DEAD, NOT ALIVE.
Most unfortunately, a dead tiger is worth more than a live tiger.
See these pictures.
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Tiger's 13
As you can see from the map above, the tiger's natural range has shrunk tremendously from what it used to be. It's still shrinking. At the present rate, Habitat loss and poaching will wipe out wild tigers forever, unless we reverse the trend.
There are only 13 countries in the world where tigers roam in the wild. These “tiger range countries” (TRC) are:
1. Bangladesh
2. Bhutan
3. Cambodia
4. China
5. India
6. Indonesia
7. Lao PDR
8. Malaysia
9. Myanmar
10. Nepal
11. Russia
12. Thailand
13. Vietnam.
Malaysia has an estimated 500 out of the 3,000 tigers remaining in the wild worldwide (i.e. in the TRCs). That means Malaysia hosts 1/6 or 17% of the world's wild tiger population! Imagine, one out of six tigers in the wild is found in Malaysia. What a privilege. What a responsibility.
Of course, there are many other countries where tigers are kept in captivity. But these don't count towards the natural, wild and native biodiversity. Sadly, there are more tigers in captivity than in the wild today. It is estimated that there are 5,000-10,000 tigers in captivity in the U.S.A. That's more than the total wild tiger population of the whole world!
There are only 13 countries in the world where tigers roam in the wild. These “tiger range countries” (TRC) are:
1. Bangladesh
2. Bhutan
3. Cambodia
4. China
5. India
6. Indonesia
7. Lao PDR
8. Malaysia
9. Myanmar
10. Nepal
11. Russia
12. Thailand
13. Vietnam.
Malaysia has an estimated 500 out of the 3,000 tigers remaining in the wild worldwide (i.e. in the TRCs). That means Malaysia hosts 1/6 or 17% of the world's wild tiger population! Imagine, one out of six tigers in the wild is found in Malaysia. What a privilege. What a responsibility.
Of course, there are many other countries where tigers are kept in captivity. But these don't count towards the natural, wild and native biodiversity. Sadly, there are more tigers in captivity than in the wild today. It is estimated that there are 5,000-10,000 tigers in captivity in the U.S.A. That's more than the total wild tiger population of the whole world!
Monday, April 19, 2010
Do or Die
Our Malayan tiger population is dwindling and dying due to entirely preventable causes. If the tiger becomes extinct, it would be our fault.
Here are some things we can do to give our tigers a fighting chance of survival in the wild:
1. Value and cherish our national living heritage. If we don’t care whether our tigers continue to roam our forests, or end up in a cooking pot, then half the battle is already lost.
2. Protect tiger habitats. This means maintaining large swathes of natural forest areas and not fragmenting forests into patches here and there.
3. Stop consuming tiger products. Don't eat tiger meat, penis or bones. Don't wear tiger skin or teeth. Kill the demand for tiger products, especially in China.
4. Protect tigers' food supply, i.e. deer and other tiger prey. If we overhunt deer, the tigers will have no food.
5. Improve wildlife protection laws. Plug all loopholes and increase penalties for violations. Give the law more bite.
6. Increase enforcement of wildlife protection laws. Patrol tiger habitats. Monitor border checkpoints, especially to Thailand. Impose maximum fines and jail sentences on offenders.
7. Eradicate corruption among enforcement officers. They should be protecting tigers, not colluding with poachers.
8. Assist communities affected by human-tiger conflicts. Educate villagers on how to live peacefully with tigers. Compensate those who have incurred losses due to tiger attacks on them or their property.
9. Increase the economic value of tigers alive in the wild. Promote eco-tourism and increase the existence value of tigers. The problem is that right now tigers are more valuable dead than alive.
10. Collect a licensing fee from every person and organization that uses the word "tiger" or any picture or icon of a tiger for their commercial gain.
The tiger is our national animal. Our heritage. But today only less than 500 of them remain in the wild. As Malaysians, we need to stand up and protect our heritage. Speak to your children. Speak to your leaders. Every one of us can make a difference.
For further information, please visit MYCAT (www.malayantiger.net), WWF Malaysia (www.wwf.org.my) and the Department of Wildlife & National Parks (www.wildlife.gov.my).
This blog post is made in conjunction with the Tiger Blogfest 2010 initiated by Planet of the Monyets.
