comfort that their rights will be properly protected. As a result, Malaysia is likely to be more prosperous economically and intellectually, which means every citizen actually gets richer. A smaller percentage of a bigger cake means more than a bigger percentage of a shrinking cake. Malaysia can and indeed will be more prosperous, just like its better governed southern neighbour Singapore.
In short, if Malaysia can be a proudly run democracy, the Chinese can truly be richer even if their share of the economy is smaller in percentage.
I suspect, in a truly democratically governed country, the richest few may be hit harder. There is no more short cuts and know-whos to build more and quicker wealth. A caring democratic government may also and indeed should protect the working class more. Needless to say, at the expense of the richest class.
No, the Chinese Malaysians do not want more share of Malaysia's wealth. They want, and are entitled to, a fairer treatment by their government.
The businessman's statement lacks credibility, and is also wide off the mark.
Coming from the mouth of someone who is already successful in making use of the current warped system, it could be understandable that he prefers not to rock the boat. This reminds me of a time during the mid eighties, when Asians began to migrate in large numbers to Australia. This caused sections of the Australian community to resent the changing demography and a hot debate about whether or not Asians should be accepted in Australia broke out in the newspapers. The debate raged for weeks. I followed with keen interest every argument presented by both sides of the divide. One piece from an Asian Australian caught my attention. He too was against Asian immigration, he felt that Australia was better off if it remained European in character.
I was quite bemused with the writer's shallow argument. And so I decided to respond by writing to the editor. I simply quoted the Asian's writing and said this: "Can I suggest that the writer who supports a ban in Asian migration demonstrate his real support for his view by leaving Australia voluntarily?"
The editor gladly published my reply. I remember it was placed as the top piece of the day under the Asian Immigration debate section.
Yes. Such is the hypocrisy of people who are comfortable with a wrong policy simply because it has benefited them.
Coming back to the Chinese developer entrepreneur's argument on why the Chinese should not demand more. I say this argument is utterly flawed.
By asking for the NEP to be abolished, the Chinese are not demanding for more share of the economy. They are demanding for fair treatment, which isn't the same as asking for more share of the economic pie. They want the government policies to be fair, transparent, free of corruption, accountable spending, raise the education standard, freedom of religion, equality for all people, rule of law and a just judiciary. In short, the Chinese want a functioning democracy. The same Chinese people would still demand the same of their government if they were in a 100% Chinese country and thus have 100% ownership of the economy.
If having a functioning democracy means the Chinese as a group gets less than the current share in Malaysia's wealth, so be it. Why would the Chinese accept a lesser proportion of nation's wealth? Because having a functioning government system means that every citizen gets treated fairly. There can be no complaint of unfairness. And if you are treated fairly, you are likely to be more motivated to work harder for your community and your country. If there were transparency of government then you can take or plan actions which you know will lead to a predictable outcome. If there were no corruption, the people's tax money can be spent productively to improve public health care, education and infrastructure. If there were rule of law, the Malaysian public would feel less vulnerable, knowing that the laws are on the side of those who are right. And if the judicial system were fair, the people and the investors can take comfort that their rights will be properly protected. As a result, Malaysia is likely to be more prosperous economically and intellectually, which means every citizen actually gets richer. A smaller percentage of a bigger cake means more than a bigger percentage of a shrinking cake. Malaysia can and indeed will be more prosperous, just like its better governed southern neighbour Singapore.
In short, if Malaysia can be a proudly run democracy, the Chinese can truly be richer even if their share of the economy is smaller in percentage.
I suspect, in a truly democratically governed country, the richest few may be hit harder. There is no more short cuts and know-whos to build more and quicker wealth. A caring democratic government may also and indeed should protect the working class more. Needless to say, at the expense of the richest class.
No, the Chinese Malaysians do not want more share of Malaysia's wealth. They want, and are entitled to, a fairer treatment by their government.
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
I Am Not Playing With You Anymore
When I was small, I played all sorts of games with friends or neighbours. As with all games, there were rules to follow. When someone broke the rules consistently, our retort would be "I am not playing with you anymore."
Today my son and daughter play together. When one of the them breaks the rule, the other would also say the same thing. "I am not playing with you anymore."
It seems the requirement for fair play in a game has never changed, and will never change. When rules are set up, players are expected to stick by them.
The rules in Malaysia are the same as the rules in many other countries. For a long time already, some players in Malaysia have not been following the rules. These cheaters insist that the game be played on, and those not on their side are still expected to stick by the same rules.
A case in point is the coroner's inquiry into the death of Teoh Beng Hock, a political aide of a senior state politician targeted by the infamous Malaysian Anti Corruption Commission over a measly $800 expenditure and who died mysteriously during questioning session by the Commission. Apparently the Attorney General's Office would have us believed that a suicide note was found two months after the death of the aide, and then another ten months later its authenticity is finally verified.
There are far too many cases of such flouting of the rules in the games the government are playing with its people. One rule for you, and one rule for me.
It would appear to me that, in the games with their government, citizens of Malaysia are getting perilously close to that time honoured call of "I am not playing with you anymore."
Today my son and daughter play together. When one of the them breaks the rule, the other would also say the same thing. "I am not playing with you anymore."
It seems the requirement for fair play in a game has never changed, and will never change. When rules are set up, players are expected to stick by them.
The rules in Malaysia are the same as the rules in many other countries. For a long time already, some players in Malaysia have not been following the rules. These cheaters insist that the game be played on, and those not on their side are still expected to stick by the same rules.
A case in point is the coroner's inquiry into the death of Teoh Beng Hock, a political aide of a senior state politician targeted by the infamous Malaysian Anti Corruption Commission over a measly $800 expenditure and who died mysteriously during questioning session by the Commission. Apparently the Attorney General's Office would have us believed that a suicide note was found two months after the death of the aide, and then another ten months later its authenticity is finally verified.
There are far too many cases of such flouting of the rules in the games the government are playing with its people. One rule for you, and one rule for me.
It would appear to me that, in the games with their government, citizens of Malaysia are getting perilously close to that time honoured call of "I am not playing with you anymore."
Too Much Of Good Stuffs
Australia is in election mode, again. In all the western democracies, Australia probably have the shortest government tenure, of just three years. So it seems elections happen every year. If it isn't for the federal election, we have to elect state and local governments.
In a developed society such as Australia's, the politicians assume that the electorate is intelligent, and therefore they want to know everything the political parties stand for. And so the politicians oblige by churning out tonnes of head spinning information, of what they will and will not do if elected. It is like watching two versions of the same soap operas on stage. Only that, I observe, the seats below the stage are hardly filled. People on the streets are hardly aroused. Most of them are still as clueless as ever on which party is the better party. It is not uncommon to hear conversations such as "which idiot are you voting for?"
I take this to mean that there is really little to pick between the two major parties. They are both equally good, or equally bad depending on who you ask. When left to compete freely and fairly, ultimately all competitive products become like one another, checking and balancing each other. If one party achieves a higher score, for now, the other party is bound to strike back and go one up.
Take Mercedes and BMW as an example. They compete in the same market. Because of the competition, they have to keep producing new and latest technologies as though we, the consumers, are really asking for each individual item of technology. The truth is, the Mercedes or BMW of ten years vintage would probably be good enough for the vast majority of people. But the competition pushes these companies to keep going one up on the other. And they keep boasting about their new technologies, as if we, the consumers, are listening intently.
Make no mistake about it, even if we are not really interested in all the political talks, we do know how to pick out a winner in a competition. And, we will not refuse to accept something better than bread and butter, even if we have never asked for them.
Hence, while we are not paying attention to the political shows playing out on stage, they must nevertheless continue.
In a truly free and competitive world, we, the consumers, the electorate, are the real winners.
In a developed society such as Australia's, the politicians assume that the electorate is intelligent, and therefore they want to know everything the political parties stand for. And so the politicians oblige by churning out tonnes of head spinning information, of what they will and will not do if elected. It is like watching two versions of the same soap operas on stage. Only that, I observe, the seats below the stage are hardly filled. People on the streets are hardly aroused. Most of them are still as clueless as ever on which party is the better party. It is not uncommon to hear conversations such as "which idiot are you voting for?"
I take this to mean that there is really little to pick between the two major parties. They are both equally good, or equally bad depending on who you ask. When left to compete freely and fairly, ultimately all competitive products become like one another, checking and balancing each other. If one party achieves a higher score, for now, the other party is bound to strike back and go one up.
Take Mercedes and BMW as an example. They compete in the same market. Because of the competition, they have to keep producing new and latest technologies as though we, the consumers, are really asking for each individual item of technology. The truth is, the Mercedes or BMW of ten years vintage would probably be good enough for the vast majority of people. But the competition pushes these companies to keep going one up on the other. And they keep boasting about their new technologies, as if we, the consumers, are listening intently.
Make no mistake about it, even if we are not really interested in all the political talks, we do know how to pick out a winner in a competition. And, we will not refuse to accept something better than bread and butter, even if we have never asked for them.
Hence, while we are not paying attention to the political shows playing out on stage, they must nevertheless continue.
In a truly free and competitive world, we, the consumers, the electorate, are the real winners.
I Will Not Die For You
I skimmed this conversation from facebook between two young lovebirds.
He said, "I love you so much I am willing to die for you." (Shades of Romeo)
She said, "Are you sure? I hope you speak the truth." (No, not in the least like Juliet)
Many young men feel good, or even heroic, about being Romeo. They all think they are Romeos. However, they don't understand one very important issue. You can't be a Romeo unless the one you love wants to be a Juliet. If she is not Juliet, then you are just a stupid fool, nothing close to being a Romeo.
Love is a delicate balancing act. I always thought that it does not matter how much you love the other person, but if you are loved more or less equally, then you probably have a great and lasting love story. If it is not in balance, ultimately it will cause any pretending Romeos, or Juliets, to break down. They will realise, finally, that they would have paid too much in love, and it is seldom worth it.
Romeo is Romeo, only if Juliet is Juliet.
He said, "I love you so much I am willing to die for you." (Shades of Romeo)
She said, "Are you sure? I hope you speak the truth." (No, not in the least like Juliet)
Many young men feel good, or even heroic, about being Romeo. They all think they are Romeos. However, they don't understand one very important issue. You can't be a Romeo unless the one you love wants to be a Juliet. If she is not Juliet, then you are just a stupid fool, nothing close to being a Romeo.
Love is a delicate balancing act. I always thought that it does not matter how much you love the other person, but if you are loved more or less equally, then you probably have a great and lasting love story. If it is not in balance, ultimately it will cause any pretending Romeos, or Juliets, to break down. They will realise, finally, that they would have paid too much in love, and it is seldom worth it.
Romeo is Romeo, only if Juliet is Juliet.
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
This Is The Truth
I am about one third way to become a Catholic. The Catholic church has an RCIA process for anyone wishing to join the faith. RCIA takes about one year to be completed, culminating in the baptism of candidates during Easter period.
RCIA is a frank and open discussion platform about Christianity faith and other faiths in general. There are no right or wrong answers. Everything can and should be put out for discussion.
I do have a lot of questions that I like to ask, as a way of finding out about the thoughts of Catholics and Christians in general. However, I do feel reserved about probing too much, as I realised there are not necessarily answers available.
One question that has unsettled me quite a bit is the views of Catholics towards other faiths.
I know Christianity, like other monotheistic faiths, holds the view that it is the truth, and perhaps the only truth. Therein lies my problem. Although it may sound illogical, I have no problem with anyone declaring their faith to be the only truth. However, I become uneasy when someone declares the other faiths are not the truth, or even outright false or fake. In that case, I am quite tempted to call for proofs.
Let's say I claim that my wife is the most beautiful woman on this planet. Can anyone convince me otherwise? Hardly. Because I define how a woman is to be considered beautiful. If, however, I say that my wife is more beautiful than yours, then I think we both must firstly agree with the definition of what is beautiful.
And so when an RCIA participant wondered why followers of other faiths do not come to believe in Christianity when it is the only truth, I was quite peeved. It is perhaps even ironical that I do not agree with the view that Christianity is the only truth. I think I will throw this question to Daniel, who has completed his theology course and waiting to be ordained a priest.
Daniel has said that one can't believe in Christianity based on reason alone. It also has to be based on faith. Pope John Paul II said that reason and faith are like two wings of a butterfly. You need both wings to flap for flight to take place. Since faith can not be rationalised, therefore you only have reason to back your belief in any debate with others. How is that going to stand up?
The movie Kung Fu Panda has touched me quite a bit, in philosophical and spiritual sense. When Po the panda was finally given the dragon scroll that will make any man (animal?) a top kung fu expert, he was shocked to find it completely blank. After much meditation, it dawned on him that the secret was to have faith and belief in himself. This story coincides with a traditional Chinese saying that The Book of Heaven is wordless (无字天书).
The truth must be discovered by yourself. There can not be one truth only for everyone. As we can see, even Christians sharing one Bible have different understanding of the truth.
RCIA is a frank and open discussion platform about Christianity faith and other faiths in general. There are no right or wrong answers. Everything can and should be put out for discussion.
I do have a lot of questions that I like to ask, as a way of finding out about the thoughts of Catholics and Christians in general. However, I do feel reserved about probing too much, as I realised there are not necessarily answers available.
One question that has unsettled me quite a bit is the views of Catholics towards other faiths.
I know Christianity, like other monotheistic faiths, holds the view that it is the truth, and perhaps the only truth. Therein lies my problem. Although it may sound illogical, I have no problem with anyone declaring their faith to be the only truth. However, I become uneasy when someone declares the other faiths are not the truth, or even outright false or fake. In that case, I am quite tempted to call for proofs.
Let's say I claim that my wife is the most beautiful woman on this planet. Can anyone convince me otherwise? Hardly. Because I define how a woman is to be considered beautiful. If, however, I say that my wife is more beautiful than yours, then I think we both must firstly agree with the definition of what is beautiful.
And so when an RCIA participant wondered why followers of other faiths do not come to believe in Christianity when it is the only truth, I was quite peeved. It is perhaps even ironical that I do not agree with the view that Christianity is the only truth. I think I will throw this question to Daniel, who has completed his theology course and waiting to be ordained a priest.
