dzof.org

Contradictheory: You Malay one or 1Malaysian?

2010-04-12T00:59:00.002+08:00

So that was the original title I had for today's article in The Star. Although I normally give really poor titles and the editors replace them with their own, I thought this one that I had was really on the mark. But I guess it could have been a little incendiary.

It just also upsets me that so much that happens in Parliament that gets attention are people angling for political points and less about the actual job of running the country (which I understand can be pretty tricky in the first place). And what sounds like it matters so much actually doesn't really matter at all.

Yet, I still have faith in the nation. Strange, huh?

In memory of my uncle Shah

2010-02-05T12:18:00.005+08:00

My uncle, Shahriza Hussein, passed away on Saturday two weeks ago. It was a tough time for me, and I felt that one of the better things I could do was to write a column about it. It wasn't so much an obituary, as an attempt to make sense of what was running through my head.

I wasn't the only one on cyberspace to have noted his passing:

Having owned and ran Auto International magazine for so long, and earned plenty of respect for the eloquent and truthful style of editorials, it is not surprising to see an obituary in Motor Trader Magazine.
He also wrote for the Audiofile section for The Star. Notices appeared in Hi-Fi4Sale.net and Hi-Fi Avenue.
He had also published a novel, Legacy (published by Editions Didier Millet - you can read an extract here). It was well-received in local reviews such as The Star and the Malay Mail. Sharon Bakar herself had also written on his passing.
This post reproduces the email his family sent out to all their friends.

As I wrote in the article, funerals are more for living; so was my column for that week. I'm not sure what he himself would have made of all this fuss.

Contradictheory: Is a tame point better than not making one at all?

2010-01-18T00:13:00.003+08:00

Today's column was a bit of a tough one. I wanted to write something about the whole what-do-we-call-our-God debate that is currently gripping the nation's politicians, but people told me not to go there.

So I actually started writing about why there were so many single-person vehicles in KL, and that maybe it was because of the lack of trust, and then that would segue into the doughnut story that the people we should really trust is each other, and not those at the top... but I kind of shunted myself into this article.

At the end of the day, I think I got my point made, even it was a little passive. Maybe that's not all bad, 'cos I don't think Fire-Scorched Molotov is a colour scheme I would pick for my front door.

Facing up to FaceBook

2010-01-04T09:27:00.002+08:00

Last Sunday's article was about the problems of privacy, using Facebook as an example, and trying to highlight our new Data Protection Act. I also quietly inserted a paragraph that noted that Governments were exempt from the Act.

The only reaction on the web that I saw about this was at http://dizzyzizzy.blogspot.com/2010/01/er-facebook-privacy.html, who said that she wanted to share her stuff - that's the point of Facebook. I don't disagree, but I also hope that my real lconcern was clear: that you didn't have full control of your personal data is a problem. So, yes, you can share it with the world if you want to, but you should also be able to take it away at any time too.

Response to response to snatch theft article

2009-11-24T00:56:00.003+08:00

The article I wrote last Sunday on the lady who ran over the snatch thief looks to have produced a response worthy of unsettled hornets.

Somebody wrote on their blog a scathing reply, with this sentence in the final paragraph: "I don�t get how you can even get your bloody article published."

It was inspiring enough for me to craft a reply.

I was directed to your blog from your email.

I understand your anger against snatch thieves. That, added to the fact that they seem to callously put people's lives in danger just for maybe a hundred Ringgit seems unjust enough that you would want to hurt them grievously - kill them even.

You ask me how I feel if somebody close to me was killed by such a snatch thief.

I would naturally want to grab hold of him, torture him mercilessly, keeping him barely alive so I can inflict the maximum amount of pain. I would do this, knowing that no amount of physical suffering could make up for my emotional loss. Yet, I would endeavour to make him feel fear, perhaps hurting his loved ones too to make him know the gaping maw that lies within me. I would perhaps injure those he cares for until I see the loss in his eyes, and then perhaps go beyond it for good measure. I would show practically no mercy, except for him to contrast his predicament with what the absence of pain for him to really appreciate his condition.

This is why I hope somebody would stop me from doing it. My fear is that if pushed I would do this, and I know right now, right here, that this would put me on the wrong side of civilization that I would like to see the human race to be. Mahatma Gandhi agreed too, when he said "An eye for an eye makes everyone blind".

This is why public vendetta is illegal. This is why we don't let a person in the street take direct and vengeful reaction on those that wrong him. This is why we say, a man is innocent until proven guilty, and that the only killing deemed acceptable is in direct self-defence or as part of a state-sponsored execution.

And yet, that anger if left unassuaged will need to find a way to vent itself. If you continue to hate those that you think wronged you, then you will want to take retribution on all those that person represents.

I would like to call you a friend, if only because I think we both understand the pain that a crime can cause beyond its immediate act. If you want to get your MP to campaign for snatch thefts to be classified as attempted murder, that I would support your right to do that too.

But if you want to be part of a group that hunts down and kills a man as he flees, because somebody else on a motorcycle who killed somebody else while snatching their purse, then I apologise: I have to stand opposite you my friend, and stop a criminal act.

Today and forty years ago

2009-05-13T08:53:00.003+08:00

I just noticed today's date. I can't help comparing what happened forty years ago with what is happening now. Despite the media and public outcry over the Menteri-go-round in Perak (The Star's term, not mine), there has been relatively little violence. Yes, people were held under ISA for not apparent good reason, and SUHAKAM has criticised the police presence as being non-neutral and enforcing for only one side, but compared to what happened forty years ago, I think progress has been made.

Is it because both the parties involved have an ethnic mix? If it had to be characterised as a racial issue, it looks like a Malay vs Malay situation, set against the backdrop of the Sultan of Perak as community and political leader. Insofar as public response is concerned, it seems to have crossed all racial barriers: we're tired of this, can we go back to the business of running the country?

It is interesting to note that a lot of the players involved don't seem to understand the difference between standing up for your party and standing up for the rakyat you're meant to represent. I did always think that the State Assembly should have just held votes of no confidence in the Speaker and then-MB, and thus follow the line of public-appointed representatives making decisions at the state level (on behalf of their constituencies).

Obviously politics when mixed with law is not so easy to understand and interpret. To all those who claim that you should let the public decide, I say they did decide last April and all this that is happening now is a direct result of their decision. Who asked them to appoint MPs who would of such dubious character that they could find themselves embroiled in a corruption scandal? But then, who of us really take the time to know who we are voting for beyond their logo and catch-phrases.

Regardless, I reject the idea that just because you have multi-racial politics, you won't have multi-racial political arguments. I think one big difference between now and forty years ago is that we have in fact matured as a nation. I am happy for the courts to make decisions rather than to have Thai-style mob rule - people not getting beaten up should be taken as a positive development. And I am happy to see two sizable confrontational forces in Malaysian politics, because that's what check and balance in a democracy is all about.

Now, if we can just get rid of the hypocrisy and the self-serving attitude of those who should instead be serving us, then we'll be onto a good thing.

Contradictheory: Malaysian Hollywood?

2009-02-09T23:41:00.004+08:00

I surprisingly got a bunch of favourable responses for the last Contradictheory article about how hard writing is. Somebody also emailed me, asking how they could be a writer, and what does it take.

Here is my reply:

Dear Sir,
The "group of writers" that I mentioned are actually the writing staff for Creative Development Unit of Astro. Our sole job is to write scripts for Astro productions (and to make sure that they are good, of course!).

We did have an interview session late last year. I'm afraid it was not as well publicised as it could have been, but we have our quota for this year already. We may hire again, but I cannot guarantee when it will happen.

If you send an email to junior_writer2008@yahoo.com then the person in charge will hopefully put you on the list for future job opportunities.

You asked, "what does it take to be part of the group?". Now, here is roughly what we learnt from the last round of interviews:
We asked that everybody who wanted a job to email a sample of their writing. About half failed to do so. We didn't give those people a job.
We asked those whose writing we thought showed promised to come to an interview. About 10% of those didn't or couldn't come to see us personally. They didn't get a job with us either.
Of those that came for the interview, we asked if they understood scriptwriting jargon like "three-act structure" and "turning point". About a quarter said they did, but they obviously didn't. Some of those insisted they were right in being wrong. They didn't get a job either.
About a third of whom remained came in for a second interview. One person told me with the upmost confidence that her rambling sample story (that had no clear point nor a plot that I could describe in less than fifty words) was "post-modern" because it took place in the 24th Century. She didn't get a job with us.
Those that survived all this went into a one month training session, where they learnt (or relearnt) how to write, including what phrases like "three-act structure" and "turning point" meant. 40% of those did not manage to submit homework on time regularly. They are not part of our team right now.

