Chong's Ideology
Foreword: I am not writing this because I am a keyboard warrior. For years, Mr Chong has known I own a blog, but the number of times he has visited can probably be counted by ten fingers. We have talked enough face to face, but I welcome him to read this entry, perhaps to recall the intriguing conversation or to realise anything that has been missed. But I know he won't. Else, he would've been more informed about my condition or AML in general, and would not fall under the category of ignorant friends as described earlier. How about you contract AML and try to see if you can even withstand hearing the news?
Mr Chong told me that 1)As long as something is a fact, you can say it. 2)It doesn't matter how you say it. These two statements are so direct and well-defined that I couldn't help but to agree. However, something just gnaws at me. Yes, you can. But must you, or should you, all the time? I illustrate a scenario. Let's say you were mortal enemies with someone who just died. The feud was so bitter that you are elated your nemesis died. At the funeral, you saunter to the mourning family members and announce, "I am absolutely not sorry for your loss."
According to Mr Chong's guidelines, you can definitely say that heartless statement. Obvious enough right? But it immediately made me think that he's a beast devoid of emotions. So, to affirm that there might be still miniscule humanity left in him, I asked, "But do you think that's morally wrong though?"
He said yes. "You can say it, but whether you'll be bashed up by the family or anything that's another story."
Does that mean you can do something that is morally wrong? I didn't ask him this, but I expect his answer to be "yes", just one has to account for his actions if he gets apprehended. Never in the conversation did he mention that you "mustn't" or "shouldn't" do it, although you can. But I thought this is intrinsic for most people.
"And it doesn't matter how you say it." I think different ways of conveying a message can have different emotional impacts. So "doesn't matter" implies that the feelings of others do not matter? I wonder if Mr Chong has ever heard of euphemism. Why is a cleaner referred to as a sanitary worker? Why is a bus driver referred to as a bus captain? It is such that it does not downplay the importance of the role and that it is less damaging to the worker's self-esteem. But to Mr Chong, euphemism or not doesn't matter. Or to be fairer in my claim, he probably doesn't hold it in high regards.
He voluntarily told me that he spent his own money to take his parents on a vacation. He was also frequently involved in community projects, aiding the less fortunate or to contribute to society. Now I wonder what was his purpose for telling me about his sponsorship of the trip, and if he was altruistic when taking up those projects. However, maybe I interpreted him too negatively. According to Mr Chong, the fault lies in how people interpret him, and not how he presents himself. It is hard for me to think of you as a saint when you can tell me with a straight face and confident tone that one can blabber insensitive remarks at a funeral without any follow-up saying you should not.
Mr Chong landed himself a seemingly good job that pays well, close proximity of workplace to home, and a direct employer who portrayed a memorably good image during the interview. When he told me his starting pay will be slightly over 4k, I gave a "Wow" obviously. To that, he responded by saying income is not everything. Then, he went on to criticise a friend of his who is an auditor-to-be, wondering why that friend even took up the job since the workload is large and it pays only 3k initially. Still early to make conclusions at this juncture, but safe to say, income is something, since he brought that up. As our conversation progressed, I made a remark about this mutual friend who held a scholarship in university but eventually settled for a job that pays 3k+. (I merely felt that with our friend's calibre, she deserves more). Mr Chong then repeated that income is not everything. More talk, and then he told me that the most zai friend that he knows of, is going to draw a staggering 8k. So there we have it, after going round and round, income is a ginormous factor in determining success isn't it? Why was I shut off every time I mention income, while he constantly uses income as a benchmark for impressiveness?
Each time, Mr Chong argued his way and adapt such that the scenario cast him in good light. Should I call him witty or should I call him unprincipled?
But Mr Chong is definitely a circumspect, pragmatic and realistic man. He admitted that that he's more of a realist than an emotionalist. That's perfectly ok. It doesn't pay well to be too emotional anyway. Over a year ago, there was once he was late 30 minutes for a final examination. That night, he messaged me to complain about it. I forgot what I had said to pacify him but I clearly remember the feeling that I made useful sense, and that it all fell on deaf ears because we kept repeating and repeating. If this happened today, I would've said something like, since he managed to finish his paper (yes, he did), then the end result shouldn't be that bad, giving some room for carelessness in the midst of the rush, and assured that he would not drop a class in honours. After so long, I finally knew of the grade he got. An A. So much for all the despair. Mr Chong argued that it was the fact that he was late. But let's get real here, the end result was the grade. If one isn't that concerned about the end result then that person wouldn't be that bothered. Don't tell me that he felt that he had let his values down, by allowing himself to be late. I call bullshit on this because if so, he must feel this way for every meet-up that he is late for - utter remorse and feeling the urge to tell a third party that he was late for a meet-up. Given the well-thought and logical man that Mr Chong is, couldn't he guessed that he might not fare that atrociously despite being 30 minutes late? Now to me, telling that he was late was just a gimmick to show how zai he was. A humble brag. To him, well, I choose to interpret this way, which can be wrong. But get real, I can interpret it this way because of the vibes he gives out.