Daniel has said that one can't believe in Christianity based on reason alone. It also has to be based on faith. Pope John Paul II said that reason and faith are like two wings of a butterfly. You need both wings to flap for flight to take place. Since faith can not be rationalised, therefore you only have reason to back your belief in any debate with others. How is that going to stand up?
The movie Kung Fu Panda has touched me quite a bit, in philosophical and spiritual sense. When Po the panda was finally given the dragon scroll that will make any man (animal?) a top kung fu expert, he was shocked to find it completely blank. After much meditation, it dawned on him that the secret was to have faith and belief in himself. This story coincides with a traditional Chinese saying that The Book of Heaven is wordless (无字天书).
The truth must be discovered by yourself. There can not be one truth only for everyone. As we can see, even Christians sharing one Bible have different understanding of the truth.
Monday, August 2, 2010
My Child, I Am Not Hungry
Tonight I cooked chicken curry for dinner. The chicken is a little smaller than usual, plus chicken curry is my children's favourite, so naturally my children wanted more than what was put in their plates. Rebecca asked me if there was anymore chicken in the pot. I took a piece of chicken from my plate to give to her. She looked at me for a couple of seconds, as if asking if I really wanted to give her the chicken. I then said to her "yes you can have it, I am not hungry." She started digging into the chicken.
Then I remembered I had heard before the exact words I just said. I had heard it so many times before, from my own mother.
Whenever I needed more, Mum was always ready to provide. She could have done with the food herself, but she gave up for me. And to make me feel good about it, she lied.
Mum, it took me a long time to know some of the things you have done for me. I may not know everything you have done for me, but I do know that you have done a lot, and more.
Sometimes it hurts to know that there is so little I have done for you in return.
Mum I am sorry ... I did not understand many things you did for me when you were with me.
Then I remembered I had heard before the exact words I just said. I had heard it so many times before, from my own mother.
Whenever I needed more, Mum was always ready to provide. She could have done with the food herself, but she gave up for me. And to make me feel good about it, she lied.
Mum, it took me a long time to know some of the things you have done for me. I may not know everything you have done for me, but I do know that you have done a lot, and more.
Sometimes it hurts to know that there is so little I have done for you in return.
Mum I am sorry ... I did not understand many things you did for me when you were with me.
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
It Is Too Late
Several months back my son looked at a used Mitsubishi Evo and he wanted to buy it. His own money was locked in a fixed deposit. So he approached me to borrow the money. I told him I also did not have that kind of cash idling in an account. He was quite disappointed. He felt that he was going to miss an opportunity of a life time. It will be too late, when his money was available.
A month ago, my son finally bought his Evo with his own money. In his own words, this used Evo is the most beautiful he has seen, even better than the one he missed out before.
When I was leaving Malaysia to go to the UK for my engineering education, I wanted a camera. I reckoned a middle low end Fujica SLR camera was probably not too much for Dad to oblige. My elder brother told me to wait, as he could sometimes find factory seconds at much lower than street price. I told him I could not wait, it would be too late. I got the Fujica.
A year later, my brother found me a Minolta second, a high end model that I very much loved to have. I sold my Fujica.
Many parents I know, typically Asian ones, are pushing their kids to finish schools as quickly as possible, otherwise it will be too late for jobs. Then some parents discover that their kids graduate from college at the wrong time, too early perhaps, before an economic recession ends, for example.
We are always in a rush to do or get whatever we need, for fear that if we wait, it will be too late.
I learned through my own experience that we can't know a lot of what the future holds for us. We don't know if it will be really too late, until it is really too late.
Is it too late, to know that it isn't always too late?
A month ago, my son finally bought his Evo with his own money. In his own words, this used Evo is the most beautiful he has seen, even better than the one he missed out before.
When I was leaving Malaysia to go to the UK for my engineering education, I wanted a camera. I reckoned a middle low end Fujica SLR camera was probably not too much for Dad to oblige. My elder brother told me to wait, as he could sometimes find factory seconds at much lower than street price. I told him I could not wait, it would be too late. I got the Fujica.
A year later, my brother found me a Minolta second, a high end model that I very much loved to have. I sold my Fujica.
Many parents I know, typically Asian ones, are pushing their kids to finish schools as quickly as possible, otherwise it will be too late for jobs. Then some parents discover that their kids graduate from college at the wrong time, too early perhaps, before an economic recession ends, for example.
We are always in a rush to do or get whatever we need, for fear that if we wait, it will be too late.
I learned through my own experience that we can't know a lot of what the future holds for us. We don't know if it will be really too late, until it is really too late.
Is it too late, to know that it isn't always too late?
Sunday, July 25, 2010
While Australians Are Everywhere In The World ....
Malaysians are everywhere in Australia.
A few years ago, a Malaysian born amateur singer Guy Sebastian took out the inaugural Australian Idol title.
Today an amateur chef of Malaysian heritage Adam Liaw won the coveted title of Australia's MasterChef 2010, a highly rated reality cooking competition show where the best amateur cooks compete in knock out daily TV shows over a grueling 12 week period. Adam prevailed over 23 other finalists, which included another Malaysian Alvin Quah.
Last year's MasterChef 2009 runner up was Poh Ling Yeow, also a Malaysian originally.
In Australia, where the sun shines, there are ... Malaysians.
A few years ago, a Malaysian born amateur singer Guy Sebastian took out the inaugural Australian Idol title.
Today an amateur chef of Malaysian heritage Adam Liaw won the coveted title of Australia's MasterChef 2010, a highly rated reality cooking competition show where the best amateur cooks compete in knock out daily TV shows over a grueling 12 week period. Adam prevailed over 23 other finalists, which included another Malaysian Alvin Quah.
Last year's MasterChef 2009 runner up was Poh Ling Yeow, also a Malaysian originally.
In Australia, where the sun shines, there are ... Malaysians.
Where The Sun Shines There Are .....
Chinese of course.
I can't find credit for the person who first said the above. It is so true, everywhere you go, you seem to bump into people of Chinese heritage.
Increasingly, there is a new challenger to the Chinese for the title above. Maybe not in terms of numbers, but certainly in terms of spreads and footprints. The new challenger is ... the Australians.
Have I got any evidence to back what I said? Absolutely.
In all the world's accidents, natural disasters, conflicts, terrorism activities or any situations that resulted in more than a few deaths, chances are really good that at least an Australian was involved.
Today in Germany, one Australian is among just 19 to die in a stampede at a German music festival.
Two Australians were found safe as the ship they traveled in was attacked by Israeli forces. Some deaths were reported.
Not too long ago, a small plane crashed in Nepal killing two Australians among just 18 dead passengers.
These incidents were recorded at places far far away from Australia. Many other incidents also had Australian involvements, all over the world.
That must surely proves that Australians are everywhere on this planet.
Watch out Chinese. Where the sun shines, there are now Australians.
I can't find credit for the person who first said the above. It is so true, everywhere you go, you seem to bump into people of Chinese heritage.
Increasingly, there is a new challenger to the Chinese for the title above. Maybe not in terms of numbers, but certainly in terms of spreads and footprints. The new challenger is ... the Australians.
Have I got any evidence to back what I said? Absolutely.
In all the world's accidents, natural disasters, conflicts, terrorism activities or any situations that resulted in more than a few deaths, chances are really good that at least an Australian was involved.
Today in Germany, one Australian is among just 19 to die in a stampede at a German music festival.
Two Australians were found safe as the ship they traveled in was attacked by Israeli forces. Some deaths were reported.
Not too long ago, a small plane crashed in Nepal killing two Australians among just 18 dead passengers.
These incidents were recorded at places far far away from Australia. Many other incidents also had Australian involvements, all over the world.
That must surely proves that Australians are everywhere on this planet.
Watch out Chinese. Where the sun shines, there are now Australians.
Friday, July 23, 2010
Something To Copy From
Three posts back I mentioned it is easy to make quick progress from a low starting point, by copying others who have successfully and efficiently done the same. In other words, you don't have to reinvent the wheels.
Here is something to share about.
My son sold his Toyota Yaris to a private owner. Here are the steps of the whole process:
1. My son advertised the car for sale. A buyer responded with interest.
2. The buyer inspected the car, made an offer. My son accepted the offer.
3. I downloaded a set of car ownership transfer form from the Department of Transport's website. The form consisted of two identical pages, one green and one red. The top part of the form contains the car and current owner details. The bottom part of the form contains the buyer details. Both green and red pages are to be signed by seller and buyer.
4. Buyer pays seller in bank cheque.
5. The green form is to be mailed in by the seller to the Department of Transport within 7 days of the sale. The red form is to be mailed in by the buyer to the Department of Transport within 7 days of the sale.
6. Sale completed.
Everything was done in the comfort of home, without going into the Department of Transport. No queue, no time wasted. Could be done even at night.
There was no ownership paper for the car. All the records of car ownership are maintained at the Department of Transport. The signature of the seller on the form is the only security check in the sale, just like the signature on the cheque is the only security check for fund withdrawal from a cheque account.
This sounds like a good place to start copying a simple and efficient administrative procedure.
Here is something to share about.
My son sold his Toyota Yaris to a private owner. Here are the steps of the whole process:
1. My son advertised the car for sale. A buyer responded with interest.
2. The buyer inspected the car, made an offer. My son accepted the offer.
3. I downloaded a set of car ownership transfer form from the Department of Transport's website. The form consisted of two identical pages, one green and one red. The top part of the form contains the car and current owner details. The bottom part of the form contains the buyer details. Both green and red pages are to be signed by seller and buyer.
4. Buyer pays seller in bank cheque.
5. The green form is to be mailed in by the seller to the Department of Transport within 7 days of the sale. The red form is to be mailed in by the buyer to the Department of Transport within 7 days of the sale.
6. Sale completed.
Everything was done in the comfort of home, without going into the Department of Transport. No queue, no time wasted. Could be done even at night.
There was no ownership paper for the car. All the records of car ownership are maintained at the Department of Transport. The signature of the seller on the form is the only security check in the sale, just like the signature on the cheque is the only security check for fund withdrawal from a cheque account.
This sounds like a good place to start copying a simple and efficient administrative procedure.
St Anthony, Help Me Please
My son Colin sold his car Toyota Yaris last week. When I helped him to hand over the car to the purchaser, there was one problem. My son had only one car key. He had misplaced the spare key. The purchaser wanted the spare key, and that was a fair request. So I offered to let the purchaser reduce the car price by the value of a replacement key. I thought the key would not have cost more than $100.
And then I found out the replacement key would cost $430. It cost that much because the key contains electronic code to start the ignition, and only Toyota knows the electronic code and can replace the key.
Suddenly I felt a tinge of pain, at the loss of $430.
The buyer gracefully agreed to give us a reasonable couple of weeks to see if we could find the key in the house, before collecting the $430 replacement cost from us.
For a few days, I searched through every corner, drawers, boxes and bags. No, there was no sign of the key. I was resigned to the loss of $430.
My wife joined in the search effort today. She started by saying a prayer to St Anthony. Her mother had told her before that St Anthony is frequently invoked by people who need help looking for something lost.
As she began searching, my wife constantly prayed for St Anthony's assistance. She only focused on the boxes and drawers in the study. She picked through every folders, files, drawers that I had searched hard before.
About an hour later, my wife laid her hands on a standing cut-off filing box in which we kept new envelopes. The envelopes were neatly packed and tightly held in the box, without loose spaces in between for hiding anything much less than the bulk of a car key. My wife decided to turn out all the envelopes anyway. There, at the bottom of the box was a plastic wallet marked Melville Toyota, the name of the dealer from where my son bought his Toyota. A gush of joy and hope overwhelmed her and with slightly trembling hands she removed the wallet, opened it, and found two new spare keys still kept in the sleeves inside the wallet.
The wallet had undoubtedly laid in that box for a long four years, unseen and untouched since the day the car was bought. Somehow it slid from a standing position and laid at the bottom of the box as we piled other stuffs over it.
My wife thanked St Anthony profusely.
St Anthony, the Saint you need when you are looking for lost stuff.
And then I found out the replacement key would cost $430. It cost that much because the key contains electronic code to start the ignition, and only Toyota knows the electronic code and can replace the key.
Suddenly I felt a tinge of pain, at the loss of $430.
The buyer gracefully agreed to give us a reasonable couple of weeks to see if we could find the key in the house, before collecting the $430 replacement cost from us.
For a few days, I searched through every corner, drawers, boxes and bags. No, there was no sign of the key. I was resigned to the loss of $430.
My wife joined in the search effort today. She started by saying a prayer to St Anthony. Her mother had told her before that St Anthony is frequently invoked by people who need help looking for something lost.
As she began searching, my wife constantly prayed for St Anthony's assistance. She only focused on the boxes and drawers in the study. She picked through every folders, files, drawers that I had searched hard before.
About an hour later, my wife laid her hands on a standing cut-off filing box in which we kept new envelopes. The envelopes were neatly packed and tightly held in the box, without loose spaces in between for hiding anything much less than the bulk of a car key. My wife decided to turn out all the envelopes anyway. There, at the bottom of the box was a plastic wallet marked Melville Toyota, the name of the dealer from where my son bought his Toyota. A gush of joy and hope overwhelmed her and with slightly trembling hands she removed the wallet, opened it, and found two new spare keys still kept in the sleeves inside the wallet.
The wallet had undoubtedly laid in that box for a long four years, unseen and untouched since the day the car was bought. Somehow it slid from a standing position and laid at the bottom of the box as we piled other stuffs over it.
My wife thanked St Anthony profusely.
St Anthony, the Saint you need when you are looking for lost stuff.
A Father's Love Letter
Our RCIA class resumed yesterday after a two week school holiday break.
Father George spoke on God the father. He said that the Old Testament gave an image of a God who was angry with His people when they disobeyed His commands, of a God who unleashed a flood to wipe off all the people who sinned. It was an image of a God whom the people feared.
The New Testament portrayed a different God. A God, in the person of Jesus, who loved His people, and was forgiving of their sins when they seeked salvation through Jesus.
