Dikala Sang Suria bangkit,
ku masih lagi berdengkur,
bangkit ku laung bangkit,
tidak mahu ku nanti tersungkur.

Two exams in a day, ten minutes apart is not good, especially when you are a professional procrastinator.

After six months and two comments later, I've realized that I've made a mistake in this entry.
It is supposed to be "Smoking brings no social benefit to anybody" (excluding the tobacco industry of course) instead of "Smokers bring no social benefit to anybody".

I can't really argue with Angi because her point is valid. So, a correction perhaps would suffice.

On the technical point, there were two comments, one by Jaboobie which was achieved, no thanks to Haloscan.

On the side note, does anybody remember this Bull?


1999 was almost 5 years ago but it seems like it was just yesterday. How time flies. Sigh...

I’ve just realized one thing.

With the rising oil price, the pressure to drill the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) may be too great to resist. The last time the proposal to drill ANWR came up, the green won. If thing doesn't change for the better, that victory might be short-lived.

At the same time, this could be what the green needs; something to justify the push toward renewable energy.

Drilling the ANWR might be the short run answer. It has been reported that the oil reserve under the ANWR could only supply the US merely six months worth of fuel.

Renewable energy is the long term solution. Considering solar power, it takes several more billion years for the Sun to die.

Being myopic, the oil industry lobbists would probally reignite the war for ANWR.

Let's pray for the November election to come first (and of course, hope it's Kerry) before the grey gets their act together and pushes for the proposal all over again.

Yesterday – actually it was the day before yesterday – the European Commission on behalf of the European Union slammed a $603 million penalty on Microsoft for unfair competition.
Not so long ago, the same ruling was given out to Microsoft in the United States though with a heavier penalty – the company was supposed to be split into two different entities. Somehow, Microsoft appealed against the ruling and managed to keep itself in one piece. If my memory does not fail me, the last company that actually was split into several different entities was Standard Oil – now known as Exxon Mobil.
Apart from the half a billion Euro fine, Microsoft also has been ordered by the European Union to disclose relevant information to the public in order to promote a fair competition within a few months.
Currently, Microsoft has announced to appeal against the European ruling.

But is Microsoft really dangerous? Is it okay for the EU to punish Microsoft for being too successful? [Insert some funky music here]

It is no doubt that a monopoly would bring inefficiency into the market. In economic terms, Microsoft is charging the users a price higher than the firm’s marginal cost, gaining too much profit while producing too little. At the same time, deadweight loss to the society is unavoidable. Maybe,

Still, I believe in free market. My belief in laissez faire leads me to believe that it is wrong to punish Microsoft from being too successful.
The clash of the two concepts make me feel uncomfortable. Being both a green and a free-marketeer wannabe is hard.

However, in Microsoft case, one event made it easier for me to decide.
Weeks earlier, it was reported that Microsoft encouraged SCO to launch assault on Linux. SCO has of course denied this allegation but still, the tree doesn’t sway if the wind doesn’t blow.

Ladies and gentlemen, Micro$oft is as evil as Standard Oil and Exxon Mobil. And I support, cautiously, EU's decision.

New York Times editorial on reycling in New York City:

...While the city may have had the best of intentions in suspending parts of the recycling program, the experiment did not produce the savings predicted. All those items that could have been recycled were trucked to increasingly expensive landfills, part of the city's 12,000 tons of daily residential and institutional trash. And what wasn't factored into the cost-benefit analysis was the psychological effect on New Yorkers, who had just started internalizing the recycling routine. In 1989, fewer than 1 percent of city residents sorted their newspapers, cans and cartons. By 2002, about 20 percent had the habit. Recycling takes effort, but residents were coming around to seeing it like daily exercise: not always enjoyable, but good for them...

I agree with the points presented but I have one minor disagreement. Recycling is not just good from them but rather, it is good for us all, New Yorkers and non-New Yorkers alike.

The full result for the latest Malaysian general election has already been announced and the war of words seems to have toned down quite a bit.
The result of the election is no brainer – everybody, even the opposition knew Barisan Nasional would win the race before judgment day came. In fact, Barisan Nasional did win the election.

What is surprising however is the magnitude of the victory – 198 parliamentary seats out of 219 belong to the 14-party coalition!

What went wrong? Is it possible that the momentum that was built in 1999 simply vanished into thin air? My question is - what happened to Keadilan?

I could only come up with two reasons.

Reason number one is their alliance with PAS. Being too close to PAS may help Keadilan fished in some votes from PAS’ supporters. However, this at the same time shunned Keadilan from the more lucrative market – the Indians, the Chinese and secular or urban Malays.
DAP was smart enough to enter the war front alone without associating itself with PAS and in the end, managed to reaffirm its presence in the Dewan Rakyat, the Malaysian version of the House of Commons.

