A dull weekend deserves an amorous post. So here it is :- though Jessica Alba has the most deliciously tempting curves on Earth, Miss Alba will fare with dismay on the higher plain. That is because the best body in the universe (as opposed to mere Earth) belongs to a Vulcan – Sub-Commander T’Pol. Played to titivating perfection by Jolene Blalock (whom I think puts Jessica Alba to shame), this character from Star Trek : Enterprise is all seductive, sensual, salacious ; in all her sexual symmetrically titillating curves. Sub-Commander T’Pol has been voted the No. 1 Star Trek Babe in a recent internet poll (for Best Star Trek Babes 1966-2005). This beatnik alien is a picturesque of (mind my words) exotic coitus.
Incidentally, Star Trek the series boast the most heavenly seraphic maidens that can arouse even the most sedate male. The series started way back in the 60s – Star Trek : The Original Series (1966-1969). This was followed by Star Trek : The Next Generation (1987-1994), Star Trek : Deep Space Nine (1993-1999), Star Trek : Voyager (1995-2001) and Star Trek : Enterprise (2001-2005). Both aliens and humans made divine headway. Counselor Deanna Troi, a human in Star Trek : The Next Generation, was a vixen of the 80s. Adorn with a big bee- hive hairdo, she is allure, attractive and elegant. Sort of a character out of an 80s Sex in the City. Somebody who is intelligent and smart; you can be in love with just her mind alone. Yet beddable.
For those who still prefer the exotic far east, we have Ensign Hoshi Sato, played by Linda Park. A human in Star Trek : Enterprise. This one takes delight in being attractive in a non-inviting way (so very Asian, don’t you think). Yet in one episode, while on holiday, she ends up in bed with a bizarre male-alien. So deceptively carnal.
The girl next door tag belongs to Dr. Beverly Crusher, played with allure by Gates McFadden. The human medical officer in Star Trek : The Next Generation. She is the beautiful-wife material that everyone likes to have. Maternal, caring, affectionate ; yet devilishly attractive in an un-matronly kind of way.
For those who prefer the mature woman – there is Captain Kathyrn Janeway, played by Kate Mulgraw. The dowager captain of the starship in Star Trek : Voyager. She is all powerful, haughty and supercilious. This older captain rules the space with such sovereignty, potency and vigour. Now, this is one experienced lady, so seasoned and so skilled in all antiquated eroticism – stay attentive, and be ready to take orders.
Then there is this other alien, a half-Klingon – B’Elanna Tores, played provocatively by Roxann Dawson. Hideous Klingons never look so good. This character is also from Star Trek : Voyager. Being half-Klingon, B’Elanna displays rage, fury, wrath and antagonism; all rolled in one. One of the best episodes shows B’Elanna being “in heat”, and is in dire need to copulate. Being a virtuous lady, she finally relented to her indecent instinct – by beating up a fellow male space traveller half-dead. This way, she gets to channel her pent-up sexual frustration and energy elsewhere.
Lastly, there is Lieutenant Llia ; played by the beautiful Persis Khambatta in the movie version Star Trek : The Motion Picture (1979). One can never be so aroused by a bizarre bald head (Note :- this is way before Sinead O’Connor). Llia’s beautiful bald head emits suggestive signals – from deep space all the way to far flung Earth.
Suddenly, space look all so erotic. I also suddenly feel fiendish.
Sunday, October 28, 2007
Saturday, October 27, 2007
Did you now ... ?
DID YOU KNOW that one technically does not have to have any academic qualification in order to be the Prime Minister of Malaysia? Well, this is in response to the report in the Star :– (“Want to be an exco member? Get a degree first” - Sunday Star 21 October 2007) and a subsequent reply :– (“Graduate leaders can make a difference” – Views, The Star 22 October 2007).
In our new found quest to create scholarly adroit leaders, perhaps it is wise to step back to discern a few basics. Article 47 of the supreme law of the land, the Federal Constitution, provides that for one to qualify as a Member of Parliament, that person must not be less than 21 years old. Now, this means that there are no academic qualification imposed to be a MP. Then, Article 43 (2) (a) provides that the Yang di-Pertuan Agong shall appoint as Prime Minister who in his judgement is likely to command the confidence of the majority. Therefore, we have a Constitution that can allow a well-favoured MP without erudition to qualify to be appointed as the PM.
