Is cost of living in Malaysia too high?

Using the Big Mac benchmark does put our purchasing power quite high - meaning we are actually quite good in terms of spending power, with consideration to how much currency is needed to commit a purchase. Once incomes get considered, that's a different story.

Which means: a Big Mac here (after taking into account foreign exchange)cheaper than in the US. But real incomes in the US is higher, so basically they can afford more Big Macs with their incomes over there than we can with our incomes over here, although we can get them at a cheaper price (after taking into account foreign exchange).

The question isn't too much about what our purchasing power is now, but in what direction it is heading. Is inflation going faster than pay rises? Keep in mind though that prices for goods are more elastic and thus usually change faster than wages (which tend to be revised in longer cycles), so wages not changing at the moment does not mean that they're not headed for a change.

The differing prices of Big Macs may illustrate yet another evidence that supply and demand (different populations have differing demands) ultimately determine the prices of goods. Costs of production may be a contributing factor, but if it's so, then we should be able to see a pattern of increase based on shipping distance, or the availability of beef.

The Big Mac Index:
http://www.economist.com/markets/indicators/displaystory.cfm?story_id=8649005
Reading tip: Descending down the graph are cheaper prices for the Big Mac in terms of the USD.

Tradeoff between wisdom and knowledge

Have you noticed?

Some old folks just humbles you with their wisdom, they don't admit to knowing everything. They're fine with admitting their ignorance. They struck you as being wise.

Some old folks just belittles you with their age-old knowledge, they admit to knowing more than you. They struck you as being a know-it-all, or a know-it-all wannabe.

Either way, point is there's a trade-off between being seen as wise or knowledgeable.

Some people just admit to knowing so much, even if it seems like they have no way of stumbling upon that knowledge. Classic example would be when it comes to judging people by the looks. Notice how many elderly take pride with their people judging skills?

When they're correct, they loudly exclaim it. When they're wrong, zilch is said.
I'm sad for these folks. They're old yet they're unwise.

Trade benefits both sides

Many people think that trade is zero-sum, meaning there is a loser and a winner and the net effect is zero. Their logic is that you pay money to get something and give something to get money, or otherwise; exports are good, imports are bad.

So allow me to make this very simple example:

There are 2 individuals here:
A man that demands sex and supplies attention.
A woman that demands attention and supplies sex.

If they trade with each other: Both sides get what they want. They become happy.
If they don't: Both sides don't get what they want. They become unhappy.

Observation tells us that on the above case, such trades happen (relationship and marriage) which means people must believe they will be happier after the trade or the trade will not take place.

The next time you buy foreign produce, think about it.
You get what you want, you're happier.
The foreign firm gets your cash, they're happier.

What did we learn today? Don't isolate ourselves! Trade!

Benefit of the Doubt

Sometimes laws get overzealous.

Take for example laws against drug smuggling. We put penalties against people who smuggle or distribute drugs because we don't want our society to be drug addicts. The purpose of the law is as what I've said, because we don't want more people to get drugged by drugs.

But because it is hard to prove motives in courts, because it's difficult to see if the person possessing those drugs are doing it for the purpose of distribution, lawmakers and courts give leeway to the law, so much to the extent that possessing a certain quantity of drugs alone is penalized severely by law, sometimes even by death.

And that's what I feel is wrong. Some people may come into drug possession as an accident. With such severe punishments attached to drug possession, innocent people with no intention of utilizing the drugs in any way may have their lives ruined by exactly the laws that are supposed to protect them.

I still remember how witchcraft trials in the west came to an end. Persecution of witches stopped because the emerging wisdom was how it is better to put loose 10 witches than to burn an innocent man.

Benefit of the doubt must be given to those found possessing drugs. We don't need to take a life for this. We don't want to take innocent lives. We know accidents and bad luck do happen. We know people get in trouble simply because they are in the wrong place and at the wrong time, without any intention of wrong-doing.

It is only fair, that as much as we don't want to be put on death-row for accidentally possessing drugs, that we don't put another fellow person in that situation.

