Q: How many economists does it take to screw in a light bulb?
A: None. If the government would just leave it alone, it would screw itself in.
Q: How many gorillas does it take to screw in a light bulb
A: Only ONE, but it sure takes a shitload of light bulbs!
Q: How many Malaysians does it take to screw in a light bulb?
A: TWO. One to dismantle it, put it on the forklift, move it to the truck, evade all security personnel, drive the truck all the way to the port, move it into the container, lie to the customs officers, and get the engines offshore. The other just sells them.
Oh wait, I was describing jet engines, not light bulbs...
Thursday, January 7, 2010
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
Allah must be laughing now...
Allah (whichever God you might refer to) must be laughing so hard now that His teeth is falling off from the sky in the form of meteor showers tonight.
I am pretty sure Allah can understand more than one language, so He must be bemused by the people who are worried that He could not understand you if you do not address Him in the right language. He must be even more bemused that some of His followers actually got confused when a different name is used to call Him.
I am neither Christian nor Muslim, but I am pretty sure that "what is the correct name to call Me" is the last priority for God's teachings. If it isn't, you should reconsider your religion because it sounds too damn easy to go to heaven.
Certain quarters of Christians and Muslims felt insulted. I think Allah aka Tuhan aka God should be the one that feels most insulted because of all His teachings passed down over the centuries, we were most concerned with what to call Him. I am sure this make a heck of a religion.
My mentor in high school once told me this, "There will always be problems in your life. A beggar and a businessman millionaire have the same number of problems. But the level of problems faced by these two people is what distinguished them. One is of higher stature, the other is not..." I cannot help but to think that this applies to religion too.
(in reference to the recent uproar by some Malaysian Muslims against the usage of 'Allah' by Christians to refer to the Christian God)
I am pretty sure Allah can understand more than one language, so He must be bemused by the people who are worried that He could not understand you if you do not address Him in the right language. He must be even more bemused that some of His followers actually got confused when a different name is used to call Him.
I am neither Christian nor Muslim, but I am pretty sure that "what is the correct name to call Me" is the last priority for God's teachings. If it isn't, you should reconsider your religion because it sounds too damn easy to go to heaven.
Certain quarters of Christians and Muslims felt insulted. I think Allah aka Tuhan aka God should be the one that feels most insulted because of all His teachings passed down over the centuries, we were most concerned with what to call Him. I am sure this make a heck of a religion.
My mentor in high school once told me this, "There will always be problems in your life. A beggar and a businessman millionaire have the same number of problems. But the level of problems faced by these two people is what distinguished them. One is of higher stature, the other is not..." I cannot help but to think that this applies to religion too.
(in reference to the recent uproar by some Malaysian Muslims against the usage of 'Allah' by Christians to refer to the Christian God)
Saturday, January 2, 2010
2.3 Electric field in materials
Previous sections:
1. Introduction
2. Electrostatic
2.1 Coulomb's Law
2.2 Gauss's Law of electrostatic
2.3 Electric field in materials
So far we have considered the electric field in free space. Obviously, if we now consider the electric field in materials (insulators or conductors), things will be quite different.
In the previous section, we shown that ∇.E=ρ/ε. Let's call this ρ as free charge since it represents the electric charge that is 'free' to move around (note: only free charge contributes to electrical current). Let us now assume that when we apply an electric field to the material, the material will modify the electric field either by strengthening it or weakening it, depending what kind of material it is. Let us represent this effect by introducing an additional charge, called the bound charge, ρ_bound. (These charges are not free and are 'bound' to the material and they cannot freely move about to generate electrical currents.)
One of the ways to imagine bound charge is to consider applying an electric field to a perfect conductor. Assume that the material consists of many electrical dipoles, i.e. opposite charges separated at short distance. (Such dipoles may exist, for example, in molecules with ionic bonding. The electrical field will displace the positive and negative ions slightly to create a dipole.) Now, further assume that these dipoles are not free to move about. They are fixed or bounded to the material. They can only rotate about their axis. What the applied electric field would do to these dipoles is to align them along the electrical field lines with the head of one dipole lining up behind the tail of the other dipole (refer to the diagram below). The result of this 'bound charges' aligning is that the internal electric field cancel each other out (due to the positive and negative charge lying close to each other). This result is important, so remember it: Electrical field inside a perfect conductor is zero. What happens if it is not a perfect conductor? Then, the dipoles cannot align perfectly and the electric fields will attenuate/diminish but it will not be completely cancelled out. You may also ask, what allows us to make such assumption about the electrical dipoles? Nothing, except that experimental results seem to suggest that such assumption is reasonable. As with previous, science is always about suggesting a good assumption to explain the experimental results.
