In today's The Star,
* Malaysia’s October exports down
* Petronas shuts petrochemical plants
* Retrenchment ‘the last resort’
* Retrench only as last resort: Muhyiddin
* Najib: Expect fewer tourists with global slowdown
* Johor seeks to cap number of foreign workers
But we are still ok because our esteemed DPM DS Najib said “Nobody really knows the problem out there or how deep the problem is, it is anybody’s guess.” He said there were no indications that Malaysia would slip into recession next year or even into a technical recession.
From the looks of it he admits that no one knows how deep the problem is but he remains confident that there were no indications of a recession (technical or otherwise). I wonder where or who our government gets their information from. I wish I could those articles too.
I remain amazed and in awe at how they can see through all the bad news, and how clouded and confused all the others are.
On a separate note, there are some people in Malaysia that doubt the crime rates published recently that showed that we have lower crime (per 1000, 10000 or 100000 people) rate than other countries. And in these published article, Malaysia did better than some very respected countries (countries that a single female can walk on the streets at night).
And because of our doubting citizens, our esteemed Minister seeks an external and independent body to conduct a survey. I guess there is no way for the raw data to be wrong. Number of police reports = number of crimes. Our criminal acts = their criminal acts.
And because the independent body is believable when they summarise the same data and publish statistics.
We now have a simple way to convince the doubting citizens. Ask a independent body about:
1. How is our economy so strong?
2. What happened to the foreign model that kind of exploded into fame?
3. Whether money politics is real and who are involved?
4. Whether our ISA is used in a justifiable manner?
You know, this is not a new idea. Corporations often engage external consultants to tell them what they already know but dont like to admit, or when shareholders are doubtful. But it takes our government to apply the idea to ... erm.. the governing of the country.
I should have thought of that!
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
Solution to the rear seat belt dilemma for families
There is something common amongt families with 4 children, families with more than 5 members, families with 3 generations that stay together.
They are caught in a dilemma of either leaving someone behind, or breaking the rear seat belt law. But then again, in another article yesterday, someone said that they may fined for overloading.
This time, I want to be faster than our esteemed government in proposing a solution - Change your lifestyle with this Top Ten ways to solve the rear seat belt dilemma without changing or getting a new car.
10. Stay near amenities so that everything is accessible within a 30 minute walk?
9. Stop going out for meals. Cook, buy back or get it delivered?
8. Don't go out as a family?
7. Leave one or two of the worst behaved behind ?
6. Drive cars that are registered before 1995?
5. Have a smaller family?
4. Change to a smaller family?
3. Avoid getting caught by police (see Law and Enforcement)?
2. Stick a folded RM50 to your driving licence?
1. Put everybody on a motorbike?
Other options include staying in Sri Hartamas or ChowKit where there are no policemen. But these cannot be recommended because we dont want the property prices to shoot up for a silly reason.
Clever me!
They are caught in a dilemma of either leaving someone behind, or breaking the rear seat belt law. But then again, in another article yesterday, someone said that they may fined for overloading.
This time, I want to be faster than our esteemed government in proposing a solution - Change your lifestyle with this Top Ten ways to solve the rear seat belt dilemma without changing or getting a new car.
10. Stay near amenities so that everything is accessible within a 30 minute walk?
9. Stop going out for meals. Cook, buy back or get it delivered?
8. Don't go out as a family?
7. Leave one or two of the worst behaved behind ?
6. Drive cars that are registered before 1995?
5. Have a smaller family?
4. Change to a smaller family?
3. Avoid getting caught by police (see Law and Enforcement)?
2. Stick a folded RM50 to your driving licence?
1. Put everybody on a motorbike?
Other options include staying in Sri Hartamas or ChowKit where there are no policemen. But these cannot be recommended because we dont want the property prices to shoot up for a silly reason.
Clever me!
Low Crime Rates
A few days ago, some prominent government person stated that Malaysia has lower crime rates than many other countries, including countries that we normally accept as safe enough for a female to walk alone at night on the streets.
To confirm my suspicion that the government is right, I saw this article in The Star, "Thugs strike terror in Desa Sri Hartamas"
Apparently, in that area, there are robbers who rob customers in restuarants, gangsters who extort protection money, double parkers who block roads, illegal food court operating on a piece of land designated for a police station.
And then there is a problem with rubbish collection, and no public transport in the area, difficulty in hiring workers and lack of a police station. So, maybe all our criminals are "working" in Desa Sri Hartamas only and therefore our average crime rates are low. Oh, then there are those in ChowKit that scared away the police. Not too bad, only 2 areas where crime is concentrated.
Out of curiousity, it seems that our gangsters/robbers who can travel on private transport are richer than the workers who have to use public transport. So why dont the gangsters give up crime and become a worker?
From a personal safety perspective, I would recommend to the robbers/gangsters to be careful when entering and leaving their cars/motorbikes while holding parangs and sticks. Who knows where the parang may poke into while you are trying to belt up (which needs two hands) with the parang in your lap.
Don't say I didn't warn them.
Then some policeman said that it is difficult to catch the robbers in action (especially if the police are not around the area) and that the police will use preventive laws to stop the criminals.
We should have those preventive laws implemented immediately in those 2 areas. Why didnt we use preventive laws to stop all crime earlier?
I should have thought of that!
To confirm my suspicion that the government is right, I saw this article in The Star, "Thugs strike terror in Desa Sri Hartamas"
Apparently, in that area, there are robbers who rob customers in restuarants, gangsters who extort protection money, double parkers who block roads, illegal food court operating on a piece of land designated for a police station.
And then there is a problem with rubbish collection, and no public transport in the area, difficulty in hiring workers and lack of a police station. So, maybe all our criminals are "working" in Desa Sri Hartamas only and therefore our average crime rates are low. Oh, then there are those in ChowKit that scared away the police. Not too bad, only 2 areas where crime is concentrated.
Out of curiousity, it seems that our gangsters/robbers who can travel on private transport are richer than the workers who have to use public transport. So why dont the gangsters give up crime and become a worker?
From a personal safety perspective, I would recommend to the robbers/gangsters to be careful when entering and leaving their cars/motorbikes while holding parangs and sticks. Who knows where the parang may poke into while you are trying to belt up (which needs two hands) with the parang in your lap.
Don't say I didn't warn them.
Then some policeman said that it is difficult to catch the robbers in action (especially if the police are not around the area) and that the police will use preventive laws to stop the criminals.
We should have those preventive laws implemented immediately in those 2 areas. Why didnt we use preventive laws to stop all crime earlier?
I should have thought of that!
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
Law and enforcement
Now that the belting up in the rear seats are mandatory, we are reminded that it is illegal to seat 4 people at the back of a car.
This new reminder is brought about when many realised that there can only be 3 seat belts at the back. What do we do with the 4th passenger? Well, the answer is that the driver will probably be fine as far as the seat belt ruling goes. But "there is no guarantee that he won't be fined under other laws."
Again, our conscientious officials have reminded us that we should not put members of our family or friends at risk because when a car is overloaded the steering control and the braking ability of it is affected.
I should have thought of that!
So I began thinking....
This overloading thing begs clarification on how overloading is defined:
1. Is there a limit on the number of people (normal sedans are typically designed for 3 adults in the rear seats)
2. How do we count children (1 child = 1 adult or 3 children = 2 adults?)
3. If 3 children = 2 adults is applicable, then at what age is a child not a child? And if we do not use age, do we use weight (more appropriate?), or height?
4. If child-seats or booster seats are mandatory too, at what age (or is it height or weight?) can a child go without the child-seats?
5. Or is there also a limit on the total weight of the load? So if we have very well-rounded people, we can only seat 4 instead of 5?
6. Does it also depend on the type of car (such as wira, myvi, kancil, satria), and/or make of car, such as perodua(smaller), toyota (typical), mercedes (larger)?
