What’s in a name?
I am halfway reading through Jefferey Archer's "Kane and Abel" and I just finished reading the part where George Novak proudly tells Wladek that when he goes to America, he is planning to change his name to make it sound more "english sounding" versus his current polish name (Jerzy Novak). It just got me thinking how easily people can just change their names. I have had friends (chinese ones) who could easily change their names and could pick their own english name to suit their whims.
Ever since I was young, I could never understand why my name (my real one) was so long. It's not that it bothered me anyway, but I often would wonder how could I make my name shorter so that people could remember me better? My attempts to make my name shorter didn't happen anyway. In school, I would introduce myself normally, without trying to "style-up" my name or tell people "my name is so-and-so, but just call me <a-much-shorter-name or a nickname> would be fine!"
It never did occur to me that I should even bother to make my name shorter or more easier for others to remember. To me, I always felt, if a friend wants to remember me, he or she would make an effort to remember my name. If he/she can't remember my name, or at least try to make an effort to learn how to say my name properly, then I don't think he/she is serious in being a friend to me. If people found it difficult to pronounce my name, I would obligingly teach them, as to me I was always taken up by people who always took the effort to learn how to say my name. As for the rest, well I just didn't bother!
This cardinal rule of mine worked well in university (which explains the number of "close buddies" I had anyway), but when I reached workinghood, it sorta changed. I didn't still feel the need to shorten my name so that people would remember me better, however this time around I DID feel the need for people to remember me. Not so much because I wanted them, but simply because I know that it would help in building better relationships with them. If a name is too much to remember, people (especially career folks) would have a higher tendency to forget you. And when they have a tendency to forget you, well that's not really good anymore.
Of course, if you rationally think about it who cares what your name is as long as
- Your name is not a bad-sounding word
- You are friendly and are nice to people
- You are good at what you do
However sometimes I feel it doesn't hurt to have a cool sounding name 
But oh well, I guess at the end of the day, a name is just a name, but how you live up to that name (or your name) is far more challenging and more in your control versus changing your name.
Wake up call for our country
July 9th marks a very significant point in our history. A rally to push for the cause of freer elections and other mandates. Offices called it an early day in the city center today as many employers urged their staff to head back home to avoid the roadblocks and traffic jams.
As I was making my way back home it got me thinking about why this whole campaign even came into being. Why was this rally even happening in the first place? I was asking myself thinking, on the way back from work yesterday. For years now, the citizens of this country has been growing restless with the state of affairs with our government. And it's really quite sad. Like most Malaysians, I have been following the rally's progress over the last couple of weeks. More specifically, I have been observing the Government's response to the situation and it has been disappointing by large measures.
First off, I don't see why the Government is so against the rally? Apart from the "security issues" that the rally could pose, what is wrong in having a rally that is focused on promoting freer elections and fairness in the media? Doesn't the country want a fairer and a more just society and isn't it that the duty of the elected government to ensure this happens?
The vary fact that the government has been trying to use all tactics to stop this rally just goes to show that there is something really wrong with our country's leaders today. I mean just this whole week, we have seen the PM proposing for the rally to be held in a statidum so that "they can shout all the want in the stadium and leave peacefully" and also the King reinterating that it would be best to have the demonstations in the stadium.
Both messages have been receieved well by the rally's steering commitee but then why is the government then putting all stops to ensure the rally doesn't happen? Why is the Minister saying that it's still illegal to hold the rally despite the king's approval and consent?What kind of message is the Government sending out to it's people when it does and says things like this? Where is the justice and fairness in this?
And to say that the Government is rejecting the permits for ALL kinds of demonstrations is hardly effective because the rally is not a politcal entity. Other political entities should not simply have a counter-rally movement just to prove a point. The mandate made by the rally calls for freer elections and fair use of media, not to topple the government or anything like that, so what's the big issue? Doesn't the government want to promote justice and fair usage of media?
What saddens me I guess the most, is that the Government COULD have used this opportunity to raise to the occasion by supporting the campaign through letting the organizers schedule their demonstrations in a peaceful manner. The government could have still maintained it's security measures while at the same time allowing the rally to go on smoothly. But alas, this is complicated by the fact that we have other counter-rallies that the political parties want to embark on and thus giving the government "no choice but to be equal to all" and just reject all permits.
So in a way, this rally is good. It sends a message to the government that the rakyat is NOT happy with the way things are going. Perhaps the Government should just take heed and use this rally as a learning platform to improve itself and it's image.
Or maybe perhaps it's time the Government goes..
Respect and belief
For weeks my young adults group at church were planning to to organize a talk on religious differences between Is lam and christianity, specifically educating and creating an awareness among our members on the differences between our religion and theirs. As I did not know much about the former religion, I decided to purchase a book on it, which would be fair and honest in its assessment and claims. I was recommended this book by my friend and I managed to read the entire book just in time for the discussion yesterday.
While there is much descrepencies in their religion, my thoughts for this entry is not to debate or debunk them. Everyone is and should be granted the freedom to religiously believe in their own creed. However I do think the problem arises when people confuse respect in belief.
Respect for one;s own religion does not automatically equate to belief. Doesn't mean that if I respect your religion, then I accept and believe whatever it is your religion preaches. And I think this is where the fundamental differences lies and much confusion and debate among believers themselves.
Respect and belief are verily two different things and they are certainly mutually exclusive. Hence the problem arises when people equate it to be the same ; when one religion superimposes its religious beliefs against another religion. That's when the issues start to creep in and the tensions arise.
But that's not what racial tolerance is all about. And this is where another confusion lays in society. When people talk about religion, they then begin to say things like "all religions are the same" and "all religions lead to the same path" and so own. While as nice as it sounds, making those statements are already crossing the "belief" line from the respect line. Suddenly you are equating my religion to yours, from a belief perspective and this is where it becomes a problem and gives rise to tension and hostility? Why? Because people are tempted to defend their faith, to make certain "corrections".
I think the best way to actually overcome this respect and belief paradox is to really know your own religion first. Without having a proper grasp of the authentic fundamentals that are taught in one's own religion, it gives room to debate and speculation and sadly, judgement and biasness. Knowing your own religion and living it faithfully without trying to impose it on others is a key to building a tolerant society.
Also, learning about other religions, not so much from a practice-belief scrutinizing perspective, but from a perspective of using the knowledge gained to further understand our neighbours will greatly help. Why? Because it gives us a sense of understanding as to why our neighbours do what they do. Man has always been afraid of the unknown and thus imposed upon themselves religious superstitious and folk tale to soothe their conscience, but now with books and the internet, it need not be the case anymore.
Yes sure, these things do take effort at the end of the day. After all why bother learning another religion's practices and beliefs? But I think by doing so, it allows us to really learn how to differentiate between respect and belief and that's crucial for any multicultural society to thrive.
