Showing posts with label Opinion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Opinion. Show all posts

Saturday, March 7, 2009

Was Kugan really a Suspected Car Thief...??

By YennaMike
Image Source : M'Kini


Reading the article about Kugan’s post mortem report both from MalaysiaKini and The Star news paper it makes me to ponder – with all these cover ups by our Police Department and Pathologists both under oath to serve public and uphold the law....was Kugan really a Suspected Car thief. ..!!. If a suspected car thief had to go through such severe punishment why wasn’t Abdul Razak Baginda and co. (suspected murderers of Altantuya)wasn’t given a similar treatment to spell out the truth. How about Mat Rempits, you don’t hear them getting arrested and beaten to death but instead public are the ones getting beaten by these Mat Rempits.

The World is already laughing at Malaysia by the way Altantuya’s case was handled not to mention the recent revelations by Arnaud Dubus in The French Liberation newspaper. Our Perak crisis which seems to have lots of imbalance by the way things are being conduct and don’t forget another controversial “correct....correct...correct...” case i.e. our own judiciary manipulation crisis – the Lingam’s Case.

I really feel sorry for Kugan’s family for being put to the test by all these accusations and ongoing legal battle. Her son might have been labelled as “suspected car thief”, but i’m proud that she is fighting for her son’s justice...again was Kugan really a Suspected Car Thief or is this another cover up by our Police Department to hide the truth...??

Friday, June 13, 2008

Tips on Filling Up Your Vehicles...

Source : Via Email




Click to Enlarge the Image

Thursday, June 12, 2008

WHAT IS NEVER MENTIONED IN Mainstream Media like NST, TheStar, Utusan, BH are these facts…

Via : Malaysian Voice blog...
Image : Via Makkal Sakti




YennaMike Says : I do agree with what the person have to say on his write up below an average British earns around GBP 2,000 a month = MYR 12,600, Hong Kong HKD 15,000 = MYR 6,300, Macau MOP 20,000 = MYR 8,200 and Malaysian MYR 1,500 = MYR 1,500 - now you do the maths...

Malaysian Per Capita Income USD 5000 VS Singaporean Per Capita Income USD 25000

Further The Star made a comparison of prices in Thailand , Singapore and Indonesia.

For Thailand it is quoted at RM3.90/liter, however are they aware that in Thailand new cars are cheaper than Malaysia by RM10,000? They pay only one life time for their driving license? No renewal fee after that? Also that goes for road tax as well? And do TheStar also aware that you can drive all the way from Hadtyai to
Bangkok on a six lane highway without paying any Tolls ??!!

Whereas here in Malaysia you have to pay yearly renewal for road tax , driving license and TOLLS, TOLLS, TOLLS!!!

For Singapore how can you quote RM 5.20 ? Please quote in Singapore Dollars because they are earning in Sing Dollars. You might as well say Europeans are paying RM10/liter. RM5.20/liter = Sing $ 2.20/liter, still cheaper than Malaysia in view of fact that Singapore is not a crude oil exporter. Are you saying that
you fill up petrol in Singapore by paying Ringgit?

In economy, dollar to dollar must be compared as apple to apple. Not comparing like durian in M'sia is much cheaper than durian in Japan!! Of course-lah, Japan is not durian producer!!! Comparing Malaysian durian with Thailand durian make more sense!!

For Indonesia we might say is cheaper there at RM2.07/liter but compare that to their level of income! Now, let us compare the price with OIL PRODUCING countries:

UAE – RM1.19/litre
Eygpt – RM1.03/litre
Bahrain – RM0.87/litre
Qatar – RM0.68/litre
Kuwait – RM0.67/litre
Saudi Arabia – RM0.38/litre
Iran – RM0.35/litre
Nigeria – RM0.32/litre
Turkmenistan – RM0.25/litre
Venezuela – RM0.16/litre
MALAYSIA – RM2.70/litre

RM 2.70!!! Individual perspective:

As of last month a Toyota Vios would 'cause a damage' of about RM 89,000. In the international market, a Toyota Vios is about USD 19,000 USD 19,000 = RM 62,700 (using the indicative rates of USD 1 = RM 3.30). That makes Malaysian Vios owners pay an extra RM 26,300.

This RM 26,300 should be cost of operations, profit and tax because the transportation costs have been factored in to the USD 19,000.

RM 26,300/ RM625 petrol rebate per year translates to a Vios being used for 42.08 years.

