One of our local dailies highlighted the announcement that Kuala Lumpur (Capital of Malaysia) is now the 3rd rudest city in the world! This status was derived from a survey carried out by Readers Digest magazine. It's reporters were sent to the 35 cities in which it publishes it's magazine to carry out the survey. The result was reported by The Times of London.
According to the survey, New York topped the list as being the most polite followed by Zurich. The most impolite turned out to be Mumbai, Bucharest and Kuala Lumpur in that order.
The criteria was what is considered courtesy in the West - holding doors, helping strangers and service with a smile.
I think the survey is not very thorough and most probably the subjects selected were not enough to be used as a yardstick against the rest of the population of the particular city. How many reporters could they send to each city? How many people could they have tested? What were the status of the subjects? What about the population of the cities concerned? Was all these taken into account?
The population of Mumbai is approximately 12.7 million. 1% of this is 127,000. This figure is about 35% of the population of Zurich which came out 2nd most polite city. How many people in Zurich and how many in Mumbai were surveyed?
Asian culture is different from the western although I admit there are universal values of politenes like giving a helping hand, a friendly smile etc. The way we greet each other also shows our way of being polite. The Thais clasp their hands and say 'sawadi' while the Indians would say 'nameste' in a similar pose. The traditional Chinese would close one hand into a fist and place it in the palm of the other hand and would say some Chinese greeting. The Malays here would shake your hand while uttering the Arabic greeting and after shaking would touch their chest with the hand. I guess all these practices weren't important for these surveyors. The holding of the doors is definately a western culture.
In Asia the doors are open most of the time so there is no need to hold them. That is why most of the Asian cities failed miserably in that test. It was an alien thing. I have lived in Kuala Lumpur in 1975 and again in 1986. I didn't meet that many rude people then although there were some rude people at the bus station, inside mini buses and 'pasar malams'. This would not qualify Kuala Lumpur as the 3rd most rudest city in the world. The publishing of the results from this so called 'survey' is not fair to the Asian cities and definately not good for tourism. Personally I think this is some sort of sabotage by interested parties to divert the tourist to the Western countries.
Wednesday, June 21, 2006
Tuesday, June 20, 2006
Who's cooking?
We were playing doubles with some new friends and to have a good game we (my wife and I) split up. She was now my opponent. Many of my old tennis friends believe I won't play my best when my wife is on the opposite side. This is not true ofcourse but neverthless believed by these people. So when I made a good shot which saw her running to return it but couldn't, because it simply was too good a forehand drive(heh heh), my partner immediately congratulated me and at the same time said most probably I will be getting 'moi'(porridge) for dinner tonight.
It was obvious that this guy doesn't know us that well, otherwise he would have known that my wife doesn't cook and that I am the one who buys dinner, lunch and breakfast!
Eating out1
These days a family could get by eating outside food. We have been doing that since we were married. During my father's time it was different. The man worked and brought home the money while the woman took care of the house which includes preparing the food. Nowadays the situation is not the same. Especially when both parties are working. There's no time for cooking, at least not for us anyway. Our lunchtime wasn't the same and the boys also had diffferent times according to their school activities. So, I used to eat by myself and bought food for the boys so they had lunch when they got home, while my wife ate at the school canteen. Dinner was according to mood. If we decided to eat bread then we all stayed home and that was our dinner - bread with jam or butter or cheese or sausages or just dipped in chicken curry (from the lunch).
Eating out
If we felt like going out then we had a choice of 'kari mee', 'want tan mee', 'koay teow theng', 'nan' with 'tandoori chicken', 'tosai' or 'chapati', 'inyeong', 'yee mee', 'fried sotong', 'satay', etc... Fridays was always restuarant food with at least 4 dishes - scrambled egg with bacon, pork, vegetable soup, sweet & sour fish. What more can a man ask? We have so many people cooking for us. We also don't have to wash the dishes! The important thing is you also have to earn enough to pay for this style of living. Food is not that expensive here so we get by.
So, on with the game and play to win. Nobody is eating porridge tonight.
It was obvious that this guy doesn't know us that well, otherwise he would have known that my wife doesn't cook and that I am the one who buys dinner, lunch and breakfast!
Eating out1
These days a family could get by eating outside food. We have been doing that since we were married. During my father's time it was different. The man worked and brought home the money while the woman took care of the house which includes preparing the food. Nowadays the situation is not the same. Especially when both parties are working. There's no time for cooking, at least not for us anyway. Our lunchtime wasn't the same and the boys also had diffferent times according to their school activities. So, I used to eat by myself and bought food for the boys so they had lunch when they got home, while my wife ate at the school canteen. Dinner was according to mood. If we decided to eat bread then we all stayed home and that was our dinner - bread with jam or butter or cheese or sausages or just dipped in chicken curry (from the lunch).
