Disruptive Leadership (Part 2) – Constructive Disruptors vs Destructive Disruptors

My educational background is in chemistry. I have always considered myself to be quite technical in the way I think and the influences it has on my decision making. As much as I enjoy being a techie, sometimes I feel like I am missing the bigger picture. Occasionally I fail to see the business and economic aspect of things. Of late, I have been having a lot of interest in subjects such as economics, business and leadership. I have been reading a number of books and blogs on these topics, but given my current personal circumstances, I find time to be a luxury that I have yet to afford. It is an excuse, I get it. So say no more. I have been a huge fan of BFM 89.9, which I find to be an extraordinary radio station that is heavily focused on business, finance, economy and leadership. They conduct interesting interviews with various industry leaders and experts on things that I find to matter most. They provide critical reviews on a range of relevant blogs that I frequently visit. Since I will get stuck in traffic anyway, might as well kill two birds with one stone.

In one of their recent interview sessions, an ex-journalist by the name of Kee Tuan Chye shared how his passion for writing was deeply motivated by his desires to seek and reveal the truth, and often this got him into trouble with the chief editors and so on. He used to be reprimanded for wanting to make right what he believed to be wrong. He would reach out to the public through his writings. He had hoped to do whatever little he can so that someday the country would be a better place for the future generations. Whether or not he succeeds, is a different story.

Listening to him speak, I realize that he has been trying to disrupt the existing system which he believes to be flawed. And I thought to myself, you don't necessarily need to be a politician in power to bring about transformation. It is a common mistake to think that you are a nobody of significance to be reckoned with. In my last post, I wrote about disruptive leadership. Everyone one of us can be a disruptive leader if we choose to be one. The power vested in a voter would mean that we, the “commoners”, can dictate what we would like to see happen to our country. In fact, to think about it, we are the leaders, and the so-called self-professed leaders-cum-politicians are effectively our followers. But this is only true for as long as we choose to exercise our duty as the leaders. And for as long as we choose not to take that responsibility, then we have to be contented with whatever and however the “followers” choose to lead.

And if you think about it again, there are many other ways to bring about disruption to the existing system. Disruptive leaders do not necessarily have to be individuals. It could be an organization. It could be the corporate sector. The Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO), for example, was initiated on the basis that more needs to, can and should be done to ensure that the palm industry is sustainable economically, socially and environmentally. It was started as a voluntary initiative by a group of companies who sought to disrupt the common practice in the palm industry which they thought was not sustainable. There you go, a disruption at work!

There are many other organizations in this world that have challenged the existing institutional systems that they wish to disrupt. Believe it or not, the corporate sectors can also be extremely influential when it comes to initiating change or pushing for policy reforms. We have all heard of the Google-China saga. Some of us have seen the news of how several multinational companies (sorry-no name and shame here), which was once criticized for procuring goods from Chinese suppliers that violate international labour laws. Subsequently, these multinational companies have adopted their own internal procurement standards to ensure that they no longer get supplies from such discriminatory companies. A glitch in business as usual and bham, now China has made known their commitments to end child labour and abuse. Such actions, though voluntary, can be an impetus for a bigger reform and transformation. These are indeed disruptive leaderships, but through creative means. You don't need to be a prime minister to enforce change. You don't even need to be minister to drive transformation. All you need is the willingness to disrupt status quo by being a creative disruptor.

But of course one will argue that not all disruptions are necessarily good and indeed that is true. A destructive disruptor will bring more harm than good. A disruptive leader with personal motives and agenda can be extremely destructive. We have seen many of this throughout history. Adolf Hitler is a case in point. He had a large crowd of ardent followers and thus making him a leader by nature. He managed to, successfully if I may add, disrupt the established institutional system. But he brought more harm than good - though it is worth noting that if he is still alive, he would probably deny this. It's a classic case of a destructive-disruptive leader. Sadly to say, I think we have more destructive disruptors than constructive disruptors, but of course not to the extent of the destruction that Hitler had caused.

In an ideal world, we want our government to be the constructive disruptors. But realistically, under the present scenario and in the world that we live in, we need more creative-constructive disruptors. To that end, i should probably register as a voter now!

Disruptive Leadership- Lead, follow or get out of my way!