I hope you appreciate that the one thing you need to become a writer in television is dedication to the craft. You must really want to write so badly; so much so that you already have a lot of writing done in your own spare time just because you love it. You must want it so
badly that you even write when you're "not in the mood" to do so.

You must accept that you are probably not yet "there" as a writer, and probably have a long, long way to go. Humility and an awareness of hubris will be your references. You believe that everything you write can still be better. You know this, because when you give your writing
to honest friends to comment on, they tell you the glaring truth that it isn't really great yet.

Lastly, it really helps if you enjoy telling other people stories, and you are not shy in entertaining them. Really makes the work worth doing, I find.

Best of luck, don't stop writing.

Yours sincerely,
Dzof

Contradictheory: Boycott what?

2009-01-25T10:09:00.003+08:00

Last weekend's Contradictheory was one of the tougher ones to write. I wanted to say something about the Israel-Gaza conflict that I didn't think any of the mainstream press were saying (and certainly none of the blogs I read), but how to dip a contradictheory toe into the pool of opinion when almost everybody has painted Israel as the devil?

So I crafted a piece that for once was read by two friends for opinion before I posted it.

So my suggestion is this: Let us focus on the correct ultimate aim. Whatever our religious and cultural differences, peace is always preferable over war. Not only must we metaphorically shake hands and hug our cultural antitheists, but we must also be involved in each other�s interests. A downfall for one hurts the other as well.

For all that worrying I had about being fair to all parties, I think I was perhaps too gentle. I purposely neglected to lambast the short-sightedness of those who thought the boycott of US products would somehow be a solution to the Gaza conflict. I could have said,

"Those who think a simple boycott is all that's needed to affect change and to right an entire country gone wrong are deluding themselves; what is needed is to extend a hand of friendship, instead of waving a clenched fist, because the people driving tanks are following orders from a government who wants votes. And not only that, you're waving your banners from behind a wall of apathy protected by a trench of ignorance."

But I didn't want to upset too many people.

As a result, there was only one letter this week in response. There was no complaint, just a quiet nod of agreement.

No change from my side too, I'm afraid.

What happened to drunk malays on film?

2008-12-24T10:04:00.003+08:00

Watching Keluarga 69 on Astro Prima, and I see a drunk P. Ramlee walking back to face an upset father at home. It's played to comic effect, but the comedy is more in the argument between father and son, rather than a stumbling drunk not being able to make sense of his situation or environment. In other words, the drinking is bad

Could we do a scene like this these days without a character saying "Astarfirllahulazeem..."? Why has a moral imperative seeped into our entertainment?

I glanced over yesterday's headlines on PAS wanting to establish Hudud laws in Terengganu. Maybe I'm just a middle-class urbanite stuck far away from the realities of Kuala Terengganu, but it smacks of politics of the worst sort - we say what we say because it'll win us support.

Is this what has happened to the Malaysian film industry? When maybe a good story was once enough, now we have to incorporate 'good' values into the scripts. Again, we say what we say because it's what we feel people expect.

I want to say, let's remember the story comes first, and let viewers decide on the morality. So there.

Contradictheory: Thoughts not expressed

2008-10-14T11:34:00.005+08:00

The original draft for last Sunday's Contradictheory column was much longer than required 900-word limit. This was partly because I wanted to write lots about self-censorship in life in general, but mainly because there's so much of it in the entertainment industry as well.

As it was, they cut out a bit I talked about Ghost. I think it was because of space rather than of anything offensive. The paragraph was this:

Yes, it's a game of guesswork. We generally look at what has previously been allowed as a basis. Once, horror films were taboo but recently things have been different. We even did a whole series about a ghost this year, which we felt was never at any risk of being banned because, (a) Our ghost looked like Naz Rahman, who isn't scary in the least; (b) It wasn't really a horror story about the supernatural, but a love story about two people who can never be with one another.

I think all of the examples come from Popiah Pictures productions. If you want, you can try figure out which came from which. The specifics are not that important, anyway.

Other examples that I could have used, but didn't:

I was told we were not allowed to show people smoking cigarettes on TV. So, what Ping did was to have somebody hold an unlit cigarette in her hand. He was actually worried it might get cut out.

I heard a story once about 3R when they were told they could not air an interview because the person was a guy wearing an earring. They could, however, show it when they pixelated out the offending ear. This policy it seems has held up until now, which explains why a participant on Project Runway currently airing on 8TV has fuzzy ears.

The production company was advised by 8TV that we shouldn't refer to the Datuk as a minister so close to election season.

...and so on and so forth.

I love my meat

2008-09-28T15:27:00.004+08:00

Isn't it ironic that after I write about the perils and pleasures of eating irresponsibly, not one, but two, articles appear in my inbox about food?

The first is an article from Salon about why you should eat fat. In an interview with the author of the newly realeased Fat: An Appreciation of a Misunderstood Ingredient, With Recipes (I especially like the last two words), I found out that recent studies indicate that there may not be a direct link between obesity and heart attacks. It looks like my idea of the quality of your ingredients makes the difference - lamb fat and spinach chappati is fine (recipe here, scroll down almost to the end), vegetable fats are not so healthy after all (see, trans fat).

Exactly the kind of thing I would have loved to include in my article.

The second article was one about how being vegetarian shrinks brains. (It also mentions that being obese has the same negative effect, but they've only seen it demonstrated on women - fingers crossed on that one for guys, then!)

Now if you'll excuse me, I have a dinner at Prime tonight...

Contradictheory: Not the wild, wild West

2008-09-14T09:41:00.003+08:00

I know these are 'sensitive' times, but it was sheer coincidence that this week's Contradictheory article came out at the same time the arrests rolled in. I couldn't help but notice that the diligent editors at the Star edited my piece by removing the following paragraph:

We shouldn't be shutting down entire websites because of one article on it. Yes, we should charge and arrest somebody because of that article, and make him take it down if he's found guilty, but that one article does not equal the entire server. You don't know what he's going to say in other articles.

I think that it was removed more because the Multimedia and Communications Commission reinstated access to the server, so it was a little out-of-date. In fact, their reasons for doing so are pretty much in line with what I wrote in this piece: in general, you should not be arresting people based on a presumption of what they will do in the future.

It wasn't originally meant to be a piece on the law, more on how you can't depend on technology to uphold civil society. But when I started writing about Article 10 of the Federal Constitution, I started thinking about it more.

I feel that we are still a country finding our way when it comes to interpreting our Federal Constitution with respect to the original framers' intents. The number of amendments since then has just complicated matters.

I believe that the line concerning the Freedom of Speech was originally there to reflect that open debate is important for a democracy. Vox populi, vox dei, as they say. Doesn't matter what they have to say, you should just say it.

Unless, of course, you are libellous or seditious.

Some close to me (well, more than a few) do not like our Sedition Act. I think the issue is with Section 4 that says "does or attempts to do, or makes any preparation to do, or conspires with any person to do". This is very close to Minority Report's arrest by precog.

However, I do think we need to be able to react to situations where people in authority demean or denigrate others by virtue of race and religion, especially when the strong abuse the weak. Thus, sedition laws have a place.

I guess that's what I meant when I said, "laws should be about protecting the weak and giving opportunity to the disenfranchised". Whenever law is used to strengthen the position of those in power, we should monitor it very carefully and use whatever checks and balances we have at our disposal. To me, a law (or use of it) that extends the gap between the haves and have-nots is one that is not well construed or applied.

Get the maths right

2008-09-07T23:37:00.003+08:00

I need some help from anyone who knows statistics intimately to help me understand a problem. Something in the papers today just doesn't make sense. In fact, it stinks.

I was reading the NST today when I came across the article about the problems of teaching of Maths and Science in English. There is also a PDF download of the entire study.

That article concludes that teaching Maths in English does not work because a study showed that students were having problems answering questions in English.

Problem is, I don't think the data presented in the article supports this conclusion.

(Unfortunately, the actual data in the newspaper and the one in the website differs. I don't know why that is, you just have to rely on what I present here.)

Nine sample questions were quoted in the article. They were presented to Year 5 students (about 11 years old). Two are of interest:
(From NST, 7 September 2008, page 6)

Q1. Six pencils cost RM2.40. How much does a pencil cost?
Malay: 39.6% (427 out of the 1077 Malay students answered correctly)
Chinese and Indian: 54.7% (197 out of 360 students)
Orang Asli (aboriginal peoples): 6.5% (7 out of 108 students)
Total: 40.5% (633 of 1564 students)

Q9. Farah menjual 8 kotak minuman dengan harga RM5.60. Berapakah harga satu kotak?
Malay: 37.3% (402 correct)
Chinese and Indian: 51.9% (187 correct)
Orang Asli: 13.0% (14 students)
Total: 38.7% (605 students)

Do you see the problem? The two questions are similar, but fewer students got the answer correct for the BM version. The Bahasa Melayu version. The version that's not in English.

