Gong Xi Fa Choy!

First of all, I would like to spend the time to wish to all of my Chinese friends and Chinese everywhere a blissful and prosperous Chinese New Year. Gong xi fa choy! ^_^

Okie, wanna play a game? Try this one, what can ya tell me that's not right in this picture?
So you think you got the answer? Well for some, they would see one (which I'll explain a bit later). However, I'll go to the unnoticeable, yet most obvious mistake in this picture. Politically, this banner is wrong for the PAS (Pan-Malayan Islamic Party). Why? Well the PAS accused UMNO (United Malays National Organisation) as infidels in trying to demote the Islamic and Malay values toward the Malays (Utusan, 2001). By saying so, the PAS really should wake up and smell the roses that Malaysia is shared by all races, I mean they don't even see eye-to-eye with DAP (Democratic Action Party, an political opposition party headed by non-Muslims). If they say that UMNO are a bunchof infidels, then PAS shouldn't be putting up banners like this. It just contradicts to their principles of being an Islamic party, and that one of them is to reject all grounds of faith. So in other words, they shouldn't be out to wish the Chinese community a Happy New Year.

What's the other mistake? Well it's the typical grammar error that most Malays would do when it come to spelling.

"YEARS OF THE RATS"? Lim Kit Siang must be shaking his head in disgust if he ever sees this poster.

Dear Anonymous...

Notice the message above?

Well in my assumption, only someone who has nil gut of confronting Prof. Chan would comment in such a way that the person does not wish to identify herself/himself. I don't wish to react this in frustration, but I do feel the pityness that comes out from this comment. Whoever this person is, does not realize as to what Prof. Chan wants to teach to the student. As a university student, we ought to find the information by ourselves rather than being spoon feed by many lecturers. It is a fact that MANY students in UMT would just ask the lecturer of the class straight for questions that would appear directly in the final exams all for the lame excuse of having "a high cgpa (Cumulative Grade Point Average)." If Prof. Chan wanted to give an exam that according to Anonymous here being "as if we're all professors", then wouldn't it be obvious that she would inquire the student with difficult questions as to more in-depth thinking (for example: Does the Convention of Biological Diversity be sufficient enough to enforce Third World nations to carry out restrictions on endangered wildlife trade in their territories)?

Whoever you are, you really need to wake up and smell the roses. If you can't handle Prof. Chan, then you ought to be careful of your future employers. At least with Prof. Chan, she was willing to spend her time to educate the students about marine conservation. Prof. Chan has other priorities which she needs to fulfill other than to get comments where the student does not appreciate her efforts. Shame on you Anonymous!

Transformers Sequel?

Laughter is the best medicine. That is utterly true as people who live a long lasting life tend to be in good humour. So for those who just wanna have some good laughs, enjoy a few laughs with this clip:



I'm not sure about you, but I'm quite certain that the live-action Tansformers movie released last summer left me a few disappointments in my heart. I guess I expected too much out of the movie to be all perfect with interesting storyline and logical mechanical physics with the robots. Anyway, I just hope the upcoming Incredible Hulk movie won't be as bad as it was in 2003. :P

An Inconvenient Truth

Yesterday for the Law & Policy of Aquatic Resources class, the lecturer, Ms. Zahaitun, brought a VCD to have the students watch Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth". It was quite suprising as I thought it would be another day of lecture. For some, it would probably their first time viewing the documentary. As for me, well I've seen it more than a couple of times since I've already downloaded the movie. The facts that Al Gore presented were logical enough to raise eyebrows as to why the current administration in the US are not ratifying the Kyoto Protocol. Then again, do the students in that class seem to understand as to why the US are reluctant to do so?

To understand their perspectives, it's common sense that one must research for answers. So for the sake of those who wish to understand American's arguments to this case, do read on.

Economy
The US fears that by signing the Kyoto Protocol, the economy would be heavily affected. This is true since the biggest world trade partner consume the highest amount of energy. President Bush puts the national economy first as he understands that the benefits of the Kyoto Protocol does not outweight the cost. In doing so, he also argues that the Kyoto Protocol leaves too much errors and there is lack of justification with the policy.

Fairness
We all helplessly believe in democracy, and that everyone is born equal and should be treated fairly. However, this does not apply in the Kyoto Protocol as it promote unfairness among UN member countries. The Kyoto Protocol has exempted China and India from fulfilling the agreements that was set in the treaty. President George Bush argued:

"This is a challenge that requires a 100% effort; ours, and the rest of the world's. The world's second-largest emitter of greenhouse gases is the People's Republic of China. Yet, China was entirely exempted from the requirements of the Kyoto Protocol. India and Germany are among the top emitters. Yet, India was also exempt from Kyoto … America's unwillingness to embrace a flawed treaty should not be read by our friends and allies as any abdication of responsibility. To the contrary, my administration is committed to a leadership role on the issue of climate change … Our approach must be consistent with the long-term goal of stabilizing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere."
The Whitehouse (2001-06-11). President Bush Discusses Global Climate Change. Press release.

So as we can see here, the US would never ratify unless they are assured that the developing countries would carry out the responsibilities as well. However, there are some developing countries that still has not ratify the Kyoto Protocol such as Brunei, Taiwan, and Turkey. With their beliefs in democracy, the US will never ratify the Protocol.

Plan of Action
Just because the Kyoto Protocol has not been ratify, doesn't necessarily mean the US are not committed to reduce their carbon emission. The US has established some efforts to held talks in multilateral terms with Asian-Pacific countries like Australia, China, India, Japan and South Korea. Together, they have come to an agreement in producing the Asia Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate. Initiated in January of 2006, this agreement focus on clean energy capacity building and market formation. The difference this agreement has over the Kyoto Protocol is that each of the members are allowed to carry out their greenhouse gas emissions individually without any mechanism of enforcement. Due to this fact, many has criticized the credibility of this agreement and that this is nothing but to neglect the call of ratifying the Kyoto Protocol.