As I sit here at my hotel room desk in Jakarta, glimpsing out of the window occasionally, I could not help but compare and contrast the capital of Indonesia with our very own pride and joy, KL. And I must admit that we have gone a long way to come to where we are now today, not just in terms of the physical socio-economic transformation, but also the in the quality level of the physical infrastructures. This is not insinuating that Indonesia is much more inferior than Malaysia, but if you feel offended, then sorry- get over it and get on with life.

Some may argue that I have not lived long enough to appreciate the evolutionary transformation that has taken place from way before my generation. But I will of course beg to differ for my very own reasons. I recalled a book I read several years back written by Kim Quek titled “Where to Malaysia? Back to Mahathirism or Anwar’s Reformasi”, where the author has very strong negative views against Dr Mahathir and in particular his mega projects. It made me realize that no matter what you do, you will always have people going against what you believe, telling you that you have done wrong and criticizing your every decision. The art of effective leadership is to not ignore criticism, but also to not take it personally.

I sometimes think that people confuse between leaders and politicians. To my mind, not all politicians are leaders inasmuch as not all leaders are popular. Most politicians would only change their ways when they receive cues from the citizens reminding them that it is time to change and the fear of losing the popularity battle is the impetus for change. A true leader, on the other hand, has sufficient foresight to think what is strategically best for the nation or the people of the country. To put it simply, a leader leads and not waits to be led by the citizens. But of course, that would mean that his actions would not necessarily be a popular one thus making him a failed politician. There are many instances where leaders were/are also popular, but there is no point in naming names since obviously my perception of a successful leader will differ from others. It is subjective in nature.

In thinking about leadership styles, there are also cases of disruptive leadership that is often against the majority thinking flows that are entrenched with complacency. These are the kinds of leaders who believe in a cause that differs from the majority, but seeks to revolutionize the present system for a potentially better future. Worst still, often they are dismissed as a “mad-man” and their ideals go unnoticed. This is a deterrent for many to go down the route of being different from the majority as they fear that they would inevitably invite trouble. The mere fact that there is a saying of “never trouble trouble till trouble troubles you” signifies that this is the mindset that is prevalent in the current society globally –i.e. just go with the flow.

We need more disruptive leaders to bring about the change that is required. Relying on the naturally slow Darwinian momentum may prove to be too late for us as a nation. A disruptive leader, by definition, would disrupt the natural cycle by turbocharging change and overcoming whatever inertia thats holding us back against progress and betterment. Martin Luther King was a disruptive leader. He saw injustice and inequality in his society and decided to change it. He disrupted the existing system which initially drew resistance from his very own people, the oppressed. But as with all charismatic leaders in history, although he had a difficult start, he managed to gain sufficient supporters to fight for the dream that he had. And yes, it all starts with a dream of a future that we want…

Tan Sri Phang says that Musa Hassan is ungrateful and implies that Police is indeed not independent!

In his last speech, the outgoing IGP alleged that there were third party interferences disrupting the command and control of the police force. Some of his choices of words were:

"...yang mengecewakan saya kadang kala ada interference daripada pihak2 yang lain dalam kita menjalankan tugas...,there shouldn't be any third party yang memberi arahan2 kepada Pegawai Polis bawahan tanpa pengetahuan Ketua Polis Negara. .... ini adalah satu tindakan yang salah, because ianya tidak selari dengan command and control of the pasukan Polis..."

- Tan Sri Musa Hassan, Outgoing IGP-

That obviously ruffled some feathers somewhere and not many people were happy about it. And now comes the usual denials, retaliations, counter-accusations etc…but hey, what’s new…Malaysia boleh rite?! However, one really caught my attention. The comments from Tan Sri Robert Phang, Chairman of the Social Care Foundation, I find to be quite… eeeerrrrr hhmmm ….funny…not haha funny, but “funny” funny….

You can read his comments here: http://www.malaysiandigest.com/news/36-local/8347-phang-musa-ungrateful-to-former-masters.html

Below are some of HIS "funny" comments that I have extracted:

1) “Has he forgotten that his tenure as top cop was extended thrice by former Prime Minister Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Abdul Razak and Dato’ Seri Hishamuddin?”
Taiko, you see, when you say that, what it means is that the IGP position was given to Tan Sri Musa and tenure extended thrice not based on competency and achievement, and so he should be indebted to “them” because if it were based on merits alone he would not have been there for so long… so to show gratitude he has to serve “them” as “masters” and not the people, even if there is a conflict… what this implies is that Tun Abdullah, Datuk Seri Najib, and Dato Seri Hishamuddin have all extended his tenure because of the vested interest that they have in this position…OR in other words (and a much more interesting one is that) you are implying that Tun Abdullah, Datuk Seri Najib, and Dato Seri Hishamuddin have all corrupted the transparency and independency of the police force…so taiko, is this what you are claiming…ada berani?

