The Last Patriot

A while ago, Defence Minister Zahid says the non-Malays are not patriotic because not many of them joined the armed forces. In his defence (pun intended), he was probably misquoted. Let’s give him the benefit of the doubt, how can he be wrong? He is after all a BN minister and you have to be super intelligent and perfect to be one (sarcasm intended).

What measures or determines patriotism? The noun patriotism is defined by the (Collins) dictionary as ‘devotion to one's own country and concern for its defence’. My definition of patriotism is ‘an educated loyalty (as opposed to blind loyalty) towards one’s country (I repeat COUNTRY NOT GOVERNMENT).

Therefore, patriotism, if equated with loyalty simply means doing the right thing for the good of the country.

There are so many things a good citizen can do for the betterment of his nation. Joining the armed forces is one, but not the only one and by no means the main one. How about respecting the laws of the land? That’s being patriotic too. Paying your income taxes in full and on time? Only a patriot does that. A patriot would not litter and will never smoke in hospital or school compounds. Patriots pay his/her study loans in full. Helping the poor, the ill and disadvantaged is an act of patriotism. Registering as voters and going to vote is a patriotic act. Being fair to your fellow countrymen should be on top of the patriotic list.

Unpatriotic acts would include; indiscriminate and profit driven jungle clearing resulting in ecological damage; election fraud resulting in disruption of the democratic process; bribing law enforcers or government servants to avoid prosecution or to obtain favours; using taxpayers’ hard earned money to bail out badly managed, corruption riddled projects is so very unpatriotic; abusing the judiciary and security forces for personal gains; wasting public money on billion dollar castles; wasting public funds on “lawatan sambil belajar” which emphasises more on lawatan instead of belajar; the list goes on, probably thicker than a telephone book.

Jeering your football team when they’re trashed 5-0 by Cambodia is however not unpatriotic.

In the book “Patriotism, Morality and Peace”, Stephen Nathanson has this to say about patriotism; “Part of the problem with extreme patriotism is that it makes the support of one's country and its policies unconditional. Moderate patriots, on the other hand, see that taking morality seriously requires that our commitment to our country be conditional in two ways. First, the actions or policies of a government must be worthy of support or, at least, must not be serious violations of morality. When nations behave immorally, patriots need not support them.”

A good quote on patriotism is by William Burnham (William who?) who said, “The essence of patriotism is the sacrifice of personal interest to public welfare”

Another good one (IMHO) is by David Ehrenfeld, “Patriotism is the admission that people who share a land, a place, and a history have a special obligation to that place and to each other.”

Treasure Hunt-2

I participated in my first treasure hunt under duress. It was a bank organised hunt and my head of department wanted to send two teams. That's eight people which amounts to one third of the head count in IBD. My immediate boss was a regular and avid hunter but unfortunately he had two reluctant hunters in his car. To be fair to myself, I did participate and contribute and had fun in the process.

My second hunt was nothing like the first. I was all excited and raring to go. Who wouldn't when you have two beautiful and intelligent ladies as hunt mates! I even woke up at 5am and was at the starting venue before Subuh! We did extremely well considering the other three didn't have any prior experience treasure hunting. In fact, we lost to the champions on countback.

My third hunt was as exciting as the second but faced with experienced hunters, we only managed to finish, I'm guessing somewhere in the middle, maybe 15-16th place. The two ladies from the first hunt was replaced by a solitary young lady ... which a certain Ms Shaliza attributes to our dismal performance. 

I'm now hunting for my next hunt.

Treasure hunting is not an easy sport. Not even with two beautiful, intelligent ladies in the car. Some hunts have three parts; the part where the hunter have to find the answers based on the clues given. The answers are mostly on the signboards, visible from the vehicle without having to get out from the car. For a 7-8 hour hunt, there's usually 30-35 of such items to find.

The second part is called the treasure where the hunters must perform or purchase or make something based on the clues given.  There are typically 3-5 treasures to find/make/buy and must be presented to the COC at the finish line. This is much tougher than the first especially if legwork and creativity is involved.

Some hunts do have them but most might not. It is called the picture hunt where hunters are given tiny portions of a large picture and they must find out what 'big' picture it is. This is basically bonus points for the really hopeless hunters, that's how easy it is.

Solving the clues requires some IQ, at least three digits. Maybe that explains why I did so badly ... It also requires a lot of general knowledge and an extensive vocab in at least two languages. The clues a fairly standard; 'inside' or 'middle' or 'within' means we have to find a word inside a word; 'at the back' means read backwards; XI means 11; C is 100; Monkey is Ape or Baboon or Kera; 'in front' means first letter and a popular clue is anagrams. There are more clues and most are not really straight forward. Like I said, it is a game for people with reasonable amounts of IQ and who knows more than 30 words. 

