Thank you Mr Lee, but no thank you!

Minister Mentor of Singapore and former Prime Minister Mr Lee Kuan Yuan recently caused a furore in Malaysia when he said that Chinese in the region are being marginalised. It is not hard how such a conclusion is reached. There are many recent examples in Malaysia.

1. When a Ministry is headed by an UMNO member with a non-UMNO member as his deputy, the latter is not the acting Minister when the former is away. Instead it is the Parliamentary Secretary, an UMNO member who acts the capacity. The reverse however is not true. When the only non-Malay Chief Minister, Tan Sri Koh is away, his deputy from UMNO will be the acting Chief Minister.

2. Prior to 1994, the KadazanDusun were in power under the Barisan National banner. This changed in 1994, when the then Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir proposed a power sharing scheme where the post of Chief Minister will be rotated among the Muslim Bumiputra (UMNO), the non-Muslim Bumiputra (KadazanDusun) and the Chinese. These was later slightly modified after the first 5-year term, to one where UMNO will have 2-term under the rotation system because "it is the biggest coalition partner in Sabah". Then in 2005, the take over of power from the largest ethnic group, the KadazanDusun, was complete when it was announced by the current Prime Minister Badawi that the rotation system will be aborted.

3. Recently in Penang, at the peak of the spat between Mahathir-Badawi-Khairy, the Chinese are again made the bogeyman. Khairy questioned about the marginalisation of the Malays in Penang. This was instantly followed up by calls for the rotation for the post of Chief Minister in Penang. Then come the demonstration and rebuff by UMNO members against the Chief Minister during an official opening of an UMNO division. This was followed by calls by both the PM and DPM for Tan Sri Koh to "be a leader for all Malaysians".

4. The New Economic Policy (NEP) and its subsequent replacements were drafted after the May 13 racial riot of 1969. This is an affirmative policy to help the Bumiputras to gain a 30% foothold on the economy. Recently, the Institute of Policy Research, an NGO, has published figures to show that the bumiputras had already own 45% of the economic pie. Calls for a review of the NEP was then made by the non-bumiputras as the aims of the NEP had been achieved. However, a pro-UMNO organisation, the Malay Research and Strategy Foundation, immediately denounced the findings and charged that "orang Melayu dan Bumiputera masih rakyat kelas kedua di Malaysia kerana belum menguasai ekonomi" (the Malays and Bumiputras are still second class citizens in Malaysia because they have not control the economy).

The above facts clearly shows that there is definitely marginalisation of the non-Malays in Malaysia. The perception of MM Lee is spot-on. However his observations has brought about some sad truth.

Why are the non-UMNO partners in the coalition government silent all these while? There is not much point in given a position of a deputy minister when the real power is even less than a parliamentary secretary. It is so sad that after 50 years of independence with the ruling coalition party running the show all this while, there is still no trust in the non-UMNO partners. This is despite the fact that a political crisis was averted when MCA "readmitted" the new UMNO when it was declared illegal in 1987. This is despite some of the non-UMNO members can speak better Bahasa Malaysia than their UMNO counterparts. It is as if the coalition is just a show, with the UMNO holding the true power running the country.

It is understandable that UMNO being the dominant party within the coalition has a bigger say in things. However, no matter how big a say UMNO has, there should be an equal playing field. Things that should not be said for fear racial sentiments should be applied to all - both within and without UMNO. Imagine what will happen to Tan Sri Koh if he says that the Menteri Besar of other states are marginalising the non-Malays. I am sure he will loose his deputy presidency post in Gerakan by the next general election.

The oppositions are also quite toothless. Granted that the coalition partners hands are tied. But what has the opposition done? It is sad that it takes a foreign leader to point out the marginalisation of the non-Malays. Then again, maybe the marginalisation is so obvious that the opposition will not gain any mileage by bring it up.

MM Lee may not mean to intrude into the Malaysian politics. His intention seemed to illustrated how the Malaysian government is trying to coerce Singapore government to be more compliant, like what was happening to non-Malays in Malaysia. The non-Malays maybe marginalised in Malaysia, but at the end of the day, this is a problem for Malaysians to rectify. MM Lee was unjustified to use Malaysians to illustrate his point. He should practice what he preached: you must be in a political establishment if you want to be involved in politics. Here he is not in Malaysian political arena, and hence he should know where to draw a line. I have much respect for MM Lee Kuan Yew but in this case, he does have something to answer for. Thank you Mr Lee, but no thank you!


