One month to renew Malaysian Passport

Categories: Others

Latest Update on 9 Dec 2007

Caibin, in his comments dated 7 Dec, says it now takes only one day for the renewal - send in the morning and get it back in the evening! Hurray. He(She?) also gives a good description of what to bring and how to get there. Thanks Caibin!


Recently I went to the Malaysian High Commission in Singapore to renew my passport. This was after the completion of renovation and the relocation of the High Commission back to Jarvois Road. What a new experience I have compared to the old days.

The first visit was to get and fill the application form. This is done outside of the High Commission compound where a guard house also double as a counter for the purpose. Here you must have 2 photographs ready as without the photographs the application forms will be rejected. Fret not if you do not have the photographs at hand because there are entreprising people who will direct you to a van somewhere further down the road for the photos to be taken. Not sure how much they charge though. Filling the forms need some skills because there are no tables or flat-top surfaces available. I have to use my palm as a flat surface to assist in the filling - my palmtop experience helps! For those who do not know how to fill in, you can ask the guard and they can direct you to the relevant people to fill in the form - for a fee. Not to the guard, but the guy who help you fill the form. Once everything is in order, you will be given a date to come back for the application proper, usually in about 2 weeks' time. Together with the number and date, will be a form which will indicate to you the documents needed for the next visit. No documents are needed for verification during this first visit.

In the second visit, about 2 weeks from the first, with the number and notification form given from the first visit, you will have to get a visitor pass from the same guard house to get into the compound proper. Here you will need to place a card - driving licence, NETS card or library card - in exchange for the visitor pass. They discourage IC as deposit. This is to make sure you will return the visitor pass when you are done. Only those with a pass gets to get inside; don't bring your kids along, they will not be issued any pass unless they are also renewing their passports. From here you will need to queue up again where you will be issued a queue number for your documents to be checked and thumb print scanned. Next you proceed to make the payment which cost S$130 for a 32-page book or S$260 for a 64-page book. After the payment you will be given another date yet again for the collection. Collections are done in the afternoon.

I cancelled my application after the second visit as I needed to travel before the collection date. No problem here except that I have to go through the whole process again for my re-application.

My experience with the staff had been a good one. They are cheerful and helpful. This is certainly an improvement from the old days. The new place is nice and clean. For those who are cold-blooded, bring thick clothing along. My spectacles mist up after I left the waiting room! The only grouse I have is the lack of facility and shelter around the guard house-cum-counter outside the compound. I shudder to think what it will be like during the rain.

In total 3 visits are needed with a month's duration to have the Malaysian passport renewed in the High Commission. This is a departure from previously where it only took about 1 week for a similar renewal. So be warned, renew your passport early otherwise you will unkowningly become an illegal immigrant or over-stayer!


Updated on 14 July 2006
Got my new passport today. This was after I repeated the whole process from getting a form and submission to payment. Submitted my form on 19 Jun (Day 0), have my documents checked on 30 Jun (Day 11) and collecting on 14 July (Day 26).

Whereas the submission time and checking is in the morning, collection time is in the afternoon from 2.30 pm to 4.15 pm. To get into the compound of the High Commission, again you have to get a pass. This time the number on the pass will be the queue number. I do not know what time the queue number was given out but when I arrived at 2.15 pm, my queue number is 80! When I got to the waiting area, it was packed. The counter only opened at 2.30 pm. Therefore there is a backlog of people. My suggestion is to go later than on-time (unless you can reach there early) as this will allow for the backlog to be cleared. Once you are called you have to submit your receipt to get the passport as the you passport is arranged based on the number on the receipt. If you lost the receipt, be prepared to get a mouthful and a longer wait, as it is difficult for the counter staff to find the passport, as happened to one of the collector. At least remember the number on the receipt, if not at least the day your documents were checked and the time (this was what was asked to the person). Only collected my passport at 3.30 pm!

Now to the ICA.....

Updated on 5 Jan 2007
The renewal process maybe shorter now. Fellow Malaysian in Singapore posted in the comment that his passport was renewed in just 3 days! Lucky him. Just keep in mind that the renewal process may last up to one month, otherwise you may end up like the few people I saw (who 'inspired' me to write this blog) who could not get their passports renewed in time before the expiry date.

Short history of photography

Categories: Do You Know?

Chinese and Greek philosophers had described the basic principles of optics and the camera since the 5th centuries BC. The science of optics was further improved by Ali Al-Hazen ibn Al-Haytham, an expert in Philosophy, Physics, Mathematics and the knowledge of Medicines. Most of his research work is on light that he describes in earlier of 10-11th century has now been tested and proven as exact, according to the latest knowledge using latest techniques. He is the person who first found the relationship between light source, lens and resultant image. That is why called as "Al-Hazen Theorem".

The camera obscura (above) (Latin for 'dark room') was the ancestor of the modern camera. It dates back to the Chinese philosopher Mo-Ti in the 5th century BC. The camera was actually a large room that would be entered by the user. It was documented by Leonardo DaVinci in his 1490 writings.
In 1727, Johann Heinrich Schulze discovered that silver nitrate darkened upon exposure to light. He experimented creating crude photographic impressions, but eventually it all turned black due to exposure.



Joseph Nicéphore Niépce, in 1814, achieved the first photographic image with camera obscura - however, the image required eight hours of light exposure and this later faded. The first permanent paper negative known is produced by William Henry Fox Talbot in 1835. Louis-Jacques-Mandé Daguerre created the first image that was fixed and did not fade and needed under thirty minutes of light exposure in 1837. He named the new method daguerreotype.

A process that creates permanent paper negatives was invented by William Henry Fox Talbot in 1839. He called the process "Calotype" process, the true fore runner of today’s modern photography process.















In 1839, Sir John Herschel used the term "photography" as the image capture process in a lecture to the Royal Society. He is credited for introducing the word to the general public. The term is derived from two Greek words meaning "light” (phos) and "writing" (graphien).


Frederick Scott Archer invented the Collodion process whereby images required only two or three seconds of light exposure. This was in 1851.

Charles Chevallier, of Paris, in 1858, built a camera with a curved plate which revolved, while the camera itself revolved in the opposite direction on an axis under the plate. The camera had radial shutters, limiting the surface of the plate exposed at anyone time. Also in 1858, Thomas Sutton came up with a panoramic camera which was made by Ross Optical Co. of London. Pictures made a 120 degree arc at f-12 on curved plates using a spherical lens filled with water to achieve the wide field effect. The Sutton Panoramic Camera was patented in 1859.

