Malay dad. Chinese mum

This is what the kid said:

My old man thinks the Chinese deserved 513 for being b****es and questioning POWAH MELAYU, that Malay supremacy should never be questioned, or the Chinks will use our land to rear babi [pigs].

My mother thinks Malays are all lazy bastards, rely on government handouts, are inefficient civil servant monkeys, and can't survive without Chinese taxes. Till this day votes rocket, doesn't believe positive discrimination, and "tak suka kawan Melayu [do not like to befriend Malays] because their attitude sucks".

Science and math in English may not be great after all

I left the article below since most people don't like to read a wall of text.

I received instruction for the sciences and maths in Malay before college. At college, everything is in English. I recalled that I had little problem with this transition.

When ex-Prime Minister Mahathir pushed English for science and maths, he argued that students will benefit by knowing technical terms of these disciplines in English and that this will ease our efforts towards becoming a knowledge-based economy. Many pro-English Malaysians lauded this move despite opposition from Malay and vernacular proponents.

Today, the academics are arguing that the instruction of science and math in English isn't really benefiting students. They point that students had such a poor grasp of the language that it effectively impair learning and comprehension. Ok, so they now know terms in English, but it stops there.

Just like how we know some words from some languages foreign to us but possess low proficiency in them.

If they did reverse the policy back to Malay, Tamil, and Chinese, besides from the government wasting resources to prepare materials in English, I would say it will not be a step backward for Malaysia. After all, it is most important that students comprehend the subjects being instructed.

But do I think English is important? Definitely. However, if the social and political climate does not allow for a full-scale English adoption in schools - with the purpose to better the mastery of English - teaching science and math in English just because of the 'technical terms', is fail policy.

I had little problem transiting from Malay to English in the sciences. I believe those with decent English share this lack of difficulty during the transition.

From The Malaysian Insider

Language barrier splits Malaysians into classes

KUALA LUMPUR, Sept 27 — A visibly angry Maimunah Hamid shook her head in desperation as Education Ministry officials struggled to explain to angry parents gathered at a parent-teachers meeting at a national school in the city last week.

"I have had enough, I am moving my daughter to an international school," said Maimunah, an accountant with Maybank, Malaysia's biggest bank. "I am sick of this flip-flop policy, why can't you all make up your mind?" Most of the 120 parents agreed with Maimunah, 46, a mother of two daughters aged nine and 12.

"Make up you mind please — English or Malay. Don't torture the children," said another parent Kanagaratnam Vellupillai, 39. "This issue has been going on for years and years." In fact the issue — English or Malay as a medium of instruction — has been hotly debated and remains unresolved since the British colonialists left in 1957.

After acrimonious debate the matter was settled in 1967 that Malay would be the medium of instruction in all national schools, but that Chinese and Tamil vernacular schools could continue teaching in a mixture of Malay and their own mother tongues.

However, in a decision in 2002, which was widely opposed by parents, officials, opposition lawmakers and even civil servants, Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad ordered the return of English on the grounds that national education in Malay narrowed student minds, retarded economic growth and that if continued, Malaysia's competitiveness would collapse against Singapore, Hong Kong and Bangkok.

The return of English was widely supported by middle-class parents such as Maimunah and Kanagaratnam, who were already westernised and inclined to want an open, English-based education for their children.

However Malay nationalists, Chinese educationists and Tamil parents, who wanted Tamil as medium of instruction for Tamils, strongly objected to Dr Mahathir's desire to bring back English.

The veteran politician offered a compromise — only science and maths would be taught in English. All other subjects would be in Malay and vernacular languages.

That decision has been hotly debated ever since and the latest round erupted last month with academics, teachers and parents hotly divided over whether to continue Dr Mahathir's policy or revert to teaching all subjects in Malay.

The matter remains an emotive issue in this multi-ethnic society divided by race, religion and now mother tongue education.

Five years after Dr Mahathir retired in 2003 his successor, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, still finds it difficult to reverse the "science and maths in English" policy now widely described as a "silly legacy".

At the time it was introduced, the move was strongly opposed by parents, educators and teachers, but Dr Mahathir pressed on. Opposition continued over the years and has reached a peak in recent weeks with top educators openly arguing that the five-year-old policy has seriously damaged students' grasp of not only English but also science and maths.

"You cannot study a language by studying maths and science in that language," said Ungku Aziz, a former vice-chancellor of the University of Malaya.

"The tragedy of our time is that students have no idea what is grammar and syntax, they are not proficient in English," he told an education forum this month, adding his weight to chorus of demands to end the policy.

"English or any language should be learnt as a language on its own right."

National Union of Heads of Schools president Pang Chong Leong agreed with the argument against using English as the medium of instruction for science and maths.

"If the intention is to improve the pupils' English, then they should start with the arts subjects, such as moral studies, and also increase the number of English periods," he said at an education forum last week.

"Science involves a lot of thinking while maths does not use too much language and vocabulary. It goes against the principles of education and does not achieve any objective."

Dr Mahathir reasoned though that by teaching the two subjects in English students would not only master the language but also science and maths to make the economy technology-driven, and implemented the policy against strong opposition in 2003, months before he retired after 22 years as prime minister.

Neither aims, however, have been achieved, experts argue.

They say English proficiency fell because less time was devoted to it in language study, while grasp of science and maths also suffered after the sudden switch from Malay.

English originally was taught five times a week, 45-minutes a session in primary schools, but that time was reduced to once a week under the new policy. The saved hours were used to study science and maths in English, leaving teachers and students in the lurch.

The government pressed ahead, spending billions changing school textbooks to English, training teachers to work in the language and at one time even importing scores of teachers from England to fill a shortfall.

Over the years several government "review committees" have studied the issue and recommended to end the policy, but Dr Mahathir's influence in the political arena was so great that a final decision was always postponed.

Another reason for the indecisiveness is that long-time education minister Datuk Hishamuddin Hussein is a Mahathir loyalist and unwilling to embarrass the former prime minister by ending the policy.

However, at a teachers' meeting early this month, Hishamuddin promised the government would make a firm decision — abandon English for Malay or continue the policy — by year end.

Some parents, such as Maimunah, are not prepared to wait for the government to decide.

"I want my daughters to have a wholesome, internationally recognised education so they can work and live anywhere in the world," she said.

"Later this year I am pulling them from the national school and registering them in an international one that follows the English semester system. It's expensive but worth it."

However, parents like Kanagaratnam, a City hall bus driver, cannot afford expensive private education. "English is a must for world commerce and the future. We must have a strong grounding in English," he said.

"I hope the government keeps instruction in English just for science and mathematics. We don't want out children to return to Malay and play catch up all over again."

The government appears reluctant to reverse the policy five years after spending so much money on textbooks and retraining teachers to switch science and maths from Malay to English.

"We have already lost one generation switching from English to Malay. By reversing I fear we will lose another," said retired teacher Kathy Fong in a letter to the New Straits Times daily last week. — South China Morning Post

Drink more coffee and become coffee

From here.

The human species is set to evolve within a thousand years into a ‘coffee’ coloured race of 6 ½ foot giants who can live up for up to 120 years, according to a new research project released today

They will also modify themselves – through technology or otherwise - to attract partners and will therefore be better looking. ‘Race’ will also be a thing of the past - by the year 3000 all humans will have ‘coffee’ coloured skin.

Looking further into the future, 100,000 years from now, thousands of years of mate choice and sexual selection will create greater and greater genetic inequality, which could see humans diverge into two separate sub-species – a genetic upper class and a genetic underclass.

Sexual selection and why so many short men

Someone commented:

Somewhat , I think from the genetics point of view, girls mind having shorter bf, but don't mind having shorter husbands.

If tall guys are more popular... more tall genes would be able to get inherited. But it seems that majority of the people are short... (at least in Malaysia)

My hypothesis on the other hand: there are so many short guys out there because their mums are short.

Anwar Ibrahim and the forgone Sept 16 dream

When 16/9 was nearing, some people were already writing that it was not possible for Anwar to take over the government at that date. Parliament wasn't in-session then. Knowing that, there were only 2 possibilities; either Anwar doesn't know about that (aka: he doesn't have it planned) which is almost impossible considering that he should be watching parliament's sessions closely, OR he was intentionally pandering to us all.

I remembered catching a column in the Sun on 16/9 which addressed the day's event. The columnist pointed that Anwar knew that it was not possible to topple the gov on that day, but made the announcement then anyway to woo Sabah and Sarawak MPs (Malaysia Day is after all an important day for them). It follows then that Anwar doesn't have the MPs at hand.

Anwar could very well have the intention as described by the above columnist. If that is so, he pandered to us all. If that ain't so, he's shortsighted.

He may be brighter than Pak Lah, but I find it difficult to believe that he's a man of high morals. After all, even if he wasn't involved, he was at least overseer of the ministry of finance during the age of cronyism.

