Personal Favourites April 2009 - April 2010

Personal Favourites April 2009 – April 2010

Excerpt 1:

A more savage way you can help to kill this killer of ancestors is by dumping chemicals anywhere you like! Just dump those chemicals. Make sure it is toxic! The rivers usually are the favourite. If you dump the river, you will kill the fish living in there, or probably mutate it. The chemicals would also react with the water itself, forming whatever other horror substances that you can imagine, making the water too toxic to be used. Serves the aquatic life for killing our ancestors! The seas maybe a bt hard though, but if everyone works together, it’ll work.

Up next, nuclear bombs. Oh yeah! These are probably some of the best ways to kill the Earth. Let’s bomb anywhere we like with these hardcore mass killers. They can make a real big crater in the Earth along with making the surrounding air radioactive. You can make tsunamis out of them too. Bomb anywhere you like. The forests, the polar ice caps, the deep blue seas, big cities, up to you! Kill everything living on this Earth! That should show Earth what she’s dealing with!

The Editor-in-Chief says: This is an excerpt from “Let’s Kill the Earth!” (July 09) by Ariffin B Mohd Amir. Ariffin is known among us for his unusual opinions and the unusual way he expresses them. This satirical piece is a good representation of his style. In it he tells the reader to do everything he can to destroy the earth. But this, of course, is not his objective. When the reader gets to the end, he realises that all the things the writer is telling him to do have already been done. This makes the issue at hand rather poignant. Ariffin was a regular OM contributor. In fact, this issue comes with what is perhaps his last contribution (he is graduating soon).

Excerpt 2:

An Arrested Heart.

Nadzirah Yunos

You speak of rhymes
Dance with words,
Mimic poets,
With fingers in my curls.

Paint my heart red,
With a brush of your lips,
A voice that wraps me,
Of rhapsodic rapture.

When eyes turn black,
All is never lost,
Take me with insight,
Blithely within,
Fiery inside.

The Editor-in-Chief says: This is an absolute favourite of mine as it appeared in our pilot issue. The writer, better known to us as GG, was a student of IB3. She had taken English A1 for close to a year and half, and eventually decided to switch to English B. I love this short poem for its very precise and effective choice of diction. “Rhapsodic rapture” is a nice touch, allowing me to “hear” the voice of the lover. I hope GG is still writing poetry!

Excerpt 3:

Today’s world is characterized by speed; we are a people that are truly on the move. From the angered banging of the table when a program fails to load instantaneously, to the hurried cadence of the march which characterizes today’s executive; we are ceaseless in our efforts to speed things up. Today’s world is not satisfied with anything but instant gratification, and the entire service industry has adapted to fit our desire. One has only to look as far as fast food, one of the most defining concepts of our generation to see our desire projected onto food as well. We have let speed become one of the most treasured qualities of today’s marketplace, where speed and its sister ease of use rule an oligarchy of thought.

This epidemic of thought is most visible in the desperately treasured youth of today. Having grown up at the very cusp of the technological revolution, knowing nothing of the before and seeing only before it the boundless open spaces offered by this delightful new medium, this generation has not stopped in its ceaseless journey forward. Technology and its mediums are the train pushing forward, building its rails as it goes, and sitting atop in true pioneer fashion: with the wind in their faces and the excitement ever-present, is this generation. Information technology has managed to accomplish something unique to technology of the past, in that it can self-replicate fast enough to update itself. The train never fears a lack of fuel, for with every day there comes a new sacrifice to the furnace.

The Editor-in-Chief says: An excerpt from “Loneliness: A Utopian Nightmare” (Nov 09) by Lewis Jackson, one of our in-house authors. Lewis is known for having colourful opinions and his expressiveness, all of which are evident in this article about the “dark side” of modern technology. I agree with everything said here: the modern world is all about speed and superficiality. There is very little space for sincerity and retrospection. What a pity that the very tools that are supposed to help us develop are robbing us of our humanity (look around you when you are in a mall and see how many people are completely mesmerised by their I-phones). Incidentally, Lewis also writes interesting poetry.

Excerpt 4:

Our wretched self-absorption and brutal capabilities are surmounted only by our ability to turn a blind eye. Ignorance is anything but bliss for those who bawl for assistance to no avail. How convenient it is to imagine that we are any closer to achieving the oh-so-ambitious Millennium Development Goals. That our glittering sneakers weren’t as a matter of fact made by a little boy in the stuffy confines of a Chinese workshop, desperate to earn a bowl of rice and not a cold-blooded thrashing. That so much of the natural beauty we readily take for granted will shortly cease to exist as a direct result of our consumerism, our hunger for looming glass facades and brimming gas tanks. Convenience is the fog that clouds our compassionate perception, while passivity is the rocket that incinerates a Gazan youngster, the chain link fence that locks in a Sri Lankan refugee. Perhaps the advent of high technology has helped us sink even deeper into the comatose recesses of our comfort zones, where no shock waves can churn the waters of our consciences. Perhaps we consistently, tragically err when choosing between what is right and what is easy.

