Empty Syringes

A few days ago several people shared a video clip with me through WhatsApp, of a woman supposedly having her Covid-19 vaccine jab at a drive-through vaccination centre. The staff who gave her the jab could be seen inserting the needle into the recipient's arm and then withdrawing the needle without pressing the syringe, thus did not actually deliver the vaccine.

The video clip was followed by an audio recording of a man claiming that people are duped into believing that they're given the vaccines, when actually the shots are sold to others in the black market. He urged Malaysians not to buy the vaccines in the black market, so that there is no reason for medical staff at vaccination centres to withhold vaccines from the rightful recipients.

I think the claim of vaccines in the black market as suggested by the man in the audio recording is utter rubbish and ridiculous to the last degree. He talked without making any research whatsoever, but trying to appear as if he knew what he's talking about. The vaccines are given for FREE in Malaysia, and it's just a matter of waiting in the queue. Recently, the vaccination process has been expedited many folds, and I'd imagine that most people would rather wait for their turns, instead of buying from a black market source. Besides, the vaccines, say for example the one produced by Pfizer, are very unstable in the sense that they must be stored between -80C to -60C, and can be kept in the freezer prior to use at slightly higher temperatures for up to a month, but at any rate still below 0C. Once it is melted to room temperature, it can only last for up to 6 hours, and if still unused after that, will have to be discarded. To put the vaccine into a syringe and then save it to be sold in the black market is way too complicated and way too risky when taking the 6-hour window into account. 

The second possibility is not to melt the vaccine at all, but instead just use an empty syringe. In such a case, that could explain why the staff did not press the syringe even though she did insert the needle into the flesh. However, even this second idea makes little sense to me. It would be much easier to switch the vaccine with, say, plain water in the syringe, and then inject that into the recipient's arm, and then nobody has to know. Why would the evil staff have an empty syringe right in front of the husband who's filming the act, and risk getting caught (and she did get caught) when it's so much easier to put water in it? It makes no sense to me!

These are questions worth asking, but the problem is that most people, when receiving the audio recording would believe what the man said. Never mind if it defies logic and common sense. People are no longer keen on using their brains to think these days!

Although the police are investigating the matter as per this news article and no official explanation has been announced yet, I would venture to speculate that a much simpler explanation is that the staff on duty was just careless. That's just human nature. I think it's entirely possible that when one is doing a task repeatedly and continuously too many times, there will come a time when that task becomes too monotonous until the entire process becomes mechanical, that is to say, it is done without thinking; rather, almost entirely on muscle memory! And it was in such a way that the staff, without thinking, inserted the needle into the arm, and then withdrew it without even remembering if she had actually pressed the syringe to deliver the vaccine! I don't know this for a fact, of course, but I'm just speculating, mind. Now IF it happened like that, then the next thing to discover is if that staff worked too long beyond reasonable hours to result in such carelessness. Or the other way of putting it, did her superior insist that she continue working beyond the threshold of mental fatigue? Those are questions worth investigating if we are to get to the bottom of this whole thing.

I've said earlier that that's just human nature. We all make mistakes every now and then. But the standard of care expected of us is not the same in every case. Take an ordinary road user for example. We can probably accept that he is liable to make mistakes, such as driving too fast or using his cellphone while driving, eventually resulting in an accident. Road accidents happen almost on a daily basis, and although it's something we're concerned about, it has become something quite common and almost expected to happen. Now take the case of a commercial airplane pilot instead. We would expect a much, much higher standard of care from him because most people consider he has a much bigger responsibility than the ordinary road user. Even a small mistake by a pilot can lead to the loss of many human lives. If the public loses confidence in the pilot, that can have serious repercussion to the airline that he's working for.

It is the same with the careless medical staff. She is dealing with human lives on a daily basis, and it is imperative that the public has full confidence in her standard of care in performing her duties. The public, even knowing fully well that she's only human and can't escape from making mistakes, would expect her NOT to make this kind of mistake in the vaccination process. This is important, because we are trying to expedite the vaccination process in Malaysia in the hope of achieving the herd immunity, and this sort of mistake can potentially derail the plan if people lose confidence in the programme. 