Perhaps, to take a lead to create intellectual graduate leaders of the future, we should consider amending our supreme law to set things rolling. We can draw inspiration from the Federal Constitution of our neighbouring Thailand; which provides that a Minister must graduate with not lower than a Bachelor’s degree or its equivalent (Section 206 of the Thai Constitution).
In our new found quest to create scholarly adroit leaders, perhaps it is wise to step back to discern a few basics. Article 47 of the supreme law of the land, the Federal Constitution, provides that for one to qualify as a Member of Parliament, that person must not be less than 21 years old. Now, this means that there are no academic qualification imposed to be a MP. Then, Article 43 (2) (a) provides that the Yang di-Pertuan Agong shall appoint as Prime Minister who in his judgement is likely to command the confidence of the majority. Therefore, we have a Constitution that can allow a well-favoured MP without erudition to qualify to be appointed as the PM.
Perhaps, to take a lead to create intellectual graduate leaders of the future, we should consider amending our supreme law to set things rolling. We can draw inspiration from the Federal Constitution of our neighbouring Thailand; which provides that a Minister must graduate with not lower than a Bachelor’s degree or its equivalent (Section 206 of the Thai Constitution).
Sunday, October 21, 2007
Sweet Sixteen
“ Gave my heart an engagement ring[Billy Idol :- Sweet Sixteen (released 1988)]
She took everything
Everything I gave her,
Oh sweet sixteen
I’ll do anything
For my sweet sixteen
And I’ll do anything
For little run away child “
Forget Whitney Houston’s soapy ballads, disgorge those melodramatic lyrics of Air Supply. Billy Idol’s Sweet Sixteen is the most beautiful love-ballad ever. They say the hardest rockers sing the most mellifluous ballads. How true it is for Sweet Sixteen. It has Billy Idol, the rebel-yell himself - strutting himself in all his manly glory; leather clad, curled writhing lips, lined brow so rapture in thought; images of flatulence- hard, pain, edgy ; fulminating in his rasp voice – a pathos of unrequited love and umbrage soul. Oh, how I miss the soul of the 80s.
But Sweet Sixteen is made more so poignant because it is all true and real. A song inspired by a true account. A tale of romance, tears and life in all its traverse and zeal; yet so macabre; mortifying; a rankle to the heart and soul.
The chronicle begins with felicity, in the early 20th century, in the forlorn countryside of Latvia. It is an image of frontispiece; a picturesque of calm, tranquil, zephyr. Edward Leedskalnin, the lead protagonist, was then age 26. He is happy, for he is engaged to be married. To his one and only love, Agnes Scuffs. She was then only 16. Edward affectionally refers to Agnes as his sweet sixteen. He was utterly devoted to her, and he look forward to the marriage; an ameliorate life with his subject of adore. It would be hard to prognosticate the unfolding events.
Agnes cancelled the wedding just one day before the ceremony. She left. A wicked abject decision that would leave Edward crippled in heart and soul. Edward is a hopeless romantic; passionate, sentimental. But he is no antagonist, for he reacted nobly. Edward refused to be a subject of abjure. He left Latvia, and he left his sweet sixteen; but carried with him all his love, in all its splendor intact ; and his sorrows, tears and melancholy.
The dejected but staid Edward rooted himself to faraway Homestead, Florida. Homestead would serve as his furtive; his lonely, destitute, solitary confine. There he led a quixotic utopian life. It was there that he spent the rest of his life creating a monument to his lost love - to his sweet sixteen. The next 30 years was spent carving and sculpting over 1,100 tons of coral rocks, turning it into a castle; his Taj Mahal; as a testimony of his prodigious profound love to his sweet sixteen.
Coral Castle, as it is known today, is Edward’s capitulation to his desolate soul, a physical manifestation of undying devotion to a callous lover. Coral Castle is a palace, a citadel, a mansion, a keep, a stronghold, a house, … and his home. A megalithic fortress of coral rocks. Love moves a man. For Edward Leedskalnin, it all so true. A man of only 5 feet in height, and weighing a mere 100 pounds. He toiled all day and night to lift and maneuver blocks of megalithic stones to create this magnificent edifice.
