Mohd Effendi Norwawi: We must fix our weaknesses

We must fix our weaknesses

By DATUK SERI MOHD EFFENDI NORWAWI

Sunday Star, December 20, 2009

Our economic survival and competitiveness are at risk. We must try new ways to get new results and overcome the haunting problems of implementation with the same old people, systems and processes.

FROM his Budget speech, it is clear that our Prime Minister has a deep appreciation of the challenges faced by the nation today. He has also articulated well the actions that must be taken to overcome the challenges.

He will reinforce this soon with the announcement of a new economic model. This would be so timely – but the point I intend to make here is, this new economic model will not succeed unless it is accompanied by a new and bold implementation model.

Without a new implementation model, this new economic model idea will suffer the same tragic fate of the many “new ideas” in the past that have never made the distance, mostly because of breakdown at the implementation level.

This time, we must succeed or we will perish in the competition! The challenges we face today are more serious than we think. All the danger signs are there:

1. Private sector participation as engine of growth has dwindled to below 10% of our GDP from 30% of GDP at its highest.

2. Foreign and domestic investment has declined significantly. Outflow of capital – RM117bil for 2008 and RM54bil for the first half of 2009.

3. Here’s a wake-up call! In 1980, of the total FDI inflow into South-east Asia, 35.4% went to Malaysia – less than 1% went to Vietnam. In 2008, from the total FDI inflow into South-east Asia (US$59.9bil), the amount that went to Malaysia and Vietnam are about the same (US$8bil). Is it a foregone conclusion now that Vietnam will soon overtake Malaysia in attracting FDI?

4. Our per capita income ratio with South Korea used to be 1:1 in 1980. Now the ratio is doubled to 2:1, leaving Malaysia far behind.

5. In the 10 years post-crisis of 1997/98, per capita income of South Korea has grown by 104.3% – Malaysia only achieved an increase of 68.4%.

6. In 30 years, the Chinese economy has expanded 15.4 times – compared with Malaysia at only five times!

7. On the World Bank Index “Ease of Doing Business 2010”, Malaysia is ranked 20 out of 183 countries. Sounds okay on the surface – but if you look deeper into critical indicators such as “Dealing with Construction Permits” and “Starting a Business”, our standing is at 109 and 88 respectively out of 183. It’s not so okay.

It’s high time we fix this – it can be done! But not with the same people and same procedure and process and not with the same old implementation model!

8. On the World Bank Knowledge Economy Index (KEI), which is a measurement of our readiness to support a knowledge economy, our KEI in 1995 was 6.12. in 2008 our KEI was 6.07 – no change.

In fact, we slid! Average KEI of the top five countries is 9.41.

9. In 2008, 2.062 million unskilled foreign workers entered Malaysia. (This is the official figure, what is the unofficial?) In the last seven years, entry of unskilled foreign workers have increased by 300%, and they have formed 30% of our work force!

10. On the other hand, entry of skilled workers and professionals into the country has dwindled by nearly 60% (85,000 in 2000 to 35,000 in 2007)! At the same time, we see an alarming number of Malaysian professionals migrating to other countries.

11. Coming up to 2010, our GDP growth is estimated to be 26% below our original 2020 target – our per capita income will be 52% below this same target!

12. We have been in this middle-income group of countries for 15 years now – the risk of being trapped there is increasing. We have to double our per capita income in the next 10 years just to meet the minimum level of the high-income countries. To reach our original 2020 target, we need to treble our per capita income. A tall order!

I’m highlighting this in the sincere hope that Malaysians can see and feel the seriousness of the situation. Even more serious is how these weaknesses can reinforce each other to drag us down even further. Malaysia must wake up. The Prime Minister clearly wants to change things – he is loud and clear about how we can’t go on being just “Business As Usual” anymore. But he can’t succeed on his own – he deserves the support of every loyal Malaysian who has big dreams for this country.

Where do we go from here? Well, I believe the Prime Minister is clear about what he wants to do under his three strategies:

1. Driving the nation towards a higher income economy

2. Ensuring holistic and sustainable development

3. Focusing on the well-being of the rakyat

These are great ideas. But as we know, Malaysia is never short of ideas. Our history is littered with glaring examples where these great ideas just didn’t take off from the drawing board (K-economy idea was mooted in the 1990s). What happened?

We are great with ideas but we are just not great at implementing! Hence my very point – the new economic model will join the congested graveyard of many other great ideas – unless we come out with a new implementation model to go with it! We are not going to get new results with the same people, doing things the same old ways.

So here are my suggestions:

I’d like to focus on the Prime Minister’s strategy number 1 – driving the nation towards a high-income economy.

We are seeing encouraging results from the National Key Results Areas (NKRA) initiative, and the establishment of Pemandu to drive the six NKRAs – reducing crime, combating corruption, expanding access to quality and affordable education, raising the standard of living of low-income groups, strengthening infrastructure in rural and remote areas and improving public transport.

Clearly the six NKRAs are “people-centric”, in line with the Prime Minister’s pledge of “people first”.

Building on this initial success, I propose another initiative – similar to NKRA and Pemandu – except this initiative will focus on national economic transformation. We can call it MyTEN. MyTEN will be dedicated to this number 1 strategy – to transform Malaysia into a high-income economy.

I suggest the commissioning of a dedicated executing team to be responsible for implementing MyTEN. This team must comprise professionals and experts operating on a comprehensive plan with clear KPIs and mandated and empowered to transcend ministries’ and agencies’ “turf” and boundaries. They must have the most capable leader Malaysia can find, and be directly under the charge of the Prime Minister. They must have the clout to demolish obstacles and resistance and to make things happen.

To start with, I recommend the MyTEN team be tasked to deliver the following strategic results:

1. New sources of growth – to determine new economic areas of high potential where Malaysia can focus on and gain global dominance. Again, this has been mooted many times before, proving the point it can only happen if we have a dedicated team of professionals entrusted and empowered to execute this programme.

2. To stimulate private sector investment – foreign and domestic. Initiatives here would include priorities such as:

a) To effectively operationalise public-private sector partnership;

b) To redefine Government’s role in business and walk the talk that Government has no business to be in business; and

c) To produce a new generation of business entrepreneurs on merit and competitiveness and move Malaysia away from the “patronage and rent-seeking legacy”.

3. To accelerate Malaysia’s transformation into a knowledge economy anchored by innovation and quality human capital. This would include successfully executing sound strategies to make Malaysia a high-wage economy. An important part of this would be to turn Malaysia into a destination of choice for global talent.

Global talent is critical to our economic growth and innovation. We know our “brain-gain” and “MM2H” did not deliver the real desired results. This is another example why we need a new implementation model – this programme must be undertaken by new well-trained, well-motivated people with new mindsets, applying new systems, processes and best practices to succeed this time around.

To succeed, MyTEN must be launched as a major national agenda like the NKRA and we have to get every Malaysian, both from the public and private sector, to be on board. This must be a 1Malaysia agenda.

It is always worrying that all these high aspirations of the Prime Minister and the nation will in the end land on the desk of an officer who may not have a full appreciation as to how critical these programmes are to the survival of our country and who might not respond with the necessary sense of urgency.

Another key to the new implementation model is engaging the private sector whenever we can.

One has to be concerned with the rapidly increasing operating expenditure of the Government (from RM80bil five years ago to RM140bil now).

The Government should get an independent and objective analysis to determine government programmes that can be better done by the private sector and let them do it.

For example, I can see how we should engage the GLCs and private sector to take over many of the Agriculture Ministry’s programmes. Only they can bring the real culture of commercialisation to our farmers. It’s a matter of working out the business deals with these GLCs and private companies so they can be profitable in these privatised ventures. The Government can then save billions from doing this themselves (and mostly not as successfully).

We have success models in Sime Darby and their Northern Corridor corn project and Khazanah on their aquaculture and papaya projects. Why don’t we upscale them?

Repeat: we must try new ways to get new results. I think this is why the word “innovation” appeared everywhere in our Prime Minister’s Budget speech. The government must redefine its role, and this will require a new public sector mindset to let go to the private sector at every appropriate opportunity where there is clearly a net gain for the country.

To drive our nation’s economy, we need the most important economic force – the return of confidence!

I’m certain that what will generate this return is if there is belief that there will be real change this time – that the country is serious and has the will and ability to deal with all its challenges. I don’t think that there is any doubt about the Prime Minister’s seriousness, will and ability. But the doubt will be about the old haunting problem of implementation – that is, new ideas but done by the same old people and with their same old systems and processes, with little sense of urgency.

I know I’ll be commenting again on future government budgets… not so far away, I hope to be able to say we are now not just a nation of great ideas, but are also great implementors!

 Datuk Seri Mohd Effendi Norwawi is the founder and executive chairman of Encorp Bhd; he regards his seven years in the Cabinet as national service.

Barack Obama's Nobel Peace speech

Obama’s Nobel Peace prize Speech, Oslo, December 10, 2009

Following is the prepared text of President Obama's speech at the Nobel Peace Prize ceremony in Oslo on Wednesday, as released by the White House:

Your Majesties, Your Royal Highnesses, Distinguished Members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, citizens of America, and citizens of the world:

I receive this honor with deep gratitude and great humility. It is an award that speaks to our highest aspirations – that for all the cruelty and hardship of our world, we are not mere prisoners of fate. Our actions matter, and can bend history in the direction of justice.

And yet I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge the considerable controversy that your generous decision has generated. In part, this is because I am at the beginning, and not the end, of my labors on the world stage. Compared to some of the giants of history who have received this prize – Schweitzer and King; Marshall and Mandela – my accomplishments are slight. And then there are the men and women around the world who have been jailed and beaten in the pursuit of justice; those who toil in humanitarian organizations to relieve suffering; the unrecognized millions whose quiet acts of courage and compassion inspire even the most hardened of cynics. I cannot argue with those who find these men and women – some known, some obscure to all but those they help – to be far more deserving of this honor than I.

But perhaps the most profound issue surrounding my receipt of this prize is the fact that I am the Commander-in-Chief of a nation in the midst of two wars. One of these wars is winding down. The other is a conflict that America did not seek; one in which we are joined by forty three other countries – including Norway – in an effort to defend ourselves and all nations from further attacks.

Still, we are at war, and I am responsible for the deployment of thousands of young Americans to battle in a distant land. Some will kill. Some will be killed. And so I come here with an acute sense of the cost of armed conflict – filled with difficult questions about the relationship between war and peace, and our effort to replace one with the other.

These questions are not new. War, in one form or another, appeared with the first man. At the dawn of history, its morality was not questioned; it was simply a fact, like drought or disease – the manner in which tribes and then civilizations sought power and settled their differences.

Over time, as codes of law sought to control violence within groups, so did philosophers, clerics, and statesmen seek to regulate the destructive power of war. The concept of a "just war" emerged, suggesting that war is justified only when it meets certain preconditions: if it is waged as a last resort or in self-defense; if the forced used is proportional, and if, whenever possible, civilians are spared from violence.

