I haven’t enjoyed a movie in a very long time. I’ve seen a few, mind, but none of them delivered on the promise of early reviews or trailers. Indeed a good number of them, such as I Am Legend, weren’t even promising to begin with. Yet strangely, I approached Sweeney Todd with no apprehensions, nor did I once doubt its potential prowess. In fact, I was actually looking forward to this movie. Movies I have such a feeling about are not so much few and far between as they are people in an Alabama KFC with a viable body cholesterol index: they do happen, but extremely rarely, and once one happens one it’s usually epochs before you see one again. Ocean’s Thirteen was the last, before that I can’t recall looking forward to a movie with expectation, and incredibly, though not altogether unexpectedly, Sweeney Todd delivered.

Knowing that literally tonnes of armchair movie critics [which isn’t very many frankly, given the usual bulk of the average movie critic, combined with their higher-than-average density] would probably have eagerly smashed their meaty digits over their keyboards deifying the Tim Burton-Johnny Depp partnership and demanding bronze statues of the two fellating each other be wrought as a consecration of their eminent symbiosis, I won’t bother going into that. Indeed I won’t even agree the Burton-Depp partnership was a major factor in this movie’s success; it’s not like every movie they made together was a good one [see Bride, Corpse and Factory, Charlie and the] and besides, script-wise it couldn’t get much better than a pre-prepared Stephen Sondheim musical. Genius served on a platter as far as the ‘story-writers’ were concerned for this particular flick. In fact the movie was a success for me due to nothing more than two factors: one, Johnny Depp and Helena Bonham Carter turned in a brilliant shift, and two, Tim Burton was the luckiest director in Hollywood storyline-wise.

What can I say? Johnny Depp and Helena Bonham Carter, spring chicken vestal virgins as far as musical performing goes, somehow pulled it off. There is no doubt the two are talented actors, though the melodramatic Depp’s flame has flickered significantly in more extravagant roles, this one was an ideal story to showcase his undoubted talent in looking bland. The lad pulls a great deadpan, so much so that one scene in particular, the montage of Todd and Mrs Lovett planning their future together [well it really was just Mrs Lovett planning both their lives together, but let’s not be unnecessarily semantical, I’m actually writing a positive movie review], became an almost apologetic parody of Depp’s prowess at facially evoking character despondence.

Less well-predicted was the leads’ ability to flourish in musical-movie roles, one which is sufficiently challenging as to be considered unfeasible by the largesse of the mainstream actors and hence the directors. Do not be fooled by the recent proliferation of musical movies, not since Julie Andrews and Audrey Hepburn could anyone claim to have adequately reproduced specialist musical acting in a full-scale movie setting. Depp and Bonham Carter stepped into the breech and came through unscathed, as their prowess in conveying the melodramatic carried into a radical new acting style. I’m in no position to be assured the vocals and sound editing team didn’t have a field day going through the singing parts, so whether it was natural talent or heavily glossed-over editing that comprised the major glory of the final product remains to be judged by the more discerning, it however left a decent positive impression upon this movie-goer.
Taken in its entirety the movie was a trademark Tim Burton; melodrama and whimsy ran parallel to one another all the way through, creating the prevalent mood. Most of the signature Burton film nuances were present: the ghostly pallor of the characters’ faces, the surrealistic scenery, backed up by splendidly atonal and abstract music, the vibrantly computer-generated graphics which somehow seem out of place, yet distinctly complement the otherwise oddly contrasting overriding melancholy of the whole film. You get the feeling something prevailingly sinister is pervading the entire context of the movie, even though the attempted imagery is unabashedly cheerful. The wry moments of comedy expertly inserted at well-spaced intervals are another key feature of a Tim Burton flick such as this one. All movies will somehow attempt this, yet none seem to achieve the same complementary effect as the humour moments in Sweeney Todd, or perhaps they’re just unlucky they don’t have the mastery of Johnny Depp to carry it through. All in all this was aces as a movie, the perfect way to begin a year, leaving the prevailing cynic in me pretty much assuming it could only go downhill from here in 2008. Highly recommended. A+ [and an extra couple of stars on top]

Mankind is a species which has doomed itself because of its own intelligence, yet there are myriad people, in fact the largesse of the population, which fail, or are unwilling, to accept or believe this. Why I bring this up is because of a rather intense discussion between myself and my mother recently. Without going into too much detail, she basically criticised my apparent ‘cynical and fatalistic’ outlook upon life. Anyone who has read my posts will probably reckon with this. My Mom, a Buddhist so staunch Virgin Mary statues weep on instinct when she passes them, is still beholden to the human spirit, i.e she has faith that humans have something profound which elevates them above all other species, giving them control over their lives and ultimately the fate of the entire populace, evidenced by the fact that we have created for ourselves concepts such as religion, technology and wisdom: stuff we perceive makes us superior to all.

