I am tempted to say just another year has come and now trickles into a forgettable history. After all, it was another year in which people continued to kill or be killed for senseless reasons. It was another twelve months where wars were fought and won or loss, depending on which side of the fence you sat on…
But it is unfair to just write off 2003… for it was a year in which new widows and orphans were birthed and the world entertained itself with theatrical sequels while Iran shuddered to a deathly standstill – reminding us of our human frailty. It was a year where people found new reasons to end the lives of those less guilty, and the long hands of the law finally catching up with those thought guiltier.
Rather than focus on one particular person, incident or catastrophe, I’d like to view 2003 as it was etched on the faces of those I come to contact with. Their demeanor and attitudes towards the coming year reflect the change that the past year has inflicted or in many cases afflicted upon them.
For some, the year ahead is a safer place to dwell in. For others, the New Year carries new expectations. Meanwhile there are those that ponder the “what ifs” – what if SARS comes back? What if Al Qaeda strikes again? What if the new year is not what we expected it to be?
Personally, in retrospect, it was not a year I’d soon forget. For a million reasons and more, 2003 was one of change. And for one reason alone, it was a year to remember – as I await the impending birth of my first child. Have a blessed year ahead and God love you!
Wednesday, December 31, 2003
Free tuition scheme for poor primary school pupils
The Star reports that the MOE is offering free tuition for students. The question I'd like to ask is, "if they couldn't get it right the first time, is there any reason they'll do so this time around?"
Monday, December 22, 2003
Rio-gate II - Between the Devil and the deep blue sea...
4thegame.com reports that FIFA President is threatening unprecedented repercussions if the English champions decide to pursue their protestations to the courts. FIFA statutes forbid clubs from taking civil action against their national associations, and the next acceptable course of action in the eyes of the world body, is to go to the Court of Arbitration for Sport in Lausanne - which is not unlike walking into a trap with their eyes wide open.
The plain fact is that the 8 month ban was slapped on Ferdinand with one eye on the political whims of Sepp Blatter (read my high road theory below), and another on the fact that this case sets a precedent given the reality that there really is no provision in the rule book for dealing with this case. By standing on the middle road, the independent disciplinary committee is merely highlighting its impotence in meting out a fair judgment based on the facts - which is: that the idea of Rio Ferdinand actually being guilty of taking drugs was never called into question and that the misdemeanors revolved around procedure and the young lad's stupidity.
The questions that need to be asked are:
1. How is FIFA above the law in this sense?
2. If there was no provision in footballing laws, how did the committee come up with the 8 month tenure? If he was guilty of taking banned substances, impose the maximum ban. If he was guilty of procedural non-observance, is a 8 month ban justified, if compared for instance to Roy Keane's punishment over the Haaland affair?
3. What are the powers of the FIFA President? Does he wield god-ly powers in such a way that all in the game are subservient to his dictatorial ways?
As I concluded before, Ferdinand will never get a fair hearing and the only way to mitigate this will be to revamp the current system starting from the helm of FIFA. In this sense, Ferdi will never walk alone.
The plain fact is that the 8 month ban was slapped on Ferdinand with one eye on the political whims of Sepp Blatter (read my high road theory below), and another on the fact that this case sets a precedent given the reality that there really is no provision in the rule book for dealing with this case. By standing on the middle road, the independent disciplinary committee is merely highlighting its impotence in meting out a fair judgment based on the facts - which is: that the idea of Rio Ferdinand actually being guilty of taking drugs was never called into question and that the misdemeanors revolved around procedure and the young lad's stupidity.
The questions that need to be asked are:
1. How is FIFA above the law in this sense?
2. If there was no provision in footballing laws, how did the committee come up with the 8 month tenure? If he was guilty of taking banned substances, impose the maximum ban. If he was guilty of procedural non-observance, is a 8 month ban justified, if compared for instance to Roy Keane's punishment over the Haaland affair?
3. What are the powers of the FIFA President? Does he wield god-ly powers in such a way that all in the game are subservient to his dictatorial ways?
As I concluded before, Ferdinand will never get a fair hearing and the only way to mitigate this will be to revamp the current system starting from the helm of FIFA. In this sense, Ferdi will never walk alone.
Thursday, December 18, 2003
Riogate a Mis-trial
For those of you thinking that the Rio Ferdinand issue will be put to rest after today's disciplinary hearing... don't hold your breath. I am not concerned any longer with the impact this may have on the club - if the young man is on drugs or willfully thought he was above drug testing, throw him in the slammer and toss away the key.
Comments from the FA, PFA and Sepp Blatter's ridiculous outbursts have done the sport (and in the case of FIFA's president) little credit. On one hand, the FA needs to be seen to be doing the right thing, irrespective of the reality of it all. This means a lengthy suspension for Ferdi and a shot in the foot for England's preparation for the Euro competition. Of course, rival warlords (some entrenched within the poweful corridors of Highbury) will want to see United's challenge take a body blow. Sepp Blatter on the other hand wants to take the high road on this, questioning United's right to play the defender when it is clearly within the rules of the game at the moment. Unfortunately this is nothing more than a pot calling the kettle black given the questions raised about Blatter's own personal dealings within FIFA.
The lack of objecivity and conflict of interest is too evident. The "judiciary" in this case have too much vested interests to do the right thing, and the "Supreme court", in this case FIFA's disciplinary committee is as independent from the political side of FIFA (spell that as B-L-A-T-T-E-R) - a poor substitute if all it does is get Sepp Blatter what he wants!
In an ordinary court of law, this would be a mis-trial. Will Rio be banned? Will Blatter get his "high ground"? Will it all matter?
Comments from the FA, PFA and Sepp Blatter's ridiculous outbursts have done the sport (and in the case of FIFA's president) little credit. On one hand, the FA needs to be seen to be doing the right thing, irrespective of the reality of it all. This means a lengthy suspension for Ferdi and a shot in the foot for England's preparation for the Euro competition. Of course, rival warlords (some entrenched within the poweful corridors of Highbury) will want to see United's challenge take a body blow. Sepp Blatter on the other hand wants to take the high road on this, questioning United's right to play the defender when it is clearly within the rules of the game at the moment. Unfortunately this is nothing more than a pot calling the kettle black given the questions raised about Blatter's own personal dealings within FIFA.
The lack of objecivity and conflict of interest is too evident. The "judiciary" in this case have too much vested interests to do the right thing, and the "Supreme court", in this case FIFA's disciplinary committee is as independent from the political side of FIFA (spell that as B-L-A-T-T-E-R) - a poor substitute if all it does is get Sepp Blatter what he wants!
In an ordinary court of law, this would be a mis-trial. Will Rio be banned? Will Blatter get his "high ground"? Will it all matter?
Tuesday, December 16, 2003
No funding woes, says EPF chairman
No funding woes, says EPF chairman, but excuse me if I take it with a large pinch of salt! Based on what board chairman Tan Sri Abdul Halim Ali said, the fund grows by RM 20 billion a year, of which RM 10 billion is net contribution (i.e. less withdrawals). With the fund now in excess of RM 219 billion, that means a return of 5% from last year (I am just approximating mathematically), accounting for the dividend of 4.25%. That means 0.75% was retained (amounting to RM 1.64 billion) for what? Take the basic rule of return on investments, retained "profit" in this sense should yield more that the cost of capital (in this case, the expected return for using my money - the 0.75% that I shoud have received but deferred) which is more that the 4.25% plus the premium for timing delays. Yet dividends have been dropping since 1998!
I know this is simple accounting. So prove me wrong. I am not against protecting the future of retirees, mind you. A structured withdrawal program that will help manage their stipend while allowing them to make the necessary large investments (house, small business etc.) without undue problems. What I do not agree with is the use of this as an excuse for poor stewardship! The rakyat should be convinced of this rather than made (privately or otherwise) to swallow everything the EPF or Govt says without question.
Given the people's anger and disbelief, I belief an independent audit of EPF's investments and financial commitments should be conducted immediately. I would like to know where our money did not make returns and why this was so. Our money is not intended to fund the extravagances of a select few and we should not be made to pay for the mistakes of the same individuals. I am angered by EPF's claim that a majority of individuals lose most of their savings within years of withdrawal, and in turn they will probably do the same for us - wholesale! You want to know which way my vote is going? I am going to vote for the govt who promises to show us the big picture.
I know this is simple accounting. So prove me wrong. I am not against protecting the future of retirees, mind you. A structured withdrawal program that will help manage their stipend while allowing them to make the necessary large investments (house, small business etc.) without undue problems. What I do not agree with is the use of this as an excuse for poor stewardship! The rakyat should be convinced of this rather than made (privately or otherwise) to swallow everything the EPF or Govt says without question.
Given the people's anger and disbelief, I belief an independent audit of EPF's investments and financial commitments should be conducted immediately. I would like to know where our money did not make returns and why this was so. Our money is not intended to fund the extravagances of a select few and we should not be made to pay for the mistakes of the same individuals. I am angered by EPF's claim that a majority of individuals lose most of their savings within years of withdrawal, and in turn they will probably do the same for us - wholesale! You want to know which way my vote is going? I am going to vote for the govt who promises to show us the big picture.
Monday, December 15, 2003
Saddam's Syrian Deal
Jihad Unspun suggests that the Iraqi leader may have brokered a deal that may see his sentence reduced to life imprisonment while pave the way for a potential invasion of Syria.
As the search for WMD, the one half of the holy grail (the other being Saddam himself) continues, analysts are keen to confirm reports that Saddam transferred some of the weapons to Syria on the eve of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.
An attack on Damascus would not be taken lightly and could enflame further the volatile middle east, but evidence of WMD could be the justification.
Meanwhile, a US-Saddam deal may protect the integrity of the US Administration of the past and possible this present. The mouth-watering prospect of detailed disclosure by former ally Saddam could cast an evil eye on the mechanism of American intervention in shaping the Middle East.
The last thing the Bush Administration wants in the background of his re-election campaign is a Air Marshall (Third Reich) Hermann Goering style defence before an international war tribunal, adding fodder to the Democratic ticket.
Which is why the idea of a Bush-Saddam deal seems quite plausible.
As the search for WMD, the one half of the holy grail (the other being Saddam himself) continues, analysts are keen to confirm reports that Saddam transferred some of the weapons to Syria on the eve of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.
An attack on Damascus would not be taken lightly and could enflame further the volatile middle east, but evidence of WMD could be the justification.
Meanwhile, a US-Saddam deal may protect the integrity of the US Administration of the past and possible this present. The mouth-watering prospect of detailed disclosure by former ally Saddam could cast an evil eye on the mechanism of American intervention in shaping the Middle East.
The last thing the Bush Administration wants in the background of his re-election campaign is a Air Marshall (Third Reich) Hermann Goering style defence before an international war tribunal, adding fodder to the Democratic ticket.
Which is why the idea of a Bush-Saddam deal seems quite plausible.
Hands off my money!
Here's my thoughts on EPF's idea to prevent me from withdrawing in full my retirement money:
1. Do you call the paltry 4-5% dividend just reward for our savings? Stop putting our money in the hands of SMAB and friends, and you may just make better yields.
2. EPF opined that they were protecting our interests since most contributors tended to spend all their money within 3 years. The point is that while insurance is guaranteed by Bank Negara, the EPF is not. Meaning is these ill meaning maggots misuse OUR money, it's our hides that take a beating, not theirs. Heck, my father waited till he was 55 to buy himself a house and now the EPF are telling us that this is no longer our prerogative?
I suggest that the people behind this idea be made to do just that with their EPF savings...
1. Do you call the paltry 4-5% dividend just reward for our savings? Stop putting our money in the hands of SMAB and friends, and you may just make better yields.
2. EPF opined that they were protecting our interests since most contributors tended to spend all their money within 3 years. The point is that while insurance is guaranteed by Bank Negara, the EPF is not. Meaning is these ill meaning maggots misuse OUR money, it's our hides that take a beating, not theirs. Heck, my father waited till he was 55 to buy himself a house and now the EPF are telling us that this is no longer our prerogative?