In 1871, Richard Leach Maddox invented the gelatin dry plate silver bromide process where negatives were no longer needed to be developed immediately.



George Eastman founded the Eastman Dry Plate Company. This enabled mass-production of photographic dry plates. This marks the begining of the Kodak empire. He later invented the Kodak camera and introduced the rolled photographic film. The world first mass-marketed camera, the Kodak Brownie, was introduced by Kodak in 1900.


The modern flash bulb introduced by General Electric Co. in 1927. The concept of camera flash existed much before but was based on the use of a flash light powder that was invented by German researchers.

Polaroid photography was invented by Edwin Land in 1948. His one-step process for developing and printing photographs created a revolution in photography - instant photography. Edwin Land founded the Polaroid Corporation to manufacturer his new camera. The first poloroid camera was sold to the public in November, 1948.
In 1984, Canon USA, the official Los Angeles Olympic sponsor, announced its successful development of a color electronic still camera, designed for commercial broadcasting use. Using a regenerator and transmitter developed at the same time, the company conducted practical tests at the Games. This color electronic still camera was the forerunner of today's digital cameras, and the 400,000-pixel CCD used in the tests represented the world's first practical application for public use. Based on data and experience from these tests, Canon began product development, culminating in the unveiling of the Canon Still Video System, the world's first electronic image camera, in 1986.
















References:
The Art of Photography - Timeline of Photography, Film, and Cameras
A Timeline of Panoramic Camera
History of Camera
A Brief History of Panoramic Photography
The Brownie Camera Page

Be sensitive to all

Categories: Malaysia

Much had been said about the polarisation between the various races in Malaysia and equally much had been said about the various ways to help to foster more understanding between the races. Lately there was also talk about setting up a committee to look into and promote racial harmony in Malaysia.

Whatever method used is welcomed since nobody benefits from a repeat of the racial riots of May 1969. However each method used must be fair and seen to be fair. This is because prejudices are difficult to eradicate and feelings had to changed. With this background, I will illustrate two recent incidents that I felt is counterproductive to our nation building efforts.

In the controversy regarding the screening of The Last Communist, Home Minister Datuk Seri Radzi Sheikh Ahmad said that approval for the screening depends on the UMNO supreme council. This is because "When it comes to communism, Umno (people) have very strong sentiments about it." May I remind the Minister that every race suffered during the Communist insurgency. No racial group was spared. Hence it is not fair to imply that only UMNO has strong sentiments. Moreover if one reads the blog by Yasmin and the comments penned, one will be surprise to see that it is not the people who are guilty of racial polarisation. Moreover MPs who were privileged to see the private screening came away unimpressed and found nothing controversial. If UMNO MPs found nothing controversial why deprive the other segment of the society from watching the film? And what business has UMNO Supreme Council to decide on the fate of film? It should be the government who decide and not UMNO Supreme Council whose jurisdiction is only to UMNO. UMNO Supreme Council is not part of the government and hence should have no say in this matter. If UMNO Supreme Council can meddle in the daily running of the government then I have pity on the rest of the coalition BN members.

Another incident involved the hosting of a public forum entitled Federal Constitution – Protection For All organised by Article 11, an umbrella body of 13 non-governmental organisations. This forum was disrupted by demonstrators thought to allied to an Opposition party. What is sad is the PM Badawi's statement that ".. but the organisers must be careful as their subject matter was sensitive." How does he know about the subject matter when it haven't even been discussed? By cutting short the forum, what happen to the feelings of the other segment of the society? This was a legal forum disrupted by an illegal protests. It is a pity as aptly said by Tun Hanif Omar: "Article 11 enunciates the constitutional position on this matter not only for non-Muslims but also for Muslims, not only for citizens but also for everyone in the country. That is why it will profit everyone, Muslims and non-Muslims, to attend such talks and forums on this matter that engage knowledgeable speakers."

If the government truly wants to promote a multiracial society then the government should be sensitive to all sectors of the people. They must be seen to be fair and indeed should be fair. Any slightest hints of favouring one sector of the population will destroy whatever effort used to promote racial cohesion. Unless the hearts and minds of the people can be won, all efforts to promote racial harmony will be destined to failure.

Er..... who's in charge?

Categories: Malaysia

A few news reports on Malaysia has highlighted a long-standing problem with the Malaysian governance. Sadly this problem is not new but had been present since the last administration. It was either not highlighted or was suppressed.

On May 19, the Star reported that the Petaling Jaya Municipal Council (MPPJ) has ordered a company constructing a pedestrian bridge at Section 10 here to halt piling work with immediate effect even though it had approval from the Works Ministry. The reasons reportedly cited by MPPJ was "because the company allegedly did not obtain approval for the plan and a licence from the MPPJ to carry out construction work." On May 23, the Works Minister, Datuk Seri Samy Vellu, replied that "Permission from the Petaling Jaya Municipal Council (MPPJ) is not needed. ... Historically, when the (Public Works Department) PWD wants to put up a building or any structure, we don't ask permission from anybody, since the PWD is the prime department and the government agency to do it." Both parties also cited different section of the Road Transport Act 1987.

On May 20, the New Straits Times reported that corals near the island of Sipadan off the cost of Sabah was destroyed by a barge which was carrying construction materials for upgrading in the island. What is more surprising is that the Chief Minister of Sabah does not know about the construction work. He said: "In May last year, a proposal was submitted to me for a RM2.6 million project to build some facilities there. I asked the then Finance Ministry permanent secretary to check and brief me further, but I never heard anything again until I read reports about destruction at Sipadan." It was his understanding that the project was initiated by the Tourism, Environment and Culture Ministry through Sabah Parks. The Minister Tan Sri Chong Kah Kiat clarified that the contract was approved by the State Government.

On May 23, Home Minister Datuk Seri Radzi Sheikh Ahmad said that the movie The Last Communist may be screened locally if the Umno supreme council gives its approval. The next day, Culture, Arts and Heritage Minister Datuk Seri Dr Rais Yatim said that it is the Government and not Umno that decides whether a film can be released for public screening, as under the Film Censorship Act, the Home Affairs Minister has the final say on whether or not to allow the screening of a film.