But what if, what if the night is darkest just before the dawn? I do believe that the forces of light are capable of penetrating even the most consuming darkness. In every age, a handful of individuals have always managed to break free of the suffocating bonds of ignorance, selfishness and violence to inspire and uplift the rest of us. Think Oprah Winfrey, Bono and Mohamed Yunus, Mahatma Gandhi, Desmond Tutu and Oskar Schindler: to follow in their illustrious footsteps, to move towards realizing the Utopian vision, we need to look inwards and confront that which truly frightens us. We have to awaken our consciences and open our hearts. We must embrace the fact that we are not enemies, but friends, that while passion may have strained, it must not break our bonds of affection. We need, now more than ever, to become the change that we want to see in the world.

The Editor-in-Chief says: The title of this piece is “The Illusion – At Present” (Feb 10), written by Pratik Raghu – our very own humanitarian. Pratik is someone with a voice of his own, and he often expresses himself beautifully. This piece demonstrates his exceptional command of the language and also his thoughts on weighty humanitarian issues. Extreme individualism (which I feel is a product of materialism) is an epidemic that is threatening the well-being of the human race. In our age, it seems impossible to imagine another Gandhi or Oskar Schindler.

Excerpt 5:

A couple of years ago, while walking the streets of West End trying to decide which play to see, I saw a poster in Piccadilly theatre for Guys and Dolls featuring none other than Patrick Swayze! The decision made, I marched straight in to get a ticket. That night, I walked into the auditorium with butterflies in my stomach. I was finally going to see Sam/Johnny! As the curtain came up, an announcement was made over the PA stating that an understudy would be playing Patrick Swayze’s role of Nathan Detroit as Mr. Swayze was ill. I was crushed that my crush would not be appearing that night. I stillmanaged to enjoy the show though.

Patrick Swayze has cemented his place in my heart and mind. To me, he portrays characters who display the best qualities of a man. His ability to portray them so convincingly on screen must mean that it comes naturally from within. That makes him a beautiful man inside and out. Ever since Ghost, Patrick Swayze has held a piece of my heart. With his passing, he takes that piece with him.

The Editor-in-Chief says: “(I’ve Had) The Time of My Life” (Oct 09) by Ms Geraldine Phillips reminded me of my own teenage years in the 1980s, when Patrick Swayze charmed the socks off everyone by playing a sympathetic ghost. Swayze succumbed to cancer at the age of 57. Along with the death of Michael Jackson, Swayze’s passing was another wake-up call for me: Everything changes. Going from day to day, you may operate under the illusion that you are immortal; but the brutal truth is no-one and nothing is to remain for ever.

Excerpt 6:

Apart from freedom, not having a good relationship with parents keeps teenagers from being happy. I know I’m not happy when I’m not on good terms with mum or dad. I would either be really pissed off, annoyed or you’ll see me ranting to my friends about it. I get annoyed by them really easily as they would always have something bad to say about everything especially when it comes to my education. I can say that I do not have a good relationship with my parents. Yes, I admit it. It’s true. And because of that, I hate talking to my parents about anything important especially when it comes to education. I can tell you that if I do go talk to them about it, I would end up crying even before I can say anything. I just feel that it is a sensitive issue to me to be talking to them about it. I think it is because of how they respond to it and what they say to me about it. I tried talking to them about education a lot of times before this; when changing my course from SAM in Taylor’s College to IB in Sri KDU. It was hell for me to go through all the conversations. I remember crying about it when talking to them about it or at least I felt like crying. I would hold back my tears most of the time when I’m strong enough. I usually breakdown after talking to them anyway.

The Editor-in-Chief says: The Nov o9 discussion topic “Teen Angst” caused some writers to pour their hearts out. Our ever-dependable advertiser/publicist/Facebook-manager Yati Ishak handed in a piece which is both personal and revealing. It reveals to us why teenagers are often unhappy during what is in fact the best time of their lives. Pressure from parents to perform well academically, pressure from friends, pressure from society – all these different forms of pressure make it sound as if adolescence were some kind of pressure-cooker. She writes, “I hate talking to my parents about anything important…” This is something I can relate to. Even to this day, at the tender age of 37, I still don’t tell my parents half the things I do.

