Is it a Crime to Emigrate??

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!!!

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...

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...........

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!

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....

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?

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.

Abortion : Is it Murder??

US Supreme Court approves ban on "partial birth abortion"

Janice Hopkins Tanne

New York

The nine member US Supreme Court ruled five to four last week to ban the "partial birth abortion" procedure in the United States. The court upheld a federal law banning the procedure that was passed by Congress in 2003. The law had been challenged in the courts for lacking an exception to protect women's health, not just their lives.

Many commentators called the decision the most important ruling on abortion in 30 years.

The day after the Supreme Court ruling, two Democrats, Senator Barbara Boxer of California and Representative Jerrold Nadler of New York, introduced bills in the Senate and House of Representatives that would prevent government from interfering with a woman's right to bear a child or end a pregnancy. Nadler said, "We can no longer rely on the Supreme Court to protect a woman's constitutional right to choose."

This week the New England Journal of Medicine joined the debate. Jeffrey Drazen, the journal's editor in chief, said in an early release editorial that the Supreme Court "was practising medicine without a licence."

In another article, Michael Greene, director of obstetrics at Massachusetts General Hospital, wrote that US doctors lacked confidence in the judicial system and might avoid carrying out surgical abortions in the second trimester even when the mother's life is in danger. The court's decision was part of government restrictions on access to contraception and for coping with dangerous or unwanted pregnancies.

Abortion will be an important topic in next year's presidential election. Potential Democratic candidates criticised the court's decision and potential Republican candidates approved it, including former mayor of New York Rudy Giuliani, despite the fact that he has said he supports abortion rights.

Seven years ago, the Supreme Court overturned a state law that banned "partial birth abortion" because it did not have an exception to protect women's health (BMJ 2004:328:1398, doi: 10.1136/bmj.328.7453.1398-d), and it has several times struck down abortion laws that did not have a health exception. The federal law states that the procedure is never medically necessary and the Supreme Court upheld the federal law despite its previous decisions requiring a protection for women's health.

The law defines a partial birth abortion as a procedure in which the doctor "deliberately and intentionally vaginally delivers a living fetus until, in the case of a headfirst presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother, or, in the case of a breech presentation, any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother, for the purpose of performing an overt act (usually the puncturing of the back of the child's skull and removing the baby's brains) that the person knows will kill the partially delivered living fetus." The number of such abortions carried out each year in the US is thought to be between 2200 and 5000. They are most often performed in the second trimester.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists said that the procedure might be the safest but its view had been disregarded. Dr Douglas Laube, president of the college, said that the decision "leaves no doubt that women's health in America is perceived as being of little consequence."

The college, Planned Parenthood, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Center for Reproductive Rights, the National Abortion Federation, and many other organisations criticised the court's decision. They said it was a step toward prohibiting abortion. Pro-life, anti-abortion groups applauded the decision.

The New York Times made it lead story (www.nytimes.com, 19 Apr, "In reversal of course, justices, 5-4, back ban on abortion method") and in its lead editorial (p A26) said the decision "severely eroded the constitutional respect and protection accorded to women and the personal decisions they make about pregnancy and childbirth." Several commentators said that the court had changed from having concern for a woman's health to having concern about the fetus. They also noted a paternalistic tone in the court's ruling.

The current court is more conservative because of George Bush's appointment of Samuel Alito as an associate justice, replacing the more liberal Sandra Day O'Connor, who had been the "swing vote" in some 5-4 decisions on abortion rights.

Doctors usually refer to the procedure of partial birth abortion as intact dilatation and extraction. The alternative procedure, which is not prohibited, is to dismember the fetus within the uterus and extract it. Partial birth abortion or intact dilatation and evacuation is allowed when the fetus is dead. Killing the fetus by injection and inducing labour is not often used in the US and is thought to be less safe.

Commenting on the law as it now stands after the Supreme Court decision, David Grimes, former head of abortion surveillance for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, told the BMJ, "The law is crudely crafted, difficult to interpret, and hopelessly vague. It doesn't mention gestational age." It also refers to intention rather than what may happen during a procedure. Doctors who violate the law may be jailed for up to two years; women will not be punished.

Dr Grimes said that he had personally used the procedure to save a woman's life. He feared the ruling would lead to increased restrictions on abortion at a state by state level. State legislators have already begun to propose local laws.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the only woman on the court, said in the dissenting opinion that the ruling does not prevent a single abortion. It merely outlaws a procedure. Antiabortion activists say that they will seek restrictions on other procedures for abortion and also seek to impose other restrictions, such as counselling before abortion, ultrasound imaging, and longer waiting times.

