Quran- The Quranic Perspective (with Monty Python on the side)

This is an interesting comedy sketch by Monty Python on religion. But looking at the world the way it is right now, and what Islam has become in many countries, I think there is some truth here. We forget, or we conveniently forget. We ignore the Quran at our own peril. We somehow prefer to listen to some unsubstantiated sources as guidance and follow opinions of others uncritically. Despite the fact that Allah has already reminded us clearly in Surah Az-Zumar that the Quran is the best of all hadis (..ahsan alhadeeth..). In fact I find it non coincidental that Allah has chosen to use the word hadeeth to refer to the Quran in this particular instance. There is no mention of the second best or even the third best. Just the best of all, i.e. the Quran.

Allah has sent down the best statement (ahsanal hadeeth): a consistent Book wherein is reiteration. The skins shiver therefrom of those who fear their Lord; then their skins and their hearts relax at the remembrance of Allah . That is the guidance of Allah by which He guides whom He wills. And one whom Allah leaves astray - for him there is no guide.

39:23 (Sahih International)

So it does beg the question of why do we still refer to other sources over the Quran, and at times, we take this other source as a more authoritative guide. My simple mind seems to think that there could only be 3 possible reasons for this:

1)     The Quran is not complete and there are omissions, and therefore we need a supplement.

2)     The Quran is not easily readable and so we need commentary to help understand it

3)     Some aspects of the Quran are no longer applicable in this day and age and therefore are abrogated (dimansuhkan).

The above are reasons that I have heard throughout my life growing up. The first reason given, i.e. “The Quran is not complete and there are omissions therefore we need a supplement” is actually a very common misconception. This is a myth. Allah has said in Surah An-Nahl that the Quran explains clearly everything and then in Surah Al-Anaam that nothing has been left out.

And on the day when We will raise up in every people a witness against them from among themselves, and bring you as a witness against these-- and We have revealed the Book to you explaining clearly everything, and a guidance and mercy and good news for those who submit.

16:89 (Shakir)

And there is no animal that walks upon the earth nor a bird that flies with its two wings but (they are) genera like yourselves; We have not neglected anything in the Book, then to their Lord shall they be gathered

6:38 (Shakir)

Clearly these verses point to the fact that the Quran has not omitted anything and it is complete, and therefore the argument that we need a supplement because the Quran is incomplete is irrelevant and baseless.

Another common reasoning that I have heard is that the Quran is not that straightforward. It is not easy to understand it and you need to be an expert (Arabic speaker, religious scholar etc) to read this book. But if one were to think about it logically, this argument doesn't make sense. Why have a manual on living life as a Muslim if you cannot read it on your own in the first place? On the point that the Quran is not readable to the ordinary Joe (or Ali if you prefer! ), this is what the Quran has to say:

And certainly We have made the Quran easy for remembrance, but is there anyone who will mind?

54:17 (Shakir)

And mind you, Allah has repeated this verse for three more times (54:22, 54:32, 54:40), so there is really no excuse that the Quran is not easy to read. It easy to remember, it is easy to understand. You don't need special skills or ability to be able to read the Quran.

And the final and possibly the most ridiculous argument I have heard is that part of the Quran is abrogated. This is just preposterous. If some verses of the Quran is no longer applicable and you need additional references to change what has been said in the Quran, then you are effectively calling the Quran obsolete…do we believe that ? I don't. But who cares about what I think, after all I don't speak Arabic and I am not a religious scholar. Let’s see what the Quran has to say:

And the Word of your Lord has been fulfilled in truth and in justice. None can change His Words. And He is the All-Hearer, the All-Knower.

6:115 (Muhsin Khan)

Allah has said..”none can change His words”…no one can change or amend the Quran. The Quran has been fulfilled…it is complete…He knows best. How can anyone possibly claim that it is incomplete or obsolete ? What proof does anyone have to make such claims ? Haatu burhanukum inkuntum saadiqeen…show me your proof if you are truthful!

And finally:

These are the verses of Allah which We recite to you in truth. Then in what statement after Allah and His verses will they believe?