For most of history, this concept of just war was rarely observed. The capacity of human beings to think up new ways to kill one another proved inexhaustible, as did our capacity to exempt from mercy those who look different or pray to a different God.

Wars between armies gave way to wars between nations – total wars in which the distinction between combatant and civilian became blurred. In the span of thirty years, such carnage would twice engulf this continent. And while it is hard to conceive of a cause more just than the defeat of the Third Reich and the Axis powers, World War II was a conflict in which the total number of civilians who died exceeded the number of soldiers who perished.

In the wake of such destruction, and with the advent of the nuclear age, it became clear to victor and vanquished alike that the world needed institutions to prevent another World War. And so, a quarter century after the United States Senate rejected the League of Nations – an idea for which Woodrow Wilson received this Prize – America led the world in constructing an architecture to keep the peace: a Marshall Plan and a United Nations, mechanisms to govern the waging of war, treaties to protect human rights, prevent genocide, and restrict the most dangerous weapons.

In many ways, these efforts succeeded. Yes, terrible wars have been fought, and atrocities committed. But there has been no Third World War. The Cold War ended with jubilant crowds dismantling a wall. Commerce has stitched much of the world together. Billions have been lifted from poverty. The ideals of liberty, self-determination, equality and the rule of law have haltingly advanced. We are the heirs of the fortitude and foresight of generations past, and it is a legacy for which my own country is rightfully proud.

A decade into a new century, this old architecture is buckling under the weight of new threats. The world may no longer shudder at the prospect of war between two nuclear superpowers, but proliferation may increase the risk of catastrophe. Terrorism has long been a tactic, but modern technology allows a few small men with outsized rage to murder innocents on a horrific scale.

Moreover, wars between nations have increasingly given way to wars within nations. The resurgence of ethnic or sectarian conflicts; the growth of secessionist movements, insurgencies, and failed states; have increasingly trapped civilians in unending chaos. In today's wars, many more civilians are killed than soldiers; the seeds of future conflict are sewn, economies are wrecked, civil societies torn asunder, refugees amassed, and children scarred.

I do not bring with me today a definitive solution to the problems of war. What I do know is that meeting these challenges will require the same vision, hard work, and persistence of those men and women who acted so boldly decades ago. And it will require us to think in new ways about the notions of just war and the imperatives of a just peace.

We must begin by acknowledging the hard truth that we will not eradicate violent conflict in our lifetimes. There will be times when nations – acting individually or in concert – will find the use of force not only necessary but morally justified.

I make this statement mindful of what Martin Luther King said in this same ceremony years ago – "Violence never brings permanent peace. It solves no social problem: it merely creates new and more complicated ones." As someone who stands here as a direct consequence of Dr. King's life's work, I am living testimony to the moral force of non-violence. I know there is nothing weak –nothing passive – nothing naïve – in the creed and lives of Gandhi and King.

But as a head of state sworn to protect and defend my nation, I cannot be guided by their examples alone. I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people. For make no mistake: evil does exist in the world. A non-violent movement could not have halted Hitler's armies. Negotiations cannot convince al Qaeda's leaders to lay down their arms. To say that force is sometimes necessary is not a call to cynicism – it is a recognition of history; the imperfections of man and the limits of reason.

I raise this point because in many countries there is a deep ambivalence about military action today, no matter the cause. At times, this is joined by a reflexive suspicion of America, the world's sole military superpower.

Yet the world must remember that it was not simply international institutions – not just treaties and declarations – that brought stability to a post-World War II world. Whatever mistakes we have made, the plain fact is this: the United States of America has helped underwrite global security for more than six decades with the blood of our citizens and the strength of our arms. The service and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform has promoted peace and prosperity from Germany to Korea, and enabled democracy to take hold in places like the Balkans.

We have borne this burden not because we seek to impose our will. We have done so out of enlightened self-interest – because we seek a better future for our children and grandchildren, and we believe that their lives will be better if other peoples' children and grandchildren can live in freedom and prosperity.

So yes, the instruments of war do have a role to play in preserving the peace. And yet this truth must coexist with another – that no matter how justified, war promises human tragedy. The soldier's courage and sacrifice is full of glory, expressing devotion to country, to cause and to comrades in arms. But war itself is never glorious, and we must never trumpet it as such.

So part of our challenge is reconciling these two seemingly irreconcilable truths – that war is sometimes necessary, and war is at some level an expression of human feelings. Concretely, we must direct our effort to the task that President Kennedy called for long ago. "Let us focus," he said, "on a more practical, more attainable peace, based not on a sudden revolution in human nature but on a gradual evolution in human institutions."

What might this evolution look like? What might these practical steps be?

To begin with, I believe that all nations – strong and weak alike – must adhere to standards that govern the use of force. I – like any head of state – reserve the right to act unilaterally if necessary to defend my nation. Nevertheless, I am convinced that adhering to standards strengthens those who do, and isolates – and weakens – those who don't.

The world rallied around America after the 9/11 attacks, and continues to support our efforts in Afghanistan, because of the horror of those senseless attacks and the recognized principle of self-defense. Likewise, the world recognized the need to confront Saddam Hussein when he invaded Kuwait – a consensus that sent a clear message to all about the cost of aggression.

Furthermore, America cannot insist that others follow the rules of the road if we refuse to follow them ourselves. For when we don't, our action can appear arbitrary, and undercut the legitimacy of future intervention – no matter how justified.

This becomes particularly important when the purpose of military action extends beyond self defense or the defense of one nation against an aggressor. More and more, we all confront difficult questions about how to prevent the slaughter of civilians by their own government, or to stop a civil war whose violence and suffering can engulf an entire region.

I believe that force can be justified on humanitarian grounds, as it was in the Balkans, or in other places that have been scarred by war. Inaction tears at our conscience and can lead to more costly intervention later. That is why all responsible nations must embrace the role that militaries with a clear mandate can play to keep the peace.

America's commitment to global security will never waiver. But in a world in which threats are more diffuse, and missions more complex, America cannot act alone. This is true in Afghanistan. This is true in failed states like Somalia, where terrorism and piracy is joined by famine and human suffering. And sadly, it will continue to be true in unstable regions for years to come.

The leaders and soldiers of NATO countries – and other friends and allies – demonstrate this truth through the capacity and courage they have shown in Afghanistan. But in many countries, there is a disconnect between the efforts of those who serve and the ambivalence of the broader public. I understand why war is not popular. But I also know this: the belief that peace is desirable is rarely enough to achieve it. Peace requires responsibility. Peace entails sacrifice. That is why NATO continues to be indispensable. That is why we must strengthen UN and regional peacekeeping, and not leave the task to a few countries. That is why we honor those who return home from peacekeeping and training abroad to Oslo and Rome; to Ottawa and Sydney; to Dhaka and Kigali – we honor them not as makers of war, but as wagers of peace.

Let me make one final point about the use of force. Even as we make difficult decisions about going to war, we must also think clearly about how we fight it. The Nobel Committee recognized this truth in awarding its first prize for peace to Henry Dunant – the founder of the Red Cross, and a driving force behind the Geneva Conventions.

Where force is necessary, we have a moral and strategic interest in binding ourselves to certain rules of conduct. And even as we confront a vicious adversary that abides by no rules, I believe that the United States of America must remain a standard bearer in the conduct of war. That is what makes us different from those whom we fight. That is a source of our strength. That is why I prohibited torture. That is why I ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed. And that is why I have reaffirmed America's commitment to abide by the Geneva Conventions. We lose ourselves when we compromise the very ideals that we fight to defend. And we honor those ideals by upholding them not just when it is easy, but when it is hard.

I have spoken to the questions that must weigh on our minds and our hearts as we choose to wage war. But let me turn now to our effort to avoid such tragic choices, and speak of three ways that we can build a just and lasting peace.

First, in dealing with those nations that break rules and laws, I believe that we must develop alternatives to violence that are tough enough to change behavior – for if we want a lasting peace, then the words of the international community must mean something. Those regimes that break the rules must be held accountable. Sanctions must exact a real price. Intransigence must be met with increased pressure – and such pressure exists only when the world stands together as one.

One urgent example is the effort to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, and to seek a world without them. In the middle of the last century, nations agreed to be bound by a treaty whose bargain is clear: all will have access to peaceful nuclear power; those without nuclear weapons will forsake them; and those with nuclear weapons will work toward disarmament. I am committed to upholding this treaty. It is a centerpiece of my foreign policy. And I am working with President Medvedev to reduce America and Russia's nuclear stockpiles.

But it is also incumbent upon all of us to insist that nations like Iran and North Korea do not game the system. Those who claim to respect international law cannot avert their eyes when those laws are flouted. Those who care for their own security cannot ignore the danger of an arms race in the Middle East or East Asia. Those who seek peace cannot stand idly by as nations arm themselves for nuclear war.

The same principle applies to those who violate international law by brutalizing their own people. When there is genocide in Darfur; systematic rape in Congo; or repression in Burma – there must be consequences. And the closer we stand together, the less likely we will be faced with the choice between armed intervention and complicity in oppression.

This brings me to a second point – the nature of the peace that we seek. For peace is not merely the absence of visible conflict. Only a just peace based upon the inherent rights and dignity of every individual can truly be lasting.

It was this insight that drove drafters of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights after the Second World War. In the wake of devastation, they recognized that if human rights are not protected, peace is a hollow promise.

And yet all too often, these words are ignored. In some countries, the failure to uphold human rights is excused by the false suggestion that these are Western principles, foreign to local cultures or stages of a nation's development. And within America, there has long been a tension between those who describe themselves as realists or idealists – a tension that suggests a stark choice between the narrow pursuit of interests or an endless campaign to impose our values.

I reject this choice. I believe that peace is unstable where citizens are denied the right to speak freely or worship as they please; choose their own leaders or assemble without fear. Pent up grievances fester, and the suppression of tribal and religious identity can lead to violence. We also know that the opposite is true. Only when Europe became free did it finally find peace. America has never fought a war against a democracy, and our closest friends are governments that protect the rights of their citizens. No matter how callously defined, neither America's interests – nor the world's –are served by the denial of human aspirations.

So even as we respect the unique culture and traditions of different countries, America will always be a voice for those aspirations that are universal. We will bear witness to the quiet dignity of reformers like Aung Sang Suu Kyi; to the bravery of Zimbabweans who cast their ballots in the face of beatings; to the hundreds of thousands who have marched silently through the streets of Iran. It is telling that the leaders of these governments fear the aspirations of their own people more than the power of any other nation. And it is the responsibility of all free people and free nations to make clear to these movements that hope and history are on their side

Let me also say this: the promotion of human rights cannot be about exhortation alone. At times, it must be coupled with painstaking diplomacy. I know that engagement with repressive regimes lacks the satisfying purity of indignation. But I also know that sanctions without outreach – and condemnation without discussion – can carry forward a crippling status quo. No repressive regime can move down a new path unless it has the choice of an open door.

