How is 1Malaysia diff. from Malaysian Malaysia?

U'd probably be asking... what on earth is Malaysian Malaysia? Precisely, it's never heard of. unless u study ur history more in depth. Malaysian Malaysia was mooted by Lee Kuan Yew, the then party leader of People's Action Party, when they contested in the General Elections in Malaya when Singapore merged.

Guess what?

PAP won the bangsar seat against MCA. the rest is history.

So, the million dollar question is, how does Najib's slogan differ from LKY's slogan? Problem is, if it doesn't differ, then Najib is definitely changing the direction of UMNO, and the members shudn't be happy at all.

If there's a diff. What?

Personally, I don't see any difference at all. When we're called Malaysians, then are we not one? Only when we start differentiating chinese from malays from indians from ibans from etc. etc. then we have many! But if we're 1Malaysia, is it not also Malaysian Malaysia?

Then maybe one might say "no, no, no, no, no. 1 Malaysia still protects the interest of the Malays." Wait, doesn't that reasoning translates to 1Malay? or 2Malaysia?

Although, I would admit in the past I am in agreement to recognize the Malays to have special position because they do not abuse that recognition to the point of racism and racial polarisation. In today's context, to give anyone party special treatment tantamounts to racism.

I would love to recognize them as one of the original people, but not in expense of the recognition of chinese and indians and all other malaysians, whose citizenship is guaranteed under the Federal Constitution, it will never make us immigrants.

I suspect, that Najib's new slogan was made in lieu that majority of the new generation is ignorant to that historical fact. So far, not many of my circle of friends know about "Malaysian Malaysia", besides the Singaporeans. Well, what is this ignorance that benefits Najib? I'm not too sure yet. Maybe I'm wrong about the whole ignorance thing.

A random thought

So about 1000 thoughts are processed a second...and this was what came out

"If ignorance is bliss, then it isn't that blissful after all. Because it was a blissful thing not to be ignorant that ignorance is bliss."

Is that a catch-22? C=

What if you have a clone who could save your life?

The Island. Directed by Michael Bay.

It's an awesome show. I remember Yale interviewer was asking me if I had watched this show after I told him I wish to go into stem cell research and cloning stuff. Too bad, I hadn't watch it that time. But now I have, and now I know why he asked.

So, basically, scientists managed to clone humans, a full clone, inclusive of soul and spirit, the intention? To harvest their organs for the 'rubber stamp' which is dying of whatever disease, or an advanced botox treatment.

However, scientists were not able to create humans without any soul and spirit without producing defective organs, in other words, the clones must be fully human, in order for them to save their 'rubber stamp' or owners.

How do they keep these cloned humans from knowing the truth? brainwash them from day 1.

However, one clone, the 'echo' batch had some irregularities, and the main character, lincoln, obtained some past memories that his owner had. It baffled the scientists (it is possible, perhaps the cells which was harvested from the owner somehow contained some information on neuron networks in the brain which formed in the clone.). Anyway, he became curious about everything and sought the truth, and he found it. Sounds familiar? Yeah, but i kinda forgot from where of the Good Book. what more, it set him free. Now THAT is 100% identical.

Ok. just go watch the movie and u'll know the rest of the story.

So, the company was running with their clients thinking that their clones are in a vegetative state. of course, it was false. So, since the clients were ignorant, are they wrong in purposely 'creating' life only to kill for their organs? Or is this reponsibility solely lie on the company? I think the clients made a conscious decision that they weren't creating life, but it's just like making insulin out of bacteria for the good of mankind, making organs to keep them alive. However, for the company to continue with the business despite knowing that it was wrong (hence deception and secrecy), they gained the money but ironically lose their souls (remember, they ARE creating souls).