About 1.3 million abortions are carried out in the US each year, almost 90% in the first trimester by vacuum aspiration. The number of partial birth abortions is unclear because of problems with definitions and the collection of statistics. Estimates are less than 1%, perhaps as low as 0.2%.

The full ruling is available at www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/06pdf/05-380.pdf.

***********************************************************************************

So is abortion murder? I believe that it most certainly is. Whether the fetus is in-utero or outside is purely semantics. It is still an act whereby a human life is terminated. That fact cannot be disputed and therefore it makes it an unlawful act. The description of the partial birth abortion should wake up those who tries to justify the act of abortion and deceive their own conscience. Whatever the circumstances of the pregnancy, it should not end with the death penalty of the fetus. What about the sanctity of human life? Society should again examine its own conscience.

Does Race define Religion?

Wednesday May 30, 2007
Crucial decision in Lina Joy case
By SHAILA KOSHY
KUALA LUMPUR: The Federal Court judgment today on the Lina Joy appeal will be a historic one with legal and social repercussions, whichever way the decision goes.
This decision by the apex court will affect one’s constitutional freedom to choose one’s religion as well as who one can marry, especially for those who want to renounce Islam and for people who convert to Islam but later want to revert to their former religion.
The judgment, which was reserved on July 4 last year, will clarify whether conversion is a religious matter or a constitutional matter.
Lina Joy, 42, who was born to a Malay Muslim couple, became a Christian when she was 26.
The sales assistant has taken her case all the way to the Federal Court because unless the government recognises her conversion, she cannot get married under civil law.
While Lina managed – the second time around – to get the National Registration Department to change her name from Azlina Jailani in 1999, accepting that she had renounced Islam, it refused to remove the word “Islam” from her MyKad.
The NRD said it could not do so without a syariah court order certifying she had renounced Islam.
As long as the word “Islam” remains on her identity card, Lina cannot marry her Christian boyfriend, a cook, under the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976.
In 2001, she took her case against the NRD director-general, the Government and the Federal Territory Religious Council to the High Court.
She lost – Justice Faiza Tamby Chik held that Malays could not renounce Islam because a Malay was defined in the Constitution as “a person who professes the religion of Islam,” adding it was the syariah court that had the jurisdiction in matters related to apostasy.
Lina appealed to the Court of Appeal and lost again, this time in a majority decision – Justices Abdul Aziz Mohamed and Arifin Zakaria upheld the decision of the NRD but Justice Gopal Sri Ram said it was null and void.
In 2006, she got leave to appeal to the Federal Court and asked the panel comprising Chief Justice Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim, Chief Judge of Sabah and Sarawak Richard Malanjum and Federal Court Justice Alauddin Mohd Sheriff these questions:
WAS the NRD entitled to require a person to produce a certificate or a declaration or an order from the syariah court before deleting “Islam” from his or her identity card;
DID the NRD correctly construe its powers under the National Registration Regulations 1990 when it imposed the above requirement, which is not expressly provided for in the regulations?; and
WAS the landmark case Soon Singh vs Perkim Kedah – which held that syariah courts have the authority over the civil courts to hear cases of Muslims renouncing Islam – correctly decided?
While Datuk Cyrus Das appeared for Lina Joy, Senior Federal Counsel Datuk Umi Khaltum Jamid appeared for the NRD director-general and the Government and Sulaiman Abdullah appeared for the religious council.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lina Joy loses appeal
News update by The Star's newsdesk
PUTRAJAYA: Lina Joy lost her final round of appeal when the Federal Court dismissed on Wednesday her appeal against a ruling that the National Registration Department was right not to allow her to remove the word "Islam" from her identity card.
Chief Justice Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim and Federal Court judge Justice Alauddin Mohd Sheriff delivered the majority decision dismissing her appeal.
Chief Judge of Sabah and Sarawak Justice Richard Malanjum dissented.
On Sept 19, 2005, the Court of Appeal decided that the NRD director-general was right in refusing her application to drop her religious status from her IC on the grounds that the Syariah Court and other Islamic religious authorities did not confirm Linas renunciation of Islam.
************************************************************************************

So Lina Joy (or in this case "no Joy") lost her case. Surprise, surprise? NOT. One should have expected that the outcome is a foregone conclusion. In the 21st century, I am disappointed that the thinking of the society and law in Malaysia have not come to maturity. Justice Faiza Thamby Chik said that the constitution defines "a Malay as one who professes to be a Muslim". I am not that familiar with this piece of constitution, but I am surprised to discover that religion has now got a Mendelian inheritance. It is like saying that a Chinese must be a Buddhist, or an Indian must be a Hindu, and a Caucasian must be a Christian. So, if you do a DNA fingerprinting, you can find out the religion of your great, great, great, great grandfather! Ridiculous or what?!