In light of the Cultural Revolution's horrors, Nixon's meeting with Mao appeared inexcusable – and yet it surely helped set China on a path where millions of its citizens have been lifted from poverty, and connected to open societies. Pope John Paul's engagement with Poland created space not just for the Catholic Church, but for labor leaders like Lech Walesa. Ronald Reagan's efforts on arms control and embrace of perestroika not only improved relations with the Soviet Union, but empowered dissidents throughout Eastern Europe. There is no simple formula here. But we must try as best we can to balance isolation and engagement; pressure and incentives, so that human rights and dignity are advanced over time.

Third, a just peace includes not only civil and political rights – it must encompass economic security and opportunity. For true peace is not just freedom from fear, but freedom from want.

It is undoubtedly true that development rarely takes root without security; it is also true that security does not exist where human beings do not have access to enough food, or clean water, or the medicine they need to survive. It does not exist where children cannot aspire to a decent education or a job that supports a family. The absence of hope can rot a society from within.

And that is why helping farmers feed their own people – or nations educate their children and care for the sick – is not mere charity. It is also why the world must come together to confront climate change.

There is little scientific dispute that if we do nothing, we will face more drought, famine and mass displacement that will fuel more conflict for decades. For this reason, it is not merely scientists and activists who call for swift and forceful action – it is military leaders in my country and others who understand that our common security hangs in the balance.

Agreements among nations. Strong institutions. Support for human rights. Investments in development. All of these are vital ingredients in bringing about the evolution that President Kennedy spoke about. And yet, I do not believe that we will have the will, or the staying power, to complete this work without something more – and that is the continued expansion of our moral imagination; an insistence that there is something irreducible that we all share.

As the world grows smaller, you might think it would be easier for human beings to recognize how similar we are; to understand that we all basically want the same things; that we all hope for the chance to live out our lives with some measure of happiness and fulfillment for ourselves and our families.

And yet, given the dizzying pace of globalization, and the cultural leveling of modernity, it should come as no surprise that people fear the loss of what they cherish about their particular identities – their race, their tribe, and perhaps most powerfully their religion. In some places, this fear has led to conflict. At times, it even feels like we are moving backwards. We see it in Middle East, as the conflict between Arabs and Jews seems to harden. We see it in nations that are torn asunder by tribal lines.

Most dangerously, we see it in the way that religion is used to justify the murder of innocents by those who have distorted and defiled the great religion of Islam, and who attacked my country from Afghanistan. These extremists are not the first to kill in the name of God; the cruelties of the Crusades are amply recorded. But they remind us that no Holy War can ever be a just war. For if you truly believe that you are carrying out divine will, then there is no need for restraint – no need to spare the pregnant mother, or the medic, or even a person of one's own faith. Such a warped view of religion is not just incompatible with the concept of peace, but the purpose of faith – for the one rule that lies at the heart of every major religion is that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us.

Adhering to this law of love has always been the core struggle of human nature. We are fallible. We make mistakes, and fall victim to the temptations of pride, and power, and sometimes evil. Even those of us with the best intentions will at times fail to right the wrongs before us.

But we do not have to think that human nature is perfect for us to still believe that the human condition can be perfected. We do not have to live in an idealized world to still reach for those ideals that will make it a better place. The non-violence practiced by men like Gandhi and King may not have been practical or possible in every circumstance, but the love that they preached – their faith in human progress – must always be the North Star that guides us on our journey.

For if we lose that faith – if we dismiss it as silly or naïve; if we divorce it from the decisions that we make on issues of war and peace – then we lose what is best about humanity. We lose our sense of possibility. We lose our moral compass.

Like generations have before us, we must reject that future. As Dr. King said at this occasion so many years ago, "I refuse to accept despair as the final response to the ambiguities of history. I refuse to accept the idea that the 'isness' of man's present nature makes him morally incapable of reaching up for the eternal 'oughtness' that forever confronts him."

So let us reach for the world that ought to be – that spark of the divine that still stirs within each of our souls. Somewhere today, in the here and now, a soldier sees he's outgunned but stands firm to keep the peace. Somewhere today, in this world, a young protestor awaits the brutality of her government, but has the courage to march on. Somewhere today, a mother facing punishing poverty still takes the time to teach her child, who believes that a cruel world still has a place for his dreams.

Let us live by their example. We can acknowledge that oppression will always be with us, and still strive for justice. We can admit the intractability of depravation, and still strive for dignity. We can understand that there will be war, and still strive for peace. We can do that – for that is the story of human progress; that is the hope of all the world; and at this moment of challenge, that must be our work here on Earth.

Dr Emanuel Tanay: A German’s point of view on Islam

A German’s point of view on Islam
by Dr. Emanuel Tanay, Psychiatrist

A man whose family was German aristocracy prior to World War II owned a number of large industries and estates. When asked how many German people were true Nazis, the answer he gave can guide our attitude toward fanaticism.

‘Very few people were true Nazis ‘he said,’ but many enjoyed the return of German pride, and many more were too busy to care. I was one of those who just thought the Nazis were a bunch of fools. So, the majority just sat back and let it all happen. Then, before we knew it, they owned us, and we had lost control, and the end of the world had come. My family lost everything. I ended up in a concentration camp and the Allies destroyed my factories. ’

We are told again and again by ‘experts’ and ‘talking heads’ that Islam is the religion of peace, and that the vast majority of Muslims just want to live in peace. Although this unqualified assertion may be true, it is entirely irrelevant. It is meaningless fluff, meant to make us feel better, and meant to somehow diminish the spectra of fanatics rampaging across the globe in the name of Islam. The fact is that the fanatics rule Islam at this moment in history.

It is the fanatics who march. It is the fanatics who wage any one of 50 shooting wars worldwide. It is the fanatics who systematically slaughter Christian or tribal groups throughout Africa and are gradually taking over the entire continent in an Islamic wave. It is the fanatics who bomb, behead, murder, or honor-kill. It is the fanatics who take over mosque after mosque. It is the fanatics who zealously spread the stoning and hanging of rape victims and homosexuals. The hard quantifiable fact is that the ‘peaceful majority’, the ‘silent majority’, is cowed and extraneous.

Communist Russia was comprised of Russians who just wanted to live in peace, yet the Russian Communists were responsible for the murder of about 20 million people. The peaceful majority were irrelevant. China’s huge population was peaceful as well, but Chinese Communists managed to kill a staggering 70 million people.

The average Japanese individual prior to World War II was not a warmongering sadist. Yet, Japan murdered and slaughtered its way across South East Asia in an orgy of killing that included the systematic murder of 12 million Chinese civilians; most killed by sword, shovel, and bayonet.
And, who can forget Rwanda, which collapsed into butchery. Could it not be said that the majority of Rwandans were ‘peace loving’?

History lessons are often incredibly simple and blunt, yet for all our powers of reason we often miss the most basic and uncomplicated of points: Peace-loving Muslims have been made irrelevant by their silence. Peace-loving Muslims will become our enemy if they don’t speak up, because like my friend from Germany, they will awaken one day and find that the fanatics own them, and the end of their world will have begun.

Peace-loving Germans, Japanese, Chinese, Russians, Rwandans, Serbs, Afghanis, Iraqis, Palestinians, Somalis, Nigerians, Algerians, and many others have died because the peaceful majority did not speak up until it was too late.

As for us who watch it all unfold, we must pay attention to the only group that counts: the fanatics who threaten our way of life.

Emanuel Tanay, M. D.
Dr. Emanuel Tanay, MD Wayne State University Ann Arbor, Michigan A clinical professor of psychiatry at the Medical School, Dr. Emanuel Tanay MD is a well-known forensic psychiatrist who has been an expert witness in many famous cases, such as the trials of Jack Ruby, Ted Bundy, Sam Sheppard, and Robert Garwood. He is licensed to practice in Ohio and Georgia, as well as Michigan. Dr. Tanay has served as an officer or committee member of many professional organizations, such as the Michigan Psychiatric Society, the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, the American Psychiatric Association (APA), and others. He is a diplomate of the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology and of the American Board of Forensic Psychiatry and a distinguished fellow of the APA and the American Academy of Forensic Sciences (AAFC). A Holocaust survivor himself, he coauthored a book about the survivors of the Holocaust and was asked by the German government to consult on just compensation for the Holocaust survivors. Dr. Tanay has served on several journal editorial boards, authored many publications, and presented countless times on forensic medicine. His efforts have also produced many awards and commendations from groups such as the Michigan State Medical Society, APA, the Detroit Institute of Technology, and AAFC, among others.

-------------------ooooooooooooo0000000000000000oooooooooooooo-----------------------------

Comments (DQ)
Extremism in all forms should never be allowed to overwhelm the so-called peace-loving but silent or apathetic majority. 

We cannot and should not always hide behind the facade of disinterestedness and aloofness, just because we appear not to have been embroiled by such bigoted or inhumane views as yet. Slowly but surely, such extremism will consume everyone of us in a holocaust of destructiveness and degradation, and then it will be too late! 

We must all learn to speak out against such tendencies or trends, loudly and without fear of being drowned out by blaring voices of fanaticism, unreason, intolerance or self-righteousness!

If we don't we will become victims of passivist irrelevance, and it will then be too late to escape the fate of the enveloping cloud of irrational fanaticism. Extremists will almost certainly come for all of us...

LA Times: Toxic legacy of the Cold War

NUCLEAR SCAR

Toxic legacy of the Cold War

Ohio's Fernald Preserve has flowers, birds and tons of radioactive waste. Sites that once supplied the nation's nuclear arsenal now pose a staggering political, environmental and economic challenge.

Site manager Jane Powell walks where 3 million cubic yards of radioactive waste is stored. Fernald is one of many facilities that once supplied the nation's nuclear arsenal. Today, these sites pose a huge political, economic and environmental challenge. (David Kohl / For The Times / July 7, 2009)

By Ralph Vartabedian

LA Times: October 20, 2009

Reporting from Fernald Preserve, Ohio - Amid the family farms and rolling terrain of southern Ohio, one hill stands out for its precise geometry.

The 65-foot-high mound stretching more than half a mile dominates a tract of northern hardwoods, prairie grasses and swampy ponds, known as the Fernald Preserve.

Contrary to appearances, there is nothing natural here. The high ground is filled with radioactive debris, scooped from the soil around a former uranium foundry that produced crucial parts for the nation's nuclear weapons program.

A $4.4-billion cleanup transformed Fernald from a dangerously contaminated factory complex into an environmental showcase. But it is "clean" only by the terms of a legal agreement. Its soils contain many times the natural amounts of radioactivity, and a plume of tainted water extends underground about a mile.

Nobody can ever safely live here, federal scientists say, and the site will have to be closely monitored essentially forever.

Fernald is part of the toxic legacy of the Cold War, one component in a vast complex of research labs, raw material mills, weapons production plants and other facilities that once supplied the nation's nuclear arsenal.

Today, these sites pose a staggering political, environmental and economic challenge. They harbor wastes so toxic that the best cleanups, such as the eight-year effort at Fernald, can do no more than contain the danger. Cleaning the properties enough that people could live and work on them again is either unaffordable or impossible.