Therefore, in the presence of any material (insulator or conductor), we modify the equation to become ∇.E=(ρ+ρ_bound)/ε to include the bound charges in a material. Having different kinds of charges (bound and free) in the equation is very confusing, this is why in Maxwell's equation all charges always refer to free charges. In order to be consistent with this, we rearrange to 'get rid' of the bound charge in the equation, i.e.
∇.εE - ρ_bound = ρ ;
∇. (εE + P) = ρ ; where ∇.P= - ρ_bound
∇. D = ρ ; where D = εE + P
The polarisation vector P, is the electric dipole moment density. By considering that an electric field causes dipoles to re-arrange in materials, one can calculate that the actual effect an electric field has on a material is to generate a 'surface charge' and a 'volume charge' which is related to P. You can refer to many textbooks on how this is calculated, or you can take my approach, which is just to assume P is a value (like kilograms is for weight) to indicate how much the electric field is affected by the material.
Since the electric dipole is induced by E, we may suspect that P is related to E too, and this is indeed the case. However, the relation may not be a linear one. In most cases we can assume it is linear, i.e. P=kE. But we write P=εχE, where ε=permeability of free space (as usual) and chi, χ=electric susceptibility.
Then D = εE + P = εE + εχE = ε(1+χ)E = ε . ε_r . E ;
where ε_r = (1+χ) is the relative permeability
If ε_r is independent on position, i.e. the same throughout the material, then the material is said to be homogenous. If it is homogeneous, then in general, D = ε . ε_r . E is in matrix form where D and E is a 3 x 1 matrix and (ε . ε_r) is a 3 x 3 matrix. If only the diagonal elements of (ε . ε_r) is non-zero, i.e. the relative permeability is only dependent on the principal (x, y and z) axes, the material is called biaxial, or isotropic:
Dx = ε . ε_r11 . Ex
Dy = ε . ε_r22 . Ey
Dz = ε . ε_r33 . Ez
(where the number indicates the position in the 3 x 3 matrix)
Furthermore, if ε_r11=ε_r22, then the material is said to be uniaxial.
In summary, in the presence of (any) material, the electric field will be different than from the free space and this difference is accounted for by using ε_r, the relative permeability. The equation that relates relative permeability to the electric field, E and displacement field, D is
D = ε . ε_r . E.
But this equation can be confusing sometimes. We can essentially move the relative permeability to other side of the equation and it will now look like this: E = D / (ε . ε_r ). So does the relative permeability serve to modify D or E to account for the presence of a material? If, for example, a dielectric material is placed between two conductor plates (like a capacitor), a constant (electric or displacement?) field will be generated across the dielectric material. What happens at the interface between free space and this dielectric material? Does the displacement field or the electric field change due to the presence of this material? Or both? Although we can use sheer mathematics to find out the answer, it is much more meaningful if we instead rely on our intuition to understand why and which should be the answer. Obviously if both D and E change, and by the same amount, then there is no difference between the two quantity, so this is not allowed. The equation tells us that D and E is related by the permeability, but it does not tell us which is the constant and which is being 'affected' in this case. But if we pay attention to the words I have used so far, I have always said "the materials affect the electric field" and NOT the displacement field. This is a very reasonable statement, since inside a material, especially a conducting one, the charges are BOUNDED, NOT FREE. Displacement field's relation to the charge as indicated by Maxwell's equation ONLY refer to free charges. The free charges, accumulated at the surface of the conductor plates, are constant and therefore D should be constant. The electrical field, on the contrary, is related to the free charge AND the bound charge inside the material. And therefore it is the electric field that will be affected in the presence of a dielectric. (note: there are no free charges INSIDE a conductor but free charges can reside at the SURFACE of a conductor)
In short, the difference between D and E is that "D is the field due to the free charge only" and "E is the field due to both the free and bound charge", the effect of the bound charge is included indirectly through the relative permeability. The quantity D is introduced so that we can make Maxwell's equation look much neater, i.e. always only referring to free charge only. But the usefulness of this displacement field will be more obvious when we disscuss the dynamics of electromagnetism.
