Under pressure?

Just heard from a podcast about the gripe put forward by a group of people on placing too much emphasis on SAT examinations results in students' placing in universities. They argue that the examination does not reflect the students' true potential but instead uses a college-based assessment for this purpose. Instead of depending on tests done within a short duration, a spread-out approach would be superior, they say.

Just the other day, members of the Sunday morning running group was discussing a similar topic. We discussed the necessity of selecting only the top-scoring students for specific age-old 'professional' jobs (medicine, law, accountancy, engineering, architecture and such). Just like how everything else has been dressed down over the years, nowadays, even professional courses have shortcuts and express lanes to bypass some apparently 'out-of-dates' passé requirements. No A-levels, no problem, do our foundation courses which would speed track your entrance. A-level too tricky, no problem, do our matriculation course, here is the brochure!

UN made it a human right issue to deny anyone education, but nowhere does it mention that it is their birthright to receive tertiary education.

After much deliberation, the group concluded that high achievers were accepted into professional courses because of the discipline one needs to excel and perform well under pressure in a controlled environment. A professional, making life saving or altering decisions, constantly work under pressure and deadlines. He cannot afford to cut corners and is expected to do it right all the time. There is no room for error. What better way to test the tenacity of an individual than to create an artificial pressure cooker to steam out delicacies than to churn out half baked cookies?

You do not want a mollycoddled Rottweiler to guard your Fort Knox, do you? 

A philosophical discourse of life!

Sunset Limited (2011)

This drama may not be appealing to all as the setting is uninspiring. The whole 1h 30m movie happens in the confines of an apartment room involving two men arguing about God! The two actors who happened to be favourites are the only characters in the show - White (Tommy Lee Jones) and Black (Samuel L. Jackson).
As the conversation progresses into high gear, the story unfolds. Sunset Limited is the subway train into which White had supposed to have jumped into to try to kill himself, only to have fallen into the arms of by Black who just happened to be there.
Black brought him to his apartment in the poor side of town to knock some sense into him and perhaps pass the divine word of the Lord. What ensued later was a philosophical argument about life, God, death and suicide!
Black is ex-convict who grew in the bad side of the town, was incarcerated and almost committed murder in prison just to find God and chose the path of the Divine. He is a pastor now finding peace in helping the downtrodden.
White is a college professor who seem pessimistic and nihilistic about everything around him. He feels that there is no meaning in life. He leads a lonely life. Everyone, he thinks, just go through life waiting for their time to die.
Black tries to persuade him to look at the brighter side of things with the promise of eternally blissful after life. White, an atheist and a thinking man, does not buy into his promises.
It appears that things are easier when one does not over analyse life and the purpose of life. The more you try to understand life and its intricacies, the higher the chance of one flipping over to side of the loonies.
Their discussion intensifies and both men put their side of belief. The dark pessimistic argument of White some how makes the Pastor rather unsure of his direction of life. He questions the silence of God to give him the wisdom to argue the bleak outlook of man's life.
The movie ends with White leaving the apartment unimpressed with Black's argument.
Beliefs and callings are from within, it cannot be forced upon. If you believe in something, you accept and rationalize everything which happens around that belief. It simplifies things and one can concentrate on doing other things in life, like enjoying life (maybe not to the fullest as you may be wary of the after life!).

Untold piece of Penang history!

Penang's untold story: Hartal 1967

By Koay Su Lyn | The Edge Malaysia – Wed, Sep 11, 2013

TO SIMPLY begin with, the word 'hartal' refers to a cessation of work/businesses in protest against a political decision. Malaya, before her independence in 1957 once observed a one day hartal way back in October 1947, organised by the Pan-Malayan Council of Joint Action against the constitution of the Federation of Malaya.

While the 1947 hartal is widely quoted on paper today, there is little mention of a hartal that once swept across the island of Penang in 1967. Originally intended as a peaceful protest, this hartal escalated into a bloody atmosphere of heightened racial tension. Tan Sri Wong Pow Nee, the island's first Chief Minister even related the said protest as one of the incidences which might have possibly led to the 1969 racial riots.

However, a closer look at the mood and circumstances surrounding the 1967 Hartal explains the contrary. Allow me to first transport you back to the island of Penang in the 1960s.

The Prince of Wales Island in a crumbling state

Penang in the 1960s was no wonderland.

Towards the mid-1960s, both her economy and trading environment was in a depressing state. Per capita income declined as much as 12% under the national wage and the island's entreport trade (mostly with Indonesia) was also affected by the Indonesian Confrontation.

A 2% surtax imposed by the Malaysian government on Indonesian goods re-exported from Penang placed the island in yet another disadvantage as compared to other ports like Singapore.

Things crumbled in 1967 when Penang lost her free port status. Businesses were struggling to survive the recession and unemployment rate was soaringly high.

According to a Straits Echo report, in early months of 1968, the state government estimated it at about 20% of the work force, with a total of 10,000 school leavers requiring jobs.

Perhaps, your grandparents would recall how many young people were out of jobs (many made a living then by becoming parking attendants and other odd job workers) and how one is considered extremely lucky to land one's self in a teacher's college or sixth form.

The island's economic condition was so bleak that even the President of the International Chamber of Commerce predicted that Penang would end up as a fishing village (of course, his prediction was proven wrong!). Nevertheless, the sentiments of rage and dissatisfaction due to the various economic pressures in place were mounting among the masses.

Sterling devaluation and brewing rage

The decision of the Malaysian authorities to devalue the Malaysian dollar which was tied to the Sterling in November 1967 added fuel to the fire.

Malaysia then had two types of currencies in circulation – the old, based on Sterling and the new, based on gold. The new currency issued by the Malaysian government in June 1967, at par with the value of the old, was meant to replace the old in time to come without any 'phrasing out' period stipulated.

In the light of the British devaluation, the impromptu action to similarly devalue only the old currency, making it 15% less valuable than the new, resulted in confusion and not to mention, a heightened level of anger and annoyance among the people, typically the lower income group.

It was not the fashion then for farmers, fishermen and small-time traders to own bank accounts. Many lived in the outshirts and many kept their savings (in shilings especially) in their homes with the bulk of it in old currency. Thus, the devaluation burden, in which the government should accordingly have shouldered by itself, fell upon those who could least afford it and simply aggravated the plight of most Penangites.     