I don't think Anwar likes to postpone this. He must know that for every passing day, his followers shrink less and less. As his promises become more and more distant, his followers will be more disillusioned. A lot may not like the BN, but they certainly don't like to get lied to either.

That said, I don't believe he has the numbers at hand, I used to, not now.

Japan

Happy Meal

I notice that kids are always smiling in McD, but the parents have a grumpy look.. why is it like that?

According to the law of conservation of happiness, the total happiness in a system is constant.

Exam mentality

Senthil said

Back home, the mentality is very different. The attitude is, if it is not going to help you in your grades, don't bother wasting your time.

Awhile ago when I was surfing around a Malaysian forum, a student asked

"My teacher said understanding theory is more important than practicing problems in SPM physics, do you guys agree?"

You can almost infer that the students doesn't agree with his teacher.

It's true that doing sums help you a lot in exams. But saying that it's more important than theory is like saying that scoring exams is all that matter.

I still feel though that there's nothing wrong with this. It's just sad. Not wrong.

How to create an Olympic logo

Adopted by the 2012 London Olympics




at least the idea was not from the blood splatter of an execution.

Please don't leave me...

For some reason, I feel that the reason many people plea with their partners not to break up is analogous to why many people don't want to lose their jobs.

It's not like if they're very loyal to their companies, but they just don't like the idea of losing their jobs and the insecurity that pervades. In short, people may not love their jobs a lot, and they would still prefer to stick to them just because they don't want to be in the jobless transition.

They know the transition state may be a long one. Although their partners may not be where their affinities are, they are probably thinking that the status-quo is better than the partner-less transition if they break up in the hope for something better. It is just like the job market.

I may be wrong though, or maybe I'm just half right.

Sometime ago, I have someone who told me that when the money's right, you'll love the job. I can already see parallels of this in the dating/relationship scene. Can you?

Girls Made to Strip Naked for Opening Ceremony Selection

From the Epoch Times.

According, to state-run media, at the opening ceremony girls such as those depicted here, who participated in a programme called “smiling faces,” had to strip naked to get measured in order to get the job. The report notes that after their 6-month training, they were featured in the ceremony for three minutes. (Oliver Morin/AFP/Getty Images)

Can't do away with racial affirmative action in Malaysia yet

I think everyone is underestimating the problem in Malaysia, no I'm not taking about the ailing economy.

In the first place, we don't know how many people supports the racial affirmative action. We can't just suggest that the government scrap these kinds of policies. How many would be unhappy?

In South Korea for example, the new president wants to lift the ban on US beef in an effort to deregulate the economy, promoting freer markets (especially for the US-Korea FTA) and moving the nation towards being an advanced economy. Free markets, like meritocracy, are supposed to be more efficient, they keep the best and trash the bad. Free markets however isn't desired by Koreans who prefer to protect their own livestock industry. I assume that the health concerns are only overplayed as it has been 5 years since the outbreak of mad-cow disease.

This is the way things are in a democracy. The majority dictates what is right, it doesn't matter what is best. It's just what democracy is all about. I'm not saying that most Malaysians are like that, I'm not sure myself. Just noting that we don't know if they are or are not like that. We can't just expect racial affirmative action to go away. Not yet.

I have a feeling that a lot of Malays voted for PR not wanting to drop racial affirmative action. They just did that because they're unhappy with BN. We're all not sure and it's a bit far fetched to assume that their support for PR is proof of their support to end the NEP. Why did Lim Guan Eng became defensive when he was quoted for opposing the NEP? He probably got calls from PKR leaders telling him it's not politically good.

People who voted for BN is the same thing. They may feel that preserving the bumiputra status-quo as more important than ending corruption. Evidently there's still a lot of such voters. No they're not stupid, they just have different priorities than us.

There's just so many things that are good, but we can't do them because we are a democracy. Sometimes the majority supports something that isn't supposedly the best choice (I actually believe dropping fuel subsidies is better for the nation, a lot of economists point this as an economically sound choice, but Malaysians don't share my sentiment and the government is now pressured to reinstate it). The majority has a larger voice than you, I'm sorry.

People power may not always yield the best results for the nation.
But in a democracy, it is right.

What foreigners think about Malaysians

Heh, these are 'badddd' remarks, but if they're not I won't be posting them here anyway.

Number 1: Malaysians, the average Joe on the street, is a great person but that's the experience I've had all over the planet.

Number 2: What you've allowed the government and their rich cronies to do to your country is a shame. The NEP is a national embarrassment.

Number 3: My personal frank opinion is that they are not too friendly as they claim, honestly and are just too cold. yet again they don't get jokes. I love the country though.

Female promoters in Maxis Tower

Maybe they had this for quite some time already, but I've just noticed that they had A LOT of female promoters in the customer service center in Maxis Tower next to the Petronas Twin Towers. No, I'm not talking about counter staff. They are all just standing around. 2 of them are stationed to the left and right of the entrance to say "welcome" and "thank you" to customers.

It seems like its so easier to get a job if you're female than male. The above is 1 example. Promoters are mostly female. A lot of jobs don't have women but (most at least) is really because women don't want those jobs. Jobs like taxi, bus and truck drivers, and window cleaners (of high-rises); you rarely see women and it's really because women themselves don't want these jobs. I myself have not seen a women bus/truck/taxi driver in my whole life in Malaysia.

And then you can't help but wonder; considering that the amount of men and women mobile subscribers are almost equal, shouldn't they put an equal of amount of male promoters to female promoters? I got no idea if men do really get more easily aroused than women (and I doubt I'll ever do for the rest of my life), but I do know that such has been so established, socially..

Assuming that's indeed correct, then the reason why there's always an abundance of sexy female promoters around, and a lack of sexy male promoters; is because males are more sexually inclined than females.

As a male, I find this pretty unfair. Hmmm...

Dr Mahathir's Insensitivity and Hypocrisy

From Che Det

1. Non-Malays and maybe quite a few Malays have strongly criticised my piece on the Bar Council. I am made out to be against free speech, human rights etc.

2. What I was talking was about sensitivity - about the need for people to be sensitive to the feelings of other people. It was not about Islam or its teachings or its history per se. It is about the Malays and the non-Malays in this multiracial, multi religious country and their sensitivities.

Funny. He must have forgotten about his sensitivity to sensitivities when he wrote the book 'The Malay Dilemma' and spoke about Malay rights.
You can catch an example of such of his blog posting here.

20. If what we want is to be able to provoke people as a matter of right more than our own well-being and that of fellow citizens then be insensitive and have open debates by selected people whose views are already known, who are insensitive to the sensitivities of others but are very sensitive about their rights to be insensitive, whatever the cost to others and the country.

I wonder then why UMNO members have to speak about Malay rights and about Malay supremacy. Aren't these opinions already known? And insensitive?

Constitution = some law of nature thing

Today as I sat in a college canteen moments before a Malaysian Studies exam, I overheard this conversation:

Girl: What's a constitution?
Boy: Some law of nature thing.
(got no idea if he meant it back as a question)

In case you really don't know what's a constitution Wikipedia has the answer.

Sarong Party Girl

From the Sarong Party Girl:

I’ve no idea how to deal with the opposite sex without exerting my physical desirability, and it is difficult for me to do so without. I wouldn’t come on to them of course, wanting sex and using the prospect of sex is two very different things. In the former you’re the prey and in the latter, you’re the predator. But I can’t help but cock tease. I don’t think there’s anything we can do about the way we behave around the opposite gender, the only thing stopping other girls from doing it too is a lack of self-confidence or vague notions of what is and isn’t socially acceptable.

Very old entry. The blog is no longer maintained.

Beijing's poor air quality

From here.


Consensus has that reducing pollution is averse to the economy at least in the short-run. Consensus also has that George W. Bush and other similar leaders like his Chinese counterparts are bad because they are non-committal to fight pollution.

But really, is it the faults of these governments? What if the peoples of these nations willingly would forgo their health for more material wealth?

Should governments then be their moral/rational guardians? Malaysians don't think so. "We want cheap oil. We want subsidies. Screw sustainability. Screw the future. We want more wealth now."

Power of non-violence

Dr. Arun Gandhi, grandson of Mahatma Gandhi and founder of the M.K. Gandhi Institute for Non-violence, in his June 9 lecture at the University of Puerto Rico, shared the following story as an example of "non-violence in parenting":

I was 16 years old and living with my parents at the institute my grandfather had founded 18 miles outside of Durban, South Africa, in the middle of the sugar plantations. We were deep in the country and had no neighbors, so my two sisters and I would always look forward to going to town to visit friends or go to the movies.

One day, my father asked me to drive him to town for an all-day conference, and I jumped at the chance. Since I was going to town, my mother gave me a list of groceries she needed and, since I had all day in town, my father asked me to take care of several pending chores, such as getting the car serviced.

