Japanese Invasion

Robert Som send a short contribution on the above subject.

Four people in a boat. A cuban, Japanese, Rusiian and a Hawaian.
The cuban lighted up a cigar took a puff and then threw it overboard.
When the Hawaian asked why, he said in Cuba there are lots of Cigars.
The Russian opened a bottle of Vodka, took a sip and threw the bottle overboard.
When the Hawaian asked why, he said Vodka is everywhere in Russia.
Then they heard a big splash, the Hawaian threw the Japanese overboard.

Someone sent a poem

HOW TRUE IT IS

Another year has passed
And we're all a little older.

Last summer felt hotter
And winter seems much colder.

I rack my brain for happy thoughts,
To put down on my pad,

But lots of things, That come to mind
Just make me kind of sad.

There was a time not long ago
When life was quite a blast.

Now I fully understand
About 'Living in the Past'.

We used to go to friends homes,
Baseball games and lunches.

Now we go to therapy, to hospitals,
And after-funeral brunches.

We used to have hangovers,
From parties that were gay.

Now we suffer body aches
And sleep the night away.

We used to go out dining,
And couldn't get our fill.

Now we ask for doggie bags,
Come home and take a pill.

We used to travel often
To places near and far.

Now we get backaches
From riding in the car.

We used to go out shopping
For new clothing at the Mall

But, now we never bother...
All the sizes are too small.

That, my friend is how life is,
And now my tale is told.

So, enjoy each day and live it up...
Before you're too old!!


You pass this way only once so enjoy it while you can; Live A Lot, Laugh A Lot and Love A Lot!

Prabha's contribution on truthfulness

"Truthfulness is the foundation of all the virtues of the world of humanity........When this holy attribute is established in man, all the divine qualities will also become realized." - Abdul Baha
Telling the truth is the foundation of all other virtues, as illustrated in the following story.
Once a man came to Prophet Muhammad and said, "O Messenger of God, I have many bad habits. Which one of them should I give up first?"
The Prophet answered, "Give up telling lies first and always speak the truth."
The man promised to do so and went home.At night the man was about to go out to steal. Before setting out, he thought for a moment about the promise he had made with the Prophet.
"If tomorrow the Prophet asks me where I had been, what shall I say? Shall I say that I went out stealing? No, I cannot say that. But nor can I lie. If I tell the truth, everyone will start calling me a thief, and I would be punished for stealing."So the man decided not to steal that night, and gave up this bad habit.The next day, just as he was about to drink wine, he thought to himself, "What shall I say to the Prophet if He asks me what I had done during the day? I have promised not to tell a lie, but then if I speak the truth people will start hating me, as a believer is supposed to abstain from drinking wine."
And so he gave up the idea of drinking wine, and gave up this bad habit.In this way, whenever the man thought of doing anything bad, he remembered his promise to tell the truth at all times.So in this way, he gave up all his bad habits one by one, and finally became a very good person.

Books: Man's best friends

by Prabhakaran S. Nair

One of the signs of a good education system is the undying love for books once used at school. Can anyone of you remember the books that we used way back in school ? Let me try and remember, and share with you some of the English literature books that I remember having used from Forms 1 to 3:

FORM 1 (1967)

“Six Short Plays” by J.A. Bright
“Thirty-Nine Steps” by John Buchan
“Treasure Island” by Robert Louis Stevenson
“An Anthology of Poems” ( I wonder if this was the actual title)
“Around the World in 80 Days” by Jules Verne

I remember that the anthology of poems contained poems such as the Inchcape Rock by Robert Southey.

“Six Short Plays” should call to mind one of the plays included in the collection,namely The Count of Monte Cristo dramatised from a novel by Alexandre Dumas.

You may remember some of the central characters such as:

Phileas Fogg, Passepartout, Mr. Fix and Aoda in “Around the World in 80 Days”
Long John Silver (and the parrot) in “Treasure Island”.
Scudder in “Thirty-Nine Steps”

(Do you remember the following lines from “Treasure Island”?:

Fifteen men on a dead man's chestYo ho ho and a bottle of rum.

The teacher in Form 1B was Mr. Patrick Chen

FORM 2 (1968)

“Red Winds” by Shamus Frazer
“Time Out in Sabah” (writer ??)
“The Card” by Arnold Bennett (Bridge Series)

I remember that in addition to these books there was a book of poems, as well as a book of plays (I think).

One of the poems included in the poetry book was “Lochinvar”.
I remember this poem clearly because there was an inter-school quiz competition in 1968, and one of the questions asked was on the character that the following description fitted :
“He rode all unarmed, and he rode all alone. So faithful in love, and so dauntless in war.”
I answered “Lochinvar”, remembering the poem that was recited to us not very long ago by Ms. Seet
I do not remember whether “Daffodils” by William Wordsworth was included in the selection.

