Been getting alot of weird calls lately. Not too long ago, I've got an overseas call from who-knows-where. Think it's China, since I've also received calls from there last year, telling me that I've strike an international lottery or something. And a few moments ago, there came a local sms from someone called brian, asking me if I'm bi or aj. When I further probe since when I gave him my number, he claimed it's last year. When finally I asked who he's looking for, there was no reply afterwards. Shrug. A gay trying to do random hookups, or a prank from some friend who juz changed his number? Either way, I didn't bother to call.
Also had a strange dream the night before that I met up with my current colleagues for K session, then I sang till I was crying. I vaguely remembered that just before my sleep, I was pondering upon something about not letting go of potentially important people, or they will just rub shoulders with you and be gone forever, like the number of people's contact I have on msn or on phone, but we never choose to talk to each other anymore. Was also thinking over what my colleague, SW said to give a call and go out.
Been thinking quite abit over this weekends. Probably because I'm gonna stop part-timing soon, and right after reservice (which would also spell an end to the last long holiday as a student), it's time to mug for my final year. Been curious about the developments in my club, but I think that non-intervention is best since I'm no longer in position anymore and I guess that I should have more faith in the new excos after myself.
The future still looks quite foggy for me. I can't see where I'll end up at.
Sunday, July 25, 2010
Saturday, June 26, 2010
Idiotic China Worker
I'm blogging this entry right after coming home from a graveyard shift. Damn pissed with a China bugger who don't use his brain to work, or at least have a sense of working peacefully with colleagues. Before I got on ranting, I would like to put up a disclaimer: This is NOT intended to refer to ALL China people, but a good number of them who exhibits such behaviour. Here goes the story:
It is near change shift time. My shift was coming to an end. Most people have the tendency to not bother with helping the next shift top up their supplies. I'm was tasked with supplying all the stations for my shift. Being nice, I've topped up all the stations with supplies by at least an excess of 50% more, as a sign of proper hand-over... which something most other people wouldn't have bothered. All except one station, but the supply is more than enough to last for at least 2 hrs., which is at least enough time for anyone to take a slow stroll to top up that supply at least 4 times over. And anyway, even my guy at that station also feel that there's still more than enough, so I didn't bother to rush that.
Then this China bugger came to take over my job when change shift, so i'm supposed to be able to go off already and everything's in order. Then he started ranting, "Your guys didn't top up everything completely! You all supposed to handover everything in perfect order!". All the while, he didn't realise he's ranting to the person doing the job. I said, "I'm was in-charge of the supplies. What is your issue?" That's when he tried to wriggle out and suddenly trying to play nice, "Oh! But you need to go off already, right? Just leave it to me then." What is this? It's my fault and he's being nice by forgiving me? I was damned pissed and went to rush to pick up the supplies in 5 mins time, slapped an excess more than that station can hold, and told his (another china) colleague, "Your colleague is making a big fuss over that bit of supplies not filled to brim! What the hell is wrong with him?". He quietly picked the supplies for packing, but i didn't even bother waiting to see what he's going to do with the excess that he couldn't store. Btw, what's missing is only 10 bottles of soft drinks out of 60. That's all to the commotion he's making.
My job is not to make sure that the person taking over me can afford to slack and cross their legs for the next 3 hrs, since he's not paying me my salary. The principle is that as long as I'm not leaving them with shortage all over the place, I'm being responsible enough already, which most other staffs would not have been that kind. If he needed help with topping up the excess, at least have the decency to do it together, since he's also on the job, and not rant at one corner.
On a sidenote, here's a little maths logic to it: You can't predict the demand very well for which soft drinks the customers prefer, so if you top up the wrong one, you'll have little space for the more popular ones and the person topping up the supplies will have to go on multiple runs. A little bit of free space without causing a shortage in supply is also a resource. I dunno why the educational field look up to these people simply because they can remember things by rout, but don't apply flexible thinking to different scenarios.
