Its been over a week since the car's gone. Well. Still getting used to it.
Right now I'm blogging during office hours in my office. That is so "evil".
Talk about evil. Tomorrow is 06-06-06. 666 if you like. Mark of the devil. Launch of the newest incarnation of that old movie "The Omen". Although as far as I remember from the previous movie I don't think that "devil's child" was actually born on the 6th of June 1966 or something. Nah that would have four 6s (6666) and that would be one 6 too many of what we're supposed to look out for as the mark of the devil.
Anyway as far as I remember from Revelations "666" is the mark of the devil on people who belong to Satan close to the last days of earth. I wonder how it was actually translated over from the original. But it definately isn't a date we're looking out for so launching The Omen on 06-06-06 is just mere hype and marketing gimmick.
A long rambling rant my typical blog entry tends to be, and I make no apologies. As you may have noticed I did try in my previous entries to mark out the different sections or topics by drawing "-----------------------------" lines but I have decided I shall no longer bother. After all, this is definately not newswriting or PR writing where I write to please somebody or catch someone's attention. Imagine the lengths writers compromise themselves just to achieve all that. So keep up if you can or skim through if you think you can catch the essence of what I'm trying to say with just a once-over. But you'd probably never have as much fun as I have writing all this nonsense :P
Internship is ending (salvation is at hand!) but then I have to start planning constructively what I want to do with the remainder of my holidays.
But, what have I learnt so far? Well, personally and spiritually, many things. Things about church and church activities and people, workplace, other Christians, non-Christians, people of varying denominations, other religions, and the struggle to live out Christ's command to "love God" and "love thy neighbour as thyself" at all areas wherever we can
My dream FYP would be to do a content analysis of all the recent movies based on Christian themes (Da Vinci Code, The Omen, Passion of the Christ) and some older ones like The Last Temptation of Christ) and the effects of these movies on audiences, Christians, non-Christians, people of other religions, etc
Another thing - I think I understand why I've been very weary to things like "the prompting of the Holy Spirit" in certain things like making decisions and so on - there is no Biblical basis for that. After praying make the decision to the best of your ability with humility and concern for others and in clear conscience before God and in God's name. God won't give you a sign or some feeling of what decision you should make.
Look at Acts 1. When they needed a replacement apostle, they chose amongst many to the best of their ability by testimony 2 of them just as well suited to the task and couldn't decide among them, so they prayed and cast lots. Notice even the apostles didn't pray and then the Holy Spirit whispered to them or gave them some 'feeling' that they should choose Matthias.
But that is the way many Christians are justifying their decisions! By assuming some feeling they have to be the Holy Spirit leading or prompting them to do something. There is no biblical basis for this.
Even if you quote me the account of Philip's witness to the Ethopian eunuch you must notice in the KJV Bible there were many terms used "angel of the Lord", "Spirit", "Spirit of the Lord" and not only that, that Spirit whisked Philip away after it was all over. And earlier in that passage they talk clearly and in distinct terms about the "Holy Ghost". So, a translation true to the original Greek uses different terms.
I know, in NIV all these different terms were simply changed to "Spirit" or "Holy Spirit" so ppl will simply think they all refer to the same thing. That's the problem with translations that are not literal. They read easily but also have interpretations embedded into them.
Are we sure we can just simply call them all the same thing just so we can justify our "Holy Spirit feeling" prompting us what to do? How do you know this actually is the Holy Spirit? The never says the Holy Spirit is some feeling...beware... what could it be then?
To sum up:
The Holy Spirit is NOT some subjective feeling you get after praying or something like that. He is the Comforter. He will teach all things (no not by speaking some stuff into your head - but to convict you of the truth of the scriptures as you read and learn about them and as you go about your daily life in light of them)
We have feelings and emotions because we are of God. But we MUSN'T claim these feelings to be the Holy Spirit because even in the Bible there is no basis.
The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it? - Jeremiah 17:9
I'm open to counters so please feel free to post here.