Links:
Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew: Reflections on Good Governance

What drives the increase in traffic summons?

With the recent outsourcing of the traffic warden, the scheme seemed largely successful in bringing in errant drivers, not to mention the huge fine accumulated in the process. What is interesting is not how a part of law enforcement can be outsourced but why the huge difference in the outcome compared to before outsourcing?

For years, the traffic wardens came under the preview of the Traffic Police, a governmental organisation. The Traffic Police had been largely successful with regards to maintain some discipline with drivers in Singapore. This is evident from the low accident and other small traffic violations eg indiscriminate parking figures. Just when traffic enforcement seemed almost perfect, the need to cut cost, like all governmental departments here, has presented a new problem. How to cut cost and still have at least similar level of traffic enforcement? Outsourcing seemed to be the answer, at least when it comes to issuing summons.

Why is then outsourcing is so effective when it comes to issuing summons? Singapore has been known for its efficiency government departments, and so it comes as a surprise that the Traffic Police has fallen short. Is it an isolated problem or is this part of a more inherent problem found in most governmental departments? Maybe there is something to be learned here from the private sector.

As outsourcing is about the bottomline, it is very difficult not to equate the sudden increase in summons issued with some form of monetary returns. Since the motorists are essentially the same, the only factor that has changed is the way summons are given. What are some of these factors?

I am not sure if a tender is called for the outsourcing exercise, but the idea is the same whatever methods used. A sum of money is given by the Traffic Police to the outsourcee to check on traffic offences. This means that the outsourcee will have to hire people to run the service. As no company will provide a service if there is no potential financial gain, one wonders where the source of monetary gain is for the outsourcee. Does the source of profit comes from the number of summons issued? Or do they get a cut from the amount of fine accumulated?

If there are no profits involved for the outsourcee, what is the other possible impetus for them to issue summons to motorists? Maybe it is performance. Anybody with MBA will tell you that if you want to improve something, it must be measured. Hence, if the outsourcee is hoping to renew their contract with the Traffic Police, then they have to prove their worth. How so other than to reflect this through summons issued. If this is the case, then there is no reason to outdo the Traffic Police by a very large margin, since as long as there is an increase from the Traffic Police summons, they have already proven their worth. As a result there is no need to hire many traffic wardens, as less traffic warden means less expenditure and higher profits. The fact that there are now more traffic warden on the streets make this reasoning less likely. More likely the outsourcee is profit-driven and hence the increase in summons issued.

Is this outsourcing necessarily bad? I don't think so. Although the outsourcee maybe profit driven, society has indirectly benefitted from it. Where traffic infringement were largely left undetected previously, now the culprits are taken to task. This has reduced the hassles and inconvenience to the other more law-abiding motorists. Errant motorists may cry foul but at the end of the day, all road users will benefit from such outsourcing.

Dark days ahead for Tan Sri Koh Tsu Koon

With the current verbal assault on Malaysia's only Chinese Chief Minister in Penang, I wonder at the fate of Tan Sri Koh Tsu Koon. His sorry state of affairs more or less started with the criticism by Khairy, the deputy UMNO Youth leader who charged that the Malays in Penang had been marginalised. This was followed by the open demonstration against the Chief Minister by UMNO Tanjung division when it opened its premise and then ignored by the UMNO division chief.

I wonder if his battered state is only temporary, a by-product of the Mahathir-Badawi spat, or more correctly Mahathir-Khairy spat. With the UMNO general assembly scheduled to be held in November this year, as in previous general assemblies, when stakes are high, the UMNO protagonist will usually play the communal and religious tune. This, as to show that they are the champions of the Malays. This year the general assembly is particularly important because of the Mahathir-Badawi spat, although a potential embarrassment had been averted with the failure of Mahathir to be elected as a representative to the assembly, a position which would enable Tun to speak to the delegates.

