Round up of all the crazy in Malaysia and around the world.
"Have Orgies, Ghost Style" says Obedient Wives Club
The Obedient Wives Club (OWC) is a club that just keeps giving, not just to their husbands (obviously) but also to the media and the public at large for their penchant for making crazy statements, some downright ridiculous but mostly laugh out loud funny.
Their latest book, the wordily titled "Seks Islam - Perangi Yahudi Untuk Kembalikan Seks Islam Kepada Dunia" (Sex in Islam - Wage War Against Jews To Return Islamic Sex To The World) preaches, according to the club's founder and the author of the book, Hatijah Aam, that a Muslim man can apparently channel the super human powers of Multiple Man (Marvel copyrighted), and "appear in multiple apparitions and have sex with his wives even though they are in separate locations"!
She continued by saying that they "never said that a man can have an orgy with all his wives on the same bed. That is not allowed".
So apparently, according to OWC, orgies are only allowed when you are f**king your many wives with an imaginary d**k.
Man...to think that I was about to throw my whole support behind OWC a week ago when they first touted the idea that orgies should be commonplace as a "f**k you" towards the Jews.
Raising Our Own Toilets & Flushing Our Own Kids
We as Malaysians have not done either for so long, we've forgotten which to raise and which to flush, and this is primarily due to our dependency on foreign maids.
Well, it is time for us to whip out those parenting manual because we have apparently abuse one too many Cambodians and Indonesian maids.
With Indonesia rightly not lifting the moratorium on their ban of sending their country folks to Malaysia, Cambodia followed suit and announced recently that they will no longer be sending any maids here, citing alleged abuses, rapes and murders of Cambodian maids at the hands of Malaysian slave drivers.
Many have stood up to defend our country from such allegations, but I suggest that we not only understand the positions that Indonesia and Cambodia find themselves in, but also to learn from the actions that their governments are taking. The direction that our economy and ringgit is going, it may not be far-fetched that decades down the road, instead of importing labor, we may find ourselves exporting our sons and daughters as construction workers and maids to these countries.
Himpun: A Gathering Of A Million In A Stadium That Seats 69,372?
Talk about failing mathematics. 'Nuff said.
A Death In China: A Wake Up Call For The Rest Of The World
Today, a week after being struck by two vans in Beijing, with both drivers fleeing the scene, two-year old Yue Yue has succumbed to brain and organ injuries.
Accidents like this happen every day, but the astonishing bit of this tragic incident is the fact that it was witnessed by no fewer than 18 passers-by, and not a single one went to the toddler's aid until it was too late.
A similar incident happened in New York, March 13 1964, when the murder of Kitty Genovese shocked America not just because of the brutality of the crime and sexual assault, but also because there were allegedly 36 potential eye-witnesses who were in the opposite apartment beside the pavement which was the scene of the stabbing, but none of them did anything to try halting the attack, or at least to call the cops.
A few theories were suggested to explain why none of the witnesses in the Genovese murder were willing to help the woman.
Some opines that it proved the moral decline of society and the increasing apathy that breeds in a fast moving industrial nation. Others theorises the "Bystander Effect", where contrary to common expectations, larger numbers of bystanders decrease the likelihood that someone will step forward and help a victim. The reasons include the fact that onlookers see that others are not helping either, that onlookers believe others will know better how to help, and that onlookers feel uncertain about helping while others are watching.
The unwillingness of the passers-by to help Yue Yue as she lies dying on the road was, however, attributed to their fear of facing court action should they be blamed for the accident itself.
A preposterous notion and an unacceptable defence, until you hear of documented and widely reported cases in China where good Samaritans who came to the aid of elderly folks who were involved in auto accidents being sued by the victims of the accidents, and losing the court decision because, as one of the sitting judge states in a suit brought against one such Samaritan, Peng Yu, "one wouldn't come to the aid of another unless one is guilty of injuring the victim in the first place".
My take on this? Well, if you have to waste precious seconds to consider the risk of legal action while a child lies in front of you, bleeding and barely clinging on to life, I think you have already lost a huge part of your humanity. It doesn't take someone good or kind to do something to help. All it should have taken was for someone with a semblance of common sense and an instinct to protect and save a young life.
Sigh.
Lin Dan & His Patriotic Sense Of Duty
In this year's edition of Denmark Open, badminton extraordinaire Lin Dan of China crashed out in the quarter final stage to Wong Wing Ki of Hong Kong, People's Republic of China.