While the authorities maintained that they were faced with no choice but to devalue the old currency, immense public outcry inevitable and many questioned the validity of that stand . It was in such condition that Lim Kean Siew, the then Chairman of the Labour Party Penang division, decided on a hartal ala the style of Gandhi's civil disobedience protest.

A public statement urging the government to provide a grace period for the lower income groups to get rid off their old currencies was similarly issued. Neverthless, their demands were swept under the carpet.

The Hartal and its unanticipated violence

Contrary to common perception, the hartal was never meant as a racial riot. It was intended as a peaceful, democratic protest against the decision to devaluate the old dollar. Lim even made it clear that the move was in no manner communist-inspired as well. Calls were merely made for shops to cease from conducting their usual business routines by putting up their shutters as an act of protest.

In fact, there were neither any street demonstrations nor elements of violence and hostility during the wee hours of the launch of the hartal.

The hartal in its early stages, was perceived as a success by the Labour Party – they had the entire Penang City under their control. Overwhelming support also gave the party a ray of hope for the upcoming 1969 general elections.

But what was it that stirred the trouble?

In an era where thugs ruled most of the streets in George Town, the hartal haphazardly went out of hand in the later stages and was amplified into an unexpected racial conflict when gangs and party extremists decided to take matters at their hands as well. To this, even the police force was not fully prepared.

Of course, folks who lived through that era might tell you different incidences of the hartal stirred up by these notorious assemblages along the many numerous parts of the island.

One of them dictates how a group of gangsters went into rows with a goreng pisang seller along the Malay dominated Dato Kramat area and had later killed a guard at the Standard Chartered Bank. The other, how a gang of Chinese youths attempted to block Malay passerbys in revenge of an earlier Malay group who did the same to the Chinese.

The Straits Times also reported chaos along the main streets of George Town – from Chulia Street to Penang Road, Prangin Road and Beach Street. The windows of the Cold Storage were smashed by stones and bricks and even the Jefferson Centre in Beach Street suffered the same fate upon being attacked by a group of youths, shouting and screaming anti-devaluation slogans.

The famous Violet Café along Magazine Road was not spared either – demonstrators forced their way in and about 100 people breakfasting inside ran out as the mob smashed the furniture and showcases.

At least two other restaurants along Penang Road and Campbell Street were attacked. Bus companies also withdrew their vehicles upon several attacks. A mob was reported to have stopped a bus along Penang Road and stones were thrown into the bus to chase out all its passengers before an attempt to overturn the said vehicle. Even two reporters from a local newspaper, the Warta Negara were assulted in their attempt to snap pictures of the incident.

Barricades were launched, curfews were implemented and the holiday island seemed like a deserted, old cowboy town.

A racial riot instigated by the Labour Party?

Towards the end of the hartal, the island was at its bloodiest – eight deaths and 137 people injured. Extra police personnel and members of the armed forces were also sent from Kuala Lumpur to guard the tension. Lim, together with other 23 leaders were arrested at the height of the protest. The code-launched 'Operation X' by the home affairs ministry witnessed the closure of the party's headquarters followed by its other eight branch offices around Penang.

Weapons were ceased and several hundred of youths (unfortunately, sources do not state whether these youths stemmed from the party itself or street gangs but it is believed that there is still the possibility of dual-affiliation) were rounded up for investigations on the grounds of suspected subversive activities.

Clearly, as someone deserved the blame, the Labour Party was held responsible for all the chaos, deaths and injuries caused.

Even the Tunku expressed his shock in the papers over the "outbreaks of violence in Penang over such a 'small thing' as the devaluation of the old dollar". Regarding the hartal, he noted that "All hell broke loose. Malays retaliated with violence and what originally was a communist resistance against the government and the people, turned into a Sino-Malay conflict".

However, in the light of the island's troubles during that period, it is res ipsa loquitur that the hartal was not a racial riot instigated by the Labour Party but a mere one-off accident. By stating this, I also beg to differ in relation to the claims that the hartal is one of the incidents which led to the 1969 racial riots.

While it is true that the hartal was inspired by Lim as Chairman of the Labour Party, there is, as highlighted earlier, no intention for the protest to be racially-tainted.

Taking into account the island's woes then, majority of the masses, regardless of race, did not favour the devaluation as their livelihoods would prove more onerous as a result of it. Such dilemma simply aroused the idea of a peaceful protest to demonstrate their non-acceptance of the decision which is a commonplace in growing democracies.

Moreover, as mentioned earlier, even Lim himself made it clear that the hartal was in no way a communist-inspired act to boycott the government's decision. Again, given the circumstances of which the said decision was made, the hartal was a protest against the particular decision made at that point of time and not part of a deliberate communist battle against the government.

Racial elements perpetuated the atmosphere of the hartal only when gangs, thugs and extremists decided to intervene at their cause and such intervention was unforeseeable by the organisers of the hartal in order to assert control over the situation.

In fact, Lim was arrested and detained at the height of the hartal even before the chaos took place in the hands of these groups.

Certainly, it was most unfortunate that the entire party was held responsible for the anarchy incensed towards the later stages of the protest. It is equally interesting to note that even Tun Razak, the then home minister was later quoted in the Straits Times as "happy to say that there was no evidence to show that the clashes were racial".

Perhaps, despite all the disorders caused, the hartal served as a blessing in disguise for the island to be thoroughly prepared for the unanticipated in the future which led the island to be relatively calm in 1969 (thanks in part to the diligent leadership of the police force led by Albert Mah).

Today, 46 years have passed. The Hartal 1967 remains generally unknown and largely forgotten to most Penangites.

Yet however, to those who have lived, witnessed and struggled-through those painful times, the hartal is much alive as a constant reminder to all, not only to anticipate the unexpected but also to appreciate and treasure the peace and fortune we all often take for granted in modern times like today.   

Koay Su Lyn is a research analyst with the history and heritage department of the Penang Institute. A lawyer by training, she believes that one cannot truly comprehend the present without a proper reference to the past.

Taking creative licence to the limit...

