The Naked Truth

So Selangor state assemblywoman and exco member Elizabeth Wong has tendered in her resignation after being caught in a nude photo/video scandal. The said photos have been in circulation for the past few months - some say as far back as November - and were taken by her now ex-boyfriend, a party member.

Okay, this issue concerns her personal life, and there has been a lot of support for her from human rights activists and politicians from both sides of the divide.

The photos were allegedly taken while she was sleeping in a compromising position, though there are rumours that there are more photos and videos that show her as a willing participant.

Let's set aside the morality issue for the moment and look solely from the point of law. Eli Wong did no wrong. She is single, and was not involved in an adulterous affair with a married man. She is not Muslim, and as such concepts of khalwat and zina do not come into the picture. So Eli Wong did not break any law. It is not against the law to take photos of yourself in the nude - provided they are not shown outside the privacy of your home.

She is entitled to her private life, and having multiple partners may be frowned on, but it certainly isn't unusual or illegal.

However, keeping such photos in an easily accessible place - like an unsecured laptop, for instance - or putting yourself in such a position where you end up choosing partners without considering that they could turn against you - be it by their own choosing, or doing the bidding of someone else - is not very smart.

Oh Eli! You should never leave such photographic evidence lying around your home unsecured, and neither should you have allowed others access to your home when you are not around.

So many women have fallen prey in the same manner; they trust their lovers enough to have sex on camera, but then cry foul when the relationship ends and the boyfriend shares the footage with others. If your like taking videos or photos in the nude, then be smart - make sure you are the one who keeps it safe. Don't allow copies. When the relationship ends, destroy the evidence immediately.

Eli Wong is, by all accounts, a hardworking and well-liked PKR assemblywoman who has a no-nonsense attitude towards corruption and illegal development. But she has made some powerful enemies, including from within her own party, as well as fellow Selangor exco members whose toes she has stepped on. Developers in the state, too, have an axe to grind with her for campaigning against hillslope projects.

Eli Wong has cost these people money. And they are gleeful over her downfall.

Eli, this did not have to happen. Now all your hardwork has come undone.
You showed poor judgment in this matter; yet, with your resignation, the real losers are the people of Selangor.

Returning the Ruler's immunity?

You know, I am quite shocked at how easily some people are manipulated. I am talking, of course, of the jokers in Umno, the ruling political party in Malaysia.

Just last year, these wankers raised a hue and cry when the rulers of Terengganu and Perlis rejected the Prime Minister's choice of Menteri Besar for the respective states, and choose someone else.

In Terengganu, Abdullah and gang said the Sultan's decision was unconstitutional, and the ruler was ever termed "Natang" - short for binatang, or animal, by the demonstators (all Umno, I bet).

Now, a year later, they are portraying themselves as defenders of the monarchy! Hah! I doubt the Sultan of Perak needs their idotic display of unity behind the rulers. If anything, such displays are counter-productive, as you can easily be accused of trying to manipulate the institution.

Now, some within Umno are even calling for the Ruler's immunity to be reinstated to "protect" the institution. Hello? Wasn't it BN - or more specifically Umno's Mahathir - who stripped them off this privilege in the first place, back in 1983? Do these Umno-its have such short memories?

Sheesh!

Go with the flow

You know, I've spent the whole night ruminating over my life. And I was hoping very much for salvation, in the form of an appointment to see spiritualist. But as fate would have it, my request for an appointment was refused. So here I am, bereft of all hope.
I feel a bit like Perakians now - buying into the dream promised by Anwar and Pakatan Rakyat, and then finding the rug pulled from under them with a change in govt no one wanted.
Now, there's no choice but to go with the flow and see where that takes you.

Khairy and a whole lot of nonsense

Seriously, has there ever been a more rabid band of brainless nincompoops like Umno Youth? And what's with Khairy Jamaluddin asking for Karpal Singh's citizenship to be revoked, and for Umno Youth members to do anything - legal or otherwise - to stop the rightful Perak MB Nizar from entering the state secretariat.

Exactly who appointed Umno Youth goons as the official security force for Perak State? Are they the new Rela force?

As for asking Karpal to be stripped of his citizenship, who is Umno Youth to say this anyway. Idiots, all of em. As far as I know, if the Sultan is displeased with you, he can basically say that you are persona non-grata in the state.

Karpal is not doing anything wrong by saying he wants to sue the Sultan. After all, it was during Mahathir's time that the parliament passed the law allowing rulers to be taken to court. So what exactly is Karpal doing wrong?

The prime minister today stated that Karpal is going to be arrested under the ISA, but since we all know he isn't the one running the country, the DAP chairman could still wind up facing time in Kamunting, a place he knows well.

And meanwhile, the Perakians weep in misery....

Perak in a pickle

I have been following the events in the state of Perak in Malaysia rather carefully. I admit that the whole thing about bringing down the state government via defections instead of elections stinks to high heaven.

It has been rumoured that the BN bought over the assemblymen for a cool RM15 million each.

There has been a lot of negative stuff written about the assemblypersons, especially DAP rep Hee. But I just want to say, how many of us can look a pile of money in the eye without being tempted. They say everyone has a price, and I believe that is true.