I suggest that the people behind this idea be made to do just that with their EPF savings...
Friday, December 12, 2003
In living colour...
Coloured hair may be trendy but stick to grey or black if you want to apply for MyKad at the National Registration Department (NRD), reports the Star.
“Problems will arise if the police cannot recognise the bearer from the photograph in his identity card if he changed his hair colour later on,” explained State NRD director Muhammad Pauzi Abdullah.
Now let us suppose that I am ignorant enough to question this line of reasoning. Surely a potential felon will still be able to change his/her hair color and style to try and evade detection. So what is the rationale for this again? And supposing a girl has blonde hair because her father is British and her mother a second generation immigrant from Bosnia? Should she either dye her hair or point to the roots of her hair to prove that she is naturally and legally blonde?
While I understand the underlying reason for this, the manner in which this was explained leaves much to be desired. No wonder certain ministers feel they are beyond the criticism of civil servants! Maybe it's because of this lack of common sense that rules need to be enforced on a strict black and white basis, i.e. stictly by the book, since those in charge and below can't seem to exercise a proper value judgement on something so objective...
“Problems will arise if the police cannot recognise the bearer from the photograph in his identity card if he changed his hair colour later on,” explained State NRD director Muhammad Pauzi Abdullah.
Now let us suppose that I am ignorant enough to question this line of reasoning. Surely a potential felon will still be able to change his/her hair color and style to try and evade detection. So what is the rationale for this again? And supposing a girl has blonde hair because her father is British and her mother a second generation immigrant from Bosnia? Should she either dye her hair or point to the roots of her hair to prove that she is naturally and legally blonde?
While I understand the underlying reason for this, the manner in which this was explained leaves much to be desired. No wonder certain ministers feel they are beyond the criticism of civil servants! Maybe it's because of this lack of common sense that rules need to be enforced on a strict black and white basis, i.e. stictly by the book, since those in charge and below can't seem to exercise a proper value judgement on something so objective...
One instance of delay that I like...
Screenshots... a.k.a. the inquiring Jeff Ooi's blog brought a smile to my face. This was not typical civil servant mentality, and certainly the word Machiavellian did not come to mind - which probably was why the nation roared with one voice its approval at good common sense. The controversy surrounding the double track project, and the way it was awarded made it a sweet story for the political watchdogs. Let's not just stop at using the word "mega" (see below for clarification) - instead, let our leaders helm a responsible attitude towards development. We have enough tycoons in Malaysia and not enough "typhoons" to undermine the misplaced affalibility that some of these personalities have come to adopt.
And I am not just poking my finger in the direction of the mega projects, lest we forget the humbl-er beginnings of some of these tyrants... let us also once again call to question the likes of MINDEF's SMS campaigns that are no doubt designed to yield, albeit not billions, but wealth no less at the expense of the rakyat.
Our beloved Tun has given us a legacy of development that will always been appreciated. Perhaps the winning formula meant hedging his bets on the winning "horses" no pun intended to our Ma-hathir (at least if ex-Minister Ling's explanation is anything to go by). But there comes a point when enough becomes excess - it's already very late in the day to realize - but not too late to do the right thing.
And I am not just poking my finger in the direction of the mega projects, lest we forget the humbl-er beginnings of some of these tyrants... let us also once again call to question the likes of MINDEF's SMS campaigns that are no doubt designed to yield, albeit not billions, but wealth no less at the expense of the rakyat.
Our beloved Tun has given us a legacy of development that will always been appreciated. Perhaps the winning formula meant hedging his bets on the winning "horses" no pun intended to our Ma-hathir (at least if ex-Minister Ling's explanation is anything to go by). But there comes a point when enough becomes excess - it's already very late in the day to realize - but not too late to do the right thing.
Wednesday, December 10, 2003
Where are you headed today?
Over breakfast this morning my eyes cast on a not unfamiliar middle aged man, like me, a regular patron to this shop. I could not help but notice his contented demeanour and an almost lazy jaunt in his posture. In my mind, I wrote the eulogy of his life and succintly put, it read that he tried, didn't get as far as his aspirations would have taken him, gave up and found contentment instead.
From where I stand, the idea of giving up seems remote at best. Augmented by my apparent youth and unmitigated ambitions, I strive to achieve wealth, stature and happiness like the proverbial pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. Yet in a few months time, not by any consent of mine, another notch is etched onto the tree of my life, and I wonder at what point do I throw in the towel? Then again, is it that bad?
It has been said that the traditional chinese man is more likely to die in his sleep after retirement compared to someone still striving in his grey-er years. So on we work, unrelentless, discontented and just driven enough to push the idea of "resting for good" backwards another few years...
What is the purpose of it all again?
The story goes that a fairly young and ambitous man, not unlike me, chanced upon a middle aged man lazing by the pier with a fishing rod in hand. The young man chastised his older counterpart for being lazy when he could be achieving so much more with his life.
"And why would I want to achieve more?" said the older man.
"SO that you could earn more money!"
"And what would I do with that money?" he persisted.
The young man replied, "You could buy anything you want."
"And when I have everything I want, what next?"
"Well, you could then retire in comfort and relax by the beach all day long..." trumpeted the younger.
"And what am I doing now?"
From where I stand, the idea of giving up seems remote at best. Augmented by my apparent youth and unmitigated ambitions, I strive to achieve wealth, stature and happiness like the proverbial pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. Yet in a few months time, not by any consent of mine, another notch is etched onto the tree of my life, and I wonder at what point do I throw in the towel? Then again, is it that bad?
It has been said that the traditional chinese man is more likely to die in his sleep after retirement compared to someone still striving in his grey-er years. So on we work, unrelentless, discontented and just driven enough to push the idea of "resting for good" backwards another few years...
What is the purpose of it all again?
The story goes that a fairly young and ambitous man, not unlike me, chanced upon a middle aged man lazing by the pier with a fishing rod in hand. The young man chastised his older counterpart for being lazy when he could be achieving so much more with his life.
"And why would I want to achieve more?" said the older man.
"SO that you could earn more money!"
"And what would I do with that money?" he persisted.
The young man replied, "You could buy anything you want."
"And when I have everything I want, what next?"
"Well, you could then retire in comfort and relax by the beach all day long..." trumpeted the younger.
"And what am I doing now?"
Monday, December 08, 2003
Spreading symptoms
The latest notice on Maybank2u.com's "system maintenance":
"Please be advised that due to our system maintenance, these services will not be available until further notice :
• Add/Remove Credit Card
• Third Party Funds Transfer
• Interbank Fund Transfer (GIRO)
• eStanding Instruction
Note :
Any eStanding Instruction placed prior to 2 Dec 2003 will still be valid. To enquire/revoke your eStanding Instruction, kindly contact Maybank Group Call Centre (03 - 20727788) or visit your home branch."
Annoyingly I am beginning to suspect that Maybank's system is probably linked to the landslide site along the North South Highway...
"Please be advised that due to our system maintenance, these services will not be available until further notice :
• Add/Remove Credit Card
• Third Party Funds Transfer
• Interbank Fund Transfer (GIRO)
• eStanding Instruction
Note :
Any eStanding Instruction placed prior to 2 Dec 2003 will still be valid. To enquire/revoke your eStanding Instruction, kindly contact Maybank Group Call Centre (03 - 20727788) or visit your home branch."
Annoyingly I am beginning to suspect that Maybank's system is probably linked to the landslide site along the North South Highway...
Friday, December 05, 2003
Enough with Mega
Drop ‘mega’ from projects, says Dr M in an article featured in the Star. The term, supposedly refers to "big and wasteful projects", was coined by the colonists and does not bear testimony to what Malaysia is today. Granted, projects like the North South Highway have added tremendous premium to our economic wealth, but the judgement is still out on KLIA and the MSC.
In a somewhat related case, a watch of Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad was missing from its display case at his birth house the day before yesterday. The now converted complex under the management of the National Archives reported no break-ins. So does this mean it will be categorised as a mini-case?
On a more playful note, I could propose a couple of alternatives... Depending on Pak Lah's ambitions, "Giga" may seem a natural progression... or if another member of the cabinet decides to come up with, for example, the Durian Super Corridor, we could term it a Luna-Project (for lunatic)...
With Mega/Giga/Luna Love,
Jefe
P.S. Anybody wanna buy a watch?
In a somewhat related case, a watch of Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad was missing from its display case at his birth house the day before yesterday. The now converted complex under the management of the National Archives reported no break-ins. So does this mean it will be categorised as a mini-case?
On a more playful note, I could propose a couple of alternatives... Depending on Pak Lah's ambitions, "Giga" may seem a natural progression... or if another member of the cabinet decides to come up with, for example, the Durian Super Corridor, we could term it a Luna-Project (for lunatic)...
With Mega/Giga/Luna Love,
Jefe
P.S. Anybody wanna buy a watch?
Thursday, December 04, 2003
Notice on Maybank2u.com website
The notice reads:
"Please be advised that due to our system maintenance, Third Party Funds Transfer, eStanding Instruction and Interbank Fund Transfer (GIRO) services will not be available until further notice."
That's interesting. My call to technical support said that Maybank was trying to rectify problems with its system... doesn't sound like maintenance to me.
"Please be advised that due to our system maintenance, Third Party Funds Transfer, eStanding Instruction and Interbank Fund Transfer (GIRO) services will not be available until further notice."
That's interesting. My call to technical support said that Maybank was trying to rectify problems with its system... doesn't sound like maintenance to me.
Wednesday, December 03, 2003
Of Maybank, RTD and National Service...
It's another case of Malaysia (tak) Boleh! The largest banking institution in Malaysia with arguably the most prominent e-banking service has coughed up another snafu. Having been able to pay my Maybank credit card bills online in the past, I was perplexed to see the option removed without so much as a notice! A call to Maybank.2u was made after 3 unsuccessful attempts only for me to be told that while I am able to make inter-banking transactions, Maybank is unable to process online transfers for internal credit card payments!!! Hurrah for technology!!!
Meanwhile, youths eligible for the National Service Programme next year can apparently SMS the Ministry of Defence to check if they are on the list of potential candidates (sounds like a redundant statement to me but that is how it was written in the Star Online). The number given is a operator shortcode - meaning a 5 digit number traditionally associated with premium SMS charges. Furthermore, the article goes on to say that "Those checking the list can also take part in a quiz and win either cash prizes or handphones." The skeptics will say that MINDEF is looking to make a quick buck out of it, while the other side of the coin demonstrates the Ministry's determination to build public awareness and support of the programme. You make the call..
Meanwhile, Star also writes that, "Chief Minister Tan Sri Dr Koh Tsu Koon has urged telecommunication companies to jointly set up a Short Messaging System (SMS) for the public to transmit information on reckless drivers and accidents to the police and the Road Transport Department."
Is this a novel idea or a poorly thought one? Consider the legal implications and the enforceability of this idea. Malaysians have been known to fancy the odd prank call to the fire dept. What more SMS, especially if it is cheap, convenient and free of prosecution...? Already our police are too busy monitoring the many 60 kmph speed limit stretches in the country, how will they cope with the barrage of SMS especially if many are just going to be hoaxes? Back to the drawing board Dr Koh...
Meanwhile, youths eligible for the National Service Programme next year can apparently SMS the Ministry of Defence to check if they are on the list of potential candidates (sounds like a redundant statement to me but that is how it was written in the Star Online). The number given is a operator shortcode - meaning a 5 digit number traditionally associated with premium SMS charges. Furthermore, the article goes on to say that "Those checking the list can also take part in a quiz and win either cash prizes or handphones." The skeptics will say that MINDEF is looking to make a quick buck out of it, while the other side of the coin demonstrates the Ministry's determination to build public awareness and support of the programme. You make the call..