45:6 (Sahih International)

And so I ask you, which other sources/references would you hold on to, if not the ‘ahsanal hadeeth’ (i.e. the Quran) ? Think about it……….

Why Fear the Appointment of DS Shafee ?

Many seem to think that the appointment of DS Shafee by the AG to lead the prosecution team for the appeal is an indication that the AG and the entire judiciary system are corrupt. I beg to differ. On the contrary, I think the appointment of DS Shafee clearly signifies that the AG and the judiciary are clean. If the judiciary system in Malaysia is tempered with, then why would the AG outsource the job of leading the prosecution team ? Surely a corrupt judiciary system would produce the desired outcome regardless of who leads the prosecution team ?!! Wouldn't it be easier to get the job done without attracting so much controversy in the first place? Ok fine, let’s assume that DS Shafee is corrupt and has a personal vendetta against DS Anwar. So what ? What can or will he do differently ? He still has to play by the rules in the court of law, and this will be made sure by the panel judges. If you think that the panel judges are corrupt, then shouldn't you also be protesting against the judges ? Funny, there is no protest against the panel judges, and so it can only mean that the defense team is happy with the panel, and so why fear DS Shafee ? At most he would go all out to win the case. But isn’t that the goal of the AG anyhow, to win the prosecution against DS Anwar ? Even if some other person is appointed for the role, surely that person would also go all out to win the argument through the rule of law. Because if he doesn't, isn’t that a corrupt prosecutor ? Surely you don't expect the AG to appoint someone to lose the case, because that would be a sign of a corrupt AG. So why the fear ?

National Reconciliation: A New Malaysian Reality

Some have referred to the outcomes of the GE13 as a Chinese-Tsunami, whereas others prefer to call it a Malaysian-Tsunami. It is a tsunami nonetheless, but not a completely unexpected one. The tsunami warning bells have long sounded, but some parties have chosen to be oblivious and ignorant about these warning signs presumably out of sheer arrogance. At the wake of this, the Prime Minister called for a national reconciliation as part of a process to heal the racial and divisive politics that have taken place in the recent past especially building up to the recent 13th General Election.

Throughout history we have seen several national reconciliation initiatives in other countries. The parliament of Ghana for example, in the year 2001 passed an Act to establish a National Reconciliation Commission. The Act, which came into force in 2002, had highlighted that the objective of the commission is “to seek and promote national reconciliation among the people of this country by recommending appropriate redress for persons who have suffered any injury, hurt, damage, grievance or who have in any other manner been adversely affected by violations and abuses of their human rights arising from activities or inactivities of public institutions and persons holding public office”. The need for a National Reconciliation Commission for Ghana arose in the wake of its historical election in December 2000, which witnessed, for the very first time post independence, the change of constitutionally-elected government via popular votes and not through violence. Ghana has had four military coups and several attempted coups. The unconstitutional governments resulting from these coups had resulted in massive abuses and violations of human rights. Therefore the call for National Reconciliation is perfectly justified given the anguish the Ghanians have gone through for decades and the concerted effort required for healing and mending the broken nation. Ghana achieved independence in 1957, and considering that we too got our independence in the same year, Malaysians can look back with pride knowing that what we went through may not be ideal, but it is still an enormous feat.

Another country that has had a formal National Reconciliation agenda is Liberia. In 2010, the government of Liberia made a request to the United Nations to place Liberia on the agenda of the UN’s Peacebuilding Commission (PBC) in order to help Liberia consolidate its peace. The outcome of this is the development of a Strategic Roadmap for National Healing, Peacebuilding and Reconciliation. Accordingly the roadmap defines reconciliation in Liberia as “a multidimensional process of overcoming social, political, and religious cleavages; mending and transforming relationships; healing the physical and psychological wounds from the civil war, as well as confronting and addressing historical wrongs including the structural root causes of conflicts in Liberia”. The need for reconciliation on a national scale in Liberia is a step in the right direction to foster sustainable peace in the country that has been marred by civil wars and unrest throughout its history.