I thought that the Malaysian constitution ensures freedom of religion. Surely this ruling is unconstitutional. Or else, we need to change the constitution, do we not?

Please find Madeleine 3

Update : This is the last photo of Madeleine before she was kidnapped. Taken by her mum. If you have any information of her whereabouts, please contact via the website (see previous post) dedicated to find her. Thanks.

Please Find Madeleine 2

The following is a poster prepared by her family. Please disseminate it as widely as possible. You can provide information by ringing the number. Alternatively, go to www.findmadeleine.com.

You've Been Blogged...errr...Blocked!

Internet censorship grows worldwide: study

AFP - Friday, May 18 06:50 pm

LONDON (AFP) - Internet censorship is growing worldwide, with 26 out of 40 countries blocking or filtering political or social content, a study reported Friday.

(Advertisement)

The survey carried out by experts at four leading universities found that people in Asia, the Middle East and North Africa were often denied access to information about politics, sexuality, culture or religion.

Conducting the first of what is planned to become an annual survey, the experts at the universities of Oxford, Cambridge, Harvard and Toronto found that the approach varied according to the country.

For example, South Korea heavily censored only one topic, North Korea, while Iran, China and Saudi Arabia blocked both a wide range of topics and a great deal of content related to those topics.

The experts with the OpenNet Initiative, who carried out their research last year, listed six countries as "pervasive" filterers of political information: Myanmar, China, Iran, Syria, Tunisia and Vietnam.

They categorized seven countries, all of them Muslim, as "pervasive" social filterers: Iran, Oman, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Tunisia, the United Arab Emirates and Yemen.

Topics blocked are those considered antithetical to social norms, such as pornography, gay and lesbian content, and gambling.

Social filtering also was carried out by countries like France and Germany, where websites that deny the Holocaust or promote Nazism are blocked.

The survey found that Myanmar, China, Iran, Pakistan and South Korea have the "most encompassing national security filtering," targeting the websites of insurgents, extremists, and terrorists.

"The survey shows us that online censorship is growing around the world," said John Palfrey, executive director of the Berkman Center for Internet and Society, and clinical professor of law at Harvard Law School.

"Some regulation is to be expected as the medium matures, but filtering and surveillance can seriously erode civil liberties and privacy and stifle global communications," he added in a statement.

However, the survey found that a handful of countries where Internet filtering might be expected -- such as Afghanistan, Egypt, Iraq, Israel, Malaysia, Nepal, Russia, Venezuela and Zimbabwe -- were found not to filter.

The survey said that Internet filtering techniques have evolved with the growing complexity of content.

"Instead of just blocking static Web sites, such as pages online that show pornographic pictures or information about human rights, online censors are blocking entire applications, such as YouTube," it added.

Other applications that are often targeted are internet telephony service Skype and Google Maps. Still others are blogs, political parties and local non-government organisations.

"In the case of blogs, a number of countries, including Pakistan and Ethiopia, have blocked entire blogging domains," it said.

The survey said the United States and European countries did not come in for testing, as the filtering practices were better understood than in other parts of the world.

The survey marked "the first step towards a comprehensive global assessment of Internet filtering practices," said Oxford University professor Jonathan Zittrain,who expects to find more countries that filter the Internet as testing is expanded.

Just thought that this article might be of some interest to all bloggers, in view of the interesting discussion in Susan Loone's blog about the formation of All-Blogs, a National Alliance of Bloggers in Malaysia. It seems surprising that Malaysia, a country known for its tendency to control the media, is one of the few countries that does not filter its internet traffic. There has been talk of forming a register of bloggers by the government, presumably a move to control the topics discussed by the bloggers. Is that a possible task? Can a blog registered with a domain outside the country be easily blocked?

Does anyone think that internet censorship in Malaysia is imminent, and it is only when and not if? What can Malaysian bloggers do to convince the government not to do so, or are we powerless? Would it be a retrograde step or is it necessary for the security of the country?

Please find Madeleine

PRAIA DA LUZ, Portugal (AFP) - The family of the missing four-year-old British girl announced Thursday they would step up the search for her as Portuguese police said they still lacked enough information to make any arrests.

ADVERTISEMENT

Posters bearing the face of Madeleine McCann, will soon appear across Europe, Michael Wright, a relative of the girl's parents told a news conference.

The posters have already become a common sight in Portugal, since she vanished from a hotel bedroom at a resort in Praia da Luz in the Algarve region on May 3.

"If Madeleine is not in Portugal, we want to make sure people have an image of her across Europe. This can only help," Wright told reporters.

He was speaking outside the whitewashed hotel from where Madeleine disappeared as several police stood guard nearby in bright sunshine.

