Airbus rides the Chinese dragon

TIANJIN, July 1 — In the time it takes to complete the paper work for planning permission in Britain, a factory in Tianjin has been built and is producing passenger jets.

Once a month, an Airbus A320 passenger jet rolls out of an airy hangar on the outskirts of northern port city of Tianjin, China’s window to Western ideas for a century and a half. Within two years these US$72 million (RM255 million) twin-engine jets will be emerging once a week.

The number of French, German, British, and Spanish engineers “shadowing” the local work force will be down to a handful.

By then production of identical models of the A320 workhorse will be tapering off slowly at the Airbus sister plants in Hamburg and Toulouse, starting with a cut from 36 to 34 this autumn.

The Chinese engineers learn fast. This factory kicked off nine months ago, a nanosecond in aviation time. It takes longer in Britain to complete the paper-work for planning permission.

“It’s a miracle,” said Lan Xinguo, head of Sichuan Airlines as he took delivery last week of the first Chinese A320 — splendidly adorned in red with dragons — to the sound of the Star Wars film track.

“What’s been done is beyond our imagination a few years ago.”

Lawrence Barron, head of Airbus China, said Tianjin jets are geared to voracious demand from local airlines, at least — and here comes the kicker — “in the early years”. There is no reason why an Indian, Australian, or European airline should not buy a Tianjin jet one day.

It is an odd arrangement. The Tianjin plant is a joint venture with China’s Aviation Industry Corp (AVIC), the 430,000-strong spearhead of China’s drive to be an aeronautics superpower.

AVIC in turn holds a stake in the Commercial Aircraft Corp of China (COMAC) which has already launched its own Chinese-designed regional jet, the 90-seat ARJ-21.

Under the Communist Party’s 13th “Five-Year Plan”, it now aims to challenge the West head on with a 180-seat jet. “We believe after six to eight years development, our aircraft will overtake Boeing and Airbus,” said COMAC chairman Zhang Qinqwei last year.

Airbus is taking a big gamble. It is clearly sharing technology with an octopus-like network of state-led enterprises (some linked to the military) that openly boast rival ambitions.

Yet it is a risk that Europe’s planemaker believes it must take to win the aviation jackpot of the next twenty years, an estimated market for 2,800 big jets and 470 freighters worth US$300 billion.

“There is no co-operaration without technology transfer,” said Tom Enders, Airbus chief. “We are protecting what matters most. And whatever happens, I have no doubt that a great and ambitious nation like China — that is already able to send men to space and bring them back home safely — is one day going to build its own aircraft anyway,” he said.

Safeguarding secrets is not easy. The aging A320 dates back to the late 1980s, but China is also insisting on a 5 per cent share of the new A350 XWB. Chinese engineers are working on advanced composite materials in Beijing.

For now, Airbus in enjoying the downpayment on this deal — a cascade of fresh orders for 410 jets worth US$36bn from China’s aviation authority — although Boeing is pulling in Chinese orders, too, and many are wide-body jets with a higher value.

The Americans are watching the Airbus venture uneasily from the sidelines. Boeing buys parts from Chinese suppliers but has stopped short of full assembly. But then the Americans have been burned before. McDonnell Douglas came awry on its venture building the MD-82 in Shanghai in the early 1990s, misjudging the shifting political currents in Beijing.

Brazil’s Embraer came to grief too. Richard Aboulafia from Teal Group consultants said Airbus China risks the same fate.

“The last efforts were disasters, so perhaps it’s third time lucky. I think this is a fool’s game. Anybody can assemble a jet and put their flag on it. The real value added is in the components,” he said.

As yet, the Airbus work at Tianjin is final stage assembly, putting together the fuselage, wings, engines, tails, noses, and doors imported from Europe.

“We’re talking about 5 per cent to 10 per cent of the value added,” said Maurice Chretien, a floor manager in Tianjin.

But the picture is changing fast. Rear passenger doors and the nose landing gear for the A320 family are made in Chengdu, emergency exit doors, wing ribs and edges in Shenyang, cargo doors in Shanghai, and wing boxes and brake blades in Shaanxi.

It is the Airbus “Wing Cooperation Agreement” with China that most worries workers at the UK wing plant at Broughton in North Wales. For the time being, Broughton is still “Big Brother”. The Chinese parts are sent back to Wales for refinement — a costly way to do business.

Under the next phase, the Chinese wing parts will never leave Asia. They will be equipped and tested in Tianjin instead. Enders is brutally honest.

“The UK is the supplier of wings for the Airbus family but that doesn’t mean the Chinese can’t build a good wing. As long as the UK maintains competitive working conditions, Wales is OK,” he said.

Airbus is coy about how much it pays staff in China. Chretien says cheap labour is more myth than reality.

“It is an illusion that you find well-qualified people for nothing in China. I have a laser tracker specialist who earns just 20 per cent less than his Toulouse colleague here to coach him. The cost advantage is thin,” he said.

Airbus workers in Europe can be forgiven for harbouring doubts. The Chinese yuan is up to 50 per cent undervalued against the euro, and China is graduating 600,000 engineers each year. Unless something radical changes in the currency and trade structure of globalisation, Chinese labour will be very hard to beat for years to come.

Europe cannot buck history. China will strive to be an aeronautics powerhouse whatever Airbus does. By taking the plunge, the company can at least hope to lash its fortunes to the world’s rising force for a quarter century.

Take chances where you can. — The Daily Telegraph

How Iran Is Rule

ELECTORATE

Of a total population of about 65 million, more than 46 million people - all those over 18 - are eligible to vote. Young people constitute a large part of the electorate with about 50% of voters being under 30.

Voter turnout hit a record high at 80% in the 1997 elections which delivered a landslide victory for reformist President Mohammad Khatami. Women and young people were key to the vote.

But with disillusionment growing, only about 60% of the electorate voted in the final round of the 2005 election which brought hardliner Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to power.

PRESIDENT

The president is elected for four years and can serve no more than two consecutive terms. he constitution describes him as the second-highest ranking official in the country. He is head of the executive branch of power and is responsible for ensuring the constitution is implemented.

In practice, however, presidential powers are circumscribed by the clerics and conservatives in Iran's power structure, and by the authority of the Supreme Leader. It is the Supreme Leader, not the president, who controls the armed forces and makes decisions on security, defence and major foreign policy issues.