The number of times where Lin Dan concedes walkovers to his mainland China compatriots has raised suspicion that there is a conspiracy to manage the ranking of the Chinese players to field their strongest and largest contingent to the Olympics. It seems like his patriotism extends beyond mainland China to even the Special Administrative Regions ("SAR") of China.
In the words of a friend, Jay Ween, "after helping China players, now helping Hong Kong players. Macau players next?"
Shining a harsh light on modern living, modern society and my life in my society.
Saturday, October 22, 2011
Friday, October 21, 2011
The World Celebrates Gadhafi's Death
 |
| Gadhafi, Muammar 1942 - 2011 |
Today, in less than six months after the world "witness" the demise of Osama Bin Laden, we again celebrate the death of another man guilty of crimes against humanity and injustice against his own people, the sons and daughters of Libya.
Why then, if this man is so universally reviled and despised, do I feel uncomfortable that we are congratulating each other for his passing, his murder?
Why do I feel a tinge of sadness in how the whole Libyan revolution has unfolded?
Is it because I fear that violence begets violence, and the merciless disposal of the deposed despotic dictator will continue the cycle of killing and destruction?
How can millions of people come face to face with the picture of a bloodied corpse of a human being, either in the newspapers or on television, and yet continue tucking in their morning breakfast of cereal with milk and bacon?
Friday, October 14, 2011
Response to "Quotes From Malik Imtiaz Sarwar on Hudud Law"
The following is a reproduction of a comment from an old friend, Mr. Wilson Tay, a lawyer by profession, a fervent debater, and a fearless football goalkeeper, in response to an earlier post written by me.
I chose to re-post his comment verbatim for the excellent points that he made, and even though I may not agree with every single one of them, it provides an interesting insight on whether religion should play a role in governance of a country.
Thank you Wilson for sharing your thoughts, and thank you for allowing me to share it with others.
Justin,
Congratulations on a well-written article.
May I invite you to consider another perspective on the issue, as raised by the MP for Kota Raja in a letter which The Star (surprisingly) published on Sunday:
http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2011/10/9/focus/9662360&sec=focus
Mr Malik Imtiaz is a highly respected human rights lawyer, and given his background, I agree with you that "it's not surprising where he stands on this issue".
I want to suggest, however, that this idea of defining faith as "self-fulfilment" and "secular state" are characteristic of an attempt to relegate faith to a strictly individual level, and to deny any role for faith in matters of government.
This originates from a classically Western conception of "separation of church and state", particularly as enshrined in the United States where of late the First Amendment has been interpreted to require that the state refrain from being associated with all things religious.
Separation of church and state is however not a feature of governments based on the Islamic model, where Islam is described as "syumul", constituting in and of itself a complete and exemplary way of life to be aspired to. For Muslim governments and governments that aspire to be Muslim, there is not the same aversion to mixing matters of religion and matters of government; indeed, government is required to be based on the tenets of religion.
And this also brings me to another point I wish to make, which is that liberal Western society has entrenched the exclusion of religious values from the sphere of public decision-making. This is classically conceptualised in exhortations not to "impose one's religious principles on others". This is one way of looking at things. It may or may not be the right way.
Should decision-makers in government not be allowed to resort to religious imperatives in deciding public policies? What if a religion articulates principles that serve the public good, such as deterring crime and promoting public health - should these principles be viewed negatively simply because they emanate from religious foundations?
Lastly, I think many participants in this debate, on both sides, are "talking past each other" simply because they start from very different premises. Opponents of hudud tend to start by presuming that law must have secular content. However, this is not necessarily so for a Muslim legislator such as the Menteri Besar of Kelantan. For either side to force the other to debate on its terms is akin to pushing a square peg into a round hole.
I chose to re-post his comment verbatim for the excellent points that he made, and even though I may not agree with every single one of them, it provides an interesting insight on whether religion should play a role in governance of a country.
Thank you Wilson for sharing your thoughts, and thank you for allowing me to share it with others.
Justin,
Congratulations on a well-written article.
May I invite you to consider another perspective on the issue, as raised by the MP for Kota Raja in a letter which The Star (surprisingly) published on Sunday:
http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2011/10/9/focus/9662360&sec=focus
Mr Malik Imtiaz is a highly respected human rights lawyer, and given his background, I agree with you that "it's not surprising where he stands on this issue".
I want to suggest, however, that this idea of defining faith as "self-fulfilment" and "secular state" are characteristic of an attempt to relegate faith to a strictly individual level, and to deny any role for faith in matters of government.
