Archive for the 'Events' Category

Welcome Olympic Torch to Malaysia

Friday, April 18th, 2008

Let me be the first Malaysian blogger that welcome the Beijing 2008 Olympic Torch to Malaysia.

Let me write here The Olympic Creed

“The most important thing in the Olympic Games is not to win but to take part just as the most important thing in life is not the triumph, but the struggle. The essential thing is not to have conquered, but to have fought well.”

Beyond the creed, Olympic is the symbol of peace and friendship, crossing border, regardless of races and politics. Olympic is the avenue for mankind to test the ultimate limit and potential of human body.

Let us wish, from Kuala Lumpur and forward, the torch relay continue with the same spirit. Welcome Beijing 2008 Olympic to Malaysia.

(Even if there are disturbances from activists, the torch relay will continue regardless of anything. “The essential thing is not to have conquered, but to have fought well.” — The Olympic Creed)

Technorati Tags:
, , , ,

Olympic games are about sports

Thursday, April 10th, 2008

It is our responsibility to say “keep politics away from Olympics”. Olympics is about Sport. Regardless how history shows endless men and women misused Olympics to pursue their ideologies, Olympics is about sport and it is our responsibility to ensure Olympics is about sport.

If we allow people to taint Olympics with political purposes, there will never be peace at future Olympics. Every future Olympic will be the event for more political pursues, more deaths, more chaos, etc. And we will become the one who open the floodgate. The only way to keep this sport event clean and pure for sports is to never let these people succeed in their political pursues through tainting Olympics.

So what do you think about torch protest?
I had a good laugh when I read the readers’ comments left at bbc.co.uk.

Paris Torch Protest

“The protesters can protest, but to use a fire extinguisher, jump on a former Blue Peter presenter and snatch the torch - that is barbaric. I can’t believe it.” Thomas, 11, Suffolk, England

“I think it’s fair that the protesters had their say, but they did kind of ruin it!” Victoria, 9, Dorset, England

“I think it is alright to protest about the torch. But DON’T hurt the people holding it, it is not right!” Emily, 10, Hull, England

“I think that people should protest because it is not fair that only a few people get a say in this. However, I also think that the protesters should respect the fact that it is a tradition and so should everyone else.” James, 10, Lincolnshire, England

“I think it is silly to take the torch off people because you could burn them.” Jordan, 7, Kent, England

These children who left the comments seem more sensible than those adults who harass the athletes.

We wish for Tibet’s Autonomy just like Hong Kong’s Autonomy…not independence, not misleading and vague word like “freedom” or “free something”. (what is freedom by the way? to be allowed to kill? to be allowed to rob torch from athletes.) (what is the meaning of “free Tibet”? are you asking for Tibet independence that will cause wars and lives? or are you asking for autonomy and less intervention?)

We want peace at Tibet not independence. We want Tibetans to live the way that they want and not independence. Following & trusting Dalai Lama’s words, we wish for true Tibet’s autonomy, just like Hong Kong autonomy for we also know independence will only bring wars and deaths to this beautiful land. We therefore want China, one day, to treat Tibet like they treat Hong Kong. At the same time we want a happy Olympic for sportmen and sportwomen to test the limit of human’s potential. We wish all athletes to have their unforgettable moments at Olympics. It is just so important.

If you are Westerners, you must know that Dalai Lama openly stated that he wants autonomy for Tibet and not independence.

We need to make Tibetans who live in Tibet to know that human rights does not attach with heavy price like chaos. They don’t have to fight and suffer in order to live the way they want. We can see that US’s democracy does not comes with death or chaos. They protest in the morning, have a nice picnic and go back home for lunch. Don’t let them convince us that we deserve a inferior version of freedom/democracy that such freedom/democracy comes with chaos and deaths. We must believe that we can protest in the morning, have a nice picnic and go back home for lunch and take a nap. Because we know if Tibetans continue conversations with Chinese government, build trusts between two parties, autonomy is possible. To preserve their ways of life is possible though difficult (unless you convert more Chinese back to Buddhism. This is the problem created by Carl Marx, another Westerner).

If you care about Tibet, don’t use the word freedom because it can be twisted by Western media to equate it with independence. Use the words “Peace and True Autonomy just like Hong Kong”. Be specific.

Back to basic principles

We believe we should not sacrifice today for tomorrow as much as we cannot enjoy today regardless of tomorrow. We must live today and have a better tomorrow. We should not create chaos today regardless what you want to achieve tomorrow.

