panda

Picture taken at a playground near my place.

I cannot help but to say the "playthings" in the playground near my place looks exactly like the toys I bought for my hamster. My hamster has also a tunnel and a bridge for her to walk on.

Eh... are chew ren nowadays becoming so pampered that they no longer play on slides, see saw (the wooden plank ones) and swingz?

I vividly remember the dayz when I was much younger when I jumped from the top of the slide with a perfect landing on the sand below. I remember the days when I lept off from the see saw as I was going down (because I was heavier) and my friend at the other end got a nasty shock on his butt as he come crashing down (we ran around the playground chasing each other after that). I remember the dayz when we compete among ourselves on the swing to see who can swing the highest (with an undescribable apprehensiveness of going one full circle on the swing. We always heard of people swinging one full circle on the swing, but I have not seen it nor experienced it). And of course, the sand that makes up the ground of the playground for us to build sand castle (and throw sand at one another). And a stone horse that sits there (and do nothing) as we climb over the horse and "ji kor beh".

Gone are those days. Sand replaced by bouncy rubber. Slides replaced by the hamster tunnels. Wooden see saws replaced by plastic ones, not to mention that there are gigantic springs at the pivot to dampen the motion and dampening the spirit of playing see saw (where is the fun when the motion is dampen?). Stone horses are replaced by miniature horses, rabbits, and all sorts of funny animals mounted on a gigantic spring for chew ren to ride on (where the parents will shout at their kids not to swing too much, coz its "dangerous". With the gigantic spring on, how to swing "too much"?).

Mebbe the govt should install a gigantic hamster wheel for chew ren to run on to make the set complete.

What is the hardest question ever? Nothing to do academically. It’s the question from mama, “Are you staying home for meal?”

Day 1
Mama: Are staying home for meal?
Me: Yes.
*1 h later, abt 10.30 am*
Mama: I am cooking fish porridge later for lunch, you eating?
Me: Ya
*1 h later, abt 11.30 am. I am going out for a haircut and take some reference books from school*
Me: Going out liaoz. Coming back in an hour’s time.
Mama: I thought you said you will be home for lunch?
Me: -_-||| Yes… I will be back 1 h later.
Mama: oh
Me: -.-|||

Day 2
Mama: Are you coming home for dinner?
Me: No.
*6 pm, I just reached home. The activity ended earlier than usual. Because I had told mama I will not be home for dinner, I had mine b4 I reach home outside*
Mama: I thought you said you will not be home for dinner?
Me: Ya, I had mine outside liaoz.
Mama: Why did you have your dinner outside when u are home at 6 pm?
Me: The program ended earlier.
Mama: u should have called home to tell me you will be in time for dinner!
Me: =.=|||

Day 3
Mama: Are you coming home for dinner?
Me: No.
*5 pm, because the program ended earlier than usual, I called home*
Me: Me coming home for dinner.
Mama: Now then tell me. Din prepare yours.
Me: |||-_-

Day 4
Mama: Will u be home for lunch?
Me: Oh ya, dun prepare my lunch. I watched soccer last night. Will sleep through lunch time.
*12.30 pm, I was sleeping*
Mama *shaking me from my bed*: Wake up and have your lunch.
Me: -___-|||

There is a disclaimer here to make before I start. I am NOT encouraging gambling by this post. The rules of gambling is quoted here just as an example to illustrate my point.

In the book that I have been reading recently, the author made the remark – Winners plan to lose as part of the winning game, while losers only plan to win and have no room for failures in any game. Let us consider the game of gambling. Suppose the chances of winning a gamble are 1:10 (out of 10 times, the gambler only win once). Yet, the rewards for winning in the gamble are 1:100 (you bet $1 and the $1 has the potential to win you $100). The winners will plan to have enough money to lose at least 9 times before winning the 10^th one. The gamble is worth it for the winners as the risk to reward ratio is 1:10. A quick calculation will reveal that if the winners have $10 to start, losing $9 is part of the plan before winning the final $100. However, the loser will bet whatever they have and if they lose once, they call it off. In short, the losers will bet all the $10 that he has, and call it off if they lose it all (more conservative losers will bet amounts less than $10, and if they lose, they call it off). Yet, there is another class of people who are intimidated by the low chances of winning, commonly known as 十赌九输 in Mandarin and are not even willing to try.

Are there risks involved in the winners’ plan? Definitely. As most people with a good grasp of statistics will know, the winner may or may not win at the 10^th try even though the odds reveal that if he tries hard enough, he will definitely win one day. In other words, if the winners do not win at the 10^th try, he will bankrupt. This is the risk. Sitting on the fence not betting sounds to be a good idea to most people.

My point? Nope, I am definitely not gambling. I am investing. What is the difference? Gambling takes uncalculated risks, while investing takes calculated risks.

Once again, I am NOT encouraging gambling. For those of you who are thinking of betting in the World Cup, allow me to say that as much as I know about the winners’ mentality, Singapore Pools know better. Do not venture into unfamiliar grounds, that’s uncalculated risks. That’s gambling, definitely not investing.

