I vividly remember television scenes from childhood of dramatic wedding proposals. The poor boyfriend either goes to great lengths bordering on utter humiliation to catch the girl's attention, or he gets the biggest rock money can buy, or both. In pop culture, the sincerity of the proposition seems to rely entirely on the absurdity of the proposal. Is this really the factor that wins the girl's heart, to start a lifetime commitment?
After finally getting into a serious relationship, the proposal seems almost insignificant. Which is why I opted for a no-frills affair and proposed sincerely - and was gladly accepted without hesitation - with a calamari. It wasn't exactly a ring, until you wiped the thick batter off; but inside the piece of squid was just right to slip around her finger. And it was gratifying to know she sees the importance of the ring and rock in the same light.
Of course the diamond will come in due course. And now she can shop with me to find the perfect one. It's rather amusing to see her look of disdain when I squeal in delight at the "cute little diamonds". I don't think it's going to be cheap, either.
Several people have asked me, along with the congratulations, "are you really happy?" Of course I'm happy, but I wouldn't exactly say really happy. It seems like the natural progression to the next stage in life; and now when we look at flats or argue over baby names, it just feels a little more real.
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
celebrating the year of the pig
We call it "Celebrating the year of the Pig" -- early to bed, late to rise, and lots of naps throughout the day. That pretty much summarises my recent trip to Phuket. The itinerary for each day can be generally detailed as follows:
- eating
- lying on the beach (sleeping)
- massage (sleeping)
- sleeping
In an age where most people's holidays seem to comprise a checklist of things to do, things to see and things to buy, my like-minded partner and I were looking from a true holiday from the travails of the rat race. So we got a $135 ticket on Tiger Airways (a very good budget airline experience), $40 a night at Patong Premiere, an excellent little 3-star boutique hotel, and with nothing else on the agenda we were ready to take a break.
For anyone else who might be headed to Phuket, there are two places I would highly recommend. One is the Blooming Spa, which is a lovely little spa with even lovelier prices. It is not very publicised, but a stringent internet search turned up some personal reviews and recommendations, to which I will now add my own. Among the luxury spas, Blooming Spa prices in right at the bottom, and even compared with the traditional Thai massages all over Phuket (and we went to a few), Blooming Spa definitely gives excellent value for money. The other is Baam Rim Pa, a restaurant which needs no introduction because there are lots of web sites saying it is the best restaurant in Phuket. In a lovely location overlooking the sea, and making food from recipes originally used by the Thai royal family, you can't really go wrong.
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
the tyranny of CAT
Obviously I failed to learn the lesson from my GRE 5 years ago.
I went into the GMAT psched to ace the math section. After all, I can never seem to score on the verbal, so my best hope was to get full marks on math. This seemed reasonable, since my mistakes on the practise tests were all from careless mistakes, and always because I was too lazy to make sure my solutions were watertight. (If you are wondering what this statement means, you can try a sample GMAT exam youself. Just a free 26MB download from mba.com.) This is in sharp contrast to the verbal section, where I often have strong opinions different from the marking scheme. Obviously this means I don't do well, but I'm sure my English is better than the people who set the questions.
The tyranny of the Computer Adaptive Test (CAT) is that every question given is based on your performance in previous questions. If you get them right, you get harder questions. This supposedly allows the system to use a lesser number of questions to differentiate the ability of applicants. It also means you can never go back to a previous question and change the answer. So the typical 'O' and 'A' level strategy of breezing through once though and then going back to check the ones you are unsure of no longer applies ... you have to be damn sure before you click next. So to cut a long story short, I never did finish the math section, despite rushing through the last few questions on gut feel. Needless to say, I didn't do so hot.
The irony was that after that I breezed through the verbal and even ended in barely over half the allotted time. I had this bad feeling that I must be getting the questions wrong because they seemed to be getting easier and easier, but in the end I did so well that I still came up in the 99th percentile overall - i.e. my verbal even managed to pull up my math! That was totally not what I was expecting at all. So it was a happy story at the end of the day, now just pending the results from my essays which I have pretty high confidence in.
This is very similar to the mess I landed in for the GRE when I didn't manage to finish the logic section. Again, I was aiming for full marks and similarly, I took too long to ponder the earlier questions. So anyone else going for a CAT, you have been warned ...
In other news, I finally surfed into an ex-classmates blog, ever since he told me about it during a visit in Dec (yes I have been offline very long). If anyone wants to hear a foreigner's perspective on working in China, you can read this Microsoft employee's blog from Shenzhen. I find it very uplifting because it gives me some hope that Singapore will not lose all our business to China in the near term because their middle management is all incompetant. (Maybe this article explains why.)