The search for the one optimal solution, is at times is in itself a suboptimal solution. Not everything is 1 + 1 = 2 or always 3. I don't trust academicians very much. They tend to use beautiful language and ideals like 1 +1 = 3, but what about 2.999 or 4.6294? Believe me. If they could, they would have add it to their vocabulary and insist that the optimal solution is 2.999. Unless lives are at stake on accuracy, a perfect world is one that is imperfect... to an acceptable standard.
It is near change shift time. My shift was coming to an end. Most people have the tendency to not bother with helping the next shift top up their supplies. I'm was tasked with supplying all the stations for my shift. Being nice, I've topped up all the stations with supplies by at least an excess of 50% more, as a sign of proper hand-over... which something most other people wouldn't have bothered. All except one station, but the supply is more than enough to last for at least 2 hrs., which is at least enough time for anyone to take a slow stroll to top up that supply at least 4 times over. And anyway, even my guy at that station also feel that there's still more than enough, so I didn't bother to rush that.
Then this China bugger came to take over my job when change shift, so i'm supposed to be able to go off already and everything's in order. Then he started ranting, "Your guys didn't top up everything completely! You all supposed to handover everything in perfect order!". All the while, he didn't realise he's ranting to the person doing the job. I said, "I'm was in-charge of the supplies. What is your issue?" That's when he tried to wriggle out and suddenly trying to play nice, "Oh! But you need to go off already, right? Just leave it to me then." What is this? It's my fault and he's being nice by forgiving me? I was damned pissed and went to rush to pick up the supplies in 5 mins time, slapped an excess more than that station can hold, and told his (another china) colleague, "Your colleague is making a big fuss over that bit of supplies not filled to brim! What the hell is wrong with him?". He quietly picked the supplies for packing, but i didn't even bother waiting to see what he's going to do with the excess that he couldn't store. Btw, what's missing is only 10 bottles of soft drinks out of 60. That's all to the commotion he's making.
My job is not to make sure that the person taking over me can afford to slack and cross their legs for the next 3 hrs, since he's not paying me my salary. The principle is that as long as I'm not leaving them with shortage all over the place, I'm being responsible enough already, which most other staffs would not have been that kind. If he needed help with topping up the excess, at least have the decency to do it together, since he's also on the job, and not rant at one corner.
On a sidenote, here's a little maths logic to it: You can't predict the demand very well for which soft drinks the customers prefer, so if you top up the wrong one, you'll have little space for the more popular ones and the person topping up the supplies will have to go on multiple runs. A little bit of free space without causing a shortage in supply is also a resource. I dunno why the educational field look up to these people simply because they can remember things by rout, but don't apply flexible thinking to different scenarios.
The search for the one optimal solution, is at times is in itself a suboptimal solution. Not everything is 1 + 1 = 2 or always 3. I don't trust academicians very much. They tend to use beautiful language and ideals like 1 +1 = 3, but what about 2.999 or 4.6294? Believe me. If they could, they would have add it to their vocabulary and insist that the optimal solution is 2.999. Unless lives are at stake on accuracy, a perfect world is one that is imperfect... to an acceptable standard.
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
Crappy Sentosa Management
Lame regimentation?
I'm starting work tomorrow night at Sentosa's Casino tomorrow. Still relatively pissed about the dress code issue. In my opinion, if the waiter/waitress' dresscode is acceptable by bank industry standard, why not the FnB industry? And even if they still think that it's appropriate for us to standardise our outfit, then why don't they provide staff's attire instead? I had to go to the extent of looking for ugly, baggy, black long pants myself, at my own expense, just for this part-time job that doesn't even pay well. As if it's not enough, you don't get to keep any tips given to you by the patrons, as all the tips belongs to the casino. So really, why am I obliged to perform well, when the job doesn't pays well and it's not of my concern whether I get tipped or not? At least if you get some sales related jobs outside, you get an acceptable base pay, plus a decent commission for each deal you've secured.
I'm starting work tomorrow night at Sentosa's Casino tomorrow. Still relatively pissed about the dress code issue. In my opinion, if the waiter/waitress' dresscode is acceptable by bank industry standard, why not the FnB industry? And even if they still think that it's appropriate for us to standardise our outfit, then why don't they provide staff's attire instead? I had to go to the extent of looking for ugly, baggy, black long pants myself, at my own expense, just for this part-time job that doesn't even pay well. As if it's not enough, you don't get to keep any tips given to you by the patrons, as all the tips belongs to the casino. So really, why am I obliged to perform well, when the job doesn't pays well and it's not of my concern whether I get tipped or not? At least if you get some sales related jobs outside, you get an acceptable base pay, plus a decent commission for each deal you've secured.