Apparently, the seasoned hunters hardly leave their cars during a hunt. The pro hunters also know what to look for, they are able to put the clues together before even getting to the stations and when they get there, all they have to do is look for the answers. Amateur hunters like me however, look at every single signboard and guess if it fits the answer.  

Treasure hunts starts before sunrise and winners are usually announced after dinner. It's a whole day affair, tiring and draining but after the hunt, you'll never look at a signboard the same way again ...

What an attitude, eh?

I took this picture some time back, maybe two years ago. I apologise for not blacking out the number plates but then again, why should I?

How do you justify this? Benefit of the doubt doesn't apply in these situations. It's a clear definition of selfishness, stupidity, arrogance and ... I shall not continue, there could be children reading this blog.

Love Actually

I really enjoyed the movie, I watched it twice, I think, maybe more. I went to to cinema to watch the Malay version, Cinta. I hardly watch Malay movies at the cinema. In all, I saw 4 Malay movies at the cinema; Bukit Kepong, Hantu Siang, Perempuan, Isteri dan ... and Cinta. Why bother going to the cinema when you can watch it on TV during raya? 

Before anyone thinks this is a posting about movies, let me clarify. I'm writing this after reading Dina Zaman's piece on subsequent weddings. I'm not a big fan of her because we tend to have different views on similar issues but that article of hers sort of struck me due to certain recent events. 

Her article basically questions or discusses the need for lavish second, third or any subsequent weddings. It is rare but this time, I see myself agreeing-ish with her. 

My take on subsequent weddings is that they are only tricky if one of the party is a first-timer. 

I mean, no self respecting, society conscious mother would want her single twenty something daughter to marry a thirty something single father. What would the relatives say? What would the neighbours say? The warning that "he'll leave you too one day" will come from every friend, every cousin, every auntie. On the other hand, what if her daughter was the one responsible for making the guy a single father. The positions are reversed, no self respecting mother would accept a pretty young thing marrying her son knowing that she caused her grandchildren to be separated from their mother. Things get even worse if the said (ex)daughter-in-law was the family's favourite. 

Maybe the guy hid the fact that his future wife caused the break-up with the former wife so that the family will accept his new bride without association with the former wife. Maybe the guy tried hard to ensure the future lady is in no way associated with the former lady. Maybe the guy went as far as not acknowledging the presence of the second lady so that it appears that there is no one else in his life. Once the air is clear and all the issues are out of the way, he brings her out in the open (often that will prove to be a little too late). Would the absence of any "proof" of causing the end of the previous marriage justify a grand wedding? May take is; have it grand on the first-timer's side and simple on the other side.

Should the emcee at the reception highlight the "fact" that the couple only started falling for each other post breakdown of the previous union? My take is; ignore the "fact", there is no need to even mention it. 

There won't be much fuss if it is well known they met long after the collapse of the first union. Still, no need to mention it. 

It's easy when both parties were previously married (not to each other, of course!). It makes even easier if it is well documented (without having to explain) that they met post both breakdowns. In this case, I find no issues against a grand wedding. Make it a new beginning, an experienced couple should not be making the same mistakes, hopefully.

Whatever it is; second, third, Nth weddings are common now, some are bigger than the last, some are held in Thailand and some (especially for those in the entertainment industry) in Mekah, usually after an Umrah trip. There is nothing wrong with a grand wedding or a small wedding attended by three friends; the important thing is the reason for the wedding must be right.

Schooled Out

Owners or directors of colleges are not required to possess academic qualifications, but their teaching staff must have the necessary qualifications in their respective field of studies, said Higher Education Minister Datuk Seri Mohamed Khaled Nordin.

As such, he said action would only be taken against Kolej Antarabangsa Fazley (FIC) if it was found to have breached the conditions stipulated by the ministry.

"Many people who have set up colleges do not have high academic qualifications because that is not required. What is required is that when you conduct the course, you have the teaching staff who are actually qualified," he told the press after launching the International Lifelong Learning Conference 2010, here today. (Bernama)

Apparently (Dr?) Fazley obtained his PhD from a bogus institution. Apparently he got straight As for his SPM. Three years ago or so, Fazley who was then a famous motivator decided to take a step further by setting up his own school. He even got the University of Wales to provide accreditation for his his programmes.

The Hon. Minister says owners or directors of learning institutions need not have high academic qualifications. I beg to differ. They need some qualification and SPM does not count. Bogus degrees don't count either.

Secondly, it's all about credibility. A restaurant owner (or co-owner) is expected to have some knowledge of food, either how to cook, prepare or at least buy. Someone who doesn't know the difference between kangkung and bayam should not dabble in the restaurant business. Similarly, the owner of a auto workshop must at least know the difference between a spark plug and wall plug. In the case of Fazley, I'm guessing his marketing tool is apart from his popularity, is his academic qualification.