All presidential candidates are vetted by the Guardian Council, which banned hundreds of hopefuls from standing in the 2005 elections.

Conservative Tehran mayor Mahmoud Ahmadinejad became president in 2005 after he defeated former president Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani in a second round run-off poll. Mr Ahmadinejad is Iran's first president since 1981 who is not a cleric.

Mr Ahmadinejad replaced reformist Mohammad Khatami who was elected president in May 1997 with nearly 70% of the vote. He failed to get key reforms through the Guardian Council and was hampered further after conservatives won back a majority in parliament in elections in 2004.

CABINET

Members of the cabinet, or Council of Ministers, are chosen by the president. They must be approved by parliament, which in 2005 rejected four of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's initial nominees for his hardline cabinet. Parliament can also impeach ministers.

The Supreme Leader is closely involved in defence, security and foreign policy, so his office also holds influence in decision-making. Reformist ministers under former President Khatami were heavily monitored by conservatives. The cabinet is chaired by the president or first vice-president, who is responsible for cabinet affairs.

PARLIMENT

The 290 members of the Majlis, or parliament, are elected by popular vote every four years. The parliament has the power to introduce and pass laws, as well as to summon and impeach ministers or the president.

However, all Majlis bills have to be approved by the conservative Guardian Council.

The first reformist majority was elected in 2000, but this was overturned four years later in elections in 2004. Many reformist candidates were banned from standing.

The current speaker of the parliament is Ali Larijani, a former chief nuclear negotiator.

ASSEMBLY OF EXPERT

The responsibilities of the Assembly of Experts are to appoint the Supreme Leader, monitor his performance and remove him if he is deemed incapable of fulfilling his duties. The assembly usually holds two sessions a year.

Although the body is officially based in the holy city of Qom, sessions are also held in Tehran and Mashhad. Direct elections for the 86 members of the current assembly are held every eight years and are next due in 2014.

Members are elected for an eight year term. Only clerics can join the assembly and candidates for election are vetted by the Guardian Council.

The assembly is dominated by conservatives. Its current chairman is former President Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani, who lost the 2005 presidential election to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

GUARDIAN COUNCIL

This is the most influential body in Iran and is currently controlled by conservatives. It consists of six theologians appointed by the Supreme Leader and six jurists nominated by the judiciary and approved by parliament.

Members are elected for six years on a phased basis, so that half the membership changes every three years.

The council has to approve all bills passed by parliament and has the power to veto them if it considers them inconsistent with the constitution and Islamic law. The council can also bar candidates from standing in elections to parliament, the presidency and the Assembly of Experts.

Reformist attempts to reduce the council's vetting powers have proved unsuccessful and the council banned all but six of more than 1,000 hopefuls in the 2005 elections.

Two more, both reformists, were permitted to stand after the Supreme Leader intervened. All the female candidates were blocked from standing.

SUPREME LEADER

The role of Supreme Leader in the constitution is based on the ideas of Ayatollah Khomeini, who positioned the leader at the top of Iran's political power structure.

The Supreme Leader, currently Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, appoints the head of the judiciary, six of the members of the powerful Guardian Council, the commanders of all the armed forces, Friday prayer leaders and the head of radio and TV. He also confirms the president's election. The Leader is chosen by the clerics who make up the Assembly of Experts.

Periodic tension between the office of the Leader and the office of the president has often been the source of political instability. It increased during former president reformist Mohammad Khatami's term in office - a reflection of the deeper tensions between religious rule and the democratic aspirations of many Iranians.

HEAD OF JUDICIARY

The Iranian judiciary has never been independent of political influence. Until early last century it was controlled by the clergy. The system was later secularised, but after the revolution the Supreme Court revoked all previous laws that were deemed un-Islamic. New laws based on Sharia - law derived from Islamic texts and teachings - were introduced soon after.

The judiciary ensures that the Islamic laws are enforced and defines legal policy. It also nominates the six lay members of the Guardian Council. The head of the judiciary, currently Ayatollah Mahmoud Hashemi Shahrudi, is appointed by, and reports to, the Supreme Leader.

In recent years, the hardliners have used the judicial system to undermine reforms by imprisoning reformist personalities and journalists and closing down reformist papers.

ARMED FORCES

The armed forces comprise the Revolutionary Guard and the regular forces. The two bodies are under a joint general command.

All leading army and Revolutionary Guard commanders are appointed by the Supreme Leader and are answerable only to him.

The Revolutionary Guard was formed after the revolution to protect the new leaders and institutions and to fight those opposing the revolution.

The Revolutionary Guard has a powerful presence in other institutions, and controls volunteer militias with branches in every town.

EXPEDIENCY COUNCIL

The Council is an advisory body for the Leader with an ultimate adjudicating power in disputes over legislation between the parliament and the Guardian Council. The Supreme Leader appoints its members, who are prominent religious, social and political figures.

In October 2005, the Supreme Leader gave the Expediency Council "supervisory" powers over all branches of government - delegating some of his own authority as is permitted in the constitution.

It is not clear exactly how much this will affect the Council's influence, although observers say it is likely to strengthen the position of its present chairman, former President Hashemi Rafsanjani, who was defeated in the 2005 presidential elections by Mahmoud Amadinejad.

Souce: BBC News, 9 June 2009

Keberanian

Oleh: M Anis Matta

Saudara yang paling dekat dari naluri kepahlawanan adalah keberanian. Pahlawan sejati selalu merupakan seorang pemberani sejati. Tidak akan pernah seseorang disebut pahlawan, jika ia tidak pernah membuktikan keberaniannya. Pekerjaan-pekerjaan besar atau tantangan-tantangan besar dalam sejarah selalu membutuhkan kadar keberanian yang sama besarnya dengan pekerjaan dan tantangan itu. Sebab, pekerjaan dan tantangan besar itu menyimpan resiko. Dan, tak ada keberanian tanpa resiko.

Naluri kepahlawanan adalah akar dari pohon kepahlawanan. Akan tetapi, keberanian adalah batang yang menegakkannya. Keberanian adalah kekuatan yang tersimpan dalam kehendak jiwa, yang mendorong seseorang untuk maju menunaikan tugas, baik tindakan maupun perkataan, demi kebenaran dan kebaikan, atau untuk mencegah suatu keburukan dan dengan menyadari sepenuhnya semua kemungkinan resiko yang akan diterimanya.