It apparently pains my Mom whenever I scoff at notions of the human spirit. To her, it is what brings about the tenacity to pull through times of great trouble, and basically what gives us ‘strength of mind’. This belief in our incomprehensible power is the mainstay of most of the eastern religions, and the overriding idea behind humanity’s drive to become absolutely superior beings. It’s the basis behind the ‘feel-good factor’ one gets from watching plucky-underdog-triumphs-against-incredible-odds movies. What I take issue with however is, why are we so arrogant as to believe we are the only ones capable of perpetuating a ‘spirit beyond our spirit’?

Why do we have the temerity to think that we are so superior? I’ll tell you why, because quite simply, man can make hummus. It’s as simple as that. Man can make hummus. Fuck, man can make pretty bloody well everything, and that’s the point. Humans have a superior comprehension intelligence brought about by the superior size of their brains, okay, fair enough. We have for thousands of years harnessed this intelligence to better our lives by making things. As a species we basically moved a step up beyond the chimpanzee era whereby we stopped sticking sticks into termite mounds and instead began piecing many different components together to create more complex implements. Everything we have created so far is a manipulation of hundreds of complex implements, themselves manipulations of even more simpler implements, to create an endpoint which suits our liking. Now Man has, and likely will, create anything and everything within the bounds of her/is comprehension. Hummus is just one example; doors, bicycles, roof tiles, tissue paper, glass panelling, maths theorems, Humvees, hard disks, fridge magnets, Levi’s jeans, shortwave detection satellites, humanity will make anything it godamn pleases, purely because it can, and it is this capability above anything and everything else that has made us arrogant.

Every thing, before it is made real or otherwise physically apparent, starts off as a concept. We operate on the basis that we can make concepts out of logic, and this ability allows us to create things and intelligence-wise, to be a par above everything else living on this planet thus far. The definition of intelligence then, is basically our ability to conceptualise on a complex level, and more often than not realise those concepts, or at least, as in the case of abstract concepts like political systems and religion, bring them to a near-perfect state of logic ostensibly comprehensible by all, and this is where man’s biggest failing lies. Our intelligence, our stuff, has blinded us to the fact that we are still essentially animals, governed by the same rules, dictates, and systems of nature. You have to be pretty blunt to have not realised this has fallen far out of our reckoning for centuries. Religions have always preached against it, Man has always been too ready to believe it, and all the while H/She has gone on to blur the line between himself and other species by creating ever more things.

We’ve reached the point whereby we’ve stopped fulfilling the things we need and are now [have been for centuries, really] fulfilling desires for things we want, unnecessary products borne out of our supreme level of consumerism. We are the only species that ‘needs’ another atomic bomb, or a handphone with a camera in the flip joint. We have now filled our lives, right down to the level of every individual, with hallmarks of our decadence. We have essentially created a Matrix world, one filled with everything we wish to imagine is real, an emporium of our creativity, a showcase of our industriousness, a world we revel in as we come to terms with our own stupefyingly superior capabilities of thought. The arrogance we have as a result of this false sense of self has degenerated into a cool disregard for the nature we forgot we were a part of, which is why it shocks our sensibilities every time a hundred thousand people die in a hurricane, yet it isn’t beyond our principles to move right back into the disaster zone in the aftermath in order to face the same rigmarole again next week. Why not? We could always rebuild, you know, MAKE MORE THINGS. Who cares that we are essentially missing the point about our own stupidity, or that we are destroying the very environment we live in as a result of our actions?