Monday, June 05, 2006
Friday, May 26, 2006
Farewell my car
It's official. The road tax is expired. Today is the day. Goodbye. Driving it to the Export Yard and taking the bus home... Thank God for the 4 over years of enjoyment!
When we first got the car, it was over 2 years old and its mileage was 64000km. Today, its 7 years old and its mileage is about 189000km. It's gone as far as KL. It's gone as fast as 160km/h. It's been in 1 major accident which took out its trunk. But thank God nobody ever died in it.
But numbers cannot express the fun I've had cornering in this car. Be it expressway curves, 90-degree junctions - the new suspension tackles it all. Body roll is still quite bad because I didn't change the springs, and this car is after all front heavy, but the tyres never skid or slide. It has a very solid, rooted feeling at all times. Quite the other end of the world compared to those disgusting tip-toeing MPVs and SUV that almost topple over like vans and lorries.
It's also the end of an era. This 3-box shape doesn't appear much in new sedans anymore, neither do cars have such low bodylines nowadays as they grow taller, more bubbly and more rounded like overbloated goldfishes.
A 110bhp engine through a 4-speed auto pushing a 1040kg chassis is a reasonable power-to-weight ratio and fuel efficient too... yet it can provide a sufficient surge of power when the need arises too.
I've always liked its slim headlights at the front as well as the clean rearlamps configuration too.
From me and all those who've ever been in this car at one time or another - goodbye!
Thank God once again! :)
Thursday, May 11, 2006
Parrot Press and lame ducks
As a journalism student, I must say that the Singapore mainstream media never ceases to amaze me.
I have been TRUELY APPAULED by its coverage in the recent days. Everybody already knows that its coverage of the elections is biased, and anyone who has had any alternative exposure to the election either by attending opposition rallies or via the non-mainstream press would agree with me.
They already toed the government line with regards to the Gomez incident so fantastically enthusiatically, faithfully reiterating and presenting the relevant ministers' golden words. And gave it headline coverage for 3 entire days out of the 9 days of campaigning.
And many other things of which we have yet to do a content analysis.
Fast forward to the results. When it was announced on TV that PAP had 66.6% of all votes cast and PM Lee called it a strong mandate - I was laughing my head off.
Here was a case of sheer denial. Yes, you may have subsequently read the analysis by some political observers or academics on CNA or ST who go to the tune of '66.6% is very strong compared to the mandate given to the ruling party in most democratic countries'.
-------------------------
But hear me out. In these OTHER countries, are there:
1) a severe lack of non-ruling political parties and people standing up for elections?
2) walkover victories for almost 1/2 of the seats such that about only half of the people actually vote?
3) constant redrawing of district boundaries that people no longer know where they live although they haven't shifted house?
4) an Electoral Department that reports to the Prime Minister's Office (the PM is an elected person too - so isn't this a conflict of interest?)
5) a PARROT PRESS that doesn't give balanced coverage (as explained above)?
6) the ruling party, knowing that it will form the next government and control the budget, threatens people in opposition wards that they will be missing out on hundreds of millions of dollars of funds allocation for the improvement of their estate?
So, thank you for staying with me through this mini-discussion, we have concluded that it hardly qualifies as a 'strong' mandate, given the context.
--------------------------
Zoom back to the results announcement. PM says its a strong mandate. (I thought the press was being a big cynical when in one of the inner pages the title went "PM gets his strong mandate") - perhaps refered to his self-delusion.
And the next day the parrot press resounds all over. Strong mandate! Strong mandate!
Anybody remembered that the 'suicide squad' opposition gang in AMK consisting of rookies caused the PM to actually get a lower percentage in his ward than the PAP average? (66.1% vs 66.6%)
and today, we have the best front page title yet -
"PAP picks up 81% of votes cast overseas"
"... On their own, the overseas voters registered 81 per cent support for the People's Action Party across the 16 constituencies contested - well above the 66.6 per cent that the ruling party received here.