Meanwhile, Star also writes that, "Chief Minister Tan Sri Dr Koh Tsu Koon has urged telecommunication companies to jointly set up a Short Messaging System (SMS) for the public to transmit information on reckless drivers and accidents to the police and the Road Transport Department."
Is this a novel idea or a poorly thought one? Consider the legal implications and the enforceability of this idea. Malaysians have been known to fancy the odd prank call to the fire dept. What more SMS, especially if it is cheap, convenient and free of prosecution...? Already our police are too busy monitoring the many 60 kmph speed limit stretches in the country, how will they cope with the barrage of SMS especially if many are just going to be hoaxes? Back to the drawing board Dr Koh...
Tuesday, December 02, 2003
Al-Qaida’s four-star financier?
Featured by NBC, this article painted a vivid glimpse of the type of difficulties the West is facing in the War on Terror. Perhaps it's just the way Governments all over the world work, as opposed to the private sector - which really accounts for why NBC has a head start on this over the machinery of the US Govt and it's allies. Perhaps the basis for Al Qaeda's power reaches deeper than many would care or even want to belief.
The fact remains that any war needs to be funded. Weapons need to be paid for and operations require capital. The was has taken every dimension imaginable and suffocating the supply of finance is just one of the many battles being waged... and if this article is to be believed, lost as well.
The fact remains that any war needs to be funded. Weapons need to be paid for and operations require capital. The was has taken every dimension imaginable and suffocating the supply of finance is just one of the many battles being waged... and if this article is to be believed, lost as well.
Friday, November 28, 2003
Shock and Awe finally...
It was the shock and awe in Iraq the Generals had promised. Without even a sniff of a hint, the troops were left aghast, awed and shocked by what happened. Except in this case, the troops concerned were US marines and the event that left the in a state of awe and shock was the surprise visit of their Commander in Chief in friendly Baghdad!
CNN.com - 'It felt good,' GI says of Bush's visit - Nov. 27, 2003, and why not? Although not in the vein of Alexander the great leading his armies in the battlefield, President Bush's "ultimate road trip" as journalists put it, into "terror" infested Iraq is a welcome signal to troops that all is getting better, if not great, and may not necessarily bring a smile to Saddam's face - despite the remote possibility of swift retribution on his American nemesis...
Parrareling Air Force One's obvious security measures, one of which was to land in total cladestine darkness at the Baghdad International Airport, the fact that Iran conducted official meetings and even made a high level visit to the US-installed Iraqi Governing Council was done largely under the radar of the media. Predominantly Shiite Iran can be viewed from 2 perspectives - firstly, as a Muslim state (not Arab mind you, for they draw their ancestry from the Aryans, significantly or not the same origins claimed by Hitler's master race), Iran has ample reason to expand it's economic, political and religious ambitions. The unification of the 2 countries would create a formidable power not unlike the scenario painted by Tom Clancy in his novel Executive Orders.
If that is indeed the case, why bother with the Iraqi Governing Council? Despite the usual rhetoric from the pinnacle of Iranian politics, relations of any kind would only legitimize the "American puppet administration" and further strengthen the position of the American forces. Why bother to establish a relationship with the IGC if, as Ayatollah Ali Khameini was reported to say, the US was sinking deeper into the Iraqi quagmire (not unlike piling for construction works?). Which brings us to perspective no.2 - bridge building. A resurgent Sunni state with links to Hussein will lend little joy to the Iranians, given their 8 year conflict. Iraq today presents an opportunity for Iran to build bridges with the rest of the world, albeit in a more controlled environment. A possible thick slice of the US-controlled budget for rebuilding the country is the carrot being dangled at the end of the stick. The fact that Tehran is putting up little rhetorical resistence in the wake of possible UN sanctions for its treaty violations and may be hauled before the International Atomic Energy Agency, only stresses the importance of moving onto a more acceptable mainstream.
The question of whether a Muslim state would play into the hands of a sworn enemy (a.k.a. Uncle Sam) is best reflected by Jordan's late King Hussein who forewarned then Israeli Prime Minister Goldameir of Egypt and Syria's military intentions in what became the Yom Kippor War of 1973. If Iran is drawn onto a more moderate seat on the international table, it would level the political field in the region and consequently give the IGC breathing space to grow from strength to strenth.
Sure, this is designed to kick off George W Bush's election campaign, and coming at the heel of the administration describes as the reformation of Medicare, I would not discount that possibility. But the prospect of being shot down by enroute to Baghdad seems too reckless a move unless there is a bigger picture behind it all. Turkey with the troops sends a clear signal that the Administration is putting its best foot forward with friends from the most unlikely sources...
CNN.com - 'It felt good,' GI says of Bush's visit - Nov. 27, 2003, and why not? Although not in the vein of Alexander the great leading his armies in the battlefield, President Bush's "ultimate road trip" as journalists put it, into "terror" infested Iraq is a welcome signal to troops that all is getting better, if not great, and may not necessarily bring a smile to Saddam's face - despite the remote possibility of swift retribution on his American nemesis...
Parrareling Air Force One's obvious security measures, one of which was to land in total cladestine darkness at the Baghdad International Airport, the fact that Iran conducted official meetings and even made a high level visit to the US-installed Iraqi Governing Council was done largely under the radar of the media. Predominantly Shiite Iran can be viewed from 2 perspectives - firstly, as a Muslim state (not Arab mind you, for they draw their ancestry from the Aryans, significantly or not the same origins claimed by Hitler's master race), Iran has ample reason to expand it's economic, political and religious ambitions. The unification of the 2 countries would create a formidable power not unlike the scenario painted by Tom Clancy in his novel Executive Orders.
If that is indeed the case, why bother with the Iraqi Governing Council? Despite the usual rhetoric from the pinnacle of Iranian politics, relations of any kind would only legitimize the "American puppet administration" and further strengthen the position of the American forces. Why bother to establish a relationship with the IGC if, as Ayatollah Ali Khameini was reported to say, the US was sinking deeper into the Iraqi quagmire (not unlike piling for construction works?). Which brings us to perspective no.2 - bridge building. A resurgent Sunni state with links to Hussein will lend little joy to the Iranians, given their 8 year conflict. Iraq today presents an opportunity for Iran to build bridges with the rest of the world, albeit in a more controlled environment. A possible thick slice of the US-controlled budget for rebuilding the country is the carrot being dangled at the end of the stick. The fact that Tehran is putting up little rhetorical resistence in the wake of possible UN sanctions for its treaty violations and may be hauled before the International Atomic Energy Agency, only stresses the importance of moving onto a more acceptable mainstream.
The question of whether a Muslim state would play into the hands of a sworn enemy (a.k.a. Uncle Sam) is best reflected by Jordan's late King Hussein who forewarned then Israeli Prime Minister Goldameir of Egypt and Syria's military intentions in what became the Yom Kippor War of 1973. If Iran is drawn onto a more moderate seat on the international table, it would level the political field in the region and consequently give the IGC breathing space to grow from strength to strenth.
Sure, this is designed to kick off George W Bush's election campaign, and coming at the heel of the administration describes as the reformation of Medicare, I would not discount that possibility. But the prospect of being shot down by enroute to Baghdad seems too reckless a move unless there is a bigger picture behind it all. Turkey with the troops sends a clear signal that the Administration is putting its best foot forward with friends from the most unlikely sources...
Friday, November 21, 2003
Holy month atrocities
Of late, I have taken a personal interest in the significance of fasting, especially during Ramaddan. The idea of foregoing our own needs in search for a higher purpose seemed valid - not to mention the physical benefits too. Yesterday's bombing in Istanbul however made me reconsider. During this Holy month of Ramaddan, the idea that a Muslim zealot is able to carry out such acts confounds me.
I started reading from Muslim.org and was amazed to read about Ramaddan and its real significance :
Purpose of fasting in Islam
To develop and strengthen our powers of self-control, so that we can resist wrongful desires and bad habits, and therefore “guard against evil” (extract no. 1). In fasting, by refraining from the natural human urges to satisfy one's appetite, we are exercising our ability of self-restraint, so that we can then apply it to our everyday life to bring about self-improvement.
To attain nearness and closeness to God so that He becomes a reality in our lives. As we bear the rigours of fasting purely for the sake of following a Divine commandment, knowing and feeling that He can see all our actions however secret, it intensifies the consciousness of God in our hearts, resulting in a higher spiritual experience (see extract no. 2).
To learn to refrain from usurping other's rights and belongings. In fasting we voluntarily give up even what is rightfully ours; how can then we think of taking what is not ours? (See extract no. 3)
Charity and generosity is especially urged during Ramadan. We learn to give, and not to take. The deprivation of fasting makes us sympathise with the suffering of others, and desirous of alleviating it; and it makes us remember the blessings of life which we normally take for granted.
Fasting in Islam does not just consist of refraining from eating and drinking, but from every kind of selfish desire and wrong-doing. The fast is not merely of the body, but essentially that of the spirit as well (see extract no. 4). The physical fast is a symbol and outward expression of the real, inner fast.
Fasting is a spiritual practice to be found in all religions (see extracts no. 1 and 5). The great Founders of various faiths (Buddha, Moses, Jesus, etc.) practised quite rigorous fasting as a preliminary to attaining their first experience of spiritual enlightenment and communion with God. This kind of communion is indicated in extract no. 2.
The idea of Ramaddan as a matter of charity and generosity eludes me this time. That the bomb was set in a Muslim country and took among others Muslim lives, during a Muslim holy month, makes me wonder if all this is just a hypocritical rhetoric! Of course it is easy to argue that it's really just a few bad apples spoiling the harvest, but if they are really serious about upholding the truths of Islam, should not Muslims take a more prominent stance against terrorism instead of a back (stabbing) seat in all this?
Meanwhile Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon immediately released a statement, following the second twin bombings in Turkey in the space of a week, that Islamic violence threatens the free world. The act giving him ample opportunity to state what seems to be the obvious. The article in Jerusalem Post went on to say that Turkey experts quickly warned that at greatest risk are states that make up the small bloc of moderate Arab/Islamic states, mentioning countries like Jordan, Egypt, Morocco, and especially Turkey...
Whether Al-Qaeda continues to spawn new cells with greater ability or if this is just a heightened but unsustainable assailment of the West and "Western-minded Muslim deviants", remains to be seen. What this may do is to further factionalize the Faith and in the process lose the voice of mdern Islamic moderation. By isolating Russia and NATO, having already lost Saddam Hussein and with the likes of Gaddafi and Egypt neutralize, the ground for manouvering is slowly but surely tightening... and from the view point of the rest of the world, this is not an unattractive proposition at all.
I started reading from Muslim.org and was amazed to read about Ramaddan and its real significance :
Purpose of fasting in Islam
To develop and strengthen our powers of self-control, so that we can resist wrongful desires and bad habits, and therefore “guard against evil” (extract no. 1). In fasting, by refraining from the natural human urges to satisfy one's appetite, we are exercising our ability of self-restraint, so that we can then apply it to our everyday life to bring about self-improvement.
To attain nearness and closeness to God so that He becomes a reality in our lives. As we bear the rigours of fasting purely for the sake of following a Divine commandment, knowing and feeling that He can see all our actions however secret, it intensifies the consciousness of God in our hearts, resulting in a higher spiritual experience (see extract no. 2).
To learn to refrain from usurping other's rights and belongings. In fasting we voluntarily give up even what is rightfully ours; how can then we think of taking what is not ours? (See extract no. 3)
Charity and generosity is especially urged during Ramadan. We learn to give, and not to take. The deprivation of fasting makes us sympathise with the suffering of others, and desirous of alleviating it; and it makes us remember the blessings of life which we normally take for granted.
Fasting in Islam does not just consist of refraining from eating and drinking, but from every kind of selfish desire and wrong-doing. The fast is not merely of the body, but essentially that of the spirit as well (see extract no. 4). The physical fast is a symbol and outward expression of the real, inner fast.
