“YOU can fool some of the people all of the time,

AND all of the people some of the time;

BUT YOU can’t fool all of the people all of the time.“

-Abraham Lincoln

The writer agrees fully with the above statement. The writer keeps thinking, linking the above statement with our politic, esepcially the writer’s recent post on the “Helico-Bacteria”.

Are we all just a fool all of the time? Or we are just a fool some of the time? We are all fooling the others some of the time? Or we are fooling the others all of the time?

United States of America have make a big leap for accepting a black man to become their President (first time in history).

When will be the Malaysians’ time to witness and experience same kind of changes?

We shall see……

Congratulations to Barack Obama and his team, as well as the people of United States of America!

]]> http://goodfromfar.wordpress.com/2008/11/08/congratulations-to-us-new-president/feed/ 0 direngray http://goodfromfar.wordpress.com/2008/11/08/helico-bacteria/ http://goodfromfar.wordpress.com/2008/11/08/helico-bacteria/#comments Sat, 08 Nov 2008 04:27:34 +0000 direngray http://goodfromfar.wordpress.com/?p=65 ]]> First of all, the writer has to express his regretness for not updating the blog for a long time. The writer was quite busy with his work these days. The writer will try to keep this blog up todate. The writer once again express his regretness to the viewers who have been showing support and following this blog.

One of the heatest discussions in the Parliament would be the tender process for purchasing the Eurocopter helicopters, in replacing the current Nuri helicopters.

The writer will not go into the details of the reason of replacing Nuri helicopters with Eurocopter helicopters. The writer is more willing to discuss about the tender process.

As announced by the PAC (Public Accounts Committee) chairperson Azmi Khalid on 03.11.2008 that PAC cleared the government of wrongdoing in the suspended billion-ringgit Eurocopter deal. There is no abuse in the tender process in the Eurocopter deal. In view of this news, should we as the Rakyat be happy as our government have acted for the interest of Rakyat?

The writer always thinks that Malaysians are very humourous and creative people. Since PAC (officially) announced that there is no abuse in tender process, how come the chairperson later make a statement that “the committee was concerned over the lack of physical evaluation and test flights”?

Before you purchase most of the things, especially if it involves a lot of money, will you not inspect it first? Will you solely base on the comment, reputation and suggestion by others only? For instance you wanted to buy a million ringgit motorcar. The writer supposes you will go to the show room, ask for the salesperson to explain/ show you the motorcar and then you go for a test drive? Is it part of the “deal”?

This is the reason why the writer thinks that Malaysians are homourous and creative people. PAC chairperson could now annouced that there was no abuse in the tender process, but later make a statement that the committee is concerned about the lack of physical inspection of the Eurocopter.

If the lack of physical inspection only happen in this helicopters deal, the writer thinks that it is still okay because who does not make mistakes? Some time it is an oversight, some time it is too busy to inspect etc etc… However, if there are many similar cases, the writer really thinks that the government, the opposition and the Rakyat should consider the current situation and try to find a solution to it.

The writer strongly feels that the government, the opposition and the Rakyat should not just forget about this Eurocopter helicopters deal and take things for granted especially when the economy is turning weak. We should all prevent the outbreak of the “bacteria”. If the “bacteria” later turned into “virus”, it would be very difficult for the government and the Rakyat to find a cure for it.

When the writer was in Court one morning, he saw some lawyers were queuing in front of the Senior Assistant Registrar’s (SAR) room. The queue was quite long. There were four lawyers queuing patiently in front of the SAR’s room. Suddenly there were a few lawyers appearing behind of the queue and requested the first lawyer (who queued in front of the SAR’s room) to let them enter first. Without asking the second, third and forth lawyers who were queuing, the first lawyer allowed one of the lawyers to enter first.

Second Scenario

When the writer was queuing at the traffic lights leading to the Jelutong Expressway, a lot of vehicles like to cut the queue from the right outer lane into the left (middle) lane. Those who cut queue normally did not indicate any signals. They would just wait for the opportunity and cut themselves in. Some did indicate signals. The writer finds that those who indicated signals would be given space to cut the queue.

Third Scenario

When the writer was queuing for a movie tickets in the other day, the writer witnessed this: there was a guy in the first of the queue had given up his “first place” to his friends(a couple). He then became the second in the queue. Those who were queuing behind this guy were quite unhappy about the cutting queue by his friends. However, no one stood up and voice out their unhappiness.

