临教和牛

临教，临时教师也。

临时，或者说暂时，就是说非正式。而非正式，又年年临教下去，多少临教打从入行到退休，永远不能扶正，就像宫里的宫女，说是宫女，偶尔得让皇帝老子抽水献身。

好命的，一朝得龙种，荣华富贵逼人来；不好命的，亏大了，还得忍受其他人冷言冷语，只能默默当个宫女，出头？对不起，等下一世吧！

临教本来就是天下间最荒谬的职业，

临教不能误人子弟，得把看家本领都使出来，才能继续当临教

而当临教，最了不起就是一朝登龙门，临教的龙门嘛，就是师训。

各位可以想像，临教，其实比那些封建时代的深宫宫女来的可怜。宫女，还有月俸，只要没出什么大事，月俸照拿，不需担心皇宫会不会不再续约而担心会不会失业。

临教嘛，除了学生、家长，还得应付校长、教育局官员。一个不小心，饭碗就砸了，那时，说什么百年树人，教育英才，统统都没了，没饭吃，还说什么理想？

说了临教，现在说牛。盖马国之牛，乃天下宝物，神户牛也没得比。话说马国之牛，神龙不见尾，牛的金身还没看到，就有人为牛买了全马国最贵的牛栏：马币9百万的豪华公寓，说是为牛而准备的，是政府贷款某裙带公司养牛计划的款项中挪出来“投资”的。

而养牛计划，八字没一撇，就得了马币2亿5千万“贷款”。裙带公司之前没有养牛经验，所以化了马币82万到澳洲取经。

所谓贷款，是必须偿还的，而一间没有养牛经验的公司主导的养牛计划，我们大概可以猜得出来，这笔贷款极大可能会就此消失，到最后无需偿还。

就是说，政府已经把2亿5千万化了，化得无影无踪。

另外一头，教育部副部长魏博士，因为政府缩减临教薪金，取消公积金共马币200零吉，一会说道：“减那区区2百零吉会死人不成？”；后来再说：“因为预算缩减，为了要确保临教不被裁退，不得已才削减月俸公积金。＂

所以你说，临教和牛，在政府的眼中，那一个比较重要？

Apple again, this time is my Macbook Pro charger

My Macbook Pro charger started to behave wiered few weeks ago. Sometime it works, and sometime not, until I later found out that the MagSafe connector seems to be the problem.

I then searched whether there are similar cases, and whether Apple allows replacement. OK, my macbook Pro warranty ended Sept 2011, by right I am no longer entitled for replacement charger but I wanted to give myself a try.

Search Apple Support site, found the following paragraph seems encouraging:

Additional Information

Whether your product is in or out of warranty, you can take your adapter to an Apple Authorized Service Provider or Apple Retail Store for evaluation and replacement if necessary. Pending the results of the evaluation, you may or may not be eligible for a replacement adapter free of charge. Signs of accidental damage would negate any coverage. Be sure to bring in the computer used with the adapter; it is required to process potential adapter replacements.

Next step is: call Apple Support.

Why? This is always a good habit to lodge a case before sending the faulty unit to service centre, it will normally cut down unnecessary red tape especially dealing with authorized service centre or dealers.

Lodged the case, explained what I've got, then inform them that I will go to any one of the dealer/service center which is easier for me.

The same night, I went to 1 Utama. When I showed my charger to a guy appeared to be the store manager, he keeps saying: "Your unit already after warranty, and the cable at the charger end is the problem, not at the MagSafe connector, I don't think you are qualified for free replacement."

Well of course, I refused to buy a new charger simply because if Apple were to ask me to send the faulty charger for inspection, it is already a high chance that I will get a free replacement, what is needed for Apple is to have someone to confirm the issue.

I called Apple next day, telling them that I am not happy. They encouraged me to go to another service center of my choice. Besides, they took note on what 1U told me for their further investigation and to issue a warning. Why? It is simply not Apple's intention to get its customer to buy replacement unit if the fault is on Apple.

I then reconfirmed with my old friend that the company that he worked for is able to do the task. Appreciate, I made a trip to the Gardens.