I do understand that the RM 625 is a rebate given by the government, but it also means that one has to use the Vios for 42.08 years just to make back the amount paid in taxes for the usage of a foreign car. Would anyone use any kind of car for that long?

Now with these numbers in front of us, does the subsidy sound like a subsidy or does it sound like a penalty? This just seems to be a heavy increment in our daily cost of living as we are not only charged with high car taxes but also with a drastic increase in fuel price.

With all the numbers listed out, I urge all Malaysians to join me in analyzing the situation further.

Car taxation is government profit, fuel sales is Petronas' (GLC) profit which also translates into government profit. The government may ridicule us Malaysians by saying look at the world market and fuel price world wide. Please, we are Malaysians, we fought of the British, had a international port in the early centuries (Malacca), home to a racially mixed nation and WE ARE NOT STUPID!!!

We know the international rates are above the USD 130/barrel. We understand the fact that the fuel prices are increasing worldwide and we also know that major scientist are still contradicting on why this phenomenon is happening. Some blame Bush and his plunders around the world and some blame climate change and there are others which say petroleum 'wells' are getting scarce.

Again we go back to numbers to be more straight fwd

1 barrel = 159 liters x RM2.70/liter = RM 429 or USD 134

On 1 hand, we are paying the full cost of 1 barrel of crude oil with RM2.70 per liter but on the other hand the crude oil only produces 46% of fuel.

Msia sells crude oil per barrel at USD130 buys back Fuel per barrel at USD134. And not forgetting, every barrel of fuel is produced with 2 barrels of crude oil.

1 barrel crude oil = produce 46% fuel (or half of crude oil), therefore 2 barrel crude oil = approximately 1 barrel fuel In other words, each time we sell 2 barrels of crude oil, equivalently we will buy back 1 barrel of fuel.

Financially;

Malaysia sell 2 barrel crude oil @ USD 130/barrel = USD 260 = RM 858 then, Malaysia will buy back fuel @ USD 134/barrel = RM 442/barrel. Thus, Malaysia earn net extra USD 126 = RM 416 for each 2 barrel of crude
sold/exported vs imported 1 barrel of fuel !!!

(USD 260-134 = USD 126 = RM416)

So where this extra USD 126/barrel income is channeled to by Malaysian Govt?

Another analysis:

1 barrel crude oil = 159 liters.

46-47% of a barrel of crude oil = fuel that we use in our vehicles.
46% of 159 = 73.14 liters.

@ RM 2.70/liter x 73.14 liter = RM197.48 of fuel per barrel of crude oil. This is only 46% of the barrel, mind you. Using RM 3.30 = USD 1, we get that a barrel of crude oil produces USD 59.84 worth of petrol fuel (46% of 1barrel). USD 59.84 of USD 130/barrel turns out to be 46% of a barrel as well.

Another 54% = bitumen, kerosene, and natural gases and so many more. And this makes a balance of USD 70.16 that has not been accounted for.

So this is where I got curious. Where is the subsidy if we are paying 46% of the price of a barrel of crude oil when the production of petrol/barrel of crude oil is still only 46%?

In actual fact, we still pay for this as they are charged in the forms of fuel surcharge by airlines and road taxes for the building of road (because they use the tar/bitumen) and many more excuse charging us but let us just leave all that out of our calculations.

As far as I know, only the politicians who live in Putrajaya and come for their Parliament meetings in Kuala Lumpur (approximately 60+ km) are the ones to gain as they claim their fuel and toll charges from the money of the RAKYAT's TAX.

It is so disappointing to see this happen time and time again to the Malaysian public, where they are deceived by the propaganda held by the politicians and the controls they have over the press.

Which stupid idiot economist equates rebates for rich or poor with the cc of the vehicles? An average office clerk may own a second hand 1300cc proton Iswara costing $7,000 (rebate = $625) while the Datuk's children can own a fleet of 10 new cars of BMW, Audi and Volvo all less than 2000cc costing $2 millions and get a total rebate of $625 x 10 = $6,250! Wow what kind of economists we are keeping in Malaysia…wonder which phD certificate that they bought from…

Misleading concept of Subsidy:

The word "subsidy" has been brandished by the BN government as if it has so generously helped the rakyat and in doing so incurred losses. This simple example will help to explain the fallacy:

Example:

Ahmad is a fisherman. He sells a fish to you at $10 which is below the market value of $15. Let's assume that he caught the fish from the abundance of the sea at little or no cost. Ahmad claims that since the market value of the fish is $15 and he sold you the fish for $10, he had subsidised you $5 and therefore made a loss of $5.