How on Earth can anyone conclude that they have problems when learning in English?

(That aside, they also can't add. 1077+360+108 does not equal 1564 students. I'm sure it's a clerical error, or maybe there's one student who's Lain-Lain.)

More worrying:

About a quarter of 11-year olds sampled could not calculate 6 x 7.
Around 2 out of 5 couldn't solve 72 divide by 8.
Nearly three quarters had problems solving 36.45 divided by 5.

To me, the real problem is that the standard of maths and science in the country is low. Horrendously low. I would hope more than 95% should know their multiplication table by heart by the time they are eleven.

Of course, it's all about the sample selection. And about the control. I don't know enough about these things, so that's why I'm asking for help.

I looked at the school sample in the study. They come from all over Peninsula Malaysia from cities as well as the rural areas. I don't know if the sample taken is 'fair', but it does look comprehensive.

The questions, on the other hand, I have problems with. I focused on the Maths because that's what I have a soft spot for.

In the example printed in the papers, out of eight questions, four were in English, four were language-neutral and only one was in BM. Surely, you need an equal number of the three categories for it to be a fair comparison?
In the example printed in the PDF download, the one question in BM was a problem that required two subtractions. The closest English equivalent problem was one that needed one addition, one subtraction, another addition and finally a division. Unsurprisingly, the easier question got more correct answers. The obvious thing to me is to have very similar questions in terms of difficulty, regardless of the language.

This whole thing stinks to me of doing a flawed study with flawed conclusions. I can't see how anyone could take it without huge reservations.
Naturally, I look forward to any comments you might have.

Things I learnt today

2008-08-26T22:55:00.002+08:00

Busy, busy, busy day.

There is a Platu racing series in Thailand. Tough to find information about it, though.
There is no decent simple image manipulator in Linux like Irfanview for windows. Fortunately we always have Wine.
There is a ceiling hanging by some splinters in my house. I blame the construction workers next door, they blame the rain. Yes, I suppose, the rain that came in through the open roof they happened to be working on.
Business Objects Enterprise XI Release 3 runs very poorly on 700MB RAM.
The Eagle's Nest will be closing in the last week of October, probably.
There is an amazing crab restaurant in Mumbai and a 5-star steak restaurant in the remote regions of Argentina.

Upgrading to Fedora 9: Fun in a painful sort of way

2008-08-24T20:40:00.003+08:00

What do you do on a Sunday when you're being rattled around by a cold? Take a deep breath and upgrade your copy of Linux from Fedora 8 to Fedora 9.

(For the uninitiated, my notebook is a dual-boot, XP and Fedora. I know which one is good for my soul, but practicalities force me to straddle.)

It shouldn't have been that difficult, but the truth is that the proclamations by linux enthusiasts oversell its benefits. This is one thing I don't like about the pro-Linux guys. Oh, Linux is ready for prime-time, they say. Linux is for everyone. All hail the now-full-of-user-friendly-GUIs Linux.

Rubbish. Although I have to admit that once it's set up, it's fine. And you can set it up any way you like. But the road there...

It's like someone promised you a scenic hike through the mountains, and then you found out that actually it was trudge 12-hour through some pretty toughish terrain, and you spent all the time with your head down, slogging away.

Fortunately, the Internet is full of signposts that help guide you (the trick is figuring out which ones are wrongly posted), and yes, the view at the end of it all is pretty good.

I'm going to list the problems I had between installation and the 'final' version. This is so that others have an indication of what to expect. And so I have somewhere to fall back to the next time I have to (re-)install this darned thing...

I tried using preupgrade to shift from Fedora 8 to 9. In theory, run the program, wait, reboot and voila! In reality, run, wait, reboot, and ... can't log in. With any account.

It was okay in run level 1, but not in 5. Couldn't figure it, so I reinstalled from zero.

Of course, I had forgotten to do a backup before this, but fortunately runlevel 1 was accessible. Copied /etc and /home. And next time, I should tar before doing this if I'm going to back up to an NTFS drive...
To help me keep track of what should be done/not done, I referred to The Perfect Desktop and Fedora Guide. I find that these are pretty good for an adventurous beginner too.

(BTW, yum-fastestmirror is a good thing to install first off.)

Tapping the touchpad to click the mouse didn't work. Solution was deceptively easy: Install the latest version of the driver. Allegedly they chose to take out the feature.
The dreaded WiFi card. I have a Broadcom which is always a tough one to sort out, but surprisingly the instructions at Fedora Guide worked first time.
There is no sound with YouTube. Hence, 'yum install libflashsupport' comes to the rescue.
The videos don't work. After playing around, I realised that installing mplayer solved most of them, and the 'Windows' codecs take care of the rest.
Sound was soft, so you adjust properties from System -> Preferences -> Hardware -> Volume Control.
Installing vmware is a pain. You can either trust Vmware Server 1.0.6 (which installs well, but I don't like the Server product), or you can try installing VMPlayer - which raises other (thankfully, solvable) problems.
ADDITION: Forgot about the Windows fonts. Copy fonts into inidividual directories from c:\windows\fonts to /usr/share/fonts, and then run mkfontscale and mkfontdir on those new directories.

At the end of the day, I guess everything works, but I can't honestly see a non-technical person solving these problems on their own (so I'm offering myself at RM30 per hour...).

Handbags at twenty paces, aimed at my head

2008-07-27T10:31:00.004+08:00

So I get slammed in today's paper for being a mysoginistic chauvinistic pig. And perhaps quite rightly so for a third of them. The original article in Contradictheory was pretty harsh. But I suppose I should try to explain my end of it.

I did get some forewarning of this when a close friend of mine called me up earlier in the week and asked "were you purposely trying to be controversial?". Well, yes I was - I have lately written too many 'feelgood, dogood' articles and it was about time I shook my quilly behind a bit. But judging by the response, I probably crossed a line. Or a raging torrent of river.

Before I begin, I apologise to anybody I offended. It wasn't meant to attack anyone in particular, merely the notion that staying beautiful is a good enough reason to not try and protect yourself. In case the tone of the article wasn't clear, I was NOT seriously suggesting that people carry male escorts with them wherever they go. (Well, for some women, only if the escort is me, and it's not because I want to protect their handbags anyway.)

The intent at the beginning was to say, don't carry handbags which are easily snatched, find other ways to pocket your valuables. But with every single girl that I talked to about this, the conversation always ended at this: it'll make me look ugly. Would every woman in the world who was asked this give the same answer? I doubt it. I have a six foot tall Canadian friend who whacked someone on the head with the attacker's helmet when he tried to rob her bag. And probably because of some Canuckian proverb about something worth doing once is worth doing over and over again with gusto, he probably got hit again. I think she'd say, "I'll take my handbag and my chances, thank you very much". And good for her too.

But, everyone girl I talked to about this in those few days mentioned it. To me, you can't really be that concerned about snatch thefts if "it'll make me look ugly" is your reason to not try something to stop or avoid it. "It's impractical", or "I don't think the risk is worth the hassle", or "I enjoy the practicality a fashionable handbag affords me, and woe betide anybody who tries to come between me and my carrying purse" would all be worthy answers. Yet, I tell you this: put a stop watch in your hand, propose to a woman that they can put their things in their pockets, and you get the 'ugly' word within sixty seconds.

Well, this got me mad when I heard this. It felt like a conversation at cross-purposes. Of course it's possible to go around without a handbag, or at least only a handbag with non-valuables in it. But the impasse at which this notion would not be entertained seemed to be 'bulky pockets'. Vanity is not always a bad thing, but when it pushes practicality aside, I don't like it. I feel the same way about superstition. There may be a place for it, but not at the expense of common sense.

So am I treating women differently from men in this case? Yes. So I am chauvanistic. Do I hate women for it? No, of course not. I get frustrated and think it's silly, though. And I am a pig? I ask you to not consider my shape and size and manners at the dinner table when you ask that, and so, no.

That friend of mine who chided me earlier in the week got it right. Am I suggesting that if you don't want a motorcycle stolen, then you shouldn't drive a motorcycle? Yes, that argument stands. But I think people who have motorcycles don't necessarily have much of a choice in finding something cheap that takes them around town quickly. And the risk of getting a motorcycle stolen, although much higher than handbags, is still low, especially if you take care to lock it up properly.