Instead of him, a junior tech was serving me. He is careful, gentle, everything is good until he told me: "We need to keep your charger for max 2 weeks so that we can certify with Apple whether it is qualified for free replacement."

"2 weeks? I am using my MacBook Pro daily, charging it daily, and you want me to work without the charger for 2 weeks?"

"Sorry Sir, this is the turnaround time that we can provide as our response is largely depends on Apple's feedback. OK, what if I try to arrange a loan charger for the 2 weeks? Of course, subject to availability."

"I guess it is OK if I can continue to work."

"May I speak to my manager over the phone on your case, as well as the arrangement of loan charger?"

"Sure, please go ahead.".

After a while, he passed his phone to me, the other side is his manager.

This guy said "We can only promise that we will get back to you by 2 weeks time, as Apple may want us to do some tests. As for loan charger, we need a deposit if you want a loaner."

"Holy shit! Apple said what they need is someone like you to inspect the physical condition of the unit, take some photos, send to them, and get their response, for this you need 2 week?" I was pretty angry already, "Further, you offered a loan charger and now you want a deposit. What if you give me a near dead charger and I ended up have to pay?" I shouted, not realizing that everyone else was looking at me.

"You have a choice, sir" Said the manager.

"OK, my choice is : I don't need your service, I'll go somewhere else. And I don't like your attitude."

I left, angrily, and I text my friend : "I know it is not your fault but I have to tell you that I have never expected to be treated like this. The process cannot be longer than 30 minutes to determine if it is eligible for replacement, yet, your manager insisted 2 weeks, and offered me a loaner, then asked if I can place a deposit."

Friend called up shortly, I told him I have tried, but this is not the Apple experience that I am expecting, too bad.

Next morning, before I called Apple again to brief them what transpired, the MagSafe connector finally separated from the cord leading to the charger.

I told Apple that the second outlet is unacceptable, 2 weeks wait, and I need to fork out deposit for loaner that I cannot even be assured that it will work while in my possession.

So I told them, I am going to the next service center, and I reached there around 5pm.

At first, the tech told me that I am not qualified for replacement since my warranty is out. I told him that I have spoken to Apple, and if it is a straight forward case, they would have asked me to buy a new unit instead.

Interestingly, Apple commented my case as "Service Denied", the tech showed me.

"OK, I am going to call Apple now."

After a long wait, right before 6pm, Apple answered. I told him that I am extremely not satisfied as I was asked to send for physical inspection on one hand, and on the other hand, my case is marked as "Service Denied".

"No worry, I'll help you from here. ..."

Shortly after I described the issue again, he said he need to put me to senior support staff, which is based in Ireland.

"Can you hold while I am trying to put you through? "

"Sure"

10 minutes on hold, finally a voice from the other side "I am looking at your case now, by the way, can you do me a favor? Can you snap a few photos, one at the MagSafe connector, another at the charger end, and send via email to me?"

"Sure, I'll do it now."

"I'll call you in 20 minutes, after we inspect the photos."

Put down the phone, snap a few images, including the 2 above, sent via email.

Waited for 25 minutes, I sent a reminder that I am still in the service center, and it is about to close for the day.

That Ireland guy called me about 5 minutes later after I sent the second mail, and he wanted to speak to the tech guy.

in 5 minutes, the tech guy told me that it is confirmed that I can have a free replacement charger, but due to procedure, he can only release the replacement unit after receiving confirmation from US HQ. he then advised me to collect the replacement the next day.

OK, looks good.

There other minor issues the next day between Apple and the service center, but I got my stuff back finally.

I wrote this just to remind you that even it is after warranty, with Apple, you may have pleasent surprises.

So it is important to do your home work googling, and call Apple to lodge the case.

Why must I either buy a new charger, or place deposit and wait for 2 weeks, where I can get it done in less than 48 hours.

Lynas and its impact on the Malaysia Economy

Many people voiced their concern over Lynas' intention of setting up its rare earth processing plant in Kuantan, almost all are looking from the environmental perspective. But I would like to see it from the economic perspective on how Lynas impact our economy.

