Choose one of the three guests featured on the talk show 101 East. Then apply discourse analysis. State whether you agree or disagree towards the proposition, premises and arguments that you have identified.

             New Economic Policy (NEP) has been applied to Malaysian for over than three decades and it becomes a big issue day by day by all races. In Al Jazeera 101 East : Malaysian Affirmative Action the guest that I choose is Chow Kon Yeow who is a senior Democratic Action Party (DAP) member than the other guest as he is the one who against the NEP policies.

Discourse Analysis

Conclusion

Most Malaysians are unhappy about the approaches of NEP and the power of UMNOputras.

Proposition

NEP is not a bad policy as the implementation is the one that is unsuitable to Malaysian.

Premise 1

NEP has many abuses and corruption is one of it in terms of giving the speciality.

 Argument

NEP mostly is given to politically connected people rather than the other Malays and Bumiputras.

Premise 2

Keadilan will set Malaysian Economic Agenda (MEA) to replace NEP.

Argument

Make new policies by comparing to NEP performance in the past two or three decades.

             In his statements, his proposition that I have identified is he said that NEP is not a bad policies but the way how it has been implemented to Malaysians is the wrong one. In my opinion, I disagree with his statement because NEP has been implemented for three decades to Malaysians and if it is because of the implementation, then Malaysians would protest it in the past ten years.

             Furthermore, he has come out with three premises and the first is the implementation is wrong because the corruption that has occurred in NEP. I disagree with his premise because corruption is a minor problem that cannot be avoided in every institution and the government has strongly tried to decrease the problem. In addition, the problem is nothing to compare with the benefits that Malays and Bumiputras gain.

             In his argument he explained that the corruption than he meant is when most Malays and Bumiputras that benefited by NEP is the one who have politic influence than the other people. I disagree with his statement because there are many examples that we can see today that NEP also help people who have no politic influence or people who are from the opposition party. This is a propaganda makes by people who are fanatic to their opposition party to influence the voters and most of them are not Malays and Bumiputras.

             Besides, the second premise is he told that there is another alternative by the opposition which is Malaysian Economic Agenda (MEA) that is going to replace NEP. I agree with this statement because it shows that they have an effort in order to make a better change to the community however his argument has given another perspective about the new policy.

             He said that the policy is different to NEP because they will structure MEA by referring and comparing to NEP performance and I disagree with his argument. It is because his statement cannot convince the community that MEA is going to be different and a better policy as there is no strong example given. It is also looks like the policy is not serious and just another politics plan to attract the voters.

             As conclusion, I mostly disagree with Chow Kon Yeow’s statements because some of the statement is based on his own view and hearsay because there is no fact given. Moreover, his premise does not related to his proposition because if he really thinks that NEP is not a bad policy but only the implementation, then Keadilan should change the implementation not replace the policy.

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.

             

             Affirmative action is policies that consider people gender, race, colour, religion, sexual orientation or national origin in order to benefit them in government institutions. New Economic Policy (NEP) is an example of affirmative action in Malaysia which is introduced by Malaysia second Prime Minister, Tunku Abdul Razak after the worst riot tragedy on 13^th May 1969. The main objective of NEP is to restructure the economics of all races which Malays and Bumiputras get the biggest quota in government opportunities as they were the races that left behind in economic.

             In A Leader’s Legacy Tun Abdul Razak shows that Tun Abdul Razak biggest legacy is reuniting all races in Malaysia after the 13^th May 1969 tragedy and minimized the gap between low class people and high class people by applying NEP to the community. The question is, does Datuk Seri Najib is continuing his father’s legacy primarily in affirmative action nowadays and the answer is no.

             In 32:38 shows that Tun Abdul Razak hoped that NEP would improve poor people economic and most of the poor people were Malays which lead to misunderstood from other races. However, in today affirmative action shows that it not gives quota to poor people but mostly to high class people who have big position in government and influence in politics.  Some of the high class people will also do the same thing by giving any opportunities in entering the government institutions to their relatives and friends.  The poor people fate nowadays is neglected by Datuk Seri Najib as he focus on 1Malaysia which means all races are treated as the same and the quota to Malays and Bumiputras also decreases day by day.

