the British general election

Gordon Brown was caught last week calling a retiree a bigot behind her back. Though the Labour had since lost the GE, it has still garnered quite a lot of votes. It seems like the people of U.K. are more concerned about the policies of the parties, rather than the morals of the party leaders. But how could they believe the policies of a leader who is capable of such backstabs? On that particular day, Gordon Brown was all smiles as he campaigns for Labour Party. He spoke to the woman, held her hand. But after that brief meeting, he forgot to turn the microphone off. So the entire conversation where he call this woman a bigot was recorded. He also said that the meeting was ridiculous. Why would the Brits trust a PM who backstabs?

And after losing more than 90 seats, he is still not surrendering his post as the PM. While I find it hard to believe this is happening in the land of 'gentleman', there is something Malaysians can learn.

The conservatives and the lib dems are talking today for a possible coalition. They accept that since no one has the majority, they would have to form at least a loose coalition and then TABLE A VOTE OF NO CONFIDENCE in the next parliamentary session in order to remove Gordon Brown from his post. And the Queen of England has cancelled all her appointments while waiting for the outcome of the negotiations before meeting with the leaders of the party. This is what is reported in the news.

Now, wait a minute!!! Isn't this very similar to the Perak 'crisis' a year ago??? But did UMNO table a vote of no confidence? Or was the speaker and Chief Minister forcefully removed from position? Was our 'King' as 'gracious' as the Queen of England? Or did he take things into his own hands and 'sacked' the Chief Minister immmediately?

We inherited the Parliamentary Democracy from England, but we did not inherit their common sense. And now to add further insult to this crooked common sense, Hee Yit Foong was given Datukship (Knighthood, in England). Such a salutation is only given to people who has significant contribution to the society and country. So what does this Datukship acknowledge? That when she jumped ship from DAP to pro-BN it is a SIGNIFICANT contribution towards the country?

Who is the real bigot here?

Vote for change?

At the Tory booth.



I just watched the first ever British live debate among the British PM candidates. It was disappointing. It was nothing like the US Presidential debate.

It was more like a Q&A session. Yet, neither of them answered the question directly, e.g. when asked about how to improve the economy all of them started to take turns in throwing slogans like "fair", "reducing deficit", "cut tax", etc. But why is one better than the other? Why is it fair? How can it be fairer? Why tax cut works better than tax increments? Nothing said.

They kept on harping on what they will do without providing a concrete solution, e.g. on the immigrant issue G. Brown says that he introduced the point system and D. Cameron said that he wants to implement a cap. But the immigrant problem in the UK has, in my humble opinion, very little do with the immigration policy. It has nothing to do with the immigrants. It is because the UK skilled work force is in a decline, the education system is failing and UK is attracting the wrong type of people into the country. There are a lot of capable people, all looking to work in UK but very frequent denied entry. Yet, people who are coming to UK without a degree ended up working in restaurants are in abundant.

I would have expected D. Cameron or N. Clegg to say something like, "I have tried to do this and that to improve economy and reduce crime rate as an MP in the Parliament but many of my attempt failed because of opposition from the Labour Government". But nothing like that happened. There was no spark, no humour, no feud.

When it comes to election, nothing beats Malaysia. Back at home, Hulu Selangor is having an election too. Somehow I have got a bad feeling that the people would vote for "change" (Pakatan held the seat until the death of the MP a month ago) and Pakatan will lose this battle that they could not afford to.

Street protest - FRU vs MET

This is currently a big issue in the UK. First, look at this video. It happened in the recent G-20 meeting in London.



That guy died later due to heart attack...

This serves to remind us that police brutality can happened anywhere, even in the UK. Although we all know how bad street demonstrators are treated in Malaysia, it'd seem like it isn't any better in London either. London's MET isn't any better than FRU.

But here's the thing, which is why UK is still better than Malaysia - the press gave a full coverage of it, citizens were outraged by it, and an independent inquiry team is conducting a full investigation of it.

