Why food is said to be such an important facet of Malaysian culture

I have often heard radio DJ's wax lyrical about our Malaysian love for good food, and how it symbolizes our culture. Though I do agree that we have a lovely and varied cuisine, and our people do appreciate it, I hardly think this is unique to our country - China and Japan take great pride and enjoyment in their cooking too, and they are well justified. France does as well, and even the Americans brag about their burgers. As do many other nations.

(the only nationality that keeps quiet when food is mentioned is the British)

Therefore, what is it that makes us feel that food occupies such a significant role in our culture? Truth be told, I think it is because we lack any other distinguishing point to claim. We are not united by a single culture as we are a multicultural country. Japanese think of their Yamato spirit before their food when it comes to national identity, although sushi is not inferior to nasi lemak or roti canai at all in my opinion. Lacking a single culture to point to, the other choices to boast about should be the ideals on which the country was built upon and its achievements, as the United States does. We have unfortunately nothing notable in that regard.

So I feel that this constant reference to food is a product of some sort of floundering about to catch some sort of national identity, where none really exists strongly. Really not something to be proud about...

Why people dislike wannabes

The word "wannabe" is generally used as a pejorative term, referring to those who strive to be something they are not. This term is generally used on people who are trying to pretend to be cooler than they actually are, and is thrown with great distaste.

However, let us analyze the matter more carefully. Why is it intrinsically a bad thing to wish to be something one is currently not? If an average student aspires to be an outstanding one, or an ordinary athlete strives to become an Olympian, nobody looks down on them for that. There must be something more to our distaste than this.

Consider the fact - when people wish to improve themselves in manners which benefit society as a whole, such as studies, athletics or scientific and artistic research, the general attitude towards it is encouraging, even if they fall short of their mark we honor them for trying. The "wannabe" word is thrown when the manner of improvement does not benefit society as a whole. For instance, a guy trying to be a player in terms of getting girls (but not succeeding) is laughed at and regarded as a wannabe, as is a girl who tries to dress and act like the top cheerleaders (although she is not in that circle). In other words, they are fighting for social status, in a rather obvious way, and not quite making it.

Due to social status being a zero-sum affair, other people ascending naturally makes us descend, relatively speaking. This is especially true in more enclosed environments such as schools. Therefore, when people attempt to increase their status quickly in a short period of time, such as the wannabes as mentioned above, the instinctive reaction of everyone else is to fight against it. This causes a strong feeling of antipathy.

In the olden days where bloodline and aristocracy determined one's rank in society, the older families used to look down on those who had just risen to prominence, calling them derogatory terms such as "nouveau riche" (new money). The exact same psychology applies to the dislike towards the so-called "wannabes" of today.

An offer

I got an job offer recently. The pay was somewhat better, but not a whole lot better - so I rejected it. I will not budge unless I get a 50% increment!

To some extent, I feel I owe loyalty to my company as they gave me a start in a fairly good line when I was just a lowly fresh grad and knew nothing. Is this loyalty as ironclad as that of Japanese employees in the past? No, I have my price too and for the right price I will move, however this time I did not get the right price. Sorry.

Somehow I feel very comfortable with my workplace. Familiar faces, seniors to run to when I have no idea what to do, etc. I worry that this is the comfort zone people speak of, and that I have fallen into it, as every time I think of leaving the company for other opportunities I feel slightly reluctant.

I guess if one day I have to leave then I must think of the lousy coffee vending machines to give me impetus.

Waking up early

Many people associate waking up early with productivity, as we can see from "the early bird gets the worm" and other such assorted statements. Personally I have always felt that this was garbage, as I am more productive later in the day, why not wake later and work till later? If the total number of hours spent working is the same, and equal concentration is given during those hours, is not the aggregate productivity on par?

Having defended my tribe of late-wakers, I shall now attempt to analyze why people who wake up early are seen as more hardworking.

For most of human history, we have labored without the assistance of electrical lighting, hence people would rise at dawn to work and stop work at dusk. After-dusk hours were mainly for recreation. This strong historical inertia makes us feel that if one wakes up late, several hours of could-be productivity have been sacrificed in the morning, while sleeping later only means that one spends more time on enjoyment, e.g. clubbing or surfing the net or whatever.