Surely, no innocent life deserves to be lost just to make a firm warning to many others?

Big men, small women

I was chatting to a Malaysian friend who transferred to a US university for his studies. I fixed for language.

FIS says:
But I now feel more liking for American girls lor

Me says:
Why?

FIS says:
For no reason

FIS says:
I don't know

Me says:
Are their girls (American) much taller and bigger?

FIS says:
Not really

Me says:
But why are their guys so big then?

FIS says:
Haha


This is weird. My dad is tall, at least half a head taller than me. My mum is short, at least half a head shorter than me. I'm relatively short and I've always thought that this is the case because I had partially inherited short genes from my mum.

Americans (at least their men) are generally bigger in size than Asians. But if their women are actually much smaller, then the height of their population is supposed to converge to a value between the height of their men and women. So since their women are not that big, their men shouldn't be that huge.

But their men are big.

Greater gender equality in Malaysia

Excerpt from: http://news.my.msn.com/regional/article.aspx?cp-documentid=1118564

Malaysia is considering allowing schools to cane unruly girls to curb an upsurge in discipline problems including gang fights and bullying, reports said Wednesday.

Currently only boys are caned in Malaysian schools, but only rarely and for serious offences. The punishment is administered on the buttocks or the palm of the hand.

Ouch! The girls are getting canned this time around as well. I actually think they should have been sparred of it since they're the fairer sex anyway. Aren't we used to keeping them away from violence and giving them space to be feminine like they should?

Corporal punishment like caning is a type of violence in my opinion.

BUT, this is a huge leap for the feminist movement demanding gender equality. While equality means equal opportunities for the two sexes, there's no reason why it should not mean equal treatment as well! In fact, many feminists are for equal treatment!

So in the future, suppose if the feminism movement has achieved genuine success, boys and girls will be treated just alike, which includes but is not limited to boys treating girls like how they'd do to boys (simplified: girls are treated like boys). Which means that men will no longer need to pay for most dates and no longer need to be gentlemanly or chivalrously since they're supposed to treat girls like how they should treat their own sex.

Is regretting half the battle won?

If you can regret over something that will repeat itself, is it half the battle won?

Let's say you did very badly for an exam. You regret deeply about it. You know it was because you have not put in enough effort. You promised yourself that you'll put in more effort in the next semester, and that you'll not wait till the last hour to do your revisions.

Say that you did prepare hard the next time around and get rewarded with good grades. So we can say that the battle is won.

But say, what if it was the opposite. you repeated history in the next exam. Bad effort cause poor grades and you regret again.

Some people never regret anything in their lives. If they perform badly in an exam, they'll just tell themselves to move on and not look back. They never ever regret having poor grades. To those of them who managed to improve and attain good grades the next time around, we can say the battle is won. But what about those of them that never improve?

Can we then say that those that never improved but had regretted had therefore won half the battle, since they know what should have been done but had not been done versus those that don't even want to think about their failures?

So what if it is opposition inspired?

Lately there has been 2 street marches going on during weekends in Malaysia. The first was probably the biggest while the second is probably second biggest in the decade. The government didn't approve too much of the marches or demonstrations, one of their reasons being that they're opposition inspired and that these members of the opposition are doing this to gain an edge in the upcoming general elections.

So what if it was opposition inspired?

So what if people did it to get a shot at getting a government role in a nation?

Arguably, most if not all leaders led their people to some ideology or reform partly because they see themselves in very high positions should they be they're successful. Aung San Suu Kyi who is currently leading the democratic movement in Myanmar and Benazir Bhutto similarly in Pakistan is probably doing them to get a shot at becoming premiers of their countries themselves. But how is that wrong?

If people can fight for the will of others, it seems there's nothing wrong with rewarding them for being champions of our cause. If Prime Minister Badawi and his Barisan National party continues to represent the views of his people, surely there is nothing wrong with keeping them in office. That's all politics is about.