Therefore it is wrong to kill now for future peace. Killing will never bring peace. Therefore it is wrong to start a war and create chaos in order to build a democracy world in future. Therefore Luke Skywalker threw away his lightsaber at the final moment with the Emperor. You cannot be in the dark side using the dark force and to bring light and justice to the world.
- Calvin’s Tiger from Coolheadwarmheart.com

Independence is a dirty word. It serves no meaning to anyone other than the persons who hold the power. Independence to politicians is as market niches to businessman. To create independence is to create a market niche for them.

We must have faith that there is no price to be paid for human rights. We can have human rights without sacrifice good life, peace and pursue for human being’s potential, Olympics. We must not sacrifice today for tomorrow for we can live to the fullest both today and tomorrow.

By the way, human rights coverage is so wide that we should be specific about it. Right to make a living, right to be free from fears, right to speak, right to be rich, right to be free from harms, right to love and to be loved, etc. We can have all, we must believe that. But of all the least important is freedom of speech. If you have the all other part of human rights, you really don’t need this freedom of speech.

If the price of human rights is death and chaos, can we trade the part of free speech for good life & prosperity? I can sell free speech right for good & happy family life, if you give me such limited options.

Freedom of press belongs to those who owned press. Freedom of speech in a happy and peaceful world is only important to those who wear warm cloth, eat well and has got nothing better to do.

Speak out is to have your verbal orgasm in public. You feel nice when you speak your piece of mind, but what do you get after such speech/mind orgasm?

However, I agree that it is good to have rights to free speech, though at times I really don’t know what to do with this right (while I have a reasonably enjoyable life, a cozy home and a close and warm family) other than writing a blog like this.

To fight and suffer for such freedom of speech? Nay.

Technorati Tags:
, , , ,, , , ,

Michael Losier’s The Law of Attraction Seminar in Malaysia

Tuesday, March 18th, 2008

It was quite an experience today to attend Michael Losier’s seminar today to see him in person, live in action, 9am to 5pm. Thanks to CIMA Malaysia for organising the seminar.

It was in Nikko Hotel, Kuala Lumpur with about 200 - 300 participants, I guess. I bought his book “Law of Attraction”. He signed the book. Asking my name, he wrote, “CT, Dream BIG. Micheal 18 Mar 08″. The only problem is, I forgot to bring my camera (Ouch!). Still, what a great day today, meeting an international renown author and he asked for my name. Off course, the food is good, the weather is great with rain in the evening, the atmosphere of the seminar is comfortable. (All said with gratitude and gratefulness) :-)

I suppose Mr Losier sensed the difference between US audience and Malaysia audience. Malaysia audience is, always is, a shy and quiet bunch. Nobody rushed for microphone to speak in public. Everyone seems more comfortable in writing notes to him for the questions during Q&A sesion. But we are all attentive as he noticed.

There are many concepts and techniques, surprisingly, about the Law of Attraction and the deliberate use of the Law. I am writing these down before I forget.

Concepts to remember:
1. At every moment, I am sending +ve and -ve vibes and at every moment law of attraction is responding to my vibes by giving me more of the same. So if I want more +ve vibes, I should deliberately choose to send more +ve vibes. Law of attraction will MATCH.
2. Words change Thoughts change Vibes change Results
3. Eliminate “Don’t” “Not” “No” from vocabulary.
4. On relationship. Vibes range from 0 - 100. Resistance of 2 persons was due to difference in vibes level.

Techniques to remember: 3-step Formula for Deliberate Attraction
Step 1: Identify my desire (Tool is Clarify through Contrast)
Step 2: Give my desire attention (Tool is My Vibes Bubble’s include list and desire statement scripts)
Step 3: Allow it…remove doubts (Many tools to eliminate doubts, i.e. finding proofs (to break limiting beliefs), celebrate closeness of MATCH, record evidence, Lots can happen, etc. Law of Attraction Page 91 onward)

Reminder to myself, first 2 exercises of the 3-step formula:
1. Focus on getting rich.
2. Focus on getting satisfying vocation/lifestyles (not vacation).

Well, I will try to publish the exercises here.

Other tips: Michael covered this two topics today:
1. Does Goal Setting Help or Hinder Law of Attraction?
2. Does Using the Word ‘Want” Contradict Law of Attraction?

This post will expand whenever I have new things to add…

Technorati Tags:
, , , , , , ,

Rosa Louise Parks died on 25 Oct 2005

Wednesday, October 26th, 2005

Rosa Louise Parks died on 25 Oct 2005 at the age of 92.

I heard about her that her refusal to give her seat to a white man back in 1955 ignited U.S.’s civil rights movement. I remember her story even though I didn’t even know her name until yesterday. Time.com labeled her as hero, read here.

She is an inspiring example of how a small act from a normal person changed the world for better. We shall miss her.

By the way, who’s that unlucky white man?