Continue Reading...

More Leadership Stuff - Ariffin B Mohd Amir

MORE LEADERSHIP STUFF

Ariffin B Mohd Amir

Let's talk about something provocative, shall we? Leadership...it has always been part and parcel of humans since humanity started to exist. It's either you are a leader or a follower. Either way, you are all directly or indirectly involved in a certain kind of leadership. The simplest example is family; a complex example is citizenship of a country.

But there will always be a time when the current leadership is deemed not suitable to continue, or seen to have been misused for self-gain, or perceived to have shown incapability to lead. On the other hand, there will always be a time when the current leadership would face parallel leaderships. And one thing is for sure, two leaderships cannot co-exist. One leadership must submit to another for harmonious stability or both leaderships will cause conflicts that may lead to, or go beyond, unimaginable consequences.

So, how do you subvert a parallel leadership? Or how do you dismantle a current leadership so yours can take over? The following are methodologies that I have seen based on my observations and what I have learnt. Take note that the names of the methodologies are not terminologies of any sort…they’re just my way to make this entry as bombastic as possible.

 

Divide and Conquer

I’m sure you all may have heard of this sort. Its basic is simple: you divide the group/clan/club/society/organisation/party/country into small factions and set them all to fight against each other. Once you have done that, you approach the factions one by one and “consume” them. This method is quite popular because it has shown its effectiveness throughout history. A simple visualisation of how it works is this. You get a birthday cake. You don’t expect to eat it as one big whole, do you? You’ll end up killing your throat first, then yourself if you do try. So, you would cut it down to slices and eat the slices one by one. The same concept applies to this.

Leaderships that have a strong united group/society backing it will be really difficult to bring down in one single blow. So, it is best to get them to fight against each other and form factions within the leadership. That way, they will be divided, and their strength is weakened. Once that is done, approach the factions one by one and offer them help, or hurt them, or destroy them. One of the strengths of leadership is unity. If they do not have unity, they are weak.

This method, according to some, is really time-consuming and a bit risky as the current leadership can detect such a tactic being used. However, it has shown its success in history, such as the colonisation of the British of Malaysia. They even said the big change in politics in Malaysia since the last general elections is because such a tactic was used by the opposition where members and supporters of Barisan National were divided by racism, scandal and outside interference.

Collective Campaign

All you have to do is to provoke a lot of people with some issue about the current leadership. When they are provoked enough, ask them to join you and form a faction/ group. After a successful formation of the faction, make your faction larger and larger by getting more and more people to join you. And when you have enough people, topple the current leadership.

This is how collective campaigns work. You basically form a group, make your group larger and larger and when you feel confident that your group is large enough to cause some chaos to the current leadership, topple the current leadership. This type of tactic is usually effective for “democratic” changes in governments. You basically “collect” voters for the next election and topple the current government with majority votes. It is also useful when you “peacefully” push suggestions to the current leadership. But this technique is useless if you want a violent revolution/reformation through riots or civil war, because the current leadership can always use Guillotine and Complete Wipeout via military or police power to destroy the current leadership.

Guillotine

The definition of this is cutting the head off. But in terms of leadership, you basically cut off the “head” of the leadership. In other words, you kill/capture the leader of the leadership. By doing so, there would be two effects: the parallel leadership dies off, or the parallel leadership’s movement is slowed down, giving enough time for you to plan out your next move.

This is a popular tactic used by many leaders from all around the world. Kill the head to kill the body. In terms of leadership, kill the leader to kill the movement/revolution. Doing so will, again, either cause the leadership to die off (because there is no replacement) or slow down the parallel leadership’s movement (because the successor is not as decisive or smart as the recently deceased leader).

It is quite common for some countries where there current leadership uses the intelligence community to assassinate the leader of the movement. Though assassinating may not be effective at times, they would instead just capture the leader. Guillotine too can also mean silencing the leader. All the parallel leadership has to do is go to the leader and threaten him with so and so and he will keep his mouth shut and so stopping the revolution.

Complete Wipeout

The basic meaning of this is you destroy every single person involved in the parallel leadership. This is often used by a government of a country to tackle factions that can separate small states from the country to become independent countries. Governments do this by military power. All they do is approve the generals to go and kill anyone or everyone in the state that wants independence and hence solving the leadership problems. However, by doing so you will directly be responsible for the genocide of your people…

Complete wipe-out too can mean capturing all the people involved in the parallel leadership. This is often used by the police to capture small criminal groups. But when it comes to resolving revolutions, it may be considered ineffective because getting the police to capture up to thousands of people is absurd. Hence, the military is the “simpler” alternative (in other words, killing).

