The Terminal 3 of Beijing International Capital Airport, one of the largest in the world with 986k square meter in total floor area, in many ways resemble that of Hong Kong International Airport. After all they are both designed by the same British architech, Norman Foster.
T3 is made up of a main passenger terminal (Terminal 3C), 2 satellite concourses (T3D and T3E). Check in is at T3C and all international flight arrive and leave at T3E. Connecting between them is the intra-terminal train.
My experience as a frequent traveller to Beijing has been one marred with many glitches especially with the intra-terminal train.
In several occasions since March 26, 2008, the train I boarded stoped mid-way and took unjustifiable long time to travel the 2 km stretch between T3C and T3E. In one occassion, there was smoke coming out from the electric cable powering the train.
In all incidents, there was not a single announcement to explain the cause or to comfort the passenger anxiety.
Another disappointment with the T3 is how the boarding gate is numbered. It is not intuitive for the passengers, especially those who are in a hurry, to locate the exact boarding gate. While I understand the logic of the numbering but the design of the airport boarding gate that spread out to two large and distant wings and the numbering system employed made it very un-traveller-friendly.
Lately, my departing fligts have suffered significant delay in departing averaging 1 and 1/2 hour due to air traffic control. I don't know if this is related to the tighter security imposed or attributable to other causes.
Few major improvements are noted: checking in is much quicker and there are a lot more immigration counters at traveller's service. They typically offer the travellers their best smile. Hope this will be continued after the Olympic game.
At the security check, one of the most stringent after USA, the staffs entrusted to do the security check are all young damsels. This is a big plus to mostly male travellers. One of my colleague comment that he does enjoy the brief body search which he finds rather sensual.
Monday, July 21, 2008
Friday, July 18, 2008
Globalization manifies the religious conflict
The statement that cause you rumminating is more of a dicta than a ratio. Frankly, I have not done any statistics to back up the assertion and the comment is made with instinct out of general observation and general knowledge of history.
My unscientific view is that the religious segtarianism and polarization have widened following the globalization in particular in the form of communication and transportation.
My observation is that religious conflict doesn't exist in a country where a particular religion has the hegemony, like those in South America, Saudi Arab and Japan.
Country where followers of different faiths are sizable and yet the country is stable without polarization are few in between. In Asia, Korea is exemplary where the Christians and Buddhists are at peace. Though Malaysia is without violence, the polarization does exist with government backed Islamization policy from 1980s.
Where followers of two competing faiths in a country are sizable, religion is always used as a cause or a pretext. Sri Lanka (Buddhism vs Hinduism), India (Hinduism vs Islam), Thailand (Buddhism vs Islam), Iraq (intra-Islam), Northern Ireland (intra-Christianity) are examples where the domestic religious segtarianism reaches the level of violence.
The world at large is dominated by the rivalry between the two great monotheistic tradition, represented by Islam and Judeo-Christianity, played out in the proxy conflict between Israel and Palestinan.
The scope of this conflict stretches from the islands in the Philippines and Indonesia to inland in Africa. The actors of this conflict reside in the cities in Europe and America as well as in the oasis town in Arab and villages in Asia.
This conflict is not new, it is millenium old. Yet the intensity of the rivalry between these two monotheistic faiths has taken a new chapter of accute intensity following the globalization.
Any incident with religious dimension (think of salman rushdie, Danish cartoon, collateral damage by American, 911, Palestinian retaliation against Israelis) whether domestic or international can quickly be turned into a much bigger religious rivalry and often civilizational clash supported and funded by an international network of supporters and sympathizer whether organized or individual.
This is not possible in the past to reach the current scale and intensity when the mode of communication is not instant and the mean of transportation is slowed. Thanks to cell phone, satelli
I am inclined to believe that the security check and liquid items limit imposed on me at airport can be traced to this religious segtarianism. We are just too polite not to admit it.