Headlines such as "the thin blue line between control and assault" and news report that said, "it doesn't matter if the assault did cause the heart attack that eventually caused his death, but it is the assault itself that is despicable." showed that the system is working to rectify a wrong. But not in Malaysia.

From the optimist point of view, we shouldn't be so disheartened about how FRU treats the street demonstrations in Malaysia because they are just as bad in the developed nations. But this serves not as a justification for FRU's action, but as an encouragement to the street demonstrations in Malaysia - for the right cause, of course.

Global Financial Crisis... How did it happened in A B C

This is an AWESOME animation (by Jonathan Jarvis) to describe how the global financial crisis got where it is now...

It tells you how it happens in A B C. Hope you'll enjoy it!!!



Part 1





Part 2

war on terror...the board game

Propaganda? Or Fun?

Yes, your eye did not play trick on you. It's the 'official' board game for "WAR ON TERROR".



I can imagine the squares on the board are like...

Roll double 6 and you get to invade another country...

Roll a 4 and you land on the square that 'gives' you Gitmo...

Roll a 3 and you will lie about Iraq having WMD...

Roll a double 1 and you get kicked off by Obama!!


I would never imagine this game sold in Malaysia and I still wonder who would want to play this game in the UK.

What would it be like if a similar game were sold in Malaysia? The title could be...

"Perak - the War"

"The road to March 8"

Or

"Najib vs Anwar"

Israel and the Zionist 2

After posting an entry about the invasion in Gaza and Zionist here, I found this article, which I thought I would share with my readers.

It is written by a Jew, condemning Israel for using the name of the Jews to invade.

I guess I was wrong to assume all Jews supported Israel.

Israel and the Zionist

I went to London yesterday.




(It's funny to see a "Australia" sign when you are in the middle of London. If I didn't know better, I thought that Boeing 747 flew the wrong direction!)

As I was walking down the road along Leicester square, I noticed there was a long line of people going in the opposite direction.



Now, just in case you couldn't see it properly...


It's the flag of Israel! And it's apparent that there's a street rally in support for Israel's act in Gaza. One of them even held a poster reading, ''End Hamas and Stop the terror!".

That explains the helicopter which has been hovering above me all the time!! What are the chances of me visiting London only to meet a huge crowd of Zionist!?

What a stark contrast this is with Malaysia. In Malaysia, we have major street rallies in support of ending the war and invasion. And for once, a govt. supported rally in Malaysia has made the right stand.

I still do not understand how the West perceive the world, especially when it comes to the middle east and when it involves the UK or the US. Why are the Brits and the Americans so hell-bent on supporting Israel and the Jews? I don't see them throwing support when Malaysia and Indonesia had the 'confrontation'.

Sure, if you support the Jews, it's ok. But if anyone in the West even comes close to criticising the Jews, they are branded anti-semitism. It's like the Jews are the untouchables. It's like when you support BN in Malaysia it is 'patriotic' and when you support PKR you are 'pengkhianat'. They view the world as black and white when in reality there are shades of gray!

Are they ignorant? or are they doing it for money? Or are the politicians seeking to leverage from the chaos in the middle east?

The history and the legitimacy of the Israel state has been debated for over 50 years, most of the time ending in blood and war. And so I do not wish to discuss that.

But I am going to question this:

1. A state has the right to defend itself. But does that mean it can do WHATEVER it pleases to defend itself?

There is no doubt that Hamas is a terrorist group that needs to be dealt with. No one is questioning that. But what we question is the use of EXCESSIVE FORCE.

Everytime someone sends a rocket into Israel killing as much as ONE (uno, satu, 一, ichi) person, Israel will mobilise tanks and its entire weaponry to kill hundres of people. Among them, no doubt at least tens of them are innocent. So is it alright to kill many innocent people and caused many casualties of war just because 1 Israelis is dead?

