Skip to main content

20 years in Australia

Today, my parents and I celebrate 20 years in Australia.
We left Sri Lanka on the night of 18 Dec 1988. We had spent a year preparing for the move. I remember my parents being stressed all the time, and yelling at each other a lot, 'coz it was hard to get all the paperwork & permissions required to leave the country. Twenty years ago in Sri Lanka, there wasn't much of a "customer service" mentality anywhere - people did things for you if and when they jolly well felt like it. Add to that the general fear & confusion caused by a drawn-out civil war. And to top it all off, my dad's work hadn't paid his superannuation - an omission which was illegal, of course, but there was no effective regulation back then. The unfortunate effect on me was that I really wanted to leave. I remember thinking "get us out of this cursed country! Maybe then my parents will stop yelling at each other."
Because of flight times, we had to transit almost a full day in Singapore. We landed in Melbourne in the morning of Tuesday 20 December 1988. We lived with my mum's brother & his family for about three weeks - they had immigrated to Australia in 1983. We moved to Sydney in mid Jan 1989. We came here because my mum had a tentative job offer to become a tutor at the Cumberland College of Health Sciences (as it then was). She did get the job - and she's still there, at what is now the Lidcombe Campus of the University of Sydney. It took my dad three months to get a job, but at least he got a job within his professional qualification (he's an engineer). We lived in Homebush West for a little less than two years. In late 1990, we moved to Parramatta, where my parents still live.
And the rest, as they say, is history.
Oh - and since getting here, my parents don't yell at each other quite as much any more :)

Comments

Anonymous said…
Sri Lanka's loss is Australia's gain.
Anonymous said…
I like this post..Very Informative post.

Popular posts from this blog

The different distractions of secularity and spirituality

There has been a lot of discussion about the recent 'vibe shift' away from radical atheism back towards an openness to the supernatural. I don't think this new spirituality is necessarily an openness to the unique claims of Christ. It will more probably replace one set of commonly-accepted misunderstandings about Jesus with another.  Under radical atheism, people dismissed the Biblical claims about Jesus' resurrection because they 'knew' that it was impossible. Jesus hadn't really died. He just passed out (after being beaten and whipped and crucified) and then woke up in the tomb (and rolled away the stone himself and overcame several guards). Or the disciples hallucinated that they saw him (even though Jewish beliefs of the time didn't expect one person to rise possessing eternal life himself; they expected a general resurrection at the end of time - see John 11:24 ). Or something else.  The so-called 'explanations' of Jesus' non-resurrectio...

A better understanding of nonbelief

The Nones Project is an ongoing study into the belief systems of people who call themselves non-religious. A few weeks ago one of the project leaders,  Ryan Burge  of Washington University,  posted some really interesting preliminary results  on his Substack.  1. We've probably heard of people who are spiritual but not religious (SBNRs). SBNRs were "the largest group of nones" in the sample. They believe in the supernatural realm but not necessarily in "a God." They are "deeply skeptical of religion but highly interested in spirituality," therefore individualistic and anti-institutional.  2. But this study differentiated SBNRs from people they called Nones In Name Only, NiNos. They different to SBNRs by being religious about their spiritual. They believe not just in the supernatural but in "God." And they tend to engage in traditional communal religious practices while SBNRs practice individualised eclectic bespoke spiritual practices. The s...

Wax and Wright on the definition of "mission"

Trevin Wax has written a clear, simple, and charitable introduction to a debate about the nature and boundaries of the kinds of Christian activities that validly should be called "mission." In brief:  Should we use a broad definition, where "mission" encompasses all the various purposes which God calls Christians and the church in general to perform, e.g. being ethical at work; general acts of care and charity; standing against systematic oppression and working towards justice instead? If so, "evangelism" is only one part of the church's mission - a central, necessary, and irreplaceable part, but only one part nonetheless. The latter kinds of activities don't save anyone for eternity, but they do genuine good in this world which please God. And that kind of good makes a real difference in many parts of the world which have not benefited from the kind of Christian moral transformation which the West benefited from - the kind of moral transformation...