The different images of God was a result of the experiences of the people during the times of the Old and New Testaments.
During the group discussions, we were asked a few questions about the images of God, and our views on the Holy Trinity, a Christian belief that God is one as well as three persons, of God, the son Jesus, and the Holy Spirit.
For the last question on Holy Trinity, nearly all the participants, including the priests, expressed that they can't understand the concept. It remains a mystery and they just have to accept it on faith alone.
I was slightly surprised by the group's response on the Holy Trinity. I mean there were a few other issues that were difficult to explain logically, and not just this Holy Trinity alone. However, the participants seemed more relaxed with the other inexplicable issues, including one we briefly touched on the people's free wills, but were more troubled by this Holy Trinity concept.
I am of the view that the Holy Trinity isn't a subject to worry about. We do not even need to try to explain it. God lives in another world, which is obviously a super set of our own. In that other world, the physical laws may operate differently from ours (And God is probably not subject to any physical laws anyway). What is impossible here may not necessarily be impossible in God's world. So why try to explain the concept of the Holy Trinity?
Take for example, the concept of time in our world. It is a significant physical law that operates and affects everything in our world. We are all locked in a time slot, the present. We can't be in the past or in the future, now. Scientists believe that traveling at or faster than the speed of light is the key to unlock time. As an object travels faster and faster approaching the speed of light, time slows until it stops totally at or beyond the speed of light. As I understand, God is everywhere. This does not appear to be disputed by anyone. So we can say that God travels faster than light. And so God is not locked down in time. He is present at this moment here, in the past and in the future.
To me, this is a far more significant concept about God, that He is everywhere in time, than the concept of the Holy Trinity.
I told the discussion group I believe and have no problem with the concept of the Holy Trinity. The group was quite surprised. Usually I am the odd one out, digging out a few issues that can't be explained away. In Buddhism too, there is a Buddha that is a Trinity, of the past, present and the future (过去现在未来佛). In Taoism, there is also the Taoist Trinity (三清). So Trinity exists in other religions too.
God is unknowable. Any limitations in explaining about God is simply due to the limitations of our own knowledge and physical laws. So why bother to rationalise everything?
Father George showed us a beautiful slide show, about a father's love letter. I enjoyed it very much, and thought I would share with you.
Father George spoke on God the father. He said that the Old Testament gave an image of a God who was angry with His people when they disobeyed His commands, of a God who unleashed a flood to wipe off all the people who sinned. It was an image of a God whom the people feared.
The New Testament portrayed a different God. A God, in the person of Jesus, who loved His people, and was forgiving of their sins when they seeked salvation through Jesus.
The different images of God was a result of the experiences of the people during the times of the Old and New Testaments.
During the group discussions, we were asked a few questions about the images of God, and our views on the Holy Trinity, a Christian belief that God is one as well as three persons, of God, the son Jesus, and the Holy Spirit.
For the last question on Holy Trinity, nearly all the participants, including the priests, expressed that they can't understand the concept. It remains a mystery and they just have to accept it on faith alone.
I was slightly surprised by the group's response on the Holy Trinity. I mean there were a few other issues that were difficult to explain logically, and not just this Holy Trinity alone. However, the participants seemed more relaxed with the other inexplicable issues, including one we briefly touched on the people's free wills, but were more troubled by this Holy Trinity concept.
I am of the view that the Holy Trinity isn't a subject to worry about. We do not even need to try to explain it. God lives in another world, which is obviously a super set of our own. In that other world, the physical laws may operate differently from ours (And God is probably not subject to any physical laws anyway). What is impossible here may not necessarily be impossible in God's world. So why try to explain the concept of the Holy Trinity?
Take for example, the concept of time in our world. It is a significant physical law that operates and affects everything in our world. We are all locked in a time slot, the present. We can't be in the past or in the future, now. Scientists believe that traveling at or faster than the speed of light is the key to unlock time. As an object travels faster and faster approaching the speed of light, time slows until it stops totally at or beyond the speed of light. As I understand, God is everywhere. This does not appear to be disputed by anyone. So we can say that God travels faster than light. And so God is not locked down in time. He is present at this moment here, in the past and in the future.
To me, this is a far more significant concept about God, that He is everywhere in time, than the concept of the Holy Trinity.
I told the discussion group I believe and have no problem with the concept of the Holy Trinity. The group was quite surprised. Usually I am the odd one out, digging out a few issues that can't be explained away. In Buddhism too, there is a Buddha that is a Trinity, of the past, present and the future (过去现在未来佛). In Taoism, there is also the Taoist Trinity (三清). So Trinity exists in other religions too.
God is unknowable. Any limitations in explaining about God is simply due to the limitations of our own knowledge and physical laws. So why bother to rationalise everything?
Father George showed us a beautiful slide show, about a father's love letter. I enjoyed it very much, and thought I would share with you.
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
When You Are Not The Best
I like to tell my children that, when you are not the best, it is not really that difficult to move forward. How so? Just copy and follow what the best does. Then when you are close enough, and confident enough, you can try to overtake the best. Even if you eventually do not become the best, by staying close to the best, you do become one of the better ones, at least.
This technique is best illustrated in a racing or speed sport. If you are not the fastest yet, to win the race you must first keep pace with the fastest, and be ready to seize the chance when presented.
And so it should be the same for countries aspiring to be in the ranks of the best. The developing countries could move forward really easily, by first copying and following those countries that are already developed. Japan and South Korea did that, and now China is doing the same.
Malaysia aspires to be a developed country by 2020, in ten short years. Apparently the only yardstick the Malaysian government uses to measure the development status of the country is economic, how much income the nation produces per capita. Everything else does not seem to matter much for the country to consider itself developed.
If economic prosperity alone is the measurement for advanced nation status, then rich oil producing countries would be considered developed during times of high oil prices, and undeveloped otherwise.
The Malaysian governance is a puzzle to the outsiders. The country's leadership sets a goal for the nation to become developed by 2020, and that is good. Everything else the country does, however, betrays this objective. Its education system is sliding backwards. It is losing hordes of human resources through emigration. In fact it frequently tells its best and brightest citizens to go back to wherever their ancestors came from. It has laws that apply to ordinary citizens but not to the powerful and the privileged. The wealth gap between the rich and the poor is the widest in Asia. Despite not being a rich country yet, tellingly the richest men in Malaysia are each worth up to twice more than the richest equivalent in Australia, a country with two and half times more GDP per capita, and therefore higher consumption power. Malaysia also practices perpetual and discriminatory policies, often conveniently referred to as affirmative policies, in favour of the majority race. Corruption among the powerful are at an anemic level, with government procurements completely shrouded in secrecy. Anyone who dares to question the authorities can be harassed with the country's notorious Internal Security Act, an archaic act with unlimited detention power designed to contain terrorism but now used conveniently to silence civil oppositions. There are no real civil liberties and citizens' rights under the constitutions are frequently violated by the same people sworn to uphold them.
In every key aspect, Malaysia is a country spiraling uncontrollably towards the likes of Zimbabwe, but thinks it is steaming dizzily towards the likes of South Korea.
There are few signs to show that Malaysia copies, or intends to copy, from other successfully developed countries. If it is even trying, it wants to become a developed country on its own blue print. What sort of developed country would Malaysia be in ten years?
The problem is, even when Malaysia finally achieves that economic status which should rank it in the rich country list, it will not be regarded as a developed country by the rest of the world. But why does that matter? The Malaysian leaders are well known for self aggrandisement. If the rest of the world won't agree with Malaysia's developed country status then, they can always go back to whichever planets their ancestors came from.
This technique is best illustrated in a racing or speed sport. If you are not the fastest yet, to win the race you must first keep pace with the fastest, and be ready to seize the chance when presented.
And so it should be the same for countries aspiring to be in the ranks of the best. The developing countries could move forward really easily, by first copying and following those countries that are already developed. Japan and South Korea did that, and now China is doing the same.
Malaysia aspires to be a developed country by 2020, in ten short years. Apparently the only yardstick the Malaysian government uses to measure the development status of the country is economic, how much income the nation produces per capita. Everything else does not seem to matter much for the country to consider itself developed.
If economic prosperity alone is the measurement for advanced nation status, then rich oil producing countries would be considered developed during times of high oil prices, and undeveloped otherwise.
The Malaysian governance is a puzzle to the outsiders. The country's leadership sets a goal for the nation to become developed by 2020, and that is good. Everything else the country does, however, betrays this objective. Its education system is sliding backwards. It is losing hordes of human resources through emigration. In fact it frequently tells its best and brightest citizens to go back to wherever their ancestors came from. It has laws that apply to ordinary citizens but not to the powerful and the privileged. The wealth gap between the rich and the poor is the widest in Asia. Despite not being a rich country yet, tellingly the richest men in Malaysia are each worth up to twice more than the richest equivalent in Australia, a country with two and half times more GDP per capita, and therefore higher consumption power. Malaysia also practices perpetual and discriminatory policies, often conveniently referred to as affirmative policies, in favour of the majority race. Corruption among the powerful are at an anemic level, with government procurements completely shrouded in secrecy. Anyone who dares to question the authorities can be harassed with the country's notorious Internal Security Act, an archaic act with unlimited detention power designed to contain terrorism but now used conveniently to silence civil oppositions. There are no real civil liberties and citizens' rights under the constitutions are frequently violated by the same people sworn to uphold them.
In every key aspect, Malaysia is a country spiraling uncontrollably towards the likes of Zimbabwe, but thinks it is steaming dizzily towards the likes of South Korea.
There are few signs to show that Malaysia copies, or intends to copy, from other successfully developed countries. If it is even trying, it wants to become a developed country on its own blue print. What sort of developed country would Malaysia be in ten years?
The problem is, even when Malaysia finally achieves that economic status which should rank it in the rich country list, it will not be regarded as a developed country by the rest of the world. But why does that matter? The Malaysian leaders are well known for self aggrandisement. If the rest of the world won't agree with Malaysia's developed country status then, they can always go back to whichever planets their ancestors came from.
Wednesday, July 7, 2010
One Little Red Dot. One Little Red Smudge
Many residents from the South East Asian countries of Malaysia, Singapore and Indonesia would know the "little red dot" refers to Singapore. It is a way of expressing contempt, preferred by Indonesian and Malaysian leaders, at the tiny state that just won't kowtow to its bigger neighbours. Despite its relatively small size, Singapore's ability to survive and compete more successfully than its bigger neighbours is perhaps the key point that infuriates leaders (out of jealousy perhaps?) of both Malaysia and Indonesia. If there is nothing more you could do with that success, it is gratifying, at least, to mock that the tiny state is nothing more than a little red dot.
The leaders of Malaysia are incredibly arrogant, and powerful, but only in Malaysia, that is. Save for a few other despotic regimes sprinkled across the third world, I don't remember any first world leaders having that kind of corrupted powers conferred upon their Malaysian counterpart. The leaders of the western democracies have only the power to lead, they can't decide on matters out of line with the wishes of the elected representatives or the general public. Try that and the exit will be quickly shown to you. Try harder and the leaders may even end up in jail.
The Malaysian leaders, although elected, lord over the people like they are his slaves whose only required function is to re-elect the government elections after elections. They are not to question the actions, behaviours and capability of the government. The people are often told how well Malaysia features in the world. Apparently stupid foreigners have yet to discover how brilliantly Malaysia has been ruled by the government.
Over the last few days, something embarrasing happened. Never before has the Malaysian government, and its usually compliant and efficient law enforcing agencies (or should I say law non-enforcing agencies if we stick to the letters of the law) found that they could not deal with a simple pain in their neck. This pain of course refers to the persons of Raja Petra Kamaruddin (popularly known as RPK) and private investigator Balasubramaniam. Both the Malaysians are wanted by the Malaysia government and the police (strangely, the government and the police are usually one and the same) But no, the police can't lay a hand on them because they are not in Malaysia but the UK, which protects people on the right side of the laws, unlike in Malaysia which usually does the opposite. From there, RPK and Bala have been taking aim and firing at the Malaysian government leaders, in particular the Prime Minister. They claimed the Prime Minister and members of his family might have been involved in a complex scheme of corruption and murder. Of course, in Malaysia the law enforcing agencies comprising the police, prosecutor and anti corruption commission would act only if the crime suspects are the opposition members.
It seems the Malaysian police can't do a thing about removing RPK and Bala from their now bigger world stage in the UK, short of illegally abducting or silencing the pair. Despite much sabre rattling by the Malaysian authorities, their UK counterpart hardly moves an eyebrow. The much hyped respect accorded to Malaysia by the rest of the world dissipated. Suddenly the Malaysian authorities find themselves in a naked and unfamiliar position, there is yet something that they are not able to accomplish.
It may be satisfying to thumb at the little red dot sometimes. Just remember that to the UK, and the rest of the world, Malaysia is no more than a little red smudge.
The leaders of Malaysia are incredibly arrogant, and powerful, but only in Malaysia, that is. Save for a few other despotic regimes sprinkled across the third world, I don't remember any first world leaders having that kind of corrupted powers conferred upon their Malaysian counterpart. The leaders of the western democracies have only the power to lead, they can't decide on matters out of line with the wishes of the elected representatives or the general public. Try that and the exit will be quickly shown to you. Try harder and the leaders may even end up in jail.
The Malaysian leaders, although elected, lord over the people like they are his slaves whose only required function is to re-elect the government elections after elections. They are not to question the actions, behaviours and capability of the government. The people are often told how well Malaysia features in the world. Apparently stupid foreigners have yet to discover how brilliantly Malaysia has been ruled by the government.
Over the last few days, something embarrasing happened. Never before has the Malaysian government, and its usually compliant and efficient law enforcing agencies (or should I say law non-enforcing agencies if we stick to the letters of the law) found that they could not deal with a simple pain in their neck. This pain of course refers to the persons of Raja Petra Kamaruddin (popularly known as RPK) and private investigator Balasubramaniam. Both the Malaysians are wanted by the Malaysia government and the police (strangely, the government and the police are usually one and the same) But no, the police can't lay a hand on them because they are not in Malaysia but the UK, which protects people on the right side of the laws, unlike in Malaysia which usually does the opposite. From there, RPK and Bala have been taking aim and firing at the Malaysian government leaders, in particular the Prime Minister. They claimed the Prime Minister and members of his family might have been involved in a complex scheme of corruption and murder. Of course, in Malaysia the law enforcing agencies comprising the police, prosecutor and anti corruption commission would act only if the crime suspects are the opposition members.