The three cases are perfect examples of one of the many problems that plaque the governance in Malaysia. Malaysia has many Ministries and departments from municipal level to state level till the federal level. All sectors seemed to have been covered. Unfortunately in spite of/because of too many levels of bureaucracy, sometimes instructions got lost somewhere along its transmission and chaos happens. This is also partly due to too many Acts and by-laws without a proper Ministry overseeing it. As a result, there are too many overlaps and redundancies creating a cacophony of rules. Each is able to interpret as selected section of the law and each will still be legally right!

What the government should do now is perhaps to ask the Attorney-General office to draw up a protocol of the hierarchy of the various Ministries, departments and councils from the federal, state and municipal levels. This way, there will be no discrepancy or confusion as to who should be giving out permits. If there is confusions among the various government agencies, how do you expect the common man-in-street to understand? With less ambuguity, there will be greater accountability because now no agency can plead ignorance or push blame to one another.

Secondly, the Attorney-General office should also look into all the laws with a view of tightening up any loose, ambiguous or redundant laws. By so doing, there will be less of a chance for misinterpretation and less loopholes for would-be offenders pass through.

Given such a mammonth task for the Attorney-General office, maybe it is high-time to reintroduce the Law Ministry. The Law Ministry was removed during the later years of the Mahathir administration. The de-facto 'Law Minister' then was actually a Minister in the Prime Minister's department. Maybe the rule of law was not of the highest priority then. Given that we now have 6 Ministers in the Prime Minister's department, reintroducing the Law Ministry does not mean extra expenditure to the government. Surely one of them can be put to better use. Incidentally, the reason why Datuk Seri Dr Rais Yatim knows about the Home Affairs Minister's power of approving movie screening under the Film Censorship Act is because he was, and later the de facto, Law Minister. Sadly even the Home Affairs Minister is unaware of the provision. This goes to show how important the Law Ministry is.

Lets have some common sense

Categories: Singapore

Sentosa is not banning dogs from the island, reported Today newspaper. This was the respond given by the management of Sentosa after a letter of complaint against unleashed dogs running loose on the island's beaches. However they added that if regulations to keep pets leashed at all times were not followed, dogs will be banned from the island. The complaint brought forth suggestion to have part of or the whole Tanjong beach to be cordoned off as a dog run. Fortunately this was also rejected by the managament.

I think Singaporeans are sufficiently mature to learn how to compromise and be considerate to one another. In land scarce Singapore, it is inevitable that someone's toes will be stepped on once in awhile. Since this is something unavoidable, we should learn how to compromise and be considerate instead.

Mr Nigel Race was quoted in the article as saying he would keep the dog on a leash when the beach is crowded, but on a quiet day, he usually allows her to run loose. This is the type of common sense needed. Dog owners should know their dogs well, well enough to know how the dog will response in the public unleashed. If the dog is excitable and still not very obedient, then maybe the dog owner should be responsible enough to leash the dog when in public. However if the dog is obedient, then leeway should be given for the dog. Ultimately whatever temperament the dog has or the degree of obedience, the owner should be responsible for his dog.

On the other hand, the general public should try to avoid a certain sections of the beach if they see an unleashed dog if they truely feel uncomfortable with them. Some may feel that they had been victimised, but with careful thought this may not be so. If the management had chosen to close off a section of the beach, then wouldn't the general public lose out as well? If dog owners are considerate like Mr Nigel Race, when there are general public in the near vicinity, I am sure they will leash up their dog.

Sometimes creating rigid rules and sidelining common sense brings more problem than it try to solve. A good example is the segregation of bicycles and inline skates from the pedestrian path. At a glance it certainly makes sense - bicycles and inline skates use bicycle path and pedestrian on pedestrian path only. However problems starts when those who are can cycle but rather unsteadily use the bicycle path. They will pose a greater danger to other cyclist because other cyclist can never anticipate how these unsteady cyclists will cycle. They may suddenly swerve to try to balance themselves and in the process open themselves up to be hit by oncoming cyclist. And you cannot blame them for there are no space for these 'learner' cyclist to practice. Should they cycle in the pedestrian path instead? I think they should especially if they are children riding children's bike. At least here, pedestrians can avoid these learners. Of course the cyclist should also try to riding in areas where there are few pedestrians. If everybody uses common sense, such complications would not have happened.

Another example is cyclist riding on the pavement. No doubt the law says that pavement are off limits to cyclist but sometimes riding on the pavement is the safest choice a cyclist has. It is true that some cyclist think they are the king on the pavement and ring at every pedestrian they encounter. Because of this there were calls for such people to be reprimanded. However rather than using any harsh measures, let practice some compromises. The cyclist should understand that the pavement 'belongs' to the pedestrian and therefore they should always have the right of way. On the other hand, the pedestrian should be more understanding that cycling on road can be dangerous. I am sure they do not want to be blamed for any accident that may happened because they had 'forced' cyclist off the pavement. So again let common sense prevails and compromise.

A lot of 'problems' can be solved if there is a little common sense. If everyone is considerate and able to compromise, then Singapore will be a better place to live in. We should shed the 'me-first' culture for one of 'society-first'. Since society is made up of many 'me', in the end 'every-me' will be happier. So, instead of having yet more rules and fines in this 'Fine City' let some common sense prevails; as most times rigid rules and insensible habits will only created more problems than it tries to solve.

Categories: Wormie Says

Yet another example of how technology can be abused surface in Kelantan. This time it involves a girl who posed nude with his boyfriend with their photo taken with a mobile phone. When the phone was sent for servicing, their photo was found on sale in VCD format. Why haven't they learn about dangers of technology from the Tammy episode in Singapore? It is good that such news get published in newspapers because it will only serve to warn people of such dangers.

Related to this incident is that females should learn how to say no if they felt uncomfortable to do things their boyfriends wanted. In this case, now she is left to pick up her life again. She will forever be the butt of ridicule in her own village.

In Sipadan, Sabah, corals in an area the size of two tennis courts were destroyed after sand suffocated them. This occured after a barge laden with construction materials docked in the island for a new development. The Chief Minister is now demanding a full investigations. What is more intriguing is the Chief Minister admissions that he was in the dark regarding the proposed development. Sabah is a semi-autonomous region of Malaysia. Hence any development in the state should be directed through the state government. If the head of state government does not know about a proposed development, something is seriously wrong. Are there other things that he doesn't know? Surely an investigation should be carried out not only on why the Sabah Parks employee failed in their duty to protect the corals, but also how a project got to be approved when the head of state government is in the dark.