Saturday, June 12, 2010
Mismanagement and Ethics
I was checking through my email today when I come across a newsletter sent by SIM. There was an invitation to attend the seminar of a certain management expert. I thought that it's not a bad idea to attend the seminar for some inspiration. There was an introduction video. Checked the link:
The expert started talking about about use of Internet in the recent age, and how businesses should make full use of the Internet to drive their business, like "how effectively porn distributes online". Epic failure on 2 points... Firstly, IT is already not a new technology that was born a few years back, but about two decades already. An opening speech like this is either belittling the audience, or that perhaps he's incredibly outdated. On a sidenote, he's an old geezer... Secondly, porn is not an appropriate example, not because of it's obscene nature. Many businesses, especially in the earlier days were particularly inspired by the effectiveness of porn distribution on the Internet and hoped to imitate the success by doing advertising in the same way. It eventually leads to the use of pop-ups, banners and even tracker cookies. I'm not exactly sure of the effectiveness of such, but the younger generation of the Internet users find them to be a nuisance. Even if consumers could remember the name and product due to intense repetition from looking at the pop-ups and banners, it's usually only negative reinforcement.
The expert then went on to bring up the point on privacy, and advises all parents and consumers to adjust their facebook privacy settings. Make sense. We are revealing too much information without being aware of it. But the rationale he suggested... "You might not be able to get your dream job because of something inappropriate on your facebook, such as pictures of how you had fun at a party when you were 17, and that's not the real you". Is it good management practice to recruit people based on some facebook profiles, rather than on solid working experiences and expertise? How superficial can a management guru gets?
So who's gonna benefit from a speech like these? Spyware/Adware makers who help consumers block out unwanted ads and cookies; Internet advertising firms which continues to send out the propaganda unethical Internet advertising techniques are effective; The expert guru himself who charges a high price for people attending his seminars. Frankly speaking, I might be hasty to judge the guru based on a 5mins introduction video of him, but I decided that my money is safer with me when I'm lacking information to make better evaluation of the effectiveness of his seminars.
The expert started talking about about use of Internet in the recent age, and how businesses should make full use of the Internet to drive their business, like "how effectively porn distributes online". Epic failure on 2 points... Firstly, IT is already not a new technology that was born a few years back, but about two decades already. An opening speech like this is either belittling the audience, or that perhaps he's incredibly outdated. On a sidenote, he's an old geezer... Secondly, porn is not an appropriate example, not because of it's obscene nature. Many businesses, especially in the earlier days were particularly inspired by the effectiveness of porn distribution on the Internet and hoped to imitate the success by doing advertising in the same way. It eventually leads to the use of pop-ups, banners and even tracker cookies. I'm not exactly sure of the effectiveness of such, but the younger generation of the Internet users find them to be a nuisance. Even if consumers could remember the name and product due to intense repetition from looking at the pop-ups and banners, it's usually only negative reinforcement.
The expert then went on to bring up the point on privacy, and advises all parents and consumers to adjust their facebook privacy settings. Make sense. We are revealing too much information without being aware of it. But the rationale he suggested... "You might not be able to get your dream job because of something inappropriate on your facebook, such as pictures of how you had fun at a party when you were 17, and that's not the real you". Is it good management practice to recruit people based on some facebook profiles, rather than on solid working experiences and expertise? How superficial can a management guru gets?
So who's gonna benefit from a speech like these? Spyware/Adware makers who help consumers block out unwanted ads and cookies; Internet advertising firms which continues to send out the propaganda unethical Internet advertising techniques are effective; The expert guru himself who charges a high price for people attending his seminars. Frankly speaking, I might be hasty to judge the guru based on a 5mins introduction video of him, but I decided that my money is safer with me when I'm lacking information to make better evaluation of the effectiveness of his seminars.
