A leaders legacy, Tun Abdul Razak

Here is the reflection question based on the video;
Discuss whether or not Tun Abdul Razak's son, our current prime minister, Datuk Seri Najib is continuing his father's legacy primarily in affirmative action.

Tun Abdul Razak, Malaysia's second prime minister

Najib Tun Razak, Malaysia's current prime minister, Tun Abdul Razak's son

Based on the video I can conclude that Tun Abdul Razak has play a huge part in making Malaysia for what it is today. But, sadly this legacy has not been shown by his son Najib Razak, our current prime minister.

Yes we can say that Najib Razak has done many things to make Malaysia a better place or trying to continue his father's legacy. For example the concept of 1 Malaysia. For me this concept has long been applied during the leadership of Tun Abdul Razak, Najib Razak's is only renaming the concept. In the video Tun Abdul Razak, from before he becoming the prime minister until his death we can see that he has reunite multicultural Malaysians. He is brave to take a huge gamble by going to Beijing and meets the President Mao, although most of the Malays didn't agree with that. But his attempt pay a huge price, where he was greeted well by the Chinese in China, and greeted by the Malays and Chinese in a very well response.  This was one of the huge success that has to be praised by us, Malaysians. But today from my point of view, all of Najib's attempt in making Malaysia a better country, is only what the Malay will say "taking care of his own pot of rice". For example his action in giving out RM 15,000, to each 112,635 FELDA settlers, he said that this reward as to pay off their contribution to the country. So, it is simply said that Najib Razak, is only trying to winning the heart of those FELDA settlers, but not the other Malaysians.

Yes, Najib Razak, gives out RM 500 to poor families, RM 100 and RM 200 to students. But, where does the money came from? Is it from his own pocket? NO! It is our money who pay taxes. Land taxes, road taxes, goods service tax, and taxes from almost everything that we buy. So, we deserved the money, this is an action that could not be praised! In other countries they received more than this.

As conclusion, Najib Razak should continue his father's legacy, all the work has been done for him, he only needs to continue what the previous leaders has been done, there shouldn't be any new attempt of reformation, if there is, it is only some patching that should be done.

This is just a POV from me. Maybe there is a lot that I still doesn't know, so feel free to comment or leave a feedback.

Thank you.

Is Gandhi responsible for the tragic end of his son, Harilal?

sketches of Mahatma Gandhi

Mohandas Karamchad Gandhi, or simply known as 'Mahatma Gandhi' is the man who fought for India independence. A man who have make a lot of sacrifices in order to free India from the clutches of the British empire. Based on the film 'Gandhi my Father', I was asked to wrote a review about this film. The film which was published in 2007, were a film about the relationship between Gandhi and his eldest son Harilal Gandhi.

The question is whether Mahatma Gandhi was responsible for the tragic Harilal? For me, Gandhi is not responsible for the tragic end end of his son, Harilal. The reason why I said this is because, Harilal was not an obedient child. As a son we should obeyed our father. Harilal always makes big decision by himself without asking his father opinion, for example when wants to start a business. Although, his father is on a movement to banned all British clothes, Harilal still takes the risk by buying British made clothes and try to sell it to the people of India, where most of them were already in respond of his father movement.

Gandhi has has played his part as a good human being who stands up for law first before his son. Harilal has cheat a friend of his father, for 30,000 rupees. When his father know about this his father quickly ask his friend to file a lawsuit against Harilal, this is one of the way for Gandhi to teach Harilal a lesson.


Harilal also has a bad habit, which is drinking alcohol. He has made alcohol as his escapism whenever he has a problem that he cannot solve. Once he came to his mother in a drunk state, her mother was very mad  that she she disowned him as a son. Harilal should not lure himself to alcohol.

For me Gandhi has played his part as a father to Harilal, for example after Kasturba died Gandhi still tried to find his son.

As conclusion, Gandhi is not responsible for the tragic end of his son, Harilal.

Harilal Mohandas Gandhi

Gandhi a review.

IN YOUR OPINION, DO YOU THINK GANDHI HAS FAILED IN HIS LIFE WORK WHICH IS TO PROMOTE NON-VIOLENCE AND REUNITING THE PEOPLE OF INDIA?