There is nothing wrong in being defensive in trying to protect your property. You lock your cars and set alarms. You hold your child's hand when crossing the road. You put your valuables somewhere safe and don't carry it around on your shoulder. Makes sense to me.

Notes on my current status

2008-07-26T10:02:00.005+08:00

Just to inform all what's be going on lately...

I'm currently not in KL, doing training in Kepala Batas, staying in a hotel in Sungai Petani. To say that things are quiet here is not exactly true; the chirping of crickets do constitute noise.

There are advantages too. For example, it only cost me RM5 to watch The Dark Knight. I thought it was good (not great - too long-winded in places) and, yes, Heath Ledger's performance is a standout. It's as much his character as the performance, the only thing is that once he's shocked the beejeebus out of you in the first two acts, he doesn't seem so bad in the third. But, yes, he was great.

Since we're talking about entertainment, how about Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog? During the writer's strike, Buffy-creator Joss Whedon had some spare time on his hands, and decided to write a musical about super-villains who want to rule the world and save the damsel in distress at the same time. If you liked Buffy, then the humour in this one will appeal. The songs are okay too. But what is exciting is that this clearly paves the way to creating and selling content with the Net (with a capital N) as the distribution channel. Yes, because it's Joss, it's comes pre-installed with flashing lights and a huge LOOK AT ME sign, so people were going to notice it even if it came on the back of a donkey in Albania. But it is unsurprisingly good. (Selling stuff on the Internet is the Great bit.)

I'm doing all this while surfing on Maxis broadband. Guess what? It Works! I borrowed it from a friend because I thought internet access in the boondocks would be hard (I was half-right; WiFi signals are rare, but Internet Cafes are like pokok Semalu around here).

WCIT 2008 live blogging - GAID

2008-05-20T13:53:00.000+08:00

GAID: Global forum on acess and connectivity

UN-GAID is a committee of the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. They're basically the branch of the UN that looks at the problem of narrowing the digital divide. For them to hold their annual meeting here in Kuala Lumpur is as big a deal really as WCIT, if you're concerned about the digital divide.

Today the youth take the stage. By youth, we mean young, ethusiastic guys under 30 in age.

They're presenting in an inclusive way, asking people to step up and put forward their experiences in involving youth in accessibility programs.

By the way, the sound sucks big time, which is embarrassing for a world-class seminar. It sucked in this hall yesterday too. Kudos to the presenters for just switching the mikes off and projecting thir voices.

A lot of what they're presenting on stage is about making people aware of what they do, and they bring with them a bucket load of enthusiasm. They're certainly not dry, but their pitch sometimes does increase in frequency when it doesn't look like they have the audience's full attention.

GAID is also big on discussions. They have roundtable type conversations, eight people or so, which I think is too many to have a decent back-and-forth conversation. But they do say good things.

Attending and listening to what they were discussing makes me feel that the world is coming to grip with what it means to solve the digital divide problem. The issue of gettig technology in the right places is the least of it. As important are issues of regulation, content and funding. But they have really smart people working on the problem, and that gives me hope.

WCIT 2008 live blogging - Craig Barret's presentation

2008-05-19T18:40:00.002+08:00

I tried to post this live, but my Asus ran out of batteries. I'm posting this again.

I missed the first five minutes or so of this lecture. He's talking about accessibility to school kids with respect to technology. As you might know (or probably not), I am a big fan of improving education through the use of technology. I consider the Smart School project to be my baby, albeit one with many surrogate parents. It was a painful birth, I was elated when it first saw the light of day, but now it's a toddler, I worry at the kind of friends its making - many of them to be unhealthy influences.

He's just making the point that the price of PCs are going down, selling in Jakarta for less than USD200. This, to me, is the sub-RM1000 PC that I've been dreaming of. My ASUS Eee baby is even better, being mobile to boot. Accessibility is a big deal when you're talking about technology, because it is that that gives opportunity. As a nation, we have enough money that we could provide every teacher and student ready access to technology so that they are not wanting. I'm not saying everybody gets a PC, but able to get to it when they need it

But he's missed the cost of maintenance and support. We don't just need affordable technology, but also reliable technology. OLPC is a great example of this. You can drop it, and it's fine. You can wind it up when you have no electricity. I think it also has no movable parts. But he didn't mention it, probably because it doesn't run on Intel chips.

Instead, they have their version of it. It too is rugged, it too is versatile, but it also runs on Intel chips.

Craig Barret however made an important point; that connectivity is issue. Some statistics on connectivity:
5% africa
24% asia
21% middle east
70% US
The real limiting factor is cost.
In the US 100kbps is US 50 cents a month
Africa 80 dollars a month
sub-sahara 250 dollars a month.
In Malaysia, my theoretical 1Mbs is RM77 per month - which isn't cheap when compared to the US.

He points out that Malaysia is progressive in Wimax. I agree that it's one of the things it seems we are doing well. My question is usually how do you get the market to understand these different technologies? How do you know it won't be overrun by some new wireless kid on the block? And how will Wimax be rolled out to the rural areas, if there aren't enough customers to justify it?

The example they are suggesting is to involve private sector, and Pakistan is taken as an example.

They have the universal service fund. but the company that distributes it is based on the private sector model. They auction off remote areas, to be funded by the government, and they combine providing access to schools with the communication lines.
Auctioned four different remote areas
Government is bureaucratic.
Board of company is 50-50 govt and private sector.

This talk is pro-private sector, and private sector involvement in public sector projects is something that worries me. "Let the private sector do it," he says, but I think the government needs to keep a very close eye on things. Do you trust people whose bottom line is to make money?

Partnership is great, but it needs to be a balanced. Otherwise these guys will maximise their bottom line at your expense.

He makes the point that relevant content is important. Middle East has almost no websites, for example, despite having 5% of the population. But local content has limited reach, even if it is also more relevant for locals. I'm not completely sold on the idea that it is so crucial, when compared to educating users to be members of the world community (instead of sitting in their own cybersphere).

Tele-health, which gets medical knowledge out to the rural areas. Malaysia was in prime position to implement this, but for some reason it didn't fly as well as it could have. Limited hospitals are connecte to each other in Malaysia, but at (I think) they use the same stadards, so information can be shared by all.

He then presented Grameen, which is an organisation that tries to narrow the gap between the haves and have not. Dr Yunus won the Nobel Peace Prize for his work giving microloans to the poor (especially the women) who were otherwise rejected for loans from banks. He then did the same with handphones, leasing them out to the poor, wich they then could pay for because of the increased business they got from being able to use phones to communicate. Based on the success of that work, he now wants to extend it to narrowing the gap with respect to access to ICT.

I like the work being done here very much. This is, in fact, giving opportunity, rather than handouts - something that our Government policies should really look into.

The whole thing was wrapped up with three kids being trotted out to be introduced as students whose lives had been changed through the use of technology.. To be fair, Craig Barrett always pointed out during the presentation that good teachers matter more than technology. But the kids had prepared speeches (which were well done, but stiff), which for me is a glaring example of how prescriptive our education is sometimes. It would have been great if they were more relaxed, as they were nearer the end of the presentation.

As a reward for their efforts, each student got one of theose Intel notebooks. Which was nice of them.

But still I'm not completely cofortable with private sector involvement in schools.

WCIT 2008 live blogging - PMs Opening Speech

2008-05-19T09:41:00.001+08:00

Seeing that I have a Wireless AP here in the hall, I'm going to take advantage to blog direct from the World Congress of IT event being held here in Kuala Lumpur.

Acknowledged as the most prestigious of all IT events, it pulls in the big names in IT. It's a big deal that Malaysia is hosting the event this year, a fact I think lost on the media. Nobody is really that excited about it outside the IT industry, I think. But I may be wrong.

The PM is currently giving the opening keynote speech, but this isn't his first contact with WCIT. He has spent the last few days involved with the International Advisory Panel (IAP), and I would like to think that the things discussed then will trickle through to WCIT. Anyway, this was the question I asked at the press conference, but didn't get much of an answer from the delegates.

One thing that's struck me about this opening ceremony are the number of kids involved. Schoolchildren sang a song (Paul Moss would say "pitchy", but Paula would say "beautiful), and schoolchildren held the PMs hands leading him up to the stage. Not great idea, it looked like a genial grandfather being coddled by his grandchildren, but Pak Lah explained, it was about how the youth of today is leading the generation of their forefarthers into the 21st Century.

Nevertheless, the opening speeches are predictable and pedestrian.