Question :

Did Ahmad actually make a profit of $10 or loss of $5 which he claimed is the subsidy?

Answer:

Ahmad makes a profit of $10 which is the difference of the selling price ($10) minus the cost price ($0 since the fish was caught from the abundance of the sea). There is no subsidy as claimed by Ahmad.

The BN government claims that it is a subsidy because the oil is kept and treated as somebody else's property (you know who). By right, the oil belongs to all citizens of the country and the government is a trustee for the citizens. So as in the above simple example, the BN government cannot claim that it has subsidised the citizen!

Friday, May 16, 2008

Time for the daring questions

Source : M'Kini

With stakes reaching above the moon, Umno is now looking like an upside-down circus, with the weakest man on top and the strongest apparently cowed into submission - and seen as vulnerable as he is forced down the crest of popular accusations linked to an on-going murder trial.

In the run-up to the party supreme council election scheduled for December, some veterans are screaming over unfair and undemocratic practices of the party president and his clique.

Bent on scuttling challengers, Pak Lah has once again been abusing democratic rights in Umno as he did in 2004.

Former party president and premier Dr Mahathir Mohamad, who is hoping for the Number Two to go for Number One in December, said his “cowardly” protégé and candidate for the top post in Umno had told him he had to have the president’s permission in order to meet with him (Mahathir).

Mahathir, who dubbed the deputy prime minister a coward during a recent talk to Malaysian students in Manchester, is now making the man look like a schoolboy of 10 who is afraid to play truant and meet his former boss to discuss why the party had lost as badly as it did in the March 8 general election.

The ruling coalition, Barisan Nasional, lost five states and for the first time in history, was denied a two-third majority in Parliament. It has made the prime minister a lame duck and his authority has been defied by several Malay rulers who refused to accept his candidates for menteri besar.

Pak Lah, is refusing to step down and instead is said to be using his regime-support apparatus to deny his challengers constitutional rights and due democratic process.

It’s a repeat performance many find intolerable, the first being the siege of Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah that he had applied in 2004. It left the prince with a single nomination in his attempt to contest for Umno president.

Party divisions were ordered to deny him the 60 nominations he needed to qualify. He obtained only one nomination, from his own division of Gua Musang.

As Tengku Razaleigh riled about the plot mounted to ruin his bid in his second attempt to contest for president, Mahathir publicly rued the deputy president’s apparent disability, asking what kind of a political party Umno has become under Pak Lah.

In these circumstances, the name calling and the diminution of the Number Two left in its wake a remarkable turn of events that finally thundered with Raja Petra Kamaruddin’s article in his blog, Malaysia Today.

Abusive agencies

Even as Mahathir wonders out loud what kind of party Umno has become under his successor, observers are quick to ask why he had enhanced the set of regime-supportive apparatus that made it possible for the party president to preside as a dictator.

Mahathir may not have set up most of the quasi-political agencies that had made Umno a rather muscular giant. But he strengthened them, ostensibly in an attempt to “institutionalise Umno”.

The Biro Tatanegara in the Prime Minister’s Department is one of several agencies responsible directly to the prime minister and empowered to intercept, and has been intercepting, the democratic political processes.

It began employing ex-commandos during Mahathir’s premiership and has been alleged to have been using intimidation and coercion with impunity to keep party members subdued and the opposition endlessly harassed.

With power and substantial funds, these agencies promptly became abusive.

Seranta, another quasi-political agency set up during Mahathir’s regime, sent more than 3,000 members to stay for months within the small state constituency of Kuala Nerang in Terengganu, to appeal for votes and ensure victory in the PAS territory in the early 1990s.

Discipline could hardly be sustained among the participants and several of the young women became pregnant while villagers complained of the men troubling village girls. Maybe the idea was to quickly increase the number of voters.

Trouble in these agencies has brewed from the early days. In the 1980s when Sanusi Junid was secretary-general of Umno, he loudly proclaimed his disgust when he was given a set of ‘blue’ videos made by and which featured members of Kemas, yet another quasi-political agency.

The videos were made for sale, leaving Sanusi aghast and spoilt for a decision whether or not to lodge a police report against the instant film-stars and film-producers.