I went into the GMAT psched to ace the math section. After all, I can never seem to score on the verbal, so my best hope was to get full marks on math. This seemed reasonable, since my mistakes on the practise tests were all from careless mistakes, and always because I was too lazy to make sure my solutions were watertight. (If you are wondering what this statement means, you can try a sample GMAT exam youself. Just a free 26MB download from mba.com.) This is in sharp contrast to the verbal section, where I often have strong opinions different from the marking scheme. Obviously this means I don't do well, but I'm sure my English is better than the people who set the questions.
The tyranny of the Computer Adaptive Test (CAT) is that every question given is based on your performance in previous questions. If you get them right, you get harder questions. This supposedly allows the system to use a lesser number of questions to differentiate the ability of applicants. It also means you can never go back to a previous question and change the answer. So the typical 'O' and 'A' level strategy of breezing through once though and then going back to check the ones you are unsure of no longer applies ... you have to be damn sure before you click next. So to cut a long story short, I never did finish the math section, despite rushing through the last few questions on gut feel. Needless to say, I didn't do so hot.
The irony was that after that I breezed through the verbal and even ended in barely over half the allotted time. I had this bad feeling that I must be getting the questions wrong because they seemed to be getting easier and easier, but in the end I did so well that I still came up in the 99th percentile overall - i.e. my verbal even managed to pull up my math! That was totally not what I was expecting at all. So it was a happy story at the end of the day, now just pending the results from my essays which I have pretty high confidence in.
This is very similar to the mess I landed in for the GRE when I didn't manage to finish the logic section. Again, I was aiming for full marks and similarly, I took too long to ponder the earlier questions. So anyone else going for a CAT, you have been warned ...
In other news, I finally surfed into an ex-classmates blog, ever since he told me about it during a visit in Dec (yes I have been offline very long). If anyone wants to hear a foreigner's perspective on working in China, you can read this Microsoft employee's blog from Shenzhen. I find it very uplifting because it gives me some hope that Singapore will not lose all our business to China in the near term because their middle management is all incompetant. (Maybe this article explains why.)
why not a christian
I have been reading Bertrand Russell's Why I Am Not a Christian. I first came across Bertrand Russell in my Sociology and Political Science classes for his philosophical arguments on the use of nuclear deterrants. On top of that he was first and foremost a mathematicial, but has since become reknown for his positions on a wide range of political and social issues. So when I heard he had written an essay on this topic, I had to get my hands on it.
It is very refreshing to read critical ideas rather than always looking at apologetics, and I think ultimately this will help me develop a rather balanced view. Russell originally delivered this as a lecture in 1927, so some of his arguments, particularly in the fields of science have since become outmoded. But he makes other interesting points to ponder, which I will not go into here. The statement he made that struck me the most was a comment about Immanuel Kant, the famous economist.
He was like many people: In intellectual matters he was skeptical, but in moral matters he believed implicitly in the maxims that he had imbibed at his mother's knee. That illustrates what the psychoanalysts so much emphasize - the immensely stronger hold upon us that our very early associations have than those of later times.
He also said, of course I know that the sort of intellectual arguments that I have been talking to you about are not what really moves people. What really moves people to believe in God is not any intellectual argument at all. Most people believe in God because they have been taught from infancy to do it, and that is the main reason.
I think there is a lot of truth in these statements. And it was brought home even stronger when a colleague saw that I was reading the book and asked why. After my reply, his response was that sometimes it is better not to ask such questions or they might shake our faith. But what is Faith? I got two nice definitions from another book I began reading to answer other burning questions. According to Guidance and the Voice of God by Phillip Jensen and Tony Payne, many people believe faith is "believing something is true even though all the evidence is against you". However, they challenge that faith should not go against empirical rationality, which is very much similar to my own view which I blogged at length here and here.
I have always been reluctant to discuss Christianity in the past because I always felt this pressure to evangelise people, yet without any confidence in my own knowledge and understanding. Ever since I became a religious cynic, it has been a lot easier to ask the difficult questions and try to find the answers. As a Christian all my life, I often wonder what questions I would have asked if I was contemplating conversion. Since I never had that chance, now I like to ask people why they are not Christians, and try to see the world through their eyes. So far so good ... which brings me to a final thought.
People always seem to take the emotional tack when sharing Christ. You are a sinner, Jesus died for you, you can go to heaven. Everything seems to be predicated on the sob story of the cruxifiction, and the wonderful news of salvation. Perhaps the cynic in me is speaking again, but we seem to be assuming a lot of people to believe what we say. Maybe I am too pragmatic, but I thought a better order would be:
1) Do you believe there is a God and creator?
2) Do you believe there is any single correct religion?
3) Why should Christianity be the correct religion?
And only then would the audience interest be piqued to delve into the message of salvation.
Well, maybe that's just me.