When I dropped my father off that morning, he said, "I will meet you here at 5:00 p.m., and we will go home together." After hurriedly completing my chores, I went straight to the nearest movie theater. I got so engrossed in a John Wayne double-feature that I forgot the time.

It was 5:30pm before I remembered. By the time I ran to the garage and got the car and hurried to where my father was waiting for me, it was almost 6:00pm.

He anxiously asked me, "Why were you late?" I was so ashamed of telling him I was watching a John Wayne western movie that I said, "The car wasn't ready, so I had to wait," not realizing that he had already called the garage.

When he caught me in the lie, he said: "There's something wrong in the way I brought you up that didn't give you the confidence to tell me the truth. In order to figure out where I went wrong with you, I'm going to walk home 18 miles and think about it."

So, dressed in his suit and dress shoes, he began to walk home in the dark on mostly unpaved, unlit roads. I couldn't leave him, so for five-and-a-half hours I drove behind him, watching my father go through this agony for a stupid lie that I uttered. I decided then and there that I was never going to lie again.

I often think about that episode and wonder, if he had punished me the way we punish our children, whether I would have learned a lesson at all. I don't think so. I would have suffered the punishment and gone on doing the same thing. But this single non-violent action was so powerful that it is still as if it happened yesterday. That is the power of non-violence.

Optimism in the economy.

http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/the_economy_and_common_sense/

A comment from Real Live Girl was interesting. She noted that the economy is fueled by optimism, and Obama brings more of that. Those are two true statements. But is all optimism the same? Wall Street veterans believe the market would go up if McCain gets elected. Lower taxes make the titans of business the most optimistic. Raising their taxes and transferring the money to worthy social services might make lots of people feel optimistic, but that isn't the optimism that fuels economies. An unemployed guy can't get too optimistic until a rich guy gets optimistic first and builds a factory he can work in. McCain makes rich guys optimistic. Obama makes students optimistic. Which approach stimulates the economy more? Beats me. You don't know either.

3 days after Hillary Clinton stepped out from the Democratic nomination race, Obama said he was a free-market guy. So what is it actually? Will he be laissez-faire or be more progressive, raising taxes and renegotiating for less free free-trade agreements?

Either way, I still hope that Obama will win the presidency really because that itself will make history, and it'll make a (hopefully positive) impact on America's image from the perspective of the rest of the world.

Oil prices, costs of shipping, oil prices

I found this in the internet, it is unsubstantiated with evidence however:

In Europe, the costs for transport is low when compared to the price of goods, regardless of the fact that gas is so much more expensive in Europe than the US. This means that higher gas prices have little impact on goods transport; they keep increasing.

also, too lazy to check the truth in this one, but someone pointed:

The U.S. Energy Information Administration on Wednesday reported gasoline inventories rose 2.9 million barrels last week while gasoline demand over the past four weeks slumped 1.4 percent versus last year.

So did oil prices rise sharply this year due mainly because of rising demand or speculation? Seems like a mix of both.

Experts and textbooks

What most people fail to understand; it is not how experts are infallible or speak God-given truth, but how when they make opinions, they bring to bear more knowledge on the subject than the ordinary lay person ever cared to consider, or are ignorant to.

The textbook and other academic literature arguably is not infallible, however, let's not forget that they are written based on an analysis of history and research.

Given that, the expert is more equipped to make an opinion than the lay person who believes that textbook-given (or interchangeably: research) knowledge is of no use to the real world. The reason being that the expert brings to bear more knowledge to make that opinion, all the time possessing the little knowledge available to the lay person.

The fault of the expert is perhaps he is better paid and living more comfortably compared to the average worker.

Why the stronger Ringgit isn't resulting in cheaper imports

Dr Mahathir Mohamad: Oil Price

In the first place the Government should not have floated the Ringgit. A floating rate creates uncertainties and we cannot gain anything from the strengthened Ringgit. Certainly the people have not experienced any increase in their purchasing power because of the appreciation in the exchange rate between the US Dollar and the Ringgit.

Actually the Ringgit has increased by about 80 sen (from RM3.80 to RM3.08 to 1 US Dollar) per US Dollar, i.e. by more than 20 per cent. Had the Government retained the fixed rate system and increased the value of the Ringgit, say 10 per cent at a time, the cost of imports, in Ringgit terms can be monitored and reduced by 10 per cent. At 20 per cent appreciation the cost of imports should decrease by 20 per cent. But we know the prices of imported goods or services have not decreased at all. This means we are paying 20 per cent higher for our imports including the raw material and components for our industries.

Since oil prices are fixed in US Dollar, the increase in US Dollar prices of oil should also be mitigated by 20 per cent in Malaysian Ringgit.

But the Government wants to please the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank and decided to float the Ringgit. As a result the strengthening of the Ringgit merely increased our cost of exports without giving our people the benefit of lower cost of imports.

My theory: Inflation is happening everywhere, and imports are becoming more expensive. The strengthening Ringgit may account for a slower pace of inflation on imports. If the Ringgit does not strenghten, imports will become more expensive at a higher rate.

I don't have the data but this seems likely.

Some arguments why petrol subsidy should be reduced

Some may be repeats from my previous postings:

Petrol subsidy reductions are bad because it is going to cause a severe and sudden jump in inflation that most people are not ready for. As Malaysia has no social safety net to speak of, many lower income groups in the city will be caught without mercy. This will give rise to more social problems in the near future.

This is basically moot. Any social security net must be funded by taxpayers, which in the end reduce spending power of those paying taxes. Read more about Europe and their social security, don't forget to briefly study their tax rates as well.

People think that when the government is paying for it, no one is losing anything. Those very poor who are supported by social security have their meals paid by the tax-paying workforce.

The deal is everyone is complaining, not only the poor. Everyone doesn't want their cost of living increasing, irregardless if they're well off. They don't care about the poor. The poor are but only a means to advance their cause.

In fact, with respect to the lower income groups, such a policy would actually benefit them. The biggest benefactors of the fuel subsidies are middle to high income earners who drive a lot. Many will argue that low income groups benefit from cheaper goods, but so do the higher income groups which benefits even more because they consume more goods and services. With the subsidy, the marginal benefit definitely goes to those that consume fuel a lot, and I doubt those who consume fuel a lot are poor. Take this with a pinch of salt, if you own a car, you're already top 80% richest in the world.

Of course ideally, all savings from the subsidy cut should be returned to the people, my preference being through tax-cuts. We not being able to get that doesn't mean we should not do something to reduce the nation's losses due to subsidy-driven elevated demand.

Also, people are never ready for inflation. Never did never will.

Petrol subsidy reductions are bad because Malaysian businesses in general were built in an insulated economic environment. Sudden removal of subsidies will suddenly expose many businesses to the prospect of failure. It will be an economic tsunami!

If an industry is alive because of subsidies, and that industry is exporting, what happens is we are subsidizing consumption of other nations, incurring a net lost on our part.

The reasoning isn't too hard to digest. If a Malaysian firm makes a good for a cost of RM 10 and needs subsidy in order to sell competitively at RM 5, the margin is paid by taxpayers. The benefactors are the workers who would otherwise lose their jobs, the owners who draws dividends, and the foreign consumers whose consumption is being subsidized. Many, Mahathir's school-of-thought especially, would argue that "hey! at least we are creating jobs!". True, we are creating jobs. But these jobs are not increasing national income, they are drawing their incomes from everyone else's incomes.

Just imagine subsidizing Petronas' oil so we can sell it to Singapore or Thailand at cheaper prices. Thais and Singaporeans who drive the extra mile to get our cheaper fuel is good business for pump station owners. Their business is financed by the Malaysian public. That's exactly what's happening to many of our businesses. We don't want this. I assure you, we would do much better if we had just given out these subsidies to the poor without any obligation to work, freeing their labor for more profiting industries.

40% fuel-oil price hike in Malaysia

Prices of vehicle fuel are going up from RM1.92 to RM2.70 per litter.

I've wrote so much on the subject of oil subsidies

Cost of producing oil is cheaper than price of subsidized oil
Subsidizing oil just because we're net exporter
Oil dry in 2012
(latest estimates put us as a net importer of oil by 2012, not that our oil is gonna be completely dry out, a technical impossibility)


They are all for petrol subsidies to be cut. The main reasoning here is that subsidies actually cost us more than if there were no subsidies. Subsidies artificially inflate demand, low prices promotes people to drive more, increasing further the size of the subsidy. This excess consumption/demand is wastage. More elaboration can be found on the above posts.y

I am for cutting subsidies. I am very happy with this subsidy cut. However, I believe that the sudden huge decrease in subsidies is a mistake. I have reservations about how the money should be used, in which I believe that all of the money saved should be returned to the people in the form of tax-cuts, since taxes cause economic inefficiency in the first place. There is also the reasonable worry that the savings would be used to fund projects that are prone to corruption.

