BLOGGER



Youngest kid of six with an inferiority and black sheep complex, but determined that God saves not just his soul to heaven but the remainder of his manic-depressive life, so others won't say he became a Christian and remained a jerk.


MAIN THEMES

On identity
i won't be transparent before i'm opaque. and you'll get to know me starting from the small things: who my favourite bands are. what kind of movies i like. who are my heroes.

On Christianity
I’m convinced that when confronted with sincere, real love, the Jesus factor will become obvious. But let’s not plant the cross before we carry it. I’m not trying to con you.

On dreams
Some dreams are meant to be achieved. I know that. But maybe other dreams are meant to drive us, privately. Never known to anyone but ourselves.


OTHER THEMES

On melancholy
It is a sadness that, when choosing between crying and sighing, will choose sighing. I'd almost say that melancholy is being sad about sadness itself.

On memory and nostalgia
It saddens me when life moves forward and people decide that certain things are worth forgetting.

On language
I've learnt that the word irregardless is filed as a non-standard word in the English language. That's a lexicographer's way of saying it's not a real word.

On politics
Crowds are fickle things. So when we stand in the thousands and cry against the present government, do we know who we're actually crying for?

On society
People always want the best for themselves. But I want to sometimes take second or third or fourth best, just so that the loser down the road doesn't always have to come in last. It must feel like shit to always come in last.

On growing old
Leasehold property make me feel sad. It doesn't matter how old the family photos are that you put on your wall. It's your family but it's not really your wall.

On philosophy
I ask you, if God loves everyone, and if God is also incapable of loving evil, how can there be such a thing as an evil man?

On a daily basis
One line quips, like this.


CHAT





Wednesday, April 15, 2009
THE POLICE WANT TO KNOCK ON YOUR DOOR

The first place to find pirated DVDs is Speedy.

Labels: ,



Genusfrog [ 2:14 pm ] | 0 comments

Thursday, January 22, 2009



1.30pm
(hmmm where's my access card? oh, where's my wallet? must be in the car)

2.54pm
Let's go downstairs for a drink. vending machine.

2.56pm
I don't have my access card. it's in the car.

3.01pm
Eh. it's not here lah. it must've dropped out in dengkil.

(on the drive to dengkil)

3.06pm
Lady: Hello. fergus ong? i'm from geena hair salon ah. just now one man chandra called. he said you lost your wallet. you go and get from him now?

3.08pm
Fergus: Hello, mr chandra? oh mr chandran? yes, i think i left my wallet just now. ya. i'm on my way now. thanks!

3.10pm

(chandran 1 wags his finger at me as i walk towards him. he's on a table with another man.)

Chandran 1: Fergus ong

Fergus: Hi mr chandran. thanks so much.

Chandran 2: So you are Fergus ong ah.

Fergus, turning to the other man: Yes.

Chandran 2, pulling out my wallet: You check your money, see if it's all there. i went through some of your contacts, then i found this... rina or gina or dunno what. actually i called another contact, this diana. but she say she don't know you.

Chandran 1: Nasib baik tau. tadi orang sapu lantai kat sana, dompet lu kat sini! saya pun kelam kabut wo!

Chandran 2: We thought maybe we keep for one day then if nobody come then give to balai.

Chandran 1: Ic semua ada kat dalam wo!

Chandran 2: Better you check all your money all there la.

Fergus, to chandran 2: Thanks so much. What's your name?

Chandran 2: Chandran.

Fergus, to chandran 1: Oh. so how about you?

Chandran 1: I oso chandran.

We laugh a bit, shake hands and i give chandran 1, who is the gerai owner, a reward. of course, all this essentially means only one thing - no more hakka mee when i eat on that side.

Labels: , ,



Genusfrog [ 3:59 pm ] | 4 comments

Tuesday, November 04, 2008
COULD IT BE?

Last night i was reminded that the richest 1% of the world has 40% of its wealth.

the top 10% of the world's richest - that includes you and me - own 85% of the world's resources.

the poorer 50% of the world has access to only 1% of the world's wealth.

you know, i remember reading the quip "in order to make poverty history, you must also make affluence history". thought it was cute. perhaps a little left-wing to hold up against centrist thinkers.

today, i think, maybe it's true. maybe if there's really enough in the world to go around, then the problem of having poor people is really inseparable from the phenomenon of the wealthy.

