Haste led to mistake in emigration figures, says deputy minister
KUALA LUMPUR: A total of 106,000 Malaysians had given up their citizenship and emigrated since independence, Deputy Home Affairs Minister Datuk Tan Chai Ho said yesterday.
He said his recent statement, reported by the New Straits Times on July 10, that 106,000 Malaysians had surrendered their citizenship in the last 11 years was wrong.
Apologising, Tan said the mistake arose from a miscommunication between him and one of his officers.
"My officer was in a hurry to give me the numbers and got mixed up with the dates."
He said he also had to double check the breakdown by race. In his earlier statement, Tan said of the 106,000, 79,199 were Malays, 25,107 Chinese and 1,347 Indians.
However, Home Affairs Minister Datuk Mohd Radzi Sheikh Ahmad is reported to have given the breakdown yesterday as 10,411 Malay, 86,708 Chinese, 8,667 Indian and 847 other races.
Radzi also said only 1,720 Malays had surrendered their citizenship between 1996 and April this year.
************************************************************************************
Huh?!! Why the painstaking effort by the Home Affairs Minister in emphasising the fact that the majority of Malaysians giving up their citizenship are in fact Chinese and not Malays? One could almost feel the knock on the head that he gave his deputy. Don't get me wrong. I am all for accurate information. But how do you judge what is accurate information? Is it possible in Malaysia? How could the figures given by the deputy minister and the minister be so different? You would have thought that they share the same database. Am I being paranoid? Perhaps. But my suspicion is being reinforced by Radzi's emphasis that only 1,720 Malays had given up their citizenship in the last 10 years.
Is it so inconceivable that some Malays have decided that the "land of milk and honey" for their race is not for them? Do they not appreciate their preferential treatment? Does the fact that the non-Bumiputera companies in Malaysia have to carve out 30% of their hard-earned wealth and give it to the Malays not enticed them to stay back and "eat their cake"? Surely 30 years or so years of New Economic Policy persuasion should make it inconceivable for any rational minded Malays not to stay put and pursue greener pastures? Or perhaps, the NEP did not achieve what it set out to do? The rich Malays got richer and the poor gets left behind. Was the policy just an excuse for the perpetuation of corruption?
Immigration and emigration is good for the country. It has been happening since Biblical times. Look at the United States of America. It is the most powerful and richest country on earth. No doubt the strength of the country is down to the fact that almost every race in the US is an immigrant race. It brings the best in the world together, and it still does.
So why are the few Malays who left the country such an embarrassment for the Home Affairs Minister? So, what if it is only a couple of thousand and not eighty thousand? Why is it that the country still insist on single citizenship? The masses of Malaysian who left may not be physically or financially dependent on the country. Nevertheless, the emotional and family bonds are still very strong. The majority on Malaysians I know have not given up their citizenship despite being away for decades from their homeland. It would strengthen the country if dual or multiple citizenship is allowed. Take India for instance. In the last few years, they have recognised that for their country to industrialise successfully, they have to attract back the many who had left. These people not only brings back expertise, but also hard cash earned abroad which is vital for investments. Dual citizenship? Yeah....bring it on!!!
Saturday, 21 July 2007
Wednesday, 18 July 2007
Adult Philosophy??
Mingle2 -
Huh..is my blog now for adults only? Apparently, this rating is based on the words in the blog such as "abortion", "sex", "murder", "death", "kill" and "dead"; being the most frequent words! Oh dear! Better lighten up...
Monday, 2 July 2007
Ethical Dying?
Mom sues over killer's 90-minute execution
TOLEDO, Ohio (AP) -- The mother of a condemned inmate whose execution took an hour longer than is typical sued the head of Ohio's prisons on Monday.
art.clark.ap.jpg
It took 90 minutes for Joseph Clark to die during his execution in May.
It took almost 90 minutes to carry out the execution of Joseph Clark in May 2006. The lawsuit, filed in a Cincinnati federal court, said the execution amounted to unconstitutional cruel and unusual punishment. Executions last about 20 minutes on average.