This bring us back to PM Badawi's call for transparency and accountability. Neither the IPCMC nor the ombudsman has materialised. One wonder whether the people will get to know the results of the still pending investigations on the Jasin MP's call to 'close one-eye' when a consigment of logs were found to have breached the law. I will not be surprised if nothing materialised from all the above. So far the Badawi's government had not been transparent, at best translucent if not opaque!

The Da Vinci opportunity

Categories: Wormie Says

The Da Vince Code will be screened in Singapore today. Although its author Dan Brown has said from the beginning that this is a work of fiction, there has been much outcry of blasphemy from some Catholics, Christians and even Muslims. There were calls for this show to be banned. I chose to differ because the show will create a climate where the truth of the religion can be propagated.

How often do we ask ourselves about our own religion? Although a lot of people claim to profess their religion, in general only a few are truly able to understand their religion. The majority unfortunately just follow blindly without much understanding. Merely following a religion is not a good thing because without understanding, our faith may not be strong and our belief maybe easily swayed. The screening of this movie has created a setting for such a discussion to be carried out.

Already there had been much 'discussions' in the media regarding the controversy of the movie. This has already generated interests in people and a proportion of the more inquisitive ones would have start looking into Christianity. They would otherwise have been lost to the religion.

Another good that comes out of this controversy is shown by the National Council of Churches of Singapore (NCCS). Instead of crying foul and taking up arms, they chose to use the educational approach. For months they have organise lectures on the subjects. Doing so can only serve to strengthen peoples faith in the religion and at the same time thrash any wrong portrayal of Jesus and the Christian faith. If not for this movie, this opportunity would have been lost.

The protests from the Christian faith is understandable. What is more interesting is that some Muslims are also against the screening of the movie. This is because Nabi Isa, otherwise known as Jesus, is one the prophets mentioned in the Quran. Hence the protests. It follows that both Jesus and Nabi Muhammad are both prophets of the same God since both Christians and Muslims believe in only one God. If they are praying to the same God, why should there be any conflict between these two great religion? No Christians or Muslims can say 'their' God is better because it is one and the same! If there must be any differences in 'their' God, then it is created by humans, its followers. Since God can't be wrong, then the only wrong must be created by Man himself!! You cannot go to war on the basis of God. The only reason for a religious war is human's own selfishness.

I wouldn't have written this blog if not for the movie. Since the show is going to be screened, there is no reason to take up arms. Accept the inevitable but at the same time be more productive and turn the situation to good use like what the NCCS is doing. I am sure after this controversy, people's faith in the religion would be stronger.

Mr Nice Guy or not in control?

Categories: Malaysia

Recent events had raised questions regarding the authority of Prime Minister Badawi. No doubt he is Mr Nice Guy, but even Mr Nice Guy must be seen to be in-charge. He has made calls for accountability and transparency as the platform of his government. However his actions had shown otherwise.

After the Balai Polis saga, he had set up a Royal Commission to look into the setting up of a panel to look into police excesses. The IPCMC was eventually recommended by the Royal Commission and the PM had accepted the recommendations. However this was rejected by the Inspector-General of Police and the PM said he would look into the matter further. That was in March. Until today, there is no news on IPCMC and the subject of insubordination by the IGP, a civil servant, to the Prime Minister had not been addressed.

Then comes the scrapping of the scenic bridge. Rightly or wrongly is open to interpretation. However, as the leader of the country, when his government is criticised and humiliated by the highly respected former Prime Minister Tun Mahathir, he should have at least address the controversy himself. He should not have appoint other people to counter Tun Mahathir's criticisms. Even Mr Nice Guy has pride and honour. When Tun Mahathir condemned his government as "half-past six with no guts", shouldn't he defend his government? Why let his minister rebut Tun? Does he think that by not directly answering to Tun, he has gained the moral high ground? Unfortunately not! No matter how much respect one have, one still have to defend one's honour. It seems this is not the case here.

The most recent case involves the Jasin MP who asked senior Custom official to "close one eye" and not to seize the logs. Initially he claimed that he was only helping out a constituent but eventually he admitted to be the owner of the forwarding company. Whether there is a conflict of interest and abuse of power is not clear. However if a lawmaker asked a civil servant to circumvent and break laws, then something definitely wrong. Putting a good word for a constituent is acceptable but to blatantly asking a civil servant to bend the rules is another matter. After saying that Datuk Shahrir has broken party rules by supporting an opposition motion, he has now taken up the matter and will investigate to see if the MP has broken any rules. Why waste time to investigate? The Jasin MP has already admitted to have told the senior Custom officials to close one eye. Whether this is abuse of power is immaterial. The fact is he had try to use his high office to influence a civil servant to allow illegal activity. This is definitely wrong in the eyes of the law. If he professes accountability, then the MP should have at least been suspended first pending outcome of investigations.

Wormie is not sure what the PM stands for. Is he really for accountability and transparency? If he is then he should show his mettle. Make a decision and then stand by it. Don't use the public as an excuse for his decision. Don't let civil servants upstaged the office of the Prime Minister. Use own judgement to make a decision and stand by it. This way at least the PM can account for himself and earn his just respect. Otherwise, Mr Nice Guy will loose his appeal.

Heartware is just as important

Categories: Wormie Says

When Singapore got its independence from Malaysia, it was left with one big problem. How do you run a country with a very small land area and no natural resources? How do you ensure you own security in the midst of seemingly unfriendly nations? (Remember that Singapore was expelled from Malaysia, and Malaysia at that time was embroiled with Indonesia during Confrontation).

Therefore right from the start, Singapore leaders had a seiged-mentality. In order to survive, they have to depend on themselves. They cannot seek help from its neighbouring countries. Against all odds, Singapore had managed not only to survive but to prosper culminating in its entry to the ranks of developed nations; at odds with the developing nation status of its neighbours in South East Asia.

The government of the day had emphasised on developing Singapore's economy and infrasturcture. It has developed its only natural resource, its people. Even before the age of IT, Mr Lee Kuan Yew has the foresight to see the value of developing its people. With a more educated population, Singapore has an advantage over its neighbour. It is able to promote itself as a business hub for South East Asia. It all makes sense because not only can Singaporeans understand what the foreign companies needed, they are also able to understand people in the region. So if a foreign company wants to do business in South East Asia, Singapore was the obvious choice.

