Today and forty years ago

I just noticed today's date. I can't help comparing what happened forty years ago with what is happening now. Despite the media and public outcry over the Menteri-go-round in Perak (The Star's term, not mine), there has been relatively little violence. Yes, people were held under ISA for not apparent good reason, and SUHAKAM has criticised the police presence as being non-neutral and enforcing for only one side, but compared to what happened forty years ago, I think progress has been made.

Is it because both the parties involved have an ethnic mix? If it had to be characterised as a racial issue, it looks like a Malay vs Malay situation, set against the backdrop of the Sultan of Perak as community and political leader. Insofar as public response is concerned, it seems to have crossed all racial barriers: we're tired of this, can we go back to the business of running the country?

It is interesting to note that a lot of the players involved don't seem to understand the difference between standing up for your party and standing up for the rakyat you're meant to represent. I did always think that the State Assembly should have just held votes of no confidence in the Speaker and then-MB, and thus follow the line of public-appointed representatives making decisions at the state level (on behalf of their constituencies).

Obviously politics when mixed with law is not so easy to understand and interpret. To all those who claim that you should let the public decide, I say they did decide last April and all this that is happening now is a direct result of their decision. Who asked them to appoint MPs who would of such dubious character that they could find themselves embroiled in a corruption scandal? But then, who of us really take the time to know who we are voting for beyond their logo and catch-phrases.

Regardless, I reject the idea that just because you have multi-racial politics, you won't have multi-racial political arguments. I think one big difference between now and forty years ago is that we have in fact matured as a nation. I am happy for the courts to make decisions rather than to have Thai-style mob rule - people not getting beaten up should be taken as a positive development. And I am happy to see two sizable confrontational forces in Malaysian politics, because that's what check and balance in a democracy is all about.

Now, if we can just get rid of the hypocrisy and the self-serving attitude of those who should instead be serving us, then we'll be onto a good thing.

Labels: may13, politics

Contradictheory: Malaysian Hollywood?

I surprisingly got a bunch of favourable responses for the last Contradictheory article about how hard writing is. Somebody also emailed me, asking how they could be a writer, and what does it take.

Here is my reply:

Dear Sir,
The "group of writers" that I mentioned are actually the writing staff for Creative Development Unit of Astro. Our sole job is to write scripts for Astro productions (and to make sure that they are good, of course!).

We did have an interview session late last year. I'm afraid it was not as well publicised as it could have been, but we have our quota for this year already. We may hire again, but I cannot guarantee when it will happen.

If you send an email to junior_writer2008@yahoo.com then the person in charge will hopefully put you on the list for future job opportunities.

You asked, "what does it take to be part of the group?". Now, here is roughly what we learnt from the last round of interviews:

1. We asked that everybody who wanted a job to email a sample of their writing. About half failed to do so. We didn't give those people a job.
2. We asked those whose writing we thought showed promised to come to an interview. About 10% of those didn't or couldn't come to see us personally. They didn't get a job with us either.
3. Of those that came for the interview, we asked if they understood scriptwriting jargon like "three-act structure" and "turning point". About a quarter said they did, but they obviously didn't. Some of those insisted they were right in being wrong. They didn't get a job either.
4. About a third of whom remained came in for a second interview. One person told me with the upmost confidence that her rambling sample story (that had no clear point nor a plot that I could describe in less than fifty words) was "post-modern" because it took place in the 24th Century. She didn't get a job with us.
5. Those that survived all this went into a one month training session, where they learnt (or relearnt) how to write, including what phrases like "three-act structure" and "turning point" meant. 40% of those did not manage to submit homework on time regularly. They are not part of our team right now.

I hope you appreciate that the one thing you need to become a writer in television is dedication to the craft. You must really want to write so badly; so much so that you already have a lot of writing done in your own spare time just because you love it. You must want it so
badly that you even write when you're "not in the mood" to do so.

You must accept that you are probably not yet "there" as a writer, and probably have a long, long way to go. Humility and an awareness of hubris will be your references. You believe that everything you write can still be better. You know this, because when you give your writing
to honest friends to comment on, they tell you the glaring truth that it isn't really great yet.

Lastly, it really helps if you enjoy telling other people stories, and you are not shy in entertaining them. Really makes the work worth doing, I find.

Best of luck, don't stop writing.

Yours sincerely,
Dzof

Labels: contradictheory, writing

Contradictheory: Boycott what?