Labels:



Genusfrog [ 2:43 pm ] | 0 comments

Wednesday, September 17, 2008
IN SEARCH OF AN IDIOT

Got this in the email, but since i'm not large for forwarding it on, i'll give it a bit of airspace here. what isit?

a disgruntled car park hunter wants to locate the owner of this badly parked black vios, numbered wpk 6393. i feel for the person who started this email chain. the temptation to publicly shame the owner of this car far outweighs any temptation to, say, scratch the car with your keys - which i know many people do. it's certainly more constructive. and considerably more resourceful.

for me, i was once partially blocked from exiting a car park by an SUV. i left a note on the windscreen saying that "only a savage will park his car like this". i've written several other similar notes, calling people names, but along the way, reminding them that the combination of a motor vehicle, a fool and society at large is bad news.

and so, i like this method. take a picture and make sure it gets into every inbox in greater kl. so, to the owner of this black vios, mister or miss wpk 6393, i hope the spread of your infamy teaches you to be a bit more considerate next time.

i guess you can pass this on.

Labels:



Genusfrog [ 9:04 am ] | 1 comments

Wednesday, May 28, 2008
THE DISPOSABLE BOYFRIEND

I once knew a girl who had a boyfriend. and we were all uni students together. and i remember her planning for an overseas postgraduate course without her boyfriend in mind. in her plans, she would get up one morning, fly to another country, live there for two years and then see if things work out.

i've been disturbed by that ever since. is it really normal to start relationships and then plan your life without those relationships in mind? maybe that's the wrong question. maybe the right question is how much should you plan your life around the relationships you start? changing a job, buying a car, putting money down... maybe. migrating to another country? maybe?

really? people really do things like that?

apparently they do.

in a world where identity is forged more between nine and five than in any other hour, it is boyfriends and girlfriends that become disposable. if he doesn't fit into the plan, he wasn't meant for me. if she's fated to be with me, she'll get up one morning, fly to another country and live there for two years. with me.

i'm sad today for all the boyfriends and girlfriends out there whose partners are already planning an overseas life without them. i wonder how they're gonna find out.

Labels: ,



Genusfrog [ 1:22 pm ] | 0 comments

Monday, March 17, 2008
FINGER ON THE PULSE

I'd like to say that i'm proud to belong to a church that has its finger on the pulse of the real world. i'm proud of my pastors for tackling national issues when national issues are at hand. i'm thankful that they are unafraid to wear their malaysianness on their sleeves amid a congregation full of potential migrators. and i'm super duper glad that my church leaders dare to be radical and are fighting tooth and nail for the plight of the downtrodden.

in the wake of march 8, everyone's talking about relevance. i want to honour my pastors for being on the cutting edge of relevance. and along with them, i want to honour every member of the clergy who right now are engaging with the things that presently matter most to malaysians. i think that one needs to simultaneously have so much abandon and restraint to be able to lead each person into every morning, and lead a whole ship into eternity.

it's been a long time since i've felt so excited about belonging to a church. but these days, i know my church understands what goes through the veins of its people. sometimes i wonder if my pastors have their ears pressed against God's heart or ours. other times, i know it's both.

Labels: ,



Genusfrog [ 2:44 pm ] | 0 comments

Friday, February 29, 2008
ON CHINESE FAITH AND THE ELECTION

There's a blogger called "The Malaysian" who recently said this regarding malaysian chinese voters:

"The older among the Chinese electorate may not wish to rock the boat and may be willing to accept ruling party assurances that things will be better next time around. Feeling resentment, anger, disappointment and bitterness is not enough. Translating those emotions into a 'loyalty shift' is the tricky part. And are the Chinese really up to it? Or will they as usual chicken out at the last minute, preferring to keep what little they have rather than 'gamble' on the future?"

when athalia sent me that, i told her it's because of the religion.

chinese traditions and folk religions foster a very one-sided hierarchical relationship between man and deity. the chinese psyche is governed largely by compliance and fear. don't believe me, look at the number of superstitions surrounding events like weddings or chinese new year. you have to do a, b and c, or else, x, y and z.

the end result is an entire community that seems to me to be perpetually paralysed towards change. maybe they afraid of the quasi-spiritual, quasi-confucian authority, and the retribution that either it, or natural order, brings, especially if the change that is called for necessitates that spiritual or confucian authority's demise.

people say that when you talk about preaching the gospel to the chinese, there is a lot of unshackling to do. maybe it's because preaching jesus is preaching a revolution of change. likewise, galvanising chinese towards political reform suffers from the same difficulty - choose the untested opposition and x, y, z. while this in no way links the present opposition to any kind of christianity, it nevertheless highlights the chinese psyche's resistance towards rocking any of its worldview boats.

i think that as long as nobody is patient with this unshackling process, the end result will always be that the chinese mind crawls back into familiar ground and reject change. ironic then, that it is the buddha to whom it is often attributed the saying "everything changes, nothing remains without change".

and so i wonder. what's the point of the chinese living in a democracy if they are fundamentally so afraid of a change in government?

