Depressing news around the world..particularly in Asia

I am really depressed after reading the newspaper today. Pages after pages of bad news covering the gory details of the violence and unrest happening in Mumbai, Thailand and Nigeria.

In particular, the tragedy that has unfolded in Mumbai and has resulted with the Indian commandos storming to recover the places that were under attack by the Islamic militants. With a body count of 195 persons (out of which 26 are foreigners) and 295 wounded, this attack has been termed as India's 911. Recent reports has it that the perpertrators had gone through extensive training and planning to exact maximum damage. It's simply unconceivable how people can do this to one another?

I'm truly horrified by the detailed accounts from the survivors and sad tales of the people who had perished in this tragedy. This terrorist attack has claimed the life of a Singaporean - Lo Hwei Yen and although I am not personally acquainted with her, would like to extend my condolences to the grieving family.

In sorrow, I reflect on wise words left behind by Mahatma Gandhi:

"When I despair, I remember that all through history the ways of truth and love has always won. There have been tyrants and murderers and for a time they seem invincible but in the end, they always fall - think of it, ALWAYS"

I'm sure that, like many others, I will not sleep well tonight.

Obama....Obama....And I'm not talking about the Japan city called Obama

Never have I seen the world so hyped up during the election of another country. (myself included). But I was really overjoyed when I heard that Obama had been elected over John McCain. In fact, there was a party held at the Brass Monkey pub (Taipei) which I was so attempted to go to - any excuse to PARRTTTYYY. Haha.

In my mind, it was extremely symbolic and as indicated in several of my earlier posts, I definitely feel that Obama possessed greater qualities and traits that would be expected of a president of one of the most powerful countries of the world. In this case, I would say that the better tag-team won! (I know quite a few people who voted AGAINST hockey mum). Obama also brings about the promise for a more stable world due to his aptitude of being much more culturally sensitive. Needless to say, like many others, I find the ethnocentric view (and starting to suspect war loving characteristics) of certain Americans really annoying. "If you are NOT with us, you are against us"

The American election this time round has also created alot of debate outside of America. People are starting to question the politics of their own country. I found it oddly interesting and slightly depressing when I realized that the excitement I feel for my own country's election paled in comparison. Why? I guess I'm tired of the bully tactics.

I found that I'm not alone....
http://theonlinecitizen.com/2008/11/awaiting-singapores-moment-of-change/#comment-30472

Very cool article.

http://singaporecitizen.wordpress.com/2008/11/06/the-contrast-between-singapore-and-americas-politicians

I respect John McCain alot more after I heard his speech. Almost brought a tear to my eye. Such class.....

Rant and Rave for the Day: Bush blames Dems for Oil Prices

In the Taipei Times today, "Bush blames Dems for Oil Prices".

According to US President George W. Bush on Saturday, he tried to pin the blame on Congress for soaring energy prices and said that lawmakers need to lift long-standing restrictions on drilling for oil in pristine lands and off-shore tracts believed to hold huge reserves of fuel. With gasoline prices rising, Bush and his republican allies think Americans are more willing to allow drilling offshore and in an Alaska wildlife refuge that environmetalists have fought successfully for decades to protect.

In response, the Democrats representative Chris Van Hollen said that democrats do indeed support the idea of increased drilling however he also pointed out the fact that oil companies are already sitting on 68 million acres of federal lands with the potential to double US oil production. So the question is....why explore new restricted areas (i.e. beaches, coastal areas and so on) where the companies can develop these resources today. He suggested a "Use it or Lose It" legislation requiring companies to do so or lose their leases to someone else who will.

In addition, the Democrats believe that due to the urgent shortage of oil, the time has come to tap on the nation's Strategic Petroleum Reserve. However, he also stressed that the country should also focus on new energy policies that focus on alternatives to oil.

Recently, whenever I read these articles, I find myself cursing silently at the current Bush administration. It doesn't really concern me directly and I am no American. Consider me a concerned citizen of the world or a KPO (busy body)....whatever, I don't care.

Before you get me wrong, I do believe that America has paved the way for many good things and there are a lot of areas that other countries and cultures will do good to learn from. That's just my personal opinion but then again I state, over the past few years under the helm of Bush, its jsut gone sooooooooo baddddd.