7. How will the authorities check the weight if overloading is defined by weight (as it should be, if steering and braking ability are the measures)?
8. Will the relevant personnel checking be carrying portable weighing machines? or will the suspect (and passengers) be sent to a weighing centre? Are we going to build more weighing centres?
9. Are we going to send some officials for trips to other countries to study how they effect such rules?
10. Errm... does a similar law apply to other vehicles, such as lorries, buses, trains? how to weigh a train?
Come to think of it, I can already see some business potential in selling weighing equipment if this overloading thing is to be enforced:
a. Mobile weighing machines, kind of like a trailer with a weighing machine that the suspect (and passengers drive up on?
b. Below the surface weighing machines installed on major roads that shows the weight of the vehicle driving past?
c. Home use machines for families wary of breaking the laws?
We can probably also address the issue of the overloaded lorries plaguing our roads for so many years. See how we can kill many worms with one bird?
And then the automotive industry may well start to promote loading limits on their cars together with fuel efficiency, headroom, engine stats, etc.
Imagine the advertisement "45kg more than the nearest competitor means you get to keep the car as the family grows (weight-wise)"
Or "Why be punished because you are more than a model's figure, our new sedan exceeds the average load limits by 75kg".
And also "Planning for another child, our 2009 model is designed for 5 adults + 1 child, leading the industry in weight-limits for our class."
I could go on, but I am running out of paper...
This new reminder is brought about when many realised that there can only be 3 seat belts at the back. What do we do with the 4th passenger? Well, the answer is that the driver will probably be fine as far as the seat belt ruling goes. But "there is no guarantee that he won't be fined under other laws."
Again, our conscientious officials have reminded us that we should not put members of our family or friends at risk because when a car is overloaded the steering control and the braking ability of it is affected.
I should have thought of that!
So I began thinking....
This overloading thing begs clarification on how overloading is defined:
1. Is there a limit on the number of people (normal sedans are typically designed for 3 adults in the rear seats)
2. How do we count children (1 child = 1 adult or 3 children = 2 adults?)
3. If 3 children = 2 adults is applicable, then at what age is a child not a child? And if we do not use age, do we use weight (more appropriate?), or height?
4. If child-seats or booster seats are mandatory too, at what age (or is it height or weight?) can a child go without the child-seats?
5. Or is there also a limit on the total weight of the load? So if we have very well-rounded people, we can only seat 4 instead of 5?
6. Does it also depend on the type of car (such as wira, myvi, kancil, satria), and/or make of car, such as perodua(smaller), toyota (typical), mercedes (larger)?
7. How will the authorities check the weight if overloading is defined by weight (as it should be, if steering and braking ability are the measures)?
8. Will the relevant personnel checking be carrying portable weighing machines? or will the suspect (and passengers) be sent to a weighing centre? Are we going to build more weighing centres?
9. Are we going to send some officials for trips to other countries to study how they effect such rules?
10. Errm... does a similar law apply to other vehicles, such as lorries, buses, trains? how to weigh a train?
Come to think of it, I can already see some business potential in selling weighing equipment if this overloading thing is to be enforced:
a. Mobile weighing machines, kind of like a trailer with a weighing machine that the suspect (and passengers drive up on?
b. Below the surface weighing machines installed on major roads that shows the weight of the vehicle driving past?
c. Home use machines for families wary of breaking the laws?
We can probably also address the issue of the overloaded lorries plaguing our roads for so many years. See how we can kill many worms with one bird?
And then the automotive industry may well start to promote loading limits on their cars together with fuel efficiency, headroom, engine stats, etc.
Imagine the advertisement "45kg more than the nearest competitor means you get to keep the car as the family grows (weight-wise)"
Or "Why be punished because you are more than a model's figure, our new sedan exceeds the average load limits by 75kg".
And also "Planning for another child, our 2009 model is designed for 5 adults + 1 child, leading the industry in weight-limits for our class."
I could go on, but I am running out of paper...
Difficult to change?
From JebatMustDie, I linked to (in lawyer-kampung.blogspot.com) a very interesting analogy of how a political party can improve using a Hybrid vs Petrol car as an analogy.
Interesting because in many ways, many organisations (political as well as commercial and non-profit) may be in the same state, and will benefit if they consider (using lawyer-kumpung's analogy) switching from a large engine capacity car to a hybrid (electrical and petrol) car which saves fuel, improves emissions and therefore is greener than the current gas guzzlers.
I made a very long comment and posted it only to realised that the original article was posted in September, which makes the comment almost irrelevant (2 months ago is history in blog time, no?)
And because it was a comment, it didnt exactly follow the normal style (if I may call it so) of this ramblings blog. Anyway, I am posting the comment here, if nothing else, for me to remember what I said there.
--- my comment posted in lawyer-kumpung
In many ways, I think many of us know what has to be changed, while the challenge is how to implement the change.
Taking the example of a hybrid car, perhaps some of the challenges are:
1. Those in power who already own many "big engine" cars, and would prefer to mix with and invite only others with similar engine capacities to join their exclusive "club".
2. Because it costs more to maintain these big cars, it also serves as a barrier to prevent the men-on-street, such as Ali, Ah Chong and Ramasamy, to join with a "cheaper" hybrid or even a smaller engine car. This again keeps the club exclusive. And being exclusive (with benefits) is often enough a reason why others aspire to join.
3. There already are a bunch of wannabes that crave for the perceived prestige (and benefits) of the "big engines". And they are not about to let a bunch of hybrids owners (or promoters) ruin their past efforts in clearing their path to glory (and money) of the big-engines.
4. If the big engine users considers drop their gas-guzzlers, they will be letting down their army of members in the supply-chain that provides the special maintenance, petrol, tyres, etc for their cars. And these members of the supply chain are the people that enabled the owner to own and keep the big engine in the first place.
5. And when (or if?) the early adopters move from big-engine to hybrid, the supply-chain (who are being cut off) will quickly move one of the wannabes to replace the "betrayer". And of course the "betrayer" will be left out of the club and left join Ali, Ah Chong and Ramasamy.
Their choices:
a. Drive a 700cc with batteries that everyone else can own?
b. Own a 4,500cc that is seldom driven and few (very few) can own?
Why go through the hassle in order to get to the top if you are going to get the common car?
I guess one benefit of wielding power is that one can choose to be exclusive. And because the powerful will want to be exclusive, they will choose vehicles (and everything else) that are exclusive. Hybrids will not be their choice, unless there are exclusive hybrids. Which again will create a supply-chain to service such exclusive hybrids, and so on.
Cyclical? Yes. Perhaps that is why it is so difficult to change?
---end of comment posted in lawyer-kumpung
Maybe before we even asked whether it is difficult to change, we should ask, if they want to change. I doubt if they want to, and because they are the powerful, I doubt if others can change them.
Interesting because in many ways, many organisations (political as well as commercial and non-profit) may be in the same state, and will benefit if they consider (using lawyer-kumpung's analogy) switching from a large engine capacity car to a hybrid (electrical and petrol) car which saves fuel, improves emissions and therefore is greener than the current gas guzzlers.
I made a very long comment and posted it only to realised that the original article was posted in September, which makes the comment almost irrelevant (2 months ago is history in blog time, no?)
And because it was a comment, it didnt exactly follow the normal style (if I may call it so) of this ramblings blog. Anyway, I am posting the comment here, if nothing else, for me to remember what I said there.
--- my comment posted in lawyer-kumpung
In many ways, I think many of us know what has to be changed, while the challenge is how to implement the change.
Taking the example of a hybrid car, perhaps some of the challenges are:
1. Those in power who already own many "big engine" cars, and would prefer to mix with and invite only others with similar engine capacities to join their exclusive "club".
