The next time you plan to buy electronics, you can refer to Guide to Greener Electronics to satisfy your consumption while saving the environment (via):
Note that Apple performs badly. Now, I have more reason to not to become an Apple fanatic.
Alrighty, it's time to recalibrate my consumption (tag).
Nokia and Dell share the top spot in the ranking. They believe that as producers they should bear individual responsibility for taking back and reusing or recycling their own-brand discarded products. Nokia leads the way on eliminating toxic chemicals, since the end of 2005 all new models of mobiles are free of polyvinyl chloride (PVC) and all new components to be free of brominated flame retardants (BFRs) from the start of 2007. Dell has also set ambitious targets for eliminating these harmful substances from their products.
Third place goes to HP, followed by Sony Ericsson (4th), Samsung (5th), Sony (6th), LG Electronics (7th), Panasonic (8th), Toshiba (9th), Fujitsu Siemens Computers (10th), Apple (11th), Acer (12th) and Motorola (13th).
Lenovo is in bottom position. It earns points for chemicals management and providing some voluntary product take back programmes, but it needs to do better on all criteria.
Note that Apple performs badly. Now, I have more reason to not to become an Apple fanatic.
Alrighty, it's time to recalibrate my consumption (tag).
A little over two hours till August 31 and subsequently, the 49th year of a free Malaya. Don't forget however that it's roughly more 16 days to the 43rd anniversary of the Malaysian Federation (tag).
Don't forget your history, lest somebody will rewrite it.
Also, it's about two more days to Budget Day. According to Senyum Kambing at Utusan Malaysia today, 6.3 million people watched Siti Nurhaliza's wedding while 4.8 million people were attracted to something that Mawi did. Now let's see how the Budget Day - one thing that actually affects the common people - fares.
Selamat Hari Merdeka.
Don't forget your history, lest somebody will rewrite it.
Also, it's about two more days to Budget Day. According to Senyum Kambing at Utusan Malaysia today, 6.3 million people watched Siti Nurhaliza's wedding while 4.8 million people were attracted to something that Mawi did. Now let's see how the Budget Day - one thing that actually affects the common people - fares.
Selamat Hari Merdeka.
It's likely that many Malaysians and others have already read that Petronas - the giant Malaysian state-owned oil and gas company - has been kicked out of Chad. In a rather suspicious way too. The Chadian president alleges that Petronas fails to pay taxes to the Chadian government. After doing some reading, I feel the expulsion of Petronas is an exercise by Chad to forcefully nationalize part of Chadian oil and gas industry. That taxes stuff is simply a red-herring:
If you're a Malaysian and you haven't heard of the expulsion, then you're probably too busy talking about a wedding between a Malaysian pop star and er, somebody.
Interestingly, the People's Republic of China seems to have a hand on the Malaysian explusion given that the PRC stands to directly benefit from Malaysian loss. So, it's kind of hard to shrug off the idea that the PRC might have a hand on this.
Whatever PRC role in this expulsion is, if Petronas is kicked out, Chad is stealing from Malaysian citizens. But then, given the fact that Chad was the world's most corrupt nation according to Transparency International last year, we should have seen this coming.
While that happens, here comes Hugo Chavez to the rescue:
Socialist or not, black gold is still black gold. I'm sure even commies understand what that means.
Who needs Chad, eh?
Welcome Hugo Chavez.
The surprise move followed Chad's decision to create a new national oil company, which it said should become a partner in the country's existing oil-producing consortium, led by U.S. major Exxon Mobil and including Chevron and Petronas.
If you're a Malaysian and you haven't heard of the expulsion, then you're probably too busy talking about a wedding between a Malaysian pop star and er, somebody.
Interestingly, the People's Republic of China seems to have a hand on the Malaysian explusion given that the PRC stands to directly benefit from Malaysian loss. So, it's kind of hard to shrug off the idea that the PRC might have a hand on this.
Whatever PRC role in this expulsion is, if Petronas is kicked out, Chad is stealing from Malaysian citizens. But then, given the fact that Chad was the world's most corrupt nation according to Transparency International last year, we should have seen this coming.
While that happens, here comes Hugo Chavez to the rescue:
KUALA LUMPUR: Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez received a red-carpet welcome in Malaysia on Monday ahead of talks expected to focus on politics in the Middle East and cooperation in the oil and gas sector.
Socialist or not, black gold is still black gold. I'm sure even commies understand what that means.
Who needs Chad, eh?
Welcome Hugo Chavez.
I have just enough hearing the older generation telling us - the younger generations - that we do not appreciate the meaning of independence. It's as if these older generations know what's the meaning of independence better than us, especially when they themselves didn't go through the struggle of independence to start with. So, what moral authority do they have to tell us that?
Many of the older generations assume the moral authority because they're older than us. But seriously, just because a person lives through a period which happens to be a period of national struggle doesn't mean that person fight in that struggle. In all practical senses, many are merely spectators and free riding on others' struggle for some ideals. In short, moral authority is earned and it doesn't come automatically with age.
Perhaps, the reason the older generations keep telling us that we don't appreciate the struggle Malaysia has gone through is due to our questioning nature. Perhaps, our seniors are uncomfortable that the more open-minded younger generations - the liberals - that keep testing the norms and boundaries and refusing to adhere to orthodoxy introduced and set in place by them just for the sake of adhering . If that is so, perhaps they need to be reminded that their generations too fought against for changes at one time or another. If norms and orthodoxies weren't challenged, Malaysia would still probably be British Malaya.
If they indeed fear changes, then it wouldn't be too harsh to say that they're trying to preserve their legacies. Since the more liberal generations are open for changes for the better which might threaten the status quo, they disagree with our conducts. Hence, the accusation of being ungrateful.
Perhaps, they failed to realize that time changes and there are new challenges ahead. An entity will always need to reinvent itself to take on new unique challenges. If the new generations don't challenge norms, how do you expect us to overcome new challenges? How do you expect us - both the older and the younger generations; the society - as a whole to progress? How do you expect us to move forward if we're all stuck in orthodox norms? Do you expect us to clung to death to old models while facing infinite unique challenges that require new models?
Time does move on and changes do occur. To survive, we need to adapt and be flexible. Evolution will guarantee those that failed to adapt to regress into oblivion. Those that adapt will have fighting chances.
So, the next time anybody from the older generations tell you, the younger generations - especially the liberal ones - that you don't know how good you have it, tell them back that, at least we are willing to change and adapt. Our minds are open to new paradigms. Our minds are free. Ask them back, are you willing to do the same? Is your mind free?
Tell those uncles of yours, those parents of yours, some older persons on TV - may they be politicians or some strangers, no matter who - that freeing the mind is harder than freeing ourselves from the old chain of colonialism.
If they don't get that, then tell them, don't tell us that we don't know how good we have it. At the very least, we don't let others do our thinking for ourselves. Tell them, our definition of freedom is much larger than mere physical independence. Forget the clichés the mainstream media tells you. Our definition of freedom is the state of free mind. With a free mind, comes liberty in the truest sense.
But of course, don't tell them anything if you didn't think of this critically.
Many of the older generations assume the moral authority because they're older than us. But seriously, just because a person lives through a period which happens to be a period of national struggle doesn't mean that person fight in that struggle. In all practical senses, many are merely spectators and free riding on others' struggle for some ideals. In short, moral authority is earned and it doesn't come automatically with age.
Perhaps, the reason the older generations keep telling us that we don't appreciate the struggle Malaysia has gone through is due to our questioning nature. Perhaps, our seniors are uncomfortable that the more open-minded younger generations - the liberals - that keep testing the norms and boundaries and refusing to adhere to orthodoxy introduced and set in place by them just for the sake of adhering . If that is so, perhaps they need to be reminded that their generations too fought against for changes at one time or another. If norms and orthodoxies weren't challenged, Malaysia would still probably be British Malaya.
If they indeed fear changes, then it wouldn't be too harsh to say that they're trying to preserve their legacies. Since the more liberal generations are open for changes for the better which might threaten the status quo, they disagree with our conducts. Hence, the accusation of being ungrateful.
Perhaps, they failed to realize that time changes and there are new challenges ahead. An entity will always need to reinvent itself to take on new unique challenges. If the new generations don't challenge norms, how do you expect us to overcome new challenges? How do you expect us - both the older and the younger generations; the society - as a whole to progress? How do you expect us to move forward if we're all stuck in orthodox norms? Do you expect us to clung to death to old models while facing infinite unique challenges that require new models?
Time does move on and changes do occur. To survive, we need to adapt and be flexible. Evolution will guarantee those that failed to adapt to regress into oblivion. Those that adapt will have fighting chances.
So, the next time anybody from the older generations tell you, the younger generations - especially the liberal ones - that you don't know how good you have it, tell them back that, at least we are willing to change and adapt. Our minds are open to new paradigms. Our minds are free. Ask them back, are you willing to do the same? Is your mind free?
Tell those uncles of yours, those parents of yours, some older persons on TV - may they be politicians or some strangers, no matter who - that freeing the mind is harder than freeing ourselves from the old chain of colonialism.
If they don't get that, then tell them, don't tell us that we don't know how good we have it. At the very least, we don't let others do our thinking for ourselves. Tell them, our definition of freedom is much larger than mere physical independence. Forget the clichés the mainstream media tells you. Our definition of freedom is the state of free mind. With a free mind, comes liberty in the truest sense.
But of course, don't tell them anything if you didn't think of this critically.
Some weeks ago on a Friday, I sat in a park by the Petronas Twin Towers, watching pretty people walked by for hours (tag). Somehow, I think I saw more foreigners than Malaysians there.
Anyway, several recognizable structures are observable from the park. The Mandarin Hotel is one of them.
This was caught before the haze crossed over the Malacca Straits from Indonesia to haunt all Malaysians.
Anyway, several recognizable structures are observable from the park. The Mandarin Hotel is one of them.
This was caught before the haze crossed over the Malacca Straits from Indonesia to haunt all Malaysians.
This article at a conservative blog is probably the one of the worst written articles I've ever seen. The reason for such classification is the factual inaccuracies and inconsistencies that exist in that entry. Let's visit the article wherever there exists factual inaccuracy, inconsistency or simple disinformation. I'll quote most of the article here so that it the conservative article is to be removed (that blog's author has a history of deletion of proof; see here and observe that fact that the reference of that particular sentence has been removed by the author to escape burden of being selective reasoning). It's in Malay though.
First paragraph tries to define the word secular (tag):
It seems that the definition was taken from Wikipedia. However, mistranslation might have occurred because the article says in Christianity, the word secular means religion opposes the Church. Perhaps, that's an honest mistaken because if it wasn't, then it seems like a contradiction. Whatever it is, that sentence needs further clarification. Apart from that, I don't have anything to comment on the first paragraph save one:
Yup. Secularism, coupled with human rights, allows everybody to choose their own beliefs. This kind of secularism doesn't force religion into individuals' throat, much unlike certain conservative opinion.
Second paragraph:
This is pure disinformation. The first sentence states that secularism is a politics based on racialist/racist (the Malay language doesn't seem to differentiate the term racist and racialist; I'll pick racist from this purpose given the context of the conservative article) or nationalist sentiment while secularist economy is based on free market.
On secularism and racism, holding a secularist's view automatically mean being a racist or a nationalist. Take humanist secularist for instance - this type of secularism embraces humanity as a whole regardless of beliefs or genetic makeup. Secular humanism in fact doesn't believe in racism. As a matter of fact, humanism isn't as divisive as racist or conservative politics. Nevertheless, I'm not saying there's no racist secularist. What I'm saying here is that racism is independent of secularism and secularism is independent of racism. Almost like how moral is independent of religion.