Granted that terrorism is wrong and that Hamas should not have shot the rocket. Damn, I am even going to give Israel the benefit of doubt and assume that Hamas 'started' it first. But does that justify a 1:100 kill ratio? 1 to Israel and 100 to innocent people?

So let's say a British terrorist bombed a place in Malaysia, does that mean Malaysia can send a inter-continental balistic missile that accurately bombs this person's house in the UK? Sure the missle will be accurate, but upon impact, I'm sure the neighbours will be hurt at least. Just casualties of war? Collateral of war? Acceptable?

In fact, the recent terrorist attacks in India has links to British. So India probably can send a few missiles to the UK. Could you imagine what would happen? The whole world would wage war against India (or Malaysia for the previous example).

But in Israel? "Nah, it's ok. Those people are CASUALTIES OF WAR." If it's just one or two, I may have been understanding. But thousands are usually left dead. Thousands of innocent people. Every time. Yes, not just this time, but many times in the past Israel have left thousands of innocent people lying dead on the ground when <10 Israelis were killed by a Hamas rocket.

Israel is definitely going to claim that these innocent lives are dead because of Hamas. Because "they started it first". But like above, even if I do give the benefit of doubt in favor of Israel, they still don't have the right to kill indiscriminately. And I do not care "who started it", I'm more concerned about the "result". The result is that more that 100 innocent people (Israelis or Palestinians) are killed for every dead Israelis due to Hamas rocket. And that's a conservative figure. This is an inappropriate use of force and it should be condemn.

Surely, you are tempted to ask, "How could we end terrorism when we cannot launch an attack?" I admit this is not going to be easy. It's not a problem that we can solve by pressing a button. Neither can we solve it by waging wars. Waging wars could be brutally fast, efficient and the most direct way to the problem. But it isn't the solution, which leads to my 2nd question.


2. Will killing people and securing key rocket-launching sites in Gaza (or whatever the Israelis is doing there) halt terrorism?

No.

Yes, the rockets are launched because someone handled it. So theoretically, if you kill the person handling the rockets, you stop the rockets.

But no (to the question), the rockets will still be coming.

A wise man once said, "People can be replaced, but not ideals." Today you may have killed Mr. X, but Mr. Y will be gladly taking over the place. The ideal fueling this hatred is still there! And by invading like this and using excessive force Israel is giving the terrorist more reason to continue with their hatred. More people, that were previously not terrorist, will be more willing to give in and join the movement because of their sufferings caused in such an invasion.

No matter how hard Israel may want to explain itself. No matter how powerful Israel's propaganda is. It just cannot stop the hatred from spreading.

Can you imagine a heart-broken mother, carrying the limbs of her daughter in her arms, and crying. Then the Israelis soldier drop by and say, "Hey, it's ok. Cuz we're just here to kill the bad guys. But sometimes good guys die too. You know it's too bad. But it happens. By the way, don't become a terrorist because of this ok?"

Sometimes, I really wonder if the Israelis wanted this all along. They created terrorist by killing innocents. The terrorist kills Israelis. Then Israel kill more innocent people and thus creating more terrorist. The damn cycle repeats itself.

******************************************************************************

There are always quick-fixes to a problem:

The easiest way that we can ensure someone who has committed a serious crime not to repeat it, is to hang. Why do we try to avoid that and instead choose imprisonment and rehabilitation?

Sending a nuke to wipe-out the entire area is always safer and more efficient for the invader. Why do we not do that and instead choose to use ground forces and air-strikes?

Quick-fixes exist, but they rarely work.

I haven't met a Jew in my life. But after going through the Holocaust themselves and yet approving such atrocity in Gaza, my opinion of them, even before I meet any of them is very low.

(I pray that my PhD supervisor isn't a Jew - I haven't meet him in person)

politicians are like salesperson

I use to think that if you can convince someone, you can be a good politician.