Gunday (Goons, Hindi; 2014)

If you think that the story of two bosom buddies who would die for each other fall for the same girl is an overused formula which had been around since the days of Sangam (1964), you are wrong. It looks that this formula will be used again and again in different settings even into the next generation.

Two boys who grew through thick and thin as refugees after the 1971 Pakistani Civil War, grew up strong and rich just to be floored by a curvaceous member of the opposite gender. 

This leads to a showdown where the two buddies have to evaluate their friendship over perfunctory songs, melodrama, picturesque landscape, rainbow hued dresses and various stages of undressing!

Being set in Calcutta, the mandatory scenes of Howrah Bridge, fish market and Durga Pooja made their prominent appearances.

Bikram and Bala grew up stealing coal from the goods train to slowly build themselves an empire of wealth fro black market business. They become proud Indian citizens after their philantrophic work. 

Hey, the train coal robbing scene by refugees is reminiscent of Bhaag Milkha Bhaag (dejavu)!

The police is at wits end at their attempt to throw the book at these 2 outlaws. In come ACP Satyajit Sarkar (Irrfan Khan) of the Calcutta Police to the rescue. At about the same time, metamorphoses a vivacious cabaret dancer Nandita to blow the two heroes away. By then, almost everyone knew where the movie was heading! The two heroes try to woo our heroine admist a murder, betrayal and childish vows.

The bosom buddies became arch rivals out for each other's neck over the bosomy beau. After much singing, dancing, fighting and exhibition of sculptured torsos, the duo discover the deceit of the police. The Indian police must be a totally dedicated lot. Inspector Nandita Sengupta not only danced better than a Bollywood star, she had a body perfect with her government salary which would not make affordability to a personal trainer ala-movie stars possible and she is totally is perfect charmer who could pluck the strings of anyone's heart. If you close your eyes to these questionables and be not-so-critical like me when she was the only one in the temple without her headscarf when everyone appeared modest during the Durga Pooja, you would enjoy the movie.

Irrfan Khan without any much facial expression, left quite an impression with his delivery of lines with perfect intonation and wit. The heroes were bearable even though they excelled at the physical exhibitionism and choreographed fighting departments rather than the acting faculty.

In cyber space, news is rife that certain parties, particularly from Bangladesh, have felt slighted by the downplaying of the freedom fighters of the birth of the country of Bangladesh. In the movie, the 1971 Indo-Paki War is described as the third Indo-Paki War which gave rise to Bangladesh and a flood of refugees. From what I understand, West and East Pakistan had their ever first elections in 1970. Bangladesh's (East Pakistan, then) premier party won more seats than West Pakistan's PPP and logically show have the honour to the chair of Presidentship. Unfortunately, West Pakistan with their Pashtun and Punjabi ancestry and superior military force and finances thought they were superior than the lowly Bengalis to lead the helm. Bangladesh declared independence from Pakistan and that started Operation Searchlight where Bangladeshi civilians, intelligensia and students were massacred by the Pakistani Army and religious militiamen. Indian Army, after being provoked, were more than happy to be drawn to the war to aid feuding brothers. The superior Indian Army ended the battle in no time.

Rayerbazar killing field photographed
immediately after the war, showing
dead bodies of intellectuals.
(Rashid Talukdar, 1971)

I overheard in the film an interesting dialogue in the course of the film. One of the heroes, a Bangladeshi refugee, said that he was always felt Indian at heart and man's follies made him a refugee. Just for the record, the arbitrary separation of the state of Bengal was the brain child of Lord Curzon, the Viceroy of India in 1905, along religious lines.

Sivaji-Saroja Devi (Puthiya Paravai)

The somewhat groundbreaking teaching that (at least in Indian films where poetic justice always prevails) the film seem to be imparting is that the wayward way of life that the protagonists led is actually the fault of man himself. They justify their life of crime as that of the result of  circumstantial interplay. No matter which way they turned to lead an honest life, society stopped them citing their refugee status.

The movie ends with both heroes escaping away in the trail of a moving train in the same way they started their life together. The audience are left wondering whether they escaped their captors. With the number of bullets and explosives that they have dodged in the movie, this would have been a piece of cake. Furthermore, the public may not be ready to have the demure Inspector Nandita shooting down her own beau. Maybe there are plans for a sequel?

By the way, the later scene where Nandita reveals her identity to Bikram reminds me of Saroja Devi and Sivaji in Puthiya Paravai (1964) where Saroja Devi is an undercover cop sent to seduce Sivaji to admit to his wife's killing!

N.B. I could swear that the cabaret number props were plagiarized off the 2004 Hollywood hit film 'Chicago' right down to the fonts of the neon lights which read 'Calcutta'!

No right, no wrong!

Don't know why, this week, two of the people just went on rattling about the problems they were having with their kids. Not to solve their problems but to ventilate, hoping to hear that they had not done it all wrong but they did all right. To hear that they did what was right in that particular frame of time, in that specific situation, with the resources that they had. It looks like everyone is in the same boat, expectations on the duties performed. The receiving party, however, feels that it is their birthright to be given on the platter. Through thick and thin, the providers provided, feeling that the responsibility was theirs to shoulder (ain't too heavy 'cause it is their flesh and bone).

What they expect in return is gratitude and respect that they had given their elders. But then, times change and values change. Gratitude in the medieval times is paid back with life, in the spanking new technology-driven 21st-century world, it would be a 'like' on your Facebook!

What the provider really want is for the recipient to be able to weather the storm which may strike at any time in their unpredictable lives and also to be a steadfast rock for future dependents! That's all.

Same story, different settings!