Labels: ,



Genusfrog [ 6:13 pm ] | 0 comments

Thursday, February 28, 2008
ON TARRING ROADS AND THE ELECTION

I was in subang this morning and got stuck in a 20-minute jam. it was around 8 o'clock. now, there are two kinds of jams: jams with reason and jams with no reason. jams with reason are somewhat acceptable - a stalled car, a fallen tree, an accident, a broken traffic light. jams without reason are just mysterious and annoying. but jams with reason, as i discovered this morning, are not always reasonable jams. cos when i finally got to the choke point of the jam, guess what was causing the massive slowdown?

they were tarring the road.

at 8am on a working day, they were tarring the road. aha. elections! right? right.

so i got especially angry, because if you drive anywhere near subang, the roundabout at metropolitan college and the roads around section 12, you know that the roads there are full of massive holes, lumpy patch jobs and rubble on either side. and so, with ten days before national elections, somebody upstairs in the subang municipal council decides that tuesday morning 8am is section 12's slot to court votes.

of course, the first thing i do when i arrive at the office is to find out who the sonofagun incumbent state seat person is at subang. i google up a few websites, check out the electoral roll and home in on the subang jaya echo.

his name is lee hwa beng. that's right. this man in the picture.

don't forget his name - lee hwa beng. he's not standing in subang jaya anymore, he's moving on to kelana jaya after march 8. but i've still got a few choice words for this local representative.

lee hwa beng. your roads shame you. your disastrous flyover shames you. if you think you can buy subang jaya voters with dust, soot and a traffic jam ten days before your day is numbered, then you cheapen the people of subang jaya, and that also shames you. i'm embarrased for you that you have to tar roads now. i drive on your roads almost every day, so i am here to associate your name - lee hwa beng - with bad roads.

may that association last for the next five years. may every mention of lee hwa beng remind people of bad roads.

lee hwa beng = bad roads

lee hwa beng = tar road last minute

lee hwa beng = bad roads

there. that's my community service reminder. like i've always said - i'm not being partisan here. i'm not even telling you what party he represents. because when what a politician really represents is bad roads, he really doesn't need any other banner.

Labels: ,



Genusfrog [ 9:46 am ] | 2 comments

Sunday, February 10, 2008
ON WHAT YOU DO: JOB DESCRIPTION

For someone who enjoys talking as much as I do, I really don't like to give people too much details about what I do. I don't think they're interested enough. Take for example one of Chinese new year's top questions: what do you do?

I could go on about how I work in a production center for a global publisher of legal, tax and employment text. I tell them that we have our regional head office in Sydney and that I serve the Australian market, and that we are a huge production center, boasting more than 150 headcount. Jargon jargon jargon. I don't like to tell people all this. I much prefer to translate all of that into something that my listener will understand. I give them the simplest possible answer because I really don't think they care so much.

So this past few days, I've been pulling out my usual job description, which goes something like this: I'm a subeditor. You know when a lawyer refers to all these books and journals to do research? I'm the guy who makes sure the English there is alright.

Not entirely accurate, seeing as (1) we don't just serve lawyers, (2) we don't really do journals, and (3) we don't just clean up the English. But really, do they look like they care? Usually no. which leaves me happy enough to cap the dialogue on jobs right there and then, so the both of us can move away from the small talk and sink our teeth into the next bit of brainless exchange.

Oh, and yes. if you never knew what I do for a living, yeah. I do that.

Labels: ,



Genusfrog [ 7:32 pm ] | 0 comments

ON WHAT YOU DO: JOB TITLE

People really don’t know how to say what they work as. They always give me some big corporate-sounding job title that’s usually defined so broadly, nobody really knows what role they play in society. What’s worse, they say it and then expect you to know what it means, when really it means nothing.

I mean, gone are the days when you asked someone what they did and they said “I’m a locksmith”. And you just knew you didn’t have to ask them how they fit into your world. it’s annoying, but with the increased complexity of our jobs, nobody’s making it any simpler to describe what they work as.

I’ll give you an example.

Fergus: Hey, so what do you do now ah?
Person: I’m in consultancy.
Fergus: Oh. Okay.

(Weird silence, accompanied by thoughts such as “consult what?”)

Fergus: What company do you work for?
Person: A consultancy firm in (insert location) called (insert name).

(Incidentally, I’m totally not interested in the fact that their firm is located in Damansara Blablabla or if their company is called Blablabla Sdn Bhd. I’m only asking them what company they work for because I need more clues on what this guy consults [and most of the time, this fails, because most companies have very vague names as well, such as Promax Resources (I made that up) or something like that].)