On secularism and free market, consider a secular communist state. Would a secular communist state practice free market? It won't because communism by definition rejects the notion of private property while free market accepts it. The author of that article certainly needs to read more history of economics thoughts. In short, the author of the article is not sufficiently well-read to talk about secularism and its connection with free market.
With this, the thesis of the whole article is based has been proven flawed. So this makes all other subsequent ideas based on the main idea irrelevant for debate. But I'll visit some of the more disagreeable or notable statements.
Paragraph eight:
This paragraph seems to be anti-modern. Moreover, it seems to be against education brought by the British. For the record, back during the day of British Malaya, most Malays didn't go through proper education because the Malays were suspicious of the education provided by the British. The article seems to disapprove the Malays receiving education about the modern world from the British and would be content to learn merely about the religion. Forget mathematics, language, physics, etc, eh?
Paragraph ten:
That article seems to hate economic progress. The progression of the article isn't too surprising given its opposition to the Malays receiving education from the British during colonial period.
Paragraph 11:
Oh, the Malaysian Constitution is secular now? Didn't that blog and its sister blogs insist that the Constitution is not secular previously? What's going on here? Perhaps, finally, they've finally come to accept that fact that the Constitution is secular in nature?
On politics, well, the politics that the article espouses originates from the Arabic world. Still foreign as far as this part of the world is concerned, isn it?
The article continues that say that secularism is against Malaysian politics. That's not true. Instead, it's merely against religious conservative politics.
Moving on:
This article is simple about "I'm the good side and secularism is the evil side". It tries to create a false dilemma by painting the world as black and white. Perhaps, this is the reason why the conservative author has mistaken the relationship between secularism with capitalism, racism and sex.
p/s - after the loss to FC Copenhagen, Ajax is up against another Scandinavian club. This time, it's from Norway, for the UEFA Cup.
First paragraph tries to define the word secular (tag):
Fahaman sekular adalah merujuk kepada perkataan Latin iaitu saeculum yang bererti generasi atau zaman. Dalam agama Kristian sekular bermaksud agama itu bertentangan dengan gereja. Untuk pengertian yang lebih jauh sekular merujuk kepada sesuatu yang dimiliki atau yang bersangkutan dengan dunia lahir sahaja dan tidak ada kena mengena dengan keabadian. Dalam perbincangan ini sekular bermakna kehidupan yang tidak ada kaitan dengan perkara ghaib, atau perkara agama.
It seems that the definition was taken from Wikipedia. However, mistranslation might have occurred because the article says in Christianity, the word secular means religion opposes the Church. Perhaps, that's an honest mistaken because if it wasn't, then it seems like a contradiction. Whatever it is, that sentence needs further clarification. Apart from that, I don't have anything to comment on the first paragraph save one:
Dengan begitu sekularisme adalah bermakna satu fahaman yang memisahkan agama dari kehidupan ini, khususnya kehidupan bernegara. Ugama adalah masalah peribadi yang tidak mempunyai kaitan dengan negara. Manusia adalah bebas dari asuhan agama dan ketetapan dari Yang Maha Kuasa. Sekularisme menentang sebarang pengaruh agama dan manusia bebas menentukan kepercayaan dan arah haluan hidupnya sendiri.
Yup. Secularism, coupled with human rights, allows everybody to choose their own beliefs. This kind of secularism doesn't force religion into individuals' throat, much unlike certain conservative opinion.
Second paragraph:
Teras kepada sekularisme ialah politik yang berasaskan kepada perkauman atau pun kebangsaan, atau apa yang kita panggil nasionalisma. Manakala ekonominya pula berasaskan laissez faire dan falsafah individualisma.Ia kemudiannya merebak ke dalam masyarakat dan menjadi sebahagian dari gaya hidup mereka yang merupakan pemujaan kepada modenisma, materialisma dan pemujaan hawa nafsu.
This is pure disinformation. The first sentence states that secularism is a politics based on racialist/racist (the Malay language doesn't seem to differentiate the term racist and racialist; I'll pick racist from this purpose given the context of the conservative article) or nationalist sentiment while secularist economy is based on free market.
On secularism and racism, holding a secularist's view automatically mean being a racist or a nationalist. Take humanist secularist for instance - this type of secularism embraces humanity as a whole regardless of beliefs or genetic makeup. Secular humanism in fact doesn't believe in racism. As a matter of fact, humanism isn't as divisive as racist or conservative politics. Nevertheless, I'm not saying there's no racist secularist. What I'm saying here is that racism is independent of secularism and secularism is independent of racism. Almost like how moral is independent of religion.
On secularism and free market, consider a secular communist state. Would a secular communist state practice free market? It won't because communism by definition rejects the notion of private property while free market accepts it. The author of that article certainly needs to read more history of economics thoughts. In short, the author of the article is not sufficiently well-read to talk about secularism and its connection with free market.
With this, the thesis of the whole article is based has been proven flawed. So this makes all other subsequent ideas based on the main idea irrelevant for debate. But I'll visit some of the more disagreeable or notable statements.
Paragraph eight:
Bidang yang paling teruk menerima kesan sekularisasi adalah bidang pendidikan. Ini kerana pendidikan adalah merupakan saluran dan alat terpenting untuk mencorakkan haluan hidup manusia itu sendiri. Stamford Raffles adalah seorang pegawai Inggeris yang bertanggung jawab mengemukakan rancangan halus untuk mencapai matlamat tersebut. Melalui pendidikan beliau merencanakan Singapura sebagai pusat bagi kebangkitan semula peradaban asli kuno dan menyegarkan menerusi penyebaran perluasan pengaruh Inggeris dan faedah-faedah pendidikan dalam kemajuan ekonomi Barat. Beliau telah mengemukakan gagasan pusat Pengajian Asia Tenggara bagi mencapai matlamat ini. Beliau berhasrat untuk melahirkan bangsa-bangsa yang bijaksana dan terpelajar selaku orang suruhan yang jujur kepada sistem pentadbiran penjajah. Ia juga menyarankan supaya pendidikan untuk anak-anak Melayu mestilah menerusi tulisan rumi dalam usaha mengurangkan pengaruh Islam di kalangan orang-orang Melayu.
This paragraph seems to be anti-modern. Moreover, it seems to be against education brought by the British. For the record, back during the day of British Malaya, most Malays didn't go through proper education because the Malays were suspicious of the education provided by the British. The article seems to disapprove the Malays receiving education about the modern world from the British and would be content to learn merely about the religion. Forget mathematics, language, physics, etc, eh?
Paragraph ten:
Demikianlah masyarakat Melayu mula membenci orang-orang yang hidup sederhana, yang tidak menyintai dunia, dan yang mengamalkan sikap zuhud. Segala-galanya dinilai dengan wang ringgit. Masalah negara dilihat penyelesaiannya dari sudut ekonomi, dan bukannya dengan cara yang dikehendakki oleh Islam. Kemudian pada dekad-dekad terakhir lapan puluhan lahirlah Dasar Ekonomi Baru, Amanah Saham Nasional, 30 peratus penyertaan bumiputra dalam sektor perusahaan, Loteri Kebajikan Masyarakat, dan berbagai lagi perkara yang menjurus kepada soal kebendaan semata yang kesemuanya bertentangan dengan prinsip Islam.
That article seems to hate economic progress. The progression of the article isn't too surprising given its opposition to the Malays receiving education from the British during colonial period.
Paragraph 11:
Aspek politik adalah yang paling utama menerima kesan dari sekularisme. Perlembagaan Malaysia adalah bukti yang paling jelas dalam hal ini. Ia menafikan kekuasaan Allah, Rasulnya dan AlQuran. Politik dan agama menjadi terpisah.Sedangkan sepertimana yang kita tahu dalam Islam agama dan politik adalah satu.Tidak bercerai berai. Hijrahnya Rasul saw adalah untuk mendirikan negara Islam di Madinah. Ini bermakna Islam dan politik tidak dapat dipisahkan, di mana ia bertentangan sama sekali dengan hakikat perjalanan politik di Malaysia. Politik kita sekarang adalah acuan dari Barat, politik yang mengutamakan nafsu dan kebendaan.
Oh, the Malaysian Constitution is secular now? Didn't that blog and its sister blogs insist that the Constitution is not secular previously? What's going on here? Perhaps, finally, they've finally come to accept that fact that the Constitution is secular in nature?
On politics, well, the politics that the article espouses originates from the Arabic world. Still foreign as far as this part of the world is concerned, isn it?
The article continues that say that secularism is against Malaysian politics. That's not true. Instead, it's merely against religious conservative politics.
Moving on:
Apabila benda-benda menguasai manusia, maka mereka pun tenggelam dalam suasana hidup yang tidak ada berpedoman, semuanya bertuhankan nafsu. Sebab itulah hidup masyarakat kita hari ini sedang menuju ke arah kehancuran, akibat merebaknya pengaruh sekularisme itu, bahkan ianya dibelai pula oleh pemerintah kita, menjadikan orang Islam di Malaysia terlalu individualistik, hidup mementingkan diri, mengejar kemewahan dan sebagainya. Projek-projek membazir sudah menjadi semacam satu pemujaan, semuanya adalah kerana faham kebendaan telah berakar umbi ke dalam jiwa Melayu yang mengaku beragama Islam. Mampukan orang-orang Melayu sorot balik ke belakang? Soalnya terletak kepada orang Melayu sendiri. Namun pengaruh sekularisme bukanlah semudah itu untuk dibuang, apalagi ia telah tertanam ke dalam jiwa dan dijunjung pula oleh kaum pemerintah. Inilah halangan-halangan utama untuk menyebarkan akidah Islam, apalagi untuk memberikan kefahaman tentang negara Islam kerana fahaman itu amat bertentangan dengan jiwa Islam yang murni itu.
Dan jika sekiranya kita berminat untuk menegakkan Islam, kita haruslah memerangi fahaman ini yang menjadi halangan utama ke arah merealisasikan cita-cita Islam itu. Bersediakah kita?
This article is simple about "I'm the good side and secularism is the evil side". It tries to create a false dilemma by painting the world as black and white. Perhaps, this is the reason why the conservative author has mistaken the relationship between secularism with capitalism, racism and sex.
p/s - after the loss to FC Copenhagen, Ajax is up against another Scandinavian club. This time, it's from Norway, for the UEFA Cup.
The Solar system now has officially eight planets. Pluto is a planet no more. I heard it over CNN last night (tag). BBC has a nice report on it:
Wikipedia as usual has a more detailed description of the event.
Now, all those religious freaks that insist they holy book(s) has(have) already said that there are nine planets in our system will need to revise their assertion.
The God of the Underworld must be angry.
Astronomers have voted to strip Pluto of its status as a planet.
About 2,500 scientists meeting in Prague have adopted historic new guidelines that see the small, distant world demoted to a secondary category.
Wikipedia as usual has a more detailed description of the event.
Now, all those religious freaks that insist they holy book(s) has(have) already said that there are nine planets in our system will need to revise their assertion.
The God of the Underworld must be angry.
Hahahahaha! Own goal baby!Aggregate 2-3.
This must be some kind of harsh justice placed upon Ajax by some kind of soccer god (tag) :
FC København defied the odds to overturn a 2-1 first leg deficit with a 2-0 win at AFC Ajax that earned them a place in the UEFA Champions League group stage.
An own goal from Belgian defender Thomas Vermaelen proved to be the decider on the night as the Dutch side somehow conspired to lose a tie which always seemed poised in their favour.
There go millions of Euros.