Eating out
If we felt like going out then we had a choice of 'kari mee', 'want tan mee', 'koay teow theng', 'nan' with 'tandoori chicken', 'tosai' or 'chapati', 'inyeong', 'yee mee', 'fried sotong', 'satay', etc... Fridays was always restuarant food with at least 4 dishes - scrambled egg with bacon, pork, vegetable soup, sweet & sour fish. What more can a man ask? We have so many people cooking for us. We also don't have to wash the dishes! The important thing is you also have to earn enough to pay for this style of living. Food is not that expensive here so we get by.
So, on with the game and play to win. Nobody is eating porridge tonight.
Saturday, June 17, 2006
Father's Day
Today (18th June 2006) is Father's Day. I wish to dedicate this poem to all fathers everywhere.
What Makes a Dad
God took the strength of a mountain,
The majesty of a tree,
The warmth of a summer sun,
The calm of a quiet sea,
The generous soul of nature,
The comforting arm of night,
The wisdom of the ages,
The power of the eagle's flight,
The joy of a morning in spring,
The faith of a mustard seed,
The patience of eternity,
The depth of a family need,
Then God combined these qualities,
When there was nothing more to add,
He knew His masterpiece was complete,
And so,
He called it ... Dad
~~Author Unknown.~~
Happy Father's Day!
Monday, June 12, 2006
Doing the right thing.
The other day, I made an appointment with a friend at 10.00am. The friend came at 10.30am! I chided him for being late and his reply was, 'Relax la brother. Where's the fire? ' It seems to be the fashion to be late. To be on time or early is considered nerdy or not cool!
I think this is not right. We must mean what we say. If we say we will be at a certain place at a certain time, then it is our duty to be there at that stated time baring all unforseen circumstances like a meteor shower, an earthquake, a flash flood etc. It seems rigid but when a person acts according to his/her word you know that person has character. Character in a person makes him trustworthy and dependable. One, Nathaniel Emmons also said "I could never think well of a man's intellectual or moral character, if he was habitually unfaithful to his appointments. " He is so right.
We need to teach the young that these characteristics are admirable and to be desired. It is a good thing not to smoke pot or marijuana which may go against the mainstream of todays cool cats. It is also a good thing not to smoke cigarettes. It is a good thing not to cheat in exams. It is a good thing to do your own assignments and at the same time making time for discussions with those who are struggling with theirs. It is a good thing to tell the truth. As one comedian said, "Be a man. Do the right thing." Of course doing the wrong thing doesn't necessarily make you a woman!
We also must learn to give the benefit of doubt to others regardless of their race or status. I was reminded of this by a friend when I left my T-shirt in the men's locker after our friendly match in another town. When I told my friend that most probably one of the workers there would have taken it by now, she said that I shouldn't say that. We have to give them the benefit that they could be honest also and she suggested that I call the clubhouse to see if anyone had seen it. I immediately agreed with her but decided to call our Captain first. He said he saw it in the gent's room but didn't know whose it was but decided to bring it back anyway. I got back my T-shirt and learned a valuable lesson from my friend.
Coming on time may be a small matter but it speaks volumes about the character of the person. One might think if I can't trust you with little things what makes you think I will trust you with greater things! Granted it is hard work but that's what it takes. "”You cannot dream yourself into a character. You must hammer and forge yourself one." - James A. Froude. Some people also say character is what you do in the dark! Now that's another story.
I think this is not right. We must mean what we say. If we say we will be at a certain place at a certain time, then it is our duty to be there at that stated time baring all unforseen circumstances like a meteor shower, an earthquake, a flash flood etc. It seems rigid but when a person acts according to his/her word you know that person has character. Character in a person makes him trustworthy and dependable. One, Nathaniel Emmons also said "I could never think well of a man's intellectual or moral character, if he was habitually unfaithful to his appointments. " He is so right.
We need to teach the young that these characteristics are admirable and to be desired. It is a good thing not to smoke pot or marijuana which may go against the mainstream of todays cool cats. It is also a good thing not to smoke cigarettes. It is a good thing not to cheat in exams. It is a good thing to do your own assignments and at the same time making time for discussions with those who are struggling with theirs. It is a good thing to tell the truth. As one comedian said, "Be a man. Do the right thing." Of course doing the wrong thing doesn't necessarily make you a woman!
