Saturday, March 29, 2008

Pussycat Dolls fined RM10K for boob and pussy show

Apparently, the promoters of the Pussycat Dolls 2006 concert in KL were recently fined RM10,000 for their act's 'obscene' behaviour on stage. Funny how I seemed to have missed this in the local press.

I'm not sure which is more obscene. An exposed nipple and a flash of pussy lips onstage - or the fact it took DBKL's highly moral and deeply religious enforcement unit nearly 2 years of wanking off to the footage, before deciding to impose the fine.

The uncensored pix can be found at Edison Chen's best friend's site:

'Three Kingdoms. Resurrection of the Dragon' - in cinemas April 3

2008 is a great year to be a Romance of Three Kingdoms fan. Two big screen movies are being released this year. The first is Three Kingdoms: Resurrection of the Dragon.

* Andy Lau - Zhao Yun
* Maggie Q - Cao Ying
* Sammo Hung - Luo Ping-An
* Vanness Wu - Zhao Bao or Guan Xing
* Andy On - Deng Zhi
* Ti Lung - Guan Yu
* Damian Lau - Cao Cao

PLOT: Zhao Yun, the last of the 5 Tiger Generals of Liu Bei's Shu takes a last desperate stand against the invading forces from Wei, led by Cao Ying, the grand daughter of warlord Cao Cao.

Some background on the movie here, including interesting insights on the fictional Cao Ying (ie. not found in the novel) and just who the fark is Luo Ping-An. Another insightful article here.

The second ROTK movie will be 'Battle of Red Cliff' later this year.

Btw, if anyone wants to pick up a free pdf copy of the Romance of the Kingdoms novel, go here. DW has the original and a 're-translated & updated' illustrated version.

Movie trailers and promo posters below:

A 'Fair Go' for all M'sians. How do we be fair, really fair to everyone?

To be honest with you guys, I always scratched my head why many perfectly decent and upstanding Malay folks could be so against meritocracy and so against the abolishment of the NEP (which is after all, the anti-christ of meritocracy). I mean, how could good people be good, but at the same time so unfair?

And then recently, I came across the article below when I was searching for something about the Australian notion of a 'Fair Go'. I spent most of my truly formative adult years between 17 and 22 in Melbourne where I studied and worked. I was and still am totally taken by the uniquely Aussie concept of how everyone, no matter who you are, deserves no less (AND no more) than a fair go. And to this date, it remains the main value system affecting how I lead my life, and also the reason why I blog.

Anyway, the article is entitled 'What is Fair about a 'Fair Go'' and interestingly, it dwells into the different and contrasting 'definitions' of fairness.

Huh??? Wait a cotton pickin' minute... Fairness has more than one meaning? Besides meritocracy? How can? I mean, fair is fair, right? Well folks... apparently not.

There's meritocracy which is essentially the fairness of opportunity. This is free tenders. This is open competition. This is Singapore. Everybody gets the same chance or opportunity. And how each person takes advantage of their equal opportunity determines their personal outcome. So, you work hard, you get rich. You bum around, you don't get rich. That seems fair, no?

But the downside is that along the way, meritocracy loses sight of whether 'everybody' has the same capacity or ability to take advantage of the opportunities. This is the classic Malay argument against meritocracy. That the Chinese are already so far ahead educationally and economically, and are somehow better conditioned for competition - that it's not a level playing field despite the goal posts for the Chinese and Malays being of equal distance apart.

And then there's also egalitarianism which is the fairness of outcome or results. This is one of the primary arguments for the NEP. In that everyone (ie. each race) should get a fair share of the outcome ie. WEALTH. It sounds good. Everyone gets a slice of the cake. Nobody is left out, and nobody is left behind. Everybody gains. Fair, yes?

What egalitarianism doesn't adequately address is how big a slice of the cake should you get, and in fact, whether some people should get any cake at all? Should someone who works harder get a bigger piece of the cake, or should the guy with more kids to feed get more? This is the classic Chinese argument against the NEP. Why should the Chinese pay equal income taxes and bear the same responsibilities and burdens as the Malays, when they don't get the same opportunities in education, politics and business? Why should parents with more kids pay less tax and get more benefits compared to a couple with no kids? In effect, why should the outcome reflect the numerical (racial) composition of society rather than the individual efforts and contribution of each component in that society?

And lastly, there's liberalism which doesn't give a rat's ass what the 'allocation' of opportunities nor outcomes are, as long as everyone plays by the rules. A big question mark here is 'what the hell are the rules?'

In the US, the rules might be called Capitalism. Or the freedom to create your own opportunities and master your own destiny (outcome) within the confines of the American system of inalienable constitutional rights. If you fall by the wayside, too bad. Try again. That's the American dream.

In Malaysia, liberalism is what the NEP has perverted into. Instead of rules that apply to everyone, we have an institutionalised system of unequal laws and govt policies (that are neither meritocratic nor egalitarian) that is deemed fair to everyone - based on a so-called 'Social Contract' or its more recent guise, Ketuanan Melayu. It's fair, and therefore equitable because our forefathers, and perhaps our four mothers also, agreed to it 50 years ago. But they also conveniently forgot to attach a time limit, which essentially places this curse on our descendents as well. Liberalism in the local context might just as well be legalised racial supremacism, where unequal rules are somehow fair... or else. In the past, there was a similar system of 'fairplay' called Apartheid.

Well... all this got me thinking. I mean, really thinking.

I'm in a bit of a no man's land right now, in terms of my convictions. So much so that I haven't been blogging much in the last couple of weeks, despite all the sensational post-general election happenings.

My opinions have always stood uncompromisingly on the bedrock of fairness... meritocracy or the equality of opportunity as I saw it. Now it seems maybe fairness is not quite so straightforward?

In advocating meritocracy and survival of the fittest, we simply ensure equal opportunity and leave the outcomes up to individual effort. It's inscrutably fair in that each person is judged and rewarded on the merits of their ability and effort. But if the outcomes do turn out to be unequally spread at the end of the day (and the Bell Curve ensures they will be so since each individual differs in ability and motivation to work/effort), no amount of meritocratic logic will change the fact that we will end up with some very fit & rich survivors, and lots of very unhappy, unfit & poor ones. Just look at Singapore and virtually every other laissez-faire meritocratic society. The rich get richer and the poor just become poorer. On a sublime level, that's fair and unfair at the same time.

At the other extreme, advocating egalitarianism has to eventually and inevitably lead to a socialist, communist type of society. Where it doesn't matter how hard you work or how smart you are, but the surgeon is going to get paid roughly the same as his gardener, and not much more than his lazy bastard bum of a neighbour who sleeps 18 hours a day. Not rewarding effort and initiative or similarly, refusing to penalise laziness and inaction will simply lead to a society where nobody is motivated to work... at all. It's just not worth it. Since I'm going to get fed anyway, so why the hassle of actually working? Much less work hard?

So... do I hear you say 'strike a balance between meritocracy and egalitarianism'. Ah... but then? Of course lah. Who doesn't know your mother is a woman? But where's the balance? Where do you draw the line and how do you define the point where one side stops being desirable and the other side starts?

