Wednesday, July 19, 2006

Milking the Cash Cow

Do you remember the whole nude ear squat fiasco? Remember how upset and shocked everyone was? How the police were under scrutiny and how they set up a Commission to investigate into the matter?

I think most of us barely remember it. And some of us didn't care much about it then and really couldnt give a rat's ass about it now. After all, Malaysia is known to practice the knee jerk reaction. We get all upset, angry and we say this and that and once everything blows over, we forget. And only remember when it happens again.

So, considering the fact that some of us barely remember the nude ear squat fiasco, it amuses me to think that the infamous Malay woman who was "filmed" doing the nude ear squat now wants to sue the Government for RM10m due the negligence (kecuaian) of the Police Force and the embarassment caused to her. Now RM10m is heck of a lot of moolah.

She says that the whole video clip of her doing the naked ear squat has been widely circulated and this has caused her much embarassment. She cannot go out of the house without people staring at her or whispering behind her back. Her whole family has suffered considerable embarassment and as much as she wants to move away, she cannot afford to as both she and her husband do not have a job. see? THAT is why she wants to sue the Government for the RM10m! It makes sense now. She has a 4 month old daughter. Her husband is too lazy to move his ass to get a job, and apparently she is much to embarassed to go out and get one as well. So what else is left to be done? MILK the government and cite negligence and embarassment! Tell the nation how much she has suffered, how she is still suffering and how she will continue to suffer!

I think it is important to note that this announcement of her filing her claim was done publicly and there was a press conference.
Ok, WTF is up with that?

If you are so damn embarassed, why would you go in front of a camera and expose your face? 98% of Malaysia(maybe even 99.8%) have not seen her face before as her face was not published in the newspaper(maybe glimpses of it only). Only a few of those present at the hearing had a glimpse of her. And she was well covered in her tudung and shades and ran from the press like a cat with its tail on fire. So how many of us can actually recognise her on the streets? I for one cannot. In fact, now that she has exposed her face on TV I think I still cant recognise her on the streets.

Like hello? You are NOT a celebrity. Even celebrities can go unnoticed in public sometimes. Unless of course we're talking about Siti Nurhaliza or Mawi. So, what reputation of hers has been tarnished to require RM10 m to make up for it? Who is she? To me she is just another woman who somehow got caught by the police for allegedly taking drugs and was unfortunate enough to be caught on video doing the naked ear squat.

Sure, the procedure was wrong,though it has been held that the Police do have the right to make arrested persons do the ear squat to dislodge whatever they might keep hidden in places where the sun dont shine, but to sue the Government for it?

Doesnt it make more sense to sue the man who filmed you? After all, its not like all ear squats procedures are caught on tape and distributed to the public. Only she was unfortunate enough to be filmed. Oh wait, he wouldnt have the RM10m to give to her. That is why she is going to the cash cow to milk her worth.

Oh well, I guess since she has decided to make her face public, we might as well stare hard at her face now and remember it and give her a dirty look if you see her. If she wins the RM10m, we as taxpayers end up paying for it, so we might as well make it worth it.

Monday, July 17, 2006

You see, this is what the rakyat wants....

Notice how the government justifies whatever aborted projects or embarking on super expensive useless projects as what the rakyat wants? In the first place, why must it be rakyat? There IS an english word for it, its called citizens?

However, in order for people to understand me, I must speak in the Government lingo.
Rakyat (notice how it has to be italicised to show that it is a malay word?What is up with that?)

And secondly, how does the Government know what the rakyat wants? As far as I know, the rakyat didnt ask for the Singapore crooked bridge to be scrapped because half the rakyat had no idea it was even being mooted or it was in progress or that it would cost billions to build. And the other quarter of the rakyat was in the know but most didnt have much of an opinion as whether it should or should not be built. And the remaining rakyat consist of Johoreans and the government officials. And here's a question, how can the opinions of Johoreans make up the collective opinion of the rakyat as a whole? Apparently the bridge was scrapped because that was what the rakyat wanted. I dont remember being asked. I dont remember a public opinion poll held by the government. All because the Johoreans allegedly said they want to scrap the bridge, that consist of the rakyat's opinions?