The radioactive byproducts entombed at places like Fernald will remain hazardous for thousands of years. So today's scientists and engineers must devise remediation measures that will not only protect people today but last longer than any empire has endured -- all at a price society is willing to pay.

"We are faced with a mess, and you have to find some sort of a balance," said Victor Gilinsky, a nuclear waste expert and former member of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. "There are no easy decisions."

The nationwide effort to clean up the Cold War nuclear weapons complex began two decades ago and so far has cost more than $100 billion. The cost is expected to total $330 billion over the next three to five decades. More than 100 sites have been officially cleaned up. Many of them have been turned into industrial parks or nature preserves or put to other limited uses under Energy Department supervision.

Nearly two dozen other sites still await cleanup. The Obama administration is using money from the economic stimulus package to add $6 billion to the effort over the next three years.

Collectively, the former nuclear facilities represent a stunning loss of natural resources and economic opportunity. Millions of gallons of radioactive sludges linger in underground tanks. Dozens of radioactive or toxic groundwater plumes are migrating underground in Washington, Idaho, South Carolina, Ohio and Tennessee, as well as California.

In Nevada, federal scientists are monitoring a vast sea of radioactive groundwater, contaminated by hundreds of underground nuclear tests, to make sure it does not encroach on populated areas or drinking-water supplies.

"New members of Congress come in and say, 'Oh, my God, look at the scale of this mess,' " said Geoffrey Fettus, an attorney at the Natural Resources Defense Council, a frequent litigant against the Energy Department. "This cleanup is gruesomely complicated."

The results of a cleanup -- with enough will and money -- can be impressive.

The site of the former Fernald Feed Materials Production Center has evolved into a wildlife preserve covered with flowers. Nearly 200 species of birds have flocked to the site: dark-eyed juncos, hairy woodpeckers and flocks of mallards paddling across more than a dozen ponds.

The 1,050-acre site has a visitors' center with a small museum that recounts the history of the plant. About 9,000 visitors from churches, civic groups and schools are expected this year.

The plant, which opened in 1951 and was operated by the National Lead Co. of Ohio, manufactured uranium rods used to make plutonium for nuclear weapons.

In the mid-1980s, the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency discovered an environmental disaster at the site.

Leaking silos were belching radon gas. A leaky dust collector had spewed uranium powder into the air. Rain running off the plant had contaminated the Great Miami Aquifer, an underground body of water that extends from Cincinnati to Dayton.

On the day the plant was shut in 1989, pipes and tanks were left full of waste.

The Ohio EPA estimated that 340 tons of uranium had been released. In a series of lawsuits against the Energy Department, the state of Ohio won about $14 million for environmental damage; local residents won $78 million for emotional distress and loss of property values; and workers won roughly $20 million for health and safety claims.

Lisa Crawford, who has lived in the area her entire life, became involved in 1985. That's when she discovered that the well water flowing through the taps in her house, across the street from the plant, contained uranium at levels 180 times the federal safety standard. She moved out later that year with her husband and their son.

Neighbors and environmentalists organized to push for a cleanup, but after years of study came to realize that there was no perfect solution.

They faced a choice: Live with a certain level of contamination or push for a comprehensive cleanup with no guarantee of success and a $50-billion price tag.

"In the 1990s, there came a time when we had to say, 'OK, we have studied this to death,' " Crawford said.

The key to the cleanup was a compromise that left the vast majority of contaminated material on the site. The compromise hinged on a legal agreement with the Energy Department that relaxed the definition of "clean" and limited future uses of the property.

That trade-off underlies virtually every cleanup and has helped to reduce costs and shorten cleanup times.

"Are we totally cleaned up? No," Crawford said. "Could we have gotten a better cleanup? No. But we are comfortable with what we have."

Three million cubic yards of low-level radioactive waste was left in the mound that dominates the site. It is actually a highly engineered disposal facility.

The production center's buildings were demolished, and about 6 inches of topsoil was scraped from the center of the site. The building debris and the topsoil were bulldozed into the 65-foot-high mound. The contaminated material is encapsulated by thick layers of impermeable clay and fabric liners to prevent rain from seeping in. A complex network of piping under the landfill monitors for leakage.

The system is supposed to prevent radioactive water from leeching into the ground for the next 200 to 1,000 years, said Johnny Reising, who was the Energy Department's cleanup chief at the site.

"Can I speak for 1,000 years into the future? No," said Reising, now retired. "You can't make it 100% safe. But you can make it compliant with all the requirements."

Only the most highly radioactive material, consisting of high-purity former Belgian Congo uranium ore and tailings, was hauled away. It was deemed too dangerous to leave in the rainy Ohio climate. Ultimately, it was mixed with cement and cast in 3,776 steel containers that were sent to a privately owned dump in west Texas.

The Fernald cleanup was completed in 2006. It reduced uranium in the soil outside the plant to no more than 82 parts per million -- about 20 times greater than the naturally occurring level in Ohio.

Groundwater will be pumped and treated until 2026, bringing the contamination below the federal standard of 30 parts per billion, but well above the natural level.

"The area is unacceptable for housing," said Jim Seric, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency manager who oversaw the cleanup. "It is excellent for wildlife viewing."

The Energy Department is reducing its standards for nuclear-site cleanups, allowing ever more waste to be left in place, say critics, including Fettus. For example, the department used complex regulatory maneuvers, as well as a change to federal law in 2004, to reclassify highly radioactive waste at the Savannah River weapons plant in South Carolina so that dangerous residues can remain on site, entombed in concrete in underground tanks.

Inez Triay, the Obama administration's newly appointed cleanup chief, rejects criticism that the program is relaxing its standards and failing to protect the environment.

Triay, a chemist who has spent her career in the Energy Department's cleanup program, said that in some cases it is technically impossible to remove every last bit of waste from underground tanks and that leaving a small amount encased in concrete is "a completely appropriate thing to do."

Even after a cleanup, the job is not finished. An Energy Department agency, the Office of Legacy Management, has been created to monitor the sites. A warehouse in West Virginia, which is nearly completed, will hold millions of records in perpetuity, detailing how the cleanups were conducted and where the toxins are buried.

Among the files will be a hefty section on Fernald.

The records will note the location of the radioactive mound. They will show how the basements of the former manufacturing buildings became storage ponds and how for hundreds and possibly thousands of years workers will have to trap groundhogs so they don't burrow through the barriers keeping radioactive waste from leaching into groundwater.

"I worry about people forgetting about this site," said Crawford, who sometimes goes for a stroll around the preserve. "It is our job now to make future generations know what happened here."

Nuclear Age Peace Foundation: Preventing Omnicide

Preventing Omnicide By David Krieger October 29, 2009

Omnicide is a word coined by philosopher John Somerville.  It is an extension of the concepts of suicide and genocide.  It means the death of all, the total negation and destruction of all life.  Omnicide is suicide for all.  It is the genocide of humanity writ large.  It is what Rachel Carson began to imagine in her book, Silent Spring. 

Can you imagine omnicide?  No people.  No animals.  No trees.  No friendships.  No one to view the mountains, or the oceans, or the stars.  No one to write a poem, or sing a song, or hug a baby, or laugh or cry.  With no present, there can be no memory of the past, nor possibility of a future.  There is nothing.  Nuclear weapons make possible the end of all, of omnicide. 

From the beginning of the universe some 15 billion years ago, it took 10.5 billion years before our planet was formed, and another 500 million years to produce the first life.  From the first life on earth, it took nearly 4 billion years, up until 10,000 years ago, to produce human civilization.  It is only in the last 65 years, barely a tick of the cosmic clock, that we have developed, deployed and used weapons capable of omnicide.
           
It took nearly 15 billion years to create the self-awareness of the universe that we humans represent.  This self-awareness could be lost in the blinding flash of a thermonuclear war and the nuclear winter that would follow.

In 1955, ten years into the Nuclear Age and shortly after the creation of thermonuclear weapons, a group of leading scientists, including Albert Einstein and Bertrand Russell, issued a Manifesto in which they said: “Here, then, is the problem which we present to you, stark and dreadful and inescapable: Shall we put an end to the human race; or shall mankind renounce war?”  Those are our choices, made necessary by the creation and threat of nuclear weapons.

If omnicide is possible, which it is, we must ask ourselves: What are we going to do about it?  Can we be complacent in the face of this threat, or will we find a way to confront and eliminate it?  This is the responsibility of all of us alive at this time in human history.  It is a human responsibility.  We created nuclear weapons.  It is up to us to end their threat to present and future generations.

The unfortunate truth is that we humans have been far too complacent in the face of the omnicidal potential of nuclear weapons.  There are many reasons for this.  For some of us, the threat is too painful to face, and we deny it.  For others, nuclear weapons are rationalized as a positive force in preventing wars, despite their omnicidal potential.  For still others, the threat is real, but they feel too insignificant to bring about change.

Those who justify nuclear weapons generally do so on the basis of nuclear deterrence, the threat of nuclear retaliation.  Deterrence is based upon the belief that all leaders will act rationally at all times and under all conditions, a very shaky proposition at best.  One reason that Henry Kissinger and other former leaders are now calling for a world free of nuclear weapons is that they understand that deterrence has no power against terrorists in possession of nuclear arms.  There can be zero tolerance of nuclear terrorism; but, if terrorism means the threat to injure or kill innocent people, aren’t all countries in possession of nuclear weapons, including our own, actually terrorists?

Carried to its extreme but logical conclusion, deterrence became Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD).  This is the threat of omnicide in the name of security.  It is a very risky form of security.  Today MAD may be thought to have a new meaning: Mutual Assured Delusions – delusions that nuclear weapons can provide security for their possessors.

Nuclear weapons do not and cannot provide physical protection for their possessors.  The threat of retaliation is not protection.  Unfortunately, these weapons, like other human endeavors, are subject to human fallibility.  With nuclear weapons in human hands, there are no guarantees that nuclear war will not be initiated by accident or human error.

The starting point for ending the omnicidal threat of nuclear weapons is the recognition that the threat is real and pervasive, and requires action.  Each of us is threatened.  All we love and hold dear is threatened.  The future is threatened.  We are called upon to end our complacency and respond to this threat by demanding that our leaders develop a clear pathway to the total elimination of nuclear weapons and to the elimination of war as a means of resolving conflicts.

 

David Krieger is President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (www.wagingpeace.org) and a Councilor on the World Future Council.

Nanyang Siang Pau: Topple Singapore?— Chen Jun An

Topple Singapore?— Chen Jun An
The Malaysian Insider
Saturday October 31 2009

OCT 31 — During an investment promotion trip to Singapore, Penang Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng was surprised to learn that 40 per cent of specialist doctors in Singapore's government hospitals were from Malaysia. He was amazed that Singapore valued talent that much and even suggested to the Malaysian government that if it wished to topple Singapore, it only needed to convince and attract Malaysian talent in Singapore to return home.

Tan Chia Yong, a columnist, had opined that if the government wished to attract talent to return home, it must not take short-cuts. Instead, it must assure them that they could expect a bright future if they were to remain in the country. However, he eventually lamented: “Singapore and Malaysia are separated by only a strip of water, while the Causeway is just 1.8 kilometres long. The geographical distance between the two countries is very short, but the psychological distance between these people and their motherland may be very great.”

