The phenomenal growth of Malaysia under the leadership of its fourth prime minister Datuk Seri Dr Mahathir Mohamad has brought about a patriotic sense of achievement amongst its people.
The Government has led the way to show that Malaysians can excel in whatever they put their minds to, and this, in no small way, has produced a society that tries to outdo itself (sometimes at ridiculous levels, if truth be told) in the endeavours it pursues.
Embodying this spirit is the slogan "Malaysia Boleh!" which loosely translated means "Malaysia Can Do It!" How this slogan came to be the "battle cry" of a nation is rather sketchy but the general belief is that it was the slogan used by a health beverage in its marketing campaign in the 80s.
It caught on and soon cries of Malaysia Boleh! were heard, first only at sporting events like the Commonwealth Games and Thomas Cup Finals, then later everywhere else as it was embraced wholeheartedly by the people as a means to push themselves to endure and accept challenge, to set targets, to excel.
The "Malaysia Boleh!" spirit has since produced many achievers and achievements, and has been a cornerstone of the success story that is the new Malaysia.
The above is quoted from this website
http://allmalaysia.info/msiaknow/malaysiana/malaysia_boleh.asp
1. What do you think is the outcome of this message of Malaysia Boleh?
2. Why do you think the slogan "Malaysia Boleh" was created?
Biofuel crop : Crime or saviour?
The government has announced the introduction of a National Biofuel Policy on August 10 2005.
The policy is primarily aimed at reducing the country’s fuel import bill, promoting further the demand for palm oil which will be the primary commodity for biofuel production (alongside regular diesel), as well as to shore up the price of palm oil especially during periods of low export demand.
Go to this website and read the article.
http://my-biodiesel.org/web/America/Biofuels-crops-Crime-or-savior.html
A PROMINENT United Nations activist against famine has demanded a five-year moratorium on biofuels as a new report showed Australia could use its sugar to become a major global provider of ethanol.
The writer Jean Ziegler who wrote theUN Special Report said it was a "crime against humanity" to convert food crops to fuel, driving up food prices when there are 854 million hungry people in the world.
Do you think agree with the following statement :
It is a "crime against humanity" to convert food crops to fuel, driving up food prices when there are 854 million hungry people in the world.
Explain your answer.
I am not agreeing with the above statement. It is more important to reduce the rate of depletion of the natural resources. Therefore converting crops into fuel for machine car and motor vehicle can actually reduce the rate of depletion. The fuel made by converting crops into fuel is called bio fuel. This bio fuel is produce less greenhouse gas when compare to fuel. The greenhouse gases can cause increase in global temperature and global warming which can led to drastic changes in global climate. When there is a changes in climate people tend to die as they cannot adapt. If the earth is ‘dying’ nobody can live. Therefore at the cost of a higher food price which result in the hunger of 854 million people but can actually save the rest of the people. So I am not agreeing.
ReplyDeleteHao Jian-5F
very bad of me right?.><
I would strongly agree that to convert food crops to fuel is a "crime against humanity". There are so many ways to reduce the usage of fuels. And especially in country of malaysia, if the price of diesel go down, there would be more cars. I would never forget the incident of the famous KL jammed. Rather than increasing the rate of jammed & increase the price of food, they should sell this food products at a good price to those charitable organisation. By doing this, they will do a good deed, gain reputation and reduce numbers of cars due to the high costs for diesel. They can develop a better malaysia with the money earned from the food product. There are also many ways to replace fuels to move a car like the invention of hydro-electric car. These cars are environmental friendly, one that would not contribute anymore to pollution problem. Therefore we should not start to convert food crops into fuels, whereas we should look for the other alternative which has a less & insignificance negative impact.
ReplyDeletejingming / 5f
Basically, there is pros and cons for most/everything.
ReplyDeleteAccording to the National Academy of Sciences, biodiesel produces more usable energy and reduces greenhouse gases more than corn-based ethanol.It is as biodegradable as sugar and ten times less toxic than table salt. This makes biodiesel ideal for use in
environmentally sensitive areas. lolS
however,biodiesel is more expensive than other petroleum-based fuels, conventional fuels do not have the same conservation, energy security, environmental, and economic benefits as biodiesel.
Prevention the death of earth though death of people.rather then life of people, eventually leading to death of earth which would lead back to death of people.
to me, its a sacrifice for a greater cause.
so i disagree with the statement above.
actually, i don't know what i am saying!!
ops. the new fourth paragraph:
ReplyDeleteit may sound evil but it is better to prevent the death of earth though death of people.Rather than the life of people though death of earth which would eventually lead to the death of people. So why go 1 BIG ROUND and end up dying?
I'm not sure if you guys know what i mean..lolS