2) “…Just because his tenure has not been extended, he has now suddenly found his guts to speak up for the force and champion independence”
So you do admit that all these while the police force is not independent? If the police force has always been independent, then what is there to champion?

3)“Musa should look at himself in the mirror and ask whether he had contributed to the enhancement of the police force. The nation’s crime rate is at worrying state and the public has lost much confidence in the police force”.
Classic, if you can’t refute his allegations, then attack him personally…okayla taiko, I give you the benefit of the doubt…so he is ineffective, he has not done a good job and was an irresponsible IGP who didn’t help improve the image of the police force and the crime rate….hhmm…taiko, then why did Tun Abdullah, Datuk Seri Najib and Dato Seri Hishamuddin renewed his tenure three times ah? If like you say he is not competent enough, and if it were up to any normal thinking human being, then no one would have extended his contract…not even once…let alone three times. Oklay, since I am in a good raya mood today, let me give you two possible scenarios for you to choose as your defense. One is that he is really an incompetent IGP but whose tenure were renewed thrice because Tun Abdullah, Datuk Seri Najib and Dato Seri Hishamuddin has vested interest in keeping him as the IGP and therefore depicts the lack of transparency and independency of the police force. Second option is that he is incompetent (still), but the three politicians are busy politicking and couldn't care less about the worrying crime rate in the country or if Tan Sri Musa is the right person for the IGP position and therefore would be easier to blindly extend his tenure instead of finding a replacement. So taiko, which one…the IGP incompetent, or the ministers and prime ministers are incompetent?

4)“…don't tell me that he is Mr Perfect and thus the government should not interfere?”
Aiyo…so got interference or not? One time say don't have, now say got…which is it la taiko… if he is acting within the law then why interfere?…if he has done something deemed wrong but is not illegal, then draft a law or code of conduct or whatever to control him…and if he breaks it, then sack or reprimand him…why have all this subjective interferences based on whims and fancies…the latter will only send out the message that the government has a hand/say in all police actions…with all these hanky-panky going on, how can you blame the people for saying that police investigations against brader anwar was not fair.

And the best of all, Phang also urged Musa to clarify whether he is a Law Degree holder or just finish Diploma in Criminology…Phang said “He must clarify. The public need to know. There is a very much different between Law and Criminology”.

Tan Sri Musa, make sure you put that clearly in your resume next time you retire, not when you were first appointed because Tan Sri Phang obviously feels that you are not fit for the position, and it seems that he feels very strongly of this only when you retire...so folks, retirement is not as easy as it used to be...u need to be qualified to justify your employment pre-retirement in order for you to retire…so Tan Sri Musa, please take note…the people NEED to know your qualifications when you retire, just as much as I NEED to know if my neighbor washes his backside after he takes a crap!

Is it true that you cannot use logic to explain/understand Islam?

In my last post on fate, destiny and pre-ordainment, a commenter left an interesting remark: You cannot use logic in religion. This is an interesting comment which got me thinking. Some part of me says, yeah he is right, but somehow the other part of me would like to challenge this notion. So this entry is a discourse analysis (without much time to think) on the relevance of logic in religion. The word religion is extremely broad as it covers so many different religions, and somehow I don't really fancy the word religion as I am still trying to understand what it means by “religion”. Since my last article was quite Islam centric so I can only assume that the commenter was referring to Islam specifically. So the question that will form the basis of my thought process is: Is it true that you cannot use logic to explain/understand Islam?

For starters, we need to understand what logic actually means. In our everyday English use, it would simply mean “a particular way of thinking, especially one which is reasonable and based on good judgment”. This is the definition provided by Cambridge dictionary. In the study of philosophy, logic is a field on its own. Gensler, in his book Introduction to Logic, defined Logic as the “the analysis and appraisal of arguments” and he continued to say “when you do logic, you try to clarify reasoning and separate good from bad reasoning”. So essentially logic is about good reasoning. Logic is about coherent argument. It is about forming the right premises to support your conclusions. A logic can be flawed if it is either not based on valid reasoning (i.e. premises don't support conclusions) or that the reasoning is not sound (i.e. premises are false).