Same goes for the sport complex that they are planning to build in the UK. How in the world does that benefit the rakyat? If it is built in Malaysia, then it makes sense. At least then MAYBE the Malaysians, oh, I'm sorry, the rakyat can utilise it (if it is not exclusive for the national athletes only) If it is all the way in the UK and it costs RM490m, why would we agree to that? Not only does it not make sense, it's just plain stupid. Why do you need a MALAYSIAN sports facility to train our athletes overseas? We have Malaysian sand in it? The seats in the facility is made from teak wood from the Malaysian forest? The water there has been declared holy by the religious leaders in Malaysia? There is a sense of MALAYSIA BOLEH spirit in there?What? What makes the Government want to build a Malaysian sports complex? And what is up with all the secrecy? It is OUR money, it is apparently to train sebilangan of our rakyat,( I am getting the hang of peppering Malay in my English!) so why is there such a thing as there are somethings they can and cannot say? Just SAYLAH!

If you think about it, the sports facilities existing in the UK now is obviously good enough for the British people. They excel in sports. I am sure if we use those facilities, at least we can tumpang glamour and pretend that our national athletes are actually doing well in sports and not just wasting, again, OUR money monthly, and stumbling in every major competition. (Our national football team is actually below Iraq, which is a war torn country. This is just sad.)

So, I think the Government should stop with the fake what-the-rakyat-wants justifications and be transparent in their dealings with our money. I thought the PM advocated transparency? What is the PM doing now with all the brouhaha? Why is he always keeping quiet? What type of transparency are we talking about here?

So in order to make the job of the Government a tad easier, I have made a list of what the rakyat wants:

1) Lower petrol prices and stop lying to us about hikes being the ONLY one this year only to have it hiked up again within the next 2 months.
2) Better public transport system- using the money the government allegedly saved from not subsidising the rakyat's petrol anymore?
3) PRACTISING transparency in the government. Not just saying you want to do it but then never doing it.
4) Better service at government departments. Would a smile really kill them and can they actually move any faster?
5) Not punishing people who lose their MyKard with max fines of RM20K.( If I cannot afford it and I do not pay it will you declare me a bankrupt if it reaches RM30K accumulated from interests?)
6) Making imported cars cheaper because the national cars are still expensive and it is still crap.

The list can go on.

But if the Government implements at least HALF of this list, I will be one heck of a happy rakyat!

Wednesday, July 12, 2006

Who determines our right to live?

After having a heated discussion with my dad and sis the other day about euthanasia, abortion and the death penalty, I thought to myself why is it that we cannot determine our own life and what we want to do with it? Of course to a certain extent we can decide on our lives but when it comes to the important questions of taking our own life or giving life to another person, why does the State control all that?

Do we not have the right to determine our own death or whether we want a baby or not?

What is the reason behind religion condemning suicide and abortion?
Only God can determine who lives and who dies.

This is the same reason given by those who are anti-euthanasia and abortion. Because only God can determine who lives and who dies, so we cannot have laws which allows another person to decide on life and death.

However, let us look at it rationally and as a society as a whole.

Let us think of a situation whereby a man is involved in a horrific accident. He barely survives, he is a vegetable, brain dead and unable to function. Before this happened, he has written in his will that should he ever be in this condition, he will not want to burden anybody with medical bills and that he would choose to die, peacefully, knowing that he no longer becomes a burden to his family.
Do we grant his wish?

The law says No. Nobody has the right to determine his death. Not his parents. Not the doctors. Nobody. He should die when its time for him to die naturally.

Technically, if we think about it, if he is brain dead, isnt he already dead? He is merely kept alive by a machine. If we liken this situation to say, where a person dies and his parents decide to harvest his organs and donate them, is it similar? To allow his parents to decide after his death? So why not allow a person's parents to decide whether to pull the plug once he has been declared brain dead?

How is it wrong? The person is brain dead. He serves no function in society. He no longer responds to anything or anybody. In fact he is a prisoner in his own body. Isnt the more humane thing to do is to allow him to die as he intimated in his will?

Abortion: The number of babies being dumped daily is astounding. If they are found, they are lucky. But most of the time, they are already dead by the time anybody discovers them. After all, that is the whole point of the mother who left them there. To die.

Does this not make us think of whether the abortion laws are correct?
Is it more humane to terminate the pregnancy when the foetus has no life(scientifically proven) than to push unwed mothers to dump their babies for fear of being ostracised and leaving the babies to die?