Saturday, February 20, 2010
MB vs MB
I've been wanting to do this for some time, but never got round to doing it until yesterday. I downloaded the Perak State Constitution and read it. OK, I didn't read all of it, since it is a lengthy document (~70 pages) filled with legal language, which tends to be convoluted in its attempt to be precise. But I did read the first half of the document, which contains the important and relevant sections that were the points of contention in the recent Zambry vs Nizar case. I wanted to read and interpret for myself the Constitution in order to examine the Federal Court's decision in Zambry's favour.
The following are the two articles that were the main bones of contention in the court case. The bold text are those that I think are the focus of the argument.
Article 16(6):
If the Mentri Besar ceases to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the Legislative Assembly, then, unless at his request His Royal Highness dissolves the Legislative Assembly, he shall tender the resignation of the Executive Council.
Article 18(2):
His Royal Highness may act in his discretion in the performance of the following functions (in addition to those in the performance of which he may act in his discretion under the Federal Constitution) that is to say-
(a) the appointment of a Mentri Besar,
(b) the withholding of consent to a request for the dissolution of the Legislative Assembly,
(c) the making of a request for a meeting of the Conference of Rulers concerned solely with the privileges, position, honours and dignities of Their Highnesses or religious acts, observances or ceremonies,
(d) any functions as head of the Muslim religion or relating to the custom of the Malays,
(e) the appointment of an heir or heirs, consort, Regent or Council of Regency,
(f) the appointment of persons to Malay customary ranks, titles, honours and dignities and the designation of the functions appertaining thereto,
(g) the regulation of royal courts and palaces.
Here are my comments and observations:
1. The Federal Court judges ruled on Article 16(6) that if the MB loses the confidence of the majority of the Legislative Assembly, he automatically has to resign. Their interpretation of the phrase "he shall tender the resignation" was that it is mandatory and automatic, i.e. whether he likes it or not, the moment he loses the confidence of the majority.
2. The Federal Court judges interpreted the Perak State Constitution purely on the letter of the law. I agree with their interpretation of Article 16(6) in this case. It's just too bad that the spirit of the law got sidelined, and the principles of democratic government could not (or, would not) be addressed by the court. Could the five judges have gone the extra mile and tempered their judgment with the overriding principle of democracy? Did they deliberately confine themselves to the narrow scope of the letter of the law? Or, were they confined by external forces?
3. I cannot find any article or clause in the Perak State Constitution that defines how the MB's command of the "confidence of the majority of the members of the Legislative Assembly" is determined. Perhaps some more learned folks out there can help me on this. The Federal Court judges said that it was not absolutely necessary for the Legislative Assembly members to cast their vote of confidence in whichever MB or party. The "confidence of the majority" could be determined by unspecified "extraneous" means. I wonder what those means are.
4. The only other alternative to automatic resignation is for the MB to request His Royal Highness to dissolve the Legislative Assembly and, in effect, call for fresh elections. However, Article 18(2)(b) states that His Royal Highness can refuse to dissolve the Assembly. It is noted that His Royal Highness does not have the power to directly dismiss the MB at any time.
5. So, the MB has only two options, which are not really options at all, because he has no choice in the first, and His Royal Highness can refuse the second. Thus Nizar was removed from office, not by direct sacking by His Royal Highness, but by His Royal Highness' refusal to dissolve the Legislative Assembly.
6. In the final analysis, there are two conclusions. Firstly, Pakatan Rakyat came into power in Perak by the people's choice in the March 2008 General Election. Secondly, Barisan Nasional came into power (or rather, took over) in Perak through the defection of three of the ex-Pakatan assemblymen in February 2009. That's katak (frog) politics for you. Oh, I should add that some of the defections occurred under dubious circumstances. You go figure.
By the way, Article 29 says "The Legislative Assembly shall consist of fifty-two elected members." However, the current Perak Legislative Assembly consists of 28 BN, 28 Pakatan and 3 BN-friendly independent assembly members. This makes a total of 59, which is seven more than the 52 members stated in Article 29. Am I missing something here? Am I referring to an outdated version of the Constitution?
Download a pdf copy of the Laws of the Constitution of Perak here.
See a chronology of the Perak political upheaval here.
The following are the two articles that were the main bones of contention in the court case. The bold text are those that I think are the focus of the argument.
Article 16(6):
If the Mentri Besar ceases to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the Legislative Assembly, then, unless at his request His Royal Highness dissolves the Legislative Assembly, he shall tender the resignation of the Executive Council.
