Published November 20, 2010  | ||||||||||
The pragmatic mandarin Arguably the most outspoken of Singapore's policymakers, Ngiam Tong Dow is also among the most experienced, with a panoramic perspective that is informed by an acute sense of history and political reality.By Vikram Khanna 'STRATEGIC pragmatism, that is my song,' declares Ngiam Tong Dow, in the course of our two-hour conversation amid the lunchtime hubbub and clatter of porcelain at a Chinese restaurant in the Singapore Island Country Club.
Many of his favourite quotes and sayings are pointedly practical: Give a man a fish and you will feed him for a day, teach him to fish and you will feed him all his life. Forget about cutting edge research; what we need above all is competence. And this one from Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew, when he was still a young prime minister and Singapore was poor: Give a man a job and help him buy a house, and he won't riot any more. Arguably the most outspoken of Singapore's policymakers, Mr Ngiam is also among the most experienced. During his 40 years in the civil service, from which he retired in 1999, he has served as Permanent Secretary in four ministries, in addition to the Prime Minister's Office. He has also been chairman of the Economic Development Board, DBS Bank, Housing Development Board and the Central Provident Fund Board. He has dealt with at least two generations of civil servants, ministers, CEOs and external advisers. His view of policymaking in Singapore is panoramic, informed by an acute sense of history and political reality, an instinctive feel for what will work and what will not. After his retirement from the civil service, Mr Ngiam, now 73, has been doing the rounds of the lecture circuit, sharing his views on policy as few retired civil servants in Singapore have ventured to do. He has earned a reputation for candour, challenging many of the government's policies. Some people ask why he didn't speak up while he was in office the way he is speaking now. Mr Ngiam claims he did, but as a civil servant, he was careful to keep his views within the government. But many of those views are now public knowledge and are about to be disseminated more widely. His speeches have been collected in a book, entitled The Dynamics of the Singapore Success Story, which was launched yesterday.
'I would like to describe my book as a study in political economy,' he says. 'Political economy is one part politics and two parts economics.' Singapore's political economy is his forte. Few can tell the story of its transformation as he can, from the days of high unemployment, slums and tin-shed factories when he started his career - to a modern high-tech economy with a first-world per capita income when he finished. 'In the early days we had no money. We had to pull ourselves up by our bootstraps,' he reflects. 'If we had thought about all the factors against us succeeding, we would not have started. There is a Chinese saying: 'The blind do not fear a tiger.' We were blind, so we didn't fear the tiger.' But Singapore's economic strategy went through a trial and error process, he explains. 'We first tried to establish a common market with Malaysia. But that didn't take off. 'So when separation came, Finance Minister Goh Keng Swee said, forget about the Malaysian common market; we must compete with the world. It was an epochal decision. He didn't use the term globalisation - we didn't think of that word. But that was what we were doing: Singapore was the first global economy. 'The whole idea was to create jobs as fast as possible. In those early days, we didn't care a damn whether something was high tech or low tech, so long as it provided jobs.' On the advice of Albert Winsemius, a Dutch UN official who prepared a blueprint for industrial policy in 1961, Singapore welcomed multinational corporations (MNCs). In doing so, it went against the mainstream view among economists at the time, which held that MNCs exploited countries for their own benefit. But Mr Ngiam points out that Dr Winsemius was proved right: MNCs provided jobs, access to markets and technology and did not stifle the growth of domestic industry. 