With the exception of Nik Aziz and many within PAS who seem to have genuine principles to hold on to, I would imagine that all the rest of us would have our own "surrender" point. Those who say otherwise would be lying, or have very strong moral standing.

But it's obvious from the Perak case that PKR is made up of opportunists who are only in it for the money. All the hopes and dreams of a people are now in tatters thanks to the poor leadership of Anwar and gang.

PKR is a party of no discipline or moral standing. It is sad that so many good people like Sivarasa, Charles Santiago, Syed Husin Ali etc, have pinned their hopes on Anwar to bring positive change, only to have it all end up in a quagmire.

Feeding into our paranoia

Die Hard 4.0 marks Bruce Willis’ return for the fourth time to the role that made him a superstar, that of Detective John McClane, an everyman copper who gets no respect even as he performs one heroic deed after another because, in his words, “he’s that guy”.

I must say, in some level, it was nice to see Willis back to his wisecracking best, performing impossible stunts and getting banged up in a way no self respecting hero would dare allow himself to be.

The Die Hard movies (at least the first two) worked because we, the audience, cared about McClane. We wanted him to win because he represented all the working Joes out there who, in a given situation, would do the right thing without ever wondering if it was heroic. Sure, we wouldn’t exactly jump off an exploding building or take on a terrorist on the wings of an airplane, but the gut instinct to reach out and help someone is there in most of us.

But McClane, like many of his fans, has grown older and wearier, a dinosaur in a world of computers and the Internet. And America, too, has changed in the intervening years between his last adventures, becoming far more insular and, dare I say it, paranoid.

This is the post 9/11 world, but to the producers’ credit, the terrorists in the movie are home grown and not foreign elements at work (though for some reason, the henchmen are French; liberty fries, anyone?).

Someone has been getting hackers to write algorithms for them in the pretext of a security check, and as soon as the program is ready, eliminates the authors. They then put the programs to work, hacking into government computers as a prelude to larger hacks to come. The Feds are understandably nervous and decide to bring in all known hackers on their dangerous list in for questioning. To do this quickly, they arrange for the local cops to bring in the suspects.

As luck would have it, McClane – now divorced and estranged from his daughter – gets the dirty job to bring in one of the hackers, Matt Farrell (played by a suitable enthusiastic Justin Long) but ends up saving the young man’s life when hired goons try to kill him off.

By the time McClane gets the boy to D.C., all hell is breaking loose as the terrorists take control of the transportation system and communications network. With the government agents clueless, it is up to McClane and his new sidekick to find the terrorists and stop them from sending America back to the Stone Age.

There are plenty of stunts, fights and explosions in this movie, though there are no showstopper moments like in the previous ones (the blowing up of the White House doesn’t count). McClane really gets beaten to pulp here, but the fact that he keeps on going makes him look more like Rambo. This is too bad, cos for the most part, Willis makes McClane feel very believable. But the final third of Die Hard 4.0 has one ridiculous scene after another, making it very hard to root for McClane.

And as for the premise of hackers being able to have a “fire sale” and bring the government to its knees, ho hum – we’ve seen it all before. What is interesting is that the Homeland Security Department is made to look extremely incompetent as the events unfold. But, as one hacker points out, this is the government that took four days to send water to the people stuck in the Superdome after Katrina, so maybe it’s not such a stretch after all.

I think it’s time McClane retired from the force and go slowly into the night. He could have traded in on his fame (after movies I and II) and gone into private consulting to make big bucks, but that’s not the kind of guy he is. But the world has changed, McClane. It’s a shame, actually. We like you. We really do. But it is time to call it a day.

Die Hard 4.0 is also known as Live Free or Die Hard, and co-stars Timothy Olyphant, Maggie Q and Cliff Curtis.

Mitra Themis

On positive thoughts … Part I

Is there something to The Secret? Rhonda Byrne’s book and movie is rapidly gaining a cult following, but is the Law of Attraction it illustrates really real? Or is it just some marketing hype gone supernova?

At one level I want to believe it. It seems so easy – Focus on what you want, ask for it, pretend you already have it and hey presto! It’s true. Can it really be that easy? Are the majority of us idiots that we cannot comprehend this?

One of the motivators a.k.a. successful chappie we should listen to says: “Use the universe as a catalogue and pick out what you want.” Oh I want it to be so simple. But I need to ask if the reverse is also true.

For instance, I don’t think any of us consciously wish for something bad to happen in our lives, yet it does sometimes. Yet, when we want something positive, we are told we must be focused with our thoughts, hold it in our mind’s eye with all the energy (read positive thoughts) we can muster in order for the Law of Attraction to kick in.

Why is it so much harder to get positive thoughts to work than it is negative thoughts? Are negative thoughts stronger? They shouldn’t be. After all, positive thoughts spring from that universal favourite: LOVE. Where do negative thoughts get their energy from? I can hear some people volunteering the eternal punching bag known as the EGO. But really, I have a hard time with this as well. Ego exists for a reason, and it cannot just be all bad.

If you believe in balance, then it holds that both positive and negative thoughts are equal in terms of power, but what is variable is our choice in wielding them. Or perhaps, each individual differs in their ability to wield thoughts as powerful tools to shape their realities.

More on this later …

Mitra Themis