Article 18(2):
His Royal Highness may act in his discretion in the performance of the following functions (in addition to those in the performance of which he may act in his discretion under the Federal Constitution) that is to say-
(a) the appointment of a Mentri Besar,
(b) the withholding of consent to a request for the dissolution of the Legislative Assembly,
(c) the making of a request for a meeting of the Conference of Rulers concerned solely with the privileges, position, honours and dignities of Their Highnesses or religious acts, observances or ceremonies,
(d) any functions as head of the Muslim religion or relating to the custom of the Malays,
(e) the appointment of an heir or heirs, consort, Regent or Council of Regency,
(f) the appointment of persons to Malay customary ranks, titles, honours and dignities and the designation of the functions appertaining thereto,
(g) the regulation of royal courts and palaces.
Here are my comments and observations:
1. The Federal Court judges ruled on Article 16(6) that if the MB loses the confidence of the majority of the Legislative Assembly, he automatically has to resign. Their interpretation of the phrase "he shall tender the resignation" was that it is mandatory and automatic, i.e. whether he likes it or not, the moment he loses the confidence of the majority.
2. The Federal Court judges interpreted the Perak State Constitution purely on the letter of the law. I agree with their interpretation of Article 16(6) in this case. It's just too bad that the spirit of the law got sidelined, and the principles of democratic government could not (or, would not) be addressed by the court. Could the five judges have gone the extra mile and tempered their judgment with the overriding principle of democracy? Did they deliberately confine themselves to the narrow scope of the letter of the law? Or, were they confined by external forces?
3. I cannot find any article or clause in the Perak State Constitution that defines how the MB's command of the "confidence of the majority of the members of the Legislative Assembly" is determined. Perhaps some more learned folks out there can help me on this. The Federal Court judges said that it was not absolutely necessary for the Legislative Assembly members to cast their vote of confidence in whichever MB or party. The "confidence of the majority" could be determined by unspecified "extraneous" means. I wonder what those means are.
4. The only other alternative to automatic resignation is for the MB to request His Royal Highness to dissolve the Legislative Assembly and, in effect, call for fresh elections. However, Article 18(2)(b) states that His Royal Highness can refuse to dissolve the Assembly. It is noted that His Royal Highness does not have the power to directly dismiss the MB at any time.
5. So, the MB has only two options, which are not really options at all, because he has no choice in the first, and His Royal Highness can refuse the second. Thus Nizar was removed from office, not by direct sacking by His Royal Highness, but by His Royal Highness' refusal to dissolve the Legislative Assembly.
6. In the final analysis, there are two conclusions. Firstly, Pakatan Rakyat came into power in Perak by the people's choice in the March 2008 General Election. Secondly, Barisan Nasional came into power (or rather, took over) in Perak through the defection of three of the ex-Pakatan assemblymen in February 2009. That's katak (frog) politics for you. Oh, I should add that some of the defections occurred under dubious circumstances. You go figure.
By the way, Article 29 says "The Legislative Assembly shall consist of fifty-two elected members." However, the current Perak Legislative Assembly consists of 28 BN, 28 Pakatan and 3 BN-friendly independent assembly members. This makes a total of 59, which is seven more than the 52 members stated in Article 29. Am I missing something here? Am I referring to an outdated version of the Constitution?
Download a pdf copy of the Laws of the Constitution of Perak here.
See a chronology of the Perak political upheaval here.
Saturday, January 16, 2010
10 Reasons
10 Reasons Why I Don’t Wash My Car
1. My car usually gets dirty again within three hours of washing. So what’s the point?
2. Rain can do the job.
3. Leaving the layer of naturally deposited dirt on the car will prevent more dirt from sticking.
4. Once in a while, if I feel that I need to give the wheels and undercarriage a wash, I’ll drive through a puddle.
5. My car is grayish-silver in colour, which is strategically designed to mask dirt.
6. My car never complains that it is dirty, or sticky, or uncomfortable. It still performs as usual.
7. I show love to my car in other ways, e.g. I service it at regular intervals, I brake gently, I don’t accelerate hard, I take corners slowly, etc.
8. Car washing is a wasteful use of water, which is a precious natural resource that is better used for drinking and bathing.
9. Car washing consumes chemicals and energy which are finite resources. These chemicals (car shampoo, detergents, polishes, etc.) are then washed into our rivers and groundwater.
10. Washing a car merely transfers the dirt elsewhere – into the drains and rivers and ultimately to the sea. The dirt and chemicals then recirculate in our planet’s ecosystem, and we drink water from the same rivers and eat sea food from the same sea into which we dump our dirt.
11. OK OK, I do wash my car – on average once a month when I notice that the colour has changed from silver to gray.
If you wish to take this post seriously, just read points 8, 9 and 10.