It is the role of the opposition to gather and exclaim the views of the silent in our society. Peaceful marches cannot be inherently wrong just because they are opposition inspired. They are after all, supposed to represent dissent.

At This Point

This semester,
I did very badly for my coursework;
It was the worst ever coursework marks I got in my life;
But I thought I have done my best last-minute exam revision yet.

I felt weird,
Up until now, I've gotten away with good final revisions;
But this is it, my finals won't save it this time;
It is just too much to ask for good grades.

I'm scared like a person who has just committed a crime;
It's only time before my results come to light;
And I get seriously screwed for my laziness.

I know my parents will not raise their voices at me;
Yet I still fear their reactions;

I ultimately fear not doing well;
I fear that I'm being faced by the limit of my abilities.

At this point, I'm dead scared of my results which I will soon collect;
At this point, I'm more convinced that I have only mediocre intellect.

Maybe it's good;
Maybe I'll emerge more humble.
But,
Who would pay the price of fine wine for plain water?
I doubt I'm willing.

Cars are like what?

Sometimes, if you're lucky enough, you'll hear guys telling you that girls are like cars.

Like girls, different cars look and feel differently inside;
Like girls, different cars respond differently;
Like girls, some cars cost more to maintain;
And like girls, different people like different cars too.

Some are reliable, some others breakdown rather easily.
Some are nice to drive, some others make you wonder if it's worth your money.

Some like sporty cars, others like it elegant or simple.
Some look at the model when buying a car, others may look at its interior or engine.
Some will be content with their own car, others will wonder why are they stuck with their car.

Some own more than one car.
Some don't like second-hand cars.
Some buy certain cars just to show-off.
Some change cars when they can afford a better one, when it gets too old, or when it is broken.

And while everyone feel different degrees of belonging to their cars, they generally don't want it to be scratched or damaged.

Name initials may influence grades: study

Taken from:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071116/lf_nm_life/initials_performance_dc

Certain initials may look better than others as monograms but they can also have an impact on how well a person performs in a sport or at school, according to a new study.

Researchers who studied the impact of initials found that baseballs players whose first or last name starts with the letter K, which signifies a strikeout, tended to strike out more often than other players.