One play that I clearly recollect was “The Bishop’s Candlesticks”. I cannot remember the book which had this play in it.

The teacher in Form 2A was Ms. Seet Ai Hoon


FORM 3 (1969)

The books used included :

“Living Poetry” (Book 2) by Brother John Matthew
“Animal Farm” by George Orwell

We did not learn all the poems that were contained in “Living Poetry”. Most memorable was “The Highwayman” by Alfred Noyes as well as some of the limericks (“nonsense poems”). Funniest of the limericks was the following :

“Here lies my wife. Here let her lie.
Now she’s at rest. And so am I.”

One of the most touching poems is entitled “Little Boy”. The poem expresses the sadness experienced by the father as he feels he will slowly “lose” his son as he grows up. It begins like this :

“Let me hold you a while to my heart, little boy,
I am going to lose you, I know, dear,
For one terrible thing about nice little boys
Is the fact that they simply will grow, dear”

Another verse (3rd stanza) goes like this :

“Let me gaze in your eyes while their light is for me;
Let us sing while you still like my song, dear,
Ere the hungry years carry away my small boy,
I am fearing it will not be long, dear.”

Of course, it is difficult to forget a poem like “Silver” by Walter De La Mare.” I vaguely remember Mr. John Dossan hitting someone (maybe Ho Hee Mun) on the back, and reciting the lines :

“Couched in his kennel like a log,
With paws of silver sleeps the dog.”

As for “Animal Farm” it is interesting how one by one all the Seven Commandments were slowly overturned by the revolutionary animals as the story unfolds. For example, the seventh commandment, “All animals are equal” is changed to “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal that the others”. The unforgettable characters in the political satire include Mr. Jones (owner of Manor Farm), and the animals : Napoleon, Squealer, Snowball and Boxer.

The teacher in Form 3A was Mr. John Dossan. ( Incidentally “D-o-s-s-o-n” is a rather unusual variation of “D-a-w-s-o-n”)

These are as far as my memory goes.

Literature must have been an important subject even in the lower forms. As you can see it was taught by our form teachers, and not just anyone else !

Does anyone of you remember the names of books or interesting details that may have been missed out ? ( I need to add that some classes such as Form 1C could have used different books for English literature)

Most importantly, please do tell us if you have any of the books used in school. I am sure many of us would be dying to get hold of them. The books can be photostated and distributed.

The School Magazine Editorial Board

The Prefect's Board

Prabhakaran's Article on our leaders

The dreamer, the planner and the doer

By PRABHAKARAN S. NAIR

The first three Prime Ministers who set the initial course of the nation were all lawyers but their personalities were as diverse as their leadership styles. Tunku dreamt, Tun Razak planned, and Tun Hussein carried through.

INDIVIDUAL idiosyncrasies and human qualities largely determine leadership styles. These were evident in the three lawyers who led the country in the early years of independence.

The nation’s first leader, Tunku Abdul Rahman and its third, Tun Hussein Onn, stood at opposite ends of the spectrum. Tunku saw the big picture while Tun Hussein saw the details.

Tunku went straight to the heart of any matter. He relied on his intuition. Tun Hussein was cautious, and relied on detailed paper work.

As former Finance Minister Tun Daim Zainuddin put it: “Hussein’s weakness was that he was too meticulous. He wanted to know everything.” (Excerpt from Daim the Man Behind the Enigma by Chong Mei Sui).

A former Chief Secretary in Tun Hussein’s administration commented that Cabinet meetings were too long, and that some matters could have been resolved at other levels.

Tun Abdul Razak Hussein stood somewhere in between Tunku and Tun Hussein. He was a good strategist, and had no problems keeping both the forest as well as the trees in view.

According to Tan Sri Abdullah Ahmad, his former political secretary and adviser, “Although Tun Razak lacked Tunku’s charisma, humour and wicked charm, he had one attribute which Tunku lacked: the ability to manage.”

This statement may need some qualification, for although wanting in administrative abilities, Tunku knew how to delegate responsibilities, and address more important matters that should concern a statesman.

Sharp mind: Tun Abdul Razak Hussein (right) stood somewhere in between Tunku and Tun Hussein (left). He was a good strategist, and had no problems keeping both the forest as well as the trees in view.