He has just announced the National Broadband iniative to increase broadband penetration to 50% by 2010 from 5% last year. Haven't we been trying to do this for the last five years?

"We are commited to facilitate more home-grown companies to be world-class" or something like that. What I say is, Show us the money. Again, this has been aroud for years, but why is progress slow? Or perhaps it's just deceptively so because the success stories are made by the quiet ones. Not everbody can be like Tony Fernandez.

Wireless KL is also mentioned again. Good concept, let's see the implementation before we applaud.

Aha. He has just mentioned that technology-based application with combined advances in agriculture, etc. can help solve the food crisis. We know what he likes and favours.

He has just announce smartcard technology will be used to control subsidies for petrol for certain segments of society. It sounds like the decision has been made This will be a ground for debate amongst some, I think.

Ghost Episode 2 - Notes

2008-04-07T13:51:00.002+08:00

The recap makes it surprisingly clear what the first episode is about. In fact, we probably don't even need to spend 40 minutes telling a story. Just watch the recaps.

The story opens with Eza having breakfast and Zack reading the papers. Just like your average happy family, where the girl eats quietly, and the guy complains about how little press he's getting now that his dead. Quite coincidentially, as it's apt to happen on TV, Eza gets an email with - shock, horror, gasp - revealing photos of Zack with a school girl. Eza, trying quite cooly to tell Zack off (and yet not quite suceeding), says, "You nak sangat cerita pasal you".

Songs this episode: Won't Go Home Without You by Maroon 5; Bubbly by Colbie Caillat; Magic by Colbie Caillat; The Way I Are (sic) by Timbaland; Don't Stop the Music by Rhianna; Stronger by Kanye West; Glamorous by Fergie; With Every Heartbeat by Robyn; Cry by Rhianna; Rehab by Amy Winehouse; and Realize (sic) by - guess who - Colbie Caillat.
Like the floating newspaper? So do I. Want to know how they do it? It's all about the Pentium dual-cores, baby.
If you think the schoolgirl looks a lot like Malaysian Star winner, Melody Yeoh, that's because she is. Chelsia Ng dropped by to don her old pinafore and to flirt around with half-naked actors. And she got paid for it.
There is actually an account especially created for Eza on gmail. Problem is, you never actually get to see it in this episode, so all of you wanting to send fan letters to her should write to Popiah Pictures anyway.

Finally, the intro titles. Written by Douglas Lim, sang by Chelsia Ng (with Douglas Lim giving... colour). I thought it was quite nice that it told a story of nobody (except the little boy) being able to see Zack, and then he bumps into Eza and their lives changed. However, I miss the good ol' TV titles of the 80's, when we used to insert action scenes between the actors names, like the A-Team and Blue Thunder and Airwolf and have music pumping at full wattage through the speakers. I can but dream.

Zack continues to deny that it is him in the photos, because it doesn't look like his body. I'm sure the female population out there is whispering, "take off that damn shirt and prove it to us". Instead, cowardly Zack just says that that guy on the video is fat. Hey, if that guy is fat, then I, along with most guys that enjoy the occasional nasi lemak, are in some serious trouble. And there's the matter of the birthmark.

David Tan appears on TV, denouncing these photos and promoting his new movie at the same time: Impak Kuat, starring "Jack Imran". When Zack sees David, he suddenly realises that these photos were taken in David's bedroom. Which he has seen. Because, he's been there. During parties. With lots of hot chicks about. Which is just a coincidence, I'm sure. David, it seems, has a motive to do this, because Zack fooled around with the producer's ex.

I kept telling Naz that Zack was strongly based on him, but I don't think he was too happy about that because of the womanising part. But certainly, the whole confidence thing, and the sense of humour was all Naz. He's also comfortable around the ladies, although he doesn't flirt quite as blatantly as Zack does. Certainly he doesn't say what he might be thinking!
The scene of Zack and the woman in the car was cut from the final broadcast. Not quite sure why, I guess the whole idea of Zack making out with someone was a little too risque.

Eza meets up with Julie, who's nattering on about the latest gossip in the industry and how Eza should move on after Adzam - two days after the breakup. Zack is just being plain annoying.

Carmen Soo on the magazine - it's the famous NewMan spread. Why is it famous? In almost every other photoshoot of Carmen, she either comes across as classy or elegant or just plain sweet. In this one, she's... shall we just say, dangerously distracting? Issue number 50, I believe.
Ping worried about Julie coming across as slutty. She was meant to be fun-loving and adventurous. She was meant to live life to the full and not care about the consequences. The opposite of Eza, in fact. But not slutty.
Okay... the whole Farra, Hans and Irfan - the names have been changed to protect the innocent.

Zack is in the girl's bathroom with Eza. Strangely enough, Eza is okay with this. Eza explains that she is a gossip writer. Coincidentially, her editor calls up to say that Eza needs to meet her deadline, with a story. Eza is persuaded by Zack to tell her editor that the photos of Zack are fake, and that she'll come up with a story.

The idea that Eza was a gossip writer was there from the very beginning. The idea was this: Eza is a quiet girl, but she has an alter-ego, Nadia, who writes gossip columns. Actually, she gets her tips from Julie, and just works behind the scenes. Until Zack meets her and gets her to help him solve his murder, of course. Somewhere between the charcoal smudge and the final product, things changed a little.
The whole point of this was to (a) give a reason why shy Eza would go out in to the glitzy entertainment world to help Zack; (b) create a parallel between the Eza who pretends to be glamorous but stays at home, with the Eza who finally gets out and sees the crap that floats around in the biz. That second bit kind of disappeared too.
Another censor: Eza says, "Kau pergi mampus-lah", but all we see are her lips moving. Nice reaction by Zack, by the way.

Back at home, Eza and Zack discuss on how they are going to get into David's bedroom. Zack says it's easy, in the sense that it's easy women that David loves. Eza just needs to go in and persuade him. Eza protest that her goods lie above the neck and not below, but Zack shows her what kind of clothes she needs to wear.

Eza walks out of the lift in David's office, uncomfortable with the clothes that are too tight. She auditions for David Tan, and although she is clumsy at first, she is coached by Zack and ends up giving a performance that is... well... it's sexy, at least for David Tan. He invites her to his party.

The original scene in this script was actually quite good; you could feel the tension rising. However, in the performance, something was lost. This is quite unusual given that Ping both wrote and directed the scene. Perhaps Ping's idea of sexy is... well, not my idea of sexy. Having said that, Ping loved writing this scene. He has an overactive imagination.
Kin Wah is really hamming it up as David, which is quite funny given that he was also helping out coach the actors for the other, more serious scenes. There is a large element of slapstick in the whole episode anyway, but it's not something I really like - it's a little out of sync with the rest of the series. However, when Eza says "takada lah ... first time aje" - now that's acting.
I just realised it would be better if Eza was sitting on a couch. Because she's casting you see. Geddit?
"Belum cuba mana tahu?" or a variant is that one phrase that just keeps cropping up over and over again. I used it first in Impian Illyana, and I think it's managed to slip into every series I've worked on since then. This is Ping's line, which makes up for the fact that I didn't work it in anywhere in my episodes.
Zack obviously doesn't know Eza that well yet. As Eza is leaving the office, Zack calls her Eza Azzrul. Hell, no, it's Eza AZMI! Like Dzof AZMI! Okay?

Julie comes by Eza's place with a boy in tow. She's meant to be there to help Eza dress up for Jimmy's party, but she seems more interested trying to foist her date upon Eza. Eza is a little shocked at this, but not as much as Zack when he sees how much Eza's transformed after her makeover.

Julie's mannerisms and the way she talks in this scene is pretty much the way Carmen Soo does so in real life. Surprising, perhaps, but unfortunately I think it works against her character as Julie. Carmen is nice, winsome and disarming. Julie is meant to be a little more brash, with a large dose of confidence, but somehow always manages to get people to get things done her way. One is a girl you might take home to meet your mother; the other is one you wouldn't take home to meet your father in case he falls for her too.
If the boyfriend looks familiar, it's because it's Joel Neoh, the winner of the first season of The Firm. That's right, if you join a Popiah Pictures production, you too have a chance of joining more Popiah Pictures productions.
So Eza changes into a slinky evening dress while in her bedroom, with naught but a beaded curtain between her and a stranger outside (and Zack too, of course). Progressive, and yet not so realistic.
Music by Colbie Caillat.

Eza and Zack turn up at the party. It's a veritable who's who of KL social life, including Sham - Zack's biggest rival in all ways: films, publicity and, of course, girls. Zack leads Eza to David Tan's bedroom.