Many who had asked before about the kind of a political party Umno was, were left unheard.

elonging to the politically favoured agencies, however, must have made these vivaciously talented people highly influential in the party, for very conceivable reasons.

Pak Lah, it is alleged widely, has been excessively using these agencies along with the police. Even many senior journalists were debarred from the mainstream media ever since he became PM, a reason why they became effective bloggers.

Abuses like these had obviously been one of the major causes for the massive rejection of the ruling party by members of Umno, a factor that will surely be carried through to the next general election and will ensure the end of Umno’s unbroken rule since 1955.

These abuses were etched in blood when members of the police special squad attached to the defence minister and deputy premier Najib Abdul Razak have been charged with the murder of Altantuya Shaaribuu, who worked as translator for his political strategist Abdul Razak Baginda.

[Najib has denied any involvement in the case.]

How we protect ourselves from such powers of the regime’s special apparatus, therefore, becomes the biggest question for the nation, daring each and everyone to ask the questions Raja Petra voiced on our behalf.

Is it then time to call an end to Umno and for the members to seek other and more realistic means for regime change rather than continue to wail like beaten banshees over ruined chances to democratically contest in the party?

It is also pertinent to ask if it is at all useful for Tengku Razaleigh to keep trying to breach the siege in Umno.

Or, would he serve the nation better should he call it a day and join Anwar Ibrahim in PKR as a faction, or revive his old vehicle, Semangat 46?

Monday, May 12, 2008

Time for Khalid Ibrahim to go...??

Source : Via M'Kini a write up by Richard Teo


I refer to the Malaysiakini report Barricade row: Pakatan state gov't 'weak'

Ever since the beginning when Pakatan Rakyat under Khalid Ibrahim took over the reins of the Selangor government, there was already signs of a weak government.

Events until now have not dispelled those lingering doubts. Immediately after taking control of the government, there was strong compelling evidence that the previous administration was shredding important state documents which could have incriminated their administration and yet Khalid chose to ignore them with a nonchalant attitude as if it was of little importance.

That single act of omission has virtually deprived the rakyat of the opportunity to punish those perpetrators of their crime for which they were so eager to conceal and destroy.

When Penang's chief minister announced their intention to abolish the NEP and replace it with one that is more equitable there was a deafening silence from the Selangor state government.

Either Khalid didn’t hear the announcement or he had totally forgotten about the Pakatan's manifesto.

Khalid's reluctance to prosecute those Umno leaders responsible for shredding those state documents is understandable. After all, he was once a blue-eyed boy of Umno who so happened to lose their favour sometime ago.

Fortune has been kind to him and now that he is in the driver's seat, he is slowly remembering his old Umno roots.

As long as Selangor continues to be under the helm of Khalid, there will be little change from its previous Umno predeccessor. After all both Khalid and Mohd Khir Toyo came from the same Umno origin.

In the case of the Bandar Makhota Cheras barricade, the whole matter could have been expeditiously resolved if there was strong leadership.

Land in the state comes under state jurisdiction and if the incumbent government cannot even settle what is within their purview then Pakatan Rakyat is heading for a very short term.

Five years in politics is a very short time. If the Pakatan cannot reform the state governments like it promised, then maybe the rakyat will have to look for an alternative government.

Thursday, May 8, 2008

Parameswara didn't convert, Hang Tuah not Chinese

Via M'Kini by Donplaypuks | May 7, 08 4:11pm

I refer to the letter Don't butcher history to create your own 'truths'.

‘Truth Seeker’ perpetuates a number of common errors regarding Parameswara and other matters. Historical records referring to Parameswara are attributable to 3 sources:

1. The Portuguese Gordinho D'Eredia, son of a Portuguese mariner and a Melakan lady from Macassar, referred (circa 1600) in his writings to a Melakan ruler called 'Permicuri.' Not much more information emerged from this source. The Sejarah Melayu for example, makes no mention of a Parameswara at all.

2. The Portuguese mariner Tom Pires who lived in Melaka, referred to a ‘Xaquem Darxa’ and a ‘Modafarxa’ in his 1513 Suma Oriental.