Edward never married. He died in 1951, at age 64. Still pinning for his sweet sixteen.
Do view :-
http://www.coralcastle.com
http://www.crystalinks.com/coralcastle.html
Friday, October 19, 2007
Yes! We are now a space power
Disdain. That perhaps best describe my sentiments towards Associate Professor Dr Azmi Sharom’s piece of article (Analysis : Wah! We are now a space power, The Star, Thursday 18 October 2007). It is a thrash-worthy writing of puns and sarcasm. I am appalled; no, mortified, that Dr Azmi can stomach himself to pen such traitorous thought, and beefing it up with such tenuous arguments.
Can he not see the bigger picture in all this? Can he not see the wider spectacle of the nation’s space exercise, in all its grand splendour and after-effects; one that captures the wild-imagination of our young for decades to come. Or perhaps he is steadfast intent to stultify the good readers with his stuporic ramblings.
Dr Azmi, of all people, being a teacher and academician, should appreciate how young impressionable minds can be ignited by this national, historical, mind-blowing, inspirational episode; not to mention we now have a national space-hero (with Brad Pitt like appearance) whom our children can emulate (to be) for years to come. This inspiration, this ignition of the mind, is priceless. Dr Azmi did make some references (to little schoolchildren being inspired), but he does so with such sarcasm. Can he not see, the seeds have been sowed to ensure the non-gestation of future Mat Rempits. Instead we will have, lo and behold, Mat Angkasa. Future residents of the nation, loved by all, loath by none; whose knowledge in Science and Astrology knows no bound. Whose character and attitude is comparable to that of the Canadian Mountie or Baden’s Boy-Scouts. It is really Malaysia Boleh, and this is no satire.
Dr Azmi insist that there are a lot of unhappy rumblings regarding the space programme. I beg to differ. I see not, hear not, feel not of such rumblings. Does he not read nor watch the panegyric accolades and acclamation bestowed by the people? How can he deny such a fact? Or perhaps he views the daily reporting as propaganda stratagem. Well, shame on him. My sincere advice to Dr Azmi, stay away from blogs and alternative news. Instead, he should remain to mainstream news. And, it will do good to our society if we never step out mainstream.
Dr Azmi’s constant recapitulation of our lack of space programme vis-à-vis space training borders on pugnacity. What does it matter if we do not have a space programme? Does he not see this as a step towards that? Sort of a start of a programme towards a bigger programme. A parergon of sorts. And what matters most is taking the first step. Did we not laugh at the Japanese for the Toyota of yesteryears? Did we not rebuke the Proton Saga at its inception? (I say this oblivious to the fact that Proton the Corporation is in shambles. But that is another story altogether and is not pertinent to this discussion).
And why do we need to relentlessly argue over mere descriptive terms of astronaut, cosmonaut, spaceman, space tourist. It is ultimately substance over form. Dr Sheikh Muszaphar went to space. That is all that matters, and that is all to be proud of. A furore over descriptive term serves no end. It merely sways our readers’ attention to unworthy issues, rather than the primary achievement. And speaking of issue, it would seem Dr Azmi has one on the handsome clean-cut angkasawan. Such cussedly cynical remarks only serves to show ill-intent on the part of Dr Azmi. Does he not see the far reaching effects of having a good-looking angkasawan? I bet Dr Azmi’s jaws will drop when the Government announce a partnership with Mattel (or perhaps Barbie) to manufacture Angkasawan figure-dolls. With such a good-looking poster boy angkasawan, the sales will soar, which in turn will push the nations’ economy ten-fold. But alas, I do not see Dr Azmi appreciating such street-wise economic foreseeability. Perhaps his inability emanates from his years of being cocooned in the chambers of university.
