We are all constantly in search of the truth, which includes closure. Closure in life, friends and situations/scenarios. But without really finding closure, are we able to be at peace with ourselves, and how will we be able to 'live with it'?
Quotes
I know I had posted this before, but this is a very meaningful quote:
We must be satisfied with the soup that is set before us, and not desire to see the bones of the ox out of which it has been boiled.
Contentment breeds satisfaction, which leads to happiness. Often people aren't able to be happy and be at ease with themselves because of their curiosity.
We must be satisfied with the soup that is set before us, and not desire to see the bones of the ox out of which it has been boiled.
Contentment breeds satisfaction, which leads to happiness. Often people aren't able to be happy and be at ease with themselves because of their curiosity.
Humans are
so often curious, because that is our nature. To question the why and what not. But
it is in this aspect which prevent us from finding closure, closure with the
situation, and with yourself.
Working in
a department which deals with complain letters (why does the word complain even
occurs?!) I find that most of the people uses it as an avenue to vent their
frustration. The frustration of feeling helpless that their parcel are lost (I’m
working in a postal office). Being human, we tend to like to be in control, and
be informed in the whole process. Once we lose that ability, all hell break
lose. These are the people who are unable to find closure. For complain cases,
it usually works like this:
1. You
learnt of the problem occurred (like your parcel was delivered late)
2,. You felt
helpless, and felt bad (about yourself, or your recipient or even just at the
situation)
3.
usually by now we have 2 different types,
a. Those
who accept it, and close the case. Or
b. who
demand to know what happened, how it happen and generally, angry.
3. you
write a complain letter, threatening to report to the CEO, or the MPs or
whatsoever people.
Frankly,
I think my company should not even be replying to such people. Because in life,
shit happens. It is alright to feel angry, but do not let your feelings
manipulate to emotions, which will influence the actions. Sure, some of this
shit are the company fault, but do not vent your frustration by calling the
staff and give them a verbal scolding. Imagine how will they feel, especially
when it’s not even their fault.
Usually,
for people to find closure, they will experience anger, followed by acceptance
and finally closure. In my complain example, however, since there’re no
acceptance (few will accept the ‘official excuses’ made because simply put, the
company really is at fault), thus these complainers will not find closure. However,
it is another completely different story if you call the company and want to
know the process and why it had been late in delivery. This is finding closure
in a way because you want to be educated and informed, and not just to vent
your frustration.
Usually,
when people call the hotline to complain, they in fact do not know what they
want, and the answers they want to hear. They just want someone to hear and
shout mean words to the poor people on the phone because they felt it’s their prerogative.
And after that phone call, the poor people will usually say sorry. I think they
should just use this phrase, “I empathise with you on your frustration, and my
company would like to apologise for the regrettable experience caused by the
lateness of delivery”.
Hopefully,
there’ll be fewer people who complain, because ultimately, they are the ones
who shows how shallow they are, forever judging others by their moral paucity. Sometimes,
it’s great to receive feedback and complains if they have a nice tone. Just not
shouting. Shucks, it’s my last day tomorrow at work. Now I’m a happy kid who
will devote more time here.
Different perspectives and finding closure.
A very
unexpected friend of mine (that wo geng ni jiang hor) asked if I would like to
go to london with him. That was totally unexpected, since I’m not chummy with
him. After much whatsapping, we virtually planned what we’re gonna do and all. The
question is why me? Because I’m not a phony. Well, I try to stay true to myself
and often find myself in weird and hostile situation for firing that stupid mouth
of mine without thinking. Thankfully, I’ve not offended that much people in the
past 3 years of poly education. (an accomplishment, if you asked me).
The end
of a crucial 3 years of education had just faded away from me. The memories
created, friendship and courtship. But what actually holds in that short, yet
eventful 3 years? The competitiveness which is so overrated or the people you
knew. Of course, the subject taken will be with me forever I think, but being
someone who have absolute dislike to marketing, should I further my studies? Or
should I just stick my head in and work till the day I retire, think back and
moan about the mistake I possible had made.