From the three scenarios mentioned above, the writer thinks that cutting queue is a culture of Malaysians. People will try to get advantage from their friends and/ or those who willingly given their “place” to the others. The writer is wondering if this cutting queue culture is correct. Well… The first person willingly gave up his queue, could those queuing behind the first person question his consent and/ or voice out their unhappiness? Is this “allowing queue to be cut” act approve by those who were behind the first person?

This leads the writer to think on the structure of a Company, Organisation and/ or Political Party. It seems that it is quite normal for the superior to appoint his successor before his retirement. Did the “superior” take into consideration the views of his subordinates and/ or members of the particular Company/ Organisation and/ or Political Party?

In this era of democracy, do we really listen to voice of the majority? If so, when people is unhappy about you giving up your place to others, are you able, ready and willing to turn down the request of cutting queue by others? On the other hand, if the majority wants you to give up your place, are you able, ready and willing to do so?

The writer keeps thinking: Is the act of “giving up your own place” and/ or “appointment”  associated with pleasure or pressure?

Any idea?

The writer went to Newcastle, United Kingdom in year 2003 – 2004 for his degree. Below is the writer’s experiences.

Malaysians are one of the most favourite nationalities in Britain as Malaysians could speak multi-language and are hard working. This was what the writer was told by the businessmen who stay in United Kingdom. The employers (especially those in China Town) prefer Malaysians than other nationalities. Malaysians would be given priority when looking for a part time job in China Town. This was the experience of the writer himself.

When the writer was in Newcastle, there was this trend by his fellow Malaysians, i.e. to sign a telecommunication contract which they would be entitled a mobile phone and they bought insurance for the mobile phone. After a month or so, they would report “mobile phone lost” and claim for a new mobile phone. All they need to do was to report to the nearest police station that they lost their mobile phone and shut their mobile phone prior to lodge the police report. They were entitled to claim for two to three mobile phone before the insurance company terminated their insurance contract.

The “lost mobile phones” were sold in internet or brought back to Malaysia for their family members. Some fellow Malaysians even started eBay Trading Account and earned profits out of it. Should fellow Malaysians be treated as business minded and/ or talented nationalities?

Perhaps the readers might wish to know if the writer also did the same thing, i.e. claim for mobile phones? The writer did not practise this trend. The writer always advice his fellow Malaysians not to do this as this would cause Malaysians to be blacklisted sooner or later. Malaysians’ reputation would be worse and even worst. However, a lot of the fellow Malaysians did not bother to protect the reputation of the Malaysians as a whole!

The writer strongly felt that the civic conscious of Malaysians are very poor and getting worse. Everyone is starting to be selfish. We do not think of others like the old days where Malaysians were friends and family. Perhaps in this materialistic era, this is something necessary to protect the interest of yourself?

The writer was told by the older generation that they were taught civic conscious in the olden days. The civic conscious was later replaced by moral education. Is moral education really helpful? The writer does not think so as in the E era where everyone could assess to internet, the moral standard could be easily influenced by others, especially the western culture.

Moral education did not provide much help in the writer’s personal view. Moreover, moral education is not really an education but for the sake of examination, students spent their time memorising all the “value”. When it comes to implementation, typical Malaysians’ style: unable to deliver well.

The writer hopes that the Government would consider re-introducing civic conscious to the younger generation. The writer does not know if civic conscious would be helpful and successful, but by increasing the civic conscious of the younger generation, the writer thinks that at least the younger generation would be able to see things as a whole and not just for themselves.

Look at the western culture. Although some of the western cultures could be deemed immoral, but their civic conscious remains high. They know what ought to be done and what not to be done. When they do something, they think of other and protect the reputation of others.

The writer hopes that the Government should consider taking some steps to improve the reputation and image of Malaysians. Malaysians also must think of the reputation of other fellow Malaysians as a whole and must not acted selfishly for own benefits, especially in international level. The writer hopes that civic conscious education would be re-introduced again and one day, all the Malaysians would have a high level of civic conscious!

We must not be good from far. We must also not be far from good!

The writer will not go into the detail of the policy. The writer will gives his views on this policy generally.

First thing first, the writer thinks that it is correct to say that we need to stablise ourself (be it country, company, business, family, organisation etc) before we could “fight” against the others, who always trying to take advantage of us. If there is always non-stop internal fight among ourselves, how are we going to become strong and fight back against the others?