Education is serious business, we shouldn't just let anyone open up a college; there must be some form of quality control and screening. The future of our nation depends on the quality of our present education and having 25 year old degree holders teach 20 year old undergraduate is not the way to go.

The Inspira Inspiration

On 10th November 2010 the Waja (Impian in the UK) was finally replaced after more than 10 years in production. The Waja was the first Proton (despite it's Mitsubishi sourced power plant) which wasn't direcly design-wise, associated with a foreign partner. They added  if I'm not mistaken a Renault/French gearbox for the 1.8 version but it wasn't a good move. After more than fifteen years of recycled Lancers, Colts, Galants and AXs; the Waja was a breath of fresh air. The Waja even raced in the BTCC!

After the Waja, a few more in-house designs were released; the Gen-2, Savvy, Exora, Saga and a Gen-2 with a boot called the Persona. The latest Proton offering is called the Inspira and it is based, almost 100% on the current Lancer. That fact made Bung Mukhtar (Mr Zizie) very upset. He was so upset he told Proton to close shop. Or something to that effect. 

Tuan Dato Syed the Proton MD explained why they went back to the 'recycling' mode. And I totally agree with him. Someone should tell YB Bung the cost of developing a car from zero is enormous and it takes a lot of sales to break even let alone to turn a profit. The auto industry is constantly changing; car companies merge, change hands or go bust every few years. To cut costs, the auto manufacturers share the development expenditure (devex? ala capex, geddit?); Peugeot and Citroen does it all the time. Golf, A3 and Ibiza have the same DNA. Ford and Mazda have been doing it ever since the days of the 323/Laser, 626/Telstar. In fact, the 2nd generation TX3 is the Escort in the US. There is no more Pontiac, Hillman or Austin. If not for TATA, there probably would be no more Jags.

So, what Proton did with the Inspira was merely keeping up with the present trend in the automotive scene. It makes business sense for them given the Inspira's expected sales volume and market segment. Zizie should tell Bung to shut up.

Travelogue #9 - Melaka

I haven’t been to Melaka for quite a while. I was there last week and the first thing I noticed was Ali Rustam’s picture plastered on each and every billboard, at every street corner and in front of every historical landmark. Let’s just say there is one Ali Rustam every 200 yards. Ali however has done quite a good job making Melaka a nice city. I was quite impressed with what I saw, apart from his picture that is. The riverside is nice; Jonker Street is full of life, both during the day and at night; they have nice attractions like the tower thingy; and that ship in front of the Stadhuys is quite impressive.

I found something interesting a few days ago; one should not take everything written on the World Wide Web as gospel but I found this new “info-rumour” to be quite intriguing; apparently someone is claiming that Melaka is not as great as it is made out to be and Muar is the real Melaka of the 15th century. This author claims that there is no proof that Melaka was the famous, important trading port our history books have been telling us all this while. He/she claims that The Royal Sampan Armada (the sampan armada??) was never found, nor was there any grave of any Sultan during the classical Malacca Period and since all Ming Emperor's names began with "Tzu" (pronounced Chu), the fairy tale of Hang Li Poh being a Ming Princess doesn't hold water. The writer concluded that Melaka was actually in Muar and the Melaka we know was just a small fishing village.

Interesting indeed.

I’m no historian but despite his/her argument having valid-ish points, I remain unconvinced. I read a few pages from chapter three written by Prof Wang Gungwu from the book “Admiral Zheng He and Southeast Asia” and it is filled with proof of the existence of Melakan sultanate and empire. Wang Gungwu is a learned professor; he cannot be making all those things up, can he?

Tome Pires, the Portuguese royal doctor stayed in Melaka for a few years after the Portuguese conquest. He wrote a book, “Suma Oriental” which was apparently well researched. I wasn’t there when he wrote it so I can’t vouch for it’s authenticity but I’m sure the good doctor did not make up the stories. Even if he did, it won’t be throughout the book and he would have been found out.

R. O. Winstedt wrote a paper titled “The Malay Founder of Medieval Malacca” which talks about the origins of Parameswara. Winstedt is a reputable expert in Malayan/Malay studies and was fundamental in preserving several works of Malay literature including “The Sejarah Melayu”. So, if he says there was a Malacca sultanate, I’ll believe him.

The person claiming Melaka is a fraud may have his/her own reasons and/or motives but pasting it on the web will not have any serious impact or carry any weight. The proper way would be via the academic route, through proper research and peer reviewed thesis.

I want to believe in Melaka's glorious past because that was one of the greatest era in Malay history. Malaysia is a very young country with very little history, no doubt we have the Lembah Bujang, Langkasuka and what not but Melaka is the most well "documented" of our past. It will break a lot of hearts (especially Ali Rustam's) if the allegation was found to be true.

Melaka has a glorious past and unless there is concrete and proper proof that it wasn't, I shall continue to believe in Mansur Syah, Hang Tuah, Tun Perak etc.