Ancaman Orang Tua

Terdapat suatu ancaman yang lebih merbahaya dari segala klise yang kian dikatakan menimpa remaja dan anak-anak muda hari ini seperti pergaulan bebas, meminum arak, mengambil dadah dan penebusan lubang belakang ketua pelajar sebuah universiti tempatan. (Ingat Anwar?) Ancaman ini adalah orang tua.

Tidak, bukan bermaksud orang tua kamu yang mendidik dan menjaga kamu dari kecil tetapi orang tua yang gah menunjukkan bahawa dia sajalah yang betul dan anak-anak muda ini haruslah mendengar arahannya sahaja. Orang tua dengan kuasa dan ‘authority’. Ya, sudah tentu kamu pernah mendengar atau bertemu dengan mereka. Mereka menyorok di bawah nama menteri, pegawai, ahli akademik ataupun ahli agama. Mereka inilah yang selalu mengharamkan segala yang di bawah langit ciptaan tuhan ini sebagai cara untuk ‘memperbaiki’ anak-anak muda zaman sekarang yang semakin terikut-ikut dengan ‘budaya kuning barat’. Barat mana yang mereka merujuk kepada saya tidak tahu. Barangkali juga barat seperti Venezuela yang kuat menentang kuasa imperialis Amerika. Semuanya dilabelkan salah sekaligus.

Modul-modul ceramah dari segala program yang terdapat di Universiti Awam berbau fasis dan sentiasa mengambil perspektif yang begitu cetek untuk meracun minda-minda mahasiswa yang segar dan terbuka kepada kata-kata orang tua yang berpengaruh ini. Program Biro Tatanegara, Modul Kepimpinan Pelajar, dan aktiviti lain yang wajib dihadiri oleh pelajar-pelajar Universiti Awam tempatan adalah contoh-contoh terbaik pembunuhan idea secara terancang. Begitu juga program Khidmat Negara.

Bagi tahu saya, dalam berjuta-juta ringgit yang telah digunakan untuk melaksanakan program ini, adakah matlamat utamanya, iaitu mencapai perpaduan kaum dan menerapkan nilai patriotisme tercapai? Tanyalah mereka yang suka kepada program ini dan pernah menyertai program ini tentang mengapa mereka menyukainya, mereka hanya akan menjawab bahawa ianya menyeronokkan. Kalau mereka mahu keseronokkan, pergilah Zouk. Janganlah guna duit rakyat yang boleh dimanfaatkan dengan lebih baik. Oh silap, Zouk haram. Maafkan saya.

Tidakkah kamu penat memperlihatkan kematian hampir sepenuhnya minda-minda yang dapat mencabar idea-idea lama? Oscar Wilde pernah berkata, “Hanya melalui ketidaktaatan lah, kita boleh mara ke hadapan.” Lihat saja pelbagai peraturan ‘superficial’ di Universiti Awam seperti mewajibkan rambut pendek dan mewajibkan memakai baju kolar. Jarang pula mereka membuahkan graduan-graduan yang cerdik pandai sampai dapat mencetuskan idea baru untuk menyumbang pada dunia. Tapi naik Everest berapa ribu kali. Pelajar-pelajar di sini akan menghadapi ‘culture shock’ jika mereka pergi ke Universiti-universiti ternama di luar Negara yang kini menempatkan anak-anak menteri pendidikan kita kerana aktivismenya yang cukup kuat dan betapa ‘socially conscious’ institusi-institusi ini dengan menegakkan hak-hak mahasiswa dan prinsip demokrasi.

Ini semua adalah kesan-kesan yang ditinggalkan oleh polisi kerajaan seperti “Aku Janji” dan Akta Universiti dan Kolej yang mengambil kebanyakan hak anak-anak ini yang termaktub di dalam perlembagaan yang telah dipinda beratusan kali untuk membuang hak-hak lain yang sedia ada.

Anak-anak muda hari ini juga telah ditimpa ancaman daripada orang tua ‘moral police’ yang sentiasa mencari budak-budak jahat yang suka pegang tangan bukan muhrim dan menghukum mereka dengan segala hukuman ciptaan manusia cerdik pandai ini seperti kaunseling supaya budak tersebut pulang kepada jalan yang benar iaitu mengundi parti kerajaan di pilihanraya seterusnya.