Like I said... it got me thinking. Really thinking.

Below are excerpts of the article. Links to the whole thing at the bottom.

What is Fair About a 'Fair Go'?
by Peter Saunders

Social affairs intellectuals who equate popular support for a ‘fair go’ with egalitarianism are out of step with what ordinary Australians think ‘fairness’ means, argues Peter Saunders

An egalitarian, a meritocrat and a classical liberal once sat down to play the board game, Monopoly. All agreed at the outset that it would be fair to give each player the same amount of cash with which to play. The egalitarian thought this was fair because everybody should always have the same. The meritocrat thought it was fair because it created a level playing field on which everybody could compete. The classical liberal thought it was fair because it gave nobody any special favours (the same rules applied to everybody) and it violated nobody’s property rights (since the cash at the start of the game belongs to nobody). So the game began.

Within quite a short time, pandemonium broke out.

‘This is no longer fair!’, cried the egalitarian. ‘Some people now have more money and property than others. Why should I have to put up with Old Kent Road when you are sitting there with Mayfair? We should redistribute to get back as close as we can to the equal shares with which we started.’

The meritocrat, too, was troubled: ‘I don’t agree that we should all end up with the same amount, but I have noticed that those who have played with most skill and who have taken the game most seriously are not being properly rewarded by the fall of the dice. I have no money yet I have tried hard to succeed. Surely diligence and ability deserve more recognition than they are getting?’.

The classical liberal sighed: ‘We have all played by the rules. Nobody has cheated, and nobody has stolen anybody else’s money or title deeds. Nobody pre-ordained the present distribution of money and property—it is the aggregated outcome of each individual’s free and uncoerced actions and decisions. How, then, can this distribution be considered unfair? What would be unfair is if we agreed by a majority vote to take money or property from the most successful player to share it out among the other two, or to give more to the player deemed most deserving. If we were to do that, we would undermine the principle that the same rules must apply to all players. The best player would then probably go elsewhere, and our game sooner or later would collapse into bickering and chaos.’

The three players glared at each other, each wondering how the other two could be so na├»ve. Each player was convinced that their own definition of ‘fairness’ was self-evidently correct. Compromise was out of the question, for it was clearly impossible to share out the assets equally and to reward the most talented player most highly and to leave everybody with the property to which they had established just title.

Shaking the dice and landing in jail, the meritocrat began to sulk. Fined for landing on Mayfair, the egalitarian kicked the board over in a fit of righteous indignation and began to draw up a petition. The liberal picked up the dice, bade the other two farewell, and went off in search of a game of Snakes and Ladders.


Competing principles of ‘fairness’

We saw at the start of this article that there are at least three different principles of ‘fairness’ in our culture. Most social policy writers acknowledge only one—for them, a ‘fair go’ means greater equality of outcomes. But they fail to understand how, on some definitions, the egalitarian policies they espouse can result in greater injustice rather than fairness.

* The egalitarian definition of fairness focuses on the final distribution of resources. Anything that flattens out the distribution of income and wealth is fair; anything that makes it less equal is unfair. A less than equal distribution can only be justified if it can be demonstrated that no other pattern of distribution could make the worst-off people any better off (as in Rawls’s ‘difference principle’).

* Against this, a meritocratic definition of fairness focuses on the principle of ‘just deserts’. Unequal outcomes are fair provided everybody has had a chance to compete on an equal basis. In particular, fairness requires that the most hard-working and talented people should reap the highest rewards (meritocracy rewards ‘ability plus effort’), and this will only happen if there are no major obstacles blocking the achievement of meritorious individuals from the least advantaged backgrounds.

* In contrast with both of these, the classical liberal conception of fairness denies the relevance of any distributional principle, whether egalitarian or meritocratic. Fairness simply requires an open system governed by the rule of law; it is judged by procedures, not outcomes. People must be free to accumulate assets and to transfer them as they see fit. Provided these rules are followed, the result is ‘fair’ (even if talented people go unrecognised or lazy people are favoured by luck or by birth).

These three principles of fairness are logically incompatible with one another. We cannot maintain that equalising people’s incomes through a steeply progressive tax regime is ‘fair,’ for example, if we also think it is fair that people who work hard should be rewarded more than those who do not (meritocratic fairness), or that people should be allowed to keep what they have gained through voluntary exchange (liberal fairness).

The incompatibility of these three principles of fairness complicates any attempt to unravel what Australians mean when they express their support for a ‘fair go.’ What is clear, however, is that we cannot simply assume that the ‘fair go’ translates as support for any one of these principles as against any other.

Our social affairs intellectuals never doubt that the ‘fair go’ means what they want it to mean—egalitarianism. But while it is plausible to suggest that many of us are attracted to the ideal of greater equality, it is also quite possible that many of us also approve of rewarding hard work and talent, and that we want to protect the rights of individuals to enjoy what is lawfully theirs as a result of market transactions and private transfers. Popular conceptions of fairness are likely to be a lot more complex (and perhaps contradictory) than our social affairs intellectuals imagine when they wax indignant about the loss of the ‘fair go’ ethos. The trouble is that, until recently, nobody thought to ask ordinary Australians what they think ‘fairness’ means.

Read the rest of the article here at the webpage or here for the PDF.

Wednesday, March 26, 2008

DAP submits to Malay supremacy. Or is NST printing bullshit again?

So which is it? Is NST misquoting the Perak MB in order to provoke the non-Malays or is The Star doing the same (albeit in the opposite direction) to provoke the Malays?

Whichever it is, DAP or Mohd Nizar should sue the NST or The Star. One of them shouldn't be allowed to get away with what looks (to a layman like me) to be outright lying with seditious intent.

As quoted by NST:

IPOH: Menteri Besar Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin has assured the Malay-Muslims in Perak that the tripartite government of Pas, Keadilan and DAP will respect and protect the community's fundamental beliefs pertaining to Islam, Malay supremacy and the monarchy.

"The DAP representatives respect and accept the Malay supremacy, the institution of royalty and the status of Islam which are provided for in the constitution of the state.

"The establishment of the new state government shows that the 18 DAP state assemblymen have agreed to accept these beliefs," he said, adding that otherwise there would not have been a government of Pas, Keadilan and DAP.
As quoted by The Star:
Meanwhile, Mohammad Nizar clarified that the 18 DAP assemblymen, in accepting him as a Malay mentri besar, did not mean that the party had acceded to Malay supremacy.

“No, I think that the assemblymen were accepting what has been provided for in the state constitution, and are abiding by it,” he said.
Bernama left out any reference to this juicy soundbite entirely when reporting on the same news, here and here.

Thursday, March 13, 2008

Racism is constitutional in this country

Here's some 20th century institutionalised racism for you.

Is there another modern democratic country on this earth (since the demise of Nazi Germany and Apartheid) which constitution specifies the race and religion of its elected leaders?