Despite feeling obviously disappointed, Ajax doesn't deserve to be in the Champions League. By last season's standard, we should have been in the UEFA Cup, which we are currently now. AZ Alkmaar should have played this match instead of Ajax. But somehow, the KNVB screwed AZ last season.
Nonetheless, loss is a loss and we all should be sporting enough to admit to defeat. All the luck for FC Copenhagen.
After beating PSV 3-1 in the Johan Cruyff Shield match, Ajax is off to a flying start (tag). In its first 2006/07 Eredivisie match, Ajax slaughtered RKC Waalwijk 5-0.The scorers - in order - are Babel, Sneijder, Heitinga, Sneijder again and Rosales.
Perhaps, the other goodness going on is the fact that Feyenoord was humiliated by Groningen 3-0. AZ on the hand started this season with a bang - they razed NAC to the ground with eight goals for and a goal against.
p/s - don't make promises that you can't keep. It hurts your reputation. But then, I suppose breaking promises in god's name is okay, eh?
I for some reason sees Petaling Jaya residents as the most progressive community in Malaysia - a Malaysian San Francisco perhaps. I don't know why but Petaling Jaya somehow gives me the impression that it's a city of literatis; city of intelligentsias; city of political consciousness (tag). Sometimes, even the bastion of liberalism in the country. One way Petaling Jaya could seal these perceptions among Malaysians is to exercise the third vote - residents of Petaling Jaya should elect their major.
Malaysians - and in effect, residents of Petaling Jaya - currently don't have the power to elect their mayors. We - Malaysians - used to have that right before it was suspended on March 1 1965, during the height of the Indonesian confrontation against Malaysia. While peace between Indonesia and Malaysia has been restored, Malaysians have yet to regain the power to elect their mayors.
Petaling Jaya currently has its mayor post vacant; its first mayor retired after only two months at the job. So, the search for the next major is on:
There have always been complaints against inefficient city councils. I believe such inefficiency is caused by lack of accountability - those that are appointed to the posts are not directly answerable to those being governed. With the lack of accountability, the mayors will not have proper incentives to improve their service.
Reintroduction of local government elections will reintroduce incentives for mayors to improve their services because elections act as an effective carrot and stick model. With an election, the mayors need to either perform or risk being voted out of office.
Petaling Jaya has a strong urban community compared to most other urban areas. The residents of Petaling Jaya should use their influence to exercise their right to elect their mayor. If Petaling Jaya manages to reintroduce local government election, the city would seal its status as the most progressive city in Malaysia.
Malaysians - and in effect, residents of Petaling Jaya - currently don't have the power to elect their mayors. We - Malaysians - used to have that right before it was suspended on March 1 1965, during the height of the Indonesian confrontation against Malaysia. While peace between Indonesia and Malaysia has been restored, Malaysians have yet to regain the power to elect their mayors.
Petaling Jaya currently has its mayor post vacant; its first mayor retired after only two months at the job. So, the search for the next major is on:
Mentri Besar Datuk Seri Dr Mohamad Khir Toyo confirmed that a name has been forwarded for endorsement but said he could only "disclose this much information now."
He also explained that District Officers did not include municipal council presidents. With this new development, speculation is rife that Petaling District Officer Mazalan Md Noor will be the one to fill the position left vacant by Ahmad Termizi Puteh who retired two months after becoming the Petaling Jaya's first mayor.
Based on Dr Khir's statement, two of the three other names earlier mentioned - Klang Municipal Council president Abdul Bakir Zin and Petaling Jaya Municipal Council (MBPJ) secretary Zulkepli Ahmad - are out of contention.
However, the third person, Gombak district officer Abdul Ghani Salleh, is still in the running.
There have always been complaints against inefficient city councils. I believe such inefficiency is caused by lack of accountability - those that are appointed to the posts are not directly answerable to those being governed. With the lack of accountability, the mayors will not have proper incentives to improve their service.
Reintroduction of local government elections will reintroduce incentives for mayors to improve their services because elections act as an effective carrot and stick model. With an election, the mayors need to either perform or risk being voted out of office.
Petaling Jaya has a strong urban community compared to most other urban areas. The residents of Petaling Jaya should use their influence to exercise their right to elect their mayor. If Petaling Jaya manages to reintroduce local government election, the city would seal its status as the most progressive city in Malaysia.
Global warming deniers have lost the debate. However, recognizing the problem and arresting it are two different things (tag). An article by Sunstein at WaPo talks on one of the obstacles of combating global warming:
This is of course, like what Prof. Mankiw said, is relevant to the Coase Theorem. Coase Theorem is also related to the transboundary haze in Southeast Asia.
The obstacle stems from the unusual incentives of the United States and China. As the world's leading contributors to climate change, these are the two countries that would have to bear the lion's share of the cost of greenhouse gas reductions. At the same time, they are both expected to suffer less than many other nations from climate change -- and thus are less motivated to do something about it. And while the international spotlight has rightly been on the behavior of the United States, China will soon present the more serious problem.
This is of course, like what Prof. Mankiw said, is relevant to the Coase Theorem. Coase Theorem is also related to the transboundary haze in Southeast Asia.
It's amazing how irresponsible and negligent some people - possibly parents - can be. It's not too rare at Suria KLCC to find a person with a baby in a stroller to use the escalator to move from one floor to the next. Hear this: using the escalator while pushing a stroller with a baby in it is dangerous. It might not be dangerous to you but to the baby, it is absolutely.
I've observed so many times a person struggling to balance a stroller with a baby in it while they're on an escalator. It doesn't take much for the person handling the stroller on an escalator to accidentally let go of the stoller and hence, jepordizing the safety of the baby.
Parents sometimes prefer to save time by riding on the escalator at the expense of the baby's safety. I do feel that this is an unacceptable trade-off between time and safety.
A safer alternative would be the elevator. I urge everybody to ulitize an elevator in place of the escalator whenever you need to move between floors with a baby in a stroller. At the very least, please carry the baby on your person if you insist on using the escalator. You may fold the stroller and hold it with one hand though it will better if you hold the baby with both hands.
So far thankfully, I haven't witnessed any accident that involved a baby in a stroller falling off the escalator. I've no desire to watch one.
Please think of the baby people.
p/s - leader of the opposition Lim Kit Siang, laments the exclusion of Universiti Malaya from Newsweek's top 100 global universities. For me, I consider rankings as overrated and inaccurate - this includes the US News' list. While rankings may differentiate the top tier from the other tiers, it does nothing to differentiate schools within that top tier. For instance, in the Newsweek's list, is #1 Harvard really better than #10 Columbia? Is #11 Michigan (Go Blue!) better than #34 London School of Economics?
Is #34 National University of Singapore better than #66 Vanderbilt, #52 Universiteit Utrecht or #56 Brown? C'mon.
Trivia: could you find Ohio State University in the ranking?
I know. I'm a cruel person. Related, do read Time's Who needs Harvard?
I've observed so many times a person struggling to balance a stroller with a baby in it while they're on an escalator. It doesn't take much for the person handling the stroller on an escalator to accidentally let go of the stoller and hence, jepordizing the safety of the baby.
Parents sometimes prefer to save time by riding on the escalator at the expense of the baby's safety. I do feel that this is an unacceptable trade-off between time and safety.
A safer alternative would be the elevator. I urge everybody to ulitize an elevator in place of the escalator whenever you need to move between floors with a baby in a stroller. At the very least, please carry the baby on your person if you insist on using the escalator. You may fold the stroller and hold it with one hand though it will better if you hold the baby with both hands.
So far thankfully, I haven't witnessed any accident that involved a baby in a stroller falling off the escalator. I've no desire to watch one.
Please think of the baby people.
p/s - leader of the opposition Lim Kit Siang, laments the exclusion of Universiti Malaya from Newsweek's top 100 global universities. For me, I consider rankings as overrated and inaccurate - this includes the US News' list. While rankings may differentiate the top tier from the other tiers, it does nothing to differentiate schools within that top tier. For instance, in the Newsweek's list, is #1 Harvard really better than #10 Columbia? Is #11 Michigan (Go Blue!) better than #34 London School of Economics?
Is #34 National University of Singapore better than #66 Vanderbilt, #52 Universiteit Utrecht or #56 Brown? C'mon.
Trivia: could you find Ohio State University in the ranking?
I know. I'm a cruel person. Related, do read Time's Who needs Harvard?
So say the Rukunegara in its first paragraph (tag):
The paragraph is a direct contradiction to conservative ideas. They believe in unity only when they could practice fascism. They believe in democratic values only when they win. They believe in a just society only when they get their share while everybody else is deprived of justice. They support a narrow-minded conservative approach to society. And they are not interested in progressive society.
For the coming Independence and Malaysia Day, I wish to express my thankfulness for every bit of liberalism still available in Malaysia. Without a liberal society, Malaysia would probably be another Afghanistan. Or Kelantan for that matter.
Malaysia wouldn't have gotten here with a heavy dose of conservatism. We have experienced intolerance before. Let's learn from the past and move forward.
p/s - Today marks the 61st anniversary of the end of World War II.
pp/s - re: conservative blog, concerning Rukunegara. The following completes the Rukunegara:
That blog says point one (Belief in God) is equivalent to upholding Islam. I'm sorry mate but it didn't say Islam. It simply says belief in God. Nothing more, nothing less. Perhaps, this is a proof that that particular conservative thinks Malaysian society is a monoculture or aims to make Malaysia a dull monocultural society. That itself is counter-thesis to the idea of Malaysia.
Given this, it's not too astounding to see how that author frequently offends other people of different beliefs. That itself explains the intolerance exhibited by the author in that blog.
At the same time, liberalism isn't about disbelieving in god either. So, this is an obvious misunderstanding or misrepresentation - deliberate or otherwise - of the term liberalism.
The blog further states point 5 is about moral police. Again, sorry mate. Good behavior and morality isn't about moral policing. It's about having a good moral. Period. In fact, morality is independent of religion. If the two were one, there would be no need to mention god and then morality in two different places. Talking about that, please count the number of cuss words available at that blog. I'd assume that the higher the count of cuss words written corresponds to lower the moral standard.
Religion and much less conservatism is no guarantee of morality.
Further:
Do it in the streets but within private life? A contradiction in a single sentence, hence logical fallacy. Perhaps the author doesn't comprehend the division between public and private sphere.
In any case, "shagging" in the street isn't what most liberals would call decent. Most people and indeed most decent liberals would tell a couple that would want to shag to get a room.
The author likes the way the Taliban ruled Afghanistan. Remember what the Taliban did to that 1000-year old statue? Or how the Taliban treated women and deprived them of education? Taliban suppressed freedom and that conservative author likes it.
No wonder they call for murder of all of those disagree with them. They see no wrong in Taliban's wrongdoings.
So, it's the liberals now that try to impose liberal values on others?
Funny because liberals are simply fighting for their freedom and have no desire to impose their values on others. Even funnier, a conservative calls liberals as moral chauvinist.
Think about the whole concept of liberalism again. Just liberalism and let's not get into the deeper division of liberalism. Who do you think would be most likely to practice censorship? A liberal or a conservative? Guess who would be more likely to tell you what to wear in public? Guess who would be more likely to tell you what to eat? Or tell you where to sleep at? Tell you who to marry to? Tell you what to watch on TV? On radio? On the internet? Tell you what to read? Tell you how to have fun? Who would be more likely to tell you what moral should we subscribe to?
Liberals will let you decide all that for yourself. Conservatives won't. At least, that particular conservative won't.
In fact, libertarians - of which I associate myself with - not only let, they in fact don't mind whatever you do as long as you don't infringe on their rights. That particular conservative on the other hand has no respect for individual liberty.