It has been able to motivate its people thus far by promises of a better life and brighter future. If they work hard, they will reap the benefits because a stronger economy translates to better housing facilities and infrastructure. With such promises the people worked hard and catapulted Singapore into a First World economy in a spate of less than fifty years.

In order to maintain and expand its economic prowess, the country need to make itself known. This is especially so when neighbouring countries like Malaysia and Thailand are slowly catching up with Singapore. Hence Singapore needs to differentiate itself from the rest of the flock. It knows that it cannot fight on pricing; it has to create a climate of excellence, business-friendly environment and political alliances with other countries. With time, 'to be the best' becomes the catch phrase. The big picture prevails, everything else is secondary. Whatever policy carried out must be beneficial to sustain the economy. It is therefore not surprising that somewhere along the line, heartware gets neglected. Development usually means more roads and buildings; whereas economic success means more money. Intangibles like perceived well-being, compassions and respect, the all important heartware, are never featured in the quest for survival.

Locally it explains Why the Opposition won in Hougang and Potong Pasir.
Despite the best effort of SM Goh and $180 million carrot, the voters still voted for the opposition. The two opposition while may lack the charisma of government candidates, they come across as sincere and compassionate. Incidentally I suspect that is also the reason why SM Goh is tasked with the job of trying to win back votes. Unfortunately, he dangled the wrong carrot and lost the constituencies.

Regionally it explains Why Tun Mahathir closed Malaysia's airspace to SAF and stop the sale of sand to Singapore.
During the financial crisis in 1997, Tun Mahathir had asked for a loan from the Singapore government to tide over the period. Instead of providing the loan, the government wanted to make the loan as part of a package of the then ongoing negotiation on the outstanding issues. Imagine, here is a friendly neighbour, humbling himself, asking for help and got humiliated in return.

Internationally it explains Why Singapore proclaim to the world it is standing behind US in its invasion of Iraq.
I will quote from a very good post by I-Speak on what was said by Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Mr. Bilahari Kausikan to a question on why Singapore openly declared its support for the Iraq invasion:

"The Americans were deluded, it doesn't mean we supported them because we thought it would work. I believe the question you are too polite to ask is, did we suck up to the U.S? Well, yes, our basic interest was to show support for the USA, you are right. But what did we really commit to it? How much of our assets did we lend to Iraq? We put one plane in the air and one ship in the sea. And were we more of a target because of it? To which I reply...we were already a target before the invasion."

Such arrogance, much like the ones we heard during times of elections.

Good infrastructure, nice and clean surroundings makes a good place to live in. However, if the people lack the hearts and compassions, then such structure are mere hollows. A society lacking in heartware lacks a soul, for heartware is the soul of the society. And money cannot replace the soul in a society.

Kalama Sutta

恭祝卫塞节

Happy Vesak Day

One of the most important Suttas in Buddhism is the Kalama Sutta. Although its was uttered by Lord Buddha to the people of Kalamas more than 2000 years ago, it still holds much relevance today. Below is the Kalama Sutta together with the story of how it came about.

Kalama Sutta

"Do not believe in anything (simply) because you have heard it"

"Do not believe in traditions, because they have been handed down for many generations"

"Do not believe in anything, because it is spoken and rumoured by many"

"Do not believe in anything, simply because it is found written in your religious books"

"Do not believe in anything, merely on the authority of your teachers and elders"

"But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it"

<<< - >>>

When the Buddha arrived at Kesaputta, a town of the Kalamas, the people surrounded the Buddha, saluting and exchanged courteous greetings with him. One of the Kalamas asked the Buddha "Lord, there are some priests who came to Kesaputta and expound and glorify their own doctrines, but at the same time they criticise, revile and disparage the doctrines of others. They leave us absolutely uncertain and in doubt as to which venerable priests are speaking the truth and which one is lying." The Buddha replied, "Of course you are uncertain, Kalamas. Of course you are in doubt. So don't go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scriptures, by inference or analogies. When you know yourselves that the contemplatives are blameworthy, criticised by the wise and which will lead to harm and suffering, then you should abandon them." He further asked, "When greed arises in a person, does it arise for welfare or for harm? When aversion arises in a person, does it arise for welfare or for harm? When delusion arises in a person, does it arise for welfare or for harm?" To each of these questions, the Kalamas replied that it was for harm. He further said, "When you know yourselves that the contemplatives are blameless, praised by the wise and which will lead to welfare and happiness, then you should accept them." He then asked, "When lack of greed arises in a person, does it arise for welfare or for harm? When lack of aversion arises in a person, does it arise for welfare or for harm? When lack of delusion arises in a person, does it arise for welfare or for harm?" To these questions, the Kalamas answered for welfare.

Further reads:
BuddhaNet
Abhidhamma Vipassana
Buddha's World

The different forms of Buddhism

Categories: Do You Know?

Most people of other faiths are not aware that there are different types of Buddhism. Here, we enlighten them.

i) Theravada Buddhism
Theravada Buddhism is the oldest form of Buddhism that originated thousands of years ago in India. It is based on the original Suttas or Sanskrit documents which have recordings of Buddha’s teachings, once writing became available.

Theravada Buddhism is practised in Sri Lanka, Myanmar, Thailand, Cambodia, and Laos. It sticks firmly to the teachings of the Vinaya Pitaka.

Theravada Buddhists believe in Nibbana, which is enlightenment and the cessation of all sufferings – the highest spiritual goal one can attain.

ii) Mahayana Buddhism
Mahayana Buddhism is a new strand that branched out from Theravada Buddhism after the religion moved out of India into new countries where it had to compete with other religions.

Mahayana speaks of Buddha land (heaven) where faithful Buddhists go to after death. It is practised in countries like China, Japan, Korea, and Vietnam.

Mahayana Buddhism has since branched out into different variants and they each now stand on its own.

iii) Zen Buddhism
Zen Buddhism focuses on achieving enlightenment mainly through meditation and mental development.

Zen came to Japan in the 13th century – five centuries after the orthodox forms of Buddhism evolved. It emphasises the uselessness of words and the insistence of actions without thought. It teaches that enlightenment is a spontaneous event, totally independent of concepts, techniques or rituals.

iv) Pure Land Buddhism
Pure Land Buddhism worships the Amitabha (the Buddha of infinite light and lord of the pure land) hoping that by praying and reciting his name, they will go to the pure land when they die and move closer to Nibbana.

v) Vajarayanna tradition
One of the followers of this tradition is the Dalai Lama, who was the chief monk in Tibet during his time. He later settled down in India, and until today, certain parts of the country are still practicing the ritual and rights of this tradition.

vi) Nichiren Buddhism
Nichiren is a 13th century Japanese Buddhist reformer whose teachings are based on the Mahayana Sutra (scripture), known as the Lotus Sutra which, according to him, contains the essence of all the Buddhist teachings and the path of attaining enlightenment.