It seems the Malaysian police can't do a thing about removing RPK and Bala from their now bigger world stage in the UK, short of illegally abducting or silencing the pair. Despite much sabre rattling by the Malaysian authorities, their UK counterpart hardly moves an eyebrow. The much hyped respect accorded to Malaysia by the rest of the world dissipated. Suddenly the Malaysian authorities find themselves in a naked and unfamiliar position, there is yet something that they are not able to accomplish.
It may be satisfying to thumb at the little red dot sometimes. Just remember that to the UK, and the rest of the world, Malaysia is no more than a little red smudge.
Friday, July 2, 2010
He Who Has Not Sinned
Years ago a non Christian friend was told by her Christian friend that if she did not believe in Christ, she would be in hell after death. She felt extremely offended by her friend's words.
I have heard this method of evangelism in various forms, including one in the simplest form which says believe in Christ and you shall have salvation (Therefore, no salvation if you don't believe).
I had the opportunity to discuss this at RCIA last night. So I asked Fr George two questions:
1. Would someone who believes in Christ as the saviour but at the back does not practice according to Christ's teaching gain ultimate salvation?
2. Would someone who happens to practice according to Christ's teaching, but does not know or believe in Christ gain ultimate salvation?
Fr George was very forthright and firm in his answers. He said, according to the church (Catholic Church, or the Vatican) a person who believes in Christ but does not act according to Christ's teachings will not gain salvation. A person who practices according to Christ's teachings but does not know or believe in Christ the person will still be offered salvation by God in the end.
I like the answers by Fr George. It really confirms to me what would have been common sense really.
During the time of Jesus, he was already preaching that no one should be judging others' past or future. When Jesus prevented the stoning of Mary Magdalene, he had this to say, "Let he who has not sinned cast the first stone." It is as clear as daylight that none of us human weaklings can claim any moral authority to say to anyone else that they will go to hell.
Entry to heaven or hell is the exclusive decision of God, so let's leave it to Him to decide where I should go.
Let's look at it another way. The most powerful evangelist convinces non believers by the way he leads his life. After all, if you do not become a better person as a result of your religion, how could you claim that your belief is the only truth? No evangelist could be more powerful than Jesus himself. If Jesus has not converted the whole world yet, by his words and his deeds, what makes a mortal evangelist think he could so easily save the world with his simple words of "go to hell if you don't believe in Christ"?
Most non believers would be quite happy with a reply of "so I go to hell, it is none of your business"
If he has not sinned, he can cast the first stone.
I have heard this method of evangelism in various forms, including one in the simplest form which says believe in Christ and you shall have salvation (Therefore, no salvation if you don't believe).
I had the opportunity to discuss this at RCIA last night. So I asked Fr George two questions:
1. Would someone who believes in Christ as the saviour but at the back does not practice according to Christ's teaching gain ultimate salvation?
2. Would someone who happens to practice according to Christ's teaching, but does not know or believe in Christ gain ultimate salvation?
Fr George was very forthright and firm in his answers. He said, according to the church (Catholic Church, or the Vatican) a person who believes in Christ but does not act according to Christ's teachings will not gain salvation. A person who practices according to Christ's teachings but does not know or believe in Christ the person will still be offered salvation by God in the end.
I like the answers by Fr George. It really confirms to me what would have been common sense really.
During the time of Jesus, he was already preaching that no one should be judging others' past or future. When Jesus prevented the stoning of Mary Magdalene, he had this to say, "Let he who has not sinned cast the first stone." It is as clear as daylight that none of us human weaklings can claim any moral authority to say to anyone else that they will go to hell.
Entry to heaven or hell is the exclusive decision of God, so let's leave it to Him to decide where I should go.
Let's look at it another way. The most powerful evangelist convinces non believers by the way he leads his life. After all, if you do not become a better person as a result of your religion, how could you claim that your belief is the only truth? No evangelist could be more powerful than Jesus himself. If Jesus has not converted the whole world yet, by his words and his deeds, what makes a mortal evangelist think he could so easily save the world with his simple words of "go to hell if you don't believe in Christ"?
Most non believers would be quite happy with a reply of "so I go to hell, it is none of your business"
If he has not sinned, he can cast the first stone.
Sunday, June 27, 2010
My Silver Cap
I earned a new cap today. I have now been married for 25 years. I have actually survived ... that long!
There must be very few marriages without some kind of difficulties, even those of people whose job is to advise others on marriages. In fact, as the society becomes more affluent, the higher is the divorce rate. This is borne out by the recent statistics showing China's divorce rate is on the rise, as its population enjoys rising standard of living. I think this trend hardly surprises. As both partners become economically stronger and independent, they want more authority to go with their economic clout. For one party to gain in authority, it must necessarily mean diminishing authority for the other party. So when both parties are more demanding in the relationship, it can only mean one thing, trouble in the relationship.
A few generations back, in Asian societies, couples got married through arrangement and agreement of their respective parents. Their marriages seldom ended in separation. It may not be possible to conclude if these arranged marriages made the couple more, or less, happy. Then more recent generations resist such arranged marriages, claiming that their future happiness would be pawned off if they accepted the wishes of others. They insisted on finding their own love and lifelong partners. Again, it is doubtful if today's self arranged married couples are actually happier with their marriages.
I have my fair share of marriage problems. However, at each difficult hurdle, we managed to focus on the larger objective of the relationship and put down whatever differences we have with each other. The younger children's presence certainly help to smooth out a rough ride. We want to give them a future as best we can. That starts with a good relationship in the family.
There is no point in looking back in one's life, unless it is to provide valuable lessons for the future. In this regard, let me say that my marriage is as good as any other.
I am well pleased today. Look at my new shiny silver cap.
There must be very few marriages without some kind of difficulties, even those of people whose job is to advise others on marriages. In fact, as the society becomes more affluent, the higher is the divorce rate. This is borne out by the recent statistics showing China's divorce rate is on the rise, as its population enjoys rising standard of living. I think this trend hardly surprises. As both partners become economically stronger and independent, they want more authority to go with their economic clout. For one party to gain in authority, it must necessarily mean diminishing authority for the other party. So when both parties are more demanding in the relationship, it can only mean one thing, trouble in the relationship.
A few generations back, in Asian societies, couples got married through arrangement and agreement of their respective parents. Their marriages seldom ended in separation. It may not be possible to conclude if these arranged marriages made the couple more, or less, happy. Then more recent generations resist such arranged marriages, claiming that their future happiness would be pawned off if they accepted the wishes of others. They insisted on finding their own love and lifelong partners. Again, it is doubtful if today's self arranged married couples are actually happier with their marriages.
I have my fair share of marriage problems. However, at each difficult hurdle, we managed to focus on the larger objective of the relationship and put down whatever differences we have with each other. The younger children's presence certainly help to smooth out a rough ride. We want to give them a future as best we can. That starts with a good relationship in the family.
There is no point in looking back in one's life, unless it is to provide valuable lessons for the future. In this regard, let me say that my marriage is as good as any other.
I am well pleased today. Look at my new shiny silver cap.
Friday, June 25, 2010
Faith 3, Reason 0
Fr George talked to us about the Old Testament yesterday at the RCIA meet. According to Fr George, if the Old Testament is read literally, quite a lot of contradictions would appear. He gave a few examples. In the first book Genesis God created animals and plants before He created man. In another book (I have not confirmed which one he refers to) the man was created before animals and plants.
Fr George said that many people have different ideas about why the Old Testament contains many contradictory texts. However, the over all message of the Old Testament is one of man's relationship with God.
In our group discussion, our group leader said that his view of the Old Testament is that salvation comes only from God.
The consensus, it appears, is that the Old Testament confuses more than it clarifies.
Another own goal for reason perhaps?
Coincidentally, Raja Petra Kamaruddin posted this piece in Malaysia Today, purportedly written by a Professor in America.
So far reason has been miserable in clearing the air for the unbelievers. However, it does not prove that God does not exist. It only means that with what we have, we can't know God through the texts and logical arguments alone.
It is faith 3, reason 0.
Fr George said that many people have different ideas about why the Old Testament contains many contradictory texts. However, the over all message of the Old Testament is one of man's relationship with God.
In our group discussion, our group leader said that his view of the Old Testament is that salvation comes only from God.
The consensus, it appears, is that the Old Testament confuses more than it clarifies.
Another own goal for reason perhaps?
Coincidentally, Raja Petra Kamaruddin posted this piece in Malaysia Today, purportedly written by a Professor in America.
So far reason has been miserable in clearing the air for the unbelievers. However, it does not prove that God does not exist. It only means that with what we have, we can't know God through the texts and logical arguments alone.
It is faith 3, reason 0.
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
None Of Your Business
Daniel, my church's seminarian, said to us last week that interpreting the bible is a delicate matter. Readers of the bible should not quote isolated verses at liberty to buttress their view points, to prove or disprove one thing or another. In such cases, the verses of the bible could be quoted out of context. It is best to leave it to the church as the final authority on the contextual meaning of the bible texts. The church, in this case, refers to the Vatican, and not the priest at any church.
This again illustrates how tricky it is to use reason to support your belief. If the bible could quite easily be quoted out of context, then surely a large proportion of the believers could not have been able to understand their faith properly, through reason and understanding alone.
The priest at our church said during the Pantecost mass recently that the church has tried for 2,000 years to understand and explain, without success, the concept of the Holy Trinity, where God, the Son and the Holy Spirit is one and three. The Holy Trinity, although acknowledged by the church, remains a mystery.
This is therefore my point. If reason can not be used, sometimes, to explain your faith, why continue to use reason? And, why do you wonder, when at other times your reasons appear to be more valid, that others still reject your faith?
Viewing from outside the faith, reasons must be valid for all cases, not on a piecemeal basis.
However, if it is faith that you are pursuing, and not just a reasoned belief, then no one can have a hold on you. You, or I, can believe whatever that we like.
It is none of your business what I believe.
This again illustrates how tricky it is to use reason to support your belief. If the bible could quite easily be quoted out of context, then surely a large proportion of the believers could not have been able to understand their faith properly, through reason and understanding alone.
The priest at our church said during the Pantecost mass recently that the church has tried for 2,000 years to understand and explain, without success, the concept of the Holy Trinity, where God, the Son and the Holy Spirit is one and three. The Holy Trinity, although acknowledged by the church, remains a mystery.
This is therefore my point. If reason can not be used, sometimes, to explain your faith, why continue to use reason? And, why do you wonder, when at other times your reasons appear to be more valid, that others still reject your faith?
Viewing from outside the faith, reasons must be valid for all cases, not on a piecemeal basis.
However, if it is faith that you are pursuing, and not just a reasoned belief, then no one can have a hold on you. You, or I, can believe whatever that we like.
It is none of your business what I believe.
Reasoning For God's Sake
In one of my previous posts, I said that using reason alone to identify with God may be difficult and is not necessarily a wise idea. Using faith and experience are far better ideas to identify with God.
This is not stopping people from trying to use reason to prove God's existence. Here are some examples I have heard:
1. Planet Earth is located perfectly to support lives as we know it. Just a little bit further from the sun and it is too cold. A little too close to sun and it will be too hot. Therefore God exists.
2. Life forms are so sophisticated that therefore they could only be created, by God.
3. Cause and effect. The first cause is pre-existing to every thing, and that fits the description of God.
4. So many people are believers in God. Many have personal experiences with God. How could they be all wrong?
5. Jesus Christ was a real person, and he is the Son of God. This is the clearest proof that God exists.
And more.
People who propound reasons to prove God's existence seem to have little understanding about the mindsets of scientists. Scientists are not anti-God or anti-reason as such. Scientists are convinced only by irrefutable proofs, elaborate and solid reasoning.
Scientists aren't just stubborn old mules that will not listen to any reasoning. If they are, then they aren't scientists. Scientists are and will be the first people who are converted by good reasons. And so far, reasons on God's existence just aren't good reasons, yet.
In Chinese, there is a saying, 天机不可泄漏. Translated, it loosely means "The secrets of heaven should not be revealed." The laws and operations of God, and heaven, could not be revealed, not easily anyway, to anyone and everyone. It is not just in the Chinese culture that this "secrets should not be revealed" thing applies. The Vatican also keeps secrets about some divine revelations. Many people suspect the US government have massive secrets about aliens under wrap. In the family, parents frequently keep certain secrets from children.
So the best evidence on divine matters are probably kept secret from ordinary folks. Meanwhile we try as hard as possible to justify for God with our finite wisdom.
Reasoning for God's sake? Nice try.
This is not stopping people from trying to use reason to prove God's existence. Here are some examples I have heard:
1. Planet Earth is located perfectly to support lives as we know it. Just a little bit further from the sun and it is too cold. A little too close to sun and it will be too hot. Therefore God exists.
2. Life forms are so sophisticated that therefore they could only be created, by God.
3. Cause and effect. The first cause is pre-existing to every thing, and that fits the description of God.
4. So many people are believers in God. Many have personal experiences with God. How could they be all wrong?
5. Jesus Christ was a real person, and he is the Son of God. This is the clearest proof that God exists.
And more.
People who propound reasons to prove God's existence seem to have little understanding about the mindsets of scientists. Scientists are not anti-God or anti-reason as such. Scientists are convinced only by irrefutable proofs, elaborate and solid reasoning.
Scientists aren't just stubborn old mules that will not listen to any reasoning. If they are, then they aren't scientists. Scientists are and will be the first people who are converted by good reasons. And so far, reasons on God's existence just aren't good reasons, yet.