3. The Chinese Ming Dynasty (1368-1644) archives have records of the visit to Nanking of the envoys and rulers of Melaka. These were:

(a) Pai-li-mi-su-la in 1405

(b) his son Mu-kan-sa-yu-ti-er-sha in 1414 and

(c) his grandson Hsi-li-ma-ha-la-che in 1424

These visits to China and the court of Emperor Yung-Lo were to pay tributes to China and seek protection for Melaka against Thai and Indonesian invaders. The three above have been interpreted respectively as:

(a) Parameswara

(b) Megat Iskandar Shah

(c) Sri Maharaja

The two visits to China in 1414 and 1424 were also to report the deaths of Parameswara and Megat Iskandar Shah respectively, and to re-affirm the close relationship between China and Melaka. All three Rulers of Melaka and their envoys made their respective journeys to China in one of Admiral Zheng He's (Cheng Ho) several fleet-ships.

It is clear from these records that Parameswara never converted to Islam. He was an Indian Hindu or an Indian/Malay/Aboriginal Malay mixed Hindu who fled Palembang in Sumatra to eventually found Melaka circa 1400 AD.

It was Sri Maharaja who converted himself and the court of Melaka to Islam, and as a result took on the name of Sultan Muhammad Shah (possibly the ‘Modarfaxa’ of Tom Pires) sometime after 1435.

Megat Iskandar Shah was thought to have changed his name after marriage to a Pasai princess, the name ‘Megat’ signifying a marriage between a commoner and one of royal stature. But his conversion to Islam is in doubt, given that his son was named Sri Maharaja and therefore, the possibility of another non-Malay wife emerges.

These details of Parameswara and the succession to the Melakan throne were resolved definitively by our own Professor Wang Gungwu in his paper ‘The First Three Rulers of Melaka’ published in 1968. This is the basis on which current school history text-books are constructed vis-B-vis the Melaka Sultanate.

With regard to Raja Chula, we can take a more definitive stance, ie, that without a shadow of a doubt, this is a reference to Raja Chulan/Cholan of the Chola Dynasty (7-13 century AD) of South India. The most famous of these Indian Hindu Kings were Rajaraja Chola and his son Rajendra Chola who invaded Southern Thailand, Kedah, Perak, Johor and Sumatra about 1000 AD.

With regard to the legend of Hang Tuah and questions about his origin/ancestry, I believe that many have been misled that Tuah and his musketeers were of Chinese descent. That it was verified by DNA tests. Such a claim can be found on the Internet and refer to a source, viz., The Federal Association of Archaeology and Research of Michigan, USA.

This is a spurious claim and the association referred to, in fact, does not exist.
There is also a hypothesis that ‘Hang’ is associated with the Chinese Princess Hang Li Po from China who married Sultan Mansur Shah of Melaka in 1459. But there is nothing offered by way of tangible proof/evidence by those who espouse this line of thinking. What is true though, is that, Hang Tuah is dismissed in a single line in school history text-books. The Education Ministry will have to answer this mystery.

But what is really sad is that our children are taught as though Malaysian history suddenly began in 1400 with an Islamic Melaka. The cultural influences of India in particular, and China, in South East Asia span over 2,000 years, starting perhaps with the arrival from India of the Brahmanical prince/scholar Aji Saka in Java in AD78, through to Vietnam, Cambodia (Indo China), Thailand, Burma, Indonesia, Bali, Borneo, Brunei and beyond.

We are led to believe that the Indians and Chinese first arrived on the shores of Malaysia in about 1850 as desperate indentured labourers, farmers and miners.

Nothing could be further from the truth. The findings at Bujang Valley speak of an ancient Indian/Hindu presence in Kedah. There were Chinese settlements in Pahang and Kelantan around the 13th -14th century and in 12th century in Singapore. The early Brunei Sultanate had a Chinese Queen. One need not ponder at length the implications of Angkor Wat and Borobudur or that 40%-50% of Bahasa Malaysia comprises Sanskrit/Tamil words.

The time has arrived for us to record our history as the facts tell us and not as we would like to wish it for. The truth will never hurt anyone. Lies, always will.

Tuesday, April 8, 2008

Hindraf 5 are not 'a national threat'

A Letter from Santha via M'Kini


I refer to the Malaysiakini report AG: PM did not act in 'cavalier fashion' against Hindraf 5..

So what is the purported crime of the Hindraf 5? Both the Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi (the then Internal Security Minister) who signed the detention order and the AG Abdul Ghani Patail state that thorough police investigations have deemed them as a ‘threat to national security’.