And that if you uphold what is the truth and justice, and use reasons to convince the rest, you will get support.

Then I realised that it's impossible to convince everyone. Even when reasons are crystal clear.

Politics then become something like sales. Out of 10 people you talk to, 1 would 'buy'. You just have to reach out to more people than your competitor to ‘win'.

That probably explains why no matter how hard people is trying to fight for peace and justice, there will always be proponents of war and chaos in the world. There is always a market for the evil things in this world.

Obama wins!

Obama is the new President of U.S. of A.!!

(I have earlier declared my support for Obama here)

It took USA about 100 years since independence for Lincoln to denounce slavery.
About 200 years for Martin Luther King to 'have a dream'.
And 230 years for the first Afro-American to be President.

How long would Malaysia take to have a non-Malay Prime Minister?

Imagine, just 50 years ago, blacks in the USA have to be segregated when sitting in a public bus. Coincidentally, that's how long since Malaysia have gained independence.

****************************************

written after seeing on CNN that the exit polls showed Obama won the race to be the President elect of USA

the marketing of war

everything is about branding and marketing these days. Even when waging a war. A democratic country like U.S. can no longer just wage war as they like. They have to package it, re-brand it and "sell" it to the people. Then, the people would have to buy it.

And you know what? the Americans bought it.

The war on Iraq was packaged with the idea that Saddam had chemical weapons and other WMD that he will not hesitate to use. And I remember vividly, in pushing for the war on Iraq years ago, Bush used the slogan, "let there be no doubt..." (it was used as the beginning of all the speeches given by White House during that time)

During the recent visit to Europe, Bush re-iterated that he has no regrets over the war he waged in Iraq. Despite the fact that the initial motivation behind the war was completely flawed. Iraq has no WMD, has no intention of having WMD and has no capability of WMD. So all he can say now is that the world is a better place without a tyrant like Saddam.

The world is a better place without a lot of people (including Bush). Saying that the leader of a country is tyrant is not a sufficient reason to wage a war! I am pretty sure he wouldn't have make a case for war in 2003 if all he got on Saddam was that he is a tyrant.

Tyrants are abundant on this globe. And there's a handful of them which are more despicable than Saddam.

Iran and North Korea, both have confirmed WMD capabilities, but U.S. did not declare war. Myanmar's military junta refused to acknowledge the results of the election, put Aung San Suu Kyi under house arrest and put the citizens in grave danger after refusing international aid for the recent disaster - U.S. did nothing. And how about Zimbabwe and other war-ridden countries in Africa? Are these tyrants any less dangerous than Saddam?

So why don't Bush just invade them all?

Being a tyrant doesn't give Bush the green light to invade. And the least he could do is to apologise to the world for causing thousands of unncessary deaths.

And what is appaling to me is that the Americans are only concerned about the death toll of the American soldiers. How about the death of the Iraqis? Collateral damage you say? What gives the Americans the right to say those innocent Iraqis killed everyday are called collateral damage but those that were killed in the world trade center are called heroes?

I believe that the Americans have to show that they take responsibility over this war that should have never happened. They will have to take responsiblity by not voting for the Republicans in the coming election. By telling the World that they are sorry. And that they promise the world that this will not happen again - that US will not abuse its intelligence and wage war as she pleases. Bush is like the murderer and voting for the Republicans again just made the Americans the accomplice in this homicide. That's how democracy should work.

It may sound a bit pre-mature to vote against the Republicans based on the war alone. But I think that waging a war is not a game. It's a serious decision. And a wrong move here should be punished by the stepping down of the President, at the very least. This wrong move here should eclipse all other economy candy that the Republicans may offer.

I am happy that Obama has won the party nominee for the Democrats. And I hope he will continue to win in the coming presidential election in November. Hilary, was equally worthy of the nomination. As Obama put it, "she has shown the women around the world that there is no limits to your dream"

Either way, I hope the Republicans will not win.