In Chinese, there is a saying, 天机不可泄漏. Translated, it loosely means "The secrets of heaven should not be revealed." The laws and operations of God, and heaven, could not be revealed, not easily anyway, to anyone and everyone. It is not just in the Chinese culture that this "secrets should not be revealed" thing applies. The Vatican also keeps secrets about some divine revelations. Many people suspect the US government have massive secrets about aliens under wrap. In the family, parents frequently keep certain secrets from children.
So the best evidence on divine matters are probably kept secret from ordinary folks. Meanwhile we try as hard as possible to justify for God with our finite wisdom.
Reasoning for God's sake? Nice try.
Monday, June 21, 2010
The World Cup And The Business
Recently as I stumbled and rolled through the internet marketing world, the temptation to give up is strong. Everywhere you look, the rooms are full, of people fighting for their share of the internet business wealth.
I would love to tell myself that I am late, at the game.
There again, many gurus are expounding that we are only at the very beginning of the internet commercial age. This is a beautiful time to stake your claim to the future world. Do you believe the gurus?
So I look at it another way. At every competitive sports event, new records are created. No matter how impossible it looks, the records could still fall.
Look at the current soccer world cup competition. Every day there are some new records of some kind. Here are some:
1. First time Switzerland beating Spain.
2. First time New Zealand never lost a game at the final.
3. First win by Greece at the final.
4. First time three brothers play in a world cup final team - Honduras.
No doubt there will be many more records to come.
Sports records are inevitably always broken. So what's so impossible about cracking open the business competition?
I would love to tell myself that I am late, at the game.
There again, many gurus are expounding that we are only at the very beginning of the internet commercial age. This is a beautiful time to stake your claim to the future world. Do you believe the gurus?
So I look at it another way. At every competitive sports event, new records are created. No matter how impossible it looks, the records could still fall.
Look at the current soccer world cup competition. Every day there are some new records of some kind. Here are some:
1. First time Switzerland beating Spain.
2. First time New Zealand never lost a game at the final.
3. First win by Greece at the final.
4. First time three brothers play in a world cup final team - Honduras.
No doubt there will be many more records to come.
Sports records are inevitably always broken. So what's so impossible about cracking open the business competition?
Sunday, June 20, 2010
Do I Know You From Another Time?
A friend once asked me, if reincarnation is a true law, could I explain how the human population is growing? What contributes to the increase in population? His reasoning is simple, one man dies, then another is born. So there should not be an increase in population.
As much as I am quite tempted to, I shouldn't be explaining why there is a population increase with reincarnation. I am no expert in this. I have already said that reasoning is a bad way to experience God. If we rely on reasoning ALONE as basis of faith, then a single failed reasoning must bring down the entire foundation of that faith. That is how the reasoning world operates. The law is either totally right, or not. It can't be right some of the time, and wrong in some other time.
In my humble opinion, however, if you try but fail in using reason to explain your belief, it does not actually prove that your faith is wrong or God does not exist. You could still get out by admitting that reason ALONE is not enough to explain matters of faith and belief. Failing the reason test could simply be due to the divine laws and operations being beyond the current ability of the human race to comprehend. Simple logic suggests that if one could explain everything about the divine laws and operations, that one person is probably enlightened or be like a prophet already.
On the flip side, there is a clear danger in not adopting reason as a basis of faith. What if you have been wrong all along in your belief? Can you afford to pay the price of your folly?
Returning to the subject of reincarnation. Christians do not believe in reincarnation. Their belief is that upon death, the soul goes into a temporary resting place to await the judgment day when it will be called up to be judged by God. Reincarnation, however, suggests that a dying being must return to exist in one of six realms, except when in transition from one realm to the next, unless the being attains enlightenment whence it escapes from the cycle of reincarnation permanently. The Buddha is an example of an enlightened being.
Clearly, the Christian belief model exerts more urgency on the individual to attain spiritual awareness in order to rise to glory on the day of judgment and be seated next to the angels, saints and God.
On the other hand, the Buddhist reincarnation model provides for a longer path towards the Christian equivalent of the final judgment day glory in the form of a final enlightenment. At each life cycle, a Buddhist hopes to improve his spiritual state, building on the foundation started from the previous lives. Step by step, little by little and life after life. In this Buddhist belief, therefore, the individual relies less on a uniform religious body to attain his final goal. He does not really need to go to a temple in order to progress spiritually. This is something a Christian can't do without.
And so, Christians need to follow the practices and instructions of their churches for their salvations. For the Buddhists, some of the more advanced practitioners may even attain enlightenment without any teachers or temples.
Which religion is the best? Asking such a question suggests that more than one religion may be right. Many religionists may not agree with this position. For them only their belief is the right one, the others are somewhat incorrect or inappropriate.
According to the Dalai Lama, there is indeed a best religion. It is whichever one that gets you closer to God.
As much as I am quite tempted to, I shouldn't be explaining why there is a population increase with reincarnation. I am no expert in this. I have already said that reasoning is a bad way to experience God. If we rely on reasoning ALONE as basis of faith, then a single failed reasoning must bring down the entire foundation of that faith. That is how the reasoning world operates. The law is either totally right, or not. It can't be right some of the time, and wrong in some other time.
In my humble opinion, however, if you try but fail in using reason to explain your belief, it does not actually prove that your faith is wrong or God does not exist. You could still get out by admitting that reason ALONE is not enough to explain matters of faith and belief. Failing the reason test could simply be due to the divine laws and operations being beyond the current ability of the human race to comprehend. Simple logic suggests that if one could explain everything about the divine laws and operations, that one person is probably enlightened or be like a prophet already.
On the flip side, there is a clear danger in not adopting reason as a basis of faith. What if you have been wrong all along in your belief? Can you afford to pay the price of your folly?
Returning to the subject of reincarnation. Christians do not believe in reincarnation. Their belief is that upon death, the soul goes into a temporary resting place to await the judgment day when it will be called up to be judged by God. Reincarnation, however, suggests that a dying being must return to exist in one of six realms, except when in transition from one realm to the next, unless the being attains enlightenment whence it escapes from the cycle of reincarnation permanently. The Buddha is an example of an enlightened being.
Clearly, the Christian belief model exerts more urgency on the individual to attain spiritual awareness in order to rise to glory on the day of judgment and be seated next to the angels, saints and God.
On the other hand, the Buddhist reincarnation model provides for a longer path towards the Christian equivalent of the final judgment day glory in the form of a final enlightenment. At each life cycle, a Buddhist hopes to improve his spiritual state, building on the foundation started from the previous lives. Step by step, little by little and life after life. In this Buddhist belief, therefore, the individual relies less on a uniform religious body to attain his final goal. He does not really need to go to a temple in order to progress spiritually. This is something a Christian can't do without.
And so, Christians need to follow the practices and instructions of their churches for their salvations. For the Buddhists, some of the more advanced practitioners may even attain enlightenment without any teachers or temples.
Which religion is the best? Asking such a question suggests that more than one religion may be right. Many religionists may not agree with this position. For them only their belief is the right one, the others are somewhat incorrect or inappropriate.
According to the Dalai Lama, there is indeed a best religion. It is whichever one that gets you closer to God.
Do Not Bring Me To The Test
It took me a good many years after I have been singing the Catholic prayer that I realised there is a lot more to it in the part of the prayer that says "Do not bring us to the test."
Why request (prayer is a request) God to not bring us to the test? Surely the tests couldn't be that hard?
Many of us, me included, tend to judge others harshly, and go easier with ourselves. When others falter, we offer comments and criticisms. Rarely do we put ourselves in the position of those who faltered, and assess if we could really have done better. Let me say this, most of the time we could not have managed a better outcome than those whom we criticised.
The more enlightened ones among us know this, and they express their knowledge in the form of this prayer. Please do not bring us to the test, they pray.
How much more truth could you extract from this statement? We are better not because we are better, but because we are luckier. We have not been tested, yet. Wear your pride please, only if you have passed the tests.
Let me humble myself each time I sing, do not bring us to the test.
Why request (prayer is a request) God to not bring us to the test? Surely the tests couldn't be that hard?
Many of us, me included, tend to judge others harshly, and go easier with ourselves. When others falter, we offer comments and criticisms. Rarely do we put ourselves in the position of those who faltered, and assess if we could really have done better. Let me say this, most of the time we could not have managed a better outcome than those whom we criticised.
The more enlightened ones among us know this, and they express their knowledge in the form of this prayer. Please do not bring us to the test, they pray.
How much more truth could you extract from this statement? We are better not because we are better, but because we are luckier. We have not been tested, yet. Wear your pride please, only if you have passed the tests.
Let me humble myself each time I sing, do not bring us to the test.
Grace begets grace
Two weeks ago a teenage American girl's bid to be the new youngest person to sail round the globe solo came unstuck when her yacht sailed into a storm in the Indian ocean and her mast broke. She sent out emergency SOS beacons, then she became incommunicado. She was several thousand kilometres from Western Australia, the nearest country with the capability to help her quickly.
Naturally the Australian emergency services responded quickly and appropriately. The only way to get to the sailor was to use a long range commercial aircraft. So a Qantas jet was chartered by the rescuers and flown out to find the yacht. Five hours later the plane spotted the stricken yacht. The rescuers communicated with the sailor using short range radio, and determined that she was in good spirit and physical condition. A surface rescue plan was then put in place for a fishing vessel to pick up the sailor the next day.
The whole rescue mission cost the Australian taxpayers several hundred thousand dollars.
Some sections of the community felt that the money should be recovered from the sailor's family. Fortunately the majority of the community agreed with the emergency service's stance that the money will not be demanded from the family.
The chief of the emergency services reasoned that you can't put a price on a life. I agree with that. Help, whenever rendered, must be free of conditions.
I also believe that all good deeds will eventually be repaid. The repayment, when it comes, will be in greater form or amount than the initial help rendered.
Grace begets grace.
Naturally the Australian emergency services responded quickly and appropriately. The only way to get to the sailor was to use a long range commercial aircraft. So a Qantas jet was chartered by the rescuers and flown out to find the yacht. Five hours later the plane spotted the stricken yacht. The rescuers communicated with the sailor using short range radio, and determined that she was in good spirit and physical condition. A surface rescue plan was then put in place for a fishing vessel to pick up the sailor the next day.
The whole rescue mission cost the Australian taxpayers several hundred thousand dollars.
Some sections of the community felt that the money should be recovered from the sailor's family. Fortunately the majority of the community agreed with the emergency service's stance that the money will not be demanded from the family.
The chief of the emergency services reasoned that you can't put a price on a life. I agree with that. Help, whenever rendered, must be free of conditions.
I also believe that all good deeds will eventually be repaid. The repayment, when it comes, will be in greater form or amount than the initial help rendered.
Grace begets grace.
Dying Without God
At our weekly RCIA meet, Daniel, the seminarian at our church, spoke about three ways that we may be able to experience God:
1. Reasoning. With reasoning, logic is applied to deduce that God must exist. e.g., St. Thomas Aquinas argued that since science suggests that for every effect there must be a cause, and everything must begin with a cause, therefore the first cause must be God.
2. Experience. Some people have personal and close experience that they attribute to God.
3. Faith. With faith, you simply choose to believe in God, regardless of your own experience or logical reasoning.
Daniel said that reasoning is perhaps the hardest factor in experiencing God. I agree with him. Sometimes, with good reasoning, it is indeed close to possible to argue about the existence of God. The difficulties with reasoning, I feel, is that everything about or attributed to God must then be totally and logically proved, and not just piece meal reasoning. If a single reasoning is weak, it then tears down the whole reasoning process. e.g., I have yet to see a reasoned and logical argument for all knowing God vs free willing mankind.
Experience would be a really good candidate to feel the existence of God. Many people have experienced something divine which can not be explained logically. We have heard of miraculous cures of incurable disease after intercessionary prayers. We have also heard of out of body experiences by some people in the non physical realm. If I need to be harsh with this, I could say that it does not prove the existence of God, although it proves there is something that is supernatural.
Faith is perhaps the best way to experience God. Anyone with sufficient faith can accept the existence of God. However, faith is not limited to Christian experience alone. Followers of other faiths may also experience their own supernatural being or God in the same way as Christians do.
Ultimately, it is your own decision if you want to believe in God, or not. Perhaps the best quote I have heard with regards to a faith or belief is this by an unknown author:
I would rather live believing in God and to die finding that He does not exist, than to live not believing in God and to die finding that He exists.
1. Reasoning. With reasoning, logic is applied to deduce that God must exist. e.g., St. Thomas Aquinas argued that since science suggests that for every effect there must be a cause, and everything must begin with a cause, therefore the first cause must be God.
2. Experience. Some people have personal and close experience that they attribute to God.
3. Faith. With faith, you simply choose to believe in God, regardless of your own experience or logical reasoning.
Daniel said that reasoning is perhaps the hardest factor in experiencing God. I agree with him. Sometimes, with good reasoning, it is indeed close to possible to argue about the existence of God. The difficulties with reasoning, I feel, is that everything about or attributed to God must then be totally and logically proved, and not just piece meal reasoning. If a single reasoning is weak, it then tears down the whole reasoning process. e.g., I have yet to see a reasoned and logical argument for all knowing God vs free willing mankind.
Experience would be a really good candidate to feel the existence of God. Many people have experienced something divine which can not be explained logically. We have heard of miraculous cures of incurable disease after intercessionary prayers. We have also heard of out of body experiences by some people in the non physical realm. If I need to be harsh with this, I could say that it does not prove the existence of God, although it proves there is something that is supernatural.
Faith is perhaps the best way to experience God. Anyone with sufficient faith can accept the existence of God. However, faith is not limited to Christian experience alone. Followers of other faiths may also experience their own supernatural being or God in the same way as Christians do.
Ultimately, it is your own decision if you want to believe in God, or not. Perhaps the best quote I have heard with regards to a faith or belief is this by an unknown author:
I would rather live believing in God and to die finding that He does not exist, than to live not believing in God and to die finding that He exists.
The Day I Lost My Tooth
A friend called up for a chat. His daughter is in the midst of her university course, and she wants to change her course, as she dislikes the course that she is studying now.
I posed the question to my friend, did his daughter choose her current course herself? My friend said, in a way yes, because her pre-university examination result was not exactly so good that she had other choices.
