A Long Dark Road

A long dark road is ahead. Some people will have flashlights or candles to assist them. They become highly dependant on these tools. The moment these tools refuse to cooperate or just somehow disappear, they are stuck on the long dark road writhing in pain and sorrow, too used to the accompaniment of the light and have become effectively blind without the aid of light. So many will just sit and die there, refusing to continue their journey and being able to live a non vicarious life. So few gather the strength to continue walking the dark path and learn again to walk unaided.

I am beginning to travel on this long dark road. To light, or not light the candle, that is the question.

What Does Being a Supporter at the Olympics mean?

The Olympics today is akin to modern "war". Athletes represent countries and fight for glory (usually and one would hope, without the intention of killing anyone). National pride takes front stage, sometimes above reason. You support the athlete for the reason that the athlete was born on the soil which you were born from. You wouldn't think twice about insulting another athlete from another soil. Yet, this soil is divided by nothing more than imaginary lines; imaginary lines which we, as a human race have come to create and accept without question. Lines shouldn't divide land, that's the job of the ocean.

Leon Trotsky's On The Jewish Question (Short Review)

I actually began reading the book on 5.4.2015, but due to revisions and classes, I've only got to finish it today (12.6.2015).

Trotsky believes that the revolution of the proletariat towards a communist state has to be a global one; small, localized revolutions will not do. Trotsky, referring to Frederick Engels label of anti-Semitism as the "socialism of idiots" implies that the "socialism" advocated by Hitler and Stalin is not "socialism" in its truest sense at all. Accordingly, he believes breaking down racial barriers is for the betterment of all. Thus, for Trotsky, the emancipation of Jews will mark a step closer to the emancipation to mankind.

Our Love is a Black Hole

We knew we were meant for each other. Always did. Even before we met.

"May the stars bear witness of our love."

Our force of emotions collided and shined brighter than the brightest stars. We knew this much.

But alas, like all stars, our love had to die. Our love collapsed within itself forming a black hole - crushing all who dare traverse near. We knew it was the end. We knew we had to let it die.

----------

At the centre of this gargantuan mass called the black hole lies a singularity. It would seem that those who manage to reach this singularity have access to dimensions beyond fathom. What we understand as "time" can be seen as three dimensional planes and landscapes.

I then realize that I'm highly mistaken. We never really die. Love and ideas never really die. It lives on indefinitely in abstract. It is an essence that cannot simply be put into form and transcends what we understand as time.

Our love and thoughts live forever. We live forever.

If Love was a Cup of Coffee

Is this the fate of love? Our love was once as fragrant, roasty and aromatic as a cup of joe - an americano. It was warm. It kept us awake. Dare I say - It kept us alive. I'll admit that there were bitter notes, but if you paid attention the devil's details, you'll find other flavourful hints of citrus, cocoa and spice. Like the Holy Grail, this nectar of the heavens was endless and from it we drank our everlasting fill, rejoicing the days that pass us. It was a truly the paragon of a coffee connoisseurs' delight. 

But now that enough time has passed for this ceramic mug, the same cup no longer feels warm. All you taste from the black liquid is but a bitter swill. Re-heating it cannot restore its complex flavours no matter how refined your technique is. It can still keep us awake - but no longer does it keep us alive. The same cup of brewed coffee will not taste the same ever again.

Sex. Law. Stuff.

A little late but here goes:-

There is a problem if an archaic and outdated piece of legislation punishes "unnatural acts". I'm pretty sure a good number of (Malaysian) adults have engaged in fellatio, cunnilingus and anal sex regardless of sexual orientation. Shouldn't they be punished too? Oh yeah, they shouldn't be punished. Or rather they can't. Because that would mean charging of about 50% of adults in Malaysia and who's gonna make revenue for the government if these (working) adults are jailed? 

Anyone who says that the law is the law and that it should not questioned is clearly putting a foot in his mouth. Laws need to be constantly scrutinized and criticized so that the proper authorities know what kind of laws are suitable and desired by the people at a particular given time. A change in moral zeitgeist (the moral spirit of time) is essential to a flourishing society which is evolving where obsolete laws are abolished while replaced with new ones. Our beloved country doesn't seem to be heading that direction at Mach speed anytime soon, while we are reminded of the Wawasan 2020 (Vision 2020).

There is a problem if the judiciary, legislation (parliament) and executive (government) cannot be criticized if they are not exercising their functions properly and need to be kept in check. Who else can keep them in check if not the voice of the rakyat (the people)?

Selective prosecution seems to be rampant? Sedition this? Sedition that? Meh. 

Memories of...

"I feel bad for her. Isn't it such a pity to lose her memories?", said Cassandra as she gazed into the evening sun shining in vermilion brilliance.