Another thing is about 'truth'. What is truth and how can one determine what is truth? Must it be all empirical (experience) or can truth be founded on faith, which is not necessarily empirical? Although in this movie, it is like an individual in an atheistic society who found god, by traveling OUT of that society or confinement, and SAW the truth before his eyes. (the story can be likened to Plato's Cave). However, today, the debate of whether God exists is a never-ending one (well, not exactly for individual sense, it ends when the individual dies). For we all know that God today is not observable in this dimension, but the next dimension. So, how is one to escape to the next dimension? death. Well, it ends there, he can't really come back reporting, unless he was raised from the dead.

However, we know in historical records, God did come to earth, perhaps not once, but many times - he came in a Person, or Jesus Christ. Although we do not today have the privilege to see Jesus personally, it really doesn't make a diff. Look, even in those days, the Jews were in unbelief, except a few. The pagan worshipers were also not convinced, until at that final moment (the Roman guard). Even so, those who had close encounter with Jesus during his lifetime and after his death, were still ignorant. One might reason that 'why should we believe in Jesus if we don't see him?' would be struck speechless that it doesn't make a diff whether or not one sees Jesus in person. What is important after knowing that Jesus exist is to know WHO Jesus is. How? go read HIStory. After knowing all these, your response would determine who you are. Christian or not, the choice is in your hands. And for that, we each regard as truth, as though we had traveled beyond our world and discovered God, would you share that truth with others to set them free as it set YOU free?

Anyway, go watch that show.

Fiddle on the Roof Top

"TRADITION!!!" "Change is happening!" "See the world!"

are the central themes of "Fiddle on the Roof Top." The show revolves around this particular Jewish village somewhere near Russia. Probably the exiles found the village. I didn't watch the beginning, but I know it also revolves around a dad, mom and 5 daughters. Generally, since they are living with Gentiles and learned Gen-Y Jews, the village was being bombarded by change, and they refused to change.. often chanting "Tradition!!!"

So, as tradition speaks, a daughter will be matched with another boy, and the boy is obliged to request the girl's dad for her hand. Generally, the matchmaker gives the 1st level of approval, then the dad (or more like mom, since mom coerces dad to approve it, because she's convinced by the matchmaker).

So, there's this old butcher whose wife died... and he wishes to marry someone. The matchmaker matched him with the eldest daughter. Meanwhile, the eldest daughter is in love with the Rabbi's only son, but the Rabbi was a real chicken and did not asked the dad while he had the chance. So, dad went to see him (well, it was a whole big joke, he thought the butcher wants his milk cow). and anw, gave approval.

Then both the daughter and Rabbi came begging...and the dad reasoned with God, and saw the happiness of his daughter through her eyes...and approved.... oops! "OH NO! What am I gonna tell the Butcher?!"

But the biggest problem is his wife.

And he made up a dream where the butcher's wife came back to life and threaten to haunt their eldest daughter if the marriage with the butcher ever takes place. So the wife was convinced. Smart guy.

Then the 2nd daughter fell in love with a learned Jew. this couple was 1 level more outrageous than the 1st. They disregard the Dad's approval, and just asked for his blessings - "We're not here to ask your permission, whether u approve or not, we're getting married. we just want your blessing." then the dad funnily reasoned with God "anw, whom did Adam and Eve got their permission from?" and the dad responded "I give both my approval and blessings" happy.

Then the 3rd daughter fell in love with a Gentile and wanted 2 marry him. This time dad said "I can bend against my tradition, but bending it too far, i'll break!" so no. and the daughter ran away and married a Gentile who was Roman Catholic. And dad disowned her saying "She's dead"

Anw, the dad eventually accepted her, at the end of the movie.

While all these were happening, he lamented a lot of life's difficulties he was going through - poverty, eviction by some unknown government, etc. so, the movie had many themes, but rich in lessons.

So, the moral of the story is: "CHANGE HAPPENS!" nonetheless, traditions are important. It reflects how man deal with change. It depends how much one could bend against tradition. For the dad, marrying the Gentile was the snapping point, and thus the strict "NO" and disowning of his daughter, but which came in forgiveness, not so much to say he gave in to agree with this particular change, but to keep the family together.