Many other countries have had some sort of National Reconciliation agenda, such as Afghanistan and Lebanon, but like Liberia and Ghana, these countries are severely divided and are continuously in a flux of political instability that have, in the past, had civil unrest on a massive scale. However, the only other country, as far as I am aware, that has a National Reconciliation agenda but without the bleak political and civil state, is Australia. Australia has introduced a National Reconciliation week that is celebrated between 27 of May and 3rd of June every year. However, the purpose of the National Reconciliation week in Australia is very different from the ones we have seen in other countries. Australians have chosen to celebrate the National Reconciliation week to commemorate two very important events in the country, both of which relate to the aborigines. The reconciliation effort in Australia is very focused on creating the awareness and upholding the rights of the aborigines and necessarily to reconcile between the aborigines and the non-aborigines.

So what does national reconciliation mean for Malaysia ? What are we trying to reconcile ? Whom are we trying to reconcile with ? Shouldn't we be trying to reconcile with a new reality of Malaysia.

It seems to me that we need to reconcile with the fact that Malaysia is no longer the Malaysia we know of 10 years ago. We need to reconcile with the new political reality that democracy is alive and kicking in Malaysia. We need to reconcile with the new understanding that traditional media are no longer in control. We need to bring ourselves to reconcile with the power of the internet and the democratization of information. We need to bring ourselves to reconcile with the fact that Malaysians want more and deserve more. We have to reconcile with the reality of today that Malaysians no longer accept at face value what they are being told. We must learn to reconcile with the notion that a 2/3 parliamentary majority is a thing of the past. National reconciliation therefore has to begin from the top, by bringing themselves down to the masses. It is time that politicians reconcile themselves with the public. The reality on the ground is that, the more the politicians see themselves as masters, the more the public will be resentful of them. The more control and abuse the government of the day places on the media, the more skeptical the public will be of any information that comes from the government.

These are what we need to reconcile with. It is mainly a reconciliation agenda for the politicians and those in power, aspiring or existing. That's how I would define our National Reconciliation roadmap. And that's what I would like to see happen between now and GE14. I have been and will always be in the middle ground in an extremely partisan Malaysian landscape. Whatever happens between now and GE14 will dictate who gets my vote. So let the seduction game begin.

GE13 - The Public Sucks (Why i dont vote ! )

“…politicians…everybody complains about politicians…everybody says they suck! Well, where do people think these politicians come from ? They don't fall out of the sky…they don't pass through a membrane from another reality…they come from Malaysian parents, Malaysian families, Malaysian homes, Malaysian schools, Malaysian mosques/churches/temples,  Malaysian businesses and Malaysian universities, and they are elected by the Malaysian citizens….this is the best we can do folks..this is what we have to offer…its what our system produces…garbage in, garbage out…if you have selfish ignorant citizens, you are gonna get selfish ignorant leaders… and term limiting aint gonna do any good, because you are just gonna wind up with a brand new bunch of selfish ignorant Malaysians…so maybe…so maybe…maybe…maybe its not the politicians who suck…maybe something else sucks around here, like…the public….yeah, the public sucks ! ….”  

(Excerpts from a George Carlin stand-up, Malaysianised to suit our local context)

Analysis Paralysis

Plan for your future. Plan for your family. Plan for your career. Everywhere you go, everywhere you look, and every book and article you read, management courses for sure, will advise you on the importance of planning. We are now part of a society and culture who thinks too much about the future. We overplan and we overanalyse. We are too occupied about what will happen next. We are obsessed about the so-called important next steps. We fret about the future. We lose sleep over the belief of a bleak prospect. And as a result, we forget to live in the present. We ignore the beauty of the here and now. We neglect the things that truly matter to us. We forget about our life priorities. We plan, we wish, we dream, we desire and we hope and hope and hope for the very best. Hope, makes you hopeful. Hope makes you forget about the present. Hope makes you wish for the future. Hope makes you desire for the undesirable. Hope makes you dream for the unattainable. Hope makes you believe. Hope makes you convinced of the possibility. And hope, makes you leap for the impossible…..and leaving you hopeless when you drop, crushing every last bone in you, leaving you paralysed. Analysis paralysis. :)    