Fasting is a spiritual practice to be found in all religions (see extracts no. 1 and 5). The great Founders of various faiths (Buddha, Moses, Jesus, etc.) practised quite rigorous fasting as a preliminary to attaining their first experience of spiritual enlightenment and communion with God. This kind of communion is indicated in extract no. 2.
The idea of Ramaddan as a matter of charity and generosity eludes me this time. That the bomb was set in a Muslim country and took among others Muslim lives, during a Muslim holy month, makes me wonder if all this is just a hypocritical rhetoric! Of course it is easy to argue that it's really just a few bad apples spoiling the harvest, but if they are really serious about upholding the truths of Islam, should not Muslims take a more prominent stance against terrorism instead of a back (stabbing) seat in all this?
Meanwhile Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon immediately released a statement, following the second twin bombings in Turkey in the space of a week, that Islamic violence threatens the free world. The act giving him ample opportunity to state what seems to be the obvious. The article in Jerusalem Post went on to say that Turkey experts quickly warned that at greatest risk are states that make up the small bloc of moderate Arab/Islamic states, mentioning countries like Jordan, Egypt, Morocco, and especially Turkey...
Whether Al-Qaeda continues to spawn new cells with greater ability or if this is just a heightened but unsustainable assailment of the West and "Western-minded Muslim deviants", remains to be seen. What this may do is to further factionalize the Faith and in the process lose the voice of mdern Islamic moderation. By isolating Russia and NATO, having already lost Saddam Hussein and with the likes of Gaddafi and Egypt neutralize, the ground for manouvering is slowly but surely tightening... and from the view point of the rest of the world, this is not an unattractive proposition at all.
Wednesday, November 19, 2003
Electoral affirmation needed to step out of the shadow?
Seriously altered stakes for Pak Lah (Part 2) (Malaysiakini.com) points to the fact that the forthcoming national and party elections hold the key for Abdullah Badawi to "gain true legitimacy in his own right" and overcome "factional brawling so intense that it could topple him sooner rather than later". This is not an opinion, it is a stated fact.
One can emphatize with the predicament he is in at the moment. Despite his amicable posture, there remains many who lurk in the shadowy corridors of power ready to pounce on the PM should the ballot go south. I wonder what is takes to govern this country while constantly looking over your shoulder? Like it or not, Abdullah's performance in the months, perhaps even now weeks, leading to the elections, may form the biggest argument for or against his stewardship at the helm of our government. This means addressing the relevance of mega projects, insisting and imposing transparency into the manner that government projects are awarded, while retaining the support of those power brokers within the party...
Mr Prime Minister, I do not envy your position. But as a loyal Malaysian, all I can say is do the right thing, and we will stand by you!
One can emphatize with the predicament he is in at the moment. Despite his amicable posture, there remains many who lurk in the shadowy corridors of power ready to pounce on the PM should the ballot go south. I wonder what is takes to govern this country while constantly looking over your shoulder? Like it or not, Abdullah's performance in the months, perhaps even now weeks, leading to the elections, may form the biggest argument for or against his stewardship at the helm of our government. This means addressing the relevance of mega projects, insisting and imposing transparency into the manner that government projects are awarded, while retaining the support of those power brokers within the party...
Mr Prime Minister, I do not envy your position. But as a loyal Malaysian, all I can say is do the right thing, and we will stand by you!
Abdullah to step out of the Shadow?
In today's Star, Pak Lah interestingly enough, reveals that "...the letter of award (for the project) has been given (to MMC-Gamuda) but we still have to negotiate the agreement."
Reading between the lines, it looks like the letter of award is worth nothing more than the paper it is written on. Recent controvesy relating to the funding of the project and SMAB's financial manouvering is acquiring the project would surely throw a sucker puch at our PM's pledge to get the government to clean up its act. True, PTP today looms as a testimony of SMAB's abilities, but to put multi-billion dollar Bakun and the double tracking projects into the same basket is risky to say the least and smells bad, especially from an unassociated distance...
Pak Lah has shown tremendous resolve to finally reach the pinacle of power. The question on everyone's mind is who is pulling the strings? By casting the slightest of doubts on the finality of Bakun now, Abdullah may be demonstrating the type of timing that eluded the likes of Musa Hitam and Anwar Ibrahim. To do this, he will have to go beyond spot checks and political stalling (how else would one categorize Bakun version 2.11?). He will have to prove the ability not only to fill the large shoes of our beloved Tun, but also the ability to lift that foot, shoes and all, and kick the parasites right out of the system. For many, this may seem like political suicide, but perhaps this is the only real way for Pak Lah to leave a memorable legacy.
For this, we sit and wait.
Reading between the lines, it looks like the letter of award is worth nothing more than the paper it is written on. Recent controvesy relating to the funding of the project and SMAB's financial manouvering is acquiring the project would surely throw a sucker puch at our PM's pledge to get the government to clean up its act. True, PTP today looms as a testimony of SMAB's abilities, but to put multi-billion dollar Bakun and the double tracking projects into the same basket is risky to say the least and smells bad, especially from an unassociated distance...
Pak Lah has shown tremendous resolve to finally reach the pinacle of power. The question on everyone's mind is who is pulling the strings? By casting the slightest of doubts on the finality of Bakun now, Abdullah may be demonstrating the type of timing that eluded the likes of Musa Hitam and Anwar Ibrahim. To do this, he will have to go beyond spot checks and political stalling (how else would one categorize Bakun version 2.11?). He will have to prove the ability not only to fill the large shoes of our beloved Tun, but also the ability to lift that foot, shoes and all, and kick the parasites right out of the system. For many, this may seem like political suicide, but perhaps this is the only real way for Pak Lah to leave a memorable legacy.
For this, we sit and wait.
Monday, November 17, 2003
Blog Spam, Block Spam?
Extracted from AP
Three years ago, Adam Kalsey set up a weblog or blog to share his thoughts about online business and the digital revolution. Like countless other bloggers, he lets his readers post comments on his entries.
Recently, his site has been getting remarks like "Thanks for the information!" and "Sounds great!"
They're not from supporters, but from people -- or machines -- who leave names like "Generic Viagra," "Online Gambling" and "Free Poker" and links to unsavoury sites.
Spammers are flocking to new communications tools like moths to light, threatening to cripple these tools just as they are beginning to take off.
I wonder if Theophillus can be considered a spammer :)
But I digress somewhat. As a Maxis user, I find to my absolute consternation that my mobile is "open season" as far as consumer hunting goes. At average of 4-5 SMS spams a week touting new services and parties to name a few, I wonder if the privacy rights people have something to say about this... to say nothing about the MCMC who can only sit and play with words as the problems mount from quality of service to telco sponsored spam!
Buy Viagra
Well one thing is for sure (Buy Viagra) - you won't find spam in my blog!
With love from PJ... Viagra - what's looking up? ;)
Three years ago, Adam Kalsey set up a weblog or blog to share his thoughts about online business and the digital revolution. Like countless other bloggers, he lets his readers post comments on his entries.
Recently, his site has been getting remarks like "Thanks for the information!" and "Sounds great!"
They're not from supporters, but from people -- or machines -- who leave names like "Generic Viagra," "Online Gambling" and "Free Poker" and links to unsavoury sites.
Spammers are flocking to new communications tools like moths to light, threatening to cripple these tools just as they are beginning to take off.
I wonder if Theophillus can be considered a spammer :)
But I digress somewhat. As a Maxis user, I find to my absolute consternation that my mobile is "open season" as far as consumer hunting goes. At average of 4-5 SMS spams a week touting new services and parties to name a few, I wonder if the privacy rights people have something to say about this... to say nothing about the MCMC who can only sit and play with words as the problems mount from quality of service to telco sponsored spam!
Buy Viagra
Well one thing is for sure (Buy Viagra) - you won't find spam in my blog!
With love from PJ... Viagra - what's looking up? ;)
Friday, November 14, 2003
From McEgg to McJob
Merriam-Webster's ultimate slap in the face definition for a "low-paying job that requires little skill and provides little opportunity for advancement" is a slap to the folks at McDonald's (whose new tag line is ironically - I'm loving it! - yes, ignorance it seems is bliss...)
In a Malaysian sense, not exclusively mind you, we can probably use the term "government servant"...
The fast-food giant's chief executive, Jim Cantalupo, called the definition a "slap in the face" to the 12 million people who work in the restaurant industry, and demanded that Merriam-Webster dish up something more flattering. Well we could always call them "Ronalds"...
In a Malaysian sense, not exclusively mind you, we can probably use the term "government servant"...
The fast-food giant's chief executive, Jim Cantalupo, called the definition a "slap in the face" to the 12 million people who work in the restaurant industry, and demanded that Merriam-Webster dish up something more flattering. Well we could always call them "Ronalds"...
Thursday, November 13, 2003
Glints from Theophillus
More than a fleeting glint really, but for those 3 odd people or so who partake of my blog, Theo is insightfully provocative with a wicked streak of humor - a guest blogger if you will. Read at your peril, weep as you wish, laugh out aloud... but then think some, and you may be pleasantly surprised!
FYI, we are still awaiting postings from our correspondent in Madrid... you know who you are :)
FYI, we are still awaiting postings from our correspondent in Madrid... you know who you are :)
Tuesday, November 11, 2003
Bush's three lines
Following up from the article on Kennedy and Bush...
Imagine Dubya sitting down in the aftermath of the September 11 bombings, and pulling out his presidential notepad. He draws three parallel lines on the page, dividing it into four quarters.
On the left most quarter, he lists the Arab/ Muslim extremists, the likes of Al-Qaeda, Hizbullah, Islamic Jihad, Hamas, the PLO and Fatah to name a few. In the second quarter, he lists moderate Arabs and Muslims, the likes of Mahathir, the house of Saud, Egypt etc. Quarter three is the French, the Germans, and mainly non-Americans. Finally quarter four is the United States of America, and its citizens.
Quarter 1 is dedicated to the destruction of everything and everyone that does not comply with its teaching. Today, its the Great Satan, the United States. Yesterday, the bogeyman was Israel. Many decades ago, it was Britain and France. Tomorrow, it will be the Quarter 3s, who "do not preach and practice the true form of Islam". Eventually, it will be the Chinese, the Hindus, and other kafirs. Finally, when a Talibanic state is achieved, it's their own women and men. These thrive on violence, and in spite of whatever they claim to stand for, only understand violence done in the name of god, to legitimize their claim to power. Bush's options are clear. Destroy them or be destroyed.
Quarter 2, are Muslim dominated countries, places where rulers do not necessarily live Islamically correct lives, but can always call on Islamic solidarity (not to say that such a term does connote its existence), and rally its masses against a convenient enemy (read Israel, US, everyone else who is not part of the brethren) to deflect attention away from its own problems. Apart from the occasional call to unity for their Palestinian kin, these are more likely to protect their own national interests as and when possible, even if it means sleeping with the Great Satan itself. Besides, most of these countries have subjugated peoples, who are easily controlled by the apparatus of the ruling class. Examples include the House of Saud, Pakistan, the former Iraq, Egypt etc. Bush's options again are clear. Continue to support friendly regimes, topple unfriendly ones and don't give two hoots about the rest.
Quarter 3 are the opportunists, biggest of who are the lafekakas and the fusens who see an opportunity to extend their sphere of influence, but yet conveniently forget that they have been hiding behind American military protection since the end of the second world war, allowing Uncle Sam to pick up the tab in blood and dollars for their defence while they mucked up their own economies. Again, Bush's options are stunningly clear. Don't give two hoots, but we'll 'remember' you in your time of need.
Finally, Quarter 4, the Americans, who in keeping with his options for Quarters 1, 2 and 3, will be safe, meeting the mandate of his presidential appointment, while also giving him another term.
To Bush, Q4 is all that matters, and destroying Q1 will most certainly bring the Q2s and Q3s into line, though as dubya says repeatedly...this indeed will be a long battle. I say, keep up the GREAT work Bush.