Anti-Vax

I had a lady friend who had breast cancer. Generally, the prescribed treatment is to surgically remove the tumour and then followed by a course of chemotherapy. I've read from numerous medical literatures that survival rate is quite high if the cancer is detected early and medical intervention is quick enough. My friend opted to remove the tumour, but not the chemo. Apparently she had read somewhere that chemo has many side effects and may be detrimental to the body in the long run. I'm sure there must be some truth in that.

A few years later, the cancer came back, and this time it was much more aggressive. Her condition deteriorated quickly, and then in the end, she opted for the chemo anyway. She died a little over half a year ago. I felt that she could have lived at least a few years longer had she opted for the chemo sooner than she did.

Many people see the human body like machines, probably within the same category as motor vehicles. But actually they are not the same. When a vehicle goes dead, there is always something that the mechanic can do to bring it back to life. Perhaps change of parts and then tweaking here and there. If necessary, he can also make some modifications to the vehicle, and then in the vast majority of cases, it can be brought back to life. The only question is whether it is economically viable to do it. But the human body is different, when you are dead, that's the end of it.

It has been said that Sabah has the lowest number of registrations for the Covid-19 vaccines. I have spoken to a fair number of people who have not registered, and the most common reason was because the vaccines are all too new and may have some serious side effects in the long run. Apart from that, we also have many, many WhatsApp messages giving numerous possible serious repercussions from taking the vaccines. These range from blood clots, cardiac arrest and many others that will eventually lead to death.

Now I'd reckon that roughly about 80% to 90% of the population are gullible to WhatsApp pranks. They just never learn. Whenever they get such messages, they believe without checking. I'm not sure if this is because of laziness to check, or because it's much easier to simply believe; or maybe a bit of both. Never mind if they don't check, but they don't even think to reason out the messages in a logical or scientific way. So in the end, they chose not to register for the vaccines.

I'm thinking that even if it's true that there will be side effects in the long run from taking the vaccines, I'd take my chances and hope for the best. For my immediate concern is to stay alive, at least long enough to ride out the storm, and then later, I hope medical science will figure out something on how to deal with the side effects, whatever they may be. Ultimately, I want to try my best to remain alive to fight another day. If I'm dead from Covid-19 today, I have nothing left to fight for tomorrow.

However, I suspect that if those who did not register for the vaccines do get infected with the Covid-19 virus and become seriously ill and knocking at death's door in the ICU, they would readily submit to the vaccines. All those fears of side effects will be thrown out of the window. For in the end, the survival instinct will always prevail over others, because as I said earlier, when you're dead, that's the end of it, there is no coming back. I just wonder if it would be too late to ask for the vaccine then.

I'm glad to note that recently there's a surge in the number of people who've registered for the vaccines in Sabah and now stands at about 35.9%. That's a huge improvement from just a month or two ago which was just around 10%. Perhaps that's because many of the fence sitters have realised that none of the vaccine recipients have died so far or at least if there were deaths, they were not caused by the vaccines; and as far as I know, no blood clots incidence have been reported yet. I'm guessing that many people have now realised that the only hope of beating the virus is by achieving herd immunity through vaccinations.

But 35.9% is still not good enough. I'm hoping to see that figure rise to at least 80% as soon as possible. I'm not hoping for 100% because I'm a realistic person; I realise that there will always be people whom are the so-called anti-vax.

Barking Up The Wrong Tree

The interesting case of a lawyer who was criticized for allegedly shaming the Kadazan Dusun Murut and Rungus (KDMR) community in his remarks, contained in his bail application for his client who is accused of molesting an Unduk Ngadau contestant. In his written application, he started to elaborate at great length women's achievements in Sabah. However, he went on to say, inter alia:

"The UNK contest is not about women, it is just a contest, it doesn't incorporate all women, whatever their talents and skills and education and abilities but is nothing more than an exotic cattle show and almost feel like an auction show. There is nothing outstanding about these women and there (are) more women outstanding outside but they don't get to be the contestants. The UNK is a throw back to a former period where women are only objects of desire to be paraded around in an extravagant pet show." 

"The case against Phillip Among is not about Phillip Among but is about a beauty contest. Everyday, many women are sexually abused and body shamed but those cases didn't come to court and no police report were made. The huh ha about this case is only because it is regarding UNK otherwise nobody cares."

What followed next were numerous calls to reprimand the lawyer for what many considered as amounting to shaming the KDMR community. Although he has since made an open apology to the KDMR including Huguan Siou Tan Sri Joseph Pairin Kitingan, there is now a call to bring the former to the Native Court.