At the Federal Court, Abdul Ghani Patail argued that the PM had gone through the detailed facts raised during police investigations and that these include the claims,

1. that the appellants had through their past activities raised racial sentiments,

2. had hatred for the government and that;

3. they had links with terrorist organisations such as Sri Lanka’s Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE).

Mr AG if you have ‘detailed facts’ be out with them. The people are fully aware of the movements of the five detainees and their activities. They have been transparent and accountable. There are no secrets involved here unlike the practice of the government and its bodies. What is holding you back? Show us evidence or perhaps there is none or not enough to invoke the ISA.

Is this why there is a constant need to remind the public that the internal security minister has the ‘unfettered discretion’ to issue the detention orders? Mind you, ‘unfettered discretion’ comes with conditions. Further you state that the investigations ‘include the claims’. Claims are not sufficient in matters of national security as opposed to clear cut evidence.

I wish now to inform the PM, the AG, and the entire government that the appellants did not through their activities raise racial sentiments. Rather, racial sentiments were activated the moment the government and the Islamic religious bodies started practicing religious extremism.

M Moorthy was buried a Muslim although he had died a practicing Hindu. This was followed by other ‘body snatching’ cases and conversion matters such as the cases of Lina Joy and M Revathi.

Sentiments that you speak of came about when the government, its bodies, authorities and agents lowered the axe on our sacred statues of Lord Siva , Lord Ganesha and many others, demolishing ruthlessly our temples. Our hearts bled from that day onwards.

Sentiments and more sentiments when you confiscated Christian bibles, preached and practiced Muslim religion to non-Muslim students at schools, when you humiliated non-Muslim students for their believes.

More sentiments when the government turned a blind eye towards equality and equal opportunities for all. More such sentiments amongst the poor, oppressed, marginalised and discriminated came into the picture the moment the government:

- practiced racist policies and schemes such as the NEP.

- curtailed the people’s constitutional right to assemble and to freedom of speech, media and religion

- amended the constitution innumerable times over the past 50 years .Amendments that made this country an Islamic nation erasing the secular state.

- did not take seriously the issues of corruption, a scandalous judiciary and a dishonest and inefficient police force.

- did not take seriously when ministers and their ministries refused to be transparent and accountable in their dealings and;

- refused to take action when ministers openly uttered racist, violent and insulting remarks.

So it would only be rightful to say that in all issues of arousing racial sentiment, the government was the one that made the first move. They are the true perpetrators. The prison in Kamunting should have been filled up with these people who committed the crimes of racial tension and anger. They are the ones who are the ‘threat to national security’.

As to the connection with terrorists such as LTTE, we now challenge you to show us a drop of evidence - we know there is none. The United Kingdom would not accommodate P Waytha Moorthy had there been such links, for they, too, take matters very seriously when it comes to terrorism.

So Mr Prime Minister, with all due respect, the people have lost faith and trust in your government. With the newly formed Pakatan Rakyat in five state governments, already a lot of filth is coming out (it’s only the beginning) about the way this country has been running under your governance and the previous PM. It is unbelievable how things got so out of hand and even more how we allowed these sorts of practices all these years. Because of Hindraf 5 and all the others who fought for justice, Malaysians today have a chance of seeing true democracy.

The accusation of racial sentiments and ‘creating hatred’ towards the government was self-inflicted. The Hindraf 5 are not the cause. Shed your arrogance and listen to what the the people of this nation, its civil society, the NGOs, the political parties and international bodies have to say on this matter and do the right thing - release the Hindraf 5 for they are not extremist or fanatics but true to their profession, only upholding peace and justice. At the same time, get yourself and your government some respect.

The Power of Choice

By : Yoga Nesadurai via M'Kini

There are many management theories in the market place to help organisations and individuals improve. Some of these are new, others are old theories dressed up as new and some others are words of wisdom from experts.

I would like to introduce a fundamental theory that is very powerful and easy to apply but often overlooked. I am talking about 'choice'.

Webster defines choice as, ‘a selection, an alternative, the right or power to choose’.

It comes down to a very simple step - to act or not to act on the choice. It represents a verb, an action, thereby giving the chooser the power to choose from a selection or if just two, an alternative. What it ultimately points to is that the power is with you.

To make a choice, we need options. There are times when we have no options and therefore the choice is automatic. But in most cases we do have options available to us and I want to work through the deduction process here.