However I personally believe that logic is also a function of our exposure, knowledge and experiences; and as these can evolve with time then so do our ability and perspectives of logic. For example, centuries ago when many believe that the world is flat (and not spherical), the use of such flat world theory as premises to support your arguments back then could be seen as a sound argument. But today, if I were to present the same argument when we know for sure that the Earth is spherical, I would be perceived as being illogical! What this says is that logic evolves as we get wiser and have more insights. It is human tendency to classify things that we don't know as being illogical.

One could still argue that there are things that we don't know but there are also things that we know for sure. And the line separating this is, arguably, quite clear. So if we know something does not make sense (i.e. false!), then it must be illogical. I still wish to challenge this notion as I feel that our knowledge of nature is still at its infancy.

In our modern day thinking, when we think of something as being common sense, very often, knowing or unknowingly, we are basing this on scientific principles. If you were to ask a non-science based person what would happen if I were to jump off a building, then he would tell you for sure that you would fall down. This is science, even if there is no mention of gravity and Einstein!

Many people seem to think that science is absolute and deterministic, and therefore must form the basis of our everyday logic. But actually it is not necessarily the case. So what is science?

Science is not about a novel creation. Science is about explaining an observation using ab initio methods. The only novelty in this is the formulation of new theories for an old observation, or the application of existing theories to explain new observations. So the evolution of science and the discoveries of new principles are driven by observations. As an example, Newton observed an apple falling off a tree to the ground and he formulated the concept of gravity. Assuming that we live in space where there is no knowledge of gravity and its effects on earth, I doubt Newton or anyone else would have conjured such a fancy concept that easily, and even if he did, it would probably have been deemed illogical by many. The essence of this is that scientific discoveries are being driven by what happens in nature and things that we do not observe frequently is often seen as being unnatural and perhaps even illogical. And scientific discoveris, like many other outcomes of mankind thinking process, has severe limitations. Please don't misconstrue this as a call for us to stop thinking. This is a call for us to not immediately dismiss an idea on grounds of illogicality since our logical aptitude is restricted.

In 1927, Heisenberg (see image) published a scientific paper which revolutionized the way scientists view science. It was later known as Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle. Essentially the implication of his arguments was that no phenomenon is a real phenomenon until it is an observed phenomenon. But the act of observing a phenomenon, in some cases, is a function of the observation methodology which could temper with the originality of the phenomenon such that it is no longer natural (I will not bore you with the details of this). So effectively what it means is that science may not be absolute after all!

It is also worthy of note that most scientific predictions (such as weather forecasts) are based on probabilistic functions- i.e. how likely for an event to occur, or how likely for it to be a real observation. In any cases, these probabilistic functions are based on a non-deterministic model, which means that it depends critically on the initial assumptions. Heisenberg has shown that it is not possible to know something with the greatest certainty. So any infinitesimally small deviation (i.e. error) in the initial assumptions would accumulate error rapidly and make the final prediction useless. This is why weather prediction beyond a few days is typically not reliable. This is known as the butterfly effect- a non-significant event somewhere could render the scientific predictive power futile.

I am in no way saying that science is flawed. I am just saying that it has its own limitations. Even the simplest question of “is light made up of waves or particles” have yet to be fully resolved (I hope to write more on this someday).

So coming back to the key question at hand, can logic be used to reason Islam?

The guiding principles of Islam are written in the Quran. In some cases the Quran does provide the premises for certain principles. But in other cases, the Quran provides the guidelines for living life without the underlying premises, and if we wish we could try to reason it but do not fault God if we fail to do so logically.

I personally believe that the answer to this question is: Yes and No.

Yes, if you know the science behind the logic. No, if we haven’t broken the limitations of logic (i.e. newly acquired knowledge, new perspectives on logic etc). But that does not mean to say that Islam is not logic. It is merely saying that we don't know enough to form a valid and sound logic. Logic evolves. I believe that Islam does not. Logic may catch up with the Quran, or it may not…. No one knows.

Historically Einstein had repeatedly said this: “God does not play dice”. Indeed, it’s just that sometimes He throws the dice in places where it cannot be seen. It is our duty to seek these dices to reveal the logic.

Does takdir mean "destined" or "predicted"? - I dont know!