             Other than that, NEP also had united Malaysian no matter what their race and religion are as in 46:57 and 47:49 after 13^th May 1969 with success. It is contrary from nowadays affirmative action as these policies are the one that set Malaysian apart and the proof is when many opposition parties and Malaysian questioning the relevant of affirmative action in Malaysia. Affirmative action nowadays not only affects the other races relationship but also among the Malays and Bumiputras as there are three major politic parties in Malaysia and none of the parties has the same thought about affirmative action even though most of the politicians are Malays and Bumiputras.

             As conclusion, based on the points given show that Datuk Najib Abdul Razak is not continuing his father’s legacy in affirmative action as the policies benefiting the high class people than the poor one and it becomes the main source of disunity in Malaysia.

Do you think Gandhi is responsible for the tragic end of his eldest son, Harilal?

            

             Harilal Gandhi is Mahatma Gandhi’s oldest son who went to South Africa to be a barrister just like his father. He had the opportunity to further his study to England twice but his father chose other people to go there by using personal scholarship as at 36:18 and 39:29. This decision hurt Harilal and worsened the relationship with his father as the conflict first occurred when his father unpleasant with Harilal’s marriage. 

          Mahatma Gandhi is not responsible to the tragic end of Harilal as he sacrificed his family for India freedom. He considered and treated Indian as his own family and gave the personal scholarship to someone who really deserved it because he believed that formal education is not important as hard work, self control, compassion and selfless service as he said at 07:42. He also wanted Harilal to be fired after his son had done a crime by cheating. It showed that he did not use his name and position to give personal benefit to his own family.

              Other than that, this movie showed how caring Mahatma is as a father at 00:34 where he concerned to Harilal’s small injury. He also tried to understand his son feeling and mind at 00:44 even though it is an obvious thing where Harilal did not do the same thing. Harilal rebelled on his father’s decision because of his own benefit without noticing that the sacrifice that had made by his father for his nation. It is a shame on Harilal when a father who tried hardly to free India sought for forgiveness from him for his own fault. The evidence is at 00:48 where Mahatma said that if he ever did wrong to his son, then, he begged to be forgiven.

             Besides, Mahatma Gandhi thought positively and calm with his son’s behaviour in 1:02:29. Mahatma also tried to make his relationship with Harilal better and proud of him no matter what his son had done to him as in 1:22:11.

             As conclusion, Harilal could already live peacefully even without being a barrister. It is because his father always tried to help him but he often refused it because of a disappointment towards his father and one of it is at 1:18:18. It was himself who made his life became worse and he tried to stand on his feet with wrong ways. Mahatma Gandhi had tried his best to take care of his son with his way, however his son did not see the sacrifice that his father made for his own good and India. Harilal own ego that led him to a tragic death.

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?

                In my opinion, Gandhi was never failed in promoting non-violence and reuniting the people in India but succeed it amazingly. Gandhi or his full name, Mohandas Karamchan Gandhi has been known when he started to against the British law towards Indian right in South Africa. He realized the injustice law when he was being thrown out of a train. 

                From that moment, he launched a non-violence campaign and it influenced many Indians even he had been imprisoned so many times. The evidence of Gandhi non-violence campaign is at duration 28:58 where he said to all Indians who were Hindu, Muslim and Sikhs that he wanted the Indians to fight against their anger not provoke it. In his speech, he also told that no matter what the British did to them but, they would never attack them back. Besides that, he also taught his friends to not to fight back if soldiers had beaten them in duration 02:12:51. 

                Furthermore, the proof that Gandhi has reunited the people of India is as the end of the movie where Hindu and Muslim finally had found a consideration to stop the war in India. It is because they noticed the importance of their father who was fasting to stop the riot. The evidence is at 02.57:37 where Mirabehn told him that the war had already stopped. In addition, during the previous night in the movie showed that some Indians gave their weapons to Gandhi as a sign of they had resigned from the war at 02:54:45. Mahatma Gandhi’s dream to see Hindu-Muslim unity came true before he had been assassinated during his walking to evening prayer. 

                As conclusion, the reasons and the evidences that have been given has shown that Gandhi has not failed in his life work as his sacrifice had led India to independent and peaceful country than before.