"It might be a good thing too... To lose your memories. To forget the pain and suffering." He then gazed away from the blinding sun.

What Does It Mean To Have a Heart?

It's been a while since I wrote. And that's probably because either I don't think anyone deserves to read this, or that my worries are petty and unwarranted, though indulgence of the former may make me feel better.

The impetus to write this piece came from me stumbling on a blog of a former crush of mine. He then opined his justification on being silent when someone else says that he misses him, because he simply does not feel the same. He feels that he'd rather not scathe the ego of another by telling that person that he does NOT miss him. Instead, he keeps silent.

When we locked eyes for the longest time before gently kissing, was that really just me imagining amorous feelings? Was it really all in my head? Did I misunderstand what it was like to kiss someone you really like so softly and passionately? Are these emotions merely bursts of serotonin and dopamine and nothing more? But alas, I do not have the answers , and I will never know if the sudden skip of a beat in my chest and heightened happiness is an illusion or can be justified or even worth investing time in researching and, and understanding. Was I stupid enough to even identify this as an amorous feeling?

What tore me and rendered my guts was what if he was disgusted all this while and just wanted to "get it over with"?

No one can make another like them. If spells and sorcery did exist to enchant the ones you like to like you, the world's utility of less heartbreak would manifest at the cost of making people like each other a commodity (notwithstanding that this too already exists on a scale vide Stockholm Syndrome, prostitution, and even to an extent, the social institution of marriage)

The world shows me no compassion, why should I then show the world compassion?

Is your heart something you can really trust? It's sad to know your heart is the only thing you can trust. There's no "on" or "off" button when it comes to emotions and feelings. I can't just tell myself to stop feeling, what I can do though, is merely put thoughts of you in abeyance through indulging myself with pabulum. But what can you do if the heart wants what the heart wants? I know how I feel. No one else can tell me how to feel otherwise. Or what I am feeling is merely an illusion I conjured up about another; merely a perspective, lacking details to the whole story, like a story without its climax/plot twist while very well knowing that that climax has yet emerged.

What pierces my heart even more is when I anticipate that whatever I do for another is met with snide remarks and/or disgust which he keeps to himself - whatever I do will never be good enough. Is this what they call a persecution complex?

He probably got it at the bullseye when he said that he didn't even know why he likes me.. Neither do I. On one hand, I'm pretty confident that if I try hard enough, I'll find that special someone who will appreciate me for who I am and I am good enough, on the other hand, I'm beginning to feel this to be no more than a futile exercise because I will never be good enough for anyone, I'm a monster.

They say if you fall in love with a poet, your love will be immortalized in writing vide his poetry. If you would then allow me, to immortalize our love on paper, canvas or any medium of your liking.

And if the well of my emotions overflow to the physical persona/mask I wear and people ask what's wrong, the only thing I can say is... " べつに" ("Betsumi", meaning nothing's wrong).

This Shadow Inside I Wish I Could Slay

This shadow inside I wish I could slay,
I wish I could drink my problems away,
If only not drinking made me so gay,
Tell me don't leave me, tell me you'll stay.

Can't Poor People Have Nice Things?

A dark-skinned man walked to the cashier holding a bag of  what looks like "siam super special" rice. He meekly asks the cashier - "Berapa?" (Malay for "how much?"). The cashier glared at him for a bit before snatching the bag scanning the bar code. 

"Emfatfuloe..", Gibberish was being uttered by the cashier with her head faced down and not the least bit interested in making eye contact with the man, it was as if deliberately not wanting to talk to him. From where I could stand, I could see the price - RM 42.50. Holy Grapefruit! - That's pricey for a bag of 10 kg rice. Then again, I'm more used to the lower price range of local white rice; the extravagant prices of "higher end" rice such as brown rice have little appeal to one who strives to thrift like me. 

"Empat puluh dua ringgit lima puluh sen!" (Malay for RM42.50) the cashier raised her voice, which shocked both myself and the dark-skinned man. It was as if she was annoyed. With the bag of rice in his hand, he retreats away from from the cashier. 

I have then begun a ride on a roller coaster of assumptions in his head - "Things are getting more and more expensive, and my pay is not increasing" - "Can't poor people have nice things?" - "I know I don't belong here, but do you have to raise your voice like that? Treat me less than human?" - "Well, at least things here are better than back home".

Review - Mandela's Way by Richard Stengel

Richard Stengel seems to suggest that being a hypocrite is being worse than a being a contradict - which is what Mandela seems to be in his eyes, for at least being a contradict is human, and being a hypocrite stoops you a level lower because you are perfectly aware of your contradictory actions. For the sake of simplicity I'll write down the 'lessons' that appealed most.

