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.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