Libertarians only fight when our rights are infringed upon. Left alone, we'd be happy to enjoy the bright sunny day with a blue sky peacefully. Conservatives won't. They will impose their moral values on others because they believe it's their jobs to be guardians of morality. They appoint themselves and intrude on other people's lives. Libertarian let you manage your own moral. In short, libertarians don't mess with your liberty.
So tell me again, who is trying to impose some sort of moral standard on others?
ppp/s - re: liberalism in Rukunegera. Replying to a conservative's points:
In 1988 in the Che Omar Che Soh case, the Supreme Court declared "the law in this country is still what it is today, secular law". Furthermore, the court ruled:
That's the Supreme Court, the ultimate authority in this country regarding the status of the Constitution. Unless the highest court in Malaysia undo that ruling, it shall be as it is, as it has been since the Reid Commission produced the draft of the Malayan and later Malaysian Constitution. The ruling is still binding, thanks to rule of precedent.
Revisiting Rukunegara, one of its authors is Prof. Khoo Kay Kim, a non-Muslim. Do you really think he was thinking of the Islamic god when he wrote that down? More important, the Rukunegara was introduced as a reaction to the May 13 Incident - the race riot. The Rukunegara aims to bring unity. Since this is the case, wouldn't it be counter-productive to rally all Malaysians of various beliefs and backgrounds under an Islamic god instead? That rally would promote division instead of unity and hence, pulling the Rukunegara away from its aim.
Therefore, a contradiction, again.
This whole paragraph reflects the conservative author's failure in logical thinking. Notice the difference between "morality is independent of religion" and "religion is independent of morality". The two statements may sound similar but logically, both mean different thing. More importantly, I argue for the former but the other person thinks I'm arguing for the latter. The other person's failure to notice the logical difference itself makes his argument flawed in the first place.
Nevertheless, morality may be part and parcel of religion and I have little quarrel in that though I won't risk generalizing it; there may exist an immoral religion though morality itself might be subjective and hard to measure. However, religion is not necessarily part and parcel of morality. Hence, morality is independent of religion.
If morality is dependent of religion, then how do you explain the existence of immoral theist? The existence of immoral theist itself is a proof that religion is no guarantee of morality and morality is independent of religion.
Then, let's visit an outrageous statement:
In order to solve the problem of moralistic atheist, the other person considers atheism as a "religion of sorts". See how rules are bent just to suit his need.
Let's tighten the definition of atheism. Atheism is disbelief in the existence of god. Here's a proposal: a moralistic atheist could be as he is - i.e. moralistic - due to secular moral such as descibed by humanism. Would that mean secularism itself is a religion? Secularism itself by definition is freedom from religion. Unless this is a begging the question type of fallacy, how do you reconcile this apparent contradiction that atheism is itself religion?
Is any sort set of principles could be considered as religions? If yes, would that mean there is no such thing as a person without a religion?
But even if we accepted that atheism is religion and thus solving the problem of moralistic atheist, he still needs to solve the immoralistic atheist problem. If the former problem left unsolved, the idea morality is dependent on religion is flawed.
And yes, concerning Max Weber and "religious animal", how would that explain a state of lack of religion?
Ah, but guess who played the black and white tactic first? Guess who played the false dilemma fallacy first? Guess who raised the word heretic or the ban on liberal thinking?
Only when the tactic comes to bite him back does he cry of false dilemma. See number 11 of [859] Of how to spot a religious conservative for a fun poke.
In any case, guess who supports murder as a mean to suppress individual's freedom of religion?
Because this argument is a natural follow up of the author's failure to recognize a difference between two distinct logical statements, this statement by itself is irrelevant until the logical fallacy is addressed.
But to show how irrelevant the point made by the conservative author is, I've never questioned the existence of a moralistic theist. All I'm arguing is that morality is independent of religion. It's a question of relationship of morality and religion, not the existence of moralistic theist.
Revisiting one of the main contentions, the conservative author argues that morality is dependent of religion. If that was so, why there exists an immoral theist?
In order to prove the morality is dependent of religion, the conservative author needs to prove the non-existence of immoralistc theist and moralistic atheist. Failing to do so means losing the argument and accepting that morality is independent of religion.
In stark contrast, the idea morality is independent of religion accommodates the existence of immoralistic theist, moralistic theist, moralistic atheist and immoralistic atheist, thus becoming a universal set by itself.
I'll add, brutal logical mistakes.
Finally, this needs clarification - I personally criticize Taliban and its conservatism along with its act and its supporters, not Islam. It's important to note that Taliban as well as conservatives have no monopoly of Islam. I'd imagine he will try to paint criticism against Taliban is criticism against Islam. For the fun version, see number 5 of [859] Of how to spot a religious conservative?
And, heh, politically, any support of Taliban is a magnet for harsh criticism due to Taliban's past acts. If he tries to justify Taliban's intolerance, it would be too easy. Silence on my part would probably be best as he paints himself as a supporter of Taliban.
Our Nation, Malaysia is dedicated to: Achieving a greater unity for all her people; maintaining a democratic way of life; creating a just society in which the wealth of the nation shall be equitably distributed; ensuring a liberal approach to her rich and diverse cultural tradition, and building a progressive society which shall be oriented to modern science and technology.
The paragraph is a direct contradiction to conservative ideas. They believe in unity only when they could practice fascism. They believe in democratic values only when they win. They believe in a just society only when they get their share while everybody else is deprived of justice. They support a narrow-minded conservative approach to society. And they are not interested in progressive society.
For the coming Independence and Malaysia Day, I wish to express my thankfulness for every bit of liberalism still available in Malaysia. Without a liberal society, Malaysia would probably be another Afghanistan. Or Kelantan for that matter.
Malaysia wouldn't have gotten here with a heavy dose of conservatism. We have experienced intolerance before. Let's learn from the past and move forward.
p/s - Today marks the 61st anniversary of the end of World War II.
pp/s - re: conservative blog, concerning Rukunegara. The following completes the Rukunegara:
We, the people of Malaysia, pledge our united efforts to attain these ends, guided by these principles:
Belief in God
Loyalty to King and Country
Upholding the Constitution
Sovereignty of the Law
Good Behaviour and Morality
That blog says point one (Belief in God) is equivalent to upholding Islam. I'm sorry mate but it didn't say Islam. It simply says belief in God. Nothing more, nothing less. Perhaps, this is a proof that that particular conservative thinks Malaysian society is a monoculture or aims to make Malaysia a dull monocultural society. That itself is counter-thesis to the idea of Malaysia.
Given this, it's not too astounding to see how that author frequently offends other people of different beliefs. That itself explains the intolerance exhibited by the author in that blog.
At the same time, liberalism isn't about disbelieving in god either. So, this is an obvious misunderstanding or misrepresentation - deliberate or otherwise - of the term liberalism.
The blog further states point 5 is about moral police. Again, sorry mate. Good behavior and morality isn't about moral policing. It's about having a good moral. Period. In fact, morality is independent of religion. If the two were one, there would be no need to mention god and then morality in two different places. Talking about that, please count the number of cuss words available at that blog. I'd assume that the higher the count of cuss words written corresponds to lower the moral standard.
Religion and much less conservatism is no guarantee of morality.
Further:
They do not mind if you shag in the streets as long as it is kept within the realm of private life.
Do it in the streets but within private life? A contradiction in a single sentence, hence logical fallacy. Perhaps the author doesn't comprehend the division between public and private sphere.
In any case, "shagging" in the street isn't what most liberals would call decent. Most people and indeed most decent liberals would tell a couple that would want to shag to get a room.
Actually life in Kelantan pretty much goes on as usual and the situation in Afghanistan during the Taliban era isn't as bad as one may make out to be.
The author likes the way the Taliban ruled Afghanistan. Remember what the Taliban did to that 1000-year old statue? Or how the Taliban treated women and deprived them of education? Taliban suppressed freedom and that conservative author likes it.
No wonder they call for murder of all of those disagree with them. They see no wrong in Taliban's wrongdoings.
Until they stop imposing their liberal values upon the society which wants to preserve their religious values, perhaps their ignorance will persist. Moral chauvinism is, after all, the order of the day for them.
So, it's the liberals now that try to impose liberal values on others?
Funny because liberals are simply fighting for their freedom and have no desire to impose their values on others. Even funnier, a conservative calls liberals as moral chauvinist.
Think about the whole concept of liberalism again. Just liberalism and let's not get into the deeper division of liberalism. Who do you think would be most likely to practice censorship? A liberal or a conservative? Guess who would be more likely to tell you what to wear in public? Guess who would be more likely to tell you what to eat? Or tell you where to sleep at? Tell you who to marry to? Tell you what to watch on TV? On radio? On the internet? Tell you what to read? Tell you how to have fun? Who would be more likely to tell you what moral should we subscribe to?
Liberals will let you decide all that for yourself. Conservatives won't. At least, that particular conservative won't.
In fact, libertarians - of which I associate myself with - not only let, they in fact don't mind whatever you do as long as you don't infringe on their rights. That particular conservative on the other hand has no respect for individual liberty.
Libertarians only fight when our rights are infringed upon. Left alone, we'd be happy to enjoy the bright sunny day with a blue sky peacefully. Conservatives won't. They will impose their moral values on others because they believe it's their jobs to be guardians of morality. They appoint themselves and intrude on other people's lives. Libertarian let you manage your own moral. In short, libertarians don't mess with your liberty.
So tell me again, who is trying to impose some sort of moral standard on others?
ppp/s - re: liberalism in Rukunegera. Replying to a conservative's points:
Surely we are not blind as to be unable to see that. However, the liberal is obfuscating facts The fact remains that Islam is the religion of the Federation, and that the status of Islam in the country is pretty much guaranteed (with Article 3 also stating that "other religions may be practiced in freedom and security"). While the liberal tries to obfuscate this and tries to label this as "conservatism" (also implying that Islam will be imposed on everyone wholesale, regardless of whether one is Muslim or not), we say that is bull. Islam is the ideology of the Federation, it will remain that way until a secularist leads a Revolution and changes it.
In 1988 in the Che Omar Che Soh case, the Supreme Court declared "the law in this country is still what it is today, secular law". Furthermore, the court ruled:
If it had been otherwise (an Islamic State), there would have been another provision in the Constitution which would have the effect that any law contrary to the injunction of Islam will be void. Far from making such provision, (the Constitution), on the other hand, purposely preserves the continuity of secular law prior to the Constitution?.
That's the Supreme Court, the ultimate authority in this country regarding the status of the Constitution. Unless the highest court in Malaysia undo that ruling, it shall be as it is, as it has been since the Reid Commission produced the draft of the Malayan and later Malaysian Constitution. The ruling is still binding, thanks to rule of precedent.
Revisiting Rukunegara, one of its authors is Prof. Khoo Kay Kim, a non-Muslim. Do you really think he was thinking of the Islamic god when he wrote that down? More important, the Rukunegara was introduced as a reaction to the May 13 Incident - the race riot. The Rukunegara aims to bring unity. Since this is the case, wouldn't it be counter-productive to rally all Malaysians of various beliefs and backgrounds under an Islamic god instead? That rally would promote division instead of unity and hence, pulling the Rukunegara away from its aim.
Therefore, a contradiction, again.
As for the claim that morality is independent of religion, that is also total BS. Morality is part and parcel of religion. Certainly one cannot be considered as moral if he or she does not have some sort of principles guiding his or her life (we view Atheism as a "religion" of sorts). Man is a religious animal, a religio naturalis. Some educating in the sociology of religion, particularly Max Weber's treatise on the matter, would perhaps knock some sense into the liberal's head.