A Significant Nothing

I am sitting here in a cafe having my coffee and watching the morning crowd go by, everyone living their life, doing their own thing and as if oblivious to the bigger picture, not knowing that we must be a part of a small and insignificant entity that make up this bigger and significant cosmos . Everyone looks so different from each other. Some appear wealthier than the rest. Others appear to be struggling more than others. Did we choose to be the way we are now? We didn't choose to come to this world. We didn't get to choose our parents. We didn't get to pick our family members and we didn't choose to be born into this country. We certainly didn't get to choose our genes, let alone our social context. There are so many things about us that are just beyond our control and beyond our comprehension. The vastness of this cosmos is a mystery to the human mind and will forever be a mystery. And yet we say that we are in control of our lives. And yet we have the arrogance of claiming that we, as free human beings, are not subjected to anyone or anything. Have we failed to realize that we all have a past. A past that once began from a nothingness. And yet we know that nothing can emerge from nothing. It is an impossibility. But we did emerge from nothing. The cosmos emerged from nothing. But its funny how we still think that we are something. Something significant. Something that must be reckoned with. Something too significant to submit…..        

There is nothing wrong with our shools, just what happens afterwards!

Folks, you really have to check this out...i was completely surprised to see such absurdity coming from our so-called centre of excellence. Even a 12 year old would know better. Why a 12 year old you may ask? keep reading....

Now this first picture is proof that i have indeed referred to a UPSR-level examination paper.

Second image below is question number 17 in that particular UPSR-trial paper, which basically asked students to identify non-renewable energy sources from the list of four energy types provided (natural gas, petroleum, coal and biomass). Its quite clear that the answer is natural gas, petroleum and coal. Biomass is not the answer since it is obviously a renewable energy source. Most 12 years old would get this.

And now, lets see what our very own centre of renewable energy expertise has to say....this is something i got from the Sarawak Corridor of Renewable Energy (SCORE) website (you may check this out: http://www.sarawakscore.com.my/modules/web/)

You see folks, this is what happens when you decide to reject the official language for communicating scientific advancement. You get left behind...so far behind that even a 12 year old can see the obvious ignorance.

Conventional coal power plant is one of the dirtiest form of energy generation, but with newer technologies it can be made better. There are clean coal technologies that make coal power plants cleaner, especially with the use of carbon capture and storage. I can accept if we tout coal as a possible clean energy solution. And because we are now very dependent on gas and oil for electricity generation, i can also accept it if we say that coal is an alternative energy source. But to boldly and publicly imply that coal is a renewable energy source is just pure ignorance. We boast to the world about our SCORE initiative, trying to attract investors especially from abroad. And yet we say things like this....aiya, jatuh kemaluan!

The Malays,Chinese and Indians of Malaysia

You never stood in that man's shoes or saw things through his eyes
Or stood and watched with helpless hands while the heart inside you dies
So help your brother along the way no matter where he starts
For the same God that made you made him too
these men with broken hearts

A Scientist is an Ulama too !

Let me start by saying that this is in no way intended to disrespect anyone. Whilst I am a scientist by profession, this is not meant to insinuate that i am an ulama.. However i do feel that there is a lot of confusion in the word ulama and how it is currently being perceived. A scientist, by definition, is also an ulama...but then again, this is an academic excercise which has no bearing on anything! So here goes nonetheless....

1) In Arabic the word Ulama is the plural form of the word Alim, which has been derived from the word Ilmu. An Arabic dictionary will show you that the meaning of Ulama and Alim are as follows:

- Alim : expert, know all, past master, pundit, scholar, scientist…
(Ref: http://translation.babylon.com/arabic/to-english/#)

- Ulama: Scientist
(Ref 1: http://translation.babylon.com/arabic/to-english/)
(Ref 2: http://www.arabicenglishdictionary.org/)

It is very clear here that ulama or alim refers to someone knowledgeable and learned…the references I have quoted above specifically refers to scientists as the English equivalent to the word ulama…and besides, the word science itself is derived from the Latin word Scientia, which means knowledge.

