close
The Wayback Machine - https://web.archive.org/web/20111227075705/http://scottthong.wordpress.com/

Check Your Malaysian Voter Registration

November 27, 07

MORE IMPORTANT THAN EVER

Due to cases like:

Go to http://daftarj.spr.gov.my/semakdm/ and input the Mykad numbers.

And more!

—————————————–

Are you registered to vote? Check it out at  http://daftarj.spr.gov.my/

                                logospr

Voting in the upcoming general elections is the best way to influence change in this country for the better – not Bersih rallies or HINDRAF rallies (despite how impressive they may be and how over-reactionarily the government responds).

So if you don’t like how the current administration has handled things, is handling things, and plans to handles things in the future – vote them out of power.

The Barisan Nasional powers-that-be know that they’re privileged position is precarious. They even ask us not to vote for the Opposition even if we’re unhappy with the ruling party.

Do you need any more reason to get registered and get out and vote than a quote like that?

Ram and Rob in Johor Bahru

December 27, 11

Via Malaysia Chronicle:

Nightmare in Johor for mugged S’pore couple

A midnight trip across the Causeway left a couple shaken when they were surrounded by five men.

The couple, who gave their names only as the Lees, had gone to Johor Baru to visit Mr Lee’s parents at about midnight on Monday.

Wanting to exchange currency, they turned into an alley near the Malaysian immigration checkpoints.

There, the couple claimed, a Malaysian-registered car crashed into the rear of their Suzuki Swift.

When they got out to inspect their car, the two men in the other car alighted as well.

Suddenly, three more men appeared from the shadows of the alley and surrounded the couple.

By the time they realised that something seemed fishy, the couple did not have enough time to get back into their car.

Mrs Lee, 29, a clerk, told Lianhe Wanbao: “One of the men who was holding a knife pressed it against my husband’s neck, and ordered us to hand over all our valuables.

“They drove our car away too.”

Handed over passports

Mr Lee, 35, a Malaysian holding a Singapore permanent resident status, handed over their passports and watches.

By a stroke of luck, Mrs Lee managed to keep her handbag with her, even though the robbers demanded that the couple hand over their bags.

Forgetting that the robbers had a knife, Mrs Lee said she pleaded with them to let her keep her bag. Surprisingly, the men left in the two cars without taking her handbag.

The couple said they made a police report and spent a day in Malaysia before returning to Singapore on Tuesday morning.

Back in Singapore, they made another police report, the couple told Lianhe Wanbao.

The couple, who often cross the Causeway to visit Mr Lee’s parents, said this was the first time they had been robbed in Malaysia.

But it wasn’t the first time they were involved in a traffic accident.

Last month, a blue car knocked into the right passenger door of their Suzuki just after they cleared Malaysian immigration.

A similar case of robbers using the same ploy in Malaysia to rob drivers was reported last month.

Then, a male driver lost his car and RM10,000 (S$4,100) to four men when he got out of his car after it was hit.

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs advises Singaporeans who are travelling out of the country to always keep with them a copy of their identity card and the passport’s personal information page as proof of citizenship.

In the event where a passport is lost, they should make a police report and request for a copy, or an acknowledgement of it. Otherwise, note down the name and location of the police station.

They should then take the police report, proof of citizenship, and passport-sized photographs to the nearest Singapore High Commission, Embassy, or Consulate.

A document will be issued for their return to Singapore.

-The New Paper

Loltastic Videos by faradyable

December 23, 11

Great stuff by our own local snarktastic faradyable, in the best tradition of Youtube Poop and The Abridged Series! And due to the mockery dubbing, Kung Pow! too. (hat tip to J)

The WWE aggro-conversation ones are only a bit less silly and pointless than the actual thing. (I’m a fan btw)

Best picks with my laconic but apt descriptions under each:

skill2 undertaker

Membaling orang / Membaling orang / Membaling dua orang / Membaling orang

kertas warna

Ayah! Ayah! Ayah! Ayah!

ultra-daddy

Oh my “dada”! My f****** “dada”! (Ultra lame but made me laugh the most, gotta love the ultra-genuine echo effect)

louis armstrong – berus gigi

Hari ini saya perlu hilangkan kuman, bakteria-bakteria di gigi

suicide silence – sombong

AMBOIH Mari kita berjoget sama sama, ewah! ewah! amboih amboih amboih amboih AMBOIH

Spot the Misleading, 180 Degrees Twisted MSM Description

December 22, 11

First, read the introductory paragraph:

Members of local band Bunkface were upset that an opposition politician had politicised their song Panik, which was recently banned over Radio Televisyen Malaysia (RTM) stations.