The Secret History of the Great Dictators
Real-Life Accounts of History's worst tyrants
Diane Low (2009)

The underlying story somehow sounds almost the same. The will be a crisis, some one will come to the rescue, his policies will be praised, he will overstay his welcome and then things will only spiral downwards and would go down in history for all the wrong reasons.
Most leaders try to create an enemy for them to stay as long as they can. Unfortunately the truth of these can only be ascertained in hindsight.
Save for a few leaders who are genuinely sick in the head, most of the dictators are generally people who never really shined in their early part of their careers.
This book gives a good review of some of the leaders that we have heard of but never really had the chance to learn in depth.
Emperor Caligula was rated as the most heinous dictator  of all time in 'History Channel'. His unconventional childhood compounded by an episode of 'brain fever' seem to explain the extreme bloodshed, deviant sexual debauchery and grandeur that reigned during the time of his power.
Genghiz Khan who is often praised for his conquering prowess is also infamous for his inhumane treatment of his subjects and foes. He not only killed his enemies but their descendants too. As he and his men treat water as something very divine, they make it a point not to waste it on something as meaningless as bathing. Hence, their extreme body odour is another of their secret weapon to defeat their enemies! Towards the end of his life, he tried to become religious but it may be more towards achieving immortality!
Ivan the terrible, the person who established the Romanov dynasty was the first Czar of Russia. Even though he was brought up as an orthodox Christian, he still believed in his pagan beliefs. While the rest of Europe was embracing Renaissance, he kept Russia in dark ages with killing, witch hunt and savagery.
Josef Stalin, a cobbler's son dropped out of seminary school after being captivated by Darwin and Marx writings. Starting as an average party worker who never really shined, he steamrolled himself to great heights to establish the Gulag and kill over 40 million people.
We all know about Adolf Hitler and his antics that brought the whole world to its knees. What most people do not know is his perverted sexual preferences, his syphilitic infection from a Jewish sex worker and his affair with his niece who died a mysterious death.
Mao Zedong is another master planner and a perfectionist poet who brought short lived prosperity to a crumbling nation. His reign was, however, marred by widespread famine which killed over 30 million and indoctrination of generation to become non-thinking zombies. Many valuable ancient history was lost in his book burning exercise of Cultural Revolution.
In the Central African Republic, there was a mad dictator in the 1970s with had a fetish with Napoleon Bonaparte and everything French. The country which started as a slave nation in a fabled kingdom became sought after when diamonds were found there. The dictator, declared himself as Emperor Bokassa I spent a third of the country's national budget for his coronation. During his reign he amassed diamond profits, blurred the demarcation between his bank account and that of the country's. He is said to have dined on human flesh, had 17 wives and 50 children. He was exiled but later lived on his earnings like a king.
Nicolae Ceausescu of Romania started life as a stammering communist who played an important role in the post WW2 Soviet controlled Romania. He gain limelight for standing against the Russian intervention. The Western bloc played devils' advocate to create disharmony in Romania. As he became the President, he and his wife also developed a sense of grandeur and paranoia. While the whole country was immersed in poverty, he and his family were drowning in luxury and megalomania!
Idi Amin was literally a mad man on a cocktail of anti psychotic medication. His gung ho way of 'overkilling' in a situation earned him a reputation as an effective problem solver. This trait eventually earned him the post of President. This 'Last King of Scotland' (due to his fetish with everything Scottish) was sort of an international joke. He made preposterous anti Jewish and anti Western statements. He embraced Islam after a meeting with his good friend, Moammar Gaddafi of Libya. Whilst the economy was going down the drain, he continued with his obscenely lavish lifestyle. His harem of ladies, the fleet of wives, his indulgence in cannibalism and outlandish behaviours were the reason for his downfall.
The poorest nation on the planet, the voodoo land, Haiti, has always been unlucky with its leaders. Francois 'Papa Doc' Duvalier, a soft spoken doctor, hold the reputation of being able to siphon off millions from US when the threat of communism was looming in Central America. He rigged the election and used US money for him own coffers whilst the whole country were drowning in poverty.
The American have their hands dirty in the history of Chile. In their zest to crumple a socialist government in Chile, they created a monster by the name of General Augusto Jose Ramon Pinochet Ugarte. As we are aware, the Chilean outlook at Pinochet can be said as divided. Some look at him as saviour of democracy while others look at him as despot.
Over in Indo China, Pol Pot is listed as a dictator. This situation is again messed up by the intervention of superpowers, making fellow citizens with different ideologies fight against their fellow brothers thinking what they believed to be right.
We all know about Saddam Hussein and his ability to control the various ethnicities within his country through sheer intimidation and scare tactics. Whatever said and done, his removal by US had unleashed wave over wave of upheavals and civil war.
Robert Mugabe, in spite of all the negative publicity about him in the world  arena, goes on with life even after forceful seizure of white man property in Zimbabwe.
At the end of the book, I realise that the longer a leader stays in power, the greater the desire is for him to cling on to power. To satisfy one fragment of the society, the other would retaliate and mayhem will ensue. It is impossible to satisfy everybody every time. And there is always a group of people who would benefit when we fight. After reading this book, one would not see their leaders in the same light again. Over the ages, it is always the same story. All in the name power, ideology and self interests, man indulge in atrocities.

Suspense before heist

Sexy Beast (2000)

This film is not your usual heist movie where the character spend a lifetime to pull it through. Even though the plot is thin, it makes up by the ability to maintain and keeping you on your toes trying to figure out how the movie would progress. Being a Spanish-English joint venture, there is a lot of sunbathing and cockney accent to lace the show.

Gal is a ex-bank robber who is retired from his trade and nicely leading a quiet life in his Spanish hacienda with his ex-porn star wife, Deedee, friend and his wife, Jackie.

The seemingly idyllic life is shattered by the arrival of a sociopath ex-colleague, Logan (Ben Kingsley).

Logan recruits and he want Gal for a massive heist in London. Logan, being the sociopath that he is, just does not want to take no for an answer. He uses his devious methods and blackmails to this end. Jackie, the friend's wife, apparently had had a fling with Logan.

This forms the crux of the story rather than  the heist itself.

Something happens in the final showdown and we are left to wonder when Gal is in London meeting with the crime bosses. They tunnel into a bank vault through a neighbouring steam bath shop.

We later find that Logan is buried under the house swimming pool!

Quite a gripping story, able to hold the suspense!

Sexy Beast (Urban Dictionary)

An irresistible man's man who seduces women with his witticisms and more notably with his extraordinarily handsome yet bestial looks. This beast-like man is the envy of all other men and the desire of all women and lives solely for hedonistic pleasure only.

