Morally Wrong, Legally Clean

Lingam morally wrong, legally clean: Nazri

Nov 9, 09 5:33pm (www.malaysiakini.com)

No stranger to causing uproars, Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Mohd Nazri Abdul Aziz struck again today. This time over the VK Lingam issue.

So, what's the message that the government trying to send to the general public? It's okay to be morally wrong, but as long as you are legally right? Why spending billions of dollar in our education system teaching our kids moral and responsibility, where the leader in this country does not care so much about moral.

This is just tip of the iceberg when it comes to moral and legal debate.

- The queue cutting drivers

- The public who refuse to vacant their seat to the needy in the train or bus

- The developer in PJ who want to take back his land currently used as a major access road

...

We should promote a morally right and legally clean society!!

Clean Bottled Water??

If your house / office is using the bottle drinking water, and think that it is hygienic and worth the price that you are paying, think twice. Look at the photo below, this is how these waters are bottled. Not from the clean manufacturing facility or factory, but just from the roadside water dispenser machine.

BTW, this photo was taken in TTDI, KL.

High Crime Rate Is Just Perception?

Sad and disappointed to hear our top cop saying that the high crime rate in this country is just perception, and the figures do not reflect so.

I'm staying in a residents' paid guarded community, in order to have a better sense of security and safety for my family and myself. Prior to us paying, organizing and taking charge of our own safety, I hardly feel secure even in my house. At night, I scared of burglar and thief. Day time I'm scared of the parang wielding robbers, or break in, or the petty metal thief. This all change after we take charge and pay for our own safety.

In Klang Valley and other part of Malaysia as a whole, thousand of residential areas are paying for their own safety. Who's the one that's responsible for bringing down the crime rate (if the figures are true)? The cops? Or we ourselves who pay and take charge of our own safety?

We cannot denied that the cops had done a good job in certain aspect of crime fighting especially nacrotic related crime (which is hardly relevant to me). But as far as crimes related to personal safety, they still have lots of room to imporve.

Same Old Stories

Was in Guilin China for the past 5 days, and had not read Malaysia news for the past 5 days too. Had a good time enjoying the Guilin scenery, and observing what's happening in China.

One thing that opened up my mind is that China's tourism industry has evolved from foreign tourists dependent to local tourists driven. At most of the tourist areas, conservatively the local tourists to foreign tourists ratio can go up to 80:20.

Apparently China has managed to create a self-sufficient economy without heavily relying on the outside world. Hence, I truly believe that China will be well prepared for this coming global economy turmoil.

Well, back to Malaysia, years after years, we do not seem to move ahead fast enough. Our pace is far slower than our potential. Same old stories on the newspaper:- your rights, my rights; your race, my race; your scandals, my stories; your accusations, my explanations ...

WAKE UP!! Malaysia. If we don't do anything constructive now, we will have plenty of time to talk about all the above when our economy crashes.

Consumer Power? Or Be More Realistic?

The PM urged all to use the consumers power to bring down prices of goods. Read The Star article here.

Unlike stock market, I think all of us know that in the consumer market, once the price of the products and services go up, the likelihood that they come down is almost nil. Even if it comes down, it will be like the way the government handle the fuel price, increase by 40%, but drop only a mere 5% at one time.

Spending more time, and burn more petrol to travel further to buy a 5% cheaper goods and services, very unlikely I'm going to do this.

The damaged had already been done, let's move on to do the more important things i.e. to tackle the worldwide financial turmoil.

The Damage Had Already Been Done

Gov't set to announce fuel price cut

Aug 1, 08 2:07pm (www.malaysiakini.com)

Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi today said the government was set to announce a cut in fuel prices, following a 41-percent hike in June that stirred protests.

Good to hear that, but it was meaningless. The damage had already been done. Costing of living had already shot up. Even though the government cut the fuel price, I doubt it can be restored back to the previous level.

Government has cut down their projects; private companies has changed their bearing from expansion mode to survival mode; inflation rate has rocketed to 7.7% (which I still believe the real life figure is much higher); job market looks shaky and consumer's spending is dropping (Generally a restaurant business dropped 20%-30% after the fuel price increase).

There is an old chinese saying: "If you know that this is the consequence, why you want to do it in the first place?" I don't believe none of the economist/expert warned the government before they announced the 78 cents fuel price increase. Why? Why do this at the expense of the general public?

Sue The Public Smokers

Was having breakfast with my wife and son at a restaurant this morning. It's NOT a non-smoking restaurant. Unfortunately we were seated beside a table full of male smokers. It destroyed our "breakfast mode", and we left as soon as we finished our food, of course inhaled a lots of "complementary" passive smokes.

According to tons of research conducted, smoking is the greatest risk factor for cancer. Read the article by Cancer Research UK here. Passive smoking has the same or even greater risk. Read the extract of the BMJ article here.

Though we are only exposed to the passive smokes for that few minutes, but no doubt we were mentally stressed, and left with some damage lung cells.

Some time one day, when I have the resource, I will bring these public smokers to court for attempt to cause injury/sickness to other. Or bring the restaurant owner to court for negligence for not taking care the interest of non-smokers, when the restaurant is not designated as "smoking only" or "non-smoking" restaurant.