Those evil Pakatan Rakyat slimeballs at it again! When will they stop bringing petty, vindictive politics into everything?!!

And then read the next lines:

Malay daily Kosmo! reported that the band members were taken aback when the politician tweeted that the Government had decided to ban the song owing to “fear of the lyrics”.

RTM had banned the song due to the usage of the word “Reformasi”, a well-known opposition slogan.

Oh… So actually RTM, which is run by the Government – i.e. Barisan Nasional – banned the song.

But it’s Pakatan Rakyat’s fault for ‘politicizing’ the song.

Even though ‘Reformasi’ has been a theme of the Opposition since 1998, and the song Panik is a new release this year.

Totally Pakatan Rakyat’s fault.

For the actual story, see RTM: ‘Panik’ off airwaves not due to reformasi.

Newt Judges You – Best Picks

December 17, 11

In a similar vein to Rick Perry Facts, it’s…

Newt Gingrich Judges You

Link here!

Newt Gingrich Judges You

Newt Gingrich Judges You

Newt Gingrich Judges You

Newt Gingrich Judges You

Newt Gingrich Judges You

Newt Gingrich Judges You

Reference.

Newt Gingrich Judges You

Newt Gingrich Judges You

Newt Gingrich Judges You

Newt Gingrich Judges You

Newt Gingrich Judges You

Newt Gingrich Judges You

Newt Gingrich Judges You

Newt Gingrich Judges You

Newt Gingrich Judges You

I still lean towards a Perry/Gingrich run. Perry for the policy and job creation, Newt for the murdering in debates.

Newt Gingrich Judges You

Watch your little pencil necks, Dems and the crony media…

PS. Previously: Gingrich vs The Sheep

Lim Guan Eng Wins 200k Defamation Suit Against Utusan Melayu

December 15, 11

Hah! Padan your ugly, stupid, racist muka Spew-tusan!

Now Teresa Kok, Christians and all peace-loving Malaysians should sue this disgusting excuse for a toilet paper into bankruptcy!!!

Business Insider Links My Iran Missile Photoshop Post

December 6, 11

Wow… Business Insider saw fit to link my collection Iran-missile-Photoshop mockery.

Here’s the original/Photoshop comparison btw:

Iran Missile Test Photoshop

Enduring America did too following Business Insider’s article.

Kudos for the linkage guys. But credit rightly goes to the all the bloggers who spotted – and subsequently snarked at – Iran’s amateur hackery and the MSM who swallowed it unquestioningly. All I did was collect the various jibes, which is a compulsion of mine.

Excellent Advice on Escaping Being Harmed by Criminals

December 2, 11

Via AoSHQ via Neatorama, excerpts from Sam Harris:

———————

The Truth about Violence
3 Principles of Self-Defense

You should also learn to trust your feelings of apprehension about other people—revising them only slowly and with good reason. This may seem like a very depressing piece of advice. It is. Most of us don’t want to see the world this way, and we take great pains to avoid being rude or appearing racist, suspicious, etc. But violent predators invariably play upon this commitment to civility. The truth is that most of us are very good at detecting ulterior motives and malevolence in others. We must learn to trust these intuitions. To read the reports of rapes, murders, kidnappings and other violent crimes is to continually discover how easily good people can be manipulated by bad ones.

If someone puts a gun to your head and demands your purse or wallet, hand it over immediately and run. Don’t worry about being shot in the back: If your attacker is going to shoot you for running, he was going to shoot you if you stayed in place, and at point-blank range. By running, you make yourself harder to kill.