2) So what does the Quran say about ulama? I have only been able to find the word Ulama once in the Quran, but I am not ruling out the possibility that it has appeared more than once.
Have a look at Surah 35, ayat 28, but for completeness please refer to 35 (27-28).
(Ref: http://www.searchtruth.com/chapter_display_all.php?chapter=35)

27
أَلَمْ تَرَ أَنَّ اللَّهَ أَنزَلَ مِنَ السَّمَاءِ مَاءً فَأَخْرَجْنَا بِهِ ثَمَرَاتٍ مُّخْتَلِفًا أَلْوَانُهَا ۚ وَمِنَ الْجِبَالِ جُدَدٌ بِيضٌ وَحُمْرٌ مُّخْتَلِفٌ أَلْوَانُهَا وَغَرَابِيبُ سُودٌ

28
وَمِنَ النَّاسِ وَالدَّوَابِّ وَالْأَنْعَامِ مُخْتَلِفٌ أَلْوَانُهُ كَذَ‌ٰلِكَ ۗ إِنَّمَا يَخْشَى اللَّهَ مِنْ عِبَادِهِ الْعُلَمَاءُ ۗ إِنَّ اللَّهَ عَزِيزٌ غَفُورٌ

Seest thou not that Allah sends down rain from the sky? With it We then bring out produce of various colours. And in the mountains are tracts white and red, of various shades of colour, and black intense in hue (27). And so amongst men and crawling creatures and cattle, are they of various colours. Those truly fear Allah, among His Servants, who have knowledge: for Allah is Exalted in Might, Oft-Forgiving (28)-
Translation by Yusuf Ali

See you not that Allah sends down water (rain) from the sky, and We produce therewith fruits of various colours, and among the mountains are streaks white and red, of varying colours and (others) very black (27). And likewise of men and Ad-Dawabb [moving (living) creatures, beasts], and cattle, are of various colours. It is only those who have knowledge among His slaves that fear Allah. Verily, Allah is All-Mighty, Oft-Forgiving (28)
Translation by Mohsin Khan

Tidakkah engkau melihat bahawa Allah menurunkan hujan dari langit, lalu Kami keluarkan dengan air hujan itu buah-buahan yang berlainan jenis dan rupanya; dan di antara gunung-ganang pula ada yang mempunyai jalur-jalur serta lorong-lorong putih dan merah, yang berlainan warnanya (tua dan muda) dan ada juga yang hitam legam (27). Dan demikian pula di antara manusia dan binatang-binatang yang melata serta binatang-binatang ternak, ada yang berlainan jenis dan warnanya? Sebenarnya yang menaruh bimbang dan takut (melanggar perintah) Allah dari kalangan hamba-hambaNya hanyalah orang-orang yang berilmu. Sesungguhnya Allah Maha Kuasa, lagi Maha Pengampun (28)
Translation in Bahasa Melayu

So what does the Quran say?
In ayat 28, the Quran says that only those with knowledge (ulama) would fear Allah.

And how do you become someone knowledgeable? The Quran says in 35 (27-28):

Don't you see (alam taraa):
- The creation of rain
- Production of fruits with a variety of colours
- Mountains with differing shades of colours
- The study of human beings
- The study of other animals and creatures

The above are descriptions of:
-Meteorologists
-Agriculturist/plant scientist/botanist
-Geologists
-Biologists/doctors
-Ecologists/ biologists/zoologists

These are descriptions of a scientist, which supports point number 1 above.

3) Now let us look at history… the ulama during medieval Islam were also successful scientists…Ibnu Sina, Ibnu Khaldun, Al-Khawarizmi , Al-Zarqali. etc….so I am not gonna spend much time explaining point number 3.

I am sure some people may disagree with me so please check your own references (Quran, dictionary etc) for more clarity and as always I stand to be corrected.

OWC - Enabler for a high income nation. Stop Whining People!