And yes, our angkasawan went to space and conducted experiments. That in itself begs applause. Are we to send Dr. Sheikh Muszaphar there doing nothing but take scenic photographs? Of course not. Experiments it is. There is nothing to be cynical about tossing a gasing in space, and preparing Malay delicacies. Mind you, it is a gasing, not a top. And why local delicacies? Well, firstly, it is matter of homage. This is a matter close to heart of the Ministry of Warisan and Budaya. Our generation has reached the skies, something which our elders cannot achieve. Yet, in all its achievement, we forget not our roots. The delicacies represent that. It is adat. It is resam. It is budaya. It is our remembrance to our forefathers; thanking them for the opportunity created upon us. It is, all in all, abstract. Incognito. But I cannot expect Dr Azmi to comprehend such inconsonant thoughts, for he is but a cold sardonic lawyer; devoid of any artistic appetency. And secondly, if the food questionnaire results in positive response, we may be looking at a billion-dollar space food supply industry (my earlier comments on economic foreseeability apply).
Dr Azmi snarles on the buckets of money paid to the Russians. His inept comment merely displays altruism. Our forefathers’ sacrifices allow us to do the want of many things. And we should emulate this core virtue – sacrifice. Yes, we sacrificed load of cash for our Angkasawan. That is unavoidable. But a correct decision in end. And all Dr Azmi can lament is the fact that the countdown traffic light at Jalan University is not working. Again, shame on you. But I have to admit, this is an inescapable peril of urban good life. It discourages stoicism. It makes one weak.
Incidentally, why is a university academician like Dr Azmi be given an opportunity to dispense his ideologies in mainstream newspaper. Does not the Universities and University Colleges Act provides for one to lead a vestal life within the Edenic confines of the school?
Can he not see the bigger picture in all this? Can he not see the wider spectacle of the nation’s space exercise, in all its grand splendour and after-effects; one that captures the wild-imagination of our young for decades to come. Or perhaps he is steadfast intent to stultify the good readers with his stuporic ramblings.
Dr Azmi, of all people, being a teacher and academician, should appreciate how young impressionable minds can be ignited by this national, historical, mind-blowing, inspirational episode; not to mention we now have a national space-hero (with Brad Pitt like appearance) whom our children can emulate (to be) for years to come. This inspiration, this ignition of the mind, is priceless. Dr Azmi did make some references (to little schoolchildren being inspired), but he does so with such sarcasm. Can he not see, the seeds have been sowed to ensure the non-gestation of future Mat Rempits. Instead we will have, lo and behold, Mat Angkasa. Future residents of the nation, loved by all, loath by none; whose knowledge in Science and Astrology knows no bound. Whose character and attitude is comparable to that of the Canadian Mountie or Baden’s Boy-Scouts. It is really Malaysia Boleh, and this is no satire.
Dr Azmi insist that there are a lot of unhappy rumblings regarding the space programme. I beg to differ. I see not, hear not, feel not of such rumblings. Does he not read nor watch the panegyric accolades and acclamation bestowed by the people? How can he deny such a fact? Or perhaps he views the daily reporting as propaganda stratagem. Well, shame on him. My sincere advice to Dr Azmi, stay away from blogs and alternative news. Instead, he should remain to mainstream news. And, it will do good to our society if we never step out mainstream.
Dr Azmi’s constant recapitulation of our lack of space programme vis-à-vis space training borders on pugnacity. What does it matter if we do not have a space programme? Does he not see this as a step towards that? Sort of a start of a programme towards a bigger programme. A parergon of sorts. And what matters most is taking the first step. Did we not laugh at the Japanese for the Toyota of yesteryears? Did we not rebuke the Proton Saga at its inception? (I say this oblivious to the fact that Proton the Corporation is in shambles. But that is another story altogether and is not pertinent to this discussion).
And why do we need to relentlessly argue over mere descriptive terms of astronaut, cosmonaut, spaceman, space tourist. It is ultimately substance over form. Dr Sheikh Muszaphar went to space. That is all that matters, and that is all to be proud of. A furore over descriptive term serves no end. It merely sways our readers’ attention to unworthy issues, rather than the primary achievement. And speaking of issue, it would seem Dr Azmi has one on the handsome clean-cut angkasawan. Such cussedly cynical remarks only serves to show ill-intent on the part of Dr Azmi. Does he not see the far reaching effects of having a good-looking angkasawan? I bet Dr Azmi’s jaws will drop when the Government announce a partnership with Mattel (or perhaps Barbie) to manufacture Angkasawan figure-dolls. With such a good-looking poster boy angkasawan, the sales will soar, which in turn will push the nations’ economy ten-fold. But alas, I do not see Dr Azmi appreciating such street-wise economic foreseeability. Perhaps his inability emanates from his years of being cocooned in the chambers of university.
