Friday, October 03, 2008
According to the Upko president Bernard Dompok, it seems that the root of this fiasco lies with the National Registeration Dept (NRD)'s negligence with the local sensitivities. For instance just because there's a 'Yong' in the application, the officer would assume the applicant to be chinese. To hell with the anak negeri. Sino-Kadazan? Never heard of it. So therefore you are categorically an non-bumiputra. Dompok said his deputy, Wilfred Bumburing was being frustrated when said that Upko should review its status in the BN. Dompok also said that most members of his party shares Bumburing's frustration.
I don't blame him.
I am right now pissed off with my struggling in keying this whole thing into my tiny mobile and at the same time reluctantly trying to recall one of the MANY ridiculous incidents that has ever occurred in our beloved Sabah.
My wife asked whether we can sue the NRD. My reply was to the effect that once you do that, piss off the wrong people then you get to chit-chat with RPK pretty much for a very long time. Today's (Oct.3rd) Daily Express, page 6, Jeffrey Kitingan, a former ISA detainee, said there were times where he and former inmates had to supplement their food intake by trapping snakes and birds. Though there's food however the portion is meagre.
So piss off the government at your own peril unless of course you need to go on a diet...
This is what pisses me off about the government. When there's a problem that needs dealing with, just call upon the ISA and they'll come-a-running to clean up the mess.
The government's tactic in dealing with the populace is to instill paralyzing fear. That's why they incarcerated people like RPK hoping their actions might dampened other people from voicing out. It doesn't work and it'll never work. Just yesterday a handful of RPK supporters wearing 'Free RPK' t-shirts appeared at the Prime Minister's Hari Raya Open House. They were asking for the release of RPK. The PM appeared to be visibily amused. Soon after that, 200 Hindraf supporters also turned up to request the release of their members.
Whatever the case may be, we'll never get a fair hearing and sentence. The powers-that-be will always win. In Malaysia it is exclusively for absolute power the top leaders are clinging onto. I suppose you can say that power, like drugs, can be addictive. And when a person who is a power junkie gets backed to a corner like let's say, March 8, then the withdrawal symptons are difficult. It's going to get ugly in the coming days.
Ever seen a politician doing cold turkey? Brrrr. Neither have I.
Even though there are many questions about this country's issues that needs resolving but the ones in power aren't doing anything. Some tried, mind you, but most opted for doing nothing. Why disturb the easy life, right?
Times are bad right now both economically and politically. I'm hoping to see some changes soon.
2. She has a remarkable memory for dates, not just her own or our special dates but she can remember the dates of birth of all her children, the dates of their marriage, the birthdays of all 17 of my grandchildren and even of her sisters and brothers and late parents.
3. So I can rely on her and sign the birthday cards she passed on to me. Unfortunately she cannot remember much of what she read when studying medicine. So I used to coach her. Thus we complement each other.
5. But with age our memory fails on details. Some brilliant people can remember what they did on a particular day 10 - 15 years ago, remember every detail, including the words they had spoken and the people they met etc. I am not among these people. I remember some events in which I was involved but only vaguely.
6. If you ask me what did I do on 12th August 1982, or on any other day, I would not be able to tell you. Other people with the proverbial photographic memory can, but I cannot. I am quite certain if I ask the questioner what he did on any particular day in the times long past he probably cannot tell me either. But then in a court or Commission he or the judge or Commissioners have the right to question, I had only the right to answer.
7. This is very unsatisfactory. In a court of law, if you fail to remember every detail of what you did on a particular day 5, 10 or 15 years ago, then you must be lying, you must be hiding something. This possibility would be ominous - though it may not be ascertained with exactitude. But why bother about those niceties. Just conclude that a person who cannot remember is simply lying.
8. I am going to take a memory course. Should I have occasion to be investigated or summoned to face a trial, I would be able to remember the suit I wore any day in my life and where I was when wearing the particular suit on a particular day.
9. By the same token a person who had been sodomised must know the exact time of the day that it happened, the colour of the room and the size of the bed. If he fails to remember any of these things, then he must be lying.
10. Such is the law. So please try to memorise everything you do every day. Don't forget the details. It can be fatal for you.
Much has been written about McCain's mercurial temperament during the past few weeks. An election campaign that was supposed to be all about Barack Obama has turned out to be all about John McCain. In the process, the other side of the equation — Obama's steadiness throughout — has been pretty much overlooked. Just after the House shot down the bailout, Obama took to the stage in Colorado, and the contrast with McCain couldn't have been greater: "Now is not the time for fear, now is not the time for panic," he said. "We may not be able to do everything overnight...But I want you to understand, I know we can do it...Things are never smooth in Congress. It will get done."
We journalists have an extensive vocabulary for cataloging the failures of politicians and a skimpy one for celebrating their successes. It's safer to be skeptical: no one will ever accuse you of being in the tank. And so we've heard lots, in a negative way, about Obama's coolness and intellectuality. And at times in this campaign — during Hillary Clinton's populist transformation, after Sarah Palin's convention speech — Obama's demeanor has seemed problematic. He was too remote, too cerebral and nuanced in his answers, it was said; he had to get warmer, learn to love junk food, practice his bowling. But Obama stubbornly remained himself through the tough times; his preternatural calm has proved reassuring in both the economic crisis and the first debate. "His performance has been polished and steady," a prominent Republican told me. "John's has not been."
Part of Obama's steadiness is born of necessity: An angry, or flashy, black man isn't going to be elected President. But I've also gotten the sense, in the times I've interviewed and chatted with him, that calm is Obama's natural default position. He is friendly, informal, accessible...and a mystery, hard to get to know. He doesn't give away much, doesn't — unlike Bill Clinton — have that desperate need to make you like him. His brilliant, at times excessive, oratory is an outlier — the only over-the-top, Technicolor quality he has. There has been no grand cathartic moment for him in this campaign, but rather a steady accretion of trust, a growing public sense that he knows what he's talking about and isn't going to get crazy on us. His demeanor has rendered foolish all the rumors about his alleged radicalism. This guy is the furthest thing imaginable from an extremist; McCain, by his own admission, is the bomb-thrower in this race.
Obama's performance in the first debate was Exhibit A. My first reaction was that Obama didn't make any mistakes, but he allowed McCain to attack him relentlessly without making an effective counterattack. I saw it as a toss-up, not a momentum changer; the public, however, saw it as a clear-cut Obama win. In retrospect, there were two reasons for this. The first became clear when I read the transcript: Obama was far more forceful on the page than he was on the screen. He just lambasted McCain quietly. A key moment was the Iraq question: McCain was very strong here, slamming Obama for not supporting the surge. But Obama's litany of things McCain had gotten wrong ("You said that we were going to be greeted as liberators ...") was devastating. And his bottom line — that the war in Iraq had been a diversion from the real fight against al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan — made far more sense.
Obama's other great advantage was visual. He seemed, literally and figuratively, the bigger man. McCain's problem wasn't so much that he never looked at Obama; it was that he never looked at the camera. He seemed pinched, evasive, uncomfortable. Obama, by contrast, looked at both McCain and the camera. He addressed the public directly, seemed utterly confident and unflappable throughout.
The polls have McCain in free fall now. "John's advisers are sitting around, trying figure out their next Hail Mary pass," the prominent Republican told me. "But most Hail Marys aren't successful. They fall to the ground in the end zone." Sometimes a frantic heave will net a score, but you get the sense that even if McCain stages a last-minute rally, Obama will not be daunted. Under insane pressure — as brutal a year on the stump as I've ever seen — he has kept his head. He is the least angry man.