[[How has been]]

Sunday, August 30, 2015

[[]]

Another interview another rejection. It seems almost as if I am doing myself a disservice by going for interviews. Think my interview percentage is like 20% or lower.

Actually this problem is not new, my uncle has told me that the way I go about doing interviews is not helping my cause. Sigh, and yet I am being foolhardy and persisting. I dunno whether I can blame my interview skills or is it really me that is to be rejected.

Maybe this is a knee jerk reaction (again). Whatever lah.

Think midweek I was having some fun, feeling good about myself. Always have to be knocked down a few notches. It is not me, I keep forgetting. Keep needing to be reminded. Reminders are not very pleasant though.

Idk man, this needs some serious thought. I think the current situation is not ideal.

I can accept that I am to be rejected, the I is not important and God is sovereign over all. Think my family and friends think that I am perhaps, passing responsibility for my own failures(?) Or my own lack of effort(?) to God. Hmmmmm. It is a fine line to be drawn.

Anyway, thank God that my laptop is working... For now. The keyboard malfunctioned but it seems a game of Dota (through God? lolol) cured it.

[[I wrote this at]]*|12:56 AM|

Tuesday, August 25, 2015

[[]]

Times like this I hardly feel like living. I can see the appeal of ceasing to exist.
It is not that I dislike living. It is that I am blinded to any compelling reason to live.
I don't feel like doing my readings, I don't feel like doing anything.
Frisbee cannot be the only thing to look forward to. There is Christ.
Yet it doesn't seem that attractive. Sigh.

[[I wrote this at]]*|12:15 AM|

Wednesday, August 19, 2015

[[On voting in Singapore]]

History
Singapore has a unique political system. In the 50 years since independence, Singapore has had only 1 particular political party in power, the Peoples Action Party (PAP).

The PAP assumed power via elections in 1959 when Singapore achieved limited self governance. The PAP have since led Singapore through merger with Malaysia and the subsequent split and independence in 1965 until today. There have been only 3 prime ministers thus far in Singapore history, Lee Kuan Yew, Goh Chok Tong and Lee Hsien Loong (Lee Kuan Yew's son). All of them are from the PAP.

In 1968, Barsian Socialis, the main opposition party, boycotted the elections. That is after the 13 Barisan congressmen resigned in 1966 to start an 'extra-parliamentary struggle'. Up until 1980, the PAP won 100% of the seats in parliament and have commanded a super-majority in parliament of over 90% of the seats since independence.

Implication
The PAP has led Singapore to what it is today. That is an undeniable fact. What can be disputed is how good is Singapore today. For all the good that PAP can claim merit for they should also be held responsible for the bad that can be seen in Singapore today.

Having seen their modus operandi and values over the decades, Singaporeans can get quite a good sense of the general direction PAP is taking Singapore towards. If Singaporeans are satisfied with what they see and what they project to see, vote PAP. Here I am talking on the big picture at the very basic level of voting to determine who leads the country and the country's subsequent direction.

Some thoughts
Yet this does not imply that if you are unsatisfied with the PAP you should vote opposition. Obviously you should only vote opposition if you think the opposition can do better. This is only logical (sadly not many people are fully logical). You cannot vote a pilot out of the cockpit because you are unhappy with his raspy voice and vote in another pilot that can talk but cannot fly the plane. It is a choice between two actual political realities. Not a choice between PAP or utopia. If it were, vote utopia.

I think there is a great bias towards the incumbent. For one, people dislike change. Secondly, the opposition has no track record. This sheds a huge amount of doubt on whether they are able to be better than the incumbent if they are in power. This is, perhaps, one of the many reasons why the BN is still in power in Malaysia despite their many missteps. The incumbent has to screw up doubly hard for the opposition to be voted into power.

There is no argument here that having a super-majority in parliament is inherently bad. One can see the results that a super-majority in parliament has produced. There is a proven track record. Outside observers especially western democracies seem to think that a democracy has to be like theirs where multiple parties share a piece of the parliament cake. I think that we should not be too bothered with them, they can enjoy their gridlocked parliament alongside all other related inefficiencies. The results speak for themselves.

Honestly I think a one party parliament is best if the party is the best party. In the most ideal situation the best party listens to everyone and is able to represent everyone's interests (such that it does not need an opposing party in parliament to represent that particular interest). That party can consider everyone's interests and make the best decision (long-term) for the country. This is something that I think the PAP has done and something that is a kind of a blessing that can only be have with a super-majority. With a clear mandate from the population, the ruling party is able to de-prioritise short-term politicking and populist policies. These short-term efforts are probably necessary for the ruling to remain in power yet they harm the country over the long run. No party, being self-serving, will be willing to put in play policies that will reap benefit in the long term if the opposition is going to be elected in due to lack of popular support and be the ones gaining support from the benefits resulting from these policies in the future.