This is my argument that globalization has exarbated the religious conflict like never before in the world at large.
Religion itself arguably is not the cause, it is always the people, said many religious apologist and moderate. This is the same as the car is not the cause of accident but the driver.
Yet, didn't we regulate traffic rules and impose on the passenger the safety belt. The same applies to the practice of religion.
There has to be rules. It is not a restriction on freedom of idea, conscience or religion. It is the rules governing the practice of religions to make sure tolerance replaces violence and diversity replaces adversity.
My unscientific view is that the religious segtarianism and polarization have widened following the globalization in particular in the form of communication and transportation.
My observation is that religious conflict doesn't exist in a country where a particular religion has the hegemony, like those in South America, Saudi Arab and Japan.
Country where followers of different faiths are sizable and yet the country is stable without polarization are few in between. In Asia, Korea is exemplary where the Christians and Buddhists are at peace. Though Malaysia is without violence, the polarization does exist with government backed Islamization policy from 1980s.
Where followers of two competing faiths in a country are sizable, religion is always used as a cause or a pretext. Sri Lanka (Buddhism vs Hinduism), India (Hinduism vs Islam), Thailand (Buddhism vs Islam), Iraq (intra-Islam), Northern Ireland (intra-Christianity) are examples where the domestic religious segtarianism reaches the level of violence.
The world at large is dominated by the rivalry between the two great monotheistic tradition, represented by Islam and Judeo-Christianity, played out in the proxy conflict between Israel and Palestinan.
The scope of this conflict stretches from the islands in the Philippines and Indonesia to inland in Africa. The actors of this conflict reside in the cities in Europe and America as well as in the oasis town in Arab and villages in Asia.
This conflict is not new, it is millenium old. Yet the intensity of the rivalry between these two monotheistic faiths has taken a new chapter of accute intensity following the globalization.
Any incident with religious dimension (think of salman rushdie, Danish cartoon, collateral damage by American, 911, Palestinian retaliation against Israelis) whether domestic or international can quickly be turned into a much bigger religious rivalry and often civilizational clash supported and funded by an international network of supporters and sympathizer whether organized or individual.
This is not possible in the past to reach the current scale and intensity when the mode of communication is not instant and the mean of transportation is slowed. Thanks to cell phone, satelli
I am inclined to believe that the security check and liquid items limit imposed on me at airport can be traced to this religious segtarianism. We are just too polite not to admit it.
This is my argument that globalization has exarbated the religious conflict like never before in the world at large.
Religion itself arguably is not the cause, it is always the people, said many religious apologist and moderate. This is the same as the car is not the cause of accident but the driver.
Yet, didn't we regulate traffic rules and impose on the passenger the safety belt. The same applies to the practice of religion.
There has to be rules. It is not a restriction on freedom of idea, conscience or religion. It is the rules governing the practice of religions to make sure tolerance replaces violence and diversity replaces adversity.
Thursday, July 17, 2008
Confucianist Perspective of Barack Obama
A new post is coming! The past few days I have been ruminating on a remark from KY earlier, that "...history has not gathered sufficient number of success in enlightening mankind." That made me wonder how much of that statement is true because I am by nature, optimistic.
So ruminating is what I am doing, thinking in short bursts until I get interrupted or distracted, and will be happy to share my thoughts when they are (finally) coherent!
Meantime, last weekend we went on a short trip to Lake Skeneatheles one of the 'Finger Lakes' in upstate New York. I had an amazing experience swimming in the lake and its icy cold crystal clear waters. The water actually felt different more alive and energetic; and I was bouncing with energy after that.
I also had the opportunity to finish reading all the chapters of Barack Obama's Audacity of Hope that I'd skipped or skimmed through earlier. I must say its an intelligently sumptious and nutritious read. Every chapter is a powerful and well-written weave of personal anecdote, a masterful dissection of the prevailing arguments that both sides of the political spectrum hurl at one another and the public, always seeking to understand before shaving away the extreme, unrealistic or simply mistaken views, often emerging with a set of very plausible basic principles with which to move ahead. I was more impressed than ever.
