KK Challenge 15 - Return to the Rare Dimension

During the early days of my role as a Clerk-of-Course (CoC), I was a very enthusiastic pupil, eager to learn the ins and outs of treasure hunting. For the most part, I consider myself a creative chap and somewhat artistic in nature. I had the habit - and I still do - of wanting to explore new frontiers in anything that I do. In one of the hunts that I set, I experimented with the vertical dimension as reported in this post.

Well 15 years has since elapsed, and we haven't progressed much as far as the vertical dimension is concerned. Several local CoCs in KK have tried, but with limited success. Consequently, exploration and exploitation of the vertical dimension has not progressed much since 15 years ago.

A few weeks ago, while I was going around the sectors, searching for suitable signboards for the KK Challenge 15, I came upon the same signboard, and then nostalgia - it brought back memories of the good old days. That signboard has survived many years of economic ups and downs, of the SARS, of the Covid pandemic. It was then that I decided to use it, and what better way to commemorate the 15th anniversary of the vertical dimension than to reenact the feat?

Q33) A task after final tasks?

When I set this question, I had expected some sort of controversy. After all, when there is a change of wind, it's bound to cause some ripples in the waters. Sometimes it may escalate to a tidal wave, sometimes it will subside swiftly, and sometimes still that change will quickly become the norm. Whatever happens in the end, the initial phase of its introduction will cause something of a stir one way or another. 

A grandmaster hunter friend, having discussed some of the key questions in this hunt with me, remarked: 

"The CoC is still very good - there will, of course, be some differences of opinion when boundaries are stretched, but there is nothing blatantly wrong.".

But before we investigate those "stretched boundaries", let us now have a look at the riddle and try to make some sense of it.

That word "final" is the ending indicator, and "tasks" is its fodder. It means that on account of that indicator, the solver is to take the final letter of the word "tasks". Meaning the letter S. Therefore, after the question is cryptically analysed, it can be simplified to this:

A task after S

The next step is just to rearrange those words as per the "instruction" of the sentence to become:

S A task

Because we want that "A task" to be after "S".

And that is apparently the end of the simplification process. I'm inclined to say that it shouldn't be very difficult for an average solver to arrive at this point. Ordinarily, upon reaching this stage, the solver would embark on his quest to search for "S A TASK" in the sector. If he can spot any signboard bearing those letters in that exact order, even if the locations of the gaps between those letters are different, that sign should be a valid answer. Space deception has long been the norm in the cryptic world. However, what happens if there is no such sign in the sector?

Well, the solver can try to replace that word "task" with its synonyms one by one, and then try to search the sector again and again on trial and error to see if there is anything there that can match. Obviously, this procedure can be quite daunting and time-consuming, although the scope of search would have been narrowed down substantially because we only need to focus on answers starting with the letter S. But what if the search is still in vain? What then? This is where the solver is expected to think out of the box and find something in the sector that can fit that "S A TASK" somehow. That is when he is expected to find this board: 

And then put two and two together, so that, thinking out of the box, he reads "S A TASK" as "S atas K" in his mind! If he sees that "S atas K" in his mind, then the rest is smooth sailing. He simply writes down the answer, which is the smaller signboard on the right, where the letter S is positioned above K. That is to say, S atas K.

S

K

TRADING CO.

If he writes the answer horizontally like what he sees on the left signboard, then that answer is wrong, because it does not obey the significance of "ATAS".

But now we come to the discussion on technical issues, and in order to appreciate the complexity of the matter thoroughly, we need to cover a lot of grounds with plenty of long-drawn analysis and examples. If you're not keen to confuse yourselves with technical issues, this is the end of the post! But if you are brave enough for the challenge, then pray proceed. However, please be warned that it can be mentally exhausting, and I would strongly suggest that you take a short break here before you continue further!

INTERMISSION

Insert advertisements here. Go grab an expresso and perhaps some donuts. Chill, and then come back to torture your brain...

