In an interesting ruling, the Malaysian Court of Appeal dismissed on Wednesday an appeal by three Muslim students against their expulsion from a public school, for refusing to take off their turbans.  The court ruled that not everything that the prophet Muhammad did or the way which he did it was binding on Muslims.  Quotable quote -

"I accept that the Prophet wore a turban. But he also rode a camel, built his house and mosque with clay walls and roof of leaves of date palms and brushed his teeth with the twig of a plant.  [But] does that make riding a camel a more pious deed than travelling in an aeroplane? Is it preferable to build houses and mosques using the same materials used by the Prophet and the same architecture adopted by him during his time?"

Tonight is one of those nights to remember.  I had stood up Jed in his cot and to wipe him up in preparation for bedtime.  His clothes and diapers were off.  I briefly turned around to wet his towel and returned to find Jed wearing a bright red, constipated (kek sai) look on his face. 

It was one of those moments, if I may borrow from the international law definition of when a right of anticipatory self-defence may be exercised, where I was confronted with circumstances that were "instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation" (ref : The Caroline Case).

This, unfortunately, was also one of those moments when the enemy caught me entirely by surprise.  The bombardment started before I could take any defensive measures.  Jed crapped in his cot.

Typical kek sai look & posture (fists clenched) (above)

Life has actually gotten so, so busy since I started work at my new workplace that I hardly have the time or mental capacity to blog anymore.

Heck, though I can now carry a camera phone to work, I don’t even have the time to get myself a camera phone to at least snap myself at hard at work.

The following statement by the Press Secretary to the Minister for the Ministry of Information, Communication and the Arts was published as part of a letter to TODAY, today (3 July 2006) :

"It is not the role of journalists or newspapers in Singapore to champion issues, or campaign for or against the Government."

I’m not going to discuss the rightness or wrongness of that statement.  If journalists are not supposed to champion issues, what more a humble blogger like me ?

But I thought it noteworthy that, maybe, ChannelNewsAsia and the Straits Times have also run afoul of these rules.  In line with the prohibition against championing issues, they may only publish facts and may not offer "views", "understanding", discuss "issues which affect … lives" and "perspectives".  But look at how these deviants describe themselves -

"What We Believe" (ChannelNewsAsia)

Viewers today are overloaded by information. Often, what they need is not just news, but understanding. Not just events of the moment, but issues which affect their lives. Not just headlines, but bottomlines. Not just another perspective from a distance, but insights from the inside. With correspondents based in major cities throughout the region, Channel NewsAsia is created for Asians by Asians.

"About Us" (The Straits Times)

The Straits Times strives to be an authoritative provider of news and views, with special focus on Singapore and the Asian region.

I’m in a rather spiteful mood because I had to leave my previous employer ("the Organisation") for rather poor reasons - they were paying me too poorly - and so today slightly out of keeping with my mild temperament I feel like saying not-so-nice things about the Organisation.

The world is coming to an end, for that lousy Organisation at least.  The proof of that lies in the fact that another one of my former colleagues has quit (leaving the department at 50% strength), and his encounter with a ditzy HR executive (I’ve always suspected that the HR department was staffed with not-too-bright officers.  This confirms my suspicions).  Here’s his rather funny account of how his painful exit interview went (excerpt below) -

I recently quit an organisation that I had been working with for the past 3 years, to join a financial institution for 2 months before heading off to London to do my Masters. As part of the resignation process, I was required to attend an exit interview with the organisation’s Human Resource (HR) department.

It would probably be worth stating at this juncture that I am quite well known in this organisation’s HR department (which is no small feat considering the organisation’s manpower size) due to problems that arose during my intitial recruitment (pay, pay and not enough pay).

…

I was required to state in order of importance, my reasons for leaving the organisation. I stated the following (numbered in order of importance):

"I am leaving the organisation because:

1 - I want to further my studies
2 - I want to add value to my career
3 - The remuneration being offered by the organisation is not sufficient"

She started to grill me on the 2nd reason - wanting to add value to my career. I was not impressed:

HR: (In a ditzy voice) I am quite confused by your second entry. You state that you are leaving to further your studies, but yet you also say that you are leaving to add value to your career. This does not make sense, hor.

Me: (Extremely Confused) Eh? Well, I thought it was quite clear that I am doing my Masters to add value to my career?

HR: Ya, it does not make sense hor.

Me: (Getting quite pissed off and automatically entering into trial cross-examination mode) No, it does. Surely, I would not be embarking on my Masters if I did not think that it would add value to my career, do you not agree?

HR: (In a ditzy voice) Uhhh…Yes and no, hor.

At this point, I made her admit under my own counter cross-examination that there was nothing out of order or illogical about my comments.

Will probably blog about my exit interview some time later.