Virtual Hunt - February 2023

Since the last quarter of last year, especially due to the Tuaran Tourism Hunt, there've been some renewed interest in treasure hunts in Kota Kinabalu as there were many new hunters coming onboard, thus culminating in the largest ever Chinese New Year hunt - dubbed the Tembak Rabbit Hunt 2023 - which was organized by Team Kena Tembak recently. That hunt attracted 34 teams, although in the end 1 team did not show up.

To keep the momentum going for the newbie hunters until the next hunt in May, as well as to entertain the regular hunters, I thought I'd just throw in some riddles to be solved virtually. This was shared in our hunt chat on Whatsapp. It's not really a competition, and I did not set a time limit. It's mainly intended for the newbies to practise solving hunt questions. Just 10 questions, but about half of which are fairly easy to solve; I suppose you could say "to whet the appetite of the newbies". The remaining half are more challenging, but still solvable, especially since no time limit has been set.

Then someone suggested to me to post the riddles in my blog. I was reluctant at first due to laziness to handle submissions of answers. But upon further considerations, it's not such a bad idea after all. These riddles may be useful for learning purposes, as well as a record for me to revisit when there is a need for me to quote examples of questions that I have set. These days I have the tendency to forget some of my own questions! So here goes nothing.

Before that, please take note of these important points:

1. Answers are NOT in sequence, and can be found anywhere in the list in no particular order.

2. The list is very short, so answers MAY be repeated.

3. I will be disabling the comment section of this post, so that no answers will be posted here. This is intended to keep this post permanently "fresh". If you want to attempt the questions, you can submit your answers to me at: ckoh1965@yahoo.com.

Here is the list of possible answers to the questions:

And here are the questions:

Q1) Jika kepala dan ekornya dipotong, apa yang tinggal?

Q2) Hari sebelum Ahad, mungkin ada projek industri pertama?

Q3) Untuk orang Arab, jawapan ni sama dengan jawapan tu

Q4) Is taping confusing?

Q5) EKNOM?

Q6) It's not allowed to go straight to the start

Q7) Boyfriend for this leader?

Q8) Aura forming within

Q9) Said to be empty, but holding one from the east

Q10) Terdapat di bahagian atas mata, alas untuk kepala?

Fighting the Parental Instinct

My daughter, Jamie Jasmine (JJ), has just left home to pursue her studies in Melbourne, Australia. In fact, she just landed there first thing this morning, having flown from KK shortly after 1pm yesterday, and transiting in KLIA for a few hours. Over the last couple of weeks, she's been on her toes, running errands and making arrangements upon arrangements for her departure. It hasn't been very easy to enter Australia. So many requirements to meet in relation to the student visa as well as Covid safety measures.

The original plan was that her mom was to accompany her to Melbourne, get her settled in and seeing that all goes smoothly before flying home alone. Unfortunately until the very, very last minute, Australia was not welcoming international visitors. So JJ had to fly alone.

Mommy and daddy have both been busy telling JJ what to do and what not to do; how to deal with this and that. Mommy even went to the extent of supervising JJ packing her bags. Yesterday, after we saw her off at the airport, the instructions kept going through WhatsApp.

This morning, when mommy woke up at 6:30am, even before rising from the bed, the first thing she said was "JJ must have arrived in Melbourne."

The parental instinct is a strange thing; we're all born with it in varying degree of strengths. It can be a good thing, but it can also be a bad thing, depending on how you look at it and from whose perspective. Elsewhere in this blog, some of my loyal readers would have come across some of my posts on Typhoon Diana, for example, this article written some years ago.

This morning, the family chat continued and JJ kept us updated through WhatsApp almost as soon as she was able to get a local SIM card. Then there was a break when she was busy at the university to sort out some paperwork. I took the opportunity to read back some portions of the chat, just in case I've missed out some important information. And then to my horror, I noticed something terrifying - I have been behaving a lot like Typhoon Diana!

Accordingly, I had a separate private chat with my wife. This is a verbatim of that chat:

"Been looking at our family chat, and had a big revelation! Both of us have fallen victims to the parental instinct. We have become my mom and your mom! JJ is 19 and will soon turn 20 this coming July. She has left home to a foreign land and now has a lot to explore, a lot to learn, a lot to experience. And of course along the way, she will no doubt make mistakes upon mistakes, but she will learn from those mistakes.