...
Taken in isolation, they would have handed Potong Pasir to the PAP ( PAP 9, SDA 3) but given Nee Soon Central to the Workers' Party ( WP 2, PAP 1)"
STOP WASTING MY TIME WITH SUCH NONSENSE.
Don't keep putting the percentage results of the 335 overseas voters against that of the 1 million+ voters at home!!
I have been TRUELY APPAULED by its coverage in the recent days. Everybody already knows that its coverage of the elections is biased, and anyone who has had any alternative exposure to the election either by attending opposition rallies or via the non-mainstream press would agree with me.
They already toed the government line with regards to the Gomez incident so fantastically enthusiatically, faithfully reiterating and presenting the relevant ministers' golden words. And gave it headline coverage for 3 entire days out of the 9 days of campaigning.
And many other things of which we have yet to do a content analysis.
Fast forward to the results. When it was announced on TV that PAP had 66.6% of all votes cast and PM Lee called it a strong mandate - I was laughing my head off.
Here was a case of sheer denial. Yes, you may have subsequently read the analysis by some political observers or academics on CNA or ST who go to the tune of '66.6% is very strong compared to the mandate given to the ruling party in most democratic countries'.
-------------------------
But hear me out. In these OTHER countries, are there:
1) a severe lack of non-ruling political parties and people standing up for elections?
2) walkover victories for almost 1/2 of the seats such that about only half of the people actually vote?
3) constant redrawing of district boundaries that people no longer know where they live although they haven't shifted house?
4) an Electoral Department that reports to the Prime Minister's Office (the PM is an elected person too - so isn't this a conflict of interest?)
5) a PARROT PRESS that doesn't give balanced coverage (as explained above)?
6) the ruling party, knowing that it will form the next government and control the budget, threatens people in opposition wards that they will be missing out on hundreds of millions of dollars of funds allocation for the improvement of their estate?
So, thank you for staying with me through this mini-discussion, we have concluded that it hardly qualifies as a 'strong' mandate, given the context.
--------------------------
Zoom back to the results announcement. PM says its a strong mandate. (I thought the press was being a big cynical when in one of the inner pages the title went "PM gets his strong mandate") - perhaps refered to his self-delusion.
And the next day the parrot press resounds all over. Strong mandate! Strong mandate!
Anybody remembered that the 'suicide squad' opposition gang in AMK consisting of rookies caused the PM to actually get a lower percentage in his ward than the PAP average? (66.1% vs 66.6%)
and today, we have the best front page title yet -
"PAP picks up 81% of votes cast overseas"
"... On their own, the overseas voters registered 81 per cent support for the People's Action Party across the 16 constituencies contested - well above the 66.6 per cent that the ruling party received here.
...
Taken in isolation, they would have handed Potong Pasir to the PAP ( PAP 9, SDA 3) but given Nee Soon Central to the Workers' Party ( WP 2, PAP 1)"
STOP WASTING MY TIME WITH SUCH NONSENSE.
Don't keep putting the percentage results of the 335 overseas voters against that of the 1 million+ voters at home!!
Tuesday, May 09, 2006
what a fix
Here's something really interesting.
It seems that the phrase "there will be consequences" is going to be considered criminal intimidation.
For that we'll have to wait and see during the trial should it happen.
The whole episode with the Department, according to one ruling party candidate, were a very evil attempt by Gomez to 'fix' the elections department. So when he says Gomez tried to 'fix' the Elections Department, he means Gomez is trying to criminally intimidate the Elections Department, or the staff member, whatever.
So tell me, why is it when some other candidate during a public rally in Raffles Place says he doesn't want to spend too much time 'fixing' the opposition candidates, he is not criminally intimidating anyone?
Is it a case of when this person says 'fix' he means just to 'fix' but when the word 'fix' is used by the earlier-mentioned party member the word 'fix' means to criminally intimidate?