'All they wanted from the host country was political stability and a hard working, educated population. They even joined us in providing training. So, we practised a knowledge based economy from the word go. We constantly upgraded ourselves.' Singapore was conscious that it needed to set up its own industries and develop the skills to run them. Mr. Ngiam recalls: 'One day Winsemius said to me: 'Ngiam, you know, I can only be your adviser. I can teach you how to drive a car. I can even teach you how to repair a car. But you have to drive the car yourself.' Then he sat back, smiled and said: 'So that, if you crash the car, you have the satisfaction of doing it yourself.' Remembering Dr Goh For about 30 years, Mr Ngiam worked closely with Dr Goh, of whom he has fond memories. As he orders lunch, he remembers how frugal Singapore's first finance minister could be: 'Fullerton building had a canteen and sometimes, Dr Goh would invite Sim Kee Boon (the late former chairman of Keppel Corp) and me to lunch. He would order some taugeh, some fish and soup. The whole bill would come to about $2. And then he would ask us, 'Enough right?' How could we junior officers say, no sir, not enough! I can never forget Dr Goh's economy lunches.' Dr Goh was also a believer in another of Mr Ngiam's favourite sayings - a quote from the Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping: 'Seek truth from facts.' 'Dr Goh always did that,' says Mr Ngiam. 'I remember, he used to write his own budget speeches on Sunday mornings. Then he would send me the drafts and say, check the facts. If I said, 'This figure is not correct,' he would say: 'Then change the conclusion; if the facts don't support the conclusion, change the conclusion.' In the 1960s and 1970s, Singapore went into shipbuilding and shiprepair and several defence-related companies - the forerunners of ST Aerospace and ST Engineering - as well as Singapore Airlines. While he agrees that these companies were necessary, Mr Ngiam is not generally in favour of targeting industries, as was sometimes done, as with, for example, semiconductors and biotech. 'Let the MNCs take the big bets,' he says. 'Our big bet should be on people, on education. If we try to do cutting-edge science, we can never beat the west or the Chinese and Indians, because we don't have the talent base. So our policy should be to raise competence levels. That's why I supported Philip Yeo when he said he wants to train 1,000 PhDs.' But on Singapore's thrust into the biotech industry, he is circumspect. 'When we make such investments, we must ask, what comparative advantage do we have? If we do not have a comparative advantage, we should not go into it. 'We should train engineers who can do research for big companies. It's the same MNC-centric strategy, but at a higher level. In the early days we trained our people to become machinists. Today, if we want big pharma to come in, we should train the chemists and PhDs to be able to work for big pharma.' On creativity, Mr Ngiam likes to differentiate between 'thinking in the box' and 'thinking outside the box'. 'I tell this story,' he says. 'When a Chinese boy goes home after school, his mother asks him: 'What did you learn from your teacher today?' But when a Jewish American boy goes home after school, his mother asks: 'How many questions did you ask your teacher today?' 'Which boy do you think will grow up to be more creative? I think, in the contest for intellectual hegemony, the Americans will win. Because the Chinese think within the box. The Americans are more open, they are encouraged to think outside the box.' Although Mr Ngiam favours meritocracy, he believes that Singapore companies should be run by local CEOs. 'We must have our own people,' he says. 'Because unless you're a Singaporean you will not have the emotional attachment. You can be very competent, but if you don't feel for Singapore, I don't think you can grow a Singapore company. 'But someone like David Conner the CEO of OCBC Bank, he's been here so many years that I would regard him as a Singaporean even if he had American citizenship. So by Singaporean in this context, I mean more the mentality than the colour of the passport.' Mr Ngiam takes issue with some aspects of Singapore's immigration policy. He explains: 'We increased the size of our population by one million people in 10 years. It's true that in the 1970s, we had a shortage of labour and we did tell the government we need to increase our population which was 3.5 million. At that time, it would have been the right policy to increase the numbers. But today, it's no longer a question of numbers, it's a question of technology. Thirty years ago, $1 million of output could be produced by 100 people. But today, it can be produced by 50 people, because the technology has changed. So numbers of people are not so important anymore.' What matters is the quality of immigrants, he points out. 