Although we have introduced many terms like the polarisation vector, the electric susceptibility, and the relative permeability, it is the relative permeability that is most commonly used to describe the effect of materials on electric field. However, we must always bear in mind that relative permeability is obtained through a series of assumptions. There will be time when we cannot use the relative permeability but instead must use the 'original' equation that contains the polarisation vector or susceptibility, especially for the case of describing in depth behaviour of materials. As a special case, consider a perfect conductor. What is the relative permeability of a perfect conductor? Because D = ε . ε_r . E and E is zero inside a perfect conductor, D will always be zero inside a perfect conductor but this is not true! If we instead use D = εE + P, then when E is zero inside a perfect conductor, D = P. The polarisation vector represents the contribution from the bound charge and thus D is non-zero even in a perfect conductor. Remember, relative permeability is useful because it is a GOOD APPROXIMATION to the 'overall' behaviour of electrostatic systems but it does not work all the time.
1. Introduction
2. Electrostatic
2.1 Coulomb's Law
2.2 Gauss's Law of electrostatic
2.3 Electric field in materials
So far we have considered the electric field in free space. Obviously, if we now consider the electric field in materials (insulators or conductors), things will be quite different.
In the previous section, we shown that ∇.E=ρ/ε. Let's call this ρ as free charge since it represents the electric charge that is 'free' to move around (note: only free charge contributes to electrical current). Let us now assume that when we apply an electric field to the material, the material will modify the electric field either by strengthening it or weakening it, depending what kind of material it is. Let us represent this effect by introducing an additional charge, called the bound charge, ρ_bound. (These charges are not free and are 'bound' to the material and they cannot freely move about to generate electrical currents.)
One of the ways to imagine bound charge is to consider applying an electric field to a perfect conductor. Assume that the material consists of many electrical dipoles, i.e. opposite charges separated at short distance. (Such dipoles may exist, for example, in molecules with ionic bonding. The electrical field will displace the positive and negative ions slightly to create a dipole.) Now, further assume that these dipoles are not free to move about. They are fixed or bounded to the material. They can only rotate about their axis. What the applied electric field would do to these dipoles is to align them along the electrical field lines with the head of one dipole lining up behind the tail of the other dipole (refer to the diagram below). The result of this 'bound charges' aligning is that the internal electric field cancel each other out (due to the positive and negative charge lying close to each other). This result is important, so remember it: Electrical field inside a perfect conductor is zero. What happens if it is not a perfect conductor? Then, the dipoles cannot align perfectly and the electric fields will attenuate/diminish but it will not be completely cancelled out. You may also ask, what allows us to make such assumption about the electrical dipoles? Nothing, except that experimental results seem to suggest that such assumption is reasonable. As with previous, science is always about suggesting a good assumption to explain the experimental results.
Therefore, in the presence of any material (insulator or conductor), we modify the equation to become ∇.E=(ρ+ρ_bound)/ε to include the bound charges in a material. Having different kinds of charges (bound and free) in the equation is very confusing, this is why in Maxwell's equation all charges always refer to free charges. In order to be consistent with this, we rearrange to 'get rid' of the bound charge in the equation, i.e.∇.εE - ρ_bound = ρ ;
∇. (εE + P) = ρ ; where ∇.P= - ρ_bound
∇. D = ρ ; where D = εE + P
The polarisation vector P, is the electric dipole moment density. By considering that an electric field causes dipoles to re-arrange in materials, one can calculate that the actual effect an electric field has on a material is to generate a 'surface charge' and a 'volume charge' which is related to P. You can refer to many textbooks on how this is calculated, or you can take my approach, which is just to assume P is a value (like kilograms is for weight) to indicate how much the electric field is affected by the material.
Since the electric dipole is induced by E, we may suspect that P is related to E too, and this is indeed the case. However, the relation may not be a linear one. In most cases we can assume it is linear, i.e. P=kE. But we write P=εχE, where ε=permeability of free space (as usual) and chi, χ=electric susceptibility.