This whole paragraph reflects the conservative author's failure in logical thinking. Notice the difference between "morality is independent of religion" and "religion is independent of morality". The two statements may sound similar but logically, both mean different thing. More importantly, I argue for the former but the other person thinks I'm arguing for the latter. The other person's failure to notice the logical difference itself makes his argument flawed in the first place.
Nevertheless, morality may be part and parcel of religion and I have little quarrel in that though I won't risk generalizing it; there may exist an immoral religion though morality itself might be subjective and hard to measure. However, religion is not necessarily part and parcel of morality. Hence, morality is independent of religion.
If morality is dependent of religion, then how do you explain the existence of immoral theist? The existence of immoral theist itself is a proof that religion is no guarantee of morality and morality is independent of religion.
Then, let's visit an outrageous statement:
Certainly one cannot be considered as moral if he or she does not have some sort of principles guiding his or her life (we view Atheism as a "religion" of sorts).
In order to solve the problem of moralistic atheist, the other person considers atheism as a "religion of sorts". See how rules are bent just to suit his need.
Let's tighten the definition of atheism. Atheism is disbelief in the existence of god. Here's a proposal: a moralistic atheist could be as he is - i.e. moralistic - due to secular moral such as descibed by humanism. Would that mean secularism itself is a religion? Secularism itself by definition is freedom from religion. Unless this is a begging the question type of fallacy, how do you reconcile this apparent contradiction that atheism is itself religion?
Is any sort set of principles could be considered as religions? If yes, would that mean there is no such thing as a person without a religion?
But even if we accepted that atheism is religion and thus solving the problem of moralistic atheist, he still needs to solve the immoralistic atheist problem. If the former problem left unsolved, the idea morality is dependent on religion is flawed.
And yes, concerning Max Weber and "religious animal", how would that explain a state of lack of religion?
But perhaps this is how liberals usually tend to think. Conservatism is evil, liberal is good. Such black and white colours are painted and suspension of belief is upheld regardless the cost. We cannot speak for the other religions nor do we wish to pretend to, but from the Islamic viewpoint, such a person obviously is a heretic and out of the fold of Islam.
Ah, but guess who played the black and white tactic first? Guess who played the false dilemma fallacy first? Guess who raised the word heretic or the ban on liberal thinking?
Only when the tactic comes to bite him back does he cry of false dilemma. See number 11 of [859] Of how to spot a religious conservative for a fun poke.
In any case, guess who supports murder as a mean to suppress individual's freedom of religion?
Was not the Prophet Muhammad a guardian of morality? Did he not legislate the crimes for adultery and imposed the Islamic way of life on the Muslims of Madinah, the first Islamic city-state in the world? Truly, one has to not be a Muslim to ignore these simple facts or simply be plain stupid.
Because this argument is a natural follow up of the author's failure to recognize a difference between two distinct logical statements, this statement by itself is irrelevant until the logical fallacy is addressed.
But to show how irrelevant the point made by the conservative author is, I've never questioned the existence of a moralistic theist. All I'm arguing is that morality is independent of religion. It's a question of relationship of morality and religion, not the existence of moralistic theist.
Revisiting one of the main contentions, the conservative author argues that morality is dependent of religion. If that was so, why there exists an immoral theist?
In order to prove the morality is dependent of religion, the conservative author needs to prove the non-existence of immoralistc theist and moralistic atheist. Failing to do so means losing the argument and accepting that morality is independent of religion.
In stark contrast, the idea morality is independent of religion accommodates the existence of immoralistic theist, moralistic theist, moralistic atheist and immoralistic atheist, thus becoming a universal set by itself.
And that is the brutal truth.
I'll add, brutal logical mistakes.
[This is Part 1 of 2. The second part will focus on the issue of "moral policing" and how liberals tend to compare the Islamic movement with the Taliban of Afghanistan and disparage both, with, of course, no understanding of the historical background of the Taliban.]
Finally, this needs clarification - I personally criticize Taliban and its conservatism along with its act and its supporters, not Islam. It's important to note that Taliban as well as conservatives have no monopoly of Islam. I'd imagine he will try to paint criticism against Taliban is criticism against Islam. For the fun version, see number 5 of [859] Of how to spot a religious conservative?
And, heh, politically, any support of Taliban is a magnet for harsh criticism due to Taliban's past acts. If he tries to justify Taliban's intolerance, it would be too easy. Silence on my part would probably be best as he paints himself as a supporter of Taliban.
There was a time when the Amsterdam Arena was PSV's second home - PSV totally dominated Ajax when the former played at Amsterdam (tag). Things have changed for the past few years; including this year. Ajax beat PSV Eindhoven 3-1 in this year's Johan Cruyff Shield:Twelve minutes later Wesley Sneijder made sure the Johan Cruyff Shield would remain at the Amsterdam ArenA with a superb individual goal. Sneijder intercepted the ball on the left flank, took it in and rocketed a superb 25-yard shot past the despairing Moens and into the top right corner of the net: 3-1, and 'game over'.
Seeing Jaap Stam lifting the Shield with Ajax - instead of PSV - certainly needs some get-to-use-to. Whatever it is, this is starting to look like a good season.
If you're interested, read part one and two.
After Wat Pho, we made way to the Bangkok National Museum while the day was still relatively bright and almost cheery. We passed along several landmarks (tag). One of them was the palace:
I wonder if those yellow stuff are actually gold. I'd presume they are. This looks inside the inner wall of the palace:
Somewhere nearby, there's a large open space, much like the Mall in Washington D.C. There's a university there too and there were many monks, as you can see:
After all these and a few other photos, we reached the museum.
The museum has a large compound and the galleries are scattered all over the place. Despite that fact, we had mere two hours and so, we managed to roam a gallery. There were 20 galleries there and one of the galleries that I wish I had visited is the Srivijayan gallery.
I've always feel that it's wrong for Malaysians to think the Sultanate of Malacca was the most prominent civilization in our history. The truth is, Srivijaya was far larger and lasted much longer than Malacca. I strongly feel Malaysian history book should give Srivijaya more credit instead of over glorifying Malacca. Perhaps, the reason why Srivijaya sat in the shadow of Malacca these days is because Srivijaya was a Hindu kingdom while Malacca was Muslim. I'd imagine many conservatives in Malaysia hated that idea. I believe it's just history and it doesn't matter what the religion of any kingdom. Regardless of the religions of Srivijaya, the empire deserves more befitting treatment than it currently receives. It's part of our history and it's important we all know it, regardless what these conservatives think. If the country falls to them, they would rewrite our history, destroy our culture like they're doing in Kelantan and turn us all into Arabs.
There are no photo from the museum. Unlike museums in the United States and Malaysia, photography is forbidden in this particular museum complex.
While I was visiting the Metropolitan Museum in New York, I frequently found myself being left behind by my friends; museums usually fascinate me. That didn't happen in the Thai museum because I am kind of familiar with most of the subjects that were on display. Nevertheless, it was still taxing. I felt like I was going to lose my legs after we were done with the museum.
When we got out of the museum, which was around 17:30, the bright sunny day had into a gloomy one. It even rained for awhile though it wasn't too bad. What was bad was the fact we didn't know where to go and that we were very hungry. My dietary restriction didn't make the situation any easier. The saddest part was, we opted for McDonald's. I call it sad because I don't really like fast food. Well, I like fast food but I have issues with large fast food chains.
Anyway, we asked around for the nearest McDonald's and three girls directed us to Khao San. We didn't know the name of the place actually but when we got there, it was like Thai version of Malaysian Petaling Street or Chow Kit Street.
I later found out off the net that Khao San is a backpackers' haven. The next I visit Bangkok, I know where I'd want to stay. I'll bring my backpack too just to blend in. While at Khao San, we didn't get McDonald's but instead, we got falafel. That was the first time I tasted falafel since I returned to Malaysia from the United States.
And yeah, we did meet Ronald McDonald despite not buying anything from him.
While Khao San looks dirty, it isn't too bad. Moreover, there are some cool
restaurants with great atmosphere:
Another one:
Some are hidden inside an alley:
Another one:
The distance between the museum and Khao San isn't too demanding to traverse. What made it challenging was crossing the road. As mentioned earlier, crossing the street in Bangkok isn't the best of all hobbies. We had to cross something like a busy six or eight-lane street. If jaywalking is an offense in Bangkok, we should be punished with life sentence with no possibility of parole. We came out alive. I suppose living in Kuala Lumpur does teach you one or two things about crossing a seemingly "un-crossable" street.
Once done with Khao San, we headed for the Democracy Monument. I however have a few deadlines tomorrow. Therefore, I'll stop here for now.
After Wat Pho, we made way to the Bangkok National Museum while the day was still relatively bright and almost cheery. We passed along several landmarks (tag). One of them was the palace:
I wonder if those yellow stuff are actually gold. I'd presume they are. This looks inside the inner wall of the palace:
Somewhere nearby, there's a large open space, much like the Mall in Washington D.C. There's a university there too and there were many monks, as you can see:
After all these and a few other photos, we reached the museum.
The museum has a large compound and the galleries are scattered all over the place. Despite that fact, we had mere two hours and so, we managed to roam a gallery. There were 20 galleries there and one of the galleries that I wish I had visited is the Srivijayan gallery.
I've always feel that it's wrong for Malaysians to think the Sultanate of Malacca was the most prominent civilization in our history. The truth is, Srivijaya was far larger and lasted much longer than Malacca. I strongly feel Malaysian history book should give Srivijaya more credit instead of over glorifying Malacca. Perhaps, the reason why Srivijaya sat in the shadow of Malacca these days is because Srivijaya was a Hindu kingdom while Malacca was Muslim. I'd imagine many conservatives in Malaysia hated that idea. I believe it's just history and it doesn't matter what the religion of any kingdom. Regardless of the religions of Srivijaya, the empire deserves more befitting treatment than it currently receives. It's part of our history and it's important we all know it, regardless what these conservatives think. If the country falls to them, they would rewrite our history, destroy our culture like they're doing in Kelantan and turn us all into Arabs.
There are no photo from the museum. Unlike museums in the United States and Malaysia, photography is forbidden in this particular museum complex.
While I was visiting the Metropolitan Museum in New York, I frequently found myself being left behind by my friends; museums usually fascinate me. That didn't happen in the Thai museum because I am kind of familiar with most of the subjects that were on display. Nevertheless, it was still taxing. I felt like I was going to lose my legs after we were done with the museum.
When we got out of the museum, which was around 17:30, the bright sunny day had into a gloomy one. It even rained for awhile though it wasn't too bad. What was bad was the fact we didn't know where to go and that we were very hungry. My dietary restriction didn't make the situation any easier. The saddest part was, we opted for McDonald's. I call it sad because I don't really like fast food. Well, I like fast food but I have issues with large fast food chains.
Anyway, we asked around for the nearest McDonald's and three girls directed us to Khao San. We didn't know the name of the place actually but when we got there, it was like Thai version of Malaysian Petaling Street or Chow Kit Street.
I later found out off the net that Khao San is a backpackers' haven. The next I visit Bangkok, I know where I'd want to stay. I'll bring my backpack too just to blend in. While at Khao San, we didn't get McDonald's but instead, we got falafel. That was the first time I tasted falafel since I returned to Malaysia from the United States.
And yeah, we did meet Ronald McDonald despite not buying anything from him.
While Khao San looks dirty, it isn't too bad. Moreover, there are some cool
restaurants with great atmosphere:
Another one:
Some are hidden inside an alley:
Another one:
The distance between the museum and Khao San isn't too demanding to traverse. What made it challenging was crossing the road. As mentioned earlier, crossing the street in Bangkok isn't the best of all hobbies. We had to cross something like a busy six or eight-lane street. If jaywalking is an offense in Bangkok, we should be punished with life sentence with no possibility of parole. We came out alive. I suppose living in Kuala Lumpur does teach you one or two things about crossing a seemingly "un-crossable" street.