Friday, June 4, 2010
Human Err
Sometimes when reading the news or holding a conversation, I get incredibly work-up. There's a sheer number of figureheads and ordinary people who have a strong tendency to accept what the majority do or told them. Human's mind are so fragile. The need to conform is especially loathing. Marketers and evangelistic religious domination would love that. Bandwagon effect. Ever remember having a debate with friends when the majority of the people agrees that a shirt is black color, when some actually thinks it's dark blue, and in the end, everyone ended up agreeing with the majority? It's fine when it's just a trivial day-to-day impersonal stuffs, but when it comes to matter of religion, human rights, morality...? One culture's perceived immorality could just kill a few thousand of people without remorse, simply because they are deviates. There's no real effort on the majority's part to understand the two-sides of the coin, or to put aside personal conviction 1st.
But at the same time, there are also smart-alecks out there who simply disagree with everything the majority thinks is correct, just so as to appear different, if not smarter than the rest of the human populace. I've the tendency to make this mistake myself sometimes, but only cos' I believe that there's no whole truth in "truth". I think that people need to find an answer for themselves, rather than rely purely on what people say. Whether you'll end up as a majority or the minority is only a matter of consequence, rather than being a reason to agreeing/disagreeing something.
Even if we eventually come to a personal conclusion through research and experience, there's also a possibility that others who have also done the same might arrive at a different conclusion. This is where freedom of thoughts and beliefs come in. If people cannot accept your thoughts, you do not push it upon them. There are exceptions of course, such as the golden rule of reciprocal: Harm not yourself AND others.
Over here, I'm not trying to push my readers to believe everything I've said, despite the fact that I try to keep my thoughts and perspectives organised and accurately represented. I only hope that people read about what I have to say, AND think about it. DO some research. Experience. Learn. AND then empathize. Don't just take what you read for granted, like how typical Singapore education taught us how to study, where we so readily accept and memorise everything we are taught.
Logging out.
But at the same time, there are also smart-alecks out there who simply disagree with everything the majority thinks is correct, just so as to appear different, if not smarter than the rest of the human populace. I've the tendency to make this mistake myself sometimes, but only cos' I believe that there's no whole truth in "truth". I think that people need to find an answer for themselves, rather than rely purely on what people say. Whether you'll end up as a majority or the minority is only a matter of consequence, rather than being a reason to agreeing/disagreeing something.
Even if we eventually come to a personal conclusion through research and experience, there's also a possibility that others who have also done the same might arrive at a different conclusion. This is where freedom of thoughts and beliefs come in. If people cannot accept your thoughts, you do not push it upon them. There are exceptions of course, such as the golden rule of reciprocal: Harm not yourself AND others.
Over here, I'm not trying to push my readers to believe everything I've said, despite the fact that I try to keep my thoughts and perspectives organised and accurately represented. I only hope that people read about what I have to say, AND think about it. DO some research. Experience. Learn. AND then empathize. Don't just take what you read for granted, like how typical Singapore education taught us how to study, where we so readily accept and memorise everything we are taught.
Logging out.
Monday, April 26, 2010
Conservative's Slippery Slope Arguments in SG
Just back from morning class. Zzz. So sleepy, especially with the rain and boring lecture.
I stepped into the house and saw last night's chinese newspaper, with the front cover of people critisizing LiuQian (the uber famous magician in Taiwan/China recently), because he performed too much death-defying tricks. Was claimed that he's getting more demonic.
A random thought came across my mine. I remembered this programme on Power 98 where Glenn Ong played all the vocals for The Misfits segment. Was one of my fav segments back when I was still in sec sch. Did a search and came across a news about Glenn Ong seperated with Jamie Yeo. Did yet a further search on Jamie Yeo in general, and I chance upon lots of controversial links about her, particular of an incident long ago where she related her experience of her naturally experiencing orgasm at age 6 and losing her virginity at age 18. Well, apparently lotsa parents are unhappy about it, but she felt that she's not in the wrong.
1 thing common about these 2 people: I don't really like them. I felt that the former is getting arrogant, and is especially frivolous. The latter... well, her segments on the radio are utterly boring, and i heard it gets worse these days. But still, that's not the point of this entry. The thing I wanna talk about is... What is the limit of this society?