You see, in as much as one as adamant to resist against change, one culture could remain static in all aspects, but one thing changed, or was added on - the need to resist change. So, you got like 101 things in your culture, and now is 102. So it has changed.

So, how do you face change? Do you prepare to accept change or do you let change break you? Either way, you're gonna change, the former, would lead to a smoother life, while the latter, a bumpier ride.

Go watch it.

(A sneak peek.)

All about advertisement

McDonalds Malaysia is truly ingenious with their marketing strategy with their attempt to make a strong presence on Facebook.

Indeed, social networking sites are lately targeted by companies to sell their products across both the older and younger generation, especially facebook. If you haven't notice, with the help of high internet penetration and user-friendly platforms, even the wiser folks like my dad who just retired uses facebook.

So, in any case, McDs is giving out iPhones to the best campaigner of their recent McValue LUNCH deals. Hope I get it ^^!


p.s. you can show your support by leaving a "honk!" comment on my wall post on FB.

Jo! I found our favourite episode of Whose Line!

Those were the Caltex days...haha!

Who is the rightful Perak MB? – empiricism versus rationalism.

One day as I enter the lecture hall for my elective philosophy subject, I was in for a surprise and probably one of the best lectures I ever had – I learned something new! All out of a simple story. Thanks, Prof. John Holbo.

Back in 1596, when mankind was still figuring out a lot of things, some of which are figured out today, including the Solar System and existence, a guy name Johannes Kepler, chanced upon a geometry solution to why the Solar System has 6 planets (yes, they thought there were only 6 planets, probably influenced by the Creation in 6 days story) and not any other number.

(Imagine 3-D from now on) Starting with a sphere, we place Saturn on its periphery, and squeeze a cube into the sphere, and then another smaller sphere into the cube for Jupiter, repeat procedure with a tetrahedron for Mars, then a dodecahedron for Earth, then an icosahedron for Venus, an Octahedron for Mercury and finally – the Sun! And we’re done constructing a thought out Solar System.

Of course, you might say “What nonsense!” That, is thanks to observations done by other scientists. Kepler was a rationalist, but the scientists were empiricists – which discovered what our Solar System is and is currently exploring the whole universe, all by observation or as our favourite Wikipedia puts it ‘empiricism is a theory of knowledge which asserts that knowledge arises from experience.’

But wait, what does this have to do with ‘Who is the rightful Perak MB?’

After reading the analysis of this case by learned formal Court of Appeal judge, NH Chan, I could see to some degree that one party’s legitimacy stems out of rationalism, while the other stems out of empiricism. Although, I must qualify that the party which ascribed to rationalism is not entirely dependent on rational thought. But what they did try was to rationalize what is found out of experience, or in this case, the State Constitution.

I was once at lost when the crisis began. I had mixed feelings, for I supported elected representatives to jump ship, but merely so that the opposition could take over. Never did it occur to me that this allowance is a two-way motion – even BN can take over Perak, with the method I personally approve. Therefore, I took personal initiative to follow up this case, including reading the actual written judgement by High Court judge Abdul Aziz. Rather than stand by the side of rationalism and theorize my opinion, which is bound to be biased to the opposition in any case.

Before I move on, I would like to make a comment on a recent forum titled ‘From May 13 to 1Malaysia’ held by the opposition in Dewan Sivik Petaling Jaya, of which NH Chan was one of the speakers, who did not receive much attention, because the audience was there for a ‘ceramah’, not a forum. I express much doubt on whether the general opposition supporters know consciously why they are supporting them besides blind agreement that corruption and its like is rampant in Malaysia without hard cold facts after attending the forum and a very mob-like audience, which cheered for key phrase such as ‘Nizar adalah MB yang sah!’ and the likes and jeered when the murder of a Mongolian issue was raised again.