Storm in the tea cup

Sawdust and Tinsel (Gycklarnas Afton,Swedish; 1953)

Life, has its up and down. Every now, a crisis builds up and disappears just as fast as it appears. At the time it materializes, it seem like the end of the world but then, with time, it finds a steady state and then it no longer is the big problem that it was previously.
This 1953 drama narrates the happenings around a travelling circus which stops at a town. The morale amongst the performers and its owner, Albert, is low as viewers' appreciation is low and income is measly.
Albert arrives at the town where his ex-wife and young sons who he left 3 years previously, lives. He now travels with a young pretty mistress performer, Anne.
Albert gets a idea of having a great parade to advertise their presence in town but their tattered costumes were nothing to show off. He decides to borrow costumes from a drama troupe in town. He approaches the director. What ensues is an interesting dialogue between two group of performers, one from the lowly circus performers and the egoistic drama actors.
The debonair main actor, Franz, catches the eye of Anne. In another scene, Anne is concerned about Albert's visit to his ex-wife's place. She is afraid that they may patch up again.

The ex-wife is however quite comfortable in her own life without Albert. The convenience store is that she is running is doing quite well and she is the main dealer of tobacco in her town. She is in fact in a much better shape finacially than Albert who left the family to run the circus. The ex-wife, Agda, categorically states that she enjoys her current freedom and is not ready to give it up for anything! She categorically implied that Albert was not welcomed there.
A distraught Albert discovers Anne sneaking out from the theatre and entering the goldsmith store on his way back. Despite his own plans to be a turncoat to their relationship, he accuses Anne of infidelity. In reality, Anne was turned on by the actor's charmed life and did bed him in exchange for jewelry which turned out to be worthless!
An duel ensued during a circus performance between a drunken Albert and Franz. Albert was humiliated and  bruised badly. Albert was contemplating suicide but instead shot an aging bear. There is another side story associated with the bear.  It is owned by Albert's confidante in the circus, the clown's wife. The wife once humiliated the clown by bathing nude by the beach just because she was wooed by some soldiers. The clown rescued his wife and forgave but Albert could not understand why.
Finally, the circus moves on to another town. Albert and Anne forgave each other and move on with life.
The film albeit being more than 60 years old and being black and white, give you the perspective of the circus from an angle never seen before. The views that we get are very close range.  Even at such an era, the female characters are quite liberated and they savour freedom.

Above us only sky, amongst us bigots!

You tell me the world is a smaller place, that there are no borders but only in our minds, that Lennon prophecy of there is no country will soon be reality. You say that globalisation is bringing us that way. I beg to differ.
People are flocking together. People with small minds are flocking together with fellow feeble minded individuals of the same calibre. They are trying to see the difference amongst us rather than rejoice the various journeys that we take to reach our destination. Don't they know that all roads lead to Rome (or Jerusalem!)? Even amongst themselves they aspire to further subdivide and claim superiority over the other. It is always 'they' and 'us'. Even though all DNAs are all 99.99% all the same and they have not found the sequence for stupidity, they still claim that they are 'the chosen one'.
They live in a cocoon contented with they have and swear that there is nothing more that need to explored as they been enlightened millennia ago.
In social medias, as if these man-made divisions are not enough, they have made groups by alma mater, by ethnicity, by sub-ethinicity, etceteras ... And they have hostility against each other, forever trying to find the difference rather than similarities.
Are these all effects of being in the comfort zone for far too long? Are they begging to put in place with a wave of calamity to strike them? History has proven again and again that man will only unite when they have a unconquerable common enemy. It could be a mammoth natural calamity, common abhorrence against an incorrigible tyrant, pathetic living conditions or absolute hopelessness when all of common human dignity is at stake!

What has sorry got to do with it?

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/459087/A-case-of-affluenza-The-drink-drive-killer-16-who-is-too-rich-and-spoiled-for-jail

A case of 'affluenza': The drink-drive killer, 16, who is too rich and spoiled for jail

IT'S the case that’s outraged America: a drunken teenager responsible for four deaths walks free because he’s a ‘victim’ too – of his parents’ wealth

By: Simon Edge

Published: Tue, February 11, 2014

Ethan Couch from Texas, USA, killed four people in a crash while drink-driving [AP]

It was shortly after 10pm on a hot June evening last summer when a bunch of teenagers from an affluent suburb of Fort Worth, Texas, stole two cases of beer from a Walmart supermarket. They had been drinking already and when an hour later 16-year-old Ethan Couch volunteered to run an errand to a late-night chemist some of them told him he was in no fit state. But when he insisted on it they all piled into his father’s red Ford truck, six in the cab and two in the open back.

The truck was accelerating at 70mph in a 40mph residential zone when it ploughed into two parked cars. Breanna Mitchell, a young chef on her way home from work, had stopped with a fl at tyre, and local resident Hollie Boyles and her twenty-something daughter Shelby had come out to help her. Brian Jennings, a youth pastor in his early 40s, had also stopped his car to lend a hand.

All four were thrown 60 yards and died instantly. Emergency staff called to the scene described seeing body parts all over the road. The speeding truck turned over and hit a tree. None of the joyriders were wearing seat belts and two were seriously injured, including Sergio Molina, 16, who was left unable to move, eat or talk as the result of a brain injury.

Meanwhile Jennings’s car, in which two of his children were waiting, was knocked into the path of a passing Volkswagen, one of whose occupants was also injured. Of the 12 survivors, only three did not require hospital treatment.

One of those was Couch. Belligerent with the police, he was so drunk that when he tried to walk away he got tangled in a wire fence. His blood alcohol level was three times the legal limit three hours after the crash and he was found to also have valium in his system.

Expressing no remorse, he pleaded guilty to four counts of manslaughter and might have expected a 20-year prison sentence. That’s what another 16-year-old drink driver, Eric Miller, received when he was up before the same judge a decade earlier – and he had a much lower blood alcohol level and had killed one victim not four.

But as a result of a judgment that has shocked America, Couch will not serve a day in prison. Instead he was given 10 years’ probation, during which time he can’t drink or drive, and was ordered to attend a £275,000-a-year rehab centre in California at his family’s expense, for an unspecified time.