If you were to listen to any Muslims (ustaz, politicians and just about anyone) speak publicly, very likely you will hear them end their speech by saying “segala yang baik itu dari Allah, dan yang buruk dari kelemahan diri saya sendiri” , or which basically means that all that's good is from God meanwhile anything bad/less good is my own doing. I am not quite sure I fully understand this…well actually, I am not fully sure I can agree with this. Why do we pick and choose…its either everything good and bad is from God, or everything good and bad is your own doing. Now before you shoot me down or accuse me of being un-Islamic or anything else for that matter, just hear me out. If you say that the good is from God, then even the bad should be from God….but that does not mean to say that God is bad…it just means that God has given you good as well as bad…hence why we are not perfect human beings…we are allowed to be imperfect. Right? No? Do correct me if my logic is amiss… I am just thinking out loud and would be happy to be corrected if I am wrong…

I have been thinking about this for a bit now, and somehow my thinking led me to the idea of fate/destiny..basically “takdir”. What does takdir actually mean? What is the concept of fate?… I have been brought up to understand takdir to mean that our entire path in this life has already been pre-determined by God. So does this mean that everything I do or say has already been pre-determined? To what extent are my actions pre-determined? Do I still have control over what I say and do ? Or maybe fate is not about being pre-determined..maybe it is about being predicted..no? I don’t know…So if i am writing this article now, is this my voluntary action (predicted), or is it an action that I have been set to do (pre-determined)?

Somehow I feel that takdir is not about being pre-determined..it is more about being predicted. It should not be about being pre-determined because what being pre-determined says is that I don't have control over my actions. And if I don't have control over my actions, then why should I get penalized on judgment day? No? I think, and I may be wrong here, that takdir is about being predicted. So I have control over my actions, and my action is a result of my own doing…but whatever I do, God knew I would do it. Possible? No?

But I have heard many people saying that takdir is about ketentuan Allah..i.e. destined (I prefer the word pre-determined). Hhmm…I think things that are beyond our control, i.e. the bigger picture is ketentuan Allah. For example, if I were to suddenly jump off the building, then that's my own action (and God knew I would do it). But if a plane hijacked by a terrorist suddenly flew into my building killing me, then I am destined (pre-determined) to die in such manner…but the actions of the terrorists are his own actions (and God knew he would do it and he shall be judged for that!).

I think this is fundamental. If we say that takdir is about being predetermined, then a Muslim is a Muslim because he is destined to be one, meanwhile a non-Muslim is a non-Muslim because he is destined to be one. And I think that is not right. God is fair. I don't think God would punish you for something you have no say or control over. You are a Muslim because you chose to be one, and you are a non-Muslim also because chose not to be one. And you shall be judged for that. No? So if you are born a Muslim (like myself and many other Muslims in the world), it does not necessarily make you a Muslim. Because if it is automatic as such, then that is again destiny. You have to want to be a Muslim to be a Muslim. It must be a conscious decision. And you have to do what a Muslim is supposed to do to be a Muslim. And don't ask me what that is, because I am still trying to understand how you define Islam and what it takes to be one.

What I have written so far is what I think. I admit I have yet to go through the Quran in detail to find the answers. It may be explicitly explained in the Quran and what I say may be a complete nonsense. And if so, please do correct me. I am learning and I still have too many unanswered questions.

Change for "change"

We as a country get leaders that we deserve as a perfect reflection of who we truly are....a nation who is not willing to change...a nation who puts personal interest above others..a nation that do not have faith in the power of the people...

we speak about change, but only to commercialise and politicise it..sloganeering that has gone so bad that the word itself has lost every iota of meaning that it was originally meant to have...now how do I call for change if the word itself is so tainted and carries with it humongous baggage linked to politics, insincerity and contention. If I cry “change!”, would you decry “politicking!” ? Or even worse, if I cry “change!”, would you just ignore me?

But maybe, we just need to have faith once again..have faith that someday change would mean change, and nothing less. Maybe we just need to be hopeful that someday, someone will make change possible. Call it wishful thinking, but perhaps wishful thinking is what we need for a change. And for a change, perhaps we should change first. Perhaps we need to change our view towards change. Perhaps changing our perspectives towards change is exactly what we need. And now, perhaps, if I cry change, you would cry in joy for the change to come! And I ask here, do you have enough faith to change for change?