Secondly, the Anwar Ibrahim issue. Though Anwar Ibrahim may be the symbol for Keadilan’s struggle, those people within Keadilan needs to realize the world does not revolve around Anwar Ibrahim. There is more to the world than Anwar Ibrahim. In one of the minor manifestos written by Raja Petra Kamarudin, a well known alumnus of the Malay College and a strong supporter of Keadilan, he gave a few reasons why Malaysians should vote for Keadilan.
Guess what was the first reason?
Keadilan fights for Anwar Ibrahim.
With all due respect, nobody gives a hoot anymore about the jailed ex-Deputy Prime Minister. Well, some may care about Anwar Ibrahim but with respect to the election, Anwar Ibrahim is a non-issue.

In my opinion, if Keadilan wants to save itself from death, it will need to disassociate itself from PAS and court DAP. At the same time, quit lamenting about Anwar Ibrahim because he is, as Judge Paul Augustine would have said, irrelevant.

It is simply sad to see a party that symbolizes a beacon of hope for a more democratic society is fading away into oblivion because it played the wrong cards.

Alright. Next time, I'll be voting for my teddy bear.


Screw PAS. Screw BN. My teddy bear for Malaysia 2009!!!

p/s - after some persuasion, my teddy bear has expressed his interest for the White House! Go my teddy bear!

Well, that's it.

The incumbent won about 9/10; that's a lot more than 2/3, or taking a little jock, significantly different from 50.1%.

Though I'm glad to see BN won, yet I'm disappointed to see BN won with a total landslide. Malaysians in general still don't realize the importance of a strong opposition. At least Lim Kit Siang and Karpal Singh are back in action. At least there are some prominent opposition figures in the Dewan Rakyat.

What a week. First it was Russia, then Spain, then Taiwan, Malaysia and after this, it's France. All five, if I may say so, provide a glimpse of what is going on in this world. The elections in Spain and Malaysia show how the so-called war on terror affects the general population mentality.

The year climax should be held in November. It's Kerry - Bush.

Roses are red,
violent are blue,
all your base,
are belong to us.

p/s - Israel killed Sheik Ahmed Yassin - Hamas founder!

A few days ago, on St. Patrick Day, the town of Ann Arbor was covered in snow.


But a few days later, the Sun came out and joy came to the world. Or at least to the town of Ann Arbor. Delighted, a person decided to take a walk. He visited the Law Quad.


And the West Hall.


Before a Javanese humanoid came.


And kidnapped him. The Javanese kidnapper brought him to a Southeast Asian students' sort-of-food-party.


Luckily for that person, his kidnapper ate too much Nasi Lemak. And so, he managed to slip away. While running, he saw a recycle bin.


Too tired to run, he hide in the bin. And Lo and behold! He saved himself.

p/s - I never knew Indonesians chicks are so hot!
pp/s - 2004 Malaysian general election is under way!
ppp/s - There seems to be big trouble in Taiwan. The winner won the election with 50.1% majority - even worse than Al-Gore vs Bush back in 2001. Riot is currently underway. Though Taiwan seems to be in turmoil, at least the world could take a nap knowing China is smiling.
No war. No referendum. It's better to have a rioting Taiwan than a war that will drag the US into it while at the same time disrupt international shipping lanes.

It’s Friday and probably less than 72 hours before the 2004 Malaysian general election gets underway. A few hundred miles northeastern of Malaysia, Taiwanese President was shot while campaigning ahead of the Taiwanese election. The Taiwanese President survived the assassination attempt and currently in a stable condition. Thanks to the shooter, I expect the current President to win the poll by a strong margin due to sympathetic voters.
Back to the equator, Barisan Nasional has revealed its manifesto earlier this week. It could be found at the party website at http://www.bn.org.my/.

Reading through the manifesto, it does take some time before the relevant points can be spotted. Apparently, judging through the colorful manifesto and comparing it to PAS and Keadilan’s version, Barisan Nasional has more than sufficient money in its coffer.
Before I begin reviewing BN’s manifesto, I must say that it’s not easy to pull out a point and categorize it into a class. In my opinion, BN’s manifesto failed to be as objective as its rival’s. Therefore, to save me time, I’ll review it page by page instead of classing the points.
I need to point out however, the later pages seems to be more orderly structured and it is easier to recognize whether a point concerns this or that or whatever it may be.

Warning – I find it tough to maintain an indifferent tone or sentence structure or being too objective. The reason is, well, you have to read the manifesto yourself. This surprises me greatly. Although I want to see BN wins but yet, I found myself laughing sarcastically after read the whole text.
In a way, it is sad to know that I am supporting a party of which I myself am laughing at the points written in its manifesto.