Tetapi siapa yang memberi mandat kepada ahli-ahli agama ini untuk menangkap aku sewaktu aku tengah hangat bercumbu dengan gadis aku baru jumpa di Haji Taib? Adakah Tuhan yang memberikan mandat kepada mereka untuk mengintip aksi-aksi panas aku? Bukankah pengintipan itu diharamkan dalam Islam? Oh silap lagi, rupa-rupa nya yang aku cium itu bukan gadis sepenuhnya. Faham-fahamlah, Haji Taib. Manusia sering berbuat silap.

Voice for UiTM's Minority

The standard of public universities in Malaysia have been going down in recent time and many reasons have been given on why the standards are dropping yet some still refuse to acknowledge that this is the case and claim that it is perfect as it is and students should be thankful and stop complaining. But this piece is not about public universities in Malaysia as a whole but rather a certain one named UiTM. This university has been appearing a lot in the news lately especially concerning the proposal made by Tan Sri Khalid Ibrahim on opening the gates of the institution to 10% of non-bumiputra students and it has caused a great deal of furore.

About 5,000 students marched to protest against the proposal under Gabungan Pelajar Melayu Semenanjung (GPMS) and the UiTM Student Council with the direct backing of the Vice Chancellor. Posters were distributed all over the main campus to promote the protest with headlines such as, “Anda sayang UiTM?”, “ MRSM sudah, SBP sudah, Matrikulasi sudah, JPA sudah, UiTM seterusnya?”, “Ini bukan mengenai kesama rataan bangsa, ini mengenai hak”, “UiTM telah membantu kita, apa sumbangan kita kepada UiTM? Sedarlah wahai bangsaku”.

If one is able to read between the lines, we can see the wordplay here expressing that if a student is to not support this protest, they are one of the ignorant unenlightened ones who do not care for UiTM. Now as a student of the University, I feel disappointed that opinions that differ from the norm are usually labelled as traitors. I have always felt that most of these things are usually politically motivated. I cannot fight the feeling that a NGO such as the GPMS which is headed by someone working right under the Prime Minister, is not exactly a non-partisan group. For this is also one of the organizations that went for the protest at the recent Bar Council forum and went a little, overboard.

The UiTM Student Council which unanimously supported this protest must not be looked upon as the voice of UiTM for they only speak for themselves when they come out with protests such as these and label those who do not support it as traitors to the race. How many students from the institution have spoken out supporting the idea of liberalizing the university? Almost none. But how many students who agreed with the proposal by Tan Sri Khalid Ibrahim in silence? A number in the minority, albeit a very significant one. And the sad thing is, there is little avenue for any of them to express themselves in the University or externally. With the little avenue available, those that attempt to express themselves are usually met with threats and childish arguments.

One particular UiTM student was asked to wear black coloured clothing by a senior when he refused to as the colour black on that day meant supporting the protest and he did not support it. The senior could only respond in ways such as asking him whether he was a jew or a homosexual. And this brilliant friend of mine then just answered, “No, I’m a muslim and remember when the Prophet Muhammad SAW ruled Medinah? He had all kinds of races that were hostile towards each other to live peacefully under the open sky. Why would you be afraid of opening this institution to others if you claim to take the prophet as your example?” And the senior who was lost for words just left and slammed the door on him. Although stories like these do not happen everyday in UiTM as many students who share similar views to my friend here are usually fearful of the consequences of speaking openly.

Any sign of disobedience towards policies or so-called UiTM values and ideals are usually not tolerated. Even in class, when certain students question the lecturers, they are usually viewed as “tak sedar diri”. Questioning has never been the culture in Malaysia’s education system but is never really encouraged in the Universities either, where it is supposed to give birth to new ideas and paradigms of thinking. How can we do this when our students keep still and silent? Oscar Wilde once said, “It is through disobedience that progress is made”, and it is no wonder why there has been little groundbreaking research or achievements that could make a difference in society. I remember that in a certain lecture relating to Islamic Law, a student questioned the validity of a certain hadith (Prophet’s sayings) the lecturer mentioned and she was booed by the whole class and the lecturer just said, “Balik baca buku dulu baru cakap!” when in fact I thought that she was the one who read more than the lecturer did. Among the other things that were aimed at her were , “Ni bukan Islam ni! Rejam dia je!” and “Yahudi!” And of course, later on, she was ostracized by many.