'If I was in charge of population policy, I would have said: every immigrant that we take in, his or her education level must be above our average. Our average is O levels. So the people we take must be above O level, then they can value-add. If they are below O level, they would be negative value-adders. I find it odd that people from China have come and taken over our hawker centres. What's the value-add there?' He acknowledges that Singapore faces chronic labour shortages, but suggests that this is because employers 'take the easy way out'. Skilling up 'The only way for us to grow is to skill up - we must raise our productivity, which we have neglected for 30 years,' he explains. 'If we had been tough and told building contractors, we are not going to allow so many construction workers, they would have automated long ago. But even today they are not doing it. Look at a Japanese construction site, and see how many fewer people they use than our contractors.' Skilling up is also his prescription to raise wage levels and to narrow the income gap. He opposes the idea of a minimum wage. 'That is namby-pamby thinking,' he says. 'You get higher wages by improving skills, not by legislating. We need to take skills training much more seriously. A lot of the short courses offered these days by professional firms are like wine tasting. They are not real training.' The Chinese take training very seriously, he points out. 'I teach Chinese mayors at NTU. You know, under the Chinese system, if you want to get promoted, you must go overseas, not for a short course; you must get a degree. Without their degrees, my NTU students won't be promoted.' While remorselessly pragmatic and generally pro-market, Mr Ngiam favours government intervention to help the poor. 'About 10 per cent of people need to be helped and here, the state should intervene,' he says. 'My wife is a teacher. She had students who used to go to school without any breakfast. How do you expect them to do as well as other students? We should use old school buildings to run hostels for these children. They should live there Mondays to Fridays. Meals should be provided and they can go to different schools. It's worth our investing in this. We could help 10 per cent of our students, which would run into the thousands, and the cost would not be that high.' The state should pay for this, he adds, 'because those in the social sector who try to help others should not be in the business of fundraising. That is not their job; their job is to show kindness to people.' There are two areas where Mr Ngiam is emphatically critical of policies because he believes they do not serve the average citizen. One is the CPF Investment Scheme, under which account holders are permitted to use their CPF to buy shares. 'Allowing people to buy shares with their CPF money is like sending lambs to the slaughterhouse,' he says. 'The average CPF member is not stock market savvy. When I was CPF chairman, I said, my duty is to the members. CPF is already used for housing loans and medical care. I don't see why it should also be used for stocks. It's unconscionable.' But Mr Ngiam was overruled, because, he says, 'one of the KPIs of MAS was to promote Singapore as a financial centre'. The other policy of which Mr Ngiam has been a long-time critic is the move to allow integrated resorts (IRs) that include casinos. 'By going in for IRs, Singapore has taken the low road,' he says. 'Casinos undermine our moral fibre.' He does not believe the gaming industry has fundamentally changed from the 1960s, when Singapore shunned it. 'It's the same. It only has more lights and glitter.' Nor is he impressed by the argument that the IRs will create 30,000 jobs. 'Such jobs don't have much of a multiplier effect,' he suggests. 'It's different from creating 30,000 jobs in rig building or pharmaceuticals.' Whether they agree with him or not - and people sometimes do not - nobody denies that Mr Ngiam has always had Singapore's best interests at heart when crafting policy; his pragmatism has been not only strategic, as he likes to say, but also compassionate. As a policymaker, he has shepherded the Singapore economy through its transition from third world to first. I ask him what should come next, after material prosperity. 'We should become a highly educated society and keep adding to our knowledge,' he says. 'We should also be a humane society where people have respect for each other. Then we can survive. That's the Singapore I would want for my grandchildren.' NGIAM TONG DOW Born Singapore, 1937 Education Career Trade and Industry (1979-86), National Development (1987-89) and Prime Minister's Office (1979-94) Sheng-Li Holdings (1981-91), DBS Bank (1990-98), Central Provident Fund Board (1998-2001), Housing and Development Board (1998-2003) National Day Awards | ||||||||||
Sunday, November 21, 2010
The pragmatic mandarin
Thursday, November 18, 2010
Something I would like to study further...