When we arrived the first thing he did was jump in the pool with his clothes on, rip his shirt off then start downing a big bottle of vodka. He was really knocking it back. He must have drunk about six or seven shots in one go

Why? Because, according to a psychologist who testified in his defence, the teenager was a victim of “affluenza”. In other words he was so rich he didn’t know any better and couldn’t understand that his actions would have consequences. That the judge seemed to agree with this view has outraged his victims and caused a national furore across the United States.

“What is the likelihood if this was an African-American inner-city kid that grew up in a violent neighbourhood to a single mother who is addicted to crack and he was caught two or three times… what is the likelihood that the judge would excuse his behaviour and let him off because of how he was raised?” asks distinguished psychologist Professor Suniya Luthar.

Ethan’s father Fred Couch is a businessman who owns a sheet metal works with an annual turnover of £9million and around 30 staff. After a difficult divorce from Ethan’s mother Tonya, he reportedly gave his son the use of a mansion in the suburb of Burleson where he lived alone and ran wild.

A teenager invited there three nights before the fatal crash reported: “Ethan lived in this big place with a long winding driveway that went all the way round to his back yard, which had a large pool in it. When we arrived the first thing he did was jump in the pool with his clothes on, rip his shirt off then start downing a big bottle of vodka. He was really knocking it back. He must have drunk about six or seven shots in one go.

“That set the tone and from then on he was just boasting and trying to impress us about how much he drank and how much he partied. He also boasted about selling drugs and getting big amounts of marijuana delivered to his house. He kept saying that he lived in the place alone and could do whatever he wanted. At first I didn’t believe him but when we went inside there were empty liquor bottles everywhere and what looked like joint butts in the ashtrays.”

At the trial psychologist Dr Dick Miller testified that Couch had been brought up in a household so indulgent that boundaries had never been established for his behaviour, giving him “freedoms no young person should have”. He cited his parents’ decision not to punish him after he was found by police in a parked truck with an unconscious, undressed 14-year-old girl a year before the crash. He had also been allowed to drink from the age of 13.

One of his friends testified that Couch said his family “would get him out of anything”. Despite that boast, district judge Jean Boyd’s decision not to impose a custodial sentence – originally made in December and upheld last week after prosecutors asked her to reconsider – has left the victims aghast. “There needs to be some justice here,” said Eric Boyles, who lost his wife and daughter in the carnage. “For 25 weeks I’ve been going through a healing process. And so when the verdict came out, my immediate reaction is: I’m back to week one. We have accomplished nothing here.”

The suggestion that Couch was a victim of his family’s wealth may yet backfire on his parents. They are now facing multi-million-dollar legal claims by the victims and their families. Wendy Davis, Democratic candidate for governor of Texas, has called the sentence a “disgrace” and even Dr Miller says he regrets ever mentioning the word affluenza, which was coined by two Australian academics as the title of a 2005 book about the stress, depression and obesity associated with consumer life.

“I wish I had not used that term,” he says. “Everyone seems to have hooked on to it.”

He is right about that. In California, a member of the state assembly has introduced a bill that would ban trial lawyers from invoking the supposed condition as a defence or in mitigation for sentencing.

“It doesn’t take a crystal ball to see that the relatively lenient sentence that this gentleman in Texas received will lead attorneys to see this as something to use in their overall tool box,” he says.

And before you think this is the kind of thing that could happen only in America, a pair of Scottish oil workers got away with community service orders last month after launching a drunken attack on a fellow customer in a bar in Aberdeen. Their defence was that they were suffering the effects of having too much money.

Meanwhile Ethan Couch has said nothing. Having been proved right in his pronouncement that his parents could get him out of anything, why should he need to say sorry?

Grand ol' Dame

Great ol' dame

Between 18 and 20 a woman is like Africa, half discovered, half wild, naturally beautiful with fertile deltas.
Between 21 and 30 a woman is like America, well developed and open to trade especially for someone with cash.
Between 31 and 35 she is like India, very hot, relaxed and convinced of her own beauty.
Between 36 and 40 a woman is like France. Gently aging but still a warm and desirable place to visit.
Between 41 and 50 she is like Yugoslavia, lost the war - haunted by past mistakes. Massive reconstruction is now necessary.
Between 51 and 60, she is like Russia, very wide and borders are unpatrolled. The frigid climate keeps people away.
Between 61 and 70, a woman is like Mongolia, with a glorious and all conquering past but alas, no future.
After 70, they become Afghanistan. Most everyone knows where it is, but no one wants to go there.

Like a glorious prima donna who stands majestically after a glorious past, refusing to admit the end is nay, she lives day by day reminiscing the bygone days. The days, when she was newest and most exciting thing in town. She was the talk of town. Every guy wanted to lay his eyes on her and wanted a piece of her. Her captivating persona and hue used to be envy of others. That was 20 years ago when she was spanking new and clean. Now what can offered is only the fond memories of the good times with her.

Greens?

Time's up!

That is the story of Pangkor Island Beach Resort. We remember going there 20 years ago. And it was good time to go back to reminisce the good times that we had there. The times of our youth when our life was laid bare for us to mold and to evaluate our journey that we had taken thus far. Things have definitely changed, just like us. Some of the staff who were there during our first visit were still there, albeit aging gracefully with us. These people know us as one member of our entourage had been a frequent visitor there all these years!

The building is slightly run down weathering the frequent beating of nature. The greens of the golf course is hardly green due to the current hot spell and neglect.

The peacock and hornbills which were the mascots and the pull factor of the hotel were still there (of course must a different generation than when the hotel started!). The peacock still walk around the compound showing off his hued spread of feathers. Now, he must be happier than usual in the smartphone era to be pixelized at the rate photos are captured these days. 

The hornbills still fly around to lay claim on the restaurant that is named after their species!

The hotel may be old and tired but it is still exuding its charm and charisma to its visitors, sending them back with more fond memories.

Till next time...

Come June, this old Dame would be put to rest for a 2 year period for refurbishment. During this period, her status is to be elevated from a 4star status to a 6! With all the cosmetic changes, she hopes that the glorious past and fame would rekindled.

After a short weekend retreat, we too returned rejuvenated to face the challenges of the world. At the back of our minds, we remind ourselves that we too have to give a good fight trying to fulfill our obligations on Earth until we are slowly phased out to be replaced by a new set of fighters....