And yes, our angkasawan went to space and conducted experiments. That in itself begs applause. Are we to send Dr. Sheikh Muszaphar there doing nothing but take scenic photographs? Of course not. Experiments it is. There is nothing to be cynical about tossing a gasing in space, and preparing Malay delicacies. Mind you, it is a gasing, not a top. And why local delicacies? Well, firstly, it is matter of homage. This is a matter close to heart of the Ministry of Warisan and Budaya. Our generation has reached the skies, something which our elders cannot achieve. Yet, in all its achievement, we forget not our roots. The delicacies represent that. It is adat. It is resam. It is budaya. It is our remembrance to our forefathers; thanking them for the opportunity created upon us. It is, all in all, abstract. Incognito. But I cannot expect Dr Azmi to comprehend such inconsonant thoughts, for he is but a cold sardonic lawyer; devoid of any artistic appetency. And secondly, if the food questionnaire results in positive response, we may be looking at a billion-dollar space food supply industry (my earlier comments on economic foreseeability apply).
Dr Azmi snarles on the buckets of money paid to the Russians. His inept comment merely displays altruism. Our forefathers’ sacrifices allow us to do the want of many things. And we should emulate this core virtue – sacrifice. Yes, we sacrificed load of cash for our Angkasawan. That is unavoidable. But a correct decision in end. And all Dr Azmi can lament is the fact that the countdown traffic light at Jalan University is not working. Again, shame on you. But I have to admit, this is an inescapable peril of urban good life. It discourages stoicism. It makes one weak.
Incidentally, why is a university academician like Dr Azmi be given an opportunity to dispense his ideologies in mainstream newspaper. Does not the Universities and University Colleges Act provides for one to lead a vestal life within the Edenic confines of the school?
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
King Today, Gone Tomorrow
The rabble-rousing post in Malaysia-Today simply entitled “The Yang di-Pertuan Agong” is classically interesting. It has all the elements and trademarks of an angry Mr. Raja Petra Kamarudin. It is, unlike the conspiracy-based postings, a well-researched academic piece of writing with informative constitutional value. Although the general theme appears not in place, the message is clear. RPK wants to impress upon his readers that the Yang di-Pertuan Agong is no farce force. The references to the Federal Constitution ably works up the people. A short account of the references is reproduced here :-
Art 32 (1) – the Agong is the Supreme Head of the Federation
Art 182 – the Agong can only be charged in the Special Court
Art 183 – No action against the Agong except with the consent of the Attorney-General
Art 39 – executive authority vested in the Agong
Art 40 (2) (a) – the Agong has discretion on appointment on Prime minister
Art 40 (2) (b) – the Agong can withhold consent to a request for dissolution of Parliament
Art 150 – the Agong may issue a Proclamation of Emergency
But sadly, one important aspect of the Federal Constitution has been left unnoted. It is Article 66 of the Federal Constitution. The article reads as follows, verbatim :-
Art 66 (1) The power of Parliament to make laws shall be exercised by Bills passed by both Houses (or, in the cases mentioned in Article 68, the House of Representatives) and, except as otherwise provided to in this Article, assented to by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong.
(2) Subject to Article 67, a Bill may originate in either House.
(3) When a Bill has been passed by the House in which it originated it shall be sent to the other House; and it shall be presented to the Yang di-Pertuan Agong for his assent when it has been passed by the other House and agreement has been reached between the two Houses on any amendments made in it or when it is required to be so presented under Article 68.
(4) The Yang di-Pertuan Agong shall within thirty days after a Bill is presented to him assent to the Bill by causing the Public Seal to be affixed thereto.