http://www.rationalchristianity.net/genocide.html
Monday, October 18, 2010
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
Lead me Lord; guide me Lord, in my life's journey
Thursday, September 23, 2010
Marry for Money: Strange Ways To Make Money
By Jennifer Derrick, September 15th, 2010 | 3 Comments » If you want to save or have a lot of money, you may have to choose your mate carefully. While love is fine and even great, there are plenty of people who enter into marriage in the full knowledge of exactly how it will help (or hurt) them financially. While it may sound cold, it’s no colder than the person who marries because their partner looks good on their arm, or the person who marries because their partner can lift their social status. I don’t think I, personally, could marry only for money. I need love in my life to keep me happy. But some people do just fine with someone they like or can be friends with, even if they don’t love them. Others don’t even need friendship. As long as the money rolls in they can be happy. (Watch a few episodes of “The Real Housewives.” Few of them, in my opinion, look like they are in love, but they sure are happy about having money to blow.) Some people use money as the first or only criteria for choosing a mate. There are four ways you can marry for money: Marry someone with money: (Or marry someone who will inherit a lot of money.) This is the most effective, if not the easiest. If you marry someone who already has a lot of money, you know you’re set. The money is already there. If you marry someone who stands to inherit a lot, you’re taking more risk. Wills can be changed or inheritances blown before the giver dies. However, if there is a big family fortune or business, your odds are better. Finding “sugar daddies” or “sugar mamas” isn’t easy. If you’re not already a member of the wealthy social set, you have to find a way to meet the rich people. Fortunately, there are online dating sites like SeekingArrangement that can match those wanting a wealthy partner with the right people. Marry someone who is already good with money: You might choose to marry someone who, while not wealthy today, is very good with money. Even if your prospective mate isn’t earning a fortune, if he or she is managing what they have well then they might be a keeper. If the person isn’t in debt, knows how to budget, has some frugal tendencies, and is setting aside large amounts for the future, you may find yourself financially well off in just a few years. Marry someone who can fix things: Even if your partner doesn’t earn a huge income, if they can fix or build things you can save up a large fortune over the years. If your partner can fix cars, repair the house, or build furniture, you can save enough money to create a large nest egg. Don’t underestimate your partners’ skills when thinking about how much money they bring to the table. Marry someone who has the potential to earn a lot: Maybe your potential mate isn’t earning a fortune today, but does he or she have the potential to do so? Are they in medical or law school? Do they have some rare talent or ability that can earn them millions? Do they stand to inherit a high-performing family business? A partner that will earn a lot later in life is a potential keeper in the marry for money stakes. These people are easier to find because a lot of people that are looking for money now pass them by, not content to wait for them to “earn out.” If you can find a combination of these things, for example someone with money who also knows how to fix things, you can double your savings. You’ll not only have a lot of money to start with, but you’ll also keep more of that money since you won’t have to spend it on home repair. Even if you don’t want to “marry for money,” per se, it can’t hurt to give some thought to your partners’ money skills. A marriage is generally happier when there is no money stress and both partners are on the same page financially. It can’t hurt to choose someone who isn’t a big spender without the resources to back it up. If you can find someone who has skills, is good with money, or is frugal, that can be just as good as finding a sugar daddy.Interesting Article... haha
Marry for Money: Strange Ways To Make Money
Sunday, September 12, 2010
Surviving as an introvert in an extrovert's world
The terms are old hat, however. Psychologists have now come up with various labels that describe behavior that labels the outward bound as extroverts and the inward looking as introverts. What they are subject to change as new studies and new information is made known. It really doesn't matter, however, most people are programmed from birth to lean toward one or the other. Environmental influences may tilt the scale slightly toward one or the other, but these are minimal.
Sitting at home and moping and refusing to get involved may not be what it is cooked up to be. Being quiet and reflective by nature is one thing, but sitting home alone out of shyness or an inborn fear of the crowds is another. It would be healthier to enjoy the best of both worlds and not allow it to become stressful, but that seldom is the way personalities work. If it were not so, then there would be no need for psychologist to help them figure out the best way to go.
Introverts sometimes are too near perfect, or wish to be. If they cannot write the best poem that is flawless they will not write one at all. Extraverts simply go ahead an write what first comes into their minds and that's that. Their perfectionist tendencies manifest themselves in being the better presenters. How their actions appear to others, as opposed to what others will know of their thoughts. Neither should fret, however, but be the best they can be, and no worry or fret over psychological labeling.
Fear, in both cause problems when it enters into their personality trait of being outgoing or inward looking. One is afraid others will find out about their boisterous nature and they won't open the door to their inner creativity; the other has opened that door and fear what they learn.
How then does an introvert live in an extrovert's world. You pay them rent. You work for them and earn the good salaries they can afford and you fill in for them in the area that is just beyond their capacities. The two of you were meant to be together. Your loud and boisterous sister or brother or husband fill a need you have. With association a little of them rub off on you, and because of your insistence on time out and quiet time, you subdue them.
Just think how boring life would be without the other. It is unthinkable. The two ideally make good companions, they fill in the vacancies of the other. Therefore fret not, introverts, you are the listeners the world needs.
An Atheist Professor in conversation with his student
Professor: You are a Christian, aren’t you, son?
Student: Yes, sir.
Professor: So, you Believe in GOD?
Student: Absolutely, sir.
Professor: Is GOD Good?
Student: Sure.
Professor: Is GOD ALL-POWERFUL?