Then D = εE + P = εE + εχE = ε(1+χ)E = ε . ε_r . E ;
where ε_r = (1+χ) is the relative permeability
If ε_r is independent on position, i.e. the same throughout the material, then the material is said to be homogenous. If it is homogeneous, then in general, D = ε . ε_r . E is in matrix form where D and E is a 3 x 1 matrix and (ε . ε_r) is a 3 x 3 matrix. If only the diagonal elements of (ε . ε_r) is non-zero, i.e. the relative permeability is only dependent on the principal (x, y and z) axes, the material is called biaxial, or isotropic:
Dx = ε . ε_r11 . Ex
Dy = ε . ε_r22 . Ey
Dz = ε . ε_r33 . Ez
(where the number indicates the position in the 3 x 3 matrix)
Furthermore, if ε_r11=ε_r22, then the material is said to be uniaxial.
In summary, in the presence of (any) material, the electric field will be different than from the free space and this difference is accounted for by using ε_r, the relative permeability. The equation that relates relative permeability to the electric field, E and displacement field, D is
D = ε . ε_r . E.
But this equation can be confusing sometimes. We can essentially move the relative permeability to other side of the equation and it will now look like this: E = D / (ε . ε_r ). So does the relative permeability serve to modify D or E to account for the presence of a material? If, for example, a dielectric material is placed between two conductor plates (like a capacitor), a constant (electric or displacement?) field will be generated across the dielectric material. What happens at the interface between free space and this dielectric material? Does the displacement field or the electric field change due to the presence of this material? Or both? Although we can use sheer mathematics to find out the answer, it is much more meaningful if we instead rely on our intuition to understand why and which should be the answer. Obviously if both D and E change, and by the same amount, then there is no difference between the two quantity, so this is not allowed. The equation tells us that D and E is related by the permeability, but it does not tell us which is the constant and which is being 'affected' in this case. But if we pay attention to the words I have used so far, I have always said "the materials affect the electric field" and NOT the displacement field. This is a very reasonable statement, since inside a material, especially a conducting one, the charges are BOUNDED, NOT FREE. Displacement field's relation to the charge as indicated by Maxwell's equation ONLY refer to free charges. The free charges, accumulated at the surface of the conductor plates, are constant and therefore D should be constant. The electrical field, on the contrary, is related to the free charge AND the bound charge inside the material. And therefore it is the electric field that will be affected in the presence of a dielectric. (note: there are no free charges INSIDE a conductor but free charges can reside at the SURFACE of a conductor)
In short, the difference between D and E is that "D is the field due to the free charge only" and "E is the field due to both the free and bound charge", the effect of the bound charge is included indirectly through the relative permeability. The quantity D is introduced so that we can make Maxwell's equation look much neater, i.e. always only referring to free charge only. But the usefulness of this displacement field will be more obvious when we disscuss the dynamics of electromagnetism.
Although we have introduced many terms like the polarisation vector, the electric susceptibility, and the relative permeability, it is the relative permeability that is most commonly used to describe the effect of materials on electric field. However, we must always bear in mind that relative permeability is obtained through a series of assumptions. There will be time when we cannot use the relative permeability but instead must use the 'original' equation that contains the polarisation vector or susceptibility, especially for the case of describing in depth behaviour of materials. As a special case, consider a perfect conductor. What is the relative permeability of a perfect conductor? Because D = ε . ε_r . E and E is zero inside a perfect conductor, D will always be zero inside a perfect conductor but this is not true! If we instead use D = εE + P, then when E is zero inside a perfect conductor, D = P. The polarisation vector represents the contribution from the bound charge and thus D is non-zero even in a perfect conductor. Remember, relative permeability is useful because it is a GOOD APPROXIMATION to the 'overall' behaviour of electrostatic systems but it does not work all the time.
Friday, January 1, 2010
New Year Resolution for 2010
My 10 New Year Resolution for 2010:
1. Publish at least 2 scientific journal papers, with at least 1 in high impacting factor journals.
2. Finish the book on introduction on quantum mechanics and the chapter on density functional theory (this should be easy, since I'm already half-way there!).