Time and time again we see this value, perhaps told in a different fashion and in a different light; courage. And in the book it is iterated that courage is not the absence of fear but putting up a front of valour even though you're (rhetorically) wetting your pants. Also along this vein, Mandela who is conscious about first impressions, is very particular when it comes to 'looking the part'. Trying to reconcile with the sentiments of a leader, it would be shallow to judge someone on first impression, but the harsh reality is that everyone does it, and that first few seconds imprints the image of the man in one's mind and last almost indefinitely. With that in mind, Mandela justifies splurging on fancy clothes and putting up a courages front when meeting with important people.

I also found that while Mandela endorses 'Seeing the Good in Others' and is like a personal mantra to enrich one's view in life, realistically, it only gets yourself hurt when you're too trusting in someone else that you do not see their hidden agenda. Mandela also admits to have been betrayed but never ceasing to see the good in others.

As the old saying goes, 'Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer'. Mandela adheres to this almost strictly, except with a slight tweak - he keeps enemies close (one example is when he placed a member of the opposition in the cabinet so he can have close tabs on him) but at the cost of unwaveringly distancing himself from friends and family (due to the course of his work, he would justify). It would also seem that Mandela is down with using others as tools to reach his goal (while the goal of a better nation is noble, the means where he admits using others to reach the goal begs the question of morality), namely using people like de Clerk and speaking Afrikaans to gain the support from the other side.

I found the chapters of 'Lead from the Front' and 'Lead from the Back' almost identical, save for slight change in wordings - essentially advocating to know when to be at the front to lead and knowing when to step back and watch seeds of leadership come to fruition.

Mandela was a fan of gray areas - for a yes-or-no question, more often than not, he'll reply with a 'maybe', 'it's both' or something to that effect. Mandela appreciates that the two extremes are certain, but at times can be too harsh, and prefers to accept that for most problems, there is always a bit of both.

The final lesson is called 'Find Your Own Garden', and to Mandela, it was taken quite literally. While imprisoned, after months of protocol, he finally managed to have a plot of land by his cell to plant vegetables (mainly to supplement his and the diet of other prisoners with veggies together with the cornmeal and occasional slab of meat they would have). Tending to his garden while in prison also gave him a lot of time to think and strategize where he claims to have found peace. While not all of us have spare soil for gardening, he urges people to find things they really love most and indulge in it, at least for a moment in a day to escape from the harsh reality of the world. One may argue that this move is no different than running away from one's problems but who's to judge?

All-in-all a mediocre book which gave insights to what Mandela is like from the perspective of Richard Stengel while dipping one's toes into the realm of African politics.

A Bluetooth Speaker Review

As one who loves (listening to) music, it is not surprising that I would try to get my hands on a quality speaker. As such it's high time I made a review of a bluetooth speaker.

And here it is...

The Samsung DA-F61 Bluetooth Speaker! 

It has a sleek design with clean curves and nothing too fancy, which is exactly what someone like me would go for in a hand-held product. The speaker is also surprisingly light, weighing around 1kg, which gives points in portability and won't strain your pockets (or bags) too much.

The speaker emits crisp and refined sounds along with a good balance of treble, mids and trebles. It’s able to go fairly loud, tricking your ears into thinking they’re listening to a larger sound system.

It has a surprisingly long battery life - up to 10 hours upon being fully charged. Long battery life is almost a must if you expect to leave the device on while you are engrossed with whatever you are engaged in. 

The price of the product may be a bit steep, but when you pay gold you do indeed get gold ;)

Rating: 5/5

The Moral Molecule and The Grand Design

Here's a review of two books I've read.


Paul J. Zak - The Moral Molecule - 2/5


He intended to draw a correlation between trust, happiness and morality; citing all could be increased with a single hormone - oxytocin. The first experiment called the 'Trust Game' involved using money to test morality - but alas this itself may fail because someone (or their parents) who is filthy rich may not play the game right, ignoring the limitations of money and screw people over for the fun of it (taking into account that a number of volunteers were students of an ivy league alma mater).


It is highly doubtful though that a moral person can be a happy person, as a psychopath who gets a kick (happiness) from killing but is certainly not moral in the eyes of the society. A person who thinks twice about helping a stranger (trust) is not necessarily a bad person (immoral), he just wants to ensure the safety of himself as well taking measures from becoming a victim of fraud. However, high trust did correspond to high happiness (which was common in religious people, according to his rounds of experimentation) but it can be argued that this happiness (or high) is an illusion, as the spike increase in oxytocin can also be observed by those who have taken euphoric drugs like ecstasy.


A lukewarm attempt to simplify the morality in humans but alas contains many contradictions and gaping questions to the actual relationship between the hormone and morality per se - analogies and experiments seem to be too simplistic and appears to lack sound scientific principles.