Differing
perspectives from various people I knew had by and large, been cautioning me
about my next decision. Half of me wanted to shut them up, and another half
wanting to listen and pay heed to their advice. Like how (I know!) anthropology
does not have any career prospect and I should just stick to my marketing with
a minor in product management (or something like that). It’s thought that
finding closure with my studies solely based on this marketing.
If only
there is an answer.
I find
myself in this situation whereby whenever I find the light at the end of the
tunnel, next thing I know is the train just has to ram over me at full speed. That
is just so depressing.
Online Media Clampdown In Progress???
The MDA (Media Development Authority) in Singapore had introduced a new ruling, whereby online news site exceeding 50000 unique views will be subjected to a license which includes financial bond as part of the conditions, ensuring the articles published online will be on par with their other traditional media counterparts. This applies, right now to 10 websites, and this license is subject to renewal every year.
The online community had been extremely vocal over this. Many questions are field (and yet to be answered). But they are all missing a point- How is this legislation/ruling passed in parliament with no votes from MPs? It's just like a normal day in the office, checking Twitter in the afternoon and everyone's talking about this. Even newspapers reporting this did not mentioned about a debate in parliament or vote. Given the political structure of Singapore lower house, with majority of MPs belonging to PAP, high possibility of the ruling being pass is high. But what I'm interested is the point of view and opinions of MPs (be it opposition or otherwise).
I'm all for the regulation of Internet media if it calls for greater scrutiny and responsibility journalism online in part from the print media, but online news portal with no physical presence? I don't think it is necessary. The top priority of having such online regulation is to address the following:
1. Cyber-bullying
Most people are now turning into social media to taunt their preys, calling them name and defecating photos and putting them up online. This behaviour should not be tolerated, and please punish them.
2. Imposing of super-injunction to the online community
High prolific cases whereby a gag order is being imposed on traditional news outlet but not the general public on a certain footballer in the UK is being exploited by most people. (Think Giggs). There should be a law on this.
3. Social behaviour (especially hate speech)
Forget about defaming others, but the use of vulgar languages. Enforcing a law whereby it is a criminal case if someone online with the malicious intention to hurt (mentally or physically), including threats, or photos, etc others punishable by law, and not just waiting for the victims to report and take a civil suit. This tantamount to someone spitting or shouting the F*** word to you on the streets and should not be tolerated.
Forget about the bonds and all, just impose this as a deterrence and all will be fine. Better yet if UN convention can have a common internet laws and convention for all countries to adopt (like tort law and common laws amongst most commonwealth nations).
P.S If Xia Xue (one of the more famous bloggers) falls under the category and need a license, I bet some company will sponsor her the financial bond.
The online community had been extremely vocal over this. Many questions are field (and yet to be answered). But they are all missing a point- How is this legislation/ruling passed in parliament with no votes from MPs? It's just like a normal day in the office, checking Twitter in the afternoon and everyone's talking about this. Even newspapers reporting this did not mentioned about a debate in parliament or vote. Given the political structure of Singapore lower house, with majority of MPs belonging to PAP, high possibility of the ruling being pass is high. But what I'm interested is the point of view and opinions of MPs (be it opposition or otherwise).
I'm all for the regulation of Internet media if it calls for greater scrutiny and responsibility journalism online in part from the print media, but online news portal with no physical presence? I don't think it is necessary. The top priority of having such online regulation is to address the following:
1. Cyber-bullying
Most people are now turning into social media to taunt their preys, calling them name and defecating photos and putting them up online. This behaviour should not be tolerated, and please punish them.
2. Imposing of super-injunction to the online community
High prolific cases whereby a gag order is being imposed on traditional news outlet but not the general public on a certain footballer in the UK is being exploited by most people. (Think Giggs). There should be a law on this.
3. Social behaviour (especially hate speech)
Forget about defaming others, but the use of vulgar languages. Enforcing a law whereby it is a criminal case if someone online with the malicious intention to hurt (mentally or physically), including threats, or photos, etc others punishable by law, and not just waiting for the victims to report and take a civil suit. This tantamount to someone spitting or shouting the F*** word to you on the streets and should not be tolerated.