Imagine Dubya sitting down in the aftermath of the September 11 bombings, and pulling out his presidential notepad. He draws three parallel lines on the page, dividing it into four quarters.
On the left most quarter, he lists the Arab/ Muslim extremists, the likes of Al-Qaeda, Hizbullah, Islamic Jihad, Hamas, the PLO and Fatah to name a few. In the second quarter, he lists moderate Arabs and Muslims, the likes of Mahathir, the house of Saud, Egypt etc. Quarter three is the French, the Germans, and mainly non-Americans. Finally quarter four is the United States of America, and its citizens.
Quarter 1 is dedicated to the destruction of everything and everyone that does not comply with its teaching. Today, its the Great Satan, the United States. Yesterday, the bogeyman was Israel. Many decades ago, it was Britain and France. Tomorrow, it will be the Quarter 3s, who "do not preach and practice the true form of Islam". Eventually, it will be the Chinese, the Hindus, and other kafirs. Finally, when a Talibanic state is achieved, it's their own women and men. These thrive on violence, and in spite of whatever they claim to stand for, only understand violence done in the name of god, to legitimize their claim to power. Bush's options are clear. Destroy them or be destroyed.
Quarter 2, are Muslim dominated countries, places where rulers do not necessarily live Islamically correct lives, but can always call on Islamic solidarity (not to say that such a term does connote its existence), and rally its masses against a convenient enemy (read Israel, US, everyone else who is not part of the brethren) to deflect attention away from its own problems. Apart from the occasional call to unity for their Palestinian kin, these are more likely to protect their own national interests as and when possible, even if it means sleeping with the Great Satan itself. Besides, most of these countries have subjugated peoples, who are easily controlled by the apparatus of the ruling class. Examples include the House of Saud, Pakistan, the former Iraq, Egypt etc. Bush's options again are clear. Continue to support friendly regimes, topple unfriendly ones and don't give two hoots about the rest.
Quarter 3 are the opportunists, biggest of who are the lafekakas and the fusens who see an opportunity to extend their sphere of influence, but yet conveniently forget that they have been hiding behind American military protection since the end of the second world war, allowing Uncle Sam to pick up the tab in blood and dollars for their defence while they mucked up their own economies. Again, Bush's options are stunningly clear. Don't give two hoots, but we'll 'remember' you in your time of need.
Finally, Quarter 4, the Americans, who in keeping with his options for Quarters 1, 2 and 3, will be safe, meeting the mandate of his presidential appointment, while also giving him another term.
To Bush, Q4 is all that matters, and destroying Q1 will most certainly bring the Q2s and Q3s into line, though as dubya says repeatedly...this indeed will be a long battle. I say, keep up the GREAT work Bush.
Monday, November 10, 2003
An interesting article from Stratfor
... so who's Dubya again?
The Cuban Missile Crisis: Parallels in History
Oct 20, 2003
Summary
The Cuban missile crisis under President John F. Kennedy holds some apt parallels to the challenges currently facing U.S. President George W. Bush.
Analysis
October always reminds us of the Cuban missile crisis. This is the 41st autumn since the defining moment that ended the first phase of the Cold War. In 2003, the memory of the missile crisis is, we believe, particularly apropos. Americans in general tend to think that everything the country is facing at a particular moment is unprecedented. Americans tend to think in extremes. Everything is either worse or better than ever before. Leaders are more corrupt, more perfect, more brilliant or more stupid than they have ever been. Americans lack nothing more than a sense of proportion. It is therefore interesting to look at what historian Barbara Tuchman called a distant mirror to compare the current situation with circumstances the United States faced in the past. This is not intended to either praise or condemn the current administration or the Kennedy administration. It is meant simply to gain some perspective on the current state of affairs.
The Cuban missile crisis started in a series of intelligence blunders that began under one administration and continued into the next. U.S. intelligence under Dwight Eisenhower misunderstood the nature of Fidel Castro's insurgency and miscalculated the likelihood of his victory. Eisenhower responded by initiating a covert war against Castro that suffered from Eisenhower's desire that it not only work, but that the war be completely deniable.
The result was the Bay of Pigs plan, which had little chance of working in the first place and no chance of working once U.S. President John F. Kennedy tinkered with it. The entire plan was based on a misreading of the mood of the Cuban people. It was based on the assumption that Cubans would welcome an invasion and that, in addition, they would be in a position to rise up against Castro. Whatever the true reason for the failure of the Cubans to rise, U.S. intelligence was wrong: There was no rising.
Intelligence under Kennedy also miscalculated the Soviet Union's intentions toward Cuba. That was an intelligence failure, but it was also a failure on Kennedy's part to appreciate how Soviet leaders viewed him. Kennedy came to power in part over his persistent claim that the Soviets were ahead of the United States in strategic nuclear capability -- what was called the missile gap. In fact, the strategic balance heavily favored the United States, and Kennedy knew it. He hammered the issue because it was a strong plank in his electoral platform.
From Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev's point of view, however, the victory of a man who did not seem to grasp the realities of the nuclear balance opened up interesting possibilities. Khrushchev's meeting with Kennedy in Vienna left him with the conclusion that Kennedy was inexperienced, poorly informed and timid. The Bay of Pigs fiasco simply confirmed to Khrushchev that Kennedy was out of his league. Indeed, years of hagiography notwithstanding, Kennedy had little grasp of the international reality when he took office or in the following year.
Khrushchev understood what he thought Kennedy did not, which was that the United States, with missiles in Germany and Turkey and a large intercontinental bomber fleet, could devastate the Soviet Union. The Soviets, on the other hand, could hardly touch the United States. Khrushchev's decision to put missiles into Cuba was a desperate attempt to rectify the balance of power. He assumed, based on Kennedy's abysmal performance to date, that U.S. intelligence might miss the missiles until after they were operational and that, even if they were detected, Kennedy would not have the nerve to take decisive action.
Three things led to the Cuban missile crisis:
1. Consistently poor U.S. intelligence.
2. A prior administration that failed to react to the threat in a timely fashion and in essence passed on the Cuban problem to its successor.
3. A new administration whose president struck his adversaries -- and allies -- as a deer frozen in the headlights.
We will allow our readers to draw the obvious parallels to the current situation.
In spite of these defects, Kennedy recognized that the Soviet move represented a fundamental challenge to U.S. security. He understood that it was much preferable, from the U.S. point of view, for American nuclear weapons to be menacing the Soviet Union rather than have Soviet missiles threatening the United States. While ethically shaky -- if we assume that the basis of ethics is equal treatment -- the view was practically sound for an American president. Thus, in spite of global criticism that he was threatening nuclear war, Kennedy understood that geopolitically he had no choice.
It is interesting to recall that Kennedy -- caught between those who wanted an invasion of Cuba and those who wanted to take no action that might trigger a nuclear war -- chose a compromise path in which the United States announced its commitment through a quarantine policy, without unleashing an invasion. It is also interesting to note that there was a tremendous global uproar over Kennedy's actions. Many allied governments, while publicly supportive, were privately appalled by what they saw as an overreaction. Crowds in European cities -- not to mention the communist world -- demonstrated against U.S. aggression and portrayed Kennedy as a simplistic cowboy, irresponsibly playing with the lives of millions.
Khrushchev's perception was quite different. Realizing that he had miscalculated, he sought a line of retreat. Khrushchev realized too late that however unsophisticated Kennedy might have appeared in Vienna and Berlin and during the Cuban missile crisis, there was no escaping the physical threat that Soviet missiles in Cuba posed to the United States. The physical danger to the United States, more than any other factor, focused Kennedy's mind. Kennedy knew that there was room for error on everything but the physical security of the country. He understood that, geopolitics aside, Khrushchev had crossed a threshold when he introduced the threat, and crossing that threshold changed the entire equation. That Europeans thought him a cowboy was immaterial once the direct security of the United States was at stake.
Kennedy's actions were seen as extreme and disproportionate to the threat. He struck many in the world as reckless and incautious. Countries worldwide pointed at the nuclear threat the United States posed to the Soviet Union and argued that the Soviets were simply balancing things. Kennedy didn't want the threat to be balanced. He wanted the Soviets to remain at risk and the Americans to be safe. As he famously said in connection to other matters, "Life is unfair." It wasn't great philosophy, but it made sense to Americans.
The United States threatened overwhelming force but actually used very little. In the end, Kennedy negotiated a settlement with Khrushchev and then lied about it. In a private deal with the Soviets, the United States agreed to exchange its missiles in Turkey for the Soviet missiles in Cuba. Kennedy's rationale for this was sound. The missiles were obsolete. However, he also understood that -- given his record of weakness in foreign affairs -- he needed to appear to win even if he only tied. Therefore, holding open the possibility of invasion and even nuclear war as the threat, he extracted a concession from the Soviets that made the withdrawal of the Turkish missiles a secret part of the agreement, which would be void if it were publicly revealed.
In other words, Kennedy lied about the letter and nature of the agreement. He lied explicitly when he asserted that there had been no quid pro quo over the missiles. He then lied in spirit when he made it appear that the Soviets had capitulated in the face of his resolute courage. In fact, there had been a quid pro quo and -- though the United States certainly came out ahead in the immediate deal -- Washington had to give up its own missiles and guarantee that it would not support attempts to overthrow Castro. The United States stopped the missiles. The Soviets secured Cuban communism.
It is interesting to see these parallels:
1. Both Kennedy and current U.S. President George W. Bush were widely perceived as inexperienced in foreign affairs. Their foes perceived them both as bunglers.
2. Both focused intensely on anything that physically threatened the United States.
3. The rest of the world regarded both presidents as overreacting and as cowboys, risking world security on minor provocation.
4. Both were casual with the truth when it suited the national -- or their political -- interests.
It is not clear how much deeper these parallels run.
Kennedy's missile crisis ended in a temporary stalemate. It also triggered a massive Soviet commitment to increase its strategic nuclear capabilities and led to the construction of a massive ICBM force able to threaten the United States from within the Soviet Union. By the end of the decade, the Soviets achieved the strategic nuclear parity they had sought in Cuba. In that sense, Kennedy simply bought a few years -- which was not trivial, but not decisive.
However, Kennedy's next decision -- to increase the U.S. commitment to Vietnam while supporting the overthrow of the Diem government -- proved disastrous. Some claim that Kennedy wanted to withdraw from Vietnam. Perhaps, but we note two facts. No withdrawal took place while he was alive and, more important, it was Kennedy's foreign policy team (including Dean Rusk, Robert McNamara and McGeorge Bundy) who engineered the Vietnam War under Lyndon Baines Johnson. Kennedy could have fired them all and built a new team, but we suspect he also would have retained them and followed their advice. They were the winning team in Cuba, after all.
At the decisive moment, Kennedy set the stage for the decline in the second phase of the Cold War. Cuba represented a push. It was a punctuation mark, not a definitive solution to anything. On the contrary, it was an intermediate peak to which the United States would not return until the end of the Cold War. Bush has not yet had his Cuban missile crisis. He has not yet been able to maneuver the war to its decisive moment. He is facing an adversary that is committed to avoiding any decisive moment. However, the danger that a Cuban missile crisis poses is that of an illusory solution.
All of that is intended to be thoughtful and deep. The point of this essay is simpler however. Americans tend to think of each moment as extraordinarily unique and the present leaders as particularly incompetent. Those who opposed President Bill Clinton thought he was particularly venal, and those who oppose Bush think him uniquely incompetent. It is useful to look back on moments like the Cuban missile crisis, which we tend to see through the prism of time as a particular moment of U.S. courage and decisiveness. Like the current circumstance, it was a moment born of failure, ineptitude and dishonesty, and it ultimately gave rise to the things it was intended to prevent. The president that presided over the crisis is revered today. There are few who were alive in September 1962 who would have thought that Kennedy would be remembered for his strategic acumen. And there are many historians who still wonder what the shouting was about.