On the second page, "it says BN is for everyone". Means nothing but merely pointing out the fact that BN consists of 14 component parties; each component represents various ethic groups in Malaysia. It gives its words that each ethic groups will be properly represented in the decision making machine while ensuring lasting racial harmony. Sounds good but being a person that I am, though the goal is noble, I believe the way BN is ensuring the racial harmony in Malaysia is flawed and it will be a matter of time before the next May 13th erupt if things don’t change for the better. Here is where I believe UMNO should take up its founder's advice. Open up UMNO to other races or make BN as one party instead of an alliance consisted of 14 racially based parties. All in all, the second page is pure BS. It promises nothing and based its struggle on a concept that I am against with.

In the next page, the phrase "BN supports you" is written. What does that mean? I have no idea. Some further details explain that the coalition promises to combat corruption and improve public services. Though corruption in Malaysia is not as bad as in Indonesia or God forbid India, I don’t see how this may help BN since BN was there in the first place and BN is the only one that is accountable for the corruption in the government.
Others points are irrelevant or at its best, again, propaganda in nature. At worst, bullshit.

The fourth page seems to be a little bit a heavy in its points. However, basically this page promises to continue what BN has been doing – improving the country economy. I would say most things said here are the same things said by Keadilan and PAS though the minor details vary. It must be said, here the promises are general in nature and aren’t as precise as points presented by the opposition. Therefore, I would say this manifesto failed to set concrete promises. I am pretty much uninterested in promises that could be interpreted in many ways.
Apart of the general promises, two items caught my eyes. They are the concept of Islam hadhari and leadership in OIC and NAM. I would prefer a secular state but here, BN has shown that it has bent itself in order to combat PAS rising influence. Yet, a moderate Islamic nation is better than a fundamentalist state.
On international relationship, BN-led government excels in it. On the contrary, the opposition failed to address this.

The fifth page contains nothing worthwhile.

The page after it calls for some of the things where BN itself fails to do in the past. Most notably, safeguarding the interest of all Malaysians. During Tun Dr. Mahathir time, BN was everything but this. Things are yet to be seen under Abdullah Badawi.
It also talks about the separation of the country executive, judiciary and legislature arms between each other. Seeing how BN fails to separate itself from the government, I don’t see how BN could guarantee the full strength of the separation wall between those three divisions.
It’s only fair to say that most of the points said on this page won’t certain be done in the near foreseeable future.

Next. Redundancy. It touches again on corruption. Also, it pledges to reduce red tapes and promises good governance. Again I say, I am not interested in promises that could be deciphered in gamut of ways. Promises, especially manifestos need to be crisp and sharp. BN political advisors need to get that in their head. Though the masses are asses, they are clearly not so stupid. Digressing, I think most economists give the masses too much credit; not all masses are rational in their thinking.
However, one aim stands out – special commission to monitor police activities and establishment of public forum. Nevertheless, I would dare say that these commission and forum would be pro-BN. But yet, at the very least, it is a start for a more democratic society.

The eighth leaf concerns matters of economics. It starts with propaganda – track record is being presented. It looks good but I am still soured on how Thailand managed to outperform Malaysia in various economic indices. Malaysia in the past 21 or 24 months could have done better if it was not for politically motivated economic policies.
Disappointedly, it says nothing further of its planned economics policies. The manifesto only says that BN will be conservative in its spending, encourages small and medium scale enterprises, will develop rural areas, expands the market for Malaysian’s export and promotes sustainable management of natural resources. These words mean nothing without the presence of proper digits. The cheesiest statement is “…pursue economic growth strategies to achieve Vision 2020”.

The ninth leaf is on social development. It vows to fully eradicate poverty, of which it has been keeping on saying for more than a decade now. Generally, this page is comparable to what has been said in Keadilan and PAS’ joint manifesto minus the relevant figures.

On education, the only point worth noting here is the national school. Here, admirably it seeks to make a universal education stream for all races. This is quite the reverse of BN rival’s aim. I strongly support this though I expect there will be disagreement to this from among BN’s component parties.

On the sensitive religion issue, BN wants to build a progressive and modern Islamic nation. Here, I am quite bewildered to see BN veers from its secular path. Nevertheless, with no other reliable choice, as long as it acts against PAS’ fundamentalist dream, I have to agree with this. Progressive and modern Islamic nation it is.
Others, it wants to make Malaysia as a leader in Islamic financial system while at the same time, provide an alternative to modern financial system. Sounds okay. Nobody can really stop them from implementing it anyway. This might even helps the economy to reduce short term fluctuation dependent on interest rate.
One glaring BN’s position is the introduction of Arabic in elementary school. Not that I am against it but elementary students have already been burdened with too much load. I would like to see them play around a little bit rather than nurturing them into a good citizen-drone. In any case, I am neither against nor for this. As the Beatles put it in We Can Work It Out, only time will tell whether this is right or wrong.
The last point is about the Haj – it promises a more efficient system at cheaper cost. Two words, 8 letters: LMFAO, LOL.
If you’ll realize, this section touches only on Islam and this makes me wonder whether BN really is a secular party.