How can Malaysia be classified as a democracy when the laws itself specify that some citizens enjoy more 'democratic' rights than other citizens?

What's the use of holding elections when there is the possibility (how remote that possibility is, is beside the point. Laws operate in a universe of absolutes)... a possibility that the person elected will be prevented by law from taking up his/her elected office?

Is this any less outrageous and despicable than if women were legally and constitutionally barred from holding some positions or engaging in some professions simply because of their gender? Or if midgets, fat people and bald people were barred because of their lack of height, excess of weight or absence of hair?

Anyway, here's the reason for my rant.., coming to light now in the aftermath of the Perak MB farce.

According to a Abdul Aziz Bari, reportedly a lecturer specialising in constitutional law at the International Islamic University, the state constitutions prescribe that only Malay Muslims can be appointed Menteri Besar and State Secretary in Perlis, Kedah, Kelantan, Terengganu, Pahang, Perak, Selangor, Negeri Sembilan and Johor.

Being that, the sultan of each state however, has the authority to dispense with this requirement at his discretion.

This Malay-Muslim requirement does not apply to states without sultans ie. states with Ketua Menteri like Penang, Malacca, Sabah and Sarawak. And it does not apply to Federal appointments like the Prime Minister and the Chief Secretary to the government.

... di Perlis, Kedah, Kelantan, Terengganu, Pahang, Perak, Selangor, Negeri Sembilan dan Johor hanya orang Melayu dan Islam sahaja yang boleh dilantik untuk menduduki kerusi Menteri Besar dan Setiausaha Kerajaan Negeri.

Perlembagaan memperuntukkan syarat ini, kata Dr. Abdul Aziz lagi, untuk meneruskan kedudukan dalam negeri-negeri Melayu sebelum merdeka dan ini diteruskan selepas merdeka dan dilindungi oleh Perlembagaan Persekutuan sebagaimana yang tertera di dalam Perkara 8(5)(e). - Harakah in Malaysia-Today
And don't just assume that the office of the state palace will 'do the right thing' and make a colour-blind judgement either. However high the stature of one's birth, we're all only human at the end of the day. And to err and prejudice is indeed human.

Take this for instance... mosque openings! That's reportedly why the Selangor palace finds a Chinese Deputy MB to be contentious. A Muslim is needed just in case the MB is busy and his Deputy needs to cut the ribbon. Sheeeesh!...
In Selangor, Menteri Besar-designate Tan Sri Khalid Ibrahim from PKR is expected to appoint a Chinese deputy from the DAP as part of a coalition agreement. But this plan has come under a cloud because the palace indicated some unhappiness with the arrangement.

Datuk Mohamad Munir Bani, private secretary to the Sultan of Selangor, has said the deputy should also be a Malay.

'He (the deputy) is normally a Malay because he is supposed to help the menteri besar, such as in the opening of new mosques. If the deputy is not a Malay, that can be a problem,' he said in response to a question at a news conference. - The Straits Times on Malaysia-Today

DAP to boycott MB swear-in. What the fuck for?

I would have respected DAP more if they had stood firm and insisted that one from their 18 state assemblymen be made MB or if they had just outright supported a Malay-Muslim from PKR or PAS. At least either of the two would be a clear, unequivocal stand of their position, whatever the outcome or consequences.

However DAP dillied and dallied. They didn't want to appear uncompromising to Malays (who were insisting on a Malay-Muslim MB), but they also didn't want to appear compliant (like MCA) in the eyes of the Chinese - who rather get their nipples frozen off than get a religious fanatic from PAS for a MB.

So, DAP gambled... agreeing to a ridiculous stalemate of one MB candidate each from DAP/PKR/PAS and letting HRH the sultan decide. Obviously they banked on HRH doing their dirty work for them. Well the gamble didn't pay off, and a man from PAS will become MB despite the party holding only 6 lousy seats in the state assembly.

Now that the decision in favour of PAS has been made, DAP has lost the Chinese audience. That goes without saying. But they still have a chance of salvaging some benefit from all this by endearing themselves somewhat to the Malays, by magnanimously accepting and maybe even embracing the appointment.

But what does LKS do? He spits the dummy and throws a tantrum after the fact, when nasi sudah menjadi bubur. All I can say is... "WHAT THE FUCK FOR?"

By boycotting the swearing-in, DAP loses both ways. Firstly, it's too little too late to regain the confidence and trust of the Chinese. And secondly, it reinforces the perception of Malays that DAP is still Chinese chauvinist. On top of that, you're dissing the sultan and raja muda.

Also, it makes DAP look really childish and petty. You gambled... you lost. Just suck it in and take one on the chin, dammit.

But having said that... I will say this to PAS MB-elect, Mohamad Nizar Jamaludin. If you even breathe the words 'NEP, haram, tutup aurat' when it comes to state policy or take any steps to make my pork noodles, Toto and Guinness Stout less accessible than usual, you'll be bitch slapped so fast that your head will spin. Shit like that is okay in 95% Muslim Kelantan, but not in 47% non-Muslim Perak.

Wednesday, March 12, 2008

PAS pips DAP & PKR for Perak MB

Hot off the press from Malaysiakini.

Pasir Panjang state assemblyperson and Perak PAS secretary Mohamad Nizar Jamaludin was today confirmed as the new menteri besar of the state.

The decision was reached after the Regent of Perak Raja Nazrin Shah met with the three nominees for the post this evening.

The other two candidates for the post were state DAP chairperson and Sitiawan state assemblyperson Ngeh Khoo Ham and PKR’s Behrang assemblyperson Jamaluddin Mohd Radzi.

Also decided today is that Ngeh would be made the deputy mentri besar (1) while an Indian candidate would be made deputy mentri besar (2).

The new mentri besar will be sworn in at 4pm tomorrow.

Monday, March 10, 2008

RPK points Opposition way forward, pledges to remain independent

RPK of Malaysia-Today has a cracker of a post-election article. And I reckon he brings up some good points to ground the new Opposition govts (lest they develop a big head) and recommends a few core initiatives. I particularly like his idea of an independent Ombudsman overseeing the performance of the 5 state govts, with the power to punish and remove even Menteri Besars. Nothing like a perennially convened Impeachment Committee at large to keep the state leaders on their toes.

A quick bullet point list of RPK's recommended initiatives below, and the text of his article below that:

  • Ombudsman
  • Meritocracy without marginalisation
  • Develop and run states with no money
  • Review ongoing projects
  • Purge local councils
The aftermath of the 'bloodbath'
Monday, 10 March 2008
Raja Petra Kamarudin

Since yesterday I have been receiving a lot of phone calls from people who keep asking me what position I am going to hold in the government. I also have tons of e-mails in my in-box which I have either not read yet or have not replied to thus far. Firstly, can you please stop phoning so that I can get down to writing my article (anyway, I have switched off my phone so that I can complete this article). We can 'chat' about what the opposition needs to do later plus I will reply to all your e-mails once the dust settles.