We are now at the point whereby the candy-pop la-la-land we’ve created is now pushing the real world, the environment, away and aside; we somehow forgot we were supposed to share this planet with everything else. It’s become such that every step we take can’t be taken without causing some harm to the world around us. Sure we can still create everything we want and need, but with what? Artificially-generated materials aside, we claim everything we need first-hand from nature. Under the guise of being ‘environmentally conscious’ (read we’re feeling pretty fucking guilty) we’re now apparently taking steps to put back what we took, replanting trees etc., not realising that no matter what we do now, it’ll always result in a net loss for the rest of the environment. Our consumerism has resulted in a plague of humans which has thrown the entire balance of the planet off. You need only see the average Malaysian at a hotel buffet to see what I mean. We are the only species that takes more than what we need at any one time, gone is the squirrel-reckoning we probably once had, of taking and storing only what is needed and leaving the remainder to whoever else might need or want it.

We’re so out of touch with the concept of natural balance we’ve now reached the stage where we have to fight amongst ourselves for natural resources. That’s always been a hallmark of the modern man; we won’t take what we need, we won’t even take what we want, we’ll take GODAMN EVERYTHING. We’ve already proven we’re not the only species that wilfully goes to war with others of the same kind [another one of those traits we don’t want to realise we share with the animals], but it’s not the fact that we’re fighting, but what we’re fighting for that’s absurd. We fight over oil, we fight over the land that might have the oil, we fight for every scrap of woodland, marshland, island or wasteland available; we’re actually fighting for our insatiable need to consume everything on this planet. Everything we do now at this point is borne out of a battle to consume resources; we don’t even know why we consume the way we do, we just want to do it. Every step we take to mitigate our actions, however sincere, is nothing more than a facetiously lame attempt to stymie the relentless assault we perpetuate upon our environment.

Mom tells me not to be cynical about humans. I proceed to observe: from where are you telling me this? From the inside of a luxury four-seater sedan car, a veritable gas-guzzler which takes fuel at a hundred bob a pop, on a drive home from Singapore, combusting five hours worth of said fuel, on a bitumen road, flanked by plantations, all of which cut through tracts of rainforest disrupting the biodiversity, displacing the wildlife and creating soil erosion, a winding stretching pathway leading to and from two cities the size of countries, where immeasurable sources of pollution converge. The car is padded with artificial leather, the production of which requires the synthesising of numerous plastics and polymers which will never biodegrade and will fill up the landfills and dumps long after we cease to exist. If an intelligent being left Alpha Centauri now for Earth, it can expect to trip on a plastic bag as soon as it gets here. We eat food generated by factories, farms or harvests direct from nature, all with their innumerable impacts upon the environment, cooked by restaurants which flush their waste into drains and tributaries, stay in houses or hotels which consume gigawatts of electricity powered by generators that consume tons of fuel creating even more waste gas to be pumped into the atmosphere; how can I afford not to be cynical?

I will inevitably be derided for being an armchair critic, spouting pointless vitriol without the sensibility to get off my fat arse (my arse is not fat) to do something about it. What these people will not realise is, returning to my original point, humanity has doomed itself and will continue to doom itself with every course of action taken. The progress along this trajectory has passed the point of no return; mankind is doomed simply because H/She exists. My advice to the rest of the world? Go out there, enjoy what there is to enjoy. Screw prevention, the only thing we can do now is minimise our negative effect upon the planet, so enjoy it limitedly, but let’s stop bullshitting ourselves about our so-called responsibilities for the planet. As far as we’re concerned, we’re just another species on this lonely lump of rock in this corner of the universe. We are small, we are insignificant beings. We have about as much responsibility for the state of the planet as all the other things on this planet. The only responsibility we have now, what with our ‘intelligence’, is fucking it up, soon nature will take its course and obliterate our species the same way most everything that’s ever lived on this planet has been. To quote George Carlin, “the planet is fine, the people are fucked”. Let’s stop thinking we’re above all that.

A One-act comedy of errors

Scene: Some marble-floored, walled and ceiling-ed hall of buffoonery, home to an imaginary institution so pretentiously important its abbreviated name has an abbreviation. A class is in progress; it’s obviously detention, as only a handful of slouching teeth-picking idle-minded sods have showed up. An abstract teacher saunters in, dumps books too thick or complicated for any of these pupils to ever contemplate finishing on a commodious front desk, and begins...

“Good evening class, today’s lesson is going to be about ‘Freedom of Speech’. Now before I begin, does anyone here not understand what freedom of speech is?”