For the moment, let's not talk about whether there is a great psychological distance between Malaysia's talent and their motherland. Lim's provocative suggestion to “topple Singapore” has left a bad taste in the mouth.

Lim had assumed the post of chief minister after the opposition became the ruling party following the March 8 political tsunami. It was thought that Lim's political thinking would be different, visionary and fluid.

Who would have thought that he remained trapped in the “Malaysia-Singapore Cold War mindset”? Remember former Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad's remarks about skinning a cat? He had said: “There are many ways to skin a cat. There are also many ways of skinning Singapore.”

But any talk of “toppling Singapore” is a manifestation of an arrogant and antagonistic “Cold War mindset”! Would Singapore simply collapse if Malaysia were really to formulate various preferential policies to entice Malaysian talent to return home to serve their own country?

Don't forget that apart from Malaysia, Singapore has also recruited talent from China, India, Europe and other parts of Asia. Moreover, Singapore is about to build its fourth university, which goes to show that this tiny island state has spared no effort to cultivate talent.

During his investment promotion trip in Singapore, Lim only met people from the business and political circles, such as doctors, engineers and lawyers. He probably did not get to meet the Malaysian workers who have to ride across the Causeway early every morning to make a living in Singapore.

If Singapore were to collapse, what will happen to these people? Regardless of whether his aim was to provoke or ridicule, Lim should not cling to the “old mindset” or follow Dr Mahathir in wanting to “skin a cat” or “topple Singapore”.

On the contrary, he should firmly suggest that the two countries actively establish more mutually beneficial “economic zones”. This will help to rejuvenate their economies and attract more foreign investments so that talent from both countries can give full play to their expertise, while unskilled workers can also make a living.

It is true that there are many ways to skin a cat. But wouldn't such rampant “skinnings” result in streets strewn with cat carcasses? It should again be emphasised that the old “Cold War mindset” must not be tolerated! — Straits Times

This article was translated from a Chinese commentary published in the Frankly Speaking column in Nanyang Siang Pau on Oct 29.

Singapore Public service satisfies... Straits Times

Public service satisfies 

Straits Times, Oct 30, 2009

By Jessica Lim

MORE than 80 per cent of Singaporeans are satisfied with public service here, according to a recent study conducted research company Forbes Research.

Of these, 37 per cent are very satisfied and 63 per cent were somewhat satisfied - which means that while these respondents had given positive ratings, they think improvements can be made.

The survey, conducted through face-to-face interviews with 2,140 randomly selected individuals between the ages of 16 and 65, was conducted between March and June.

The survey looked at three categories: Accessibility, consistency of service quality and reliability as well as the level of engagement prior to and in the early stages of policy engagement.
 
The survey, which was developed with Spring Singapore, aims to offer an insight into the general masses' view of public service in Singapore.

Where public service trumped: government agencies' staff achieved high ratings for their services. The public felt that staff is knowledgable in subject matter, able to understand customers' needs and provide accurate information accordingly.

PPSR: A Plea for A NUCLEAR–FREE MALAYSIA...

A NUCLEAR–FREE MALAYSIA
Dato' Dr Ronald S. McCoy

Introduction
If current trends continue, by the end of the twenty-first century, it is likely that the world’s population and the world’s demand for energy will have doubled. Even if there are major improvements in energy efficiency technologies and renewable energy supply, there will still be an overriding need to control population growth, reduce consumption and energy demand, and fundamentally transform the global economy into a low-carbon, ecologically sustainable system, that will totally discredit the god of economic growth.

Despite the machinations of the fossil-fuel-industrial-political complex, it is now undeniable that greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel combustion are the principal cause of global warming and climate change, which increasingly threaten planetary and human survival in the twenty-first century. This has spurred governments to find ways to reduce carbon emissions without undermining their economies, although many are still hesitant and will have to be dragged screaming to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change in Copenhagen this December.

The Malaysian government is absolutely right to be concerned about climate change and to take measures to reduce carbon emissions and mitigate global warming, but opting for nuclear energy is not the right answer to climate change and energy supply security.

Our last speaker, Dr Mark Diesendorf, has presented convincing evidence and argued that nuclear energy is not a viable option for Malaysia. He has highlighted the numerous negative features of nuclear energy - the risks of nuclear weapons proliferation, nuclear terrorism and reactor accidents; the inability of the nuclear industry to safely dispose of high-level nuclear waste and to contain escalating costs and delays in construction of nuclear power plants; and finite global uranium reserves.

At present, with Malaysia’s consistent record in nuclear disarmament initiatives, there is no danger that Malaysia will develop nuclear weapons, even if it does opt for nuclear energy. But one cannot be certain about future political and social changes in the country and region, which may lead to weapons proliferation in the future.

No case for nuclear energy
So, what is the government’s case for introducing nuclear-generated electricity, when national electricity reserves are still substantial and nuclear energy is not cheap, clean or safe. We in civil society believe that Tenaga Nasional Berhad (the National Power Company) has initiated plans to commission its first nuclear power plant by 2025. Surely, TNB and the government have no grounds to assume that it is a done deal.

On 21st June 2009, then Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak said that the government was willing to consider the use of nuclear energy, but not before exploring alternative renewable energy resources, such as biomass, solar, wind and hydro power. There is still no clarity that the government has formulated a national green energy policy. Any attempt to paint nuclear power as green technology will indicate environmental colour-blindness. The 2006 report of the International Energy Agency has indicated that greenhouse gases can be reduced, without making a Faustian bargain with the nuclear industry.

As citizens, we are extremely concerned that there has not been a national debate over such a critical issue as nuclear energy, which has the potential to wreak havoc and destruction. We must adhere to the Precautionary Principle and heed Murphy’s Law. I have been hearing the argument that accidents are part of everyday life and that a plane crash cannot justify abandoning air travel. It is facetious to compare a plane crash with a nuclear accident, just as it is naïve to consult with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which has a vested interest in promoting nuclear energy.

Realities of nuclear energy
Good intentions on the part of the government and TNB are not enough. Proponents of nuclear energy must avoid generating disinformation about its virtues. Instead, they must face up to the realities of nuclear energy and answer serious questions:

• What is the urgency in embarking on a nuclear energy project in Malaysia?
• What are the realities of nuclear power economics and time-frames for nuclear reactor deployment, relative to other means of reducing carbon emissions and generating electricity?
• What quantum of subsidies will be required to make nuclear energy economically feasible?
• What are the health, environmental, and security dangers associated with a reactor accident or a terrorist attack on a nuclear power plant?
• Will it be possible to prevent the diversion of nuclear materials to nuclear weapons production or to a terrorist group?
• How do we cope with the depletion of global reserves of uranium?
• Most importantly, how do we manage the safe disposal of lethal radioactive waste that will remain radioactive for thousands of years?
• Is it wise to embark on nuclear energy when there are alternative renewable energy sources and energy efficiency technologies?
• Is it not time for the Malaysian government to join with other governments in committing itself to holistically addressing climate change and opting for sustainable energy?

By far, the most objectionable feature of nuclear energy is the production of high-level nuclear waste that remains radioactive for several hundred thousands of years. The long-term management of waste only exists in theory. The world’s growing accumulation of nuclear waste continues to pile up in casks, along nuclear power plants in 31 countries, not one of which has yet been able to build a safe, functioning, geological repository anywhere in the world. The nuclear industry might have a case if and when it can provide a fail-safe method of waste disposal.

The half-lives of uranium and plutonium isotopes are virtually unending:

* U-238 : 4.51 billion years

* U-235 : 731 million years

* Pu-239 : 24,400 years

Such radioactive longevity goes far beyond the time horizons of any human institution, including governments and nation states. In other words, we will have to contend with life-threatening nuclear dangers from nuclear waste forever. This totally disqualifies nuclear energy as a feasible form of energy. In the long-term, nuclear energy must be phased out, not given a new lease of life.

If medieval man had resorted to nuclear energy, today we would still be burdened with managing his nuclear waste. This is not a legacy we should leave future generations of Malaysians. It would be morally wrong to embark on nuclear energy and subject them to nuclear dangers, when climate mitigation can be achieved through developing energy efficiency technologies and harnessing renewable energy.


Energy efficiency and renewable energy
Malaysia would do well to emulate Denmark, where a range of new technologies have made energy efficiency and the use of renewable energy feasible. Denmark, which derives most of its renewable energy from burning biomass, including biodegradable waste, aims to increase the proportion of renewable energy to 20 per cent in 2011 and to 30 per cent in 2020. It also derives a fifth of its electricity from its five thousand wind turbines, another renewable energy source.

Denmark has taken on the greatest share of the burden of achieving the total emissions target for the European Union under the Kyoto Protocol. Its energy policy focuses on research, energy saving, and decreasing dependence on fossil fuels. As early as 1990, Denmark set concrete targets, aiming to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 8% between 2008 and 2012.

Denmark serves as an example of how a country can secure a high level of growth, without a corresponding increase in energy consumption or greenhouse gas emissions. Although Denmark does not have any hydroelectric power or nuclear power, it tops the world in having the most energy-efficient and climate-friendly economy.

Denmark has achieved this by having a strong political focus on energy policy. A large part of its success in the field of renewable energy and sustainable energy technologies is based on a unique cooperative relationship between researchers, businessmen and politicians. Danish industry also has a long tradition of embedding the principle of sustainability into the development of its products.

Denmark’s focus on climate, which has impelled traditional industrial companies towards sustainable technology, is virtually a national endeavour. The best example of this is probably the development of wind turbines from pioneer projects, located in small machine shops, into a billion-dollar international industry. Wind turbines represent one of the most realistic possibilities for a renewable alternative to fossil fuels.

Both the Danish government and business sectors have shown a strong commitment to saving energy, as well as developing and implementing energy-efficient measures, such as insulating houses. The rules for new buildings promote energy efficient construction. By 2020, regulations for energy consumption in new buildings will be tightened by a further seventy-five per cent. The Malaysian government should encourage and reward architects who design energy efficient houses and buildings which are well ventilated and require little or no cooling.

Other energy-saving initiatives in Denmark range from carbon dioxide-neutral fuels in public transport to intelligent electricity meters, which give consumers greater control over electricity bills. Denmark has designed an electricity supply system that is capable of competitively handling wind turbines, which periodically swing from supplying more than 100 percent of energy requirements to no energy at other times. In 2009, Denmark has emerged as a dynamic, working laboratory, which combines new energy technologies with old fashioned common sense in its relationship with the environment. Malaysia should emulate Denmark’s dynamic and innovative approach in mitigating global warming.

A Nuclear-free Malaysia
So, how do we remain a nuclear-free Malaysia? I have singled out Denmark, not only for its vigour and commitment to the environmental cause, but also for its ethos of social solidarity, transparency, accountability and common purpose. Denmark could be a beacon of light for Malaysia which is on the verge of making a momentous decision on energy. The wrong decision could have the most serious consequences. Nuclear technology is not to be trifled with. It’s not as inconsequential as purchasing a submarine that the country does not need. The worst it could do is to sink.