3. Finish reading '1434'.
4. Read another (non-academic book).
5. Complete project Ascension (my little project on a motivational and skill course for PhD students)
6. Complete my little online book on EM.
7. Exercise, exercise and exercise - regular exercise per week, i.e. at least 3 times a week.
8. Play Mass Effect 2
9. Purchase original Starcraft 2 DVD. (yeah, noticed the difference with no. 8?)
10. Travel to Europe.
1. Publish at least 2 scientific journal papers, with at least 1 in high impacting factor journals.
2. Finish the book on introduction on quantum mechanics and the chapter on density functional theory (this should be easy, since I'm already half-way there!).
3. Finish reading '1434'.
4. Read another (non-academic book).
5. Complete project Ascension (my little project on a motivational and skill course for PhD students)
6. Complete my little online book on EM.
7. Exercise, exercise and exercise - regular exercise per week, i.e. at least 3 times a week.
8. Play Mass Effect 2
9. Purchase original Starcraft 2 DVD. (yeah, noticed the difference with no. 8?)
10. Travel to Europe.
Thursday, December 31, 2009
Boxing Day Shopping
This is what I got for myself during the Boxing Day shopping spree... (except the handbag on the right, of course...)
1. A new pair of shoes, from Clarks. 50% off, nice!
2. New pair of Levi's Jeans. 20% off, sweet!
3. New shirt for the new year!
In fact, my good friends here in Cambridge all bought Levi's Jeans. Ladies and gentlemen, may I present you the Levi's boys!!!
from left to right:
Michael Tan (in his Levi's 501), Shin Liang (Levi's 505), Fendi (Levi's 503), David (Levi's 501)
1. A new pair of shoes, from Clarks. 50% off, nice!
2. New pair of Levi's Jeans. 20% off, sweet!
3. New shirt for the new year!
In fact, my good friends here in Cambridge all bought Levi's Jeans. Ladies and gentlemen, may I present you the Levi's boys!!!
from left to right:
Michael Tan (in his Levi's 501), Shin Liang (Levi's 505), Fendi (Levi's 503), David (Levi's 501)
Saturday, November 28, 2009
The End of Days
Ever since the premiere of 2012, everyone seems to be blogging about the end of days.
Most of them would hope to share the last moment with their love ones.
But that is only possible, if you remain to be the only person who knows about the end of the days.
If everyone else in the world know that the world is coming to an end, law and order would break down.
Pessimist, you may call me. But that's the truth. If the end of world is broadcasted, then raping, killing and looting and all other unimaginable atrocities will be omni present.
Most people do what they do, or do not do what they do not, because of law and moral obligations. But what good is law and moral, if what you strive so hard to protect is coming to an end anyway?
If no matter what you do, the world is going to end, humans are going to be extinct and that you are not going to survive, what would you do?
You would fulfill your lust, your greed and all other desires that you may have but couldn't have because of the social restrictions.
So, if you knew the end of the days is coming, please do not tell. You will only bring the end of the world earlier than what it is suppose to be.
Most of them would hope to share the last moment with their love ones.
But that is only possible, if you remain to be the only person who knows about the end of the days.
If everyone else in the world know that the world is coming to an end, law and order would break down.
Pessimist, you may call me. But that's the truth. If the end of world is broadcasted, then raping, killing and looting and all other unimaginable atrocities will be omni present.
Most people do what they do, or do not do what they do not, because of law and moral obligations. But what good is law and moral, if what you strive so hard to protect is coming to an end anyway?
If no matter what you do, the world is going to end, humans are going to be extinct and that you are not going to survive, what would you do?
You would fulfill your lust, your greed and all other desires that you may have but couldn't have because of the social restrictions.
So, if you knew the end of the days is coming, please do not tell. You will only bring the end of the world earlier than what it is suppose to be.
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
BTN, my experience
Despite being a Maxis scholar, the scholarship value is most likely NOT enough for my full 3-year PhD course. So, I decided to join UKM, who is willingly to pay whatever difference that I need to complete my PhD. For that I'm indebted to UKM, especially to UKM's VC, Prof Sharifah Hapsah and Head of IMEN, Prof Burhan. Both of them are fantastic individuals.
Contrary to what many people may think, my brief stay in UKM before coming to Cambridge University was actually enlightening. The staff at UKM is incredibly friendly and efficient at their work, much better than my experience as a undergraduate student in UM.