I once held the opinion that Nizar was the rightful MB of Perak, only because I supported the opposition, and because the general consensus is that he should be. With such convenience, why should I bother to find out ‘WHY?’ After all, what are the chances of the majority forming a conspiracy? Close to zero? But I was wrong, I was following the mentality of Polemarchus in Republic I by Plato which stands by ‘justice is helping friends and harming enemies’. Which could just act blindly, even if the friends were unjust.

Now I know what Nizar actually pursued in the High Court, and why he is still the rightful MB of Perak, as so the verdict was given by the High Court, and the Court of Appeal, from the read out judgement, has probably ‘agreed’ with the High Court’s ruling, but is not well understood by the general public, except that it is understood that the Court of Appeal ‘overturned’ the High Court’s decision.

The Court of Appeal held the view that:
• Dissolution of the State Assembly was the royal prerogative.
• Dissolution was made under Article 16 and not Article 36 of the State Constitution.

The latter point is the only point that was disagreed upon, and is the crucial point to determine the verdict of the case.

From the written judgement of the High Court, I come to an understanding that Nizar was seeking for an interpretation of Aritcle 16 (6), which requires him to resign when he has lost the confidence of the majority in the State Assembly, and is not granted dissolution of the State Assembly. Of which the case was that he actually requested dissolution under Article 36, written to the Sultan of Perak. But the media quoted Article 16 instead. Nonetheless, if a doubt arises and that Article 16 was intended, there was no evidence of a no-confidence in the State Assembly, except the opinion of the Sultan, which in Article 16(2) allows the Sultan to exercise his discretionary powers to determine who is ‘likely to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the Assembly’. By rational, if BN falls in that category, certainly PAKATAN can’t command the majority too, right? I believe, this is the case for BN. (but of course, one has forgotten that a deadlock could exist)

On the other hand, Article 16(6) provides that the MB must ‘cease to command the confidence of the majority…’ and must resign unless granted dissolution by the Sultan. By rational thought, this is established. But empirically, the Constitution, taken as a whole, of which the learned High Court Judge quotes from NS Bindra’s Interpretation of Statutes 9th Edition, to establish the necessity to take the Constitution as a whole, states that (I quote from the written judgement, pg 58):
• “Article 16(5) Perak State Constitution states that the Executive Council shall be collectively responsible to the Legislative Assembly (LA).”
• “Article 16(2)(a) the MB is appointed to preside over the Executive Council.”
• “Article 16(6) speaks of ‘If the MB ceases to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the LA…’”
• Therefore, “it is the LA that determines whether it has confidence in the MB as the Head of the Executive Council… through a vote of no confidence against the MB.”
Both cases were different in that BN thinks that the MB holds office at His Royal Highness’ pleasure, and therefore can be dismissed or determined that the MB has ceased to command the confidence of the majority (well, since the Sultan can appoint a MB, why can’t he dismiss one?). And therefore, since the Sultan has not acceded to the MB’s request, he should therefore resign or be dismissed.

But that is contrary to what Article 16(7) says – “a member of the Executive Council other than the MB shall hold office at His Royal Highness’ pleasure…” and therefore:
• The Sultan’s prerogative cannot determine whether the MB has lost confidence of the LA.
• The Sultan cannot dismiss the MB.

Therefore, I challenge all Malaysians out there, who might have been like me, who theorized and rationalized without any hard facts to now “Turn over that rock and see what crawls out.” – Aristotle. In other words, read the constitution, read the written judgements before taking a position.

I am just reiterating what NH Chan wrote in his analysis, of which he expressed his puzzlement as how does the decision of the Court of Appeal overturned the High Court’s verdict. I too, after reading his analysis is now like a victim of a stingray, who is paralyzed and numbed to the findings of the Court of Appeal. But perhaps, once the written judgement is released, I might be alleviated of my paralysis and numbness.