Anwar's Sex Video

Anwar's Sex Video is now one of the top trending topics, and as such, I shall leave my readers (or what's left of it) with the following thoughts:

1. Any political strategist would have calculated the damage done by the release of the video not only on the alleged perpetrator but also the "alleged" mastermind (UMNO). On the balance of it, any intelligent strategist (which I believe is behind this wave of good feeling for Najib) must have known the reverse backlash would be far severe than the damage to Anwar. As such, who approved of this strategic blunder? Or is it a strategic decision? Or is it what it is - a sex video?

2. I find it insulting to be told by others (especially elitist-type) that this is gutter politics and it shouldn't matter. A sex video of a person, who is alleged to be a Member of Parliament, and potential Prime Minister, is a national concern just as we make a big hype about Rosmah music videos or Hishamuddin's holding a beer picture. If true, it is an illegal act, done perhaps with cover-up involving abuse of power, influence and money. Isn't that a matter that SHOULD be investigated? Just because such abuse comes out in the form of a sex video does not make it any less corrupted than overseas holidays and secret contracts. We cannot just sweep this matter under the carpet because it's dirty.

3. Why aren't there more elaborate set-ups on other PR leaders? Why is Anwar constantly and mercilessly "attacked"? It's quite obvious from the recent PKR election (Azmin saga) that even DSAI is now viewed not so favorably by many PKR members. So why Anwar? It's either (a) personal vendetta by UMNO (b) some stupid strategist thinks that Anwar is still the biggest key (c) Anwar is the easiest target amongst all . If you think the answer is (c), consider why you answer as such.

I should write more..

And read less.

For others...many others, it should be the other way round.

I don't like sleeping alone, especially since there are no good shows on TV at this hour.

Goodnite

Men Are Luckier...

Recently I had a hair cut, and as per usual, I read whatever magazines they provide. I came across a picture of Heidi Klum, one of the most beautiful women in the world, and her husband, Seal. Now, I am all for the "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" concept, but conventionally speaking, Seal is not the most attractive man around. It got me to realize many more instances of beautiful women being with not good-looking men. Like Adriana Karembeu, married to ex-Dutch football star Christian Karembeu (Google that), or Kate Hudson being with Muse frontman Matt Bellamy. You see more of these instances if you just find ugly male celebrities knocking up fine models (Noah Gallagher's ex is the delightful Patsy Kensit, and now he's with ex-All Saints member, Nicole Appleton).

 

Now, understandably, you'd say,"Of course dude, these guys are famous and loaded. No wonder girls flock to them". If that is true, why don't I see Oprah Winfrey shagging some hot young (but not yet famous) rapper? Why don't I see Martha Stewart with, say, the muscular dude from 98 Degrees? And it still doesn't account for the countless instances I see pretty girls going out with ugly guys at our local shopping malls. The funny thing is, guys are usually the first to notice the gap when presented with this Beauty & the Beast situation.

 

I think, quite simply, guys treat being beautiful as an integral part to finding someone attractive while girls treat beauty (or looking-good) as just part of the bigger picture of attractiveness. Take a sample of 10 guys and 10 girls, show the guys a picture of a cute but seriously overweight girl, and then the girls a picture of a cute but seriously overweight guy. I'm willing to bet that none of the guys would say they'd date that girl, but a segment of the girls would date him with the accompanying comment "Oh, he's cute like a bear". I have NEVER had a guy friend say the same thing when talking about a heavy girl.

 

When I talk about the show Entourage, I find it amazing that some girls find Turtle cute. You'd seldom here guys talking about Betty Suarez (from Ugly Betty) in the same way.

 

Girls are into ugly guys for many reasons. Sometimes these guys are "cool" - like having an afro, wearing small t-shirts and skinny jeans, and driving an original Mini. Seriously, if you're ugly, and you want to attract girls, just look "cool". It works.