The next page is about civic and moral values. It touches corruption again for the gazillionth times. Further, it seeks to promote high civic consciousness through the national service. Total propaganda. Scrap the national service – I don’t want to be another Taiwan nor Singapore. If Taiwan or Singapore does it, it doesn’t mean Malaysia has to follow the same path those two countries are taking. If somebody eats shit, I don't expect Malaysia to eat shit too. And I thought Mahathir taught Malaysia this when he refused IMF's aid.
And ironically, it wants to promote a more open environment for NGOs.
I am speechless. BN must really thinks the masses are stupid as well as blind and deaf.
It is the government that needs to open up. The NGOs in Malaysia have tried to be opened but they have been suppressed to a certain degree by the BN-led government - the BN-led government doesn't even hear to the NGOs! Yet, BN seeks for a more NGO-friendly environment. Give me a fu-...
Ah! Let me rephrase that. Gimme a Kit Kat.

Page 13 is propaganda. Also, it’s the number 13. =)

On 14, foreign policy is given its due attention. So far, BN has been the only party that has given attention to matter directly related to foreign policy. Then again, most of the points here were mentioned in the earlier page.

Page 15, propaganda.

On the last page, they finally cut to the chase and urge people to vote for BN.

And unfortunately for the Malaysian people, there is a dearth of option and BN is the best choice. Keadilan is the next best option but as they say it in Malaysia and as I hate to say it, a vote for Keadilan is a vote for PAS. On DAP, it’s even better. A vote for DAP is a vote for PAS.

L M A O R O T F.

You gotta love Malaysian politics. So pathetic but yet, so entertaining.

p/s - proofread will come later.

The photo was taken a day after St. Patrick Day. I don't celebrate St. Patrick Day but the day usually marks the coming of spring. Apparently, this year it marked nothing but more snow. What can I say? Grr and brr!

This is what the New York Times Editorial has to say:

...The first flocks of robins are back on the ground, and in the country red-winged blackbirds can be heard in the marshes. Everything is tipping in one direction. And then it snows again. No one is responsible. But it feels like a kind of distributive injustice. There are parts of the world that really need this precipitation. Let them have it.

Hey!
It's St. Patrick Day!
But hey!
Why does it snow?

p/s - maybe we could blame climate change for this eh?
pp/s - for those of you who are offended by my usage of 'eh', I apologize. But you Canadians are just adorable. EH!

I’m tired of politics. Let’s shift some gears.

In my financial class today, again, the professor told an interesting story. This time, it was about the Hunt brothers, oil tycoons from Texas.

Back in the 70s, according to Freedom Investment, the Hunt was possibly the richest family in America. The professor in his usual confident tone said that two of the Hunt brothers decided to corner the silver market. Further search on the net revealed that they were trying to protect their asset from the rising inflation. At the time, inflation in the US was high; sometimes it was almost as high as 10%.

The Hunt tried to corner the market by buying a lot of future options, call options to be precise. For those who lack general financial knowledge, the future market is roughly a market where assets could be bought and sold at an agreed price at some future date.

Together with some help from their Arab friends, they created a silver pool and continuously gathered silver through future contracts. As time progressed, the silver pool got bigger and its supply in the public market steadily increased. Then naturally, rumor about somebody was cornering the silver market came up but nobody did anything.

From about USD 2 per ounce, the poor's gold price soared to more than USD 50 per ounce. Record price was USD 54. As the price was setting record, day by day, people thought that these, as the professor put it, Texas folks, would in the end sell off the silver and make a huge profit. However, that was not the case. People didn't know that the reason the Hunt brothers' created the pool to protect their wealth, not making profit. And thus, the silver market was continued to be pressed by, as what some would call, the rouge traders.

Industries related to silver started to feel the pain and that was enough to convince the Federal Reserve to jump in and act. The Fed with the New York Metals Market halt silver future trading and declared that no silver could be bought nor traded anymore for the time being. Just as a note, this might be an example on how free market might fail.

Immediately after the announcement, silver price crumbled from its peak price to about half in one day. Later, the price fell to about USD10. The bubble burst.

Unfortunately for the Hunt brothers, because they had accumulated almost all of the deliverable silver, they fell from grace and in the end, in the early 1980s, filed from bankruptcy. Jokingly, one of the brothers - roughly, quoting the professor - said "who cares about three billions anyway?"

Of course, that was said in a sarcastic manner.

I’ve read Keadilan and PAS' joint manifesto yesterday and I must say that I am against some of the points presented.

The first point I presume is about civil rights. It says Keadilan and PAS would guarantee public institutions independence. Knowing PAS, I don’t think they mean it. PAS, if it had the power, would in a way turn Malaysia into an Islamic Republic. And so, it would have to influent public institutions in one way or another in order to make sure those institutions wouldn't go against PAS. Some of these institutions, naturally the judiciary would go against most of PAS' ideals because of human rights. Worse, I could see how PAS would use Islam in trying to influent or even silent those institutions.
The joint manifesto also promises to amend the information freedom act. I would assume they are actually seeking for a more lenient act. I am all for a more lenient act. Again, PAS with lenient information act? C'mon. Only a naive would believe that a fundamentalist would adhere to the free flow of information.