Most irritiating is Bush's statements (infamous soundbites) that really irks the hell out of me:
1) Their blatant refusal to commit to the Kyoto protocol such as :"This is the American position because its right for America. We will not do anything that harms our economy, because first things first are the people who live in America"
2) The address to joint session of congress and the American people on the war against terrorism: "Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists."
3) Recent comment with regards to oil prices: "Every extra dollar that American families spend because of high gas prices is one less dollar that they can use to put food on the table or send a child to college. The American people deserve better". (J: Yeah, and like the rest of the world don't?)

There is an article I would like to share regarding USA's position on the Kyoto Protocol in 2001 that I believe will not fail to get you riled up too. :P
http://www.vexen.co.uk/USA/pollution.html

Side note: If you have read my previous post regarding Nuclear Weapons, you would also recall USA non compliance with the First Pillar - Non Proliferation of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and their constant finger pointing at other nations.

The good news is during the recent G8 meeting, it appears that the powerful nations with particular reference to USA, have decided to commit to work harder in terms of controlling pollution but they did not commit a base year to their ambitious plans of a 50% reduction of greenhouse gases. While it remains to be seen if G8's action can be louder than words, I really cannot wait for someone less myopic to take over the USA reins. Yes, I've said it....myopic.

Bush will leave office next January, and both major candidates to succeed him have said they are willing to go further in cutting back American emissions. Goodbye Bush, as far as I'm concerned, the door is wide open for you and I doubt many people will be reaching for that Kleenex.

Woman silver medalist who may not be a woman ?!?

TOP Indian woman athlete Santhi Soundarajan , who took the silver in the women's 800m race at the Asian Games in Doha on Dec 9, failed a GENDER VERIFICATION TEST soon after the race and is likely to be stripped of her medals, reports from New Delhi said yesterday.

This is interesting. Read the article. Male or Female runner

Picture on the right, you judge for yourself.

By the way, she has passed gender verification test in other competitions before. Bizarre isn't it?!?

Conversations on the nuclear power topic

Today I had 3 short but interesting conversations regarding nuclear power. Let me see if I can share it appropriately here:

[FF] : Jme, so are you FOR or AGAINST nuclear power?
*FF is reacting to my MSN statement*
[Jme]: You mean nuclear weapons? Definitely AGAINST.
[FF]: Me too! But for nuclear power, it seems that at this point in time, it is the most viable energy souce.
[Jme]: Agree.
(which is quite sad because it seems that if we use nuclear power, it is hard to control nations NOT to have nuclear weapons - refer to pillar 3 arguement)

I shared this conversation with K.Ling and she asked me some interesting questions:

[K.Ling]: Why do you think nuclear power is the only viable energy source?
[Jme]: Because we will eventually run out of fossil fuels (coal, gas and oil) AND renewable energy like solar,hydraulic, wind power is neither stable nor adequate to meet the world's demand on electricity. At this point in time, nuclear power is the only stable source.
(My brother later shared with me a new method using hydrogen - water and a new type of car that is powered by this new method)

[K.Ling]: Nuclear power is stable?
[Jme]: At least it can be controlled by man. Renewable energy depends on nature and there is just so many dams you can build for hydraulic power.
(My brother commented that there has been no known nuclear power plant problem at least for the past 10 years)

[K.Ling]: Which countries do you think can be trusted with nuclear power?
[Jme]: ERm....tough question. At the top of my head, I think only a few countries per region require to have nuclear power plants and maybe they can provide this to the surrounding countries??

[K.Ling]: Hmm...these countries will become very powerful.
[Jme]: Yes, I think so. But it is the same situation we have now. Some countries have oil, some countries don't. Therefore some countries are richer than others.

I thought about this more and then I added the following -
[Jme]: Hmm...there should be more than one solution. For instance:-
a) Countries that cannot afford to build nuclear power plant can invest in research to determine how to make renewable energy sources more stable. If they have natural resources like rivers/land, they can become self-sufficient.
b) Countries that can afford to build nuclear power plant but do not have the land to do it can buy electricity from their neighbours. (Like Singapore - but these countries then need to provide services in other ways.)
c) Countries that can afford to build nuclear power plant and have the land to do it can then sell their services to other countries.
d) Countries that do not have money to build or purchase on their own can group together to share.

Anyway, I also read somewhere that some places in Nigeria do not have stable electricity supply at this point in time.

The interviewer asked the Nigerian:" When do you think you will be able to get stable electricity supply" and the Nigerian's reply was:" 2056".