Just a thought!

When our offspring wrong on us, we forgive them. We tell them it is alright, to make mistakes is part of growing up and maturing. When they look into our eyes and lie through their teeth, we say we understand them. When the young ones show disrespect by uttering hurtful words, we swallow our pride and tell ourselves that growing up these days is hard unlike in the good old days. We do all these because we are considered all knowing and have seen it all compared to the young souls that we brought to this world. Their shortcomings, in a way, are our shortcomings. They are in our mould, and we provided the nurturing!

Tony Soprano with yes men!

We do not expect them to sing praises of us or to mention gratitudes of us in every little word that they utter or under every breath. It may suffice to remember who is the boss around here. The steady state, tranquillity, sanity and equilibrium that had taken aeons to reach need to be valued, savoured, appreciated and maintained.

This goes through my devilish mind whenever I am in the company of pious (or holier than thou) people who invoke the Divine in everything they say or do. There must be something wrong in the way we pay our dues (respect) to the Almighty. I do not claim to have all the answers, and neither do I want to ridicule those who find joy and solace in what they are doing.

If we are not behaving like Tony Soprano or Don Corleone, demanding to be surrounded by acts that accentuate of your grandiosity and be surrounded by yeoman who would bend over backwards to please you, I do not think our Maker would want to be treated as such! He would not want to be 'apple polished', put in high heavens, to be sung praises all the time. Too much praising as always is a turn-off and can be nauseating. A spoon of sugar with your coffee is excellent. Put two, it is tolerable, put ten and expect to push it all out of your system!

Are you cajoling the Powers-that-be to somehow alter the course of the universe to suit our self-interest without taking to consideration that every bit of our action and reaction has an equal and opposite reaction? Is it not being selfish? The rainy season is welcomed by the umbrella maker but not by the farmer who intends to harvest his crop. Or are we just following the example set by our leaders and their assistants who find absolute joy in showing allegiance to and hanging around the tails of their superiors with the hope of having a bone thrown at them?

https://asok22.wixsite.com/real-lesson 

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Burst my bubble!

Dear Thelma,
Sometimes I feel that I am breathless. I can't breath. I feel that I have been forced to do what I do not want to, or rather what the society wants me to do. And I have been shortchanged!
I grew up with lots of dreams and ambitions. I wanted to be somebody, away from these misery and constant tone of melancholia and sad songs that seem to be the background score of our daily life. I wanted to be free. I wanted to escape from the clutches of poverty.
Since young, only X seem to understand me. Coming from a similar background, he could relate to what I felt. Only thing that he is a male and I, a female.
Over time, our feelings changed, from one of empathy and understanding, it metamorphosed into something intimate. Our raging hormones which just spurred from nowhere eventually pushed us to cross the boundaries set by society. Suddenly, there was no barrier, no shame. The boundary guarded and protected all this while was now breached.
Why is it that I feel so guilty? I have not done anything wrong or have I? Something so good cannot be so wrong! Now there are telling me that all my big wonderful mountain high dreams have to take a back burner. The fence of decency had been breached and the law of nature must be respected. Our bond must be formally sanctioned by the forces that be. We cannot just go on happy without public declarations.
That was 3 years ago. Now with 1 infant screaming day and night and another quickening in my body, my dreams seem like a distant planet - visible but unreachable.
As if they had an audience with the Forces of Nature, they restricted my reproductive function. Contraception is 4-lettered word in my in-law's family. I thought I was in a hell hole but now I am in a dragon's den, from frying pen to fire.
Why do they keep bringing me down? They put the fear of God and unheard cryptic scriptures to cow me into submission.
If religion was made to transform human from being a savage to a sage, why is it that there are savagely exerting their authority over me?
In front of eyes my sandcastles came crumbling down.... Just sandcastles in the air that popped like a bubble.

Don't tell me about social justice!

Bandit Queen (Hindi, 1994)

In a world where day to day survival is a Herculean task and is a blessing, the last thing on any one's mind is equality and social justice for all.
This 1994 film about a decoit in the wastelands of Uttar Pradesh. A 11 year old, considered unattractive, dark and from the lower caste of society is married off to a 30-something year old who thinks that he is doing the family by relieving the girl's family of a burden whilst the girl's family thinks that he is God-sent!

Situation is her new found home is not bed of roses. Refusing to conform the norms of the family and community, Phoolan, by nature a fire brand rebel, retaliates with the filthiest of words she is familiar with.  Punishment comes in the form of physical and sexual abuse. That precipitates the series of runaways which eventually earns the honour of being the deathliest leader of a fearless and feared gang in the badlands of the state. Suddenly, she becomes the champion of the oppressed class and the spokesperson who negotiates with the state Governor for the welfare of the oppressed class.
This film depicts the struggles of a village girl what more if she is from the low caste.
All the equality and social justice is only when my stomach is full and you do not have to worry about your next meal. No girl can walk alone in this place demanding gender equality and get away with it. It is the rule of might, survival of the fittest and law of jungle at full throttle here!
This Sekhar Kapoor directed biography boasts of many accolades and Nafrat Fateh Ali Khan's heart stirring music. The debutant, Seema Biswas, gave a sterling performance of this outlaw who was later voting laws in the Lok Sabha. The beauty of democracy...
It is an atypical Indian movie with much of brute foul language and even prolonged frontal nudity. 

When Einstein Met Tagore

I do not pretend to fully understand the discourse that happened between these two pillars of human civilisation, one from the literary wing and the other from a man of science. Read and try to understand, if you can...

http://www.brainpickings.org/index.php/2012/04/27/when-einstein-met-tagore/by Maria Popova

Collision and convergence in Truth and Beauty at the intersection of science and spirituality.

On July 14, 1930, Albert Einstein welcomed into his home on the outskirts of Berlin the Indian philosopher Rabindranath Tagore. The two proceeded to have one of the most stimulating, intellectually riveting conversations in history, exploring the age-old friction between science and religion. Science and the Indian Tradition: When Einstein Met Tagore recounts the historic encounter, amidst a broader discussion of the intellectual renaissance that swept India in the early twentieth century, germinating a curious osmosis of Indian traditions and secular Western scientific doctrine.