Innovation crippling innovation

I travelled back from work one Friday by train since I had to send my car for a quick interior re-upholstery. As usual, the train was jam-packed and I was sardined in between many other commuters. Throughout the journey, I was probably the only person without any earphones on, whilst others were either listening to their ipod, speaking on the phone, listening to music on their mobile phones or just asleep. This is the effect of having enabling technologies. Technologies are great. They are enablers, but at the same time they are disablers. They enable us to reconnect with the far aways, but disable connections with the ones closer. Technological breakthrough in ICT brings us closer but at the same time pushes us away. They allow us to be closer to those far away, but push those close to us making them feel far away. It is amazing that people would talk so loud on the phone about things that are so personal, but yet they would never even consider whispering to a stranger about those personal stuffs. Technologies break boundaries. But technologies also erect new walls. Modern societies are already showing symptoms of technology overdose. People don't communicate as well as the older generations. We don't appreciate a decent conversation in a social setting. We don't read as much as we should as we now lack the patience for delayed gratification. We don't think as much as we ought to, as we need instant gratification. Innovative technologies are crippling innovation in our modern culture. We rely too much on technologies to solve our problems, but we don't depend on our ability for creative solutions. We Google for answers every time we face problems, but we never put in enough effort to devise a solution. We plagiarize innovative solutions when we should be innovating ourselves. We talk on the phone using Bluetooth while driving, we listen to ipod while going for a run, we have the TV on, music blasting out loud whilst writing our thoughts down for our end of year thesis on a high end laptop. We think we are thinking, but are we really? We claim to be able to multitask, but multitasking means that you are able to partition your thoughts so that you can do a few things simultaneously. But wouldn't that mean that we are reducing the efficiencies of our thinking process? Where are we heading with all these technologies? Perhaps someday Google will come up with technologies that would do the thinking for us. Maybe it is time for me to embrace technological change and get myself an iphone.

The time has come for an innovative political reform!

(Image taken from http://evdguy.blogspot.com/)

The BN has been governing the country for many years now. Whilst I do agree that a lot have been achieved since independence, I also do have regrets that a lot were not done, if not could have been done better or differently. Looking at the political scenarios of other developed countries, it is unsurprisingly common to see the establishment of a two party system, which many economist and political analyst would argue as a necessity to provide the check and balances for a country to be well governed. And a political party gets elected as the government via a fair voting process. This is what we call democracy. And the experts say that democracy is good for the country, irrespective of which country!

Malaysia achieved independence in 1957- that's almost 53 years ago. We have only just started to form a “not-quite” two party system. I say not quite because though we now have PKR-DAP-PAS as another possible ruling coalition, we still have yet to break the monotony (for a lack of better word) of having the same ruling party governing the nation. Some states have seen changes especially in the last vote, but not the country as a whole. I am not vouching for this alternative coalition, but I feel that the whole check and balances argument is valid to prevent complacency and entrenchment from creeping in.

So yes, we are close to establishing a more desirable political system. But what we are lacking is the political maturity that is needed for a two party system. A healthy competition between the two parties has to be established for good nation building. It is okay to be critical of each other, if it is for the good of the rakyat. It is okay to be challenging and difficult, if being difficult would mean that the rights of the rakyats are taken care of. But what good is a two party system, if it is to only look after the self-interest of the politicians. What are we trying to achieve if parties are vengeful against each other at the detriments of the rakyat. Be professional, is all I am asking for.

If ruling party loses a state, then accept it with grace, acknowledge that the rakyat has chosen the then opposition and only have yourself to blame for not trying harder to please the rakyat. And do not take it out on the rakyat, because without us, you will not even be there in the first place. And using your federal power to suppress the lost-out state will only show your lack of professionalism and political immaturity, and the deep rooted vested interest political fundamentals of the party.

And the same professionalism and maturity has to be shown by the opposition. The role of an opposition in a two party system is not to oppose every single thing just for the sake of opposing. Oppose to what is wrong and work with the government if it is right, because at the end of the day, even if political parties are slow to mature, the rakyats are maturing at an even faster pace. We see what is happening in the political arena, and playing dirty politics as a populist measure will not win the hearts of the rakyat. If you take your opposition role to an extremely personal level, I question if you have the ulterior motives of a vested interest politician.