Will the current offensive against Tan Sri Koh ceased with the conclusion of the up-coming UMNO general assembly? What will happen to Penangites if the Chief Minister is unable to govern the state properly because of interference from UMNO? Tan Sri Koh has already retreated to a cocoon when he said that he will avoid speaking to the press for fear of being misquoted and will only go through the proper channel within the framework of BN. One wonders why he should be seen to be cowed into such action when UMNO members does not need to go through the proper channels - the agreed mode of discussions within the ruling coalition - when they openly snubbed the Chief Minister, or having their communal views ever easily misquoted without much repercussions. Does this make him a lame duck Chief Minister until the next general election which must be held by next year?

On a bigger picture and in longer term, Tan Sri Koh has been picked to take over the helm of Gerakan. If he is not accepted by UMNO and UMNO Youth as an equal, how is he going to hold genuine discussions with UMNO. Hishamuddin and Khairy, the chief and deputy chief of UMNO Youth had already shown disrespect and accused Tan Sri of marginalising the Malays in the state; and Badawi and Najib has also directed Tan Sri to be a leader for all Malaysians. With assault from every corner, can Tan Sri really regain the respect he had when he lead the BN to retain the Penang state assembly in the previous election? If he cannot regain this respect, how is he going to lead the Gerakan at national level without being seen as ineffective. Already his ascension to the Deputy Presidency of Gerakan was marred with some controversies. Given the current situation he is in, can he gain the respect and cooperation of the Gerakan members?

Only Tan Sri Koh can rectify the situation himself. Of course it also depends on how well he handles the UMNO factors. He will have to use all his diplomatic skills to maneuvre himself out of this political quagmire. Gerakan has always been seen as bridge between the MCA and UMNO, and if his leadership is seen as impotent, then a moderating factor in UMNO will be removed and communal politics will sadly be more pronounced.

Ref: “The Marginal Man” - “Punch drunk” Chief Minister Koh Tsu Koon

Look back on my first year of blogging

Categories: Wormie Says

Today marks the first year of my blogging. I posted my first post on a Friday, September 16 last year from my humble Dell x50v, more out of curiosity to see if I could blog from the Dell. Since then I had written over 170 blogs.

I am happy and proud to say that some of my blogs were highlighted either by the press or online blog watch. My articles on sportsmanship and why Malaysia should be proud of its sport achievements were featured on Global Voices. Another notable inclusion in Global Voices is the usage of Bahasa Rojak in Malaysia. My blog on the preservation of Fort Tanjong Katong was 'tomorrowed' by the Singapore online blog watcher, Tomorrow.sg. And recently, Newskini, a Malaysian blog watcher highlighted my blog on affirmative action in Malaysia.

On print, some of my blogs were also quoted. Among them, my thoughts on the infamous Tammy video and the Da Vinci controversies in Digital Life and the auditor's report on the NKF saga in Today newspaper.

Having unabashedly congratulated and blew my own horn, now for the more serious look back. Although my initial intention was to test the Dell handheld, the fun of writing has replaced my curiosity about the handheld. Couple with the highlights that I received, this had spurred me to write more. In the process, I actually manage to improve my vocabulary. Grammar however remains elusive to me. Because my blog is factual, in order to keep accuracy meant that I have to read more and wider, with the resultant improvement in my general knowledge.

The downside of blogging came when I added site counters. Site counter became a bane because when page views dropped, I felt pressurised to increase the page views. That had taken away the joy of writing. Thankfully after a period of reflections, I am happy to say that ratings no longer influence what and how often I write.

This first anniversary also gives me an excuse to change my template. Being not very creative, this template is still not quite my creation but an adaptation of a template by Douglas Bowman named the Harbour template available on the Blogger site. Hopefully by the next anniversary, I can create my own template.

Finally I would like to thank all those who had read, commented or linked to my blogs.

Fare hike by Public Transport Council justified?

Categories: Singapore

As expected the Public Transport Council (PTC) has approved the fare increase for the bus and trains. This will take effect from October 1. This comes after the two public transport operator SMRT and SBS applied for the fare increase in August 2006. This fare revision represents an overall fare increase of 1.7%. Is the fare increase justified?

To answer this question, one has to understand the workings of the two public transport operator in Singapore. Unlike in many countries where public transports are managed by the government, here the two companies are public-listed companies. Therefore, bottom-line matters and they are answerable to the shareholders. How does one rationalise this seemingly conflicting interest between the shareholders and the public? The government has created a non-partisan council, the PTC, to oversees the public transport fare as well as to set benchmarks for the companies. The intention is that the PTC will balance the interest of the shareholders and the public, so that the will be a win-win solution to the fare structures. However does this ideal works?