Now, with regards to my 'position' in the government. No, no and no! I do not wish to hold any position in the government. I know some of you have threatened to 'protest' in front of the party headquarters if I am not offered at least a Senator's post. Hey, I do not want to be a Senator or Wakil Rakyat or anything at all for that matter. I just want to continue being plain Raja Petra Kamarudin, Editor and Webmaster of Malaysia Today -- so please drop all this talk of me 'holding a position in the government'.

Secondly, Malaysia Today is going to continue playing the role of watchdog and the conscience of the nation. We must continue to be the eyes, ears and voice of the rakyat and this must be done with me outside the government. Malaysia Today, which is already a nightmare for the ruling party, is going to now also be the nightmare of the five opposition-led state governments. And we are going to monitor these five states even closer than we watch the federal government.

Now, with regards to the talk floating around that Tok Guru Haji Abdul Hadi Awang has announced that Kedah is going to introduce Hudud laws; this is not true. Tok Guru confirmed he never made such an announcement. The trouble is, many of you wear these 'boycott the mainstream media' T-shirts yet you still read and believe what the mainstream media spins. Would you become terrible offended if I shout 'Bodoh punya orang!'? I really don't know what else to shout under these circumstances.

Let me repeat what I have said many, many times in the past. PAS does not have 150 seats in Parliament. In fact, PAS, DAP and PKR combined do not have 150 seats in Parliament. Read my lips. “PAS NEEDS 150 SEATS IN PARLIAMENT TO CHANGE THE LAWS OF THIS COUNTRY OR OF THE STATES!”

Anyway, 150 seats or no 150 seats, PAS does not intend to introduce Islamic laws, PERIOD.

Okay, can we now get down to some serious work? Our first task in hand is to set up an Ombudsman committee that will monitor all the five state governments of Kelantan, Kedah, Penang, Perak and Selangor. A man such as Tun Salleh Abas or anyone of his calibre must head the Ombudsman committee which will comprise of men and women of standing and with squeaky-clean reputations. They must be people like Gandhi and Mother Theresa both rolled into one. Yes, Malaysia does have plenty of such people.

The Ombudsman must be above the Chief Minister and Menteri Besar. It must have the power and authority to summon even the highest man in the state to come before the committee for questioning on anything at all that may be perceived as wrongdoing, transgressions, deviations, etc. And the Ombudsman must have the power and authority to recommend the removal of any public servant or politician who may have committed a breach of discipline, even if he is the Chief Minister/Menteri Besar.

This Ombudsman shall be responsible to the rakyat. The meetings and official inquiries it conducts must not be behind closed doors but shall be open inquiries where members of the public who may be interested in the goings-on can attend and witness the proceedings. Everything must be transparent and open to public scrutiny. There shall be no secrets. Public servants and elected officials work for the rakyat. The rakyat are the boss. So the 'boss' must be allowed to witness any public inquiry and proceedings convened to look into the conduct of their 'employees'. There must be no compromise on this issue.

The government must not be race-based, and certainly not religion-based. People chosen to head the agencies in any of the five states must be based on capabilities and not because that person is Malay, Chinese or Indian. Granted, the Federal Constitution of Malaysia may state who can be Menteri Besar while the election promise was, if the opposition wins Penang, then a Chinese shall be the Chief Minister. But that must be as far as race considerations prevail. For thereon no positions should be filled because we want more Malays or more Chinese or more Indians in the government.

If qualifications and capabilities become the criteria, then Malays, Chinese and Indians would automatically be represented at all levels of government. Just give him or her the job because he or her is the best person for the job and the racial balance would automatically happen. You do not even need to try too hard.

All ongoing projects must be reviewed. Those that have not taken off yet and which are clearly white elephants, projek mewah, above the recommended cost, etc., should be aborted. Of course, those that have contractual obligations will have to go on lest the state becomes embroiled in legal tangles. But they must be aborted not for the sake of aborting them or because they have been awarded to cronies of 'the other side'. This would smack of political persecution and witch-hunting, something the opposition has accused the government of perpetuating and something we should not do as well.

Take note that the federal government will certainly squeeze the states of funds so money will be very tight. The states will have to engage a high-powered team of financial consultants to advice them on how to run a state government and still develop the state with no money. Kelantan has done it for 18 years. They inherited a colossal amount of debt when they took over Kelantan in 1990 and yet still managed to pay off all the debts plus carry the cost of running the state in spite of no money.

The local councils are more corrupted than the infamous Royal Malaysian Police. This needs to be immediately addressed and many heads should be on the chopping block. The state governments must be ruthless with no quarters asked nor any given. Let there be a 'bloodbath' if necessary. And send the files of all these crooks to the Anti-Corruption Agency and demand that they be hung from the highest tree. The rakyat will gladly pay for the cost of the tree.

The Malays should stop talking about 'percentage of Malay representation', as should the Chinese and Indians as well. We certainly want a meritocracy rather than a race-quota-based system. Nevertheless, no race or community must be left out of the government. So a delicate balancing act between meritocracy, yet taking into consideration racial representation, has to be the game plan here.

Remember, the opposition won these five states plus denied Barisan Nasional its two-thirds majority in Parliament through promises and rhetoric. The consideration of the voters the next election will no longer be based on promises and rhetoric but on performance and delivery. Many promises were made this election. Now is the time to deliver them. Then, come the next election, the voters will either continue electing this same government into office or opt to change back to Barisan Nasional depending on how well or how bad the five state governments have performed.

If you think that winning these five states and denying Barisan Nasional its two-thirds majority in Parliament was difficult, then you do not know what difficult is. Winning five states and denying Barisan Nasional its two-thirds majority in Parliament was the easy part. The difficult part is going to be in maintaining the confidence and support of the voters. Abdullah Ahmad Badawi won 92% of the seats in 2004 based on promises and four years later got massacred when he did not deliver. The same thing can and will happen to the opposition as well come the 13th General Election if it does not perform and/or deliver its election promise.

Malaysia Today is watching. And we shall whack the daylights out of anyone and everyone who misbehaves or forgets his or her promise. The opposition won the five states and 82 seats in Parliament with the support of Malays, Chinese and Indians. It needed all the races to cross the finishing line. Just two races would not have achieved that. One race would have been even more impossible.

So remember who put you where you are today. Remember who gave you your job. The rakyat can hire and the rakyat can fire. We, the rakyat, made you and we, the rakyat, can break you. Just remember that and with God as our witness we shall not fail to do that if you fail to do what you promised to do.

Sg's Today newspaper on the 2008 Gen. Election

The following frontpage and articles are from Singapore's free Today newspaper. They carry more bite and less BN-positive spin doctoring compared to the sore-loser drivel from our local papers.

Sunday, March 09, 2008

Three Menteris Besar From PAS, One Each From DAP And PKR

UPDATE 3: Another one about the Perak MB from Malaysiakini. Looks like they laid the difficult decision on the Perak Regent's lap. But I can think of no better person to make such a momentous decision than HRH Raja Nazrin 'a place under the Malaysian sun for all' Shah.

Whoever the MB of the Perak coalition govt is, I hope he will make frequent use of Raja Nazrin's counsel.