2. Because it costs more to maintain these big cars, it also serves as a barrier to prevent the men-on-street, such as Ali, Ah Chong and Ramasamy, to join with a "cheaper" hybrid or even a smaller engine car. This again keeps the club exclusive. And being exclusive (with benefits) is often enough a reason why others aspire to join.
3. There already are a bunch of wannabes that crave for the perceived prestige (and benefits) of the "big engines". And they are not about to let a bunch of hybrids owners (or promoters) ruin their past efforts in clearing their path to glory (and money) of the big-engines.
4. If the big engine users considers drop their gas-guzzlers, they will be letting down their army of members in the supply-chain that provides the special maintenance, petrol, tyres, etc for their cars. And these members of the supply chain are the people that enabled the owner to own and keep the big engine in the first place.
5. And when (or if?) the early adopters move from big-engine to hybrid, the supply-chain (who are being cut off) will quickly move one of the wannabes to replace the "betrayer". And of course the "betrayer" will be left out of the club and left join Ali, Ah Chong and Ramasamy.
Their choices:
a. Drive a 700cc with batteries that everyone else can own?
b. Own a 4,500cc that is seldom driven and few (very few) can own?
Why go through the hassle in order to get to the top if you are going to get the common car?
I guess one benefit of wielding power is that one can choose to be exclusive. And because the powerful will want to be exclusive, they will choose vehicles (and everything else) that are exclusive. Hybrids will not be their choice, unless there are exclusive hybrids. Which again will create a supply-chain to service such exclusive hybrids, and so on.
Cyclical? Yes. Perhaps that is why it is so difficult to change?
---end of comment posted in lawyer-kumpung
Maybe before we even asked whether it is difficult to change, we should ask, if they want to change. I doubt if they want to, and because they are the powerful, I doubt if others can change them.
Friday, November 28, 2008
Why are there debates in parliment?
We have the government and opposition in parliment. The job of the government is to govern. What then is the job of the opposition? I thought it was to provide a check on, and to prevent abuses. But given the name, perhaps some of the opposition misunderstood their job and spend most of their time in opposing the government, whatever the case?
I thought that parliment was a place where matured leaders debate important issues that have profound beneficial effects for the people. And not for schoolboy styled debates on whether it is correct to use "fish" or "fishes". Or perhaps this schoolboy debate is already more matured than the name-calling childish antics we read regularly about?
However absurd this sounds, it sometimes seems to be the truth. While we have so many, many issues that need to be argued, discussed and decided upon for the country to go forward (which I assume is the purpose of parliment in the first place), we also have many esteemed members of parliment who seems to be more focussed on arguing on technicalities, and trying to punish those that are wrong on petty, technical grounds.
Why the relentless pursuit of a mistake? Whether due to ignorance or an attempt to mislead, it makes no difference to the man on the street. What good would it do to the people?
While these may be important for the purists (especially lawyers, who amongst other things, often cite technicalities to throw out a case), it serves no purpose for the rest of the rakyat who has voted the parlimentarian in.
Perhaps it might be a good idea for every member in parliment to think through and answer a simple question before he opens his mouth. The question is, "What good does whatever I am going to say achieve in terms of real benefits for the people?" And if he doesn't have a decent answer for this, then perhaps he should reserve his energy and parlimentary time for something constructive.
We debate everything, and run out of time to discuss the important things. While searching for the exact truth is admirable (for scientist), we perhaps should spend a bit more time on moving forward in this fuzzy world without exactness. I am too lazy to link or quote examples here because you (the reader) can go read the newspaper.
It scares me that the opposition (and many see them as the saviour of the country) is supposed to be the voice of rationality checking on those vested with the power to lead the country, . may one day be the power that is leading the country.
I thought that parliment was a place where matured leaders debate important issues that have profound beneficial effects for the people. And not for schoolboy styled debates on whether it is correct to use "fish" or "fishes". Or perhaps this schoolboy debate is already more matured than the name-calling childish antics we read regularly about?
However absurd this sounds, it sometimes seems to be the truth. While we have so many, many issues that need to be argued, discussed and decided upon for the country to go forward (which I assume is the purpose of parliment in the first place), we also have many esteemed members of parliment who seems to be more focussed on arguing on technicalities, and trying to punish those that are wrong on petty, technical grounds.
Why the relentless pursuit of a mistake? Whether due to ignorance or an attempt to mislead, it makes no difference to the man on the street. What good would it do to the people?
While these may be important for the purists (especially lawyers, who amongst other things, often cite technicalities to throw out a case), it serves no purpose for the rest of the rakyat who has voted the parlimentarian in.
Perhaps it might be a good idea for every member in parliment to think through and answer a simple question before he opens his mouth. The question is, "What good does whatever I am going to say achieve in terms of real benefits for the people?" And if he doesn't have a decent answer for this, then perhaps he should reserve his energy and parlimentary time for something constructive.
We debate everything, and run out of time to discuss the important things. While searching for the exact truth is admirable (for scientist), we perhaps should spend a bit more time on moving forward in this fuzzy world without exactness. I am too lazy to link or quote examples here because you (the reader) can go read the newspaper.
It scares me that the opposition (and many see them as the saviour of the country) is supposed to be the voice of rationality checking on those vested with the power to lead the country, . may one day be the power that is leading the country.
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Law and enforcement
We are a law-abiding people, only when there is a law-enforcement person in visible sight.
Sometimes, I wonder if there is a act legistated somewhere that states something like "An action breaking the written laws are illegal, if, and only if, spotted by government personnel authorised to police such actions and willing to take action to punish the illegal act." Perhaps it is this law that promotes our actions in blatantly ignoring the law.
Take a drive out of wherever you are now, and you see how lawlessness we are.
1. Oh, be very careful at the traffic lights. Especially if it is green because there are many that thinks that red lights means they must look before speeding off.
I have this friend of a friend that gave me a ride home one night. He would slow down when reaching a traffic light junction when the lights are red, and looking (without stopping), continue across the junction (despite the redlights). After 2 of these incidences, I asked why he did that. To which he replied, "Don't worry, my brother do it all the time. No cars at this hour." Then at the 3rd traffic light junction, it was green, and he stopped the car. I was really puzzled, what is it with him? Driving through red lights and stopping at green? Sensing my troubled state, he explained, "Better look out, in case my brother coming from the other side." Did someone change the standards of red means stop and green means go while I was sleeping?
2. Visit any commercial area with shoplots, and you'll see a variety of parking methods. Double parking, grass-area parking, roadside parking, on-curb parking (popular with the 4x4s and SUVs). We'll have to invent names for the other kinds of parking, and probably include them into the driving lessons. "Haih, I passed the parallel, and double parking but failed the curb parking".
3. The amount of litter in crowded places such as bus stations, open-air markets, hawker centres, etc will make a visitor belief that we have no dustbins. If you drive every day, you'll even see the common flick of cigeratte butts out from cars, trucks, motorbikes and those cases where the driver opens his door and heaves a patch of his personal fluids out to the floor. Oh, I have yet to meet anyone who has been fined for littering. Maybe there is no anti-littering law?
4. Safety concerns for vehicles. Do I even have to tell you about these? Helmets, seat belts, kids in the front passenger seat, kid in the driver seat with driver, use of mobile phone and smoking a cigarrette, at the same time? This last one is special. Not because he is difficult to spot, just special because of his inability to think, or his illusion of his driving skills. This driver is the one with one hand holding the mobile phone, and the other hand hanging out of the window with a glowing cigarrette. hmm... If using a phone is dangerous, would lighting a cigarrette, smoking (which implies holding) and later throwing the cigarrette butt out be considered a safe and acceptable act? The other special is where the driver has a 3-5 year old on his lap. And any combination of these are real specials.