I could not really advise my friend as I do not know his daughter well. However, I have similar experience of my own.
I remember when I was doing pre-university study in England, I had a fellow course mate who was preparing to enter university to pursue a degree in medicine. His study effort and results were only average. I was quite sure he would not make it into a medical course. Medical courses were and still are selecting only the best performing students. He told me his parents wanted him to be a doctor, whereas his real passion was in cooking. He knew he would not make it to the medical school. However, he was easily the best cook among our group of friends.
True enough, he failed to gain entry to the medical school. He did successfully become a chef later.
In his second year doing his accounting degree, my son also told me that he was not interested in studying accountancy. He said he wanted to go to Switzerland to study hotel management and catering. I asked him why Switzerland. His reply was that Switzerland is the world's best place to study for that course.
It would have been good, if my son's passion was really in catering. But, he had never cooked a proper meal, nor did he ever show interest in anything in the kitchen.
Naturally I did not agree to my son's proposition and insisted he complete his accounting degree.
I remember an interesting episode when I was in primary school. One day I was bullied by a fellow class mate. He threatened to punch me the next day when we met in school. I dared not inform my parents about the unfortunate experience. The next day I did not want to go to school. I had to have a really good reason for evading school. So I told mum I had a serious tooth ache. Mum took me to the dentist. I was asked which tooth hurt. I picked out one that was perfectly good. The tooth was removed. That was how dentistry was practiced in those darker days.
Kids know that they need a good reason to avoid doing what they do not like to do. Sometimes, the reasons are valid. Most other times, they aren't.
I never forget the day I lost my tooth, a perfectly good tooth.
I posed the question to my friend, did his daughter choose her current course herself? My friend said, in a way yes, because her pre-university examination result was not exactly so good that she had other choices.
I could not really advise my friend as I do not know his daughter well. However, I have similar experience of my own.
I remember when I was doing pre-university study in England, I had a fellow course mate who was preparing to enter university to pursue a degree in medicine. His study effort and results were only average. I was quite sure he would not make it into a medical course. Medical courses were and still are selecting only the best performing students. He told me his parents wanted him to be a doctor, whereas his real passion was in cooking. He knew he would not make it to the medical school. However, he was easily the best cook among our group of friends.
True enough, he failed to gain entry to the medical school. He did successfully become a chef later.
In his second year doing his accounting degree, my son also told me that he was not interested in studying accountancy. He said he wanted to go to Switzerland to study hotel management and catering. I asked him why Switzerland. His reply was that Switzerland is the world's best place to study for that course.
It would have been good, if my son's passion was really in catering. But, he had never cooked a proper meal, nor did he ever show interest in anything in the kitchen.
Naturally I did not agree to my son's proposition and insisted he complete his accounting degree.
I remember an interesting episode when I was in primary school. One day I was bullied by a fellow class mate. He threatened to punch me the next day when we met in school. I dared not inform my parents about the unfortunate experience. The next day I did not want to go to school. I had to have a really good reason for evading school. So I told mum I had a serious tooth ache. Mum took me to the dentist. I was asked which tooth hurt. I picked out one that was perfectly good. The tooth was removed. That was how dentistry was practiced in those darker days.
Kids know that they need a good reason to avoid doing what they do not like to do. Sometimes, the reasons are valid. Most other times, they aren't.
I never forget the day I lost my tooth, a perfectly good tooth.
Saturday, June 12, 2010
God Will Help You Only If You Help Yourself
I don't know about you but I have heard this being said often.
The saying sounds logical enough. Why help you if you don't even want to help yourself. Even God can't help you.
I always suspected this saying did not have a religious root. I mean, can God be thinking and behaving like an average human being? Yes, an average person would probably not want to help you if you are not going to put in some effort towards helping yourself simultaneously. But there are a lot of great human beings who would go to great length to help you even if you refuse to help yourself. Could God be truly a lesser being than these great human personalities?
If He is God, I know He will help you over and over again, even if you fail again and again at helping yourself. If He doesn't, He is not God.
The saying sounds logical enough. Why help you if you don't even want to help yourself. Even God can't help you.
I always suspected this saying did not have a religious root. I mean, can God be thinking and behaving like an average human being? Yes, an average person would probably not want to help you if you are not going to put in some effort towards helping yourself simultaneously. But there are a lot of great human beings who would go to great length to help you even if you refuse to help yourself. Could God be truly a lesser being than these great human personalities?
If He is God, I know He will help you over and over again, even if you fail again and again at helping yourself. If He doesn't, He is not God.
Faith
At the RCIA weekly meets, we have commenced discussion on catholicism. The first topic was centred on faith.
Faith, as defined in the dictionary, means having confidence in someone, or in the context of religion, having confidence in God. An example of faith was Abraham obeying God's command to offer his only son Issac as a sacrifice. I felt quite disturbed with this example. It is a bit hard to appreciate that as an example of faith in today's context.
I am always moved by great faith. In the movie "The Ten Commandments", stopped in their escape by the Red Sea, and with an army of Egyptian warriors in hot pursuit, the Jews were cowered in fears. Moses (played by Charlton Heston) pronounced, majestically, "Ten times you have witnessed the power of God, and yet you still have no faith" This is of course after God had, through Moses, turned the Nile red and taken the first borns of Egyptians as a show of divine authority to the unbelieving Egyptian Pharoah.
I must say that it was folly of the highest order for those Jews to still not have faith in God after such display of supernatural authority.
During our discussion time at the RCIA, I was asked a direct question on what I thought of God, and my faith relationship with Him. I got the impression, I may be wrong here, that my catholic friends do not think that faith can be directed towards a non-God focus. So, I told them, I have faith too. I pray too. However, I have some difficulties identifying my focus of faith on a one God.
I am beginning to think that the myriad of questions that I have about Christianity and Catholicism will never be fully answered. This is not surprising at all. Faith itself means believing without the need for reasoning and convincing.
While chatting with Fr Philip last week, he told us jokingly not to ask Daniel too many difficult questions, as Daniel might become confused and fail his theology examination. Daniel is a resident seminarian at our church. He is a leader of our RCIA group, he will be ordained as a full priest later this year after he passes his final theology examination. Daniel quickly added that luckily for him, his examination comes up on Monday 14th June, whereas we only get the opportunity to ask him questions on next Thursday 17th June. So no matter what we ask, it is not going to affect his performance at the examination.
I am different from Catholics who are born as Catholics and who have never an opportunity nor the spiritual need to explore outside their faith. I have questions which they never ask. I can't stop myself from asking questions.
I look forward to a better discussion with my friend Daniel.
Faith, as defined in the dictionary, means having confidence in someone, or in the context of religion, having confidence in God. An example of faith was Abraham obeying God's command to offer his only son Issac as a sacrifice. I felt quite disturbed with this example. It is a bit hard to appreciate that as an example of faith in today's context.
I am always moved by great faith. In the movie "The Ten Commandments", stopped in their escape by the Red Sea, and with an army of Egyptian warriors in hot pursuit, the Jews were cowered in fears. Moses (played by Charlton Heston) pronounced, majestically, "Ten times you have witnessed the power of God, and yet you still have no faith" This is of course after God had, through Moses, turned the Nile red and taken the first borns of Egyptians as a show of divine authority to the unbelieving Egyptian Pharoah.
I must say that it was folly of the highest order for those Jews to still not have faith in God after such display of supernatural authority.
During our discussion time at the RCIA, I was asked a direct question on what I thought of God, and my faith relationship with Him. I got the impression, I may be wrong here, that my catholic friends do not think that faith can be directed towards a non-God focus. So, I told them, I have faith too. I pray too. However, I have some difficulties identifying my focus of faith on a one God.
I am beginning to think that the myriad of questions that I have about Christianity and Catholicism will never be fully answered. This is not surprising at all. Faith itself means believing without the need for reasoning and convincing.
While chatting with Fr Philip last week, he told us jokingly not to ask Daniel too many difficult questions, as Daniel might become confused and fail his theology examination. Daniel is a resident seminarian at our church. He is a leader of our RCIA group, he will be ordained as a full priest later this year after he passes his final theology examination. Daniel quickly added that luckily for him, his examination comes up on Monday 14th June, whereas we only get the opportunity to ask him questions on next Thursday 17th June. So no matter what we ask, it is not going to affect his performance at the examination.
I am different from Catholics who are born as Catholics and who have never an opportunity nor the spiritual need to explore outside their faith. I have questions which they never ask. I can't stop myself from asking questions.
I look forward to a better discussion with my friend Daniel.
Sunday, June 6, 2010
Chop or Stamp
At the Malaysian Immigration checkpoint at Johor Bahru, my children's uncle asked for our passports, to be chopped by the immigration officer.
Julian and Rebecca asked "chopped? Why chop the passports?" Their uncle did not get it, and repeated, "yes your passports must be chopped by the immigration." Now the children became seriously worried, and they asked again, "why do they need to chop my passport?" After all, having your passports chopped up is not a joke you can live with.
Twenty years ago when I worked in Australia, I asked the receptionist to give me the 'company chop' and she gave me a blank look. I repeated the request and I still could not get what I needed.
Of course, the correct word is stamp, not chop.
How and why did we say 'chop'?
Julian and Rebecca asked "chopped? Why chop the passports?" Their uncle did not get it, and repeated, "yes your passports must be chopped by the immigration." Now the children became seriously worried, and they asked again, "why do they need to chop my passport?" After all, having your passports chopped up is not a joke you can live with.
Twenty years ago when I worked in Australia, I asked the receptionist to give me the 'company chop' and she gave me a blank look. I repeated the request and I still could not get what I needed.
Of course, the correct word is stamp, not chop.
How and why did we say 'chop'?
I Am Not Listening
Dr Phil is a popular American talk show host and counsellor. He is especially good at helping people with family, relationship and other personal problems.
But he is not without marriage problem of his own.
We are all good counsellors. We all can help others solve their problems but we can't solve our own same problems.
Many years ago, I read a short story about a couple. The wife worked as a relationship adviser. In those days, when people had emotional problems, they wrote in to the newspapers, periodicals or weeklies which employed columnists to advise the readers on their problems. So this wife worked as a columnist and she regularly worked all day including deep into the night to pen out her advice for her readers. She neglected to do her part for the works required at home. For her, work was the most and only important task.
She was so good at her work she was appropriately called 'the light of the community".
One day she received a help request from a man. The man had a problem. He did a day job, cared for his children and did all the house chores. His wife was busy with her own work all day and night and ignored his and the family's need. He had no way of communicating with his wife to resolve the issues. All he wanted was for the wife to work a little less and paid some attention to him and the family.
The wife sympathetically wrote a reply to this reader. She gave him advice on how to approach and deal with his wife. She said, his wife was wrong to have put all attention on her work, at great expense to the emotional needs of her family, and yada, yada, yada.
Next, this woman columnist was shown her own exact words by her husband. He had written to his wife for help. He was that reader.
We are all great advisors, for others. Somehow, when we deal with our own affairs, we become totally paralysed and useless.
We just do not listen to those who are close to us. They may have that exact medicine to cure our ills, but that medicine is more effective if dispensed from others.
Why?
But he is not without marriage problem of his own.
We are all good counsellors. We all can help others solve their problems but we can't solve our own same problems.
Many years ago, I read a short story about a couple. The wife worked as a relationship adviser. In those days, when people had emotional problems, they wrote in to the newspapers, periodicals or weeklies which employed columnists to advise the readers on their problems. So this wife worked as a columnist and she regularly worked all day including deep into the night to pen out her advice for her readers. She neglected to do her part for the works required at home. For her, work was the most and only important task.
She was so good at her work she was appropriately called 'the light of the community".
One day she received a help request from a man. The man had a problem. He did a day job, cared for his children and did all the house chores. His wife was busy with her own work all day and night and ignored his and the family's need. He had no way of communicating with his wife to resolve the issues. All he wanted was for the wife to work a little less and paid some attention to him and the family.
The wife sympathetically wrote a reply to this reader. She gave him advice on how to approach and deal with his wife. She said, his wife was wrong to have put all attention on her work, at great expense to the emotional needs of her family, and yada, yada, yada.
Next, this woman columnist was shown her own exact words by her husband. He had written to his wife for help. He was that reader.
We are all great advisors, for others. Somehow, when we deal with our own affairs, we become totally paralysed and useless.
We just do not listen to those who are close to us. They may have that exact medicine to cure our ills, but that medicine is more effective if dispensed from others.
Why?
Thursday, June 3, 2010
No Secrets Please. We Are Australians
Australians are a bunch of chatty lot. They just love to talk. When they start to talk, all other things are subordinated in importance. They can talk, as we sometimes like to infer, till kingdom comes.
And so, if you are in the queue for some services, don't count your luck yet when there are only three people in front of you. You know, Australians are efficient in their service delivery. They may take only five minutes to dispense the required service to you. Then, a great unique Australian only behaviour takes over. The customer and the service provider start to talk. And they talk for another fifteen minutes. Talk about what? It usually does not look about the service.
I see this happening everywhere. The only times when this does not happen is when one or all of the following is/are true:
1. Either the customer or the service provider is young-ish.
2. At risk of being labeled a sexist, either the customer or the service provider is a male.
So last week I took Julian to an after hour clinic for a consultation. He had flu. And he had a school camp coming up in two days. We thought, just to be safe, we had better get his flu under control or he might just have to miss the camp. Julian would probably cry if he had to skip the camp. He had been eagerly waiting for it for sometime.
At the clinic, there were only, yes only, three other patients ahead of us. Another patient must have been with the doctor when we checked in. This patient did not come out until forty minutes later. So I started estimating it would take us another one half hours to reach the doctor. The next one took fifteen minutes. Then two more, teenagers, each spent five minutes. Finally I used five minutes to get it over.
And then, at the chemist shop, I bumped into another typical chatty fellow in front of me. She took twenty minutes, yes, to buy her medicine. Fifteen of those minutes were spent talking after she got the medicine, all about the medicine I think. I took just three minutes to get mine.