It may be debatable but complete wipe-out may also include declaring war on other countries. You destroy the leaderships of the other countries by destroying their military power.

Continue Reading...

FEBRUARY‟S DISCUSSION TOPIC ~ UTOPIA

FEBRUARY‟S DISCUSSION TOPIC ~

U T O P I A

What would it take to make the perfect world?

My utopia would be a city where you could shop till you drop without having to pay a single cent. Due to the fact that it is impossible and yet so not pertinent, let‟s just let my weird realm be.

Thus, I want to take this opportunity to talk about someone else‟s utopia. In MY opinion, Mr. Masukor‟s Utopia would be a place where it is not just serene but also very civilised. A place where all the people play a very vital role in conserving nature and lowering carbon emissions with alacrity.

A utopia should be an earthly place of solace, equipped with the most salient technologies, buildings and an extremely effective sewage system. To generate such a perfect world, there should be a throng of people with abundant knowledge and strong etiquettes. Wise men and women before us always said: “It wasn‟t the place that built the people, but it was the people who built the place.”

As for whether there is a perfect world for everyone, the answer is obviously a big NO. With different tastes and ambitions, it is almost impossible to even imagine ONE Utopia. But if ONE Utopia is everyone‟s desire, then it definitely won‟t be just a dream anymore. As they always say “Together we will excel.”

Zuraida binti Din (June 09)

What is a utopia? What does it mean to you? What would my utopia be like? Well, by the dictionary definition, a utopia is defined as an imaginary state with perfect political and social conditions or constitution. However, it is just an ideally perfect fantasy world. Are utopias possible? Mostly, everyone is trying to achieve their own personal utopia in some way. The utopia in my mind would be a world where all people, pretty or ugly, small or big, all shapes and colours, are treated equally.

For example, people often differentiate between healthy people and those who are living with HIV and AIDS. People react to HIV and AIDS in a strong way just because it is a life-threatening virus. Besides, some people see HIV/AIDS as a form of punishment for the people as a result of their bad moral behaviors, prostitution or drug use. The negative attitudes and maltreatment of the people who are living with HIV/AIDS can result in poor treatment in health care and the success of testing, treatment and care of the virus. The level of AIDS knowledge, age and sexuality can also affect how somebody feels about the disease. My utopia would be a world without stigma and discrimination.

Fazlin Fuad Mohamad Faiz (June 09)

Everyone in this world would like to live in his or her own utopia. There are many different thoughts about utopias. It depends on the person and how they imagine what a utopia would be like. Some of them would picture a utopia as a remote cabin on the beach, Nirvana, paradise, or heaven. Religions like Islam and Christian do admit the existence of a utopia as they believe in Heaven and the Garden of Eden. Scientists, however, believe a utopia will exist one day if they manage to find the cure to all illnesses. One example of a utopia that has been portrayed by scientists is in Star Trek, where there is a presence of human society and advanced technology that is used to enhance the quality of human life.

In my opinion, a utopia is not possible and only exists in fairytale. There is no place in the world that can make us live forever, never get old, and feel happy all the time. Despite that, it is not deniable that there are countries like Malaysia and Singapore where we can live peacefully without any war and starvation. Unfortunately, we have to accept the fact that it is a human norm: we will die, get sick, and face problems in our lives. By trying to create a utopia, it will somehow raise other problems that will affect the human community.

Everyone has different ideas about utopias. It is not possible to satisfy all human demands, thus making utopias impossible to create. Many famous leaders had tried to create their own utopia but in the end, it led to failure. The reason they failed is that they did not accept the fact that everything fades in time.

As for me, I think that we cannot get the perfect utopian community, but somehow we can try our best to live life aimed towards a utopia. We have already started to eliminate illnesses. Other than that, we are already smart enough to eliminate poverty from our country as non- government organizations have made efforts to help the poor. Next, we are always improving our knowledge and day by day, we can see many new intellectuals graduating from university, which in turn will create a massive development. Can it happen? For me, the answer is no, but who knows I might still see it in my lifetime.

Sheril Emy Idayu Binti Abdul Latiff (June 09)

Utopia. A word that makes people high. People crack their heads trying to make that vision come true. Year after year, effort has been put into ensuring that desired life. Millions of dollars have been used to launch programmes that will enable humans to live happily ever after. Yet, they end in disappointment. We are still far from our utopia, the world dreamt by every person.

We do not have to go far to find evidence that our utopia is still virtual. Look at our streets. They are filled with rubbish, plastic bags, and old newspaper. Is this supposed to be our utopia? Car, buses, and motorcycles produce noise that is irritating and can even cause emotional instability. To compound the problems, the fumes released could cause 1001 health problem to humans.