Student: Yes.
Professor: My Brother died of Cancer even though he Prayed to GOD to Heal him. Most of us would attempt to help others who are ill. But GOD didn’t. How is this GOD good then? Hmm?
(Student was silent)
Professor: You can’t answer, can you? Let’s start again, Young Fella. Is GOD Good?
Student: Yes.
Professor: Is Satan good?
Student: No.
Professor: Where does Satan come from?
Student: From… GOD…
Professor: That’s right. Tell me son, is there evil in this World?
Student: Yes.
Professor: Evil is everywhere, isn’t it? And GOD did make everything. Correct?
Student: Yes.
Professor: So who created evil?
(Student did not answer)
Professor: Is there Sickness? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness? All these terrible things exist in the World, don’t they?
Student: Yes, sir.
Professor: So, who Created them?
(Student ha d no answer)
Professor: Science says you have 5 Senses you use to Identify and Observe the World around you. Tell me, son… Have you ever Seen GOD?
Student: No, sir.
Professor: Tell us if you have ever Heard your GOD?
Student: No, sir.
Professor: Have you ever Felt your GOD, Tasted your GOD, Smelt your GOD? Have you ever had any Sensory Perception of GOD for that matter?
Student: No, sir. I’m afraid I haven’t.
Professor: Yet you still Believe in HIM?
Student: Yes.
Professor: According to Empirical, Testable, Demonstrable Protocol, Science says your GOD doesn’t exist. What do you say to that, son?
Student: Nothing. I only have my Faith.
Professor: Yes, Faith. And that is the Problem Science has.
Student: Professor, is there such a thing as Heat?
Professor: Yes.
Student: And is there such a thing as Cold?
Professor: Yes.
Student: No, sir. There isn’t.
(The Lecture Theatre became very quiet with this turn of events)
Student: Sir, you can have Lots of Heat, even More Heat, Superheat, Mega Heat, White Heat, a Little Heat or No Heat. But we don’t have anything called Cold. We can hit 458 Degrees below Zero which is No Heat, but we can’t go any further after that. There is no such thing as Cold. Cold is only a Word we use to describe the Absence of Heat. We cannot Measure Cold. Heat is Energy. Cold is Not the Opposite of Heat, sir, just the Absence of it.
(There was Pin-Drop Silence in the Lecture Theatre)
Student: What about Darkness, Professor? Is there such a thing as Darkness?
Professor: Yes. What is Night if there isn’t Darkness?
Student: You’re wrong again, sir. Darkness is the Absence of Something. You can have Low Light, Normal Light, Bright Light, Flashing Light… But if you have No Light constantly, you have nothing and its called Darkness, isn’t it? In reality, Darkness isn’t. If it is, were you would be able to make Darkness Darker, wouldn’t you?
Professor: So what is the point you are making, Young Man?
Student: Sir, my point is your Philosophical Premise is flawed.
Professor: Flawed? Can you explain how?
Student: Sir, you are working on the Premise of Duality. You argue there is Life and then there is Death, a Good GOD and a Bad GOD. You are viewing the Concept of GOD as something finite, something we can measure. Sir, Science can’t even explain a Thought. It uses Electricity and Magnetism, but has never seen, much less fully understood either one. To view Death as the Opposite of Life is to be ignorant of the fact that Death cannot exist as a Substantive Thing. Death is Not the Opposite of Life, just the Absence of it. Now tell me, Professor, do you teach your Students that they evolved from a Monkey?
Professor: If you are referring to the Natural Evolutionary Process, yes, of course, I do.
Student: Have you ever observed Evolution with your own eyes, sir?
(The Professor shook his head with a Smile, beginning to realize where the Argument was going)
Student: Since no one has ever observed the Process of Evolution at work and Cannot even prove that this Process is an On-Going Endeavor. Are you not teaching your Opinion, sir? Are you not a Scientist but a Preacher?
(The Class was in Uproar)
Student: Is there anyone in the Class who has ever seen the Professor’s Brain?
(The Class broke out into Laughter)
Student: Is there anyone here who has ever heard the Professor’s Brain, Felt it, touched or Smelt it? No one appears to have done so. So, according to the Established Rules of Empirical, Stable, Demonstrable Protocol, Science says that You have No Brain, sir. With all due respect, sir, how do we then Trust your Lectures, sir?
