Sunday 27 January 2013

Tribute to Sir Thomas More - Thoughts from the Past, Part 1

I wrote many articles before I joined politics. I thought I should share it with you guys. Shall call these articles as "Thoughts from the Past".


This is a tribute to my idol, Sir or St Thomas More (canonized in 1935), the only lawyer canonised in history besides St Ivo, in 1347. Sir Thomas coined the term “Utopia.” He has impacted us much. This is how Robert Whittinton described him : “A man of an angel's wit and singular learning. I know not his fellow. For where is the man of that gentleness, lowliness and affability? And, as time requireth, a man of marvelous mirth and pastimes, and sometime of as sad gravity. A man for all seasons.”

Sir Thomas was once chided by his son-in-law Roper for giving the Devil (Richard Rich) the benefit of law and Roper said that he would cut down every law in England to get the Devil. Sir Thomas then so astutely retorted, “Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down,…, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!”. That was the kind of person Sir Thomas was. He would give the Devil the benefit of law to uphold the rule of law, no matter how absurd or strange or quirky the laws were.

Eventually, Sir Thomas was executed in 1535 for steadfastly holding on to his religious convictions by refusing to approve King Henry VIII’s divorce of Catherine of Aragorn in order to marry Anne Boleyn. In order to divorce Catherine, Henry VIII had to break away from the Roman Catholic Church and made himself the Head of the Church of England, something which Sir Thomas refused to recognise. That explains why, under the reign of Elizabeth I (Henry VIII’s daughter with Anne Boleyn), any person found guilty of "harbouring a Catholic priest" would be tortured or even hanged. Any priest of the Catholic faith who was caught would be hanged, drawn, and quartered (explained below).

The man instrumental in getting Sir Thomas executed was Thomas Cromwell. Flash forward 112 years later. Thomas Cromwell’s great great nephew, Oliver Cromwell, the Lord Protector of England. The English Interregnum lasted from 1649-1660. Oliver Cromwell was instrumental in leading the revolt against the monarchy that led to the beheading of King Charles I.

Did you know that celebrating Christmas was illegal in England under Oliver Cromwell? In 1647 (since 1646 England had been ruled solely by Parliament), Christmas festivities were banned by the Puritan leader Oliver Cromwell, who considered feasting and revelry on a holy day to be immoral. During his reign, Oliver Cromwell also banned the eating of mince pies on Christmas day, as the pies were insufficiently Puritan. Ingredients of mince pies were considered pagan in origin, and their consumption a part of ancient fertility rituals. The law dates from the puritan era, the same time that dancing in church, maypoles, and holly and ivy decorations were outlawed. The laws were never officially repealed because upon the restoration of the monarchy, (in the form of Charles II) all laws formed under the protectorate were ignored as invalid. The ban was finally lifted in 1660.

Oliver Cromwell, Lord Protector of England and scourge of the monarchists, died [of malaria?] on 3rd September 1658. 18 months later the monarchy had been restored and the royalists wanted revenge for the regicide of King Charles I. Cromwell was “hanged, drawn & quartered”. Cromwell's corpse was exhumed from his tomb in Westminster Abbey and dragged through the streets of London to Tyburn (“drawn”). He was then given a symbolic hanging. 6 hours later his corpse was taken down from the gallows (“hanged”); Disembowelled, and the genitalia and entrails burned before the victim's eyes; the heart was the last to be removed and was then shown to the victim before the entrails were burned. Beheaded by an executioner and the body divided into four parts (“quartered”). Typically, the resulting five parts (i.e., the four quarters of the body and the head) were gibbeted (put on public display) in different parts of the city or town. His head was then paraded through the streets before being stuck on an iron spike and displayed atop Westminster Hall. A gross but effective way to deter would-be traitors

Coming back to our Sir Thomas More. I have just been given a DVD titled “A Man For All Seasons” by a senior and learned counsel who wants to remain anonymous. It is a 1966 Fred Zinnemann’s movie adaptation of a play by Robert Bolt. The protagonist is one Sir Thomas More, posthumously known as Saint Thomas More.

