Since the "1 Malaysia" concept was introduced by the Honourable YAB Prime Minister, we have become too obsessed with numbers in particular number "1". Personally, it's a good initiative but some quarters had been too over zealous with it so as to make it 'non exclusive' anymore.
In this respect, I tend to agree with Datuk Seri Rafidah Aziz's view who said that "1 Malaysia" or even any slogan/initiative should be made exclusive and not to turn it to a 'cheap" slogan. By "branding" or linking almost everything to "1 Malaysia" slogan would destroy its exclusiveness.
Let's take a few examples ...
In NST @ 27 June 201 at page 2 it was reported that 1,111youths would created history when they participated in the country's biggest premarital course in Pekan, Pahang. The programme was organised by Pekan Umno religious bureau. So far, I personally can take it as it is organised for a good cause.
Then we have this "Kedai 1 Malaysia" again it's for a good cause and why not?
But when an NGO ( please make a guess here as you ought not to be wrong!!!) came up with a slogan "1 Bumi 1 Melayu", I had a nauseatic feeling in my stomach . Please give due respect to the slogan initiated by our very own YAB PM ....
By the way when I look up for the word "Bumi", it was actually came from the word "BHUMI" which originates from Hindu/Buddhist which means "earth". That's shows how 'diversity" we are if we really care to look back to our ancestors' history.
Would the above negate or dilute the exclusiveness of the slogan "I Bumi 1 Melayu"/ You to judge but as far as I am concerned I do not want to have any connection with it!!!
Till we meet again ....
Tuesday, June 28, 2011
"Warna-Warna Malaysia" & its relevancy to Rock Concert...
I purposely entitled his post as such "Warna-Warna Malaysia" to portray how a certain colour or "warna" would portray your social or even political inclination.
I like the rest of my comrades of the same era had been eagerly waiting for the 9 July 2011 rock concert featuring Sweet Charity & the Blues Gang. It was reported in the NST yesterday (26 June 2011) that the concert would be postponed to a later date. It was also reported at page 4 NST today (27 Jun 2011) that scores of fans were disappointed with the concert's postponement including a 60 years old Encik Mohd Arif who was reportedly would go to the concert with his family.
There is a certain nostalgic reason for being present for the 9 July 2011 concert as about 27 years ago (in 1983/1984)both Sweet Charity & Blues Gang went nationwide for their first ever dual rock concert. I was there when the bands performed at Ipoh Stadium with my "comrades in rock". All of us were in our faded jeans and of course round neck BLACK T shirts!!!!!
Rumours poured in saying that the concert was postponed as it coincide with the Bersih 2.0 rally which is scheduled to be organised on the same date.
Now now ... I trust most if not all o the concert goers would be wearing jeans and BLACK T Shirts. Never in my life had I seen a YELLOW shirted homo sapient in a rock concert!!!!!
Come to think of it even BLACK was a taboo colour sometime back when it was linked to the Black Metal cult. All of a sudden practically almost all in Malaysia became allergy to the colour of BLACK!!!!
If we go back further, even GREEN had became the victim of paranoia when those poor kids at the Sekolah Ugama had to change their "samping" from GREEN to RED/MAROON in colour....
I just wonder which colour would be the next victim in the near future ... Well, it's never a dull moment in my beloved MALAYSIA!!!
Till we meet again ... hopefully at the Sweet Charity & Blues Gang concert yea....
I like the rest of my comrades of the same era had been eagerly waiting for the 9 July 2011 rock concert featuring Sweet Charity & the Blues Gang. It was reported in the NST yesterday (26 June 2011) that the concert would be postponed to a later date. It was also reported at page 4 NST today (27 Jun 2011) that scores of fans were disappointed with the concert's postponement including a 60 years old Encik Mohd Arif who was reportedly would go to the concert with his family.
There is a certain nostalgic reason for being present for the 9 July 2011 concert as about 27 years ago (in 1983/1984)both Sweet Charity & Blues Gang went nationwide for their first ever dual rock concert. I was there when the bands performed at Ipoh Stadium with my "comrades in rock". All of us were in our faded jeans and of course round neck BLACK T shirts!!!!!
Rumours poured in saying that the concert was postponed as it coincide with the Bersih 2.0 rally which is scheduled to be organised on the same date.
Now now ... I trust most if not all o the concert goers would be wearing jeans and BLACK T Shirts. Never in my life had I seen a YELLOW shirted homo sapient in a rock concert!!!!!
Come to think of it even BLACK was a taboo colour sometime back when it was linked to the Black Metal cult. All of a sudden practically almost all in Malaysia became allergy to the colour of BLACK!!!!
If we go back further, even GREEN had became the victim of paranoia when those poor kids at the Sekolah Ugama had to change their "samping" from GREEN to RED/MAROON in colour....
I just wonder which colour would be the next victim in the near future ... Well, it's never a dull moment in my beloved MALAYSIA!!!