Last weekend's Contradictheory was one of the tougher ones to write. I wanted to say something about the Israel-Gaza conflict that I didn't think any of the mainstream press were saying (and certainly none of the blogs I read), but how to dip a contradictheory toe into the pool of opinion when almost everybody has painted Israel as the devil?

So I crafted a piece that for once was read by two friends for opinion before I posted it.

So my suggestion is this: Let us focus on the correct ultimate aim. Whatever our religious and cultural differences, peace is always preferable over war. Not only must we metaphorically shake hands and hug our cultural antitheists, but we must also be involved in each other’s interests. A downfall for one hurts the other as well.

For all that worrying I had about being fair to all parties, I think I was perhaps too gentle. I purposely neglected to lambast the short-sightedness of those who thought the boycott of US products would somehow be a solution to the Gaza conflict. I could have said,

"Those who think a simple boycott is all that's needed to affect change and to right an entire country gone wrong are deluding themselves; what is needed is to extend a hand of friendship, instead of waving a clenched fist, because the people driving tanks are following orders from a government who wants votes. And not only that, you're waving your banners from behind a wall of apathy protected by a trench of ignorance."

But I didn't want to upset too many people.

As a result, there was only one letter this week in response. There was no complaint, just a quiet nod of agreement.

No change from my side too, I'm afraid.

Labels: contradictheory, gaza

What happened to drunk malays on film?

Watching Keluarga 69 on Astro Prima, and I see a drunk P. Ramlee walking back to face an upset father at home. It's played to comic effect, but the comedy is more in the argument between father and son, rather than a stumbling drunk not being able to make sense of his situation or environment. In other words, the drinking is bad

Could we do a scene like this these days without a character saying "Astarfirllahulazeem..."? Why has a moral imperative seeped into our entertainment?

I glanced over yesterday's headlines on PAS wanting to establish Hudud laws in Terengganu. Maybe I'm just a middle-class urbanite stuck far away from the realities of Kuala Terengganu, but it smacks of politics of the worst sort - we say what we say because it'll win us support.

Is this what has happened to the Malaysian film industry? When maybe a good story was once enough, now we have to incorporate 'good' values into the scripts. Again, we say what we say because it's what we feel people expect.

I want to say, let's remember the story comes first, and let viewers decide on the morality. So there.

Labels: opinion, tv

Contradictheory: Thoughts not expressed

The original draft for last Sunday's Contradictheory column was much longer than required 900-word limit. This was partly because I wanted to write lots about self-censorship in life in general, but mainly because there's so much of it in the entertainment industry as well.

As it was, they cut out a bit I talked about Ghost. I think it was because of space rather than of anything offensive. The paragraph was this:

Yes, it's a game of guesswork. We generally look at what has previously been allowed as a basis. Once, horror films were taboo but recently things have been different. We even did a whole series about a ghost this year, which we felt was never at any risk of being banned because, (a) Our ghost looked like Naz Rahman, who isn't scary in the least; (b) It wasn't really a horror story about the supernatural, but a love story about two people who can never be with one another.

I think all of the examples come from Popiah Pictures productions. If you want, you can try figure out which came from which. The specifics are not that important, anyway.

Other examples that I could have used, but didn't:

• I was told we were not allowed to show people smoking cigarettes on TV. So, what Ping did was to have somebody hold an unlit cigarette in her hand. He was actually worried it might get cut out.


• I heard a story once about 3R when they were told they could not air an interview because the person was a guy wearing an earring. They could, however, show it when they pixelated out the offending ear. This policy it seems has held up until now, which explains why a participant on Project Runway currently airing on 8TV has fuzzy ears.


• The production company was advised by 8TV that we shouldn't refer to the Datuk as a minister so close to election season.

...and so on and so forth.

Labels: contradictheory, writing

I love my meat

Isn't it ironic that after I write about the perils and pleasures of eating irresponsibly, not one, but two, articles appear in my inbox about food?

The first is an article from Salon about why you should eat fat. In an interview with the author of the newly realeased Fat: An Appreciation of a Misunderstood Ingredient, With Recipes (I especially like the last two words), I found out that recent studies indicate that there may not be a direct link between obesity and heart attacks. It looks like my idea of the quality of your ingredients makes the difference - lamb fat and spinach chappati is fine (recipe here, scroll down almost to the end), vegetable fats are not so healthy after all (see, trans fat).

Exactly the kind of thing I would have loved to include in my article.

The second article was one about how being vegetarian shrinks brains. (It also mentions that being obese has the same negative effect, but they've only seen it demonstrated on women - fingers crossed on that one for guys, then!)