This review is based on the film directed by Richard Attenborough, this film is produced in 1981, where Ben Kingsley play the lead role as the famous Mahatma Gandhi. Gandhi who fought for the independence of India has triumph in his work. But, Gandhi has not triumph in promoting the non-violence and reuniting the people of India. He may be able to reunite the Indians in South Africa, but he has fail reuniting the Indians in India itself. We can see in the beginning that his work has been able to reunite people of India, where all of his movement were in good response from the Indians, for example the movement of burning all the English clothes. But, at last he himself as a Hindu was assassinated by a Hindu. His mission to reunite the Hindus and the Muslim has failed. This is why the Pakistan has emerged. We looked in a long vision, until now the Muslims and the Hindus in India still hasn't make peace among them. Everyday there is a rage between them, temples and mosques been burned. If he succeeds, than all this would never had happen, and India will be a country of peace. Corruption, suppression, and many other violences act were common in India. 

As conclusion, although Gandhi has failed in reuniting people of India and in promoting the non-violence act but he should be praised for making India an independence country and he has done all that he could in reuniting people of India. Maybe, if he hasn't been killed than his mission maybe a success.

Sherlock, a right brained or left brained?

In this blog I am asked to write about Sherlock, a British  television series starring Benedict Cumberbatch as Sherlock Holmes. This series which was written by Mark Gatiss, Steven Mofatt and Steve Thompson, was actually a modernise version of Sherlock Holmes which was created by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle where it was first introduced in the 1800s. 

Sherlock Holmes in a 1904 illustration by Sidney Paget

• 
  

The first episode, "A Study in Pink" , loosely based upon the first Sherlock Holmes novel A Study in Scarlet, was written by Moffat and directed by Paul McGuigan. The story depicts the introduction of Holmes to Watson, and them entering a flatshare at Baker Street in London, and then their investigation into a series of deaths, initially believed to be suicides. 

Based on this episode I was asked to determined whether Sherlock is a right brained or left brained.

For me Sherlock is more to a left brained. Because make analysis through logic, and he used analytic thoughts based on evidence that he acquire during the investigation. Other than that, Sherlock is also a right brained user where he use his creativity to beat the cab driver who is also the cause of other suicide cases. When he was asked to pick one of the bottle he randomly pick the bottle, which was unknown whether it is a good or a bad bottle.

In conclusion, Sherlock is a heavy left brained, but is also a light right brained.

The Eureka Moment in National.Geographic.Test.your.Brain.1of3.Pay.Attention.

 

The first eureka moment when Apollo try to focus us on the paper note, the eureka moment came to me when they showed that the background set, the hat that Apollo is wearing and he magically get a new handkerchief.

The second eureka moment is when we see the picture changed we can see the changes that they have made but when there is a black frame between the changes we cannot spot the differences.

The third eureka moment is when the brain is so eager on something, that it cannot detect the changes that happen in the surrounding. In the scene there are only one in three people that can detect that the person that is giving out the form and the one that is giving the pen is actually a different person.  

Next, in game #4, Apollo were able to steal four items from his victim, but I can only detect one item that is stolen, that is the scarf. The eureka is when the victim of Apollo cannot detect when the items were stolen from him. Apollo do this by trying to make the victim focus on other unimportant things and without his notice the item was stolen from him.

The next test involved Patrick who claims that he is a multi-tasker, but after several tests that he takes, it shows that his brain were only average, just like normal human brain.

The next trick Apollo has changed his wallet, money, and watch into liquid. What we didn't notice is that there are people wearing rabbit, gorilla, and a bear costume. This is what the experts call it as inattentional blindness, where it is a failure of noticing something while paying attention to a thing.

example video of inattentional blindness.

Next, in game #8, all of us seems can read the sentence, although the spelling is not correct. This is because the brain only need to look at the first and the last letter of each word, in order to decipher  the words. 

Next, when the Jabbawockeez were doing their act, almost nobody in the audience notice that there is a penguin passing through the stage.

In game #10 it is actually difficult for a normal human to name the font colour, when the text saying different colour.

Lastly, the power of hypnotise, it almost seems like it is fake, but it is actually true, and it can only be done by an expert, such as Dr. Amir Raz.

That is all the eureka moment that I can find in this documentary. Please leave a comment or feedback after you read.