Said Tun Daim Zainuddin: “Tunku may have appeared to be jovial and have a tidak apa (laid-back) attitude, but he knew how to exercise power. At his peak, nobody could touch him. Razak was a great strategist. He knew how to get what he wanted”

In the words of Singapore’s Minister Mentor, Lee Kuan Yew, Tun Hussein was very careful in his work.

“At formal meetings, he would have his brief before him with important passages neatly underlined in colour, and would go through his brief methodically. He did not believe in trusting only to his memory.” (Asia Week, Sept 22, 2000)

Saving grace

Tunku’s lack of attention to details (characteristic of right brain orientation) may be attributed to the kind of princely life that Tunku led, shielded from the cares of ordinary life.

Despite strong long-term memory, Tunku was forgetful and frequently misplaced papers. The saving grace was that Tunku had the advantage of good listening skills which some attribute to his unusually large ears; and his mind was always alert, like a sponge, quick to absorb whatever was said.

Open book: The Tunku knew how to entertain and create laughter, but more importantly he was also able to laugh at himself.

Many amusing anecdotes have been told about Tunku’s disinclination for details. The late Raja of Perlis, Tuanku Syed Putra used to narrate an anecdote when he was the country’s 3rd Yang di-Pertuan Agong (1961-1965).

“On a Wednesday morning, the Tunku turned up as usual for a briefing at Istana Negara before the Cabinet meeting. This time, he brought Tun Razak along. The Tunku, in his usual cheerful mood, talked on almost everything, but when it came to the Cabinet briefing, he asked the reticent Tun Razak to do the talking.”

Tun Hussein pored over papers with a thoroughness that was beyond Tunku, who had no patience with long-winded reports. Tunku would sometimes sign documents without reading the contents.

As J.M. Gullick, the former MCS officer noted, “Tunku avoided paperwork if he could. I once had to meet him to seek his signature of a paper that I had drafted for him to submit to the Executive Council.

‘What’s it about?’ asked Tunku, and I told him. I said that I would return when he had had time to read it. ‘Oh, that’s all right’, he said, signed it unread and handed it back. I have never had another such compliment. It was a privilege to have known him.

Unfortunately, however, Tunku’s cavalier attitude to particulars made him overly dependent on the trust and loyalty of colleagues and fellow Ministers. Incidentally, Tun Hussein Onn was a fierce loyalist, a quality that has been attributed to his military training.

Had he been in Tunku’s cabinet, this quality alone would have endeared him to the Tunku. If loyalty was an important consideration in Tunku’s choice of leaders, merit and proven abilities had higher weightage in Tun Razak’s estimation.

Tunku was human in his approach to problems, and Tun Razak was more administrative. As for Tun Hussein, his career as a civil servant, military man and lawyer made him rather impersonal, exacting, meticulous and legalistic at work. Unlike Tunku, he was a strict disciplinarian.

Tunku’s human approach is attested by the late Dr Leonard Kenworthy who said that although Tunku was a prince, he lived most of his life with the people, and knew pretty well how they thought and felt.

“Some people refer to this as an intuitive ability, but it is certainly based on long years of association with the people” said the well-known Quaker educator and author.

Faithful follower: Tun Hussein Onn (left) was a fierce loyalist. Had he been in Tunku’s cabinet, this quality alone would have endeared him to the Tunku.

According to Tan Sri Abdullah Ahmad, none came close to having Tunku's personal warmth, and Tun Razak had more of it than Tun Hussein. Unlike Tunku, Tun Razak seldom smiled, spoke less and kept his sorrows to himself.

In comparing Tun Razak with Tunku, Lee said, “Tun Abdul Razak, who took over as Prime Minister in September 1970, was a different leader from the Tunku. He did not have the Tunku's warm personality or his large and commanding presence. By comparison he appeared less decisive.

“Razak had been my contemporary at Raffles College from 1940 to 1942. He was bright and hardworking. He was also a good hockey player, but ill at ease with people unless he knew them well.”

Tunku once mentioned that being a sportsman was different from possessing sportsmanship. It is difficult to say if it was an indirect reference to his deputy.

Tunku’s human approach influenced national policies, including foreign policy. “No former Asian colony ever started life with fewer grudges against its erstwhile master”, wrote Danis Warner in the Melbourne Herald.

Referring to foreign relations, Tunku said, “It is not possible to build prosperity on rancour. We have to broaden our minds to think clearly of the tasks ahead of us”.

While Tunku and Tun Razak were slow to anger, Tun Hussein Onn inherited the fierce temper of his father Dato Onn Jaafar. Incidentally, other great leaders like Tun Tan Cheng Lock and Tun Dr Ismail were also noted for their tempers.