The movie was plodding along as the character of Cardinal Wolsey (played by Orson Welles) chides Sir Thomas More (played by Paul Scofield) for being a plodder. However, there was never a dull moment as the plot escalates from the first scene, i.e, the confrontation between Cardinal Wolsey and Sir Thomas pertaining to the latter’s opposition. This story is pertinent to us lawyers who should practise without fear or fervour. Sir Thomas More was beheaded for standing on his ground; for refusing to budge in the midst of intense pressure; bowing only to God.

I read the history of King Henry VIII (part of the Tudor era) but nothing beats watching a movie depiction of it. The characters just come alive and you are transported to the era with all its trappings. Dialogues just stick like glue. There were many interesting scenes. The first was the banter in the household of Sir Thomas, where they stated that every other bastard in England was fathered by a priest. However, Sir Thomas was quick to add that in utopia, it would never happen as there the priests are all holy. Then, his dear wife, Alice so sarcastically said that then there would be very few of them (priests) in utopia. Also, there is the dialogue between Cardinal Wolsey and Sir Thomas.

My favourite line from that scene is where the Cardinal tells Sir Thomas that if only Sir Thomas would look at this without the moral squint, then Sir Thomas could become a great statesman. Then there is this scene where Sir Thomas’ son-in-law, William Roper (also a lawyer) argued with Sir Thomas about the laws of the land and the laws of God. Of course, all the above culminated in the court where Sir Thomas was charged for high treason. There, Thomas Cromwell argued with Sir Thomas about the right to silence.

It is interesting to note that King Henry VIII was a writer poet singer in his own right. That explains his erratic behaviour. He was credited for composing the English folk song, “Greensleeves”.

To sum up history in a cynical manner,           we may argue that the Chinese diaspora was the indirect effect of King Henry VIII’s reign, a king who loved wine, women and song. The product of the “unholy” union between Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn is Queen Elizabeth I. Elizabeth I reigned from 1553-1603, the “Golden Era” or the Elizabethan era. It was the era of the emerging British imperial power. There was rivalry between Protestant England and Roman Catholic Spain. Then England defeated the Spanish in the Anglo-Spanish war on 8th August 1588. The repulse of the Spanish navy solidified the Protestant cause across Europe and revolutionised naval warfare. England remained true to its Protestant revolution and was now free to pursue its commercial interests in North America. The failure of the Armada to win a quick victory against England meant that Philip I would not be able to concentrate his forces on recovering the Netherlands.

Fifty years after the Armada expedition, the Dutch, who had been steadily increasing their naval power, destroyed Spanish dominance at sea (at the Battle of the Downs in 1639). It was only during the Napoleonic Wars that the British navy finally established its overwhelming mastery at the Battle of Trafalgar in 1805. All the above were the precursors to the subsequent colonisation of the then Malaya. The imperial “masters” then brought in Chinese labourers in huge numbers to work here.

Sir Thomas More also had an indirect impact, as his idea of “Utopia” became the basis for Karl Marx’s vision of the ideal communist state.

The steadfastness with which Sir Thomas More held on to the rule of law; his religious convictions in the face of ruin and death, and the dignity with which he conducted himself during his imprisonment, trial and execution should serve as an example to us all, now living in a decadent world.

I would like to end with one of More’s quotes “If honour were profitable, everybody would be honourable.”


35 comments:

  1. Very inspiring. i guess this spells out your personal conviction of standing firm and upright.

    May you find strength to press on in the face of danger and loss.

    If honour were profitable, it is no more honourable to defend the truth without paying the price.

    Cheang from Labuan

    ReplyDelete
  2. Firm & upright and politician are a contradiction. Every successful politician has to do horse trading and that means compromising on one's principle. Those who hold onto their principle could never go very far or risk being kicked out of their party or in Thomas More's case, lost his head. Because of that, it repulses me to hear any politician shouting they are upright and dare to speak their mind. It's similar to a thief shouting they don't steal. No such thing. I am not being cynical but stating facts.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. hi Anon 9.29pm,
      Am an optimist. i believe even tho politics is dirty as u see it, i hang on to the hope of some in politics with strong conviction to make a difference. Why not u take up the challenge to be a different type of politician?

      What u say is a fact, but it is not good enough expressing it as such.

      U can't live without politics. Every aspect of life involves politics, no matter how much u detest it.