:)
1. My car usually gets dirty again within three hours of washing. So what’s the point?
2. Rain can do the job.
3. Leaving the layer of naturally deposited dirt on the car will prevent more dirt from sticking.
4. Once in a while, if I feel that I need to give the wheels and undercarriage a wash, I’ll drive through a puddle.
5. My car is grayish-silver in colour, which is strategically designed to mask dirt.
6. My car never complains that it is dirty, or sticky, or uncomfortable. It still performs as usual.
7. I show love to my car in other ways, e.g. I service it at regular intervals, I brake gently, I don’t accelerate hard, I take corners slowly, etc.
8. Car washing is a wasteful use of water, which is a precious natural resource that is better used for drinking and bathing.
9. Car washing consumes chemicals and energy which are finite resources. These chemicals (car shampoo, detergents, polishes, etc.) are then washed into our rivers and groundwater.
10. Washing a car merely transfers the dirt elsewhere – into the drains and rivers and ultimately to the sea. The dirt and chemicals then recirculate in our planet’s ecosystem, and we drink water from the same rivers and eat sea food from the same sea into which we dump our dirt.
11. OK OK, I do wash my car – on average once a month when I notice that the colour has changed from silver to gray.
If you wish to take this post seriously, just read points 8, 9 and 10.
:)
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Saturday, August 22, 2009
Thursday, July 30, 2009
ICU
I regret to announce that this blog is currently under sedation in the intensive care unit for treatment of inactivititis. Recovery is expected to take a while. In the meantime, a Loyal Commission of Inquiry will be established to determine how this blog deteriorated to its current moribund state. A full and impartial investigation will be launched, leaving no stone unturned. I hope the same will happen with the investigation into the late Teoh Beng Hock's death. It's sad to see that one critical thing that the government needs now is what it lacks: credibility.
On another note, I was in Tioman three weeks ago, and I saw more impressive sea creatures while snorkelling than while diving*. I was pleasantly surprised that the house reef just off the beach at the southern end of Salang bay hosted bumphead parrotfish, a moray eel and some razorfish, which are creatures we normally see only when diving at less accessible sites. There was a turtle too, but I was most pleased to see the small school of five bumphead parrotfish, each about one metre long. They hung around the reef in usually in the late afternoon and allowed us close encounters. We went snorkelling on Monday afternoon, Tuesday afternoon and Wednesday morning, and all three times we saw the bumphead parrotfish. The only other times I've ever seen bumphead parrotfish were while diving at Perhentian and Sipadan. I guess I'll have to change my impression of Tioman. I previously assumed that since Tioman was getting very developed and well-visited, the nearshore marine environment would have deteriorated and become rather lifeless. So I was proven wrong, apparently.
*[ We dived at Chebeh and Malang Rock. Chebeh had nice swim-through passages under the boulders, plus colourful sea fans and nudibranchs. I caught a glimpse of a blacktip shark at Malang Rock but the visibility was too poor for us to spot any whale sharks. :P ]
But, I must still say, the conditions on land are not very appealing. The little river flowing to the sea at Salang is filled with untreated or minimally treated wastewater from restaurant kitchens and chalet bathrooms. The river bed is mucky with an awful black colour, and there's a foul odour at certain times. It's only because of the incoming and outgoing tides flushing the river mouth that the river doesn't become more dirty. At high tide the river stops flowing and the icky water acculumates. Then at low tide, the river drains out to the sea, taking with it all the dirty water. The next high tide brings in (relatively) clear sea water. But that just means that the yucky river water is being diluted into the sea. Well, the river condition is not THAT bad (not like the Klang River), but it's certainly not befitting of a tropical marine park island. It gets worse during weekends and peak tourist seasons when more visitors result in more dinner plates washed and toilets flushed.
In the bigger picture, there's some sort of trade-off. If visitors want cheap accommodation and food, then I suppose the operators won't be able to afford the investment in proper wastewater treatment systems. But I'm not sure if the chalet operators are earning lucrative incomes or scraping by with the minimum. Some visitors would say that they are already paying so much for their spartan chalet and restaurant food on the island. Well, price is relative, but is value relative too? Would you be willing to pay more for your visit if you knew that the money is used to take care of the wastes that you generate? There's no free lunch, and no free toilet flush either.
Indah Water is planning to build a proper extended aeration activated sludge centralized sewage treatment plant at Salang and Tekek. The EIA was approved in July 2008, but I'm not sure when the project will start and be completed. Let's hope that the project will do good and not cause more damage, or become a white elephant (new species on the island). Indah Water will probably be charging the chalet and restaurant operators for sewerage fees... and I wonder if the operators will pay the fees or even connect their sewerage pipes to the treatment plant in the first place. Do you pay your Indah Water bills?