(The Room was Silent. The Professor stared at the Student, his face unfathomable)
Professor: I guess you’ll have to take them on Faith, son.
Student: That is it sir… Exactly! The Link between Man & GOD is FAITH. That is all that Keeps Things Alive and Moving.
Saturday, September 11, 2010
WHY GIRLS SHOULD MARRY AN ENGINEER
Interesting stuff but does not apply to everyone.. lol
WHY GIRLS SHOULD MARRY AN ENGINEER
Why you should marry an Engineer Let me tell you why girls should eventually marry an engineer over a Law, Management, Arts or Medical School Graduate. He has three distinct advantages over the rest of the graduates.
Advantage 1: Secure lifestyle
An engineer boyfriend can provide you with a secure lifestyle. At 27 years old, an engineer probably has a respectable, stable job that gives him a high income to own a car, invest, have a comfortable life, and get married and buy a house too.
Law graduates are still working as a lowly apprentice in law firm.
Most management graduates have just failed on their first business plan.
The arts graduate is still looking for a job.
And the medical school graduate is still living in a hospital.
Advantage 2: Unmatchable industriousness
An engineer boyfriend will dedicate an unimaginable amount of his time and effort to understand you. Engineers strain really really hard to understand their work. You can believe that they will try really really hard to understand women too, just like how they understand their work, once they believe that you are the one. So even if they don't understand you initially, they will keep on trying. Even if they still do not understand, they will figure out the correct method to keep you happy (e.g. buy diamond ring = 1 week's worth of happiness.) And once they find out the secret formula, they will just keep on repeating it so that the desired results appear.
Unlike the Lawyer who will argue with you.
The Management graduate who will try to control your spending, The Arts graduate who will 'change major'.
And the medical school graduate who will operate on you.
And you know what, it's really so easy to make engineer s believe that You are the 'one'. Say that you like one of their project and they will be hooked to you forever.
Advantage 3: An engineer boyfriend will never betray your trust.
Let me first tell you what is wrong with the rest of the others - The lawyers will lie about everything.
Management graduates will cheat your money.
The arts graduate will flirt, and you probably just look like another cadaver to the medical school graduate.
Your engineer boyfriend is either too busy to have an affair, and even if he does, he is too dumb to lie to you about that. Hence, an engineer is the most secure boyfriend that you will ever find - rich enough, will keep on trying to understand and please you, has no time for affairs, and too dumb to lie to you. plus they r cooler than the others
source: http://www.mylot.com/w/discussions/515360.aspx
Friday, September 10, 2010
RSA Animate - Drive: The surprising truth about what motivates us
This is the change I'm looking forward to! hahah
Thursday, September 09, 2010
Tuesday, September 07, 2010
Positive Attitude can get you anything you want?
Father: "But the girl is Bill Gates's daughter." Son: "Well, in that case...ok" Next Day Father approaches Bill Gates. Father: "I have a husband for your daughter." Bill Gates: "But my daughter is too young to marry!" Father: "But this young man is a vice-president of the World Bank." Bill Gates: "Ah, in that case...ok" Finally Father goes to see the president of the World Bank. Father: "I have a young man to be recommended as a vice-president. " President: "But I already have more vice- presidents than I need!" Father: "But this young man is Bill Gates's son-in-law." President: "Ah, in that case...ok" This is how business is done!! Moral: Even If you have nothing, You can get Anything.. But your attitude should be +ve... ==== I am wondering if this is as good as telling lies? hmm...Father: I want you to marry a girl of my choice
Son: "I will choose my own bride!"
Friday, August 27, 2010
If U're in a relationship, married or none, read this. U'll know why at the end.
MARRIAGE
When I got home that night as my wife served dinner, I held her hand and said, I've got something to tell you. She sat down and ate quietly. Again I observed the hurt in her eyes.
Suddenly I didn't know how to open my mouth. But I had to let her know what I was thinking. I want a divorce. I raised the topic calmly.
She didn't seem to be annoyed by my words, instead she asked me softly, why?
I avoided her question. This made her angry. She threw away the chopsticks and shouted at me, you are not a man! That night, we didn't talk to each other. She was weeping. I knew she wanted to find out what had happened to our marriage. But I could hardly give her a satisfactory answer; she had lost my heart to Jane. I didn't love her anymore. I just pitied her!