Enough with those tiny facts. Let‟s view things from a macro perspective. In the 21st century, the physique no longer plays an important role. Life is now backed by knowledge and skills. “Let the best player win.” Advanced countries will be in front of the others. With their technology, knowledge and economy, the world is theirs. However, these tools that should bring utopian dreams to everyone are being misused. Look at the difference between developed countries (America, Britain, France) and undeveloped countries (Ethiopia, Ghana, Sudan). It looks like they are on different planets. How could a person in America become obese while another person in Ethiopia is starving to death? We are still the same human species!

A utopia is achievable. However, to get to this stage, everybody must play their part. Utopia is not far, it is here, in our own land. For the rich, please be reasonable. Spread up your wealth so that the world could be a better place. You the poor, do not think you are useless. Work out and make yourselves beneficial to society. Yes, it is vague but the struggle to create a utopia will never end.

Muhammad Firdaus bin Roslan (June ‟09)

Heal the world…make it a better place…for you and for me and the entire human race…

But then how? With all this war, campaigns and political selfishness, how do you create a better world? At some point I feel that this “perfect world” is just some myth or fantasy of the human mind because in reality we still see all these wars, campaigns and political selfishness, despite whatever “justification” they give for their action. And when we look back at all the “attempts” at making this world a better place, we always see someone getting killed, or dying.

So actually, what is the problem? I figure it is the people‟s definition of “the perfect world”. We never really can agree on one definition of “the perfect world” as our definitions are always differing, and often contradicting. Our definition of a perfect world will always be something that suits us best, and we often think that it will also suit other people as best as it suits us. As a result, we tend not to think about the possibility of our perfect world harming other people. And even if we do realise it can harm others, we still stick to it no matter what. So can it really bring about a “perfect world”?

Then what causes this mismatch in the definition of “the perfect world”? I figure it‟s human selfishness. It is in our nature to be selfish in a way, whether we realise it or not.

We always think more about ourselves and less about others. I can‟t blame us for such a nature, because it‟s instinct, really. To survive in this world, the priority is yourself, and then others.

So can we build a perfect world? Yes, by putting aside our selfishness and agreeing on one definition of “the perfect world”. But can we really do that? I say no, because throwing away our selfish nature is like throwing away one of the things that makes us humans. And we can never really throw away the things that make us humans, because we are humans.

So, in my opinion, we cannot build a perfect world…because we are IMPERFECT.

Ariffin B. Mohd. Amir (June 08)

Humans‟ boundless and changing desires have frequently caused them to imagine something that is unattainable – a utopia: an idea or perfect place where everything that comes across their minds can be acquired here. Personally, I don‟t think there will ever exist a place that is a perfect world. There would be no need for advancement, and, definitely, society would become stagnant, not expand and eventually would collapse.

To acquire such a place, human desires have to be conquered, which are always changing. Anything that we have or know today, due to our desires, will change in the future. For example, today A wants to have an N-90 mobile phone (priced at more than RM2000) but after feeling bored with it, he will start imagining and wishing for a more sophisticated one.

Actually, for me, as a believer of God, a utopia will never exist in this world but in the Hereafter – paradise. Here is the only place where everything that flashes in our mind will appear in front of our eyes. So, to be in paradise, make sure you are on track. I mean, following your religion.

Ahmad Afandi B Suhaimi (June 09)

To understand this topic that we discuss this month we must go back to the origins of the word (I apologise for my adamant belief in the importance of etymology). Coined by Sir Thomas More and used in his book Utopia (shortened title), it is derived from Greek words meaning „no place‟, and is the name of the fictional island described in his book where a perfected society, in terms of its religious, social and political customs, exists. Today the word „utopia‟ means an ideally perfect place or state, and is often synonymous with „Eden‟, „heaven‟, „Shangri-la‟, and „paradise‟.

Usually I would say that my utopia is a place without sin or suffering, no worries or strife; a place where humans dwell eternally with God (the question of His existence put aside, who is more perfect than Him?)... But that would place my dream world squarely in the afterlife. Hence, my version of the perfect world, for the purpose of this month‟s discussion, is this:

Imagine yourself on a planet filled with the tranquillity of a clear blue sky and pristine azure seas, the mystery of unexplored continents and uncharted islands, and the wonder of picturesque landscapes and exotic fauna. You have just landed yourself on dry land,surrounded by trees and foliage of a forest neither dense nor sparse. All you can hear is the hushed voices of the plants as they are stirred by the calm wind. Not a creature is stirring ... And then you wonder, is there even a single creature before you arrive in this world?