I mean, am I any closer to finding out what this idiot does? No. the answer is a big fat no. I’ve met tons of people like this. They’re very, very good at giving you their job titles. I’m a senior account manager. What the hell does that mean? I’m a junior executive. Of what? Of whom? For whom? Please, people, all you people with jargonny job titles, please make your job real for me when you tell me what you do.

My company makes software for blablabla. I’m the guy who makes sure this gets from A to B.

We provide services for people who want to do blablabla but cannot because they don’t have blablabla. I’m the guy who does XYZ.

It’s really so easy.

So please, I beg you – if you have a vague job title, something that isn’t self-explanatory like ‘doctor’ or ‘lion tamer’, please do the rest of the world a favour and just give them a brief description of what you really do.

Cos let’s be real. nobody needs you to show off a snazzy job title. The whole world knows job titles are embellished to make young adults sound like they’re more important than they really are.

Labels:



Genusfrog [ 3:33 am ] | 0 comments

Monday, January 14, 2008
ON GETTING THE BEST

People always want to the best for themselves.

they want their kids in the best schools. they want to drive the best cars available. they want the best jobs. the best opportunities. the best deals.

for some things, i can see the reasoning behind it. if i'm gonna buy a copy of the raveonettes' new album, i'd like to buy it at the best price available. there's no qualitative difference between picking up the same record for RM10 and S$23. but most of the time, when we hear people say that they want the best, they're not talking about simple things like the best price for the same thing.

they're talking about best complicated, subjective things. best school. best tv. best job. in short, the best lifestyle, or godforbid, the best life. but do we really know what the best life is? are we only taking stabs in the dark because what we think is the best is actually what everyone else thinks is the best? how do you really quantify what is the best kind of life for anyone?

and while i'm on this, how do you really know if what the best is for someone else is also the best for you? if we're all created unequally, and that some of us are better at some things than others, and we all like different things, then surely, something has to be wrong when all of us are chasing after the same idea of the best life. one of us has to be wrong.

i'm really sure now that the best thing for me is almost necessarily different from the best thing for someone else. because i'm not someone else. and if there is even such a thing as "best", then mine is out there, shaped uniquely for me to meet who i am. it doesn't have to be "the best". it just needs to be the best for me.

but really, i want to go another step further and say that a culture, a community that is always going after the best for themselves is a community that will eventually consume itself. it is cannibalistic and cannot sustain any semblance of charity and goodwill to others. i'm writing now as a christian - perhaps also to christians. seriously. if you always get the best, it means that your neighbour is always getting second best. and i don't want that for my neighbour.

i don't want to always get the best. if there is such a thing as "the best", i'd like for us all to get a scoop of it every once in a while. i want to sometimes take second or third of fourth best, sometimes take the worst just so that the loser down the road doesn't always have to come in last. it must feel like shit to always come in last. why should anyone have to always feel like that?

no, i don't want the best school for my kids. i don't need the best tv for my house. and i don't need the best the world has to offer for myself. i have my own tastebuds and they're personally refined enough for me to ask for the ordinary things that i love. show me that and i'll show you a fulfilled life.

Labels: , ,



Genusfrog [ 10:18 am ] | 0 comments

Wednesday, January 09, 2008
ON CRIME

Crime! nice. what did we have on our plate last year?

3,000 rapes
7,000 gang robberies
12,000 car thefts
24,000 night time break-ins

we had an incident at home in muar last year. intruder fell from the roof into our garden, just outside the wet kitchen. the man was knocked out by the fall. my mum called the police. one hour later, they sent an ambulance. they got the intruder up and led him out to the street and released him. the police never showed up.

the police station is down the road from my house.

mister prime minister, my house doesn't need a cctv camera. we need a policeman when we call for a policeman.

apparently, the police are smarting over the fact that "non-firearms robberies by single individuals" have gone down. two possibilities.

one - maybe last year they all got themselves firearms?
two - maybe now they're all gang robbers.

but seriously, what are everyday people gonna do about crime? as a young churchgoer, i'm told to look beyond myself and be concerned about the world i live in. what am i gonna do about crime? pray? jewel said, "there are many people who pray for peace, but if praying were enough, it would have come to be".

i think this is the reason why i avoid reading the papers. i don't feel like i can influence the outcome of what goes on in our country. i know that if everyone thought like that, change will never take place, but when i see stats like this, the whole thing just looks... so big.