Because I joined UKM, I was required to attend BTN, which has a fairshare of media limelight in recent days. As I was leaving for UK very soon, I have the choice to attend BTN at a later date, butI chose not to do so. I decided to attend this BTN camp in Seremban before I depart for UK because I wanted to see for myself, what is really going on. Before attending BTN, Prof Burhan told me, "just take it like any other course, for the most part it's like national service." I know he was trying to comfort my nerves prior to the camp. Like I said, he's a fantastic individual.
On the first day of the camp, we were told not have any recording devices and were repeatedly told that the content of the camp is under the protection of Official Security Act (OSA). This means that by revealing the content of what is taught in the camp, I am liable to being persecuted by the government. Why is the content protected under OSA when this camp's objectives are to foster nationalism, to foster unity among Malaysians and to teach Malaysian values? OSA is used to protect sensitive contents that could leak out to the public and cause a security threat to the society. How is it possible that leaking information about how to unite Malaysians and how to foster nationalism could be a threat to the security of Malaysia?
The 'trainers' at the BTN had an answer for this. According to him, it was because some elements of the contents of this camp may be manipulated by the opposition to cause stir and affect public confidence.
"Love your country!" I don't see how this sentence could be manipulated to cause stir in anyway possible. Unless, loving your country is not the only thing they teach in the camp.
It's true. By now, most of you would already guess that loving your country is not the only thing they teach in the camp. Though the first few days of the camp was indeed about patriotism and loving your country. During that time, it was very interesting and entertaining. The invited speakers gave talks that are really motivational and for a moment I thought that all the rumours about BTN being a brainwashing camp was just plain rubbish. But I spoke too soon.
Towards the second half of the camp, we entered LDK (Latihan Dalam Kumpulan). The content is a 180 degrees reversal from the earlier part of the camp. The term "social contract" was repeated not less than 1000 times to emphasize that Malays had made a great sacrifice by offering us citizenship during our independence. We were told that opposition and street protest were evil. We were often hinted that the Chinese are 'stronger' and that Malays are 'weaker' therefore Malays need to unite.
I was fortunate to be in group which is more moderate. It'd seem that the organisers knew people like me and my age group that are probably more difficult to be brainwashed were assigned to the same group. So our group only had 'mild' discussions, touching on 'sensitive' issues occasionally but most of the time we were just casually chatting. This was not the case when other groups share their stories with us. According to them, there was a clear brainwash attempt at them to stop supporting the opposition and be wary of the non-Malays.
The good thing is: many other participants that I met in the BTN are actually quite understanding and liberal. They did not agree with all the biased content that was thrown at them. We even joked about how the trainers tried to brainwash them, but they just brushed it aside and say it's plain silly. In them, I can see hope for Malaysia.
The bad thing is: there are people who, for the sake of not failing the camp (because if they do, they will not get the funding from the government to further their study) have resorted to become a complete suck-up to the BN government during discussions, prasing every single thing about the government even when it didn't make sense. For example, there was a discussion about choosing a company to provide consultation. There were 3 choices: 1. Pro government, but incompetent; 2. Pro opposition, competent; 3. International company, very competent. Who would you choose to provide the consultation?
The suck-up defended the 'incompetent' choice from start till end, citing reasons like, "we can train them to be competent (completely ignoring the assumption of the question)" and "government agencies have sensitive documents that cannot be shared with opposition". But they forgot, I'm a debater and I rebutted them all the way until they had nothing to say except repeating, "tak bolehlah, tak boleh, tak boleh, tak betul." To that point, I rest my case.
On the last day of the camp, we had a MCQ test. There were no right or wrong answers. Only stupid answers and the answer that the BN government wants. To pass the test, we had little choice but to choose the 'right' answers, the answers that the government thinks is 'right'.
At this point, there was little doubt in my mind that this BTN camp is indeed a brainwashing camp. But the good thing is, only the trainers are hell-bent on brainwashing. The participants are actually very nice people, in general. I've met a lot of good friends in that camp and I hope we still could get in touch. There are also a lot of very interesting group activities like hiking, aerobics, drama, singing, etc. So it was actually quite fun. To be fair, BTN is only 60% a brainwashing camp. If only the PM department could focus on the other 40%, I would say BTN is definitely an interesting camp to go to.
Contrary to what many people may think, my brief stay in UKM before coming to Cambridge University was actually enlightening. The staff at UKM is incredibly friendly and efficient at their work, much better than my experience as a undergraduate student in UM.