With a deep sense of guilt, I drafted a divorce agreement which stated that she could own our house, our car, and 30% stake of my company.
She glanced at it and then tore it into pieces. The woman who had spent ten years of her life with me had become a stranger. I felt sorry for her wasted time, resources and energy but I could not take back what I had said for I loved Jane so dearly. Finally she cried loudly in front of me, which was what I had expected to see. To me her cry was actually a kind of release. The idea of divorce which had obsessed me for several weeks seemed to be firmer and clearer now.
The next day, I came back home very late and found her writing something at the table. I didn't have supper but went straight to sleep and fell asleep very fast because I was tired after an eventful day with Jane.
When I woke up, she was still there at the table writing. I just did not care so I turned over and was asleep again.
In the morning she presented her divorce conditions: she didn't want anything from me, but needed a month's notice before the divorce. She requested that in that one month we both struggle to live as normal a life as possible. Her reasons were simple: our son had his exams in a month's time and she didn't want to disrupt him with our broken marriage.
This was agreeable to me. But she had something more, she asked me to recall how I had carried her into out bridal room on our wedding day.
She requested that every day for the month's duration I carry her out of our bedroom to the front door ever morning. I thought she was going crazy. Just to make our last days together bearable I accepted her odd request.
I told Jane about my wife's divorce conditions. . She laughed loudly and thought it was absurd. No matter what tricks she applies, she has to face the divorce, she said scornfully.
My wife and I hadn't had any body contact since my divorce intention was explicitly expressed. So when I carried her out on the first day, we both appeared clumsy. Our son clapped behind us, daddy is holding mommy in his arms. His words brought me a sense of pain. From the bedroom to the sitting room, then to the door, I walked over ten meters with her in my arms. She closed her eyes and said softly; don't tell our son about the divorce. I nodded, feeling somewhat upset. I put her down outside
the door. She went to wait for the bus to work. I drove alone to the office.
On the second day, both of us acted much more easily. She leaned on my chest. I could smell the fragrance of her blouse. I realized that I hadn't looked at this woman carefully for a long time. I realized she was not young any more. There were fine wrinkles on her face, her hair was graying! Our marriage had taken its toll on her. For a minute I wondered what I had done to her.
On the fourth day, when I lifted her up, I felt a sense of intimacy returning. This was the woman who had given ten years of her life to me.
On the fifth and sixth day, I realized that our sense of intimacy was growing again. I didn't tell Jane about this. It became easier to carry her as the month slipped by. Perhaps the everyday workout made me stronger.
She was choosing what to wear one morning. She tried on quite a few dresses but could not find a suitable one. Then she sighed, all my dresses have grown bigger. I suddenly realized that she had grown so thin, that was the reason why I could carry her more easily.
Suddenly it hit me... she had buried so much pain and bitterness in her heart. Subconsciously I reached out and touched her head.
Our son came in at the moment and said, Dad, it's time to carry mom out. To him, seeing his father carrying his mother out had become an essential part of his life. My wife gestured to our son to come closer and hugged him tightly. I turned my face away because I was afraid I might change my mind at this last minute. I then held her in my arms, walking from the bedroom, through the sitting room, to the hallway. Her hand surrounded my neck softly and naturally. I held her body tightly; it was just like our wedding day.
But her much lighter weight made me sad. On the last day, when I held her in my arms I could hardly move a step. Our son had gone to school. I held her tightly and said, I hadn't noticed that our life lacked intimacy.
I drove to office.... jumped out of the car swiftly without locking the door. I was afraid any delay would make me change my mind...I walked upstairs. Jane opened the door and I said to her, Sorry, Jane, I do not want the divorce anymore.
She looked at me, astonished, and then touched my forehead. Do you have a fever? She said. I moved her hand off my head. Sorry, Jane, I said, I won't divorce. My marriage life was boring probably because she and I didn't value the details of our lives, not because we didn't love each other anymore. Now I realize that since I carried her into my home on our wedding day I am supposed to hold her until death do us apart.
Jane seemed to suddenly wake up. She gave me a loud slap and then slammed the door and burst into tears. I walked downstairs and drove away.