Bush's critics should take note of this. And Bush should remember that the kind of victory he gains -- if he gains one at all -- is as important as the victory itself.
The Cuban Missile Crisis: Parallels in History
Oct 20, 2003
Summary
The Cuban missile crisis under President John F. Kennedy holds some apt parallels to the challenges currently facing U.S. President George W. Bush.
Analysis
October always reminds us of the Cuban missile crisis. This is the 41st autumn since the defining moment that ended the first phase of the Cold War. In 2003, the memory of the missile crisis is, we believe, particularly apropos. Americans in general tend to think that everything the country is facing at a particular moment is unprecedented. Americans tend to think in extremes. Everything is either worse or better than ever before. Leaders are more corrupt, more perfect, more brilliant or more stupid than they have ever been. Americans lack nothing more than a sense of proportion. It is therefore interesting to look at what historian Barbara Tuchman called a distant mirror to compare the current situation with circumstances the United States faced in the past. This is not intended to either praise or condemn the current administration or the Kennedy administration. It is meant simply to gain some perspective on the current state of affairs.
The Cuban missile crisis started in a series of intelligence blunders that began under one administration and continued into the next. U.S. intelligence under Dwight Eisenhower misunderstood the nature of Fidel Castro's insurgency and miscalculated the likelihood of his victory. Eisenhower responded by initiating a covert war against Castro that suffered from Eisenhower's desire that it not only work, but that the war be completely deniable.
The result was the Bay of Pigs plan, which had little chance of working in the first place and no chance of working once U.S. President John F. Kennedy tinkered with it. The entire plan was based on a misreading of the mood of the Cuban people. It was based on the assumption that Cubans would welcome an invasion and that, in addition, they would be in a position to rise up against Castro. Whatever the true reason for the failure of the Cubans to rise, U.S. intelligence was wrong: There was no rising.
Intelligence under Kennedy also miscalculated the Soviet Union's intentions toward Cuba. That was an intelligence failure, but it was also a failure on Kennedy's part to appreciate how Soviet leaders viewed him. Kennedy came to power in part over his persistent claim that the Soviets were ahead of the United States in strategic nuclear capability -- what was called the missile gap. In fact, the strategic balance heavily favored the United States, and Kennedy knew it. He hammered the issue because it was a strong plank in his electoral platform.
From Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev's point of view, however, the victory of a man who did not seem to grasp the realities of the nuclear balance opened up interesting possibilities. Khrushchev's meeting with Kennedy in Vienna left him with the conclusion that Kennedy was inexperienced, poorly informed and timid. The Bay of Pigs fiasco simply confirmed to Khrushchev that Kennedy was out of his league. Indeed, years of hagiography notwithstanding, Kennedy had little grasp of the international reality when he took office or in the following year.
Khrushchev understood what he thought Kennedy did not, which was that the United States, with missiles in Germany and Turkey and a large intercontinental bomber fleet, could devastate the Soviet Union. The Soviets, on the other hand, could hardly touch the United States. Khrushchev's decision to put missiles into Cuba was a desperate attempt to rectify the balance of power. He assumed, based on Kennedy's abysmal performance to date, that U.S. intelligence might miss the missiles until after they were operational and that, even if they were detected, Kennedy would not have the nerve to take decisive action.
Three things led to the Cuban missile crisis:
1. Consistently poor U.S. intelligence.
2. A prior administration that failed to react to the threat in a timely fashion and in essence passed on the Cuban problem to its successor.
3. A new administration whose president struck his adversaries -- and allies -- as a deer frozen in the headlights.
We will allow our readers to draw the obvious parallels to the current situation.
In spite of these defects, Kennedy recognized that the Soviet move represented a fundamental challenge to U.S. security. He understood that it was much preferable, from the U.S. point of view, for American nuclear weapons to be menacing the Soviet Union rather than have Soviet missiles threatening the United States. While ethically shaky -- if we assume that the basis of ethics is equal treatment -- the view was practically sound for an American president. Thus, in spite of global criticism that he was threatening nuclear war, Kennedy understood that geopolitically he had no choice.
It is interesting to recall that Kennedy -- caught between those who wanted an invasion of Cuba and those who wanted to take no action that might trigger a nuclear war -- chose a compromise path in which the United States announced its commitment through a quarantine policy, without unleashing an invasion. It is also interesting to note that there was a tremendous global uproar over Kennedy's actions. Many allied governments, while publicly supportive, were privately appalled by what they saw as an overreaction. Crowds in European cities -- not to mention the communist world -- demonstrated against U.S. aggression and portrayed Kennedy as a simplistic cowboy, irresponsibly playing with the lives of millions.
Khrushchev's perception was quite different. Realizing that he had miscalculated, he sought a line of retreat. Khrushchev realized too late that however unsophisticated Kennedy might have appeared in Vienna and Berlin and during the Cuban missile crisis, there was no escaping the physical threat that Soviet missiles in Cuba posed to the United States. The physical danger to the United States, more than any other factor, focused Kennedy's mind. Kennedy knew that there was room for error on everything but the physical security of the country. He understood that, geopolitics aside, Khrushchev had crossed a threshold when he introduced the threat, and crossing that threshold changed the entire equation. That Europeans thought him a cowboy was immaterial once the direct security of the United States was at stake.
Kennedy's actions were seen as extreme and disproportionate to the threat. He struck many in the world as reckless and incautious. Countries worldwide pointed at the nuclear threat the United States posed to the Soviet Union and argued that the Soviets were simply balancing things. Kennedy didn't want the threat to be balanced. He wanted the Soviets to remain at risk and the Americans to be safe. As he famously said in connection to other matters, "Life is unfair." It wasn't great philosophy, but it made sense to Americans.
The United States threatened overwhelming force but actually used very little. In the end, Kennedy negotiated a settlement with Khrushchev and then lied about it. In a private deal with the Soviets, the United States agreed to exchange its missiles in Turkey for the Soviet missiles in Cuba. Kennedy's rationale for this was sound. The missiles were obsolete. However, he also understood that -- given his record of weakness in foreign affairs -- he needed to appear to win even if he only tied. Therefore, holding open the possibility of invasion and even nuclear war as the threat, he extracted a concession from the Soviets that made the withdrawal of the Turkish missiles a secret part of the agreement, which would be void if it were publicly revealed.
In other words, Kennedy lied about the letter and nature of the agreement. He lied explicitly when he asserted that there had been no quid pro quo over the missiles. He then lied in spirit when he made it appear that the Soviets had capitulated in the face of his resolute courage. In fact, there had been a quid pro quo and -- though the United States certainly came out ahead in the immediate deal -- Washington had to give up its own missiles and guarantee that it would not support attempts to overthrow Castro. The United States stopped the missiles. The Soviets secured Cuban communism.
It is interesting to see these parallels:
1. Both Kennedy and current U.S. President George W. Bush were widely perceived as inexperienced in foreign affairs. Their foes perceived them both as bunglers.
2. Both focused intensely on anything that physically threatened the United States.
3. The rest of the world regarded both presidents as overreacting and as cowboys, risking world security on minor provocation.
4. Both were casual with the truth when it suited the national -- or their political -- interests.
It is not clear how much deeper these parallels run.
Kennedy's missile crisis ended in a temporary stalemate. It also triggered a massive Soviet commitment to increase its strategic nuclear capabilities and led to the construction of a massive ICBM force able to threaten the United States from within the Soviet Union. By the end of the decade, the Soviets achieved the strategic nuclear parity they had sought in Cuba. In that sense, Kennedy simply bought a few years -- which was not trivial, but not decisive.
However, Kennedy's next decision -- to increase the U.S. commitment to Vietnam while supporting the overthrow of the Diem government -- proved disastrous. Some claim that Kennedy wanted to withdraw from Vietnam. Perhaps, but we note two facts. No withdrawal took place while he was alive and, more important, it was Kennedy's foreign policy team (including Dean Rusk, Robert McNamara and McGeorge Bundy) who engineered the Vietnam War under Lyndon Baines Johnson. Kennedy could have fired them all and built a new team, but we suspect he also would have retained them and followed their advice. They were the winning team in Cuba, after all.
At the decisive moment, Kennedy set the stage for the decline in the second phase of the Cold War. Cuba represented a push. It was a punctuation mark, not a definitive solution to anything. On the contrary, it was an intermediate peak to which the United States would not return until the end of the Cold War. Bush has not yet had his Cuban missile crisis. He has not yet been able to maneuver the war to its decisive moment. He is facing an adversary that is committed to avoiding any decisive moment. However, the danger that a Cuban missile crisis poses is that of an illusory solution.
All of that is intended to be thoughtful and deep. The point of this essay is simpler however. Americans tend to think of each moment as extraordinarily unique and the present leaders as particularly incompetent. Those who opposed President Bill Clinton thought he was particularly venal, and those who oppose Bush think him uniquely incompetent. It is useful to look back on moments like the Cuban missile crisis, which we tend to see through the prism of time as a particular moment of U.S. courage and decisiveness. Like the current circumstance, it was a moment born of failure, ineptitude and dishonesty, and it ultimately gave rise to the things it was intended to prevent. The president that presided over the crisis is revered today. There are few who were alive in September 1962 who would have thought that Kennedy would be remembered for his strategic acumen. And there are many historians who still wonder what the shouting was about.
Bush's critics should take note of this. And Bush should remember that the kind of victory he gains -- if he gains one at all -- is as important as the victory itself.
Tuesday, November 04, 2003
It's a Treat!
On Halloween night my uncle took his 4 year old son out for trick or treating. As Andre had never done it before his father explained to the little boy to ring the door bell and when someone answers you say "Trick or Treat" and they will give you a sweet and you say "Thank you". At the first house nobody answered the door and he was disappointed. At the second house Andre got his treat. As they walked away he said with glee, "It works Dada, it really works". He was extremely excited - from then on they were at a speed of warp 2.
- news from Canada (private blog)
- news from Canada (private blog)
Friday, October 31, 2003
Jefferson lives...
An episode of the latest season in the West Wing tells the tale of John Adams who was to speak on the occasion of the anniversary of the Declaration of independence until ill health prevented him from doing so. On his deathbed was relieved that he would be survived by then Jefferson when he uttered the last words "... Thomas Jefferson survives." 5 hours later, he was proved wrong.
John Adams and Thomas Jefferson died within hours of each other, on the 50th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1826.
I thought what an irony it was, especially given the significance of today. As the upper most echelon of our country changes hands, Malaysia waits in abated breath albeit with speculation swirling around every pocket of conversation. Whatever your bias, Malaysia today is not a bad place to live in. We have wealth manifest in so many different respects in the country, and a voice that people recognize as largely one of moderation and reason. We are not perfect, and surely no other government would claim to be so.
I would be tempted to turn to the back page of this "book" and see how things emerge, but somehow sense that any change will be gradual.
Just wondering aloud, in the event of the unthinkable, and 5 hours later history repeats itself, I wonder who would be in line to take over the hot seat, given that the political succession issue has yet to be resolved?
John Adams and Thomas Jefferson died within hours of each other, on the 50th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1826.
I thought what an irony it was, especially given the significance of today. As the upper most echelon of our country changes hands, Malaysia waits in abated breath albeit with speculation swirling around every pocket of conversation. Whatever your bias, Malaysia today is not a bad place to live in. We have wealth manifest in so many different respects in the country, and a voice that people recognize as largely one of moderation and reason. We are not perfect, and surely no other government would claim to be so.
I would be tempted to turn to the back page of this "book" and see how things emerge, but somehow sense that any change will be gradual.
Just wondering aloud, in the event of the unthinkable, and 5 hours later history repeats itself, I wonder who would be in line to take over the hot seat, given that the political succession issue has yet to be resolved?
Wednesday, October 29, 2003
A different perspective of success
At age 4 success is . . . . not peeing in your pants.
At age 12 success is . . . having friends.
At age 16 success is . . . having a drivers license.