5. Weaving and driving on emergency lanes. These are the real dangers to the other roads users. I agree that speed kills. I mean, very few people have been injured or lost their lives while parked (in the past, the opposite have happened, where some lives were created while parked). But to say that driving at 130km/hr is riskier than driving at 110km/hr? Anyway, what is risky is that idiot that is weaving at 70km/hr in a busy 80km/hr zone while all (and there are many) the other cars are going at 40-60km/hr.
6. Speeding or rather the lack of it. We have a very nice north-south highway. And occasionally there are major accidents involving multiple cars. Of course, speed is involved.It is after all a highway and not a parking lot. Did the accident occur because of weaving, suddenly changing lanes, driver falling asleep or mechanical failure? Speed is merely a part of the reason, seldom the actual reason. Does anyone seriously think that a driver going at 140km/hr will crash into someone going at 110km/hr? He would slow down before hitting the car in front. If he didnt or could not, then it wasnt the speed, it was either mechanical failure, falling asleep, sudden change of lanes or weaving? Speed is the only scrapgoat here. And if we really analyse the causes of accident, I would guess that falling asleep (lost control of vehicle?) is probably a big percentage of the causes. Try driving alone for a 4 hour journey (KL to JB, or Pen to KL).
7. Heavily tinted windows, glaring HID lights modifications, loud-exhausts are so common now that a visitor would be surprised that these are illegal. At least for loud-exhausts, the national car has supported this by producing cars that make enough decibels to match the after-market conversions of the others. Glaring HID lights are a danger to other drivers and glaringly, very little action has been taken against these drivers. As for tinted windows, perhaps someone should justify why it cannot be allowed. Apparently, all you need is to get a doctor to certify that you are sensitive to sunlight in order for you to legally have extreme tinting. If I had the money to tint my car, I would try getting this certificate from a doctor.
8. One would think that given that we have so much laws and so little conformance, we should find ways to get the public to conform. Instead, we add on another law. Yes, the law is good and yes, it is done with good intentions. No, it will not be followed, and no, it will not be enforced. Erm,
9. Corruption - well, as far as drivers are concerned, there is absolutely no corruption unless you are caught breaking a law. But laws are not broken unless someone got caught breaking it. So anti-corruption cannot happen unless laws are broken. So if only 1 in 1,000 breaches of the law is caught, and only 1 in 1,000 cases where laws are broken are anti-corruption officers present, then there is a 1 in 1,000,000 chance that the anti-corruption officer can catch the act of corruption. So based on the above numbers, and if you break the traffic laws 10 times a day (3650 times a year), you would probably get fined (or pay a bribe if this is possible) about 3.65 times a year and if you bribe, you will get caught by a ACA officer once in 274 years.
One thing about my children at home is that when we make a rule, we also declare the consequences of breaking the rule. But when we break the rules and the supposed consequences do not happen, then in their eyes, the rule does not exist. Rules without enforcement = no rules. So smart, these children nowadays.
And we believe that adults are different.
I should have thought of that.
Sometimes, I wonder if there is a act legistated somewhere that states something like "An action breaking the written laws are illegal, if, and only if, spotted by government personnel authorised to police such actions and willing to take action to punish the illegal act." Perhaps it is this law that promotes our actions in blatantly ignoring the law.
Take a drive out of wherever you are now, and you see how lawlessness we are.
1. Oh, be very careful at the traffic lights. Especially if it is green because there are many that thinks that red lights means they must look before speeding off.
I have this friend of a friend that gave me a ride home one night. He would slow down when reaching a traffic light junction when the lights are red, and looking (without stopping), continue across the junction (despite the redlights). After 2 of these incidences, I asked why he did that. To which he replied, "Don't worry, my brother do it all the time. No cars at this hour." Then at the 3rd traffic light junction, it was green, and he stopped the car. I was really puzzled, what is it with him? Driving through red lights and stopping at green? Sensing my troubled state, he explained, "Better look out, in case my brother coming from the other side." Did someone change the standards of red means stop and green means go while I was sleeping?
2. Visit any commercial area with shoplots, and you'll see a variety of parking methods. Double parking, grass-area parking, roadside parking, on-curb parking (popular with the 4x4s and SUVs). We'll have to invent names for the other kinds of parking, and probably include them into the driving lessons. "Haih, I passed the parallel, and double parking but failed the curb parking".
3. The amount of litter in crowded places such as bus stations, open-air markets, hawker centres, etc will make a visitor belief that we have no dustbins. If you drive every day, you'll even see the common flick of cigeratte butts out from cars, trucks, motorbikes and those cases where the driver opens his door and heaves a patch of his personal fluids out to the floor. Oh, I have yet to meet anyone who has been fined for littering. Maybe there is no anti-littering law?
4. Safety concerns for vehicles. Do I even have to tell you about these? Helmets, seat belts, kids in the front passenger seat, kid in the driver seat with driver, use of mobile phone and smoking a cigarrette, at the same time? This last one is special. Not because he is difficult to spot, just special because of his inability to think, or his illusion of his driving skills. This driver is the one with one hand holding the mobile phone, and the other hand hanging out of the window with a glowing cigarrette. hmm... If using a phone is dangerous, would lighting a cigarrette, smoking (which implies holding) and later throwing the cigarrette butt out be considered a safe and acceptable act? The other special is where the driver has a 3-5 year old on his lap. And any combination of these are real specials.
5. Weaving and driving on emergency lanes. These are the real dangers to the other roads users. I agree that speed kills. I mean, very few people have been injured or lost their lives while parked (in the past, the opposite have happened, where some lives were created while parked). But to say that driving at 130km/hr is riskier than driving at 110km/hr? Anyway, what is risky is that idiot that is weaving at 70km/hr in a busy 80km/hr zone while all (and there are many) the other cars are going at 40-60km/hr.
6. Speeding or rather the lack of it. We have a very nice north-south highway. And occasionally there are major accidents involving multiple cars. Of course, speed is involved.It is after all a highway and not a parking lot. Did the accident occur because of weaving, suddenly changing lanes, driver falling asleep or mechanical failure? Speed is merely a part of the reason, seldom the actual reason. Does anyone seriously think that a driver going at 140km/hr will crash into someone going at 110km/hr? He would slow down before hitting the car in front. If he didnt or could not, then it wasnt the speed, it was either mechanical failure, falling asleep, sudden change of lanes or weaving? Speed is the only scrapgoat here. And if we really analyse the causes of accident, I would guess that falling asleep (lost control of vehicle?) is probably a big percentage of the causes. Try driving alone for a 4 hour journey (KL to JB, or Pen to KL).
7. Heavily tinted windows, glaring HID lights modifications, loud-exhausts are so common now that a visitor would be surprised that these are illegal. At least for loud-exhausts, the national car has supported this by producing cars that make enough decibels to match the after-market conversions of the others. Glaring HID lights are a danger to other drivers and glaringly, very little action has been taken against these drivers. As for tinted windows, perhaps someone should justify why it cannot be allowed. Apparently, all you need is to get a doctor to certify that you are sensitive to sunlight in order for you to legally have extreme tinting. If I had the money to tint my car, I would try getting this certificate from a doctor.
8. One would think that given that we have so much laws and so little conformance, we should find ways to get the public to conform. Instead, we add on another law. Yes, the law is good and yes, it is done with good intentions. No, it will not be followed, and no, it will not be enforced. Erm,
9. Corruption - well, as far as drivers are concerned, there is absolutely no corruption unless you are caught breaking a law. But laws are not broken unless someone got caught breaking it. So anti-corruption cannot happen unless laws are broken. So if only 1 in 1,000 breaches of the law is caught, and only 1 in 1,000 cases where laws are broken are anti-corruption officers present, then there is a 1 in 1,000,000 chance that the anti-corruption officer can catch the act of corruption. So based on the above numbers, and if you break the traffic laws 10 times a day (3650 times a year), you would probably get fined (or pay a bribe if this is possible) about 3.65 times a year and if you bribe, you will get caught by a ACA officer once in 274 years.