A message seeking comment was left for the prisons department Monday but was not returned.
In a separate lawsuit, a group of 15 inmates are challenging the state's injection process, arguing the procedure may cause prisoners to suffer during an execution.
Prison staff had problems finding a useable vein on Clark, and one vein they did use collapsed. The execution team also apparently tried to administer the lethal drugs through the original IV line by mistake, according to written accounts that the execution team is required to submit.
During the first injection attempt, Clark finally pushed himself up and said, "It don't work."
During the second attempt at finding a vein, he asked, "Can you just give me something by mouth to end this?"
Clark, 57, was sentenced to die in November 1984 for killing gas station attendant David Manning in Toledo.
The problems during the execution led the state to change its lethal injection process to ensure that veins can be found more carefully and quickly to avoid similar delays.
But in May, an execution team again struggled to find veins in another inmate's arm. Christopher Newton died nearly two hours after the scheduled start of his execution.
************************************************************************************
This issue about finding the vein of the condemned is why in some states in the US, they are trying to enlist the co-operation of anesthesiologists in carrying out the execution. This is because cannulating a vein is the expertise of the profession. It is usually easy to do. However, in some case it can prove impossible and even anesthesiologists find it a great challenge to do so.
Those who are supporting the involvement say that it is justified because the condemned can have an easier death. The physician can facilitate a painless and smooth death. Not to do so, would have them suffered the fate of those in the above article.
Those who are against, object on the ground that the main duty of a physician is to preserve life, and not kill it. The question is that, "if you know that your doctor kills for a living, would you also trust him to save your life?" Would the physician's judgment be clouded over time? The Nazis doctors who participated in gassing the millions of Jews use the same justification as the above. The Jews would have to die anyway, so might as well give them a painless death. They observed that those who were gassed to death "looks peaceful". So, were the Nazis doctors right in doing so? Execution used to be done in front of a firing squad by soldiers. The reason it had stopped was that the soldiers would suffered severe psychological disturbances over a period of time, and could not continue to carry out that duty. Therefore executions are being sanitised and changed to death by injections.
So, what is your verdict? Anyone care to comment? Should physicians be involved in executions?
Just a thought. In the age of globalisation, perhaps these condemned prisoners can be shipped of to China. They loved to execute prisoners there and sell of the body parts. That, however, is another different debate altogether...........
TOLEDO, Ohio (AP) -- The mother of a condemned inmate whose execution took an hour longer than is typical sued the head of Ohio's prisons on Monday.
art.clark.ap.jpg
It took 90 minutes for Joseph Clark to die during his execution in May.
It took almost 90 minutes to carry out the execution of Joseph Clark in May 2006. The lawsuit, filed in a Cincinnati federal court, said the execution amounted to unconstitutional cruel and unusual punishment. Executions last about 20 minutes on average.
A message seeking comment was left for the prisons department Monday but was not returned.
In a separate lawsuit, a group of 15 inmates are challenging the state's injection process, arguing the procedure may cause prisoners to suffer during an execution.
Prison staff had problems finding a useable vein on Clark, and one vein they did use collapsed. The execution team also apparently tried to administer the lethal drugs through the original IV line by mistake, according to written accounts that the execution team is required to submit.
During the first injection attempt, Clark finally pushed himself up and said, "It don't work."
During the second attempt at finding a vein, he asked, "Can you just give me something by mouth to end this?"
Clark, 57, was sentenced to die in November 1984 for killing gas station attendant David Manning in Toledo.
The problems during the execution led the state to change its lethal injection process to ensure that veins can be found more carefully and quickly to avoid similar delays.
But in May, an execution team again struggled to find veins in another inmate's arm. Christopher Newton died nearly two hours after the scheduled start of his execution.
************************************************************************************
This issue about finding the vein of the condemned is why in some states in the US, they are trying to enlist the co-operation of anesthesiologists in carrying out the execution. This is because cannulating a vein is the expertise of the profession. It is usually easy to do. However, in some case it can prove impossible and even anesthesiologists find it a great challenge to do so.