"Our target is to reach the saturation that we know has been achieved in the UK and certainly in the Algarve," he added.

A fund and accompanying website, which the family launched on Wednesday to gather donations and other forms of help in the search for the little girl, has been flooded with offers, he said.

The help, from individuals, small firms and multinationals had made the European-wide campaign possible, he added.

The fund's website www.findmadeleine.com received over five million hits on Thursday, Wright said.

British television channel Sky News said an airline and a major restaurant chain were among the multinational firms that had offered to put up posters of the missing girl at their premises across the continent.

Police meanwhile said they were still gathering evidence but did not yet have enough information to make any arrests.

"The investigation is going on. Until this moment there is not enough evidence to arrest anyone," said Chief Inspector Olegario Sousa, who is heading the probe. He was speaking to reporters in the southern city of Portimao.

Ok....................I am getting pissed off. Why, you say? Because after almost 2 weeks, there is still no clue where Madeleine is. How come? Are Portuguese police that useless? Surely, all these super clever people from the intelligence community from Interpol, MI6, MI5, CIA, Mossad, KGB etc, etc should have some clue leading to her whereabouts. No, I am not pissed off...................I am super pissed off!!!!!!

So, I decided that I am not going to do nothing at all. I am appealing to all you good people who read my blog.................yes, the number may be small..........thou shall not mock...................,to write something about Madeleine and encourage all readers of your own blog to do likewise. Please paste her pictures on all your blogs and replicate it as often as possible. Let's increase the publicity in blogosphere. A very remarkable identifiable mark of Madeleine is her RIGHT EYE. If you look closely, you will see that there is a deficient IRIS mark at about 7 o'clock.

If any of you out there has any information leading to her, please don't keep it to yourselves. Inform the authorities! Have some compassion! Supply information in their official website- mentioned above . Do it for the love of the child. If not..........for Pete's sake....do it for the money! There is a large reward available.

DON'T MAKE ME ANGRY........................YOU DON'T LIKE ME WHEN I AM ANGRY!!!!

Rough Justice

Only Malays can buy reserve land

By : V. Anbalagan

Email to friend Print article

PUTRAJAYA: Non-Malays who inherited Malay reserve land can only sell the property to Malays.

The Federal Court has ruled that any such transaction involving a non-Malay is illegal.

However, the non-Malay owner can transfer his inheritance to his beneficiaries.

The court made these pronouncements in allowing an appeal by the legal representatives of Lee Keng Liat to recover about RM620,000 in compensation when the Malacca government acquired eight acres (2.6ha) of such land in Mukim Klebang Besar to build houses about 25 years ago.

Keng Liat had acquired the land at the turn of the 20th century after he received a certificate from the governor-in-council that entitled him to hold the customary land.
Under the Malacca Lands Customary Rights Ordinance, only a Malay living in the state or a person holding such certificate from the council was entitled to inherit such property.

On Keng Liat’s death, the property was transferred to a son, Chim Giang, who in 1935, sold the land to Tan Tai Lip.

In 1982, the authorities were ready to pay about RM1 million in compensation to Tan’s heirs. A total of RM420,000 was paid for loss of property and livelihood.

In 1986, Keng Liat’s personal representatives filed a suit at the Malacca High Court, claiming that the compensation for the loss of land was rightfully theirs.

Judge Datuk Abdul Hamid Mohamad said Tan should not have been allowed to purchase the land as he did not have a certificate from the council.

He said the transaction was illegal due to non-compliance of the ordinance.

He said he could not validate the original sale of land "as this would completely defeat the purpose of the creation of the Malacca customary land and Malay reserve land".

Sitting with Hamid were Datuk Arifin Zakaria and Datuk S. Augustine Paul.

Hamid said Malay reserve land came into existence after laws were enacted in the Malay states and the Straits Settlements to protect the land rights of the Malays.

He said the British saw it necessary to do so.

"If at all, it is for the legislature to repeal or amend the laws, not this court," he said of the unanimous ruling delivered on Friday.

Hamid, who wrote the 27-page judgment, said the court gave serious thought to the issue because of "what was happening on the ground".

"Customary land and Malay reserve land may be no more than a beautiful but empty package while the contents are enjoyed by people who are prohibited by law to own it," he said.







Don't you think that it is unfair? After all, Lee Keng Liat had acquired the land legally. He had a certificate from the governor-in-council to authenticate his purchase of the land. Why overturn the legality of the document after about 100 years? OK, one may need to sell it back to the Malays, but can a fair market price be gotten for it? Isn't it time that this ruling be reviewed and changed? After all, we are now in the 21st century? Should the term "bumiputera" be redefined to all that is born in Malaysia, instead of just to the Malay race? For the country to mature and come to adulthood, perhaps it is time that we should shed our xenophobic inheritance and have a real debate about integration in the country. If practices like the current Maybank fiasco where a law firm must have a 50% bumiputera ownership before it is able to do business with the bank persist, then all the interfaith dialogues (as promoted by the government) in the world will not achieve what it sets out to do.