Since the creation of the PTC in 1987, there has been at least 3 increases in fare structures. The oft mentioned justification is that to maintain a world class transport system, there should be some form of profits so that the public transport company can expand its scope and hence further improve its services. This sounds reasonable until one looked at the result of a survey carried out in 2005 by PTC on the satisfaction of service. Surprisingly, despite the fare increases in 2000, 2001 and 2002, the mean satisfaction rate was only 6.4! If this is maintainance or improvement on our world class transport system, then the justification seemed flawed; unless of course, the transport system had not been world class after all before the fare hikes. Even taken into account the sometimes unrealistic demands of Singaporeans, the satisfactory rates seemed rather low.

Looking at the financial reports of both companies, one finds that both companies are very well managed. They have been making handsome profits consistently through the years, even during the SARS crisis. From the financial reports of SMRT, the company has double digit growth every year. SBS, although making less profit, still has a healthy growth of around 5%. Even last year, when the price of petrol has gone up 2-fold, both companies manage to make a profit. Kudos to the management. Hence, despite annual growths, both companies still made submissions for fare increases.

The North-East MRT line (NEL), was awarded to the SBS, when it was opened in 2003. The fares were set higher than those of existing MRT lines of North-South Line and East-West Line. This was because of the lower ridership and hence relatively higher operating cost. This was despite the fact that the NEL was not build by SBS, but funded by tax-payers money. Again the higher fare structure for the NEL was set and approved by the PTC.

Who are the people making up the PTC? A look at the make up of the council members, and one will immediately appreciates that all of them are from the management sector. This is reassuring because of their competency. However, from statistics, the members - professionals, business persons, academia, union and grassroot leaders - all tended to own cars. As a result, one wonders whether they really know what is happening on the ground. No doubt they can get feedback from the public, but second experience is not a true experience. Being in the upper middle or even upper income class, apart from grassroot and union leaders, do they really know about the hardship experienced by the less fortunate?

In granting the fare increase this time, two reasons were cited. One was because of a rosier economic outlook and the other because of higher employment figures. Both reasons are welcome indeed. But just because of a rosier outlook, does not mean more money in our pockets. Higher employment figures means more people will hold a job. Those who are already drawing a salary will not be affected by both the reasons given. Hence, the justification given by PTC is flawed!

Of course like previous fare increases, measures were taken to help to placate the public. Both companies, being very responsible companies, help to defray the impact when they pledge to give out one-off $20 transport vouchers, totalling $1 million between them. This is against an expected earnings of $10 million from the fare hikes. And thanks to their generous $20 voucher, now the needy gets to make 10 free rides if they chalked the maximum fare trip, and still have left over for a $1 drink. In terms of days, they get to make free trips over five days out of total of 250 working days. Furthermore, this $1 million is just 'paper loss', because irrespective of whether the vouchers are used, the operating cost remains the same.

To be fair to the public transport company, it is indeed commendable that they have manage to cap the maximum fare from $1.20 in 1990 to just $1.90 in 2006. This is despite an inflation rate of 3% yearly and rising manpower costs.

So is the fare increase justified? I think it depends on what the priority is in the Singapore model of public transport. If its priority is to the public, then the increase is not justified. The public transport company had been making handsome profits consistently for the last few years. This is despite the SARS and the oil crises. With such profits, it is hard to see why further fare increase is necessary. The profit already made can be ploughed back to improve the service or to increase the scope of the company. Further more, profits can be made through other avenues like advertising panels or shop space. With a rosier economic outlook, one would not be surprised that the revenue from these channels will increase. Hence, there is little need for any fare restructuring unless it is for the benefits of the shareholders. And this is clearly seen in the financial reports which showed yearly increases in the dividend payout.

Reference:
Fare increase from October

9/11 Anniversary

Categories: Wormie Says

Five years ago, to the day, two commercial planes flew into the Twin Tower of New York after they were hijacked by terrorists. Thus marked the begining of a very volatile world where wars are no longer fought between nations and when armies are the shooting targets. Now the enemy is invisible and not bound by borders and the targets includes the young, the old, male and female from all walks of life, religious background and racial groups.