Something else also came through. Amidst all the chatter in the media about Obama shifting to the centerist position and changing his positions tells me that they have not read his book. The candidate you see today is what he wrote about 2 years ago. He is a center-left and has always been. HRC gave him the cover to run from there (in substance) but he has been skillful enough to appeal to the idealism of the leftier fringes.
But above all, its the thinking style and personal qualities that shone through. I thought this is a voice I would like to listen to for year to come not because he has all the answers but because he offers a compelling reasoning of the challenges we face without dismissing either the difficulties or different views. The incorrigble Confucian in me finds the idea of leaders as a teacher and a guide a very attractive proposition.
So ruminating is what I am doing, thinking in short bursts until I get interrupted or distracted, and will be happy to share my thoughts when they are (finally) coherent!
Meantime, last weekend we went on a short trip to Lake Skeneatheles one of the 'Finger Lakes' in upstate New York. I had an amazing experience swimming in the lake and its icy cold crystal clear waters. The water actually felt different more alive and energetic; and I was bouncing with energy after that.
I also had the opportunity to finish reading all the chapters of Barack Obama's Audacity of Hope that I'd skipped or skimmed through earlier. I must say its an intelligently sumptious and nutritious read. Every chapter is a powerful and well-written weave of personal anecdote, a masterful dissection of the prevailing arguments that both sides of the political spectrum hurl at one another and the public, always seeking to understand before shaving away the extreme, unrealistic or simply mistaken views, often emerging with a set of very plausible basic principles with which to move ahead. I was more impressed than ever.
Something else also came through. Amidst all the chatter in the media about Obama shifting to the centerist position and changing his positions tells me that they have not read his book. The candidate you see today is what he wrote about 2 years ago. He is a center-left and has always been. HRC gave him the cover to run from there (in substance) but he has been skillful enough to appeal to the idealism of the leftier fringes.
But above all, its the thinking style and personal qualities that shone through. I thought this is a voice I would like to listen to for year to come not because he has all the answers but because he offers a compelling reasoning of the challenges we face without dismissing either the difficulties or different views. The incorrigble Confucian in me finds the idea of leaders as a teacher and a guide a very attractive proposition.
Thursday, July 10, 2008
Freedom, Accountability and the Thinking Being
My biology teacher from Form 3 says homosepiens means "thinking man" or in the modern understanding of the language "thinking person". But historically having independent thought was seen to be a dangerous idea.
The powers that be were worried, "What if they think the 'wrongly'?" or worse, "They will convince others of their 'wrong' ideas?". Hence, even as the shackles were loosened on the freedom of thought other controls remain to limit the freedom. To borrow (and twist) the words of Voltaire, man was born to think freely but everywhere he think only within the limits of his beliefs.
Most ideology - whether religious, political, social or intellectual - sought to separate the 'good' from the 'bad' and 'right' from 'wrong'. And there are various ways to control how people think: through the force of law and persecution on the one extreme, to peer pressure, to guilt and shame. Mostly the way we think is simply result of social conditioning. We were given a template view of reality and we simply ... stopped thinking. Most of us were simply lulled into unthinking ignorance.
I am reminded of a conversation with my new office-mate - a German chap named Kai. I do not remember what we were talking about but he told me that - above all else - the German education system is based on everyone thinking and acting based on their own decisions. Given their recent history, it is frowned upon to be agreeing or doing something just because someone else says so. I have not met enough Germans to make my own assessment of how well that is working in reality, but I believe it is laudable as a starting point.
So let me introduce a different perspective to your posting that there should be rules on religious freedom, I'd submit that rules limiting thinking or ideas (I put religion as an idea or thought) is actually the default setting for much of human history. The trouble starts when different groups try to impose their ideas on others. Intolerance cannot be distinguish by whether it is rooted in politics, race, social conditions or religion, for they all rely on division and mobilization of the unthinking and ignorant through fear and hatred by convincing them that they are more “right” than all the others.