Doctors are Liars

Deception flowchart

Case study: the unhopeful anaesthetist
A patient with a ruptured aortic aneurysm is rushed to the operating theatre. The anaesthetist knows the patient's chances of survival are poor. Just as preoxygenation is about to begin, the distressed patient asks "I am going to be all right, aren't I, doctor?" Can the unhopeful anaesthetist justifiably deceive the patient?

Brief flowchart analysis
The strongest reasons for deception here are to prevent great psychological harm and compassionate (humane) deception. As the patient will be conscious for only a short time, the deception is likely to succeed. A truthful alternative needs quick thinking and careful phrasing and therefore runs a higher risk of distressing the patient. As non-lying forms of deception (such as the evasive "we'll do our very best") might arouse suspicion, and as the likelihood of eventual discovery is minimal, lying is preferable for reducing such harm.

The main objections to deception are violation of the duty to be truthful, respect for patient autonomy, and the "right to know." Given the anticipated intensity of the distress, however short lived; the lack of realistic alternative clinical options; the negative impact of delay on an already poor prognosis; and the improbability in the remaining seconds of the patient coming to terms with the grim truth, the balance might justifiably be judged to fall on the side of deception. In light of the reasoning above, I would be willing to justify my decision to colleagues and the General Medical Council and believe many reasonable people might want to be deceived in such circumstances. I conclude that the proposed deception is morally acceptable.

Article published in BMJ on 12 May, 2007


It's official. Doctors do lie! Is it ever ethical to lie to the patients? Do you want your doctor to lie to you? Is there a therapeutic benefit in lying to the patients? Will the truth kill off the patients earlier?

You would be very angry if your banker lies to you, right? Or for that matter anyone else. So, why is it ok ( or not?) if its your doctors, especially if your life is in their hands? The Casual Philosopher is in a dilemma....

Hypocrisy

Overseas doctors with NHS experience are being refused visas on the grounds their medical degrees are not equal to those in the UK.

The BMA international committee has been contacted by members whose application for a HSMP (highly skilled migrant programme) visa was turned down because their degree was deemed equivalent only to a UK HND (higher national diploma).

HSMP visas are awarded on a points basis and qualifications must be evaluated by NARIC (the UK National Recognition Information Centre). However, NARIC is giving no points for some overseas medical degrees despite applicants being registered with the GMC and having UK medical experience. HND-holders would not be awarded points towards the total needed to gain an HSMP visa.

BMA council chair James Johnson and IC chair Edwin Borman have both written to higher education minister Bill Rammell asking him to review NARIC's methods.

If you have been refused an HSMP on these grounds, contact the international department at internationalinfo@bma. org.uk


The above is yet another example of hypocrisy of the British government's policy. These doctors have already worked in UK for a number of years, been given registration with the GMC, and have been treating patients here for a number of years. All of a sudden, their qualification is inferior, and therefore would not be granted the HSMP. Blatant discrimination!! I am not surprised at all by this. About a decade or so ago, I had also had the dubious "privilege" of experiencing this. I had gained my qualification from Ireland. While my Irish classmate, and fellow housemen was granted Full Registration, I was only granted Limited Registration with the GMC. My qualification and housemanship experience was deemed inferior to his. I had to jumped through hoops for the next couple of years before being granted the Full Registration status. Later, I heard that any non-EEA graduates from Irish Universities who applied to work in the UK had to sit an English exam, before being accepted for registration. How do they think lectures in Irish medical school were delivered....Urdu??

I have no problem that jobs in the country should be given to the locals in the first instance. But to discriminate based on qualifications when it is convenient to do so is just baseless and stupid.

Everlasting Love

" I live in a council flat. I am a widow. My husband died 3 years ago. We looked after each other for 46 years. We went everywhere together. I still miss him very much."

I came across this statement today. It stopped me in my tracks. No, I did not read this in a lifestyle magazine or heard it on a live chat show. It seemed so out of place, and yet so much in context. It was a response to a question about her home living condition. I usually just gloss over the nursy bits of the preoperative assessment form and zoom in on the medical section. I could sense that this was a very special lady. She has so many problems and yet was upbeat about everything. "Till death do us part" was a vow that she obvious clung onto to well beyond the grave. I was touched......I was impressed........and I was humbled. It was just so profound. It just resonates with something deep within myself..........perhaps a part of myself that I have yet to comprehend. It caused me to reflect. Am I also capable of such depth of love?? Amazing love!