Now if you'll excuse me, I have a dinner at Prime tonight...

Labels: contradictheory, food

Contradictheory: Not the wild, wild West

I know these are 'sensitive' times, but it was sheer coincidence that this week's Contradictheory article came out at the same time the arrests rolled in. I couldn't help but notice that the diligent editors at the Star edited my piece by removing the following paragraph:

We shouldn't be shutting down entire websites because of one article on it. Yes, we should charge and arrest somebody because of that article, and make him take it down if he's found guilty, but that one article does not equal the entire server. You don't know what he's going to say in other articles.

I think that it was removed more because the Multimedia and Communications Commission reinstated access to the server, so it was a little out-of-date. In fact, their reasons for doing so are pretty much in line with what I wrote in this piece: in general, you should not be arresting people based on a presumption of what they will do in the future.

It wasn't originally meant to be a piece on the law, more on how you can't depend on technology to uphold civil society. But when I started writing about Article 10 of the Federal Constitution, I started thinking about it more.

I feel that we are still a country finding our way when it comes to interpreting our Federal Constitution with respect to the original framers' intents. The number of amendments since then has just complicated matters.

I believe that the line concerning the Freedom of Speech was originally there to reflect that open debate is important for a democracy. Vox populi, vox dei, as they say. Doesn't matter what they have to say, you should just say it.

Unless, of course, you are libellous or seditious.

Some close to me (well, more than a few) do not like our Sedition Act. I think the issue is with Section 4 that says "does or attempts to do, or makes any preparation to do, or conspires with any person to do". This is very close to Minority Report's arrest by precog.

However, I do think we need to be able to react to situations where people in authority demean or denigrate others by virtue of race and religion, especially when the strong abuse the weak. Thus, sedition laws have a place.

I guess that's what I meant when I said, "laws should be about protecting the weak and giving opportunity to the disenfranchised". Whenever law is used to strengthen the position of those in power, we should monitor it very carefully and use whatever checks and balances we have at our disposal. To me, a law (or use of it) that extends the gap between the haves and have-nots is one that is not well construed or applied.

Labels: contradictheory, malaysia

Get the maths right

I need some help from anyone who knows statistics intimately to help me understand a problem. Something in the papers today just doesn't make sense. In fact, it stinks.

I was reading the NST today when I came across the article about the problems of teaching of Maths and Science in English. There is also a PDF download of the entire study.

That article concludes that teaching Maths in English does not work because a study showed that students were having problems answering questions in English.

Problem is, I don't think the data presented in the article supports this conclusion.

(Unfortunately, the actual data in the newspaper and the one in the website differs. I don't know why that is, you just have to rely on what I present here.)

Nine sample questions were quoted in the article. They were presented to Year 5 students (about 11 years old). Two are of interest:
(From NST, 7 September 2008, page 6)

• Q1. Six pencils cost RM2.40. How much does a pencil cost?
• Malay: 39.6% (427 out of the 1077 Malay students answered correctly)
• Chinese and Indian: 54.7% (197 out of 360 students)
• Orang Asli (aboriginal peoples): 6.5% (7 out of 108 students)
• Total: 40.5% (633 of 1564 students)

• Q9. Farah menjual 8 kotak minuman dengan harga RM5.60. Berapakah harga satu kotak?
• Malay: 37.3% (402 correct)
• Chinese and Indian: 51.9% (187 correct)
• Orang Asli: 13.0% (14 students)
• Total: 38.7% (605 students)

Do you see the problem? The two questions are similar, but fewer students got the answer correct for the BM version. The Bahasa Melayu version. The version that's not in English.

How on Earth can anyone conclude that they have problems when learning in English?

(That aside, they also can't add. 1077+360+108 does not equal 1564 students. I'm sure it's a clerical error, or maybe there's one student who's Lain-Lain.)

More worrying:

• About a quarter of 11-year olds sampled could not calculate 6 x 7.
• Around 2 out of 5 couldn't solve 72 divide by 8.
• Nearly three quarters had problems solving 36.45 divided by 5.

To me, the real problem is that the standard of maths and science in the country is low. Horrendously low. I would hope more than 95% should know their multiplication table by heart by the time they are eleven.

Of course, it's all about the sample selection. And about the control. I don't know enough about these things, so that's why I'm asking for help.

I looked at the school sample in the study. They come from all over Peninsula Malaysia from cities as well as the rural areas. I don't know if the sample taken is 'fair', but it does look comprehensive.