One thing about my children at home is that when we make a rule, we also declare the consequences of breaking the rule. But when we break the rules and the supposed consequences do not happen, then in their eyes, the rule does not exist. Rules without enforcement = no rules. So smart, these children nowadays.
And we believe that adults are different.
I should have thought of that.
Monday, November 17, 2008
Education and the future.
Many agree that the future of a country depends on the education of today's children. To have an idea of where the country may be going, let's look at 3 articles in the news on 17th Nov 2008.
1. New Straits Times - STRESSED OUT: Wrong priorities harming children
In this NST article, we read that today's parents are putting the children into too much pressure on schooling and that it is adversely affecting both physical and mental health of the future generation. At the same time, every 1 out of 11 children (around 9.1%) scored straight As in the UPSR (12 year olds).
- So we must be doing very well academically, despite the health problems. Or our children are not healthy despite them doing well academically? Or are they the same children, as in are the sickly ones doing well in exams?
2. Malaysia Today - Malaysia's education ratings alarming
This article voices concerns over how Malaysians are too focussed on monetary rewards that a piece of academic qualification brings. Rote-learning and question spotting (preparing only for predicted exam questions) to pass exams became the norm while being interested in the requisite knowledge is the exception. It also talks about how politicians, parlimentarians, commentors on blogs, et cetera, blurt their narrow views void of proper thought.
- So we have paper-qualified schooled graduates who are not properly educated? Or are poorly educated people graduating from schools? And some of these people are politicians and parlimentarians?
3. The Star - M’sia suffering acute shortage of oncologists
Apparently, we have some 39 oncologist (Medical doctors specializing in cancer) and we need at least 200 for a population of 26 million. Also, we have been bringing in foreign doctors to do this although it is still insufficient.
- We are short of some specialist professionals? Are we also short of doctors, engineers, architects, town planners, managers? Are they being developed sufficiently (in both quantity and quality) in our education system?
Briefly browsing through the 3 articles, they seemed linked only by a thin thread. What if these are cause and effect symptoms of an alarming trend?
1. Result Worship - Children are forced-fed through a schooling system that worships examination results instead of knowledge and ability. True, exams prove that you have learnt how to answer the questions. It would be great for these children if society are willing to pay them in the future for answering questions in 3 hour sittings.
2. Paper qualified - Too many graduates today have problems in communicating with others, solving problems, and accepting responsibility. Ask any management person who has done interviews in the last 10 years and ask the management person how are his new hires. So we have paper qualified people without the necessary knowledge to perform. Seems to be a continuation (or automatic promotion) as item 1 above.
3. Lack of professionals - Where did they go?
a. Did we produce less than needed?
b. Are those that we produced functional?
c. Are these functional ones performing in this country?
ah... Perhaps we have to wait for another article, the one on migration trends. Is there a migration trend at all? Maybe the reason why some foreign professionals are willing to work here is the same reason why some Malaysian professionals migrate or choose to work in the more developed countries?
Are the following a summary of the current trend?
1. Most children being too pressurised and measured on exam results instead of knowledge or thinking.
2. Under-graduates that are more interested in getting the paper qualification than in learning or thinking.
3. The knowledgeable professionals are leaving the country, leaving behind those that can't leave. And foreigners who come here are merely looking for a stepping stone to US or Europe.
And here is another disturbing article by a columnist in TheStar, "For our kids’ sake, check the slide"
And our government is aware and probably have been taking actions. I dont have the actual articles but you may remember reading some of these that our government think will solve the problem with the education system.
1. Provide more loans/scholarships for tertiary education
2. Provide more places in more institutions of higher learning and have a minister dedicated to higher education.
3. Send more officials from Ministry of Education overseas to study other countries.
4. Promote our tertiary institutions to foreign countries such as Africa and China.
5. Replacing Vice Chancellors, Chancellors and similar actions.
Apparently, the quality of the students entering these tertiary institutions has no effect on the quality of the graduates. So we only need to fill the tertiary institutions with more students and better officials and the output will improve.
I should have thought of that.
1. New Straits Times - STRESSED OUT: Wrong priorities harming children
In this NST article, we read that today's parents are putting the children into too much pressure on schooling and that it is adversely affecting both physical and mental health of the future generation. At the same time, every 1 out of 11 children (around 9.1%) scored straight As in the UPSR (12 year olds).
- So we must be doing very well academically, despite the health problems. Or our children are not healthy despite them doing well academically? Or are they the same children, as in are the sickly ones doing well in exams?
2. Malaysia Today - Malaysia's education ratings alarming
This article voices concerns over how Malaysians are too focussed on monetary rewards that a piece of academic qualification brings. Rote-learning and question spotting (preparing only for predicted exam questions) to pass exams became the norm while being interested in the requisite knowledge is the exception. It also talks about how politicians, parlimentarians, commentors on blogs, et cetera, blurt their narrow views void of proper thought.
- So we have paper-qualified schooled graduates who are not properly educated? Or are poorly educated people graduating from schools? And some of these people are politicians and parlimentarians?
3. The Star - M’sia suffering acute shortage of oncologists
Apparently, we have some 39 oncologist (Medical doctors specializing in cancer) and we need at least 200 for a population of 26 million. Also, we have been bringing in foreign doctors to do this although it is still insufficient.
- We are short of some specialist professionals? Are we also short of doctors, engineers, architects, town planners, managers? Are they being developed sufficiently (in both quantity and quality) in our education system?
Briefly browsing through the 3 articles, they seemed linked only by a thin thread. What if these are cause and effect symptoms of an alarming trend?
1. Result Worship - Children are forced-fed through a schooling system that worships examination results instead of knowledge and ability. True, exams prove that you have learnt how to answer the questions. It would be great for these children if society are willing to pay them in the future for answering questions in 3 hour sittings.
2. Paper qualified - Too many graduates today have problems in communicating with others, solving problems, and accepting responsibility. Ask any management person who has done interviews in the last 10 years and ask the management person how are his new hires. So we have paper qualified people without the necessary knowledge to perform. Seems to be a continuation (or automatic promotion) as item 1 above.
3. Lack of professionals - Where did they go?
a. Did we produce less than needed?
b. Are those that we produced functional?
c. Are these functional ones performing in this country?
ah... Perhaps we have to wait for another article, the one on migration trends. Is there a migration trend at all? Maybe the reason why some foreign professionals are willing to work here is the same reason why some Malaysian professionals migrate or choose to work in the more developed countries?
Are the following a summary of the current trend?
1. Most children being too pressurised and measured on exam results instead of knowledge or thinking.
2. Under-graduates that are more interested in getting the paper qualification than in learning or thinking.
3. The knowledgeable professionals are leaving the country, leaving behind those that can't leave. And foreigners who come here are merely looking for a stepping stone to US or Europe.
And here is another disturbing article by a columnist in TheStar, "For our kids’ sake, check the slide"
And our government is aware and probably have been taking actions. I dont have the actual articles but you may remember reading some of these that our government think will solve the problem with the education system.
1. Provide more loans/scholarships for tertiary education
2. Provide more places in more institutions of higher learning and have a minister dedicated to higher education.
3. Send more officials from Ministry of Education overseas to study other countries.
4. Promote our tertiary institutions to foreign countries such as Africa and China.
5. Replacing Vice Chancellors, Chancellors and similar actions.
Apparently, the quality of the students entering these tertiary institutions has no effect on the quality of the graduates. So we only need to fill the tertiary institutions with more students and better officials and the output will improve.
I should have thought of that.