Stephen Hawking & Leonard Mlodinow - The Grand Design - 4.5/5


The author deals with one of the biggest questions ever asked in three areas making cross-references between religious, philosophical as well as scientific methods; What is the meaning of life? Beginning with the the existence of free-will, the author traverses into the realm of realities, alternate histories, Young's double slit experiment, particle physics, early-universe physics, apparent miracles (among other things) and last but not least, the Grand Design.


Whether or not THE answer is M-Theory or not, the author seemed to advocate and glossed over M-Theory and String Theory very much towards the middle of the book but did not give it a proper treatment that it deserves, given how the parameters were set up leading to this, at the end of the book.


The book is generally an easy read, partly because it uses everyday examples to explain convoluted scientific principles, and partly due to (rather) simple language. You'll also learn a lot from this book whether your field of expertise is quantum physics or not (though for the former, this would more likely be basics refresher - a 101 of sorts).

This is How Democracy Dies

It’s been almost 24 hours since the announcement of the elections. Much feeling of anger has subsided, but much of it remains, the feeling we all have against cheaters linger, namely the party who herald themselves with the logo of a balance scale. What are the identifiable problems, possible solutions and conclusive analysis that can be made? 

Problems:

1. Demarcated ballot papers rendering it null and void. In Kajang (my polling station) my friend and requested for a change when a dot was clearly at the end of the name of the PKR candidate (coincidence?). She then requested for a change but was then denied by the officer there. What gives? Putting this stained ballot paper would be as good as not coming to vote then.

2. As confirmed by the Bangladesh embassy, large influx of Bangladeshis were reported coming to Malaysia when offered to be Malaysian citizens (supposedly given money to be given blue IC’s and allowed them to vote).

3. Wasted God-knows-how-much on indelible ink which could have been easily removed with commercial cleaning agents in minutes. Should have used this money to buy more cows right?   

4. SPR and the police are obviously the puppets of the government. SPR is meant to be neutral body and clearly must have been given some fat bribes to be able to allow all this fuckery. The police are to be loyal to the country - not the government (who thinks money grows from trees).

5. Recounting takes 30 minutes at most. It took almost 5 hours. Wanna count till next General Elections is it?

6. Blackout and a wild ballot box appears. Wow. What is this - Pokemon ar!?

7. Active populist policies (inevitably swaying in votes from rural areas which happens to cross-over with many of the less-educated populace) - strengthening the  East Coast for the federal government

8. Biased state-controlled media reporting the elections were done to give the impression that the elections were done fairly. Tell that to my hairy ass.

Solution:

1. The next time you can take pictures of ballot papers. It seems ‘illegal’, but it can be tendered as admissible evidence. Long story short, the reliability of such evidence is not affected. On the flip side, we have an unfair committee grabbing us by the balls, giving us marked ballot papers when we can’t change. That can’t be right.

2. Hard to counter on a personal level. What CAN be done is raising awareness among the people and halting foreigners from being able to vote in OUR General Elections.

3. We need a better solution (get it?) than indelible ink. Either get a stronger formula or scrap this colossal waste of funds.

4. It’s gonna cost a lot, but SPR has gotta go. Abolish the bloody body and get foreign observers.There are too many members of the SPR who have (or may have) ties with the federal government.

5. and 6. Once again, difficult to manage on a personal level - perhaps we can have international bodies to intervene (such as the United Nations). With this, the federal government  are no different from Afghanistan warlords, ruling in whatever way suits them fancy. Surely cheating in an election is somewhat criminal! Having the dear PM face ICJ sounds like too good of an offer to refuse. Worse case scenario - we can impose economic sanctions ala Myanmar (back then that is).

7. This, is circular argument that is difficult to break (discussed in conclusion)

8. Force the privatisations of media giants. Ambik kau.

Conclusive analysis: In response to 7. Our federal government clearly does not care about the welfare of the rakyat. If they did, they would have gone for long term solutions when it came to improving the quality of life of the people (such as improving the education system. Me thinks, the reason for the short term plans (i.e. cash handouts especially via BR1M) are executed is because they are compelling incentives for the lower income bracket as well as for those staying in rural areas. They are content with these extra funds.

Uprooting poverty can best be done by providing better education, which in turn allows to better demand jobs and better pay, which allows a better lifestyle. One is is given more and better informed choices in life decisions and will better vote for policies that have a long term kick.

Comparing cash handouts and better education, obviously better education reduces poverty in the long run. SO WHY STICK TO CASH HANDOUTS? Me thinks to have the rural supporters support the federal government, satisfying them for the short term to secure their votes undermines retaliation from the rural areas. It seems, for fear of uprising from rural areas if they were more educated, the federal government can control that area and secure Parliamentary seats. Hence, this is exactly what I meant when the federal government does not give two shits about how your lifestyle becomes (whether you are poor or uneducated), as long as they remain in power.