Till we meet again ... hopefully at the Sweet Charity & Blues Gang concert yea....
We Salute You Mr. Tey Chong Suan
Apart from the news on Bersih 2.0 rally scheduled this 9 July 2011 reported in NST today (27 June 2011), the news at page 6 NST on how a 74 year old Chinese guy was reportedly jumped into a canal near his home in Parit Kasim Tengah, Muar to save an 11 year old Malay boy from being swept away in the said canal caught my attention.
The Chins man is Mr. Tey Chong Suan who lived about 50 meters from the Malay boy's house - apparently they are neighbours - heard the boy's scream and without hesitation jumped into the canal without having regard the strong current.
Pardon me for stressing the race here - Chinese & Malay - for I am not being racist here. I am just trying to show that right down south of our beloved soil, there is still hope that we, Malaysians could live peacefully together and help each other.
I bet Mr. Tey did not ask what race the boy is when he swam in the canal or even hesitated when he found out that the boy is a Malay or in the extreme Mr. Ty would not asked whether the boy ha any connection with PERKASA.
This incident reminds me of what transpired way back in 1983 when my brother, Asri and I assisted a Chinese man who met with an accident along the trunk road (Rawang). The old man was hurt very badly and he was accompanied by his son when my brother took him in his car to the KL General Hospital.
What irked my brother and I was when we reached the Emergency Station at the hospital, it took as if ages for those people at the Emergency Unit to bring the trolley to transfer the old man. My brother was further infuriated when one of the attendant asked " Ini China ke Melayu ni ... ". I could still remember my brother turned and stared nastily to the said attendant and said " Boleh tolong cepat tak?".
We left the hospital disgusted and prayed for the best for the old man and his son. We were disgusted not because we assisted the old man and his son but with the attitude of those hospital workers.
That was in 1983 and with Mr. Tey's news in 2011, all is not lost since there is still hope for a better and unified Malaysia.
For Mr. Tey, again we salute you for your bravery and heroic gesture .....
The Chins man is Mr. Tey Chong Suan who lived about 50 meters from the Malay boy's house - apparently they are neighbours - heard the boy's scream and without hesitation jumped into the canal without having regard the strong current.
Pardon me for stressing the race here - Chinese & Malay - for I am not being racist here. I am just trying to show that right down south of our beloved soil, there is still hope that we, Malaysians could live peacefully together and help each other.
I bet Mr. Tey did not ask what race the boy is when he swam in the canal or even hesitated when he found out that the boy is a Malay or in the extreme Mr. Ty would not asked whether the boy ha any connection with PERKASA.
This incident reminds me of what transpired way back in 1983 when my brother, Asri and I assisted a Chinese man who met with an accident along the trunk road (Rawang). The old man was hurt very badly and he was accompanied by his son when my brother took him in his car to the KL General Hospital.
What irked my brother and I was when we reached the Emergency Station at the hospital, it took as if ages for those people at the Emergency Unit to bring the trolley to transfer the old man. My brother was further infuriated when one of the attendant asked " Ini China ke Melayu ni ... ". I could still remember my brother turned and stared nastily to the said attendant and said " Boleh tolong cepat tak?".
We left the hospital disgusted and prayed for the best for the old man and his son. We were disgusted not because we assisted the old man and his son but with the attitude of those hospital workers.
That was in 1983 and with Mr. Tey's news in 2011, all is not lost since there is still hope for a better and unified Malaysia.
For Mr. Tey, again we salute you for your bravery and heroic gesture .....
Sunday, June 26, 2011
Move Aside Carcosa Sri Negara .. It's Magistrate's Court Turn!!!
After the screening of the infamous black & white video scenes at Carcosa Seri Negara months ago, the same video footage was shown at the Magistrate's Court, Kuala Lumpur two days ago.
The footage was reportedly shown via two big screens, one for the magistrate while the other facing the public gallery. I would not want to say much except asking since when the Magistrate's Court has been turned into a mere "panggung wayang" ....(Note: There is no pun intended to the word "wayang" here).
From what I could gather the newspaper (NST) reported that the three Accused had admitted guilty to the charge of publicly displaying an obscene video clip at Carcosa Seri Negara on 21 March 2011. The three Accused were fined by the Magistrate after they submitted their mitigation through their counsel.
I am not going to touch on what was submitted in the mitigation - as reported in the newspaper - as I have to give due respect to the counsel who represented the three convicted felons ... It's his job to defend and mitigate and he could submit freely as the judicial system allows him to do so.
The things to ponder is this ...
The following is the normal process which would normally takes place in a criminal case as I understand it:
The Court Interpreter would read out the charge(s) and the Court would ask for the plea.
In this case, the three Accused pleaded guilty to the charge of displaying an obscene video clip. When this occurred, normally the DPP by practice would read out the facts of the case i.e. giving the summary of the case by stating amongst others when the criminal act was committed, where and the time of the offense was committed.