Options are derived based on a stimulus. A stimulus is a trigger in the form of information or an event that requires action from us. Stimuli present themselves to us every day; and very quickly and sometimes automatically we know the options available to us based on the stimulus. From here we make our choice.

I was at a mall recently. Having parked my car, I walked towards the lift. To get to the lift required me to open a set of doors to the waiting area. As I opened the door, I realised that a lady was walking some distance behind. I knew that within four steps she would be at the door too. I proceeded to wait with the door opened for her. I saw a little startled face looking back at me.

She said “Thank you, not many people bother these days.”

I responded by saying ”You are welcome. You were not too far away, so I thought I would wait for you.”.

She then said, “Most of the time I have the total opposite experience.”

I had a couple of options - to hold the door open or to let it shut behind me. I had the power of choice and I chose to act on it. The result - a small action on my part – had a huge impact on the recipient.

This simple example is applicable to any situation. How many such incidents have we let pass in our organisations that led to revenue floating out the door? I see it all the time in the service industry because a staff member did not exercise his/her choice with regard to helping a customer, colleague, manager or department.

Evaluating options

Now that we have deduced options, what does evaluating our options involve? :

In the case of the lady at the car park, it seemed like pure common sense to treat her as a fellow human being and hold the door open for her. This required me giving her the respect that I wanted bestowed upon me.

It requires courage and commitment to act on your choice. This is the ‘locking in’ step in the ‘power of choice’ process.

There have been many instances where I have held the door open for others and not received any form of gratitude, let alone acknowledgement of the act. Sometimes the indifference of the offer is shown prior to the other person getting to the door.

This is where courage comes in. No matter what the response, I still hold on to my original intent or choice - the courage to stand by my offering and the commitment to follow through with action.

Information or an event is the stimulus that makes us take action. There are various stimuli that present themselves everyday to us. Between the stimulus and our response, lies choice!.

Attitude is our ‘way of being’ or ‘steady state’. Generally, we are all aware of our general attitude towards people and situations. Sometimes due to circumstances, like having a bad day, our attitude could vary from its natural ‘steady state’.

Where information is the stimulus that helps us derive our options, attitude is the component that helps us make the choice from our options. Attitude is therefore an important ingredient in the choices we make. It has a huge impact in making our choice and its consequences.

Making great choices

We have all made unwise choices at some point in our lives. It is sometimes inevitable, sometimes intentional, sometimes regrettable and sometimes transformational.

Inevitable choices are where the alternative is not a viable option. This is a case where an organisation needs to downsize, assuming all other avenues have been explored. In this instance the best thing one can do is to carry this out in the most humane manner with honesty and integrity.

Intentional choices are where you know that the alternative option is the wisest option, yet you intentionally choose the opposite option. In organisations, this is when we may bypass a certain process or person intentionally for various reasons. Or where we circumvent a certain procedure because we have the power and privilege to do so. Corruption is a classic example of the latter

Regrettable choices are where at the point of making the choice you are ‘aware’ of what the wisest choice is, however your steady state or way of being at that moment stops you from acting on it. These are usually choices made when emotions are running high, where you regret your choice as soon as have you made it or regret the choice as the words have left your mouth.

How many of us have been in this situation in the workplace and personal life? The power is still in the chooser’s hands to undo the wrong and recover the situation.

Transformational choices are what we should all be aspiring to achieve. In this instance, we take control and are accountable for making great choices. Accountability means taking responsibility for the choices made.

Even if you have made an unwise choice, you are in control to remedy it or to deal with the consequences. It is a big responsibility to be accountable, but one with many rewards when executed.

Learning to make transformational choices gives us the power to be extraordinary, therefore directly impacting you as an individual and the organisation that you represent.

Choice is an active process. It is the difference between a customer continuing to do business with your organisation versus taking their business elsewhere. Use it wisely.

Tuesday, January 29, 2008

CLAWING OUR PATH IN THE CONCRETE JUNGLE...

A Nice Write up by JD of Makkalsakthi

Thanks JD...


JD says:” It has been quite some time since I wrote about the sentiment of the Malaysian Indians at grass root level. I spend a lot of time with friends from Sentul which has a high population of Malaysian Indians even from the days of the British rule. The area was notorious in the 60's up to the early 90's for gangsterism, drugs and other vices. It was not unusual to hear of families having lost their loved ones to gang related violence.