Once done with Khao San, we headed for the Democracy Monument. I however have a few deadlines tomorrow. Therefore, I'll stop here for now.
Sometimes, religious conservatives, regardless of beliefs, share common traits. Here are few commonalities among conservatives (tag). The list is by no mean exhaustive nor it is exclusively attributed to religious conservatives. Nor a person has to have these attributes to be a religious conservative. It's just a guideline. However, if a person shares more than a few attributes stated below, chances are, the person is a religious conservative. Enjoy:
Any more?
Oh yeah. Probably intolerant of jokes too. They like to make jokes on other people but can't accept jokes on themselves. They'll burn the whole city to the ground just to prove that they can't accept joke. Or they just sue you.
- They're the chosen people. They're the best of all human beings, regardless of moral. Sometimes, in their bedrooms, you'll find stickers "IM DA BEST" all over. Signed by their gods of course. Well, yeah... they fake the signatures.
- They self-appoint themselves as god's or gods' (for simplicity's sake, gods') representatives on Earth. Therefore, they expect others to look upon them highly. Pay them. Even feed them. Everything.
- They believe that they've a monopoly on truth. They believe that since the gods are the ultimate truth and that they're gods' representatives, whatever they say or do is the truth. So, this give them the exclusive rights to design laws or fatwas at their wimps.
- The incapable-of-mistakesism disease. Otherwise known as I'm-always-rightism. This is directly because they think that they're the self-appointed guardians of their religions; gods' representative on Earth. In their opinion, any mistake by them will reflect on their gods and so, they solve this dilemma by insisting that they're mistake-free. Even if they're driving and take the wrong turn, they'll always be right, even if they're lost.
This disease is also a widespread problem in the male population all over the world. Possible source for such correlation is probably due to the fact that religions have always been dominated by men. - Any criticism against them is considering criticism against god or gods. This is probably because they keep quoting their holy books. After some time unfortunately for all of us, they're confused about when they're speaking for themselves or when they're quoting their gods. This intolerance of criticism is the reason why certain conservatives apparently have inability to listen to reasons.
And remember when there were criticism against novel SHIT back in the late 1990s in Malaysia? Because the author was associated with PAS (a religious conservative political party in Malaysia), the head of PAS tried to justify the author's usage of obscene words by saying even god mencarut (expresses obscene words). - Intolerant of difference in opinion. If there's difference in opinion, they'll kill you. When they say 1 + 1 = 3, you don't want to argue with them. Reconsult number 3, 4 and 5.
- Watch out for those that keep talking and talking and talking without listening. Sometimes, it helps to check if they're running on Energizer. More importantly, avoid a female conservative at all cost!
Who are these conservatives? Why, preachers of course! - They have short fuse. In other word, emotional and any prolonged heated argument will degrade to uncivilized discussion. Watch out for mud balls. DUCK!
- They have no respect of other religion. To the conservatives, those of different beliefs are second-rated people. For instance, these conservatives' rights and privileges must rule supreme over any other individual rights, even if those rights and privileges infringes on others' rights. If you want a match of the century, wait until conservatives starting to turn on themselves. It happened before; Catholics-Protestants, Sunni-Shiite. Jedi-Sith.
- Polemicists. For some reasons, they like to look for petty argument. It could be a bright sunny day with blue sky but you could depend on a conservative to ruin it. In fact, if you want to ruin other person's fine day, hire a conservative and send the conservative to that person.
- They practice double standards and selective reasoning. For instance, murder of any kind is wrong but for them, murder of Muslims is wrong but murder of Jews is okay. Murder of "kafir" are okay.
Then, they talk of freedom but readily prevent others from practicing freedom. Freedom is only acceptable when such freedom suits their purpose. It's like having a selfish girlfriend; she can do whatever she likes but you can't do whatever she likes. You don't want to get into marriage with that girlfriend of yours. - Their love of double standards make them easy targets for students of logic or those that are familiar with rules of logic. When the conservatives are caught with their back against the wall, they'll switch the subject. This is where personal attack could also occur. Sometimes, they run away, hiding inside a small box slightly smaller than their world, which unsurprisingly is another box. If somebody pokes their box, they'll hide into yet another box and they have endless supply of boxes.
- They're the moral police. They'll dictate your moral because their moral is superior to ours. You can't do this and that but they can sodomize some kids entrusted to them or ask a female that was caught by moral police to do a blowjob for him!
- They have the weirdest sense of humor. When they call for the killing of all non-believers, they call it a "satire". They will later be surprised if the public gets angry. Or when a person dies, they will make a joke out of it.
Any more?
Oh yeah. Probably intolerant of jokes too. They like to make jokes on other people but can't accept jokes on themselves. They'll burn the whole city to the ground just to prove that they can't accept joke. Or they just sue you.
According to the New Straits Times on August 9, there's a plan to introduce minimum wage "for three categories of workers".
The article focuses on the benefits of minimum wage but it fails to be neutral by highlighting the other side of the coin. The article in fact only quotes bodies and individuals that are for minimum wage - labor unions and politician within a government that already have strong interventionist tendency. Therefore, allow me do a public service by raising the ugly side of minimum wage.
In a free market, prices and wages - for the sake of simplicity, let's call prices and wages as simply prices - are the points where demand and supply coincide. That prices are at equilibrium. If we impose a price ceiling below the equilibrium prices, according to the law of supply and demand, supply will decrease while demand will increase. Artificial shortage will occur and this describes the current artificial sugar shortage in Malaysia. If the ceiling is above equilibrium prices, chances are, nothing will happen as the ceiling doesn't affect the market. Remember, price ceiling simply means the "less or equal than" operator.
Price floor on the other hand is the "more or equal than" operator. So, if we impose price floor below the equilibrium points, nothing will happen because the restriction doesn't affect the point itself. However, an introduction of price floor above free market prices will artificially decrease demand and increase supply. This last scenario is very relevant to minimum wage.
In other word, less employers will want to employ more workers while more employees will want to work. Hence, higher unemployment rate, ceteris paribus (tag).
There are already talks of high unemployment among Malaysian youth. Despite that, unemployment rate of Malaysia as of the first quarter of 2006 is 3.8 according to Malaysia Department of Statistics, which is quite respectable in my opinion. Germany and France are used to around 10% unemployment rate while the US and most European nations currently suffer above 5%. Regionally, Brunei has 4.8% (2004), Cambodia 2.5% (2000), Indonesia 11.8%, Laos 2.4%, Myanmar 5.0%, Singapore 3.4 (2005 by Singapore Department of Statistics) and Thailand suffers 1.8% unemployment rate according to 2005 The World Factbook by CIA.
As for me, I oppose minimum wage. I prefer the market to decide on it, as long as market failure doesn't occur.
Regardless of what I think, the introduction of minimum wage will reignite public discourse in youth unemployment as unemployment as a whole will go up with imposition of minimum wage above equilibrium wage.
KUALA LUMPUR: Minimum wages are on the horizon for three categories of workers, a little over 25 years after the initial attempt failed largely due to flaws in the system.
A total of 250,000 private security guards, private clinic assistants and casual farm workers will soon be the first people in the country to enjoy a minimum wage.
If all goes well, they are expected to take home guaranteed monthly wages by the end of the year.
The article focuses on the benefits of minimum wage but it fails to be neutral by highlighting the other side of the coin. The article in fact only quotes bodies and individuals that are for minimum wage - labor unions and politician within a government that already have strong interventionist tendency. Therefore, allow me do a public service by raising the ugly side of minimum wage.
In a free market, prices and wages - for the sake of simplicity, let's call prices and wages as simply prices - are the points where demand and supply coincide. That prices are at equilibrium. If we impose a price ceiling below the equilibrium prices, according to the law of supply and demand, supply will decrease while demand will increase. Artificial shortage will occur and this describes the current artificial sugar shortage in Malaysia. If the ceiling is above equilibrium prices, chances are, nothing will happen as the ceiling doesn't affect the market. Remember, price ceiling simply means the "less or equal than" operator.
Price floor on the other hand is the "more or equal than" operator. So, if we impose price floor below the equilibrium points, nothing will happen because the restriction doesn't affect the point itself. However, an introduction of price floor above free market prices will artificially decrease demand and increase supply. This last scenario is very relevant to minimum wage.
In other word, less employers will want to employ more workers while more employees will want to work. Hence, higher unemployment rate, ceteris paribus (tag).
There are already talks of high unemployment among Malaysian youth. Despite that, unemployment rate of Malaysia as of the first quarter of 2006 is 3.8 according to Malaysia Department of Statistics, which is quite respectable in my opinion. Germany and France are used to around 10% unemployment rate while the US and most European nations currently suffer above 5%. Regionally, Brunei has 4.8% (2004), Cambodia 2.5% (2000), Indonesia 11.8%, Laos 2.4%, Myanmar 5.0%, Singapore 3.4 (2005 by Singapore Department of Statistics) and Thailand suffers 1.8% unemployment rate according to 2005 The World Factbook by CIA.
As for me, I oppose minimum wage. I prefer the market to decide on it, as long as market failure doesn't occur.
Regardless of what I think, the introduction of minimum wage will reignite public discourse in youth unemployment as unemployment as a whole will go up with imposition of minimum wage above equilibrium wage.
Preliminary matches for the UEFA Champions League are underway and Ajax are on their way to the first stage (tag). Ajax's first opponent is FC Copenhagen and Ajax won the first leg in Denmark 1-2, courtesy of the best purchase by Ajax in recent years - Klaas-Jan Huntelaar. That win gives Ajax the away goal advantage and all Ajax need to do now is to at least draw in Amsterdam.I didn't watch the game and I haven't had the chance to watch the proper highlight of the game. Despite that, I'm somewhat happy to hear good reports on some players. With Jaap Stam in the team, it seems that Ajax have found their new Chivu. Or Frank de Boer if we want to go down farther down the line. Still, it's Stam's first competitive game with Ajax and it would be premature to praise him too much.
Babel seems fantastic as always. I'm convinced that he'll gain a place in the first team soon. One of the reasons why I like Ajax is the fact that the team keeps chunning out unbelieveable talented player over and over again. People like Babel.
Rosenberg and Rosales still look good. Both are as good as the other; both are excellent wingers. I'm not sure about Kenneth Perez though. He's Ajax's new signing from AZ Alkmaar.
But the real person on trial here is Ajax's new coach, Henk ten Cate. Remember, Henk ten Cate was Rijkaard's assistant at FC Barcelona, the last season's European Champion.
I do feel however that this season is the first time Ajax will have a stronger attacking force coupled with reliable defense for a full season in recent times. Ajax's problem has always been converting possession into goals ever since Ibrahimovic left Ajax for that old hag Juventus. So, this is a promising season, both for Eredivisie and in the European arena.
I bought a hosting plan from a Malaysian web host provider a year ago and it's going to end later this month. I don't plan on quitting blogging any time soon. Furthermore, I'm pretty much happy with the current service that I'm receiving; I don't have too much complaint against my provider. So, it makes sense for me to renew my contract with them. However, with talk of censorship of blogs abound, I'm having a second thought; I'm thinking of relocating my server out of Malaysia.
As I've said again and again, I'd like to recognize myself as a libertarian. I hold liberty close to my heart. I will disagree to any infringement of my liberty and censorship is an infringement of my liberty. Therefore, it's only natural for me to scorn the idea of censoring of any kind.