The terrorists who hijacked the two commercial planes and crashed them into the Twin Tower claimed themselves to be Muslims. Muslims who are fighting against the oppressions and exploitations of Western governments. Muslims who are fighting against Zionist and governments that supported them. And nearly all of them were of Arab origins.

Western governments lead by the US may have played into the hands of these extremists in their quest to fight terrorism. Based on unconfirmed intelligence report, the US invaded Afghanistan and Iraq. The invasion of Iraq and its sequelae in the Guatanamo Bay and the recent admission by President Bush on the existence of covert interrogation prisons in countries of friendly governments may have confirmed what the extremists had said all along - that Western governments are oppressing the Arab world. Hence such tactics in war against terrorisms may be counter-productive in the long run, only to push more moderates into the extremists path.

However it is also surprising that how a few people can claim to represent the more than 1.2 billion Muslims in the world? How can such extremists even claim to profess Islam when the majority of Muslims follow peaceful co-existence and denounce violence? When the vast majority of Muslims in the world are practising peaceful rituals, surely they cannot be wrong; and if the vast majority is not wrong, then these few extremists must be wrong when they used violence to further their cause. Common sense will tell you that you don't kill innocent civilians. If you want to fight a war, fight with the people who can fight back, people who carry weapons or people who command those with weapons; not those who cannot fight back, those who may not even agree with their government's policies. How can killing innocent civilians make the extremists any different from the real or perceived oppressions by Western government on the Arabs? It is even worse when some of the terror attacks are carried out on Muslims themselves; the very people such extremists claim to be fighting for.

In this anniversary, it is important to let the extremists know that they cannot win using terror attacks. Hence it is important that everyone work closely towards this end. Stereotyping and prejudices should be avoided. There shouldn't be any backlash against the Muslims every time there is a terror attack. The Muslims are victims themselves just like the rest. Just because the terrorists claim to be Muslims and of Arab origin, this does not make every Arab or Muslims a terrorist. If we become xenophobics, this will only push more moderates into the extremists camp and hence further fuel terror attacks.

The heightened security measures implemented after the terror attacks are understandable. However it must not be too disruptive and restrictive until normal daily activity cannot be carried out. Profiling should also be minimised, otherwise it will be seen as a prejudice to a certain section of the society.

If we suspect all Muslims or Arabs or if security measures are so restrictive as to limit daily activities, then unfortunately, the extremists have won and those who had died five years ago from the terror attack would have died in vain.

It is not just about closing one eye

Categories: Malaysia

The current spat between the MPs and the Custom officials brings some hope and disappointment at the same time. This saga went into hiatus when the Finance Ministry issued a gag order.

The spat started in May this year when the Custom Department revealed that MP for Jasin Datuk Mohd Said Yusof had asked the Custom Department to 'close one eye' on a consignment of timber illegally imported from Indonesia. This was followed by accusation by the MP that confiscated luxury cars by the Customs were only reserved by certain people when it should be done through open auction. Things re-ignited in August when Customs enforcement director Mohamed Adnan Ariffin alleged that the MP had sent a threatening SMS to him in May. This triggered a barage of criticisms leveled at the lavish spending of the Custom department in Parliament.

To the simple people like myself, there are three issues at hand. Firstly, the integrity of the MPs. Since 2000, the Customs Department had been allowed to auction off confiscated cars. Why had the MPs not revealed the close 'auction' used by the Customs previously when this had probably gone on for some time? Why was this only revealed after the Jasin MP felt slighted after he could not get the Merc he had wanted because 'it was reserved by somebody else'? Then there is the barage of attacks by the MPs alleging the exorbitant cost of the Custom uniform and the very expensive uniform accessories of the Custom's higher echelon. It is good for the MPs to question such costly practice, because this is of interest to the public and a matter of accountability. However, the ferocity and the vindictiveness of the way the issue was handled by the MPs smacks of arrogance and confrontations. This is because a few days before this incident, it was reported that the Custom Department had challenged the MPs as to their Parliamentary immunity to say whatever they wanted. Hence looking at the whole picture, it does seem that the MPs are self-serving and with an axe to grind.