Our chats, I've noticed, have been mainly instructions to her of WHAT to do, HOW to do, WHEN to do. It is the kind of crime that I promised myself NOT to commit years ago! Yet I am committing it now! Let's make a pact, and take a step back. Let her learn like how she's supposed to learn. Let's refrain from telling her what to do. If she has a problem and needs our advice, let her take the first step to seek our help if she so chooses. And of course we shall help as much as possible. Let's play the part of the supporters, and put her in the driver's seat for as much as possible!

And in due course, if she makes a mistake, then so be it. We have all made mistakes before. Let's not deprive her of the true meaning of growing up."

Just in case you're wondering, yes, long messages that come in several paragraphs like the above are quite normal when I'm chatting. I'm cursed with that habit, perhaps because I usually have a lot to say, but also maybe simply because I like to be thorough!

My wife replied:

"I don't think we're patronizing her. We're only reminding her."

And I responded:

"No need lah. We've told her... we've guided her enough. Baby bird has left the nest. Let her fly. For better or worse, let her explore."

In the end, my wife conceded, though I'm not fully convinced:

"Bah"

And that very short response is also very typical of her.

I'd expect the fight against the parental instinct will continue over the coming months, if not years. I hope my wife and I can keep reminding each other to be strong and committed. But I have a feeling it will be an uphill task for my wife!

Tourism Ambassador of Sabah

The Sabah government has appointed Datuk Lee Chong Wei as its Tourism Ambassador from October 2021 to December 2022 [Malay Mail]. Following the announcement of the appointment, I've noticed a number of facebook posts, as well as forwarded WhatsApp messages on the subject. 

Apparently, many Sabahans do not agree with the appointment - or at least question the appointment - as they consider that Datuk Lee is not qualified to be the Tourism Ambassador of Sabah on grounds that he is not a Sabahan, and he is not very knowledgeable on places of interest and tourism products in Sabah. They are of the view that there are many Sabahans who are well-versed with our tourism products in Sabah and therefore more qualified for the job. It is for that reason that they believe that whatever that is paid to Datuk Lee, it is a waste of resources, because such payment could be put to better use by paying a Sabahan who is very knowledgeable about Sabah instead.

While I am convinced that we have many, many Sabahans who are walking textbooks on the subject of Sabah tourism and very experienced in the local tourism sector, tourism knowledge and experience are unfortunately not the primary requirements to be an effective Tourism Ambassador. I can understand the sentiment of the patriotic Sabahans, but the appointment has nothing much to do with tourism knowledge and experience.

The role and purpose of the Tourism Ambassador is to attract people from abroad to visit Sabah. He does this with the help of his fame, not so much with his knowledge and experience on Sabah tourism. He is well known all over the world, even if his fame is not in the field of tourism. The most important thing is that because of his fame people tend to notice him. When he speaks of Sabah, that will give rise to curiosity in the minds of his followers which may eventually lead to the desire to visit Sabah.

I am not saying that knowledge and experience on tourism are not important. Of course they are. But those come later, after the foreigners have been lured to come. Promoting tourism is a lot like selling a book. 

Before buying a book, we read the synopsis and comments on the back cover of the book. That is where the reader will get a general overview of what the book is all about; something that will whet his appetite. If the synopsis is well-written, it would rouse the reader's interest and may well convince him to buy the book. And only after he has bought the book will he then get the details which are contained in the book itself.

Datuk Lee, in his role as the Tourism Ambassador of Sabah, is a lot like the synopsis found on the back cover of the book. There is very little information there about the whole story. What's there is just enough to attract the buyer's attention and perhaps capture his imaginations. Once the reader has decided to buy the book, the synopsis has done its job successfully and it ends there. It is then up to the content of the book to live up to its role in satisfying what the reader is looking for. The many knowledgeable and experienced Sabahan tourism experts are like the content of the book. Datuk Lee, as the Tourism Ambassador, lures the foreign visitors to Sabah; and then it's entirely up to the Sabahans to service those visitors satisfactorily.

Of course it would be great if we have a world renown Sabahan celebrity like Datuk Lee who can also command the kind of followers like he does. Such a Sabahan can also pass the requirement as the tourism ambassador. Perhaps he can be next in line for the job after December 2022. But for now, as a pure Sabahan, I have no problem whatsoever on the appointment of Datuk Lee Chong Wei as the Tourism Ambassador of Sabah.

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.