About slightly more than a 100 years ago, Harry Houdini impressed the world with his many death-defying magic tricks, including surviving live burial, water torture cell, etc. These tricks continued to inspire modern-day magicians, and some like LiuQian even went on to develop new tricks out of it. How is it possible that people 100 years ago is more open-minded than modern days people? Or perhaps, people these days just can't accept the fact that magicians these days are becoming increasingly more skilled? Then again, it's Singaporeans. Maybe they rather watch magician jump out of bathroom tub? Oh, the thrill!
And about Jamie Yeo. Well, I do expect some people to react to it. Parents, particularly. But using the word "mind-blowing" to just describe her 1st sex wasn't exactly what I would call explicit. The tomyam banmian I had this morning in school was equally mind-blowing in taste! What's with parents shutting up about the concept of sex to their kids? Kids are naturally curious about everything under the sun. And the more they are told to avoid, the more they will venture to what was forewarned. As a kid, i remembered breaking every rules possible. Touching an operating iron, hot kettle, breaking glass, even stealing. Most of the time, my parents would let the cane do the educating, but some things I never understood until I've reached a certain age and start thinking in others' shoes, as well as learning from personal experience. Anyway, I kinda digressed. Bottomline is, safe exposures are fine. I know of a friend who's parents actually watch adult videos in front of their kids. She doesn't seemed to grow up into someone particularly curious about sex or nudity. I suspect nudity to her is probably more like seeing a nude scene on National Geographics. Anyway, the Jamie Yeo incident is also unnecessarily blown up... by paranoid Singaporean parents. I think, she has the freedom of speech, and those stuffs she mentioned about her 1st discovery of masturbation and her 1st sex... well, there are worse things on the net that are hell lot more blantant. Pornography. Live cams. Etc.
People often forget that public figures are also mere mortals, capable of faults and flaws. But as long as they don't do anything that contravenes their duty, what need is there to push blames on them? After all, you can even have religious leaders committing heinous faults like child molest and fund embezzlement.
Come to think of it, why is the monk MingYi jailed for fund embezzlement, while pastor rony tan public assault on buddhism (an offense in singapore punishable by imprisonment... and there was a case law already...) is let off the hook so easily?
I stepped into the house and saw last night's chinese newspaper, with the front cover of people critisizing LiuQian (the uber famous magician in Taiwan/China recently), because he performed too much death-defying tricks. Was claimed that he's getting more demonic.
A random thought came across my mine. I remembered this programme on Power 98 where Glenn Ong played all the vocals for The Misfits segment. Was one of my fav segments back when I was still in sec sch. Did a search and came across a news about Glenn Ong seperated with Jamie Yeo. Did yet a further search on Jamie Yeo in general, and I chance upon lots of controversial links about her, particular of an incident long ago where she related her experience of her naturally experiencing orgasm at age 6 and losing her virginity at age 18. Well, apparently lotsa parents are unhappy about it, but she felt that she's not in the wrong.
1 thing common about these 2 people: I don't really like them. I felt that the former is getting arrogant, and is especially frivolous. The latter... well, her segments on the radio are utterly boring, and i heard it gets worse these days. But still, that's not the point of this entry. The thing I wanna talk about is... What is the limit of this society?
About slightly more than a 100 years ago, Harry Houdini impressed the world with his many death-defying magic tricks, including surviving live burial, water torture cell, etc. These tricks continued to inspire modern-day magicians, and some like LiuQian even went on to develop new tricks out of it. How is it possible that people 100 years ago is more open-minded than modern days people? Or perhaps, people these days just can't accept the fact that magicians these days are becoming increasingly more skilled? Then again, it's Singaporeans. Maybe they rather watch magician jump out of bathroom tub? Oh, the thrill!