And students whose names start with the letters C or D, which denote mediocre marks in some grading systems, did not perform as well as other pupils with different initials.

~~~~~~~~~~

The effect was the same in a study of the grade point averages of 15,000 graduate students over a 15-year period.

"Cs and Ds do reliably worse than everyone else," said Nelson.

"All the students are working very hard to succeed as much as possible, it just happens to be that if you find failure less aversive than someone else, you'll fail slightly more often," he added.

The researchers said their findings are in line with the name-letter effect, in which a person's favorite letter is often one of their initials. The favored initial may influence life outcomes, such the city a person lives in or the choice of occupation.

My initials have a C in it. I guess I'm doomed in my academic life :(

Correlation studies like this one does not necessitate a relationship, but they do show probability. Higher correlations denote higher probabilities for the said relationships and predictions.

Why trade?

People don't seem to understand why they get money. Money is an asset, but assets basically do nothing unless it is used. Consider keeping a gold coin in a vault sealed for eternity, you've just made that gold coin worthless to anyone in the universe except for what is inside your mind.

We do things we're good at so we can produce optimally for what we are working at. We get money for the purpose of improving the standard of our lives. Money used to consumed functions so. Money saved to be invested is done so more can be consumed in the future.

So we give money in return for goods or services that we would like to have. The objective of working is to improve our lives after all. Many have no problem understanding money until here.

And when it concerns nations, people forget exactly what this medium of trade is all about. They ask for government policies that seek to reduce imports through all means that are remotely profitable. Take for example the scenario in some western countries; to make agriculture viable, otherwise uncompetitive industries have to be subsidized just so they can export for competitive prices, which means that revenues must be lower than taxes spent on subsidies because the net effect after accounting revenues and subsidies are lower prices (net loss). This basically means that subsidizing nations are subsidizing the consumption of foreigners.

If people just learn that it is alright to import more competitive goods from other nations, they will get more bang for the buck. Higher standards of living will follow from being able to consume more, or invest for future consumption. All the while, labor from uncompetitive industries can be conserved for sectors that will actually yield a net income for the nation.

If governments and people really do understand that, there will be no tariffs or quotas on foreign goods and no subsidies for uncompetitive industries. We will just do what we have a comparative advantage in and buy anything else. Is it very different than working in a desk job to pay for your bills, loans, food, and entertainment? Not quite I'm sure.

Or would you prefer to go fish with a small net, go mine coal for electricity, work on the fields for meat, and build your own TV set just because you feel it's not nice to spend money? In the end of the day, by working on the desk job (which you're good at) you get to enjoy a higher standard of living than if you were self-sufficient and DIY everything.

Trade benefits both sides and so do free trade.

Difficult people

Some people are just so into their minds. I'm talking about people that says how they won't change their mind, people that just won't bulge in the face of contradicting reason. They are at best, dominant.

Society somehow encourages these people because society seems to hold a certain awe for them. Girls may like dominant boys more and therefore perpetuate certain traits as families raise their children through the values of its parents.

Leadership is another problem. Arguably, having qualities of leadership is very desirable because it does put a person above his or her peers and this is I think, what most enshrining the value of leadership is seeking. Since leadership is strongly associated with strong characters, people get another incentive to want to appear hard, a dominant trait.

Which further makes it harder, because society holds dominance in such a high pedastral, that dominance is seen to obviously be more desirable compared to characters in between the extremes of dominance and its opposite. Just look at women today, they just want to do what men does. They see certain positions and jobs traditionally hold by men to be more desirable, at least in comparison to tending to the family.

What bugs me are personalities so dominant, it inconveniences others around. People that demand for things to be done according to their ways are probably most familiar to us. And people who just won't consider the other side of the story similarly is so. Its more extreme side involves people who even exclaims their unwillingness to be persuaded by opposition reasoning.

But dominant people are not antisocial by definition. I would say that dominant people seek to be infallible, treating the accommodation of ideas other than his or her own as a sign of weakness. Since dominant persons do not desire to appear weak, they actively seek to be infallible and unaccommodating to different ideas.