Welcome back! We have 3 main issues worth discussing:

1) Grammar

The sentence says "final tasks". However, normally when we use that word "final" we would be referring to the final ONE, meaning a singular noun. For example, we say final COUNTDOWN; final TRY, final MISSION. These are all singular nouns, you see. Therefore, you can see why "final TASKS" sticks out like a sore thumb! A grammar purist would immediately zoom in on that word "TASKS". The setter can try to use the excuse of saying the "TASK" that he has in mind comprises a chain of several taskS to be performed one after another to complete a process. But that is still a weak justification in my opinion! Actually, I could have used other singular nouns that is spelt with the letter S at the end. But I was adamant to use that word TASK somehow because I couldn't resist the inclination to repeat that word in this sentence! So in the end, I committed the grammatical sin! That, however, did not affect the accuracy of the answer anyway. I opted to sacrifice grammar for the sake of a surface reading that appears intimidatingly cryptic!

2) Space Deception

Master Edgar Dabbi set an interesting question in one of his hunts. It was like this:

Q) Fuzzy

A) COPY

The explanation was that although he expressed that question as a single word - FUZZY - he had intended the solver to separate it into 2 parts, i.e. "FUZZ" and "Y". There's nothing in the question that would suggest such a maneuver. The task was then to find the synonym for "FUZZ" which was the word "COP", which was then reconnected to that "Y" to form the answer, "COPY". I objected to this abomination on grounds of fairness, or rather the lack of it! To me, when the setter expresses something that appears like a noun, and the solver sees that word as a noun, but actually the setter means it as a verb, that is OK. The setter has expressed what he means. It's just too bad if the solver is mislead into believing that that word is a noun! However, if the setter says "FUZZY", he can't then claim to say that he means to say "FUZZ & Y", because there is nothing there in the clue that would even suggest such a separation. At best, he can expect the solver to find the synonyms for "FUZZY" as a single word, and only as a single word! He can't claim immunity on account of "space deception" in his question!

Now compare that with this question in the KK Challenge 15 last Sunday:

Q18) It's alike when partially translated

A18) ASUKA

The explanation is that we need to find something on the board that can be equated to that word ALIKE when translated. But notice that we only translate "SUKA" to "LIKE", and that letter "A" is undisturbed in both the question and answer. The basic premise seems a lot like Edgar's riddle above; it seems like I'm slapping my own face! But am I? Well, not really, because in my question, I've instructed the solver that we want to translate only partially. That word "partially" makes all the difference! The setter has done his part, and it is unfortunate if the solver does not heed that word "partially". So space deception is allowed in the question, but only if there is sufficient information therein to warn the solver of such requirement. There are some exceptions, under very special circumstances, to this rule which I won't discuss here.

But what about space deception in the answer? It has long been an established rule that space deception is allowed in answers. This is because the letters found in the answers are written in the grids of the crosswords without regard to the spaces between words. So spaces between words are ignored. This rule has long been applied in treasure hunt riddles too.

Let us now see how this is done in a treasure hunt scenario.

Q) Goatee's locations in here

A) CHIN SIN ENTERPRISE

"here" means on the signboard.

Goatee's locations = CHINS

CHINS + IN = CHIN SIN

Note the plural of "locations" which results in plural for CHINS. However, when the answer is written, it is written as "CHIN SIN ENTERPRISE", where the "S" is separated from the "CHIN", and it is instead combined together with "IN", which is a word retained from the question. The reason for this separation is because that's how the answer appears on the signboard, on account of the requirement that "answers must be written as seen on the board".

3) Second-Layer Process

Now we come to a more interesting issue. The premise of the riddle is that after solving the original sentence of the question, we arrive at "S A TASK", but is it reasonable and correct to then expect the solver to read that in his mind as "S atas K", meaning "S" on top of "K"? 