      If u find politicians are so corruptible, u should ask yourself why not u challenge yr own cynical perception.

      cheang from labuan

      Delete
    2. Hi Cheang. What you said is a very noble thing but technically not possible in a democracy. Only in a Monarchism system could one do exactly what he/she wanted. Because compromises or horse trading (the former is a nice word and the later a dirty word but basically mean the same thing) are the very essence of a democracy. This is a fact and has nothing to do with cynical-ism. And exactly the reason why politician like Tan could never say some of the thing that you and I could and still get to keep her head. Not to say she has no integrity but rather there must be discipline in any organization and that includes toeing the party's official line. If the official line is "Lynas as bad as nuclear reactor", she can't say otherwise.

      Having said all that, I do hope Malaysia has some strong upright leaders but so far, I have seen none from either BN or PR. And if I have to pick one, relatively speaking, it would be Karpal Singh because at least he dare to speak out in defense of secularism.

      Delete
  3. Dear Anon,It would be nice to know your name. You are entitled to your opinion. You may have bad experiences with politicians but that does not mean that every politicians are bad. Same in every profession, even in yours. I wrote this article (if you have read the first line) before I joined politics. I still hold on to the principles. Yes, you are cynical and so am I. Especially about armchair critics who wish to remain anonymous. I am kidding ! My conscience is clear.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If your conscience is clear, please tell us your opinion on the following issues. If you don't, I can also understand because politicians usually avoid answering them.

      1. Why does DAP keeps relating metal extraction plant called Lynas with nuclear reactor? Aren't Lynas more closely related to mining activities/petro-chemical factory/coal fire power plant/fertilizer factory in terms of radiation?

      2. Do you think it is crazy those intending to organize events like Sarawak Run or Sarawak Football have to seek Sarawak state government's approval to use the word “Sarawak”? If you think it is crazy, do you think Penang state government is equally crazy to suggest one need to get state approval to use the word “Penang”? And one can't organize sporting event when another race is having their Thaipusan or Christmas or Chinese New Year or Wesak or whatever?

      3. From what I read in the news, non-Muslim lady can’t cut the hair of non-Muslim man, amongst other things. So do you think PAS’s promise of their policy not affecting non-Muslim is to be trusted?

      As I said, you don’t have to answer any of these questions because as a politician, it is best not to answer those because you will surely get into trouble with your own party or your coalition party. The point I want to make is, if one truly wants to be a successful politician, one can’t always speak their mind. You just can't. On the other hand, truly upright person who hold onto their principle and have a strong sense of right and wrong and justice will want to speak out. Similarly, a non-politician and a nobody like me who is not attached to any political party can say what we like. That's a privilege we have. But public figure and politician don't have that privilege and be prepared to be challenged on your claim's authenticity.

      What I said applies to both BN and Pakatan politician. It is just the name of their game, politic.

      But you do earn some of my respect for you because you didn't delete off my posts. A lesser person will surely want to.

      Delete
    2. Dear Anon,

      Remember assumption is the mother of all disasters. Please read alternative media besides The Star. It is quite obvious from your questions that you only read one side of the story and made all the assumptions. In the court of law, before the judge decides he listened to both parties arguments first.

      1. DAP leaders are not rocket scientists but they are actually quite well informed. I think they did not equate Lynas with nuclear reactor. They merely said that the effect is as drastic as that. Basically, the radiation bit.

      2. Read this press release by LGE : http://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.563589097004529.147905.127235530639890&type=1

      3. Read this press release by Hadi : http://www.malaysia-chronicle.com/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=44405:hair-salon-ruling-not-for-non-muslims-hadi&Itemid=2

      I congratulate you for having the privilege to speak your mind. Please do more homework before doing so in the future. You can't always hide behind an anonymity and shoot freely. That is not your privilege I am afraid.

      Delete
    3. On news. The Star is pro-BN and Malaysia Insider is Pakatan friendly. See....I know more than you think. So please don't treat all Raykat as 3 years old kid.

      On homework. It is precisely I have done my homework that I said what I said. So please don't insult my intelligent and on radiation, I am afraid I have far more than yours because I have done a lot of homework on that.