The adage “whatever happens in Texas, stays in Texas” is very much applicable in this country too. Whatever bickering that happens in this country, must only be kept within this country. Whatever dissatisfaction that is felt is expressed only within the country. The rule-of-thumb is to never complain to a foreign country or bitch about Malaysia to other countries because it really does make you wonder if you are truly faithful to the country. How can you sell your country by revealing the dirt to outsiders? It is like being in a marriage. Would you really tell outsiders about the bedtime inadequacies of your partner, or in other words would you really tell the world about your partner’s kinky fetish? Although you have differences in political fundamentals, both parties are essentially representing the common rakyat. So that does make you partners. Partners in trying to develop the country. Partners in ensuring only the best for the rakyat. To the outside world, both parties are Malaysian parties. To the outside world, it does not matter if you have different believes. If you continue to bicker in public, condemning the country to the external public, the external public would not see any shortfalls as being due to the ruling party, but rather a shortfall of the country. The country would get bad press. The country would get a bad name. See the following links for a recent bickering that was taken to the international level by the so-called politicians that are there to safeguard current and attract future foreign direct investments.

Article1: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704375604575023813383421900.html
Article2: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704375604575023801488108836.html

What are we trying to achieve here ? Who are we trying to impress? The Americans?

The time for a political reform is definitely now. We established a political system that had worked in the past. But in the past, it was a single party system. Now, we have a two party system, and it is here to stay for much longer. And unless we find innovative ways to co-exist and work together, we will not go anywhere as a country. This is a new field to us. But the world does not care if we are a newbie to this arena. No one will buy us some time to acclimatize to this new scenario. All countries are running, but some are running faster than the others. We can’t afford to slow down to learn to adapt to the new system. There is just no time. Pick up where we left off, and continue sprinting. Continue developing the country. Continue to improve our education system. Continue to attract more foreign investments. Because every second we stop to argue, we are losing to other countries that are eager to develop and are offering better and more attractive conditions for investments.

China has an autocratic political system. It is much easier to implement changes in China. So do we really want to delay, procrastinate or even stall progress?

Saiful, si budak baik yang menurut kata orang tua

The following is my first impression when i read the online news (thestar online) on the "Saiful vs Anwar" case. I have not had much time to think about it, so i am just writing it as i go along....but hey, this is my FIRST impression, though i am sure many people would share the same.

Saiful was asked to go into the bedroom, undress and clean himself up before being preyed onto by Anwar like a lion preying on a deer….and he obeyed without putting up a fight at all….. Bagus budak 22 tahun nih…mendengar cakap orang tua…
http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2010/2/4/courts/5608882&sec=courts

In ONE SHORT hour (between 3 to 4 pm) the following happened:
- Saiful arrived at condo
- Had a quick chat with Anwar and Anwar had to sign some documents
- Anwar made an indecent proposal and saiful said no
- Saiful was asked to go into the master bedroom which he did (budak baik!)
- Anwar came in, locked the door, closed the curtains and asked saiful to clean himself up in the bathroom
- Saiful went into the bathroom, undressed, cleaned-up and CAME OUT CLAD IN A TOWEL(why?)- budak baik!
- Whilst he was doing that Anwar undressed and put a towel on.
- So then came Saiful, and Anwar started hugging and kissing him (i.e. foreplay) and he didn't resist at all- budak baik!
- Anwar then released the monster from his towel and banged Saiful who didn't put up a fight. In order for Anwar to do so, Saiful had to bend over, or it would have been anatomically challenging- budak baik!
- After several ins and outs, Anwar had premature ejaculation (orang tua, so pancut awal…)- this is an assumption since he had to get it all done within 1 hour.
- Then after it was all done, Saiful dressed up (assuming that he didn't wash up and liked the feeling of wetness up his ass) and left the condo.

All of that in ONE hour! Kuru kuru….

Okay…all of those happened on the 26th…and on the 28th, he went to make a police report and did a medical check. For someone who does not indulge in rare (i.e. rear) activities, I would assume that he would have bled like hell.. So for slightly over a day, he kepit punggung, tak basuh Anwar’s semen and tak berak in order to not lose Anwar’s DNA…because forensics apparently found semen evidences up his asshole. I guess maybe even after basuh there were bits and pieces that were stuck in between crevices….well, being a chemist I think this is possible
http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2010/2/4/courts/5611810&sec=courts

Next…he decided to resign…where he gave Anwar 2 reasons:
1) Saiful is not disciplined, always come to work late and so kena marah..
2) He was given special treatment though he was less qualified…
But he continued to say that the real reason is because punggung tak suka kena cucuk…
http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2010/2/4/courts/5609411&sec=courts

The above may seem like I doubt whether the event actually took place or not. Well, honestly I do have my doubts. But I am not entirely certain that it did not happen either. I feel that a leopard by genes, will not change its spots…he can hide it, but eventually it will re-appear if not get caught off-guard. So, if Anwar were to actually swing that way, then I would expect that he would find opportunities to fulfill his innermost desires. I don't know the full truth. I wish I do. But I don't think there is a way to find out as long as we live in a world controlled by vested interest politicians.