A loaded question that is very difficult and complicated to answer! As we have seen from the discussion in (2) above, space deception is allowed in the answer. However, strictly speaking, "S A TASK" is not the answer yet. We still need to go through a second-layer process in which we need to rearrange the gaps between the letters in "S A TASK" to become "S atas K", and only after that rearrangement can we then connect to that vertically-orientated S and K on the board. 

Grandmaster Hunter VK Chong, a participant of the hunt, objects to this trick! He likens it to giving a question involving 2 separate components which are independent of each other, but after these components have been "solved" they're then expected to be combined for a second-layer process. Let me now conjure up an example to illustrate his point.

Q) Mislead to join relation?

A) ORIENTAL

Where the solver must first find the synonyms for:

Mislead = CON

join = FUSE

So that the question can be simplified to become:

CON FUSE relation

And then here comes the shocker. The setter then expects the solver to join the CON to FUSE, to become CONFUSE (a single word) and then that resultant single word adopted as an anagram indicator to rearrange the letters in the fodder, "RELATION" to become "ORIENTAL". He said to connect CON and FUSE to become a single word CONFUSE (meaning rearranged by deleting the space between them) is essentially the same as rearranging the gaps in "S A TASK" to become "S atas K", because in both cases CONFUSE and ATAS are second-layer processes that must be executed in order to derive the respective answers.

GM Chong has a very good point. But I see it slightly differently. CONFUSE, to me, is adopted as a cryptic indicator for the process of rearrangement of letters in a fodder. Whereas ATAS, although also a process, is a direct instruction of how to deal with the S and K.

I myself have, on numerous occasions, objected to a second-layer manipulation to get a cryptic indicator which is then to be used in that second-layer cryptic process to derive an answer. But there is nothing cryptic about ATAS. I see it as a direct instruction.

Compare that to this treasure clue in the same hunt:

Leading shopping package

Final shopping package

Which, when cryptically analysed will result in:

SP

GE

Which the solver has to "see" in his mind as SP on GE to get SPONGE. I see this as a similar idea with that of S atas K, except that it is the other way round. 

In S atas K, we're approaching the riddle from the question to the answer on the board with the provision of ATAS indirectly. In the case of SPONGE, we're approaching the riddle from the answer by looking at the positions of SP and GE post analysis, and then conjuring up the process, i.e. "on" in the mind.

While I see and respect GM Chong's point, in the end we arrived at a stalemate. This is bound to happen when boundaries are stretched, but on the whole, we are all guided by the same fundamentals of cryptic rules.

To end this discussion, may I repeat the comment by that other GM Hunter, thus:

"... there will, of course, be some differences of opinion when boundaries are stretched, but there is nothing blatantly wrong."

KK Challenge 15 - A Riddle that is Grammatically Wrong

I have, on many occasions, been criticized for my obsession in grammar. Whenever I set hunt questions, I've been known to use grammar as one of my weapons to trick or deceive the hunters. And all too often they would fall right into my many traps. I've said that many Malaysians are not very particular about grammar, even amongst the English educated folks. When they hear people speak or write in English, most of them are very forgiving when they witness grammatical errors.

Grammar can make a lot of difference when it comes to accuracy in hunt questions. Check out the following example from a hunt in KK eons ago:

Q) Came and get entangled

A) MEGATEC

A simple anagram riddle where "entangled" is the anagram indicator, and the fodder is "came" and "get". It means that we need to rearrange those letters in the fodder to form a new word, which is then spotted on the signboard. As you can see, when you rearrange the letters in the fodder, you can get MEGATEC.

The solution is airtight in that all the letters found in the fodder are used to form the new word, which is the required answer, MEGATEC. However, when reading the question, that sentence appears strange in the grammatical sense. The word "came" is in past tense, whereas "get" in present tense. So although the solution to the riddle is cryptically perfect, the question itself is not so impressive in the grammatical sense.

Ideally, we as setters should try very hard to ensure that both the question and the solution be grammatically perfect. However, sometimes it is not possible to have grammatical accuracy in both the question and the solution for numerous reasons. In the above example, grammar has been sacrificed in the question because the setter's hands were tied by the letters that he had at his disposal to form the word MEGATEC. In such a case, then the sacrifice should be made in the question. Under no circumstances should the solution be plagued with grammatical errors - or in fact of any kind of errors!