If you find yourself in a situation where a predator is trying to control you, the time for listening to instructions and attempting to remain calm has passed. It will get no easier to resist and escape after these first moments. The presence of weapons, the size or number of your attackers—these details are irrelevant. However bad the situation looks, it will only get worse. To hesitate is to put yourself at the mercy of a sociopath. You have no alternative but to explode into action, whatever the risk. Recognizing when this line has been crossed, and committing to escape at any cost, is more important than mastering physical techniques.

You should also expect that any criminal who breaks into your home when you’re inside it has come prepared to murder you and your family. To naive readers, this may sound like an extraordinarily paranoid assumption. It isn’t. Mere burglars generally make sure a house is empty before breaking in.

If a window shatters in the middle of the night and someone comes through it, your life is on the line. There is nothing to talk about, no offer of cash or jewelry to muster, no demands worth listening to. You must do whatever it takes to escape.

If you get nothing else from this article, engrave this iron law on your mind: The moment it is clear that an assailant wants more than your property (which must be assumed in any home invasion), you must escape.

What if your attacker has a knife to your child’s throat and tells you that everything is going to be okay as long as you cooperate by lying face down on the floor? Don’t do it. It would be better to flee the house—because as soon as you leave, he will know that the clock is ticking: Within moments, you will be at a neighbor’s home summoning help. If this intruder is going to murder your child before fleeing himself, he was going to murder your child anyway—either before or after he killed you. And he was going to take his time doing it. Granted, it is almost impossible to imagine leaving one’s child in such a circumstance—but if you can’t leave, you must grab a weapon and press your own attack. Complying in the hope that a sociopath will keep his promise to you is always the wrong move.

Here is how the police look at it:

From a cop’s point of view, citizens seem to keep making the same mistakes over and over, until all cases begin to sound alike…. The objective of a violent criminal is to control you, emotionally and physically. Everything he does—his threats and promises—is intended to terrify and control you. The more control you give to the violent criminal, even if you see it as temporary, the less likely you are to escape. For most crime victims, their temporary cooperation backfired into full control over them. Time works against the victim and for the criminal. The longer you stall, the more you talk, the deeper you sink.

(S. Strong. Strong on Defense. pp. 49-50).

If you are present while a place of business is being robbed and you cannot immediately escape, it makes sense to obey orders—to freeze, to get down on the floor—because the focus is not on you. Most robbers just want to get the money from the register and run. However, if they begin taking hostages or shooting people, you should immediately do whatever it takes to escape. Better to dive through a plate-glass window than to allow yourself to be herded to the back of the store.

——————

And via the AoSHQ link:

UMNO Racist, or Not? Dr M Forgetting His Own Past Words Again

December 2, 11

Or more likely, he’s just so insincere that he doesn’t even bother to keep track of his truthless proclamations.

Via The Star 2 Dec 2011:

Two thumbs up from Dr M

FORMER Umno president Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad has given the thumbs up to Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak’s presidential address.

He lauded Najib for touching on the part of Umno’s history which many were not aware of.

“He has rightly pointed out that Umno is not a racist party.

“Umno has worked with and supported other people,” he said.

Really? That was quite the turnaround from your own condemnation in just two years.

To wit:

Dr M dare to Nazri: Resign from ‘racist’ Umno

KUALA LUMPUR: Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad has challenged Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz to resign from the ‘racist party’ Umno.

The former prime minister said Nazri “belongs to a party that is only meant for the Malays and no one else can join in.”

“He is a member of a racist party and he is anti-racist so he should just resign from Umno,” Dr Mahathir said after giving a keynote address at a seminar on Malaysia-Indonesia economic cooperation.

Oh, but wait, maybe Mahathir was just being sarcastic?

Why don’t you readers browse around and make your own conclusion as to which Mahathir is correct?

Selected Milton Friedman’s Insights into Economy & Good Governance

December 2, 11

Good and sensible insights by Nobel Prize for Economics winner and supply-side economist, Milton Friedman.