Many have blamed the draconian University and Colleges Act for restricting views and practically killed freedom of thought and speech but I argue that it goes beyond that, it has to do with the mindset. You do not need to threaten someone with harm to control a person, you just need his or her mind to be one of yours. And this is exactly what certain parties are trying to do through certain programmes such as the now infamous Biro Tatanegara which tries to inculcate fear into the Bumiputra students that they are under serious threat and then turns that fear into hate. Classes that were in the midst of being held were recently stopped and the students of a certain batch were told to join a GPMS talk on how the Malays are being threatened by Dato Seri Khalid Ibrahim.

It is easy for an institution as UiTM to change these naïve minds which are still open to reception of new ideas, to minds that are closed especially when the “others” such as the non-bumiputra’s are nowhere to be seen around campus. As many still do not have close friends other than the Malays, they fear what they do not know and begin to stereotype and hate. And those who know there is something wrong with all of this but dare not speak out or do anything about it usually end up conforming with the rest for regrettably, it is easier to live that way. But then again, this does not apply to all the students in UiTM although it is enough to be deeply worried about.

All this has also created a backlash which I am very concerned about. I have read and heard that many employers of corporations, companies and firms are planning to boycott UiTM graduates and many of them quickly label the students as all being idiotic ethno-supremacists. I truly believe that this will only worsen the situation. How could it be fair that you reject the applications of thousands of students on the basis that they come from a certain University? Many brilliant students have also joined UiTM and been deceived to think that it is a brilliant institution of higher learning and some have no other choice due to financial constraints. Many of them do not subscribe to racist principles. It is also sad to see that many Malaysians have begun to neglect the UiTM issue by not giving any thought to it as they believe only incompetent graduates are churned out and they themselves would not care that if it is open or not as they would not send their own children there. This should not be the case at all. A victory for justice is a victory for all and it is our responsibility as the rakyat to bring about change, not the politicians. As to the issue of no non-Malays would want to enter the institution anyway, that is false. I have an Indian friend living with a single mother and who is a bit unlucky in the financial side. He tried to apply for UiTM to achieve his dream to do law once, although he was innocently ignorant of the institution’s policies on race. I did not have the heart to tell him that he could not do so. This is only one story from many others that could not afford the cost of the various private institutions available. As they say, the poor is a part of all races and exclusive to none.

Though I believe there is still hope. The light comes soon after the darkest part of the night. In an incident in a Constitutional Law lecture, a student went up to class defending the recent student protest as on the principle of defending natives’ rights with, in her own words, “First come, first serve”. Ironic that a business principle has been adopted to an issue affecting all of Malaysia, I thought to myself. I then proceeded to ask her why then are there cases of stripping the rights of land from the Orang Asli, which are the real natives, to give way to capitalist ventures and these natives are then only compensated with how much their houses were worth, which probably costs less than my pair of shoes? Is it not a practice of double standards when you talk about “First come, first serve”? Are we really protecting the natives’ rights or Malays in particular? She then proceeded to open the Federal Constitution to find an answer but predictably, it was in vain. She ended her presentation right there with a dumbfounded look. But what happened soon after was even more interesting. Students from the class started to flock and ask me questions, wanting to know more about the issue. With interested faces all around, I could only smile.

Maybe rational arguments, debate, and different ideas and thoughts could give birth to a student culture that hungers for knowledge rather than merely passing the exams. Maybe student activism could breathe again as it did a while ago. Maybe liberalizing the University would be in the best interest for all and it could be a step towards turning things around. Maybe dissent could be encouraged. Maybe people could throw hate away and begin to understand. Maybe everything happens for a reason. Maybe another Malaysia is breathing silently, waiting for the right time to awaken.

A Worried Student

Protest!

If you want to do something else to help return the power to the people, do sign the petition for restoring the integrity of the judiciary here.

It is to be submitted to the Yang di-Pertuan Agong. Please spread the word.


Takkan Rakyat berserah dengan mudah.

Change We Can Believe In?

American politics is one foreign issue that the whole world loves focusing on for it influences the whole world as the government of the land of the free is of course, the self-elected head of police in the world today. Their foreign policies decides in many cases, the future of many unfortunate people.

Recently, the US presidential candidate Barack Obama explicitly stated support for Israel in many ways in a speech on foreign policy recently. Now, before i go on to explain a bit about what he said, i must point out that he is or rather, was, viewed by many as a bringer of hope to a new world whereby he would be less like Bush and more like, umm, nicer. Simply speaking, bring about true justice and change to the world today, fighting for voices previously unheard of in that part of the world and being a man of the people. But sadly, must all good things come to an end?