Malaysia [raising its hand idly]: No teacher, I do not. [A few other pupils follow suit warily]

Teacher: I see. Well, it looks like we have a lot to cover today. For the benefit of those who have just raised their hands, freedom of speech is basically the freedom of the citizens of a particular country to voice whatever opinion he or she may have, whither by publication, speech or mindset.

At this point, several students get up and leave the class. The biggest and toughest looking of them, the Soviet Union, is first, followed by several from the Arab region. China and North Korea dutifully follow, the last pausing only for a bout of temperamental fist shaking in the direction of the teacher, who is rather taken aback. Little Singapore, anxious not to be left out, scurries out after them.

Teacher: Well, they’ll never learn will they? Oh well, best continue with what we have. Now, I’m assuming you’re all here because you think that there is a right for countries to exercise stiff censorship of their citizens’ views, am I right? [a few nods from the class] The fact is censorship is all part and parcel of freedom of speech, now I’ll bet none of you knew that, did you?

Malaysia: I exercise stringent censorship of speech, but having a multiracial make-up, I do so in order to ensure the public do not offend one another. It’s a very fragile balance, is multiculturality, and is one I will try to maintain so we will continue to look good in the eyes of other countries, even if it means denying that I am cloistering those under my control.

Teacher: Ah, but you didn’t reckon with the responsibility of the people within your control, did you? You see, freedom of speech requires several key features to be operative. The first is discretion, more specifically the wisdom of how to exercise discretion when necessary. People may say anything and everything, but it is as much to their discretion what they choose to say or not to say, as it is for you, the listener to pay any attention. Thus the prerogative is on both sides to remain respectful of the other’s right to convey any opinion, without acting upon the urge to shut them down at the slightest hint of controversy. This leads to the second key feature, which is responsibility. Again this works both ways: as much as people may wish to say whatever they want to, they will have to learn to keep it respectful. It is one thing to have a vociferous opinion, and another to downright insult the other party. Having said so, some people due to sheer ignorance require a real kick up the arse, and this is where responsibility in the form of diplomacy must be exercised. A person may be admonished, but in terms that are restrained.

[At this point, Malaysia stands up, triumphantly waving a copy of a well-known newspaper, The Star, dated Monday, January 14th 2008. Always ready to please the superiors, he turns to the letters pages and points to the lower right corner of the right page. There is published a letter submitted by a humble blogger the previous week. At this point, the teacher interjects…]

Teacher: Ah, Malaysia. I see you have given due recognition to the blogger who submitted the letter you showed me last week. I highly recommended you publish his letter in its entirety, he did after all make very cogent and eloquent rebuttals to the idiot whose letter you allowed the previous Wednesday.

Malaysia: Indeed I published it, teacher. However I had to heavily edit it. He was to my mind, too heavy-handed, and might have offended the sensitivities of more than a few people if we had published the unaltered version. It was practical to do so anyway, as you can see I put it in a small red box next to another letter addressing the same topic to keep it contextual. It makes it look like I merely edited it to make it fit the allocated space.

Teacher: Come, bring it up here, let me see what you have done.

[Malaysia obliges. He brings the page up for the teacher to see. The letter sure enough, is there, and is published as follows…]

Wrong to say only a few good men out of 900mil

I refer to Africans must clear their own image (The Star, Jan 11). This is exactly the kind of blinkered and unfounded stereotyping that proves just how progressive and open-minded the average ‘modern’ Malaysian is.

At the end of his letter, the writer attempts to use Malaysia as some sort of counterpoint, stating that we are lauded and admired by many African nations “for good governance and improving the quality of life of the ordinary people”.

Fair enough, perhaps, but then it doesn’t justify the tar-brush he used to smear the African people.

As a Malaysian, I am as aware as any other of the types of Africans we are used to. We read and hear about the money-laundering and employment scams, and the occasional violence exacted by groups or individuals of expatriate Africans.

But I fail to see how it is in any way justifiable to use that stick to beat an entire continent over the head with. We’re not even talking about individuals or sub-groups here, we’re talking about 900 million people in 53 countries covering 6% of the entire surface of the Earth!

It is small-minded to suggest the most that can come out of 15% of the world’s population are a few “good men”. Negative stereotyping isn’t the fault of the Africans themselves. Africa isn’t what we see on CNN or read about in the news. Every country, region and culture has its problems. Each has its quirks and issues, we provide the stereotyping.