By the way…I don't vote and I have never voted…so don't call me a supporter of Anwar or any other political parties. I hope to vote the next time…but until the time comes, I still have time to think, evaluate and decide!

Condolences! It's the new year again..

Every year as we step into the new year, particularly hours before, I am sure we will all receive numerous text messages wishing us a happy new year. All these well wishes, I am sure it is as warm and sincere as it can be, puzzles me a little and very often I will not reply to them, not because I dislike it, not because I don't wish them well and not because of any religious reasons either. I sometimes struggle to understand the concept of a new year celebration in its entirety. Every year I have this same dilemma. Every year I will think about this perhaps more than I should. Why do we celebrate the start of a new year? Instead, why don’t we feel sad leaving behind the year before? Afterall, we are one step closer to adulthood..one step closer to more responsibilities….and one step closer to death! So why can’t I say “Condolences! I am sorry that you have to move into the new year yet again!”

People would wish each other “a happy new year” as if knowing for sure that the year before was a bad one and the future would be better. Perhaps the idea is to say that even if this year sucks, you can still work for a better year in the next. But what if 2009 is a year that you have achieved greatness. A year that has been jolly good for you. A year that you would not like to forget and a year that you would like to remember and if possible be in forever. Then the onset of a new year would simply mean that you would have to work harder to continue having a year as good as before if not better. It seems like a vicious cycle. Continuous improvement for a better year. There is no such thing as continuously being better, every year. Technically that is not possible. If you achieve the absolute greatness in 2009, then likely 2010 would not be better. It will either be worse, or in the best case scenario, the same. Why do we then wish each other a ”happy new year”?

Why do we have to wait till the end of a year to do that. Why not wish me a “happy current year”? If you are sincerely concerned about my happiness, then wish me a happy new day instead. Pray for my health, wealth and happiness everyday. Why wait till the end of the year to do so? Why is the end of the year so auspicious?

Fine, scientifically it marks that the earth has gone around the sun in one full circle. But seriously, is that something that we have to be proud of? Did we actually have something to do with that? You don't expect me to believe that the earth wouldn't be able to go around the sun if we were not here in existence? In fact, it would probably go way faster if we, the excess baggage, were not here… or maybe not…nobody knows.

I was in KLCC during the new year eve countdown. It was my first time actually being in a new year’s countdown. (I had guests visiting from afar, so I thought I should be the host with the most!) There were thousands of teenagers, couples, old folks, pregnant ladies, kids, babies, Malaysians, foreigners and others (don't know what they were!) celebrating the start of a new year. And I just could not get my head around this phenomenon. Why are we celebrating? What are we celebrating ? It is just another year. It is just the start of another day. It was as if we were celebrating the start of a new year after so much of struggle and difficulties going through obstacles in 2009. It was as if we crawled our way through 2009 into 2010. It was as if we fought really hard to survive 2009 in order to get into 2010. It was also as if we had to go through a process of extreme scrutiny with examinations and filtrations so that only the cream of the crop gets to move into 2010. Fact of the matter is that, even if we were to bum around the entire 2009, we would still end up in 2010. It is only natural for time to pass. It is natural for days to pass. And it is definitely natural for years to pass. And as naturally as it can get, no matter what we do, how much effort we put in, whether we were good or bad, we would still step into 2010. Life goes on!

Perhaps we celebrate because we need something for us to hold on to and look forward to. We look forward to a new year as an excuse to not have a good year this year. Maybe we need it to believe that next year will be better so that we could go through a difficult year now. Or maybe we just need it so that we could be wishful that next year will be better. Personally, I think that it is just wishful thinking. Nothing wrong with having dreams if it keeps us going through tough times. But it seems like we celebrate the new year as an excuse to have fun and have parties. We celebrate the new year to fulfill our innermost hedonistic desires!

So, in this new year, I shall not wish you anything. I shall not wish you a healthy new year. I shall not wish you a wealthy new year. And I shall definitely not wish you a happy new year. But what I will do is pray that you have a great day every single day. You don't need to know this. Just know that I wish the best for you everyday! So have a happy current year…and a happy new day!