Q) Seen at the end of 4 months, it's one way to get the answer

A question that I spent perhaps up to 15 minutes to set for the KK Challenge 15. I would usually take much lesser time to set a cryptic question. But the unusually long time spent in crafting this question was because I was trying very hard to find a way to make it grammatically perfect in both the question and solution. In the end, however, having considered the nature of the riddle, I found no way out, and was therefore forced to sacrifice grammar in the question.

This type of question can be solved partially on paper, but it is almost impossible to solve fully unless the hunter is in the hunt sector and has spotted the signboard. Only when he has spotted the signboard can he then solve the question fully and confirm its accuracy.

So what can be solved on paper? Well, "it's one" can point to the letter "i", because "i" is ONE as a roman numeral. What else? That word "way" can also be connected to other words like "Jalan", "Lorong", "Road", "Avenue" etc. But it's not so easy to solve "Seen at the end of 4 months". 

The solver must scan the hunt sector until he finds this board, and hopefully he can then make the connection between "Seen at the end of 4 months" and those letters "BER" on the board, since the "I" and "LALUAN" are already covered by "it's one" and "way" respectively.

Well, to make the long story short, "BER" can be seen at the ends of SeptemBER, OctoBER, NovemBER and DecemBER. So that's fine. However, although this is a perfect fit for the solution, it would mean that the question is grammatically inaccurate! The question says, "Seen at the end of 4 months...", when it should have been "Seen at the ends of 4 months...". The only difference is that letter "s" at the end of that word "end".

Most Malaysians when reading the question would not even realize the difference anyway. But as a setter who's obsessed with grammar, it pains me immensely to see an imperfect sentence like that! The error, though unspectacular to the extent that would warrant severe criticisms, is still worth noting anyway. After the hunt, I discussed in private this issue with several master hunters, and thankfully they all seemed very forgiving. The discussion even went up to Grandmaster Hunter Jayaram Menon who was kind enough to give his opinion. He said, "Yes, it does stick out - but not to the extent of raising eyebrows...I would also disregarded the plural with the same phrasing of the question".

There are other examples, of course, when grammatical inaccuracies are allowable, or at least tolerable, in cryptic questions, but that's for a separate discussion in a different post.

KK Challenge 15 - Without Label

A few weeks ago, after procrastinating for a long time, I finally embarked on setting the questions for the KK Challenge 15. Setting hunt questions wasn't very difficult for me, but the laziness to do it was something to be reckoned with. But one weekend, I finally made it a point to go around to select suitable signboards and I spent perhaps half a day to set the 35 questions for the hunt. Since about 10 years ago, I had the reputation of setting what is commonly known as the red herring in treasure hunts. These are the type of questions where they seem to point to a specific answer on the board, but actually there is another answer which is the intended one!

In the Lintas Square sector, there was this board:

And just beside this board there was this sign:

And then I set this question:

Q9) Without union is without effect!

The reason why that word "union" was in the question was of course because of that neighbouring sign that had the "UNION" on it.

So that was that, and I proceeded to prepare the question paper and the answer presentation slides. Then last Friday, 2 days before the hunt, I decided to make one last visit to all the hunt sectors. I was horrified to find that the UNISET board was missing! At first, I wanted to just cancel that question and just proceed with the remaining questions. But then I felt dissatisfied to have a cancelled question in my hunt. So I spent an extra few minutes in that sector to decide which board to take as the replacement. 10 minutes later, I decided on this board, which was located almost immediately after the former UNISET board:

When I arrived home, I made the amendments in the question paper, the answer slides, and set this replacement question:

Q9) Its answer is the same with the answer for without label

And it proved to be a very challenging question to the hunters. When I was explaining the answer for this question, I bet it must have felt like it was such a complicated riddle which involved too many steps to get to the answer. But actually it's quite brief. Now in order to solve any problem at all, there is always a need to know where to start. In this case, one needs to read the question and appreciate its structure and then logically deduce what this riddle is all about.