The following facts were gathered from various online news sources, I must declare that I did not verify the accuracy of such information, neither do I have the ability to ensure that the fact is correct. I would assume that these facts are correct at the time of writing as there's no official clarification thus far.

building of the plant and land acquisition:

1. Leasehold land acquisition RM 97.5 million (from who ??) (source: Lynas Annual report 2010)

2. Plant construction (2007-2011) (includes machinery and equipment) : RM343 million (source: Lynas Annual report 2010)

3. Construction workers max at 2,500 (how many Malaysian, and how much are each workers getting?)

I would make an assumption of 70%/30% on item 2, plant construction, that 70% goes to plant equipment and machinery, and 30% goes to infrastructure cost needed, including building material, construction workers' pay, etc.

This means for RM343 million spent on the plant, only approx RM110 million contributes to domestic economy, i.e. building materials and construction workers.

The ratio of worker's renumeration vs building material can again be assumed at 70/30, where 70% goes to workers, and 30% goes to materials.

Means workers getting approx RM77 million and materials get the rest of RM33 million, over the 4 year period.

Assumed that all 2,500 workers in full force during the 4 year construction period, each worker gets RM641 per month, although not 2500 workers are presence for the entire 4 year period, we may want to assume that only 1250 workers at any one time, this brings the monthly income of the worker on average to RM1,282 per month, which is pretty realistic.

Then the composition of workers, how many are local work force, and how many are foreigners from Indonesia and Bangladesh?

From typical construction site, we can probably tell that there are almost 80% foreign workers, and 20% locals.

thus we further divide the RM77 million per 4 year to 80% goes to foreign worker, and 20% goes to locals.

of the 80% to foreign workers, i.e. RM61.6 million, 50% likely to remit out from the country, leaving 50% within the economy, i.e. RM30.8 million in 4 year period.

This is probably the contribution of Lynas for their plant construction to the economy, RM30.8 million + RM15.4 million to locals, and RM33 million on building materials and other related expenditures, i.e. RM79.2 million for the 4 year period.

So first contribution is land acquisition : RM97.5 million leasehold to unknown party,

second contribution is money channelling back to local economy, i.e. RM19.8 million per annum for the 4 year construction period.

Operations

1. Lynas enjoys tax holidays of 12 years; (NY Times 2011/03/09)

2. Expected output is RM5.1 billion per annum, at today's rare earth price; (NY Times 2011/03/09)

3. Corporate tax is assumed at 26% for the next 12 years;

4. No other tax element is included in this calculation such as export duty (if applicable), etc. Which I assumed is waived entirely.

5. Since Lynas is still reporting losses in their latest financial statements, it is difficult to ascertain their margin hence their profit from the production of rare earth, but I would estimate that the entire operation is with a margin of 30%, with a net profit of 10%.

6. Lynas will employ maximum of 450 workers, composition of nationality unknown (how many Australians, assuming that Aussie are going to hold high positions), and we assumed that average pay is RM6,000 per job, this will be a Rm32 million payroll per annum.

this means:

Malaysia is losing collectable tax of RM5.1 billion X 30% X 26% = RM397.8 million per annum.

for the next 12 years, total losses is RM397.8 million X 12 years = RM4.773 billion.

It is unlikely that Lynas will park its profit in Malaysia after the 12 years tax exemption, it is highly possible that the profit to be parked at offshore Labuan if Australian tax is not favorable, means Malaysia is still getting nothing after 12 years.

From the above calculation, which is primitive, Malaysia economy is gaining

Land acquisition, to unknown party RM97.5 million

Construction of plant from 2007 to 2011 RM79.2 million

Annual total payroll (assuming all channel back to local economy) RM32 million

What we are losing:

Potential tax collection of RM 397.8 million per annum for the next 12 years.

So the Government tells you we are gaining with Lynas in Kuantan.

You judge.

Abolishing ISA, real or stunt?

Ok, Najib announced that his administration will table a motion to abolish ISA, Emergency Ordinance, and amend Publishing and Printing Act in the next parliamentary session.

I personally do not think this is the true intention of Najib wanted to make Malaysia free from these unhumane laws.

The next parliamentary session will commence in October or November (I cannot remember off hand which month), means it is almost a month from now.

If Najib has the political ambition to mark his name in the history for political transformation, he would have called for a special session to get the parliament to endorse what he intended to.

