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...