(4A) If a Bill is not assented to by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong within the time specified in Clause (4), it shall become law at the expiration of the time specified in that Clause in the like manner as if he had assented thereto.
(5) A Bill shall become law on being assented to by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong or as provided in Clause 4 (a), but no law shall come into force until it has been published, without prejudice, however, to the power of Parliament to postpone the operation of any law or to make laws with retrospective effect.
Art 66 has the effect that Parliament can pass any law without the Royal assent. The assent of the Agong is merely technical, and somewhat ceremonial. The Agong has no right to refuse the passing of any law, or to put it more correctly, the law can be passed automatically even if the Agong refuses it. The end effect of this, is that Parliament can, technically, amend any part of the Federal Constitution with a two-thirds majority, and there is nothing the Agong can do to salvage the situation. Therefore the Government can amend or even delete any or all of the provisions cited and referred by RPK on the Agong’s powers. In fact, it would appear that the Government can wake up one day and decide it does not want the Institution of the Monarchy, and pass a Bill to this effect. One can be a King today, a commoner tomorrow.
This is exactly what happened in the constitutional crisis of 1983 and 1993. The damning Article 66 (4A) was brought about as a result of the constitutional crisis of 1983 (to ensure the non-interference of the Sultan of Johor, who was made the Agong at that time). And again, in the crisis of 1993, the Federal Constitution was amended to take-away the immunity of the Rulers, and try them in the Special Court. As against contrary belief, the Special Court was not a “privileged” court for the Rulers, it was a special court to put the Rulers for trial when there was no such court prior to 1993. Thus the Special Court was not a “special privilege”, it was in fact an “added imposed liability”.
History has dictated precedents for the amendment, addition and deletion of provisions of the Federal Constitution in respect of the Rulers. It is with these precedents that one have to bear in mind as to the existing “powers” of the Agong conferred by the Constitution. It may well be a mere “perceived” constitutional power as opposed otherwise.
Wassallam.
Art 32 (1) – the Agong is the Supreme Head of the Federation
Art 182 – the Agong can only be charged in the Special Court
Art 183 – No action against the Agong except with the consent of the Attorney-General
Art 39 – executive authority vested in the Agong
Art 40 (2) (a) – the Agong has discretion on appointment on Prime minister
Art 40 (2) (b) – the Agong can withhold consent to a request for dissolution of Parliament
Art 150 – the Agong may issue a Proclamation of Emergency
But sadly, one important aspect of the Federal Constitution has been left unnoted. It is Article 66 of the Federal Constitution. The article reads as follows, verbatim :-
Art 66 (1) The power of Parliament to make laws shall be exercised by Bills passed by both Houses (or, in the cases mentioned in Article 68, the House of Representatives) and, except as otherwise provided to in this Article, assented to by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong.
(2) Subject to Article 67, a Bill may originate in either House.
(3) When a Bill has been passed by the House in which it originated it shall be sent to the other House; and it shall be presented to the Yang di-Pertuan Agong for his assent when it has been passed by the other House and agreement has been reached between the two Houses on any amendments made in it or when it is required to be so presented under Article 68.
(4) The Yang di-Pertuan Agong shall within thirty days after a Bill is presented to him assent to the Bill by causing the Public Seal to be affixed thereto.
(4A) If a Bill is not assented to by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong within the time specified in Clause (4), it shall become law at the expiration of the time specified in that Clause in the like manner as if he had assented thereto.
(5) A Bill shall become law on being assented to by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong or as provided in Clause 4 (a), but no law shall come into force until it has been published, without prejudice, however, to the power of Parliament to postpone the operation of any law or to make laws with retrospective effect.
Art 66 has the effect that Parliament can pass any law without the Royal assent. The assent of the Agong is merely technical, and somewhat ceremonial. The Agong has no right to refuse the passing of any law, or to put it more correctly, the law can be passed automatically even if the Agong refuses it. The end effect of this, is that Parliament can, technically, amend any part of the Federal Constitution with a two-thirds majority, and there is nothing the Agong can do to salvage the situation. Therefore the Government can amend or even delete any or all of the provisions cited and referred by RPK on the Agong’s powers. In fact, it would appear that the Government can wake up one day and decide it does not want the Institution of the Monarchy, and pass a Bill to this effect. One can be a King today, a commoner tomorrow.