Recently, there is this internal “fight” within UMNO. Some parties are pushing for Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi to step down as UMNO President, as well as Prime Minister. Of course Abdullah Badawi is against this “proposal” and he intends to fight back.

UMNO is the leading party in BN. If UMNO keep having internal fight among themselves, how would other parties in BN feel? How would Rakyat see the internal fight? How would the foreigners who intend to invest in Malaysia initially think about Malaysia?

Crime rates are shooting up; inflation is growing; global economy is going weaker and weaker; our economy is slowing down; share market is not looking too good, etc etc etc…… If the Government (or even Opposition) could not find a solution to stop the “internal fight”, the Government would not have sufficient time to solve all the above mentioned problems. At the end of the day, Rakyat would be the one who suffer, which is a shame.

Why? Rakyat elected you to represent them and bring them a better life. At the end of the day, they get a suffering life. Is this not a shame?

Finally, the writer hopes that everyone [not limited to UMNO, MCA, Gerakan, MIC, BN (as a whole), PKR, DAP, PAS, PR (as a whole)] remember that we need to stablise ourselves before we could resist the foreign “attack”.

Resisting Foreign Aggression after Stablising the Country.

Just a note:

There are Parties Election going on in this few months time. Parties members are busying with campaigning. The writer wishes all the Candidates all the best. However, the writer wishes to remind the Candidates and Parties: “Resisting Foreign Aggression after Stabilising the Country (or alternatively, Political Party)”.

May Lai Yin Xin Rest In Peace……

The writer hopes that the Government would not forget to focus on the security level of our Society. Hopefully the Government would not focus it’s attention on the politics only. Attention on our safety should be focused too.

Recently, the writer believes that Rakyat is wondering is Anwar has sufficient “number” to take over the current Government which ruled by BN. Some said Anwar got 31 seats, some said 53, some said lesser, some said more… Rakyat is guessing. At this very moment, the writer thinks that bookies would be very happy as Rakyat would starts buying the number such as “916″, “3153″ etc…

So far, Anwar did not reveal the “name list”. Anwar merely expressly announced that he got 31 seats, which is sufficient for him to take over the Government. Anwar even requested the Vote of No Confident against our Prime Minister, Abdullah Badawi. Our PM is calling it a bluff. Is it really a bluff? It’s all about numbers…

On the other hand, UMNO is having “internal fight”. Some UMNO members are giving pressure to Abdullah Badawi to step down as PM as well as the President of UMNO. In order for Abdullah Badawi to continue to become the President of UMNO, he needs a certain numbers of support from UMNO members. Is Abdullah Badawi going to get his number? Again, it’s all about numbers…

Even this numeric games also being played in USA. Look at Lehman Brothers and AIG. Both of them do not have the sufficient “number” to support their own Company and thus facing financial problems. Lehman Brothers even collapsed. It’s all about numbers…

Numeric Games……  Good From Far? Far From Good?

The writer is trying to interpret what was said by our Prime Minister with the help of The Concise Oxford Dictionary, 9th Edition. What was said by our Prime Minister should be self-explanatory.

Media: The main means of mass communication (especially Newspaper and Broadcasting) regarded collectively.

Afraid: 1) alarmed, frightened; 2) unwilling or reluctant for fear of the consequences.

Truth: 1) The quality or a state of being true or truthful; 2a) What is true; 2b) what is accepted as true;

To tell the truth: To be frank.

Upholding: 1) Confirm or maintain (a decision etc., especially of another); 2) give support or countenance to.

Justice: 1) Just conduct; 2) Fairness; 3) The exercise of authority in the maintenance of right; 4) Judicial proceedings; 5a) Magistrate; 5b) A judge.

There is a very big question mark in the writer’s mind, “What was reported by Tan Hoon Cheng was not true? If that was the case, why would Deputy Prime Minister apologised publicly and why would Ahmad Ismail being suspended by UMNO?”

In the writer’s point of view, what was practised by the Government was against what was promised/ encouraged/ urged by the Goverment. From the blocking of the website to the arrest of Tan Hoon Cheng (both incidents happened in not more than one month). How could the Government make empty promise or write empty cheques to the Rakyat?

The truth is not longer out there… The truth is totally OUT?

(Why? Because after you tell the truth, there is a high possibility that you will be heading to some unknown places under ISA……)

The Government should make the right move: Release Tan Hoon Cheng, Raja Petra Kamarudin and Teresa Kok immediately. Show the Rakyat that the Government is able, ready and willing to Walk The Talk.