 

Sometimes these guys are "macho" - you can look like a freaking murderer, but some girls find this extremely attractive. Which is why actors like Javier Bardem can get Penelope Cruz. Sometimes these guys are "nice-looking" - the kind of dude they see as being the perfect husband, even though he's got pimples and wear thick-rimmed glasses (which is now the in-thing, if you noticed). Sometimes these guys are "talented" - cue musicians especially rock band members. I cannot fathom till today how Awie got Erra Fazira back then, but what can I say.

 

The conclusion is, if you're a guy, there are many ways for you to be attractive. If you're a girl, unfortunately, there is not much you can do from the mould God has given you.

 

You Can But I Can't?

This is just a short entry based on the following question: If liberals expect conservatives to allow them the freedom to practice their religion in whatever form they want, then shouldn't the same freedom be accorded to conservatives?

I am far from a conservative (seriously, I'm not), but I do wonder whether the liberals agenda is not merely limited to promoting freedom of religion, but actually to prevent the practice of a conservative form of religion? (I can't comment much for other religion in other countries. Here, it's quite clear that I'm referring to Islam in Malaysia). And from my observation, it seems like the liberals have slowly labeled even the most basic observance of Islam as being conservative.

Take for example the wearing of a hijab. Some liberals immediately label these ladies as conservatives. I always thought conservatives means more strict obedience, and if wearing a hijab is actually a BASIC MUST, how can it be considered an act of conservatism? It's like saying a cop is a conservative cop for not taking bribes. Cops are NOT supposed to take bribes, so calling someone who is just actually doing what he's supposed to do a conservative (or straight) is illogical.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I do believe that in Islam, a true believer must not only accept that Islam is a way of life and practice its tenets diligently, but also take on the responsibility to promote the Islamic way of life and prevent any acts not in accordance to Islamic principles. This is the base point, and as such, I cannot find fault with anyone who advises me on what is actually something I should already be well-aware and doing.

I mean, if someone comes to me and starts telling me I should be more disciplined when it comes to prayers, I shouldn't snap and be angry. He's not being a conservative or a fundamentalist. He's actually just doing what all good Muslims are supposed to do. Sometimes I forget that. And though I may choose to ignore him, I cannot, with any clear conscience, ostracize him for telling me the truth.

I am in agreement that what we do is between us and God. But we must not be extreme enough to automatically reject any form of advice from those who are in a better position to think about these issues than us. At worst, we should just smile and say thank you. If you're really open-minded, then you should be open-minded enough to accept that there are some people out there who believe in things differently. If you're really open-minded, then you must accept that there will be close-minded people out there. If not, you're no worse than the close-minded folks you are so quick to criticize.

Oh Fasha, Please Reply My Tweet...Not

Sorry & Thank You

I apologize for the long absence from this blog. I'm sure by now readers are quite used to (1) the once a month sporadic blog posts (2) me apologizing for the once a month blog posts.
Then again, I can't be sure because I don't think I've got enough regular readers to get used to anything I do on this blog. Bah. So if this is your first time, I'd like to say...GET A LIFE.

Overwhelmed With Twitter

I did promise last year that I'd blog again more regularly. Unfortunately, at the same time, I installed the Twitter app on my BlackBerry. Lo and behold, Twitter has overtaken blogging or even FB status as my No.1 venting outlet. When you let go of steam (ie. Tweet) every time you take a break, or shit in the toilet, you kinda lose the momentum to come up with well-formed arguments, relying instead on short 140-characters barbs to voice my thoughts on everything and anything. Guess I'm as good at keeping my promises as the next politician.

I'm only following around 50 people, yet I feel overwhelmed reading their tweets. It could occupy your entire hour if you're not careful and prone to clicking on all the interesting links your friends RT. If you don't know what RT is, it's Rukun Tetangga. Yes, my friends are mostly part of them. That's why they seldom get robbed. Because their neighborhood's RT. Go figure.

My final comment on Twitter is this: Why is there a need to follow everyone and everything if your close friends are already busy RT interesting things from these other people? And yes, my Twitter account is protected (by RT, for the dimwits) but if my friends are reading this, feel free to request (@jimiecheng). Yeap. I don't approve all. You can ask my wife.