The circular argument is this - to change populist policies (and fairer distribution of wealth) is to change the members of the parliament (to ones who have brains), but in order to change members of parliament, populist policies need to be changed to educate the people on the need for long term reform, etc.  

Changing your profile picture to black is merely one of the many things that can be done

On the bright side (or in this case, dark side) PR won more seats than 2008. And although the federal government played dirty, yet they could not win by a landslide.

Can it be like the end of the film of V for Vendetta, the Big Ben (in a local context, that could very well be Dataran Merdeka) explodes with the accompaniment of the 1812 Overture.

And this is how democracy dies - with a thunderous applause?

Time is Nigh

Do you want to see the country fall into bankruptcy with the currently inefficient budget?
Do you want Malaysia to remain the top few in the global corruption index?
Do you want to see more laundering of monies for cow farms and rings?
Do you want science and maths in schools to be taught in Malay?
Do you want to see Muhyiddin be our next Prime Minister?

If Democracy could speak, she would cringe and spit at Malaysia for having the same single sided federal government for the past 50 years or so, for unfair elections and for having biased state-controlled media, i.e. for ridiculing and demonising protest for free and fair elections.  (Democracy is not the ONLY way a country can run, bur that's a another discussion for another day)

Some people think I talk too much, but I'd rather voice my opinion and be a part of a change rather than sit idly by complain or even pretend to ignore what is going on around me.

For fuck sake - exercise your right and VOTE (if you are capable of doing so)

I write here as a very concerned and worried member of the society.

Anyone with common sense can tell you that if you truly intend to eradicate poverty from a large cross-section of the society, one of the best ways would be through education - producing better graduates who have better bargaining power and can request for improved wage in which allows them to afford more to improve standard of living.

What is happening as per status quo, is a short term solution with cash handouts immediately eating up the funds of the government. It doesn't solve anything in the long run, and eventually the recipients of the cash assistance will be looking for other means to earn more.

When weighing both sides of the scale to see which solution is better, it is clearly submitted that cash handouts are a poor choice. So why execute such a plan in the first place?

Two theories come to mind:

1) In order to apply for these cash handouts, one needs to opt in and provide certain personal information to the government. Although a plethora of information is made accessible by the MyKad, the government insists on more information by applicants. What gives? In can be inferred that the confirmation of information of the applicants can and very well be used by the government in the future to keep records on who has received what kind of help by the government - allowing them to deny or reject future assistance depending on  how much has been allocated to the said applicant.

Such a move can be seen as a 'ration' system of sorts. Ergo, obtaining assistance from the government may actually deny future dealings with the government or assistance from them.

2) The allocation is clearly a desperate move to receive votes of the less educated and fall within the classification of poverty. Even if this is not the reasoning, it can be inferred that in the coming general election, it is highly possible for the government to pull a 'George Bush' on the Opposition party; leaving a nation in a mountain of debt especially after the sudden allocation of financial assistance. If anything, it is a win-win for the government, if they win, it allows them to stay in power, otherwise they know the Opposition party is going to have a helluva time picking up the pieces and attempt to restore a broken state.

Just yesterday, it was announced that a rather large number of armed forces, police and civil service personnel would be receiving handsome perks and increments. While appearing as an attempt to fish for votes, it also falls neatly in the ambit of the second theory as just forwarded.

Change can be done via the ballot box. But apparently the ballot box looks like it has been tampered here and there, leading a 'democratic' state with the *same* party in power for the past 50 years. Something's gotta go, and it's more than that cross I will place in the ballot box, of course, with a very strong assumption it won't be ripped into shreds before being accounted for.

Light and Darkness

Light alone can blind you, the luminous flash debilitates your vision, leaving you in the dark.
Being lunged into complete darkness, this too can constitute blindness, for the dark depths itself indicate no direction.
What does this mean?
Purely relying on one element will only lead to blindness, where both optical senses fail and you see darkness  . The paradox of the matter is too much light leads too darkness and too much darkness still puts you in darkness. While both these elements affect the optical organs in more ways than one, the ultimate result is darkness which may equate to nothingness (but this is a whole new discussion for another day).