Those who are supporting the involvement say that it is justified because the condemned can have an easier death. The physician can facilitate a painless and smooth death. Not to do so, would have them suffered the fate of those in the above article.
Those who are against, object on the ground that the main duty of a physician is to preserve life, and not kill it. The question is that, "if you know that your doctor kills for a living, would you also trust him to save your life?" Would the physician's judgment be clouded over time? The Nazis doctors who participated in gassing the millions of Jews use the same justification as the above. The Jews would have to die anyway, so might as well give them a painless death. They observed that those who were gassed to death "looks peaceful". So, were the Nazis doctors right in doing so? Execution used to be done in front of a firing squad by soldiers. The reason it had stopped was that the soldiers would suffered severe psychological disturbances over a period of time, and could not continue to carry out that duty. Therefore executions are being sanitised and changed to death by injections.
So, what is your verdict? Anyone care to comment? Should physicians be involved in executions?
Just a thought. In the age of globalisation, perhaps these condemned prisoners can be shipped of to China. They loved to execute prisoners there and sell of the body parts. That, however, is another different debate altogether...........
Thursday, 28 June 2007
Waiting for Gordo-n
Congrats Gordon! Wow, it is finally over. What a long wait...13 years!!! You are one patient dude!
I have always said that Gordon Brown deserves his moment at the top....even if its just to justify his intellect. It is quite clear that he is full of convictions and determination. Not sure if I can trust him fully. We shall see. He just can't wash his hands off the dirt from the Blair years. The Iraq war for example..........I firmly believe he has blood on his hands too. Can't exactly remember who said this...might have been Winston Churchill...that "we only need a few good men to do nothing, for evil to triumph"...or something like that. Therefore, he cannot excuse himself by saying that the Iraq war has nothing to do with him, and to claim that he was an innocent bystander. In fact, he was no such thing. During the last election, I remember that during a press conference, when he was asked if he supported Tony Blair in the Iraq war, he replied immediately with such a gusto affirmation that one could even see the surprise on Tony's face.
His speech was change this, change that ....NHS, housing, care for the elderly...change, change, change...Oh man! I am already suffering from change fatigue. Why does it feel like my pocket is going to suffer a severe haemorrhage??!! Expensive Britain is going to be Unaffordable Britain. Come back Tony....all is forgiven!
I have always said that Gordon Brown deserves his moment at the top....even if its just to justify his intellect. It is quite clear that he is full of convictions and determination. Not sure if I can trust him fully. We shall see. He just can't wash his hands off the dirt from the Blair years. The Iraq war for example..........I firmly believe he has blood on his hands too. Can't exactly remember who said this...might have been Winston Churchill...that "we only need a few good men to do nothing, for evil to triumph"...or something like that. Therefore, he cannot excuse himself by saying that the Iraq war has nothing to do with him, and to claim that he was an innocent bystander. In fact, he was no such thing. During the last election, I remember that during a press conference, when he was asked if he supported Tony Blair in the Iraq war, he replied immediately with such a gusto affirmation that one could even see the surprise on Tony's face.
His speech was change this, change that ....NHS, housing, care for the elderly...change, change, change...Oh man! I am already suffering from change fatigue. Why does it feel like my pocket is going to suffer a severe haemorrhage??!! Expensive Britain is going to be Unaffordable Britain. Come back Tony....all is forgiven!
Wednesday, 27 June 2007
What happened to the children?
I was listening to the radio today. The DJ was interviewing the Chief of a Fire Service regarding the flood that hit Britain yesterday. They were discussing about the emergency services and how they triage who to help first. The Chief's answer was, " The elderly first, then the disable and after that the children..........". Huh? What happened to women and children first, and everybody else to follow? Are the kids no longer the top priority for the society anymore? Is this new approach a new symptom of the disease of political correctness? The CP is back in the wondering business again....