Secondly, where can the Customs Department seek recourse when they had been victimised? This is important because any other governmental agencies could have faced the same pressure from MPs who tried to pull rank either for their constituents or themselves; the Customs Departments involvement was just coincidental. Of course the correct way is through the relevant Ministry, which in this case is the Finance Ministry; but if there is too much inertia to the investigations, what else can be done? Is it right to use the media? I do not have the answer and I hope the government will look into this. However the press do have a role to play because sometimes the government needs to be coaxed to look into any complaints. Otherwise, like many things in Malaysia, some complaints will just be lost within the bureaucratic machinery.

Thirdly, the conduct of the MPs themselves. When this saga first surfaced 4 months ago, despite the Jasin MP in admitting to his call to 'close one eye', calls for him to be referred to the Rights and Privileges Committee were rejected with Datuk Shahrir Samad, the leader of the Backbenchers Club, being the casualty. This was because he had gone against the Whip when he supported the Opposition's motion. However after this incident, the Prime Minister had agreed to a Select Committee to look into the matter. Four months since and the Committee is still looking. I would have thought that this is an opportunity for the government and the MPs themselves to outline a list of do's and don't so that they will not be wrongly accused, stay accountable and in the process maintain their moral authority. Unfortunately, so far the only decision made by the Parliamentary Select Committee on Integrity is to stop the practice of 'auctioning' of confiscated cars to politicians and senior civil servants. The one-eye case is still being looked at.

Has any good been brough about by this four-month saga? I think yes. Now the public know about the excesses in the Customs Department's budgetting and the abuse in the auctioning system for confiscated luxury cars by the Customs. But at the same time, this saga has shown the deficiencies of the MPs themselves. They maybe the lawmaker but they may not necessarily be guided by the laws they created themselves. They also show a weakness to correct any perceptions or wrongdoings if it involves their kind. This is a pity because a golden opportunity to redeem themselves and increase their moral authority had just been lost.

The cameo culture

Categories: Singapore

The videoclips of NSmen clowning around report published by the September 3 edition of Sunday Times highlight the problems with irresponsible use of the ubiquitous camera phone. The camera phone which was first introduced few years back had created a new culture - the cameo culture. Suddenly there is a camera on-hand when one is needed. Coupled with that, the digital format meant that the pictures need not be printed to hardcopy for it to be viewed. The presence of photo-sharing and video-sharing site has make the sharing of such photos and videos more compelling. In short, now everyone can take photos/videos at anytime anywhere and share it with just about anyone.

In the clip which was uploaded to the YouTube.com, two NSmen in uniform were shown fight each other, one with a parang with the other shooting him with his rifle loaded with blanks. After a few shots, the parang-weilding compatriot fell, with both men laughing after that. I am not sure about the security implications from such a short video, but definitely safety rules had been broken. It is well-known that pointing a weapon at anyone is no-no because there is always a risk of injury to the other person. This covers all weapons as well as sports equipment. Even the safe sport of golf, golfers are not to hit the ball if they are people on the tee. Blanks had known to kill because blanks can still penetrate the body if the shot was near enough.

Some people may say that give the NSmen a break, after all they are young and out for some fun. Unfortunately, such irresponsible acts are not limited to youngsters alone. In the UK, an investigation is now being carried out by the Fire department after a video in which a firefighter was spurned in a tumbler dryer was shown.

The above two pranks were fortunately relatively harmless. In these days of where everyone is trying to be famous overnight, with photo/video hosting sites promoting there sites with prizes going to the most popular, people may just be taken away with their pranks. Hence, there is this video where a cat was burned deliberately, where bullying is glorified and putting a firecracker in a bottle which is up the behind! And all these in the name of fun and glory! How sick can a person be?

In vigilantism, there is always a risk of mob justice. The line between helping and victimising is very thin. Sometimes, a picture does not tell the whole truth. When this happens, the victim has no chance to defend himself because a verdict had already been made by society at large. This will embarass, hurt and sometimes harm the victim. Vigilante site had been sprouting up. Two examples are Rude Singaporeans and Parking Idiots in Singapore. A car which was seen parking into the next lot may not be the culprit but the victim. The driver may park that way because the first car which did not park properly had left, leaving the second car looking as the culprit. But the photo did not 'explain' the real incident which created this situation.