In Malaysia, a friend of mine cannot walk the streets in his Iron Maiden T-shirt without people gawking at him, any lad with long hair is a rebellious punkish troublemaker, and any young woman in a short skirt is loose or a China girl.

I have come to know many Africans from all over the continent in my time as a foreign student, and from what I can tell they are like many of the world’s other races, proud and confident about themselves.

It is one thing to maintain conservative values, and another to judge every other race on the basis of fear and what we derive from the news. What we see and interpret of Africans, and indeed all other people around us, is not necessarily what they are.

We would do well to stop taking everyone at face value and recognise that sure, they may not be what we are, and yes, some of them are bad, but then no two people are the same.

Multiculturalist, Kuala Lumpur.

[The teacher reads the letter thoroughly, and then pulls out a sheet of paper; it is a copy of the original letter. The teacher makes a lengthy comparison between the two, and then peers up severely at Malaysia, who is still standing and beaming from cheek to cheek…]

Malaysia: See, I published it, I gave him a chance. He was of course, way too controversial for our liking, so we had to do a little ‘butchering’. I even changed the pseudonym, just to show he can’t mess with me the way I expected him to.

[At this point the teacher stands up and admonishes Malaysia]

Teacher: Oh Malaysia, how could you? Butchery is a fine word indeed! You cut out all semblances of rebuttal and passion from the letter and have reduced it to a pile of non-directional rambling void of message or cogency! Not only did you change the pen name, you changed the title, the content of the letter, and even the order at which he wrote it! You have clearly not practiced proper free speech in this instance, you have clearly had only one thing on your mind, and that is sterilising the letter according to your own conservative standards out of your fear that it might offend people. See, this is the third key feature of free speech, and that is courage. Governments must have the courage to allow the citizens to exercise freedom of speech, if not they will become significantly more radical under the suppression, leaving them vulnerable to irresponsible outbursts. A government cannot in this situation be paranoid about people’s sensitivities; the onus is on them to allow the citizens to become progressive and accepting on their own accord. You, Malaysia, have evidently acted out of this age-old fear. This is what is keeping the citizens back, they are not allowed to truly express themselves, because you yourself try to sanitise everything in order to retain a sense of non-controversy. If you want a good example of freedom of speech, look at Australia. In this regard, he excels because he practices excellent free speech. Look at the flowering of awareness amongst the citizens as they are allowed to debate and maintain any point of view that they wish. Look at the number of protests held everywhere, people are allowed to protest government policies which they regard as dubious, and they know to do so peacefully because they are aware of their responsibilities as citizens. The government itself knows the prerogative of paying heed to its citizens’ calls lies above all with itself, so it can choose whether to act upon the initiative or disregard them totally. They have the confidence in themselves that they have, at the end of it all, the final say, and if they so wish, will not put it beyond themselves to actually address the issue at hand and give it due consideration. You, Malaysia, and all the rest of you other countries, would do well to learn from this fine example of freedom of speech.

[Malaysia, thoroughly cowed, shifts uneasily. But then a resolute glower flickers across his face. He is determined to show he will not bow to the outside pressure…]

Malaysia: You know what? I don’t have to care about what Australia or other people do. I am a shining light for the rest of the world, a beacon of modernisation and a model for all the others who aspire to become me. I do not wish to hold true to whatever you have been saying because I hold true to my principles and traditions, and none of you may ever contravene that. Freedom of speech is for those who wish to live dangerously, for those who cannot foresee that it will only lead to a total loss of control amongst the citizenry. For the sake of my image I will not loosen my principles for such infidel behaviour.

[Malaysia storms out of the hall. The teacher’s gaze follows him through the door, head shaking slowly…]

Teacher: I have tried to teach you the proper way to progressive happiness. It is clear, Malaysia, you will never learn…

The following is a letter I wrote in response to one I saw published in today's The Star, a local daily in Malaysia. The latter was itself a response to one published on the 31st of December, pleading fairness in the locals' judging of Africans. For those not in the know, African expats in Malaysia are given pretty unfair stick by the locals. In fairness some of the bad rep is warranted, as many have resorted to crimes such as employment or money-laundering scams to get by. Incidents of thuggery in the city centre have also been reported, however in classic Malaysian tactful moderation many have chosen to slap a label on the entire continent, a fine example of which appears below:

Africans must clear their own image



I believe the majority of Malaysians will not agree with Stephen Ng who pleaded that "...we have to avoid stereotyping Africans..." (The Star, December 31).