On another note, I was in Tioman three weeks ago, and I saw more impressive sea creatures while snorkelling than while diving*. I was pleasantly surprised that the house reef just off the beach at the southern end of Salang bay hosted bumphead parrotfish, a moray eel and some razorfish, which are creatures we normally see only when diving at less accessible sites. There was a turtle too, but I was most pleased to see the small school of five bumphead parrotfish, each about one metre long. They hung around the reef in usually in the late afternoon and allowed us close encounters. We went snorkelling on Monday afternoon, Tuesday afternoon and Wednesday morning, and all three times we saw the bumphead parrotfish. The only other times I've ever seen bumphead parrotfish were while diving at Perhentian and Sipadan. I guess I'll have to change my impression of Tioman. I previously assumed that since Tioman was getting very developed and well-visited, the nearshore marine environment would have deteriorated and become rather lifeless. So I was proven wrong, apparently.
*[ We dived at Chebeh and Malang Rock. Chebeh had nice swim-through passages under the boulders, plus colourful sea fans and nudibranchs. I caught a glimpse of a blacktip shark at Malang Rock but the visibility was too poor for us to spot any whale sharks. :P ]
But, I must still say, the conditions on land are not very appealing. The little river flowing to the sea at Salang is filled with untreated or minimally treated wastewater from restaurant kitchens and chalet bathrooms. The river bed is mucky with an awful black colour, and there's a foul odour at certain times. It's only because of the incoming and outgoing tides flushing the river mouth that the river doesn't become more dirty. At high tide the river stops flowing and the icky water acculumates. Then at low tide, the river drains out to the sea, taking with it all the dirty water. The next high tide brings in (relatively) clear sea water. But that just means that the yucky river water is being diluted into the sea. Well, the river condition is not THAT bad (not like the Klang River), but it's certainly not befitting of a tropical marine park island. It gets worse during weekends and peak tourist seasons when more visitors result in more dinner plates washed and toilets flushed.
In the bigger picture, there's some sort of trade-off. If visitors want cheap accommodation and food, then I suppose the operators won't be able to afford the investment in proper wastewater treatment systems. But I'm not sure if the chalet operators are earning lucrative incomes or scraping by with the minimum. Some visitors would say that they are already paying so much for their spartan chalet and restaurant food on the island. Well, price is relative, but is value relative too? Would you be willing to pay more for your visit if you knew that the money is used to take care of the wastes that you generate? There's no free lunch, and no free toilet flush either.
Indah Water is planning to build a proper extended aeration activated sludge centralized sewage treatment plant at Salang and Tekek. The EIA was approved in July 2008, but I'm not sure when the project will start and be completed. Let's hope that the project will do good and not cause more damage, or become a white elephant (new species on the island). Indah Water will probably be charging the chalet and restaurant operators for sewerage fees... and I wonder if the operators will pay the fees or even connect their sewerage pipes to the treatment plant in the first place. Do you pay your Indah Water bills?
Saturday, May 23, 2009
Sunday, April 12, 2009
Resurrection Sunday
I love this song.
LOVE CRUCIFIED AROSE
Scribbling in the Sand: The Best of Michael Card (2002)
Long ago, He blessed the earth
Born older than the years
And in the stall, a cross He saw
Through the first of many tears
A life of homeless wandering
Cast out in sorrow's way
The Shepherd seeking for the lost
His life the price He'd pay
Love crucified arose
The Risen One in splendor
Jehovah's soul-defender
Has won the victory!
Love crucified arose
And the grave became a place of hope
For the heart that sin and sorrow broke
Is beating once again!
Throughout Your life, You felt the weight
Of what You'd come to give
To drink for us that crimson cup
So we might really live
At last, the time to love and die -
The dark appointed day
That one forsaken moment when
Your Father turned His face away
Love crucified arose
The One who lived and died for me
Was Satan's nail-pierced casualty
Now He's breathing once again!
Love crucified arose
And the grave became a place of hope
For the heart that sin and sorrow broke
Is beating once again!
LOVE CRUCIFIED AROSE
Scribbling in the Sand: The Best of Michael Card (2002)
Long ago, He blessed the earth
Born older than the years
And in the stall, a cross He saw
Through the first of many tears
A life of homeless wandering
Cast out in sorrow's way
The Shepherd seeking for the lost
His life the price He'd pay
Love crucified arose
The Risen One in splendor
Jehovah's soul-defender
Has won the victory!