The Abdullah Ahmad Badawi Administration have done a lot of totally dumb stuff. This however, isn't so. It has been advocated by the experts for a very very long time (thus the fuel taxes in the west). There's a lot about it written in the academia. Definitely a big plus for the idea we call sustainable growth. It is probably the single best policy the nation has ever had since the start of the Mahathir administration.

The weird thing is, why is the government doing this when it is already so unpopular? Everyone knows that such policies, though may be good for the nation, will never go well with the lay person that is more for populist policies. Why aren't they doing things, like giving out goodies by going into a budget deficit (which Mahathir did and no one cared) to improve its approval ratings?

These kinds of unpopular stuff are usually done when one is going to leave the political scene. Mahathir waited to the time when he was leaving to change the medium of instruction of science and mathematics to English. He knew well that it won't be too popular, especially in UMNO, even though the idea was, many held, a good thing for the nation.

Many claim that Pak Lah needed to dispense the money for this political leverage. I hope not, but even if it is for that purpose, when Pakatan Rakyat takes over, they now can use this money rather than it tied up to the subsidies because they won't have the guts to pull it out anyway. When that happens, I seriously hope they won't reinstate these subsidies again.

Dump Malaysian rice

Leonard today made a simple but very true observation; Malaysians don't like to eat Malaysian rice. Many would rather pay dearly for very expensive rice imports (that have risen by more than 200%) than buy cheaper and poorer quality Malaysian rice.

So there was never a question about whether if Malaysia had enough paddy fields in the first place. We don't need more paddy fields. Heck, we don't even need paddy fields. Let's say that imported rice really is better, therefore, if all Malaysians can consume imported rice, that would be an improvement in the average standard of living already.

What we need is for the government to stop their agricultural self-sustainability nonsense. Much productivity is wasted trying to grow Malaysian rice which can't fetch good prices because they simply fail to compete with imported standards even when they're cheaper by a lot! Might as well use that labor for something else.

But what about the poorer people that can only afford cheaper Malaysian rice? Import cheap foreign rice. Some may disagree and point out a cost is involved because we're importing stuff, but a cost, an opportunity cost is too involved when we keep labor at paddy fields as well. That cost is the difference of incomes between a low yielding farmer and a better yielding worker at some better yielding industry. If done correctly, not only will rice imports not be a bane, it'll be something desirable since after all Malaysian rice isn't of too good a quality.

Many of our so-called nationalists have a problem with imports (hey Americans have this problem too). They forget that not only the seller, the buyer as well benefits from trade. It is a win-win situation else the trade will not have taken place. No man is an island. So is a nation. Good news is, no one needs to be self-sustainable, not unless they're about to do something that would end up with trade embargoes from everyone else.

The hypocritical Tun DrM

The recent piece by Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad "The Racist Card" is definitely one to ponder. DrM starts by claiming that those fighting for the minority races in Malaysia, who happens to call their Malay-ultra counterparts racists, to be themselves racists as well. The reasoning is pretty simple - they took a racial stand. However, in claiming that, Tun DrM has basically committed hypocrisy, for he himself have done exactly what his opponents have done - while HINDRAF proponents claim that Malay-ultras are racists, DrM claims that HINDRAF proponents are racists. To DrM's reasoning, the HINDRAF proponents are racists because they are taking a racial stand. His reasoning can be extended to himself, DrM is a racist because he is taking a racial stand.

Here is a quote from his blog

Who is racist; Param Cumaraswamy or Dr Mahathir?

Both? With the exception that Cumaraswamy is for equality while Mahathir is for Malay supremacy?

What's the point in this the reader may ask? I'm not sure as well. What I do know however, is that one side demands to be acknowledged superior while the other only desires equality. Movements like HINDRAF have a clear message; that the status quo isn't justice towards them. While many have become sympathetic towards the plight of this group that only wants to be equal, DrM is on the side of the group that desires to be lords, not equals among other ethnicities, thus the idea of Malay Supremacy and the Malay rights.

Most comments in the quoted piece clearly had the idea that the Malay cause is more superior than the other races' plight for equality. Funny thing is how Malay supremacists think their cause isn't one which will make them look like filth in the eyes of the world.

Tun DrM should be ashamed of himself for claiming that many non-Malay citizens cannot speak in Malay. My stint with with the National Service is just exactly the opposite. Though people may not have the highest proficiency in it, they do try to speak in BM, and theirs is one which is understandable. It is these kinds of statements that promote racism. Shame of yourself Tun DrM. I wonder if you've met and known better more lay persons than a commoner like myself has.

What's worse is, people continuously lick his shoes. What has he done really? Stimulating the economy by building Proton and other million Ringgit projects? A beggar knows how to spend too! His legacy? Before him, we weren't too behind countries like Singapore and South Korea. After him? Go figure. We did grow, but then again, even neglected children will grow into adults.

If the Abdullah Ahmad Badawi Administration is horrible today, they are still "higher" than yours Tun. If it was you, you'll probably do Ops Lalang 2, and Malaysia will yet be another step backward in its plight to a limited government and a democracy. You are a leader who never gave this nation something that it can and will carry for eternity. When Malaysia's oil reserves dries up, many will wonder what was your contribution towards the sustainable growth we were all tricked to believe existed.

Science and religion are completely opposite ways of thinking

People who believe in science believes in the scientific method.
That's different than people who believe in say, evolution theory alone.

So in both ends you have people who believe in different methods of finding the truth, one from discoveries from physical reality, the other from blind faith.They are really incompatible. You can't admit that you are for empiricism without throwing faith away.

Threatening someone with crippling financial blows won't make them love us forever

Someone posted the question

Marriage is a relic of the past. Threatening someone with crippling financial blows won't make them love us forever.

I've always thought that marriage is never about love, more towards utility - raising children, task specialization in the household, more permanent emotional support (because it has a bit more staying power compared to other social relationships), etc.

The financial blows are more of a matter of retribution. Something like "If one day you stop loving me, or don't want to work things out anymore..."

What Americans think

If no one believed in God

does that mean God will cease to exist?

If humanity never believed in a God or a creator, not only will God be absent in our minds, as we alreadt know, it will be absent in the physical world as well.

It's all in the head. And that's why it is called "faith".

The Pyramids and the Great Wall are monuments of shame

Why do people consider the Pyramids of Gaza and the Great Wall of China to be something of pride? If it was to stand for something, it would be that anything is possible when you are willing to forget about welfare of many milions by subjugating them to cruel labour.

It's a shame that such projects are done in the first place. No one's life is worth any other person's bragging rights, pride, nor vanity.

Ironically, many of these same people are asking the government to scrap multimillion worth mega projects in favor for smaller stimuli that would benefit the poor more. What hypocrites.

Dr. Mahathir bin Mohammad probably spent so much tax-payer's money on building structures that look nice because he thought that in the end, it is these who people are proud and happy with. The sad thing is how popular history has given him this idea - how people have wrote about the greatness of the leaders who built it. Much worse however, is how people attribute such buildings to him in a positive light.

That's simply sad. Anyone knows how to spend. Give me a nation's money and ask me to spend it, I'll spend it anytime of the day, in what ever speed you want it be.

Crime rates and crime insolvency rates statistics do not influence actual crime rates

The title is long, so let me mention it again. This is about how crime rates and crime insolvency rates statistics do not influence actual crime rates.

I have a theory to explain this. But before that let's go a bit into why I'm writing about this.

People often attribute higher crime rates to weakening law enforcement or lower successful prosecution. Because of this, they blame law enforcement agencies for not doing their job and they point out that such incompetence will only worsen the problem by promoting even more crime.

I believe that in most cases, this line of reasoning is wrong.

People will always believe that they have better luck. Although statistics quotes for high divorce rates, newlyweds go into marriages with the idea that theirs will be a happy and lasting one. Have they thought about the scenario of a divorce, of being a single mother, an abusive spouse and all?

People who commit crime will always believe that they are the part of the statistics of not getting caught for their crimes, or not successfully persecuted in court. The reasoning is that there are crime that are caught, just as there are marriages that are broken, but that their crimes will not be caught.

Because of this, they commit crime. People who are bad enough and who thinks like this will commit crime. People who are bad enough but who do not think like this, and rather ponders about the scenario of getting caught will not commit crime.

I believe however, that extreme cases are an exception. In extreme cases, I mean where crime solvency statistics are very high, or very low. That's why you have lawless states where crime rates are high and states where people are so afraid of the enforcement agencies that crime rates are very low. The latter case is not found in liberal democracies with a relatively limited government however.

Are the severity of sentences then an influence to crime rates? I believe not, with the exception again for extreme cases. 20 years in prison is very very long time, heck, a large portion of the population isn't even 20 years old and really no one has the right to claim that 20 years is insufficient for any crime not amounting to murder. But rapists who could potentially land themselves this long behind steel bars have definitely not got scared enough by such punishment. My take is that when they commit the rape, they don't think about the 20 years, they think about getting away with it. So even if it was 30 years or 40 years, rape cases shouldn't drastically decline, except when victims are afraid that their family get in prison for 40 years.