PKR offers itself for Perak MB post
Mar 10, 08 5:25pm

Representatives of DAP, PKR and PAS today sought an audience with the Regent of Perak to inform him that the coalition was ready to form a state government in Perak.

Malaysiakini learnt that a list containing three potential Menteri Besar candidates - one each from the parties - were submitted to the Regent to be extended to the Sultan, who is presently away.

It is also learnt that in an agreement between the opposition parties, DAP has agreed to give PKR the menteri besar post, and in return DAP would have seven representatives in the state exco. PAS and PKR will have two each, including the menteri besar.

Constitutional requirement

The state constitution however has a requirement that the Menteri Besar post be only given to a Malay Muslim, effectively making DAP's non-eligible for the post. However, there is a provision in the state constitution that allows the Perak Sultan to waive this requirement at his discretion.

At a press conference later Ahmad told reporters that party grassroots have been instructed not to deem the new state government a "PAS government" should the Menteri Besar post be given to a PAS assemblyperson.

"The Menteri Besar doesn't represent the party. He is a Menteri Besar of the coalition government," said Ahmad, who is also one of the four PAS vice-presidents.

Asked if the large non-Muslim population in Perak would react negatively should a PAS member be made Menteri Besar, Ahmad said that the public should not worry unnecessarily. "Don't worry. All decisions would be made collectively. We cannot make decisions unilaterally," he said.

Meanwhile, another PAS vice-president Husam Musa stressed that even if the Sultan chooses a Menteri Besar from PAS, there would not be drastic social changes that would affect non-Muslims. "It is more important that the new state government is run prudently and cleanly," said Husam, who is in Perak to pay a courtesy call to the new state government.

Husam said that the party would back the Sultan's decision on the choice of Menteri Besar even if the candidates were from DAP or PKR.
UPDATE 2: More reports of the horse trading going on for the Perak MB from Malaysiakini:
PKR offers itself for Perak MB post
Chan Kok Leong | Mar 10, 08 11:32am

While the leading opposition party in Perak, DAP met to discuss who they would support for the state's Menteri Besar position, PKR held theirs in Segambut, Kuala Lumpur. Although, it was not known what was discussed in the closed door meeting, PKR de facto leader Anwar Ibrahim told the media that there was a likelihood that the next Perak MB will be from PKR.

On the suggestion that DAP might have a problem with nominating one of their own as the next MB as there is a state criteria of having a Muslim as the head of state, Anwar gave a mixed answer.

"No the DAP is not troubled by the Muslim criteria. I've spoken to YB Lim Kit Siang, other DAP leaders and have been in communication with PAS leaders.

"DAP has the most number of seats in Perak but they think that for the smooth transition, we are considering having a Malay MB with a Chinese and Indian participation."

Asked if a PKR representative would be picked instead, he said, "There is a likelihood and we will discuss this further”.

In the fight for the Perak state assembly, DAP won all 18 of the seats in contested. PKR won seven and PAS took six, to make it 31 seats in total out of the 59 state seats available, winning with a simple majority to rule the state. BN won the remaining 28 seats.

It is also learnt that in an agreement between the opposition parties, DAP has agreed to give PKR the menteri besar post, and in return DAP would have seven representatives in the state exco. PAS and PKR will have two each, including the menteri besar.
UPDATE 1: From Malaysiakini:
Pesuruhjaya PAS Ahmad Awang memberitahu Malaysiakini petang ini, keputusan melantik Mohamad Nizar belum muktamad dan dijangka dapat dipastikan petang esok.

Katanya, calon menteri besar [Perak] itu mestilah seorang berbangsa Melayu dan boleh dipilih daripada sembilan wakil rakyat PAS dan PKR.
This changes the complexion of things considerably and I reserve the option to change (possibly drastically) my opinion of Mohd Nizar's appointment in my original post below. This ethnic primacy garbage was not what I and thousands upon thousands of Perak folk voted for. In fact this bigoted stupidity is exactly what we voted against. I don't mind a Malay from PAS becoming Perak MB, but not if the only reason is that he must be Malay!

I'll wait and see how this plays out. But I'd be very, very interested to hear the Opposition Coalition's reasoning why the MB must be a Malay. If I don't like what I hear, forgive me in advance if I use some fucking colourful language to describe some of the folks involved.

ORIGINAL POST: Hmmmm... the surprise is Perak where PAS has been given the Menteri Besar-ship. Personally I don't mind. Religious zealots though they are, (note that I used the term 'zealots' rather than 'bigots'... signifying zeal rather than bigotry), there is no denying that the PAS leadership has demonstrated hereunto, unparalled resistance to corruption and injustice.

I'm willing to give him a chance, and I hope all my fellow natives of Perak do the same. I think his performance might surprise all of us. Besides, DAP and PKR hold 25 seats in the state assembly compared to PAS' 6. He's not going to be passing Hudud laws through the halls of the state assembly or banning gambling and liquor anytime soon. This might turn out to be a masterful DAP move to change its reputation to the Malay masses as an uncompromising Chinese chauvinist party.

Here's the full story from Bernama below. Funny thing is that this story is not carried on Malaysiakini or NST, and though The Star has a report on Perak, it refuses to confirm the identity of the Perak MB.
Three Menteris Besar From PAS, One Each From DAP And PKR

KUALA LUMPUR, March 9 (Bernama) -- After leading the Kelantan state government for 18 years, PAS will have another two Menteris Besar from its ranks while DAP and Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR) will have one each after the opposition's unpredecented sweep of five states in the general election.

The loose opposition front won Penang, Kedah, Perak and Selangor and retained Kelantan in the polls yesterday where the ruling Barisan Nasional (BN) returned to power without its two-thirds majority.

Kedah PAS Commissioner, Azizan Abdul Razak,S 64, is expected to be sworn in as the state Menteri Besar today while the 77-year-old Datuk Nik Aziz Nik Mat, PAS Spritual Leader, is almost certain to helm the Kelantan government.

PAS won an unexpected 16 seats in the polls, PKR four while DAP and an independent candidate one each. The ousted BN won 14.

In a surprise move, PAS, DAP and PKR took the first step towards forming a coalition government in Perak by nominating Perak PAS Liaison Secretary Ir Mohamad Nizar Jamaluddin who won the Pasir Panjang state seat, as Menteri Besar.

This is despite the DAP holding the biggest share of seats won in the silver state. It won 18 state seats, against six for PAS and PKR'seven.

In Penang, Chief Minister designate, DAP secretary-general Lim Guan Eng is going to achieve something his father Lim Kit Siang had only dreamt, fought and failed to accomplish with his few "Tanjong" projects to wrest the island state.

Guan Eng led the party to a stunning victory in the state, winning 19 state seats, which together with PKR's nine and PAS' one were more than enough to oust BN.

Former Permodalan Nasional Berhad's chief executive officer, Tan Sri Khalid Ibrahim has emerged the front runner to be the new Menteri Besar of Selangor after the opposition party won 36 of the 56 seats at stake.