The questions, on the other hand, I have problems with. I focused on the Maths because that's what I have a soft spot for.

• In the example printed in the papers, out of eight questions, four were in English, four were language-neutral and only one was in BM. Surely, you need an equal number of the three categories for it to be a fair comparison?
• In the example printed in the PDF download, the one question in BM was a problem that required two subtractions. The closest English equivalent problem was one that needed one addition, one subtraction, another addition and finally a division. Unsurprisingly, the easier question got more correct answers. The obvious thing to me is to have very similar questions in terms of difficulty, regardless of the language.

This whole thing stinks to me of doing a flawed study with flawed conclusions. I can't see how anyone could take it without huge reservations.
Naturally, I look forward to any comments you might have.

Labels: malaysia

Things I learnt today

Busy, busy, busy day.

• There is a Platu racing series in Thailand. Tough to find information about it, though.
• There is no decent simple image manipulator in Linux like Irfanview for windows. Fortunately we always have Wine.
• There is a ceiling hanging by some splinters in my house. I blame the construction workers next door, they blame the rain. Yes, I suppose, the rain that came in through the open roof they happened to be working on.
• Business Objects Enterprise XI Release 3 runs very poorly on 700MB RAM.
• The Eagle's Nest will be closing in the last week of October, probably.
• There is an amazing crab restaurant in Mumbai and a 5-star steak restaurant in the remote regions of Argentina.

Upgrading to Fedora 9: Fun in a painful sort of way

What do you do on a Sunday when you're being rattled around by a cold? Take a deep breath and upgrade your copy of Linux from Fedora 8 to Fedora 9.

(For the uninitiated, my notebook is a dual-boot, XP and Fedora. I know which one is good for my soul, but practicalities force me to straddle.)

It shouldn't have been that difficult, but the truth is that the proclamations by linux enthusiasts oversell its benefits. This is one thing I don't like about the pro-Linux guys. Oh, Linux is ready for prime-time, they say. Linux is for everyone. All hail the now-full-of-user-friendly-GUIs Linux.

Rubbish. Although I have to admit that once it's set up, it's fine. And you can set it up any way you like. But the road there...

It's like someone promised you a scenic hike through the mountains, and then you found out that actually it was trudge 12-hour through some pretty toughish terrain, and you spent all the time with your head down, slogging away.

Fortunately, the Internet is full of signposts that help guide you (the trick is figuring out which ones are wrongly posted), and yes, the view at the end of it all is pretty good.

I'm going to list the problems I had between installation and the 'final' version. This is so that others have an indication of what to expect. And so I have somewhere to fall back to the next time I have to (re-)install this darned thing...

• I tried using preupgrade to shift from Fedora 8 to 9. In theory, run the program, wait, reboot and voila! In reality, run, wait, reboot, and ... can't log in. With any account.
• It was okay in run level 1, but not in 5. Couldn't figure it, so I reinstalled from zero.
  
• Of course, I had forgotten to do a backup before this, but fortunately runlevel 1 was accessible. Copied /etc and /home. And next time, I should tar before doing this if I'm going to back up to an NTFS drive...
• To help me keep track of what should be done/not done, I referred to The Perfect Desktop and Fedora Guide. I find that these are pretty good for an adventurous beginner too.
• (BTW, yum-fastestmirror is a good thing to install first off.)
• Tapping the touchpad to click the mouse didn't work. Solution was deceptively easy: Install the latest version of the driver. Allegedly they chose to take out the feature.
• The dreaded WiFi card. I have a Broadcom which is always a tough one to sort out, but surprisingly the instructions at Fedora Guide worked first time.
• There is no sound with YouTube. Hence, 'yum install libflashsupport' comes to the rescue.
• The videos don't work. After playing around, I realised that installing mplayer solved most of them, and the 'Windows' codecs take care of the rest.
• Sound was soft, so you adjust properties from System -> Preferences -> Hardware -> Volume Control.
• Installing vmware is a pain. You can either trust Vmware Server 1.0.6 (which installs well, but I don't like the Server product), or you can try installing VMPlayer - which raises other (thankfully, solvable) problems.
• ADDITION: Forgot about the Windows fonts. Copy fonts into inidividual directories from c:\windows\fonts to /usr/share/fonts, and then run mkfontscale and mkfontdir on those new directories.
  

At the end of the day, I guess everything works, but I can't honestly see a non-technical person solving these problems on their own (so I'm offering myself at RM30 per hour...).