And I believe the answer to intolerance and divisive ideology lies in the thinking being. The issue, my friend, is not that there is too much freedom of religious thinking and too little limits. On the contrary, my contention is that there is not enough thinking and hence, people get lulled by religion into conditioned reflexes and into imposing their own "limits" on what others should be allowed to think.
History has taught us again and again how dangerous the state of unthinking ignorance is. Any ideology be it religious, political, social or intellectual are mainly the creation of human thoughts and this state of unthinking ignorance is being exploited again and again to the present day causing the suffering of millions. Surely, one would think, that kind of outcome could not be 'right'. A note here: although I believe in 'larger' spiritual energies of wisdom and intelligence that are above you and me, but I find the practice of religions to be full of human follibies.
Liberal education in the sense of one that encourages wide-ranging intellectual exploration, encourages original thought, critical thinking and robust testing of ideas ... is actually a fairly old idea giving rise to many of the world's great philosophies. A liberal education is associated with the idea of an 'educated' or 'learned' person. Although it may be tougher or more lucrative to be a chartered accountant, one tend not to think of them when asked to describe someone "learned". (For lawyers, the answer is "yes of course"). But historically, being expected to think tended to be the preserve of the few and not for the person in the street.
Even the very idea that everyone should be educated is a relatively new concept. Even for a society where education is so revered and so key to worldly success as in ancient
Is there room for religion in this? Strangely, yes. I would argue but the approach to religion need to be secularized. True, there may be issues where logic and reason can go no further, and perhaps, one need to trust in a higher being. But religion lulls the discussion into unquestioning dogma and simply allows the divine to become an excuse for non-thinking and lack of human responsibility.
So my suggestion is to encourage more reasoned thinking/ action, intellectual exploration and personal responsibility for own actions; and at the same time, acceptance of questioning and debate (hence the possibility that one may be wrong), respect for differences (hence accepting moderation) and faith in humanity (hence get away from wanting to control and remake others). The key lies within the thinking person being responsible for his own thoughts and his own actions
Wednesday, July 9, 2008
Accountability of Religious Freedom
History tells us that the earlier European settlers in America were Christian sects persecuted by the mainstream Christianity way back in 17th century. It seems now that the descendants of the persecuted are now discriminating against the non co-religionist.
The story we have today from CNN was this American atheist soldier who sued Army for discrimination whilst serving for this country in Iraq. (see http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/07/08/atheist.soldier/index.html?iref=mpstoryview).
Though the Founder separates the church from the state at the time of establishing the Union, the modern history of USA, however, has shown significant religious inroad onto the administration of the state especially when the GOP is in power. This is mainly attributed to the religious base that GOP depends upon.
Whereas there are enactment almost everywhere for the freedom of religion or conscience, there are often too little protection for the minority who profess a non-mainstream faith. Thank goodness it is the USA, had the same occurred in many other countries, there is no legal recourse.
The point here is not about seeking a legal recourse. Rather, it is to ask some basic questions: whether the religion polarizes or unifies the peoples; whether religion is tolerant to accommodate rival faiths.
We often hear a lot of political correct answers. This piece is not one of them.
Almost all the monotheistic religions, from Judaism, Christianity to Islam, there is always a single God. Naturally as repeatedly proven by history, these faiths and their believers are competiting for converts and influence in society and government. They seek to entrench their religious interest at the expense of the minority or competing faiths. If they are in the minority or outside the establishment, they attempt to encroach upon and to wrest power from the established religion power base. These competition and rivalry is often intense and sometimes bloody.