Assuredly a super-majority is not necessarily required for long-term benefit. An astute voting population can provide such a guarantee (they wisely foresee and vote for these long-term benefits). Alternatively, parties can be altruistic and do what is best for the country regardless of their own position being compromised. However, these two things have yet to be seen in most democracies. Empirically speaking, I think it is safe to say that short-term populist policies tend to dominate more when multiple parties are in contention for power.

The main threat comes in the form of tyranny. Above I have actually outlined in some ways, a criticism of democracy namely that checks and balances reduce efficiency and foresight (at least empirically). Yet most defenders of democracy would say all these is worth it to prevent tyranny. Tyranny is quite awful and certainly should be avoided at much cost, even at the cost of some efficiency and foresight. Democracy allows a tyrant to be removed without force.

If you buy the PAP stance that Singapore has fair, regular elections then that isn't exactly a problem. A tyrant can be removed just as easily in Singapore as in Britan as in the USA. The main issue is not whether there is a super-majority but whether that super-majority can be removed without force. All benefits of a super-majority can be reaped if that super-majority can be removed without force.

Sigh, you know what, I'm rather lazy to wade into the topic of free press and its role. I shall just say that untruths should not be propagated via the press and truths should not be hidden. I am less sympathetic towards unfair coverage and the like. Firstly, the internet is now very powerful (no, I am not going into internet censorship). Secondly, the press usually writes what it thinks is important to its viewers. The press should give less airtime to less credible people (obviously) which is actually not happening in places with really free press (seems like people being stupid like to read sensationalist and like, celebrity stuff).

Honestly I think the PAP should be less high handed and treat the electorate as more sensible. They have good results on their side and no opposition party is actually thinking of seriously forming an alternate government. Some humility would be nice, especially in terms of talking down to the opposition. I think the reason they are doing these is not because they are 'only logic and no emotion'. A logical party will know that emotions play a part in winning elections. I think they think that these tactics will garner them votes (especially from the less well informed? Because they are afraid that the less well-informed will not make a rational choice?). But stop it lah, its annoying. Are we not progressing to a more educated, better informed society? And if we are not, isn't that your fault, PAP?

Here we have the unique situation of opposition parties campaigning not to get into power, but to provide a check and balance on the PAP. Let's face it, PAP have really capable people, ex-top military brass and the brains of the public sector. The opposition is hardly able to muster anyone of similar 'secular' calibre. (ofc you have chen show mao and like, idk, some random ex psc scholars. Still, they are hardly as powderful, if you get what I mean). The best way PAP can destroy this argument is by showing that the PAP listens to the ground and checks and balances itself.

Ok whatever. Overall I think I am still rather apathetic, which actually shows my confidence in the government to do well so far.

Bah, I ought to do my readings... I'm lazy.

[[I wrote this at]]*|12:29 AM|

Friday, August 14, 2015

[[On not sinning]]

I think sometimes we set the bar for sinning too low.

This is w.r.t the question what constitutes a sin? Which actions count as sinning?

When you mention sin you usually think of things like stealing, murder and rape. If you are Christian maybe you will think of hating, lusting with the eyes or thoughts, jealousy, covetousness.

Or maybe you are one of those that answer anything that is against God's will.

I dont think a life seeking to go without sin alone, meaning just purely aiming for absence of sin will cut it.

This is because nobody can achieve absence of sin. It is impossible. Absence of sin will cut it. But you cannot live a life without sinning, however 'moral' or 'upright' your life seems to be in your own eyes, in society's eyes is, in fact, very much trash in God's eyes.

It is quite unfair (if your p.o.v stems from yourself). You try really hard to not sin, say you are in the top 0.0001 percentile (that is, 1 out 1000000) for least sin calculated by a (seemingly) comprehensive algorithm that takes into account the 'magnitude' and 'quantity' of sin and even includes 'merit' such as volunteering and whatnot. Yet God condemns you wholly and irrevocably.

Since you cannot achieve absence of sin, to be accepted by God requires something more than just striving for this. It requires a positive action which is actually free, belief in Jesus Christ as the saviour that has died for your sin. That and to live your life henceforth for him. It is free (in the sense of it doesn't cost money) and uber costly (in the sense that your life is no longer your own) and yet uber worth it (in the sense that the new life is much better than the old life. That, and heaven.)

Originally this post was meant to be about how a Christian cannot live a life of negatives. (Woah cannot live a life of negatives, DOUBLE NEGATIVE). Let me rephrase, a Christian must seek to live a life of positive action, rather than just the avoidance of sin. Of course sin should be avoided, but that is not the end point. The end point is 'to live for Christ'. The implication of this is that exhortations cannot stop at the avoidance of sin. You should not just say 'stop lying', instead, live for Christ with your speech. (For example). Christianity cannot be only about what 'cannot be done', as if the whole point of Christianity is to restrict freedoms. It also cannot be only about 'what is wrong', as if that were all we are concerned about. It is a call to live for Christ! And to love others for Christ loved us.