Goodbye Tony

So we have it at last. Uncle Tony will be leaving on June 27. He will use his last 7 weeks touring the world, no doubt saying goodbye...and more importantly saying hello to new money from lectures circuits. The Americans love him, and I am sure they will pay him handsomely to hear him speak. Well, good luck to him.

I voted for Labour in 1997. Personally, I think he has done quite well for the economy for Britain. However, like many, I was against him invading Iraq. I think this will taint his legacy, which he so obviously wants to protect. I also think that he has done some harm to the public sector by trying to control it too much. For example, even though, lots of money has been poured into the NHS, morale is quite low in the workforce, and he has turned doctors and nurses into clock-watchers. Goodwill has been destroyed. The recent MTAS process has also been a shamble. For the first time in NHS history, doctors will be unemployed by the thousands. Ironic isn't it, when only about 5 years ago, we were so short of doctors that we had to send team of NHS managers abroad to recruit. Now we are exporting doctors overseas; Australia being the popular choice.

So, the coronation of Uncle Gordon is in the process. I have admired his intellect over the last 10 years. I do not think that he will make a lot of difference compared to the Blair years. This is because I think he was behind a lot of Blair's policies anyway. Certainly, he has done a good job as Chancellor of the Exchequer, although some would disagree with that. Nevertheless, because of his intellect and also I admit it, I felt sorry for him for having to wait for so long, I think he should have an opportunity to exercise his intellect openly, rather than just behind the scene.

So would I vote Labour again in the next election? Yes, I would like to do so for the above reason. However, I would be voting Conservative as there is no hope that Labour would win in my constituency. But, I am fairly sure that it would be a Labour 4th. term, as the Tories have not present the case to be the new party of government.

Non PC.....Gulp!!

Sir Patrick: Blame women for bad TV

Press Assoc. - Tuesday, May 8 10:03 am

Eccentric astronomer Sir Patrick Moore has claimed that TV is worse today because the BBC is run by women.

(Advertisement)

The presenter of The Sky At Night also belittled female newsreaders in an interview with Radio Times, describing them as "these jokey women".

Sir Patrick, 84, criticised the BBC for showing interesting programmes very late at night, especially the 650th edition of The Sky At Night, which was put out at 2am.

"The trouble is that the BBC now is run by women and it shows: soap operas, cooking, quizzes, kitchen-sink plays. You wouldn't have had that in the golden days," he said.

"I would like to see two independent wavelengths - one controlled by women, and one for us, controlled by men. I think it may eventually happen."

The TV veteran also said he would "rather be dead in a ditch" than appear on Celebrity Big Brother and he compared the soap opera EastEnders to diarrhoea.

When asked about his television "guilty pleasure", he said: "I used to watch Doctor Who and Star Trek, but they went PC - making women commanders, that kind of thing. I stopped watching."

Sir Patrick has presented The Sky At Night since April 1957, making him the longest-serving television presenter.

The xylophone-playing cricket enthusiast was knighted and appointed as a member of the Royal Society in 2001.

His interview in the next edition of Radio Times is part of the magazine's Great British TV survey, which asks TV celebrities for their thoughts on the current state of British television.

Copyright © 2007 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.

I can't believe that folks are still making such a Non-PC statement in the 21st Century! But, ladies perhaps you should forgive him...............look, he's an octogenarian. Ha! Ha! Did someone not tell him that we survived the millenium bug, and fast approaching the end of the first decade of this century? Gosh! Did I just make a non-PC statement myself and be opened to the accusation of ageism? Tut-tut!

On the serious side however, I can see his point of view. Not the one about the women producing poor quality programmes, of course. I think he meant that the BBC is producing more sensationalism programmes, rather than the traditional high quality documentary style programmes which were more educational. I think this is because BBC has to compete with commercial TV channels like ITV and Channel 4. Although they get all our license fees, BBC also has to pursue additional funding from advertising. In the past, they were the only broadcasting company with no competition, and therefore has a freer hand in producing what they like.

Having said all that, I still think that BBC does still produce some good programmes. My all time favourite would have to be "The Blue Planet". The shots are just amazing!. My other daily or weekly favourites would still be Question Times and This Week with Andrew Neil, Dianne Abbott and Michael Portillo. On most days, I would tune in to BBC News, although I think Channel 4 News with Jon Snow is giving them a run for their money. However, when I am back from work and tired out each day, I may not always want to watch the cerebral programmes. I would gravitate to "less intelligent" programmes like The Apprentice tonight. Yeah...I thought Sir Alan fired the wrong guy tonight. Katie should have gone. I think her integrity is in suspect. My two favourites to win this series would be Tre and Christina.