Which is exactly why dominant leaders are a danger to society. Due to their lack of willingness towards opposing views. Leaders should after all consider all perspectives before picking what seems to be the best choice. If they get too consumed with themselves, some voices will be shut out, which is bad since decisions will be taken in a relatively uninformed manner. Society however, loves them. People don't usually vote competence nor wisdom or intellect, they vote for personalities they have faith in. And personalities they have faith in so happens to be tough personalities.

And then they complain how their politicians are dumb and how they hate difficult people.

Letter on Internet Censorship

During the last INTIMA Forum (1 month ago from this post), I raised a few issues one of which pertains to internet censorship in the college network. The director of the student services department asked for me to write a report to her regarding which sites were censored. A friend of mine asked me to post here about it.

I went overboard and wrote a full letter instead of a brief report. Here is what I had submitted, verbatim.

I initially noticed that www.collegeboard.com was blocked when the college network returned me to ecampus.inti.edu.my . That was awhile ago and now it seems fine.

Friends point that www.kennysia.com and www.xanga.com is blocked too. The former is a harmless blog. The latter is a blogging service.

Both are harmless. The thing here is that I'm sure that these are not the only sites that are blocked. The trend here is obvious, harmless sites are getting the block.

Google's 'cache' is blocked too. This function in Google allows you to view pages saved by Google devoid of any pictures and media, it's text only. The usefulness is apparent when sites are offline, barring any access to its information. The cache from Google enables one to view information saved by Google that would otherwise be unaccessible then. Important tool when doing research as you do not want to skip valuable stuff.

Google also allows viewing of PDF and DOC documents in HTML, meaning you can view in your web browser PDF and DOC materials. You may ask why is this important but in case you do not know, INTI's gateway seems to dislike downloads, giving downloads a painfully slow download rate. The result: if you're looking to retrieve PDF and DOC materials from the web by downloading them to your local drive to be viewed, you need wait an entire day.


That was the gist of the issue raised during the forum but let me humbly advance the issue further.

The point in pointing out these 'blocks' is not to request for the college management to consider 'unblocking' them, (for I could have done that with less effort and less inconvenience it seems if I had referred them to the relevant offices) but to request that the college reconsider its policy of blocking internet content. In my humble opinion, I strongly believe that the college should not have a hand in any forms of social engineering and therefore has no reason to even engage in internet content filtering. I'm sure this opinion of mine is shared by many students alike.

I do understand that there are schools of views that advance how certain content should not be accessible through the college infrastructure due to reasons of impropriety, for example pornography. But consider the age-old argument of impracticality. If the process is going to be automatic, otherwise what would be non-offensive sites will be blocked. If the process is going to be manual, it is going to be subjective and worse, too impractical for it to have any effect.

The forum is as what I believe, a place for students, not just your students but your paying customers, to voice out what they believe should be given attention to. I'm saying this because I am actually very convinced that nothing will be done to loosen current levels of content censorship, save maybe the few sites which I have named. Yet I raised the issue with the slightest hope that it'll be given even some attention.

Take no offense with what I've said so far for essentially I'm making no requests.

I thank you :D

Keep the 'Goreng Pisang' mentality

http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2007/10/28/nation/19306308&sec=nation
Drop the ‘goreng pisang’ mentality, says Abdullah

SEREMBAN: The Malays must shed the goreng pisang mentality and learn to become successful agricultural entrepreneurs, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi said.

“When one person sells fried bananas, many others follow suit.

“When this kind of situation happens, eventually supply exceeds demand, causing prices to drop,” he said.

The Prime Minister said despite efforts by the Government to promote agriculture, the Malays are still sceptical about venturing into the sector.

They blame the banks for not giving out loans when they, in fact, had not proven anything.

This is simple economics.

Price is a function of supply and demand. When prices are high, suppliers have more incentives to produce more. Higher production increases supply and causes a downward pressure on prices.

Such situations tend to create efficiency by promoting more efficient and cheaper methods of production. This kind of competition is good for the economy and the government should promote it.

A nation can only compete in a global economy without protectionism by means of comparative advantage (producing things so they are cheaper or better compared to rivals). As a nation, we should aim to produce more goods where we have a comparative advantage compared to other nations, and this means competition is totally favored.

In the end, the economy's main goal should be to increase standards of living. If people are able to buy a certain good cheaper, they can increase consumption somewhere else (or invest for future consumption), and this increases the standard of living.

Be very afraid when politicians take the side of producers. Policies of this sort benefit a few producers out of the wallets of those of us who don't produce that good or service.

Angry with myself