Monday, November 10, 2008
Transition Plan, Follow the Grassroots and Greed
According to one article in The Star (online), the current president of the women's wing said that the transition plan (where she will be out-going in June 2009) is still intact. This was supposedly said in the presence of the president-in-waiting (for June 2009). Or at least the picture in the article seems to imply.
According to another article, also in The Star (online), the president in waiting "is keeping her options open as to whether she will contest...." And that while she "wanted a smooth transition of power but did not rule out the possibility of challenging" the current president for the post.
Why they talk like this? I dont understand. So how now? Transition or challenge? Perhaps the politicians really wants the rest of us to be happy and will say anything to make whoever is in front of them happy. Not that they will do, but at least they will say things to bring harmony and happiness to the naive.
Also, I noticed a terrible thing about the transition too. According to the current (and out-going) president, the people who insist on speeding up the transition are greedy and impatient. Impatient I can understand. But greedy? How can they be greedy? Afterall, there is very little to gain by the president personally. It is a sense of responsibility and duty that is the calling to serve the rakyat.
This accusation is absurd. Greedy? As if there is something to monetary gain by being president. Look at the current president, what has she gained? She has gained nothing, so how can the new one be "greedy"?
It is not like she has gained a lot, for if she did gain a lot of monetary benefits, she wont want to let go of the benefits. See how she is letting go of all the power (no benefits) with the transition plan? it is only 3 months. What is 3 more months in a career that can span 10-20 years?
So, I think in essence, the current president (out-going) message is: "I can do anything I like while I have the power".
And the president-in-waiting (incoming) is from a position of little power: "I will say anything to please the powers in order to gain the power."
Great strategies.
I should have thought of that!
According to another article, also in The Star (online), the president in waiting "is keeping her options open as to whether she will contest...." And that while she "wanted a smooth transition of power but did not rule out the possibility of challenging" the current president for the post.
Why they talk like this? I dont understand. So how now? Transition or challenge? Perhaps the politicians really wants the rest of us to be happy and will say anything to make whoever is in front of them happy. Not that they will do, but at least they will say things to bring harmony and happiness to the naive.
Also, I noticed a terrible thing about the transition too. According to the current (and out-going) president, the people who insist on speeding up the transition are greedy and impatient. Impatient I can understand. But greedy? How can they be greedy? Afterall, there is very little to gain by the president personally. It is a sense of responsibility and duty that is the calling to serve the rakyat.
This accusation is absurd. Greedy? As if there is something to monetary gain by being president. Look at the current president, what has she gained? She has gained nothing, so how can the new one be "greedy"?
It is not like she has gained a lot, for if she did gain a lot of monetary benefits, she wont want to let go of the benefits. See how she is letting go of all the power (no benefits) with the transition plan? it is only 3 months. What is 3 more months in a career that can span 10-20 years?
So, I think in essence, the current president (out-going) message is: "I can do anything I like while I have the power".
And the president-in-waiting (incoming) is from a position of little power: "I will say anything to please the powers in order to gain the power."
Great strategies.
I should have thought of that!
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Call home from MAS flights
The Star mentioned that MAS was going to allow calls from mobile phones inflight. It is not meant to be funny, although I think the conversations here are realistic, because maybe someone may blog something like this.
I was on the maiden Cellular Device Allowed flight (C-Deval flight). Unfortunately, I overheard all these ...
Bossy type Voice: "James? How's the preparation coming along?" [ Pause ] "I am on the way" [ Pause ] "Just get it done by the time I arrive." [ Pause ] "Dont give me excuses, make sure it is ready." [ Pause ] "hold on"
Stewardess: "Hi Sir, would you like grilled fish with rice or chicken chop with spaghetti"
Bossy Type: "Chicken please, thanks" [ Pause ] "dont waste my time [ Pause ] just get the damn thing ready, i dont have all day."
Stewardess: "How about you ma'am?" [ Pause ] "Fish"
Auntie voice: "Hello, Ah Lian? eh guess where I am?" [ Pause ] "Hey, I am calling from the air, somewhere between KL and HongKong" [ Pause ] "Yah, flying to hongkong now" [ Pause ] "no no, not in HongKong yet, still flying" [ Pause ] "no, no no, left KL already lah, flying" [ Pause ] "Can, now can, new one allow" [ Pause ] "no catch lah, so many other also calling wat!" [ Pause ] [ Pause ] "eh I want to talk to ah boy. Is he is around?" [ Pause ] "ok, I wait, quick pass the phone to him" [ Pause ] "Hello hello, Ah boy?" [ Pause ] "I am sam gu, you guess where I am" [ Pause ] "wait ah boy, sam gu order food first." [ Pause ] "hold on ok?" [ Pause ] "fish and chicken only ah? no other choice? ok lah, ok lah, i take chicken" [ Pause ] "ah boy, you at home so lucky, sam gu have to eat either chicken or fish, no choice one".
Overly sweet croonie voice: "Hi sweetie" [ Pause ] ."yeah, kind of cool yeah?" [ Pause ] "except that it's quite noisy in here" [ Pause ] "yes, very little privacy, I can hear everyone else's conversation" [ Pause ] "heeehee, you think so?" [ Pause ] . "ok, ok, I'll try calling from the toilet later" [ Pause ] . "smooch smooch too" [ Pause ] .
Stewardess: "Hi Sir, would you like fish or chicken?" "Chicken" "Hi Ma'am, would you like fish or chicken?" "Fish", "Fish or Chicken for you sir?" "Grill Fish with rice or Chicken chop with Spaghetti", "Chicken", "Here you go sir". Beep, beep
Rough Voice: "Excuse me miss" [ Pause ] "Miss" [ Pause ] "Miss, cuse me!" [ Pause ] "you have charger ah? for Nokia?" [ Pause ] Stewardess: "Sorry sir, we do not provide chargers" [ Pause ] Rough Voice: "Aiyoh, like that how? I got low bat liao" [ Pause ] "excuse me miss" [ Pause ] "miss!" [ Pause ] "can lend your phone? urgent call leh, I pay you back" [ Pause ] Soft voice: "sorry sir, we dont have phones" [ Pause ] "Aiyah, dont lend say dont lend lor, why lie like that, dont have phone, you think I dumb or what?" [ Pause ] "what lah, say can call, but no charger, lousy service lah" [ Pause ] "chicken lah, the fish always have fishy smell one" [ Pause ]
Stewardess: "Hi Sir, would you like fish or chicken?" "Grill Fish with rice or Chicken chop with Spaghetti" "Fish" "How about you ma'am?" [ Pause ]
Male Accented Voice: "Mr Smith, hold on for a second, I'll put you on speaker phone for the con call" [ Pause ] "Mr Smith, can you hear me?"
Western Accent:"Yes, loud and clear" "Hi Mr Smith, I am Brendan" "Hi Brenden" [ Pause ] "Morning Mr Smith, this is Joanne" "Hi Joanne", "Hello Mr Smith, Belinda here"
Manly voice: "Miss, Miss" [ Pause ] "How come I got no signal?"
Lady Voice: "Miss, is it cheaper to call from here or call 30 minutes later when nearer?"
Western Accent: "Hi Belinda and all. Just wanted to update all of you. We have a situation here, we found some critical issues regarding our current release of the software and hardware for the device, and apparently, the device may cause some interference with the sexual performance of lab mice when " [interupted] "Hold on Mr Smith, let me take you off the speaker phone" [ Pause ] .
Male Accented Voice: "Hi Mr Smith, can we talk after we land, this is a matter of grave concern, bye."
And these are merely from rows 19 -23. I sitting in row 21 could only evesdrop that much.
No time to waste, have to make a few calls of my own and send in this first article from the air.
Monday, November 3, 2008
Privacy of personal data (SMS)
In The Star, the Malaysian Home Minister raised concerns about the protection of personal data, including (especially?) SMS.
