我不晓得该送什么样的礼物才是你需要的，
什么都不缺的寂寞都会人。
我确定你什么都不缺，
除了 -- 爱情。
可是，爱情从来不是礼物！
生日快乐 -- 祝你。
《我的周记》 Matisse 伍
Sunday, June 22, 2008
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
Let them eat potatoes
Recently, as the price of rice started rocketing, someone suggested that perhaps it's time we start looking for alternatives as our staple, such as the potato.
I could not help but think about 2 historical incidences.
When his officials told him that the people were dying of hunger, the Chinese Emperor of Jin Dynasty Sima Zhong (司马衷，晋朝） asked, "Why don't they eat meat porridge?"
When told that people could not afford to eat bread, Marie Antoinette, the Queen of France in the 18th Century said, "Let them eat cake."
Of course, the suggestion to consider potato as an alternative is not as far fetch as the above incidences. But I was still piqued, because I wondered if it really make sense economically. If people could not afford rice, is the potato really more affordable? I always had the impression that potatoes were more expensive than rice.
So I made a trip to the NTUC and checked out the prices. I found the price of 5 mid-sized potatoes to be $1.35. That should be about slightly more than a kilogram. On the internet, I found that someone at XpatXperience had quoted $3.20 for 2.27 kg of potatoes in January 2008 (as part of price index survey). Price of potatoes does fluctuate quite a bit, depending on the varieties and supply situation. But I guess the range is probably around there. And if I were to eat potatoes as a meal, I would need about 2 mid sized potatoes, or 4 small ones. That means mean about $0.50 per meal ( 2 out of 5 potatoes at $1.35 for 5).
The price of a 5 kg bag of rice ranged from $7.50 for the cheapest (NTUC house brand) to $26 for top grade Thai race. The cheapest variety, was the type I grew up with, which a shop keeper once told my mother that it was meant as dog feed and not for human consumption!
Well, since I am talking about affordability, I shall take the cheapest brand. I estimate that I would need about 100 g of (uncooked) rice per meal. So a 5 kg bag would last 50 meals, meaning each meal is about $0.15.
Even if I were to buy the most expensive brand at $25 per 5 kg. It would cost me at most $0.50 if I consume 100g per meal.
So really, in spite of the increase in the price of rice, it is still cheaper than potatoes!
And that does make sense according with my experience. A plate full of rice is about 30 cents to 50 cents at the hawker stall. But potatoes are dishes which cost far more than that. French fries aren't cheap either. Even at a hawker stall, a plate of fries for snacking is easily $2. Baked potatoes can cost a few dollars at the restaurant just for 1 potato.
So in spite of the increase in the price of rice, I think it is still more affordable the potatoes. I am not sure what is the price difference between rice and potatoes in other countries. But I find it hard to imagine why people would insist on rice if potatoes are more affordable.
My father always finds it an irony that today, sweet potatoes is more expensive than rice, when during the 2nd World War, rice was an luxury and people subsisted on sweet potatoes.
Now, sweet potatoes are even more expensive than potatoes, so I won't even consider sweet potatoes as an affordable alternative staple for the poor.
So whoever suggested that replacing rice with potatoes really need to do some math.
Having said that, it is not totally with merits either. Potatoes can be grown more quickly and in harsher climate. It is also not traded as a commodity and not used an bio-fuel, and hence not subjected to the inflationary price pressures other staple crops like rice, wheat and corn are experiencing. The FAO has in fact made year 2008 the International Year of the Potato and has some pretty interesting facts about the potato on the website http://www.potato2008.org
For me, I guess I'll stick with the good old rice as my staple. Tastes aside, it really is still more affordable than potatoes.
I could not help but think about 2 historical incidences.
When his officials told him that the people were dying of hunger, the Chinese Emperor of Jin Dynasty Sima Zhong (司马衷，晋朝） asked, "Why don't they eat meat porridge?"
When told that people could not afford to eat bread, Marie Antoinette, the Queen of France in the 18th Century said, "Let them eat cake."
Of course, the suggestion to consider potato as an alternative is not as far fetch as the above incidences. But I was still piqued, because I wondered if it really make sense economically. If people could not afford rice, is the potato really more affordable? I always had the impression that potatoes were more expensive than rice.