But then again, if parking illegally is punishable by death, no one would park illegally. An example of an extreme case.

U.S. economy is $1 trillion per year richer as a result of trade

From the Wall Street Journal

Careful studies at our Peterson Institute for International Economics show that the U.S. economy is $1 trillion per year richer as a result of the trade liberalization of the past 60 years, and that we would gain another $500 billion per year if the world could move to totally free trade.

This is exactly the reason why I'm still thinking of not supporting Obama. He's a populist that tells people that free and open trade is bad, thus his stand that NAFTA needs to be renegotiated.

Weapons as deterrents of war

Senthil wrote

For example, if we were to take a peek into history, we would come to a conclusion there have been groups or even nations that have risked possible annihilation by either resisting more powerful armies or even trying to provoke a fight between themselves and a nation with much greater firepower then them. Take for example the terrorists. In pursuing what they are doing, terrorists and nations that harbor terrorists often run the risk of being completely annihilated by the nuclear arms and other high tech weaponry of its more powerful adversaries. And as we have seen, many of these weapons which are supposed to act as deterrents have failed to do its job and have been used in combat and subsequently taken the lives of many terrorists and innocent civilians alike.

So, having said that, we can now realize that having a bigger gun doesn't necessarily mean that it will prevent conflicts between a small power and a bigger power. Which means that more people will end up getting killed by this weapon anyways.

There is a modern example of a nation going to war with an opponent that would almost certainly crush it without much effort - Iraq under Saddam Hussein vs the USA. You probably think this is ammo against the idea that WMDs are effective deterrents of war.

They probably still are (WMDs are deterrents of war), at least when you actually have governments that either genuinely care for its people, or that is duty bound to serve the best interests of its people. When one is democratically elected at the pleasure of the people, one wouldn't commit too many actions that would remove one from office.

Of course it becomes tricky again when you have people that ultimately only cares about themselves. Armies have fought just to keep the political status-quo AKA just because I still want to be king, my subjects shall die defending my political power. Leaders of such description may after all, just let bombs incinerate their people.

So are WMDs a good war deterrent? They sure are when leadership is sane.

If you know you would lose an arm or an eye, rationally you wouldn't get into the fight.
Some of us would just still charge in and lose our lives, these are like Saddam.

Obviously WMDs don't work against terrorists. If they really do care for their people, they would have spared their women and children by not hiding among them after launching a rocket attack. They probably just want these meat shields dead to fuel more hate against their opponents.

McCain's, Clinton's gas tax holiday

Hillary Clinton and John McCain recently proposed the idea of a tax holiday for gas/oil in the States to "help middle and low groups". A tax holiday basically pauses the desired tax.

A reader of the link pointed:

You don’t have to look much further than Central NY to see how disastrous a suspension of a gas tax can be. Oswego County suspended its portion of the gas tax to “help” local residents. The overall impact…gas prices did not go down by the 5 cent tax as the lawmakers fully expected…The savings flowed directly to the pockets of the gas station owners and suppliers.

The legislators were perplexed and taken aback that the gas stations didn’t pass along the savings. Can you imagine that?

Not too hard to figure why.

As prices go down, it stimulates demand
demand goes up
suppliers pay less tax, supposedly they have more incentive to produce more
but supply of oil is inelastic, it doesn't change
so prices go up again.

This is almost the exact same point that I've been trying to make for the Malaysian oil subsidies. Subsidies stimulate demand, demand goes up, we consume more oil than we would otherwise have consumed if subsides were instead abolished to be used to fund tax cuts - where we can buy more food, or maybe DSLRs. It's not equal.

I'm almost convinced however that a lot of lay people will buy Clinton's idea. People simply believe that the idea of free lunch is pretty much alive when it involves the government.

Old women

I just realized,
although I can recognize different faces of young Chinese girls,
the old ones all look the same to me.

I'm not too sure about the other races. Just making this particular observation since I'm ethnic Chinese myself.

Dead

Collected results for General Physics 2 and Organic CHemistry 1...

Worst results and GPA in my life.

I'm dead. I don't know how to tell it to my parents.

I may go into a depression anytime now.

OMG you are an idiot!

This always happens. You profess liking someone to a friend but did not go after them. Your friend says "OMG you are an idiot!".

This guy has an interesting answer.

So what? I like this girl and I don't really think the whole idea of being IN A RELATIONSHIP with her makes a difference. What if I just enjoy the process of liking her and the general feeling? Am I not allowed to do so?

Remember to keep speeches short and sweet

A speech should be like a woman's skirt, long enough to cover the important parts and short enough to make it interesting.

No food? Think again

They say there is a looming world food crisis. Food prices are going to soar due to lack of supply. This piece shows the Canadian government offering money for farmers to slay their pigs - in an effort to suppress supply and increase prices.

EDMONTON —In what is being called an unprecedented move, the federal government will pay Canadian pork producers $50 million to kill off 150,000 of their pigs by the fall as the industry teeters on the brink of economic collapse....Those who qualify for payments must agree to kill off an entire breeding barn of pigs and not to restock the barn for three years.

Maybe people prefer to eat rice than pork.

Cheating or just victims?

If your girlfriend/boyfriend got too close to another guy/girl on a beach vacation where you had not tagged along;

Is it their own fault that they allowed themselves to be approached, or are they but only victims of the situation?

The sad thing is, I think this is happening to my friend.
The "girlfriend/boyfriend" is my friend.
The third party is my friend as well.

Awhile ago, I read from one of Facebook's discussions on a similar topic; many said that they'll simply forgive their partners even if it involved sex, with the condition that it be with a stranger whom will never cross-paths again.

Hangover

I had my first ever dose of alcohol at Redang. It was 5 shots of Chivas Regal, a type of whiskey, 4 of which undiluted.

Did not turn red for the night. I thought it would be ok. Noticed that whenever I bend, I would lose balance and had to support myself with my hands. Could still walk straight though.

The next morning, I felt perfectly fine. Had a bumpy boat-ride off the island. Some people puked. I was still fine... until the bus ride back to Kuala Lumpur where I had a fever half way.

To not let my parents suspect that I had alcoholic beverages while with my friends, I did not call them to fetch me at the bus stop. I took the train commuters home.

My friends told me that hangovers show immediately after waking up from the previous night's drink. I searched the net today and wikipedia said it can happen up to the third day.

I doubt I'll have any of them again for a very very long time. They don't taste that great. Their after-effects are even worse. This morning, on the day after the bus-ride, I can still smell the stench of whiskey up my nostrills.

Queen-sized beds

There are 4 sizes of beds. Below are their rough widths, the lenghts are usually the same.
1) Single/Twin - 1 pillow + 9 inches of extra width.
2) Double/Full - 2 pillows + 3 inches of extra width.
3) Queen - 2 pillows + 8 inches of extra width.
4) King - roughly the space of 2 pillows + 20+ inches of extra width OR almost 3 pillows.

The reason why I'm pointing this out is: A lot of people (couples included) think they're sleeping on Queen-sized beds, when they're actually on a double bed. Add that to the fact that most Malaysian homes are small - people think that any bed that can fit in 2 people = Queen-sized and are therefore meant for 2.

Fact is, what they're sleeping on is really a 'Full'-sized bed designed for single sleepers. These beds, although they can fit in 2 pillows, are meant for only one sleeper. Couples on it will lose 6 inches of space each compared to the single bed. That's 5 inches more than on a Queen-sized bed.

Why bother merging if you want to be separate?

From Malaysia-Today (http://www.malaysia-today.net/2008/content/view/5383/84/)

Now, it must be noted that Sabah, Sarawak and Singapore did not join Malaysia. Malaysia did not exist yet, then. What existed was Malaya -- and Sabah, Sarawak and Singapore merged with Malaya to form Malaysia. This means, Sabah, Sarawak and Singapore are of the same status as Malaya, not of the same status as one of the states of Malaya such as Selangor, Perak, Kedah, Perlis, Penang, etc. Today, Sabah and Sarawak are treated as just another of the Malaysian states and that is the bone of contention of these two East Malaysian states.

This was also one of the sore points in the Singapore-Malaysia relationship that resulted in Singapore leaving the Federation. Tunku Abdul Rahman did not agree that Lee Kuan Yew call himself Prime Minister of Singapore as the Tunku did not see how Malaysia could have two Prime Ministers. Lee Kuan Yew, on the other hand, did not agree to being ‘downgraded’ to a Chief Minister like Penang, Melaka, Sabah and Sarawak. Actually, Lee Kuan Yew was right and the Tunku wrong as far as I am concerned, though 99% of the Malays would disagree with me on this point.

What an opinion. If so, then can it then be summed that when some states joined the (federated states of) United States, they are not to be considered all equal because some of them joined late?