Datuk Wan Mansor Abdullah, who served as private secretary to Tunku, used to recall an anecdote that demonstrated Tunku’s ability to “feel the big picture’, which left no room for temper. One day, when he was wading in his swimming pool, Tunku had a sudden flash of inspiration. He wanted his thoughts written down for a speech.

His bodyguard Pak Chat was the only person around at that time. Tunku spouted away his thoughts, while poor Pak Chat scribbled away furiously. At the end of it, Tunku asked him to read what he had written. The bodyguard was at a loss because he was unable to read his own handwriting.

After spending almost half an hour dictating a speech only to find it gone, anyone else could have easily lost his cool, but not the Tunku. He sat there and laughed heartily.

The sudden inspiration and ability to laugh are typical of a person with right brain orientation. Tunku was able to see everything clearly, as one is best able to when standing right on top of a hill, or recollecting events long after they have happened.

Tunku was able to laugh at Pak Chat’s innocence, because he saw the entire incident in a bigger perspective. Pak Chat was not the right man, the timing was wrong, the entire thing was unplanned, and on a more positive note, these thoughts will return at the right time.

Common weaknesses

Tunku knew how to entertain and create laughter, but more importantly he was also able to laugh at himself. He was an open book. Although he shared common weaknesses with Tun Razak as far as certain indulgences were concerned, the latter was much more discreet.

Tunku dreamt, Razak planned, and Tun Hussein carried through. Of the three, Tun Hussein was the least political, and by implication most sincere and straightforward. As described by Lee, “Tun Hussein was open and direct when he dealt with me, coming straight to the point, unlike Razak. I liked him.” In Tun Daim’s words, Tun Hussein “was very sincere and dedicated, honest and strong- willed.”

Tun Hussein’s leadership style could easily have resulted in decisions that were not politically correct for the times. But political expediency was not a consideration for Tun Hussein, and the country was all the better for it.

Although all three Prime Ministers were recognised for their uprightness and sense of justice, ultimately it is Tun Hussein alone who is best remembered for moral courage and integrity.

Tunku was generally more regarded as pleasure seeking, in contrast to Tun Hussein Onn, and Tun Razak to a lesser extent. Tunku failed to see why anyone should grudge him the little time that he reserved for the simple pleasures of life. Tunku was seen as less hardworking compared to Tun Razak and Tun Hussein.

Despite his deep commitment to the advancement of Islam, Tunku was inclined to be open-minded when it came to religious matters. Besides the Thai-Buddhist influence of his early childhood days, his flexibility could also be attributed to his right brain thinking, which placed man right at the heart of religion.

In his words, “I think that religion, if it is not too unbending, can play a great part in keeping people on a steady course and preventing them from losing their bearings.” This is opposite to the more left-brain thinking that religion (read as laws) must be strictly enforced to achieve order in society.

Tun Hussein Onn is said to have been interested in the philosophy of all religions. Tun Razak, unlike the Tunku, was not known for his personal commitment to religion. However, all three of them shared the belief that religion should be sensible, flexible and uncomplicated.

These three lawyers who led the nation in the early years of our independence may not be with us today. But the story of their lives and the history that they have left behind will warm our hearts as we observe the 51st anniversary of our independence.

Prabhakaran S. Nair, an archivist with the National Archives of Malaysia, is known for significant contributions towards the dissemination of historical knowledge. He adopts the biographical approach to emphasise common human values found in the pages of Malaysian history.

Dinner Time two

Jeffery Low, Mat Isa (standing), Naim and Kamaruzzaman

Bernard Siow, Charles Chiam, Chew Shiang Lee

Kamaruzzaman Hashim, K Prabhakaran and Chong Koh Pah

K Prabhakaran, Chong Koh Pah, Mrs Mohd Nor and Mohd Nor Idrus

Dinner time one

Frankie Ong, Frances Lim and Jeffery Low

Chong Hiong Lim, Loy Chee Yu and Bernard Siow

Michael Tan, Teng Tian Hu and Robert Som

Chew Shiang Lee, Osman Hussin and Michael Tan

Bernard Siow, Mat Isa and Charles Chiam

Dinner at KLGCC on the 15th of November, 2008

From Left front row: Chew Shiang Lee, Som Sai Cheong,Loy Chee Yu, Naim Mohamad, Kamaruzzaman Hashim, Mohd Nor Idrus, Siow Chin Seong, Ong Teck Fatt, Md Isa Samat.
Second row from left: Lim Poon Thoo, Tan Joon Say, Chong Hiong Lim, Osman Hussin, Teng Tian Hu, Chiam Swee Kim, Low Thian Soon, Chong Koh Pah, K Prabhakaran.