What do Australians talk about? If there was that much to talk about, you would seriously need to wonder.
No secrets please. We are Australians.
And so, if you are in the queue for some services, don't count your luck yet when there are only three people in front of you. You know, Australians are efficient in their service delivery. They may take only five minutes to dispense the required service to you. Then, a great unique Australian only behaviour takes over. The customer and the service provider start to talk. And they talk for another fifteen minutes. Talk about what? It usually does not look about the service.
I see this happening everywhere. The only times when this does not happen is when one or all of the following is/are true:
1. Either the customer or the service provider is young-ish.
2. At risk of being labeled a sexist, either the customer or the service provider is a male.
So last week I took Julian to an after hour clinic for a consultation. He had flu. And he had a school camp coming up in two days. We thought, just to be safe, we had better get his flu under control or he might just have to miss the camp. Julian would probably cry if he had to skip the camp. He had been eagerly waiting for it for sometime.
At the clinic, there were only, yes only, three other patients ahead of us. Another patient must have been with the doctor when we checked in. This patient did not come out until forty minutes later. So I started estimating it would take us another one half hours to reach the doctor. The next one took fifteen minutes. Then two more, teenagers, each spent five minutes. Finally I used five minutes to get it over.
And then, at the chemist shop, I bumped into another typical chatty fellow in front of me. She took twenty minutes, yes, to buy her medicine. Fifteen of those minutes were spent talking after she got the medicine, all about the medicine I think. I took just three minutes to get mine.
What do Australians talk about? If there was that much to talk about, you would seriously need to wonder.
No secrets please. We are Australians.
Monday, May 31, 2010
Stoloko?
Language is a live thing. It grows, evolves, changes, adapts according to the time. And if your language does not have a word to express what you have in mind, well, copy it from someone else's.
Which brings me back fond memories of some bastardised English words I learned when I was a learner driver. Stoloko and gostan.
Stoloko is a stop sign, and gostan means to reverse, as in reversing your car.
When I first heard these strange words, I was pretty sure they were of foreign origin, but could not figure out how they came about. Asking is useless too, as everyone else, including dad, just used them without the need to know the words' origin. That would have been quite the norm for words which are clearly your own. You can tell which words are your own, and which words are not, as the foreign words contain pronunciations not normally associated with your own language. And 's' is forbidden in Chinese language.
Then a eureka moment hit one day, and stoloko was debunked as 'stop look go'. And gostan as 'go stern'.
Encarta dictionary contains a definition for 'go stern', and it says it is used informally in Malaysia to mean 'reversing'. It seems, only Malaysians would use and understand this word. Sadly, Encarta does not contain an entry for stoloko.
Of course, such copying of foreign words are still ongoing to this day for relatively young languages, like Malay. For a more mature language, such as English, it would have largely incorporated words of foreign origin a long time ago. When you have used other people's words long enough, you can claim them as your own (This may apply for other things as well. If you have occupied others' land long enough, it is yours too).
Thus in Malay, komunikasi is for communication, rasisme is for racism. And so on and on.
Long ago, I thought that the use of words like stoloko and gostan were tasteless. I never used these 'words' myself. It doesn't feel so bad after all.
Which brings me back fond memories of some bastardised English words I learned when I was a learner driver. Stoloko and gostan.
Stoloko is a stop sign, and gostan means to reverse, as in reversing your car.
When I first heard these strange words, I was pretty sure they were of foreign origin, but could not figure out how they came about. Asking is useless too, as everyone else, including dad, just used them without the need to know the words' origin. That would have been quite the norm for words which are clearly your own. You can tell which words are your own, and which words are not, as the foreign words contain pronunciations not normally associated with your own language. And 's' is forbidden in Chinese language.
Then a eureka moment hit one day, and stoloko was debunked as 'stop look go'. And gostan as 'go stern'.
Encarta dictionary contains a definition for 'go stern', and it says it is used informally in Malaysia to mean 'reversing'. It seems, only Malaysians would use and understand this word. Sadly, Encarta does not contain an entry for stoloko.
Of course, such copying of foreign words are still ongoing to this day for relatively young languages, like Malay. For a more mature language, such as English, it would have largely incorporated words of foreign origin a long time ago. When you have used other people's words long enough, you can claim them as your own (This may apply for other things as well. If you have occupied others' land long enough, it is yours too).
Thus in Malay, komunikasi is for communication, rasisme is for racism. And so on and on.
Long ago, I thought that the use of words like stoloko and gostan were tasteless. I never used these 'words' myself. It doesn't feel so bad after all.
Sunday, May 30, 2010
Be Content And Grateful With What You Already Have
Despite not being a Catholic, yet, I have been greatly fascinated by the Christian parables told in and out of the Bible.
I have frequently used some of these parables to remind myself, and my children, of what we should aspire to do, and be.
This one is a particular favourite.
A vineyard owner employs casual workers to work for him. Each morning a number of workers would wait outside his vineyard to start work early, and be paid the agreed daily wage of one denarius at the end of the work day.
One day, in the afternoon, the vineyard owner spotted a few wanderers outside his farm asking if they could also work. They were allowed to join the rest of the workers on the farm.
At the end of the work day, the vineyard owner paid out the wages to everyone. He first called out the last people who came, and paid them one denarius each. Then he paid out, also one denarius, to every other worker who started work from the morning. These early workers became unhappy, for they were paid the same wage as those that came to work late and worked for lesser hours.
The vineyard owner said to these unhappy workers, "Did you not agree to be paid one denarius a day for your work? Now you are receiving exactly that, why are you still not happy?"
The parable is traditionally taught to imply that the reward of heaven is equal for all believers, whether they have been a long time believer, or a new believer.
We can also draw many other lessons from it. Remember, life is not always fair. Perhaps we need to be mindful that fairness does not have a simple definition.
Be content and grateful with what you already have.
I have frequently used some of these parables to remind myself, and my children, of what we should aspire to do, and be.
This one is a particular favourite.
A vineyard owner employs casual workers to work for him. Each morning a number of workers would wait outside his vineyard to start work early, and be paid the agreed daily wage of one denarius at the end of the work day.
One day, in the afternoon, the vineyard owner spotted a few wanderers outside his farm asking if they could also work. They were allowed to join the rest of the workers on the farm.
At the end of the work day, the vineyard owner paid out the wages to everyone. He first called out the last people who came, and paid them one denarius each. Then he paid out, also one denarius, to every other worker who started work from the morning. These early workers became unhappy, for they were paid the same wage as those that came to work late and worked for lesser hours.
The vineyard owner said to these unhappy workers, "Did you not agree to be paid one denarius a day for your work? Now you are receiving exactly that, why are you still not happy?"
The parable is traditionally taught to imply that the reward of heaven is equal for all believers, whether they have been a long time believer, or a new believer.
We can also draw many other lessons from it. Remember, life is not always fair. Perhaps we need to be mindful that fairness does not have a simple definition.
Be content and grateful with what you already have.
Saturday, May 29, 2010
As Good As You Are
Two days ago I attended the second RCIA session. A fellow participant, a Malaysian of course, asked me why I am becoming a Catholic.
This is of course a question that I have thought about for sometime.
The best correct answer, I feel, and that is the one I gave, is that I see many Catholics are good people.
What other answer can it be? It could not be because I feel connected with God, at least not yet.
For sometime already, I have had this experiment. Say, if I see or meet someone, without knowing what religion he practices, and assuming there would be no outwardly signs of his religion, such as wearing a cross or whatever, would I be able to tell from his bahaviours what religion he practices? Most all of the time, the answer is no.
If your religion is good, should you not feel or be obliged to be a better person? I think you should.
I was first introduced to Christianity at high school. I did not stick with it then. The main reason was because I could not reconcile with the idea told to me then that "to go to heaven all you need to do is to believe in Christ." I know that sometimes the person carrying such message is not necessary the expert on Christianity. Maybe they wanted to keep the message simple, or their objective was only to stuff the church with numbers. However, many followers seemed to fully believe that their salvation was assured with a belief in Christ, alone.
Personally, I find that statement shallow. Yes, believing in Christ can bring you salvation. But what is the meaning of 'believe'? I feel 'believe' includes doing all that Jesus said you should do, besides acknowledging Jesus as God's authority (or Son in this case).
That could largely exclude people who believe in the person of Jesus as the saviour, but ignore what he said you should do.
In one of the homilies I heard in my church. I remember the priest talked about a story of a very rich and in every way a very good man asked Jesus how he could be a good follower of Jesus (in today's parlance, a Christian). Jesus replied "give up all that you have and follow me." The rich man, despite him being an extremely kind man, meaning he had been helping others with his wealth, was unable to give up all that he had. And so he walked away, disappointed.
Today I am in RCIA, not necessarily because I see Catholics alone are better people than followers of other religions. All people who have and believe in a good religion, have equal likeliness to become better people.
Heaven or heavens must be created for people who have been good. If knowing Christ is the only condition for entry into heaven, would you, a Christian, feel more entitled to a place in heaven, simply on merit of your recognition of Christ the person, than say someone who have been doing everything good but never knew Christ the person?
Ultimately, your religion is only as good as you are.
This is of course a question that I have thought about for sometime.
The best correct answer, I feel, and that is the one I gave, is that I see many Catholics are good people.
What other answer can it be? It could not be because I feel connected with God, at least not yet.
For sometime already, I have had this experiment. Say, if I see or meet someone, without knowing what religion he practices, and assuming there would be no outwardly signs of his religion, such as wearing a cross or whatever, would I be able to tell from his bahaviours what religion he practices? Most all of the time, the answer is no.
If your religion is good, should you not feel or be obliged to be a better person? I think you should.
I was first introduced to Christianity at high school. I did not stick with it then. The main reason was because I could not reconcile with the idea told to me then that "to go to heaven all you need to do is to believe in Christ." I know that sometimes the person carrying such message is not necessary the expert on Christianity. Maybe they wanted to keep the message simple, or their objective was only to stuff the church with numbers. However, many followers seemed to fully believe that their salvation was assured with a belief in Christ, alone.
Personally, I find that statement shallow. Yes, believing in Christ can bring you salvation. But what is the meaning of 'believe'? I feel 'believe' includes doing all that Jesus said you should do, besides acknowledging Jesus as God's authority (or Son in this case).
That could largely exclude people who believe in the person of Jesus as the saviour, but ignore what he said you should do.
In one of the homilies I heard in my church. I remember the priest talked about a story of a very rich and in every way a very good man asked Jesus how he could be a good follower of Jesus (in today's parlance, a Christian). Jesus replied "give up all that you have and follow me." The rich man, despite him being an extremely kind man, meaning he had been helping others with his wealth, was unable to give up all that he had. And so he walked away, disappointed.
Today I am in RCIA, not necessarily because I see Catholics alone are better people than followers of other religions. All people who have and believe in a good religion, have equal likeliness to become better people.
Heaven or heavens must be created for people who have been good. If knowing Christ is the only condition for entry into heaven, would you, a Christian, feel more entitled to a place in heaven, simply on merit of your recognition of Christ the person, than say someone who have been doing everything good but never knew Christ the person?
Ultimately, your religion is only as good as you are.
Be Fair? I Like To Be Fair
So some bumiputeras demand their lot be given 67% of the nation's wealth, as reported by www.malaysiakini.com today. It seems their only justification for the demand is that they make up 67% of the nation's population. And, in case you feel like passing judgment already, just bear in mind these bumiputeras are being very fair. The 33% minority races still get to keep their 33% of wealth.
Why stop at demanding wealth for the race? I say it is even better to demand that wealth be distributed equally with each citizen of the country. In that way, the bumiputeras would definitely get their 67%, the minority races their 33%. On top of that, there won't be any intra or inter race wealth gap. Fair to all the bumiputeras, fair to everyone. So, let's go all the way, for fairness sake. Let Malaysia be the first nation on Earth to achieve that absolute equality. Who can argue with that?
Be fair? Come on, I like to be fair too.
Why stop at demanding wealth for the race? I say it is even better to demand that wealth be distributed equally with each citizen of the country. In that way, the bumiputeras would definitely get their 67%, the minority races their 33%. On top of that, there won't be any intra or inter race wealth gap. Fair to all the bumiputeras, fair to everyone. So, let's go all the way, for fairness sake. Let Malaysia be the first nation on Earth to achieve that absolute equality. Who can argue with that?
Be fair? Come on, I like to be fair too.
Friday, May 28, 2010
If It Ain't Broken, Fix It Nevertheless
The Australian education system and its structure change all the time, sometimes they change for the worse. But then this is the fun part, it is only when you try to change it that you discover if it works or not. If it does not work as you intended, then you change again.
Even when we have the same government, it tweaks the education system every couple of years. When we do change the government, of course a major change could be expected. It is quite an effort to keep up with the changes. The government study aid scheme, the examination system, the curriculum are all subject to change. Change, it seems, is the only constant.
Two years ago, the federal government introduced a national assessment tests for students in Year 3 and Year 5. These tests measure the students' individual ability as well as to provide a national performance comparative study for each school. Until these tests were introduced you could only guess how well a school in Victoria performs against another in South Australia. Each state has its own curriculum and examination system.
When I talk about these constant and rapid changes, I have my reference point firmly planted in the Malaysian education system. For as long as I can remember, the Malaysian system changes little. And if there is a change, it takes years to implement, whether it is to implement or to remove an implementation. The Malaysian model is like a sailing Titanic, it starts slow, and it stops slow.
We know if something is not broken, don't fix it. In the real competitive world, being complacent with what has worked is the equivalent of being broken. Fix it nevertheless.
Even when we have the same government, it tweaks the education system every couple of years. When we do change the government, of course a major change could be expected. It is quite an effort to keep up with the changes. The government study aid scheme, the examination system, the curriculum are all subject to change. Change, it seems, is the only constant.
Two years ago, the federal government introduced a national assessment tests for students in Year 3 and Year 5. These tests measure the students' individual ability as well as to provide a national performance comparative study for each school. Until these tests were introduced you could only guess how well a school in Victoria performs against another in South Australia. Each state has its own curriculum and examination system.