Missionaries of any religions, however charitable and selfless their service, their ultimate, if not, unspoken goal is to bring the non-religionist to worship the God whom they pray. Admitedly there are moments of peace and harmony but the larger part of the history and the present remain chronically infected by the polarization by competing faiths and their followers. The Israel and Palestine conflict is one of the inter-religious polarization. Iraq is an example of intra-religious polarization.
Even the arguably the most peaceful religion, Buddhism, has spurred, some religious group of right wing militant organization in Sri Lanka. This is not to mention the less intense religious discrimination in the world today.
It is actually not inappropriate to view inter-faith competition, by almost natural extension, religious discrimination and/or persercution, in the same vein as the nation states rivalry, corporate competition and indeed individual dispute.
We have sophisticated public international law and institutions to regulate nation states as well as international bodies' conduct. We also have rich body of corporate laws and large number of agencies to enforce and regulate corporate behaviour. Equally, we have civil and criminal law to maintain a proper civil community.
Yet there is no law regulating religions. It is perhaps the freedom of religion that
everyone subscribe now that polarize the world and the people. Freedom without responsibility and accountability is like the freedom of one's fist that doesn't stop even at the other's nose. The responsibility and accountability are not owing to the God one worship alone.
Answering to one's God cannot be a passport to preach hatred against; to instill intolerance and contempt against; to advocate violence and sanction against the non co-religionist. There are different Gods and maybe no God to different persons and hence a common value system has to be in place.
To make sure that religion is not the cause of or pretext for polarization, children ought to be brought up in a system of common values of respecting and tolerating different practice of faiths. Only if the children of today and tommorrow are brought up this way, will we stop the vicious religion-inspired and sometime sanctioned polarization from setting in just like what the history have all along shown us.
Further regulation or least a code of conduct on preaching and missionary activities need to be propagated. Even as open a society as America, we have seen from the Rev. Jeremiah Wright's episode, which helped to spur so intense a debate of what is acceptable of preaching in the America. Without responsibility, who knows even the churches of the free world today may become the religious fundamentalist in the Middle East.
We must recognize the constant threat of religious polarization is as critical and as pressing as environmental or humanitarian issues. Avoiding this topic is sure to see many more years of human suffering and casualty.
The world today can do something about this. As much as how an international charter has given the modern world the concept of the freedom of religion, there ought to be now another international charter regulating the conduct and behaviour of religious activities of faith-based organizations and governments.
We call it the Accountability of Religious Freedom!
The story we have today from CNN was this American atheist soldier who sued Army for discrimination whilst serving for this country in Iraq. (see http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/07/08/atheist.soldier/index.html?iref=mpstoryview).
Though the Founder separates the church from the state at the time of establishing the Union, the modern history of USA, however, has shown significant religious inroad onto the administration of the state especially when the GOP is in power. This is mainly attributed to the religious base that GOP depends upon.
Whereas there are enactment almost everywhere for the freedom of religion or conscience, there are often too little protection for the minority who profess a non-mainstream faith. Thank goodness it is the USA, had the same occurred in many other countries, there is no legal recourse.
The point here is not about seeking a legal recourse. Rather, it is to ask some basic questions: whether the religion polarizes or unifies the peoples; whether religion is tolerant to accommodate rival faiths.
We often hear a lot of political correct answers. This piece is not one of them.
Almost all the monotheistic religions, from Judaism, Christianity to Islam, there is always a single God. Naturally as repeatedly proven by history, these faiths and their believers are competiting for converts and influence in society and government. They seek to entrench their religious interest at the expense of the minority or competing faiths. If they are in the minority or outside the establishment, they attempt to encroach upon and to wrest power from the established religion power base. These competition and rivalry is often intense and sometimes bloody.
Missionaries of any religions, however charitable and selfless their service, their ultimate, if not, unspoken goal is to bring the non-religionist to worship the God whom they pray. Admitedly there are moments of peace and harmony but the larger part of the history and the present remain chronically infected by the polarization by competing faiths and their followers. The Israel and Palestine conflict is one of the inter-religious polarization. Iraq is an example of intra-religious polarization.