A good speech

Tuesday, October 11th, 2005

How long have we not heard a good speech from politicians? Since Winston Churchill? Let me begins this blog with a good speech from George Galloway…

Senator, I am not now, nor have I ever been, an oil trader. and neither has anyone on my behalf. I have never seen a barrel of oil, owned one, bought one, sold one - and neither has anyone on my behalf.

Now I know that standards have slipped in the last few years in Washington, but for a lawyer you are remarkably cavalier with any idea of justice. I am here today but last week you already found me guilty. You traduced my name around the world without ever having asked me a single question, without ever having contacted me, without ever written to me or telephoned me, without any attempt to contact me whatsoever. And you call that justice.

Now I want to deal with the pages that relate to me in this dossier and I want to point out areas where there are - let’s be charitable and say errors. Then I want to put this in the context where I believe it ought to be. On the very first page of your document about me you assert that I have had ‘many meetings’ with Saddam Hussein. This is false.

I have had two meetings with Saddam Hussein, once in 1994 and once in August of 2002. By no stretch of the English language can that be described as “many meetings” with Saddam Hussein.

As a matter of fact, I have met Saddam Hussein exactly the same number of times as Donald Rumsfeld met him. The difference is Donald Rumsfeld met him to sell him guns and to give him maps the better to target those guns. I met him to try and bring about an end to sanctions, suffering and war, and on the second of the two occasions, I met him to try and persuade him to let Dr Hans Blix and the United Nations weapons inspectors back into the country - a rather better use of two meetings with Saddam Hussein than your own Secretary of State for Defence made of his.

I was an opponent of Saddam Hussein when British and Americans governments and businessmen were selling him guns and gas. I used to demonstrate outside the Iraqi embassy when British and American officials were going in and doing commerce.

You will see from the official parliamentary record, Hansard, from the 15th March 1990 onwards, voluminous evidence that I have a rather better record of opposition to Saddam Hussein than you do and than any other member of the British or American governments do.

Now you say in this document, you quote a source, you have the gall to quote a source, without ever having asked me whether the allegation from the source is true, that I am ‘the owner of a company which has made substantial profits from trading in Iraqi oil’.

Senator, I do not own any companies, beyond a small company whose entire purpose, whose sole purpose, is to receive the income from my journalistic earnings from my employer, Associated Newspapers, in London. I do not own a company that’s been trading in Iraqi oil. And you have no business to carry a quotation, utterly unsubstantiated and false, implying otherwise.

Now you have nothing on me, Senator, except my name on lists of names from Iraq, many of which have been drawn up after the installation of your puppet government in Baghdad. If you had any of the letters against me that you had against Zhirinovsky, and even Pasqua, they would have been up there in your slideshow for the members of your committee today.

You have my name on lists provided to you by the Duelfer inquiry, provided to him by the convicted bank robber, and fraudster and conman Ahmed Chalabi who many people to their credit in your country now realise played a decisive role in leading your country into the disaster in Iraq.

There were 270 names on that list originally. That’s somehow been filleted down to the names you chose to deal with in this committee. Some of the names on that committee included the former secretary to his Holiness Pope John Paul II, the former head of the African National Congress Presidential office and many others who had one defining characteristic in common: they all stood against the policy of sanctions and war which you vociferously prosecuted and which has led us to this disaster.

You quote Mr Dahar Yassein Ramadan. Well, you have something on me, I’ve never met Mr Dahar Yassein Ramadan. Your sub-committee apparently has. But I do know that he’s your prisoner, I believe he’s in Abu Ghraib prison. I believe he is facing war crimes charges, punishable by death. In these circumstances, knowing what the world knows about how you treat prisoners in Abu Ghraib prison, in Bagram Airbase, in Guantanamo Bay, including I may say, British citizens being held in those places.

I’m not sure how much credibility anyone would put on anything you manage to get from a prisoner in those circumstances. But you quote 13 words from Dahar Yassein Ramadan whom I have never met. If he said what he said, then he is wrong.

And if you had any evidence that I had ever engaged in any actual oil transaction, if you had any evidence that anybody ever gave me any money, it would be before the public and before this committee today because I agreed with your Mr Greenblatt [Mark Greenblatt, legal counsel on the committee].

Your Mr Greenblatt was absolutely correct. What counts is not the names on the paper, what counts is where’s the money. Senator? Who paid me hundreds of thousands of dollars of money? The answer to that is nobody. And if you had anybody who ever paid me a penny, you would have produced them today.

Now you refer at length to a company names in these documents as Aredio Petroleum. I say to you under oath here today: I have never heard of this company, I have never met anyone from this company. This company has never paid a penny to me and I’ll tell you something else: I can assure you that Aredio Petroleum has never paid a single penny to the Mariam Appeal Campaign. Not a thin dime. I don’t know who Aredio Petroleum are, but I daresay if you were to ask them they would confirm that they have never met me or ever paid me a penny.