So I made a trip to the NTUC and checked out the prices. I found the price of 5 mid-sized potatoes to be $1.35. That should be about slightly more than a kilogram. On the internet, I found that someone at XpatXperience had quoted $3.20 for 2.27 kg of potatoes in January 2008 (as part of price index survey). Price of potatoes does fluctuate quite a bit, depending on the varieties and supply situation. But I guess the range is probably around there. And if I were to eat potatoes as a meal, I would need about 2 mid sized potatoes, or 4 small ones. That means mean about $0.50 per meal ( 2 out of 5 potatoes at $1.35 for 5).
The price of a 5 kg bag of rice ranged from $7.50 for the cheapest (NTUC house brand) to $26 for top grade Thai race. The cheapest variety, was the type I grew up with, which a shop keeper once told my mother that it was meant as dog feed and not for human consumption!
Well, since I am talking about affordability, I shall take the cheapest brand. I estimate that I would need about 100 g of (uncooked) rice per meal. So a 5 kg bag would last 50 meals, meaning each meal is about $0.15.
Even if I were to buy the most expensive brand at $25 per 5 kg. It would cost me at most $0.50 if I consume 100g per meal.
So really, in spite of the increase in the price of rice, it is still cheaper than potatoes!
And that does make sense according with my experience. A plate full of rice is about 30 cents to 50 cents at the hawker stall. But potatoes are dishes which cost far more than that. French fries aren't cheap either. Even at a hawker stall, a plate of fries for snacking is easily $2. Baked potatoes can cost a few dollars at the restaurant just for 1 potato.
So in spite of the increase in the price of rice, I think it is still more affordable the potatoes. I am not sure what is the price difference between rice and potatoes in other countries. But I find it hard to imagine why people would insist on rice if potatoes are more affordable.
My father always finds it an irony that today, sweet potatoes is more expensive than rice, when during the 2nd World War, rice was an luxury and people subsisted on sweet potatoes.
Now, sweet potatoes are even more expensive than potatoes, so I won't even consider sweet potatoes as an affordable alternative staple for the poor.
So whoever suggested that replacing rice with potatoes really need to do some math.
Having said that, it is not totally with merits either. Potatoes can be grown more quickly and in harsher climate. It is also not traded as a commodity and not used an bio-fuel, and hence not subjected to the inflationary price pressures other staple crops like rice, wheat and corn are experiencing. The FAO has in fact made year 2008 the International Year of the Potato and has some pretty interesting facts about the potato on the website http://www.potato2008.org
For me, I guess I'll stick with the good old rice as my staple. Tastes aside, it really is still more affordable than potatoes.
Monday, June 16, 2008
Creating a culture of giving
Today, there is an interesting article on The Straits Times by Peter Singer: "Knock-on effect of philanthropy."
Peter Singer wrote:
Thus the emphasis among the Buddhists has always been to do dana silently, lest it be seen as something that was motivated by pride or ego rather than altruism.
But as I thought about the issue brought up in this article, I would acknowledge this:
1. Regardless of the motivation of our giving, it does benefit the receiver. To the charity which receive the money we donated, it did not matter if the money was given out of genuine generosity or other less altruistic reasons, it was the money it needed.
2. We do become more generous when we see or hear about other people giving. It could be just herd mentality or peer pressure -- when other people are giving, we will tend to chip in too. But we could also get inspired because we learned about some admirable giving by other people. I know many of the cheques I've sent out was definitely inspired or motivated by some other people's generosity.
So I think in terms of "creating a culture of giving", it does make sense if we would be more forth coming with the good we do rather than to keep at it silently.
I think Peter Singer does have a point when he wrote:
Peter Singer wrote:
From an ethical view, however, should we care so much about the purity of the motive with which the gift was made? Surely what matters is that something was given to a good cause.Charity or dana has always been an important Buddhist cultivation. However, the Buddhist ethics always placed intentions above form. What was important is the intention rather than the act. Hence true generosity is giving without expectation of any returns. Giving with non too altruistic intentions are not considered good.
Thus the emphasis among the Buddhists has always been to do dana silently, lest it be seen as something that was motivated by pride or ego rather than altruism.
But as I thought about the issue brought up in this article, I would acknowledge this:
1. Regardless of the motivation of our giving, it does benefit the receiver. To the charity which receive the money we donated, it did not matter if the money was given out of genuine generosity or other less altruistic reasons, it was the money it needed.