Even the arguably the most peaceful religion, Buddhism, has spurred, some religious group of right wing militant organization in Sri Lanka. This is not to mention the less intense religious discrimination in the world today.
It is actually not inappropriate to view inter-faith competition, by almost natural extension, religious discrimination and/or persercution, in the same vein as the nation states rivalry, corporate competition and indeed individual dispute.
We have sophisticated public international law and institutions to regulate nation states as well as international bodies' conduct. We also have rich body of corporate laws and large number of agencies to enforce and regulate corporate behaviour. Equally, we have civil and criminal law to maintain a proper civil community.
Yet there is no law regulating religions. It is perhaps the freedom of religion that
everyone subscribe now that polarize the world and the people. Freedom without responsibility and accountability is like the freedom of one's fist that doesn't stop even at the other's nose. The responsibility and accountability are not owing to the God one worship alone.
Answering to one's God cannot be a passport to preach hatred against; to instill intolerance and contempt against; to advocate violence and sanction against the non co-religionist. There are different Gods and maybe no God to different persons and hence a common value system has to be in place.
To make sure that religion is not the cause of or pretext for polarization, children ought to be brought up in a system of common values of respecting and tolerating different practice of faiths. Only if the children of today and tommorrow are brought up this way, will we stop the vicious religion-inspired and sometime sanctioned polarization from setting in just like what the history have all along shown us.
Further regulation or least a code of conduct on preaching and missionary activities need to be propagated. Even as open a society as America, we have seen from the Rev. Jeremiah Wright's episode, which helped to spur so intense a debate of what is acceptable of preaching in the America. Without responsibility, who knows even the churches of the free world today may become the religious fundamentalist in the Middle East.
We must recognize the constant threat of religious polarization is as critical and as pressing as environmental or humanitarian issues. Avoiding this topic is sure to see many more years of human suffering and casualty.
The world today can do something about this. As much as how an international charter has given the modern world the concept of the freedom of religion, there ought to be now another international charter regulating the conduct and behaviour of religious activities of faith-based organizations and governments.
We call it the Accountability of Religious Freedom!
Tuesday, July 8, 2008
Malaysian ABC = Anwar, Bala and Chua
The typical Ali, Bala and Chong are a poor abandoned lot indeed. And we are not talking of just the poor rural Chinese or Indians.
For all races in modern Malaysia, there are fewer and fewer opportunity to get ahead. If you are in business, business opportunities can be found only at the margins. In the old days, one can find opportunity in mining, timber, rubber or construction but now they are run by conglomerates or given to cronies.
Well-paying jobs are becoming rare in the factories because of competition from China. Elsewhere they require higher and higher qualifications and skills. On the other hand, the quality of education appears to be deteriorating. Government schools are of poor quality and the same can be said for higher education. So much for affirmative action when the prize is sub-standard education. Even as parents flock to send their children to Chinese medium schools, they too are not moving ahead with the times - lets just say the education is not the equal of what children get in Singapore or in Australia. Even then I hear that in smaller towns children drop out of school because they simply lose hope in the value of education. One cannot really blame them for thinking that when they see parents leave their jobs in the bank to be hawkers to earn more money. And good teachers stop teaching to open tuition centers because they need to make more money.
For the middle class, the road ahead just gets steeper and steeper. Malaysia is becoming a 2-tier society; there are 2 standards to almost everything one that is for everyone and the other you pay for. Roads, schools, hospitals, sports facilities, public transport, law and order, media etc. there is one set for the public at large (which is getting worse and worse and trending towards 3rd world level) or the one you pay good money for (which is trending towards first world).