This originates from a classically Western conception of "separation of church and state", particularly as enshrined in the United States where of late the First Amendment has been interpreted to require that the state refrain from being associated with all things religious.
Separation of church and state is however not a feature of governments based on the Islamic model, where Islam is described as "syumul", constituting in and of itself a complete and exemplary way of life to be aspired to. For Muslim governments and governments that aspire to be Muslim, there is not the same aversion to mixing matters of religion and matters of government; indeed, government is required to be based on the tenets of religion.
And this also brings me to another point I wish to make, which is that liberal Western society has entrenched the exclusion of religious values from the sphere of public decision-making. This is classically conceptualised in exhortations not to "impose one's religious principles on others". This is one way of looking at things. It may or may not be the right way.
Should decision-makers in government not be allowed to resort to religious imperatives in deciding public policies? What if a religion articulates principles that serve the public good, such as deterring crime and promoting public health - should these principles be viewed negatively simply because they emanate from religious foundations?
Lastly, I think many participants in this debate, on both sides, are "talking past each other" simply because they start from very different premises. Opponents of hudud tend to start by presuming that law must have secular content. However, this is not necessarily so for a Muslim legislator such as the Menteri Besar of Kelantan. For either side to force the other to debate on its terms is akin to pushing a square peg into a round hole.
Thursday, October 13, 2011
"When Death Came To Me Last Night"
Death came to me in a dream last night,
In his black cloak He stood by my bed's side.
Strangely, there were neither fear nor fright,
As I stared at this foreboding aphotic sight.
He spoke in a voice not unlike my own,
Ominous and certain, yet in a soothing tone.
He said, "Son, you are going to die today,
Unless you do exactly as I say".
"When dawn breaks, and the day begins ,
Go to the mirror and seek the person for which it contains".
"Tell him with conviction, with assuredness, in one single breath,
That you choose life, and not an early death."
"A life of purpose, a life of convivial,
And not merely one of survival".
The apparition disappeared, my eyes opened, I gazed at my lover,
But soon drifted back to sleep as I pulled her closer.
Though I'm convinced a dream was all it is,
or was it, do I dare not heed this warning of His?
As much as this poem is about death, it is also about life.
I found it interesting that in my dream, the one being that has been tasked to serve a reminder about the importance of living your life to the fullest, came from the Grim Reaper himself, the purveyor of death and the end of life.
Strange how this dream refuses to fade away.
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
Quotes from Malik Imtiaz Sarwar on Hudud Law
For many a month, I've avoided listening to the local business radion channel, BFM, in the morning on my way to work, due to the myriad of interviews with CEOs of various companies and conglomerates, who seemed more concerned with self promotion and reading from a prepared script about how great their companies are.
However, in this morning's segment before The Breakfast Grill, there was a brief interview with one Mr. Malik Imtiaz Sarwar, the President of Malaysian National Human Rights Society, discussing the current debate on the possibility of implementing Hudud Law in Malaysia.
Coming from a human rights lawyer, it's not surprising where he stands on this issue.
However, what made me nod vigorously in agreement and shouting "Yes" at the radio were some of the things that he said, and the way he said it.
"Faith is not about CONTROL. Faith is about self-fulfilment"
I wonder when will society wake up from its slumber and realises that religion has been hijacked by a minority to exert control and influence over the majority. This problem is not isolated to just one religion. From mosques to churches to temples, the lines between politics and faith has been blurred so much so that it is now easy for a politician to raise his profile. All he has to do is to choose between one of the many religion based issues and stir up the proverbial hornets' nest by playing to the peoples' emotions and blind faith and loyalty to their imams and pastors and temple leaders.
It is time for society to reject such posturing and recognise religion and faith for what it really is, a journey that can only be travelled by oneself, and not a tool to be misused by those with political ambitions.
Religion/race-based governance is becoming out of date, but in my opinion, just not fast enough.
"A secular country is not one which is empty, but one which is neutral. If the government can guarantee a secular state, then religion dialogue can be conducted in an amicable manner."
There is a growing need for dialogue among the various religions in the country. As the nation progresses, more and more issues on the co-existence of different religions are bound to arise. Based on the current emotionally charged environment, such dialogue is not possible, and will probably lead to some extreme sections screaming for blood and accusation of blasphemy or monarchy insults.
The government of the day must have the will to step in and ensure neutrality without fear of offending any of their voting base. I don't foresee this happening anytime soon though, since matters of religion have always been the easiest way to fish for votes, and you can see the same issues being highlighted and battled over the political sphere every time an election looms near.