      1. Lynas. While DAP are not rocket scientist, she totally disregard their own nuclear scientist Chi Rosli on matte relating to radiation and put a gag on him. And no, this news in not in The Star. It's in Pakatan friendly news. To say Lynas effect is as drastic as nuclear reactor is one of the biggest lie floating. Don't take my word for it, take your own advise and go do your homework and I am sure you have friends who are scientist. They don't have to be rocket scientist, just an educated and open mind will do. I have done so much homework on Lynas that I think I can write a thesis on it headline "A case of FUD". And reason why I am so mad about DAP when I wasn't before.
      http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/litee/malaysia/article/pas-man-says-lynas-plant-safe-if-properly-monitored/

      2. The hair saloon and Penang run are similar reported in Pakatan friendly Malaysia Insider. So no mistakes there.

      Since I have absolutely no intention of being a public figure or politician, I do have that privilege of being anonymous. That is why I can say things you can't.

      Delete
    4. 1. If Lynas is safe, would you stay there ? Why can't Australia do it despite having so much desert /land and lower water table ? And yes, please share your thesis with us.

      2. The statement is by Hadi and backed up by the relevant regulations.

      Don't be overly sensitive especially if you are hiding behind anonymity. I go on issues.

      Delete
    5. Ha. Your argument is most common.

      1. Do you know of any industrial factory being safe? The answer is, there are none. So of course Lynas is not safe but it is as safe as coal fire power plant and your Shell oil plant in your constituency.
      http://www.stuarthsmith.com/the-oil-and-gas-industrys-800-pound-gorilla-radiation/

      2. Now I know many thing has no radiation like rubbish dump and out house. Is that a reason to stay there?

      3. Do you know, beside Australia with her upcoming Arafura at Whyalla and Alkane, there is now a mad rush to build their own rare earth refineries in Western countries?
      http://www.elpasoinc.com/news/top_story/article_e6615e24-6c5e-11e1-b1e8-001a4bcf6878.html

      4. If you want to talk about regulation. Why doesn't DAP discuss the report on Lynas by the International Atomic Energy Agency? FYI, IAEA is the world foremost authority on radiation.

      Like I said, I have done a lot of homework on Lynas because I am also very concerned about the environment and I found lots of misleading information. I would say it's a classis case of FUD. And if you are also concerned about the environment, I suggest you should raise awareness of the danger of coal fire power plant in Mukah and I heard there may be another one coming up in Bintulu/Miri(?) because there are reports it's worst than nuclear plant. Then there is the Aluminium plant in Bintulu.
      http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste

      BTW, I can back up all of what I said with proper web links should you want to read them for yourself. And I am glad you go on issue as well. This is in sharp contrast with Anti-Lynas.

      Delete
    6. 1. Gebeng is 25 km from Kuantan. Please do not deviate from the topic. We will go into coal fire and Shell oil plant (thanks for the info) later. Just because it is less safe than the two does not make it safe and why should Kuantan people be forced to live so closely to it if they have a choice?

      2. You have got a choice not to stay next to a rubbish dump eventhough there is no radiation, why should Kuantan people stay near Lynas with radiation?

      3. Let them build as Australia and Mongolia have deserts and low water table. I don't want the risk of drinking contaminated water.

      Delete
    7. 4. The regulation I was talking about was from Hadi's press statement on the hair saloon. DAP's discussion of the IAEA report :http://blog.limkitsiang.com/2012/03/14/lynas-what-were-the-iaea-experts-thinking-on-the-plane-home/

      I have done my research as well and I beg to differ from you. I am concerned about the environment and shall look into the other cases you brought up but let's not digress from the issue at hand. By saying that the other projects are more hazardous than Lynas does not solve the Lynas problem. The other projects if more hazardous should be stopped as well. Radiation is radiation. Our country is not suitable, especially Gebeng which is too near Kuantan. The mad rush in California and Texas are both in the mountains and remote. Perhaps we can invest in rare earth projects elsewhere like in China and Australia.

      Delete
    8. Gebeng is an industrial park. If you care to do your homework, you will find it's filled with equally dangerous industrial plants which nobody bother to politicize. If you apply the same yardstick that you apply to Lynas to the other industrial plants in Gebeng, you are basically saying we should shut down the entire Gebeng including the petro-chemical plant and cease industrialization. Now if one shouldn’t situate industrial plant in a specially designated industrial park, where then? Unless you can come out with a better solution, I am afraid we just have to accept industrial plants that are situated in industrial park. Or are you against industrialization? We can accept equally polluting oil & gas industry, why not rare earth industry? I do not see any logic in that.