[ Malaysia should urgently put in place laws to protect information and personal data, says Home Minister Datuk Seri Syed Hamid Albar. “At present, your SMS (short messaging system), which is supposed to be private, is exposed.” ]
Again, our government is concerned and worried about us and protecting us from all the bad people that may use or abuse ill-gotten information, such as SMS conversations between you and someone else.
Naturally, most of these messages are innocent or hardly understandable by people outside the circle. But sometimes, your privacy deserves to be protected because even the poorest mobile phone owner may at one time or another, hold a private and confidential conversation with his/her spouse/mistress/master, doctor/lawyer/engineer or maid/driver/gardener.
And if this messaging conversation is found and published, it may show that there may be been plans to perform immoral, unethical, illegal or fattening activities, and possibly make it very embarassing for the parties involved. To ensure these private plans or activities never see the light, we should make and put in place the laws that protect personal data.
Once the laws are in place, all data is private. And no one is none the wiser. Great idea, this law. I dont know why we dont have it already. Do other countries have it? Maybe we can be the role model for ASEAN, EU, NATO, NAFTA, etc, etc?
If only the rakyat had paid more attention to how some have abused these data by publishing private conversations, or if the government have learnt that someone may publish embarrassing conversations that may implicate a member of theirs, the government may have introduced the law sooner.
And when the videos of young people in compromising positions were distributed, it was not important enough to (or perhaps it was entertaining enough to not) consider if such an act (of the legal type) was necessary to prevent further distribution of such acts (of the compromising kind). Perhap such acts (of the comprimising kind) by young mobile-phone-with-camera users should have been protected by some acts (of the legal type).
We are so glad that our minister had thought of it. That we have such a giganormous hole in the protection of data seemed to have occurred spontaneously in a stroke, of genius to the minister just when some company was launching some product yesterday. I guess the ministers didnt have time to think of such things during their normal busy days. The company deserves to be praised for raising the thought in our minister despite his busy schedule.
Such great thinking, to protect justly, fairly and equally all - both the innocent and the guilty.
I should have thought of that!
P.S. It is illegal for you or me, for young or old, for rich or poor, to live in the park or under a bridge. Fair is fair.
[ Malaysia should urgently put in place laws to protect information and personal data, says Home Minister Datuk Seri Syed Hamid Albar. “At present, your SMS (short messaging system), which is supposed to be private, is exposed.” ]
Again, our government is concerned and worried about us and protecting us from all the bad people that may use or abuse ill-gotten information, such as SMS conversations between you and someone else.
Naturally, most of these messages are innocent or hardly understandable by people outside the circle. But sometimes, your privacy deserves to be protected because even the poorest mobile phone owner may at one time or another, hold a private and confidential conversation with his/her spouse/mistress/master, doctor/lawyer/engineer or maid/driver/gardener.
And if this messaging conversation is found and published, it may show that there may be been plans to perform immoral, unethical, illegal or fattening activities, and possibly make it very embarassing for the parties involved. To ensure these private plans or activities never see the light, we should make and put in place the laws that protect personal data.
Once the laws are in place, all data is private. And no one is none the wiser. Great idea, this law. I dont know why we dont have it already. Do other countries have it? Maybe we can be the role model for ASEAN, EU, NATO, NAFTA, etc, etc?
If only the rakyat had paid more attention to how some have abused these data by publishing private conversations, or if the government have learnt that someone may publish embarrassing conversations that may implicate a member of theirs, the government may have introduced the law sooner.
And when the videos of young people in compromising positions were distributed, it was not important enough to (or perhaps it was entertaining enough to not) consider if such an act (of the legal type) was necessary to prevent further distribution of such acts (of the compromising kind). Perhap such acts (of the comprimising kind) by young mobile-phone-with-camera users should have been protected by some acts (of the legal type).
We are so glad that our minister had thought of it. That we have such a giganormous hole in the protection of data seemed to have occurred spontaneously in a stroke, of genius to the minister just when some company was launching some product yesterday. I guess the ministers didnt have time to think of such things during their normal busy days. The company deserves to be praised for raising the thought in our minister despite his busy schedule.
Such great thinking, to protect justly, fairly and equally all - both the innocent and the guilty.
I should have thought of that!
P.S. It is illegal for you or me, for young or old, for rich or poor, to live in the park or under a bridge. Fair is fair.
Sunday, November 2, 2008
Confidence in our government
Our government is elected in a democratic process. At least, we elect the our selected representatives into Parliament, from which some are chosen to be Ministers of the Cabinet.
The opposition, has for many elections and even more years, been accusing the government of vote-rigging, phathom voters, and other forms of dishonesty and fraud in the election process. In the most recent election, if the oppositions claims are to be believed, the planners and executors of fraud must have either, a) made grave mistakes in a few states, b) been bribed (or blackmailed?) by the opposition in some states? c) it was not real, there were no fraud. d) Unlike the many things that the government does, this thing was not effective in the first place. e) Other. Please fill in the details in the comment form below.
And thus the opposition won 5 states despite these claims.
One problem we seem to be having is that many have lost their confidence in the government due to the existence of slanders, rumours and lies. Until proven otherwise. These range (examples here are merely from the currently more prominent cases in Oct 08 and not for any other reason) from using explosives to blow up an ex-mistress, abuse of power in the justice system, perceived un-explained higher prices in purchase of military equipment, direct or indirect ownership of huge properties overseas, and the lists (yes, plural) go on...
So a big issue we have to address is how to gain back the confidence of the people. And as I was sitting down and pondering over this (while doing something not to polite to mention here), and reading TheStar, (you know, this WiFi thingy is great! I can finally bring online version of newspapers to ... urm.., yah..). And there it was, a solution for all, so simple and yet so effective.
For the article in The Star stated, "Najib: People will have confidence in us if needs, grievances of all races are addressed"
Yes, the people will have confidence in the government if needs and grievances of all races are addressed.
Such simplicity in the solution. What an elegant way to gain our confidence!
Just address the needs and grievances, see? simple!
I should have thought of that!
The opposition, has for many elections and even more years, been accusing the government of vote-rigging, phathom voters, and other forms of dishonesty and fraud in the election process. In the most recent election, if the oppositions claims are to be believed, the planners and executors of fraud must have either, a) made grave mistakes in a few states, b) been bribed (or blackmailed?) by the opposition in some states? c) it was not real, there were no fraud. d) Unlike the many things that the government does, this thing was not effective in the first place. e) Other. Please fill in the details in the comment form below.
And thus the opposition won 5 states despite these claims.
One problem we seem to be having is that many have lost their confidence in the government due to the existence of slanders, rumours and lies. Until proven otherwise. These range (examples here are merely from the currently more prominent cases in Oct 08 and not for any other reason) from using explosives to blow up an ex-mistress, abuse of power in the justice system, perceived un-explained higher prices in purchase of military equipment, direct or indirect ownership of huge properties overseas, and the lists (yes, plural) go on...
So a big issue we have to address is how to gain back the confidence of the people. And as I was sitting down and pondering over this (while doing something not to polite to mention here), and reading TheStar, (you know, this WiFi thingy is great! I can finally bring online version of newspapers to ... urm.., yah..). And there it was, a solution for all, so simple and yet so effective.
For the article in The Star stated, "Najib: People will have confidence in us if needs, grievances of all races are addressed"
Yes, the people will have confidence in the government if needs and grievances of all races are addressed.
Such simplicity in the solution. What an elegant way to gain our confidence!
Just address the needs and grievances, see? simple!
I should have thought of that!
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Hindraf and security of the citizens
According to MT, the Malaysian home minister, in response to the Wall Street Journal said "We have and will take action against any individual or group that is inciting racial or religious hatred, regardless of their political affiliation."