Because I joined UKM, I was required to attend BTN, which has a fairshare of media limelight in recent days. As I was leaving for UK very soon, I have the choice to attend BTN at a later date, butI chose not to do so. I decided to attend this BTN camp in Seremban before I depart for UK because I wanted to see for myself, what is really going on. Before attending BTN, Prof Burhan told me, "just take it like any other course, for the most part it's like national service." I know he was trying to comfort my nerves prior to the camp. Like I said, he's a fantastic individual.
On the first day of the camp, we were told not have any recording devices and were repeatedly told that the content of the camp is under the protection of Official Security Act (OSA). This means that by revealing the content of what is taught in the camp, I am liable to being persecuted by the government. Why is the content protected under OSA when this camp's objectives are to foster nationalism, to foster unity among Malaysians and to teach Malaysian values? OSA is used to protect sensitive contents that could leak out to the public and cause a security threat to the society. How is it possible that leaking information about how to unite Malaysians and how to foster nationalism could be a threat to the security of Malaysia?
The 'trainers' at the BTN had an answer for this. According to him, it was because some elements of the contents of this camp may be manipulated by the opposition to cause stir and affect public confidence.
"Love your country!" I don't see how this sentence could be manipulated to cause stir in anyway possible. Unless, loving your country is not the only thing they teach in the camp.
It's true. By now, most of you would already guess that loving your country is not the only thing they teach in the camp. Though the first few days of the camp was indeed about patriotism and loving your country. During that time, it was very interesting and entertaining. The invited speakers gave talks that are really motivational and for a moment I thought that all the rumours about BTN being a brainwashing camp was just plain rubbish. But I spoke too soon.
Towards the second half of the camp, we entered LDK (Latihan Dalam Kumpulan). The content is a 180 degrees reversal from the earlier part of the camp. The term "social contract" was repeated not less than 1000 times to emphasize that Malays had made a great sacrifice by offering us citizenship during our independence. We were told that opposition and street protest were evil. We were often hinted that the Chinese are 'stronger' and that Malays are 'weaker' therefore Malays need to unite.
I was fortunate to be in group which is more moderate. It'd seem that the organisers knew people like me and my age group that are probably more difficult to be brainwashed were assigned to the same group. So our group only had 'mild' discussions, touching on 'sensitive' issues occasionally but most of the time we were just casually chatting. This was not the case when other groups share their stories with us. According to them, there was a clear brainwash attempt at them to stop supporting the opposition and be wary of the non-Malays.
The good thing is: many other participants that I met in the BTN are actually quite understanding and liberal. They did not agree with all the biased content that was thrown at them. We even joked about how the trainers tried to brainwash them, but they just brushed it aside and say it's plain silly. In them, I can see hope for Malaysia.
The bad thing is: there are people who, for the sake of not failing the camp (because if they do, they will not get the funding from the government to further their study) have resorted to become a complete suck-up to the BN government during discussions, prasing every single thing about the government even when it didn't make sense. For example, there was a discussion about choosing a company to provide consultation. There were 3 choices: 1. Pro government, but incompetent; 2. Pro opposition, competent; 3. International company, very competent. Who would you choose to provide the consultation?
The suck-up defended the 'incompetent' choice from start till end, citing reasons like, "we can train them to be competent (completely ignoring the assumption of the question)" and "government agencies have sensitive documents that cannot be shared with opposition". But they forgot, I'm a debater and I rebutted them all the way until they had nothing to say except repeating, "tak bolehlah, tak boleh, tak boleh, tak betul." To that point, I rest my case.
On the last day of the camp, we had a MCQ test. There were no right or wrong answers. Only stupid answers and the answer that the BN government wants. To pass the test, we had little choice but to choose the 'right' answers, the answers that the government thinks is 'right'.
At this point, there was little doubt in my mind that this BTN camp is indeed a brainwashing camp. But the good thing is, only the trainers are hell-bent on brainwashing. The participants are actually very nice people, in general. I've met a lot of good friends in that camp and I hope we still could get in touch. There are also a lot of very interesting group activities like hiking, aerobics, drama, singing, etc. So it was actually quite fun. To be fair, BTN is only 60% a brainwashing camp. If only the PM department could focus on the other 40%, I would say BTN is definitely an interesting camp to go to.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