Coba perhatikan ayat-ayat jihad dalam Al-Qur’an. Perintah ini hanya dapat terlaksana di tangan para pemberani. Coba perhatikan betapa Al-Qur’an memuji ketegaran dalam berperang, dan sebaliknya membenci para pengecut dan orang-orang yang takut pada resiko kematian. Apakah yang dapat kita pahami dari hadits riwayat muslim ini, “Sesungguhnya pintu-pintu syurga itu berada di bawah naungan pedang”. Adakah makna lain selain dari kuatnya keberanian akan mendekatkan kita ke syurga ?. Maka, dengarlah pesan Abu Bakar kepada tentara-tentara Islam yang akan berperang, “Carilah kematian, niscaya kalian akan mendapatkan kehidupan.”

Sebagian dari keberanian itu adalah fitrah yang tertanam dalam diri seseorang. Sebagian yang lain biasanya diperoleh melalui latihan. Keberanian, baik yang bersumber dari fitrah maupun melalui latihan, selalu mendapatkan pijakan yang kokoh pada kekuatan kebenaran dan kebajikan, keyakinan dan cinta yang kuat terhadap prinsip dan jalan hidup, kepercayaan pada hari akhirat, dan kerinduan yang menderu-deru untuk bertemu Allah. Semua itu adalah mata air yang mengalirkan keberanian dalam jiwa seorang mukmin. Bahkan, meskipun kondisi fisiknya tak terlalu mendukungnya, seperti jenis keberanian Ibnu Mas’ud dan Abu Bakar. Sebaliknya, ia bisa menjadi lebih berani dengan dukungan fisik, seperti keberanian Umar, Ali dan
Kholid.

Akan tetapi, Islam hendak memadukan antara keberanian fitrah dan keberanian iman. Maka beruntunglah ajaran-ajarannya menyuruh umatnya melatih anak-anak untuk berenang, berkuda dan memanah. Dengarlah sabda Rasulullah saw, “Ajarilah anakmu berenang sebelum menulis Karena ia bisa diganti orang lain jika ida tak pandai menulis, tapi ia tidak dapat diganti orang lain jika ia tak mampu berenang.”

Dengar lagi sabdanya, “Kekuatan itu pada memanah, kekuatan itu pada memanah, kekuatan itu pada memanah,” Itu semua sekelompok ketrampilan fisik yang mendukung munculnya keberanian fitrah. Tinggal lagi keberanian iman. Maka dengarlah nasehat Umar, “Ajarkan sastra
kepada anak-anakmu, karena itu dapat mengubah anak yang pengecut menjadi pemberani.”

Dan kepada orang-orang Romawi yang berlindung di balik benteng di Kinasrin, Khalid berkata, “Andaikata kalian bersembunyi di langit, niscaya kuda-kuda kami akan memanjat langit untuk membunuh kalian. Andaikata kalian berada di perut bumi, niscaya kami akan menyelami bumi untuk membunuh kalian.” Roh keberanian itu pun memadai untuk mematikan semangat perlawanan orang-orang Romawi. Mereka takluk. Mungkinkah kita mendengar ungkapan itu lagi hari ini ?

Kurnia Kegagalan

Oleh: Anis Matta Lc

Kehidupan ini, sebenarnya lebih mirip pelangi ketimbang sebuah foto hitam putih. Setiap manusia akan merasakan begitu banyak warna kehidupan. la mungkin mencintai sebagian warna tersebut. Tapi yang pasti ia tidak akan mencintai semua warna itu.

Demikian pula dengan perasaan kita. Semua warna kehidupan yang kita alami, akan klta respon dengan berbagai jenis perasaan yang berbeda-beda. Maka ada duka di depan suka, ada cinta di depan benci, ada harapan di depan cemas, ada gembra di depan sedih. Kita merasakan semua warna perasaan itu, sebagai respon kita terhadap berbagai peristiwa kehidupan yang kita hadapi.

Seseorang menjadi pahlawan, sebenarnya disebabkan sebagiannya oleh kemampuannya mensiasati perasaan-perasaannya sedemikian rupa, sehingga ia tetap berada dalam kondisi kejiwaan yang mendukung proses produktivitasnya.

Misalnya ketika kita menghadapi kegagalan. Banyak orang yang lebih suka mengutuk kegagalan, dan menganggapnya sebagai musibah dan cobaan hidup. Kita mungkin tidak akan melakukan itu seandainya di dalam diri kita ada kebiasaan untuk memandang berbagai peristiwa kehidupan secara objektif, ada tradisi jiwa besar, ada kelapangan dada serta pemahaman akan takdir yang mendalam.

Kegagalan, dalam berbagai aspek kehidupan, terkadang diperlukan untuk mencapai sebuah sukses. Bahkan dalam banyak cerita kehidupan yang pernah klta dengar atau baca dari orang-orang sukses, kegagalan menjadi semacam faktor pembeda dengan sukses, yang diturunkan guna menguatkan dorongan untuk sukses dalam diri seseorang. Di sela-sela itu semua, kita juga membaca sebuah cerita, tentang bagaimana kegagalan telah mengalihkan perhatian seseorang kepada kompetensi inti, atau pusat keunggulan, yang semula tidak ia ketahui sama sekali.

ltulah misalnya yang dialami oleh Ibnu Khaldun. Kita semua mengenal nama ini sebagai seorang sejarawan dan filosof sejarah. la telah menulis sebuah buku sejarah bangsa-bangsa dunia dengan sangat cemerlang. Tapi yang jauh lebih cemerlang dari buku sejarah itu adalah tulisan pengantarnya yang memuat kaidah-kaidah pergerakan sejarah, hukum-hukum kejatuhan dan kebangunan bangsa-bangsa. Tulisan pengantar itulah yang kemudian dikenal sebagai Muqoddimah Ibnu Khaldun. Di negeri kita “muqoddimah” buku sejarah ini bahkan sudah diterjemahkan, sementara buku sejarahnya sendiri belum dlterjemahkan.

Buku Muqoddimah itulah yang mengantarkan Ibnu Khaldun untuk men–duduki posisi sebagal filosof sejarah yang abadi dalam sejarah. Tapi mungkin jarang diantara kita yang tahu kalau sesungguhnya buku itu merupakan hasil perenungan selama kurang lebih empat bulan, atas kegagalannya sebagal praktisi politik.