2. We do become more generous when we see or hear about other people giving. It could be just herd mentality or peer pressure -- when other people are giving, we will tend to chip in too. But we could also get inspired because we learned about some admirable giving by other people. I know many of the cheques I've sent out was definitely inspired or motivated by some other people's generosity.
So I think in terms of "creating a culture of giving", it does make sense if we would be more forth coming with the good we do rather than to keep at it silently.
I think Peter Singer does have a point when he wrote:
We need to get over our reluctance to speak openly about the good we do. Silent giving will not change a culture that deems it sensible to spend all your money on yourself and your family, rather than help those in greater need -- even though helping others is likely to be more fulfilling in the long run.
Thursday, June 12, 2008
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
A pair of jeans and the Middle Path
How much would you pay for a pair of jeans? And at which point does it deviate from the moderation into the extreme of over-indulgence?
Just a few days, I happened to be talking about clothes with a friend and the price of our jeans was a stark contrast. I was wearing a pair of Lea jeans which I bought last year on a business trip for US$16. He was wearing some branded jeans which cost more than US$100 -- and it was bought during a sale, the original price was more than US$300.
My friend thinks that clothing is a part of a person and advised that if I dressed better, perhaps I could have better luck getting a partner. I can't say I agree with that. As far as the saying "Clothes maketh the man" goes, I only think it's only a matter of presentation and does not define a person's character. Certainly, a good appearance makes a good impression. But I think dressing decent does not mean dressing expensively.
In fact, I rather like my pair of $16 Lea jeans. And Lea is a brand too! Actually most of my jeans are Levi's which I guess are branded jeans. But I got them all during business trips for US$25-$30 each, which is less than S$50.
Of course, if I were to stint, I could go for cheaper jeans (I happen to have 2 pairs of Hang Ten jeans which costs $5 each. Got them in a warehouse clearance sale) or even go for second hand jeans. But I am quite happy with these -- I don't have to feel compelled to stint further and I don't feel inadequate with these either. This is my Middle Path.
I recall the days when I was young. I grew up on clothes which other people did not want. They were not always nice and sometimes I really hate those clothes. Once in a while I get some nice clothes and I will keep to those till they are really worn out. I remember I had a pair of jeans which I wore until they were really faded. When a friend commented on it, I said I like faded jeans -- which was not exactly true when later I reflected upon it.
Because I had less before, I appreciate what I have now more. I thus try to moderate my materialistic cravings. My belief is that the more we get used to creature comforts in life, the more difficult it is to do without. So a little deprivation of material comforts is good.
Thus, as far as the material aspects of my daily life goes, The Middle Path is a conscious choice in material expenditure. That is something, that is easy to grasp and practice.
I realized that one can get philosophical and dogmatic and the Middle Path, debating on what exactly is the "middle", or expounding on the "emptiness" of the path, or be totally attached to it as a concept. But that's hardly useful in daily life.
To me, I think the Buddha's simple Parable of the Lute is easy to understand and apply in daily life as opposed to Nagarjuna's exposition on the Middle Way.
I do not know at what price a pair of jeans which has crossed for moderation into over-indulgence. But I know this much: I am quite happy with my pair of $16 Lea jeans, and that is my Middle Path.
Just a few days, I happened to be talking about clothes with a friend and the price of our jeans was a stark contrast. I was wearing a pair of Lea jeans which I bought last year on a business trip for US$16. He was wearing some branded jeans which cost more than US$100 -- and it was bought during a sale, the original price was more than US$300.
My friend thinks that clothing is a part of a person and advised that if I dressed better, perhaps I could have better luck getting a partner. I can't say I agree with that. As far as the saying "Clothes maketh the man" goes, I only think it's only a matter of presentation and does not define a person's character. Certainly, a good appearance makes a good impression. But I think dressing decent does not mean dressing expensively.
In fact, I rather like my pair of $16 Lea jeans. And Lea is a brand too! Actually most of my jeans are Levi's which I guess are branded jeans. But I got them all during business trips for US$25-$30 each, which is less than S$50.
Of course, if I were to stint, I could go for cheaper jeans (I happen to have 2 pairs of Hang Ten jeans which costs $5 each. Got them in a warehouse clearance sale) or even go for second hand jeans. But I am quite happy with these -- I don't have to feel compelled to stint further and I don't feel inadequate with these either. This is my Middle Path.
I recall the days when I was young. I grew up on clothes which other people did not want. They were not always nice and sometimes I really hate those clothes. Once in a while I get some nice clothes and I will keep to those till they are really worn out. I remember I had a pair of jeans which I wore until they were really faded. When a friend commented on it, I said I like faded jeans -- which was not exactly true when later I reflected upon it.