This is why when I work late at night I make sure to send out emails to people so that they KNOW I am working.

Game of Thrones comments (1)

Remember how Ned found out that Joffrey wasn't Robert's son? Hair color - Robert's own bastard kids are all black-haired but the three produced by Cersei are all blonde. There, the cat is out of the bag.

But our dear Ned forgot one thing: among his own kids only Arya and Jon have hair like him (and the Stark features). All the others take after his wife Catelyn. So who could have produced them? If you think of it, Edmure is not married yet despite not being that young anymore... just like Jaime.

Holy shit Catelyn and Edmure...

God and the Devil

Christianity normally depicts Satan as a fallen angel, the fount of all evil, ruler of Hell and arch-enemy of God. Yet we are also told that he has absolutely no true power at all, except being extremely adept at lying and deceiving. This seems rather peculiar from a logical sense, for surely if God wanted to he could squash Satan like a man crushes a cockroach (in fact even more easily, cockroaches are surprisingly resilient). Surely then there is no war between Heaven and Hell, for how can a cockroach wage war on a man?

Let us recall the Book of Job. Job (no relation to Steve Jobs) was a righteous fellow who respected God greatly, whom the Almighty mentioned as a shining example of moral perfection to Satan when the later came visiting in Heaven. Satan countered by saying that Job was only so pious due to the fact that God have given him a pretty cushy life and if he faced some tribulations this piety might melt away quickly. Upon God's permission Satan handed out some tough times to Job, such as his children dying, his property being annihilated and himself contracting horrible illnesses. Job was still pious at the start but in the end his resolve cracked and he began to curse God, whereupon God talked to him and he realized that he should still have trusted in God, after which God gave him back a nice life.

Long version is here: http://ebible.org/kjv/Job.htm

Now let us examine the text. At the beginning:

1:6 Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them. 1:7 And the LORD said unto Satan, Whence comest thou? Then Satan answered the LORD, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it. 1:8 And the LORD said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil? 1:9 Then Satan answered the LORD, and said, Doth Job fear God for nought? 1:10 Hast not thou made an hedge about him, and about his house, and about all that he hath on every side? thou hast blessed the work of his hands, and his substance is increased in the land. 1:11 But put forth thine hand now, and touch all that he hath, and he will curse thee to thy face. 1:12 And the LORD said unto Satan, Behold, all that he hath is in thy power; only upon himself put not forth thine hand. So Satan went forth from the presence of the LORD. 

So basically Satan, along with the other angels, went to say hi to God. God asked Satan where he had been, and whether he had seen Mr. Job, who was an exemplary man. Satan said yea sure but you have been protecting him all this time, if you let me do stuff to him I bet he will think differently, so God said ok you can do evil things to his property but not his person.

We can see that (a) Satan seems to have decent relations with God, and (b) he can't do anything to Job's person or property without God's permission. Does this seem the behavior of two adversaries? Of course not. It seems more as if Satan is working for God.

And in truth, in the Jewish tradition, Ha-satan, or "accuser" is not the devil, but instead the prosecuting lawyer of God. He is charged by God to tempt humans and to report back to God all who go against His decrees. Later in Abrahamic religions he was changed to be Satan, the prince of darkness. Having said that, how can there be a prince of evil who is essentially powerless, as the Bible admits?

So I think the Jewish explanation makes more sense to me.

My bed and I

When I was in college I had to share a room with my best friend. Now he was everything one could ask for in a roommate (and no we are not gay), but one thing just made me sad about having to share a room - I had to sleep on a single bed.

The sorrow of sleeping on a single bed is that when I sleep, I have to subconsciously confine my body and limbs to its rather limited borders. For someone with a free spirit like myself, this is akin to confining a nightingale in a golden cage, or a great conqueror to a land the size of Singapore. In truth, I think of my bed as a autonomous nation. This is why I maintain a large number of pillows and use them to build a wall around me, something like the great wall of China.

What scares me is in the future when I get married I shall have to share the bed with somebody of unknown size. To ward against the horror of my territory shrinking, what must be done is to acquire two king-sized beds and stack them together side by side. This would be the equivalent of the Mongol empire in terms of mattresses, and only such a region would be worthy of my rest.

By the way I shall also include a lovely song in hope of changing local musical tastes to be better (i.e. more like my own).