Instead, he chose to wait for the scheduled session leave me wonder how since he is.

One may argue that he needs to get ready to get it done, but if he made a pledge, isn't this means he is ready? Or he is just teasing us out of the blue?

Proposing to amend Publishing and printing act by telexing the requirement to renew yearly permit does not seems to help the media. Permit is still required, permit is still revocable, permit is still almost impossible to obtain, and clauses in permits issued is not known to the general public, which can still be the same as before, or even worse. Thus, it means nothing to the media, and freedom of expression in general.

Lifting of three existing Emergency is late but a welcome move. Again, why not call for a special session for this but need to wait?

Introduction of 2 new laws to replace ISA and Emergency Ordinance does not look good, especially when the 2 drafts are not made known, makes me wonder these 2 bills are ISA + EO with new dress.

The root of the entire problem
Is that the Constituion allows laws against the spirit of Constitution to pass in the parliament. As long as this provision is not removed, no one can guarantee future administration, be it BN or PR or other ruling regime make use of this clause for their own political interest.

That is, Najib should amend this provision in the Constitution to show his sincerelity.

Besides, many of recent laws since the Mahathir era, after amending the Constitution, empowering the minister to decide on matters that minister's decision is final and cannot be challenge in courts.

This provision in the Consitution is already shaking the equilibrium of the 3 pillars, ie administration, parliament, and the judiciary. By allowing this, Parliament can pass laws allowing the minister not to be challenged in courts, means both the Administration and the Parliament is stepping into the territory of judiciary, and this must be rectify to ensure justice is done in the event minister made a mistake.

Bear in mind that ministers are politicians, they are not professional administrators like KSU etc. How on earth we can rely on a non pro minister to decide on matters that may affect us, and be protected by the laws not o be challenged in courts?

Of course there are many laws that needs review or abolish altogether, but without amendment to key provisions in the Constitution, and willingness from Najib to get it done soonest possible, I see this as another political show and will bring no change to this country.

If Najib has the will, he needs to do it now, else, this is another empty promise again.

Steve jobs and Apple

Although expected, but still shock when heard the news that Steve resigned as Apple CEO with immediate effect.

Many worry that Apple will never be the same in post Steve's era, I do not agree.

For the past years, Steve has implanted in Apple his design philosophy, it is a good corporate example how one can effectively mobilize everyone within the Apple eco system to think as one, be it the employees, the share holders, the suppliers, even the consumers.

Never in any corporate history that one CEO has far reaching influence as Steve, not even Bill Gates, that covers every aspect of the entire eco system.

Now Apple is moving forward without Steve, or Steve is already merged with Apple as one, regardless of whether he is physically capable of dealing with the day to day operation.

For me, Apple is Steve, and Steve is Apple, it can no longer be apart, no matter how.

Since when the State becomes the killing machine?

Many died, with no or funny reason beyond normal means.

Many who did not even have a chance to defend themselves, died in the custody.

Before and after Kugan, Teoh Beng Hock, and Sarbaini, the list goes on.

Some said they are fated, some ignored, some prayed that they are not the affected.

But still some who insisted justice must prevail.

Even if All Mighty were to take away a life, there's always a reason and justification.

But now, the State has acted as if it is above all, that stupid excuses given for precious life lost.

Oh yes! You can blame it to the system, but please, tell me, which section of the System allows life lost for no reason?

Some said because Teoh is working for the Oppositions. Tell me, is Sarbaini works for the oppositions? No! Sarbaini works for none other than the Royal Malaysia Custom.

Some said Kugan deserved it because he is a criminal. But wait, isn't it the jurisdiction of the courts and not the enforcement force to determine if one is criminal? Even if Kugan is a car thief, as claimed by the Police, is he deserved a death sentence with no legal proceeding from the enforcement and not judiciary ?

Think about it, think about if it happened to you. If you feel that I'm casting a curse so be it, but if it happened to you, I'm sorry, for we have not just doing enough to crush the killing machine.

I curse those who invoked in these killing and escaped or attempted to escape justice, one day you'll will have the same fate, and you would pay dearly for what you have done.