The central practice of Nichiren Buddhism is reciting the mantra namo myoho rengye kyo.

[Lifted from The Star Online]

Post Mortem of recent election

Categories: Others

As with all elections, a post-mortem is conducted to review the election strategy, results and the way forward. Here is Wormie's take.

They say don't talk to strangers. Good advice, but they forget to tell you don't talk to acquaintances as well especially if he is from the other side.

You should always be courteous to civil servants. Now there is added incentives for you to be courteous.

If you want to apologise, memorise what you need to say. Otherwise it will be misconstrued as insincere.

Learn how to write clearly and not in any convoluted way. Otherwise it may be misconstrued as being written by lawyers.

Predictions by George Orwell in his novel 1984 has proven wrong. Now not only are you being watched but you are listened into as well.

If you can't speak English well, then you can't write English well.

The Fine City, just added another one - Any resemblence to sounding loud or threat to any civil servant maybe a crime

The way to be an Election Idol is to join the opposition.

The main issue in this election is not upgrading, nor NKF but Gomez

First World government still uses Third World political tactics. Only difference is that it is more transparent.

Only 5 people are standing for governing party according the ST - LKY, GCT, LHL, WKS and KBW. The rest are just supporting cast - including new candidates.

Opposition MP works harder than government MPs. 82 government MPs represents two-thirds of population as against 2 opposition MPs representing the rest.

Now we know why the country is doing so well. Its leaders has foresights and sixth sense. They are able to predict the further interogation of Gomez. Clairvoyance?

Well done Singaporeans. You are not money-faced or easily swayed by material things. But then again rejecting a total of $180 million dollars, ......

SMC may not be viable next election. Too much effort with bad results. No economy of scale. Why campaign so hard and still lost in the end.

The way forward maybe to have one superGRC - all or nothing rule! Many benefits if opposition cannot make full quota of seats - No election, save campaign money, save peoples time listening to rally, no traffic jam, stable government, more time for family............

Will this restore some credibility and integrity?

Categories: Malaysia

The official reason given for the resignation of Datuk Shahrir as the chairman of the Backbenchers Club, and which was accepted by DPM Datuk Najib is that he had broken party policy of not supporting an opposition motion. This comes as no surprise because our Parliament had been based on the British model where every MP has to toe party line because of the Whip. They are not to vote according to their conscience or principle unless the Whip is lifted. This is understandable where party policy and manifesto are being debated as MPs win their votes because of party manifesto. However in this case, it is not a motion against a party policy, or against specific governing minister but call to defend the integrity of the Parliament.

In agreeing to the motion from the Opposition to refer the matter to the Parliament Rights and Privileges Committee, he is only defending the integrity of the Parliament. The matter may have involved an MP from the ruling party but the motion is not directed at the MP. Instead the motion is to seek the truth so that any followup actions can be carried out. By rejecting the motion, Parliament in general and MPs in particular risk losing their integrity and moral authority. This certainly goes against what PM Badawi had been trying to do with his policy of transparency and accoutability; against the spirit of setting up the IPCMC and against the spirit of setting up of the ombudsman. If the rejection of the MPs are based solely on partisan line, then the Malaysian Parliament is in a sorry state. How then does the governing party expect the Opposition to support it if the country is threatened? Surely after nearly fifty years of independence, the political parties are mature enough than to have bipartisan politics.

Because of this controversy, questions arise as to what an MP can and cannot do. This is because MP for Jasin had admitted that he had met with the Custom officials and asked them to "closed one eye" and not seize the consignment from Indonesia and brought in by a company. He said he was just helping a businessman in appealing against the seizure. Another MP said that they were asked by their constituents for help everyday ranging from putting a good word to help their children get into university or helping the constituents children who had gotten into trouble. True that as an MP their job also involves helping their constituents. In fact this is expected of them. There is a limit to what the MPs can do to help their constituents. Put in good words on their behalf, support their applications by all means but make sure they are within the law. However when a person is in violation of the law should an MP help them to escape the penalty? By asking the civil servants involved not to carry out the appropriate actions, would the civil servants themselves violate the law instead? And if such civil servants asked their MP for help to get them off the hook, wouldn't this results in a vicious cycle? In the end, nobody gets convicted because their MP are doing such a fine job in persuading the enforcement officer to be lenient. And if enforcement officers is going to be lenient, why then we need the laws in the first place? And if the law is redundant, we shouldn't even need the law makers - the Members of Parliament. If no MPs, we don't even need the Parliament!! You got the picture.

It is good that the PM and DPM has agreed to a suggestion by Datuk Shahrir to set up a select committee to look into MPs behaviour and to a guidelines on the conducts of MP. Due to so many gray areas when MPs deal with civil servants, such guidelines is timely and useful as a minimum conduct expected from a MP. However, just setting up a guideline is not enough. The committee should also look into what course of action should be taken if an MP is found to have flouted the guidelines. Should a motion be made so that Parliament can investigate the matter or should the case be automatically investigated by the Parliament Rights and Privileges Committee or should the Parliament just refer the matter to the Police? Once an offence is confirmed, should a punishment be meted out and what form of punishment should it be? Or should the MP's own party discipline the MP? These should all be looked into so that they will not be another similar incident which may tarnish the image of MPs and the Parliament.

Where hindsight is overlooked

Categories: Malaysia

The failure to implement metered taxi fares in Penang as scheduled on May 1 once again showed how poor the Malaysian authorities are in planning. Only a few days ago the government postponed the imposition of a fee levy on all foreign cars coming into the country. In Malaysia, it seemed that the people who are in charge does not have a clue on policy implementation. Whatever that comes to mind, will be said before even looking at the feasibility.

The use of metered taxi fare is not new in Penang. Many years ago a ruling was made to compel all taxis in Penang to use meters. However, the meters were never used because of a big protest by the taxi drivers. The authority promised to look into their plight, and an in the meantime the use of the meters died a natural death. They had been looking into this matter ever since. Therefore it seemed strange that with the advantage of hindsight, the authorities should just jump into the gaunlet yet again without first identifying any teething problem.