Of course, we always give people the benefit of the doubt. So the rally speaker issued a 'clarification' and saying he's apologising if anyone was upset by his use of the word 'fix'.
That is noble.
But hey, so did Gomez.
So why the harsh reaction on him?
Oh well, he's in a 'fix' for trying to 'fix' the Department either that or somebody is trying to 'fix' him, so he'd better try to 'fix' himself or he'll never get out of this 'fix'ation with 'fix'........
It seems that the phrase "there will be consequences" is going to be considered criminal intimidation.
For that we'll have to wait and see during the trial should it happen.
The whole episode with the Department, according to one ruling party candidate, were a very evil attempt by Gomez to 'fix' the elections department. So when he says Gomez tried to 'fix' the Elections Department, he means Gomez is trying to criminally intimidate the Elections Department, or the staff member, whatever.
So tell me, why is it when some other candidate during a public rally in Raffles Place says he doesn't want to spend too much time 'fixing' the opposition candidates, he is not criminally intimidating anyone?
Is it a case of when this person says 'fix' he means just to 'fix' but when the word 'fix' is used by the earlier-mentioned party member the word 'fix' means to criminally intimidate?
Of course, we always give people the benefit of the doubt. So the rally speaker issued a 'clarification' and saying he's apologising if anyone was upset by his use of the word 'fix'.
That is noble.
But hey, so did Gomez.
So why the harsh reaction on him?
Oh well, he's in a 'fix' for trying to 'fix' the Department either that or somebody is trying to 'fix' him, so he'd better try to 'fix' himself or he'll never get out of this 'fix'ation with 'fix'........
Sunday, April 30, 2006
is it PAP? Government? PAP Government? PAP/Government? Government/PAP?
Minister for National Development Mah Bow Tan reiterated yesterday that all opposition wards would get lift upgrading, just not as soon as People's Action Party (PAP) wards.
Blocks are chosen not just on the level of support for the PAP, but also on factors such as their age and whether the surrounding areas have been upgraded, he told reporters during a walkabout in Tampines St 81 with his team mates.
But he would choose a PAP ward over an opposition one because otherwise, "the PAP voters in that ward, they will look at me and say: 'What are you doing? I supported you... and now you're giving it to the opposition. They never supported it' ".
He was responding to comments by the Singapore Democratic Alliance (SDA) in its Friday rally that the Government had a "one-country, two systems" policy which denied voters in opposition wards the same benefits as those in PAP wards.
(...)
The Sunday Times Apr 30 2006
THIS IS DISGUSTING. IF the PAP(read: the party itself!) were the ones paying or subsidising the upgrading this would be perfectly legitimate...
but the PAP ministers in their capacity in government when they handle the budget and funds of the people of Singapore shouldn't divert or bias the use of these budget allocations according to who supported them politically...
That's like taking everybody's money and redistributing it according to whom YOU fancy (ie those who voted for you)
I can't BELIEVE that they're so open about this and stating it publicly as a matter of fact.
It's a plan to cow people into voting for the incumbents so as not to lose out on such benefits that ought rightfully belong to them anyway.
The lines have been blurred between PAP, government, PAP government, PAP/government and government/PAP... the PAP acts like they own government, and all the resources that come with it... to do as they please...
Hmmmphh
Blocks are chosen not just on the level of support for the PAP, but also on factors such as their age and whether the surrounding areas have been upgraded, he told reporters during a walkabout in Tampines St 81 with his team mates.
But he would choose a PAP ward over an opposition one because otherwise, "the PAP voters in that ward, they will look at me and say: 'What are you doing? I supported you... and now you're giving it to the opposition. They never supported it' ".
He was responding to comments by the Singapore Democratic Alliance (SDA) in its Friday rally that the Government had a "one-country, two systems" policy which denied voters in opposition wards the same benefits as those in PAP wards.
(...)
The Sunday Times Apr 30 2006
THIS IS DISGUSTING. IF the PAP(read: the party itself!) were the ones paying or subsidising the upgrading this would be perfectly legitimate...
but the PAP ministers in their capacity in government when they handle the budget and funds of the people of Singapore shouldn't divert or bias the use of these budget allocations according to who supported them politically...