      As for Gebeng’s distance to residential area, go check out the forthcoming Arafura rare earth plant in Australia. It's less than 5 kilometer from the town of Whyalla.

      On your Lim Kit Siang blog. I have read it before and very glad you bought it up. Lim Kit Siang's blog is basically saying, under Australian and International regulation, Lynas's raw & waste material should NOT be classified as radioactive (because it's below the 10 bq/g threshold level). Now here is a question for you. If LKS blog says those are not radioactive, why does DAP keep linking Lynas with nuclear reactor? Now do you see why I am so upset with politician who seems to go against internationally accepted regulation? As a lawyer, you should know how important are laws and regulations.

      And please tell me why you say radiation is radiation and reason for rejecting Lynas.

      As I have told you. I have done more homework than you think because while I am concerned about the environment, I refuse to be hoodwink by those who politicize it for their own interest. I am all for rationality and solid science and totally against irrationality & unsubstantiated claim. As far as I can see, industrialization seems to be a natural ticket to a high income society for us.

      Here is the IAEA report:
      http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/pdf/lynas-report2011.pdf

      Delete
  4. Dear Cheang, thanks very much for your kind words.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Dear Nicole,
    U could have a comfortable life as a lawyer, but u choose not to be in the comfort zone to be in the rough and tumble world of politics.

    But with your high integrity to live out your belief, politics is the path u have to take.

    To the cynical armchair like the Anon above, well, does he realise that even in the medical profession it is no better than politics. Is he going to stop seeing doctors or even discourage his child to take up medicine if he so inclined?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It is impossible for people with high integrity to go very far in politic. Every heard of the saying "Politic is dirty"? Put it in another way, if one isn't prepared to play dirty, one should get out of politic.

      And have you also heard the saying "everything is relative"? While there are unethical doctor, in percentage term, there are less unethical doctor than politician. But if you insist on 100%, then I am afraid you will be well disappointed.

      I am not cynical. I am a realist.

      Delete
    2. Anon, what good is a realist if you just criticise without any initiative to make a difference ? I strongly urge you to come out of your closet and become an activist if not a politician.

      Delete
    3. I am an activist. I am dong my part in telling people the truth. By truth, I meant things based on established science. I want this country to base her policy and judgement based on established science and not fear mongering and irrationality. That is why should you wanted it, I can show you links to back up what I said.

      Lynas is my cause because I find so many misinformation and outright lies being floated around which has no scientific basis. Lynas as bad as nuclear reactor is one. Showing nuclear bomb exploding and mutated babies is another.

      Delete
  6. Anon, if u want to go far in life, by hook or by crook, anyone can. But not everyone is willing to compromise their principles. Nicole had quoted Thomas More for saying, "If honour is profitable, everybody would be honourable."

    Those willing to pay the price to be honourable are rare and that makes them special and extraordinary.

    U are too judgemental on people not on your side. Nobody is absolutely right.

    With regards to Lynas, we should learn something from the Bt Merah Rare Earth. The dangers to health of the Bt Merah residents. An independent body found Bt Merah had the highest incidents of birth defects and leukemia.

    Why can't we attract safer industries and take on rare earth? Its better to err on the side of caution.

    I can't debate on science. But my recent interest in learning disabilities, I read that the phenomenon is growing. Metal in the environment is one of the contributing factors, according to an American study.

    We are living in an imperfect world. Talking abt environmental risks, we can't avoid it, but to manage the risk-benefit. The problem is the world is getting more materialistic. We want more than we need. Its a vicious cycle as we are caught in it and have to cari makan.

    Cheang from Labuan

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anon. While Bukit Merah and Lynas are both into rare earth, care to tell me what are the similarities and differences between the two? It's of little use to say just because a high rise building had collapsed so we must stop building any more high rise building in future. And just because there are now phenomenon of metal causing health problem, we should consider stopping using metal. If we do that, I would say we will still be in stone age and cave dweller today. I am sure nobody want to go back to those dark ages.

      Therefore for human to progress, like you say, we must weight the risk-benefit. Since the Industrial Revolution, human has relied on heavily on science and technology. The irrational thing is, those who protested most loudly against Lynas tends to be people who do not want to know science or do not use science to convince others Lynas is bad.