And about Jamie Yeo. Well, I do expect some people to react to it. Parents, particularly. But using the word "mind-blowing" to just describe her 1st sex wasn't exactly what I would call explicit. The tomyam banmian I had this morning in school was equally mind-blowing in taste! What's with parents shutting up about the concept of sex to their kids? Kids are naturally curious about everything under the sun. And the more they are told to avoid, the more they will venture to what was forewarned. As a kid, i remembered breaking every rules possible. Touching an operating iron, hot kettle, breaking glass, even stealing. Most of the time, my parents would let the cane do the educating, but some things I never understood until I've reached a certain age and start thinking in others' shoes, as well as learning from personal experience. Anyway, I kinda digressed. Bottomline is, safe exposures are fine. I know of a friend who's parents actually watch adult videos in front of their kids. She doesn't seemed to grow up into someone particularly curious about sex or nudity. I suspect nudity to her is probably more like seeing a nude scene on National Geographics. Anyway, the Jamie Yeo incident is also unnecessarily blown up... by paranoid Singaporean parents. I think, she has the freedom of speech, and those stuffs she mentioned about her 1st discovery of masturbation and her 1st sex... well, there are worse things on the net that are hell lot more blantant. Pornography. Live cams. Etc.
People often forget that public figures are also mere mortals, capable of faults and flaws. But as long as they don't do anything that contravenes their duty, what need is there to push blames on them? After all, you can even have religious leaders committing heinous faults like child molest and fund embezzlement.
Come to think of it, why is the monk MingYi jailed for fund embezzlement, while pastor rony tan public assault on buddhism (an offense in singapore punishable by imprisonment... and there was a case law already...) is let off the hook so easily?
Saturday, April 24, 2010
Religion and Morality
I have decided to conform to my biological clock: Sleep as much as possible in the day, and be ultra constructive at night. For example, i'm doing accountings now at 3am...
I hope it rains 24/7 everyday. The weather's ridiculous these days. Once the rain stops in the afternoon, the night is unbearably hot. Probably global warming. Speaking of which, I was reading a booklet much earlier. Think some people drop it into our letterbox. It's some self-proclaimed spiritual master trying to promote going vegetarian to lessen contribution to global warming. Btw, here's the wiki on her:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ching_Hai
It's worrying what kinda people sprout out from around the world these days. Here, we're looking at a possible philanthropist who self-proclaimed herself as akin to Buddha with supernatural power. And of course, also the setting up of a religious foundation named after herself. And at the same time, being so involved in businesses. Oh. And did i I mention that telling people to chant her name will bring deliverance and aid enlightenment? To promote vegetarian and environmentalism is a good thing. But these surface acts are not indication of a true saint inside... or actually in this case, I actually doubt the sanity of this person itself...
I personally felt that in the present world, people lack healthy skepticism. Religion is a source of spiritual and emotional support. Not alot of people can stand the idea of being unable to explain events happening to them. Not alot of people can live with a "meaningless" life, therefore it must be that God has a plan for us all. Not alot of people dare to take the risk when they are told that they will go to hell if they do not believe. Not many people dare to question their own faith, for fear that it is blasphemy to even doubt. Not many people look beyond the facade (if any), and believed simply because the religion institutes they belong to are doing charitable things.
My point is, things might not appear as it is. There are many religions who claimed themselves as the one true faith. Then my question is, what gives them the right to claim so, as over all other faiths? What exact is "true faith"? Is it so important that it takes priority over humanity altogether? It is so important that you must defend them, even if it means killing/harassing/debasing/(insert negative verbs) the people who also live on this planet with you? My next question is, assuming that this "only true faith" is found, how realistic is it that the preachers of this faith be flawless? Look at the recent child sex scandal in Roman Catholic Church... or rather the whole strings of child sexual abuses in history. Those in religious authority are not necessary flawless. Who is to correct them? The believers? And if the err is less eye-catching, such as misinterpretation of the scriptures/bible, who has to authority to correct them? The proclaimed God? Last I remember, "God" haven't sent a bolt of lightening down to fire the Pope, which explain why he's still sitting comfortably in his office now.
Conclusion: Be realistic. Do what is good for others and ourselves without the need to heed all the talks about supernaturals and God. My point here is not to advocate a disbelief in God, but rather more of discourage a need to be "God-centered". If you can behave like a saint in action because you are already a saint inside you, it doesn't matter what your religion is, because (I believe that) God can't fault a saint for not believing in the incomprehensible supernatural. Of cos, all these talks assuming that God exists in the 1st place. But even if God and afterlife justices does not exist, it shouldn't make contributing meaningfully to the people around you any less important.