Whiners are loser. The Obedient Wives Club (OWC) is not all bad. People sometimes complain without knowing the finer details. You see, the OWC was actually introduced as an effort to boost the country’s economic standing. So open your hearts and minds my friends for I am about to share with you an important discovery.

You see…when Pemandu first came up with the Economic Transformation Plan (ETP), they identified 12 national key economic areas (NKEAs) that can have material contribution to the country’s economy. These 12 areas are the focus areas that will help transform the country into a high-income nation by 2015. But unfortunately, Pemandu has actually missed out on another key economic sector….an economic activity that has been in existence for the longest time known to mankind…. Prostitution…the trade of human flesh.

To make up for the lost of time, the OWC has been entrusted with the responsibility to train more women to be first class expert in engineering bedtime fun for men. The OWC will mass produce word-class talents with skills necessary to compete globally. And I have not the slightest doubt that with the determination and support of OWC, we will produce first class prostitutes. Indeed, we are already looking to expand into Singapore, so buckle up fellow Malaysian, or we may lose out to our kiasu neighbor. We need to make sure that there will be a high demand for our domestic goods!

Some of you may be having doubts right about now. Well keep reading for your benefits. You will need to be prepared for what is coming our way.

Malaysia has had a number of good and perhaps less good finance ministers. Let’s face facts. Of all these finance ministers, there is one that stands out. One that has been heralded by many for his extraordinary competencies. One that has led Malaysia through the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis. Yes, that's him my friend. We are talking about the one and only brader Anwar. Brader Anwar is known for his foresight ability. A prophetic ability that has allowed us to outsmart the IMF and to outcompete other developing economies. So for once my fellow friends, let’s just put our differences aside and take heed of his expert opinion on this.

...and what has he said so far, I hear you ask?

Come on, think people…think …remember China Dolls? You see…he has indeed shown us the way…China dolls is the way of the future. He sacrificed his political career, his family, all just to show us the way into the future. China dolls will be the next trading currency. He had long foreseen the slowing down of the US currency, and he knows that the Euro-zone debt is no where close to being resolved. So we can’t rely on the USD…we can’t rely on Euros…and the Dinar emas hasn't really taken off…so we need, desperately if I may add, a new currency…and seeing that China has been heralded as the next economic super power, it only makes sense to use China dolls. Smart eh?! And you people say that the poor brader Anwar is only into it for the kinky-fun. Shame on you!

But you know… Malaysians are really a bunch of smart people…think about it... even the Chinese don't realize it yet. We Malaysians are so advanced that we have not only recognized the importance of human-flesh trade as a key economic activity, we have also established a new and legal training institution to provide the necessary education to up-skill our women in preparation for the imminent economic revolution. In fact, I believe we are soooo very well planned that this will tie in very well with the halal-industry idea that was started not too long ago. The one and only first-class halal Malaysia-dolls! Bravo Malaysia!

We saw a gap in the global economy, and we have taken a very bold step to be in the forerunner. We are creating a new market space and making competition irrelevant. Harvard strategists will call this a blue-ocean strategy indeed. And with this Mr Prime Minister, you have my confidence that we are on track towards achieving a high income nation by 2015. Brilliant!

p.s. No malice or offence intended. The above writing is not true. This is purely satirical.

Policy Failures in Malaysia

There was an article I read on Jahamy’s blog about the increasingly unpleasant predictions of Malaysia, which i wish to build upon here in this article. You can read Jahamy's post by clicking here.

I personally believe that Malaysia has rather good and commendable policies. I really do believe that we have many well-intentioned policies in place. However I do feel that a lot of the policies are not achieving their intended objectives, or in some cases are causing unintended adverse effects, both of which are classic definitions of a policy failure. In many of the cases that I have looked at, and pointed out by many, the crux of the problem lies not in the design of the policies, but instead are a consequent of a lack of a robust implementation plan, or an absence of an appropriate measures for achieving these policy goals.