Love crucified arose
And the grave became a place of hope
For the heart that sin and sorrow broke
Is beating once again!
Throughout Your life, You felt the weight
Of what You'd come to give
To drink for us that crimson cup
So we might really live
At last, the time to love and die -
The dark appointed day
That one forsaken moment when
Your Father turned His face away
Love crucified arose
The One who lived and died for me
Was Satan's nail-pierced casualty
Now He's breathing once again!
Love crucified arose
And the grave became a place of hope
For the heart that sin and sorrow broke
Is beating once again!
Friday, April 10, 2009
TGIF
Today is Good Friday.
"Where, O death, is your victory? Where, O death, is your sting?"
The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law.
But thanks be to God!
He gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.
1 Corinthians 15:55-57
"Where, O death, is your victory? Where, O death, is your sting?"
The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law.
But thanks be to God!
He gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.
1 Corinthians 15:55-57
Monday, April 06, 2009
Friday, April 03, 2009
Diver Identification 101
I don't know of any diving courses that teach this. I haven't seen it in any syllabus. I'm talking about diver identification underwater. How do you recognize your buddies and fellow divers while you're all underwater? You can't talk, obviously, and you can't hear very well. You can hear sounds but they're all muffled and you can't locate the direction of the sound source. One of the most dreaded sounds is the drone of a ship or the buzz of an outboard motor overhead. You don't know where it is coming from, how near it is, whether it is headed your direction, whether it's going to pass over you, whether it's going to hit you as you ascend... it's definitely not a nice feeling to be hit by a boat propeller. It's like, see you in heaven, and make sure you get there (but it's already too late to do anything about it at that time anyway).
Anyway, I was just making the point that it's really difficult to communicate by sound, and impossible to speak unless you have those funky underwater radio communication systems. It doesn't help that tank bangers and shakers sound the same. So when you hear a sound and look around, how do you recognize your buddies? It's important to know who is who so that you know where your buddies are, if anyone is lost, or just so that you can "talk" to the right person.
Thus divers rely on visual communication such as hand signs. And to identify my buddies, I look for visual cues and identification features as follows:
1. Bubbles
The #1 telltale sign of a diver is the bubbles, which can be seen from far away. This is the first step, to identify that a diver is present. Bubbles reflect light, and stand out as silvery trails rising upward against the backdrop of blue or green or whatever colour the water is. The only problem is when visibility is bad, then you have to really strain your eyes to spot the bubbles.
It's easy to spot a diver once you trace the source of bubbles. Even if there is a visual obstruction in between the other diver and you, such as a boulder or coral outcrop, you can still see the bubbles rising above the obstruction. Another thing about bubbles is that they are the only way to spot a diver from above water, unless the water is so clear that you can see to the bottom.
Bubbles tell you that a diver is there, but it's almost impossible to tell who that diver is, unless you know that diver's bubble pattern! Like I said, it's almost impossible, so to identify a diver you need more definitive clues...
2. Tank
Scuba tanks are big and usually bright yellow, or shiny aluminium. So they're really useful for spotting a diver from afar, such as in situations when I have lagged behind the group to play with a cuttlefish and I need to locate my buddies to regroup. I know, diving mantra #1 is to always dive with a buddy, but sometimes the buddy wanders away, or I linger while the buddy moves on. Ah, well. Just look for the bright, shiny tank. Sometimes the dive operator has different colour tanks, so I can identify who's who by matching the tank to the diver, but I would need to remember before the dive who is using which type of tank. For example, Diver A = yellow tank, Diver B = silver tank, Diver C = yellow tank with badly peeled off paint, Diver D = silver tank with sticker, etc. The problem is, usually the tanks are changed for each dive, so you have to recalibrate the ID before a dive. But if the tanks are all the same colour, then, too bad.
3. Fins
Fins are really useful identification clues. As there are many brands and models of fins on the market, usually each diver would have a different type. Fins are also very visible from far especially as many types of fins are brightly coloured and have distinctive patterns, except the black ones. I find this one of the most useful identifying features. I usually look for the fins first. A positive ID of the fins and wetsuit (below) is usually enough to identify who's who.
4. Wetsuit
The wetsuit is useful for identifying a diver as wetsuits come in different patterns, designs and colours. The designs on the legs and arms are the most visible, so I look out for them too while looking at the fins. Some wetsuits are full length, some are shorties. Wetsuits are visible from far as they cover most of the body of the diver. But if everyone is wearing similar wetsuits, e.g. they're all rented from the same operator, or if everyone is wearing black, then you'll have to look for other ID features. Some divers wear beanies over their head. Some wear sleeveless vests. Some divers don't wear wetsuits.