To be honest, I thought that most directors and producers of BBC programmes are men. But what do I know? The only names associated with BBC that comes to my mind are Greg Dyke and Andrew Gilligan; who were both either sacked, or made to leave.

Psssst! Can someone tell Sir Patrick that Celebrity Big Brother is produced by Channel 4 and not BBC? And oh! It can actually be quite a lot of fun.....ask George Galloway!

A British Flaw

Police investigating the disappearance of three-year-old Madeleine McCann are considering the possibility of a British abductor.

(Advertisement)

Madeleine, from Leicester, disappeared from the family's holiday apartment in Praia da Luz, Algarve, on Thursday night.

Her parents Gerry and Kate were eating dinner a short distance away and returned on a regular check to discover their daughter was gone.

Police have found evidence that she was abducted but have not disclosed details. On Monday newspaper Correio da Manha reported that police suspect a British captor.

Broadcaster RTP also interviewed Barra da Costa, a former inspector in the Judicial Police, PJ, who said that sources within the force believed that Madeleine's abductor could be from the UK.

He said that contacts in the investigation team had told him that a working description detectives are using suggested someone of English appearance.

He said there was also a feeling that the apparently meticulous planning, without leaving evidence, could also point to a British rather than Portuguese intruder.

Police have not commented but earlier, when asked specifically whether the suspect was British or Portuguese, the PJ refused to specify.

Experts have put together an artist's impression of a "suspect" but have not publicly revealed details. It is believed however, that the image shows only the rear view of a man - the back of his head and hair more than the features.

It was also reported on Monday that police are investigating a claim that a man was seen dragging a young girl along towards a marina in the nearby town of Lagos.

"Her parents were eating dinner a short distance away"; according to other earlier reports, the restaurant was 180 metres away. Is this a short distance? Don't get me wrong . I fully sympathise with the family and feel for their loss. However, my feelings are even more acute for the little girl. I do not condone with the act of kidnapping of anyone.

One has to asked," If this is a Spanish family, would it have happened?" You see, a Spanish family would have their child out to dinner with them. They would have no problems that their kids are out late with them. They would not have left their kids at home. However, a British couple wants to spend time on their own. They want "quality" time away from their kids. No matter that they had checked every half an hour interval. The fact of the matter is that their children were not supervised at all times. Disaster only takes a second to happen usually, and it did on this occassion. What I cannot understand is that both parents are doctors; one is a consultant cardiologist, and the other is a general practitioner. Surely, they could afford a childminder.

Living in UK, one of the things I dislike is that kids are not always welcomed in the restaurants; especially in the evening. It may be difficult to find a family -friendly restaurant at times. Why is that? Is it not possible to enjoy ourselves in our children's company? The Casual Philosopher is confused......

Brotherly Love

PATNA, India (Reuters) - Villagers at a wedding in eastern India decided the groom had arrived too drunk to get married, and so the bride married the groom's more sober brother instead, police said on Monday.

(Advertisement)

"The groom was drunk and had reportedly misbehaved with guests when the bride's family and local villagers chased him away," Madho Singh, a senior police officer told Reuters after Sunday's marriage in a village in Bihar state's Arwal district.

The younger brother readily agreed to take the groom's place beside the teenage bride at her family's invitation, witnesses said.

"The groom apologised for his behaviour, but has been crying that word will spread and he will never get a bride again," Singh said by phone.

Above is yet another example of a man taking his brother's place. It is interesting to know that in different cultures and times in history, a man takes his brother's place in marriage. I am of course referring to the first account of this type of "sacrifice", which is mentioned in the Holy Bible in Genesis 38: 8-9. This passage talks about Onan, who had to marry his brother's wife after the brother died. This is so that she can have a son, to be raised as his brother's heir. He did not want to give his brother an heir; so he spilled his seed on the ground, while making love to the woman ; and thereby giving root to the term "Onanism".

Thankfully this practice of marrying a brother's wife (should anything happen to him) is no longer prevalent in society today. However, is the principle of a brother taking over the responsibility of his brother's family still practiced widely in society today? And did it all begin with Onan? The Casual Philosopher ponders......

Equality for Women

Is equality possible without discrimination? Are they in contradiction, or can one exist without the other? Let's look at some example.

When New Labour had their landslide victory in 1997, they had a lot of women MPs, so called Blair's Babes. This was because there was a women's shortlist. Positive discrimination! Tony Blair, then decided to appoint quite a few of them to be his cabinet minister, instead of the traditional male dominated club. Positive discrimination! When a plane crash or when a boat or ferry is about to sink....."women and children first".... Positive discrimination! When a door is opened, ladies first. Positive discrimination! The partner in a relationship that gets sterilised.....woman first. Positive.....errr, maybe negative discrimination! It's not over till the fat lady sings. Positive discrimination! Who always have the prerogative of being late? Women...........it starts at the altar. Damn, knew I got it wrong somewhere. Positive discrimination! Who gets the only bathroom first? Women....positive discrimination! Who gets the last seat on a bus? Women...positive discrimination! Who gets to plea the "headache" excuse? Women....positive discrimination!