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone

Biometrics voter verification - myth and reality

First of all, this is not a scientific discussion as most facts are based on assumption. Why I carried on with this post is simple:

Unless it is proven me wrong otherwise, else I still have doubt over feasibility of implement biometrics (fingerprint) verifications during the elections.

The Elections Commissions (EC) announced that they will implement biometrics voter verification system to counter possible phantom voters. This announcement is echo by the Government that biometrics verification is the best way to determine validity of voters.

One of the Bersih 2.0's 8 demands is to deploy indelible ink during the voting process to eliminate possible multi voting by a physical person.

It seems EC has countered Bersih 2.0's demand on the use of indelible ink but the two are coming from the same source, i.e. voter with valid documentation (MyKad), but addressing different issue.

EC mentioned that its biometrics verification is based on information stored in MyKad, i.e. voter's MyKad number and his/her fingerprint. If the verification device matches fingerprint stored in MyKad against the physical voter presence with his/hers physical fingerprint via the fingerprint reader, then it should be a valid voter, if the voter is designated to vote at the said polling station. There is no verification against authenticated hosts, i.e. National Registration Department's (NRD) servers, which can be very costly and challenging for polling station that may not have proper network access to the NRD hosts.

Let's start with use of indelible ink. Indelible ink provide quick and easy way to identify whether the voter indeed voted, without the need of equipment. This prevents one person from voting more than once in the elections, and effectively prevent both phantom voters, and voters who have been found appeared in the electoral roll more than once.

However, for biometrics verification, based on information released from the EC, is only good to deter possible phantom voters who should not exist in the first place. It does not address one voter with multiple votes, here is why:

If the electoral roll contains a voter appeared in different poling stations, using biometrics verification does not help since electoral roll allows the said voter to vote in more than one polling station. It is in effect legitimate the said multiple vote casting instead of invalidating or deterring.

There is no way for one to verify voter based on visual contact except via biometrics devices, and biometrics devices are in turn based on information stored on MyKad, and software application installed on the computer where verification device is attached to.

The above assumes that electoral roll is tainted, both Bersih 2.0 and the Oppositions have raised doubt over accuracy of the electoral roll with evidence in the past, yet it is still not rectified.

Second, biometrics verification has its own flaw, thus, it is always coupled with other method of verification should fingerprint matching failed:

1. Women during their periods, may find their fingerprint less clear thus may have difficulty picking up by biometrics sensor to effectively match with record stored in MyKad;

2. For some reason, fingerprint was distorted due to injury, verification can be difficult as the source is damaged;

3. Damaged MyKad. No one will notice their MyKad is faulty until they use it, since it is not meant for daily use, it is hard for one to confirm that their MyKad is effective;

The above may have invalidate valid voters from exercising their duty, unless EC does have contingency for voters in the above categories. EC has thus far never address this issue. Even if EC has alternatives to address the above, does it means it is possible to manipulate by damaging MyKad, for example, and avoid the biometrics verification?

If I let my imagination runs, concur with the above, extending the damaged MyKad scenario:

Throughout the years, there have been many incidents that MyKad faulty at some point, thus when MyKad holder found out, they have to get their replacement MyKad from NRD.

The question now: what is the treatment of the faulty MyKad? If it is supposed to destroy, how? Will it be possible that these damaged MyKad falls to unauthorized hands? We do not know.

If this is possible, then the damaged MyKad point raised above allows these MyKad holder to avoid biometrics verification, and if the name appeared in the electoral roll, and EC allows alternatives to verify without biometrics, isn't this defeat the purpose of biometrics verification all together?

The list can go on with wild assumptions, that I will not want to speculate further.

Conclusion: the use of biometrics verification, set aside implementation cost involved, has serious flaws to address, and addressing such flaws requires transparency of the entire process, not just voting process, but issuance of MyKad, and treatment of faulty MyKad, which is too big the task for all to appropriately address for all concerned.

In addition, it does not prevent multiple voting if there's no central servers to store up to date information, i.e. whether the same MyKad is already used in one polling station and try on another, which electoral roll has such duplications.

Even if the error is minimal, it may indeed influence the elections result and may not reflect the true will of the majority.