It is very refreshing to read critical ideas rather than always looking at apologetics, and I think ultimately this will help me develop a rather balanced view. Russell originally delivered this as a lecture in 1927, so some of his arguments, particularly in the fields of science have since become outmoded. But he makes other interesting points to ponder, which I will not go into here. The statement he made that struck me the most was a comment about Immanuel Kant, the famous economist.
He was like many people: In intellectual matters he was skeptical, but in moral matters he believed implicitly in the maxims that he had imbibed at his mother's knee. That illustrates what the psychoanalysts so much emphasize - the immensely stronger hold upon us that our very early associations have than those of later times.
He also said, of course I know that the sort of intellectual arguments that I have been talking to you about are not what really moves people. What really moves people to believe in God is not any intellectual argument at all. Most people believe in God because they have been taught from infancy to do it, and that is the main reason.
I think there is a lot of truth in these statements. And it was brought home even stronger when a colleague saw that I was reading the book and asked why. After my reply, his response was that sometimes it is better not to ask such questions or they might shake our faith. But what is Faith? I got two nice definitions from another book I began reading to answer other burning questions. According to Guidance and the Voice of God by Phillip Jensen and Tony Payne, many people believe faith is "believing something is true even though all the evidence is against you". However, they challenge that faith should not go against empirical rationality, which is very much similar to my own view which I blogged at length here and here.
I have always been reluctant to discuss Christianity in the past because I always felt this pressure to evangelise people, yet without any confidence in my own knowledge and understanding. Ever since I became a religious cynic, it has been a lot easier to ask the difficult questions and try to find the answers. As a Christian all my life, I often wonder what questions I would have asked if I was contemplating conversion. Since I never had that chance, now I like to ask people why they are not Christians, and try to see the world through their eyes. So far so good ... which brings me to a final thought.
People always seem to take the emotional tack when sharing Christ. You are a sinner, Jesus died for you, you can go to heaven. Everything seems to be predicated on the sob story of the cruxifiction, and the wonderful news of salvation. Perhaps the cynic in me is speaking again, but we seem to be assuming a lot of people to believe what we say. Maybe I am too pragmatic, but I thought a better order would be:
1) Do you believe there is a God and creator?
2) Do you believe there is any single correct religion?
3) Why should Christianity be the correct religion?
And only then would the audience interest be piqued to delve into the message of salvation.
Well, maybe that's just me.
Sunday, February 11, 2007
on prayer
I have noticed that there are generally two types of prayer in this world.
Prayer A:
Dear Jesus, Uncle X is sick. Please make him better. Amen.
It is usually spoken by little kids and takes less than a minute.
Prayer A:
Dear Jesus, Uncle X is sick. Please make him better. Amen.
It is usually spoken by little kids and takes less than a minute.
Prayer B:
Dear Father Lord, our brother X is at this moment lying in the
hospital. As we gather together ... he has placed his faith in you ... send your
guardian angels down to watch over him ... cleanse the illness from his body ...
&#^$#^$@(&!(*#& ...
The older the one praying, the longer the prayer can get, sometimes in excess of an hour.
It has always puzzled me why we need to tell God how to answer our prayers. After all, since he knows everything, what's wrong with the simple child's prayer? These thoughts were recently rekindled when I came across Matthew 6:5-8 during DG:
The meaning seems pretty clear to me, that the child's prayer is the way to go."And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him.
If it is so obvious how we should pray, why do people still insist on lengthy invocations? Is there some pyschological effect that upholds and encourages others around? Is there a spiritual catharsis achieved by pouring out your desires and troubles in this manner? Are we praying in this way to God, or for ourselves?
It seems to me that I have been guilty of lengthy prayers too. It's time to revert to the succint and concise mode.
Sunday, February 04, 2007
a word of wisdom
After almost 2 months of being barely online, I decided to take a look around. And what strikes me most is that many of the people I read have also hardly been online. Obviously, I'm not the only one who is busy; or maybe I'm just not the only one who has shifted blogging further down the list of priorities.
Anyway, just to entertain the people who actually make an effort to come by and check from time to time, I thought I would share one of my best nuggets of worldly wisdom. This is a piece of advice told me by my mother when I was just a little kid, and it has proven to be incomparably useful for the last many years of my life.
What do you do with two-ply toilet paper when the perforations on the two sheets refuse to meet?
The simple solution is to take the top sheet and wrap it one round of the roll, then rip off the excess section - the two sheets will now be perfectly aligned. Never fails.
Anyway, just to entertain the people who actually make an effort to come by and check from time to time, I thought I would share one of my best nuggets of worldly wisdom. This is a piece of advice told me by my mother when I was just a little kid, and it has proven to be incomparably useful for the last many years of my life.
What do you do with two-ply toilet paper when the perforations on the two sheets refuse to meet?
The simple solution is to take the top sheet and wrap it one round of the roll, then rip off the excess section - the two sheets will now be perfectly aligned. Never fails.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
