Low cost carrier terminal

At last, I've experienced the terminal. The building itself reflects the low cost emphasis. Someone said it reminded her of the hypermarkets. Very true.
The lines going through the baggage security checks were haphazard. It is still early days for the terminal but some sort of order is necessary so that there will be smooth operations from point A to B. A much more efficient system has to be implemented. A better system would enable passengers to experience a less hassle free journey.
The walk to the airplane was another first after the old airport at Subang. Passengers had to follow designated paths to their respective carriers. The lines look like disciplined ducks walking back to their nests. The rain that day did not help to improve the efficiency. The flight was delayed due to some technical problem. I hope this aspect of the delays will be just a memory once the new planes start replacing the old ones.
Anyway, this would not be my last experience here since despite everything, I will still be using a low cost carrier as one of the means to travel far and wide.

Hang the noose - Abolish the death penalty?

This is the heading in NST 21 March 2006.

Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz said: "For me, a life is a life. No one has the right to take someone else’s life, even if that person has taken another life."

This seems to be a very noble idea but I wonder whether the feeling is the same if the victim is one of our loved ones. A death sentence will never bring back our loved one but it is one way to compensate for the loss. The penalty is just like a compensation for the victim's family - an eye for an eye. It has always been said that it would be better for the family to forgive the guilty party as another death serves no purpose.
Easier said than done and the harder to adhere if the perpetrator committed the crime mercilessly.

Don’t interfere in Islam, non-Muslims warned

Let us just change some of the sentences in the article which appeared in today's thestar

“”Muslims should not interfere in the religious affairs of non -Muslims, as this will make the non- Muslims uneasy.

Expressing his concern about some recent articles written by Muslims, he said the tolerance level among non-Muslims was high

“But you must remember the word amok comes from this country and there is a limit to everything,” he said, telling Muslims not to make comments or write articles on non-Islam that could be construed as belittling the religion.

“I want to remind Muslims to refrain from making statements on something they do not understand,”….

“We do not want to take away your rights but religion is an important matter, especially to the non-Muslims,” he said. On whether Muslim journalists should not write about issues concerning non-Islam, Nazri said they should know what they could or could not write.

“However, there are some things which should not be touched on,” he said.””

Each sentence seems reasonable on its own. The Muslim/Non-muslim, Islam/non-Islam phrases could be interchanged with the same effect on the target group.

What irks me is the statement's tone. It seems more like an edict carved in stone without any recourse for redress.

Has the speaker ever been in the ‘others’ shoes. I guess not. Born into a privileged group, I doubt thoughts of others’ feeling come into his mind. Tolerance??? Understanding???

How do you expect others to emphatise with Muslims if one of their leaders rides roughshod over others. This has been going on for umpteen years and I have not seen any change in the current administration.

Please buck up and face reality. Do unto others what you would like to do unto yourself. If you were in 'their' shoes...

Cabinet approval for public transport fund

That is the big news on the front page of the New Straits Times. Finally, the public transport sector is getting the attention it deserves which has been overdue for a long time. I wonder whether this attention came about only because of the recent big oil price increase. Previously, any master plan for the country pays scant regard to the needs of the public who need an efficient reasonably priced transportation system. The emphasis for the past twenty years was on building the highways. There was low priority for other means of transportation, for example a mass rapid transportation system for the urban areas or a similar system linking the major towns.

I suspect this emphasis to cater to the needs of the car driving public has something to do with the national car industry. It is an egg and chicken situation. The nation wants to leap frog into the developed group of nations by shifting to a more industrialized based economy from the previously rural based economy. The nation’s leader put up a plan to galvanise all resources into the national car industry. The national car industry became a cause celebre which has to be a success by whatever means.

I have not seen anything to be proud of after so many years. The much hyped technology transfer has not materialized and the quality or standards seem stuck at least a few years behind the competitors. Why was our limited resources channeled to the car project instead of a better public transportation system that can benefit all walks of society.

The present administration has to undo quite a lot of things that has been the norm for the past generation. Good luck.