The second point concerns religion. I don’t give a damn about this but the first sub point asserts menghayati Islam sebagai cara hidup bagi umat Islam of which roughly means embracing Islam as a way of life. In my opinion, Islam has always been a way of life but it is up to the individual to practice it. If the manifesto asserts this, there is a chance that the government would very much get involved morally with its citizens. I am much against this. I believe the government has no rights to impose its moral on any of its citizens forcefully. My moral is my own. It's not the government's business.

The next point is about social well being. Keadilan and PAS promise to lower vehicles prices by 10%. Sounds good but a better one would to dissolve import tariff substantially. But 10% is better than nothing at all. Then it goes to elimination of toll. Being a consumer, hey, how could I say no?
Next, it touches about water and telephone charge. It pledges to reduce it by 20%. Being a green, I believe water should be free. But then again, 20% is better then nothing. The manifesto also would like to see all Malaysians owning a home. This should be hard and I think it’s merely propaganda. Lastly, it is about the minimum wage. Being somebody with an economic background, I must say I am against this. Minimum wage would increase unemployment rate in theory.

Then it is about security. Pure propaganda and I have nothing else to say about it.

Fifth point is a matter pertaining to governance. It wants to limit the Prime Minister post to two terms. I could go with that because I think it would somehow reduce the Prime Minister power that Mahathir once had. By saying this, I am not admitting that Mahathir was a bad guy but somebody like Mahathir could certainly have turned Malaysia into a Singapore-styled totalitarian government.
The fifth point also wants to make Petronas and BPR (the anti-corruption agency) answerable to the Parliament. I have no problem with BPR but Petronas is a private firm. It is no longer a government-owned firm. Therefore, Petronas should be treated like all other private firms.
Other then that, it shows that Keadilan and PAS want the delisting of FELDA from the Kuala Lumpur Stock Exchange. I agree with the delisting. FELDA was established to help rural development; it was never supposed to be a profit-based organization.
Finally, it wants to return backdated (if there was ever a backdated payment, that is) oil royalty to the state of Terengganu. No problem there. I also believe the Federal government owes money to the Terengganu.

Point six touches on education. It wants to make elementary and high school education compulsory. And I thought it is compulsory right now. So no comment yet on this.
According to the manifesto further, it wants to provide free textbooks to all students. No complaint.
Concerning higher learning institution, it wants to establish six new universities by 2008. A noble goal but I think there will be a shortage of instructors though the demand for new colleges is there.
Then it touches a point where it ticks me off. It wants to help to further develop racially based education system. I am totally against this and I don’t understand why Keadilan must pursue this. The only explanation is that they are trying to fish some votes from the other ethic groups. I have stated my stance and I will state it again - having three education systems for three races only encourages racism. I am against this. This blurs the difference between Keadilan and Barisan Nasional.
Furthermore, it wants help Sekolah Agama Rakyat (religious school). This is probably another reason why Keadlilan supports the three different education systems. It has to go with PAS demand for Sekolah Agama Rakyat. I am against this for the same reason why I am against the current education system. All Malaysians should go through only one system. If one doesn't want to, then one should attend private school that receives no government aid.
Other details, they want to eliminate the 3% interest rate on federal education loan. Doesn’t really make economic sense but the government is supposed to help needy people anyway, so, it’s okay I guess.

Point seven is mainly about the health system. Most notably, it wants to deprivatize the health system. I am divided on this. Government-run health institutions have proven to be dreadfully inefficient but private institutions to some degree jack up the price. I seek a balance between those two and I think a subsidy would do a better job rather than having a totally privatized institution or totally nationalized system.

Eighth, it’s about commerce and it wants to cut down taxes. Yeay! But somehow, it also gives the impression that it would give out subsidy and thus, not helpful in the process of globalization. But I don’t know. It doesn’t say anything about subsidy explicitly.

Finally, the thing that I hold close to my heart, the environment. It is cooling to see Keadilan and PAS has a statement for the environment but more should have been included like pledging loyalty to the Kyoto Protocol.
Anyway, it pledges to stop all development detrimental to the ecology. I concur.
It wants to defend water cache areas and the forest reserves. Agreed. No foresting in such areas and the current government is not serious in combating illegal logging.

In summary, I agree with everything except where religion and education are concerned. I think the points related to both issues are backward sidesteps. On religion, no doubt PAS has a big influence on Keadilan and this is one reason why I am wary of supporting Keadilan. Also, I am against the manifesto promise to impose minimum wage.
On civil rights, though I do not doubt Keadilan's sincerity, Keadilan's alliance with PAS makes me think twice. I have no doubt if PAS came to power via Keadilan or by itself, civil rights will be limited greatly.