When I talk about these constant and rapid changes, I have my reference point firmly planted in the Malaysian education system. For as long as I can remember, the Malaysian system changes little. And if there is a change, it takes years to implement, whether it is to implement or to remove an implementation. The Malaysian model is like a sailing Titanic, it starts slow, and it stops slow.
We know if something is not broken, don't fix it. In the real competitive world, being complacent with what has worked is the equivalent of being broken. Fix it nevertheless.
If It Can Be Given, It Can Be Taken
Life is full of strange twists. What I want to relate is not something scientific, but it could pay to be believer.
Over a period of time, I have had a few people saying more or less the same thing to me while they were all at the peak of their success and fortune. Soon after saying the same thing these successful and rich people rolled down hill and were reduced to a fraction in size of their former glorious selves.
What did they all say? Well, they were rich and successful and they shared a common denominator, they were lowly educated. None of them went to college. They attributed their success to this one fact, on top of that they mocked the value of education. They declared, going to college is a waste of time and money.
And then these successful people suddenly were successful no more. They lost their fortunes. They were despatched back to square one like a monopoly player directed back to square one on the authority of a chance card.
How did that happen? I don't know. There is one thing I believe though, it pays to be modest.
If it can be given to you, it can be taken from you.
Over a period of time, I have had a few people saying more or less the same thing to me while they were all at the peak of their success and fortune. Soon after saying the same thing these successful and rich people rolled down hill and were reduced to a fraction in size of their former glorious selves.
What did they all say? Well, they were rich and successful and they shared a common denominator, they were lowly educated. None of them went to college. They attributed their success to this one fact, on top of that they mocked the value of education. They declared, going to college is a waste of time and money.
And then these successful people suddenly were successful no more. They lost their fortunes. They were despatched back to square one like a monopoly player directed back to square one on the authority of a chance card.
How did that happen? I don't know. There is one thing I believe though, it pays to be modest.
If it can be given to you, it can be taken from you.
So You Know About Me, Really?
It is interesting to hear people speaking confidently about the character of another person, who could be his family member, his good friend or his work mate. So you hear a statement like "I know my son would never do such a thing. Anyone else I can't say for sure, but definitely not my son. I know him."
I believe, quite often, the statement is more of a statement of hope, as in "I hope my son would never do such a thing" than a statement of guarantee that "my son would never do such a thing."
We couldn't really know another person so well, even if that person has been very close to us for a long time, could we?
Here is a true story.
I had a classmate in Primary 1. He was the smartest in class. Smartest as in he already learnt everything the teacher was teaching. He was also the naughtiest in class. When the teacher tried to cane him, allowable in those days, he snatched the cane from the teacher and directed the cane back at the teacher.
He was removed from the school. His parents transferred him to another school in Singapore. I have never seen him again.
My classmate was the only son. His parents were rich, and were modern in outlook for their time. They were bringing up their son differently from the rest of the parents. I was brought up to respect the authority of our elders. Unquestionable authority, only to be obeyed, never to be challenged.
Many years later, my parents were retired, living a rich and comfortable life. One day dad bumped into my classmate's father, whom I said was a rich man himself before. Dad was surprised to see his village mate an old, weak and haggard man. Naturally dad asked about his welfare. My classmate's father related to dad his misfortune. He had given all his wealth to his son, my classmate. He loved his only son. He trusted him. He wanted to give his son everything he had.
His son, my classmate, turned around to kick his own parents out of the home. Now old and penniless, my classmate's father found work as a store attendant. His wife, my classmate's mother, a rich man's daughter herself, was now working as a house maid.
Such is just one of many sad stories that have been played out several times, like a script, to people I know personally.
Could you really and absolutely know someone you know?
I believe, quite often, the statement is more of a statement of hope, as in "I hope my son would never do such a thing" than a statement of guarantee that "my son would never do such a thing."
We couldn't really know another person so well, even if that person has been very close to us for a long time, could we?
Here is a true story.
I had a classmate in Primary 1. He was the smartest in class. Smartest as in he already learnt everything the teacher was teaching. He was also the naughtiest in class. When the teacher tried to cane him, allowable in those days, he snatched the cane from the teacher and directed the cane back at the teacher.
He was removed from the school. His parents transferred him to another school in Singapore. I have never seen him again.
My classmate was the only son. His parents were rich, and were modern in outlook for their time. They were bringing up their son differently from the rest of the parents. I was brought up to respect the authority of our elders. Unquestionable authority, only to be obeyed, never to be challenged.
Many years later, my parents were retired, living a rich and comfortable life. One day dad bumped into my classmate's father, whom I said was a rich man himself before. Dad was surprised to see his village mate an old, weak and haggard man. Naturally dad asked about his welfare. My classmate's father related to dad his misfortune. He had given all his wealth to his son, my classmate. He loved his only son. He trusted him. He wanted to give his son everything he had.
His son, my classmate, turned around to kick his own parents out of the home. Now old and penniless, my classmate's father found work as a store attendant. His wife, my classmate's mother, a rich man's daughter herself, was now working as a house maid.
Such is just one of many sad stories that have been played out several times, like a script, to people I know personally.
Could you really and absolutely know someone you know?
Spot The Difference
My children are in the habit of correcting my English when I speak, so I learn to pay attention when I speak. Naturally I also pay attention to the way others speak. Here are some interesting observations.
How do you ask a question? Many ways, really.
1. You haven't done your work, have you?
2. You have done your work, haven't you?
3. Have you done your work?
The three questions are asked in relation to work. The enquirer does not know whether work has been done or not, and he wants to know about it.
In the first question, the enquirer 'believes' you have not done your work and wants you to confirm that he is right.
In the second question, the enquirer 'believes' you have done your work and wants you to confirm he is right.
In the third question, the enquirer does not have a pre-known idea whether work has been done or not. He wants you to say it yourself.
Although all three ways of asking the question have the same intention to find out if work has been done or not, the manner the question was asked can invite different reactions.
If you are asked the first question, when in fact you have done your work, you could be seriously upset and reply as such, "I have done the work, why do you say I haven't?". You feel unhappy that others somehow did not believe you could have done the work.
If you are asked the second question, when in fact you have not done your work, you could reply, maybe rather embarassingly, "No, I am sorry I have not."
Finally, if you are asked the third question, you could simply reply with a yes or no, without getting agitated one way or the other.
How do you prefer your questions asked? How do you ask your questions?
How do you ask a question? Many ways, really.
1. You haven't done your work, have you?
2. You have done your work, haven't you?
3. Have you done your work?
The three questions are asked in relation to work. The enquirer does not know whether work has been done or not, and he wants to know about it.
In the first question, the enquirer 'believes' you have not done your work and wants you to confirm that he is right.
In the second question, the enquirer 'believes' you have done your work and wants you to confirm he is right.
In the third question, the enquirer does not have a pre-known idea whether work has been done or not. He wants you to say it yourself.
Although all three ways of asking the question have the same intention to find out if work has been done or not, the manner the question was asked can invite different reactions.
If you are asked the first question, when in fact you have done your work, you could be seriously upset and reply as such, "I have done the work, why do you say I haven't?". You feel unhappy that others somehow did not believe you could have done the work.
If you are asked the second question, when in fact you have not done your work, you could reply, maybe rather embarassingly, "No, I am sorry I have not."
Finally, if you are asked the third question, you could simply reply with a yes or no, without getting agitated one way or the other.
How do you prefer your questions asked? How do you ask your questions?
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Because You Don't Know
Sometimes we like to shut others up, because they don't know, because they are not the experts.
We ought to listen carefully to what others say. Their words are our mirrors. They tell us what we look like. Telling others to shut up because they are not the experts only take away the mirrors from us.
Because I don't know how to cook, it does not mean I don't know the taste of the food. Because I don't know how to treat a patient, it does not mean I don't know the doctor may be killing the patient. Because I don't know how to build an aeroplane, it does not mean I don't know if an aeroplane feels safe to fly.
Sometimes we cast away valuable comments, just because, you don't know.
We ought to listen carefully to what others say. Their words are our mirrors. They tell us what we look like. Telling others to shut up because they are not the experts only take away the mirrors from us.
Because I don't know how to cook, it does not mean I don't know the taste of the food. Because I don't know how to treat a patient, it does not mean I don't know the doctor may be killing the patient. Because I don't know how to build an aeroplane, it does not mean I don't know if an aeroplane feels safe to fly.
Sometimes we cast away valuable comments, just because, you don't know.
There Is No Plan B
A fellow parent at Julian's school had asked me, what is Julian's plan B if he does not achieve his plan A?
I was stumped for a few moments. I could not answer his question. The fact is we have not thought of a plan B.
Then I thought deeper. Why would a school child require a plan B? He does not need one. He has plenty of time to make his plan fully realisable. Is that not true? He is in full control of his plan. No one can deny him from pursuing his dream job if he achieves the required academic standard. You would only need a plan B if you are not in full control of plan A and you are at mercy of some external forces.
Perhaps parents in Malaysia may have the need for a plan B for their children. Not here. There is no plan B.
I was stumped for a few moments. I could not answer his question. The fact is we have not thought of a plan B.
Then I thought deeper. Why would a school child require a plan B? He does not need one. He has plenty of time to make his plan fully realisable. Is that not true? He is in full control of his plan. No one can deny him from pursuing his dream job if he achieves the required academic standard. You would only need a plan B if you are not in full control of plan A and you are at mercy of some external forces.
Perhaps parents in Malaysia may have the need for a plan B for their children. Not here. There is no plan B.
The Time Has Changed
My sister posted on her blog about how dad had turned her down when she gave part of her first pay check to him, as a gift of appreciation. Dad said to her there is no need for her to spray pepper in the ocean. Keep your money please.
I never gave any money to dad. I suppose I knew better than my sister to spray pepper in the ocean. I did give some money to mum during Chinese New Year. Mum would never tell us not to spray any pepper. She just re-packaged the red packets and the money was returned back, the roundabout way.
Now I am dad. I do not have the opportunity to say to my son the same thing that dad had said to my sister. In fact, I would be counting my blessings if there is no more I need to do for my son from here on.
As the younger generations always like to lament, against us old folks, the time has changed.
The time has indeed changed.
I never gave any money to dad. I suppose I knew better than my sister to spray pepper in the ocean. I did give some money to mum during Chinese New Year. Mum would never tell us not to spray any pepper. She just re-packaged the red packets and the money was returned back, the roundabout way.
Now I am dad. I do not have the opportunity to say to my son the same thing that dad had said to my sister. In fact, I would be counting my blessings if there is no more I need to do for my son from here on.
As the younger generations always like to lament, against us old folks, the time has changed.
The time has indeed changed.
Rebecca's Antartica Resort
Rebecca's school gave her a project to do. Build an Antartica Resort.
Naturally, the school knows that the children can't build such a project on their own. The intention was to involve the parents to help.
Rebecca is typically short on ability to do a creative art project. It is a huge challenge for her. She sat there for half an hour and could only come out with a plan with a few circles where she would put her McDonald's, an ice skating rink, a hotel, and a ticketing booth. Two years ago when I helped Julian with the same project, he did 75% of the work. Julian's work was voted the best in class.
I am determined to help Rebecca be the best in class as well. So I spent last three days creating the entire 3D resort on a A3 foam base.
Rebecca was happy with the work. But she asked, why do you spend so much time on the project? Most people only spent like half a day to do it.
I told Rebecca, if you want to do something, do it to the best, not to your best, but to the best there is. You may not be the absolute best, but it is good enough if you are one of the finalists.
There is a difference between doing it to your best, and doing it to the best there is.
As a young boy, mum showed me how she was able to create all sorts of crafts with just a few simple household tools. We did not have the luxury to buy toys, so mum improvised and created for me toys like catapults, pistols, lanterns, feather shuttle, paper ball, paper planes, spinning top, and so many others. Mum was so able and creative, I did not remember if there was anything she could not do for me as a child. Mum showed me in action that whatever you want to do, it has to be done to the best there is.
Years ago, when I was trying to motivate Colin to do better at his school works, I told him that we Chinese are a culturally proud and competitive people. We do not walk away from a competitive challenge. Colin's reply almost caused me to choke with laughter. He asked "why do I not feel proud and competitive?". My son had thought that as a Chinese he would have been 'programmed' to automatically be proud and competitive. Ya son, I hope it was as easy as that.
I finished Rebecca's Antartica Resort. I want her to win top vote for this one, and others that she participates in the future.
Naturally, the school knows that the children can't build such a project on their own. The intention was to involve the parents to help.
Rebecca is typically short on ability to do a creative art project. It is a huge challenge for her. She sat there for half an hour and could only come out with a plan with a few circles where she would put her McDonald's, an ice skating rink, a hotel, and a ticketing booth. Two years ago when I helped Julian with the same project, he did 75% of the work. Julian's work was voted the best in class.
I am determined to help Rebecca be the best in class as well. So I spent last three days creating the entire 3D resort on a A3 foam base.
Rebecca was happy with the work. But she asked, why do you spend so much time on the project? Most people only spent like half a day to do it.
I told Rebecca, if you want to do something, do it to the best, not to your best, but to the best there is. You may not be the absolute best, but it is good enough if you are one of the finalists.
There is a difference between doing it to your best, and doing it to the best there is.
As a young boy, mum showed me how she was able to create all sorts of crafts with just a few simple household tools. We did not have the luxury to buy toys, so mum improvised and created for me toys like catapults, pistols, lanterns, feather shuttle, paper ball, paper planes, spinning top, and so many others. Mum was so able and creative, I did not remember if there was anything she could not do for me as a child. Mum showed me in action that whatever you want to do, it has to be done to the best there is.
Years ago, when I was trying to motivate Colin to do better at his school works, I told him that we Chinese are a culturally proud and competitive people. We do not walk away from a competitive challenge. Colin's reply almost caused me to choke with laughter. He asked "why do I not feel proud and competitive?". My son had thought that as a Chinese he would have been 'programmed' to automatically be proud and competitive. Ya son, I hope it was as easy as that.
I finished Rebecca's Antartica Resort. I want her to win top vote for this one, and others that she participates in the future.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)