The following excerpt from one of Einstein and Tagore’s conversations dances between previously examined definitions of science, beauty, consciousness, and philosophy in a masterful meditation on the most fundamental questions of human existence.

EINSTEIN: Do you believe in the Divine as isolated from the world?

TAGORE: Not isolated. The infinite personality of Man comprehends the Universe. There cannot be anything that cannot be subsumed by the human personality, and this proves that the Truth of the Universe is human Truth.

I have taken a scientific fact to explain this — Matter is composed of protons and electrons, with gaps between them; but matter may seem to be solid. Similarly humanity is composed of individuals, yet they have their interconnection of human relationship, which gives living unity to man’s world. The entire universe is linked up with us in a similar manner, it is a human universe. I have pursued this thought through art, literature and the religious consciousness of man.

EINSTEIN: There are two different conceptions about the nature of the universe: (1) The world as a unity dependent on humanity. (2) The world as a reality independent of the human factor.

TAGORE: When our universe is in harmony with Man, the eternal, we know it as Truth, we feel it as beauty.

EINSTEIN: This is the purely human conception of the universe.

TAGORE: There can be no other conception. This world is a human world — the scientific view of it is also that of the scientific man. There is some standard of reason and enjoyment which gives it Truth, the standard of the Eternal Man whose experiences are through our experiences.

EINSTEIN: This is a realization of the human entity.

TAGORE: Yes, one eternal entity. We have to realize it through our emotions and activities. We realized the Supreme Man who has no individual limitations through our limitations. Science is concerned with that which is not confined to individuals; it is the impersonal human world of Truths. Religion realizes these Truths and links them up with our deeper needs; our individual consciousness of Truth gains universal significance. Religion applies values to Truth, and we know this Truth as good through our own harmony with it.

EINSTEIN: Truth, then, or Beauty is not independent of Man?

TAGORE: No.

EINSTEIN: If there would be no human beings any more, the Apollo of Belvedere would no longer be beautiful.

TAGORE: No.

EINSTEIN: I agree with regard to this conception of Beauty, but not with regard to Truth.

TAGORE: Why not? Truth is realized through man.

EINSTEIN: I cannot prove that my conception is right, but that is my religion.

TAGORE: Beauty is in the ideal of perfect harmony which is in the Universal Being; Truth the perfect comprehension of the Universal Mind. We individuals approach it through our own mistakes and blunders, through our accumulated experiences, through our illumined consciousness — how, otherwise, can we know Truth?

EINSTEIN: I cannot prove scientifically that Truth must be conceived as a Truth that is valid independent of humanity; but I believe it firmly. I believe, for instance, that the Pythagorean theorem in geometry states something that is approximately true, independent of the existence of man. Anyway, if there is a reality independent of man, there is also a Truth relative to this reality; and in the same way the negation of the first engenders a negation of the existence of the latter.

TAGORE: Truth, which is one with the Universal Being, must essentially be human, otherwise whatever we individuals realize as true can never be called truth – at least the Truth which is described as scientific and which only can be reached through the process of logic, in other words, by an organ of thoughts which is human. According to Indian Philosophy there is Brahman, the absolute Truth, which cannot be conceived by the isolation of the individual mind or described by words but can only be realized by completely merging the individual in its infinity. But such a Truth cannot belong to Science. The nature of Truth which we are discussing is an appearance – that is to say, what appears to be true to the human mind and therefore is human, and may be called maya or illusion.

EINSTEIN: So according to your conception, which may be the Indian conception, it is not the illusion of the individual, but of humanity as a whole.

TAGORE: The species also belongs to a unity, to humanity. Therefore the entire human mind realizes Truth; the Indian or the European mind meet in a common realization.

EINSTEIN: The word species is used in German for all human beings, as a matter of fact, even the apes and the frogs would belong to it.

TAGORE: In science we go through the discipline of eliminating the personal limitations of our individual minds and thus reach that comprehension of Truth which is in the mind of the Universal Man.

EINSTEIN: The problem begins whether Truth is independent of our consciousness.

TAGORE: What we call truth lies in the rational harmony between the subjective and objective aspects of reality, both of which belong to the super-personal man.

EINSTEIN: Even in our everyday life we feel compelled to ascribe a reality independent of man to the objects we use. We do this to connect the experiences of our senses in a reasonable way. For instance, if nobody is in this house, yet that table remains where it is.

TAGORE: Yes, it remains outside the individual mind, but not the universal mind. The table which I perceive is perceptible by the same kind of consciousness which I possess.

EINSTEIN: If nobody would be in the house the table would exist all the same — but this is already illegitimate from your point of view — because we cannot explain what it means that the table is there, independently of us.

Our natural point of view in regard to the existence of truth apart from humanity cannot be explained or proved, but it is a belief which nobody can lack — no primitive beings even. We attribute to Truth a super-human objectivity; it is indispensable for us, this reality which is independent of our existence and our experience and our mind — though we cannot say what it means.

TAGORE: Science has proved that the table as a solid object is an appearance and therefore that which the human mind perceives as a table would not exist if that mind were naught. At the same time it must be admitted that the fact, that the ultimate physical reality is nothing but a multitude of separate revolving centres of electric force, also belongs to the human mind.

In the apprehension of Truth there is an eternal conflict between the universal human mind and the same mind confined in the individual. The perpetual process of reconciliation is being carried on in our science, philosophy, in our ethics. In any case, if there be any Truth absolutely unrelated to humanity then for us it is absolutely non-existing.

It is not difficult to imagine a mind to which the sequence of things happens not in space but only in time like the sequence of notes in music. For such a mind such conception of reality is akin to the musical reality in which Pythagorean geometry can have no meaning. There is the reality of paper, infinitely different from the reality of literature. For the kind of mind possessed by the moth which eats that paper literature is absolutely non-existent, yet for Man’s mind literature has a greater value of Truth than the paper itself. In a similar manner if there be some Truth which has no sensuous or rational relation to the human mind, it will ever remain as nothing so long as we remain human beings.

EINSTEIN: Then I am more religious than you are!

TAGORE: My religion is in the reconciliation of the Super-personal Man, the universal human spirit, in my own individual being.