Ah, the first party scene. At one point we had a party or nightclub scene in every episode. Ping was fretting because it would expensive to shoot. Actually, I think he just doesn't like working with crowds. Me, on the other hand, was thinking he could use his stable of talents at The Talent Factory to liven up things.

The duo enter David Tan's bedroom. How they just walk in without anyone stopping them, I have no idea. They snoop around and discover a hidden camera, aimed straight at the bed. Suddenly, they are interrupted by Sham walking in with some pretty young thing. Honestly, with this much traffic around, you might as well hang a red lantern outside and sell tickets for the show. As Sham is getting it on (or 'on down' or 'it up' - I never swing with the slang too much), Zack notices that he has a birthmark just like the guy on the video.

Honestly, this was written before Health Minister thing. Or the Edison Chan thing. It was just a coincidence. Or perhaps it's just something that happens so often that somewhere around the world someone is putting on a naked performance in front of a hidden camera. Think about it.
Something about the scene got me thinking. Eza can see Zack in mirrors. But she can't see him on camera. Okay, so you say it's because light goes straight from Zack to Eza via reflective surfaces, but the camera interprets it through CCDs and the like. All right, but it can't really be light that Eza 'sees' because no light I know willfully reflects for one person, but not another. So obviously Eza sees Zack because Zack's presence muddles around with Eza's brain cells so she thinks she sees him. But then, she should also think she sees him on camera. Maybe the camera is too much effort for the brain cell bending stuff. And don't get me started on the shadows.

We're back at the party, where David Tan makes Jimmy give his two cents worth of Zack. He's reluctant, but he goes on to say wihtout him I'd be no one, nobody can replace him, let's party!

Aha. The Datin. Cheng-cheng-cheng. I wonder if anybody remembered her from episode one.
Yasmin previously acted in a teledrama called Nasi Lemak Dina in which Ping was involved in as Exec Producer or something (I didn't really understand how it all worked). She has large eyes which are pretty. These two statements are unrelated.

Jimmy slinks away with Sham. They do the dirty deal behind the scenes - "I'll make you bigger than Zack ever was". Between Sham in someone's private bedroom, and Zack's ex-manager and his biggest rival, you'd think somebody would have noticed them slinking away. Obviously a lot of slinking in the 'away' direction must happen in KL celebrity parties.

Is Jimmy a two-faced bastard? Yes? He must be the prime suspect, then.

Datin Faizura runs into the bathroom, tearing up. Zack! You bastard! Why did you have to die?
Either she must really love him, or we have a case of schizophrenia coming up. So she's not a prime suspect, but she's 'involved'. Hell, who isn't?

Maybe Farouk. He just jumps into Eza's path to rescue her from David Tan. Only thing I'd have to say to Eza is, "What's a guy like that going to a party like this without a date?". Probably looking for a date himself, that's what.

Meet Farouk, played by Nas-T. Some of the show's fans like him. Really like him.
Farouk was formerly named Derek. And then for some reason they changed him. I quite happy, because it was tough differentiating between Derek,, the Datuk and the Datin. Tongue twisting does not make for effecting story breaking.
Okay, so Ping writes these one-liners, and between him and me, I'm probably more likely to use them in real life. But I don't. Because I have standards.

Meet Adzam. And his new girlfriend, Haflin. Surprise, Eza.

Man, is Adzam a nerd or what. Adzam is also the name of somebody we both know, so I always had him in mind what I wrote the stuff. But he's a nerd in a good way.
Haflin is played by January Low, whom I think has a great future, although it's not always on screen in this show. And she dances too.
If you think this Adzam/Eza/AnybodyElse triangle is going to be milked for all it's worth, all I can say is 'moo'.

Naz talks to Eza. Eza is annoyed, because Adzam has a new squeeze. Ini pasal you lagi ke? Zack tries to consoles Eza.

Problem with this scene is, January isn't a bimbo.

Eza finally figures it out. She realises that the girl with Sham in the video knows she's being filmed. She sees that the tape is labelled 'Baby'. And by holy coincidence, they actually have Sham's handphone. That has the name 'Baby' in its contact list.

I do not like how the clues fit a little too nicely. The fact that they get the handphone is the bit that annoys me. They had no reason to take the handphone, it was just a God Machine coincidence.

Eza arranges to meet up with Baby. Who then launches into one long exposition. So, Sham was embarrassed by Zack. David Tan was upset with Zack. It was meant to come out before Zack died, so that he would be embarrassed. But funny how life works, eh?

Notice it's set in Starbucks. Ping loves Starbucks.
Eza actually blackmails Baby to get her to do the 'right thing', which is a little strange.
The big question that goes unanswered (and to me, represents a rip in the reasonable-plot continuum), is who actually leaked the photos, then? Eh?

The end is Eza talking to us, explaining what the theme of the story is. What would we do because of love?

I don't normally think these talkovers are a great idea. It's like what Doogie Howser or Meredith Gray does to bang into our heads, "Hey, look, this is what the story is really about, OKAY?". But in this case, it has a heart, and it makes you feel something. Which is what is really important.
Incidentally, this theme also explains a lot about the whole mystery of how and why Zack died. Like I said, it's about love. It's always about love.

And then, the end after the end is the Psycho girl cutting out photos. Just a teaser to leave you a little on edge.

Now I'm international!

2008-02-06T06:46:00.000+08:00

Some of you may have noticed that I have been promoting Ghost a little. I have no shame. I freely admit that. I even wrote that down in a national newspaper column. But in fact, the column wasn't really about television, or about the business of writing; it was about the serious business of how racism limits both opportunities for employers, and for the general public. I contrast that with the hiring policy of Popiah Pictures, and of how every one of different races just get down to the business of doing good work. They even gave it a nice title: A ghostly glimmer of hope. Positive, forward thinking, optimistic.

I guess I must have hit a chord or something, because guess what I see in a newspaper when I'm in Singapore? My name, and bits of my article on page A9 of Monday's issue of My Paper. It's strategically placed right above a piece about how Pak Lah's declining popularity, including the issue of race relations. What headline does my piece get? Why should ethnicity still matter - on Malaysian job opportunities. To me, this headline has a slightly different spin on it - it sounds like I'm complaining about the situation. Well, surely the article will put them right, right?

Erm. Perhaps not. Because in transferring the article, they also edited out all references to the TV show and to Popiah Pictures. As a result, the tone is a little more negative - a complaint without a balm to soothe it.

Don't get me wrong. I'm very happy to now be internationally syndicated. I didn't even know it was happening. I'm flattered like a bemused pancake under a steamroller. And I'm very comfortable with how the editing team at the Star have treated me. It's just that others who read My Paper might get the wrong impression of what I think.

At least 'Dzof Azmi' is a unique Googlable phrase.

Notes for Ghost Episode 1

2008-02-04T07:53:00.000+08:00

For those of you who have not seen the program yet, 8TV has been generous enough to put up episodes on their website. This is a Good Thing, and I am grateful to whomever in 8TV it was who came up with this policy. (Incidentally, because I am currently out of the country, even I haven't had a chance to see it on Malaysian TV yet!)

Well, I know there were some people out there who liked reading the notes I did for Realiti, so I'll try to do the same for Ghost. However, because I was not as involved in this show, they'll be a little more sketchy, and more from the point of the viewer - less insight, more outside.

The number one thing I worry about when I first saw the pilot was: Is it clear enough? Is it clear what is happening in the episode, and does it unambiguously set up what is going to happen in the rest of the series? A very clever man once said that if your third act doesn't work, the problem is in the first act. Similarly, if you can't relate what happens in the final episode with what happens in the first... well, damnit, we should have rewrote the first.

Or at least make it clearer. So, the notes below are spoilers which explain what's going on in the episode.

The story opens on Eza, who is rushing for dinner. She's dressed up to the nines, and is excited.

It should be immediately clear that this is Eza's story. It was always meant to be about how she reacts to what's going on around her hopefully the audience can see how she changes from the first episode to the last. Having said that, she's not the protagonist - not for the most part anyway.
Notice The Sweet Escape playing in the background. For the first time (as far as I know), Popiah Pictures managed to get licensing for western pop music for their shows. Actually, if you go back to previous series, some of the incidental music actually is sampled from other stuff - although you'd have to be a pedantic fan to actually be able to pick it up.
In this episode: The Sweet Escape by Gwen Stefani; Clumsy by Fergie; Realize by Colbie Caillat; Apologize by OneRepublic.

In her rush, Eza meets Zack Imran, famous movie star. He's cool. She's flustered. He just came out of the women's toilet. But the lady inside the Ladies claims there was nobody in there.