I see this whole thing as a classic case of "barking up the wrong tree". Contrary to popular belief, the legal profession is not always a noble one. People tend to forget that the lawyer, just like any other professionals, is acting in the best interest of this client. There have been many occasions in the past when lawyers have accused people of committing, say, murders, even though they knew that they were innocent, but they would make the accusations anyway to create reasonable doubts in favour of their clients. The point is that a good lawyer would try his best to exhaust all legal means to fight for his client, sometimes truth or false regardless. My view is that the lawyer should be allowed to argue his case the way he deems fit, even though sometimes what he says may well hurt the feelings of others. If I am accused of a crime, I would expect my lawyer to fight to the best of his ability, and say whatever is necessary to be said to convince the court. If the lawyer is unwilling to do that for me as a client, then he is of not much use to me! It would be interesting to know what are the views of other lawyers.

Having said that, however, the KDMR is not the only party who's barking up the wrong tree. The lawyer is barking up the wrong tree too. His submission is a bail application for his client, and if it were me, the points of argument would be along the line of convincing the court that his client is not a flight risk; that he is willing to cooperate with the police; that he will not interfere with the investigation; that he will not threaten the person accusing him of the crime. These are among the factors that will be taken into account for the judge to decide whether to grant bail or otherwise. 

I can't see the relevance of whether the UNK contest incorporates all women or not; of whether it is a cattle show that feels like an auction show; of whether the contest makes women the objects of desire to be paraded in an extravagant show. What have all those got anything to do with whether his client deserves a bail? His argument, to me, is merely several paragraphs of irrelevant points which can't help to convince the court for the bail application. It is in that sense that I feel like the lawyer has failed in his duty to act in the best interest of his client.

Professional & Professionalism

In the course of my career as a professional property valuer, there have been many occasions when I've undertaken jobs for clients for which I did not get paid the fees for my services. This is not a problem unique to me only. As a matter of fact, many of my peers have had similar experiences. Furthermore, it is a common problem faced by many other professionals too, not just the valuers.

It has been suggested to me by fellow valuers, that we should not be held liable if we were not paid for valuations done. Unfortunately, it is not that simple. The point is that we are professionals, and once we prepared valuation reports, it is reasonable to expect anybody reading those reports, to rely on them. This is of course subject to limiting conditions such as the purposes for which those reports were prepared, and other exclusions which would have been clearly specified in the reports. The person reading those reports is not expected to know whether or not we have been paid for our services. But even if he did know that we have not been paid, that still wont suddenly diminish the standard of care expected of us as professionals.

As professionals we owe the duty to perform to the best of our ability regardless of the amount we are paid for our services. In the very competitive job market, fees are often discounted, sometimes by ridiculous margins. However, that should not be a yardstick for the services that we provide. We are all expected to uphold the highest of standards. If I think what the client is offering to pay me does not commensurate with the time and effort required to do the job, then I would have to reluctantly turn down the job. But once I accept the job, then I would try my best to do it well, fees notwithstanding. It is not enough for us to claim that we are professionals, but we must also practise professionalism.

There are many people who claim themselves as professionals in their respective fields of expertise, but not all of them actually behave professionally. Their conduct, to say the least, does not measure up to the title of a professional.

A couple of days ago, there was something of a stir in our state's football team. Although I'm not a football fan, I couldn't help but notice the commotion. It was reported that a number of the players boycotted a training session on grounds that they haven't been paid their salaries for 3 months. This is in the midst of preparing for a match. I saw a post in facebook where this matter was raised, and there were many comments in support of what the players did. There were comments saying something like "No wonder we lost; because the players were not paid their salaries."; and "How are we supposed to improve the performance of our players if they're not paid their salaries?"

I'm not sure what's the truth about the management of the team and what's the story about the unpaid salaries. If it's true, then I sympathize with their predicament and there is room for improvement in the management of the team. However, I can say that the people who boycotted the training session are not professional football players, because their conduct doesn't reflect professionalism. If they are not happy playing for the team because of unpaid salaries or whatever other reasons, then they should tender their resignation. For as long as they've agreed to enter a match, they should play to the best of their ability, whether or not salaries have been paid. A professional shouldn't use the excuse that they are not, or unwilling, to perform to the best of their ability because that is all they would do for the amount that they are paid.