Takdirnya adalah menjadi filosof sejarah. Bukan sebagal politisi ulung. Tapi mungkinkah ia menemukan takdir itu seandainya ia tidak melewati deretan kegagalan yang membuatnya bosan dengan politik, dan membawanya kedalam perenungan-perenungan panjang diluar pentas politik, tapi justru yang kemudian melahirkan karya monumental?

A New Beginning

Di usia 33 tahun, saya melalui 4 era kepresidenan Amerika, George Bush (Sr), Bill Clinton, George Bush (Jr.) dan terkini Barak Obama, inilah kali pertama saya mendengar kata-kata yang saya sifatkan paling jujur dari seorang Presiden Amerika. Ucapan panjang beliu menyentuh pelbagai aspek dan issue yang intinya menjanjikan kejujuran, amanah, rasa saling hormat ke atas budaya dan nilai, kerjasama dan lain-lain - terutama dalam issue mendesak, Palestin. Semoga ucapan beliu ini tidak tinggal sebagai retorik semata-mata. Sekian membaca:

-----------------------------------
Mr. Obama's Speech in Cairo, 4th June 2009

I am honored to be in the timeless city of Cairo, and to be hosted by two remarkable institutions. For over a thousand years, Al-Azhar has stood as a beacon of Islamic learning, and for over a century, Cairo University has been a source of Egypt's advancement. Together, you represent the harmony between tradition and progress. I am grateful for your hospitality, and the hospitality of the people of Egypt. I am also proud to carry with me the goodwill of the American people, and a greeting of peace from Muslim communities in my country: assalaamu alaykum.

We meet at a time of tension between the United States and Muslims around the world - tension rooted in historical forces that go beyond any current policy debate. The relationship between Islam and the West includes centuries of co-existence and cooperation, but also conflict and religious wars. More recently, tension has been fed by colonialism that denied rights and opportunities to many Muslims, and a Cold War in which Muslim-majority countries were too often treated as proxies without regard to their own aspirations. Moreover, the sweeping change brought by modernity and globalization led many Muslims to view the West as hostile to the traditions of Islam.

Violent extremists have exploited these tensions in a small but potent minority of Muslims. The attacks of September 11th, 2001 and the continued efforts of these extremists to engage in violence against civilians has led some in my country to view Islam as inevitably hostile not only to America and Western countries, but also to human rights. This has bred more fear and mistrust.

So long as our relationship is defined by our differences, we will empower those who sow hatred rather than peace, and who promote conflict rather than the cooperation that can help all of our people achieve justice and prosperity. This cycle of suspicion and discord must end.

I have come here to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world; one based upon mutual interest and mutual respect; and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive, and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles - principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.

I do so recognizing that change cannot happen overnight. No single speech can eradicate years of mistrust, nor can I answer in the time that I have all the complex questions that brought us to this point. But I am convinced that in order to move forward, we must say openly the things we hold in our hearts, and that too often are said only behind closed doors. There must be a sustained effort to listen to each other; to learn from each other; to respect one another; and to seek common ground. As the Holy Koran tells us, "Be conscious of God and speak always the truth." That is what I will try to do - to speak the truth as best I can, humbled by the task before us, and firm in my belief that the interests we share as human beings are far more powerful than the forces that drive us apart.

Part of this conviction is rooted in my own experience. I am a Christian, but my father came from a Kenyan family that includes generations of Muslims. As a boy, I spent several years in Indonesia and heard the call of the azaan at the break of dawn and the fall of dusk. As a young man, I worked in Chicago communities where many found dignity and peace in their Muslim faith.

As a student of history, I also know civilization's debt to Islam. It was Islam - at places like Al-Azhar University - that carried the light of learning through so many centuries, paving the way for Europe's Renaissance and Enlightenment. It was innovation in Muslim communities that developed the order of algebra; our magnetic compass and tools of navigation; our mastery of pens and printing; our understanding of how disease spreads and how it can be healed. Islamic culture has given us majestic arches and soaring spires; timeless poetry and cherished music; elegant calligraphy and places of peaceful contemplation. And throughout history, Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality.

I know, too, that Islam has always been a part of America's story. The first nation to recognize my country was Morocco. In signing the Treaty of Tripoli in 1796, our second President John Adams wrote, "The United States has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Muslims." And since our founding, American Muslims have enriched the United States. They have fought in our wars, served in government, stood for civil rights, started businesses, taught at our Universities, excelled in our sports arenas, won Nobel Prizes, built our tallest building, and lit the Olympic Torch. And when the first Muslim-American was recently elected to Congress, he took the oath to defend our Constitution using the same Holy Koran that one of our Founding Fathers - Thomas Jefferson - kept in his personal library.

So I have known Islam on three continents before coming to the region where it was first revealed. That experience guides my conviction that partnership between America and Islam must be based on what Islam is, not what it isn't. And I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.

But that same principle must apply to Muslim perceptions of America. Just as Muslims do not fit a crude stereotype, America is not the crude stereotype of a self-interested empire. The United States has been one of the greatest sources of progress that the world has ever known. We were born out of revolution against an empire. We were founded upon the ideal that all are created equal, and we have shed blood and struggled for centuries to give meaning to those words - within our borders, and around the world. We are shaped by every culture, drawn from every end of the Earth, and dedicated to a simple concept: E pluribus unum: "Out of many, one."

Much has been made of the fact that an African-American with the name Barack Hussein Obama could be elected President. But my personal story is not so unique. The dream of opportunity for all people has not come true for everyone in America, but its promise exists for all who come to our shores - that includes nearly seven million American Muslims in our country today who enjoy incomes and education that are higher than average.

Moreover, freedom in America is indivisible from the freedom to practice one's religion. That is why there is a mosque in every state of our union, and over 1,200 mosques within our borders. That is why the U.S. government has gone to court to protect the right of women and girls to wear the hijab, and to punish those who would deny it.

So let there be no doubt: Islam is a part of America. And I believe that America holds within her the truth that regardless of race, religion, or station in life, all of us share common aspirations - to live in peace and security; to get an education and to work with dignity; to love our families, our communities, and our God. These things we share. This is the hope of all humanity.

