Misconception.

I was driving and as I reached a traffic light, the signal turned to red. Minding my own business, I looked at the traffic light while waiting for it to turn to green. It was at night and I was badly lit by the horribly maintained lamp post. Suddenly I looked at my right and I realized that a group of girls were looking at me. I tried to look around, just to be sure that they were looking at me. I was alone at that time, unless they saw something on top of my car and the smiles that they gave me were actually horrified look looking at some ghost with long legs just like in the movie Karak.

So I checked.Yeah, they were looking at me.Haha. They were smiling and grinning and I thought to myself, " Yeah, this feels good. Though it was dark at the time. They might be thinking in the car here looks like Ashraf Muslim though in actual it looks like Shrek."

Yes,this is how I look at night. But with hair.

So now I know why women like to get dressed, put on alot of make ups, get their hair done. It is because they like the attention! Don't tell me that they simply put on those thick make ups just because they like it. I was given a small attention by girls in cars and I already felt flattered. So no wonder that many false advertising like wearing skimpy clothes, being skinny are A-OK as they are already ingrained with the understanding that it is ok to be looked at, to show off what you have. If that is the common thing right now, I just can't imagine what would I do if I have a daughter in the future. Chain her to her bed?

So while women are being looked at by their looks, there are some of my friends who told me that men are judged by what car they drive. The bigger the car is or the louder the sound that it makes, the better men feel in their pants as they are judged by their cars. Talk about being shallow right?

Oh, by the way, I only drove a Kelisa that night, so either the theory about men with cars is false or the girls were just trolling me. I guess it is the latter.

History,books,Salina.

History is a delicate subject as sometimes it can be rather skewed, depending on who writes it. Those who propose a subject might be the heroes while those who oppose are being portrayed as the villains. Though history is a subject about facts, how it is being presented can actually change how the facts are being portrayed. For example, we know that the past Sultans and the lords are actually the people who gave away our land to the British when they need some support over territorial problems. Here the Sultans and the lords are being portrayed as those who were being cheated while the British were being portrayed as the sneaky opportunists. Well, if no one is fighting over some territorial prowess, no opportunists could even have the chance to fool anyone right?

So the problem of our history textbooks have been debated heavily once it was decided that History would be a compulsory pass subject. While some quarters are opposing the amount of 'biased' info in the text book, the latest uproar related to the BM literature novel for SPM students once again put the limelight on what do we teach our students. So some books have been burned, pictures of the author have been slapped with slippers all in the name of opposing the content of the book. While I have not read the book Interlok yet, I just wonder what was the fuss about. Did the writer write some false information there? Or did the writer incites the races in Malaysia to go against each other? If what have been described by the writer are things that actually happened, then what is wrong with that? Ok so the name calling might not seem so appropriate, but is it something that is false there? We have seen how P.Ramlee's movies have cursing words in it but well, that is just how it was at that time. No one kicked a fuss out of it, People are still watching the movies and no one is complaining. Interlok was published in the 1970s so maybe it was something normal at that time with the name callings. We just accept that it happened at that time. Wanting to change the terms in the book to please some quarters is like the idiot request of some people who wants to change the term of Harimau Malaya, our national football team nickname, to Harimau Malaysia to really represents the true composition of the country. What a load of bullshit when no one even cares when the team was losing but everyone wants a piece when the team is winning. So it goes the same here with the book. It was published in the 1970s and no one cared about the terms. Even if they disagree with the book, there is actually no need to resort to burning the books as books should be appreciated, not to be burned. Engage in an intellectual manner, not in a barbaric form.

Have you read the book Salina by A. Samad Said? I would really suggest you to read that. I read it when I was in school, around 15 or 16 years old. I never really knew about the book at that time but I guess the red cover of the book intrigued me to read it. I can not really recall all the points in the book now as it has been a very long time since the last time that I read it. What I can remember is that the book is a story about Salina, a prostitute who lives in a run down house with a very poor environment. I can still remember the description of the feces being passed in the book. So the book actually refers to Salina as a prostitute, so does that mean that I should be angry because I do not believe that my race should be portrayed as prostitute? What is wrong with us now that we have become too sensitive with everything? We keep on trying to reach for perfectness when in truth we never will be. Just embrace the fact that we are not perfect but we must never give up to improve ourselves. The more we try to find perfectness, the more imperfectness will come creeping out of the closet. By that time we will realise that we are just mere human, not God.