There was an occasion when my friends and I was touring in U.K. and the bus took us across the greens and rolling hills. Sitting in the front seat of the upper deck, we were greeted with the sheer expanse of lands unfolding upon us in full force, scenes rarely seen in Singapore. I told my friend that looking at gigantic mountains and huge pieces of land would certainly dwarf the ego of any man. True, the man is certainly of no significance measured in time or space in comparison to Mother Earth.
Recently, I have seen an article of a Chinese coloumist (Liang Wen Fu) commenting of a small incident which happened in a lift. It was a weird kind of feeling which runs over me when I read that. Aren't all kind of writer narrowed minded in one way or another, whether for documentation or whatsoever reason? Seems to me that the person who does not ponder over the small misgivings is the truly forgiving one, compared to one who "remenbers" to forgive. Certainly, it is no easy task to even forgive gracefully, let alone to "forget" forgiving. This is probably closer to the way of thinking of Zen/Tao. Tao is practised without any kind of documentation, because it is believed that Tao is attained through one's own unique realization; but probably any true Master of Tao is unable to remember any kind of daily incidents which could be put down in words. Once you could see yourself in the light of humanity and the universe, all things tends to take on a smaller proportion.
Which is why I am still a small man in this universe, thinking as one.
The media in Singapore has been hot in picking up the news about the public announcement of scholars breaking their bonds. In this age of people changing jobs ever so often to upgrade themselves (in pay or experiences), it is certainly some kind of irony. Companies have been merged, buildings have sprung up at all corners, things in general have been and is still going to be dynamic. 7 years bond is long by today's standard, and how much can we predict what could happen after the bond is being signed? Which is why the government made the provision for a bond to be broken provided a amount of compensation is to be paid representing the opportunity of cost incurred. This is ironic if they had to resort to public pressure to add to the "cost" of bond-breakers. Is it a case of wrong calculations of the opportunity cost to be a incurred by the bondbreakers, or is it that the contract is no representative of what it stands for? If the people who make the bond can't decide for themselves, who can? Please, use moral values in the right places ...
Recently, my friend sent me some web links which reminds me again how the Internet has bring out a very different side of Singaporeans. I might be very wrong, but Singaporeans always give me a impression of being afraid to speak out even when the situation demands them to, whether for the better or for the worse. This is probably what the Asian culture is like. Especially for the Japanese, social cohesiveness is viewed very highly. But take a look at the news group soc.culture.singapore and you will find that things are not what it seems. Harsh words are exchanged and Singaporeans behave almost like they have trotted to a foreign land where you do not need to pay a fine for littering. Or the web pages of some Singaporeas who introduce you to the hidden corners of Geyland streets where the prositutes live, or use obscene words to scold someone over the hidden cover of the Internet. Things couldn't be more interesting as the different facets of the people are revealed. Probably things are more to come. Let's see.
More coming out soon .... To go back to Cookie Monster's page.
Comments? Complaints? Something stuck there in your mouth? Think you found the proof to Fermat's Last Theorem? Mail:
[email protected]