Tuesday, 26 June 2007
Profit over Health
Pigs to humans: alert over new MRSA strain
· Half of all Dutch farmers now carry superbug
· Urgent call to screen UK lifestock and test imports
Ian Sample Science correspondent
Monday June 25, 2007
The Guardian
Campaigners today call for urgent tests on the UK's farm animals after the emergence of a new strain of MRSA which has spread rapidly among farmers in Europe, causing an array of serious infections.
The drug-resistant bug is thought to have arisen in pigs fed antibiotics to protect them against farm-borne diseases and boost their growth. The emergence of the new strain backs up fears voiced by some experts that the heavy use of antibiotics in farm animals could lead to a drug-resistant bug capable of infecting humans.
The strain of staphylococcus aureus, known as ST398, is resistant to commonly used antibiotics and has caused skin infections and rare heart and bone infections in patients in the Netherlands, Denmark, Belgium and Germany.
A report published today by the organic farming organisation, the Soil Association, says the superbug represents a new threat to human health. It urged the government to introduce immediate screening of national livestock and strict testing of imported meat products and animals from affected regions, to prevent the superbug spreading to Britain. The report reveals the swift spread of the new MRSA strain, which tested positive in 39% of pigs at nine abattoirs in the Netherlands last year. A further survey identified the strain in 13% of Dutch calves.
Medical officials found that 50% of Dutch farmers were carriers of the strain, a prevalence 1,500 times higher than the rest of the population. In one pig farming region 80% of all MRSA cases are now caused by the farm animal strain. A survey by the Dutch food and consumer product safety authority last year found traces of the bug in 20% of pork meat, 21% of chicken meat and 3% of beef.
"It's going to get to the UK sooner or later, but the government is doing nothing to look for it," said Richard Young, a co-author of the report. "We should be doing routine surveillance on imported meat and imported live chicks."
The document also recommends a screening programme for farmers coming from European countries before they work with live animals.
"It's a new strain we should be looking for here," said Mark Enright, an expert in MRSA at Imperial College, London. "The excessive use of antibiotics is always a bad idea. If you do that for long enough, inevitably one of the strains that emerges will be good at causing disease in humans."
The new strain was first detected two years ago in the Netherlands.
A Defra spokesman said the government had commissioned research into the spread of the infection among animals. "There is no consensus on whether animals became infected from other animals or humans, therefore the identification of MRSA in animals cannot be conclusively linked to the use of antibiotics in animals."
***********************************************************************************
This is another example where greed triumphs. Unfortunately, when we go against nature, there is always a penalty to pay. MRSA superbug is difficult to treat, and may cause loss of human life. It is grim news that 50% of Dutch farmers now carries this drug. This means that if any of them have an operation e.g.a hip replacement, the chances of the prothetic hip infection is very high and it can be very difficult to trat it if it happens. What is more worrying for me is that these meat are being consumed by human. Isn't it time that we go all ORGANIC?
· Half of all Dutch farmers now carry superbug
· Urgent call to screen UK lifestock and test imports
Ian Sample Science correspondent
Monday June 25, 2007
The Guardian
Campaigners today call for urgent tests on the UK's farm animals after the emergence of a new strain of MRSA which has spread rapidly among farmers in Europe, causing an array of serious infections.
The drug-resistant bug is thought to have arisen in pigs fed antibiotics to protect them against farm-borne diseases and boost their growth. The emergence of the new strain backs up fears voiced by some experts that the heavy use of antibiotics in farm animals could lead to a drug-resistant bug capable of infecting humans.
The strain of staphylococcus aureus, known as ST398, is resistant to commonly used antibiotics and has caused skin infections and rare heart and bone infections in patients in the Netherlands, Denmark, Belgium and Germany.
A report published today by the organic farming organisation, the Soil Association, says the superbug represents a new threat to human health. It urged the government to introduce immediate screening of national livestock and strict testing of imported meat products and animals from affected regions, to prevent the superbug spreading to Britain. The report reveals the swift spread of the new MRSA strain, which tested positive in 39% of pigs at nine abattoirs in the Netherlands last year. A further survey identified the strain in 13% of Dutch calves.