The expectation of a professional is very high, and one is expected to practise professionalism to be worthy of the title.

Dubious Question

A friend shared what appears to be a page taken from an English test paper (see attached picture). The instruction at the top of the page says: "Choose the best answer to complete the sentences."

The first 2 questions had something to do with English. Question 1 uses the word "She", so the correct answer was indeed A, i.e. aunt, because the rest of the answers are all referring to men. Question 2 uses the word "teaches" in it, so that indicates her profession as a teacher. 

Question 3 is a little more complicated and I was informed by my friend that it caused quite an uproar. Today, I'm seeing some of my facebook friends sharing this exact picture and it has garnered over 2000 comments, mainly about Question 3. I notice that some people agree with "chicken rice", but the vast majority of the commenters are of the view that the other choices are also equally acceptable.

I decided to weigh in on the subject, but I prefer to do it here instead of my facebook page.

To start with, I'm not surprised at Question 3. It's the kind of question that reflects our education system as a whole, where kids are told to accept something as "the truth", for no other reason other than because it is the norm; or because it is deemed to be a healthier choice. This type of question does not take into account that some people do not eat rice for lunch like me. As a matter of fact, these days I hardly ever eat rice for dinner too. It does not take into account that it is entirely possible that some people usually eat fried noodles, for example, for lunch, instead of chicken rice. In other words, what's really happening here is that if some of the kids sitting for this test are among those who usually eat fried noodles for lunch, they are expected to lie and say that they usually eat chicken rice even though they know very well that that is not the truth. They are expected to say something that is not the truth for the sake of passing the test, because apparently that is the best answer according to their teacher. 

Perhaps if Question 3 were set slightly differently - say instead of "I", the word "Malaysians" is used, then maybe it is much more acceptable if the teacher says that the "best" answer is chicken rice, because I suppose the majority of Malaysians eat rice for lunch, though even that is still debatable. I personally feel like that there are many, many Malaysians who don't eat rice for lunch. Otherwise, food outlets such as McDonald's, KFC, Burger King, Pizza Hut and the likes would have closed down long ago. Somehow I have the impression that all these fastfood outlets are equally busy during lunch, if not busier than the chicken rice shops.

I also don't like Question 3 because although the question itself is in English, to me it has nothing to do with English. It is not a test on grammar or vocabulary. An English test should test the kids' proficiency in the language. It doesn't have to be on grammar or vocabulary specifically, but it should be something to do with the mastery of the language, instead of testing the general knowledge on the eating habit.

Question 3 is a dubious one to me, and after reading it several times, I'm beginning to suspect that this was not taken from an actual English test; that it may in fact be a hoax of some sort to cause an uproar? I'm hoping that someone will reveal that it is indeed a hoax somehow.

Harmless Lie

A friend of mine received a call from the Inland Revenue Board recently, informing her that she's owing the Board about RM16,000 of tax. They gave her instructions to call So-and-So in a police station and said that their conversation would be recorded. That conversation went back and forth for almost two hours, and to make the long story short, her friends who overheard the conversation eventually told her that those were scammers trying to cheat her money. It was a lucky escape, and she came to me to tell the story, but added that she's not going to tell her husband about it, because she's afraid that her husband would scold her for being careless.

I've also known of another woman who had a bit of trouble controlling herself from spending money. Knowing that her husband did not approve her spending habit, she would lie to her husband whenever she bought expensive stuff, such as an expensive handbag or dress. She would tell her husband something like those were presents from a close friend who bought the items at a clearance sale at rock bottom prices. 

"A woman who doesn't lie is a woman without imagination and without sympathy."

Dr Giles Reilly, in Agatha Christie's book, Murder in Mesopotamia.

Although I'm quoting the words of a fictional character above, there is a lot of truth in what he said; that the majority of women are natural liars. However, let me hasten to say that the vast majority of those liars did it without ill intentions. They see a lie as a harmless thing. The most common excuse is that they want to avoid quarrels or arguments. They reckon that if their husbands don't know the truth of the matter, there is nothing to argue about. In a way, that is a valid point.