At age 20 success is . . . going all the way.
At age 35 success is . . . having money.
At age 50 success is . . . having money.
At age 60 success is . . . going all the way.
At age 70 success is . . . having a drivers license.
At age 75 success is . . . having friends.
At age 80 success is . . . not peeing in your pants.
Have a laugh then think some ;)
At age 12 success is . . . having friends.
At age 16 success is . . . having a drivers license.
At age 20 success is . . . going all the way.
At age 35 success is . . . having money.
At age 50 success is . . . having money.
At age 60 success is . . . going all the way.
At age 70 success is . . . having a drivers license.
At age 75 success is . . . having friends.
At age 80 success is . . . not peeing in your pants.
Have a laugh then think some ;)
GWB parody site
China Space Flight: President Bush's Formal Statement Welcoming Red China to Space Age: "Never Trespass on America's Moon!" - WHITEHOUSE.ORG
This site is so side splitting funny, it would be banned in Malaysia if the subject matter was local ;)
This site is so side splitting funny, it would be banned in Malaysia if the subject matter was local ;)
Symbolism vs Shambolism: US$ 1.2 million aid held back
The U.S. Senate agreed by a unanimous decision on Monday to hold back $1.2 million in military training aid to Malaysia as a reaction to Dr Mahathir's speech at the recent OIC meeting. While the The Bush administration surprisingly distanced itself from the Senate decision, Mahathir gave the news the 2 second attention it deserved, observing the fact that Malaysians could easily afford the shortfall.
Jeff Ooi writes:
Keep your money, you BIG BULLY!
Malaysians tell the US that our national prode is worth more than US$1.2 million. One Ringgit from each citizen will more than cover that military aid which comes with so many strings attached...
I couldn't agree more.
The point is lost because not only is the amount insignificant, it casts a serious shadow of doubt over the US' commitment to the so-called war on terror. Like it or not, Malaysia has been a relatively active ally up to this point and while US$ 1 million does little to dent our contry's military, it sends the wrong signal to a land that is universally recognised as the flagship of moderate Islam. Does it mean that we are to stand on the other side of the fence?
The action by the US senate is more juvenile than helpful. Unfortunately, by disassociating themselves from this action, the Bush Administration only demonstrates a political naivety that will probably be Dubya's legacy.
Jeff Ooi writes:
Keep your money, you BIG BULLY!
Malaysians tell the US that our national prode is worth more than US$1.2 million. One Ringgit from each citizen will more than cover that military aid which comes with so many strings attached...
I couldn't agree more.
The point is lost because not only is the amount insignificant, it casts a serious shadow of doubt over the US' commitment to the so-called war on terror. Like it or not, Malaysia has been a relatively active ally up to this point and while US$ 1 million does little to dent our contry's military, it sends the wrong signal to a land that is universally recognised as the flagship of moderate Islam. Does it mean that we are to stand on the other side of the fence?
The action by the US senate is more juvenile than helpful. Unfortunately, by disassociating themselves from this action, the Bush Administration only demonstrates a political naivety that will probably be Dubya's legacy.
Lost memories while I found humanity
Old soldiers never die, they only fade away... (General MacArthur). I chanced upon an ex-soldier of the Malaya army. The old man approached me last night and asked if I knew what his keys were for. Raising my defences, my immediate thoughts were that he was going to ask me for money, not an uncommon ploy for people to sponge of others. Then the look of confusion in his eyes brought shame to mine. I recognised the signs of someone aged with half a memory and at once took pity on the dimunitive old man. He introduced himself as Abdul Jalil and confessed that he had been wandering around for several hours wondering how to get home.
He claimed to have come from Puchong and showed me his identity card to prove it. As if to atone for my misjudgement, I offered to send him home, which he willingly and gratefully accepted. So on we set off literally house-hunting. AJ's poor recollection of landmarks only diminished my hope that he knew where we were heading, but drive we on did. After an hour we found the house, empty. It seemed that the old tenants had shifted months ago and yes, they recognised the old man, but did not have a forwarding address or contact.
Stunned, he asked me why his family would move without his knowledge. I knew at once that logic played no part in this. Here was a confused individual and all I could think of was to assure him that all would be alright and that he should rest while we made our way back to the Kelana Jaya police station. We arrived at the station past midnight and even the police were amazed that no missing persons report were made at this hour. After much trying, we obtained a contact number - Julee, his daughter. Our call was rebuffed as the female on the other side of the line directed me to call her sister instead who lived nearby. I remember thinking to myself, "if this was my father, I'd be there in 2 minutes." Next we called Ros and true to form, she began complaining that AJ was a stubborn old man and sounded reluctant to attend to her father.
Here I was at 2am in the morning, a complete stranger minding AJ while his 13 children debated between themselves whom should take the responsibility of picking the poor fella up from the police station! Coincidentally a couple of busted VCD traders were around and ironically, they had little good to say of the ingrates! Finally at 3:30 am, Ros showed up with an accusing husband who made little effort to thank us and instead demonstrated his ire towards the old man. The officer in charge pulled him to one side and presumably gave him a piece of his mind, while I spoke only kind words towards AJ, in part wishing him all the best in an uncertain future.
Well, uncertain is probably not the right word, because as things stand, the poor chap will probably be sent to an old folks home soon...
I drove off convinced of the need to be a better man, and I hope a better son.
He claimed to have come from Puchong and showed me his identity card to prove it. As if to atone for my misjudgement, I offered to send him home, which he willingly and gratefully accepted. So on we set off literally house-hunting. AJ's poor recollection of landmarks only diminished my hope that he knew where we were heading, but drive we on did. After an hour we found the house, empty. It seemed that the old tenants had shifted months ago and yes, they recognised the old man, but did not have a forwarding address or contact.
Stunned, he asked me why his family would move without his knowledge. I knew at once that logic played no part in this. Here was a confused individual and all I could think of was to assure him that all would be alright and that he should rest while we made our way back to the Kelana Jaya police station. We arrived at the station past midnight and even the police were amazed that no missing persons report were made at this hour. After much trying, we obtained a contact number - Julee, his daughter. Our call was rebuffed as the female on the other side of the line directed me to call her sister instead who lived nearby. I remember thinking to myself, "if this was my father, I'd be there in 2 minutes." Next we called Ros and true to form, she began complaining that AJ was a stubborn old man and sounded reluctant to attend to her father.
Here I was at 2am in the morning, a complete stranger minding AJ while his 13 children debated between themselves whom should take the responsibility of picking the poor fella up from the police station! Coincidentally a couple of busted VCD traders were around and ironically, they had little good to say of the ingrates! Finally at 3:30 am, Ros showed up with an accusing husband who made little effort to thank us and instead demonstrated his ire towards the old man. The officer in charge pulled him to one side and presumably gave him a piece of his mind, while I spoke only kind words towards AJ, in part wishing him all the best in an uncertain future.
Well, uncertain is probably not the right word, because as things stand, the poor chap will probably be sent to an old folks home soon...
I drove off convinced of the need to be a better man, and I hope a better son.
Monday, October 27, 2003
Arsene Wenger - hypocrisy and sore "loser"
Anyone watching yesterday's London derby would have been apalled to read Mr Wenger's statements in the press today. It seems that while his players are above reproach, any provocation on the part of opposing players is indefensible...
As it stands, Matty Holland has joined the ranks of Ruud Van Nistelrooy as a diving cheat, unlike squeaky clean Robert Pires, Olympic diving gold medalist (potential) Ashley Cole and the guy without elbows, Dennis Bergkamp.
'There was no water underneath, but it was very nice,' declared Wenger, with more than a hint of irony, of Holland's fall.
Fine, I wonder if there is a Gaelic explanation that differentiates between someone who dives without being touched or someone who dives after being touched? I guess the difference lies in whether it is a favorable result for Arsenal or not.
For all his strengths in identifying good players, Wenger has surely brought the game into serious disrepute each time his myopia manifests! If anything, his actions are only inflammatory and can only do more harm than good. Perhaps it is time that a player takes the errant Frenchman to task and haul his bony a$$ to the courts for good measure.
As it stands, Matty Holland has joined the ranks of Ruud Van Nistelrooy as a diving cheat, unlike squeaky clean Robert Pires, Olympic diving gold medalist (potential) Ashley Cole and the guy without elbows, Dennis Bergkamp.
'There was no water underneath, but it was very nice,' declared Wenger, with more than a hint of irony, of Holland's fall.
Fine, I wonder if there is a Gaelic explanation that differentiates between someone who dives without being touched or someone who dives after being touched? I guess the difference lies in whether it is a favorable result for Arsenal or not.
For all his strengths in identifying good players, Wenger has surely brought the game into serious disrepute each time his myopia manifests! If anything, his actions are only inflammatory and can only do more harm than good. Perhaps it is time that a player takes the errant Frenchman to task and haul his bony a$$ to the courts for good measure.
Friday, October 24, 2003
Defending a General
A recent Article in the CNN claimed that the Pentagon deleted portions of Gen, Boykin's official apology. This includes a statement that God had placed Pres. Bush in his current position and that Boykin himself would refrain from speaking at Christian meetings. I wonder why?
Boykin, deputy undersecretary of defense for intelligence, said in a speech to a Christian prayer group in June that radical Muslims hate the United States "because we're a Christian nation, because our foundation and roots are Judeo-Christian and the enemy is a guy named Satan."
Taken at face value, I may have joined the multitudes in lambasting Boykin, given his active role in the US Military. Why allow such a person to participate, lead even in the war against terror? Is that not like adding fuel to the fire?
Take a step back. Many likeminded people took exception to Dr M's statement that Jews ruled the world, without first understanding the context in which it was spoken to, and particularly the audience to which the same was directed at. Let me offer a word of moderation (not defence for I would definitely be castigated and cast as a proponent of hateful racial bias). The Christian belief is that we live in a human and spiritual world. The bible, which forms the basis of a believer's faith, clearly states that there is a spiritual world, and that Jesus Christ is THE WAY, THE TRUTH and THE LIFE. It goes on to say that our battles are not against flesh and blood but the against authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms (Eph 6:12). These powers and authorities are referring to the spiritual element, not the physical reality we all know. How do I interprete this? Well read the verse in context it should include the verses before and after it:
11Put on the full armor of God so that you can take your stand against the devil's schemes. 12For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. 13Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand. (Eph. 6)
Boykin was speaking to a group of Christian evangelicals who did not need the added clarification and background before drawing their own conclusions. The influence and manipulative power of the fourth estate as Sir Jeffrey Archer puts it, means that news is now no longer as we see it, but how THEY (the reporters) see it. If it serves their prupose to publish something by leaving parts relevant to it out, they will do so! Of course most people do not share Boykin's spiritual opinion... if you do, you would probably be a Christian!
The manner in which this was taken out of context and thrust to the world as the fleshly ideology of a military man designed to enflame the Moslem community only goes to show that the truth is really whatever we want it to be. Whether to fan religious fervour or just to sell more newspapers, the fact is, Boykin was speaking not to you or me, or the 1 billion Moslems worldwide. Ask any Moslem general if Christians would go to heaven and then judge for yourselves.
What was his wrongdoing? If he had drawn on his position as a military leader to lend credance to what he said, that was irresponsible. But as far as we know, he was speaking in a spiritual context for a spiritual meeting - or has prayer meetings taken a new dimension I am not aware off. Frankly, I do not know Lt. Gen. Boykin, nor am I aware of his military record. But just as I joined the chorus in defending the "anti-semitism" remarks of our outgoing PM, I'd rather be consistent that hypocritical.
Boykin, deputy undersecretary of defense for intelligence, said in a speech to a Christian prayer group in June that radical Muslims hate the United States "because we're a Christian nation, because our foundation and roots are Judeo-Christian and the enemy is a guy named Satan."
Taken at face value, I may have joined the multitudes in lambasting Boykin, given his active role in the US Military. Why allow such a person to participate, lead even in the war against terror? Is that not like adding fuel to the fire?