I think the problem with metered taxi fare is not one of logistics or fare structure but one which has plaque Malaysian society for many years - that of implementation. What will be the difference between the planned metered taxi fare compared to that of the previously failed one? Maybe the fare rates are different but essentially the taxi drivers and the reasons for their reluctance is the same. As a result, there is nothing to prevent this 'new' scheme from failing; unless there is a change in the political will to enforce the ruling.

Being a taxi driver is a viable if not lucrative job in Penang. Given the high population, scattered residential areas with a poor transport system, the need for taxi service is inevitable. However by forcing the taxi driver to use the meter without at least some feedback from them is doomed to failure unless the authority has the political will to push the implementation through. On the part of the commuters, they should just boycott any taxi which refuses to use the meter. Only when the commuters and the authority work together can the metered taxi scheme be successfully implemented.

How feasible is the means test?

Categories: Singapore

The Health Minister is considering using a means test to peg C-class hospital ward subsidies to a patient's income level. This idea was first mooted in 2004 by the minister. How feasible is the means test?

A similar scheme was used in the early 1990s where patients who opted for the A-class would be discouraged if they do not have a certain amount of money in their Central Provident Fund (CPF). This was done to help patients appreciate the cost of the paying class. This was however not successful because although some patients may have low CPF funds, they may be able to pay the full paying class funds because they have cash with them.

Although the current means test is for a different reason, the underlying problem is still the same - what parameter should be used to judge a person credit worthiness?

Parameters that the government is looking for must be some data that can be obtained from government agencies. This will reduce the legal requirements to protect privacy between governmental bodies. The data should also be something the population has in common. CPF and income tax would be the most obvious parameters to monitor. Bank accounts may be a better parameter but because of the code of confidentiality observed by these private entities, trying to access these would pose a legal barrier. Therefore the government is probably left with 2 parameters.

As the majority of the population contribute to the CPF, this should be a good place to start. But the use of CPF contains many pitfalls. Firstly not everybody contributes to CPF. CPF is only compulsory for the salaried. Those that have their own business does not need to contribute to CPF. Therefore if a business owner were to stay in C-class, how is it possible to categorise him? He will not have a CPF record, the same as one who has never earned a salary.

Secondly, there is a cap on CPF contribution by both the employer and employee. Therefore whether one is earning $50K a month or just $10K a month, their contribution will be the same. As a result, the contribution rate also does not differentiate the financial ability of a person.

Thirdly, nowadays CPF money has been used for multiple purposes - buying of house, use for studying purposes and invest in shares. With so many ways the CPF money can be used, the CPF balance definitely cannot be used as a gauge. A healthy CPF balance does not mean a person has good income; it may just mean that the person had not tap into the CPF balance.

If CPF is not suitable, what about income tax? Income tax seems a good bet because everybody except those in the lower financial rung, pays them. So if a person does not pay income tax, then she should automatically qualify for the highest subsidy, right? Wrong! She could be the wife of a rich tycoon. Therefore, she shouldn't even qualify for any subsidy. On the reverse, if a person pay high income tax, then he should not qualify for maximum subsidy. Wrong again! He may have been retrenched and currently not earning a salary. As income tax filing is based on the previous year's income, a person will only pay the previous year's income tax in the current year. Therefore, what is depicted as income tax payable only reflects the previous year's income and not the present.

At one time, the type of residence was used as a yardstick to ones financial status. This happened when the government gave out bonuses to Singaporeans. This method was used because the up to 75% of the Singaporeans owned housing board flats subsided by the government. The rest stays in private condominium, private apartments and landed properties. Using this yardstick has its own problems. On paper, having a landed property address make the owner wealthy. However, what is not known is that a percentage of those who has a landed property address does not own the property but just renting it. Some with landed property probably inherited the property and actually having difficulty maintaining it. On the other hand, a person with housing board address, may be rich but choose not to own a private property. Therefore it is clear that residential address is not a good yardstick either.

The above is only looking at a working person utilising the C-class. When other groups are taken into account, the permutations become mindboggling. For example, even if CPF is reflective of a person's financial ability, it does not take into account the number of person in the household. Obviously, the more people there is in the household, the lesser the financial ability. Even if the CPF and the number of people in a household is the same, the financial needs of each household will still be different because of the differences in age group, health status, or financial liability.

Then there are households with double income. How to classify such people? There is no way to identify such people unless specifically asked for. And what is there to stop such people from withholding such information in the first place?

The other category is the retirees. They may have large CPF account, but they have no income. So if the yardstick is based on CPF, then they cannot qualify for large subsidy which is a shame because in reality, they are "unemployed". As such, they should be subsided as much as a real unemployed person should get.

The reasoning behind this means testing is a good one. Spread a limited resources to as many people as possible. However such reasoning may be flawed. By making more people foot more of their hospital bills, those previously juggling to make ends meet will suddenly find themselves needing financial assistance. So the means test does not necessarily solve a problem but merely spread the problem further.

Accountability? What accountability?

Categories: Malaysia

The stepping down of Barisan Nasional Backbenchers Club chairman Datuk Shahrir Samad as its chairman over the Parliament's refusal to probe a newspaper report about an MP who had allegedly asked the Customs Department to "close one eye" in a case involving the import of sawn timber should be supported by all those who value Parliamentary integrity. This is at odds with what the government is trying to do the last few months.

In January, Prime Minister Badawi accepted the recommendation of a Royal Commission to set up the IPCMC to look into any possible excesses by the Police. This however was still not implemented and seemed to be going the way of the dinosaurs. Then while still taking about the IPCMC, the government suddenly talked about the setting up of an ombudsman to look into any complaint against all government agencies. Although these idea did not come from the Parliament, these ideas are consistent with PM Badawi's call for transparency and accountability.

Therefore it seems incongruous that the very seat of government, the lawmakers, the pillar of Malaysian politics should choose not to police itself when one of its members is accused of unlawful meddling in a government agency. How can the lawmakers, our elected representatives, choose to ignore such allegations. Such allegation is an attack on the integrity of each Member of Parliament and hence the Parliament itself. It is strange that the government MPs are so dead against probing into the allegations when it is the government's call for accountability and transparency. Does this mean that accountability and transparency only applies to everybody else except the Members of Parliament? Datuk Sharir at least has some principles. He felt that an attack against an MP means an attack against all MP and therefore Parliament itself. And MPs should be the ones to probe the allegation further so that the truth be known and MPs can clear their names and hence Parliament keeps its integrity. There should not be any partisan politics here as all MPs are tarnished. Therefore out of principle, he had chosen to resign as Chairman of the Backbenchers Club.