Now, I don't know if it's clear that Zack Imran is a famous actor. An early draft had established this very early on showing him acting in a film, but I said that it was an unnecessary scene. Words I regret? A little.

Eza is rushing to have dinner with her boyfriend, Adzam, but in contrast to her excitement, he seems a little distant. Finally, it comes out. He's breaking up with her. Eza is devastated.

In the original script, the breakup was scripted. The final version is much better, leaving things unsaid. However, we do miss several things: That tonight was their fifth anniversary of being together, and that Adzam felt that Eza dreamt of being something more than she was, but didn't do much about it (you're meant to get that from the if-that-was-Zack-why-didn't-you-say-hi part of the conversation).
As mentioned in her interview with The Star, Cheryl was not the first choice for this role. However, having seen her in the rushes, she definitely brings something to it that the other actresses would not have. This scene is a prime example. There's crying, as in calling up tears; and then there's crying of the pain-wrenching sort that only the loss of someone or something valuable can inspire. And, by jove, in this scene, she has even me welling up.
Notice that the actors really eat. Ping is a stickler for things like that. If there's eating in the scene, then there will be food in the mouth, and chewing througout. This can actually be harder on the actors than you may think.

In her despair, she gets distracted by a breakup SMS from Adzam, almost hits a car, and then swerves straight... into?... Zack Imran. He's acting strangely, and he asks her to help him.

This was one of the problematic scenes, and Ping had written many versions of it. One reason it was hard was because we kept changing how Zack Imran died. The other reason was how to give Eza a reason to let this man into his car.
I think I was the one who suggested that Zack already realised that something was wrong, but he didn't want to admit it. Otherwise, I thought it would be quite strange for someone to not notice that his hand kept passing through things.
Yes, the car dips a little when Zack (a ghost) sits in it. Whenever you work with fantasy-type things, you get to write the rules of how it works. Here's one such rule: Ghosts actually affect the world around them, but do so unconsciously. It's when they want to deliberately interact with physical objects that things become difficult. Don't like it? Tough.
We tried to explain to Ping (more than once), that just because the ringtone on your phone is Mr. Lonely, it doesn't mean that people hear that when they are calling you. But, yes, you could set both of them to be the same, I guess.

Eza tries to drive Zack back, but the guard won't let them in. Instead she takes him back to her place, where they make small talk and she asks Zack to stay over.

Censor Board Alert! According to some guidelines, it seems you're not allowed to show a man and a woman together in a closed room. But Zack is a ghost, so maybe it's okay...? Even better, there isn't actually a door between the living room and Eza's bedroom - it's just a curtain of beads.
Eza's wishboard was Ping's idea, but I thought it was underused. To me, it demonstrates that Eza is a dreamer who wants to be more than she is, but she just doesn't have the gumption/determination/guts to make more of it. So, my idea was that as the series progresses, they start using the wishboard as a noticeboard, with photos of suspects and clues on it. Now, this reality takes over the Eza's fantasies, and her dreamboard does finally reflect what she wants and is going through. Unfortunately, another good idea not used...

Eza wakes up and gleefully tells her best friend Julie that she brought Zack Imran back home. However, she is shocked when she finds out that the news is reporting that Zack died in a car accident. They rush over to the hospital, just in time to catch Zack's manager, Jimmy, make the announcement that Zack is truly dead. Then who spent the night at Eza's place...? Eza is shocked to find that Zack is really a ghost, and that only she can see him. She runs away. He chases her. Special effects ensue.

Finally, after more than fifteen minutes of show, we get our first special effects shot. No, it's not the van running through Zack, it was the camera that was pointing at Zack, but showing not-Zack. I think they had a green-screen on the original shot, and then pasted a fake video over the monitor screen. But it's so subtle, I think people might miss it.
What about the puffs of smoke when the van hits Zack? Yeah, I liked it too. However, I wish he hadn't turned around, so you had him babbling, and then the van running through him without him immediately realising it.
Recognise the hospital? Here's a game for you all: try to figure out if you can find all the locations used in Ghost that was also used in Realiti.

Exposition time. Jimmy says: Zack was at an AIDS awareness dinner, then Jimmy left him, and that was the last he saw of Zack. Incidentally, Jimmy becomes the sole proprieter of Zack Enterprises Sdn Bhd, and a whole bucket-load of cash. We also realise that Zack knew all the while that something was wrong when he first met Eza, and was trying to hide it from her.

The voice singing that haunting song in the background when the clips are playing is Chelsia Ng. She also sings the theme tune.

Zack pops by. He tries to convince Eza that he was murdered, and that Eza must help him.

This is where the first act ends, two commercial breaks in. This is why I feel the first episode is a little slow. But there's a lot of explaining to do.
Originally, Eza did a lot more soul-searching before she decided to help Zack. However, Ping wanted there to be some action that moved forward the mystery of Zack's death in episode one, so all that "will she, won't she" stuff got thrown out.
There was also a scene of a bomoh coming by trying to exorcise a ghost, with a very unimpressed Zack looking on.

Eza drops by Jimmy's place. She unsuccesfully tries to convince Jimmy that Zack was murdered. Jimmy is skeptical. With Zack's help, Eza points out that she knows a lot. When Eza insists it can't have been Zack driving the car, Jimmy shows Eza a security video showing Zack staggering back to his car.

Apart from location, Ghost also shares a host of actors with Realiti. Not only do Naz Rahman, Reefa, and Radhi Khalid return to work with Popiah Pictures, both Cheryl and Kin Wah (who appears in the next episode) were original choices on Realiti and who both appeared in the unaired pilot showreel for that show. Debutantes are Carmen Soo, Razif Hashim, Yasmin and Nas-T. There are actually links between those actors and Popiah, but I shan't bore you with the details...

Eza tells Zack that she won't help him any more. Zack tries to convince her to do otherwise, and only the threat of being a perpetual peeping tom is what turns Eza around. Zack points out a discrepency in the security video. Somebody faked it.

For all those of you that noticed that Zack leans on chairs, makes footsteps that tap and sit in chairs that squeak... I refer you to the Ghost rule I outlined above.
The original idea for the eating-in-front-of-Zack scene had him telling Eza what kind of food he loved to eat, and then because she was angry with him, she makes that very same dish and eats it in front of him.

More exposition on Eza and her (ex-)boyfriend. And then, we meet Ameesh, the hotel security guard on duty the night Zack Imran died. He denies he knows anything about that night. But he has Zack's handphone. Or at least one with the same ringtone.

Again, we don't quite get the idea how long Eza and Adzam have been going out with each other, and what a big shock it was for her. I wish now we established a little more about their relationship.

Eza realises that the guard has a CD - hopefully the real video of the night Zack died - and he wants to sell it to somebody mysterious. Unfortunately, she gets caught trying to steal the CD by the security guard.

The scene is a little longer than I would like, but it all works out okay.

The guard drives a tied-up Eza to an abandoned warehouse, where he threatens her. Finally, Zack manages to make himself touch things and rescues Eza. And they get the CD too, to boot.

Is it clear that Zack finally gets the will to move objects because Eza's life is in danger? I hope so. The only thing about this, is that Zack suddenly finds it easy to move things. I wanted him to still struggle a little, and then get better with each episode.
It seems Cheryl was quite terrified of the drill being near her face, so that's not really acting you see!
Actually, quite a well done scene. It's not easy to film action, and everything here makes sense, so that's good.

The dynamic duo finally get to watch the VCD, and they see somebody putting Zack's body in the boot of the car. Unfortunately the CD is damaged, and you can't really make out who the bad guy is.

The mysterious buyer is quite upset that the security guard lost the video. The guard gets fired for his incompetence.

There's actually a very amusing story about the fire scene that involves a fire extinguisher that doesn't quite work, and a director who is reluctant to say 'cut', but I'll save that for another time...
Don't try to figure out who the mysterious buyer is by measuring body dimensions, looking at hands, etc. The actor that plays the mysterious buyer in this scene is not the same actor that plays the actual character in the series who is the mysterious buyer (did you get that?).

So, I hope you're satisfied with the first episode, and that it sets you up for the rest. I think I've outlined above all the clues in the episode that relate to the murder. Please note that (as far as I'm concerned) this episode already introduces three potential suspects, excluding Eza or the possibility of a suicide/accident.

However (and this is important), Ghost is not one of these shows where all the clues have been laid out before hand and viewers will be able to figure out whodidit straight away. There are a lot of stories to tell, and although there are a few things you can guess at, there are also herrings of the red (or at least pinkish) variety. In fact, anyone who can even guess at the actual murder before episode 7 or 8 is possibly psychic or has inside knowledge of Ping's brain.