The people who took the photos that were posted on the Rude Singapore site are also vigilante in a sense. Here they are fighting against badly behaved people who has not regards for the next person. However in their quest to fight for the truth, they had themselves committed the very thing they profess to fight against. By taking the photo of another person without his knowledge, this is invading of privacy - especially if it is uploaded to the web for the world to see. Isn't such action rude in the first place. Imagine yourself appear on the website because your MP3 player was loud enough for the next person to hear your music.

Camera phones also means that anybody can capture video of themselves for rememberence. This brings to mind the Tammy video episode. She was probably not wrong to film herself in a sex act. However she was wrong in assuming that the simple action of taking herself can backfire so badly. With the digital age and internet, anything digital is fluid - it can be sent to anyone anywhere in the world. Coupled with the natural curiosity of human nature, any video of the intimate nature will surely finds its way to the Net. Hence if you want to take anything for posterity, make sure that they can stand any scrutiny and will not hurt yourself.

Cameo culture is here to stay and is not necessarily bad. With the always available camera phone, candid snapshots can be taken anytime. This can create a culture of creativity and discovery. Sometimes such photos can served as proof as when an accident had happened.

On the reverse, if not used properly, much harm can happened like that listed above. Therefore before you press the snap button on your camera phone the next time, ask yourself whether this simple action is responsible, not dangerous to yourself and others, acceptable manners and not snitching.

Remember, the action of taking is a simple process but the result may be a convoluted and drawn-out one.


Links:
Gruesome stunts, risky pranks mar video sites

The truth about affirmative action

Categories: Malaysia

The rebuke by a local Malay on a speech by the Deputy Health Minister Datuk Dr Abdul Latiff Ahmad that “I understand they do not want to end up becoming like the Malays in Singapore” should wake up the government with regards to its affirmative actions.

The affirmative actions which was started after the racial riots in 1969, was started with a very good intention. Give the weaker a hand so that they can compete. Unfortunately the affirmative action was drafted with a racial slant and as a result the bumiputra and non-bumiputra division was created. Hence the affirmative action became a policy to try to uplift the bumiputras, almost always a Malay, from their poverty. I said almost always because by definition bumiputras included natives of Sarawak and Sabah like the Kadazans, Ibans, Minangkabaus and Bajaus - but are often being overlooked.

The affirmative policy had been accepted by Malaysians of all races. What is in dispute is the implementation. The spirit of the policy is good, but under the cloak of a good policy, the implementation had actually worsen the plight of the people the policy tried hard to improve. In the implementation, the bumiputras are given help but not the way help should be given. The help given to these bumiputras are more like handouts, with no effort needed on the part of the person receiving it. Hence there are alot of companies with a bumiputra partner who probably does not even know what business he is in because he was chosen only because his name was needed by a non-bumiputra company to be registered. His 'job' is just to have his name on the registration form and he gets a monthly pay. Hence after 49 years of independence, progress in the true sense did not materialised.

The writer, Mohd Jamil Abdullah, has rightly pointed out the problem with the affirmative policy. Because most bumiputra are served with handouts, humans being humans, complacency sets in. They lose the fighting spirit and the spirit to excel, unable escape the comfort zone. In the end, they are probably worse off than before the implementation of the Affirmative action. It is true that they are now richer, but such wealth is actually hollow because if the supporting structures are knocked off, such wealth will just disappeared. Previously, they had depended on themselves for their wealth, and hence their foundations were stable.

It is however not true to say that the affirmative policy had failed. Despite its poor implementation, some bright bumiputra emerged. Tun Mahathir, Tun Zaim and Datuk Seri Rafidah are good example of how the policy has helped the bumiputra - but at what cost? Pouring millions just to nurture a handful. Can the situation be improved? I think the situation can be improved if the bumiputra are given help to enable them to compete on a level playing field. From then on they have to prove their worth before they are given any further opportunity by the government under the affirmative policy. Which means that if you want to be a company director, you better prove that you are worth your salt. That way, the wealth of the bumis is built on a firmer foundations and at the same time earn the respect that is due.

I am indeed heartened that a bumiputra has come out and express his true feelings with regards to the implementation of the affirmative action. If the same words were uttered by a non-bumi, even if in the interest of the nation and not for any selfish, self-serving reasons, he would be shot down and branded a traitor. Hopefully, when the words were uttered by an 'insider', it will carry more weight and appeal to the intellect and common sense of the government. Maybe there is still hope for Malaysia.