You could say that I don’t believe point 1 (civil rights) mainly because of PAS' presence, though I agree with it. PAS' civil rights guarantee is hypocritical.
I am fiercely against point 2 (religion).
Partially against point 3 (social welfare) due to minimum wage.
Impartial to point 4 (security).
Agreed to point 5 (governance).
Against point 6 mainly due to the manifesto support of the present racist system (education).
Divided on point 7 (health system).
Unclear on points 8 (commerce).
Agree to point 9 (environment) though I think there should be more to it.

I am currently impressed by Parti Keadilan Nasional, one of the parties rallying against Barisan Nasional.

Let me assess its basic manifesto briefly and compares it to what I believe in. It's expanded manifesto can be found here.

1. To establish a society that is just and a nation that is democratic, progressive and united.

This is propaganda, too general and doesn’t mean a thing though it does provide a basic platform for a fight. There is nothing to argue here.

2. To promote respect for the system of Constitutional Monarchy, strengthen Parliamentary Democracy and support the rights and power of the people, whilst endeavouring always to improve the nation’s political framework in line with the wishes and interests of the people.

This point enforces the Constitution. I agree with it simply because Constitutional Monarch is a Malaysian tradition and should be preserved. Having a monarch may go against the idea of equality but I think some tradition should be preserved so that we will not forget our root. And I think this point maintains the equilibrium between equality and tradition which is good, especially in a conservative society.

3. To establish and promote the rule of just law, an independent mass media and judiciary, and institutions for security that uphold principles of professionalism.

Key point. I agree whole hearted.

4. To guarantee freedom of conscience, speech, movement, public assembly and association for all.

Basic rights of which Barisan Nasional fails to adhere. I agree with this point.

5. To espouse Islam as the religion of the Federation whilst ensuring that the rights of non-Muslims to freedom of religion and conscience are guaranteed, and to promote the role of religious and universal values to uphold truth, justice, ethical conduct, humanitarianism and human dignity.

I agree with this partly. I believe in secularism and no one religion should be the religion of the Federation. But considering the Malaysian society is a conservative society and it is mentioned in the Constitution, it is acceptable to some extend. In general, this is propaganda.

6. To establish Bahasa Malaysia as the national and official language, whilst guaranteeing the right of all citizens to use, learn and be educated in other languages; and to promote the development of Malaysian culture and arts based on the outstanding elements of the full cultural heritage that exists in this country.

I agree as long as the education system is not separated as it is right now. Native languages, whether it is Malay, Chinese (Mandarin, Hokkien etc) or Tamil, should be promoted in one system, not in three different systems. Here, I agree with Abdullah Badawi, one system for all though he did say that with reference to some other important issue.

7. To promote a Federal system that is just, responsible, democratic in balancing the interest of the states with the power of the Federal government.

If I understand this correctly, it is decentralization, inline with the green ideology. I agree by default. Currently, the Federal Government is too powerful.

8. To enhance human dignity, compassionate values and a caring culture, uphold fundamental human rights, with a firm commitment to principles of integrity and accountability in the fields of economics, politics and administration.

Propaganda and doesn’t really mean a thing though admirable. So, I’ll skip this.

9. To realise an economy that is just and dynamic, that emphasizes growth as well as equitable distribution, which is free from injustice, impropriety and waste, whilst overcoming poverty and preventing the concentration of wealth.

Sounds like socialism at work. I in particular disagree with preventing the concentration of wealth. I hope here, it means through economic policy, not by force.

10. To ensure, based on principles of justice, that the special position of the Malays and Bumiputera of Sabah and Sarawak is used solely to raise the socio-economic status of those who are poor and marginalised, and that just provision is made for the poor and marginalised among the non-Malay and the non-Bumiputra, towards achieving justice for national unity.

Key point. Socioeconomically based affirmative action. Agreed.

11. To provide social amenities such as education, healthcare, housing, and public transport of quality at reasonable cost pursuant to the social responsibility of government, particularly for the lower and middle income group.

Propaganda. The incumbent party has been doing that for years. Nothing to jump about.

12. To promote and protect the right to work, fair wages, safety at the workplace and a good quality of life for each and everyone.

I might have problem with this. To promote and protect the right to work doesn’t sound like free trade.

13. To strengthen the role and position of women in society, promote and protect their rights and interest and ensure that they enjoy and equal status and do not become victims of discrimination and exploitation.

Propaganda and redundant. Do they have to specifically mention women rights? I’m not being chauvinistic but point 1 has already got this covered.

14. To promote the rights of young people and the full development of their potential and ensuring their meaningful participation in all aspects of life.

Propaganda.

15. To improve the living standards of the Orang Asal whilst respecting their customs, implement suitable development programmes for them in consultation with them, and protect their rights over their Customary Land.