Medical officials found that 50% of Dutch farmers were carriers of the strain, a prevalence 1,500 times higher than the rest of the population. In one pig farming region 80% of all MRSA cases are now caused by the farm animal strain. A survey by the Dutch food and consumer product safety authority last year found traces of the bug in 20% of pork meat, 21% of chicken meat and 3% of beef.
"It's going to get to the UK sooner or later, but the government is doing nothing to look for it," said Richard Young, a co-author of the report. "We should be doing routine surveillance on imported meat and imported live chicks."
The document also recommends a screening programme for farmers coming from European countries before they work with live animals.
"It's a new strain we should be looking for here," said Mark Enright, an expert in MRSA at Imperial College, London. "The excessive use of antibiotics is always a bad idea. If you do that for long enough, inevitably one of the strains that emerges will be good at causing disease in humans."
The new strain was first detected two years ago in the Netherlands.
A Defra spokesman said the government had commissioned research into the spread of the infection among animals. "There is no consensus on whether animals became infected from other animals or humans, therefore the identification of MRSA in animals cannot be conclusively linked to the use of antibiotics in animals."
***********************************************************************************
This is another example where greed triumphs. Unfortunately, when we go against nature, there is always a penalty to pay. MRSA superbug is difficult to treat, and may cause loss of human life. It is grim news that 50% of Dutch farmers now carries this drug. This means that if any of them have an operation e.g.a hip replacement, the chances of the prothetic hip infection is very high and it can be very difficult to trat it if it happens. What is more worrying for me is that these meat are being consumed by human. Isn't it time that we go all ORGANIC?
Wednesday, 13 June 2007
Do unto them........the bastards!!
Paedophiles face 'chemical castration'
ITN - Wednesday, June 13 02:18 pm
Some sex offenders are to be chemically castrated as part of an overhaul of how paedophiles are handled.
(Advertisement)
Volunteers will be given drugs to suppress their libido under the pilot scheme which will also see compulsory lie detector tests introduced for sex offenders.
Home Secretary John Reid has announced proposals later to allow parents and guardians limited access to information about convicted paedophiles.
For the first time they will be given the right to ask whether a person who has contact with their child is a sex offender. The plans, first announced in April, will mainly apply if the individual is able to spend time alone with a youngster.
There will also be other limited circumstances when disclosures can be made. The system would build on laws which already allow police to approach and warn a woman who has begun a relationship with a known paedophile.
Prime Minister Tony Blair told the Commons the new laws are "a sensible, worthwhile step forward".
The NSPCC welcomed the development, saying "open access" could force convicted paedophiles underground and place youngsters at greater risk of assault.
But the children's charity warned that the new disclosure plans could over-stretch limited resources.
Director and chief executive Dame Mary Marsh said: "We fear the police and other agencies may not have enough officers and funding to make fully considered decisions on information sharing while keeping a grip on known offenders."
The package of measures is expected to put an end to calls for a British version of Megan's Law.
The US legislation commemorates seven-year-old Megan Kanka who was raped, strangled and her body stuffed in a plastic toy chest by neighbour Jesse Timmendequas in the New Jersey suburb of Hamilton Township in 1994.
The murder of eight-year-old schoolgirl Sarah Payne by paedophile Roy Whiting in July 2000 sparked a nationwide campaign for similar legislation to be introduced in Britain, dubbed "Sarah's Law".
The system now being proposed would have arguably had no effect on the Sarah Payne case, as she was grabbed by a stranger, and is a far cry from the "Sarah's Law" originally envisaged by campaigners.
************************************************************************************
The news about a letter sent by a mystery person regarding the whereabouts of the "body" of Madeleine McCann sends a chill down my spine. I do not even dare to contemplate the fate of the poor child, as yet unknown. It is too painful to do so. I cannot even begin to imagine the anguish of what the parents are going through. All these have given me an irrational fear regarding the safety of my own child. You see, Maddy is only exactly one week older than my own little girl. Although we do not know who had kidnapped her, a possibility remains that it might be the work of a paedophile. Or worse a paedophile ring. When I think about this, a surge of anger would well up inside me, like this very moment!!