Light is often heralded, it connotes to holiness, religion, goodness, as well as law and order. Darkness on the other hand is attributed as demonic, evil, corrupt, chaotic and ruinous. While res ipsa loquitur, the attributes need to be examined more thoroughly.Whilst light is connoted to law, religion and organization, the rigidity binds freedom in general, and possibly slows growth of creativity by sustaining certainty that is status quo. Easily light can be used and abused to control the masses and favours those who are capable of such order. Darkness, on the other hand, is often misunderstood. Darkness, though reflected as evil, may actually be necessary evil done, where the end justifies the means as well as choosing between the lesser of two evils. When faced with such a choice, the means and the result will definitely not be desirable but would be better than the other option. Through chaos, creativity, imagination and inhibitions are set loose, it connotes to freedom and willpower.

Absolute order and absolute chaos each stirs revolution with the heart of it's inhabitants; one intending to free himself from dogma and strict rules, while the other, intends to place a limit on the amount of freedom given to all. Hence, in essence, order is merely a heart beat away from chaos.

Learn not only to accept the garish light of day, but the darkness, for if one is absent without the other, one ought to expect nothing but shades of black.

Allah?

In Malaysia, the Sultan of Selangor had recently decreed that all non-Muslims in the state of Selangor is banned using the word "Allah" as it is a holy word exclusive to Muslims.

It would appear that His Highness echoes, reiterates and refines a particular piece of the law - 'Section 9 of the Selangor Non-Islamic Religions (Control of Propagation amongst Muslims) Enactment 1988 prohibits the use of "Allah" by non-Mulsims in any matter related to their religions.'

While the section imposes silence of the word on those who practice another religion (by that logic, atheists, humanists and Freemasons to a certain extent could use the word, as these labels are clearly not 'religions'), His Highness, upon the edict, appears to have made a blanket ban on all who do not profess to the religion.

PAS on the other hand, opines that Islam does not restrict the use of "Allah" by non-Muslims, it must not be "misused' by them to the extent that it confuses Muslims.

What is the aim of the decree? Various quarters have replied by upholding the sanctity of Islam. The fact that tickles the logical faculty of the brain is that there are many more prominent ways to uphold the sanctity. For instance, encouragement of doing more charitable acts of kindness.

Arguably, there ought to be a separation of state and religion (while still able to maintain Islam as the official religion of Malaysia). By law in Malaysia, the Sultan is the religious leader of Islam, and has powerful jurisdictions in religious affairs. The bone of contention which arises is why can it be allowed for a decree in one religion affect the religion of another (and to a certain extent non-believers)? This looks like a breach of confidence of non-Muslim citizens, especially Christians who intend to use "Allah" in the Bahasa Malaysia version of the Bible, but cannot due to a putative infringement.

Separation also reduces or prevents imposition of beliefs and values from a particular religion to another lay person who is not a believer in the said religion. Firstly, imposition of belief can be a nuisance, as to change one's beliefs to the standard of another. Secondly, impositions can be beyond persuasive in and forceful in nature which makes 'freedom to believe' as apparent as the void.

The blanket ban also seems to ooze injustice as a strict liability offence. That means those would be those lacking the intention to say the word, out of habit, at the spur of the moment or accidentally and actually utter it would be liable for the offence which is uncool. To make someone liable for an act he or she did not intend hampers and mocks further the already heavily criticized dual justice legal system.

Furthermore, to not be able to casually talk about religion in relation to the particular word  only debilitates the freedom of speech of citizens. It's bad enough as it already is that many topics are considered taboo locally and are arbitrarily banned from table conversations, ranging from sex to politics to religion. Why is it that these subjects come as too sensitive as a substance to converse about? I believe, the only way we will be able to progress further mentally and socially is to able to talk about anything under the sun. Restriction of speech only agitates the more intellectual and yet one can be so surprised with the brain drain at the speed of Mach 5 from Malaysia to elsewhere.

Another issue is the the attempt to define "Allah", an arabic word which means "He is the only one lord" cannot be accurately translated to another language. Some may take a subjective approach, and finds the meaning to which he sees fit, while others sees the word on a more wholesome scale where they accept the general most accepted definition. The question of the chicken of the egg comes to mind - the objective or subjective definition?

Perhaps if we were able to have a telepathic conversation with His Highness, we can try to pick out the rationale behind this decree; till then, many of us scratch our heads in befuddlement.

Sexuality (A reply to a post)

'I do not support Gay marriage, because homosexuality is dragging our current society into a hell of a mess of total gender confusion. Most people might think 'Oh well, it's their life, why do you even care? As long they are happy is enough.' But, most people also do not know it's causing so many family breakdown, relationship issues, fame etc. Let's put this into a simple scenario, imagining your son, OWN son kissing another man and getting married with him. It's really disturbing isn't it? I believe there's a reason why Man are made to be with Woman. Not Man to be with...Man. Yuck.

Sorry you are offended. (I don't care if you are)'

Random post I plucked out from FB.

The post today is geared to curing ignorance of the one who posted the status and hopefully stupidity that lies within certain readers.