Of note is his Permanent income hypothesis, which states that consumers buy not based on their current income, but on their expected long-term income.

That is, they plan ahead. This is why short-term ‘gifts’ and ‘freebies’ like one-time Stimuluses fail to boost the economy (see graphs here), whereas long-term tax cuts succeed (see paeans to Reaganomics at here, here, here, and a bit at here).

My chosen excerpts via AoSHQ, from Townhall.com:

10 Of The Best Economics Quotes From Milton Friedman

8.) “The most important single central fact about a free market is that no exchange takes place unless both parties benefit.”

7) “When everybody owns something, nobody owns it, and nobody has a direct interest in maintaining or improving its condition. That is why buildings in the Soviet Union — like public housing in the United States — look decrepit within a year or two of their construction…”

5) “When the United States was formed in 1776, it took 19 people on the farm to produce enough food for 20 people. So most of the people had to spend their time and efforts on growing food. Today, it’s down to 1% or 2% to produce that food. Now just consider the vast amount of supposed unemployment that was produced by that. But there wasn’t really any unemployment produced. What happened was that people who had formerly been tied up working in agriculture were freed by technological developments and improvements to do something else. That enabled us to have a better standard of living and a more extensive range of products.”

4) “Nobody spends somebody else’s money as carefully as he spends his own. Nobody uses somebody else’s resources as carefully as he uses his own. So if you want efficiency and effectiveness, if you want knowledge to be properly utilized, you have to do it through the means of private property.”

2) “The great danger to the consumer is the monopoly — whether private or governmental. His most effective protection is free competition at home and free trade throughout the world. The consumer is protected from being exploited by one seller by the existence of another seller from whom he can buy and who is eager to sell to him. Alternative sources of supply protect the consumer far more effectively than all the Ralph Naders of the world.”

1) “(T)he supporters of tariffs treat it as self-evident that the creation of jobs is a desirable end, in and of itself, regardless of what the persons employed do. That is clearly wrong. If all we want are jobs, we can create any number — for example, have people dig holes and then fill them up again, or perform other useless tasks. Work is sometimes its own reward. Mostly, however, it is the price we pay to get the things we want. Our real objective is not just jobs but productive jobs — jobs that will mean more goods and services to consume.”

Insights into the Life and Successes of Margaret Thatcher

December 1, 11

Via Ben Domenech’s The Transom daily newsletter, excerpts from:

The Invincible Mrs. Thatcher

Not long after she resigned as prime minister, in 1990, Margaret Thatcher began to write her memoirs. I met her at a dinner party and asked her what she would call them. The famous blue eyes flashed at me: “Undefeated!” she declared.

This expressed a sober arithmetical fact. Uniquely at that time in British politics, Margaret Thatcher had won three general elections in a row as party leader and had never lost any. Before she had the chance to contest her fourth, she was deposed by members of Parliament from her own party in a coup. Yet, even in that contest, the pure numbers were on her side. In 1990, when the Conservative Party staged a challenge to her leadership, she won more legislators’ votes than her main rival, but not enough to avoid a second ballot. Her Cabinet colleagues convinced her that she would be humiliated in the runoff, and she resigned.

Perhaps more important still, she won the big arguments. She argued that inflation was a disease of money that could be cured by controlling the growth of the money supply alone, without suppressing incomes. During her premiership, inflation fell from a high of 27 percent in 1975 to 2.5 percent by 1986. She believed that the political power of British labor unions had strangled enterprise and placed the country at the mercy of unelected barons. When she removed the legal immunities that protected unions from the financial consequences of their actions and overcame a yearlong strike organized by the hard-left leadership of the coal miners’ union, the employee days lost to strikes each year fell from 29.5 million in 1979 to 1.9 million in 1986. She said that taxes were too high and brought the top rate down from 98 percent to 40 percent. She declared that the state should not be running British business and led the world in “privatization”—a word she found ugly but a concept she loved—selling off airlines, airports, utilities, and phone and oil companies to the private sector. In every case, her critics said that it could not be done. Yet, for better and for worse, she did it.