      BTW, I have NEVER said Lynas is safe because I would be nuts to say so. I am only saying it is as safe as those mining and oil industries. And because rare earth may be one of the most money generating industries of the 21 century, we must decide on Lynas fate based on logic, science and technology. Not creating irrational fear.

      Delete
    2. The similarity of Bt Merah and Lynas, the government claimed it is safe.

      Those who opposed the BM plant were incarcerated under the ISA during TDM regime.

      I can only recall that it was Japanese green activists vocal protest agst Mitsubishi that led to the cleaning up of the dumpsite.

      So a precedent had been set that the government's words cannot be taken for granted.

      The Anon above had said he believed in rationality and solid science.

      I wanna say Science without humanity is a monster in the making.

      Between a farmer and a science-trained person, u can't fool the former as easily as the latter.

      You can manipulate a scientific concept, but a farmer lives by the outcome. U can impress him with yr ideas only once.

      Cheang from Labuan

      Delete
  7. Hi Cheang.

    Let's use your logic aka, if a disaster happened, then similar project should never be undertaken.

    In Malaysia, when Highland Tower was built, government said it was safe. But it collapsed in 1993. Using your logic, no more high rise building should be built after 1993.

    Internationally, in 1988, there was the Piper Alpha oil rig disaster in the North Sea. Again using your same logic, there should be no more oil exploration since 1988.

    Historically, a Caproni Ca.48 aircraft crashed at Verona in 1919 killing all on board. So no more commercial aircraft should be built since 1919?

    I am not saying Lynas is safe but instead saying safely standard had improved thanks to science and technology. If there are so many Western countries now rushing to build their own rare earth refineries in their own backyard, surely it means technology has improved to a point whereby the risk:reward has now become attractive enough for even those highly environmentally conscious countries to contemplate undertaking.

    As for the very agency AELB that is entrusted to oversee Lynas, of course BN government say they are competent but we do have our doubt. But when Lim Guan Eng also went on record to say AELB is professional and competent, who are we to argue? Can give you the link if you want.

    BTW, I disagree with you that farmer are more knowledgeable than scientist. People who are able to send men to the moon and producing high tech iphone are certainly not more stupid than farmers. So when you are sick needing heart by-pass, do you go see the cardiologist trained on science or the farmer or medicine man using herbs passed down for generation? For me, I pick science any day.




    ReplyDelete
  8. Firstly, the collapse of Highlands Tower had led to legislation barring building on hill slopes of certain gradients. It does not mean stop all high rise buildings.

    For every disaster, a study on the causes and ways to prevent such things from happening.

    Am not too sure abt Western countries rushing into rare earth refineries. But the question in my mind is whether they locate such facilities away from human settlements. EIA must also include social impact.

    Farmers only know whether a thing works by the result. am not saying farmers are more knowledgeable than doctors.

    But do you know that in a survey in US, doctors have lower credibility than pharmacists? WHO had mentioned that one of the leading causes of death is overprescription.

    "More people are dying from the side-effects of drugs than the disease itself."

    Of course i will see a doctor if i need to, but someone i trust.

    Cheang from Labuan

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Cheang. Exactly like you said about the Highlands Tower. After any disaster, for mankind to improve, evaluation must be made, regulation & enforcement tightened and technology improved to prevent or minimize similar disaster from happening. But you are implying exactly these were not being done after Bukit Merah disaster and therefore Lynas should not proceed. Are you sure Lynas will operate the same way as Bukit Merah using same raw material and having same waste material, under same old regulation and old technology?

      For your information, the upcoming Arafura rare earth refinery in Australia is less than 5 kilometer from the Australian town of Whyalla.

      I would suggest you take Nicole's excellent advise of doing homework on Lynas and not purely base your opinion on Anti-Lynas. You should balance your opinion from the Pro-Lynas as well. And for Nicole to actually say "the effect from Lynas is as drastic as nuclear reactor" is proof she need to take her own advise seriously.

      IMO, Lynas is a mining operation extraction metal (rare earth metal) and using toxic chemical to do so. Since it is a chemical factory, her safety should be no better nor worst than the other chemical factories dotted around Malaysia. But one thing for sure, she certainly is not a nuclear reactor.