Makes you wonder, does it not? A world devoid of sentient species, indeed of the entire animal kingdom! In this world the ecosystem has somehow adapted to survive without the existence of insects and beasts of the sky, land and sea. There is no intelligent life on the planet, not a single human with all their greed, pride and hatred; no animals with all their instinctive rivalry and sense of superiority; not even insects, with all their societies and poisons! The largest multi-celled organisms are the biggest trees you can set your eyes on; the only living things that move freely are so small you can hardly contemplate their size. It almost seems as though God has stopped His six–day creation of the world at the end of the fourth day.

Why this kind of world? Look at Earth, the perfect example of a world gone mad. Wars and pestilences, economic turmoil and global warming, poverty and starvation... Even natural disasters today can eventually lead to inconsiderate human activities and overpopulation! I would even be so bold to say that Hell would be better than this but for the duration of the chaos and suffering there. Even if you take Homo sapiens out of the equation it would not be enough. If Darwin is correct, some other poor animal will replace the apes on the evolutionary road, resulting in a similar species that will wreak havoc again! A world filled with trees and plants as far as the eye can see is exactly what Earth is hypothesised to have been before man, before dinosaurs, before newly-evolved amphibians... even before fish and planktons!

Coming back to reality (and what a sad reality we live in), we have to admit that utopia is exactly what its Greek syllables say it is – “no place”, a place that does not exist. However primitive, however futuristic, however perfect-in-every-way the world is in our heads, it exists only there. Our only hope lies in the seed of goodness God has chosen to leave in our hearts of darkness, and in a faith that would help it take root and bloom into flowers of compassion and commitment, of empathy and action, which would bring this world to its knees and, to put it simply, make it a better place for all to live in.

Chin Keat Meng (June 09)

Continue Reading...

Facts About Money Ariffin B. Mohd. Amir (June 08)

It’s a fact, money can get you time.
(You pay more for faster transportation hence you arrive faster at the destination.)

It’s a fact, money can remove time.
(Money is converted into objects that you buy to be used during your free time, such as mags, phones, computer…)

It’s a fact, you or your parents burn money.
(Money is converted into petrol to be burnt to move your car when you buy petrol at gas stations.)

It’s a fact, you wash yourself using money.
(Money is converted into water when you pay your water bills)

It’s a fact, money is electricity.
(Money is converted into potential difference created by TNB to enable flow of electrons, which brings about electricity…when you pay your electricity bills!)

It’s a fact, you eat money.
(Money is converted into food by you simply buying food)

It’s a fact, you drink money.
(Money is converted into drinks by you simply buying drinks.)

It’s a fact, you are willing to stare at money for more than 1 hour.
(Money is converted into movies by you paying for movie tickets and seeing the movies for more than 1 hour.)

It’s a fact, money can make you happy.
(Money is converted into presents by your friends buying you presents.)

It’s a fact, money can make you sad.
(Money is converted into SMS from your bf/gf saying they want to break up by them paying for top-up credit to send you SMS.)

It’s a fact, money buys health.
(Money is converted into medicine/healthcare for when you lose your health to some sickness by you paying clinics/hospitals for the medicine and healthcare.)


It’s a fact, money can give you bad
(Money is converted into prunes to be eaten; prunes are known to give you real good diarrhoea.)

It’s a fact, you are your mum and dad’s money.
(Money is converted into your body by you mum and dad buying food to be fed to you so that you grow and live.)

It’s a fact, money can make you suffer!
 (Money is converted into the IB @Sri KDU to make you suffer homework and assignments! LOL!)

It’s a fact, money can beat the living sh#@ in people.
 (Money is converted into FRU officers beating up stubborn illegal demonstrators.)

It’s a fact, money can imprison people.
 (Money is converted into a prison to stuff murderers and rapists.)

It’s a fact, money can kill people.
(Money is converted into a killer by people hiring other people to kill people.)

It’s a fact, money can kill loads of people.
(Money was once converted into an atomic bomb and was used on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.)

It’s a fact, money is justice.
 (Money is converted into government attorneys who prosecute murderers and rapists.)

It’s a fact, money is injustice.
(Money is converted into good lawyers who can babble nonsense to allow the court to set murderers free from charges.)

It’s a fact, money runs the country.
(Money is converted into a government to run this country.)

It’s a fact, money runs the world?
(Now if you think this way, you will either be the most miserable person in the world or you will become the next potential super-rich villain who would do anything for money…)

Continue Reading...

~AUGUST'S DISCUSSION TOPIC~ SCIENCE: A THREAT TO SOCIETY?

Science has shown itself capable both of killing and curing – on balance, for which does it have more potential?