This is exactly what happened in the constitutional crisis of 1983 and 1993. The damning Article 66 (4A) was brought about as a result of the constitutional crisis of 1983 (to ensure the non-interference of the Sultan of Johor, who was made the Agong at that time). And again, in the crisis of 1993, the Federal Constitution was amended to take-away the immunity of the Rulers, and try them in the Special Court. As against contrary belief, the Special Court was not a “privileged” court for the Rulers, it was a special court to put the Rulers for trial when there was no such court prior to 1993. Thus the Special Court was not a “special privilege”, it was in fact an “added imposed liability”.
History has dictated precedents for the amendment, addition and deletion of provisions of the Federal Constitution in respect of the Rulers. It is with these precedents that one have to bear in mind as to the existing “powers” of the Agong conferred by the Constitution. It may well be a mere “perceived” constitutional power as opposed otherwise.
Wassallam.
Friday, October 5, 2007
The Special Independent Panel - An Exercise in Futility?
I don’t understand the workings of the Special Independent Panel task with verifying the authenticity of the Lingam video clip. First of all, does “authenticity of the video clip” means that the video in itself is authentic? This means the said video is an actual video taping an actual event. It is not a “doctored” clip. It is not, say, Saudara Tian Chua working in his Tian Chua Industrial Light & Magic studio, taking background footages of The Sound of Music, and superimposing moving images of VK Lingam, and adding Kermit the Frog voice-overs, creating this Emmy-worthy controversial clip. If this is what “authenticity” means, then it is (mind my language) akin to starting a sexual act without finishing it. What if the Panel finds that the video is “authentic”? Is the Panel’s job’s done? I think what the public wants to know is whether the contents in the video is “authentic”, i.e. did VK Lingam actually said all those things, did he actually say it to the so-called Senior Judge, and whether all that was said is true. It is not whether the video (in its technicality) is authentic, it is whether the contents of the video is true and accurate.
Coming back to the authenticity of the clip. I think there are a few ways to verify this. One way is to just ask VK Lingam. If he says yes, it was him in the video and all that was seen actually happened, then the video is authentic. It’s as easy as that. Or the Panel can ask the person who took the video (if he/she is unintelligent enough to come forward) as to whether the video is authentic or a product of Tian Chua Industrial Light & Magic. If the answer is yes, it is authentic, then I guess the Panel would have to conclude just that. Or perhaps, the Panel can get a technical expert from Lucas Industrial Light & Magic (as opposed to Tian Chua) to give an expert opinion as to whether the video has been “special effected”. Perhaps, the Panel can do all three. And if all three is in the affirmative, then the video is authentic. Is that then the end of the issue? That’s what I’m confused. If it is, then we all been hoodwinked!
The next step (if there is allowed to be one) would be whether the contents in the video is authentic. This is what I have stated earlier, whether what VK Lingam said is true. This, I think, is the tricky part. VK Lingam speaks to the phone. Who he is speaking to, we don’t see and we don’t know. How can one verify? Well, again ask VK Lingam. If he says yes, then the job is made much easier. But what if he says (like what everyone has predicted) that he is only practicing his acting skills. There is actually no one on the other side. What he actually says is all made up fantasy. How can the Panel verify this? It is his word against …. nothing. So, VK Lingam says he is drunk and doing play-acting, and the Senior Judge either denies or keep mum. How then? Now unless there is a corresponding video clip on the other end of the spectrum that shows Mr. Judge on his cell-phone, and hopefully audible enough to piece a talk-and-reply conversation, this appears to be an exercise in futility. But hey, is the Panel empowered to ask, or perhaps compel Telekom/Maxis/Celcom/017/013 etcetera etcetera to do the following :-
a) release VK Lingam’s land line/cell phone numbers and monthly statements
b) check the call history
c) release all of Mr. Senior Judge’s phone numbers, be it office, house, cellphones etcetera etcetera
Can the Panel do a “CSI”, draw some analogies, conclude and make a presumption of “guilty as charged”? Or perhaps as what I have said, the Panel’s duty is to only check on technical authenticity only. Possible outcome by the Panel :-
1) we cannot conclude anything because VK Lingam says it is not him, the Judge says it is not him, the film-maker did not come forward, and George Lucas says he is too busy to attend our sittings.