Of course, recognizing our common humanity is only the beginning of our task. Words alone cannot meet the needs of our people. These needs will be met only if we act boldly in the years ahead; and if we understand that the challenges we face are shared, and our failure to meet them will hurt us all.

For we have learned from recent experience that when a financial system weakens in one country, prosperity is hurt everywhere. When a new flu infects one human being, all are at risk. When one nation pursues a nuclear weapon, the risk of nuclear attack rises for all nations. When violent extremists operate in one stretch of mountains, people are endangered across an ocean. And when innocents in Bosnia and Darfur are slaughtered, that is a stain on our collective conscience. That is what it means to share this world in the 21st century. That is the responsibility we have to one another as human beings.

This is a difficult responsibility to embrace. For human history has often been a record of nations and tribes subjugating one another to serve their own interests. Yet in this new age, such attitudes are self-defeating. Given our interdependence, any world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will inevitably fail. So whatever we think of the past, we must not be prisoners of it. Our problems must be dealt with through partnership; progress must be shared.

That does not mean we should ignore sources of tension. Indeed, it suggests the opposite: we must face these tensions squarely. And so in that spirit, let me speak as clearly and plainly as I can about some specific issues that I believe we must finally confront together.

The first issue that we have to confront is violent extremism in all of its forms.

In Ankara, I made clear that America is not - and never will be - at war with Islam. We will, however, relentlessly confront violent extremists who pose a grave threat to our security. Because we reject the same thing that people of all faiths reject: the killing of innocent men, women, and children. And it is my first duty as President to protect the American people.

The situation in Afghanistan demonstrates America's goals, and our need to work together. Over seven years ago, the United States pursued al Qaeda and the Taliban with broad international support. We did not go by choice, we went because of necessity. I am aware that some question or justify the events of 9/11. But let us be clear: al Qaeda killed nearly 3,000 people on that day. The victims were innocent men, women and children from America and many other nations who had done nothing to harm anybody. And yet Al Qaeda chose to ruthlessly murder these people, claimed credit for the attack, and even now states their determination to kill on a massive scale. They have affiliates in many countries and are trying to expand their reach. These are not opinions to be debated; these are facts to be dealt with.

Make no mistake: we do not want to keep our troops in Afghanistan. We seek no military bases there. It is agonizing for America to lose our young men and women. It is costly and politically difficult to continue this conflict. We would gladly bring every single one of our troops home if we could be confident that there were not violent extremists in Afghanistan and Pakistan determined to kill as many Americans as they possibly can. But that is not yet the case.

That's why we're partnering with a coalition of forty-six countries. And despite the costs involved, America's commitment will not weaken. Indeed, none of us should tolerate these extremists. They have killed in many countries. They have killed people of different faiths - more than any other, they have killed Muslims. Their actions are irreconcilable with the rights of human beings, the progress of nations, and with Islam. The Holy Koran teaches that whoever kills an innocent, it is as if he has killed all mankind; and whoever saves a person, it is as if he has saved all mankind. The enduring faith of over a billion people is so much bigger than the narrow hatred of a few. Islam is not part of the problem in combating violent extremism - it is an important part of promoting peace.

We also know that military power alone is not going to solve the problems in Afghanistan and Pakistan. That is why we plan to invest $1.5 billion each year over the next five years to partner with Pakistanis to build schools and hospitals, roads and businesses, and hundreds of millions to help those who have been displaced. And that is why we are providing more than $2.8 billion to help Afghans develop their economy and deliver services that people depend upon.

Let me also address the issue of Iraq. Unlike Afghanistan, Iraq was a war of choice that provoked strong differences in my country and around the world. Although I believe that the Iraqi people are ultimately better off without the tyranny of Saddam Hussein, I also believe that events in Iraq have reminded America of the need to use diplomacy and build international consensus to resolve our problems whenever possible. Indeed, we can recall the words of Thomas Jefferson, who said: "I hope that our wisdom will grow with our power, and teach us that the less we use our power the greater it will be."

Today, America has a dual responsibility: to help Iraq forge a better future - and to leave Iraq to Iraqis. I have made it clear to the Iraqi people that we pursue no bases, and no claim on their territory or resources. Iraq's sovereignty is its own. That is why I ordered the removal of our combat brigades by next August. That is why we will honor our agreement with Iraq's democratically-elected government to remove combat troops from Iraqi cities by July, and to remove all our troops from Iraq by 2012. We will help Iraq train its Security Forces and develop its economy. But we will support a secure and united Iraq as a partner, and never as a patron.

And finally, just as America can never tolerate violence by extremists, we must never alter our principles. 9/11 was an enormous trauma to our country. The fear and anger that it provoked was understandable, but in some cases, it led us to act contrary to our ideals. We are taking concrete actions to change course. I have unequivocally prohibited the use of torture by the United States, and I have ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed by early next year.

So America will defend itself respectful of the sovereignty of nations and the rule of law. And we will do so in partnership with Muslim communities which are also threatened. The sooner the extremists are isolated and unwelcome in Muslim communities, the sooner we will all be safer.

The second major source of tension that we need to discuss is the situation between Israelis, Palestinians and the Arab world.

America's strong bonds with Israel are well known. This bond is unbreakable. It is based upon cultural and historical ties, and the recognition that the aspiration for a Jewish homeland is rooted in a tragic history that cannot be denied.

Around the world, the Jewish people were persecuted for centuries, and anti-Semitism in Europe culminated in an unprecedented Holocaust. Tomorrow, I will visit Buchenwald, which was part of a network of camps where Jews were enslaved, tortured, shot and gassed to death by the Third Reich. Six million Jews were killed - more than the entire Jewish population of Israel today. Denying that fact is baseless, ignorant, and hateful. Threatening Israel with destruction - or repeating vile stereotypes about Jews - is deeply wrong, and only serves to evoke in the minds of Israelis this most painful of memories while preventing the peace that the people of this region deserve.

On the other hand, it is also undeniable that the Palestinian people - Muslims and Christians - have suffered in pursuit of a homeland. For more than sixty years they have endured the pain of dislocation. Many wait in refugee camps in the West Bank, Gaza, and neighboring lands for a life of peace and security that they have never been able to lead. They endure the daily humiliations - large and small - that come with occupation. So let there be no doubt: the situation for the Palestinian people is intolerable. America will not turn our backs on the legitimate Palestinian aspiration for dignity, opportunity, and a state of their own.