      Delete
  9. Anon,
    1. Maybe I didn't make it clearer. I said the effect of Lynas is as bad as nuclear reactor for the radioactive part. Please read this : http://m.malaysiakini.com/letters/200572. Radioactive materials have extremely long half lives. 2. Lynas has not satisfied any of the conditions imposed by IAEA. 3. Bukit Merah's victims are testament that it is harmful. Therefore, Lynas needs to satisfy the stringent requirements firs which they failed but yet they want to start operations.

    BTW, kindly enlighten me on what u meant by "she is not a nuclear reactor"?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Let me give you a metaphor. If you said Lynas is as bad as nuclear reactor, you are basically saying the firecrackers (which could also be dangerous) are as dangerous as nuclear bomb simply because they both explode. That’s how huge a difference in term of danger between Lynas and nuclear reactor.

      Metaphor aside, Lynas is a mining operation meaning it extracts metal from the dirt/rock using chemical. Nuclear reactor generates electricity using nuclear fission. Very different thing.

      Now let's talk facts and not get emotional about radiation. Let's talk about that link you gave.

      1. It is correct Thorium is in the Lynas material/waste. Thorium is found in rock underground together with all sort of desirable things like coal, iron, tin, Oil & Gas and of course also rare metal. Yes, rare earth is a metal. So to get at those desirable stuffs, you will all ended up with Thorium as mentioned in that link. If there are no objection against coal and tin and iron etc, can you tell me, why do DAP not objecting to the extraction of the other stuff? This seems illogical to me.

      2. Did you know that there are radiations in the rock you find in Malaysia? If you don't believe me, go get a radiation detector and go to the nearest bitumen road and you will find radiation from the road because there are plenty of rocks underneath the road surface. Since you know you can’t have zero radiation, IAEA set out a guideline on "how much is too much" and the figure is 10 bq/g. Lynas material is 6 bq/g and this is precisely why in Lim Kit Siang blog (you post that link before), he said Malaysian is crazy to call Lynas material radioactive. This is a classic case of Malaysia Boleh.

      3. That article ridicule dilution. We all know that, worldwide, there are millions of tons of Thorium & Uranium and other naturally radiation emitting materials under the ground. Now imagine those millions of tons of radioactive material are all concentrated and placed in your hometown Miri. Surely you will die of radiation if you live in Miri, right? But how come you are not dead in reality? The reason why you are not dead is because all those nasty stuff is not all concentrated in Miri. You are not dead because they have all been dispersed all around the world aka been diluted to a level considered safe. So dilution is the key to making thing safe. Now you see how clueless are those Anti-Lynas or they said that in purpose?

      4. Australia not taking back the waste. Have you ever heard Australia also refuses you to bring banana and your favorite Bak Kwa into Australia? So are banana and Bak Kwa dangerous? I rest my case on this one.

      5. On high background radiation. For reason still unknown to scientist, people living in Ramsar Iran are exposed to very very high background radiation but they seem to be living longer and healthier life. So what that link says may or may not be correct.

      6. Can you tell me why long half life is bad? Please do your own independent research before you answer this one.

      7. From my reading of IAEA report, it seems to contradict what you say. From my understanding, IAEA says Lynas is OK except that she needs more than 1 method of dealing with the waste. It says the only method proposed by Lynas looks OK but need a 2nd one as backup. So which condition did Lynas not fulfill?
      http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/pdf/lynas-report2011.pdf

      8. Bukit Merah. I already answer Cheang on this. Please go read my reply.

      BTW, you gave me 2 excellent advices before:

      1. One should not rely solely on one source for information. But you did exactly just that by relying solely on Anti-Lynas for information. And you and I know Malaysiakini is very not neutral.

      2. One must do homework. Yet for you to say “effect of Lynas is as bad as nuclear reactor” makes me doubt whether you really did your homework. If you want some alternative link beside the one from Anti-Lynas, please let me know.

      I hope I am wrong but it seems to me you are not practicing what you preach.

      Delete
    2. Anon,
      Please read this : http://www.loyarburok.com/2011/09/06/understanding-lynas-rare-earth-plant-13-questions/

      I try to practise what I preach just how u try to hide behind anonymity to voice your expert views. : )

      Delete
    3. There are points in that link I agree and some I disagree or just looking at the surface of the issue.