The interviewer laughed and said: "Wow! You are a very patient man to be willing to wait half a century for stable electricity!!!" The Nigerian good-humouredly replied:" I may not be alive when this part of Nigeria gets stable electricity, but so far, we can make do with what we have"

Conclusion: Maybe, we can get use to life using less electricity and yet be happy? Or maybe, we can trade away our lives in this nuclear power gamble.

P/s: If you have any thoughts on this matter, please do write to me and share.

Nuclear Weapons...who should have them?

Anyone reading the newspaper, listening to the radio or watching television will know that one of the hottest discussion topics in the world today is North Korea becoming a nuclear power after their (supposedly) partially-successful nuclear detonation experiment held on October 9 2006. The world went into shock because of the unspoken consequences (horrors!!!) that this Stalinist country could unleash with their new-found power. Countries, especially USA, were quick to condemn this improvised country.

In my mind, my first reaction was fear and I thought to myself:"Damn the North Koreans! Their people are living in poverty, half starving and yet the government spend their money investing in nuclear weapons. Pyongyang is reputed to have few lights on at night because they do not have enough power for electricity. So minimally, I thought, if North Korea had nuclear knowledge then I would think that their priority would be to use it for some good such as generate electricity for their people and not for mass destruction weapons. So..what kind of half-baked logic is that? Damn Kim Jong II, this stupid mad man."

Everyone still remembers the mass destruction in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Towards the end of world war II, in 1945, USA dropped two bombs comically called "Little Boy" (uranium) and "Fat Man" (plutonium) on Hiroshima and Nagasaki respectively. Sure, there are arguements that this action resulted in a quick end to the war. Yet, no one can deny that these weapons resulted in immediate deaths of 100,000-200,000 and more over the years. The radioactive "harm" that lingered through the years created many genetically deformed people in those 2 islands. In addition, who can forget the disasters during the failure of the 2 nuclear power plants now known as the Three Mile Island (1970s) accident and 1986 disaster at Chernobyl.

Remembering these "well-loved" moments, countries around the world including N.Korea's well-known ally, China, signed an agreement to implement trade sanctions on North Korea until North Korea will come to the table for talks on disarmament. No one could trust them to hold onto this power.

And then the story unfolds and the hyprocrisy surfaces. The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (signed in 1968 with a participant of 188 soverign states - out of which Malaysia and Singapore are one of them :)) can be summarized in 3 pillars.

First Pillar - Non proliferation
5 states are permitted to own nuclear weapons: France, Russia, China, USA and United Kingdom. (Reason being at the time when the treaty was signed, these countries already possessed these weapons, I believe). The first pillar basically indicates that these 5 states will not transfer nuclear weapon technology to other states while other non-Nuclear Weapon states (WPS) will not seek to develop or acquire these nuclear weapons.

However, many people argue that USA does not abide by this guideline because it is sharing its technology with NATO states. For more information, please refer to Wikipedia - First Pillar

Second Pillar - Disarmament
The second pillar basically states that the 5 WPS will pursue plans for eventual disarmament.

However, in reality, over the past 3 decades, disarmament plans have been rejected by the 5 states for one reason or another.

This I believe has caused many non-WPS to become disillusioned and start to withdraw from the treaty and seek ways to arm themselves. Case in point: North Korea.

Third Pillar - Right to peacefully use nuclear technology
Obviously, due to the relunctance to abandon nuclear alternatives, a way must be decided to allow nuclear power to be harnessed and used for the good of man. And this includes generation of heat, electricity and others.

However in reality, it is only one small step for moving from nuclear technology for constructive purposes to generating weapons. USA has constantly criticised Iran for developing nuclear weapons under the pretense of using nuclear power to generate electricity.

I am by no means an expert on this topic but I do know that I hear the common people on the street comment that the easiest solution for the nuclear problem is for everyone to disarm (including India and Pakistan who have nuclear weapons althought they are not permitted to have). This will give NO further excuses for other nations to arm themselves.

Note: In North Korea's case, they were actually a signatory to the Treaty for Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons up to Year 2003 when they made a withdrawal. Reason at that time: North Korea felt that USA was becoming a threat to them.

Ultimately, I still condemn the fact that North Korea has nuclear weapons and are continuing to strive to perfect their technology. At the same time, they are constantly using this as a threat for the world to back off.