Well, at the very least, you know that you won't want to mess with people like Mr Chong in the corporate world.
Mr Chong told me that 1)As long as something is a fact, you can say it. 2)It doesn't matter how you say it. These two statements are so direct and well-defined that I couldn't help but to agree. However, something just gnaws at me. Yes, you can. But must you, or should you, all the time? I illustrate a scenario. Let's say you were mortal enemies with someone who just died. The feud was so bitter that you are elated your nemesis died. At the funeral, you saunter to the mourning family members and announce, "I am absolutely not sorry for your loss."
According to Mr Chong's guidelines, you can definitely say that heartless statement. Obvious enough right? But it immediately made me think that he's a beast devoid of emotions. So, to affirm that there might be still miniscule humanity left in him, I asked, "But do you think that's morally wrong though?"
He said yes. "You can say it, but whether you'll be bashed up by the family or anything that's another story."
Does that mean you can do something that is morally wrong? I didn't ask him this, but I expect his answer to be "yes", just one has to account for his actions if he gets apprehended. Never in the conversation did he mention that you "mustn't" or "shouldn't" do it, although you can. But I thought this is intrinsic for most people.
"And it doesn't matter how you say it." I think different ways of conveying a message can have different emotional impacts. So "doesn't matter" implies that the feelings of others do not matter? I wonder if Mr Chong has ever heard of euphemism. Why is a cleaner referred to as a sanitary worker? Why is a bus driver referred to as a bus captain? It is such that it does not downplay the importance of the role and that it is less damaging to the worker's self-esteem. But to Mr Chong, euphemism or not doesn't matter. Or to be fairer in my claim, he probably doesn't hold it in high regards.
He voluntarily told me that he spent his own money to take his parents on a vacation. He was also frequently involved in community projects, aiding the less fortunate or to contribute to society. Now I wonder what was his purpose for telling me about his sponsorship of the trip, and if he was altruistic when taking up those projects. However, maybe I interpreted him too negatively. According to Mr Chong, the fault lies in how people interpret him, and not how he presents himself. It is hard for me to think of you as a saint when you can tell me with a straight face and confident tone that one can blabber insensitive remarks at a funeral without any follow-up saying you should not.
Mr Chong landed himself a seemingly good job that pays well, close proximity of workplace to home, and a direct employer who portrayed a memorably good image during the interview. When he told me his starting pay will be slightly over 4k, I gave a "Wow" obviously. To that, he responded by saying income is not everything. Then, he went on to criticise a friend of his who is an auditor-to-be, wondering why that friend even took up the job since the workload is large and it pays only 3k initially. Still early to make conclusions at this juncture, but safe to say, income is something, since he brought that up. As our conversation progressed, I made a remark about this mutual friend who held a scholarship in university but eventually settled for a job that pays 3k+. (I merely felt that with our friend's calibre, she deserves more). Mr Chong then repeated that income is not everything. More talk, and then he told me that the most zai friend that he knows of, is going to draw a staggering 8k. So there we have it, after going round and round, income is a ginormous factor in determining success isn't it? Why was I shut off every time I mention income, while he constantly uses income as a benchmark for impressiveness?
Each time, Mr Chong argued his way and adapt such that the scenario cast him in good light. Should I call him witty or should I call him unprincipled?
But Mr Chong is definitely a circumspect, pragmatic and realistic man. He admitted that that he's more of a realist than an emotionalist. That's perfectly ok. It doesn't pay well to be too emotional anyway. Over a year ago, there was once he was late 30 minutes for a final examination. That night, he messaged me to complain about it. I forgot what I had said to pacify him but I clearly remember the feeling that I made useful sense, and that it all fell on deaf ears because we kept repeating and repeating. If this happened today, I would've said something like, since he managed to finish his paper (yes, he did), then the end result shouldn't be that bad, giving some room for carelessness in the midst of the rush, and assured that he would not drop a class in honours. After so long, I finally knew of the grade he got. An A. So much for all the despair. Mr Chong argued that it was the fact that he was late. But let's get real here, the end result was the grade. If one isn't that concerned about the end result then that person wouldn't be that bothered. Don't tell me that he felt that he had let his values down, by allowing himself to be late. I call bullshit on this because if so, he must feel this way for every meet-up that he is late for - utter remorse and feeling the urge to tell a third party that he was late for a meet-up. Given the well-thought and logical man that Mr Chong is, couldn't he guessed that he might not fare that atrociously despite being 30 minutes late? Now to me, telling that he was late was just a gimmick to show how zai he was. A humble brag. To him, well, I choose to interpret this way, which can be wrong. But get real, I can interpret it this way because of the vibes he gives out.
Well, at the very least, you know that you won't want to mess with people like Mr Chong in the corporate world.
Comments
Post a Comment