If the Malaysian government is going to censor blog, I'd like to preserve my liberty. It seems to me that the easiest way to preserve my liberty is to move my server out of the Malaysian authority's sphere of influence. That means moving my server out of Malaysia and thus physically removed the threat of censorship off me. Australia sounds like a good country where free speech is relatively guaranteed. They speak English - well, sort of - and the time difference between Malaysia and Australia isn't too perturbing.
I'm sure I wouldn't be the only person in Malaysia to think of this. I'm sure if censorship of blog becomes a reality in Malaysia, many would move their server out of Malaysia. This would mean, less business for Malaysian web hosting providers.
What I'm trying to say is that censorship of blogs would hurt Malaysian web hosting industry with all else being equal. Government intervention would reduce the growth and probably the size of the industry (tag).
As I've said again and again, I'd like to recognize myself as a libertarian. I hold liberty close to my heart. I will disagree to any infringement of my liberty and censorship is an infringement of my liberty. Therefore, it's only natural for me to scorn the idea of censoring of any kind.
If the Malaysian government is going to censor blog, I'd like to preserve my liberty. It seems to me that the easiest way to preserve my liberty is to move my server out of the Malaysian authority's sphere of influence. That means moving my server out of Malaysia and thus physically removed the threat of censorship off me. Australia sounds like a good country where free speech is relatively guaranteed. They speak English - well, sort of - and the time difference between Malaysia and Australia isn't too perturbing.
I'm sure I wouldn't be the only person in Malaysia to think of this. I'm sure if censorship of blog becomes a reality in Malaysia, many would move their server out of Malaysia. This would mean, less business for Malaysian web hosting providers.
What I'm trying to say is that censorship of blogs would hurt Malaysian web hosting industry with all else being equal. Government intervention would reduce the growth and probably the size of the industry (tag).
39 years ago in Bangkok on this day, five countries that later many would identify as the Asian tigers - Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, and Thailand - gathered together to form the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (tag). It's ASEAN.
August is such a fun month. It's the month Malaya gained its independence - and also North Borneo - it's the month when Singapore was voted out of the Malaysian Federation by the Malaysian Parliament. By the way, all these three states with Sarawak later formed Malaysia on September 16. And then, it's also the month of Indonesian independence. Remember, Indonesia tried to absorb Malaysian states into Indonesia.
Yes, again, it's also the formation of ASEAN month. Happy birthday ASEAN.
p/s - goodbye friend:
I last saw a real leatherback on the coast of Terengganu more than ten years ago. Now, it seems, the younger generation may never have the chance that I had.
pp/s - re: government takeover of Coliseum, what the... From Bernama:
I don't think Dr Rais Yatim gets it. It's the act of stealing from private citizens that makes this an issue; not the act of converting it into arts film theater or a heritage center.
Please Dr Rais Yatim, listen to us. There's an opposition to the move yes, but please do know what the opposition is about. Get to know the why there's an opposition.
August is such a fun month. It's the month Malaya gained its independence - and also North Borneo - it's the month when Singapore was voted out of the Malaysian Federation by the Malaysian Parliament. By the way, all these three states with Sarawak later formed Malaysia on September 16. And then, it's also the month of Indonesian independence. Remember, Indonesia tried to absorb Malaysian states into Indonesia.
Yes, again, it's also the formation of ASEAN month. Happy birthday ASEAN.
p/s - goodbye friend:
BANGKOK, Aug 7 (Bernama) -- The endangered leatherback turtle population is effectively extinct in Malaysia and has deprived the country one of its most charismatic tourist lures, says a United Nations Environment Programme report.
Shedding light on the plight of the turtle species in the Indian Ocean and Southeast Asian region, it says Malaysia offers one of the most dramatic, best-documented examples of decline in the nesting population of marine turtles.
I last saw a real leatherback on the coast of Terengganu more than ten years ago. Now, it seems, the younger generation may never have the chance that I had.
pp/s - re: government takeover of Coliseum, what the... From Bernama:
KUALA LUMPUR, Aug 8 (Bernama) -- The Coliseum Theatre at Jalan Tuanku Abdul Rahman here, which will be taken over by the government, will not be converted into an arts film theatre.
Culture, Arts and Heritage Minister Datuk Seri Dr Rais Yatim said instead, the 84-year old building with Roman architecture would be transformed into a National Heritage Centre to exhibit Malaysian arts, culture and heritage.
I don't think Dr Rais Yatim gets it. It's the act of stealing from private citizens that makes this an issue; not the act of converting it into arts film theater or a heritage center.
Please Dr Rais Yatim, listen to us. There's an opposition to the move yes, but please do know what the opposition is about. Get to know the why there's an opposition.
For those that have read and understand Eighteen Eighty-Four by George Orwell, today's front page of the New Straits Times should remind you of an Orwellian future (tag). This is an adaptation by BBC, taken from page Eighteen Eigthy-Four at Wikipedia:
The New Straits Times presents you the Malaysian Big Brother. He will watch out for us all:
Remember when Winston Smith was in his home, trying to write a diary despite the fact that was an offense? And that there was a camera in this home that transmitted everything the camera caught and send it back to the Big Brother?
It's a tragedy that the opportunity cost of security is liberty and vice versa. A real tragedy. But does it have to be like that?
p/s - Kuala Lumpur is introducing congestion tax? From New Straits Times:
This is a progressive policy and usually, I'd support it. But, like what the article later said:
Two days ago, I made a passing mention of Stockholm's congestion tax trial. Read about it here.
The New Straits Times presents you the Malaysian Big Brother. He will watch out for us all:
Remember when Winston Smith was in his home, trying to write a diary despite the fact that was an offense? And that there was a camera in this home that transmitted everything the camera caught and send it back to the Big Brother?
It's a tragedy that the opportunity cost of security is liberty and vice versa. A real tragedy. But does it have to be like that?
p/s - Kuala Lumpur is introducing congestion tax? From New Straits Times:
In planning to introduce an area road pricing scheme as a means to discourage private cars from entering cities, the framers of the National Urbanisation Policy are travelling a path that has been traversed with considerable success by London. But charging drivers a fee to enter the city centre would not exactly be a popular move and the authorities must be prepared to navigate the flak from a hostile public. But with Kuala Lumpur choking in traffic, despite new expressways, street widenings, one-way streets and yellow boxes, there is every reason to follow in London's footsteps. Motorists need to get used to the idea that there is a price to pay for free-flowing traffic. Congestion pricing can no longer be ruled out as a solution.
This is a progressive policy and usually, I'd support it. But, like what the article later said:
If motorists are to be priced out of their cars, however, they also need to be served by an extensive, speedy and reliable network of rail and bus services every bit as efficient and accessible as the one that London provides - and which the city keeps on improving through funds augmented from the charges collected. Unless there is a viable alternative to the car, there is very little point in pursuing the idea of road pricing. The bottom line is that a broad array of other strategies, a proper transport plan and an integrated approach to urban planning is needed. This would require more thought, discussion, planning and better inter-agency co-ordination and collaboration with the local authorities.
Two days ago, I made a passing mention of Stockholm's congestion tax trial. Read about it here.
Malaysian government is partaking a project that will promote environmental and economic sustainability (tag). With delight, more at The Star:
This is probably the first time such project has seen a nationwide effort. Earlier in 2000, Staedtler and two other government agencies experimented similar initiative in Pahang. From the look of it, it seems that the result was positive.
The concept is not new. In fact, in Europe, there exist "tree farms" and these farms are sometimes maintained by the pulp and paper industry. If I'm not mistaken, Staedtler itself has tree farms for its pencil production in Europe. I remember reading that a long time ago. Unfortunately however, I'm unable to provide a source to prove it.
Regardless, hurrah for the government. It's nice to know that at least there's something good going on at some front. Again, thumbs up.
MIRI: Six states have been identified for a RM200mil project to turn logged areas into forests again.
Plantation Industries and Commodities Minister Datuk Peter Chin Fah Kui said an initial 250,000ha had been identified to be converted into forest plantations for the purpose.
The plantations are expected to generate some RM2bil in timber revenue for the Government.
The project, to start by the end of the year, will greatly help to conserve the nation's primary forests by limiting the need to log in new areas.
The states are Sarawak, Sabah, Pahang, Selangor, Terengganu and Kelantan.
This is probably the first time such project has seen a nationwide effort. Earlier in 2000, Staedtler and two other government agencies experimented similar initiative in Pahang. From the look of it, it seems that the result was positive.
The concept is not new. In fact, in Europe, there exist "tree farms" and these farms are sometimes maintained by the pulp and paper industry. If I'm not mistaken, Staedtler itself has tree farms for its pencil production in Europe. I remember reading that a long time ago. Unfortunately however, I'm unable to provide a source to prove it.
Regardless, hurrah for the government. It's nice to know that at least there's something good going on at some front. Again, thumbs up.
The word "shoot" is the new no-no in Malaysia (tag)!
I want to shoot Guna too! Let's all shoot Guna! You shoot me, I shoot you and everybody shoots everybody! Shoot, shoot, shoot! Bang!
Sorry Jeff, you're a bad influence. I'm going to shoot you too! Bang!
See P Gunasegaram says his life is threatened and other related posts at Screenshots for a clearer view.
But be advised, put your hands on your guns. You'll never know who's going to shoot you.
p/s - on TV3's Buletin 1:30 just now, as crude as it may sound, I think Chua Soi Lek implied that Sarawakians are filthy and are unable to maintain cleanliness, in reference to the spread of the hand, foot and mouth. Sounds like foot-in-mouth disease, to me. Look out for Buletin Utama because TV3 is totally gonna replay that!
But Sarawakians, are you just gonna take that?
pp/s - from time to time, WorldChanging blogs on great stuff. An article on traffic congestion tax trial in Stockholm is one of them.
ppp/s - re: Chua Soi Lek and HFMD, at Bernama:
I wish I had the audio and visual recording of his words. It sounded more sensational than this report by Bernama.
I want to shoot Guna too! Let's all shoot Guna! You shoot me, I shoot you and everybody shoots everybody! Shoot, shoot, shoot! Bang!
Sorry Jeff, you're a bad influence. I'm going to shoot you too! Bang!
See P Gunasegaram says his life is threatened and other related posts at Screenshots for a clearer view.
But be advised, put your hands on your guns. You'll never know who's going to shoot you.
p/s - on TV3's Buletin 1:30 just now, as crude as it may sound, I think Chua Soi Lek implied that Sarawakians are filthy and are unable to maintain cleanliness, in reference to the spread of the hand, foot and mouth. Sounds like foot-in-mouth disease, to me. Look out for Buletin Utama because TV3 is totally gonna replay that!
But Sarawakians, are you just gonna take that?
pp/s - from time to time, WorldChanging blogs on great stuff. An article on traffic congestion tax trial in Stockholm is one of them.
ppp/s - re: Chua Soi Lek and HFMD, at Bernama:
KUALA LUMPUR, Aug 5 (Bernama) -- The increasing number of Hand, Foot and Mouth Disease (HFMD) cases in Sarawak is attributed to parents' perception that it was not a life-threatening disease, and thus they had not taken the disease seriously.
Health Minister Datuk Dr Chua Soi Lek said: "But even so, there are already 10 deaths recorded to date and 13,000 children have been infected since the endemic started (in May last year)."
The spread of the disease was generally associated with the cleanliness level practised at home and in kindergartens, which he claimed had not reached a satisfactory level, the health minister told reporters after the MCA's Nine Point Party Platform Seminar at Wisma MCA here, Saturday.
I wish I had the audio and visual recording of his words. It sounded more sensational than this report by Bernama.