There was a rather pessimistic theory that without religion in this world, there would be no morality. I say... even if there's religions, doing what your religions tell you to do doesn't make you any more moral, since you're only bargaining for entry to heaven. For example in Singapore, people give seats to elderly because it's a social norm which if you don't conform, people will look at you as an inconsiderate person. So the very act of giving up seats to the elderly is not an accurate gauge that you are a considerate towards the elderly, but could be that you just don't want to feel embarrassed. At the end of the day, is Singapore a considerate society as compared to other countries? Not necessarily so.
Feedbacks are welcomed. =D
I hope it rains 24/7 everyday. The weather's ridiculous these days. Once the rain stops in the afternoon, the night is unbearably hot. Probably global warming. Speaking of which, I was reading a booklet much earlier. Think some people drop it into our letterbox. It's some self-proclaimed spiritual master trying to promote going vegetarian to lessen contribution to global warming. Btw, here's the wiki on her:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ching_Hai
It's worrying what kinda people sprout out from around the world these days. Here, we're looking at a possible philanthropist who self-proclaimed herself as akin to Buddha with supernatural power. And of course, also the setting up of a religious foundation named after herself. And at the same time, being so involved in businesses. Oh. And did i I mention that telling people to chant her name will bring deliverance and aid enlightenment? To promote vegetarian and environmentalism is a good thing. But these surface acts are not indication of a true saint inside... or actually in this case, I actually doubt the sanity of this person itself...
I personally felt that in the present world, people lack healthy skepticism. Religion is a source of spiritual and emotional support. Not alot of people can stand the idea of being unable to explain events happening to them. Not alot of people can live with a "meaningless" life, therefore it must be that God has a plan for us all. Not alot of people dare to take the risk when they are told that they will go to hell if they do not believe. Not many people dare to question their own faith, for fear that it is blasphemy to even doubt. Not many people look beyond the facade (if any), and believed simply because the religion institutes they belong to are doing charitable things.
My point is, things might not appear as it is. There are many religions who claimed themselves as the one true faith. Then my question is, what gives them the right to claim so, as over all other faiths? What exact is "true faith"? Is it so important that it takes priority over humanity altogether? It is so important that you must defend them, even if it means killing/harassing/debasing/(insert negative verbs) the people who also live on this planet with you? My next question is, assuming that this "only true faith" is found, how realistic is it that the preachers of this faith be flawless? Look at the recent child sex scandal in Roman Catholic Church... or rather the whole strings of child sexual abuses in history. Those in religious authority are not necessary flawless. Who is to correct them? The believers? And if the err is less eye-catching, such as misinterpretation of the scriptures/bible, who has to authority to correct them? The proclaimed God? Last I remember, "God" haven't sent a bolt of lightening down to fire the Pope, which explain why he's still sitting comfortably in his office now.
Conclusion: Be realistic. Do what is good for others and ourselves without the need to heed all the talks about supernaturals and God. My point here is not to advocate a disbelief in God, but rather more of discourage a need to be "God-centered". If you can behave like a saint in action because you are already a saint inside you, it doesn't matter what your religion is, because (I believe that) God can't fault a saint for not believing in the incomprehensible supernatural. Of cos, all these talks assuming that God exists in the 1st place. But even if God and afterlife justices does not exist, it shouldn't make contributing meaningfully to the people around you any less important.
There was a rather pessimistic theory that without religion in this world, there would be no morality. I say... even if there's religions, doing what your religions tell you to do doesn't make you any more moral, since you're only bargaining for entry to heaven. For example in Singapore, people give seats to elderly because it's a social norm which if you don't conform, people will look at you as an inconsiderate person. So the very act of giving up seats to the elderly is not an accurate gauge that you are a considerate towards the elderly, but could be that you just don't want to feel embarrassed. At the end of the day, is Singapore a considerate society as compared to other countries? Not necessarily so.
Feedbacks are welcomed. =D
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