Labels: ,



Genusfrog [ 1:56 pm ] | 1 comments

Tuesday, January 08, 2008
ON SUCCESS

Run a google image search on "success" and observe this strange thing. coming in a close second to sporting pictures are pictures of men in corporate clothing standing on a variety of summits, like mountains. i mean, what's that supposed to mean?

people always talk about success as if there's a universally acknowledged understanding of what success means. they say things like "yeah, he's very successful" or "the event was a success" or "here's how you find success".

but you and i have heard enough stories about people who do very well in their jobs and drive nice cars and live in boutique apartments and are filing divorce papers. you and i know that that's not success. so why do we keep on talking about success as if it's something that can be measured by what meets the eye?

let's expand our vocabulary. especially christians - you above all people should know that value lies not in what you can pay for things but what god had to pay for you. talking about success as career advancement and swanky living does not register on my radar and should not register on yours.

cos i'm convinced now more than ever that in the kingdom of god, success has an entirely different definition. it's a definition that anyone - christian or not - will know whenever they do a quiet and honest inventory of their lives. it's a success of their personhood. it's a success of their humanity. so let's use new words. let's not say that "i know of a very successful man who had marital problems". that is not success. let's take a long hard look at all those "key to success" quick fixes, because those keys open doors that lead to a flimsy kind of glory.

let's begin to speak in a language that truly reflects what we believe.

Labels: ,



Genusfrog [ 9:23 am ] | 3 comments

Wednesday, December 12, 2007
OPEN LETTER TO CHELSEA LY NG ON HER ENDORSEMENT OF THE ISA

Local journalist for The Star, Chelsea Ng, wrote on Monday that our judiciary's leaving the dogs and headed for greener pastures. Towards the end of her story, though, she gives her personal thumbs up to the Internal Security Act. Here's an open letter to her.

Dear Chelsea,

I read your comment in Monday's papers, on your sunshine view of our judicial reforms. I'll come right off the bat and say that your story is cringe-worthy, and definitely shocking.

While your calm response to accelerated promotions in the justice system begs a raised brow (and your comment that "we should not be too troubled" because "many thought that both these top two judges were the best choice" begs for a whole lot more before it qualifies as credible commentary), it is your comment on the ISA that is most offensive.

I shall quote you on that. Talking about a former judge who endorsed the ISA, you said:

"How true. It may be a draconian legislation but it is sometimes necessary to bring peace and stability to a country during trying times."

Are these really your comments? Or are you toeing the party line on this? That paragraph, even when taken in context, is not only journalistically flimsy - which is the least of my worries now - it is morally hypocritical and it is on this platform where your story offends Malaysians.

It is shameful for you to be a card-carrying member of democracy, use that democracy to earn a living by expressing your views in the papers, and use that same democracy to endorse an Act that strips the democracy from some of your fellow citizens.

It is shameful for you to write a commentary about the increasing health of judiciary, and in the same story, endorse an Act that imprisons your people with no trial, no phonecall and no prospect of legal process.

It is shameful for you to sit in the comfort of your desk, steady employ and middle-class life and endorse an Act that right now detains Malaysian men and women in 3 square-foot cells with no sanitation, no clothes, no light and the constant threat of beating and rape.

Easy for you to say, Chelsea. It's so easy to endorse injustice when it's your neighbour and not you whose life is being torn down. It's so easy to get behind a word processor and say cushy things like "necessary to bring peace" and assume that peace should come by any means, including violence and injustice. And it's extra, extra embarrasing for a Malaysian to stamp that approval in the papers for the whole country to read.

I am ashamed for you. I am half-hoping that you were just toeing the party line when you wrote this piece because as undignified as it is to say something you don't mean, I sincerely believe it is the lesser indignity when compared to actually endorsing the ISA.

I hope you reply this email because I believe that journalists should be held accountable for their opinions.


with heartfelt regret,
Fergus Ong


You can email Chelsea at Chelsea@thestar.com.my

Labels: ,



Genusfrog [ 11:32 am ] | 0 comments

Monday, October 08, 2007
THE STUPIDITY OF THE WORLD

Why can't some people take responsibility for their own stupidity? i mean, i can be a real stupidhead sometimes and i've made a slew of dumbass decisions before. but if someone came up to me and said "fergus, you were such a dumbass", i'd probably be the first to agree. not this one kid.

this kid called dederer, in this lawsuit, dives off a bridge that has a signboard that says do not dive. apparently lots of other kids dive there all the time, and that the council knows about it. so yes, this is a town full of stupid fools. so what happens to this kid? he snaps his neck and becomes a tetraplegic. what does he do? he sues the council. this is what he says.

if the council had made triangular surfaces on the bridge railing, it would have made it harder for him to stand on the railing and dive off it.

if the council had explained more properly on the signboard why diving there was dangerous, he might have known better.

and he goes on and on. sure, he's a kid, a teenager. but there's something seriously wrong with the world when a person is not only stupid enough to flagrantly break a warning sign, he has the audacity, the gall to blame someone else for not protecting him against himself. and what more, the lower courts actually ruled in his favour.

stupidity is a fact of life. we all display it in different degrees and at some point, if we are going to be reconciled to who we fully and truly are, we are gonna need to take a good look at our own stupidities and come to terms with it. this kid needs to accept that he was a bloody idiot and now he's a tetraplegic and that tetraplegia is proportionate to his stupidity. i have to accept that i've been a bloody idiot and today i'm a messed up 27-year-old and that mess is proportionate to my stupidity.

and as long as we keep shoving the buck around, our world is definitely going to the dogs.