The first 3 words of the question, i.e. "Its answer is..." are significant. What do they tell the solver? Well, "It's" must be referring to that something that is found on the signboard. And "Its answer is..." is an indirect way for the setter to tell the solver that that something that we're looking for on the board must be the question, because only if it's a question can we then say "Its answer is...". Therefore, logically speaking, if that something on the signboard is the question for the riddle, then it follows that what we have on the paper must be the answer! You follow the logic so far? Fine, we progress!

So what is the answer? Well, unfortunately, the answer is given indirectly, and it is here that the real challenge lies! In order to find that something that is on the signboard, i.e. the question, we need to know what is the answer on the paper first. And since that answer is given indirectly, we must therefore solve that first. So the real challenge is to discover what is "without label"?

Now "without" is commonly employed as the deletion indicator in cryptic clues, because of its meaning "in absence of". However, "without" has a very uncommon meaning which is the opposite meaning for the word "within", i.e. "on the outside"; and taking that uncommon definition, I used it here to point to the outside letters of the fodder.

Therefore,

"without" LABEL = LL (taking the outside letters of LABEL)

Once the answer has been discovered, the original question can be simplified to become:

Its answer is LL

Because that answer is the same with the answer for "without label", which is LL.

We also know that this riddle is the Double Jeopardy, which means we need to find the question on the signboard, because what we have on paper is the answer.

That is why that something that we need to find on the signboard is:

CENTRE OF EXCELLENCE

Because the CENTRE of that word EXCELLENCE are the LL.

So now, you can appreciate why the answer for the cancelled question is UNISET. It's because of the same explanation, that is to say I'm employing the word "without" to point to the flanks of the fodder.

"without" UNION = UN

"without" EFFECT = ET

Theerefore, 

Without UNION is without EFFECT = UN is ET

This is a very peculiar use of the word "without" as the flanks indicator, but I'm introducing it in this hunt, because on account of its definition - on the outside, I see no reason why it can't be employed for such purpose! Perhaps it has never been done this way before? But that, to me does not mean that it can't be done!

KK Challenge 15 - Underneath!

All the questions in the last few of my KK Challenge hunts were successfully answered. Even what seemed to be extremely tough questions were answered by at least one team. When I was setting the questions for the KK Challenge 15 last Sunday, I was also confident that all my questions would be answered as well. But alas, one question was unanswered, and it broke that streak of "all questions answered". That question is the subject matter of this post.

Q7) On the board, it's underneath! It's underneath!

A7) 11 @ AGENSI NOMBOR RAMALAN SPORTS TOTO

When the riddle is seen from the perspective of the reader with the benefit of seeing it together with the required answer, it may seem like an easy question. That's because one can work his way backwards, without the distractions of other signboards, from the answer to the question. The task is then just to discover the explanation for that answer. However, during the hunt, there is no such benefit. The required answer is out there with hundreds of other potential candidates, and it would be quite an uphill task to try to work one's way backwards on trial and error without at least something as a guide or starting point.

That word "board" in the question is a double-edged sword of sort. On the one hand, it can be of assistance in drawing the hunter's attention to focus only on "board". But on the other hand, it can also be a source of confusion that can mislead the hunter to search at the wrong place!

The "board" in this case is not referring to signboards in the sector; rather it is referring to other boards, such as chess board, dart board and many other games where "boards" are involved. So, that is still quite a wide range of possibilities to sift through! 

After the hunt, a participant, having been given the answer, said that all the other questions in this hunt were "fair play" except this Q7 because of the seemingly very wide range of possibilities for "board". However, as the setter, I feel that I have been fair, because the hunter should read the question in its entirety, not just focus on that word "board". The biggest challenge is that the hunter, when reading this question, while taking note of that word "board", must also realize the significance of the exclamation marks "!" at the ends of those repeated sentences. If he knows that those "!" are important, he will then be able to combine the hints in "board" and those "!", and perhaps that can then be the launching pad in his journey in the direction of the required solution.