And somehow some members of some particular political party have never been inciting racial or religious hatred. They have merely waved weapons, called citizens of other races as lodgers, talk about supremacy. But they have never, never ever incite racial or religious hatred.
Now, Hindraf, apparently, did that when they felt that they should raise the issue of the hindu AND poor (AND because not all Hindus are poor and not all poor are Hindus).
For some reason, no one paid attention to the message (kind of a habit of the world already).
But the way the message is delivered sufficient cause for detainment under ISA. I guess the Malaysian laws are too weak (or does not exist) to be used against a bunch of protestors. And putting them under ISA will shut up the rest (fear), and gain the government some respect for dealing with an issue in a firm and decisive manner. Well, it is a kind of an improvement since the rakyat always complain about the flip-flop stance. (Yes, flip-flopping can be almost like a stance if you do it long enough and fast enough.)
And in the same response, he mentioned, "The top priority of any government is to protect the security of its citizens."
Absolutely true, although there are also many other top priorities of any government, security is definitely one of them. I am glad and relieved that the Malaysian government ministers are talking this way to the foreign press. I am proud of what he said. Protect the security of its citizens, indeed! (Note: Yesterday, a policeman in that vicinity was shot in the leg in a scuffle with a bad-guy, so the brave public helped apprehend the bad-guy. Oh, and there were some 12 police cars blocking the roads too. Talk about Police-Public cooperation!)
Maybe I missed it, but I didn't see the same letter published prominently in the online versions of TheStar or NST. Guess the locals dont need the explanation. We can see what is happening.
Seems that our government really has the interest of the public at heart. Especially important is to explain it to those in foreign lands, who are not able to see what is really happening. Because they cannot see, they will believe what they can read.
I should have thought of that!
Financial Turmoil - Money Politics
We have this money politics issue that even some of the politicians criticize. Money politics is as simple as it can get in any form of vote seeking. I pay you, you vote me. No complications, no subjective measurements.
While the world is reeling from possibly the worst economic crisis they have seen, our little world is full of people talking about others offering and accepting little envelopes of cash. Amounts ranging from RM200 to RM20,000 have been mentioned, with no evidence whateverso.
Perhaps it is not true. Maybe it is merely those that are think that they are losing in the elections claiming cheating by the winning ones. Afterall, I didn't hear any of the leading candidates claimed that they had to pay in order to win. Only some those that are not leading may have claimed that they were asked to pay.
On the side note, if it was true, perhaps it is good that there is a informal way to re-distribute wealth.
Oh, the reason why I dont believe that people pay to get into the job of a minister is because top CEOs are highly paid. The companies compete for them and offer them millions to run a efficient and profitable ship. Have you heard of a CEO or senior management candidate who has to pay the existing staff in the company so that he can get the job? Absurd idea.
Unless of course, being a CEO or senior management rewards much more than what he had to pay out to get the job. Sort of like entertaining a big client so that you get the bigger order.
But our ministers and government servants are not paid highly. So there, there cannot be money politics. Unless there is something else?
Much like how people pay for memberships in distinguished clubs. So the rich pay for it. It is for the honour to serve the country.
Honour! I should have thought of it!
While the world is reeling from possibly the worst economic crisis they have seen, our little world is full of people talking about others offering and accepting little envelopes of cash. Amounts ranging from RM200 to RM20,000 have been mentioned, with no evidence whateverso.
Perhaps it is not true. Maybe it is merely those that are think that they are losing in the elections claiming cheating by the winning ones. Afterall, I didn't hear any of the leading candidates claimed that they had to pay in order to win. Only some those that are not leading may have claimed that they were asked to pay.
On the side note, if it was true, perhaps it is good that there is a informal way to re-distribute wealth.
Oh, the reason why I dont believe that people pay to get into the job of a minister is because top CEOs are highly paid. The companies compete for them and offer them millions to run a efficient and profitable ship. Have you heard of a CEO or senior management candidate who has to pay the existing staff in the company so that he can get the job? Absurd idea.
Unless of course, being a CEO or senior management rewards much more than what he had to pay out to get the job. Sort of like entertaining a big client so that you get the bigger order.
But our ministers and government servants are not paid highly. So there, there cannot be money politics. Unless there is something else?
Much like how people pay for memberships in distinguished clubs. So the rich pay for it. It is for the honour to serve the country.
Honour! I should have thought of it!
Police and thieves
A few weeks ago, a little article in the newspapars....
2 men were fined RM100 each for insulting the police. Apparently, these two workers at a convenience store said something insulting while two policemen were in the store. Appropriately, one of the policeman arrested them for insulting the police. And thus, they were fined. Afterall, we should not insult those who shoulder the responsibilities of protection and safety of the citizens.
Same newspaper on the same day was this piece of bigger news.
There was this police station that suddenly became so well-known when it was moved(according to the police) or removed(according to a minister). Apparently, it is situated in a red-light district, that is dirty and surrounded by vice and diseases.
According to this minister, this police station is surrounded with too many undesirable characters, so much so that it has become unsafe for the police personnel. And the area is also dirty, with many diseases lurking around because it was a redlight district. So the police moved out of the area. For their own safety? Afterall, shouldn't it be our responsibility as citizens to protect and ensure the safety of the police personnel?
I should have thought of it!
2 men were fined RM100 each for insulting the police. Apparently, these two workers at a convenience store said something insulting while two policemen were in the store. Appropriately, one of the policeman arrested them for insulting the police. And thus, they were fined. Afterall, we should not insult those who shoulder the responsibilities of protection and safety of the citizens.
Same newspaper on the same day was this piece of bigger news.
There was this police station that suddenly became so well-known when it was moved(according to the police) or removed(according to a minister). Apparently, it is situated in a red-light district, that is dirty and surrounded by vice and diseases.
According to this minister, this police station is surrounded with too many undesirable characters, so much so that it has become unsafe for the police personnel. And the area is also dirty, with many diseases lurking around because it was a redlight district. So the police moved out of the area. For their own safety? Afterall, shouldn't it be our responsibility as citizens to protect and ensure the safety of the police personnel?
I should have thought of it!
Financial Turmoil - find work in new growth areas
The world economy is collapsing due to (primarily) to failure in many financial institutions. Of course, when banks fail, there will be credit crunch, leading to low confidences of investors and consumers, etc. Which means for the rest of us, that our jobs may be at risk, or lost.
Because a large number of Malaysians work in Singapore, especially in the electronics manufacturing industry, we should expect that these foreign workers will be the first to face any form of cost cutting aka retrenchment. Possibly, it will number in the order of tens of thousands.
This morning, I saw the best suggestion so far for those retrenched or going to be retrenched. A Malaysian minister reminded us that there is this multi-billion ringgit Iskandar Development Region somewhere in Johor (the Malaysia state nearest to Singapore for those who are unaware). And there will be a huge employment opportunity there.
Hey, just go and find a job there. It is so obvious.
Afterall, when the construction of the region is complete, isn't it logical that there will be many jobs there? I mean, the companies there will want to employ, and who better to employ than those working returning from Singapore.
I should have thought of it!
Because a large number of Malaysians work in Singapore, especially in the electronics manufacturing industry, we should expect that these foreign workers will be the first to face any form of cost cutting aka retrenchment. Possibly, it will number in the order of tens of thousands.
This morning, I saw the best suggestion so far for those retrenched or going to be retrenched. A Malaysian minister reminded us that there is this multi-billion ringgit Iskandar Development Region somewhere in Johor (the Malaysia state nearest to Singapore for those who are unaware). And there will be a huge employment opportunity there.
Hey, just go and find a job there. It is so obvious.
Afterall, when the construction of the region is complete, isn't it logical that there will be many jobs there? I mean, the companies there will want to employ, and who better to employ than those working returning from Singapore.
I should have thought of it!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