Labels:



Genusfrog [ 11:20 am ] | 4 comments

Monday, September 17, 2007
THIEVERY

"I'm not afraid of thieves, they cannot rob me of spirit"
- The Gracecars, I'm not afraid to die

Once every so often, the universe decides to pull its pants down, sit on an apartment block and shit on a guy living there. this morning, i was shat on like that.

my adidas shoes got stolen. yeah, the ones i blogged about. the ones that squeaked. i loved them. woke up, opened my door and there they weren't. just like that. you know, whenever i get a gig, i'll play I'm not afraid to die. i do that cos it's got pompous lyrics and i like proclaiming pompous things. this morning, the universe shat on me so that i'll put my money where my mouth is.

it's funny. on one hand, i want to denounce stealing. declare that it's wrong on principle and that no context should justify taking from someone what's theirs to be yours. but we all steal someitmes. from benign things like expressions and gestures to abstract things like ideas and originality. a stolen shoe feels more criminal only because we've set a higher price on the monetary value of things. a witty person's wit is free. if i heard him say something nice, i can lift it and insert it into my own conversations without crediting him. i'd have stolen what was his. and no one would make a sound.

i guess i just hope that the guy who stole my shoes finds that they fit. that my shoes can be snug in his feet and that in them, he'll walk towards a life where stealing is no longer necessary. the curse of poverty and kleptomania are equally damning. but i rather hope that my shoes now protect the shoeless, because there's no glory in losing something because of someone else's itchy hands. still, i hope my shoes make him happy.

goodbye squeaky adidas shoes. don't squeak too loud while you're gone. get used to those new feet. and if you can, take him to a good place.

Labels: ,



Genusfrog [ 9:27 am ] | 2 comments

Sunday, July 22, 2007
ROMANCE IS CHICKENSHIT

Brodie: Holy shit, Brandi dumped you. Wait a second, aren’t you two supposed to go to Florida?
TS: Yeah. Should’ve left this morning. Oh, it gets worse… I was gonna propose to her.
Brodie: Where?
TS: The Universal tour
Brodie: Are you kidding? What part?
TS: When Jaws pops out of the water.

(silence)

Brodie: That’s the most romantic thing I’ve ever heard.
TS: Well too bad I’m not trying to marry you.

- Mallrats.

Romance – i know a few guys who have a pretty different concept of what it is compared to girls. quite unfortunately for them and me, though, romance happens to be one of those things whom girls have the monopoly on – not least of all in the genre of weddings. romance to me is a girl secretly going off to play arcade fire on full blast if i’m having a bad day. but what do i know, romance is supposed to be about three-tiered plastic cakes, meaningless pyramidal wine glass stackups, spooky candle lighting ceremonies, tons of lace and flowers and the one to never forget – the magical diamond that quantifies love.

or have you never heard that love is a scientifically calculable entity, measured in no unit other than karats, plural. some girls will call that romance. i call that chickenshit.

the more weddings i go to, the more convinced i am that weddings are planned by three parties: the two sets of in-laws and the bride. cos i know lots of guys who get married and i know exactly what kinda guys they are. they don’t dig pink ribbons. but i don’t know what is it about weddings but all these men, who normally display more than the standard dose of personality, trade all that in on their wedding day in exchange for a smile of supposed enjoyment when nothing about their wedding reflects their personality. christians like to ask men to rise up, boring, boring cliché. you know where men should rise up? at the wedding planner’s. i’d like to go to a wedding where half of what i see reflects the groom’s personality. sadly, i’ve never been to one. they’re all full of flowers and sentimental vagina music.

one day, when i get married, i’d like to have a wedding that breaks all the conventions of what we think weddings are. not for the sake of being different or special but for the sake of honesty. why can’t people start their marriages with honest weddings? why do we try so hard to construct perfect weddings only to be let down when that mythical entrypoint cannot be recreated in the mundanities of daily living? why can’t we just be ourselves and throw wedding parties that look like us? if a guy likes 90s grunge and his girl has no preference, why should anyone have to hear even one note of the wedding march? do you see my point? it’s just an unending cycle of eating and vomiting the same culture till you no longer know what the constituents mean anymore, you just know they gotta be there.

somewhere in this world, i know there’s a brand of romance that comes completely honest, a romance that reflects the unique identities of the romantics, and i know that when i see the face of this romance, it is something i will love. when i see that brand of romance, i will get married.