What about the UK, where Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland merged into England's age-old parliament as just another peer? There is but only one Prime Minister in the UK and he leads the executive branch of government with his cabinet. Was another 'equal executive branch and another equal PM made when those states merged with England to form the UK? Nope. They all still have their independent assemblies, but they come below the UK parliament.

Just like when firms merge, do they then create 2 CEO positions?

Why bother merging if you want to be separate?

People look too highly upon Lee Kuan Yew. He can take credit for Singapore's economic prosperity. For everything else, I doubt any credit is due to that man.

Good advice to smokers

At the bus station

Yesterday at the bus station, I was waiting for the few buses parked there to move. There is this Chinese woman who went up this stationary bus that had no one inside yet. Then after some time, a Malay man went up the same bus. Now the bus had only 2 persons in it - the Chinese woman and the Malay man.

Then after some time, I realized both of them were talking. I thought "hmmm, Malay guy interested with the Chinese girl". They were sitting one seat away from each another.

Then the funny thing is, as I was boarding the bus, this Malay woman in front of me had no change, showing a RM10 note instead. The bus driver asked her to change with the nearby stalls (they aren't so near really). So I just gave him a RM1 note and she used it for the bus ticket.

People must be thinking "hmmm, Chinese guy interested with Malay girl".

Later she insisted to change the RM10 she had with me, but I had no change and told her to keep the bus fare instead.

Why had I helped her? There was once I was in a similar situation with no change. Bus driver asked me to change at the nearby stalls, but the bus drove away as I was changing (the walk is quite far and takes at least a full minute). There was also this once where sitting as a passenger, I saw the bus do exactly the same thing to another man, cruising away after sending the man to get small change.

Of course being the clumsy me, on another day, I had again boarded a bus with no small change. This time however, a man (college kid) paid the RM1 fare for me. Like the woman above, I asked to change with him, but he insisted that it is ok. I owe this guy a lesson learned.

Wine and water education

It has been scientifically proven that if we drink 1 liter of water each day, at the end of the year we would have absorbed more than 1 kilo of Escherichia coli (E. coli) bacteria found in feces. In other words, we are consuming 1 kilo of Poo.

However, we do not run that risk when drinking wine (or rum, whiskey, beer or other liquors) because alcohol has to go through a distillation process of boiling, filtering and fermenting. Besides that, many organisms cannot survive in alcoholic environments.

WATER = POO
WINE = HEALTH

Free yourself of Poo, drink WINE!!! It is better to drink wine and talk shit than to drink water and be full of shit. There is no need to thank me for this valuable information; I am doing it as a public service.

Have a nice day...

When someone is missing...

Kai Foong, my ex-classmate/collegemate/friend made this following observation:

Sometimes, when one person is missing, the whole world seems depopulated

I have a feeling that this quote will be in my head for sometime.

What is wrong with prostitution?

I have no regrets, says Sufiah
http://www.thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2008/4/7/nation/20870201&sec=nation

From another article:

Some said she should be forgiven and guided back to the right path through religious teachings.

Regular workers sell their time.
Artists both in acting and singing sell their talents + physical self.
Models sell their physical self + clothes.
Prostitutes sell their physical self - clothes.

So what makes prostitution 'bad' and other jobs 'not-bad'?
Society. Dogma.
And the patriarchal view that women should devote themselves only to one man.

Give the prostitutes a break. The layman working for the Fortune 500 firm isn't anymore nobler than them.

I wonder what gives the guy above so much moral authority to suggest "guiding people back to their right path". As if it is certain that their subjects are at wrong paths and that they know what is the correct one. Arrogance at its best.

Being religious and being moderate

I watched the short movie Fitna (search it on Youtube) yesterday. Two immediate opinions of mine include; (1) Islam and the Koran has the propensity to fuel extremism, really because there are excerpts in the Koran that are extreme and (2) most Muslims are however, moderate and not as extreme as Muslims depicted in the video.

The question now is, are the moderate Muslims moderate because of Islam?

In which my theory is: People, at least most of us, are moderate not because of religion, but because we simply can feel sympathy and empathy for the guy beside us. Religion has little to no effect in dis-promoting extremism.

Why do I say this? Either way, you interpret religion according to what your world-view already is. Basically, there are parts that tell you to be kind, then there are parts that tell you to not be kind. The net effect is zero, and you're back at your original belief before embracing a religion.

You can't claim and be sure that terrorists did not interpret the Koran correctly when at the same time you have these verses saying that killing is allowed and that dying for Islam grants you 99 virgins in heaven.

What is scary about Muslims isn't too much about the violence depicted in films like Fitna. Rather, it is how Muslims have reacted to it, the death threats and all.

Racism and Sexism

Sometimes people tell you; to be not racist is to look beyond ethnicity.

So we understand, that if you meet Ahmad and think of him as a Malay = you're racist, because you failed to look beyond ethnicity.
But we also understand, that if you tell the whole world that you have Malay, Chinese, Indian, and 'lain-lain' friends in an effort to note how un-racist you are = you're also a racist, for again you failed to look beyond ethnicity.


So you're the leader of a group (firm or government). Demographics show 60% Malay, 30% Chinese, 10% Indians, 10% 'lain-lain'. You have 2 options. You can fill up the top positions according to demographics, or you can simply choose people disregarding racial composition in your team. We understand from the first statement in this post, that if you choose to do the former, you're racist. If you choose to do the latter, you have looked beyond ethnicity and therefore not racist.

But if you do that, your team will not have been composed according to racial demographics, and you'll be labeled as racially unjust, even when you had not acted as a racist.


Let's extend this to gender.

It follows from above; to be not sexist is to look beyond gender.

Although it's dead difficult, we understand that if you meet Eve and think of her as a woman = you're a sexist, because you failed to look beyond gender.
But we also understand, that if you tell the whole world that you have woman friends in an effort to note how un-sexist you are = you're also a sexist, for again you failed to look beyond gender.


So let's say you're a leader of a group. The scenario is the same as the one just mentioned, just now it concerns gender and not race. Should you have chosen to appoint based on demographics, you have looked at gender and therefore a sexist. Should you choose to not do so, supposedly, you're not a sexist for having looked beyond gender.

But if you have chose to do just that (being not a sexist), one group would be unhappy and would demand for an end to sexism.


The old case follows: in order to make everyone happy, we sacrifice better talents from an ethnic group, just so we can have more representation from another ethnic group. Likewise, in order to make everyone happy, we sacrifice better talents from a gender, just so we can have more representation from another gender.


Most of us probably voted for a race-neutral opposition alliance. Yet we want more Chineses and more Indians (+ more women) in government. What race-neutral crap is this?

Adults don't have respect for 'kids'

This is the second time where Mr Lambert, vice principle of INTI College Subang Jaya (yes, I'm mentioning it in full because they deserve the bad publicity), jumped on his appointment with us students doing coverage on the new building. 2 weeks ago, he said that they weren't allowed in yet, and so he had to cancel the appointment. This week, he met us awhile, got a phone call, asked for 5 minutes from us to settle what I suppose to be "pressing", and dissapeared. I and 3 others waited for him for an hour. He never appeared.

He made me waste my friend's time for the second time already. On our appointment with him 2 weeks ago, he made us wait 30 minutes before showing up in his office before telling us that we had wasted our time for it is not possible for us to visit the new building yet.

This man has had a lot of guts talking to me rudely in this week's brief encounter.

I'm not gonna have myself, nor members from my club dealing with him again. We had the decency to at least inform his secretary that we're leaving. I wonder if he would ever show us such minimal amount of respect.

I had long held the belief that adults don't have a lot of respect for what they perceive to be "kids". I guess I'm right.

Oil dry in 2012

If Malaysia's petrol reserves is gonna deplete in 2012, so say the 'experts', then why continue the oil subsidies?

Weird. I've been hearing a lot of voices from opposition camps claiming that that Malaysian oil is gonna deplete by 2012 and because of that, change is required now, since we don't want to suffer then.

But if so, why did the opposition list oil subsidy increments in their recent general election manifesto? Anwar Ibrahim said in one ceramah, that I heard through YouTube, that Malaysia can subsidize oil because we are a net exporter (paying subsidies through export profits).

What then happens to the subsidies after no more oil is left in Malaysia's drills? Or should we start adapting for the future by gradually cutting subsidies now?

Why am I so crazy about oil subsidies? :S

Going to uni...

Going to a university that you like...

... is like marrying someone that you like.

Beer contains female hormones - NUL

Last month, National University of Lesotho scientists released the results of a recent analysis that revealed the presence of female hormones in beer.

Men should take a concerned look at their beer consumption.

The theory is that beer contains female hormones (hops contain phytoestrogens) and that by drinking enough beer, men turn into women.

To test the theory, 100 men drank 8 pints of beer each within a 1 hour period.