Perhaps, discrimination is essential to swing back decades of inequality to women, and improve their lot in society............or is it?? The Casual Philosopher muses....

48 hours to live..

Have you ever been in a consultation with a doctor and he tells you that your loved one has only 48 hours to live? Or have you been told by a cancer specialist that you would only have another 6 months of life left in you? How do the doctors know? Do they keep a life-o-meter that they can be almost exact in predicting the duration of life left of a person in their care? Are all these evidence- based or evidence-free medicine? Is it helpful for the patients and relatives when these proclamations are made? Perhaps, it may spur them into making those decisions that they have always procrastinate on, e.g. in making a will, or making amends with their estranged ones? Or worse, could these be the beginning of a self-fulfilling prophecy? And heaven forbids....could the doctors be suffering from their schizophrenic god-like delusions again..????!!

The Casual Philosopher ponders on...

Crisis in mid-air

I usually like to use Schipol Airport in Amsterdam as my hub when I go for any overseas travel. The reason for that is that I could fly with KLM from Humberside Airport which is my regional airport in the UK. It is only about 20 minutes from where I live.

Recently, I was again on this hop over flight with my family. We were going back to Malaysia for our annual trip home for the Chinese New Year celebrations. We were only about 20 minutes from landing at Schipol when the signal for the seatbelt came on, in preparation for landing. As little children would have it, my little girl who is three years old, suddenly announced that she had to go to the toilet for a wee. So what did I do? Well, I asked her if she could wait till we landed. She told me that she can't wait and had to go to the loo straight away. So, I took her and made my way to the toilet. The air steward immediately stopped me and told me to go back to my seat. I understand that that is the rule. However, I tried to explain to him the situation. But to no avail. He just would not listen, and kept on insisting the status quo. We spent the next 5 to 10 minutes arguing about. I warned him that my daughter may have to urinate on the seat if he would not relent. Even with that, he would not budge and blocked my way to the toilet. Thankfully, in the end my daughter held on and we made it to the toilet at the terminal.

Now, my point is this. If he had allowed us to go to the toilet, the whole situation would have been resolved within 5 minutes. Instead of that we were all standing on the aisle for much longer, and hence not had the seatbelt on. Therefore, we were in a "danger" situation for much longer. As someone who had to deal with crisis situations in my job on a regular basis, my impression of this air steward is that he was not made of leadership material. He was merely a follower, who is only able to follow guidelines, and not being able to made executive decisions.
If this had been a terrorist situation, would the flight attendants been able to cope without endangering the lives of the passengers?

Hmmm....the casual philosopher ponders on....

Women and Politics

I was watching Question Time the other night. One of the panel members was Caroline Flint MP, the current Labour Health Minister. Phwoooar! That is one sexy woman! She looked like a rising star. Then I stopped and tried to analyse what had attracted me to her. Why the sex appeal? It is because of her position of power? Was that reflected in the way she speaks and also in her demeanour? If I keep my cool thinking cap on, she is not what one would consider a striking beauty. Yet, there was no denying that she would cause a man to give her the second glance.

Roll back a decade or so ago. There was then Edwina Curry. What a strange coincidence! She was a Health Minister as well. Then, I thought she had the same appeal. Indeed, I wasn't the only one. John Major, the Tory Prime Minister at that time thought the same, and went on to shag the lady. No.....I wasn't thinking of doing the same thing, in case you were wondering!! She must have thought that she was sexy too. It was rumored that she had the pictures of her own legs in fishnet stocking on the cover of her novel; which incidentally was about sex in parliamentary settings. Democratic sex!! How about that?!

So the question remains.......is power sexy, or that sex is power??? The Casual Philosopher wonders on.........

Animal Surgery

I was just watching a vet operating on TV yesterday. It was to reduce a hernia on the animal. Not too sure what the animal was. Looks like a lamb, but I was sure that it was not a lamb. Did not manage to catch the commentary. Anyway, something always puzzled me when I watch animal operations. Why did the vet not bother wearing theatre scrubs and gloves to preserve a sterile field? Are infections not prevalent when surgery is carried out on animals? Surely yes! If anything, I thought that it would be more frequent than when the human species is having something done to them. Or is it because, one does not care if the animal catches an infection and die? What is more interesting is that, is the vet not afraid to catch anything from the animal? The Casual Philosopher continues to wonder.....