The youths from the area that I have come in contact with in recent years are very intelligent and ambitious, wanting to make something out of themselves. It's sad that most of them don't get the encouragement and proper guidance from their families.

The emphasis on education is not stressed upon as an important aspect of life.The parents are busy trying to make ends meet with the low wages that they earn.Couple that with cramped living quarters and you have a receipe for youths to spend most of their leisure time outdoors,unsupervised and exposed to the undesirable influences of crime.This is one of the main reason why the youths are so easily influenced into a lifestyle of crime and gangsterism.

The political parties have done little to change and raise the standards of the community in the area. A very low percentage of youths have graduated from institutions of higher learning.

This has however changed for the better now with the influx of other races and business entities into the area. The level of crime has dropped drastically in the Sentul District. The youths in the area are also wising up to the fact that there is a future for them if they stay out of crime and pursue education as a mean of escaping poverty and hardship.

The Malaysian Indian community in Sentul still values an education in Tamil and they have been sending their children to the school. However the condition of the Tamil school in the area is extremely poor. Right in front of it is a fully air conditioned multi storey Chinese school. The children of the Tamil school feel so demotivated just comparing their school with the Chinese school. Won’t they feel that they too deserve better conditions to pursue their education?

Even in lower levels of education the playing field isn't fair to the Malaysian Indians, how can we be expected to be competitive if the only outlet that we have to get out of the poverty cycle is not provided to us. The government will say that they have built some smart Tamil schools like the one in Subang Jaya. My question is why only in areas like Subang Jaya and not every other existing Tamil school? Is it because the rich of Subang Jaya only deserve a better Tamil school? What about the Tamil schools in areas that have a large Malaysian Indian population? Why are they being overlooked?

Political parties talk so much about being the saviors of the Malaysian Indian community when right in the heart of Kuala Lumpur the community is still marginalized and discriminated. Yet they have done nothing!

All I can say is that in this coming election the Malaysian Indian community in Sentul will show whether they are satisfied or not through the ballot box. The community has awakened from their slumber and those coming to canvass for votes better have their facts right for the questions that need to be answered".

Hindraf not only about Hindu temples

A Letter from : Naragan
Source : M'Kini


There comes a point in the life of a nation that what was once considered necessary for progress gradually have become shackles and these shackles hold it back from further progress. When such points are reached, social movements sprout calling for a rearrangement of the structures and relationships within the structures. History is filled with countless instances of this.

Hindraf has called into question the so-called social contract established over 50 years ago between the Malay, Chinese and Indian elites of the time. That social contract has since been hijacked by the Umnoputras – the Malay elite - in the name of the Malay community.

I say in the name of the Malay community because the true beneficiaries of that social contract are indeed the Malay elite who allowed only a small trickle down effect for the general Malay community. This is to the utter detriment of Malaysian society as a whole but clearly and deviously in the interest of the Umnoputras.

The result? An ethnically-divided society, a neglected and marginalised underclass (of which Indians form a large group), a large chunk of Malaysian society still seeking national pride and a society drained of the vitality and incentives needed to build a progressive nation.

Given the resources of the country, there is enough for all citizens of the country regardless of race, religion or creed. With more equitable distribution and without polarising and exclusive policies, the Malay community will get whatever it is getting now, plus more while the other communities will get what is due to them as equal citizens of this country. But what is needed is a totally new basis for Malaysian society.

It is this that Hindraf is pursuing. Of course, the path by which Hindraf got there was by taking up the cause of the marginalisation of the Indians and their erosion of rights as practicing Hindus – the careless demolition of Hindu temples by the Umno government.

Hindraf has hit upon a very resonating chord within Malaysian society as a whole that has catapulted them into a vanguard position for the articulation of the need for change. The very social contract that Umno wishes to preserve is the root cause for much of the evil that we experience today – rampant corruption, an ineffective and corrupt police force, a deteriorating crime situation, a judiciary wracked by scandals, an administration that only wants to disburse the resources of the nation in large projects with very high sounding and wishful goals, the impoverishment of the workers of the country through policies that keep the wages down and the rising prices of basic items.

It is time for change. Hindraf’s objective is to change the state of affairs through the mobilisation of Malaysian citizens to collectively pursue change. Hindraf’s objective is to contribute to creating a nation with more equitable distribution of opportunities in education, employment, practice of religion, business opportunities and expression within Malaysian society. This is reason enough for all of us to join hands in the rally and let the message go through.