I'm very angry with myself. I just realized how bad I'm doing for my chemistry. I should have done so weeks ago, after doing somewhat terribly for my first test. But I did not. I continued to play my time away. For all my time at home, none was allocated towards studies, or anything usefull. For all my time at college, I eat them all up by lazing around, and none was allocated towards studies, or anything usefull. I now regret that.

I wonder if it's too late.

I wonder if my CGPA can still be saved. It's going to take a plunge this time around, I'm almost entirely sure of it.

I don't want that. I want to save my grades by outperforming the finals, yet I don't know just how much I can do that.

I hope my will can help myself away from games and procrastination, at the moment.

If you want to instill something, don't do it the hard way

From Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance

In a later experiment Aronson and Carlsmith (1963) viewed cognitive justification to forced compliance in children.

The experimenter would question the child on a set of toys to gauge which toys the children liked the most and which they found the least tempting. The experimenter then chose a toy that the child really liked, put them in a room with it, and left the room. Upon leaving the room the experimenter told half the children that there would be a severe punishment if they played with the toy and told the other half that there would be a moderate punishment.

Later, when the punishment, whether severe or moderate, was removed, the children in the moderate punishment condition were less likely to play with the toy, even though now it had no repercussion.

When questioned, the children in the moderate condition expressed more of a disinterest in the toy than would be expected towards a toy that they had initially ranked high in interest. Alternatively, the desirability of the toy went up for the children in the severe punishment condition.

This study laid out the effect of overjustification and insufficient justification on cognition.

In overjustification, the personal beliefs and attitudes of the person do not change because they have a good external reason for their actions. The children threatened with the severe punishment had a good external reasoning for not playing with the toy because they knew that they would be badly punished for it. However, they still wanted the toy, so once the punishment was removed they were more likely to play with it. Conversely, the children who would get the moderate punishment displayed insufficient justification because they had to justify to themselves why they did not want to play with the toy since the external motivator, the degree of punishment, was not strong enough by itself. As a result, they convinced themselves that the toy was not worth playing with, which is why even when the punishment was removed they still did not play with the toy.

Therefore, research has proved:

1) That we shouldn't threaten children with harsh punishments. We want to raise children with values, not fear of punishment.

2) The law should not over-punish crimes. We want people to not want to commit crime, not people that would not do so only because of the law (because if the law is the only thing holding them back, then people who believe that they will get away with enforcement will still commit crime). We want to live with people that desire for our good, not with people that are holding back only because of fear of punishment.

3) That religion is ineffective in producing moral people. Religion only instill fear and does not produce people with a genuine set of personal values. Basically, true religionists are not harming us not because they are genuinely nice people, but because they just fear the repercussions.

Khairy Jamaludin is just like Mahathir

If you've been reading Malaysian blogs that centers on highlighting flaws in the government, you must also have gone through many reads about how bad this Khairy UMNO politician is. The usual argument is that he is racist and immature. I'm not going to try to dispute this for I don't know the man that well.

But many of these blogs somehow take Mahathir as an ally and they usually do this by comparing his administration with the current administration by Abdullah Badawi. Obviously, the comparison is about how Mahathir's time was better. And how Badawi is very weak.

What I find amusing is how these writers can move to support Mahathir when he is exactly like Khairy before being Prime Minister. Mahathir himself used racial politics to climb the ladder. Both Mahathir and Khairy know exactly how important it is to win UMNO's support and they know exactly just what that will win their support.

Mahathir only became more moderate when he assumed power. Before, that, he went further than Khairy and showed no willingness to step back when he published his book "the Malay Dilemma". Even during when he was in office, he changed the name of the national language from Bahasa Malaysia (Malaysian Language) to Bahasa Melayu (Malay Language) obviously to appeal to Malay-ultras.

If your principle says that a politician should not play with the racial cards just to climb the political ladder, then by principle, you cannot look up to Mahathir.

Origin of Magic

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep.

And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.

And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

And God formed angels out of thin air, and breathed into their nostrils the breath of life; and angels became living souls.

And God was not content: There must be an opposite to all things.

And God created the angel Lucifer. And God was omniscient and knew that Lucifer will one day be Satan: and God saw it was good.

And God continued to create man.