At this juncture, I am reminded of a question set by Master Alvin Wong, a team member of Main Tembak in his hunt many years ago, which absolutely beat all the masters in the field including me! I thought that was an exceptional question, but perhaps it was not intended to be solvable? It was like this:

Q) LESS THAN ABOVE, ANSWER BELOW

A) COMMA

As you can see, the idea behind this riddle is quite similar with mine above. But the major difference is that in Alvin's question, there was no mention of "board" at all. It would require quite a magnificent leap of imagination, perhaps almost divine in nature, to think of the computer keyboard specifically! But it is still an impressive question nonetheless. I kept that knowledge somewhere in my brain and waited patiently for so many years until I judged it time for revenge. Thus Q7 of the KK Challenge 15.

Apart from the above, another hunter suggested that I should have allowed a gap between "underneath" and the "!", and even throw in a comma (,) and fullstop (.) at the end to help the hunters realize the significance of those "!". I found this suggestion somewhat silly because the gist of the Q is the challenge of realizing the significance of those "!". If I had to point out the significance of those "!" to the hunters, then I might as well tell them the answer to the question!

The point is that in the cryptic world, the setter is allowed to use punctuations as his weapon to mislead the solvers. To take another example of Alvin's question from a past hunt (yes, I don't want to be accused of promoting only my own riddles all the time!), check out this question which illustrates the use of punctuations to mislead:

Q) E - NAME = NAM

A) 66

A very simple illustration of how punctuations could be employed in hunt questions. The only thing that I would do differently in the above example is I would perhaps add a "?" at the end of that question.

So, if the trend is to be repeated, perhaps Alvin will strike back with his revenge in another 14 years from now! I just hope that I'm still alive to join the hunt and have not gone senile!

KK CHALLENGE 15

I've been organizing my KK Challenge treasure hunt series up to 14 times over the years, and the 15th edition was supposed to have been organized about 3 years ago. But even then it was postponed several times. The final time it was postponed, I had actually prepared everything and was just waiting for the day. I set all the Qs, secured and paid the deposit for the venue. The hunters were all ready to hunt. But just a few days before the event, it had to be postponed again because of the Covid lock-down. I was so tired of the postponements and I decided to wait until Covid is really over.

Three years later, the KK Challenge 15 finally happened last Sunday. It attracted 27 teams, but unfortunately 1 team had to withdraw at the very last minute due to unforeseen circumstances. The venue was changed from MPMS to Souq El Madinah. The format of the hunt was like this:

35 Route Questions @ 2 points = 70 points

6 Treasure Question @ 5 points = 30 points

Total Score = 100 points

Time Control = 5 hours 30 minutes + 30 minutes penalty time

Tulips were no longer used for our local hunts in KK. Instead, maps of the sectors are provided, and teams had the freedom to choose the order of which sector they wanted to tackle first. The names of those hunt sectors were clearly provided on both the maps as well as in the question paper.

Teams were flagged off a few minutes after the final briefing at the parking area of Souq El Madinah. It was a mass flag off and the official clock started ticking at 7am. We had the honour of Grandmaster Hunter V K Chong and Master Ashraf Sabri (Acap) from west Malaysia, as well as some of the familiar faces from our local hunting fraternity. However, there were also quite many new hunting teams.

I found it quite a challenging job to set the hunt to cater for the newbies and very experienced hunters, and I decided to set some very easy Qs to whet the appetite of the newbies, but also some very tough ones to live up to the billing of the word "Challenge" in the title of the hunt. These tough questions were nicely spread out between the easy ones to allow for sufficient recovery between sectors. I shall discuss some of the more interesting questions later in other posts in this blog.