Among the things he said was pledging to continue the 30 Billion Dollar aid over the next ten years to the Zionist state and others stated here with an opinion by a prominent professor of law, here.

Now, to be fair,he did state that he wanted the palestinian people to have more freedom of movement and stop illegal settlements on what is "palestinian lands" but it seemed like the bulk of what he said favoured the oppressive state to continue to prosper. An illegal state with little regard for human rights, justice, and humanity but only to achieve their own selfish goals that isn't sustainable without oppressing so many innocent people. The oppression i am talking about here isn't only restrictions on freedom of speech, movement and such but to a very literal extent, unjustified killings.

Many have argued that this is his way to climb the ladder, by lobbying the greatly influential Jewish support in America to achieve his end goal of becoming President of quite possibly, the world and finally being able to do some good. They argue that it is a case whereby "the ends justify the means". This has always been my problem with politics. A place where deceit, lies, and manipulation are abundant. I question whether it is really necessary to achieve and do good by doing all those i mentioned. Is it really necessary to throw your principles out the window to achieve that power you long for? To so call bring about change? Good change? Now this argument would only be valid if he is trying to achieve something by saying something else but what would happen then if what he said was really expressing something true? Whereby his support for Israel is strong and justice would never be served.

I believe leaders should stand for what they believe in no matter what position they are put in. Die on your feet, not on your knees as they say. Clearly, most politicians are not leaders anyway. True leaders are usually found on the streets and behind the curtains, working their ass off to fight for what they believe in. But of course, the possession of power makes it much easier to change things. Either way.

In an article with an outspoken academic which you can view here
He explained that , "people who strive to hold the post of the strongest person in the world are not interested in moral issues, or are really moved by suffering and oppression. Obama is no different, and the morality of the issue or the suffering of the Palestinians would not move him. He would move in a different direction if he and his advisors would feel that showing less support for Israel enhances their political power."

It is scary to think that if he is easily influenced by his advisors to achieve his goal which arguably isn't quite noble in itself, what else would he do in the future to achieve other goals? Important questions to ponder on. I realise many of you would hit out against me for my seemingly explicit pessimism in politics, but with actions like these, it is hard not to be. Besides, being wary of power is better than being complacent with it.

It would be easy to say "Hey man, come on, he's gotta do what he's gotta do to bring about real change." But try telling that to a Palestinian who has lost most of her family members through murder by "wrongly targeted" Israeli/American missiles that rained down upon her home or a Palestinian mother who had to witness her 8 year old child resting in a coffin made for a full grown adult, with the child barely filling even half of the space of the coffin. How much life more could he have lived even if he survived. These people put their hopes up high when Barack Obama came to the scene and now, heartbreak no broken lovers could even taste.

But i would still give him a chance. Prove yourself, sir.

"Change We Can Believe In"?
It seems that 'we' is pretty subjective.


The strive for power breeds bullshit.

In the Name of Art

*Picture credits to Kakiseni

I am outnumbered yet again on another issue i feel strongly about. Look at the picture above. It is an artpiece showcased in this week's Central Market Annexe gallery which has a cone skittle, hung upside-down from the ceiling by a rope which would literally spray the grains of rice over the mat on the floor as visitors are invited to push the cone around in a circle after they fill it with rice.

I know what most of you are thinking to yourselves, "Apo dio yang nak disampaikan?!"

Unless of course, you were caught witnessing the piece in the gallery, in which case you would probably deeply stare at it with concentrated eyebrows and nodding your head slightly soon after to show others in the gallery that you DO understand what the artwork is about although you don't know what the fuck is going on.

The piece is called "Sungai Wang Forces" by Daniel Chong. Zedeck Siew of Kakiseni explained the piece as "an elegant response to the push-pull of consumption that governs our lives, these days. The rising price of rice (by extrapolation, the global food crisis and general resource scarcity) is coupled with a symbol of perpetual roadwork (extravagant mega-projects or ill-conceived schemes that return little actual value); gravity seems to stand in for the irresistibility of market forces." yadda yadda yadda. But before i start my usual criticism, kudos to the artist for the interesting idea and message behind the piece and to Zedeck Siew for being able to explain it in such a way that 9 out of 10 of my friends who have gone through the Malaysia education system would just go, "wattafuck?" And no,my friends aren't stupid.