It was then observed that 100% of the test subjects:

1) Argued over nothing.
2) Refused to apologize when obviously wrong.
3) Gained weight.
4) Talked excessively without making sense.
5) Became overly emotional.
6) Couldn't drive.
7) Failed to think rationally.
8) Had to sit down while urinating.

No further testing was considered necessary.

Russell's Teapot

If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.

- Bertrand Russell

Overheard from bus station - crime

I overheard this from the bus station, spoken by a Caucasian expatriate:

It's much more safer here than in Bangkok

Things aren't as bad as everyone think they are here. Too many people are pulled to this trend to change, just because. Changing for the better is a definite good, but I just don't like it when Malaysians put it like its gonna be doom.

I don't believe it's so, at least won't if they cut those oil subsidies.

Also by an expatriate

Not a crime at all to work towards your own standards. In fact I think all nations should aspire for a zero crime level. However; you're saying the current gov't is doing a bad job because of the crime rate? How do you compare this? They're doing bad because it's not zero? Would someone else do better? The only comparison is to other countries, and in that regard I would suggest the Malaysian gov't is doing quite well.

Irresponsible parents

I was following a debate between an expatriate and a local. The local was bashing the government, the expatriate was defending it.

A few things said were very true. One of those being that people are overly dependent on the government to spoon feed wealth to them. Take for example oil subsidies - how many people actually think that subsidies should be removed for the benefit of the nation as a whole? Many preferred the picture of an easier life led by subsidies, even when such policies are clearly unsustainable.

Another thing is with education and admissions to local universities, in which this was pointed out:

Anyone who relies on ANY gov't to educate their children properly is an irresponsible parent.

Too true. Too many parents who failed to support their children's education is relying on the government - on subsidized books, school fees, and government scholarships. Fine for people that worked really hard for scholarships but were skipped due to race and religion, but not fine for parents who expect the government to actually make tertiary education cheap for them.

I do agree that it is the government's duty to improve the education of its people. I don't agree that the government is responsible for our children's education, just because there are God-damned irresponsible lazy parents.

Too many people should not have had any babies in the first place.

Between boredom and stress

When I get my plate full of commitments I don't have to be involved in the first place, I feel alive - and stressed. I hope that life would be simpler.

When I am very free and can afford to play computer games for very very long periods of time, I feel lifeless - and bored. I hope that life would have more things in it.

I did not sleep yesterday. Just too much to do. Felt a bit stressed. Wondered why I got my hands on reviving the edboard in the first place. Wanted to sleep and play but couldn't.
I slept on the afternoon today consequently, after coming home from classes. When I woke up, I was dead bored. I could sleep and play games now, but I don't want to.

Sultan's intervention in appointment of MB

I feel that the Sultans should not be intervening in the appointment of MBs.

Heck, the system we have here is wrong. Sultans should be apolitical, but by giving them the powers to appoint whoever they like from the full pool of assemblymen from the winning party, by their own will, does not constitute their supposed-to-be political neutrality. The power to appoint is very important.

Sultans got things too easy. The nation do not owe it to them whatever wealth they have. They don't have the ethical right to the administration of the nation. They never worked towards their current statuses.

I don't like UMNO people but although the other candidate for the job can be corrupt, I can't accept that a group of people borne to silver-spoon on the nation's kind-will be having the arrogance to meddle in its administration.

Dr Mahathir

Quoted as the "SMARTEST reply/response I heard whole night". Not by me.

Mr. Mahathir. Left the building just-in-time. He's much more better precisioned than Toyota. Every single white elephant was raised by the all-holy-and-untouchable Mr. Mahathir. He was a smart man. Smartest within UMNO. And he is still the smartest of them all. He is the person whom has successfully divided Malaysians into what we know today as "Race". To further strengthen the position of UMNO, he further divide Malaysian into "Religion". With him, we have the "they" and "us" analogy. But, that was never enough for our beloved Tun Dr. Mahathir. To ensure everyone loves him more than everyone loves Raymond, he strengthens NEP, and also ISA, while defining what is termed "sensitive", and what is not.

Most people would say, "hey, at least while he was in office, Malaysia grew". Yes, Malaysia did grow. Now, consider that a country as a seed, and the government as the gardener. Put a seed in any land (as long as there's water), it will grow. How well the tree grows depends on the gardener. Even if the gardener doesn't even look at the tree, nor watering it, the tree will still survive (we still have rain). The tree will grow at its natural growth rate. If the gardener fertilizes the land, it'll grow faster, and better, because the gardener is doing his job.

Now, lets look back at Malaysia. Instead of comparing different gardeners and their respective trees, we look at countries and government, who grow at almost the same time as us, with also in similar state after WW2. Where are we today? Kill all the White Elephants, you'll see Malaysia is actually nothing. Malaysia grew not because of its government. It's because of its private sector, which mostly has nothing to do with the government other than giving bribe to them. Of course, we can't deny FDI during the 1980s. But, where were the FDIs during 1990s and 2000?

Summary: Mahathir it just one of the smart guy in UMNO. Leave the office early, so that he wouldn't look like he failed Malaysia/Malaysians.

Some guy pointed out that when he became PM during the early 1980s, Malaysia was economically equal to South Korea. We're way behind them now. We're way behind them now. We're way behind them now. We're way behind them now. We're way behind them now. We're way behind them now. We're way behind them now. We're way behind them now. We're way behind them now. We're way behind them now.

Damn, I got to remember that repeating won't make your argument stronger.

Well said. Pointless to be proud of your race

Someone said this. This hardly only applies to Africans.

When you say you are proud to be African ,why do you say so?
Did you choose your parents? Did you choose which part of the world you were born in? None of us did, we are a product of a union of our parents who were in a certain geographical area. I always laugh when anybody says I am proud to be Indian, Malay, White, etc. It's silly. None of us could choose our parents, we are what we are. Pride should be based on one's personal achievements.

Cost of producing oil is cheaper than price of subsidized oil

... is not reason to support subsidies.

Even if the cost of producing a barrel of oil is RM0.01 (1cent), selling it at RM1 when market price is RM5 means that you're suffering RM3.99 in losses for every unit you sell for RM1. Opportunity cost.

How so? Imagine selling that unit of oil for RM5 (market price) and then burning the RM3.99 to report an RM1 per unit revenue.

If Petronas' oil does indeed sell for more (since Petronas' oil is of a higher grade and fetches higher prices), then subsidizing it will incur an even greater loss. Opportunity cost.

If I sell you a RM 1 million piece of art (market price) for RM 10 just because I bought it from the artist for RM 1, opportunity cost dictates that I'm not gaining RM 9. My assets just went down by near RM 1 million from owning the piece to RM 10 after selling the piece.

The opportunity cost of a person attending university illustrates this as well. The cost isn't just the tuition fees (cost of drilling and processing oil) but involves potential incomes lost due to time spent studying.

Pak Lah did a big favor for the country.

Today BN lost their 2/3rds majority in Parliament and 4 states - Penang, Selangor, Perak, Kedah - in addition to Kelantan which opposition PAS retained.

It's rather pointless for a small-time blogger like me to comment on the elections since there are plenty of better sources out there.

But I just wish to say: Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi may have done the greatest favor for Malaysia since its earlier leaders yet - he made a situation conducive enough for opposition parties to grab states and parliamentary seats.

If BN wins big again, do you seriously think the country will be better off? Mahathir started nonsense in BN, if today BN is becoming humbler and more accountable, we have to thank Pak Lah for it :D
Mahathir couldn't remove Samy Vellu. Pak Lah did.

Opposition PKR won in my place (BN was incumbent) and in the place I study :D

Why guys give love?

Question:

" The odd question is: How guy chooses a girl? I mean for a girl, we usually are the acceptors of love, but for a guy to give love... I feel it's amazing and always puzzled by it... "

Response:

" It's a trade. "
" Guys give love, girls give sex. "

When you buy a new phone, you give money to the dealer, dealer gives you the phone.
You're happy to get the phone, dealer is happy to get your money.

Malaysian men

Question:

" How do women perceive Malaysian men as in terms of physical looks, financial status and also characteristics/attitude. And what customization can be done to propel them to be on par/better than international standards? :P "

Response:

" Okay... I will give you an outsider's perception:

Looks: Malaysian men leaves much to be desired. The good looking ones are often mixed blood.

Charm: They're actually 'nice' men but not very smooth with the ladies I think. I'm inclined to say they are 'sweet'... so personality wise... good :)

I have to say... Malaysian men need to dress better... wear better clothes and shoes... no flip flops la... unless you got nice long legs and shorts to go with them :) but I like the traditional Malay dress (Baju Melayu) on men... kinda cute. "

Subsidizing oil just because we're net exporter

Why is everyone supporting oil subsidies so intent on balancing 'oil' accounts? You don't have to balance Petronas' profits with oil subsidies - in principle that's the same with taking manufacturing profits to fund oil subsidies. It doesn't matter from which accounts you're taking from, when you're spending you're spending from your total balance/treasury.