Yes, I do NOT think that weapons in the hands of HALF CRAZED man allow me to sleep easy at night. Yet, I would also like to highlight the hyprocrisy that I see with these so-called established countries (WPS) refusing to disarm and also pointing the finger at North Korea.

My view is that everyone will become a mad man when they become the ultimate power..........Even more so, who can bear the consequence if this technology lands in the wrong hands such as insane religious fanatics or extremist (-we won't say who-) and then used for terrorist means.

Nations need to make a stand to disarm so that the world can be a safer place to live in. We need someone to make the first step and then, we won't have to answer the question: Nuclear Weapons.....who should have them?

Love or hate the veil....

I was driving home and listening to the BBC on the radio when a particular segment caught my attention.

The topic was on a Muslim teacher in England who was asked to remove her veil because her students could not hear her clearly. She refused and was later suspended. She is currently pending the decision of an employment tribunal. Please read: BBC news

Living in a multi-cultural society, I am surrounded by people from all walks of life with different religious beliefs. I've worked closely with many Muslim colleagues who later became good friends. For me, religion was never a barrier. In fact, most of my colleagues, especially in Malaysia, wear the Tudong - head scarf but they do not cover their faces. I think it is a personal choice that they want to cover their head, religious reason or not, and really it makes no difference to me.

Due to the actions of certain Islamic extremist, Islam has become the focus over past few years. Because many people do not understand the religion, they tend to fear it. Now, all sort of ridiculous things have been raised such as the banning of Muslim woman wearing the tudong. I think it is a matter of HUMAN RIGHT on what people choose to wear, as long as it doesn't affect (harm) another person, why do you want to force your will on others? It is the same thing as freedom of speech. Sure, we can have freedom of speech....IF freedom of speech is practiced in a responsible manner. Its that fine line...but its there.

However, with regards to this particular issue, my personal opinion on this particular matter is a totally different matter due to the following reasons:

1) The Quran says “And tell the believing women to lower their gazes and be modest, and to display of their adornments only that which is apparent, and to draw their veils over their bosoms.”(24:31)

In this verse it is clearly mentioned that sex parts must not be exposed and must be covered. “Adornment which is apparent” alludes to the common body parts between male and female sexes. The face, hands and feet are common parts and are exposed without any indecency or immodesty.

Quoted from: Article by Prof. Maqsood Jafri

Based on what I understand above, covering the face is not compulsory. Isn't it?

2) Has anybody heard about "In rome, do as the roman does."? If foreigners/tourist who visit countries like Saudi Arabia, are REQUIRED to put on a veil when they go onto the streets such that the hotel provides these garments for them and they put it on, out of respect for your culture, what is the difference between that and the situation where if you are in UK, and it is courtesy to take out your cap or sunglasses when u are talking to others so that they can see your facial expression clearly. Why can't the Muslim woman who wear veils over their face respect that?

3) I think Ms Azmi's arguements about wearing the veil during class is a little weak. I think that communication is always best when you are face to face. Everyone knows the difference between having a conversation over the phone and face-to-face in which you can see the other person's facial expression. The entire point of face-to-face is so that you don't have to guess the other person, it is normally written all over the face.

Ms Azmi is in a teaching profession and it is her responsiblity to let her students understand her clearly and to minimize all probability where her students are guessing her intentions. When I read that she expected her students to understand her clearly with a piece of cloth over her mouth, her body expression under all that garments AND her eye expression, I really laughed. I was immediately picturing myself *with the mentality I had as a young student* sitting at the back of the classroom STRAINING my eyes to see my teacher's eye expression. HAHAHAHHAHAHAHA.
----------------------------------Leaving nothing to the imagination -------------------
Look, Ms Azmi, I know you are a modest woman, following strictly what you think your religion expects you to do but please.....perhaps you should consider changing your profession. Isn't the purpose of wearing the veil to minimize lust in the male counterparts? The people in your class are STUDENTS! YOUNG CHILDREN!

I'm rather sceptical about MAN being unable to control themselves because they can see your face but hey...if that is your religion, I'll keep my big mouth SHUT. But to be honest, I would PREFER to talk to someone who is not covering her face because the idea of talking to someone whom I don't know under a veil really scares me and makes me very uncomfortable.

Just my 2 cents worth on this matter. I apologize if I have offended anyone but this is just my personal opinion with regards to this matter. And for the record, I'm not anti Islam and I have great respect for the religion. For more interesting opinions, please read: Forum on the veil topic by BBC