And God created the laws of physics that would govern all his creation.

And God was not content: There must be an opposite to all things.

And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

And God grew the tree of magic. And God was omniscient and knew that the descendants of those who consumed its fruit will one day possess magic and defy the very physical laws he had made: and God saw it was good.


*Purely fiction with no intention of mocking God(except for Satan's part). For Biblical version: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Bible_%28King_James%29/Genesis

Reduction of pig production makes no economic sense

The recent Melacca government's decision to reduce the quantity of pigs in pig farms basically makes no economic sense. Reasons are:

• More pigs produced locally, less imports and therefore capital can be freed for some other stuff.

• More pigs, cheaper pork. Less pigs, expansive pork. Basic supply and demand. As pig production is forced to reduce, pork becomes more expensive which causes standard of living to drop because consumption decreases due to higher relative prices. It doesn't stop here and eventually non-pork consumers will also be affected when pork consumers start substituting pork for other meats like chicken. Demand for these meats will then increase and will therefore create an upward pressure on their prices. To illustrate my point, consider this example:

"An economy has a population of 100 people and produces 50 chickens and 50 pigs. The government announces that production of pigs will be reduced to 30 pigs. Pork consumers will have to offer higher prices to outbid their peers if they want to continue consuming the same amount of pork, increasing pork prices.

Some pork consumers cannot bear this price increase and substitute partially or fully to chickens for meat. Chicken production has not changed but demand for chicken has now increased. Because the same amount of chicken have to be divided to a greater amount of consumers, consumers wanting to consume chicken will now have to bid higher prices.

In the end, the economy produces only 50 chickens and 30 pigs. There's now less resources to go around so everyone now consumes less."

• More imports, more profit for holders of Approved Permits (AP), slower economy. With the system of Approved Permits (AP), imports can ony traverse through approved permits. AP holders profit off the consumer by instituting higher import prices. Giving assets(revenue) to AP holders slow the economy because resources are being given to inefficient individuals and firms which does not promote growth to the economy.Even if the economy renormalizes itself when the pig breeders produce something else, the present slow may have already already caused a lower future output. The economy needs to allocate its resources to the most efficient sectors for optimal growth and not to cronies which does not promote any sustained growth in output.

Pigs are confined to concrete stalls where they are unable to even turn around. While this may be justification for the reduction of pig breeding, it is not the reason for the government's move. They are concerned only with complains by the local population on the pigs and their effect on the environment. However, rather than imposing regulations to improve farm conditions, they imposed instead a quota for pig breeding per state. Producers have expressed willingness to invest on equipment that cause less pollution but had expressed fear that the government's attitude on pig breeding may cause losses because it is uncertain if they will be evicted the next day. The Malaysian government and population is composed of majority Muslims who regard pigs as 'haram' (eng: forbidden).

32nd INTIMA: Semester start --> INTIMA Week

I just remembered that last week during the INTIMA Week, 2 whole boards were empty. I wonder if those were assigned for clubs that had failed to put up their board, or if they were there by mistake.

But it does reinforce my dislike for this time's INTIMA. Especially because they allocated my club to a half-board's space from our usual full board. Should those 2 boards get filled up, 4 clubs will benefit from having full boards.

But maybe those two empty spaces weren't supposed to be assigned to anyone. Maybe the clubs themselves messed up and subsequently caused 2 extra spaces to be created. But if so, it still doesn't show that the INTIMA Exco was meticulous and responsible in arranging this time's INTIMA Week anyway.

They hadn't done well with the earlier orientation day as well. The program started at 9am and ended at 1pm. They had asked the councils to present themselves at 8am, an hour before the program starts. Those who did present themselves at 8am wasted about an hour waiting for the clock to strike 9. There was a briefing but it took only 5 minutes.

That doesn't justify their wasting of everyone's time. They may have done it as a precaution to councils who will arrive late, but that still doesn't justify their wasting of everyone's time. It is as if the Exco's are treating the Councils as their inferiors when we are essentially all equals.

8am to 1pm is 5 hours apart. No break nor food was provided throughout the schedule. People who had had breakfast earlier may save themselves from some hunger, but what about those who did not? When I raised this at the subsequent meeting, the response I received was that food was not provided because drawing from past experiences, no one took any. I thought that this was not a bad argument but nevertheless still inconsiderate.