Take a step back. Many likeminded people took exception to Dr M's statement that Jews ruled the world, without first understanding the context in which it was spoken to, and particularly the audience to which the same was directed at. Let me offer a word of moderation (not defence for I would definitely be castigated and cast as a proponent of hateful racial bias). The Christian belief is that we live in a human and spiritual world. The bible, which forms the basis of a believer's faith, clearly states that there is a spiritual world, and that Jesus Christ is THE WAY, THE TRUTH and THE LIFE. It goes on to say that our battles are not against flesh and blood but the against authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms (Eph 6:12). These powers and authorities are referring to the spiritual element, not the physical reality we all know. How do I interprete this? Well read the verse in context it should include the verses before and after it:
11Put on the full armor of God so that you can take your stand against the devil's schemes. 12For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. 13Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand. (Eph. 6)
Boykin was speaking to a group of Christian evangelicals who did not need the added clarification and background before drawing their own conclusions. The influence and manipulative power of the fourth estate as Sir Jeffrey Archer puts it, means that news is now no longer as we see it, but how THEY (the reporters) see it. If it serves their prupose to publish something by leaving parts relevant to it out, they will do so! Of course most people do not share Boykin's spiritual opinion... if you do, you would probably be a Christian!
The manner in which this was taken out of context and thrust to the world as the fleshly ideology of a military man designed to enflame the Moslem community only goes to show that the truth is really whatever we want it to be. Whether to fan religious fervour or just to sell more newspapers, the fact is, Boykin was speaking not to you or me, or the 1 billion Moslems worldwide. Ask any Moslem general if Christians would go to heaven and then judge for yourselves.
What was his wrongdoing? If he had drawn on his position as a military leader to lend credance to what he said, that was irresponsible. But as far as we know, he was speaking in a spiritual context for a spiritual meeting - or has prayer meetings taken a new dimension I am not aware off. Frankly, I do not know Lt. Gen. Boykin, nor am I aware of his military record. But just as I joined the chorus in defending the "anti-semitism" remarks of our outgoing PM, I'd rather be consistent that hypocritical.
Thursday, October 23, 2003
The right to starve
CNN.com - Lawyer: State has no right to rule in Schiavo case - Oct. 22, 2003
Bo and Mary Schindler have been engaged in a long legal battle with son-in-law Michael Schiavo over the fate of the 39-year-old woman, who suffered severe brain damage following a heart attack in 1990. In the latest twist of events, Governer Jeb Bush rushed a bill through the Florida Legislature allowing the reinsertion of Schiavo's feeding tube rather than allow her to die.
A court ruled recently that her feeding tube could be removed it was on the basis of Terri Schiavo's own wishes not to be kept alive by artificial means. He said Terri Schiavo told her husband, "I never want to be kept alive artificially."
The spectre of Judicial tyranny still hovers over this case, says Dr Jim Dobson on Family Life Ministries Network in that the matter will continue to simmer perhaps until and perhaps after the last breath that Schiavo will ever breathe. Dobson, a strong pro-life Christian advocate and the large Christian Florida community are adamant that the woman who despite being brain damaged, yet is able to respond in a limited way; is allowed a chance to rehabilitate to some form of recovery.
The issue here is not so much the wishes of Terri (if indeed it is true) to die, but rather the fact that no one should be allowed to starve to death, especially in the case where there is no way to establish if this is indeed her wishes. The decision of the court was based solely on Schiavo's statement to her husband and would unlikely have taken into consideration such a scenario.
I wonder if the courts are truly equipped to play God? Even worse, to waive the consequence (relatively short-term though it would have been) of pain and suffering it would bring to the "victim" all for the sake of choice? If for example I were found out to be starving a pet at home, will the police, upon being made aware, be oblidged to stop me?
Bo and Mary Schindler have been engaged in a long legal battle with son-in-law Michael Schiavo over the fate of the 39-year-old woman, who suffered severe brain damage following a heart attack in 1990. In the latest twist of events, Governer Jeb Bush rushed a bill through the Florida Legislature allowing the reinsertion of Schiavo's feeding tube rather than allow her to die.
A court ruled recently that her feeding tube could be removed it was on the basis of Terri Schiavo's own wishes not to be kept alive by artificial means. He said Terri Schiavo told her husband, "I never want to be kept alive artificially."
The spectre of Judicial tyranny still hovers over this case, says Dr Jim Dobson on Family Life Ministries Network in that the matter will continue to simmer perhaps until and perhaps after the last breath that Schiavo will ever breathe. Dobson, a strong pro-life Christian advocate and the large Christian Florida community are adamant that the woman who despite being brain damaged, yet is able to respond in a limited way; is allowed a chance to rehabilitate to some form of recovery.
The issue here is not so much the wishes of Terri (if indeed it is true) to die, but rather the fact that no one should be allowed to starve to death, especially in the case where there is no way to establish if this is indeed her wishes. The decision of the court was based solely on Schiavo's statement to her husband and would unlikely have taken into consideration such a scenario.
I wonder if the courts are truly equipped to play God? Even worse, to waive the consequence (relatively short-term though it would have been) of pain and suffering it would bring to the "victim" all for the sake of choice? If for example I were found out to be starving a pet at home, will the police, upon being made aware, be oblidged to stop me?
Wednesday, October 22, 2003
Bush Rebuke: Did he, didn't he?
I cannot comprehend the manner in which the press is hyping up the supposed personal rebuking of Dr M by Pres. Bush.
Consider the fact that George W Bush is willing to stand up for his convictions and wage war in 2 major hotspots in the middle east, whatever his convictions. That he is now willing to sign on the bill that makes late pregnancy abortion illegal in a country divided and very passionate over this issue. All these and more, despite the fact that he is the minority elected President with a second term election in the not too distant future.
Now consider the fact that the person reporting on this, White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan, was in a sense not part of that personal conversation.
IF indeed Pres. Bush intended for any reason whatsoever, to rebuke Dr M, why go personal? If anything, APEC provides a sufficient platform to put the outgoing Malaysian PM in his place... He has demonstrated this with Arafat.
No, I think what transpired between these men was intended to be private rather than laundered in the press like some cheap gossip. Like them, love them, both are men of conviction who stand by what they believe. The senior staff and press have no business putting a spin on the issue knowing full well that Bush had no way to respond otherwise.
For an interesting view on this read this article.
Consider the fact that George W Bush is willing to stand up for his convictions and wage war in 2 major hotspots in the middle east, whatever his convictions. That he is now willing to sign on the bill that makes late pregnancy abortion illegal in a country divided and very passionate over this issue. All these and more, despite the fact that he is the minority elected President with a second term election in the not too distant future.
Now consider the fact that the person reporting on this, White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan, was in a sense not part of that personal conversation.
IF indeed Pres. Bush intended for any reason whatsoever, to rebuke Dr M, why go personal? If anything, APEC provides a sufficient platform to put the outgoing Malaysian PM in his place... He has demonstrated this with Arafat.
No, I think what transpired between these men was intended to be private rather than laundered in the press like some cheap gossip. Like them, love them, both are men of conviction who stand by what they believe. The senior staff and press have no business putting a spin on the issue knowing full well that Bush had no way to respond otherwise.
For an interesting view on this read this article.
Tuesday, October 21, 2003
IPO hangover
A friend commented over lunch today that Maxis' recent service outage smells more than the power failure that was attributed as the cause for it.
"It only goes to show that nothing good happens after an IPO," he went on.
Well, to be fair, complains about their poor service levels and constant dropped lines were fairly common long before the IPO came into the picture. Still, talking about pictures, one wonders how the leading mobile telco in the country could be caught with no back-up and its literal pants down?
Also showing panty lines is the recent offerings on Astro's Wah Loi Toi channel. The grey scale images aren't a sign of poor transmission. That's the sight of oldies being screened on weekends as if to say their purchasing budget has gone to the dogs. Not only that, many of the so-called latest serials are at least weeks, if not a couple of seasons behind those being screened on the terrestrial channels... shame, it all deteriorates after the IPO...
"It only goes to show that nothing good happens after an IPO," he went on.
Well, to be fair, complains about their poor service levels and constant dropped lines were fairly common long before the IPO came into the picture. Still, talking about pictures, one wonders how the leading mobile telco in the country could be caught with no back-up and its literal pants down?
Also showing panty lines is the recent offerings on Astro's Wah Loi Toi channel. The grey scale images aren't a sign of poor transmission. That's the sight of oldies being screened on weekends as if to say their purchasing budget has gone to the dogs. Not only that, many of the so-called latest serials are at least weeks, if not a couple of seasons behind those being screened on the terrestrial channels... shame, it all deteriorates after the IPO...
Buying over the people's game
Someone hit me on the head and tell me if soccer is still the people's game? The beautiful game is undoubtedly the largest single sport spectator event on the face of earth largely due to its accessibility to the masses. Several clicks of the remote on weekends would eventually find a soccer telecast. All it takes is a ball and at least 6 people on a half decent field for a game. And it does not matter if we can bend golden balls like Mr Beckham... there's almost always an interested spectator or more on hand.
Yet Roman Abramovich's spending spree at les Blues and interests by other billionaires in Manchester United threaten to take the game to another less flattering level. Of course comparing favorably to the recessionary transfer window prior to his intervention, the game now looks inclined towards being nothing more than a billionaires' playground with spare change exchanging hands to the tune of millions and hundreds of millions. Will it be candy to the eye? Why not? Will it elevate the standard of the game? At least in some leagues (say, for the price being touted as Rooney's tag, Roman could buy the our inaugural Super League and Premier League teams with cash to spare!) anyway...
But what about the passion and sense of ownership? This is Mr Moneybags' team now can't you see? You can't buy that... can you?
Yet Roman Abramovich's spending spree at les Blues and interests by other billionaires in Manchester United threaten to take the game to another less flattering level. Of course comparing favorably to the recessionary transfer window prior to his intervention, the game now looks inclined towards being nothing more than a billionaires' playground with spare change exchanging hands to the tune of millions and hundreds of millions. Will it be candy to the eye? Why not? Will it elevate the standard of the game? At least in some leagues (say, for the price being touted as Rooney's tag, Roman could buy the our inaugural Super League and Premier League teams with cash to spare!) anyway...
But what about the passion and sense of ownership? This is Mr Moneybags' team now can't you see? You can't buy that... can you?
Monday, October 20, 2003
A life worth living... and celebrating
Walls and wails in Israel, bombs and bodies in Baghdad, space and beyond in China, nepotism and anti-semitism in Kuala Lumpur... amidst all that Mother Theresa was beatified yesterday. While I do not fully understand the spiritual significance of this, I think celebrating the life of someone who had not taken a single day off in 50 years to ease the pain of humanity is worth the trouble... and attention.
My brother embraced for the first time his newborn baby. I need to wait several more months. But if there was something I would impart to the 2 kids, it would be this:
My wise uncle once told me that there are 2 types of people today; one who does all the work, and the other who takes all the credit. He went on to say he'd rather be the former and do all the work cos there was less competition. Mother Theresa knew the difference; I wonder if we will ever get fed-up of our own self-serving lip servicing? But rather than take this time to bitch about how bad we are, in the spirit of things, let us take time to see how much better we can become? It starts with a little kindness, which we learn, eventually begets kindness...
Peace be with you.
My brother embraced for the first time his newborn baby. I need to wait several more months. But if there was something I would impart to the 2 kids, it would be this:
My wise uncle once told me that there are 2 types of people today; one who does all the work, and the other who takes all the credit. He went on to say he'd rather be the former and do all the work cos there was less competition. Mother Theresa knew the difference; I wonder if we will ever get fed-up of our own self-serving lip servicing? But rather than take this time to bitch about how bad we are, in the spirit of things, let us take time to see how much better we can become? It starts with a little kindness, which we learn, eventually begets kindness...
Peace be with you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)