The PKR secretary-general won the Bandar Tun Razak parliamentary constituency and the Ijok state seat, which he had lost during a by-election last year.

PKR has called for a press conference later today to announce the formation of the state government and the new Menteri Besar to replace Datuk Seri Dr Mohd Khir Toyo.


Has the Opposition bitten off more than it can chew? 5 state govts?

I was glued to the Malaysiakini websites (all 6 mirrors) until 4am this morning, refreshing the pages every 30 seconds to keep up with the results. Great initiative with the websites and blow by blow reporting, Steve. Even Channel News Asia was pulling the reports off the sites for their 'live' coverage.

But now... after the initial euphoria has been dulled by 6 hours of sleep... I'm like... OK, we've denied BN the 2/3 majority. But we've also won 5 states (including 3 out of the 4 largest, most complex and most developed). Have we bitten off more than we can chew?

I mean, railing against the government in Parliament and State Assembly is one thing. But to actually govern and become CEO of the state bureaucracy and machinery? And when the alliance between DAP, PKR and PAS is as loose as a pair of overwashed, overstretched panties?

I think from today onwards, the Opposition needs to show that it's truly a govt for all Malaysians. Their performance and policies in the 5 states, especially Penang, Selangor and Perak where there is a real mix of ethnicities, will be the true litmus test of whether the Opposition can be a viable Federal Govt one day.

Fail the state level test, and you can be sure the Opposition will be decimated in the next election. Pak Lah was sent to the firing squad yesterday for giving such great hope to the Malaysian public in 2004 and then failing them miserably thereafter.

Now PKR, DAP and PAS bear the burden of equal or even possibly greater hope and trust of the people. We have given them an unprecedented opportunity to walk the talk in 5 states. Fail us come the next election, and we will personally see to it that you are permanently buried in the cold depths beneath the Penang bridge and the murky bottoms of disused mining pools in Perak and Selangor. Such opportunities are not wont to repeat themselves.

I reckon the way forward now is to quickly decide on the Chief Ministers for each state. For Kelantan, it is clear. Kedah, less so because of the UMNO turncoats who delivered the state to PAS. Penang is also very clear.

Selangor and Perak will be most problematic. Although Perak has a clear DAP majority amongst the Opposition, Perak DAP has no strong, charismatic state leaders. In fact some of them were painted in pretty negative light over the Fong Po Kuan (Batu Gajah) resignation debacle.

In Selangor, there is a tricky balance of equals in terms of Opposition seats between DAP, PKR and PAS. Although PAS is clearly the junior partner, it is the king-maker if it lends it support to either DAP or PKR for chief minister.

So here's my take, if I were Anwar/Lim Kit Siang/Hadi Awang rolled into one.

Kedah - PAS MB
K'tan - incumbent PAS MB
Penang - DAP Lim Guan Eng as MB
Selangor - PKR Khalid as MB, to get the endorsement of PAS and Malay voters
Perak - having given S'gor to PKR, DAP for MB but install an Indian MB. Make Ipoh Barat MP Kulasegaran a state appointee if need be, for instance, if the Indian state assemblymen are not up to the job. This will bring the average Joe Indian into the Opposition fold for keeps, while avoiding the sting of 2 Chinese MBs in the minds of Malays but remaining an acceptable compromise to the Chinese.

Then it's the crucial matter of bringing Anwar into Parliament asap. PKR has the most seats in the Opposition, so it is only right that he becomes Federal Opposition leader. In addition, he is the only one with any CEO Malaysia Inc experience to steer the bureaucratic ship if the Opposition is to have a viable shadow cabinet. He'll also have the crucial task of keeping the Malay public invested in this new Malaysia, while being acceptable to the non-Malays at the same time. Last but not least, he has the unenviable task of bringing PAS and DAP together on a bread and butter, policy making level. In this respect, he is integral.

Good Morninnnng, Malaysia! Fajar baru menyinsing.

You did it! You did the right thing. You REALLLLLLY did the right thing. The Opposition has taken 82 seats in the parliament (well over 1/3) and wrested the state assemblies in 5 major states. Kelantan and Kedah to PAS, Selangor to PKR, Penang and Perak to DAP.

As at 9.15am, the SPR has these official results available, reproduced below. There's still 3 parliament and 2 state assembly seats undecided, but those are the pendalaman seats in Sabah and Sarawak and will in no way change the momentous result of the election.

Regardless, the unofficial has become official. The Opposition has become the govt in 5 states (Kelantan, Penang, Kedah, Selangor and Perak). Goliath has been slain and the turkey has risen from the ashes to become a pheonix.

And it seems to me that MCA, MIC and Gerakan have completely lost their relevance. MCA has less than half the federal and state seats compared to 2004.

MIC now has less than 1/3 compared to 2004. And they've lost virtually all their top leaders from President to Youth Chiefs.

Gerakan has been all but completely demolished. It only has, get this... 10% of the seats it held from 2004... and no President.

I think it's time they consider joining the Opposition.

20082004Source: The Star Online.

Source: Sun2Surf

Again, good morning Malaysia. A new Malaysia.

Saturday, March 08, 2008

Stay Calm. Stay Cool. Stay Home. No victory celebrations!

With the tremendous 'unofficial' results of the Opposition fast becoming official, it's imperative that we learn from the past (you know what I'm talking about...). The incoming MP for Jelutong has some damned good advice on this. From Screenshots:

Makkal sakti! It's a TSUNAMI result for Penang.

Stay calm. No victory parade. Don't give any party the reason to declare an emergency.

Stay calm. Stay cool. Stay home.

Celebrate in Parliament & State Assembly, not in the streets, OK!

The tremendous Opposition results in Penang and Perak are not official yet. But if and when the unofficial becomes official, then it becomes imperative that the Opposition parties and supporters DO NOT, I repeat DO NOT have victory parades and undertake any activity whatsoever that might be construed (ie. SPINNED) as a provocation!

Remember! The better the Opposition does, the more UMNO will be looking to pick a fight! DO NOT give them an excuse to do you in.

Stay away from the Mat Rempits (Putera UMNO) and avoid any fanfare at all costs. You can celebrate in Parliament and in the State Assembly!

Opposition supporters told to keep calm - 9.20pm

DAP MP for Bukit Mertajam Chong Eng has advised all opposition supporters to remain calm and not provoke others. She also said they should refrain from having victory parades.

“The Barisan Rakyat must learn how to handle victory or loss with maturity,” said her statement which comes as early polls result indicate a major swing towards the opposition.

Opposition takes Penang!

From Malaysiakini...

Confirmed: Opposition takes Penang - 8.52pm

Unofficial result: The opposition will form the next state government in Penang for second time in history. Gerakan, then an opposition party, won Penang almost 40 years ago. The DAP-PKR-PAS combination has collectively won at least 24 seats out of the 40 seats.
For real time coverage by Malaysiakini reporters, go to:

I hope you did the right thing

With less than 1.5 hours left to vote, I guess most of you have voted. I hope you did the right thing.

MCA and Gerakan's last minute plea for clemency on the basis that not voting in their candidates will result in less Chinese representation in the cabinet and govt took me by surprise. At the same time, it also tells us that the Opposition is in a better position than initially thought.

If you have not voted yet, do so. And don't be swayed by MCA and Gerakan's threat of reduced Chinese in the cabinet and govt. Remember! More Chinese ministers and govt officials from those 2 parties simply means that there are more eunuchs to serve their emperor, UMNO.

The fact that UMNO will be emperor for another 4 years is almost beyond doubt. But we have the power to make sure that this emperor has fewer MCA eunuchs and Gerakan concubines (ministers & political secretaries) to sodomise at every whim. At the same time, we make sure that the mandarins (MPs) in this emperor's court (parliament) are independent and not beholden to agree with his every decree.

We are better off having a strong Opposition presence in parliament to block UMNO from changing the constitution and pushing through their agenda, than to have many MCA and Gerakan office boys in the cabinet to obediently carry out the instructions of UMNO.

Friday, March 07, 2008

Evo X whups the WRX STi

Road and Track does a one on one shootout between the 2008 Mitsubishi Lancer Evo X and it's competitive doppelganger, the 2007 Subaru WRX STi.

This time it seems, the Evo wins hands down, despite being bigger, fatter and less powerful. I reckon that speaks volumes just how good the all new Evo is, and speaks even more, just how much the all new STi isn't.

Other blogposts on the Mitsubishi Lancer: search?q=lancer

Wednesday, March 05, 2008

MCA, I not free fuck you

Here's a bedtime fairytale for you:

How the Chinese pay when DAP wins more than MCA - NST

KUALA LUMPUR: Chinese voters have a simple choice: a bigger say in parliament and government or a louder voice in parliament and outside the corridors of power.
This was the challenge posed by MCA strategist Datuk Wong Mook Leong at Wisma MCA here yesterday.

The party veteran, who has been working behind the scenes for more than 31 years, said the reality was that whenever the DAP did better than MCA, it was a major setback for the community.

"In 1986, DAP won 24 seats while MCA got 18. In 1990, DAP continued to lead MCA by two parliamentary seats.

"DAP claims that in those two terms, it was a major step for democracy. But the truth is, it was two terms of major setbacks for the Chinese community."

He said that in 1986, for every 10 Umno parliamentary representatives, MCA had two. As a result, Chinese access to education and economy suffered a major blow as there were not enough Chinese politicians to protect those interests.
Really? Was the lack of MCA politicians in power the real reason?

Tell me then. There's been a record number of MCA politicians elected in the 2004 election. How many of these MCA politicians have voted against UMNO proposed parliamentary bills and constitutional changes that have victimised the Chinese and eroded their rights or interests? Zero!
"Back then, Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim was education minister and because there was insufficient Chinese resistance in the government, we all know what a mess he made out of Chinese education."
Is Chinese education much better now? How come Chinese schools still do not get consistent funding from the govt? And all this while the parents of the very schoolchildren in Chinese schools are taxed to pay for bumi-only residential schools, muslim-only religious schools and increasingly Islamised national schools?
He said DAP claims to want to weaken Umno's hold in the government was illogical as 38 of its 47 parliamentary seat candidates were lined up against either the MCA, Gerakan or SUPP (Sarawak United People's Party).

Wong said if DAP wanted to fight Umno, then it should contest against Umno.
Again. Tell me exactly how many UMNO parliamentary bills did the MCA politicians vote against? Zero!

Tell me how many blatantly racist, discriminatory and intolerant religious laws and policies did MCA vote against? Zero!

Don't even start with that rubbish about holding negotiations behind closed doors. It's painfully obvious that MCA has no choice but to go along with UMNO. MCA is UMNO's bitch, so to speak. Therefore, isn't a vote against MCA as effective as a vote against UMNO?
"They claim to want to bring change, but what DAP is doing is splitting the community and negating the progress MCA has been fighting for since making its comeback in the 1999 election."
If MCA wants so much to unify the Chinese community in Malaysia, why hasn't it merged with Gerakan? Wouldn't a single, unified MCA-Gerakan party be much more effective to balance against UMNO?
If DAP won big in the polls, Wong said, the biggest loser would be the Chinese community, as cabinet posts would be lost as well.

"MCA used to hold the Finance Ministry and International Trade and Industry Ministry posts. But it was all lost in the 1969 election and it's now gone forever."
Forever?! And what is MCA doing to ensure that a Chinaman becomes Finance minister again? Nothing? Just give up? No energy? Why then would the Chinese want a spineless, unspirited, lethargic, pessimist party like MCA?

Therefore, as my trusty Chinese educated mechanic in Kepong would say...

MCA, I not free fuck you! (literal Cantonese: 'Ngor ng tak han tiew lei').

Footnote: perhaps Wong Mook Leong might want to read this Malaysiakini article instead:
Why Chinese voters may abandon MCA

...they wonder if the MCA will take a beating by Chinese voters who make up a substantial number of urban voters at both parliamentary and state levels. There is a strong undercurrent of disgruntlement and disillusionment directed against the MCA led by Ong Ka Ting...

...for maintaining an ‘elegant silence’ over numerous controversies and challenging issues that are deemed to be detrimental to the interests and future of the community.

MCA is increasingly being criticised as a ‘marginalised party’ within BN, and seen as suffering from political impotence because of the hegemony of the Umno leadership and Malay supremacy.

As a blogger wrote: “What is most disappointing is that some non-Umno politicians have become apologists for Umno. The MCA is merely a tool used by Umno to garner Chinese Malaysian votes.”
Hell yeah... tell me why MCA's main role these days is mainly to 'turun padang' and explain to the Chinese why being threatened by UMNO leaders with keris is OK; how Malaysia never having been a secular state doesn't threaten their freedom of religion - even as the corpses of their dead fathers are abducted by the religious department; how the NEP actually benefits the Chinese by helping them avoid being driven into the sea by the UMNOputras... etc.

Tuesday, March 04, 2008

Hell freezes over! Malaysiakini is FREE.

Well, well, well. Hell finally does freeze over.

Malaysiakini is just the way sean-the-man likes it. FREE!

Even if it is for one week only, starting today (March 4) - in conjunction with the General Election.

So, make use of it while you can. It's one of the few alternative fully fledged news sites (ie. they have their own reporters and journalists, rather than simply reproducing newswires or just churning out editorials & commentaries) available to us. Actually it's the only one. Anyway, you got 7 days, before Steve Gan and his money pinching sons of bitches start charging again.

Monday, March 03, 2008

Teo Nie Ching for Serdang

UPDATE 9 March 2008: YB Teo Nie Ching wins Serdang.

“I will not sell you out. I will speak up for your rights in Parliament. That’s what an MP must do. Not inspecting drains, garbage bins and dumps. That is the job of the municipal council. If they don’t do their job, sack them and stop wasting taxpayers’ money.”

“The serious business in Parliament affects not only us immediately but our future generations. We cannot afford to have MPs who remain silent just because it may incur the wrath of big brother – Umno.”
So says 27 year old lawyer Teo Nie Ching, DAP candidate for the parliamentary seat of Serdang, Selangor - as quoted by The Sun.

And I agree. That's what MPs are for. They represent you, the people, when it comes to matters of national significance... ie. the constitution, the laws of the land and govt policy. And some of you want MPs chained to your little towns and villages, and make sure the street lights switch on each night.

It's one thing to 'turun padang' in order to gauge the mood and see the situation of the common folk first hand. But it's quite another thing for MPs to spend all their time in the 'padang' picking up litter and cutting grass, while the whole country 'masuk longkang'. The parliament (legislature) are there to keep the govt (executive) in check, while the judiciary forms the 3rd leg in the tripod, that is the separation of powers. When our judiciary is saturated with stooges planted by the executive (govt), it becomes even more crucial that the legislature takes on an active role to oversee both the executive and judiciary. And the only way that can happen is to ensure that the proxies of govt executive (ie. BN) do not have a 2/3 majority in parliament.

I'm impressed by Teo's candour in her 'ceramah' to her constituents. Unlike many other candidates (both BN and Opposition), she says exactly what the duties of a MP are in no uncertain terms. She tells it like it is even if it might alienate some short sighted constituents. Brains, beauty and what looks like integrity too. Good on ya!

Visit Teo Nie Ching's blog at "Nie Ching for Serdang." Hope you read Chinese ;p

Sunday, March 02, 2008

Pls donate generously to the 'be kind to bloggers & dumb animals' fund

DAP's Jeff Ooi received over RM113,000 from his blog readers after his appeal to them for funds.

Well, sean-the-man isn't asking for quite that much in his appeal for funds.

S$624 or RM1,435 will do nicely because that's the price of the upcoming Playstation 3 (PS3) + Gran Turismo 5 Prologue (GT5P) bundle. It'll be in Singapore shops a few days after it's April 17 debut in the US.

So... go on. Show us how much you love us.

And to really feel the lovin', do throw in another S$450 or RM1035 for the Fanatec Porsche 911 turbo steering wheel. It's a full size leather bound wheel, fully force feedback (both wheel AND pedals), 900 degree turn radius, clutch pedal, 6 speed H gate or sequential shifter and get this... it's fully wireless.

Plus it's got lap wings so that you don't have to clamp it to a table or something. That means you can use it on the sofa watching the TV in your living room.

Other posts on PS3 and GT5P:

Comparing the Wii, XBox and PS3

Playstation PS3: Launch and Gran Turismo HD sneak peek

Saturday, March 01, 2008

The oldest person & voter in the world: NORAINI B ABU SAMAD (IC: 800311086231)

And some of you thought this was just a joke from the PAS folks who got high from sniffing a bit too much camel dung. But it's true. The oldest living person in the world is INDEED in Malaysia. It's 128 year old Noraini Abu Samad. And the old girl is going to be voting too. How much do you want to bet that she'll vote for BN?

Read more on BN's army of 100+ year old voters in my previous blogpost: Lazy police and too many old farts, Malaysia Today forums (very good, lots of actual examples) and Malaysiakini.

And while we're picking on the Election Commission and their adulterated electoral roll, here's an example of a someone doing a Jesus Christ, reverse-Michael Jackson (ie. 'dead to alive' and 'white to black') AND sex change... simultaneously. OK, half a sex change. Jantina is still "L" but his new name is ... A/P ... ("anak perempuan"). And you know what, I bet he/she votes for BN too. Pictures from Malaysia Today forums.

Lazy police and too many old farts

Hmmm... is it just me or is this election campaign period just a little bit boring and uneventful? I've got hardly anything new to blog about... well, almost hardly...

Here is junior spin doctor The Star making a big deal out of the police investigating DAP's Karpal Singh and Lim Guan Eng for Sedition because they called the police "lazy" and "good for nothing".

Two Opposition leaders found themselves in hot water for allegedly condemning the police during their talk in Air Itam here on Wednesday. A report was lodged against DAP chairman Karpal Singh and secretary-general Lim Guan Eng by a police officer after they allegedly called the police "lazy" and "good for nothing" among other things.

George Town OCPD Asst Comm Azam Abd Hamid said both of them would soon be called to give a statement over the matter. "We have classified the case under the Sedition Act 1948 as what was said during the talk had tainted the police force's good name," he said.
On top of that, the police had were free enough to catch someone tearing down BN posters.
In another incident, a man, in his 40s, was nabbed for pulling down the posters of Barisan Nasional candidates in various parts of Air Itam on Thursday.

ACP Azam said the man was caught in the act by a police team on patrol at 11pm, adding that he was released on police bail after his statement was taken.
On the other hand, the police seem to be doing fuck all about people tearing down Opposition posters.
Hundreds of posters of DAP sec-gen Lim Guan Eng were found torn down in the Air Putih state constituency in the past three days. - Malaysiakini

The opposition party members are alleging that BN is employing ‘hooligan tactics’ to gain an upper hand in the electoral race. Posters torn, supporters stopped. Two police reports lodged - Malaysiakini
At the end of the day, don't the police have better things to do than to waste precious time and police resources on petty name calling and vandalism? What about preventing crimes, catching crooks, finding lost little girls and apprehending murderers of Mongolian models?

Meanwhile PAS has alleged that the electoral roll includes 8,600 voters who are aged 100 and above, the oldest being 128!
According to the Election Commission, there are more than 8,600 registered voters that are aged 100 and above, and opposition PAS leaders fear that most of these voters would have died by now and others may vote in place of these dead voters.

Roslan Shahir, Secretary to PAS president, said, "To us, the existence of these registered voters is very questionable, the oldest we have is 128 years old." - ChannelNewsAsia
Just to illustrate how that statistic makes the Malaysian electoral roll look absolutely absurd (or the election commission absolutely incompetent and/or corrupt), read this:
The Guinness Book of Records currently lists 114-year-old Edna Parker of Shelbyville, Indiana, as holding the title [world's oldest person].

[On top of that, Isreali] Mariam Amash [claims] she was born 120 years ago - a claim, if confirmed, that would make her the oldest person in the world. - BBC
Chehhh... 114 and 120 only. They've got nothing on our 128 year old Malaysian. Also read this interesting bit of statistical trivia about the average population of centenarians overseas:
As of February 2005, there were 21 centenarians in Dominica with the oldest at the age of 107. The US has the highest number of centenarians about 55 000, followed by Japan with 25 000. Based on the population of all three countries, Dominica has 3 centenarians for every 10 000 of the population compared to about 2 centenarians for every 10 000 for the US and Japan. -
If the electoral roll is correct (ie. uncorrupted)... 8,600 persons over 100 years old in Malaysia translates into 3.5 centenarians for every 10,000 Malaysians. That makes our ratio nearly double that of the US or Japan. And this is only counting the old farts who are registered voters. The ratio will be even higher if we include the unregistered old farts. Believe it, or not. NOT!