Of her mother, Beatrice, Margaret Thatcher said, “Oh, Mother. Mother was marvelous—she helped Father.”

“I owe nothing to women’s lib,” she said in an interview in 1982, and she never, in theory, rejected the idea that a woman’s place is in the home. Indeed, she made great play with the notion that the housewife knows best. Seeking to paint her as a crude homebody, her opponents in the Tory leadership contest of 1975 played up the story, based on an interview that she had given, that she hoarded goods in her larder against the possibility (quite real at that time) of shortages. Mrs. Thatcher had the sense to be unashamed, knowing that many women voters would sympathize, and invited reporters to come and have a look at her larder. In the general-election campaign of 1979, which brought her to power for the first time, she explained that “any woman who understands the problems of running a home will be nearer to understanding the problems of running the country.” In every election campaign, she would charge into a supermarket, grab a shopping cart, and start off down the aisles at a fearful pace, chased by cameras as she piled goods—almost always British goods—into the basket.

The very name “Mrs. Thatcher” showed her ease with the traditional role. Not for her the ambiguous nomenclature of Hillary Rodham Clinton or Tony Blair’s wife, who is sometimes known as Cherie Booth and sometimes Cherie Blair. Britain’s most recognizable and individual peacetime prime minister was also the first to be known by someone else’s name.

Her submissiveness toward him was traditionalist, too. During the Falklands War, he told me, she was terribly upset by the loss of British servicemen’s lives, particularly by the sinking of the Sheffield, the first British ship to be hit. Denis sat on the end of their bed as she wept. “I said, ‘That is what war is like, love. It is bloody. I know. I’ve been in one.’ ” She relied on his manly comfort.

When Margaret Thatcher resigned, the first thing she asked of the Queen was that Denis, not she, be given an honor. He was made a baronet, a virtually extinct hereditary title, which permitted him to be called Sir Denis and, when he died in 2003, for their son to become Sir Mark. Thus the “Lady” in Margaret Thatcher’s name, like the “Mrs.,” comes from Denis. It was nearly three more years before she was made Baroness Thatcher in her own right.

Handshake Like a Wrestler’s

My own wife tells me that the handshake Mrs. Thatcher extended to women was like a wrestling move: she would grab her opponent and pull her as hard as she could out of the way to get on to the man next to her.

She liked courtliness and found it in Reagan. The manners did not work quite as well with his successor, George H. W. Bush. According to her most important foreign-policy aide, Charles Powell, Bush’s leisure style was too much that of a “man’s man. Jeans and cowboy boots and beer out of a can. She’d be in high heels.”

She was always on the lookout for “great men” and was wont to say that “when a big man has a big idea I never like to stand in his way.” This helps to explain why she never exhibited any of the anti-Semitism that used to exist in some Tory circles. She believed that Jews had more than the common share of great men and admired them for it. [Scott: See Jewish Nobel Laureates: 11590% More Than Population Statistics Might Expect]

Because of Margaret Thatcher’s love of manliness, many observers made the mistake of thinking of her as a man in skirts. Even Ronald Reagan, so astute in his dealings with people, once described Mrs. Thatcher as “the best man in England.” That was wrong. In her view, she was the best woman in England, and, for all her love of men, she regarded the female sex as superior. “In politics, if you want anything said, ask a man,” she announced in a speech in 1982. “If you want anything done, ask a woman.”

It was a constant source of pleasure to her that she was alone among men, and powerful men at that. For the Tories, of all people, to have chosen a woman leader more than 35 years ago was absolutely astonishing, and Margaret Thatcher knew how to exploit it. She knew, first of all, that some of her colleagues were frightened of women and inhibited about arguing with them. … In her later years she came to love adulation, but she never had the male’s craving for approval from his mates: she didn’t have any mates. That made her strong.

For any leader of the opposition, as Margaret Thatcher was during her first four years as party leader, public recognition is a problem. Not for the first woman leader in British history. You didn’t even have to name her—you just had to say “she” and everyone knew whom you meant.