Our very own Education Minister made the remark that MOE is going to employ native English speakers in an attempt to teach Singaporeans perfect English.

While that sounds to be a good idea, I am apprehensive of

1. How perfect the English of what is so-called native English Speakers can be.
2. Define what you mean by native English speakers.

For point number 1, perhaps it is important to point out that the evolution of language from what was known as English to a more colloquial form, known as a creole (in the case of Singapore: Singlish) is NOT unique to Singapore. Even in what are so-called Native English speaking countries, there is their own unique form of creole. To illustrate, let us assume that England is the perfect example of native English speaking country. Examine the simple word – weed. Most of us will be able to point out that the term weed is used to describe an unwanted plant growing in the midst of a harvested crop. However, in colloquial usage in England, the word weed also means marijuana. Does that mean that for those who do not know that weed also mean marijuana are poorly informed as the alternative meaning of weed should is also perfect English? After all, the term comes from a Native English speaking country, so, weed to mean marijuana must be correct and perfect English? I beg to disagree if that is what you think. If Native English speaking countries sets the standards for what is so-called perfect English, it means that Native English speakers cannot be wrong as they speak only perfect English. Whatever comes out of their mouth is perfect English. That assumption, obviously, is invalid. Obviously no matter how native a speaker of English may be, he is still capable of making a statement that is not perfect English.

What exactly is a native English Speaker? Do they belong to a special breed of human beings from America or England? Perhaps. So, Americans and Bristish should understand each other perfectly since they both speak perfect English. If you think this is the case let me offer a counter example. If one from England made the following remark, “Sir, please queue up.” in USA, most Americans will not understand what the one from England means. The remark, “sir, please queue up” consists of four words, grammatically correct. It contains a noun – “sir”, contains a verb – “queue up” and it satisfies what is so called perfect English in a grammatically sound, perfect sentence. So, why is the American unable to understand what the British means? To me, queue up and line up are both as easy to understand. In any sense, queue up is neither a more obscure version nor a more difficult version of English to me. It is because in USA, they don’t use “queue up”, rather, they use “line up”. Which is correct? Do I hear you people saying both are correct? If the remark is both are correct, then can I ask who sets the standards for what is so called perfect Language of English? Is there a double standard here? If both are correct, should we as Singaporeans learn both perfect English since we are… ermz… more… kiasu?

In other words, my position is we do NOT need native speakers from native countries to teach us perfect English. If we think native speakers teaches native perfect English, allow me to say that we are native naive.

Buangkok, commonly and notoriously known as the Land of White Elephants to native Singaporeans, will be the home of me soon.

That being said, below is the little transcript of the dialogue between me and mama. The setting is the afternoon sun shines into my room in my new home, making my room intolerably hot in the afternoon. So, to solve the problem, I contemplated in pasting a dark “glass paper” on the windows to prevent sunlight from getting in.

Mama: The “glass paper” costs about $500-$600 to be pasted.

Me: Huh? So expensive? Then dowan lor…

Mama: You know, its very expensive, u still want?

Me: dowan

Mama: $500-$600 is very expensive for your room, you still want?

Me: *very irritated* How many times must I say that I dowan?

Mama: Talk talk a bit become so impatient, then next time dun need to talk lor!

Me: -.-|||

Eh… what can I say right? Yes, I agree I am impatient, and it seems that conversations between me and mama had degraded to a stage when it becomes meaningless repetitions of the same answer with rephrase of the same question in different (in this case, 3 different) ways.

I just finished reading Angels and Demons by Dan Brown. The expectation of the book was somewhat tuned up as I had read the infamous Da Vinci Code by the same author prior to this. Summary of the book… *warning: Spoilers ahead*

Robert Langdon discovers the location of the scene of murder before the murder took place and rushed there, hoping to deter the murder from happening. But was too late…

Robert Langdon discovers the next location, and rushed there, but was too late…

Robert Langdon yet discovers the next location, yet was too late again…

Robert Langdon discovers the supposedly the next scene of murder, yes, you guessed it, it was too late…

The 4 somewhat repetitive plots took up like the first 400 pages (out of 500 pages) of the book… What the… Like cheat money liddat… one plot occurring 4 times. Waste my time. In short, I was really bored by the first 400 pages. After the 150^th page, I literally struggled to read further, knowing how the story will progress…

To give Dan Brown some credit, the story did take an unexpected twist later on in the book. I was literally caught off guard. The book is a good read if u have nothing much to do. Not really intellectually challenging.

Rating: ***1/2

The purpose of this blog is an outlet for the expressions of my thoughts and nothing else. I kinda closed down my original blog a few months ago as it has attracted a lot of unwanted attention. For this very reason, anonymity is a the topmost priority in this blog.

As mentioned, the purpose for this blog is to provide an outlet for the expression of my thoughts. After my blog was closed down a few months ago, I kinda feel "pressurised" with a lot of issues bottled up within me. This has perhaps led to a disinterest in a lot of things which I used to find interesting in the past. Hence, the reactivation of my blog. Hopefully, I will start to move on after this. (: