Dear Malaysia... it's time for sayang sayang

These are unprecedented times of communal strife n Malaysia. Yet hope and promise, in their myriad disguises, never stop trying to manifest themselves in our daily lives. There will be no heavy commentary today, no "in your face" racial rebuttal or religious rejoinder.

I'm just going to share one of my favourite songs ever. Every time I listen to it, I really feel it somehow describes us... what we are, our difficult journey, that hope beckons and what we must do as a nation. It seems to understand that the fates and fortunes of all Malaysians are joined, that we either swim together or we shall sink together. That the only way to succeed is with one hand firmly in the other.

Ladies and gentlemen, fellow Malaysians, now more than ever... it's time for a little lovin'... it's time for sayang sayang.



There seems so many things that lie before us
There's just so many things we want to do
But let's just stop and pause
For just a moment 'cos
We should do something special, me and you

It's time for sayang sayang
It's time for sayang sayang
Caring for one another, family and friends

It's time for sayang sayang
It's time for sayang sayang
As we go walking together, hand in hand

The time that we all love is here to treasure
A very special time of the year
These days are sure to find
These days are yours and mine
We'll share them with the ones we hold so dear

It's time for sayang sayang
It's time for sayang sayang
Caring for one another, family and friends

It's time for sayang sayang
It's time for sayang sayang
As we go walking together, hand in hand
As we go walking together, hand in hand...

Title: It's Time for Sayang Sayang.
Music: John Lee
Lyrics: Alvin Oon, John Lee & Tan Kheng Hua
Performed by: John Lee & Tan Kheng Hua

"Allah' in state anthems forces non-Muslims to open a can of whup-ass.

Just read on the The Sensintrovert blog that the word 'Allah' appears all over the state anthems of several states. Good catch. I didn't think of it. But now that I have... jeng jeng jeng [cue epic biblical music].

If 'Allah' means the god of Muslims only, then I don't want to sing about somebody else's god. By default, it is not the true god because it is not my god. So, I don't want to commit a grievous sin by singing about a false god. In fact, I don't want it to be sung at any functions or events that I'm attending because it disrespects me and it disrespects my god.

As the most pious representitive of the gods of the Hindus, Buddhists, Christians, Punjabis dan lain-lain, I DEMAND IT. As the leader of the Hindus, Buddhists, Christians, Punjabis dan lain-lain, I DEMAND IT.

NOW... DON'T CABAR ME! Don't make me firebomb your house of worship and drag the head of livestock through the streets! I don't want to, but you MENGHINA my BANGSA and AGAMA. Don't CABAR my MARUAH and the KEDAULATAN of my AGAMA. Don't provoke a SENSITIVE and EMOTIONAL issue. Don't make me open a can of ULANGKAN January 8 on your ass!

Wait... hang on... where have I heard all this before? It sounds SO stupid, yet so familiar...

Ban These Songs Already!
Wednesday, January 06, 2010

Coz kafir students sing them at assemblies every week.

Johor Darul Takzim

Allah peliharakan Sultan
'Nugrahkan Dia segala kehormatan
Sehat dan ria, kekal dan makmur
Luaskan kuasa, menaungkan kami
Rakyat dipimpini berzaman lagi
Dengan Merdeka bersatu hati
Allah berkati Johor
Allah selamatkan Sultan

Selangor Darul Ehsan

Duli Yang Maha Mulia
Selamat di atas takhta
Allah lanjutkan usia Tuanku
Rakyat mohon restu
Bawah Duli Tuanku
Bahagia selama-lamanya
Aman dan sentosa
Duli Yang Maha Mulia

Terengganu Darul Iman

Allah peliharakan Raja kami
Memerintah Terengganu Negeri
Allah pelihara Raja kami
Sejahtera suami isteri
Allah pelihara Raja kami
Sejahtera rakyat Negeri

Pahang Darul Makmur

Ya Allah yang Maha Kuasa
Lanjutkan usia Duli Yang Maha Mulia
Dirgahayu Darul Makmur
Aman dan bahagia sentiasa abadi
Ya Allah selamatkan kebawah Duli Raja kami

Perak Darul Ridzuan

Dilanjutkan Allah usianya Sultan
Adil dan makmur memerintah watan
Ditaati rakyat kiri dan kanan
Iman yang soleh Allah kurniakan
Allah berkati Perak Ridzuan
Allah selamatkan Negeri dan Sultan

Kedah Darul Aman

Allah selamatkan Sultan Mahkota
Berpanjangan usia di atas Takhta
Memelihara ugama Nabi kita
Negeri Kedah serata-rata
Selamat Sultan Kelantan Darul Naim
Lanjutkan usia Sultan kami
Sultan Kelantan Raja ikrami
Aman sentosa Tuhan sirami
Berkekalan masa memerintah kami
Kasih dan taat disembahkan
Sepenuh keriangan patek ucapkan
Segala kebesaran Allah cucurkan
Darjah kemuliaan Allah tambahkan

Why I dismiss your god.

Quote of the day:

“I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do.

When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.”

- Stephen F Roberts

Brief history of The Quote

...Yep, that's me! I am the author of the above quote which has become a bit of a popular statement throughout the net (and some in the real world too).

...I first used The Quote as a tag line for postings on the newsgroups alt.atheism and talk.atheism at some point before October 1995.

...The Quote is an original quote that came from an online debate I was having with religious people in the newsgroups. I used the a similar comparison in a debate when my opponent wondered why I ignored the evidence for god, and in return, I wondered why my debate opponent chose to ignore the evidence for Shiva, or Zeus, or any of the other possible gods.

RM800K for IPOH sign. Lucky our city's got a short name. Or else pokai!

Guess how much this "IPOH" signage cost?

According to Malaysian Insider, Ipoh City Council confirmed that a total of RM800,000 was spent on 2 of these giant signs.

That's RM400,000 per sign. Or RM100,000 per letter.

The Pakatan Rakyat (PR) ex-state govt said that the palace proposed the signs (and proposed 4 signs rather than the current 2). PR rejected it. BN usurped the state. Signs were then built and RM800,000 changed hands.

Look... I'm no construction engineer or signage expert, so I'm just pulling assumptions out of my ass. But I'm pretty sure RM800,000 can put a lot of stuff on the slope of those hills. Even if these signs were made of virgin marble, it wouldn't cost that much. Heck.. even if they were made from virgins, it wouldn't cost that much.

So, I'm asking. PR should be asking. The people of Perak should be asking...

• WHO WAS THE CONTRACTOR WHO POCKETED THE RM800,000? IS HE LINKED TO THE PALACE OR ANY POLITICIAN?
  
  
• HOW MUCH LESS WOULD IT HAVE COST UNDER A COMPETITIVE TENDER?

Women can be verbal bastards, just like men

I don't know about this one...

Physical abuse, I concede that there are many more women victims than men - simply due to the inherent physical differences between men and women. Having said that, I've seen small-built men with some pretty big women sporting all sorts of bruises, scratches and pinch marks.

Verbal abuse...

I need a whole lot more convincing that verbal abuse is a predominantly male-perpetrated crime as this ad would have you believe.

If never ending nagging, put-downs, criticism, snide remarks and sarcasm can be classified as verbal abuse, I reckon the fist could just as likely be coming from the woman's mouth.

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 naïve. 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.

Screw the Russians. Do it with a Virgin.

Russia charged us tens of millions to send a Malaysian to space as a piece of furniture. And at the end of the day, nobody except UMNO acknowledges him as anything more than a space tourist.

I reckon when it comes to sending our Astrocannot No.2 to space, we should tell the Russkis to go jump into a vat of vodka and screw themselves. We can go to space on Virgin Galactic's Space Ship Two, and it'll only cost the Malaysian taxpayer $200,000.

Here's BBC on the virgin.

The rocket spaceliner will carry two pilot astronauts and six ticketed passengers. They will fly initially from a new facility called Spaceport America in the New Mexico desert.

Seats cost $200,000. Virgin Galactic says more than 200 individuals have booked, and another 85,000 have registered an interest to fly.

And here's what the space flight participants will do.

The journeys will last about two-and-a-half hours from beginning to end. Passengers on SS2 will climb to an altitude of 110km, from where they will get to experience weightlessness for a few minutes, and see the curvature of the Earth and the black of space.

Hey, just wait a frickin' cotton pickin' minute... "experience weightlessness for a few minutes, and see the curvature of the Earth and the black of space"... isn't that exactly what our angkasawan did on his multi-million dollar space holiday? In fact, isn't that the only thing he did?

An interview with Lee Kuan Yew - 27 Sept 2007.

As always, Singapore MM Lee Kuan Yew gives a cracker of an interivew.

This is the complete transcript of Minister Mentor (as the founder of modern singapore is now known) Lee Kuan Yew's interview with syndicated columnist Tom Plate of the UCLA Media Center and new-media expert Jeffrey Cole of the USC Annenberg School Center for the Digital Future. It took place on Sept. 27, 2007 in the minister's private office at Istana, Singapore.

Here's an excerpt that might interest the readers of this blog:

Q: It's amazing, you come in here and you walk around here in one of the great cities in the world. Yet you are worried about survival.

Lee: Where are we? Are we in the Caribbean? Are we next to America like the Bahamas? Are we in the Mediterranean, like Malta, next to Italy? Are we like Hong Kong, next to China and therefore, will become part of China? We are in Southeast Asia, in the midst of a turbulent, volatile, unsettled region. Singapore is a superstructure built on what? On 700 square kilometers and a lot of smart ideas that have worked so far -- but the whole thing could come undone very quickly.

For this to work, you require a world where there are some rules of international law and there is a balance of forces of power that will enforce that international law and the U.S. is foremost in that. Without that balance of power and international law, the Vietnamese will still be in Cambodia and the Indonesians will still be in East Timor, right? Why are they out? Because there were certain norms that had to be observed. You can't just cross boundaries. This little island with four and a half million people, of whom 1.3 are foreigners working here, has got to maintain an army, navy and an air force. Can we withstand a concerted attempt to besiege us and blockade us? We can repel an attack, yes. Given the armed forces in the region and our capability, we can repel and we can damage them. Three weeks, food runs out, we are besieged, blockaded.

Q: Who will come after you? Who would come after you?

Lee: There are assets here to be captured, right?

Q: Some unnamed bad regime?

Lee: When [Malaysia] kicked us out [in 1965], the expectation was that we would fail and we will go back on their terms, not on the terms we agreed with them under the British. Our problems are not just between states, this is a problem between races and religions and civilizations. We are a standing indictment of all the things that they can be doing differently. They have got all the resources. If they would just educate the Chinese and Indians, use them and treat them as their citizens, they can equal us and even do better than us and we would be happy to rejoin them.

Angkasawan selection process - brains or brawn?

Amidst all the fluff articles in the press hyping up Malaysia's first SFP - space flight participant (even Malaysiakini is not immune to publishing candy floss, see: Space fever grips M'sia as launch nears ??? apart from the press and politicians, who's feverish?), I happened to spot this article on Bernama's website. It lists chronologically how the SFP was selected.

OK, is it just me or does the selection process seem overwhelmingly skewed towards making sure that our SFP doesn't pass out from the physical stresses of space flight, rather than actually turn him into a contributing member of the crew?

I'm pretty sure the chimps they sent to space in the 60s-80s were selected in a similar manner, no?

And here's a superb cartoon that makes a point like no one else except Lat can. This came out some time back, but it just shows that Lat has some amazing foresight into how things tend to turn out the Malaysia-boleh way.

Read also:
Our Malaysian Astrocannot.
Astrocannot is also Cosmocannot
Outer Space - The Final Frontier for Malaysia Bodoh... oops Boleh.

How Malaysia Picks Its First Angkasawan

KUALA LUMPUR, Oct 9 (Bernama) -- Below is the chronology of events leading to the blast off of Malaysia's first angkasawan (cosmonaut) into space:

Aug 5 2003: Malaysia signed a contract to procure 18 Sukhoi Su-30MKM fighter jets from Russia under a package deal worth about US$900 million. The aircraft are to be delivered in stages between June 2006 and end of 2007. The payment for the aircraft will be stretched until 2009. In return, Russia will purchase Malaysia's palm oil, provide transfer of space technology, and train a Malaysian to become Malaysia's first angkasawan.

Oct 2003: Over 11,000 applicants registered online to become Malaysia's first angkasawan. Application requirements included being above 21 years old, a degree holder or a professional pilot.

Aug 27-Sept 3 2005: 894 candidates shortlisted but only 435 took part in the fitness test starting with a 3.5km run which must be completed within 20 minutes. 199 made it through. Of the figure, 194 underwent the basic medical examination based on National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Programme Criteria. 59 passed.

Sept 25-30 2005: First aeromedical test which included blood, nose and ear checks, X-ray, and electrocardiogram (ECG). 59 were tested, 27 passed.

Jan 16-21 2006: Second aeromedical test, including bone, air passage and centrifuge tests. 27 were tested, 18 passed.

Jan 16-24 2006: Overall assessment based on performance in 3.5km run and second aeromedical test as well as psychiatric, psychology, land and sea survival and technical competence. 10 were tested, 8 passed.

Jan 25-26 2006: Medical examination (including CT Scan, endoscopy and blood analysis). 10 were tested, 8 passed.

Feb 9 2006: Eight qualified candidates interviewed by selection panel at Shangri-La Hotel, Putrajaya. Overall assessment based on performance in all the events covering all aspects in communication, character, forwardness and determination.

Four were selected to be sent to Moscow for further medical examination:

Dr Sheikh Muszaphar Shukor Sheikh Mustapha, 34, orthopaedic surgeon;

Vanajah Siva, 35, senior quality engineer;

Dr Faiz Khaleed, 26, Armed Forces dental surgeon; and

Mohammed Faiz Kamaludin, 34, Malaysia Airlines pilot

March 2006: The four candidates underwent medical examination in Russia including neurology (brain) and body adaptation in microgravity environment.

Sept 4 2006: Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi named Dr Sheikh Muszaphar Shukor Sheikh Mustapha and Dr Faiz Khaleed as the final two candidates at the KL International Airport.

Sept 2006-Sept 2007: The two were sent to the Yuri Gagarin Cosmonaut Training Centre in Star City, Moscow and then to NASA in Houston, Texas, for training. One will be selected to fly to the International Space Station (ISS) while the other is his back-up.

Sept 24 2007: Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi announced that Dr Sheikh Muszaphar and Dr Faiz Khaleed passed the test and recognised as cosmonauts.

Oct 9 2007: Science, Technology and Innovation Minister Datuk Seri Dr Jamaludin Jarjis announced in Baikonur that Dr Sheikh Muszaphar will be the first Malaysian angkasawan to blast off to the ISS from the Baikonur Cosmodrome in Kazakhstan.

Oct 10 2007: Dr Sheikh Muszaphar together with a Russian and an American cosmonauts to blast off to the ISS.

Do we really want to send 'The Keris' to UNESCO?

Malaysia's Education Minister Hishammuddin Hussein is going to vie for a seat on the exec. board of UNESCO or the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation - Bernama.

From UNESCO's website, the purpose of the Organisation, as defined by it's Constitution, is:

"to contribute to peace and security by promoting collaboration among nations through education, science and culture in order to further universal respect for justice, for the rule of law and for the human rights and fundamental freedoms which are affirmed for the peoples of the world, without distinction of race, sex, language or religion, by the Charter of the United Nations."

Now I ask you, fellow Malaysians and astrocannots...

DOES THIS MAN FIT THAT DESCRIPTION?!

Can we, in good conscience, send 'The Keris' to UNESCO and allow him to taint that organisation with his racist, supremacist disease?

Will that not be a blatant example of hypocrisy of the highest degree? Where the last Apartheid country on earth purports to send a delegate to help further the cause of universal equality?

Astrocannot is also Cosmocannot

The mainstream media has been referring to our angkasawan, Sheikh Muzhaphar Shukor, as an Astronaut. Even alternative news portal Malaysiakini bought the bull (although they cheekily added the "part time model" reference to their headline). Refer to the earlier post: Our Malaysian Astrocannot for details.

Then bloggers found out that NASA calls him a Space Flight Participant. That apparently means space tourist. To an average joe like me, that means baggage. The Space Flight Participant moniker opened the floodgates of public opinion against the "Nasional Space Program". Malaysians were outraged that we had spent USD30 million to send a man on what is essentially, a joyride to space. And we sounded our displeasure... loudly.

Obviously, our lamentations fell upon the ear of Science, Techology and Innovations Minister Encik Jamaludin Jarjis, prompting him to blurt out:

Malaysia's first "angkasawan" (space traveller) will be recognised as a cosmonaut by the Russian space authorities. He said that an official recognition ceremony for the angkasawan as a cosmonaut would be held in Moscow on Nov 11 following his return from space on Oct 21.

"Some countries might question this, but to me, it is not important. What matters is that the candidate was selected and trained by Russia and the country recognises him as a true cosmonaut."

"The Russians themselves had told our man (angkasawan) that he is a cosmonaut, and that's the end of the story." - Bernama

Really, Minister? Is that really the end of the story? Have you told the Russians that?

I did a quick check at the Russian Federal Space Agency or ROSCOSMOS' website. It's the Russian equivalent of the US' NASA. Turns out that they do have a profile on our angkasawan.


But it's in Russian. So what does it say? What is the ROSCOSMOS calling him? A quick stint at Google Translator reveals that he is called... wait for it... "Participant space flight".


So... who's bullshitting who, Mr Minister?

He still sounds like jettisonable flotsam to me.

>>>>>Update 4 Oct 2007 4:30pm:>>>>>

I found the English pages on the ROSCOSMOS website. Hmmmph... it just got worse. The Russkis are calling him simply 'Flight Participant'. They can't be bothered so much so that they even left out the word 'Space'.

And guess what? Faiz, our Angkasawan #2 is called... 'Flight Participant Backup'. WTF?... Luggage also need backup?

Also read The Star for an account of the Russian Ambassador to Malaysia trying to back up our Minister by contradicting ROSCOSMOS.

>>>>>

Beyonce's booty says no to Msia's dress code

According to NST, Beyonce Knowles has shown the finger to religious zealots and moralistic morons in Malaysia.

The much anticipated concert by bootylicious Beyonce Knowles in November has been called off.

It is learnt that the concert, which would have been the first by the sexy R&B singer in Malaysia, will not go on as planned, as many organisations are against it.

Pineapple Concert chairman Razlan Razali refused to comment but said that a statement would be issued today.

However, in the last few weeks, rumours had been rife that the concert was called off as Beyonce had apparently refused to adhere to the government's dress code.

At the risk of sounding like Oprah Winfrey...
"You go, girl!"

Our Malaysian Astrocannot.

>>>>>
Update 4 Oct 07: Astrocannot is also Cosmocannot
>>>>>

According to The Star, Dr Sheikh Muszaphar is our astronaut. According to Malaysiakini, he's a part-time model AND astronaut.

According to NASA however, he's neither Astronaut, nor Cosmonaut (ie. Russki ler)... but get this... he's a "Spaceflight Participant". In NASA-speak... that basically means baggage. The kind a space crew needs as much as you'd need a pair of testicles growing out of your forehead.

The Expedition 16 crew members pose for a portrait at the Johnson Space Center. From the left (front row) are Russia’s Federal Space Agency cosmonaut Yuri Malenchenko, flight engineer and Soyuz commander; astronaut Peggy Whitson, commander; and Malaysian spaceflight participant Sheikh Muzhaphar Shukor. From the left (back row) are European Space Agency (ESA) astronaut Léopold Eyharts, astronaut Garrett Reisman and astronaut Dan Tani, all flight engineers.

And the website also has short descriptions of what each person will be doing on the mission:

Some samples...

Commander Peggy A. Whitson - Whitson is the commander for Expedition 16. This is her second tour of duty aboard the station. She also was a flight engineer and science officer for Expedition 5 in 2002. Whitson also worked underwater as a NEEMO 5 crew member in 2003. + Biography

Flight Engineer Daniel M. Tani - Tani will fly to the station aboard space shuttle Discovery on STS-120 and join Expedition 16 as a flight engineer. He will return home aboard space shuttle Atlantis on mission STS-122. + Biography

Eveyone's either a flight engineer or the commander. But what will our jaguh kampung will be doing?...

Spaceflight Participant Sheikh Muszaphar Shukor - Sheikh Muszaphar Shukor will launch with Expedition 16 and land with Expedition 15. + [no Biography linked].

Ahem... that's as concise as it gets... he go up, waste some oxygen, and he come down. And THAT folks is what our tax-payer millions is paying for. Wasteful and grossly misplaced national pride. Well... that and a live test on the trajectory of ejaculate when one masturbates in space. Because judging from the amount of respect our 'space flight participant' is getting from NASA, wanking will be about all he's allowed to do.

Also read how I insulted our space flight participant earlier on Outer Space - The Final Frontier for Malaysia Bodoh... oops Boleh.

Need more money? Get a job. Scholarships are gifts, not entitlements.

When I read this letter a JPA scholarship recipient sent to Malaysiakini complaining that his scholarship allowances had not been increased in next year's budget - I was incensed. I could not help blogging the responses below, which on hindsight might be a tad harsh and emotional, but which I'm sure reflects the feelings of many a Malaysian taxpayer. So, I've left my comments as is.

And note the words used in the letter - and the tone with which they were used - which I've highlighted in red! For brevity, I have also edited out some meandering bits which were of no consequence to the objective of the letter.

Budget: Hey, what about us in Egypt
FZ Rosli - published Sep12 on Malaysiakini.

I’m a Malaysian student currently studying in Egypt and am a JPA scholar. Ever since I was in the first year, we had been getting the same amount for scholarship, never more, which was US$220 per month which translates to RM840 per month. This year, as the US currency falls, logically we should be getting more in US dollars to be the equivalent to RM840 but surprisingly, we are still getting the same US$220. The big question is: ‘Where has our money gone?’

(Y)OUR money?! You mean MY money, don't you homie? You mean the Malaysian taxpayers' money, don't you? Let's get this straight. Scholarships are GIFTS! Not entitlements. It's not your money. It's my money... that the govt, in its 50 years of mismanagement, figures you should have.

In any case, would you complain less if the USD exchange rate went the other way and appreciated against the ringgit? Then the RM840 will be worth less in USD terms. Would you therefore complain less if you received less than USD 220? Read your scholarship terms and conditions. Are you sure your allowances are not denominated in USD?

In October 2005, a JPA officer who came with the new students had a meeting with the old students to talk about our allowances and announced a raise of US$40. However, in the end after all the calculations were worked out, it only amounted to a raise of US$3. If you ask me, even in a poor country like Egypt, people will laugh when they know that your government gave you a raise of US$3 per month.

So it was with keen attention that JPA students in Egypt listened to the announcement of the 2008 Budget, with hopefulness in their eyes. Maybe the government was thinking of raising our allowance monies. Imagine our shock when Pak Lah announced that the allowances for JPA students in Egypt, New Zealand and some other countries would remain the same as they had been already been raised last year! I’m not sure whether it’s just me, or us, but seriously, we didn’t notice this ‘raise’.Raise?

A raise is something you get when you are drawing a salary or wage in return for providing a service. In other words, raises are for people who are gainfully employed. You, sir are not. If you have not noticed, you are merely mooching off Malaysians who are gainfully employed.

Egypt, as a developing country, is hit worse than other countries when it comes to economic turmoil. Prices of essential goods have shot up over the past five years. Inflation is close to 50% and yet we are still getting the same amount of scholarship JPA students got 30 years ago.

We need the raise, we truly need the raise and we have the right to get it. But instead of getting it, Pak Lah is saying that the allowances have already been raised previously. Are people up there trying to brainwash us into believing something which is not real? It may work with some but not with all.

Like I said, scholarships are GIFTS. Stop talking as if we owe it to you. Since you have never been employed, you have not worked for it. And if you're like many govt scholarship recipients in the past, you'd probably stay overseas after graduating. Therefore, you won't be working for it after you graduate either.

So HELL NO. You do not have a right to it.

Maybe the real problem is that in Egypt we don’t have a somebody’s daughter or son coming so it doesn’t matter if they don’t raise our allowances. Nobody will say a word. Thank you, Mr Budget Maker for taking care of your children first, and making sure that they get their good night’s sleep even if it is at the expense of other people. Your ‘hard work’ is truly appreciated.

And at whose expense is your scholarship at? My tax payments have been funding scholarships (yours and that of other leeches like you) for the past 10 years. Those payments would have been put towards my own education or that of my loved ones, had it not been for 'your' scholarship.

So, yeah... it is at the expense of other people. Namely ME! and the countless other taxpayers like me.

It's ironic really. My parents and I paid for absolutely all my education ourselves, with not a sen from the govt. And our tax money is now paying for yours,... But you're the one who has the goddamn gall to complain about this 'arrangement'? Screw you, you P.O.S!

If you need more spending money, here's an idea... GET A F*CKING JOB! Wash plates, wait on tables, sell Amway. Show some backbone, why don'tcha, instead asking for larger handouts?

Btw... you are a JPA scholarship recipient. NOT a (JPA) scholar. A scholar is someone who has considerable and significant knowledge, skill and wisdom - to an uncommon extent - as a result of ongoing academic pursuits. Unless you received your scholarship by bettering your peers, and not by the colour of your skin (or the strings pulled by your parents) - you are no scholar.

A life with no regrets...

31st August or Merdeka Day will now and forever have an even larger significance for me.

If you were wondering why this blog had no updates for over a week, it was because my dad passed away on Merdeka Day (after an exhausting 2 year fight with cancer), and I was home to be with my family. As you'd expect, blogging was not a priority at the time.

So, let my first blogpost in Year 0001 A.D. (After Dad) be a reminder to each of us to put first things first.

Life and loss are immutable things, but regret will haunt you for the rest of your days. If you don't get your priorities straight, regrets will be all that you're left with.

So, what am I going to do today? I'm going to call my mum, book tickets for my next trip home, ask that cute girl in the next cubicle out and maybe... maybe, buy myself a fast car ;)

Remember... "No man ever said on his deathbed, 'I wish I had spent more time at the office.'"

PS. The pic captures the mist shrouded limestone hills that encircle Ipoh on a rainy Sunday afternoon, taken from the carpark on the 2nd floor of Kinta City Shopping Center. Home is where the heart is.

An interview with Lee Kuan Yew - 24 August 2007.

I've always enjoyed listening to speeches and reading the comments of Lee Kuan Yew. The words are sharp & direct and the viewpoints insightful & opinionated. Much like our very own Tun Mahathir 'Apa Nama' Mohd.

Here, he talks about what he knows best... reality. The reality of Singapore, the Asian behemoths China & India, ASEAN, nation building and the future.

Excerpts from an interview with Lee Kuan Yew
Published: August 29, 2007 on IHT.com

The following are excerpts from an interview with Lee Kuan Yew, who served as prime minister of Singapore from 1959, when it gained partial independence from Britain, until he stepped down in 1990. He is currently minister mentor.

The interview took place at the Istana, where the Singapore president and prime minister work, on Aug. 24, 2007. Lee was questioned by Leonard M. Apcar, deputy managing editor of the International Herald Tribune, Wayne Arnold, a Singapore correspondent, and Seth Mydans, Southeast Asia bureau chief.

Here are some choicy bits which I particularly liked:

On Singapore and nation building...

Lee Kuan Yew: Because we thought by joining Malaysia, we'd go back to the old Singapore. We would have a hinterland, a common market, and can develop import substitution industries like other countries. Now, we're off on our own with not the most sympathetic of neighbors. How do we live?

To begin with we don't have the ingredients of a nation, the elementary factors, a homogenous population, common language, common culture and common destiny.

We are migrants from southern China, southern India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, before it was divided, Ceylon and the archipelago. So, the problem was, can we keep these peoples together?

The basis of a nation just was not there. But the advantage we had was that we became independent late. In 1965, we had 20 years of examples of failed states. So, we knew what to avoid - racial conflict, linguistic strife, religious conflict. We saw Ceylon.

Thereafter, we knew that if we embarked on any of these romantic ideas, to revive a mythical past of greatness and culture, we'd be damned. So, there's no return to nativism. We have left our moorings. We're all stranded here to make a better or worse living than in our own original countries.

IHT: To what extent can you replicate the Singapore model in other countries? Does it work?

Lee Kuan Yew: Supposing we had oil and gas, do you think I could get the people to do this? No. If I had oil and gas I'd have a different people, with different motivations and expectations. It's because we don't have oil and gas and they know that we don't have, and they know that this progress comes from their efforts. So please do it and do it well.

We are ideology-free. What would make the place work, let's do it.

On China...

IHT: We've written a lot about the competition for jobs and foreign investments. When it comes to China, it's obviously a great opportunity. But what other pressures do you see emanating from China for the rest of Asia?

Lee Kuan Yew: The next 10, 15 years, China is more an opportunity than a challenge. In the next 15, 20, 30 years, the opportunities will be taken up by many other competitors in China. The challenge will come when they start exporting not just low-end products but intermediate products and even some high-end products and software. And they will begin to export their expertise, exporting their factories and plants.

IHT: What about politically? There's always this talk of China seeing itself as the Middle Kingdom still. Does China have long-term ambitions in Asia that cause concern to the rest of the region?

Lee Kuan Yew: Well, there are memories, not institutionalized but in folk memories at a popular level. For instance when the Sultan of Brunei went to Beijing, about 10 years ago. They took him to his great-great-grandfather's mausoleum in Nanjing where he had died, when bringing tribute to China.

It was a neat way of reminding the Bruneians and the rest of us - Brunei was then a big empire in West Borneo - that this was our place in the pecking order.

[sean-the-man's note: If the Sultan of Brunei had to travel to China to pay tribute, would the Emperor of China marry off his daughter to Malacca, to a similar or lesser Sultan?... Food for thought, no?]

On China & India, and the future of Asia:

Lee Kuan Yew: If you study the history of this region, you will see that two influences came from the north. One was India from the west; the other was China from the east. So you have the Ramayana Classics, the dances and music in Burma, Thailand, Cambodia, Malaysia, Indonesia. You have Borobudur and Hindu-like temples in Bali. Then in the east you have Vietnam, and then the seaports of the region, pockets of Chinese traders.

So historically, two forces were at work, two higher civilizations India and China from the north flowed into this region.

Then European colonialism took over for 200 years.

Now, China and India have revived. I believe the outward thrust of their influence will follow a similar pattern.

On the environment...

Lee Kuan Yew: I think the problems will become more acute the other way, overpopulation, earth warming and displacement of millions, maybe billions of people, that is the greater danger.

IHT: What about the risks to Singapore, what are the risks to Singapore in those scenarios?

Lee Kuan Yew: Oh! We are already in consultations with Delft in Holland to learn how we can build dikes!

IHT: Is that right?

Lee Kuan Yew: Oh, yes! Let's start thinking about it now.

IHT: Are you serious?

Lee Kuan Yew: We are. We are in consultations with them.

It scares me because many world leaders have not woken up to the peril that their populations are in.

This melting ice cap. I expected great consternation! What would happen to this earth? But, no. Has it triggered off emergency meetings to do something about this?

Earth warming, the glaciers melting away? Never mind the Swiss Alps and skiing resorts having to manufacture snow. When the glaciers in the Himalayas and Tibet melt away, the Ganges, the Yangtze, the Irrawaddy, the Mekong, may dry up, except for rainy seasons. What will happen to the hundreds of millions? Where do they go? Where can they go? This will be a very serious problem.

IHT: Why don't you think the world isn't focusing on this?

Lee Kuan Yew: Because it's not an election issue. You know maybe 50 years, a 100 years, most of us would be dead. Leave it to the next president.

IHT: That's human nature isn't it? But it doesn't seem to be the way Singapore operates.

I wouldn't call the man a savant or an oracle, but he has a nasty habit of being right and rubbing your nose in it.

Malaysian politicians would do well to recognise some of the imminent issues and dangers that he brings up. They should be concentrating on building the damn dykes now (against external threats), instead of spending all their time dicking around with internal fetishes the country can ill-afford - like ketuanan Melayu, Islamic states and the NEP.

Proton Persona - Boleh Edition

Apparently, this is a photo of the new Proton Persona (or Gen2 sedan) that was taken during the launch in Kuching.

Nothing much wrong with it, is there?... except that there are 2 FUEL GAUGES! One in the speedo, and the other in the tacho.

I mean... much has been said about the quality control (or the lack thereof) in Proton... but this bad?

Is the "Proton QC Lulus" sticker even worth the scrap of plastic it's printed on? German TUV approved or Malaysian TIU?

Source: Cakap Tak Serupa Bikin

Other reading on Proton: search?q=Proton

Other cars to buy: Reviews - Cars Gadgets Whatever

Lucky and Flo deserve Datukships more than most of our Datuk Seris

Seems like canine piracy fighters, Lucky and Flo, have been given medals of 'outstanding merit' by Malaysia's Ministry of Domestic Trade and Consumer Affairs. They have literally sniffed out over 2 million illegal discs and in the process became the first dogs to attract a bounty on their heads.

Refer to Malaysiakini for the story. And if you're cheap and don't want to pay for news (which should be free), check out the story on ChannelnewsAsia.

If you ask me, I think Lucky and Flo have been short-changed by the govt. I reckon they should at least be conferred datukships. They have done more for crime-fighting in their short tenure than the entire police force, customs and internal ministry combined. And with the huge number of Datuks and other titles freely given to the civil service each year, I can't help but feel that the contributions of the 2 labradors have been sold-short by just 2 lousy medals.

For a Sean-the-man insight into the estimated 10,000 titles and 1,000 datukships which are awarded yearly to "deserving" Malaysians, go here: Sir Datuk Seri

Jobless UMNO Youth leader tells everyone else to get a job

Does anyone else (besides me) find it ironic that a man who has never had a single proper job in his entire life would have so much 'good advice' for jobless graduates?

Let's me put it this way. It's pretty hard to take advice about how to lead a common-sense / down-to-earth life from a man whose greatest accomplishment is being married to the PM's only daughter.

Rather than advice that they shouldn't be picky about jobs, I think jobless graduates would appreciate tips on - (i) how to convince people to lend them millions of ringgit to buy shares in a financial firm despite being jobless, (ii) how to convince youth wings of political parties to nominate and elect them to national leadership positions despite having no political nor leadership experience and skills, and (iii) how to find money to holiday in the US, buy 2 iPhones and pay the access & roaming charges for 2 US Cingular Wireless mobile lines without needing a job to earn money in the first place.

Gwen Stefani: From the top of her bosom to her knees

According to Maxis Hotlink's website, Gwen Stefani's KL concert is still on.
Below is what she wore at her recent concert, of the same tour, in Singapore.
Succumbing to religious extremist pressure groups, Maxis had earlier made a statement that Gwen Stefani's Malaysian concert would feature NO revealing costumes and abide with local guidelines on concerts (ref Reuters).

Malaysia's official guide for performers says women must be covered from the top of the bosom to the knees, the Star said.

Jumping, shouting and the throwing of objects are barred, while performers may not hug, kiss or wear clothes with obscene or drug-related pictures or slogans, it added.

So I guess Gwen's not bringing her normal wardrobe to KL (samples below). It's a pity cos she really makes being a 'flattie' sexy as hell!

I'd be really interested how she's going to make the whole 'covered from top of bosom to the knees' thing work.