We also must learn to give the benefit of doubt to others regardless of their race or status. I was reminded of this by a friend when I left my T-shirt in the men's locker after our friendly match in another town. When I told my friend that most probably one of the workers there would have taken it by now, she said that I shouldn't say that. We have to give them the benefit that they could be honest also and she suggested that I call the clubhouse to see if anyone had seen it. I immediately agreed with her but decided to call our Captain first. He said he saw it in the gent's room but didn't know whose it was but decided to bring it back anyway. I got back my T-shirt and learned a valuable lesson from my friend.
Coming on time may be a small matter but it speaks volumes about the character of the person. One might think if I can't trust you with little things what makes you think I will trust you with greater things! Granted it is hard work but that's what it takes. "”You cannot dream yourself into a character. You must hammer and forge yourself one." - James A. Froude. Some people also say character is what you do in the dark! Now that's another story.
Wednesday, June 07, 2006
Freedom of Expression
What does 'freedom of expression' really mean? I am not sure it has a universal meaning.
Freedom of speech is often regarded as an integral concept in modern liberal democracies, where it is understood to outlaw censorship. The right to freedom of speech is guaranteed under international law through numerous human rights instruments, notably under Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, although implementation remains lacking in many countries. In the United Statess of America, the First Amendment to their Constitution bars the federal government from “abridging the freedom of speech”.
The synonymous term freedom of expression is sometimes preferred, since the right is not confined to verbal speech but is understood to protect any act of seeking, receiving and imparting information or ideas, regardless of the medium used.
The right to freedom of expression is not absolute; governments may still prohibit certain damaging types of expressions. Under international law, restrictions on free speech are required to comport with a strict three part test: they must be provided by law, pursue an aim recognized as legitimate, and be necessary (i.e., proportionate) for the accomplishment of that aim. Amongst the aims considered legitimate are protection of the rights and reputations of others (prevention of defamation), and the protection of national security and public order, health and morals. It is generally recognised that restrictions should be the exception and free expression the rule; nevertheless, compliance with this principle is often lacking.
Freedom of speech is crucial in any democracy, because open discussions of candidates are essential for voters to make informed decisions during elections. It is through speech that people can influence their government's choice of policies. Also, public officials are held accountable through criticisms that can pave the way for their replacement. This I believe is very crucial in a democracy or any country professing to adhere to democratic principles.
The reason I am bringing this up is because we seem to be facing a storm in a tea cup in Malaysia. The former Prime Minister has lambasted the curent Prime Minister in the newspapers accusing of poor leadership, of scrapping projects that he had initiated before leaving office. He even mentioned that the present P.M. wasn't his first choice as a successor. That was a very personal attack on the current leadership but he is still able to go about his usual business today after saying that. How is that possible? Because the government respects freedom of expression? In your dreams. Simply because he is a 'Tun', a former Prime Minister and a 'Bumiputera'. If that kind of statement had come from an 'AH Chong' or a 'Muthusamy', the ISA would have been used and the said 'culprit' would be in a lockup somewhere.
In my opinion, Dr. Mahathir is not bringing up any issues of national interest or beneficial to the public regardless of race. He appointed the present P.M. even though he didn't get the majority votes. That doesn't say much for Dr. Mahathir's choices either. If he is serious about speaking out about wrongs in this country, he should speak out about the religious rights of the non-muslims which is fast eroding. Otherwise he should just retire gracefully and let the next generation deal with the current issues.
Freedom of speech is often regarded as an integral concept in modern liberal democracies, where it is understood to outlaw censorship. The right to freedom of speech is guaranteed under international law through numerous human rights instruments, notably under Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, although implementation remains lacking in many countries. In the United Statess of America, the First Amendment to their Constitution bars the federal government from “abridging the freedom of speech”.
The synonymous term freedom of expression is sometimes preferred, since the right is not confined to verbal speech but is understood to protect any act of seeking, receiving and imparting information or ideas, regardless of the medium used.
The right to freedom of expression is not absolute; governments may still prohibit certain damaging types of expressions. Under international law, restrictions on free speech are required to comport with a strict three part test: they must be provided by law, pursue an aim recognized as legitimate, and be necessary (i.e., proportionate) for the accomplishment of that aim. Amongst the aims considered legitimate are protection of the rights and reputations of others (prevention of defamation), and the protection of national security and public order, health and morals. It is generally recognised that restrictions should be the exception and free expression the rule; nevertheless, compliance with this principle is often lacking.