Celebrities & Twitter

While on the subject of Twitter, I can't help but note that a lot of Malaysian celebrities are into Twitter faster than they were with Facebook Page/Fans. It's amazing to see the number of followers (yes, Twitter is a cult) they garner. Lisa Surihani (@lisasurihani) has about 80,000 fans. Fasha Sandha (@fashasandha1) has about 64k.

But funny things happen when celebrities get into arguments with their followers on Twitter, like Fasha Sandha and recently Ifa Raziah. I don't follow either of them but I do read some entertainment sites so it comes as a surprise that some of our artists are dumb enough to forget that people follow them BECAUSE they're celebrities. Celebrities live by a different code. I'm sorry but that's reality. If you can't accept it, then tough luck. If you can be proud and RT when people praise you, then you sure as hell should be ready when people diss you online.

The End of Facebook?

Far from me to be a sage and predict that, but the reality is that social network has changed a lot in the past few years. Every time one company gets too big, it'll be shot down into pieces. Just ask Friendster and MySpace (Apparently MySpace still has a lot of leftover Malaysians wanting to hook up for easy sex or lesbian company).

My point is that society has no affinity to an Internet brand to engender loyalty. Simply because the social network is fluid, and constantly rising/falling based on society's (hence the name social network) somewhat irrational pattern of behavior couple with technological advances that could make one mode of networking instantly outdated. The only pure dot-com brand that has truly survived since I FIRST started surfing is Yahoo, and even they have seen their dominance totally shattered by Google.

And now Google is being slowly overtaken by Facebook as the default page on people's browser. This see-saw battle for Internet dominance will continue into the near future. Which is why it amazes me that Facebook can be valued at USD 40 billion - for another Internet company that depends ON ADVERTISING for the bulk of its revenue! Anyway, I know things will go belly-up when Mark Zuckerberg is valued more than Steve Jobs (a guy who actually produces something to sell).

Are You Happy?

I've just finished reading Hector & The Search for Happiness, an engaging story of a psychiatrist who was searching for... happiness. More precisely, he was looking for rules of happiness.

He discovered many different rules, and each one has its own ring of truth around it. It's not meant to be heavy, but sometimes we all need a little nudge to make us realize what makes us really happy in life.

I like it that his first rule is "Making comparisons can spoil your happiness". That, to me, is the problem with a lot of people, including myself. While making comparisons allow us to innovate and create and generally improve ourselves, at the end of the day, does it really make us happy?

Anyway, I wish to highlight an important conversation Hector had with another expert on happiness. Apparently, there's a simple way to "measure" your level of happiness. Just ask yourself these three questions (I'm paraphrasing...):

1. Where are you now as compared to how you see yourself should be?
2. How are you now and how were you in your best moment in your past?
3. What do you have now and what would you like to have in the future? (I'm not sure this is what they have in the book, but it kinda make sense)

The gap in your answers practically shows how happy you are presently.

If for example, at this moment you're an up-and-coming executive, and that's how you imagined life would be, then the gap is virtually non-present, making you at least happy in one aspect of your life. But if you're single, but you imagine you'd be married by now, then definitely it will cause some measure of unhappiness.

The 2nd question is a little bit different. Closing the gap is pretty good (meaning that you're as happy now as you were when you were happiest before) but it would be great if your present self is far happier than your previous self ever was.

My only problem is closing the gap of what I have now and what I want in the future. Being too ambitious is a double-edge sword in that you seldom feel satisfied with what you have, even though what you have is beyond your expectation. I've gotta be mindful of that.

In any case, I am blessed, and if I were to die today, I wouldn't have much regret. Can you say the same?

Transporting WHO for WHAT?

Another massive jam today. And another fuel price hike. At this point in time, I would be slaughtered if I suggested that we may be wasting RM 40 billion in the next 5 years developing the MRT.

It's funny how many people talk about having an efficient public transport system as the priority for Malaysia to become a developed nation. No doubt, being stuck in a jam is no joke. I, for one, am extremely agitated in a gridlock. I'm the type of person who'd rather be driving for 1 hour to get to point B than be stuck in a crawl for 30 minutes heading to the same place.