Labels: ,



Genusfrog [ 12:19 pm ] | 2 comments

Monday, June 18, 2007
IRREVERANCE AND POP CHRISTIANITY

I tell you a joke. maybe you haven't heard it before.

one day, jesus is walking around when he sees this bunch of people drag a woman onto the streets. so all these crowds are screaming for her blood, wanting to stone her. so jesus asks them what they're doing. they say she was caught in adultery, which is punishable by stoning. then jesus gets all protective and non-judgmental, of course, and starts his famous speech. "he among you who has not sinned cast the first stone!"

so the crowd goes quiet. they let her go. she stumbles into the street and the accusers are just about to turn around and walk, when... a giant rock falls from the sky and crushes the woman to her death. at which point jesus looks up at the sky and screams "Dad! I'm trying to make a point here!"

*

did you find that joke offensive? i don't. i also don't find this beat-em up game, bible fight, offensive. i think it's really funny. my point i guess is that i seem to have a very high threshold for irreverance. i know lots of people who are very careful with the branding of god and jesus and all things christian. and sometimes i really respect their intolerance, because it's something i don't have for myself. i don't know how to feel protective whenever i see a tongue-in-cheek piece of jesus pop memorabilia. heck, i'm usually inclined to buy it as a simultaneous triple-public declaration of my christianity, supposed cool factor and the seeming marriage between the holy and the happening. all in the name of relevance. you know, how jesus is your homeboy?

well, it don't bode too well with the christian community sometimes and i'm thinking properly about this thing now. if i have a high tolerance for seeming irreverance, what does it say about me? is it something innocuous, like, maybe i didn't grow up in a church and i was saved into a super hip student congregation? or is it more serious, like, maybe i really don't think so long and hard about all that glory and honour that's supposed to be attached to the name of god.

maybe it's the curse of protestantism, that we always have two eyes firmly fixed not only on the victory of being saved but also the immanence of god - you know, that whole jesus is my best friend ethos. this is the only brand of christianity i've ever known and from my myopic eyes, it looks every bit more attractive than the solemn fixation on the death of christ that the more conservative schools of our faith appeal to - the transcendance of god, how huge and incorruptible and perfect he is. i know in my head that he is both at once. i also know in my private time with god that he is not to be taken lightly. still, i'm finding it hard to wean off this buddy christ approach to my public journey of supposed faith.

should i feel bad about this? i feel bad about it sometimes, when i accidentally push some of my high-tolerance christian junk that one notch too far, and nobody's amused anymore. to begin with, it's a bit embarrasing. but what's more shameful is that while i'm quite pleased to market this pop christ, i don't seem to have either the confidence to defend it, nor the fiery moral christian walk to back it up.

all of which means only one thing. after five years of being a christian, i have finally reduced it to a cheap lifestyle.

Labels: , ,



Genusfrog [ 4:08 pm ] | 1 comments

Saturday, April 21, 2007
THE WRONG SONG

Waiters should be banned from touching cd players.

or at least, mood-deaf, atmosphere-ignorant, ambiencically challenged waiters, should be banned from touching cd players. because there are few things worse than having a good setting jarred by contextually inappropriate music.

take this thursday evening for example. mel and i are in Rib Shop in damansara heights, scooping in swine ribs and what should have been at least decent red wine. there was no occasion, except perhaps the occasion of the surprise out of the blue. so they got the warm lights right. the food is alright. but something's amiss... that something that's amiss is reggae music in a rib joint.

WHO LISTENS TO REGGAE MUSIC IN A RIB JOINT?

it's just counterintuitive! it's absurd. it's... preposterous! reggae music is for beaches and eating fish while watching the sunset. reggae music is for drinking in the outdoors at night as the seabreeze swoops in. reggae music is not for 48 ringgit per bang dim light western restaurants that adjoin wineries. what's wrong with these people? haven't they grasped some sort of basic constraints, that they can't just play their favourite music anywhere they go just because they like it?

vernon was telling me about how Chef And Brew, this western eatery - also in damansara heights - plays thai music during dinner time. that's pretty bad too. how do you eat expensive steak while listening to thai songs? and there's more. my cell brought fuyee out for his birthday lunch at Modesto's in hartamas. i had rissotto, the rest were digging on some really fine pasta and there were a few pizzas to share. all the waiters were indian and so you won't win a prize for guessing who popped on the bollywood soundtrack.