Where there’s a will, there’s a way

If you want something badly enough, you can find the means to get it.

Recently, there is this discussion that Gerakan’s D-Day would falls on 911, i.e. Gerakan would pull out from BN. The writer supposes this is the voice of the Members of Gerakan in view of the hottest issue in town: Ahmad Ismail refused to apologise for making the statement of “Chinese are immigrants”. In fact, during the Press Conference, his supporters tore the photo of Tan Sri’ KTK. The Members of Gerakan have been pushing for Gerakan to pull out from BN.

[Hearsay] Gerakan would pull out from BN in 11.09.2008 (Thursday). Is this true? By applying the 3 Element Test, could we conclude that Gerakan would definitely pull out from BN? The writer is not sure. Therefore, the writer hopes to discuss this issue with all the readers. Please feel free to give your comments.

What is the 3 Element Test? This could be the first thing the reader must know before the writer goes further. The 3 Element Test is: “Able, Ready AND Willing”. Short of either one element, things would not succeed.

DEFINITION

According to The Concise Oxford Dictionary, 9th Edition:-

Able: 1) having the capacity or power; 2) having great ability; clever, skilful.

Ready: 1) with preparations complete; 2) in an appropriate state; 3) willing, inclined, or resolved; 4) within reach; easily secured; 5) fit for immediate use; 6) immediate, unqualified; 7) prompt, quick, facile; 8) about to do something; 9) provided beforehand.

Willing: 1) ready to consent or undertake; 2) given or done etc.

Back to the question: “Is Gerakan able, ready and willing to pull out from BN?”

WRITER’S PERSONAL POINT OF VIEW

In view of the Members of Gerakan pushing for the Gerakan’s Leaders to pull the trigger, the writer would say that Gerakan is willing to pull out from BN. Tan Sri’ KTK also expressly mention that if UMNO remains the same, Gerakan would pull out from BN [please correct the writer if he is wrong].

Whether Gerakan is able to pull out from BN? In narrow scope, Gerakan is able to pull out from BN, meaning having the capacity or power to pull out from BN; in wider scope, things which need to be considered are the “able-ness” of Gerakan after pulling out from BN.

Where would Gerakan stands after pulling out from BN? (1) Standing as an Independent Political Party, in other words, becoming Opposition Party, which act as a watchdog of the Government and the Opposition? (2) Joining Pakatan Rakyat? (3) Ask for other Political Parties (if any) to work together with Gerakan and form a third force Political Party (such as Liberal Democrats)? (4) Others.

[Correct the writer if he is wrong] Gerakan was the first Opposition to gain control of Penang (before joining BN). Gerakan had proven to the Rakyat that Gerakan could do it as the Opposition. Gerakan would speak for Penangites. Thus, the writer is of the view that with the experience of Gerakan, Gerakan could slowly speak for Rakyat. It is just a matter of time.

Perhaps the option of joining PR is open. Is Gerakan able, ready and willing to take it? Ethically speaking, jump-ship is wrong. Being a gentlemen party, the writer doubts Gerakan would join PR.

Forming a third force Political Party. This is only the writer’s sudden thought. Becoming the third force Political Party is a slow process to glory. However, the writer is of the view that since Gerakan is a multiracial Political Party, and we are moving towards a true Malaysia, why not?

From the above, the writer thinks that Gerakan is able to pull out from BN.

A lot of Gerakan Members are considering pulling out from BN since the recent drama series started. This is because of the arrogant and egoism of UMNO. With that, the writer assumes that discussions of what to do or where to stand after pulling out from BN are within Gerakan. The writer understands that a lot of Members are giving opinions, views, feedback etc to Gerakan’s Leaders.

If the Gerakan Leaders really care about the voice of the Members, the writer suppose the Leaders must have been discussing and/ or preparing Plan A and Plan B and etc. Plan A could be staying in BN, Plan B could be pulling out from BN, Plan C could be something (the writer really doesn’t know, all are the writer’s own assumption only). Thus, the writer assumes that Gerakan could be ready something.

Since there is a X-Factor on the element of Ready-ness, the writer is of the view that until the X-Factor is resolved, Gerakan would not definitely pull out from BN.

There Is A Will, There Is A Way. Let us see what would happen next.

VERY IMPORTANT NOTE

The writer is not a Gerakan Member, nor BN member, nor PR member. All the issues discussed above were the point of views of the writer himself, and from the hearsay (which is not admissible). IT IS STRICTLY DISCUSSION ONLY.