If you are middle class and wanting to maintain your living standards, you pay and pay. First its the car (because the public transport is unacceptable quality), then its private schools, private hospitals, universities, social security/retirement or even to use sports facilities or a swimming pool - all of which you need to pay because the government version is in shambles - toll roads (partly because public roads have been taken away and given to cronies to toll), gated communities (because security outside is in shambles), even to watch TV you need to buy Astro . So the middle class see more and more of their quality of life taken away and turned into something that they have to pay for, and usually that means paying some cronies.
It saddens me to see many middle class (often, Chinese) parents who were managers and professionals but for whom the total sum of their entire life's savings went to pay for higher education for their children (plus a house if lucky). And then those same children now work twice as many hours only to (effectively) make less money their parents once did because they need to spend so much more just to stay alive. I wonder what is the real meaning of life in modern M'sia and if that's much of a life. And we are talking about the lucky ones. Almost everyone I know has an exit plan - Australia, Singapore, Canada, USA or New Zealand.
You would agree something is not right. Perhaps even more than racial politics, loss of civil rights and crony capitalism, the past 25 years has debased the whole notion of the meaning of life in Malaysia. That is the real and everyday tragedy of corruption.
The political system is just another symptom of how Malaysia is missing so much of the sense of common purpose and common decency. Its the comfortable, forgiving and friendly Malaysia where there was a sense of principle, humour, fairness and community.
So while we are rivetted with Anwar, Bala and Chua for good reasons, the level of debate can - and need to be - elevated to a higher level. One wonders who has the moral authority to unite the people provide leadership to fix what really matters.
You would agree something is not right. Perhaps even more than racial politics, loss of civil rights and crony capitalism, the past 25 years has debased the whole notion of the meaning of life in Malaysia. That is the real and everyday tragedy of corruption.
The political system is just another symptom of how Malaysia is missing so much of the sense of common purpose and common decency. Its the comfortable, forgiving and friendly Malaysia where there was a sense of principle, humour, fairness and community.
So while we are rivetted with Anwar, Bala and Chua for good reasons, the level of debate can - and need to be - elevated to a higher level. One wonders who has the moral authority to unite the people provide leadership to fix what really matters.
Friday, July 4, 2008
Two DPMs and a 2Ss- a saiful and a sodomy
The Star, a Malaysian English newspaper, reported on July 24 that Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan, the sodomy accuser against Anwar visited Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak at the latter’s home to seek his view a few days before he lodged a police report against Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim. ( see http://www.thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2008/7/4/nation/21741173&sec=nation)
The Malaysian public are a bunch of lucky fellas and yet they are still ungrateful to the government of the day. The above report reveals how caring and how compassionate the government minister is? Knowing his boss was to pass on the batton to him, Najib leads by example.
Najib, despite holding the second most senior political office in Malaysia and despite his wife being implicated in a gruesome murder in a statutory declaration, still found time to entertain visit from a confessor of sex abuse or a confessor of illicit sexual practice and gave him personal counsel. Kudos to Najib before we revert to criticising him.
On Najib's advice to the poor Saiful, the poor saiful has knocked on to the wrong door. Instead of getting some common sense advise like what every Ali, Bala and Chong in the Malaysian streets would do to a person who has a crime committed against him or her, that is, going to lodge the police report, the YAB, said it was up to him.
Not being trained as a counselor or a lawyer, Najib advice to the poor saiful can be said to be either inapt for lack of common sense or condescending to the intellect of a university dropout.
Maybe the Malaysian government ministers are inapt or condescending in dealing with these sort of uncommon situation, the fact of the matter is that we cannot take away the fact that their caring attitude in openning the their door to counsel sex victims is something they deserve applause.
Perhaps Najib shouldn't stop at counselling at Saiful alone. He should offer himself at says, Lorong Haji Taib, counseling other sexual victims or illicit sexual practictioner.
It is also noted that the DPM office is opened to any scholarship aspirant never mind that the DPM is not the Minister of Education (you may wonder what the MOE is doing that DPM has to do his job)and never mind that the aspirant is a university dropout. Such a compassionate government is indeed rare (much better than the Bush's no child left behind legislation), such much kudos we must give to the government, particularly Najib.