Just a few hours before flying to Bangkok:
This is somewhere near KL Sentral. (tag)
p/s - Minimum wage is almost always counterprodutive to combat poverty. So, this is a good move:
What surprises me is the fact that it's the Republicans that are for wage floor increase and it's the Democrats that fought against that raise. Ideologically, I'd expect the other way round.
Heh. Elections make pragmatic politicians.
This is somewhere near KL Sentral. (tag)
p/s - Minimum wage is almost always counterprodutive to combat poverty. So, this is a good move:
WASHINGTON, Aug. 3 - Senate Democrats on Thursday blocked legislation tying the first minimum wage increase in almost a decade to a decrease in the federal estate tax, denying Republicans a legislative victory as lawmakers head into a crucial month of campaigning before the November elections.
What surprises me is the fact that it's the Republicans that are for wage floor increase and it's the Democrats that fought against that raise. Ideologically, I'd expect the other way round.
Heh. Elections make pragmatic politicians.
There seems to be a great misunderstanding in Malaysia of what secularism is (tag). Many, especially conservatives in Malaysia, see a secular society as immoral. I believe this originates from the myth that moral is dependent of religion. That relationship is flawed.
Moral is independent of religion. In other words, moral isn't religion and religion isn't moral. For example, a devout religious person may use cuss words against a stranger that merely disagrees with him. In fact, a person that believes in god may kill, steal, rape and do everything a decent person wouldn't do. A person that believes in god doesn't necessarily have good moral. An atheist on the other hand may be a mild mannered and law abiding person. He might not even smoke. A person that doesn't believe in god may have good moral. The logical relationship is much how being a Muslim doesn't mean being an Arab.
Secularism simply means the separation of religion and the state. It asserts the state should be neutral from religion. Secularism is essentially part of libertarianism (tag) - it prevents a person from infringing another person's rights. Perhaps, more relevant to the issue at hand, secularism isn't neutral of ethics, unlike what a lot of people like to believe. Secularism isn't about immorality.
Take the Malaysian national day celebration for instance. The celebration itself lacks religious connotation and by definition, it's a secular celebration - unlike Eid or Christmas which is clearly a religious celebration. Since national day celebration is secular by definition, does that make it an immoral celebration?
Take Labor Day for instance. It's secular. Does that mean it's immoral to celebrate Labor Day? It might have some communistic tone in it but it isn't immoral, is it?
Mathematics is secular. Does learning mathematics make a person immoral?
The answer is no.
Notice too that secularism is not atheism either. Secularism itself doesn't dictate individuals' beliefs. With this respect, I believe the French ban on headscarf is beyond secularism and concerns more about xenophobia than anything else. Turkish ban on the other hand is more about trying to be more European than Europeans rather than purely about secularism. Making myself redundant, secularism by itself doesn't dictate a person on how he or she plans to live his or her life.
Secularism isn't anti-religion too. In fact, secularism coupled with guarantee of human rights is the ultimate guarantee to freedom of religion. It's a bulwark against bias to and prejudice against any religion. It's the best protection against religious prosecutions.
The idea of separation of religion and state has been misunderstood by many due to disinformation by religious right and ignorance.
Religious rights tend to blame everything on secularism despite the fact that secularism has nothing to do with many social issues. Secularism is religious rights' favorite scapegoat. It isn't too rare to see whenever religion unable offer solution to social problems, religious rights will be fast to point their fingers to secularism, regardless of correlation. The most prominent Malaysian example is the accusation made against secularism by Mufti of Perak earlier in July this year. Or the one that the Pope made last May.
Religious rights assume that moral is positively correlated with religion and hence, since secularism is neutral from religion, absent of religion would automatically mean lack of morality. However, as stated earlier, moral is independent of religion and secularism does not automatically mean lack of morality or decency. Secularism, like religion, is independent of morality.
Religious rights are simply afraid to lose their power to dictate other people's lives. This is because secularism guarantees freedom of religion as secularism itself is free from religion. It neither prevents a person from embracing religion nor encourage it. It's neutral. If secularism takes over, these religion rights wouldn't be able to use the state to dictate others of what's right and what's wrong. They wouldn't be able to dictate through the state their self-righteous morality on others, especially so when that secular state guarantees human rights.
Some religious rights don't even know what secularism really means. And they afraid what they know not. In order to make secularism easier to hate, religious rights spread deliberate disinformation about secularism, saying everything that is not true about secularism - again, as an example, secularism means immorality.
The saddest part is, some truly believe the lies about morality, religion and secularism when in fact, their assumption that religion and morality is positively related is false. This group believes everything that is said about secularism without investigation.
p/s - our government at work:
Usually, it's called stealing. But then, when the government steals from private citizens, usually it's for the greater good, isn't it? Suddenly, it's called eminent domain.
If that's bad, wait till you hear this:
The Bok House at Jalan Ampang is abandoned and it would make a great site for cultural activities. Why don't renovate that instead? As if they don't have any other alternative.
This is one of the reasons the power of the government needs to be curbed. Else, our rights as private citizens will be eroded. Alright it seems that our government wants to limit our freedom over the net, and now, this.
Hey Mr Prime Minister or Mr Mayor, stealing is bad.
pp/s - with regards to the government forceful takeover of the Coliseum, more than a year ago:
Apparently, a year later, the government can. Compare this to the first postscript.
Moral is independent of religion. In other words, moral isn't religion and religion isn't moral. For example, a devout religious person may use cuss words against a stranger that merely disagrees with him. In fact, a person that believes in god may kill, steal, rape and do everything a decent person wouldn't do. A person that believes in god doesn't necessarily have good moral. An atheist on the other hand may be a mild mannered and law abiding person. He might not even smoke. A person that doesn't believe in god may have good moral. The logical relationship is much how being a Muslim doesn't mean being an Arab.
Secularism simply means the separation of religion and the state. It asserts the state should be neutral from religion. Secularism is essentially part of libertarianism (tag) - it prevents a person from infringing another person's rights. Perhaps, more relevant to the issue at hand, secularism isn't neutral of ethics, unlike what a lot of people like to believe. Secularism isn't about immorality.
Take the Malaysian national day celebration for instance. The celebration itself lacks religious connotation and by definition, it's a secular celebration - unlike Eid or Christmas which is clearly a religious celebration. Since national day celebration is secular by definition, does that make it an immoral celebration?
Take Labor Day for instance. It's secular. Does that mean it's immoral to celebrate Labor Day? It might have some communistic tone in it but it isn't immoral, is it?
Mathematics is secular. Does learning mathematics make a person immoral?
The answer is no.
Notice too that secularism is not atheism either. Secularism itself doesn't dictate individuals' beliefs. With this respect, I believe the French ban on headscarf is beyond secularism and concerns more about xenophobia than anything else. Turkish ban on the other hand is more about trying to be more European than Europeans rather than purely about secularism. Making myself redundant, secularism by itself doesn't dictate a person on how he or she plans to live his or her life.
Secularism isn't anti-religion too. In fact, secularism coupled with guarantee of human rights is the ultimate guarantee to freedom of religion. It's a bulwark against bias to and prejudice against any religion. It's the best protection against religious prosecutions.
The idea of separation of religion and state has been misunderstood by many due to disinformation by religious right and ignorance.
Religious rights tend to blame everything on secularism despite the fact that secularism has nothing to do with many social issues. Secularism is religious rights' favorite scapegoat. It isn't too rare to see whenever religion unable offer solution to social problems, religious rights will be fast to point their fingers to secularism, regardless of correlation. The most prominent Malaysian example is the accusation made against secularism by Mufti of Perak earlier in July this year. Or the one that the Pope made last May.
Religious rights assume that moral is positively correlated with religion and hence, since secularism is neutral from religion, absent of religion would automatically mean lack of morality. However, as stated earlier, moral is independent of religion and secularism does not automatically mean lack of morality or decency. Secularism, like religion, is independent of morality.
Religious rights are simply afraid to lose their power to dictate other people's lives. This is because secularism guarantees freedom of religion as secularism itself is free from religion. It neither prevents a person from embracing religion nor encourage it. It's neutral. If secularism takes over, these religion rights wouldn't be able to use the state to dictate others of what's right and what's wrong. They wouldn't be able to dictate through the state their self-righteous morality on others, especially so when that secular state guarantees human rights.
Some religious rights don't even know what secularism really means. And they afraid what they know not. In order to make secularism easier to hate, religious rights spread deliberate disinformation about secularism, saying everything that is not true about secularism - again, as an example, secularism means immorality.
The saddest part is, some truly believe the lies about morality, religion and secularism when in fact, their assumption that religion and morality is positively related is false. This group believes everything that is said about secularism without investigation.
p/s - our government at work:
KUALA LUMPUR: The curtain may soon fall on Coliseum cinema.
One of the oldest landmarks in the city may be a picture of the past, if the authorities have their way in turning it into a National Heritage Centre.
And, this has distressed owner Dr Chua Seong Siew, who wants to know why the Government is trying to take away the almost century old cinema from him when there are so many empty Government buildings here that could be converted into a heritage centre.
His mother, who bought the building from a family estate in 1947, had restored and maintained the building.
Usually, it's called stealing. But then, when the government steals from private citizens, usually it's for the greater good, isn't it? Suddenly, it's called eminent domain.
If that's bad, wait till you hear this:
He said that there were so many dilapidated buildings owned by the Government around the cinema that have become hideouts for dadah addicts, while the Coliseum provided an outlet for healthy activities...
"...The Government should consider using several government-owned unoccupied buildings and bungalows in the city and along Jalan Tun Razak, Jalan Kia Peng and in the Ampang area, instead."
The Bok House at Jalan Ampang is abandoned and it would make a great site for cultural activities. Why don't renovate that instead? As if they don't have any other alternative.
This is one of the reasons the power of the government needs to be curbed. Else, our rights as private citizens will be eroded. Alright it seems that our government wants to limit our freedom over the net, and now, this.
Hey Mr Prime Minister or Mr Mayor, stealing is bad.
pp/s - with regards to the government forceful takeover of the Coliseum, more than a year ago:
Kuala Klawang - The Culture, Arts And Heritage Minister, Datuk Seri Dr. Rais Yatim said, the government has no absolute powers to manage an old building.
According to the Minister, the building's owner, its age and heritage value are among factors the government would take into account before deciding to restore or preserve a buiding with historical significance. Many of the buildings were built between 1940s and 1950s.
Datuk Seri Dr. Rais said, the government could not to do anything if an old building was owned by an individual unless the owner applied to the government to refurbish the building based on its historical value.
Apparently, a year later, the government can. Compare this to the first postscript.
The war has just been widened in its scope. As with many other previous war, the casualties are not always human beings. According to National Geographic yesterday:
BBC alleges:
This in turn has caused environmental groups to worry about the livelihood of the endangered green turtle species. I wonder if Pelf knows this; she's passionate about all things terrapins and turtles. I know that she's working with another endangered species in the Malaysian east coast. I had the luxury of working with her in a conservation effort several months ago.
In the first week of the conflict, Israeli fighter planes struck the Jiyyeh power plant about 25 miles (40 kilometers) south of Beirut (map of Lebanon).
The attack set ablaze five oil tanks and caused the massive spill along the eastern Mediterranean coast. One of the tanks continues to burn, and officials fear the fire could cause a sixth tank to explode.
BBC alleges:
Almost as much oil may have entered the water as during the 1989 Exxon Valdez tanker incident in Alaska, which led to widespread ecological damage.
This in turn has caused environmental groups to worry about the livelihood of the endangered green turtle species. I wonder if Pelf knows this; she's passionate about all things terrapins and turtles. I know that she's working with another endangered species in the Malaysian east coast. I had the luxury of working with her in a conservation effort several months ago.