i mean, can you dig that? bollywood music at an italian restaurant? granted i'm a fan of bollywood and that its sudden appearance didn't jar me as it might someone more culturally puristic. still, i swear, waiters who do not display the least bit of ability to determine the suitability of some musics in relation to the house in which they work should have restraining orders slapped over their heads over the cd player.

because it absolutely doesn't add up. say all you want about globalisation and the cross-cultural experience. i say that when i go to a western joint, just play me something that somewhat locates me within the appropriate context of the goob i'm chucking into my mouth. it's only fair. especially when we pay skips of money to embed ourselves in a conducive, meaningful atmosphere. yeah, so this reads like a rant. actually, it's not. it's just my way of saying that sometimes, in some restaurants, i wish i had one of these:

Labels: ,



Genusfrog [ 10:28 am ] | 0 comments

Thursday, December 28, 2006
Fergus: Nasi lemak, biasa, satu.
Makcik: Nasi lemak biasa...
Fergus: Ada kacang?
Makcik: Kacang takde.
Fergus: Oh. Kacang takde ke habis?
Makcik: Takde. Kacang mahal lah.
Fergus: Oh...

(silence)

Fergus: Kalau mahal, makcik pun patut naik harga lah.
Makcik: Tak boleh. Orang complain.
Fergus: Eh, mana boleh complain.
Makcik: Skarang, telur pun dah naik harga! Dulu blah blah blah, skarang 7 ringgit.
Fergus: Kerana...
Makcik: Dan blah blah blah blah blah pun dah naik, skarang 5 ringgit. Dan blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah...

(So i wait for her to finish grumbling)

Fergus: Tapi makcik, kalau naik, you memang patut naik harga. Semua orang pun macam tu. Kalau I makan nasi lemak, makan kacang.
Makcik: Kacang sedap kan?
Fergus: Ya. Kalau takde kacang, orang tak mau beli. Macam I, kalau takde kacang, saya memang akan cari tempat lain beli. Tapi tak bes lah... kerana nasi lemak makcik bes.
Makcik: Ohh.. hehehe...
Fergus: Kalau mahal, makcik boleh simpan sikit. Kalau orang mintak, makcik ada kan? Ah. Bukannye kacang mudah rosak, boleh simpan.
Makcik: Ya eh...
Fergus: Ya. Macam tu, orang yang suka kacang tu, ha tak payah kena pergi tempat lain. Boleh beli dari makcik lagi.
Makcik: Ah... simpan sikit eh. Ah.

*


She wasn't convinced. I know by tomorrow or the next day, she would still have no kacang to add for the requesting customer.

Where's the problem with her situation? There's one glaring problem with this makcik's business model. Answer? She doesn't account for the cost of each condiment that goes into her nasi lemak. Her nasi lemak is not a constituent of a 10 cent quarter egg, 30 cents of rice and 50 cents of sambal, etc - her nasi lemak is just a generic glob of nasi lemak to her. Hence, to her, that generic glob of RM1 nasi lemak cannot afford to have kacang. It costs too much, and rightly so.

She needs to account for each item including packaging, aggregate it, add her profit and service charge to it and then sell it, right? Right? I'm not a keen business mind, but I'm quite sure this is how you run a nasi lemak stall. I'm so enraged, no, irritated by her simplicity! Lots of other nasi lemak stalls do this, it's the ABC of her trade! Add item A, charge more, add item B, charge even more. Gosh!

But worse than her poor billing system, I am saddened by her contentment with mediocrity. I mean, seriously, this makcik makes some damn fine nasi lemak if she only knew it. When I was talking to her, she said "ada kacang sedap, kan?" and then sighed as if to surrender to the forces of inflation. She's got such a victim's mentality. But it shouldn't be like that! Her nasi lemak should not be mediocre, as it was today - cheap as hell for a dollar but it had no kacang, no ikan bilis and a measly piece of egg. Charlotte , from her desk opposite mine said "but smells very nice wor". Yes, smells very nice. She's damn good at this. She just needs to be brave and up the stakes. We all have to raise the blinds sometimes.

Tons and tons of yuppies drive down the ldp in the morning. I've bumped into three different sets of colleagues at her stall before. Does she actually think these yuppies are gonna grumble over an extra fifty cent charge on her nasi lemak? Who does she think her clientelle is? Peasants? No! Her stall is by a big highway. Where are all these people going? Not to the river to fish for lunch, to offices! Offices where they make enough money to splash on ipods, gym memberships and 12 dollar lattes at starbucks.

What saddens me is that this makcik has completely failed to understand what opportunity lies before her: a sea of people to whom RM1.50 means nothing and a damn fine nasi lemak waiting to happen.

Labels: ,



Genusfrog [ 9:24 am ] | 0 comments