Take the following as examples:

1) Malaysia designed the National Biofuel Policy in 2006 as means to reduce our dependency on fossil fuels and to enhance prosperity and well being of all stakeholders within the commodities’ based industry. The policy aims to ensure the use of environmentally friendly, sustainable and viable energy sources. In support of these, the parliament in 2007 ratified Act 666 which provides detailed provision of the biofuel mandate. For starters, Act 666 does not even define what it means by "sustainable" or "environmentally friendly" energy sources. How can you then guarantee that we are not potentially replacing fossil with an inferior energy sources, i.e. one that is worse than fossil from an environmental perspective? Many scientific studies have shown that not all biofuels are better than fossil, there is a wider consideration that has to be taken into account and so the very least Act 666 should provide a set of criteria that biofuels have to comply with for it to be considered sustainable...whatever we choose sustainable to mean.. I shall not give the technical details here but suffice to know that most other biofuel mandates globally have sustainability definitions, such as those in Europe and the US. Soon we will be implementing the mandatory use of palm-biodiesel at 5% blend in regular diesel. The use of palm oil at 5% blend into diesel will not reduce our dependency on fossil simply because the Malaysian market rely more on petrol, and diesel is a smaller consumption sector. My calculation shows that effectively we will only reduce our dependency by about 2-3%. This is negligible. On top of that, we cant use palm oil more than 7% in current conventional cars because it can cause harm and void OEM warranties. Personally I think this is the wrong way to go. Why mandate the use of ONLY palm oil? Why specify the exact chemistry that is allowed? From a cost perspective, at current palm oil commodity price, it only makes sense to use palm oil as transport fuel if the price of crude oil is about 100-120 USD per barrel, otherwise it would mean more subsidy for the government. Many other countries have introduced biofuel policies long time ago and so many international oil and gas companies have had the experiences that they can share with Malaysia. But because our mandate seeks to “enhance prosperity and well being of the palm industry”, we risk not achieving our biofuel policy goals. There are other biofuel chemistries that you can use at 100% in conventional cars without causing any harm, and on top of that we can still produce it from our domestic agriculture. Malaysia is stifling innovation by prescribing a solution to our common problem. What the country should be doing instead is to set the end-game vision and allow for the free competitive market to decide the least cost solutions. And by doing so we create a demand pull for new technologies and the transfer of advanced capabilities from other countries into Malaysia, potentially leading to more FDIs.

2) Our automotive policy is yet another example that we all know too well about. The policy is designed to protect our local players, and in doing so we come up with many measures to lock-out competition and newer technologies. I fully understand the need to groom local industries, I honestly do. But the way we have gone about doing it is not very right. China’s automotive strategy has been quite successful at developing domestic players whilst at the same time bringing in more innovative products. Their policy measures are simple and effective. International companies are free to come in and compete…and they do so by bringing in new technologies. But there is only one caveat…you need a local company as partner. So what we have seen in China over the years is an influx of many international automotive companies coming in and partnering with the local players, and after several years, the local companies establish spin-offs of their own to come up with their truly local brands based on international best-practices. This is just splendid, a very effective and fast way to learn on best practices and develop local industry whilst not losing out on leading edge technologies. And please don't say that “made in China” brands are not good enough…..for your information, the automotive technology in China is now being catered for the European and American market, and thus they must at least comply with the strict quality, emissions and fuel economy standards of these more advanced countries. China-made cars are gaining market share globally and they are doing so at a very fast pace. Where is our local brand in the global arena? We lag far behind in our so-called effort of growing our domestic players, but in reality are still unable to compete glocally, i.e. fail locally and fail globally. In the domestic market the only competitive advantage that our local players have in our very own country is their artificially lower prices...it has nothing to do with brand loyalty or brand preference. This is the case with the latest Proton Inspira. Consumers buy it at the price of a "proton", and change the badge back to a Mitsubishi Lancer, explicitly showing preference for non-proton brands. How much longer will this continue?

The role of government is to come up with policies that provide a vision of the strategic future and direction for the country. The role of government is not prescriptive. Government is to govern and provide administrative support to the country. Let the free market compete and decide on the least cost option.

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!