Freedom of speech is crucial in any democracy, because open discussions of candidates are essential for voters to make informed decisions during elections. It is through speech that people can influence their government's choice of policies. Also, public officials are held accountable through criticisms that can pave the way for their replacement. This I believe is very crucial in a democracy or any country professing to adhere to democratic principles.
The reason I am bringing this up is because we seem to be facing a storm in a tea cup in Malaysia. The former Prime Minister has lambasted the curent Prime Minister in the newspapers accusing of poor leadership, of scrapping projects that he had initiated before leaving office. He even mentioned that the present P.M. wasn't his first choice as a successor. That was a very personal attack on the current leadership but he is still able to go about his usual business today after saying that. How is that possible? Because the government respects freedom of expression? In your dreams. Simply because he is a 'Tun', a former Prime Minister and a 'Bumiputera'. If that kind of statement had come from an 'AH Chong' or a 'Muthusamy', the ISA would have been used and the said 'culprit' would be in a lockup somewhere.
In my opinion, Dr. Mahathir is not bringing up any issues of national interest or beneficial to the public regardless of race. He appointed the present P.M. even though he didn't get the majority votes. That doesn't say much for Dr. Mahathir's choices either. If he is serious about speaking out about wrongs in this country, he should speak out about the religious rights of the non-muslims which is fast eroding. Otherwise he should just retire gracefully and let the next generation deal with the current issues.
Tuesday, June 06, 2006
The 'Unholy Trinity'
The so called 'unholy trinity' on the front page of one of our local newspapers refers to the pact between loan sharks, illegal bookies and the VCD pirates. The main purpose of this union is to cash in on the World Cup fever among gamblers. Granted, there is a lot of money to be made but this group is doing it illegally. Whoever borrows from the loan sharks will have to pay a high interest rate. So, even if they win they won't be getting a lot. The eventual winners will still be the 'unholy threesome'.
You could say they are enterprising and in some cases ingenious. The authorities are having a hard time tackling this problem because most of the 'brains' are in the payroll of people like these enterprising groups. If you were working for the government, why would you want to crack your brains and risk your life when the promotions are not based on merit. The lazy, good-for-nothing collegue who sucks up to the boss and is probably of the same lineage always gets the promotions and other benefits.
I don't think the 'unholy trinity' are worried about the authorities. They are concentrating on getting as many punters as possible in order to make a killing before the world cup fever is over. But whatever it is, this is an ILLEGAL venture. They don't pay any money for a licence to do business, they don't pay taxes and I am sure their workers don't have EPF contributions. They do not contribute to the country at all. They only take for themselves. A legitimate businessman on the other hand does contribute to the nation even if he has an eye on making money for himself.
As to the part of those punters being 'willing victims', the government has been given a mandate to run this country which includes protecting the citizens from unscrupulous opportunist and sometimes from themselves also. Most of us won't last long if we lived in a free for all society. With so many scams going around, the individual is usually not that well equipped or knowledgeable to discern the true from the false. We need all the help we can get to see through these scams. As for the 'Ah Longs', one shouldn't even consider them as 'enterprising businessmen'. They are gangsters with ill-gotten gains who are trying to make more by hook or by crook.
You could say they are enterprising and in some cases ingenious. The authorities are having a hard time tackling this problem because most of the 'brains' are in the payroll of people like these enterprising groups. If you were working for the government, why would you want to crack your brains and risk your life when the promotions are not based on merit. The lazy, good-for-nothing collegue who sucks up to the boss and is probably of the same lineage always gets the promotions and other benefits.
I don't think the 'unholy trinity' are worried about the authorities. They are concentrating on getting as many punters as possible in order to make a killing before the world cup fever is over. But whatever it is, this is an ILLEGAL venture. They don't pay any money for a licence to do business, they don't pay taxes and I am sure their workers don't have EPF contributions. They do not contribute to the country at all. They only take for themselves. A legitimate businessman on the other hand does contribute to the nation even if he has an eye on making money for himself.
As to the part of those punters being 'willing victims', the government has been given a mandate to run this country which includes protecting the citizens from unscrupulous opportunist and sometimes from themselves also. Most of us won't last long if we lived in a free for all society. With so many scams going around, the individual is usually not that well equipped or knowledgeable to discern the true from the false. We need all the help we can get to see through these scams. As for the 'Ah Longs', one shouldn't even consider them as 'enterprising businessmen'. They are gangsters with ill-gotten gains who are trying to make more by hook or by crook.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