This conference was organised in order to inform public opinion and clarify the many serious issues associated with nuclear energy, so that decision-makers will learn about the realities of nuclear energy, understand that carbon emissions can be reduced significantly without resorting to nuclear energy, and discover that nuclear energy does not deserve to be considered as the last option in the country’s energy supply mix.

Deliberative, participatory democracy and public involvement in decision-making are not robust concepts or practices in Malaysia, ruled for more than fifty years by the same authoritarian government, which has not only not nurtured public debate, but also punished dissent.

My concept of decision-making and decision-makers will not coincide with the government’s concept. Who are the decision-makers? Are they the politicians the electorate elects to office? Or are they the voters who vote the politicians in?

In many ways, the question of nuclear energy defines the relationship between the government and civil society. In many countries, nuclear energy would be an issue of great national importance, that would merit wide consultation, free discussion and open debate at all levels of society. The time is late, but it is not too late for Malaysians to claim back their country from those who would usurp their right to choose. The issue of nuclear energy must be above partisan politics and business interests. It must not be turned into a money-spinner for some politically-connected company or a career-builder for those connected to the nuclear industry.

If the people of Malaysia seriously want a nuclear-free Malaysia, then they must be prepared to clearly voice their views and stand by their convictions. The stakes are extremely high, particularly for future generations.

The prime minister has recently talked about “engaging” with the people. This has not happened, certainly not with regard to nuclear energy. It is not good enough to hold predetermined seminars and meetings among pro-nuclear groups with vested interests, including analysts, industrialists, and business people, or superficial interviews broadcast on television or published in newspapers.

I hope this conference will succeed in ringing alarm bells and making it clear that nuclear energy is not the answer to climate change or energy supply security. It would be foolish to try to resolve one problem by replacing it with another problem. .

Let us also not gloss over the huge economic cost of nuclear energy, which is difficult to determine. The nuclear industry does not follow transparent methods of accounting. Costs, such as accident insurance, waste disposal and decommissioning, are often buried in opaque government subsidies or conjured into debt legacies for future generations. Cost is rightly a problem with any public project, but the high cost of building a nuclear reactor would not become a key issue, if nuclear energy were the only option for mitigating climate change and addressing energy security. But it is not the only option.

Instead of a huge investment in nuclear power, it would be more productive for Malaysia to commit its limited resources to research and development of renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies. As recent as 29 May 2009, two financial reports in the Business Section of the New York Times highlighted the incredible economics of building a nuclear power plant. The reports revealed two fiascos: the construction of a new reactor in Olkiluoto, Finland, by the French company, Areva, and the virtual collapse of the once touted global flagship, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited. Both companies were overtaken by cost overruns amounting to billions of dollars and by long delays in completing construction schedules, extending into decades, not years.

This bodes ill for the nuclear industry, whether in France, Canada or South Korea, which is rumoured to be the country favoured by the government and TNB to build a reactor. After more than 50 years in business, the nuclear industry cannot get private funding or liability insurance, cannot deal with its radioactive waste, and now cannot demonstrate its ability to build new reactors within a contractual time-frame and budget.

The energy path to a sustainable future lies elsewhere. First, we must harness the massive potential of solar radiation, bioenergy, hydropower, wind energy, wave power, tidal
energy and geothermal energy, by investing in and advancing research and development in renewable energy.

Second, we must develop policies and technologies in energy efficiency, such as reducing energy use in buildings, increasing automobile efficiencies, expanding mass public transport, designing compact communities, and creating practices of industrial ecology that recycle materials and energy.

Third, we must redefine development in terms of human well-being and sustainable living patterns, not unfettered consumption and economic growth.

Malaysia must reject nuclear energy and not be deceived by trends in other countries. Nuclear energy will subject future generations to the grievous dangers of nuclear devastation and radioactivity that will last for thousands of years. This is tantamount to unintentional genocide on a grand scale in slow motion. Malaysia must not take such a path. It would be immoral and unethical to leave future generations with such a legacy.

________________________________________________________________________
Dato' Dr RS McCoy is past president of the MMA, past co-president of the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW) for more than 10 years, and is currently founding president of the Physicians for Peace and Social Responsility (PPSR), soon to be renamed Physicians for Social Responsibility of Malaysia.

Paper presented at PPSR/CETDEM Conference on Nuclear Energy: Does Malaysia Need Nuclear Energy? 10 October 2009

Unemployed graduates: Who prospers? — Dr Lim Teck Ghee

Unemployed graduates: Who prospers? — Dr Lim Teck Ghee

Malaysian Insider, OCT 29 — Datuk Seri Najib Razak’s 2010 Budget is called “1 Malaysia, Together we prosper”. Before the advent of the Prime Minister’s multi-million ringgit public relations sloganeering, his predecessor Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi had already introduced the “Prosper” theme.

Abdullah in his Oct 30, 2005 budget speech announced “Prosper” or Projek Pembangunan Usahawan dalam Bidang Peruncitan to assist graduates venturing into business. Under Prosper, Perbadanan Usahawan Nasional Berhad (PUNB) would finance 200 graduates up to RM50,000 each; that easily amounts to RM10 million.

Prosper is an ongoing programme and this year, its attachment training will allow participants to intern in PUNB investee companies. The cost of ensuring this prosperity is, however, not open to public knowledge.

Nonetheless, the RM10 million allocated in Abdullah’s 2006 Budget is clearly a drop in the ocean compared to the RM700 million set aside in Najib’s March 10, 2009 mini budget. The latter’s stimulus package planned to create 163,000 training and job placement opportunities for retrenched workers and unemployed graduates.

Of this number, 50,000 will be absorbed into the civil service, adding to its already obese size and bloated payroll. It is important to note that under the RM191.5 billion 1 Malaysia Budget, 72.2 per cent is for operating expenditure, out of which RM42.2 billion is for emoluments. Furthermore next month, a “special financial contribution” (announced earlier) in the form of a year-end bonus totalling RM400 million will be paid to public sector employees from Grade 41 to Grade 54.

Khazanah — “treasuring” human capital
It is true that other parts of the world are similarly facing the problem of workers getting laid off and school leavers unable to find jobs due to the depressed global economy.
However the numbers in Malaysia are simply staggering. Based on estimates, about 60,000 graduates might find it difficult to seek employment at all times, said Najib when launching the Graduate Employability Management Scheme (GEMS) on March 13, 2009.

Unemployed graduates
Year                Numbers affected
2001-2002     10,000 (incl. diploma holders)
2008-2009     163,000 (incl. retrenched workers)

GEMS is run by Khazanah Nasional Berhad under the aegis of the Finance Ministry. The precursor to GEMS is the Graduate Employability Enhancement (GREEN) programme, also tasked to Khazanah in co-operation with GLCs.

We can safely assume that a proportion of these targeted graduates have not been able to find work in the fields in which they hold the requisite paper qualification. Meanwhile the government continues to fail to address the longstanding lack of relevance of the courses taught in the public universities and the low standards of graduates produced.

Instead of getting it right from the get-go through structural reform of the higher education system (and better still the entire schooling system), our authorities are attempting to fix the shortcomings of graduates who flounder in the competitive marketplace by pouring money to correct their mis-education.

It is all the more worrying when Khazanah’s director of strategic human capital management Azman Mohd Hussein reveals that the unemployed graduates have to be given remedial and practical training for a whole year to improve their communication skills and increase their level of confidence.
And similar to the “Prosper” scenario, the public is not cognizant of Khazanah’s expenditure breakdown either.

Hitting rock bottom soon?
Something’s very wrong when the situation goes keeps getting from bad to worse with no light at the end of the tunnel.

Retraining for graduates and youth
Year                 Programme                             Estimated cost (RM)
2001                Graduate Training Scheme        150 million
2004-2005      Graduate Training Scheme         265.2 million
2006               Khazanah – GREEN                   unknown
2008               Najib stimulus package #1          600 million
2009               Najib stimulus package #2          700 million
2009               Khazanah – GEMS                      unknown
* The outline table above is incomplete as information is unavailable in  the public domain.

As early as Sept 25, 2001, Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad, speaking from the Prime Minister’s Office, had unveiled an economic stimulus package which earmarked RM150 million for 10,000 degree and diploma holders. This allowed them to learn IT, brush up on Mathematics and English, in addition to providing RM500 monthly allowances on a temporary basis until end-2002.

“Temporary” appears to have been a misplaced optimism because the chronic problem has persisted for nearly a decade now. Between January 2004 and June 2005 alone, the government’s human resources development fund paid out RM265.2 million in training grants to individuals.

From November 2001 until mid-2006, the Graduate Training Scheme had retrained almost 22,000 unemployed graduates, then Human Resources Minister Fong Chan Onn disclosed in his paper “Developing human capital” delivered on Aug 21, 2006.

Nonetheless, on Dec 27, 2007 in a paper presented by the government-sponsored Institut Kefahaman Islam Malaysia, Ikim quoted a comment from the Human Resources Minister on the inadequate success rate of the retraining.

Ikim research officer Nor Hartini Saari said “roughly RM500 million” had been expended in retraining. “However, according to the minister, only 1,400 graduates have been employed after participating in the aforementioned training scheme.”

Two years down the road on Oct 20, 2009, Higher Education Minister Mohd Khaled Nordin still talked about RM48 million spent in university partnerships with corporations “in strategic sectors that could improve innovation-based industries and guarantee graduates of job opportunities”.

Unless our public coffers are replenished by King Midas, the government may soon go broke from the “guarantees”.

It is just not sustainable to have the next generation depend on the nanny state even after they have been provided with ample tertiary education opportunities, with generous financial assistance and babysitting after graduation, and eventually bailouts every step of the way.

Raiding the public treasury
Various ministries and entrepreneurial agencies have set up their own graduate retraining programme and this makes the tracking of fiscal allocations difficult.

For example, the RM7 billion stimulus package revealed by Najib on Nov 4, 2008 allocated RM300 million for a skills training programme fund (with focus on tourism and “business process outsourcing sectors” among others); RM200 million for programmes by private training institutions and RM100 million for youth programmes at various levels — we see here three intersecting areas.

Then there is “another RM70 million to facilitate employment of retrenched employees and graduates seeking jobs,” a special allocation approved by Cabinet as announced by Human Resources Minister S. Subramaniam on Jan 21, 2009 in Putrajaya.

The aforementioned RM70 million could well be a tranche from the RM600 million infusion for skills training under Najib’s RM7 billion package a year ago. Or then again, maybe not ... who knows. In any case, the RM600 million was augmented by another whopping RM700 million barely four months later under Najib’s second stimulus package.

When so many quarters are involved in the overlapping effort between government agencies, GLCs, and the private sector, only the “special committees” established to manage the funds know the full details.

Even the Auditor-General’s office probably does not have the complete picture of how much money is being poured into remedying incompetence in the public universities. And what the results have been. If it does, it would be very important for the public accounts committee to put this information out in the public domain.