5. BC & Regulator
It's easy to identify a diver based on the buoyancy compensator (BC) a.k.a. buoyancy compensating device (BCD). BC's are visible from far, and have different designs, patterns and colours. The problem is when divers have the same model of BC, or similar looking BCs, as is often the case with rented equipment.
Another identifying feature is the regulator, but this is not so obvious because it is rather small. You could also look at the arrangement of the hoses, e.g. how the octopus is attached, the colour of the octopus hose (yellow or black?), whether the pressure gauge is clipped on or dangling below and leaving a trail of destruction as it drags over the corals. (In such cases you should swim over and politely help the diver to tuck or clip the gauge to their BC. If he/she refuses, turn off his/her air. Haha. Just kidding.)
6. Mask / Snorkel
This is a bit harder to use as an identifying feature because you can't really see the mask until up close, in which case you would already be able to see the diver. But if the diver has a snorkel attached to the mask, then it's a pretty conspicuous item visible from far. It also helps that snorkels tend to be brightly coloured.
7. Other Gear
Some divers wear gloves. Many wear dive computers nowadays. You can also look for other clipped-on gear, like the reel, or sausage, or torchlight, or pointer, or any other device. A photographer will be carrying a camera, so you know who he/she is. If there is a whole group of photographers, then you gotta figure out which camera belongs to whom. It's pretty easy as cameras and their flashguns are big, chunky items. Yea, you know for sure that a photographer is around when you see a flash firing.
8. Personal Traits and Habits
What I mean is, each diver has his/her own characteristic diving traits and habits. It's like, on land you recognize a person's body shape, or a person's gait, or the way he sits, or the way she folds her arms, or the usual hangouts of a person. Same thing underwater. Look at the diver's body shape (I shall not comment on this, except to say that divers look different from fish). Each diver also has his/her own style of diving. Some divers like to zip around here and there. Some like to move slowly. Some look like they're lost. Some look like they know where they're going. Some lead. Some just follow. Some hover horizontally. Some hover vertically (I notice that it is generally easier for ladies to maintain a horizontal hovering position while motionless). Some like to swim close to the bottom, while yet others like to hover above everyone else, like a helicopter mothership. Photographers will usually be glued to one spot for a while, or be crowding around one poor little creature at the bottom, or nowhere to be seen. Photographers also tend to get left behind, so if someone is missing, it's probably the photographer. Thus you can tell who is who by observing where they are. You can also watch out for a diver's fin kick pattern. Some fin hard, some fin slow. Some use the frog-style kick, some use the up-down kick. Usually beginners will use their hands and arms a lot, but as you get more experienced you hardly use your arms.
9. Anything Else
Whatever you can find. Anything unique.
In short, use a combination of the above to differentiate and identify each diver. Happy diving, and appreciate your uniqueness. :)
Anyway, I was just making the point that it's really difficult to communicate by sound, and impossible to speak unless you have those funky underwater radio communication systems. It doesn't help that tank bangers and shakers sound the same. So when you hear a sound and look around, how do you recognize your buddies? It's important to know who is who so that you know where your buddies are, if anyone is lost, or just so that you can "talk" to the right person.
Thus divers rely on visual communication such as hand signs. And to identify my buddies, I look for visual cues and identification features as follows:
1. Bubbles
The #1 telltale sign of a diver is the bubbles, which can be seen from far away. This is the first step, to identify that a diver is present. Bubbles reflect light, and stand out as silvery trails rising upward against the backdrop of blue or green or whatever colour the water is. The only problem is when visibility is bad, then you have to really strain your eyes to spot the bubbles.
It's easy to spot a diver once you trace the source of bubbles. Even if there is a visual obstruction in between the other diver and you, such as a boulder or coral outcrop, you can still see the bubbles rising above the obstruction. Another thing about bubbles is that they are the only way to spot a diver from above water, unless the water is so clear that you can see to the bottom.
Bubbles tell you that a diver is there, but it's almost impossible to tell who that diver is, unless you know that diver's bubble pattern! Like I said, it's almost impossible, so to identify a diver you need more definitive clues...