Whilst I’m on that subject, who is this senior former regime official that you spoke to yesterday? Don’t you think I have a right to know? Don’t you think the Committee and the public have a right to know who this senior former regime official you were quoting against me interviewed yesterday actually is?

Now, one of the most serious of the mistakes you have made in this set of documents is, to be frank, such a schoolboy howler as to make a fool of the efforts that you have made. You assert on page 19, not once but twice, that the documents that you are referring to cover a different period in time from the documents covered by The Daily Telegraph which were a subject of a libel action won by me in the High Court in England late last year.

You state that The Daily Telegraph article cited documents from 1992 and 1993 whilst you are dealing with documents dating from 2001. Senator, The Daily Telegraph’s documents date identically to the documents that you were dealing with in your report here. None of The Daily Telegraph’s documents dealt with a period of 1992, 1993. I had never set foot in Iraq until late in 1993 - never in my life. There could possibly be no documents relating to Oil-for-Food matters in 1992, 1993, for the Oil-for-Food scheme did not exist at that time.

And yet you’ve allocated a full section of this document to claiming that your documents are from a different era to the Daily Telegraph documents when the opposite is true. Your documents and the Daily Telegraph documents deal with exactly the same period.

But perhaps you were confusing the Daily Telegraph action with the Christian Science Monitor. The Christian Science Monitor did indeed publish on its front pages a set of allegations against me very similar to the ones that your committee have made. They did indeed rely on documents which started in 1992, 1993. These documents were unmasked by the Christian Science Monitor themselves as forgeries.

Now, the neo-con websites and newspapers in which you’re such a hero, senator, were all absolutely cock-a-hoop at the publication of the Christian Science Monitor documents, they were all absolutely convinced of their authenticity. They were all absolutely convinced that these documents showed me receiving $10 million from the Saddam regime. And they were all lies.

In the same week as the Daily Telegraph published their documents against me, the Christian Science Monitor published theirs which turned out to be forgeries and the British newspaper, Mail on Sunday, purchased a third set of documents which also upon forensic examination turned out to be forgeries. So there’s nothing fanciful about this. Nothing at all fanciful about it.

The existence of forged documents implicating me in commercial activities with the Iraqi regime is a proven fact. It’s a proven fact that these forged documents existed and were being circulated amongst right-wing newspapers in Baghdad and around the world in the immediate aftermath of the fall of the Iraqi regime.

Now, Senator, I gave my heart and soul to oppose the policy that you promoted. I gave my political life’s blood to try to stop the mass killing of Iraqis by the sanctions on Iraq which killed one million Iraqis, most of them children, most of them died before they even knew that they were Iraqis, but they died for no other reason other than that they were Iraqis with the misfortune to born at that time. I gave my heart and soul to stop you committing the disaster that you did commit in invading Iraq. And I told the world that your case for the war was a pack of lies.

I told the world that Iraq, contrary to your claims did not have weapons of mass destruction. I told the world, contrary to your claims, that Iraq had no connection to al-Qaeda. I told the world, contrary to your claims, that Iraq had no connection to the atrocity on 9/11 2001. I told the world, contrary to your claims, that the Iraqi people would resist a British and American invasion of their country and that the fall of Baghdad would not be the beginning of the end, but merely the end of the beginning.

Senator, in everything I said about Iraq, I turned out to be right and you turned out to be wrong and 100,000 people paid with their lives; 1600 of them American soldiers sent to their deaths on a pack of lies; 15,000 of them wounded, many of them disabled forever on a pack of lies.

If the world had listened to Kofi Annan, whose dismissal you demanded, if the world had listened to President Chirac who you want to paint as some kind of corrupt traitor, if the world had listened to me and the anti-war movement in Britain, we would not be in the disaster that we are in today. Senator, this is the mother of all smokescreens. You are trying to divert attention from the crimes that you supported, from the theft of billions of dollars of Iraq’s wealth.

Have a look at the real Oil-for-Food scandal. Have a look at the 14 months you were in charge of Baghdad, the first 14 months when $8.8 billion of Iraq’s wealth went missing on your watch. Have a look at Haliburton and other American corporations that stole not only Iraq’s money, but the money of the American taxpayer.

Have a look at the oil that you didn’t even meter, that you were shipping out of the country and selling, the proceeds of which went who knows where? Have a look at the $800 million you gave to American military commanders to hand out around the country without even counting it or weighing it.

Have a look at the real scandal breaking in the newspapers today, revealed in the earlier testimony in this committee. That the biggest sanctions busters were not me or Russian politicians or French politicians. The real sanctions busters were your own companies with the connivance of your own Government.”