For decades, there has been a stalemate: two peoples with legitimate aspirations, each with a painful history that makes compromise elusive. It is easy to point fingers - for Palestinians to point to the displacement brought by Israel's founding, and for Israelis to point to the constant hostility and attacks throughout its history from within its borders as well as beyond. But if we see this conflict only from one side or the other, then we will be blind to the truth: the only resolution is for the aspirations of both sides to be met through two states, where Israelis and Palestinians each live in peace and security.

That is in Israel's interest, Palestine's interest, America's interest, and the world's interest. That is why I intend to personally pursue this outcome with all the patience that the task requires. The obligations that the parties have agreed to under the Road Map are clear. For peace to come, it is time for them - and all of us - to live up to our responsibilities.

Palestinians must abandon violence. Resistance through violence and killing is wrong and does not succeed. For centuries, black people in America suffered the lash of the whip as slaves and the humiliation of segregation. But it was not violence that won full and equal rights. It was a peaceful and determined insistence upon the ideals at the center of America's founding. This same story can be told by people from South Africa to South Asia; from Eastern Europe to Indonesia. It's a story with a simple truth: that violence is a dead end. It is a sign of neither courage nor power to shoot rockets at sleeping children, or to blow up old women on a bus. That is not how moral authority is claimed; that is how it is surrendered.

Now is the time for Palestinians to focus on what they can build. The Palestinian Authority must develop its capacity to govern, with institutions that serve the needs of its people. Hamas does have support among some Palestinians, but they also have responsibilities. To play a role in fulfilling Palestinian aspirations, and to unify the Palestinian people, Hamas must put an end to violence, recognize past agreements, and recognize Israel's right to exist.

At the same time, Israelis must acknowledge that just as Israel's right to exist cannot be denied, neither can Palestine's. The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. This construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace. It is time for these settlements to stop.

Israel must also live up to its obligations to ensure that Palestinians can live, and work, and develop their society. And just as it devastates Palestinian families, the continuing humanitarian crisis in Gaza does not serve Israel's security; neither does the continuing lack of opportunity in the West Bank. Progress in the daily lives of the Palestinian people must be part of a road to peace, and Israel must take concrete steps to enable such progress.

Finally, the Arab States must recognize that the Arab Peace Initiative was an important beginning, but not the end of their responsibilities. The Arab-Israeli conflict should no longer be used to distract the people of Arab nations from other problems. Instead, it must be a cause for action to help the Palestinian people develop the institutions that will sustain their state; to recognize Israel's legitimacy; and to choose progress over a self-defeating focus on the past.

America will align our policies with those who pursue peace, and say in public what we say in private to Israelis and Palestinians and Arabs. We cannot impose peace. But privately, many Muslims recognize that Israel will not go away. Likewise, many Israelis recognize the need for a Palestinian state. It is time for us to act on what everyone knows to be true.

Too many tears have flowed. Too much blood has been shed. All of us have a responsibility to work for the day when the mothers of Israelis and Palestinians can see their children grow up without fear; when the Holy Land of three great faiths is the place of peace that God intended it to be; when Jerusalem is a secure and lasting home for Jews and Christians and Muslims, and a place for all of the children of Abraham to mingle peacefully together as in the story of Isra, when Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed (peace be upon them) joined in prayer.

The third source of tension is our shared interest in the rights and responsibilities of nations on nuclear weapons.

This issue has been a source of tension between the United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran. For many years, Iran has defined itself in part by its opposition to my country, and there is indeed a tumultuous history between us. In the middle of the Cold War, the United States played a role in the overthrow of a democratically-elected Iranian government. Since the Islamic Revolution, Iran has played a role in acts of hostage-taking and violence against U.S. troops and civilians. This history is well known. Rather than remain trapped in the past, I have made it clear to Iran's leaders and people that my country is prepared to move forward. The question, now, is not what Iran is against, but rather what future it wants to build.

It will be hard to overcome decades of mistrust, but we will proceed with courage, rectitude and resolve. There will be many issues to discuss between our two countries, and we are willing to move forward without preconditions on the basis of mutual respect. But it is clear to all concerned that when it comes to nuclear weapons, we have reached a decisive point. This is not simply about America's interests. It is about preventing a nuclear arms race in the Middle East that could lead this region and the world down a hugely dangerous path.

I understand those who protest that some countries have weapons that others do not. No single nation should pick and choose which nations hold nuclear weapons. That is why I strongly reaffirmed America's commitment to seek a world in which no nations hold nuclear weapons. And any nation - including Iran - should have the right to access peaceful nuclear power if it complies with its responsibilities under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. That commitment is at the core of the Treaty, and it must be kept for all who fully abide by it. And I am hopeful that all countries in the region can share in this goal.

The fourth issue that I will address is democracy.

I know there has been controversy about the promotion of democracy in recent years, and much of this controversy is connected to the war in Iraq. So let me be clear: no system of government can or should be imposed upon one nation by any other.

That does not lessen my commitment, however, to governments that reflect the will of the people. Each nation gives life to this principle in its own way, grounded in the traditions of its own people. America does not presume to know what is best for everyone, just as we would not presume to pick the outcome of a peaceful election. But I do have an unyielding belief that all people yearn for certain things: the ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed; confidence in the rule of law and the equal administration of justice; government that is transparent and doesn't steal from the people; the freedom to live as you choose. Those are not just American ideas, they are human rights, and that is why we will support them everywhere.

There is no straight line to realize this promise. But this much is clear: governments that protect these rights are ultimately more stable, successful and secure. Suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away. America respects the right of all peaceful and law-abiding voices to be heard around the world, even if we disagree with them. And we will welcome all elected, peaceful governments - provided they govern with respect for all their people.

This last point is important because there are some who advocate for democracy only when they are out of power; once in power, they are ruthless in suppressing the rights of others. No matter where it takes hold, government of the people and by the people sets a single standard for all who hold power: you must maintain your power through consent, not coercion; you must respect the rights of minorities, and participate with a spirit of tolerance and compromise; you must place the interests of your people and the legitimate workings of the political process above your party. Without these ingredients, elections alone do not make true democracy.

The fifth issue that we must address together is religious freedom.