Firstly, what in bollocks name is 'mess of gender confusion'? If you are aware (in which of course you're not) gender is NOT the same as sexuality. Gender is the physical trait you are born with, sexuality is the gender which you are (or may not be) attracted to IN CONJUNCTION with your gender. If you meant 'gender confusion' though, that is sex-change then you're discussing at the wrong point of the circle; those who undergo sex change MAY NOT be homosexuals and as sure as hell, not all homosexuals want to undergo sex change! It would make you look smarter if you had typed 'sexual confusion', but that does not strengthen your case any better. Even if you want to discuss sexual confusion, ancient Roman, Greek, and Chinese civilizations (to name a few) recognize the diversity of sexuality at that time but what not so public about it for fear of heresy and death. Such practices have been recorded in ancient scriptures, pottery, books and scrolls. Do read up to open up your mind. Furthermore, I would rather have everyone especially young ones to know and understand there are more possibilities than a man and woman union, and that it is totally okay to follow their heart to love someone they really want to love.

Secondly, gay marriage does NOT cause family breakdowns i.e. 'taint sanctity of marriage' as you think. It's more likely people like YOU who contributed it. Let's look at the United States, for example. Half of the 'straight' couples marrying end up divorcing, half of the straight couples living together aren't even married, it is more likely for straight couples to use their kids as 'pawns' in bitter divorces. On a more humorous note against marriage, no one likes their in-laws and kids are a pain in the ass! Ergo, the only reason anyone would marry nowadays is to legally copulate and procreate (as many heterosexuals don't care much for marriage). Now ask yourself, what kind of couples (straight or otherwise) adopt children who were (mostly) deliberately abandoned by straight couples? Sanctity of Marriage MY ASS.

Thirdly, it's because of people like YOU that many LGBT are forced into straight marriages where society compels them into conformity. The norm is that you go to school, grow up, go to a good university, find a partner of the opposite gender, marry, have kids, and your kids will follow the same cycle again. 'Tis unfortunate the society generally is tailored only in this direction, where hermits, outcasts, individuals who want polygamous relationships, individuals who want friends with benefits only, and especially LGBT have no place in the said tailoring. Therefore, many LGBT forgo their 'sinful' sexuality and try to be 'normal', only later in life get caught in the act by indulging their 'true' desire; who looks like the monster now, forcing individuals who are just like you and I who merely have a different sexual preference into a hellhole, suppressing that desire and pretending everything is like butterflies and rainbows, only to realize that the limits of a human being is only that far?

Fourthly, its the fucking 21st century. LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender) have fought time and time again for a basic right to be able to be unified with their significant other under the eyes of the law. A marriage certificate may not cure this stigma but it's a good start.

Fifthly, no one in their right mind would think like you. Thanks to people like YOU who would reject your LGBT child, they are prone to suicide cases. It's people like YOU who would disown them simply because their sexuality is not common. It is because of people like YOU who leave it to the government and/or church to 'cure' them from this 'sin' through intense programs to somewhat reconfigure their mindset to be 'straight', where in fact it is a traumatizing experience, and many only 'pretend' to be straight to please their parents. I say this with conviction that you are equivalent to trash if you were to not accept your LGBT child simply because he/she is not heterosexual, because they are born that way, and forcing them to change will only ruin them and you can say bye bye to your parent-child relationship.

Sixthly, there is no absolute rule that a man should be with a woman. Use the bible (i.e. Sodom and Gomorrah) and I will smack your face with a red tilapia. If you take the literal reading of the bible, and say being gay is wrong, then you ought to stop eating shellfish and pork, don't EVER get a tattoo, accept the fact woman are second-classed FOREVER as they have to pay for the sins of Eve, allow your daughter to be married to the guy who raped her and strap a cilice to show your 'so-called' devotion to God. But of course, people now only interpret the Bible as to how they see fit, a subjective view but still honour the literal meaning of burning gays at a stake. By all means be a hypocrite and a walking contradict. I won't stop you, but the Reason will snicker whenever you advocate against LGBT rights under the guise of religion.

Ergo, it is submitted there is NOTHING wrong with being LGBT, you are subject to 'birth lottery' and you are born like that, along side with the colour of your skin, race and nationality. Why be the subject of hate when this is who you really are? The next time you post something, have better substance to substantiate your arguments, yeah?

"Heterosexuality is not 'normal', it is merely 'common'." - Dorothy Parker

Sorry you are stupid. (I don't care if you are)

Patriotism

Reading the local newspaper got my blood boiling like hot soup. A certain undergraduate from the University of Sheffield wrote about patriotism (in Malaysia), and what it means to him, as well as how others should interpret it.