On Saiful, the Malaysian has a lot to learn from him - never mind that one is a university dropout, just goes to the DPM office and ask for the scholarship. Even if one fails, one still get a photoshoot with the power-that-be as a memorabilia.
Certainly if one has ever engaged in any illicit sexual practice such as oral sex besides the anal, which is also a crime in Malaysia and feel the need to repent or simply want to live by the rule of law, one is free to knock on Najib's home to get personal counsel.
Finally, let's deal with whether the sodomy allegation was politically conspired, as Anwar claimed. Najib's admission of Saiful's visiting him days before lodging the police report, ummmm, do give rise to suspicion of political conspiracy, using the standard among every Ali, Bala and Chong (aiya Bala is a sensitive name now) in the Malaysian streets. No question Najib's admission was tactically smart to pre-empt Anwar's allegation of conspiracy before Anwar reveals the Najib-Saiful meeting. It is already sensational to allege a former DPM the second time of sodomy! It is even more sensantional for a sitting DPM to meet with the sodomy accuser before the allegation goes public! don't you think so?
The Malaysian public are a bunch of lucky fellas and yet they are still ungrateful to the government of the day. The above report reveals how caring and how compassionate the government minister is? Knowing his boss was to pass on the batton to him, Najib leads by example.
Najib, despite holding the second most senior political office in Malaysia and despite his wife being implicated in a gruesome murder in a statutory declaration, still found time to entertain visit from a confessor of sex abuse or a confessor of illicit sexual practice and gave him personal counsel. Kudos to Najib before we revert to criticising him.
On Najib's advice to the poor Saiful, the poor saiful has knocked on to the wrong door. Instead of getting some common sense advise like what every Ali, Bala and Chong in the Malaysian streets would do to a person who has a crime committed against him or her, that is, going to lodge the police report, the YAB, said it was up to him.
Not being trained as a counselor or a lawyer, Najib advice to the poor saiful can be said to be either inapt for lack of common sense or condescending to the intellect of a university dropout.
Maybe the Malaysian government ministers are inapt or condescending in dealing with these sort of uncommon situation, the fact of the matter is that we cannot take away the fact that their caring attitude in openning the their door to counsel sex victims is something they deserve applause.
Perhaps Najib shouldn't stop at counselling at Saiful alone. He should offer himself at says, Lorong Haji Taib, counseling other sexual victims or illicit sexual practictioner.
It is also noted that the DPM office is opened to any scholarship aspirant never mind that the DPM is not the Minister of Education (you may wonder what the MOE is doing that DPM has to do his job)and never mind that the aspirant is a university dropout. Such a compassionate government is indeed rare (much better than the Bush's no child left behind legislation), such much kudos we must give to the government, particularly Najib.
On Saiful, the Malaysian has a lot to learn from him - never mind that one is a university dropout, just goes to the DPM office and ask for the scholarship. Even if one fails, one still get a photoshoot with the power-that-be as a memorabilia.
Certainly if one has ever engaged in any illicit sexual practice such as oral sex besides the anal, which is also a crime in Malaysia and feel the need to repent or simply want to live by the rule of law, one is free to knock on Najib's home to get personal counsel.
Finally, let's deal with whether the sodomy allegation was politically conspired, as Anwar claimed. Najib's admission of Saiful's visiting him days before lodging the police report, ummmm, do give rise to suspicion of political conspiracy, using the standard among every Ali, Bala and Chong (aiya Bala is a sensitive name now) in the Malaysian streets. No question Najib's admission was tactically smart to pre-empt Anwar's allegation of conspiracy before Anwar reveals the Najib-Saiful meeting. It is already sensational to allege a former DPM the second time of sodomy! It is even more sensantional for a sitting DPM to meet with the sodomy accuser before the allegation goes public! don't you think so?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)