Because I had less before, I appreciate what I have now more. I thus try to moderate my materialistic cravings. My belief is that the more we get used to creature comforts in life, the more difficult it is to do without. So a little deprivation of material comforts is good.
Thus, as far as the material aspects of my daily life goes, The Middle Path is a conscious choice in material expenditure. That is something, that is easy to grasp and practice.
I realized that one can get philosophical and dogmatic and the Middle Path, debating on what exactly is the "middle", or expounding on the "emptiness" of the path, or be totally attached to it as a concept. But that's hardly useful in daily life.
To me, I think the Buddha's simple Parable of the Lute is easy to understand and apply in daily life as opposed to Nagarjuna's exposition on the Middle Way.
I do not know at what price a pair of jeans which has crossed for moderation into over-indulgence. But I know this much: I am quite happy with my pair of $16 Lea jeans, and that is my Middle Path.
Monday, June 9, 2008
The Middle Path
Yesterday at BDMS, Nick asked an interesting question about the Middle Path.
He asked if the "Middle Path" has shifted since the Buddha's times as it appears that the extremes have shifted.
I thought it was indeed a very interesting question.
The Buddha taught that the Middle Path was a path that avoided extreme self mortification and extreme indulgence.
But if the "extreme" has shifted does the "middle" point shifts as well?
The rich are definitely getting richer. We live in a society which encourages conspicuous consumption and an economy which works based on consumerism. As "standard of living" improves, what was previously a luxury is now a necessity.
And I can see how people's view of "moderation" can shift. I have seen my own standards shifts as well over the years.
But I think the Middle Path is not the "middle point" between extremes. Hence it should not be moved by the extremities.
Ven. Dhammika had a pretty good answer when he said the Middle Path is somewhere a little bit above the basic necessities (food, shelter, medicine, clothing), above what we would need to survive.
I think what we need to survive is a standard that is pretty consistent -- although the perception can be distorted.
As food and fuel prices goes up, driving up inflation and down disposable income, perhaps it's time to examine what's the Middle Path again.
He asked if the "Middle Path" has shifted since the Buddha's times as it appears that the extremes have shifted.
I thought it was indeed a very interesting question.
The Buddha taught that the Middle Path was a path that avoided extreme self mortification and extreme indulgence.
But if the "extreme" has shifted does the "middle" point shifts as well?
The rich are definitely getting richer. We live in a society which encourages conspicuous consumption and an economy which works based on consumerism. As "standard of living" improves, what was previously a luxury is now a necessity.
And I can see how people's view of "moderation" can shift. I have seen my own standards shifts as well over the years.
But I think the Middle Path is not the "middle point" between extremes. Hence it should not be moved by the extremities.
Ven. Dhammika had a pretty good answer when he said the Middle Path is somewhere a little bit above the basic necessities (food, shelter, medicine, clothing), above what we would need to survive.
I think what we need to survive is a standard that is pretty consistent -- although the perception can be distorted.
As food and fuel prices goes up, driving up inflation and down disposable income, perhaps it's time to examine what's the Middle Path again.
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
梦变
昨夜做了个怪梦。
梦见在海边闲着等着。遇见另一龙舟手，是常见过的，只是不曾认识。
怎知他却邀我一起划双人独木舟。惊喜之余，不忘问他的名字。他说是祎龙。（好怪，不懂从哪里冒出来的名字。）
一起以龙舟桨划出海，心里窃窃暗喜。
翌日，又到海边，只见祎龙与朋友说话。
朋友说：“你不知道他是同性恋吗？”
祎龙答：“昨天真的无聊死了，要不然才不会和那种人在一起。”
突然，心如针扎，梦变惊醒。
梦见在海边闲着等着。遇见另一龙舟手，是常见过的，只是不曾认识。
怎知他却邀我一起划双人独木舟。惊喜之余，不忘问他的名字。他说是祎龙。（好怪，不懂从哪里冒出来的名字。）
一起以龙舟桨划出海，心里窃窃暗喜。
翌日，又到海边，只见祎龙与朋友说话。
朋友说：“你不知道他是同性恋吗？”
祎龙答：“昨天真的无聊死了，要不然才不会和那种人在一起。”
突然，心如针扎，梦变惊醒。
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)