Disgusting.

It's totally cool if you want to express how you feel about your country and if you wanna hang the country's flag at your house throughout the year it's totally up to you. HOWEVER, if you even come within a ten foot pole boundary into the realm of imposing your ideas and self righteousness to me, then, prepare to eat your words served with humble quiche (a more fabulous cousin of humble pie).

'Patriotism', if anything, looks like a subordinate branch under the larger heading of 'loyalty'. It would also equate to flowing emotions of love and respect for a country. Introductions aside, I forward a simple question - Should I love my country even after making me a 'second class citizen'? Yes, I understand the government orchestrates most of the drama happening in the country, and does not seem to rightfully represent a country (the rakyat should be the ones to, this is also another load of political correct horse crap), one must also appreciate the fact that the government is capable of using patriotism as a tool to fetch votes and spreading the 'love for your country' as 'good', otherwise you are someone who doesn't 'appreciate' your country. Wow, what a shallow argument. Here is mine: 

You have to realize the relationship between a country (and the forsaken government residing) with her is not a familial relationship, nor is it a contractual one. If anything, we, the rakyat act somewhat as check and balances (who dont get paid for doing so) who provide feedback to (mostly nonsensical) government policies. Therefore, while a government regulates the country, the absence or the unwillingness of the rakyat to cooperate can lead to a collapse in the government as they would have nothing to rule upon. In this set of facts, a government needs its people and vice versa, which means it is theoretically possible for citizens who express their discontent and topple a government via extortion or other means; the government and rakyat have a somewhat mutual symbiotic relationship akin to a lichen and fungi, one can't possibly live without the other.

Some common reasons to 'love' your country which I will refute:
1) Because I was born here - Understand there is a coined term called 'birth lottery' (google.com is just a click away if you don't undeerstand this term) where you're birth date, race and nationality inter alia are by chance, determined at birth and cannot be changed for all intent and purpose, later in life. Your country gives you your nationality as a legal obligation, not one where they are willing to do.

2) Because we have ethnic diversity here (Malays, Chinese and Indians living in harmony :D) - I'll smack ya face with a red tilapia before I move on if you 're an adult, because I make a very DARING assumption you know what is going around the world. Ethnic diversity is the hallmark of MANY nations, viz. USA, Canada, United Kingdom, Mauritius, United Arab Emirates, Indonesia, India, Philippines, Netherlands, to name a few. Malaysia is not the ONLY country on this planet which practices ethnic diversity  Furthermore, there have been many arguments OPPOSING such diversity as many homogeneous societies exude higher levels of social altruism and many such societies have had high gross domestic products and higher average wealth of citizens.

3) Because we don't have natural disasters - We have had a spike in the number of flash floods resulting of a combination of poor drainage and currents from the South Indian Ocean as well as South China Sea. The country is as prone to floods as other countries are.

4) Because we get benefits! - Say... what..? Oh you mean from corruption, swindling monies from poorly contracted jobs, which funds for these useless coupons for short term gain? If you really care for your country, coupons are an idiotic approach to manage one's finances, if you really care for your rakyat, invest in education and medicine where the less fortunate cannot afford it.

Quoted from 'Adaptive Automaton' from Magic: The Gathering - 'Such loyalty can only be made'. To force someone to be loyal is to be artificial, as loyalty can only spawn from a willing heart, especially towards an exemplary figure/concept where one wishes to be loyal to.

Also, as a Malaysian Chinese, I feel second-classes, when those born out of 'birth lottery', by virtue of the NPE are able to enjoy many privileges I am unable because of my skin colour. Seriously, I can think of no other country which practices favouritism if you are born a particular skin colour which is a rather draconian and archaic policy to maintain. By allowing such preference, you are telling other races to take a hike, that even if other races worked harder, contributed more to the gross income of the nation, they cannot be entitled to such a benefit, as compared to the preferred races who theoretically can laze around, do nothing, and yet get a slice of the cake. All these unnecessary monies poured into this subsidy hampers the economy form better and fairer investment opportunities.

The recent National Day celebration have urged many to be 'patriotic', while some may be able to fabricate that feeling, I'm afraid I cannot do the same. While I was a kid I used to think that loving your country and spirit of patriotism is something each citizen SHOULD have. As an adult of 21 years, I find that you ought to love your country only if you feel you want to; you can't force love. If anything, you can still contribute to the economy directly or indirectly without such feeling called 'patriotism' to bind you.

To the author of the said article, I don't know if you honestly feel 'patriotism' for such a messed up nation or you were brainwashed by our excessive government programs. Given the facts for you to ponder, when a citizen can be second-classed even though he/she was born in the country (akin to the status of a foreigener), do you really love this country as you think you would?