Then, the defense counsel would be asked to mitigate on behalf of his client - in this case the three convicted felons - and would ask for light sentence.
After hearing all the submissions, then the Magistrate would met out the sentence in accordance with the Penal Code provisions of course after taking into account the mitigating factors as submitted by the defense counsel.
According to the news report, the following was reported in the NST @ 25 June 2011 but I could not verify whether the facts as reported in the NST occurred in the order as I stated above:
1. " US experts have confirmed that the video clip screened by ... (the three now convicted guys) was authentic and not tampered with ... These were among the facts of the case read out in court after .. (the three now convicted felons) pleaded guilty ..."
2. " ... According to the facts of the case, Computer Science Professor Hny Farid and Professor Lorenzo Torresani of Dartmouth College, New Hampshire had conducted facial recognition of the man in the video and had found it to resemble ... (a certain politician),"
3. " ... After the facts were read out, DPP ... (yes!!! another Datuk ... ) applied for the video to be shown in Court... The video was played on two big screens, one facing the Magistrate and the other the public gallery, for about 10 minutes..."
Here are some of the issues to ponder:
1. Is here a need to show the video footage? What happened to the proceedings in camera?;
2. The Accused had pleaded guilty to the charge of displaying obscene video therefore the obscenity of the video is admitted. So, again is there a need to show the video? It's not even being contested in the proceedings as far as I could understand since there is no trial due to admission of guilt;
3. The issue is the obscenity of the video then what is the relevance of stating the video had been certified by experts as authentic and the man in the video resembled a certain politician? That is not the subject matter on trial or in question;
The end result is I as a lay man is confused in the whirlpool of the whole thing .... I hope those legal eagles with robes & bips would be able to enlighten me in this issue ...
I need a break and wonder whether there would be a screening of a 3D shows at our Court in the near future...
Till we meet again....
The footage was reportedly shown via two big screens, one for the magistrate while the other facing the public gallery. I would not want to say much except asking since when the Magistrate's Court has been turned into a mere "panggung wayang" ....(Note: There is no pun intended to the word "wayang" here).
From what I could gather the newspaper (NST) reported that the three Accused had admitted guilty to the charge of publicly displaying an obscene video clip at Carcosa Seri Negara on 21 March 2011. The three Accused were fined by the Magistrate after they submitted their mitigation through their counsel.
I am not going to touch on what was submitted in the mitigation - as reported in the newspaper - as I have to give due respect to the counsel who represented the three convicted felons ... It's his job to defend and mitigate and he could submit freely as the judicial system allows him to do so.
The things to ponder is this ...
The following is the normal process which would normally takes place in a criminal case as I understand it:
The Court Interpreter would read out the charge(s) and the Court would ask for the plea.
In this case, the three Accused pleaded guilty to the charge of displaying an obscene video clip. When this occurred, normally the DPP by practice would read out the facts of the case i.e. giving the summary of the case by stating amongst others when the criminal act was committed, where and the time of the offense was committed.
Then, the defense counsel would be asked to mitigate on behalf of his client - in this case the three convicted felons - and would ask for light sentence.
After hearing all the submissions, then the Magistrate would met out the sentence in accordance with the Penal Code provisions of course after taking into account the mitigating factors as submitted by the defense counsel.
According to the news report, the following was reported in the NST @ 25 June 2011 but I could not verify whether the facts as reported in the NST occurred in the order as I stated above:
1. " US experts have confirmed that the video clip screened by ... (the three now convicted guys) was authentic and not tampered with ... These were among the facts of the case read out in court after .. (the three now convicted felons) pleaded guilty ..."
2. " ... According to the facts of the case, Computer Science Professor Hny Farid and Professor Lorenzo Torresani of Dartmouth College, New Hampshire had conducted facial recognition of the man in the video and had found it to resemble ... (a certain politician),"
3. " ... After the facts were read out, DPP ... (yes!!! another Datuk ... ) applied for the video to be shown in Court... The video was played on two big screens, one facing the Magistrate and the other the public gallery, for about 10 minutes..."
Here are some of the issues to ponder:
1. Is here a need to show the video footage? What happened to the proceedings in camera?;
2. The Accused had pleaded guilty to the charge of displaying obscene video therefore the obscenity of the video is admitted. So, again is there a need to show the video? It's not even being contested in the proceedings as far as I could understand since there is no trial due to admission of guilt;
3. The issue is the obscenity of the video then what is the relevance of stating the video had been certified by experts as authentic and the man in the video resembled a certain politician? That is not the subject matter on trial or in question;
The end result is I as a lay man is confused in the whirlpool of the whole thing .... I hope those legal eagles with robes & bips would be able to enlighten me in this issue ...
I need a break and wonder whether there would be a screening of a 3D shows at our Court in the near future...
Till we meet again....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