Olivier arranged for her to have lessons with the speech coach at the National Theatre, and soon the hectoring tones of the housewife gave way to softer notes and a smoothness that seldom cracked except under extreme provocation on the floor of the House of Commons.

The Soviets, her implacable foes, gave Mrs. Thatcher the big break her image needed. In 1976, three years before she became prime minister, the Red Army newspaper Red Star reported on a tough speech she had made about the weakness of NATO’s defenses and described her as the Iron Lady. With a bit of “little woman” playfulness, she seized the moment: “I stand before you tonight in my Red Star chiffon evening gown, my face softly made up and my fair hair gently waved, the Iron Lady of the Western world. A Cold War warrior, an Amazon philistine, even a Peking plotter. Well, am I any of these things …? Yes—if that’s how they wish to interpret my defence of values and freedoms fundamental to our way of life.” The idea of the Iron Lady caught fire and, as the years passed, spread across the whole world.

The most potent symbol of her strength—like the orb and scepter of the Queen—were her handbags. These sturdy, expensive, usually black appendages were with her at all times, and used to contain objects—a yellowing copy of the policy document that founded Britain’s welfare state, for example, or some wise words by Abraham Lincoln—which she would produce like rabbits out of a hat and wave in front of television interviewers. … So the State Department bought her a handbag, filled it with her best quotes, and brought it along to the lunch. Shultz stood up. “Far be it from me to look into a lady’s handbag,” he said, but then he dipped in and pulled out her best lines to read to the assembled company. He presented her with “the Grand Order of the Handbag,” and she left glowing.

Years later, when she was out of office, one of her bags sold at a charity auction for $150,000.

As soon as she took office as prime minister, Margaret Thatcher began to fight. Out went the 1945 economic consensus. The standard and top rates of income tax were cut, exchange controls were abolished, the money supply was brought under fierce constraint, unemployment was allowed to rise. … When Iranian terrorists seized hostages in the Iranian Embassy in London, Mrs. Thatcher sent in Britain’s elite Special Air Service (S.A.S.). They brought all but one of the remaining hostages out alive and all but one of the terrorists dead. “We never thought you’d let us do it,” one of the S.A.S. officers said to her afterward.

The Tory high noon—and the fruit of Thatcher’s policy of conflict—came the following year with the coal miners’ strike. In the previous Parliament, Battling Maggie, as the tabloid press liked to call her (though in real life no one dared abbreviate her Christian name to her face), had shirked a fight with the miners. … Thatcher had insisted on building up huge reserves of coal to endure a long strike. … Scargill made the mistake of calling a strike in March, when the weather gets warmer and there’s less demand for coal.

Three days short of a full year of dispute, the miners returned to work. Margaret Thatcher had finally beaten 40 years of union political power. The economic benefits were huge, and her prestige soared.

She and the German chancellor Helmut Kohl reacted allergically to each other. On one occasion in Salzburg, Kohl, desperate to escape a meeting in which he thought she was lecturing him, falsely pleaded an emergency and cut out early. Finding herself at a loose end, Mrs. Thatcher toured the city’s shops. To her surprise she spotted Kohl sitting in a café eating buns.

Kohl brought out a strong, simple, wartime prejudice. “You know what’s wrong with Helmut Kohl?” she once said, turning to me confidentially as if it were a secret. “He’s a German.”

The next morning, she took the hint and resigned, seeing the Queen before lunch to inform her. By one of the odd quirks of the British parliamentary timetable, it still fell to Margaret Thatcher to defend her administration that afternoon in a “no confidence” debate in the House of Commons. She was in top form, recounting her vision of a strong and free nation and what she had done to bring it back into being. When a veteran leftist interrupted, she slapped him down to general enthusiasm, then shouted, “I’m enjoying this!. With truly magnificent British hypocrisy, the Tories who had just assassinated her cheered and cheered.

By chance, her old friends Ronald and Nancy Reagan were staying in London shortly afterward, and she called on them in their hotel. “She was upset,” says Mrs. Reagan. “She wasn’t quiet. She was quite explicit about what she felt.” She felt betrayed.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 53 other followers