Thoughts on 8TV's new series: Ghost

2008-01-31T22:55:00.000+08:00

If Dzof has peeked from under the anonymous bedcovers of the Internet, it must mean that he has something he thinks is important to say. Well, true:

Yes, Popiah Picture's latest production, Ghost, is making its debut this Sunday. As far as involvement goes, I feel I had less of a hand in this one than I did in Realiti, for all sorts of reasons, but mainly because I tried to jam too many things into one day.

The trailer above should give you a good idea what the show is about, but I wanted to write a little about the history of the show, and what guided us through its various machinations and incarnations.

Truth be told, the very initial idea came from Ping, and I never really questioned how it really started, but we seemed to agree that it should be two things: (1) A detective whodunnit - who killed Zack Imran?; and (2) A love story about what happens when want what we can't have.

For the detective part of things, I remember that we used Veronica Mars a lot as an example, and a lot of how clues are revealed as part of the larger story arc is basically either setting up or eliminating suspects. The final solution of how Zack died was settled even before episode two was written. So, no Sashi, it wasn't a case of "the manager in the parking lot with a candlestick".

I personally worry that it may be a little complicated, but we have trust that 8TV viewers are smart enough (and weaned enough) with modern entertainment that they can figure out how things fall into place.

For the love story, this is clearly set up from the very beginning, when Eza is dumped by her boyfriend Adzam in practically the second scene of the show. If you think this is a case of will-they, won't-they, then you're right. I don't know how clearly it's articulated in the final product, but the idea is that Adzam had his own particular reasons for dumping her, and then when those reasons are turned around, he looks for reconcilliation. And, yes, in effect Zack acts as the nth party in all this.

As for the "ghost" bits... well, we didn't delve too much into it. I had an idea that Zack should reveal his powers slowly over the season, much like Clark does in Smallville, but that idea was thrown out in the end. It's a slight shame for me, because I thought it would make for a nice third story arc, jiving nicely with the rise and fall of the other two arcs, but hey... I'm just a writer.

So, although on the surface it looks like we moved away to something more thriller-based, at the end of the day, like for most of life, it's still about love.

(AND, if you should happen to be on facebook, you can join in the fun by adding yourself to the group It's Ghost, not Hantu to keep track of the latest updates.)

My Talk at MPH

2007-09-25T13:45:00.000+08:00

I was invited to (and spoke) at this month's MPH Litblogger meeting and it went... okay-lah, I guess. I was nervous as heckleberry, but it didn't turn out too badly.

I actually prepared a speech and all, and sweatily gripped the roll of paper as I stood up to speak, but never actually read from it.

Raz also took the trouble to unbutton my top button, because (it seems) my neck is wide or something. I kept trying to button it up back, and I'm only marginally surprised she didn't just rip it off. In return, I kept referring to her as "the person you go to if you want to be a scriptwriter". Unfortunately, she wasn't inundated by psychos at the end of the talk.

Anyway, here is my written talk, which kind of matches my actual talk, but not really:

Hello. My name is Dzof Azmi, and I have been writing television scripts for about three years now. My resume includes shows such as Table for Two, Impian Illyana and Realiti (which has recently been nominated for best TV drama in the 2007 Anugerah Skrin Awards). I am currently working on two shows - one about a girl who is pesetered a ghost to find out how he died, and the other about a 13th Century Morrocan who travelled the world and left a string of wives wherever he went. It's not Drama Minggu Ini, but it'll have to make do.

I supppose the first question that needs to be answered is: What is screenwriting. Without trying to sound to immodest, screenwriting is power. Sure, it's also about sleepness nights, frustrating discussions, and if you're not careful, a way to lose touch with reality, but at the root of it, it's about the ability to wield power.

Think about it; with a few taps of the keyboard, you can determine everything that needs to be done in the months ahead. You determine what types of actors and actresses need to be hired; which KL roads need to be shut down and cleared for filming; what kinds of cars get to be driven down them; and - most importantly - what is done and what is said.

Of course, reality is maybe not quite as glamrous. What you really are going to produce is a ream of paper with ink on it. The strange thing about writing scripts is that although they are fairly important in the process, not a single viewer is expected to actually see it. There is an immense amount of trust involved that what you think you wrote will become what you hope you'll see. There was a script once where my producer had written: INT. HOTEL KITCHEN - NIGHT. THE TWO YOUNG LOVERS, BURN AND MELODY, BEGIN TO FOOL AROUND WITH EACH OTHER. He wasn't able to be at the shoot - something he later regretted when he found out the footage shot literally showed the two characters fooling around - playing the fool that is. I would have loved to have seen his face when he saw Burn with a pot on his head, while Melody drummed it with chopsticks.

This is something that I think a lot of writers would be frustrated with. The disconnect between your creative output and what eventually ends up on the screen. But for me, the magic is when it actually becomes better. Most of the changes actually are beneficial and you really have to have trust that everyone involved actually wants the best out of it. And when I know that people watch the show and they laugh, and they cry, and they do it when they're meant to do it - then it's worth it.

Okay, enough glitter and glam, let's get to the perspiration. What needs to be done to produce a script? Firstly, for television, you must understand that the producer is king. If you are a producer, then that's great. If you're me... you get the drift. But anyway, the first thing you need is a story. It can be a simple idea, or it can be quite a fully fleshed one. It can be the most original thing in the world, or it can just be something you've experienced in real life. But the truth is, there are very few original ideas out there, and even a truly original idea is useless if not properly handled.

The next thing you do is to break the story. "Breaking the story" means taking a single paragraph idea and turning it into ten pages. You do this because it gives both the producer and you a clearer idea of where the story is heading. There are many ways of telling the same story, and if you don't get it clear which way you want, then it ends up being a bouillabaisse. A planned one will be yummy, but an unplanned one - well there'll just be something fishy about it.

After the producer and you has agreed on what the story should be and how it will be told, then you have to go and write the script. This can either be extremely easy or excruciatingly painful, and there is no easy way to predict what will happen.

What I do like about this part of the process, is that I'm generally free to do it however I choose. I can go to an office and work on it from 9 to 5, or I can work in Arenas in 1 Utama with a teh tarik in front of me. Or, as my producer is fond of telling complete strangers - especially the attractive ones - I can sit naked at my desk with my cats milling around, either interposing themseves in the line-of-sight to the monitor, or balanced precariously on my thigh. Those of you with a strong visual sense may want to avoid thinking about this.

Writing a script itself usually takes a few days, but you normally have to turn in multiple drafts. Usually it's three, but there could be more or less, depending on the producer. Once the final draft has been turned in, the scriptwriter is not needed any more. You can now go on holiday, if you want. Or, maybe, you can attend table readings, rehearsals or even the actual shoot.

So, what makes writing a script so difficult? How is it harder than writing a novel, for example? Well, in one word, compromise. Television shows have a limited budget. In the US, this number can be as high as a few million dollars per episode. Most Malaysian shows will be lucky to have a budget of more than twenty or thirty thousand Ringgit per episode. This constraint means that you try to reuse locations, to reduce the number of speaking parts, and - please - don't ask to shut down Jalan Tunku Abdul Rahman on a busy weekday, so you can have the actors act out a car chase scene in a pink Lambroghini Diablo. It will not happen.

The other source of compromise is censorship. We can't quite be as free we like to be sometimes with the screen. I think that censorship is necessary, but it can limit storylines and how the scenes are shot. I was recently trying to write a rape scene, and my producer and I argued about what was suitable for Malaysian TV and what wasn't. Part of the problem is that the rules are not always clear, and you don't want to waste money - there's that word again - shooting something that will get struck down. The censors can be strange sometimes. Once, we had an actress wearing an FCUK shirt, and the censorship board came back with a question - can use that word, ah?

Lastly, is the problem of the producer's vision. This is something that is inescapable. If you don't get along with the producer, there's no point writing something he won't like. He'll just cut it off. In fact, a large number of lines that finally get made are actually the producer's words, depending on the situation. Sometimes, you are lucky to have even one or two scenes left unmolested.

So, if despite all this, you still want to write, what can you do? Simply put, don't wait for a production house to ask you to write. Write a sample script first, and then use that to show off your ability. This, if you like, is your resume. In it it is crucial that you show that you understand how to tell a story. If possible, write an original story for an existing show. This will demonstrate that you know how to write in different styles, following a template created by somebody else. Do try to watch TV, although this is a double-edged sword in Malaysia. I truly believe that there are some shows out there that will actually make you a worse writer. Avoid them if you can.

And lastly, and most importantly: don't stop writing.