Science has always been discussed this way. Some think that science is a no good entity that threatens to rip out the souls of billions and make them either corpses or religion-less living zombies. Some people think that science is a really good entity that helps keep the souls in the body of billions and make them both live longer and more productive and bring us closer to God than ever before. But has anyone ever asked himself this question: is this discussion about science itself, or is it about us?

I decided to approach the topic this way because I feel that a lot of people think of science as if it is a person instead of a mindless and soulless entity. The way they look at science is as if we are looking at a person who is new in society and asking ourselves “Should we allow this person to live amongst us, or will he do something to us that will kill us or make us evil?”. When we look back at science, does it have such behaviour? Does it think on its own and plan out destructive plans to destroy us, or is it just an entity that is misunderstood and misused?

When I look back at the question “SCIENCE HAS SHOWN ITSELF CAPABLE OF BOTH KILLING AND CURING-ON BALANCE, FOR WHICH DOES IT HAVE MORE POTENTIAL?”, I actually see another question, a question that is more about us rather than science. The question I see is “Is there a possibility for science to be misused?” And in my opinion, when you look at it this way, you actually see that we are talking about ourselves, and from there it goes back to the morale of humans.

When you look back at history, you will see that most of the time science becomes bad stuff because of the human misuse of it. And when you look back at history again, you will see that most of the time science becomes good stuff because of correct use by humans. And from an overall perspective, you will see that it is you (or more accurately: your intention) who determines whether science is good stuff or bad stuff.

When you look at it this way, you will see that science is just a mindless and soulless entity that does not think for itself. It is more  a tool rather than a creature that can think and walk and kill on its own. So because of that, I propose that we rephrase the question:

“SCIENCE HAS SHOWN ITSELF CAPABLE OF BOTH KILLING AND CURING-ON BALANCE, FOR WHICH DOES IT HAVE MORE POTENTIAL?” to “HUMAN INTENTION HAS SHOWN ITSELF CAPABLE OF BOTH KILLING AND CURING-ON BALANCE, FOR WHICH DOES IT HAVE MORE POTENTIAL?”.

It sounds more accurate this way....haha!

Ariffin B Mohd Amir (June 08)

Is there any question whether the question makes any sense? Of course science has more potential for curing.

There are cases where science has caused some problems for us*. However, what would our lives be without science? A world with unsolved diseases, no transport** and definitely no comfort. Science does more than just cure and kill. It brings us forward; it makes our hard lives easier to cope with.

Try imagining going to work or school that has no working lights, no stationary, no elevators, and no air conditioning! Then getting home to a place where there’s none of the things previously mentioned, and you have to cook with fire with the sticks you’ve collected from some your backyard***; and once all your hard work is done there is no laptop, or television to at least let your mind have some time to rest by mindlessly watching some clips from youtube. You can’t even go out to meet friend! Thanks to the lack of heavy machinery wild animals would be free to roam through our streets and attack us when we attempt to leave our homes.

That’s what our lives would be. Hard, pointless, and most likely empty. And by then, we most likely would have killed ourselves. So with that I say science has already made the biggest cure it could have. It made us, the laziest creatures on earth have a chance at a nice comfortable life. What’s a little genocide via weapons of destruction compared to that? Shouldn’t that be the question?

*hell; it has caused enough issues that the question came up.
**Well, at least transport that won’t poop while you’re travelling.
***which would most likely be a jungle thanks to the lack of pesticide and lawnmowers. But I guess sticks are fairly easy to collect. So fire isn’t an issue I guess.

Aiman Ahmad (ex-IB 5)

The word science comes from the word ‘sciencia’ in Latin which means knowledge. Science refers to a system of acquiring knowledge which uses observation and experimentation to describe and explain natural phenomena. As time goes by, mankind has advanced a lot with the help of science. However, whether we realize it or not, we can hardly keep up with the development and improvement of science, thus resulting in pollution. In other words, we are destroying our own planet. For example, the hole in the ozone layer that we created unintentionally increases the cancer rates in the world. As a result, some of us have lost our friends and family due to the inventions of man in science. Another example, the greenhouse effect has made the earth’s average temperature increase, and the rainfall pattern has changed because of it. The change in the rainfall pattern and also the melting of the ice in North Pole and South Pole result in the rise in sea level and also a wide impact on wildlife and humans. History tells us that many species have gone extinct because of our selfishness, greediness and our inventions. Ask yourselves, are we the next to go? Are we going to take along a few floras and faunas with us? Or the whole planet, perhaps…  Let us think about it…

Hakim Bin Azman (June 08)

Science a threat?