There was an illegal writing on the wall right behind the piece that stated "BERAS UNTUK BURMA." in bold by pencil yet i do not know who wrote that. But if you really want to know, message me ;)

And this 3 words caused an argument, lets not argue about the legality of it though for it is clearly illegal and the morality behind it. Lets instead talk about what it brought to the piece and how minds were stimulated after reading it.

One person said the rice could be used after the exhibition for good use and another said that the piece would be easier seen with the rice present and he argues that if we put it that way, any amount of money and energy spent on the piece could have been translated for 'BERAS UNTUK BURMA' no?

Not necessarily, i personally think it is a waste of rice, two bags of it for that matter and how much does that cost nowadays eh? It can feed families man, families with an 's'! Firstly, how could the rice be used for food after the exhibition is done if everyone keeps stepping on the rice. That is simply disrespectful. With the occurrences of tragedies like the recent disasters in China and Myanmar, certainly even more respect should be called for food especially when every grain of rice would be of help to the victims of these disasters. And i haven't even gone on about the world food crisis such as mentioned above. It can be argued that a big part of art is symbolism and if the piece could be interpreted as something to do with value, then i believe it is also slightly hypocritical for the artist to talk about it yet waste food.

And the argument of rice can be seen better? Hell, pebbles or even fake rice could do the same thing and an explanation could be given on why real rice is not used. Maybe that would send a stronger message to the public. On the argument that the money and energy of the whole exhibition could be translated for aid instead, i say no, there is nothing wrong with all this, i just personally believe that the rice should not be used, especially today while millions are suffering around the world without access to food. It is greatly symbolic.

Where do you draw the line for ethics and morality in art? Or perhaps none at all?

I may sound like a conservative, narrow-minded fuck but i believe that part of art is protest. And if you believe in the power of art, then i am only contributing to it.

The piece may not receive any criticism at all while it is in a modern complex, surrounded by cool air from the air-conditioners and visited by mainly middle to upper class citizens getting their weekly fix but imagine if this piece was put right in the heart of areas or even close to areas stricken by famine and poverty. Witness those hungry eyes looking at the piece, wondering when they would free the piece so that the public may salvage whatever is left on it.

In another perspective, the writing "BERAS UNTUK BURMA" could actually enhance the viewer's experience of the piece by provoking important questions and in a way, complement the piece nicely. No personal loss, i believe.

What's next, chappatis being tossed around the gallery?

I'll have my 9 out of 10 friends queuing for that one with dhals in their right pocket and curries in their left.

The Karl Rafiq Club

How bloody stupid does that sound eh?

Well in case some of you didn't know, a special someone out there now has a club named the "Anwar Ibrahim Club".

This has been going on a while actually but i shall attempt to point out the certain, irony, or joke if you will, in this specific name for the club.

Obviously this is the club where you fill in your details where you freely give out your private details and go on to get updates from your favourite pop-star! Yes, it's Mr.Anwarrrrrrrrr! And you can get all kinds of merchandise like key-chains and stickers with his face on it! Wow!

Now some of you might go all Shakespeare on me and quote ,"What's in a name?" But you know what i say to that? To hell with English playwrights, this is Malaysian politics!! (Before you die-hard shakespeare fans bang me,please do not forget that i am also a great fan of his, i hafal sonnet 18.)

Questions that need to be answered are,firstly, are you promoting the man or his ideas? If they are trying to promote his ideas, it is a bit of a turn-off that you would put his name first before his universally-themed ideas such as reform,equality,justice and such and this will automatically make people like me whom do not support specific people in power blindly but rather uphold certain principles and beliefs to just laugh at the idea of an Anwar Ibrahim Club. It is neither a good marketing idea to directly find support for certain ideals nor is it good for showing non-partisan standing as the club claims to be. But how can the club be non-partisan when the very name of the club is after the de-facto leader of Party Keadilan Rakyat?

And what if the ideas always change from time to time? What if they were not constant ideas? How would it affect the club's image? Maybe now you're talking equality, and the next, it might be ketuanan melayu or god knows, ketuanan penyu or something! Let us not forget that the man behind the name of this club is known to "change-with-the-times". He was once the one who changed Bahasa Malaysia to Bahasa Melayu and he supported different groups and turned his back against them at different times when it seemed appropriate.

Think about it.