A clear evidence of this is the current war of words over the implementation of Hudud Law. At first glance, most Malaysians seem horrified by the idea of our family and friends being subjected to a set of laws that includes stoning to death an adulterer, removing the hands of a thief, and a near impossible burden of proof on an alleged victim when he/she accuses another of rape. However, these negative views have been widely reported and propagated by the main stream media, which we all know is just another mouth piece for the ruling government, and may represent an unbalanced perception of the Hudud Law.
I challenge proponents of this law to come forth and explain to the masses what are the specific advantages of implementing a set of laws which will only apply to Muslims.
Thus far, the only defence I've heard is either:
The reasoned voices of people like Mr. Sarwar resonates loud and clear among the majority of Malaysians, and I hope, will continue to do so for as long as our Malaysian society of various background, race and religion, remains worthy of being fought for. If it ever gets drowned out by rhetoric from a few, then I guess it will be time to throw in the towel in your luggage bags, pack up and leave.
I pray that day never comes.
However, in this morning's segment before The Breakfast Grill, there was a brief interview with one Mr. Malik Imtiaz Sarwar, the President of Malaysian National Human Rights Society, discussing the current debate on the possibility of implementing Hudud Law in Malaysia.
Coming from a human rights lawyer, it's not surprising where he stands on this issue.
However, what made me nod vigorously in agreement and shouting "Yes" at the radio were some of the things that he said, and the way he said it.
"Faith is not about CONTROL. Faith is about self-fulfilment"
I wonder when will society wake up from its slumber and realises that religion has been hijacked by a minority to exert control and influence over the majority. This problem is not isolated to just one religion. From mosques to churches to temples, the lines between politics and faith has been blurred so much so that it is now easy for a politician to raise his profile. All he has to do is to choose between one of the many religion based issues and stir up the proverbial hornets' nest by playing to the peoples' emotions and blind faith and loyalty to their imams and pastors and temple leaders.
It is time for society to reject such posturing and recognise religion and faith for what it really is, a journey that can only be travelled by oneself, and not a tool to be misused by those with political ambitions.
Religion/race-based governance is becoming out of date, but in my opinion, just not fast enough.
"A secular country is not one which is empty, but one which is neutral. If the government can guarantee a secular state, then religion dialogue can be conducted in an amicable manner."
There is a growing need for dialogue among the various religions in the country. As the nation progresses, more and more issues on the co-existence of different religions are bound to arise. Based on the current emotionally charged environment, such dialogue is not possible, and will probably lead to some extreme sections screaming for blood and accusation of blasphemy or monarchy insults.
The government of the day must have the will to step in and ensure neutrality without fear of offending any of their voting base. I don't foresee this happening anytime soon though, since matters of religion have always been the easiest way to fish for votes, and you can see the same issues being highlighted and battled over the political sphere every time an election looms near.
A clear evidence of this is the current war of words over the implementation of Hudud Law. At first glance, most Malaysians seem horrified by the idea of our family and friends being subjected to a set of laws that includes stoning to death an adulterer, removing the hands of a thief, and a near impossible burden of proof on an alleged victim when he/she accuses another of rape. However, these negative views have been widely reported and propagated by the main stream media, which we all know is just another mouth piece for the ruling government, and may represent an unbalanced perception of the Hudud Law.
I challenge proponents of this law to come forth and explain to the masses what are the specific advantages of implementing a set of laws which will only apply to Muslims.
Thus far, the only defence I've heard is either:
- "To be a truly Islamic state/society, we need to apply the religion of Islam holistically, and that includes the application of Hudud Laws'. Any consequences or tangible benefits from its application is never mentioned, and remains vague at best; or
- "We suggest that those who do not understand Islamic laws refrain from commenting on it. Please enrol in any Islamic university and obtaining the relevant qualification prior to making any any comments against the implementation of Hudud laws".
The reasoned voices of people like Mr. Sarwar resonates loud and clear among the majority of Malaysians, and I hope, will continue to do so for as long as our Malaysian society of various background, race and religion, remains worthy of being fought for. If it ever gets drowned out by rhetoric from a few, then I guess it will be time to throw in the towel in your luggage bags, pack up and leave.
I pray that day never comes.
Sunday, October 2, 2011
Talentime: The Results
When I first thought of writing this post, I wanted to fill it with my disappointments, my regrets, analyzing over every minute detail of the performance, what I did wrong, where I could have done better, and the dejected feeling of losing.