Islam has a proud tradition of tolerance. We see it in the history of Andalusia and Cordoba during the Inquisition. I saw it firsthand as a child in Indonesia, where devout Christians worshiped freely in an overwhelmingly Muslim country. That is the spirit we need today. People in every country should be free to choose and live their faith based upon the persuasion of the mind, heart, and soul. This tolerance is essential for religion to thrive, but it is being challenged in many different ways.

Among some Muslims, there is a disturbing tendency to measure one's own faith by the rejection of another's. The richness of religious diversity must be upheld - whether it is for Maronites in Lebanon or the Copts in Egypt. And fault lines must be closed among Muslims as well, as the divisions between Sunni and Shia have led to tragic violence, particularly in Iraq.

Freedom of religion is central to the ability of peoples to live together. We must always examine the ways in which we protect it. For instance, in the United States, rules on charitable giving have made it harder for Muslims to fulfill their religious obligation. That is why I am committed to working with American Muslims to ensure that they can fulfill zakat.

Likewise, it is important for Western countries to avoid impeding Muslim citizens from practicing religion as they see fit - for instance, by dictating what clothes a Muslim woman should wear. We cannot disguise hostility towards any religion behind the pretence of liberalism.

Indeed, faith should bring us together. That is why we are forging service projects in America that bring together Christians, Muslims, and Jews. That is why we welcome efforts like Saudi Arabian King Abdullah's Interfaith dialogue and Turkey's leadership in the Alliance of Civilizations. Around the world, we can turn dialogue into Interfaith service, so bridges between peoples lead to action - whether it is combating malaria in Africa, or providing relief after a natural disaster.

The sixth issue that I want to address is women's rights.

I know there is debate about this issue. I reject the view of some in the West that a woman who chooses to cover her hair is somehow less equal, but I do believe that a woman who is denied an education is denied equality. And it is no coincidence that countries where women are well-educated are far more likely to be prosperous.

Now let me be clear: issues of women's equality are by no means simply an issue for Islam. In Turkey, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Indonesia, we have seen Muslim-majority countries elect a woman to lead. Meanwhile, the struggle for women's equality continues in many aspects of American life, and in countries around the world.

Our daughters can contribute just as much to society as our sons, and our common prosperity will be advanced by allowing all humanity - men and women - to reach their full potential. I do not believe that women must make the same choices as men in order to be equal, and I respect those women who choose to live their lives in traditional roles. But it should be their choice. That is why the United States will partner with any Muslim-majority country to support expanded literacy for girls, and to help young women pursue employment through micro-financing that helps people live their dreams.

Finally, I want to discuss economic development and opportunity.

I know that for many, the face of globalization is contradictory. The Internet and television can bring knowledge and information, but also offensive sexuality and mindless violence. Trade can bring new wealth and opportunities, but also huge disruptions and changing communities. In all nations - including my own - this change can bring fear. Fear that because of modernity we will lose of control over our economic choices, our politics, and most importantly our identities - those things we most cherish about our communities, our families, our traditions, and our faith.

But I also know that human progress cannot be denied. There need not be contradiction between development and tradition. Countries like Japan and South Korea grew their economies while maintaining distinct cultures. The same is true for the astonishing progress within Muslim-majority countries from Kuala Lumpur to Dubai. In ancient times and in our times, Muslim communities have been at the forefront of innovation and education.

This is important because no development strategy can be based only upon what comes out of the ground, nor can it be sustained while young people are out of work. Many Gulf States have enjoyed great wealth as a consequence of oil, and some are beginning to focus it on broader development. But all of us must recognize that education and innovation will be the currency of the 21st century, and in too many Muslim communities there remains underinvestment in these areas. I am emphasizing such investments within my country. And while America in the past has focused on oil and gas in this part of the world, we now seek a broader engagement.

On education, we will expand exchange programs, and increase scholarships, like the one that brought my father to America, while encouraging more Americans to study in Muslim communities. And we will match promising Muslim students with internships in America; invest in on-line learning for teachers and children around the world; and create a new online network, so a teenager in Kansas can communicate instantly with a teenager in Cairo.

On economic development, we will create a new corps of business volunteers to partner with counterparts in Muslim-majority countries. And I will host a Summit on Entrepreneurship this year to identify how we can deepen ties between business leaders, foundations and social entrepreneurs in the United States and Muslim communities around the world.

On science and technology, we will launch a new fund to support technological development in Muslim-majority countries, and to help transfer ideas to the marketplace so they can create jobs. We will open centers of scientific excellence in Africa, the Middle East and Southeast Asia, and appoint new Science Envoys to collaborate on programs that develop new sources of energy, create green jobs, digitize records, clean water, and grow new crops. And today I am announcing a new global effort with the Organization of the Islamic Conference to eradicate polio. And we will also expand partnerships with Muslim communities to promote child and maternal health.

All these things must be done in partnership. Americans are ready to join with citizens and governments; community organizations, religious leaders, and businesses in Muslim communities around the world to help our people pursue a better life.

The issues that I have described will not be easy to address. But we have a responsibility to join together on behalf of the world we seek - a world where extremists no longer threaten our people, and American troops have come home; a world where Israelis and Palestinians are each secure in a state of their own, and nuclear energy is used for peaceful purposes; a world where governments serve their citizens, and the rights of all God's children are respected. Those are mutual interests. That is the world we seek. But we can only achieve it together.

I know there are many - Muslim and non-Muslim - who question whether we can forge this new beginning. Some are eager to stoke the flames of division, and to stand in the way of progress. Some suggest that it isn't worth the effort - that we are fated to disagree, and civilizations are doomed to clash. Many more are simply skeptical that real change can occur. There is so much fear, so much mistrust. But if we choose to be bound by the past, we will never move forward. And I want to particularly say this to young people of every faith, in every country - you, more than anyone, have the ability to remake this world.

All of us share this world for but a brief moment in time. The question is whether we spend that time focused on what pushes us apart, or whether we commit ourselves to an effort - a sustained effort - to find common ground, to focus on the future we seek for our children, and to respect the dignity of all human beings.

It is easier to start wars than to end them. It is easier to blame others than to look inward; to see what is different about someone than to find the things we share. But we should choose the right path, not just the easy path. There is also one rule that lies at the heart of every religion - that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us. This truth transcends nations and peoples - a belief that isn't new; that isn't black or white or brown; that isn't Christian, or Muslim or Jew. It's a belief that pulsed in the cradle of civilization, and that still beats in the heart of billions. It's a faith in other people, and it's what brought me here today.