Secondly,if they are trying to promote the man that it is named after,don't you find it a tad bit pretentious? I mean, he is a living,breathing person! Not someone who was shot dead because he fought for a cause! Imagine this scenario, Mahatma Gandhi creating a club with his name in it while he was still alive to promote 'Satyagraha' and selling drinking mugs with his face on the side and his thumbs up high in the air.

Ridiculous isn't it?

It also goes against principles of humility of leaders that fight for the people, boasting your name and face at every street corner.But then again, it might be a very good scheme to suck victims of consumerism dry. I can picture Che Guevara being alive again and asking Fidel with puppy dog eyes, "Can i havee a clubb too like thatt dude fromm Malaysiaa puhhleaseee??"

Don't get me wrong people,it is not that i hate or despise Anwar Ibrahim but this is just a little bit of criticism to add to many others about him which i personally think are mainly cheap shots and mindless talk. But i would criticise anything i do not see fit. Maybe all i do is just talk, but words are also an instrument of change..Not just Anwar Ibrahim's two ringgit keychains.

Time to promote ideas my fellow comrades, and not just the people who bring them. Anwar Ibrahim : Opportunist, Populist, Politician Yang Sudah Bertaubat or Saviour of the People?

Some of the greatest reformations in the world have ended up becoming tyrannies.

As my cute anarchist friend Shad would say, "Never trust those in power."

I hear you.

And that's why i'm gonna buy an Anwar T-Shirt so i can bring him around with a picture of his face resting on my left tit to keep an eye on him no matter where i go.

Homie, laws don't do nuthin'!

That's a practical interpretation of Zaid Ibrahim's claim in a "sentul-harlem" slang. Read up here.

But basically what he said was the media fraternity should stop blaming repressive laws and be committed to their profession in reporting objectively and factually. A noble end in an ignorant comment. A fallacy if i ever saw one.

This was the man who was looked highly upon some people as being the new de-facto law minister which really, does not even exist, when he first took post after the elections. Even Marina Mahathir said that he was a good choice for the post. I wonder what she thinks of him now after his recent spat over the judicial crisis apology with her dear old father.

Zaid was the dude who asked for an apology from the current government for the 1988 Judicial Crisis although he himself supported the decision back then, he was the dude whom Tun Mahathir was referring to in his letter about being more "correct than correct", he was the dude allegedly to have been involved in money politics in UMNO although respected as a member of the party that could come out with criticism (as most party members just come out with more haram cash), the dude was also asked for an apology by an UM Law Professor (ever careful not to be left out by all the apologies) for defending the Land Acquisition Act whereby the government may acquire any land without judicial review for any purpose and he was also the dude who was named in Forbes Magazine "48 Heroes of Philanthropy" for helping the disabled!

In fact, we shouldn't call him dude, he should be called Hero.

And now he's adding more to his fantastic list by telling the media fraternity that the law simply does not matter in the quest to achieve total press freedom.

Does that mean the Official Secrets Act and the Printing Presses and Publications Act which really keeps a tight grip on the media and censorship does not, at all, obstruct truth?

As a law minister that does not even exist, Zaid should really understand that laws play a very big part in society by influencing decisions and shaping society. It is ignorant to say that blaming the laws are no use for most people feel intimidated by the very presence of these restrictive laws and by being truthful, we may even see those working in the media losing jobs, or better still, going for a long holiday in Kamunting.

I agree that journalists and such should be responsible members of civil society and they should do their best to report the truth without fear or favour but the current situation simply does not allow it.

The government should start taking an active stand in allowing true press freedom to flourish. Press freedom is good for many things, it is good for the people to know the truth, for the government to respond to criticism and better administration of the country. We can bring the bad politicians down and make the good ones popular superheroes just like Zaid Ibrahim.

Zaid Ibrahim also went on to say that "We know that information is readily available because of the internet, and you cannot hide anything but the public does need to be protected from malicious information. So how do we ensure the "right" information to ensure a stable society and good governance?"

Firstly, how do we define "right information"? And secondly, even if there is wrong information in the press, wouldn't the government easily rebut the information by responding? One thing that they and women towards me haven't done a lot.

Politics is a cruel and harsh world. One day you are loved, and on another, you are loathed. But that's life and before Zaid would ask me for an apology for this article, with all humility i apologise.


But in the spirit of a teenage-drama-queen, i then say, "Not!"