      To make it more meaningful, which part of that link you agree upon and which part you disagree upon. Then we proceed from there.

      And I have told you many many time. You are a public figure so you have to use real name. I am a common people so entitled to being anonymous. As a lawyer, you should know public figure has less privacy.



      Delete
    4. Of the 8 points I mentioned earlier. Care to tell me which part you agree or disagree with me? If you do not answer them then can I assume you agree with me and you were wrong earlier? And what's your answer on 'long half life'? It will show us you do indeed do your homework like you suggested.

      Delete
    5. ANon, I think you have to realise that some of us have to work. I will try to answer the best I can. However, you want a meaningful discussion try not to impose conditions. I think I have been gracious enough to reply as promptly as I can. Since you said you agreed with some of loyarburok's points, just go on the ones you do not agree.

      Delete
    6. Nicole, you have to work and so do I. I do not have ‘cable’ and am not a parasite BN crony rent seeker so I also have to work.

      As for graciousness. You believe you are gracious in getting out of your comfort zone to serve the people and funny enough, I thought the same about myself. I felt it is my duty to tell people some of the things being spread around by Anti-Lynas about Lynas have no scientific basis. Lynas as bad as nuclear reactor has no scientific basis whatsoever. That is all I do and am willing to provide web link to anyone wanting to double check what I said. Now if someone could tell me what I said is wrong based on proper science, I am willing to be stand corrected. Is that considered being graceful?

      Regarding loyarburok blog on economic and job benefit to Malaysia. May be we should discuss this document.
      http://akademisains.gov.my/download/rareearth/RE_Report_English.pdf

      Because if what this document said is true and to have basis, then to decide the fate of Lynas on unsubstantiated science and irrationality is IMO economic treason. Yes, I do have Malaysia's interest at heart like you do.

      Delete
  10. Nicole. On January 28, 2013 at 10:44 PM you wrote "My conscience is clear" and we have difference of opinion on that.

    I have always maintained those Anti-Lynas group headed by Wong Tack that DAP STRONGLY supported is spreading irrational fear among the Raykat by telling lies and twisting facts about radiation and hoodwink the Raykat. You not only disagree with my opinion, you even propagated the nonsense by Wong that "Lynas effect is as bad as nuclear reactor".

    Today, Wong Tack says he will burn down Lynas should Pakatan not close Lynas down when Pakatan did become the next government. You have created a eco-terrorist who denounce basic science. Are you conscience still clear?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Anon, u have chosen not to understand wht I meant by "effect of lynas is as bad as nuclear reactor". I repeat wht I meant is the radioactive bit as explained here : http://www.loyarburok.com/2012/06/28/lynas-psc-state-sponsored-marketing-gimmick/. We cannot argue from different premises. It ends up fallacious. I have never ever quoted Wong Tack. I have given enough courtesy to an anon person. Imagine guerilla terrorist getting such courtesy. Attacking and hiding behind the bushes of anonymity?? Can we move on with our lives?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nicole. You advise me to do my homework and I have read the link you gave. But I doubt you have done your homework because if you have bother to read the very link you gave me, you will find it says nothing about nuclear reactor. Comparing the danger of Lynas with nuclear reactor is like comparing a baby with a 700 pounds gorilla. And please, don't provide anymore meaningless link unless you have actually read them yourself. Please Walk the Talk about the need to do homework. I think I have given you enough courtesy asking you to explain why you said "Lynas is as bad as nuclear reactor". You are a public figure asking for our votes so you owe us an explanation of what you said about Lynas.

      Delete
    2. Your people often like to bring up Fukushima nuclear disaster when they talk about Lynas (I can give you links if you want). And you yourself said Lynas effect is as bad as nuclear reactor. I am now beginning to doubt whether any of you even know what is a nuclear reactor and how dangerous are those things. Please do your homework and read these:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster

      After you done that, can you please tell us with a clear conscience that Lynas effect is as bad as nuclear reactor? If it is, please tell us which part is as bad in term of radiation?

      On attack. Why do you say my attempt to get a straight answer from you and pointing out what you said has no scientific basis and seeking a clarification from you is an attack? When did getting to the TRUTH is a bad thing? Are you saying holding our politician accountable for what they said is wrong? If that is the case, then I see no different between BN politician and PR politician.

      Delete