So let me begin by saying that I am NOT against having a better public transport system. It's just I am extremely annoyed to see the general public being sucked into a simple answer when asked what they'd want from the Government: "Better public transport". For me, this is such a lazy answer.

First, someone has to explain to me the DIRECT correlation between having an efficient public transportation system and economic growth leading to developed nation status. Is it a case of being a developed nation BECAUSE you have an efficient public transport system OR you have an efficient system BECAUSE you're a developed nation? There is a marked difference between the two, and I suspect the truth is there are more pressing issues that requires our focus and limited resources to become a developed nation than building an underground tunnel.

Beijing, Moscow, Los Angeles, Mexico City, Sao Paulo are all cities that are ranked far worse than us Malaysia (we don't even get a mention, and I'll with this later), and yet all (with the exception of LA), experience economic growth far greater than ours (in sum, not as a percentage growth) in the last few years than us.

Secondly, I think it's pretty selfish to assume that if KL is less congested, our whole nation's economy would prosper. Malaysia is not Singapore because we are NOT Singapore. Linking up Kuala Lumpur like it's Singapore may be great for some of us, but what about the rest of the country? To achieve developed nation status or economic growth requires the participation of every segment of our society to move up the value chain, from those staying in Kota Damansara all the way to those growing up in Segi Tiga Jengka. How does this RM 40 billion budgeted help my Kuala Lipis graduates?

Thirdly, what is the actual impact of this MRT project? I mean, think about it. Okay, we all get to go to work faster, presumably on the pretext that the MRT line would accommodate for the increase in urban population and number of vehicles on the road and actually ease overall congestion (I think it will, but not to the extent that you think it will). So? Do office hours actually increase? The vast majority of people using the MRT would still, as a measure of productivity, work 8 hours a day.

Yes, they'll go a bit later to work, and probably get back earlier. For what? Watch more TV? Spend more time hanging out with friends? Having dinner with the family? Good. I think these are great benefits. But are they really all we could expect? Can someone show me the link between having such transport system and an increase in productivity? I suspect that any time saved would be spent on other things NOT related to work. Beneficial in some way to our nation no doubt, but is it the kind of benefits that we look for when we spend RM 40 billion?

And does the job scope or type of work that people do change because of the way they are transported? Does it make our workforce brighter and smarter? Would it spur innovation and creativity? Would it create new self-sustaining industries that could compete globally? I think it won't. It just makes the job of transporting the current workforce, with their current mentality and skills, faster. But it doesn't change the nature of our endeavors.

Let's not forget the increase in land value of the areas surrounding MRT routes, which benefits property developers, spurring even more development in those areas, but at a price far inflated for the average people using the MRT to actually afford without running huge debts.

Finally, how bad is the situation in KL? Please, I've worked in KL before for more than a year, as a regular executive. I know about the whole morning jam (heck, I was from USJ!) and how the evening traffic can be a killer. How expensive it is to find parking and pay for toll. But the reality is that I was once stuck for 3 hours in a WEEKEND crawl in Jakarta. Traffic in Bangkok ain't much better. And on some weekends, it wasn't that smooth sailing in Singapore either. In other words, are we really focusing on the real issue here, or is this just another typical simplistic Malaysia-style band-aid solution to avoid confronting real issues with real solutions.

Like maybe spending money for 5 years to create truly world class universities? Or allocating funds in easy loan program for entrepreneurs to kick start their business, especially in high-value, high-multiplier economic activities? Or ACTUALLY allocating more funds for R&D by local labs? Or can you actually do all these, and still have some spare change to implement non-intrusive, low-capital traffic solutions LIKE:

1. Spreading development from KL to its outskirts therefore spreading traffic concentration

2. Re-look into single school system (Example: 9.30 am - 3.30 pm)

3. Strict town planning and permit approval for new developments

I'm sure there's more but I'm lazy to think too much about it. The Government and the rest of the Rakyat shouldn't be. Remember, HOW you transport is only part of the equation. There's always the WHO and WHAT.

Have fun guys!