I heard Anwar's speech on this. He just said that we're a petroleum-exporting country and as such can afford lower prices for our people. This is just sad. He doesn't show any economic wisdom in my opinion, at least in this aspect. I can't accept such simplistic economic populist reasonings.

Oil prices must be allowed to grow. Higher prices reduces demand from those not willing or cannot afford it. Lower prices like what we have now artificially increases demand - this is what we don't want. We don't want to be paying for more as a nation when we don't have to consume that much in the first place.

I don't like BN. I don't like their holier-than-thou nonsense nor the corruption and dumb policies they do that no one seems to oppose. My support is with the opposition. It's just saddening that Anwar has to lower himself to such populist manifestos. Populism economics never work well.

The last time they did a minimum wage in Detroit, USA, the big3 auto makers in America had their market dominance slowly shrinking. No, economics isn't about doing things that are more popular.

Cut the subsidies and cut income taxes proportionately. Let tax reductions spur growth through the people's consumption. About time people tell the government that they prefer to spend the money themselves instead.

Malaysian General Election

There's really no point in voting for BN. They're gonna win for sure anyway. Might as well vote whatever opposition there is to balance out representation in Parliament, to check the government.


Another thing: I don't like the BN government, but I tend to give them the benefit of the doubt when it comes to policies. Things like cutting oil subsidies are what I think is unpopular but good for the nation. It is exactly on this point that I disagree with the opposition's idea to increase subsidy should they be elected to power. By this promise alone, I'm supposed to not be voting for them (opposition) already.

I hate populist policies. I don't like subsidies that are aimed to get the vote. I don't like Barrack Obama and Hillary Clinton for their stances against free trade - NAFTA especially (they want to radically review it) - because I think they're just exploting laymen's misunderstanding about how trade actually creates more than it destroy. Obama and Clinton was actually telling voters that NAFTA has failed to create any jobs.

But BN does even more stupid stuff:
1) Stopping peaceful demonstrations.
2) Dictating to us right and wrong (eg: demonstrations are wrong).
3) Controlling media (and student activism).
4) Extending Election Commission's chairman's tenure at constitutional retirement age (this is definitely ....).
5) Approved Permits for imports (+1 definite ugly policies).
6) Using economic development to win votes (this is government's duty).
7) Development regions aka mega projects (more space for corruption!).
8) Institutionalized racism.
9) Members of Parliament that prefer to fix potholes than make a point in Parliament.
10) Party whip that ensures all BN MPs toe party lines in Parliament.
11) Excessive government spending on development projects (do tax cuts and let consumer demand stimulate the economy in a corruption-free way instead).
12) Government blackmailing people.
and the list goes...

People say that the economy is being mismanaged. I can't tell and I doubt anyone's take in this is accurate. Policy-wise they've got my benefit of the doubt. I think that Malaysia isn't falling behind because of poor economic planning, but rather corruption.

BTW, if I'm Prime Minister, I'll slowly cut away the oil subsidies and return them in form of tax cuts. You guys can cry all you want.

Why do I like to argue?

Richard and I was taking a ride in Maryanne's car;

Richard: Why do you like to argue so much?

Me: I really don't like to fight. I just don't mind 'talking' if people insist with their ideas.

Richard: So you intentionally argue?

Me: It takes both hands to clap.

Richard: So who's fault was it?

Me: No one's. Arguing isn't definitely something wrong.

Richard: Then why are you more argumentative than the average person?


All along I don't see it as something bad. People just hate 'it' because no one likes to have an attempt to prove them wrong.

Sigh. I got nothing to say. Perhaps it's a bad thing after all.

Here's a promise to myself: I'll avoid arguments when it comes to those 'small little things' in life.

Phone gone

My mobile phone just died. It refuses to start, making a buzzing sound when I switch it on only to go dead the next second. I've got no idea what I should feel. My phone is old and I want to change it badly. Just that I'm really not into asking my parents for money.

Which leaves me with the option of buying one myself. I've got the money for a not-too-fancy one but I was thinking - if my dad founds out that I've not been telling him about this, he may feel that I'm leaving him out from my life again. I'm not in too good terms with my dad. We no longer disagree because we simply haven't expressed any discussion-worthy opinions but this only means that we are talking less now.

Admittedly I'm a bad child. I don't listen to my parents all the time, but I try to make them happy at least on the more simple things like running errands. I can't help to disagree with my mom and dad on a lot of things but I just hope that there's enough of those 'smaller things in life' to give me the chance to at least make them remotely happy.

Which is why I don't know if I want to tell my dad about my broken phone. I don't want to take his money on things I don't have to. Yet I don't want to make him feel bad...

Uni and results = bad :(

Hahahahahaha.

I'm so bored.

And I have a big headace.

Dad wants me to go to Cal State Uni LA because it's near my relatives and I can stay with them.

But CSULA seriously isn't that great a uni... and I want to go to a better uni... but I don't want to ask dad for more money for a better uni...

Another sad thing is how my grades are getting bad, really bad.

I didn't do too well for the 1st of 2 tests in physics. It'll seriously make it harder to get an A. Worst thing is it's supposed to be easy and everyone is supposed to ace in it.

So I'm left to think that I'm either not that smart to begin with, or am getting stupid by the day. Sad :(

First design work by myself for the college mag

This is my first ever completed design work for the Editorial. I didn't enter to be a designer, I wanted to only write. But with a sad amount of staff working on design, I'm left with no choice. Sad :(

This is going to be the page on Bon Odori written by Natasha Brothier (she has since transfered to the USA). Many thanks to her and to the many others who have contributed as well!

2008 Resolution

It's a bit late now but I just only figured out my new year resolutions. For too many years, my wishes was always for something academic. But I'm getting old and I can't help feeling how academics isn't really that important, even if it meant the size of your paycheck and the university that will admit you... hmmm I guess it's important anyway.

I'll try to be more sociable. But how?
I'll try to be more intelligent. But how?
I'll try to be more patient with people that irk me. I'll try not to let my anger overcome me but since I'm on it already, I'll just try to refrain from being angry.

Last year I had only 1 resolution - to improve my grades. I was only half successful at it.

If you kill 1,000,000 people, you're a respected historical figure

I heard someone loudly saying how Hitler was very respected at the end of the day in a public commuter today. Seems like:

If you kill 1 person, you're a murderer. Everyone else wants you hanged or locked-up.
If you kill 1000 people, you're a martyr who fought for a cause. Some will respect you and hold you as a hero.
If you kill 1,000,000 people, you're a respected historical figure.

What happened to the root cause?

Today I stumbled upon an article by ex-prime minister Mahathir concerning values of leadership. No, this piece is not going to be about that article of his.

Back when Mahathir was the prime minister, he frequently spoke against US foreign policy and on terrorism, stressed on how it is more important to deal with the "root cause". You can't hunt down every single terrorist in the world, so to stop terrorism you have to deal with the root cause or causes. Taking military action is an action, but it isn't an action to deal with the root cause.

That was back then. Now, US foreign policy isn't any longer an issue. Everyone seems to be more concerned instead with safety on the streets, evidently because there seems to be more and more cases of child abductions. To deal with the problem, the police are to be more diligent and more surveillance cameras are to be installed in public areas. The general public are also asked to be more cautious and vigilant while on the streets and to keep the children safe.

But those are steps taken to deal with the prevailing situation. What happened to dealing with the root cause for a more effective solution?

But perhaps people have realized that it is impossible to deal with the root causes of our unsafe streets. How is one supposed to realistically deal with bad parenting or bad circumstances in life that led one to commit crime?

How then is one able to deal with the root causes of terrorism?

By giving the would-be terrorists an independent Palestinian state? Wouldn't this be like giving the would-be criminals a candy bar?

I thought the only thing in the article written by Mahathir worthy of some thought would be something along the lines of "some potential good leaders will never succeed just because circumstances don't favor them". I hope that he actually knows now how some root causes simply can't be dealt with, realistically.

The relationship between risk and returns

I was thinking about how higher risks are almost always related to higher returns. Most people if not all take it as a matter of fact. But my thoughts are that it is not, that when for example it concerns investment, investments involving higher risks usually have higher interest rates (returns) not because it is matter-of-fact universal law, but because people's behavior.

Higher interest rates are always attributed to investments where there are fewer buyers. If an investment is heavily bought or demanded, its interest rate would experience downward pressure to settle at a lower rate. Think about prices.

So the only reason why returns for riskier investments are higher would be because most people are risk averse - they don't want to take riskier portfolios. This naturally causes interest rates for higher risk investments to be higher than average.

But what if people, for whatever reasons, love risk? Then higher risk investments would have lower returns compared to lower risk investments and it therefore would have been "lower risks are almost always related to higher returns".