Sounds redundant because point 10 says that. However, being a green, I agree. Aborigines should be respected.

16. To protect the natural environment from damage, avoid pollution whilst enhancing the quality of the environment and ensure that development is sustainable.

A green party! w00t! No other party has this point. Therefore, it is only fair for me to flirt with Keadilan.

17. To realise a new international system that is just and democratic, implement an independent and ethical foreign policy, build a suitable environment for realising a informed society that can face the challenge of globalisation whilst rejecting the elements of the process of globalization that threaten the interest of the people, the nation and mankind, and to protect the economy, politics and security of the nation from being subjugated towards the interests of the superpowers of the world.

I am generally for globalization but I am also concerned with Malaysia’s sovereignty. Therefore, I’m divided on this issue. Anyway, it’s propaganda and unimportant.

Let's assess Barisan Nasional manifesto tomorrow or the day after.

Last Tuesday, Manchester United was kicked out off the European Cup competition.

Today, Manchester City helped make the cake sweeter. City defeated Manchester United comfortably 4 - 1 and thus, further guaranteeing Arsenal chance to win the English Premier League crown. On the second spot, Chelsea is trying very hard to shove Alex Ferguson off their butt. I wish Chelsea the best of luck.

Lovely.

Onwards to a more important development, Feyenoord went pass PSV 1 - 0 while Ajax soared above Roda JC by 4 - 2. With 9 points lead and merely nine easy matches remaining, the Eredivisie crown is as good as Ajax's.

And it looks like AFC Ajax Amsterdam will be seeing the light of Champions' League again next season.

p/s - to Lada, if you are reading this, congratulations! I am delighted to see City won. Well, actually, I am delighted to see a dead devil.

The Malaysian general election is around the corner. It will be the first election where I could practice my right to vote. However, being what I call a professional procrastinator and having my mind focus on others things, I didn’t register with the Election Commission and therefore, I will miss my first chance to practice my right.
But if I did register, I would vote for, sadly, BN out of no choice.
Nevertheless, whether I did register or not, I don’t really think it matters though. Frankly, the incumbent party has every chance to stay in power.

But if I had the chance, I would love go against the incumbent party which is the Barisan Nasional because:

I don’t like how they are handling local politics.

I don’t like how Malaysia continues to be racially divided.

I don’t like how the education system in Malaysia is separated just to satisfy the Chinese and the Indian. Can you name any other country where each major ethnic group have their own university? I can’t. Google probably couldn't too.

I don’t like the Bumiputra rights. Affirmative action should be based socioeconomically, not racially.

I don’t like how racial harmony depends on the education system and the Bumiputra rights. The current system in Malaysia encourages racism.

I don’t like the current government failure to separate the party from the state. If a civil servant openly supports the opposition party, the government has no right to punish the civil servant. The civil servant serves the country, not the party.

I don’t like the current government double standard in enforcing human rights. Everybody has the right to freedom of expression, not just the supporters of Barisan Nasional.

I don’t like how the government controls the media. I have no problem if the media is biased because being biased itself is a right.

I don’t like how the state is having too much power. Go libertarian!

I don’t like how the government handles environmental issues, especially about the Broga incinerator in Selangor.

But then, if I had registered with the Election Commission, I would still vote for Barisan Nasional because:

Of PAS’ vision of an Islamic Malaysia. I do believe God’s words are holy but I also believe that humans are too corrupted to enforce God’s words. Sooner or later, if PAS’ vision comes true, Malaysia will be another Iran. Freedom will be limited in the name of Islam and also in the name of PAS. In the end, there will be a despot holding the executive power. Freedom is somewhat limited in Malaysia right now. Voting for PAS would only make things worse.

Of Keadilan and DAP association with PAS. If, Keadilan in particular disassociate themselves from PAS, I would vote for them.

I have ten points my “why I would vote for the opposition” list but I have merely two in my “why I would vote for the incumbent” list. Yet, that two reasons far outweigh the ten.
It is a sad situation. I could exercise my right to vote but choosing between the lesser of the two evils is no choice at all. So much for Malaysian democracy.

The atmosphere at Amer's while Madrid in chaos.



Peace is elusive,
as well as exclusive,
tell me is that true,
or is it I that rue?

All I want to say today is that, science is not democratic in nature. The statement "1 + 1 == 2" is still true even if 70% of the population says "1 + 1 == 3".

I can't believe it when politicians take a vote on matters related to science. To all politicians, I present to you, my first macro photo taken with my new environmentally friendly, power conserving digital camera powered by two rechargeable AA sized NiMH batteries.


My new gadget is so sexy that I want to sleep with it tonight!

This post is totally dedicated to the football fans all over the world.

Manchester United 2 - 3 Porto.

With Manchester United slacking off third in the English Premier League and out of the European Cup race, the cake could only be sweeter if Manchester-F-United lose to Arsenal in the FA Cup. But hey, the cake has already enough sugar!