However, after sleeping on it for a good 8 hours, I start to realise that that shouldn't be what I focus on. Although I might still pepper the post with a little bit of negativity here and there, it shouldn't be the main take away from my virginal experience of singing solo in front of a ballroom full of strangers.
Instead, this series of posts will serve as a record of my experience from the point I received the email from the organising committee of Great Eastern's Annual Dinner & Dance 2011 announcing the talent competition, to, well, this morning, when me and Jean talked about it.
Keeping in tradition with the way I like to write, lets start from the end, the announcement of the result, and jump around with no respect of a perceivable chronological timeline.
My team and I didn't place. We got a consolation prize, which was RM 588. The consolation prize is given to the remaining 3 teams that did not place first to second runners up.
I cannot deny that it was disappointing. Was I completely taken by surprise by the results? Since I messed up the lyrics twice during the performance, it should have been expected, but my hopes that other aspects of the performance might still make up for the mistakes were obviously misplaced.
However, I have to state that I was a little surprised that some teams which I thought performed better than others didn't get the results that, in my humble opinion, they deserved.
Of course, it wasn't up to me how the 3 judges scored the remaining teams. Personal preferences for dance over song, showmanship over technique dictated their scoring and although others may see it differently, the fact that 90% of the results were determined by these appointed judges can't be changed.
The champions of the night was Mat Bunga, a Latin dance troupe with elaborate dance steps and costumes, and the runners up was another dance crew, D'Truth who performed a hip hop dance. Second runner up was the local rock star, Abang Salleh who can probably give Faizal Tahir, a guest artiste of the night, a run for his money. The remaining teams were my team, comprising of Fikri, Rachel, KC and myself, Iconic, a team that performed puppetry to the Guns & Roses song, "Sweet Child of Mine", and another solo singer with her keyboardist, Yien Li and Ying Shih respectively.
Yien Li and Ying Shih produced a beautiful medley of Siti Nurhaliza's "Bukan Cinta Biasa", a Theresa Teng mandarin classic and Dan Hill's "Sometimes When We Touch" which I thought should have warranted a first to third placing.
However, reflecting on last night's dinner, Yien Li/Ying Shih's placing was not the only thing that didn't go as expected.
Practicing in a closed surrounding with the acoustics that I am more familiar with, everything seemed pitch perfect. There were no missed words, and each note was well controlled. What I hadn't factored in though were the nerves that creep up on you when you are on stage.
Forgetting the first sentence to the first song was bad enough. While looking at a recording of the performance this morning, I noticed that I was holding the microphone too close and ended up singing loudly into it, without the proper amount of control that I should have exerted. My mistakes kept piling up when I somehow sang "complicate" instead of "compliment" in my second song.
I knew from the second I stepped down from the stage that I would be beset with negative thoughts, and I needed to rein in those emotions so that I do not appear too distressed in front of my fellow team members and our colleagues. I needed a few minutes to myself, but not before I thanked all three of them for their effort. An apology wasn't appropriate that time. It was after all, a performance that despite the mistakes, everyone, including myself (although I really had to convince myself) should be proud of.
Internally there is this struggle to allow the disappointment to completely engulf oneself and hide in a corner, or to take pride in our little performance despite its flaws, and face the crowd with courage.
I texted and spoke to a few close friends, spoke to Jean briefly, and shared my misery with only a selected few.
I decided, though, that I would not allow myself to wallow in self-pity. Well, at least not for too long.
After lounging at the corridors for a good 15 to 20 minutes, I took a deep breath and went back into the ballroom to take my seat among my fellow internal auditors, and receive a warm welcome from them. They were generous in their support for me and for that, I am grateful. After a few high fives, I tucked into the food that has been left for me.
Oh how I ate. I made sure that not a single morsel of food was left on the plates. Within 10 minutes, I had a mini mountain of small plates stacked by the side, not unlike what you see in sushi restaurants. Immannuel commented that he has never seen me as hungry as I was last night, but after a week of avoiding fried and spicy food to partial success, this was my redemption, my prize at the end of a month-long struggle and hard work.
I was a spent force by the end of the evening. I was exhausted, my eyes were tired, there was a distinct lack of energy in every fiber of my being, and although I could have used a beer or two with good company, I knew that what was most important was that I get back home and get the sleep that my body craved.
My night came to an end when I finally planted my face deep into the comforts of my pillow at 2 in the morning, but this tale is far from over. This is the end, but the beginning is just about to start.