There may be good Africans like students Ile Pius of Nigeria and Emmanuel Muheka of Mozambique. Unfortunately the good men of Africa, like President Nelson Mandela, are the exceptions rather than the rule.


Negative stereotyping of Africa is the fault of the Africans themselves. Mention Africa and nothing positive comes to mind. Africa is synonymous with corruption, misadministration, power-crazy leaders, inept civil service, war, poverty, famine, disease etc.


My own experience with Africans in Kuala Lumpur cannot rid me of my negative opinion of them. In fact. those spoke to agree that good governance is lacking in their respective countries.


Until and unless the Africans themselves set their house in order, no amount of defence from Stephen Ng can change the negative stereotyping by Malaysians of Africans.

At one time, the world stereotyped Malaysia as a backward and hopeless country. Today, Malaysia is looked upon as a model for many African countries and has received accolade [sic] from the World Bank and other multilateral agencies for good governance and improving the lifr of the ordinary people.H

Hassan Talib
Gombak, Selangor.

Now that we've got that idiocy out of the way. You'll notice of course, its sheer class and eloquence relative to the above drivel. Not to mention it actually makes a cogent point. You'll notice I carefully plagiarised his title, just to be deliberately contrary. Careful psychological analysis will also show the pseudonym to be an ingenious piece of mental play: succinct enough to adequately state my role as moral crusader extraordinaire, just long enough to dissuade people from wanting to type it out for themselves and thus formulate a [probably stupid] response. I'm just stupendous that way. After a while, you'll begin to feel it even looks better, even though both have been typed in the same font. Sometimes I think I'm just bloody awesome.

Malaysians must clear their own negativities

I am writing in response to Hassan Talib's letter titled "Africans must clear their own image" (yesterday's letters passim). He writes "unfortunately, good men of Africa...are the exceptions rather than the rule.", and goes on to say "Mention Africa and nothing positive comes to mind.". This is exactly the kind of blinkered, lazy and unfounded stereotyping that proves just how progressive and open-minded the average 'modern' Malaysian is.

Mr Talib has the audacity to generalise, not one country or two, but an entire continent. By Africans I assume he means Nigerians who are to us nothing more than scamming thieving gregarious thugs. Perhaps Mr Talib would like to take a look at his or somebody else's wedding ring, studded more than likely with a diamond which originated from South Africa. I assume Mr Talib has never been on safari in Kenya, or for that matter heard of Egypt. Maybe someone would like to mention to Mr Talib sub-Saharan Africa's role as the cradle of all mankind according to evolutionary theory, or point out the number of African football players currently playing in the English Premier League we Malaysians worship so much. But no, I guess it's true, no good does come out of Africa, those corrupted, mis-administrated, power-crazy, inept, war-mongering, dirt-poor, starving diseased people.

At the end of his letter Mr Talib attempts to use Malaysia as some sort of counterpoint, stating that we are lauded and admired by many African nations "for good governance and improving the quality of life of the ordinary people". Fair enough, perhaps, but then it doesn't justify the tar-brush Mr Talib, and I assume many other Malaysians, use to smear the African people. We, 25 million of us, with our cooking oil crises, snatch thieves, deforestation, 5.1% poverty and a broadband connection so shaky my Internet died twice before I could send this letter, have some cheek mis-labelling the entire continent of Africa. We have environmental issues. We have poverty issues. We have crime issues. We have political issues. We have a 0.4% AIDS prevalence rate (2005). In short we have everything the continent of Africa has, because that's what we are, another part of the world, another country. Yet we dare make comparisons? On what basis, that we are somewhat more well-run, developed, and pretty than most of Africa? That's short-sightedness.