KK has been experiencing rainy weather over the last couple of weeks. But last Sunday was a scorching day. I reckon that teams must have been badly affected by the weather to the extent that most of them underperformed. Some of the easier questions became tough for the seasoned teams somehow. I mean "easy" as those that even the newbies could solve.

Some statistics from the hunt was like this:

Only one route question was unsolved, but all the rest, including all the treasure questions were correctly answered. Assuming a passing mark of 50%, 15 teams passed the hunt, and that's about 57% passing rate. The lowest score of the day was 29 points, whereas the highest score was 89 points. I allocated token prizes up to 10th position with a special prize for Wooden Spoon (second last).

In the end, the winners were:

Champion: Methanol: VK Chong, Ashraf Sabri, Razwi (89 points)

Second: Main Tembak: Alvin Wong, Daniel Liew, Audrey Chin, Christine Netto (85 points)

Third: Kami Lawa: Lorenzo Hardy, Erik Abun, Debbie A Sitiol (79 points)

Fourth: Caritas: Edgar Peter Dabbi, Malinda Auluck, Jassinta Mirasol, Suzainawaty Armawansah (77 points)

Fifth: B+: Chan Mon Hueg, Joanna Stidi, Vivian Cham (74 points)

Sixth: LHQW: Dieny, Dominic, Faizal, Philip (72 points)

Seventh: Paamad Hunters: Malcolm Abidin, Talissa R.K, Callum A, Robinetta (72 points)

Eight: De StoneS: Frederick Samson, Teo Chen Lung, Tan Cher Kian, Leslie Yew (72 points)

Ninth: MCC: Ellen Yee, Liaw Yun Haw, Shirley Lim, Mary Lokupi (67 points)

Tenth: Piak Piak: Jude Julius, Juren Elip, Azreinna L Koungin, Stephanie Lantiham (63 points)

Wooden Spoon: Uncit Pancit: Gerogie, Diana, Olivia, Lita

Several teams arrived late at the end station, resulting in time penalty, some of them up to 3 points deduction. But most of the teams arrived before the end of time control with comfortable time buffer. It was such an exhausting event for me as the Clerk-of-Course, and I'm so relieved that it's all over!

I shall post some of the interesting questions later in separate posts to give proper treatments that they deserve. Stay tuned!

Virtual Hunt - February 2023

Since the last quarter of last year, especially due to the Tuaran Tourism Hunt, there've been some renewed interest in treasure hunts in Kota Kinabalu as there were many new hunters coming onboard, thus culminating in the largest ever Chinese New Year hunt - dubbed the Tembak Rabbit Hunt 2023 - which was organized by Team Kena Tembak recently. That hunt attracted 34 teams, although in the end 1 team did not show up.

To keep the momentum going for the newbie hunters until the next hunt in May, as well as to entertain the regular hunters, I thought I'd just throw in some riddles to be solved virtually. This was shared in our hunt chat on Whatsapp. It's not really a competition, and I did not set a time limit. It's mainly intended for the newbies to practise solving hunt questions. Just 10 questions, but about half of which are fairly easy to solve; I suppose you could say "to whet the appetite of the newbies". The remaining half are more challenging, but still solvable, especially since no time limit has been set.

Then someone suggested to me to post the riddles in my blog. I was reluctant at first due to laziness to handle submissions of answers. But upon further considerations, it's not such a bad idea after all. These riddles may be useful for learning purposes, as well as a record for me to revisit when there is a need for me to quote examples of questions that I have set. These days I have the tendency to forget some of my own questions! So here goes nothing.

Before that, please take note of these important points:

1. Answers are NOT in sequence, and can be found anywhere in the list in no particular order.

2. The list is very short, so answers MAY be repeated.

3. I will be disabling the comment section of this post, so that no answers will be posted here. This is intended to keep this post permanently "fresh". If you want to attempt the questions, you can submit your answers to me at: ckoh1965@yahoo.com.

Here is the list of possible answers to the questions:

And here are the questions:

Q1) Jika kepala dan ekornya dipotong, apa yang tinggal?