It may be argued that the fact that these public funds seem to be going towards so many “facilitators” and “consultancy” companies shows a primarily liberal and laissez-faire approach used by the government to tackle the problem.

Also of some relief is that no monopoly seems to have appeared in cornering the market.
The crush of agencies, ministries and private agents seeking participation in this fast-growing industry of “enhancing graduate employability” should reassure us that there are droves of Malaysians who are driven by patriotism to help our hapless graduates. The unkind amongst us may suspect that making a quick buck — or rather making buckets of bucks — is more the real motivation.

No solution in sight
Considering that many of our young adults are no surer of securing jobs after graduation today than they were in 2001 and three prime ministers ago, the public and the current undergraduate population have a right to demand a full accounting of the huge sums of taxpayers’ money spent.

We also need to know the outcome of independent impact studies that can provide empirical data on how effective or ineffective this massive injection of public funds has been.

In the current parliamentary debate taking place on the “1 Malaysia, Together we prosper” Budget, there needs to be an explanation on where the total RM1.3 billion appropriated over the mere span of the recent year for training and retraining purposes went to. And who has prospered from the money. — Centre for Policy Initiatives

Ku Li: Malaysia-The challenge of the present

Malaysia: The challenge of the present — Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah

Malaysian Insider, OCT 9 — I wish to thank the Perak Academy for giving me this privilege to address you at a time when the State of Perak is at its defining moment to claim its right to constitutional democracy. Malaysians who are committed to making constitutional democracy an indivisible part of our political culture are watching your unfinished journey.

The Perak constitutional crisis tells us that democracy is not a ready-made formula or a predestined political system which will fall automatically out of a written constitution. It must be written in the hearts of citizens, promoted by their understanding of it, and safeguarded by their commitment to defend it. That is the forewarning provided by the Perak constitutional crisis. Our challenge is now the future of democracy in Malaysia.

Over the last decades we have seen a decline in public morality and democratic values. We have been sleepwalking through a general economic prosperity while our public and democratic values have declined. We have let the crass pursuit of the symbols of development blind us to real losses in the institutional foundations of our country.

Ethnic interest, corruption and money as a means of maintaining power make a very dangerous mix. This combination poses a threat more dangerous than any other form of subversion to our nation's cohesion.

Recent history, from Bosnia to Sri Lanka, are examples of what can happen if we politicise ethnicity above national cohesion. The more each ethnic group tries to maximise its own benefit, the wider we are separated, the greater is the tension. The question we all need to seriously ask as we contemplate the future of democracy in our country is whether there can be a future for democracy if we maintain the politicisation of ethnicity as we have done in the past.

This is not to say that as a result of our history and of colonial political economy, that we do not have serious imbalances in our economy that can cause ethnic tension. The economic division along ethnic lines, the income gaps, the lack of confidence in entrepreneurship, and an unequal sense of well-being and empowerment are partial consequences of our political and economic history. However, these problems, perceived or factual, cannot be solved by applying policies in a way that further ethnicises our political economy. I believe the causes and consequences of these economic imbalances must be addressed and legislation can and should be introduced to eliminate unfair trade practices without politicising ethnicity.

Trade with buyers and suppliers from around the world on Alibaba.com!

In 1971, when democracy was restored, there was an earnest search for a new political economy initiated by the then political leadership. This effort was encapsulated in the 2nd Malaysia Plan:
“National unity is the over-riding objective of the country. A stage has been reached in the nation's economic and social development where greater emphasis must be placed on social integration and more equitable distribution of income and opportunities for national unity.”

It went on to state: “The quest for national identity and unity is common to many countries, especially new and developing countries. This search for national identity and unity involves the whole range of economic, social and political activities, the formulation of educational policies designed to encourage common values and loyalties among all communities and in all regions; the cultivation of a sense of dedication to the nation through services of all kinds, the careful development of a national language and literature, of arts and music, the emergence of truly national symbols and institutions based on culture and tradition of society.”

The basic point is emphasised in the Rukun Negara: “... from these diverse elements of our population, we are dedicated to the achievement of a united nation in which loyalty and dedication to the nation shall over-ride all other loyalties.”

We were inspired by the conviction that out of our diversity we would have the flowering of the Malaysian genius.

The same political parties but a different leadership were in power then. Those that succeeded them, for whatever reasons, appear to have lost sight of this pledge to the peoples of Malaysia. Meaningful debate in political parties, Parliament, and the media shrank while the moral authority of the democratic process declined.

We saw reversals to democracy such as the widening of the Official Secrets Act and the Printing and Publications Act. The public values that underpin the rule of law were replaced by authoritarian rule by law. Democratic means of challenging this legislation were closed off as we began to lose the separation of powers, and we lost the freedom of the press envisaged in Article 10 of the Constitution. A free press and an independent judiciary are necessary elements of a healthy democracy. Power over the party, Parliament, the judiciary, the civil service, the financial institutions and the media became concentrated in the hands of the Prime Minister.

We must be worried that a generation after these words were spoken in Parliament we have not put a stop to the politicisation of ethnicity. It is now an institutionalised part of our political culture, and there are those who think, contrary to the spirit of the Rukun Negara, that it should be permanent. We shall never attain true cohesion, our constitutional democracy shall not attain its full flower, and will continue to fail to attain our economic potential, so long as we cling to an ethnicised politics.

We need a new politics. We must stop the politicisation of ethnic differences that makes us forget our shared past, present and future. We need national unity based on a new politics. I do not mean unity under the dominance of one party or subservience to any group class or caste, but unity that each Malaysian can stand up and own, promote and defend. Our unity must be based on a national ethos strong and open enough to support unity and genuine democratic process. This can only be based on universal principles.

I am not proposing anything new. We need a rebirth of the ideals of the Rukun Negara. However at this stage in our history the very thing that stands in the way of that rebirth is our system of political parties. It is clear that our entire system of political parties has had its day. Weak and tainted leadership on all sides is but a symptom of a system-wide failure. The parties have become increasingly irrelevant to our young and vibrant population. Much as some of us would just like to forget about these tired parties and carry on with our lives, however, we cannot leave them to their own devices. We are in our present troubles because of a failure of our parties, and reform must begin with those parties.

Constitutional democracy relies on a healthy system of political parties alongside independent courts and free newspapers. We cannot build an advanced economy and a prosperous society on a swamp of morally and intellectually bankrupt political parties.

Our political parties will not reform of their own accord. The people must demand it. In the spirit of the Rukun Negara, we need a movement embraced by people at all levels and from every quarter of our rakyat, to establish a national consensus on how our political parties should conduct themselves from now on. That consensus should include the following:

1. All political parties are required to include in their constitutional objectives the equality of citizenship as provided for in the Federal Constitution.

2. An economic and political policy that political parties propagate must not discriminate against any citizen.

3. All parties shall include and uphold constitutional democracy and the separation of powers as a fundamental principle.

4. It shall be the duty of all political parties to adhere to the objectives of public service and refrain from involvement in business, and ensure the separation of business from political parties.

5. It shall be the duty of all political parties to ensure and respect the independence of the judiciary and the judicial process.

6. All parties shall ensure that the party election system will adhere to the highest standards of conduct, and also ensure that the elections are free of corrupt practices. Legislation should be considered to provide funding of political parties.

7. It shall be the duty of all parties to ensure that all political dialogues and statements will not create racial or religious animosity.

8. All parties undertake not to use racial and communal agitation as political policies.

9. To remove and eradicate all barriers that hinder national unity and Malaysian identity.

10. To uphold the federal and state constitutions and their democratic intent and spirit, the rule of law, and the fundamental liberties as enshrined in Part II of the Malaysian Constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah delivered this speech at the Perak Academy in Ipoh last Friday.

US will still be No. 1

Why the US will still be No.1

by Tommy Koh, former Singapore's UN ambassador
Malaysian Insider, Wednesday October 07 2009

OCT 7 — On Nov 9 1989, the world watched the fall of the Berlin Wall with amazement. The fall of the wall led, in turn, to the re-unification of Germany, the disintegration of the Soviet Union, and the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact. After half a century, the Cold War had come to an end, and the bipolar world, with the United States and the Soviet Union as the two superpowers, was replaced by a unipolar world, with the US as the hegemon.

The unipolar world, however, was short-lived and has given way to a multipolar one with the US, Europe, Japan, China, India, Russia and Brazil as the major powers.

Until recently, no one doubted that the US was the world's sole superpower and the unquestioned leader of the world. A series of reverses and self-inflicted wounds have, however, caused thoughtful individuals, in Asia and elsewhere, to ask whether the US is a declining power. At a recent meeting in Japan, a respected Japanese public intellectual asked whether we were witnessing the end of Pax America and the beginning of Pax Sinica.

I would argue that such scepticism about the US is mistaken. In my view, the US will remain No. 1 in 2039, 30 years from now. My optimism is based upon the following reasons.

First, I believe that the US economy will bounce back from the current downturn and remain the most vibrant and competitive economy in the world in 2039.

The US economy was on the brink of disaster last year. Decisive action by two consecutive administrations as well as Congress saved the economy from collapse. It is in the American tradition to face up to problems, accept the painful medicine of reform and bounce back.

The US was prepared to allow two American icons, Lehman Brothers and General Motors, to fail. Post-crisis, I expect that Wall Street will be better regulated, that Detroit will produce more energy-efficient and environmentally friendly automobiles, that the US will become a world leader in clean and renewable energy technology and businesses, and the American people will spend less and save more.

Economic competitiveness in the 21st century will be increasingly driven by innovation, creativity, design, marketing, information technology and talent. These are areas in which the US excels. It is likely to continue to do so in 2039.

Second, the top American universities and research institutions are among the best in the world. They serve as magnets for some of the world's most talented students. This will likely remain so in 2039 and America will continue to benefit from a brain transfusion from the world to its top universities.

In the global war for talent, there is no country in the world that can compete with America. It has an unmatched ability to attract, retain and assimilate foreign talent. For example, over half of the tenured professors at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology are foreign-born.

American universities are the best endowed and resourced in the world, with outstanding faculty and students and a culture of learning that balances freedom and discipline, encourages risk-taking and is tolerant of failure.

Competition between nations in the 21st century will depend more on brainpower and less on material factors of production. America will continue to win the global war for talent.

Third, America has the world's most attractive soft power. The young of the world listen to American music, watch American movies, wear American fashion and enjoy American food. The founders of Microsoft, Apple, YouTube and Twitter are all Americans. At a deeper level, there is great admiration for American ideals and values. The three American values that resonate most with Asians are equality, meritocracy and opportunity.

The election of Barack Obama, as the 44th president of the United States, has done more to restore the world's faith in American values and ideals than any amount of public diplomacy could have. His eloquence, his humble tone and inclusive attitude, his appeal to the Islamic ummah and his willingness to adopt fresh diplomatic approaches to seemingly intractable problems, have greatly strengthened the appeal of American soft power.