However, after sleeping on it for a good 8 hours, I start to realise that that shouldn't be what I focus on. Although I might still pepper the post with a little bit of negativity here and there, it shouldn't be the main take away from my virginal experience of singing solo in front of a ballroom full of strangers.
Instead, this series of posts will serve as a record of my experience from the point I received the email from the organising committee of Great Eastern's Annual Dinner & Dance 2011 announcing the talent competition, to, well, this morning, when me and Jean talked about it.
Keeping in tradition with the way I like to write, lets start from the end, the announcement of the result, and jump around with no respect of a perceivable chronological timeline.
My team and I didn't place. We got a consolation prize, which was RM 588. The consolation prize is given to the remaining 3 teams that did not place first to second runners up.
I cannot deny that it was disappointing. Was I completely taken by surprise by the results? Since I messed up the lyrics twice during the performance, it should have been expected, but my hopes that other aspects of the performance might still make up for the mistakes were obviously misplaced.
However, I have to state that I was a little surprised that some teams which I thought performed better than others didn't get the results that, in my humble opinion, they deserved.
Of course, it wasn't up to me how the 3 judges scored the remaining teams. Personal preferences for dance over song, showmanship over technique dictated their scoring and although others may see it differently, the fact that 90% of the results were determined by these appointed judges can't be changed.
The champions of the night was Mat Bunga, a Latin dance troupe with elaborate dance steps and costumes, and the runners up was another dance crew, D'Truth who performed a hip hop dance. Second runner up was the local rock star, Abang Salleh who can probably give Faizal Tahir, a guest artiste of the night, a run for his money. The remaining teams were my team, comprising of Fikri, Rachel, KC and myself, Iconic, a team that performed puppetry to the Guns & Roses song, "Sweet Child of Mine", and another solo singer with her keyboardist, Yien Li and Ying Shih respectively.
Yien Li and Ying Shih produced a beautiful medley of Siti Nurhaliza's "Bukan Cinta Biasa", a Theresa Teng mandarin classic and Dan Hill's "Sometimes When We Touch" which I thought should have warranted a first to third placing.
However, reflecting on last night's dinner, Yien Li/Ying Shih's placing was not the only thing that didn't go as expected.
Practicing in a closed surrounding with the acoustics that I am more familiar with, everything seemed pitch perfect. There were no missed words, and each note was well controlled. What I hadn't factored in though were the nerves that creep up on you when you are on stage.
Forgetting the first sentence to the first song was bad enough. While looking at a recording of the performance this morning, I noticed that I was holding the microphone too close and ended up singing loudly into it, without the proper amount of control that I should have exerted. My mistakes kept piling up when I somehow sang "complicate" instead of "compliment" in my second song.
I knew from the second I stepped down from the stage that I would be beset with negative thoughts, and I needed to rein in those emotions so that I do not appear too distressed in front of my fellow team members and our colleagues. I needed a few minutes to myself, but not before I thanked all three of them for their effort. An apology wasn't appropriate that time. It was after all, a performance that despite the mistakes, everyone, including myself (although I really had to convince myself) should be proud of.
Internally there is this struggle to allow the disappointment to completely engulf oneself and hide in a corner, or to take pride in our little performance despite its flaws, and face the crowd with courage.
I texted and spoke to a few close friends, spoke to Jean briefly, and shared my misery with only a selected few.
I decided, though, that I would not allow myself to wallow in self-pity. Well, at least not for too long.
After lounging at the corridors for a good 15 to 20 minutes, I took a deep breath and went back into the ballroom to take my seat among my fellow internal auditors, and receive a warm welcome from them. They were generous in their support for me and for that, I am grateful. After a few high fives, I tucked into the food that has been left for me.
Oh how I ate. I made sure that not a single morsel of food was left on the plates. Within 10 minutes, I had a mini mountain of small plates stacked by the side, not unlike what you see in sushi restaurants. Immannuel commented that he has never seen me as hungry as I was last night, but after a week of avoiding fried and spicy food to partial success, this was my redemption, my prize at the end of a month-long struggle and hard work.
I was a spent force by the end of the evening. I was exhausted, my eyes were tired, there was a distinct lack of energy in every fiber of my being, and although I could have used a beer or two with good company, I knew that what was most important was that I get back home and get the sleep that my body craved.
My night came to an end when I finally planted my face deep into the comforts of my pillow at 2 in the morning, but this tale is far from over. This is the end, but the beginning is just about to start.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)