What angers me the most however is how the president had dared to force councils to attend that day (orientation) by threatening to suspend approval of any of their club's activities throughout the semester. It really does show that he does not treat the councils as his equals. But worse than that, no one raised a single voice when the president raised that threat (I was absent for the meeting when he made this threat and had only known it through the meeting minutes).

You really can't expect Malaysian students to raise any voices can you?

What can the boy do?

There's this relationship,
A boy loves a girl,
But the girl doesn't feel the same,
The feelings of the girl,
discriminates against him,
What can the boy do?

There's this relationship,
A boy loves his country,
But his country doesn't feel the same,
The laws of his nation,
discriminates against him,
What can the boy do?

Modelling = prostitution?

Prostitution, like almost every other trade, involves a willing buyer and a willing seller. Let's not step onto its morality but rather let's just look at it from the perspective of a prostitute. All trades sell something. Some sell a good, some sell a skill. Prostitution sells the female body. But modeling sells that too. So why is modeling not wrong when prostitution so condemned?

Young girls that dream of becoming models might as well consider prostitution and pornography as well. Girls that want to become models probably do so because they want to feel appreciation and admiration to their physical beauty. They can achieve that through both prostitution and pornography. Well, for those who don't like the harsh working conditions of prostitution, they can always opt for pornography alone.

People that oppose prostitution and pornography because they are a sign of disrespect to the female body should as well oppose modeling at the same time. They are similar in principle; both are selling the female body.

In a time where it is trendy and ok to show a much flesh as possible, it does show that girls themselves are willing to flaunt parts of their body and for free. Ask them and they'll tell you that these choices are not forms of disrespect to their own bodies. My point? The fair use of the anyone's physical self is not to be mistaken for as any sign of disrespect.

And how can selling one self willingly to a willing buyer not be constituted as fair use of one's assets?

Boys are not sustainable

Let's say that height is a desirable trait. Men usually look for shorter women while women look for taller men. The result: Men are usually taller than their spouses.

Since height is determined by many genes acting in co-dominance, which means that 'tall genes' don't block the expression of 'short genes', children of the above typical household will most probably fall in between the height of their parents. I know that there are children who are taller than their parents, but how rare? Fast forward many generations, and it seems as if all children will eventually reach an equilibrium point where women are as tall as men. Ok, we all know this is not true.

But let's look at it from a person's or lineage's perspective. The prevailing social trend of taller men reproducing with shorter women means: from the men's perspective, his superior 'tall genes' are going to be contaminated with 'short genes' from his wife. His children will carry and express both his mother's 'short genes' and his father's 'tall genes'. If the child (boy) reproduces yet under the prevailing trend (he is already shorter than his dad and now he will be married to someone even shorter), eventually, the lineage will become shorter and shorter going down their males. So, from the male lineage, this lineage is loosing a desirable genetic trait that they once had.

Of course, if the lineage don't just make boys, then their girls will probably reproduce with a taller male and thus reverse the effect. Point is, boys are not sustainable to a lineage, if one values desirable heritable traits.

But the even more important point: can we then say that men don't care about their children too much, because if they do they wouldn't reproduce with shorter women. I know, some men are so tall that if they don't do just that they might as well have gone for castration. But it's funny, just because men has got to be the 'big guy' (not really their fault alone, women are at fault too), their lineage suffers from genetic contamination.

And no, this is not about that we should round all genetically inferior people to be gassed at concentration camps. This is about how women are really just exploiting men. And we thought that they are the fairer sex...

Excruciatingly painful... babies

Hi there!

Why do women willingly have children if labor is so excruciatingly painful? Add that with painful sex and tadaa: absolutely no reason to have babies. And please don't give me excuses like babies are cute and etc etc. If they like cute living things so much why not just adopt a pet? Don't forget that during the 9 months of pregnancy, they are somewhat immobile and very vulnerable. They probably can't do anything much to defend themselves when they are on their 3rd trimester (6-9th month). Talking about excellent targets of theft and hehehe... revenge.

And I thought that children especially those in their teenage years love to disobey their parents? So how can having children be a lifelong joy? You suffer so much when giving birth to them... raise them... they make you angry... make you sad... then they leave you and say bye bye! HA!

I've always wondered this: You know how some people like to say that mothers love their children a lot because they delivered them in excruciating pain, (I just love the word excruciating) especially when they say that mothers love their children more than their fathers? Do mothers love their children because they are their offspring or do they actually love them because of the pain?

Do we love our parents because they are our parents or do we love them because they've done a lot to us?