That's like taking everybody's money and redistributing it according to whom YOU fancy (ie those who voted for you)
I can't BELIEVE that they're so open about this and stating it publicly as a matter of fact.
It's a plan to cow people into voting for the incumbents so as not to lose out on such benefits that ought rightfully belong to them anyway.
The lines have been blurred between PAP, government, PAP government, PAP/government and government/PAP... the PAP acts like they own government, and all the resources that come with it... to do as they please...
Hmmmphh
Friday, April 14, 2006
Eeww
I am so worried about my ability to write. It looks like 4 months in a rotten internship company has managed to accomplish what even 2.5 years in the SAF failed to do - turn me into a rotting heap of no-brain.
(Lame voice from the audience - "how do you know you weren't a no-brain back then in the army?")
Shutup.
I had so much problem putting together a coherent article for church youth publication that it dragged and dragged and dragged on and on. Maybe I didn't have the discipline to actually sit down properly to do it? And my first attempt at it was termed "disjointed"... a comment which I admit was rather fair. It seems to happen for anything I write in more than one sitting. Or perhaps it was because I had a lot of problem trying to focus the article clearly as it was a very open ended and broad sweep title - not a title even, but just a very broad idea.
What's the matter? Isn't an open topic much better to write on than a closed one? Shouldn't it be easier? But the problem with Christian writing is that its really easy to lose focus - given the all-encompassing and interlinked nature of Christianity itself. And I wanted to avoid end up repeating about salvation in the article which was, as far as I can gather, not its intended area although somehow I felt a little artificial about it.
Anyway, I've since been able to whip up a rewrite which my editor says is much better (I just plunged in and wrote single-mindedly) although now he's in Taiwan for his SAF sponsored pre-ORD honeymoon.
THERE - some whining done with.
-----------------------------------------
I've been busy using all my free Caltex points to pay for my petrol since I got news of the impending car forced-sale order, but, strangely enough, it hasn't happened yet. So we're still driving the car for free as far as we're concerned. At this rate we'd probably finish using all the points in the card (that's about over $200 worth of free petrol)
-----------------------------------------
Recently, M&M visited Saudi Arabia and the reigning monarch was very keen on getting some pointers on how to better run his kingdom ("his" here refering to the Saudi Crown Prince's). M&M tried tossing some rubbish out of his car while driving along a desert road, just to see what punitive action would result. It was a $1 fine (maybe US$1). Later on camera M&M remarked that "you don't keep a clean city by imposing a $1 fine - you do it by - ..."
At that point in time I was so certain he would say "a $500 fine" or "a $500 fine or CWO, or both"... but guess what he said -
"educating the people."
Maybe that's a a nice phrase for CWO. Who knows.
---------------------------------------------
Look at the time I gotta go! Friday Vesper service and I'm meeting Fabian before that for dinner. Pray for us! Seeya!
(Lame voice from the audience - "how do you know you weren't a no-brain back then in the army?")
Shutup.
I had so much problem putting together a coherent article for church youth publication that it dragged and dragged and dragged on and on. Maybe I didn't have the discipline to actually sit down properly to do it? And my first attempt at it was termed "disjointed"... a comment which I admit was rather fair. It seems to happen for anything I write in more than one sitting. Or perhaps it was because I had a lot of problem trying to focus the article clearly as it was a very open ended and broad sweep title - not a title even, but just a very broad idea.
What's the matter? Isn't an open topic much better to write on than a closed one? Shouldn't it be easier? But the problem with Christian writing is that its really easy to lose focus - given the all-encompassing and interlinked nature of Christianity itself. And I wanted to avoid end up repeating about salvation in the article which was, as far as I can gather, not its intended area although somehow I felt a little artificial about it.