2. Tank
Scuba tanks are big and usually bright yellow, or shiny aluminium. So they're really useful for spotting a diver from afar, such as in situations when I have lagged behind the group to play with a cuttlefish and I need to locate my buddies to regroup. I know, diving mantra #1 is to always dive with a buddy, but sometimes the buddy wanders away, or I linger while the buddy moves on. Ah, well. Just look for the bright, shiny tank. Sometimes the dive operator has different colour tanks, so I can identify who's who by matching the tank to the diver, but I would need to remember before the dive who is using which type of tank. For example, Diver A = yellow tank, Diver B = silver tank, Diver C = yellow tank with badly peeled off paint, Diver D = silver tank with sticker, etc. The problem is, usually the tanks are changed for each dive, so you have to recalibrate the ID before a dive. But if the tanks are all the same colour, then, too bad.
3. Fins
Fins are really useful identification clues. As there are many brands and models of fins on the market, usually each diver would have a different type. Fins are also very visible from far especially as many types of fins are brightly coloured and have distinctive patterns, except the black ones. I find this one of the most useful identifying features. I usually look for the fins first. A positive ID of the fins and wetsuit (below) is usually enough to identify who's who.
4. Wetsuit
The wetsuit is useful for identifying a diver as wetsuits come in different patterns, designs and colours. The designs on the legs and arms are the most visible, so I look out for them too while looking at the fins. Some wetsuits are full length, some are shorties. Wetsuits are visible from far as they cover most of the body of the diver. But if everyone is wearing similar wetsuits, e.g. they're all rented from the same operator, or if everyone is wearing black, then you'll have to look for other ID features. Some divers wear beanies over their head. Some wear sleeveless vests. Some divers don't wear wetsuits.
5. BC & Regulator
It's easy to identify a diver based on the buoyancy compensator (BC) a.k.a. buoyancy compensating device (BCD). BC's are visible from far, and have different designs, patterns and colours. The problem is when divers have the same model of BC, or similar looking BCs, as is often the case with rented equipment.
Another identifying feature is the regulator, but this is not so obvious because it is rather small. You could also look at the arrangement of the hoses, e.g. how the octopus is attached, the colour of the octopus hose (yellow or black?), whether the pressure gauge is clipped on or dangling below and leaving a trail of destruction as it drags over the corals. (In such cases you should swim over and politely help the diver to tuck or clip the gauge to their BC. If he/she refuses, turn off his/her air. Haha. Just kidding.)
6. Mask / Snorkel
This is a bit harder to use as an identifying feature because you can't really see the mask until up close, in which case you would already be able to see the diver. But if the diver has a snorkel attached to the mask, then it's a pretty conspicuous item visible from far. It also helps that snorkels tend to be brightly coloured.
7. Other Gear
Some divers wear gloves. Many wear dive computers nowadays. You can also look for other clipped-on gear, like the reel, or sausage, or torchlight, or pointer, or any other device. A photographer will be carrying a camera, so you know who he/she is. If there is a whole group of photographers, then you gotta figure out which camera belongs to whom. It's pretty easy as cameras and their flashguns are big, chunky items. Yea, you know for sure that a photographer is around when you see a flash firing.
8. Personal Traits and Habits
What I mean is, each diver has his/her own characteristic diving traits and habits. It's like, on land you recognize a person's body shape, or a person's gait, or the way he sits, or the way she folds her arms, or the usual hangouts of a person. Same thing underwater. Look at the diver's body shape (I shall not comment on this, except to say that divers look different from fish). Each diver also has his/her own style of diving. Some divers like to zip around here and there. Some like to move slowly. Some look like they're lost. Some look like they know where they're going. Some lead. Some just follow. Some hover horizontally. Some hover vertically (I notice that it is generally easier for ladies to maintain a horizontal hovering position while motionless). Some like to swim close to the bottom, while yet others like to hover above everyone else, like a helicopter mothership. Photographers will usually be glued to one spot for a while, or be crowding around one poor little creature at the bottom, or nowhere to be seen. Photographers also tend to get left behind, so if someone is missing, it's probably the photographer. Thus you can tell who is who by observing where they are. You can also watch out for a diver's fin kick pattern. Some fin hard, some fin slow. Some use the frog-style kick, some use the up-down kick. Usually beginners will use their hands and arms a lot, but as you get more experienced you hardly use your arms.
9. Anything Else
Whatever you can find. Anything unique.
In short, use a combination of the above to differentiate and identify each diver. Happy diving, and appreciate your uniqueness. :)
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
9 Island
Sunrise over the Straits of Malacca...
...and
Sunset over the Straits of Malacca.
From the rising of the sun to the place where it sets,
the name of the LORD is to be praised.
Psalm 113:3
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