But after I have sat on this post for like, a few weeks, the me writing it now wants to lament. I feel sad for all the societally 'moral' people that cannot find God, cannot find Christ, because they do not understand, comprehend or accept their own sinfulness. You cannot accept a saviour if you think you do not need to be saved. Reasoning tells me it is due to pride, but I don't think that they are proud persons (in the conventional way). They seek a way through life that is acceptable and deemed 'good' by society, they try hard. It is just so tragic. Especially when I really love them.

And to be honest, I empathise with them, I once was like that as well, thinking that I was good enough on my own. That I could figure my own way through life, maybe with Christ as an 'insurance plan' of sorts. That was until Christ somehow called me, especially away from the rat race (I would think).

Perhaps grace will triumph in the end. Perhaps they will be justly condemned. Sigh, what can I do about it? Pray for 70 years?...

This was originally supposed to be covered in my post on slave morality and Christianity but I find it hard to write that. So, maybe it will come soon.

[[I wrote this at]]*|8:58 AM|

Tuesday, August 11, 2015

[[Start of term]]

It seems that I am in a daze.

So school has started, and I seem unprepared for it (surprise, surprise). The moving back into tembusu and all that stuff muddles up my brain, especially this new idle game that I started. As a side note, I really wanna see whether it is possible to sustain playing such a game for the endorphins yet not let it dictate my life. Like it cannot be the first thing I think about when I wake up, it should just be seomthing really trivial, like snacking or something. Sigh, upon further reflection such an action does not fit in with my core beliefs and way I want to lead my life.

Sigh, that is the problem with reflection and clearly defined parameters. There is actually no room for indulgences unless your parameters explicitly allow for them. Mine includes some idea of efficiency so there is very little room for indulgences. Without reflection you can still let stuff slip by. Stuff that are not in line with what you want to be. Actually, even with reflection you also can, just that you either have to come out with a fantastic argument to rationalise it to yourself or you have to be inconsistent with yourself.

Actually, I think I ought to reflect more. My life isn't exactly in the ideal state.

Anyway, I was saying, that I am unprepared for school. Sigh. I wonder why did I think that school would resume right where it left off. Apparently I was mistaken. Was an amateur mistake. I did not expect the number of people changing to be more than half. This is especially in the case of tembusu lah, where I think, about 30-40% of people I knew remain. So that is a 60-70% shift. I think any shift of more than 20-30% is too big for me to transition smoothly. So things like sec3 to sec4 is easy. The change is low. Things like sec2 to sec 3 is slightly harder. Secondary to JC is harder. Service term to pro term is harder.

Yesterday I was contemplating writing a dirge but like, my brain was too addled by the game. You know, the sensation that your brain is full of nothing. And the slight throbbing pain that makes any form of creative work near impossible.

This post shall not end on a low note though, nothing ever ends on a low note because of the final victory in Christ. Now that I have quit the idle game, my brain feels better. Maybe it will be even better after lunch and I can start on some things that I actually wanna do with my life.

[[I wrote this at]]*|12:55 PM|

Wednesday, August 5, 2015

[[American Christianity]]

So I read this article and I am so glad that I finally know there is a concerted push against this American ideal of Christianity that is hardly Christian. I would go even further than 'vaguely nationalistic' and actually consider it heretical. (and the article says the bible belt is no promised land. woo!)

This concept of American Christianity is damaging most of all to Christianity because it is a pervasion of Christianity. That and the kickback leading to the mega liberal branch that just throws away a good portion of the Bible because, liberal, non-conservative (At least that is how I see it). And what the article said about presidents having to live a Christian life without just saying a God bless America. (I mean, they dont have to if they dont say they are Christian and are still voted in, perfectly fine. But if they say they are Christian then they ought to be held accountable to it, methinks.)

Not only is it damaging in America, it is damaging to the world. 'American Christianity' affects how non-Christians might perceive Christianity. Thinking 'American Christianity' is Christianity is like, DARE I SAY, viewing Saudi exported Wahabism as Islam. (Ok this analogy is unqualified, might not be entirely true but I think it holds based on my limited knowledge.) Misinterpretation of any religion is a rot that needs to be killed from inside. So glad that something is being done.

At the same time it is a little sad that America isn't the bastion of Christianity that it might have once been but still, pure faith over mass pseudo-faith any day. And now, do give us more strength as we attempt to live out what is called of us and help us respond appropriately.

[[I wrote this at]]*|2:12 AM|