Anyway, I've since been able to whip up a rewrite which my editor says is much better (I just plunged in and wrote single-mindedly) although now he's in Taiwan for his SAF sponsored pre-ORD honeymoon.
THERE - some whining done with.
-----------------------------------------
I've been busy using all my free Caltex points to pay for my petrol since I got news of the impending car forced-sale order, but, strangely enough, it hasn't happened yet. So we're still driving the car for free as far as we're concerned. At this rate we'd probably finish using all the points in the card (that's about over $200 worth of free petrol)
-----------------------------------------
Recently, M&M visited Saudi Arabia and the reigning monarch was very keen on getting some pointers on how to better run his kingdom ("his" here refering to the Saudi Crown Prince's). M&M tried tossing some rubbish out of his car while driving along a desert road, just to see what punitive action would result. It was a $1 fine (maybe US$1). Later on camera M&M remarked that "you don't keep a clean city by imposing a $1 fine - you do it by - ..."
At that point in time I was so certain he would say "a $500 fine" or "a $500 fine or CWO, or both"... but guess what he said -
"educating the people."
Maybe that's a a nice phrase for CWO. Who knows.
---------------------------------------------
Look at the time I gotta go! Friday Vesper service and I'm meeting Fabian before that for dinner. Pray for us! Seeya!
Wednesday, March 29, 2006
Goodbye my car...
For some really ridiculous technicality of law the family household car now has to be sold. It's not a worth buy considering current car prices and COEs are so dirt cheap. Unless of course you want the security of being able to scrap the car in case of accident with no monetary loss to you (i.e. COE car).
It doesn't really matter what price I sell it at as long as its a little above scrap value. Here are the details if anyone is interested.
Scrap value
Open Market Value(OMV):
$14,507.00
PARF Eligibility Expiry Date:
26 May 2009
PARF Rebate Amount:
$15,957.00
COE rebate (Cat E)
QP Paid:
$35,890.00
COE Rebate Amount:
$11,258.00
So its scrap value as of April 06 is about 16k+11k=27k
If you do drive the car till its COE expiry in May 2009 you'll get back about 80% of OMV ($11.6k cash) after that.
Thus, the net cost of ownership is about $422 / month after factoring in this cash rebate, before considering interest charges from the finance company (usually about 2k on top of loan amount)
If nobody wants it (and that's probably the case - who wants to pay $600/mnth in installments for a 7-year-old car?) then it will be returned to the financier, auctioned off (probably at scrap value) and that would be the end of the matter
-----------
So there you have it. Goodbye. I will miss it. I thought it would have at least lasted till it 2009. But apparently God thinks otherwise.
It's not a problem. I've lived without a car before....... I don't even use it on a daily basis now anymore!
Anybody wanna stay hall with me next sem?
~God bless~
Jerry
It doesn't really matter what price I sell it at as long as its a little above scrap value. Here are the details if anyone is interested.
Scrap value
Open Market Value(OMV):
$14,507.00
PARF Eligibility Expiry Date:
26 May 2009
PARF Rebate Amount:
$15,957.00
COE rebate (Cat E)
QP Paid:
$35,890.00
COE Rebate Amount:
$11,258.00
So its scrap value as of April 06 is about 16k+11k=27k
If you do drive the car till its COE expiry in May 2009 you'll get back about 80% of OMV ($11.6k cash) after that.
Thus, the net cost of ownership is about $422 / month after factoring in this cash rebate, before considering interest charges from the finance company (usually about 2k on top of loan amount)
If nobody wants it (and that's probably the case - who wants to pay $600/mnth in installments for a 7-year-old car?) then it will be returned to the financier, auctioned off (probably at scrap value) and that would be the end of the matter
-----------
So there you have it. Goodbye. I will miss it. I thought it would have at least lasted till it 2009. But apparently God thinks otherwise.
It's not a problem. I've lived without a car before....... I don't even use it on a daily basis now anymore!
Anybody wanna stay hall with me next sem?
~God bless~
Jerry
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)