Forget about the bonds and all, just impose this as a deterrence and all will be fine. Better yet if UN convention can have a common internet laws and convention for all countries to adopt (like tort law and common laws amongst most commonwealth nations).
P.S If Xia Xue (one of the more famous bloggers) falls under the category and need a license, I bet some company will sponsor her the financial bond.
Life as we know it, in cheese
Is a vicious cycle, with interconnecting links with each
and every one. Alright, it doesn’t make much sense to me. A day in the office
is highly intriguing, with a manager claiming (quite proudly), that she can’t
comprehend and not understand one of my favourite books of all, Who Moved My
Cheese.
It clearly means that she does not understand the concept
of change, and is in fact, incapable of change. She loves constant and will
blame others utmost for any undesired change. A very bad manager in terms of
managerial skills.
For many of us, finding ourselves without any cheese
seemed to be a major problem. So we start searching for cheese. But whilst
looking for more cheese, we tend to commit mistakes, and never look back. Some of
the none the wiser will be contended finding another cheese station with little
cheese (to not actually last), while others will continue searching, never
looking back sometimes. Others will feel angry with the situation and others,
but not do anything about it.
Changes comes from the individual.
The adventures thus far
Clara Oswin and the Doctor, thus far (since the death of Rory and Amelia) had embarked on a number of complex adventures. Like as always, the first episode marking the start of DW will be intriguing and will be exciting.
Clara had been downloaded for the Great Intelligence, become much more tech savy (to the extend of making a Twitter joke), loses the most important leaf to her (to feed the god), finally knew the TARDIS (Time And Relative Dimension In Space) translate into the native language (of whichever place she is in) and now, knows more of the history of the cold war. She can be known as a brave companion who understand fears, yet not crumble to it. But in episode 2, did she really thought the aliens knows and truly understands her?!?!
Being hopeless, as often illustrates by the Doctor, will always allows a person to do the unforeseeable, and unexpected. As yet another classic case (the episode on Pandorica Opens too demonstrates this concept). Now we see the Ice Soldier (from Mars 5000 years ago) being frozen and was 'rescued' by a Soviet submarine in North Pole.
Bearing in mind the conditions and setting, a Soviet Nuclear Submarine during the heightened tension (think around the Cuba crisis) and any wrong, miscalculated move will bring the world into a nuclear war. This smart Martian (whoever says Mars alien are stupid?) learn quickly of the situation, and decided to conquer Earth, effectively using the Cold War (escalated into full front fighting and nuclear and all).
In an attempt to stop the Martian, the human crew together with the 2 heart, bowtie loving Time Lord (aka Doctor) split into 2 teams- 1 to guard the bridge (the place where you launch the nuclear warheads) and another to find the Martian and talk sense to him.
They found the Martian (or rather the Martian found them), killed 2 of their crews and hold Oswin hostage. But the professor speaks up, and the Martian decided to kill him instead. By now, the Martian had reinforcement and is back to his armour and went to the bridge to launch the nuclear weapons. But he decided against it, since the submarine was sonic beamed to surface in North Pole, Martian was teleported to his mothership and the Doctor found his TARDIS (it escaped, because of the dangers). All ended well and happy.
Yet another nice storyline, but was too squeezed into a single episode, which is quite sad. Else, with more time, the story can play out and leave Whovians wanting more next week. Still, another good episode with improved chemistry between Doctor and Clara, though I think Clara and the professor was quite a nice pair. This time, it does not shows Clara returning home, unlike the previous episode.
Does the Doctor often becomes afraid? In the next episode. I'm the Doctor and I am afraid. Of course, where's your bowtie?!
Clara had been downloaded for the Great Intelligence, become much more tech savy (to the extend of making a Twitter joke), loses the most important leaf to her (to feed the god), finally knew the TARDIS (Time And Relative Dimension In Space) translate into the native language (of whichever place she is in) and now, knows more of the history of the cold war. She can be known as a brave companion who understand fears, yet not crumble to it. But in episode 2, did she really thought the aliens knows and truly understands her?!?!
Being hopeless, as often illustrates by the Doctor, will always allows a person to do the unforeseeable, and unexpected. As yet another classic case (the episode on Pandorica Opens too demonstrates this concept). Now we see the Ice Soldier (from Mars 5000 years ago) being frozen and was 'rescued' by a Soviet submarine in North Pole.
[[[SPOILER ALERT]]]]
The visitor was melted against the order of the captain and it went into a rampage, wrecking the submarine, falling 700m into the depths of the ocean. Communication with Moscow (capital of Soviet Union or USSR as it was more commonly known) was futile, as with that of the Martian. Feeling hopeless, the Martian escape from his armour (regarded as a great dishonour) and attempt to understand his humans counterparts.Bearing in mind the conditions and setting, a Soviet Nuclear Submarine during the heightened tension (think around the Cuba crisis) and any wrong, miscalculated move will bring the world into a nuclear war. This smart Martian (whoever says Mars alien are stupid?) learn quickly of the situation, and decided to conquer Earth, effectively using the Cold War (escalated into full front fighting and nuclear and all).
In an attempt to stop the Martian, the human crew together with the 2 heart, bowtie loving Time Lord (aka Doctor) split into 2 teams- 1 to guard the bridge (the place where you launch the nuclear warheads) and another to find the Martian and talk sense to him.
They found the Martian (or rather the Martian found them), killed 2 of their crews and hold Oswin hostage. But the professor speaks up, and the Martian decided to kill him instead. By now, the Martian had reinforcement and is back to his armour and went to the bridge to launch the nuclear weapons. But he decided against it, since the submarine was sonic beamed to surface in North Pole, Martian was teleported to his mothership and the Doctor found his TARDIS (it escaped, because of the dangers). All ended well and happy.
Yet another nice storyline, but was too squeezed into a single episode, which is quite sad. Else, with more time, the story can play out and leave Whovians wanting more next week. Still, another good episode with improved chemistry between Doctor and Clara, though I think Clara and the professor was quite a nice pair. This time, it does not shows Clara returning home, unlike the previous episode.
Does the Doctor often becomes afraid? In the next episode. I'm the Doctor and I am afraid. Of course, where's your bowtie?!
Subtract Love, add anger
When people ceased to believe in hope, they will fall into despair and destitute, will start to get angry about and with almost everything. From objects to animals to even TV drama plots. But by chance, they will see light of the situation, and improve their emotional and mental well-being.
RIP Margaret Thatcher
Former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher had died following a stroke, aged 87 in the morning of 8 April 2013, her family had revealed. With BBC coverage of her life as ex-Prime Minister, of her remarkable achievements of her over a decade in office.
She will be having a ceremonial funeral at St Paul's Cathedral.
Margaret Thatcher was also the first women Prime Minister in the UK, and is most notable for her decision in the Falklands War. Other than Falkland War, Lady Thatcher was also known for her economic reform policies, including privatisation of British Air, the NHS, BP and many more. Such was the popularity of the Tories during her reign that she continued to privatised public utilities. New Labour indeed continued privatisation as part of their political agenda.
A fortnight ago, press journalise said they will not return to work (from their strike) to cover the death of Margaret Thatcher (hypothetically), but of Nielsen Mandela because of her tough stance on the trade union.
Her years in office paves the way into the future of politics in UK, and coined the term, Thatcherism as a phrase on the stuffs and policies implemented to help serve and improve the life (hopefully) of the common Briton.
RIP, Margaret Thatcher.
She will be having a ceremonial funeral at St Paul's Cathedral.
Margaret Thatcher was also the first women Prime Minister in the UK, and is most notable for her decision in the Falklands War. Other than Falkland War, Lady Thatcher was also known for her economic reform policies, including privatisation of British Air, the NHS, BP and many more. Such was the popularity of the Tories during her reign that she continued to privatised public utilities. New Labour indeed continued privatisation as part of their political agenda.
A fortnight ago, press journalise said they will not return to work (from their strike) to cover the death of Margaret Thatcher (hypothetically), but of Nielsen Mandela because of her tough stance on the trade union.
Her years in office paves the way into the future of politics in UK, and coined the term, Thatcherism as a phrase on the stuffs and policies implemented to help serve and improve the life (hopefully) of the common Briton.
RIP, Margaret Thatcher.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)