2) yes the video is authentic because VK Lingam says it is him, film-maker says he was the one, and the Lucas Report show no tampering on the video. But our job ends here. It says so in our terms of appointment.
3) yes the video is authentic ……… But VK Lingam says he is drunk, he doesn’t know any judges, he doesn’t know Vincent Tan, and his childhood dream is to be Rajnikanth. Mr. Judge says he don’t know any lawyers, he lost his voice that whole year and he has never owned a phone his whole life. Therefore the accuracy of the contents and allegations in the video cannot be confirmed. Oh yes, being merely a Panel with no powers, we did not ask anything from Telekom or the other phone companies.
Oh, how will this all turn out? So many questions, so many issues, so many possible outcomes. I’m now officially sleepy.
Good night.
Coming back to the authenticity of the clip. I think there are a few ways to verify this. One way is to just ask VK Lingam. If he says yes, it was him in the video and all that was seen actually happened, then the video is authentic. It’s as easy as that. Or the Panel can ask the person who took the video (if he/she is unintelligent enough to come forward) as to whether the video is authentic or a product of Tian Chua Industrial Light & Magic. If the answer is yes, it is authentic, then I guess the Panel would have to conclude just that. Or perhaps, the Panel can get a technical expert from Lucas Industrial Light & Magic (as opposed to Tian Chua) to give an expert opinion as to whether the video has been “special effected”. Perhaps, the Panel can do all three. And if all three is in the affirmative, then the video is authentic. Is that then the end of the issue? That’s what I’m confused. If it is, then we all been hoodwinked!
The next step (if there is allowed to be one) would be whether the contents in the video is authentic. This is what I have stated earlier, whether what VK Lingam said is true. This, I think, is the tricky part. VK Lingam speaks to the phone. Who he is speaking to, we don’t see and we don’t know. How can one verify? Well, again ask VK Lingam. If he says yes, then the job is made much easier. But what if he says (like what everyone has predicted) that he is only practicing his acting skills. There is actually no one on the other side. What he actually says is all made up fantasy. How can the Panel verify this? It is his word against …. nothing. So, VK Lingam says he is drunk and doing play-acting, and the Senior Judge either denies or keep mum. How then? Now unless there is a corresponding video clip on the other end of the spectrum that shows Mr. Judge on his cell-phone, and hopefully audible enough to piece a talk-and-reply conversation, this appears to be an exercise in futility. But hey, is the Panel empowered to ask, or perhaps compel Telekom/Maxis/Celcom/017/013 etcetera etcetera to do the following :-
a) release VK Lingam’s land line/cell phone numbers and monthly statements
b) check the call history
c) release all of Mr. Senior Judge’s phone numbers, be it office, house, cellphones etcetera etcetera
Can the Panel do a “CSI”, draw some analogies, conclude and make a presumption of “guilty as charged”? Or perhaps as what I have said, the Panel’s duty is to only check on technical authenticity only. Possible outcome by the Panel :-
1) we cannot conclude anything because VK Lingam says it is not him, the Judge says it is not him, the film-maker did not come forward, and George Lucas says he is too busy to attend our sittings.
2) yes the video is authentic because VK Lingam says it is him, film-maker says he was the one, and the Lucas Report show no tampering on the video. But our job ends here. It says so in our terms of appointment.
3) yes the video is authentic ……… But VK Lingam says he is drunk, he doesn’t know any judges, he doesn’t know Vincent Tan, and his childhood dream is to be Rajnikanth. Mr. Judge says he don’t know any lawyers, he lost his voice that whole year and he has never owned a phone his whole life. Therefore the accuracy of the contents and allegations in the video cannot be confirmed. Oh yes, being merely a Panel with no powers, we did not ask anything from Telekom or the other phone companies.
Oh, how will this all turn out? So many questions, so many issues, so many possible outcomes. I’m now officially sleepy.
Good night.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