Q2) Hari sebelum Ahad, mungkin ada projek industri pertama?

Q3) Untuk orang Arab, jawapan ni sama dengan jawapan tu

Q4) Is taping confusing?

Q5) EKNOM?

Q6) It's not allowed to go straight to the start

Q7) Boyfriend for this leader?

Q8) Aura forming within

Q9) Said to be empty, but holding one from the east

Q10) Terdapat di bahagian atas mata, alas untuk kepala?

Fighting the Parental Instinct

My daughter, Jamie Jasmine (JJ), has just left home to pursue her studies in Melbourne, Australia. In fact, she just landed there first thing this morning, having flown from KK shortly after 1pm yesterday, and transiting in KLIA for a few hours. Over the last couple of weeks, she's been on her toes, running errands and making arrangements upon arrangements for her departure. It hasn't been very easy to enter Australia. So many requirements to meet in relation to the student visa as well as Covid safety measures.

The original plan was that her mom was to accompany her to Melbourne, get her settled in and seeing that all goes smoothly before flying home alone. Unfortunately until the very, very last minute, Australia was not welcoming international visitors. So JJ had to fly alone.

Mommy and daddy have both been busy telling JJ what to do and what not to do; how to deal with this and that. Mommy even went to the extent of supervising JJ packing her bags. Yesterday, after we saw her off at the airport, the instructions kept going through WhatsApp.

This morning, when mommy woke up at 6:30am, even before rising from the bed, the first thing she said was "JJ must have arrived in Melbourne."

The parental instinct is a strange thing; we're all born with it in varying degree of strengths. It can be a good thing, but it can also be a bad thing, depending on how you look at it and from whose perspective. Elsewhere in this blog, some of my loyal readers would have come across some of my posts on Typhoon Diana, for example, this article written some years ago.

This morning, the family chat continued and JJ kept us updated through WhatsApp almost as soon as she was able to get a local SIM card. Then there was a break when she was busy at the university to sort out some paperwork. I took the opportunity to read back some portions of the chat, just in case I've missed out some important information. And then to my horror, I noticed something terrifying - I have been behaving a lot like Typhoon Diana!

Accordingly, I had a separate private chat with my wife. This is a verbatim of that chat:

"Been looking at our family chat, and had a big revelation! Both of us have fallen victims to the parental instinct. We have become my mom and your mom! JJ is 19 and will soon turn 20 this coming July. She has left home to a foreign land and now has a lot to explore, a lot to learn, a lot to experience. And of course along the way, she will no doubt make mistakes upon mistakes, but she will learn from those mistakes.

Our chats, I've noticed, have been mainly instructions to her of WHAT to do, HOW to do, WHEN to do. It is the kind of crime that I promised myself NOT to commit years ago! Yet I am committing it now! Let's make a pact, and take a step back. Let her learn like how she's supposed to learn. Let's refrain from telling her what to do. If she has a problem and needs our advice, let her take the first step to seek our help if she so chooses. And of course we shall help as much as possible. Let's play the part of the supporters, and put her in the driver's seat for as much as possible!

And in due course, if she makes a mistake, then so be it. We have all made mistakes before. Let's not deprive her of the true meaning of growing up."

Just in case you're wondering, yes, long messages that come in several paragraphs like the above are quite normal when I'm chatting. I'm cursed with that habit, perhaps because I usually have a lot to say, but also maybe simply because I like to be thorough!

My wife replied:

"I don't think we're patronizing her. We're only reminding her."

And I responded:

"No need lah. We've told her... we've guided her enough. Baby bird has left the nest. Let her fly. For better or worse, let her explore."

In the end, my wife conceded, though I'm not fully convinced:

"Bah"

And that very short response is also very typical of her.

I'd expect the fight against the parental instinct will continue over the coming months, if not years. I hope my wife and I can keep reminding each other to be strong and committed. But I have a feeling it will be an uphill task for my wife!