So, should we chemically castrate these paedophile bastards? Damn right, we should!! What is there to think? If I have my own way, I would have them surgically castrated. The effect is permanent, and they would be punished forever. Even better, I had previously advocated a death sentence for these low life, especially if the child had been murdered. However, just as I objected to the taking of life as in the case of an abortion (see previous post), I think now perhaps I am beginning to move away from the hard principle of the death penalty. This change of philosophy was triggered during my attendance at a forum at the American Society of Anesthesiologists last year. The debate was about whether a physician should assist in carrying out the death sentence. A very hot topic in the US currently. I am afraid the case put forward by those against it had swayed my thinking.
But castration? Yeah, I would offer my services free of charge.
ITN - Wednesday, June 13 02:18 pm
Some sex offenders are to be chemically castrated as part of an overhaul of how paedophiles are handled.
(Advertisement)
Volunteers will be given drugs to suppress their libido under the pilot scheme which will also see compulsory lie detector tests introduced for sex offenders.
Home Secretary John Reid has announced proposals later to allow parents and guardians limited access to information about convicted paedophiles.
For the first time they will be given the right to ask whether a person who has contact with their child is a sex offender. The plans, first announced in April, will mainly apply if the individual is able to spend time alone with a youngster.
There will also be other limited circumstances when disclosures can be made. The system would build on laws which already allow police to approach and warn a woman who has begun a relationship with a known paedophile.
Prime Minister Tony Blair told the Commons the new laws are "a sensible, worthwhile step forward".
The NSPCC welcomed the development, saying "open access" could force convicted paedophiles underground and place youngsters at greater risk of assault.
But the children's charity warned that the new disclosure plans could over-stretch limited resources.
Director and chief executive Dame Mary Marsh said: "We fear the police and other agencies may not have enough officers and funding to make fully considered decisions on information sharing while keeping a grip on known offenders."
The package of measures is expected to put an end to calls for a British version of Megan's Law.
The US legislation commemorates seven-year-old Megan Kanka who was raped, strangled and her body stuffed in a plastic toy chest by neighbour Jesse Timmendequas in the New Jersey suburb of Hamilton Township in 1994.
The murder of eight-year-old schoolgirl Sarah Payne by paedophile Roy Whiting in July 2000 sparked a nationwide campaign for similar legislation to be introduced in Britain, dubbed "Sarah's Law".
The system now being proposed would have arguably had no effect on the Sarah Payne case, as she was grabbed by a stranger, and is a far cry from the "Sarah's Law" originally envisaged by campaigners.
************************************************************************************
The news about a letter sent by a mystery person regarding the whereabouts of the "body" of Madeleine McCann sends a chill down my spine. I do not even dare to contemplate the fate of the poor child, as yet unknown. It is too painful to do so. I cannot even begin to imagine the anguish of what the parents are going through. All these have given me an irrational fear regarding the safety of my own child. You see, Maddy is only exactly one week older than my own little girl. Although we do not know who had kidnapped her, a possibility remains that it might be the work of a paedophile. Or worse a paedophile ring. When I think about this, a surge of anger would well up inside me, like this very moment!!
So, should we chemically castrate these paedophile bastards? Damn right, we should!! What is there to think? If I have my own way, I would have them surgically castrated. The effect is permanent, and they would be punished forever. Even better, I had previously advocated a death sentence for these low life, especially if the child had been murdered. However, just as I objected to the taking of life as in the case of an abortion (see previous post), I think now perhaps I am beginning to move away from the hard principle of the death penalty. This change of philosophy was triggered during my attendance at a forum at the American Society of Anesthesiologists last year. The debate was about whether a physician should assist in carrying out the death sentence. A very hot topic in the US currently. I am afraid the case put forward by those against it had swayed my thinking.
But castration? Yeah, I would offer my services free of charge.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