We have the power to make the world we seek, but only if we have the courage to make a new beginning, keeping in mind what has been written.

The Holy Koran tells us, "O mankind! We have created you male and a female; and we have made you into nations and tribes so that you may know one another."

The Talmud tells us: "The whole of the Torah is for the purpose of promoting peace."

The Holy Bible tells us, "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God."

The people of the world can live together in peace. We know that is God's vision. Now, that must be our work here on Earth. Thank you. And may God's peace be upon you.

Critical thinking will set you free!

Our mind and our heart are our most precious and free possessions, and yet all through life, we allow our minds and our hearts to be enslaved by others and ourselves.

We can free ourselves from such external or self-enslavement only through critical thinking.

The imperfect Wikipedia gives the following various definitions of “critical thinking”:

“Critical thinking is purposeful and reflective judgment about what to believe or what to do in response to observations, written expressions, or arguments. Critical thinking might involve determining the meaning and significance of what is observed or expressed, or, concerning a given inference or argument, determining whether there is adequate justification to accept the conclusion as true. Hence, Fisher & Scriven define critical thinking as “Skilled, active, interpretation and evaluation of observations, communications, information, and argumentation.” Parker & Moore define it more narrowly as the careful, deliberate determination of whether one should accept, reject, or suspend judgment about a claim the degree of confidence with which one accepts or rejects it.”

What a mouthful of words.

Essentially, critical thinking is not just a skill, and it is far more than skills in problem solving. It also includes thinking about thinking, which in western philosophy courses, is categorised as the Philosophy of Mind.

Critical thinking is not just about finding means to an end, but thinking about the end also.

Critical thinking begins with questions. We ask, “How to solve this problem” very often in our daily life. But we should ask questions about ends like, “What is the purpose of life?” “Who am I?” “What should I do about myself, and how should I live?” “What is justice?” “What is a good society?” “Does God exist?” “Why should obey the laws of our land?”

Critical thinking is also about questioning our own questioning. Are those questions posed above legitimate questions? If so, what kind of answers are we looking for? When do we know a question is illegitimate?

In a logic class I attended over 35 years ago, I was taught many “illogical fallacies” commonly accepted by logicians for being illegitimate. Their aim was to shoot down opponents, and end a reasoned search for Truth. That is called sophistry, against which Socrates fought against all his life and eventually gave his life up in the process.

One of these illogical fallacies is the common “rhetorical questions”. A rhetorical question requires no answer, as it assumes its own answer to the right. One such fallacious question is “What is the use of philosophy?” It is illegitimate because it thinks that everything must be of use to the ego or else it is not of any worth. This fallacious question is rooted in the idea that the Utilitarian Doctrine is the only philosophy that is true. There are many doctrines floating around.

To make it simple, just ask Mother Teresa this question, “What is the use of you giving your life to help and serve the untouchable poorest people in Calcutta all your life?” She was indeed very useful to those poor people whom she helped. From the Utilitarian selfish point of view (which I am sure she did not embrace), we could answer that her work probably earned her a revered place in heaven.

Rhetorical questions like that enslave the mind, and so I hate them. I have to face them endlessly all my life. Fortunately, some rhetorical questions are legitimate, because they free the mind. To tell the difference, you need critical thinking.

“Hate” is a powerful word. It means a strong emotion. We are often advised by various shades of politicians not to be swayed by our emotions, but we must be rational in our decision, especially in voting. Again, we have to be critical in our thinking. That kind of advice looks good, but is it true?

The statement is partly true, like most of our statements. Hate is not a very healthy emotion most of the time. But what if I hate injustice inflicted on the innocent, the dispossessed, and the weak? I can not hate the person inflicting the injustice, but can I not hate the phenomenon of injustice, out of moral outrage, as Mother Teresa did?

Then again, the division of a single individual into emotion and reason (with a possible third addition of a spirit) is an arbitrary one. We are always one single living thinking entity.

Without going into the details of the debate going back 2,500 years in the Western and other civilisations, we can safely say that in fact, until to-day, we do not know fully what reason is and what emotions are. Otherwise, professors in the philosophy and the psychology departments in the world’s universities will not be able to make a living teaching and writing books on the subject.

I can just posit this simple statement from years of thinking about this subject: reason without emotions is sterile, while emotions without reason are blind – and probably dangerous.

The great 20^th century philosopher Martin Heidegger said it better. He said that there is rationality in our emotions, and there are emotions in our reasoning.

I mention the philosopher’s name not to lend his authority to my point of view. Heidegger was a greater thinker than most of us, but he was still human and fallible. Like all of us, he did not have the ultimate Truth.

This is another thing about critical thinking, often taught to secondary students in North American high schools onwards.

When you are taught anything new, do not accept it as gospel truth on any authority. You have to examine it, test it, learn more about it, and if you accept it at the end, it must be your personal truth, and not truth given by other people. Again, critical thinking needs a questioning mind. In the liberal arts college, they pursue this independent questioning of authorities to a fault.

Malaysia is an Asian country. From a very young age, we are taught to accept what our parents and teachers said to us as absolute truth. When we become adults, we are taught by elders, social and political leaders ..who dictate to us our values and our knowledge. Our formal education systems tell us to pass exams, and nothing about pursuing truth on our own through critical thinking. The mainstream media is the prime culprit in repressing this freedom through their denial of critical thinking on their pages.

When we question our very imperfect system, we become social outcasts, political pariahs, and persecuted misfits. RPK is the prime example.

That is why the Malaysian mind is so much shackled. They are still living in Plato’s Cave of accepting shadows dancing on the wall as the real deal.

I am one of those people who have gone outside the cave and seen the real sun. I am back in the Cave with my memories of the bright sun.

That is why I am telling you: only critical thinking can free your mind and your soul. Don’t take my word on authority. Do your own research on critical thinking, discuss with friends, and look up materials on Google on critical thinking and Plato’s Cave. Then, come back to debate with me if you disagree with me.

I started out thinking of writing about our language as our self-imposed prison. That will have to wait for another day.

by: Sim Kwang Yang (you can reach him at: kenyalang578@hotmail.com