Why are we not allowed to decide whether we want or can raise a baby? Society today is not tolerant or understanding of unwed mothers. We have MPs calling them 'gatal' in Parliament. Who can survive being shunned by society? Why not give these women a choice. If they think they are strong enough to raise a child and love the child then they can have the baby. But if they KNOW they are not ready for one or that they know they will be shunned, give them the choice of terminating the pregnancy while it is merely a foetus with no signs of life. Do not push them to the brink of desperation and have to dump their babies after 9 months of pregnancy and going through labour.

Perhaps we should be more open in our understanding of what is termed "right" and "wrong". While we may stick to our religious beliefs, sometimes it is good to be less politically correct or religiously right but search deep within ourselves and try to be humane.

Perhaps then life for some, wouldnt be so hard.

Thursday, July 06, 2006

Let's talk about sex, baby

Lets talk about sex baby, Let's talk about you and me..

So, lets get down to the business of sex. Sex at the workplace. Is it common? I think it is more common that we would like to think. What about sex with the boss? Does that actually happen here in Malaysia or its just one of those things we watch on American tv?

Apparently it happens often enough for the new Rape laws being debated in Parliament to consider consensual sex between a boss and a subordinate which was obtained through a boss's influence or authority over the subordinate to be classified as rape.

Let us go behind the whole definition of rape. The determining factor is that there is NO CONSENT given by the victim. That is how we differentiate consensual sex and rape. Consent being the determining factor, if a subordinate has consented to sex, albeit reluctantly, the sexual act cannot then be classified as rape.

While women around the world are fighting for equality at the workplace, demanding salaries equal to that of their qualifications, we here in Malaysia have somehow regressed a good 50, maybe a 100 years with the new rape laws. (Of course there are good points to be noted in the amendments proposed- recognising rape in a marriage is a step forward)

For centuries women were treated as the weaker sex. Women would not be good leaders compared to men because we are more emotional. We were not as educated as men because our calling in life would be to stay at home and serve our husbands. Women have of course fought hard to dispel that notion. First fighting for the right to vote through the suffragettes movement, the right to work and etc, and once all of that were obtained, the right to be treated equally as men.

Why do women fight for these rights? Because we say we are equal if not better than men in terms of running a business or even running a country. (We applaud our Asian counterparts who are more inclined to choosing a female leader than Western countries)

So, why the brouhaha about the Bar Council opposing the amendments to the rape laws that classify consensual sex between a boss and a subordinate which was obtained through his authority over his subordinate as rape?

The Bar Council objects to these amendments based on the simple notion that it would be easy for a woman who had slept with her boss to cry rape once things have gone awry in order to "get back" at the boss. The NGOs retaliated by saying that the Bar Council were not sensitive to the victims of rape and that there is no known formal statistics to prove that women often make false allegations of rape.

While it is recognised that rape is a heinous crime and that victims of rape are often subjected to embarassment due to the nature of having to go through interrogations and medical examinations and having to testify in court in a public gallery, this I believe does not justify making the laws easier for women to cry rape. Of course the NGOs declare that women will not make rape allegations and subject themselves to the torture of having to go through the vigorous process of the law and procedures. But have they not heard of the saying "Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned"?

Women today are well capable of doing a lot to move up and forward. Just like men, many women are willing to kill and lie to move up the ladder.

Besides, now that there are many women who are bosses, perhaps the NGOs should recognise that women might also use their authority to get their male subordinates to have sex with them. If they fought for the laws to have equal protection of both male and female, then I might agree with the stance taken by them. If they only fight for the women because we are the weaker sex, then I disagree wholeheartedly. Australia now recognises male rape. Perhaps it is time we here in Malaysia do too.

So, for all the steps women have taken in dispelling the notion that we are the weaker sex, these laws that the NGOs are pushing for is taking leaps and bounds backwards. Declaring to the world that women ARE indeed the weaker sex and for the law to recognise that. Like I said before, the law already does actually because rape only applies to women, not men.

I would like to think that women today are educated, sophisticated and intelligent enough to know that it is wrong to sleep with the boss to move forward in a company. I would also like to think that we have the courage to say "No, thanks!" to a sexual proposition and pack our bags and move on to another company. And I would also like to think that if one were to agree to sex with her boss in order to climb up the ladder to success, one would have to suffer the consequences herself if things go awry and there is no promotion in sight.

If you thought it was the best stance to take, then you have to take the risk that comes with it. Dont go crying to the authorities and take advantage of the law to cry rape and ruin another person just because you did not get what you want.

Stop thinking we are the weaker sex. If you want to fight for equality, fight fair. Do not play dirty.