Now, all the world football needs is to cleanse itself from the Italian clubs. No Italian and Manchester United makes a good football.

Ah, what a glorious day for football.

I must say, this year competition is more balanced, with no country dominating unlike last season where two, i repeat TWO, boring Italian teams competed in the European Cup Final. And, two boring clubs don't make an exciting game. Heck, last season Final was as boring as Alex Ferguson.

Aight. Enough celebration. Madeline Albright is coming tomorrow for her annual speech in Michigan. It should be a good event to test my new digital camera.

Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee...

In honor of Chief Seattle (178x - 1866)

Only when the last tree is dead, the last river dammed, the last field paved over will we realize that we can't eat money

I wish I was there when he made the Seattle's Reply more than a century ago.

According to an article in the New York Times today, Shell’s top executive has resigned due to Shell’s overestimation of its oil and gas reserve worldwide. The result of Shell’s reassessment of its reserve was announced several weeks ago and it sent shockwave throughout relevant industries. According to New York Times further, considering the Shell’s conservative management style, it would be hard to accept the gross overestimation, 3.9 billion barrel lower than previously thought. That’s a 20% reduction.

At the same time, due to malpractice suspicion, the Securities and Exchange Commission has launched a probe against Shell on February 19.

The problem was further intensified in the days after the restatement when Shell announced that its net income has decreased by 19% in the fourth quarter earning. The company has also reduced its oil and gas production forecast.
Despite Shell’s restatement, no other major oil and gas firm has issued a restatement apart from El Paso. El Paso reduced its reserve estimate by a staggering 41%.

The current development is interesting since any move made by Shell, one of the once seven sisters will affect the world economy. This is true since the world market to a large degree depends on carbon-based fuel mined by giant transnational companies such as Exxon Mobil, BP and Shell. More importantly, if the current phenomenon in Shell is not exclusively a Shell’s problem, I would expect other firms with similar core business to re-estimate their reserve.

There has been a study that suggests oil and gas reserve will fall rapidly in the near future. In fact, according to another report by New York Times more than a week earlier, Saudi Arabia’s production is unsustainable and would fall soon. Even right now, Saudi Arabia is barely meeting its own production quota. In Malaysia, PricewaterhouseCoopers has reported that oil and gas reserve is dwindling and further exploration needs to be done if Malaysia wants to combat its rapidly falling reserve.

Also, it has been predicted that by 2050, oil and gas roles in the economy will be limited due to supply shortage. Once oil and gas reserve finally depleted, alternative energy will gain importance.

I’m convinced that the migration from fossil fuel to alternative fuel will happen no matter what; it’s more a matter of when than why or how. Being a green, I’m hoping that it will happen sooner than later because this will force companies such as Shell and the stubborn Exxon Mobil to shift from its traditional core business to alternative energy business.

Due to the imminent migration from fossil fuel to alternative energy business, research on various alternative fuels should be accelerated in order to compensate the spaces left behind by the coming departure of fossil fuel.

With the departure of fossil fuel, perhaps we could combat global warming more effectively since with the absence of fossil fuel, greenhouse gasses emission will be significantly reduced. And even if global warming is not true - of which I believe is impossible to say so - we could have a cleaner air to breath in.

The Berlin Wall was like that,
The Korean DMZ is like that,
The wall in Isreal is like that,
And freedom is about opening up the window.

Today in my financial economics class, conducted by a hilarious visiting professor from Vanderbilt University, for the first time there was a hint of politic in it.

It all started with the discussion of investment companies and from there, the topic gradually moved on to pension fund and all the way to social security system. Currently, the social security system is the largest pension fund in the whole world and it is sort similar to the Employees' Pension Fund back in Malaysia. More precisely, the social security is a defined benefit plan, where the employer is responsibled to set aside part of its employees’ income into a pension fund and then hand out a stream of income for its employees after their retirement. In reality, a small part of the company assets is aside for the purpose, not part of the employees’ income. Therefore, the money that is supposed to be there to pay future retirees is not actually there but rather, will be paid through future wealth that will be put aside when the time to pay up comes.

Currently, the baby boom generation that came into being in the 70s is still in the workforce and the generation is slowly pushing themselves towards retirement. Right now, the social security works because there are more people in the workforce versus people that is out of them workforce due to retirement. And presently, in practice, the baby boomers are paying the income stream for current retirees.

The problem arises when the baby boomers retire. As Professor Rousseau put it in a serious but yet entertaining tone, “And guess who is going to pay for it?”

Well, guess who?

Hint, USD 500 000 000 000 budget deficit; for the mathematically deficient, that’s half a trillion dollar.

Answer, us. Well, actually us excluding me unless I continue to stay here after 2005.

There are a few solutions to this problem. One is to scrap the social security system. Interestingly, the professor said this may not be the solution due to moral hazard – we won’t allow our parents to live in the street. Well, would us?