I used to have a girlfriend who went steady with me for about 3 years, and she, too, had the habit of lying to me. While it's true that most of her lies were harmless, I did not like it at all, because on several occasions I found out about some of her lies. I consider myself a loyal and honest person, and I'm fully aware that sometimes the truth hurts. But I would not lie in the hope of preventing the pain. I'd like to be unconditionally truthful to my girl, but I'd expect the same truthfulness from her in return. 

Maybe if I did not know at all that she has lied to me, that's not too bad. But when in due course I found out from somebody else that he saw her holding hands with another man in a place that is different from where she told me she'd be, it'd make me wonder how many times has she lied to me before? I can't imagine spending my life with a woman, wondering if she's lying whenever she tells me something. Even if there are explanations for the lies, as far as I'm concerned, lies are lies, no matter how you look at it, they are harmful anyway. When a woman tells me something, I want to have the confidence to say that I believe what she said. I did not have the confidence with my girl then. She was a good girl in many other aspects, but she could never change the lying habit. So what do you think I should do?

There are many single women out there whom are liars through no fault of theirs. It's just something in their DNA. But if you could keep an open mind for just a bit, let this old man give you a piece of advice. If you expect your man to be truthful to you, then you must be truthful to him too. Would you believe it, men appreciate honesty and truthfulness as much as you do.

Fashion Designer & Honesty

My daughter, Jamie Jasmine, has recently embarked on her 3-year degree course in Information Technology (IT). She was supposed to be studying in a university in Kuching, Sarawak, but due to the Covid-19 pandemic, is forced to do it by means of online lessons from home instead. Hopefully, the pandemic will be brought under control by the end of this year, so that she's able to do the remaining 2 years of her course in Melbourne. I have the impression that many people are not very keen in the IT degree. It seems like most parents would love their kids to be doctors, lawyers, engineers, architects etc, not so much the computer thingy.

As a parent, I'm not so fussy about the type of profession JJ opts for as a career. I told her that whatever she decides to do, just try her best to be good at it, at least above the average level of those in her industry. Whatever works for her is fine with me. As long as she's happy with what she's doing, then I'll be happy for her too. She's a late bloomer; when she was younger, she seemed to have no artistic talent whatsoever. I observed her playing with crayons when she was young. She could hardly prevent from colouring beyond the boundaries. But as she grew up, she learned to be patient, and with sufficient practice she was able to gradually bring out her artistic self.

But this post is not really about JJ and her studies. What I really want to talk about is fashion designer, because for a short while I was entertaining the idea of fashion designer for JJ. But thankfully I was able to shake myself out of it very quickly. I'm sure I need to discover a lot of good things about fashion designer; and if I knew more about it, perhaps I can learn to appreciate the profession, though I seriously doubt it!

At the risk of getting bombarded with criticisms from some of my readers, I'm putting my neck on the chopping board to give my take on the profession as a fashion designer. This is of course from the perspective of an ignorant person. If I knew more about the profession, I might have a different opinion, I don't know.

Before I proceed any further, let me just say that I'm not really into fashion. Whatever I wear is usually very simple and down the earth. At one time I wore only several colours such as blue, grey, white and black. But thanks to the influence of my wife, I have since learned to wear other colours too. Sometimes, I also wear outfits made of a combination of several colours. However, I still consider myself as a very simple-minded person as far as fashion is concerned.

I've always seen fashion designers as peculiar creatures. In order to become very successful in that profession, one must meet two very basic requirements. First and foremost is of course being artistic and creative, simply because there is almost no limit as to how one can design clothes. I can just imagine that almost whatever one can think of, someone else had most likely thought of it too. So it's not surprising that sometimes fashion becomes the in thing, then fades out after some years, and then comes back to become the in thing again. The cycle repeats itself over and over again with some minor adjustments here and there.

The second requirement - which seems to me the most important requirement - is honesty. Or rather the lack of it. Any fashion designer who'd like to become very successful in the profession must learn to be dishonest. He is inclined to design something that is obviously ridiculous and plain awful, and then convince himself that it's very nice and beautiful. And if that's not bad enough, he tries very hard to convince others to think the same way too. And don't make me start on whether it's practical to wear it!

But of course it takes all sorts to make the world. So there's bound to be some fools out there who'd spend a ton of money on these so-called fashionable clothes, and then have the courage to wear them! 

In the end though, it all boils down to the same with how I feel about JJ. I suppose as long as these people are happy designing and creating such ugly, impractical clothes, and happy wearing them, then I should be happy for them too.