There should not be just talk about accountability and transparency. People should walk the talk. If lawmakers do not subscribed to their own call, then how can any other 'lesser' souls respect and listen to them. These lawmakers would have lost their moral right to direct the country. I wonder what the Prime Minister has to say on the matter?

Hamas may provide new solutions

Categories: Wormie Says

Since the Hamas government was sworn into office in February this year, the US and EU has stopped any delivery of aid meant to help the Palestinian people. This is because they were worried that the money may be used by Hamas to fund terror attacks against Israel. Israel on its part has refused to hand over the money collected as taxes on behalf of the Palestinians. This have left many Palestinian government workers without pay. No money will be handed out until and unless Hamas renounces violence and accept the state of Israel.

This policy may back fire on the West and Israel. By withholding the money, ordinary Palestinians will suffer. With more and more hunger and hardship, these people will become more and more desperate. With desperation, they will be easily convinced that the West is against the Muslim world. Now the hardliners can even show proof of such hatred. When the mind and the body is weak, it is easier to persuade any normal rational Muslim into doing things they normally frown upon. In short, moderates will become extremists.

A more important question regards the status of an elected government. For years, the US had been urging the Palestinian authority to conduct elections. They had felt that an election will give the people a chance to influence the course of governing. With the passing of Yasser Arafat, whom the Israeli and the US government blamed as the obstacle for peace in Middle East, his successor, Mr Abbas, agreed to an election which was conducted in December 2005. However to US and Israel's horror, Hamas which was classified as a terrorist group by the US won with the moderate Fatah voted out of office.

So now there is a democratically elected government but by a party not sanctioned by the US. This is a slap on US face. Since this is a democratically elected government why not let them govern and see how things may change. For a few decades when the moderate Fatah party was governing, there had been no headway in the quest for peace. Maybe Hamas can see things from a different angle. Being in government now, their role is different than when they were just a terror group. Now they are answerable to their people to carry out a mandate given by them. Whether they like it or not, they have to create a peaceful coexistance for its people because they know that any terror attack remotely linked to Hamas will mean war to Israel; a war that will certainly mean much destructions to the Palestinians lives. Indeed, after their election victory in December, there had been no suicide attacks linked to Hamas. This is despite their intended destruction of Israel as written in the party constitution.

The Arab League is currently working on a scheme where the Palestinian government workers can be paid directly, by-passing the Hamas government and the local banks. Local Palestinian banks refuses to pay workers because "Arab banks fear that if they were to assist Hamas, the Americans might take steps to freeze them out of the international financial system". Hopefully, this scheme will alleviate much of the hardship experience by all sectors of the Palestinian society.

The Middle East conflict had gone on for many years. This conflict could probably had been averted if the United Nations taken heed of the British warning that carving out Israel in the Arabian peninsula would create a bigger problem than it solved. Let the democratically elected Hamas government try to resolve the conflict from a new perspective. Negotiate with them with an open mind. The use of force, threat and trade sanctions has been proven to fail many times. To avoid Hamas of illegally diverting government funds for terrorism, channel the aids to aid agencies or even the United Nations for its distributions. This way, the Palestinian won't be driven into desperation and will not resort to desperate actions. For, anyone pushed into a corner will react unpredictably.

Handouts or no handouts?

Categories: Wormie Says

The Sunday Times wrote a report on parents who still contributes to their working children financially (All grown up...and still getting handouts from mum and dad, ST April 30, 2006). Most of the parents quoted did so not to help the children tide over difficult times but to supplement their income. This however is not unique to Singapore, according to the report, as The New York Times had reported that Americans pay about $2,300 annually to suport their adult offspring. It is good that if the parents are able finacially, they should help their children. However is this good for the children, especially in the case where such financial "help" is to supplement their salaries and increase their spending abilities?

Most people will agree that once a person receive his first paycheck, he has reached adulthood. And adulthood means being independent and responsible for himself. In the modern world, usually the only obstacle to being independent is financial. Therefore with the first paycheck, comes some degree of independence.

Most adult value their independence. They do not appreciate 'feedback' from their parents. For this reason alone, the apron-string of handouts should be cut so that the child is 'really' independent. There cannot be any grudge when getting 'feedback' from parents but happily taking handouts from them.

Being an adult comes responsibility. Responsibility in adulthood encompass many things including being responsible for himself. Therefore, he has to be responsible financially also. If the salary does not enable him to live a luxury lifestyle, then his expectations should be adjusted and just live as comfortable as the salary allows. If he wants to improve his lifestyles, the way is not handouts from parents but to work harder or to improve himself so that he can get a better paying position. By receiving handouts to enable an unrealistic lifestyle is not being responsible.

What happens if one day the parents cannot afford to give handouts anymore? Overnight, lifestyles will have to change. The bigger the handout previously, the more hardship the child will experience. This is because suddenly, there is a vacuum left by the handout and the child now has to rely on his "meagre" pay to support an unrealistic lifestyles. Everything he has tried to portray will crumble. If he can accept the more realistic lifestyle, then the problem stops there. What happens if he cannot accepts the more restricted spending power? He may turn to unsecured loans that is so easily available from banks. Such loans, initially may feel like the parents' handouts; but in reality this is a loan which means it has to be repaid. Any default in repayment will mean interest accumulation and may spell the start of a spiral of worsening debts.

To the girl who is willing to spend $3000 on a Channel handbag with the help of the parent's money, has she considered whether the mother would have spend the same amount on a handbag? Does she think that it is fair to her parents although the parents are giving her the money freely?

Parents tend to dote on their children and this is should be the case. However sometimes to love them is to be 'mean' to them. If they are brought up to live within their means, they will not suffer when faced with difficulty. They will learn to be responsible to themselves and the parents. Giving handouts to the child will only make the child complacent and unrealistic; in the long run they will lack the necessary motivation to improve. Worse, they will teach the next generation such unrealistic expectations resulting in unhappiness when faced with reality.

There must be a reason why Bill Gates, once said that he will only leave $1 million to his son. True, $1 million is a lot of money until you consider that Bill Gates is worth tens of billions of dollars!