In your view, do you think Sherlock is an empathic character?

              Last Wednesday, I watched Sherlock Holmes: A Study in Pink for Critical Literacy and I found that it is an interesting movie. This movie is full of suspicious and humor although “lame” is the first word that crossed my mind when I heard about the title. Empathic can be defined as "I can feel it too" or an understanding on others' feeling and in my opinion, Sherlock Holmes is an empathic character as he has the ability to read people life by putting himself in their shoes. At the first time, Sherlock seems to be a left-brain person as he does not care about people around him and for instance is when he is more excited to solve the mysterious crime than helping the last victim who is the pink woman. However, there are some parts where he puts himself in the victims’ place to find the right clue for the cases.

               First, the empathy moment can be shown when Sherlock asks Dr. John H. Watson to text the victim’s phone number as he said that if other people who find the phone will ignore it but if the murderer has the phone then the murderer will panic. He knows all of these things as he imagines that it was him who is the murderer.

               Second, in this movie it shows that Sherlock has helped some people who used to be criminals to others but not for him. For example is Mrs Hudson’s husband who he had been helped by Sherlock from not to be sentenced to death three years ago. It is because Sherlock put himself to Mrs Hudson’s husband position and believed that he is innocent. Other than that is he cleared Angelo’s name as a murder by proving that Angelo at different part of town at the time of a particularly vicious triple murder about three years ago.

               Third, Sherlock asked Dr. Watson “if you were dying, if you’d been murdered, in your very last few seconds, what would you say?” From this we can see that Sherlock is trying to be in the victim’s place to figure out the meaning of “Rache” that he believes as “Rachel”.

The other questions that he asked to himself are “who do we trust, even if we don’t know them?”,  “who passes unnoticed wherever they go?” and “who hunts in the middle of a crowd?” that show he is trying to be in the victims’ mind and feeling before they have been murdered.

               Fourth, Sherlock tries to figure out who shots the murderer by examining the ways of the shooter. He describes every angel and side of the shot incident as he is the one who be in that place at that time and finally he finds out that it was Dr. John Watson.

               In conclusion, Sherlock Holmes is an empathic character as he can read others’ mind, feeling and life by being in the others’ place. He even uses his speciality in solving the crimes which is his addiction.

Several Eureka moments that you have experienced throughout the documentary.

            
On 30^th July 2012, I watched a documentary, Test Your Brain Part 1 of 3 (Pay Attention) for my Critical Literacy. From this documentary I have learned many things especially on how our brains work and our ability in paying attention. I have been cheated easily by unexpected situations or we called as Eureka moment. Eureka moment is a moment when you find out something that is unexpected or sudden realization that make you say "i got it". In this journal, I would like to share some of my Eureka moments when I am watching this documentary.

              First, in the first game the magician shows some money to us and he seems to count the notes which are five notes. At this moment, I am using my left brain by assuming that he is going to make one of the notes gone just like others musician did. After he finishes the trick, I kind of weird as none of the notes is missing and my Eureka moment appeared just after the real trick has been revealed. The real trick is there are some changes during the game which are the hat, the table and the new handkerchief. The biggest changes are the background while he was showing us the money. I did not realize it at all as I had been focusing on the money.

               Second, the fourth game is handled by Apollo Robbins who is a hand sleight expert. He shows the safest place to keep our value stuffs but at the end the value stuffs turn to a refreshing juice. I assumed that he is going to show us the changes of the value stuffs just like the first trick. However, my Eureka moment appeared when the real trick is when three people in animal costume were walking behind him. I do not notice it as I am focusing on the other important thing.

              Third, my last Eureka moment in this documentary is in the ninth game. The host wants the audience to track the number of times the Blue Jabawaki Dance Crews step into the spotlight. I had been counting too and I got about seventeen times and I assumed that the game wanted to test our attention by finding the correct times. However, I had been fooled again as I did not notice a penguin who was walking behind the Blue Jabawaki Dance Crews.

               As a conclusion, I realize that I am lack of attention ability as I fall so many times in attention tricks. Besides, this documentary is an enjoying one not like documentary always be and the Eureka moments that I have experienced in it is something that cannot be forgotten.