Should you ever have any doubt on the value of science and technology on your personal life all you have to do is close your eyes and imagine living in a moderately crowded city like Kuala Lumpur without electricity. In broader terms, modern society cannot function without the technological supports and the underpinning scientific knowledge. Period.

A society that is ill-informed about science is a threat to itself and others; that science, “hard” science that is, is never a threat to society is self-evident.

The ability for a country like Malaysia, relatively developed, and is a significant “consumer” of the sciences and related technologies, to further improve the quality of life of Malaysians, hinges on the depth and breadth of our scientific capital. The question is: have we the capacity to be a significant scientific contributor in the future? That is; are we in the possession of a cultural mind set and educational infrastructure, beyond numbers of buildings, numbers of teachers and students and the length and frequencies of our tests? I think not.

In our region small countries like New Zealand, current population of less than 5 millions, have 3 Nobel Laureates in the sciences. Of the 9 Australian Nobel Laureates 8 are from the sciences. Current population of Australia is about 21 millions. Care to predict when Malaysia will produce a Nobel Laureate in any one of the sciences?

Mr Masukor Sari (Mathematics)

Science can be inferred as a system of gaining knowledge. Basically science is known as a discipline of study that can be justified as the system applies experimentation and investigation to explain and elucidate natural phenomena. We can use science to explain what is happening around us such as the human reproductive system and climate change. For ages, science has been recognized as the best method to solve problems. For instance, scientists use science to find cures for every disease. This shows that science is mainly used in a good way, which is to give protection to human kind.  However, science can also be harmful. This problem takes place when people use science as a threat and menace to other people. The best example is the invention of weapons, especially nuclear bombs. These bombs were used in war as the fastest method to kill a great number of humans. Take for example World War II, when the United States dropped a plutonium implosion-type device code-named "Fat Man" on the city of Nagasaki, Japan. This bombing resulted in the death of around 120000 people and the majority of the dead were civilians. This justifies that science is not only good for mankind, but it can also cause massive destruction to mankind itself.

Akmal B Mohd Ihwan (June 08)                

Continue Reading...

Opportunity Costs and Production Possibility Curve (PPC) in Warcraft

Opportunity Costs and Production Possibility Curve (PPC) in Warcraft

            Did you know that there is economics in Warcraft? For those who do not know, Warcraft is a strategy game. You are required to build a town and an army using limited resources, and then to destroy your enemy and their town. There are four races in the game: Human, Undead, Night Elf, Orc. To play, you either pick one yourself or let the computer decide for you; you can also choose your enemy’s race, or again let the computer decide for you. Although there are slight differences between the races, most of their operations are similar.

            The concepts of opportunity costs and PPC are applied liberally in the game.  For example, if you choose Human, you will be given a Townhall near a gold mine with some trees surrounding it (your resources), and five human Peasants (workers who obtain resources and build structures). The choice will then come down to you: Use all Peasants to obtain resources only, or to build as many structures as possible, or a balance of both? If all the Peasants are to obtain resources only, you will be rich in resources but lacking in town structures or an army. If you build as many structures as possible, you will run out of resources quickly and will not be able to build up an army. A balance of both might be your choice, but how much priority between those two will also be your dilemma. And this is just the beginning.

            Throughout the game you will face more and more of such dilemmas. To build a big army, or to build a town, or a balance of both? When you build a big army, you allocate more resources to building armies than to building the town, and vice versa. And even if you have an army, would you increase its number, or build up its strength? To add to that dilemma: how many ground units do you want, how many flying units, how many mechanical units, and how many magical and magic breaker units? In the game you are limited to only a capacity of 100 food consumption units and each unit of your army consumes different amounts of food, depending on its type. How much should you diversify in your army?

            As for your town, what should you build first? Building types differ slightly from race to race, but in general there would be a building for the town centre, a building for food, a building for army unit production, a building for specialised flying units, a building for defensive purposes, a building for magical units and a building to increase the strength of the army. Each building has its importance in your town and army. The question is, again, which is to be built first?

Prioritising one will cost the opportunity of another. A balance of both is always the common strategy of choice but the configuration of weightage placed on each aspect is also the dilemma. Certain types of weightage configuration work for certain types of races and might be effective to beat your enemy, but may be the complete opposite if the enemy is of a different race, or if the enemy builds an army or a town or both of a different configuration. At this point, you might think that winning this game is a matter of luck; actually it is not. Whether you win, or not, depends on how you configure the weightage between building an army and a town and how you diversify your army, and at the same time adapting your configuration against your enemies so that you can beat them. The question now is: What is the best configuration?

         by Ariffin B Mohd Amir (June 08) 

Continue Reading...