As a Malaysian, I am as aware as any other of the types of Africans we are used to. We read and hear about the money-laundering and employment scams, and the occasional violence exacted by groups or individuals of expatriate Africans. But I fail to see how it is in any way justifiable to use that stick to beat an entire continent over the head with. We're not even talking about individuals or sub-groups here, we're talking about 900 million people in 53 countries covering 6% of the entire surface of the Earth! It is small-minded in the extreme to suggest the most that can come out of 15% of the world's population is a few "good men". How is it fair to assume that the whole of Africa, or even the entire country of Nigeria, for instance, is populated entirely by money-grabbing thieving hooligans? How do we expect to be able to progress or even call ourselves a globalised nation when we continue to harbour such blinkered views of the people around us?

Perusing the papers or the news channels we would of course hear of the bad hats, the criminals and evil-doers, and less of the kindred spirits. To assume against the entire populace based on that one perspective alone is frankly nonsensical, to say the least. Indeed without going into any implications, I find it deeply ironic and contradictory that Mr Talib can claim that he has spoken to Africans, obviously 'good' ones, when he concomitantly admits to harbouring a "negative opinion of them" in the very same sentence.

Let me make one thing clear, negative stereotyping isn't the fault of the Africans themselves. Africa isn't what we see on CNN or read about on the news. Every country, region and culture has its problems. They have their quirks and issues, we provide the stereotyping. The truth is we have a propensity to judge the world around us with coloured lenses. The fact is that in Malaysia a dear friend of mine cannot walk the streets in his Iron Maiden T-shirt without people gawking at him, that any lad with long hair is automatically a rebellious punkish troublemaker, that any young woman in a short skirt is loose or a China girl. I have come to know many Africans from all over the continent in my time as a foreign student, and from what I can tell they are like many of the world's other races, proud and confident about themselves. Perhaps we balk when we see a group of Africans in their hoodies strutting and talking loudly because we fear their confidence, just as how we so readily sneer upon similarly self-confident people.

It is one thing to maintain conservative values, and another to judge every other race on the basis of fear and what we derive from the news. Quite simply, the cover does not reflect the book; what we see and interpret of Africans, and indeed all other people around us, is not necessarily what they are. We have to stop this negative stereotyping of other people purely on the basis of what we think we know. I would even go so far as to say if I was accosted by Africans in the street I would not harbour resentment, purely on the basis that it simply does not represent the run and rule of the entire populace. We would do well to stop taking everyone at face value and recognise that sure, they may not be what we are, and yes, some of them are bad, but then no two people are the same. Perhaps then we can really progress as a respected nation, and not the "backward and hopeless country" the world apparently thought of us.

In Defence Of True Multiculturalism

We did something different this Jan the first. Fans of gregariousness would no doubt look fondly upon the fact that I have as of now lost my virginity for New Year's mass celebrations. We attended the gathering at KLCC this time, as paying guests of Mom's friend's restaurant Chinoz. The restaurant provided good views of the fireworks come midnight, and the pre-match entertainment was satisfactory, the sketch The Idiocy of The Average Malaysian well played out by Those Blokes Who Fired Firecrackers Into The Crowd At 11:43 and the Fat Rela Man Who Chased Said Blokes being well-received by the likes of myself who had a privileged seat. What with the added drama of the rain clouds gathering and teasing the crowd, it was easy to sit back and enjoy watching the chaos unfold. The crescendo of the comedy duly came as the resultant smoke from the fireworks drifted over the penthouse viewing deck of the Trader's Hotel at the other side of the park, casting a choking pall over the people gathered at what was supposed to have been the hottest spot in town to view the pyrotechnics and thoroughly obscuring their view within a minute of the show starting. One couldn't help but grin.

Watching as the fireworks shot into the sky and looking at the assembled masses however, a deep sense of melodrama enveloped me as I couldn't help but develop a feeling of deep cynicism at humanity. As if I haven't yet received enough affirmation that mankind's every move leaves a black mark upon the Earth, we have the audacity to utilise pyrotechnic celebrations and preach about environmental protection in the same breath. The facts are laid bare: in one 24-hour period millions of tons of toxic gasses, carbon and other aerosol pollutants are pumped into the Earth's atmosphere. The resulting pall which covers the whole Earth surely cannot be good portents for the current climate shift. The amount of garbage generated by New Year's gatherings worldwide must be astronomical, and then there is the immediate malice of light and sound pollution. It seems that even our greatest expression of celebration can't be done without perpetuating an ill upon the world, and I ask then, what next for the world? Definitely not salvation, on current record.