War

On the recent "Criminalize War" compagin led by Dr.Mahathir, he made a remark intended to show his neutrality.

"If Iraq had invaded United States, I would support USA".

Suppose he really means what he says, then a question follows. Iraq had invaded Kuwait in 1990, and USA had helped Kuwait defend itself. According to his line of reasoning, he would support the victim, and naturally, all people who help the victim. Why did Mahathir NOT support USA during that time?

Mahathir could further argue that, Kuwait was invaded, not USA. He had no reason to support USA, an outsider. USA had no reason to stick a foot in, and uphold justice by itself.

However, this leads to another question. Now that Iraq was "invaded", why does Mahathir, an outsider, has any right to meddle with middle east affair, and establish a justice system to help Iraq fend off its enemy (USA). Isn't Mahathir trying to do exactly the same thing USA was trying to do 17 years ago? Mahathir and USA are both outsiders, they are not the victim themselves. And they both tried to work out a solution based on the common belief that they were trying to protect the victims. Interestingly, American's solution was backed by United Nation in 1990, whereas Mahathir's campaign was outside the UN's system, because he is of the view that Geneva Convention is not adequate. From this perspective, USA's action was more legitimate than Mahathir's.

Mahathir could again argue there is a difference in motives : USA intevened based on its personal interest in the gulf area, in particular the control of oil and gas. Meanwhile, Mahathir is really trying to uphold a global justice based on the fact that war is cruel, and all war initiators should be tried and punished.

However, Mahathir higlighted only the cruelty suffered by Iraqis as a result of american troops. Hamas bombing Israel citizens does not really count. Saddam Hussein's torture and mass murder of certain tribes do not count. September 11th does not count. The selectve definition of war and cruelty is really bothering me. If Mahathir's campaign is larger than just the Iraq's misery, he has to give a fair, just, and accurate definition of war. For the moment, he sounds like he is defining war as American wars.

Maybe Mahathir has all the good intentions : Bring peace to the middle east. By the same token, we have every reason to believe that USA has its equally noble cause : Bring democracy values to the middle east. If you must doubt USA, you have to doubt Mahathir. Let's be fair.

As I drove past Jalan Tun Razak today, I saw many banners placed upon the lamposts along the street. Those banners featured the photos of suffering iraqis. There was one photo particularly gruesome : One muslim lady looking on at a dead baby. These banners are very powerful to create an emotional outburst among the public. Deep down, I'm very worried. Are these banners going to promote peace ? Or are they more likely to ignite hatred and revenge? Are we really talking about peace and ending all wars, or are we talking about only ending American influence?

To all the people who quickly think that Mahathir is going to get the Nobel Peace Prize, answer me : Crimalize War ? What War ? What is War? Why just Bush and Blair?

Stupidity defined

There is a limit of how much stupidity one can tolerate.

And this really tests my limit.

Yesterday the newspaper headline is hat Malaysia government finally recognizes the Chinese studies of Tsing Hua University, Beijing.

Ong Ka Ting said "Tsing Hua university ranked 20-something globally, we should recognize their chinese study". Everyone applauded.

Just a couple of quick questions.

First f all, I do not think that we, Malaysia, which has no universities that ranks in the world top-100, has any right to judge and recognize a university much superior to us. It's as stupid as saying that we finally recognize the English study of Oxford University.

Secondly, what was the reason of not recognizing their chinese study in the past 50 years since we regained independence? Can somebody explain why on earth a chinese study degree from China was not recognizable in the first place. You mean, a chinese study is better taught in Japan? Germany? France, but not China? I can only guess that the only reason is Marxism, but China has long stopped propaganda courses after 1978.

Thirdly, are you saying that you are only recognizing the chinese study of Tsing Hua university, and not any other universities in China? Are you saying, for instance, chinese study of Fu Dan university in Shang Hai is so poor that we can't recognize it?

Fourthly, why is the government cabinet deciding whether a foreign university is good or not good. Last I checked, none of you make it to the PHD, except for the chairman of Bank Negara. Can you guys do yourself a favor, don't meddle with academics. Leave it to the experts.

It's a good news that the government recognizes something that should have been recognized long ago, but this decision is not something of which the politicians can claim credits. We still look really stupid in the whole world.

And I blog about this because I know Jeff Ooi wouldn't.

pick-up line

The best pick-up line ever - Would you light up this room forever for me?


　毕业后，梅琳达如愿进入了自己曾经实习过的微软公司，并很快崭露头角，取得了骄人的业绩，成为一名管理人员。在一次新闻发布会上，梅琳达结识了公司最大的“头儿”——比尔·盖茨，而后者也同样注意到了这个端庄又聪慧的女性。之后，对梅琳达开始留心的盖茨发现，她几乎和自己一样都是工作狂。每天晚上，盖茨从自己的办公室窗口望出去，正好可以看见梅琳达也在办公室埋头苦干。一次，他终于来到梅琳达的办公室，鼓足勇气对她说：“请你永远为我点亮这盏灯……”两人从此坠入爱河。直到有一天，梅琳达鼓起勇气穿了一件上面特别写着“娶我吧，比尔”的T恤衫来到盖茨的办公室，于是，两人的爱情终于有了完满的结局。