At the floral shop on the way, I ordered a bouquet of flowers for my wife. The salesgirl asked me what to write on the card. I smiled and wrote, I'll carry you out every morning until death do us apart.
That evening I arrived home, flowers in my hands, a smile on my face, I run up stairs, only to find my wife in the bed - dead.
My wife had been fighting CANCER for months and I was so busy with Jane to even notice. She knew that she would die soon and she wanted to save me from the whatever negative reaction from our son, in case we push thru with the divorce.-- At least, in the eyes of our son--- I'm a loving husband....
The small details of your lives are what really matter in a relationship. It is not the mansion, the car, property, the money in the bank. These create an environment conducive for happiness but cannot give happiness in themselves. So find time to be your spouse's friend and do those little things for each other that build intimacy. Do have a real happy marriage!
If you don't share this, nothing will happen to you.
If you do, you just might save a marriage.
Many of life's failures are people who did not realize how close they were to success when they gave up.
A CHRIST-CENTERED MARRIAGE IS A MARRIAGE THAT IS SURE TO LAST A LIFETIME.
So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate. Matthew 19:6.
By Stephanie Halmilton
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
Franklin Graham: Christians Will Lose the Power to Pray Outside Church Walls ‘Maybe in My Lifetime’
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/65337
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
赌鬼变天使 - 林万兴弟兄
从偏门到社工 (华)
Hope this will help people who are addicted to gambling.
*Quite tired. Will try to edit my sentences and add my content if I'm free....
Monday, January 25, 2010
I am a Reliable Realist?
I took another personality test. Results: http://www.41q.com/type.41q?p=23572577
Sunday, January 17, 2010
One generation is all they need
One day we will all happily be implanted with microchips, and our every move will be monitored. The technology exists; the only barrier is society's resistance to the loss of privacy. An expert on surveillance and society lays out how corporations and gove
Saturday, January 16, 2010
Career Quiz: Which Career is Right for You?
Your Result
Accounting
You would be suited to work in an accounting job. Such jobs include accountant and accounts manager.
Job Test: What Job is Right for You?
Your Result
Production
You should look for a Production job. You can think on your feet and have good problem solving skills. You prefer to work on the production side of the job--the part where the actual product (be it software, books, clothing, etc.) is developed.
Career Personality Test
Your Result
The Stabilizer
Your career personality type is The Stabilizer. You like order, and are purpose-minded. You also favor traditional practices. You also prefer to engage internally and are very thoughtful. A work environment where you can work quietly and gather information before making a decision is best for you.
Career Test: What is Your Perfect Career?
Your Result
Planning and Research
Your perfect career would be in Planning and Research. This career requires skills including highly specific knowledge and in depth analysis. Some such careers include accountant, financial analyst, stock broker, scientist, crime scene investigator or detective.
Saturday, December 05, 2009
Isaiah 46:9-10
These verses caught my attention. The words strike me like what is being described in Hebrews 4:12.
9 Remember the former things, those of long ago;
I am God, and there is no other;
I am God, and there is none like me.
10 I make known the end from the beginning,
from ancient times, what is still to come.
I say: My purpose will stand,
and I will do all that I please.
(Isaiah 46:9-10)
Sunday, October 18, 2009
Jacelyn Tay supernatural way of being converted to Christian
Jacelyn Tay's testimony in PDF (IMPACT magazine) - Link 1
Jacelyn Tay's testimony in PDF (IMPACT magazine) - Link 2
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
I finally pass my IPPT
I finally pass my IPPT with $100 incentive.. haha.. my chin up also CMI.. luckily the instructor close one eye... haha.. Two stations I quite disappointed lor... the sit up I should get 5 points lor... I thought I do till 38 is 5 points liao .. then I stop and look only 4 points nia.. then i look puzzled... I reaction too slow lor... or else...just one more sit up i get 5 points lor... The other is the shuttle run... I should be able to get at lease 3 points nia... cos I touch the ground, no alarm sounded, i pause and think a while, later i continue run... that slow me down lor.. aiya... then lazy .. no retake one more time .. then go do 2.4km... that time my morale super high already lor cos I already pass all 4 statics stations... and guess what??!! I ran 12:10 min for my 2.4km... haha... that's not bad already nia... really... haha...
Sunday, June 21, 2009
At the cross road