Fourth, America's hard power or military power is unmatched. Its defence budget is the largest in the world. Its military technology — on land, at sea, in the air, in space and in cyberspace — is probably a generation ahead of its nearest rivals. America continues to lead the world in research and development, and in revolution in military affairs. I expect the US will remain the world's No. 1 military power in 2039.

A country's total power can be either greater or less than the sum of its parts. In the case of the US, I would argue that it is greater than the sum of its parts. Why? Because the US, as a country, is blessed with the “X” factor.

It has an allure that adds to the sum of its military, economic, intellectual, diplomatic and cultural power. It has a youthful, optimistic and joyful attitude towards life that inspires admiration. For all these reasons — and in spite of its present travails and challenges — I believe that the sun is not setting on America. — The Straits Times

Falling Standards, Malaysia’s Debilitating Competitiveness…

Falling Standards, Malaysia’s Debilitating Competitiveness…

Oxford University’s Said Business School recent survey of Global Broadband Quality has dealt yet another blow to Malaysia’s fledgling pursuits to be a world-beater come of age.

While Malaysia aspires to and continues to talk about our cyberspace prowess and ICT leadership, this does not appear to have been translated into reality. 

Indeed, despite loud proclamations about our multimedia super corridors and our multi-billion ringgit initiatives at creating more content and first world infrastructure for web-based applications to bring us smack into the ICT-enabled global stage, Malaysia has done far worse than expected, emerging 48th out of 66 countries surveyed.

And to think that we jumpstarted our ICT ingress as far back as in 1996, when the world’s internet age was just being born… What happened in between now appears inconsequential. We appear not to have advanced as much as we could have done. If only we had had that little extra edge, that little more drive, perhaps a greater determination to excel and to exceed!

Except that most of us are oblivious as to where we truly stand. We appear to have been locked within a time capsule of our own self-congratulatory image that everything is hunky-dory and well, acceptably 'perfect'! 

We seem to think that we just need to dream, to start something and all would have been well. But we appear to have forgotten to work towards real gains… We just marked time, or so it seems!

We appear to have taken small baby steps of tokenism as if these would be sufficient in this dog-eat-dog competitive world. Clearly, this is not enough!

Instead, the harsh reality is one of decrepit decay, which many of us are beginning to suspect and dread with some blush, some despair even. Where have we gone wrong? Why is this happening? Aren't we Malaysians supposed to be world-beaters who 'can' or "Boleh"? 

Well, apparently this has now been glaringly exposed when more independent surveys show us for what we are, warts and all. We should not kid ourselves any longer. We often pride ourselves far and above the underdeveloped basket cases of failed nations—we brandish a façade of a somewhat confident middle income Asian tiger, well on our way to a fully developed status. Wawasan 2020 and all that! But, as a young child would ask, “are we there yet?”

This broadband ‘laggedness’ exposes and demolishes the much vaunted efficiency and productivity beliefs that are so ingrained in our parochial psyche, especially those within the establishment. 

Importantly, it sadly reflects the common practices and administration of our bloated and often reality-disconnected civil service, right up to our senior managers, directors and policy makers.

So much so that the administration’s own self-importance and its narrowly circumscribed remits allow policy makers and shapers, the warm glow of self-satisfied feel-good complacency—well-meaning, but sadly uninsightful and cocooned in a mediocre mindset...

While it cannot be denied that we have had some excellent and highly-capable administrators, there are probably many others who do not come up to scratch. Worse, many of the better officers are weighed down by inept and underachieving subordinates whose levels of competence are sadly, just not good enough! Perhaps there have been other considerations, other administrative or political wastage and leakages…

This broadband quality survey should be seen in the context with other similar surveys, which had earlier put our tertiary educational facilities and universities right through the middling rungs of world academia, where we seemed to have slid further down the slope of prestige and standards. 

Time and again, we have with disbelief and child-like tantrums, scrambled for some vindication, some rationale as to why we have faired so passably below par!

But wait, the bad news is not over yet. The most recently released (UN Development Programme) Human Development Report 2008 has ambiguously placed us as the 66^th nation in livability, out of 182 nations. We are informed that we did third best within ASEAN after Singapore (23^th) and Brunei (30^th). Other Asian countries ranked as having “very high human development” are Hong Kong, Japan, South Korea, Kuwait, Qatar and the UAE.

Malaysia is ranked as a “high human development” nation, lumped together with other nations such as Romania, Costa Rica, Mexico, Cuba, Hungary, Bahrain, Russia, Saudi Arabia and Lebanon. This dubious rank is 3 rungs down from last year’s 2007 report, when we were in 63^rd position—yet another drop from our middling position—not much to crow or gloat about.

Malaysia’s life expectancy was estimated at 74.1 years, compared with Japan’s 82.7 years. Our literacy rate was 91.2%, compared with Indonesia’s 92%, and Georgia at 100%. Our GDP per capita was US$13,518 (RM46,495), comparable to Botswana’s US$13,604 but way below the highest, i.e. Liechtenstein’s US$85,382. Singapore’s life expectancy was estimated at 80.2 years, its literacy rate was 94.4 per cent and GDP per capita was US$49,704.

But such modest rankings of indices and so-so perceptions from outside bodies and authorities are not benign. They hurt. Because, they form the bases from which ultimate decision makers rely on, to decide who they can trust to work with, which nation to invest in, or where to usefully establish more productive enterprises with the best returns and with the best potential for reciprocal interchangeable benefits, i.e. win-win experiences for all parties.

Malaysia is sadly but surely losing that competitive edge. We may already have lost all that attractive package, which has endeared the world to our carefully constructed cultural diversity, our ‘veneered’ unity, our possibly skin-deep charm even.

Sadly, once again we have to rework our image, dented as it continues to be by our own lackadaisical approach to nation building. Like encrusted barnacles on a sunken Titanic, we have allowed entrenched racism, partisan politics and lacklustre administration to corrode the very foundations of our beloved nation.

We have allowed corrupt practices, patronage rent-seeking politically-connected business practices, slanted laws, misguided policing and expedient judiciary, to fester like termites gnawing and eating into the very innards of our society and nation, so much so that we have become emaciated from within, with less and less ‘glow’ to show for it!

We have inadvertently suppressed our better instincts, our collective innovativeness, by imposing artificial armour-glass ceilings. We have allowed our homegrown talents, our creative ideas to fritter, indeed to fly away, despite our occasional head-start—we just could not sustain our momentum of excellence. We have acknowledged that we seem to possess third world mentality when it comes to maintenance or even achievement!

We allow petty insular considerations to cloud our preference for the best, accepting in its stead, pedestrian or second-rate choices which ultimately lead to less than stellar outcomes, sacrificing excellence at the altar of timorous ethnocentric prejudice.

We chauvinistically accept the fallacy of the Peter Principle where we continue to promote poorer less-qualified candidates to all levels of management and administration, which clearly showcase their ceiling-limited capacity and thus their truncated heights of self-actualisation and personal achievement.

Shortsighted venal interests and political expediencies seem to soar way above all other interests! It is said that Malaysians now place “race, religion and nation” in that sad order of importance.

It is time to recognize that these entrenched outlooks are not simply protecting our narrowly circumscribed political turf (UMNO/BN), our ethnic supremacy (Malays), or our arrogant supercilious pride (Chinese).

We cannot simply latch on to craftily reworded jingoistic unity of purpose, “1 Malaysia” notwithstanding. We have to learn to live it and truly accept one another: all our strengths and weaknesses, and harness our collective wisdom and vigor. Mere tolerance and token lip service is no longer enough.

Our debilitating conflict-ridden core values must be seen for what they really are; they must be laid to rest as mindfully as we can. They are certainly not benign and have now come home to roost. Our divided nationhood is as glaringly disruptive as it continues to cast its ominous fractured shadows.

Sustained ineptness and unlearned mistakes will be punished more and more with our globally connected world. Our ICT-empowered and enlightened global audience, including our more and more vocal and freshly enfranchised citizens, will ensure that this will no longer be acceptable or tolerated. There may be no second chance!

Wake up Malaysians, before we languish further and fall into the ranks of failed nations! 

Also Published in malaysiakini (7 Oct 2009) as "No second chance as standards fall."

Oxford Global Broadband Quality Study shows Malaysia Lagging far behind leaders--48th place!

Oxford Global Broadband Quality Study Shows Progress, Highlights Broadband Quality Gap

While Malaysia aspires to and continues to talk about our cyberspace prowess and leadership, this does not appear to have been translated into reality. 

Indeed despite loud proclamations about our multimedia super corridors and our initiatives at creating more content and first-world infrastructure for web-based applications to bring us smack into the ICT-enabled global stage, Malaysia has done far worse than expected.

This broadband laggedness exposes and fritters away the much vaunted efficiency and productivity beliefs that are so ingrained in our parochial psyche, especially those within the establishment.

This must now be compared with the other surveys which put our universities right through the mediocre rungs of world academia, where we seemed to have slid further down the slope of prestige and standards.

Wake up Malaysians, before we truly become another basket case of failed nations!

 

 

 

 

 

Full paper on Oxford Broadband Quality Survey

CRANKY OLD MAN: a poem left behind...

CRANKY OLD MAN


When an old man died in the geriatric ward of a nursing home in country NSW, it was believed that he had nothing left of any value.

Later, when the nurses were going through his meagre possessions, They found this poem. Its quality and content so impressed the staff that copies were made and distributed to every nurse in the hospital.

One nurse took her copy to Melbourne. The old man's sole bequest to posterity has since appeared in the Christmas editions of magazines around the country and appearing in mags for Mental Health. A slide presentation has also been made based on his simple, but eloquent, poem.

And this old man, with nothing left to give to the world, is now the author of this 'anonymous' poem winging across the Internet.


Cranky Old Man
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

What do you see, nurses? . . . . .
  What do you see?
What are you thinking .. . . . . 
  when you're looking at me?
A cranky old man, . . . . . .
  not very wise,
Uncertain of habit .... . . . . . . . 
  with faraway eyes?

Who dribbles his food .. . .. . . . . 
  and makes no reply.
When you say in a loud voice . . . . .. 
  'I do wish you'd try!'
Who seems not to notice . . . . .
  the things that you do.
And forever is losing . . . . . . . . . . 
  A sock or shoe?

Who, resisting or not .. . . . . . . . . . . 
  lets you do as you will,
With bathing and feeding . . . . . .
  The long day to fill?
Is that what you're thinking? . . . . . . 
  Is that what you see?
Then open your eyes, nurse . . . . . . 
  you're not looking at me.

I'll tell you who I am . . . . . . . 
   As I sit here so still,
As I do at your bidding, . . . . . . 
  as I eat at your will.
I'm a small child of Ten ... . . . . . . 
  with a father and mother,
Brothers and sisters .. . . . . . . . 
  who love one another

A young boy of Sixteen . . . . . 
  with wings on his feet
Dreaming that soon now . . . . .. ..... . 
  a lover he'll meet.
A groom soon at Twenty . . . . ... . . 
  my heart gives a leap.
Remembering, the vows .... . . . . . 
  that I promised to keep.

At Twenty-Five, now . . . . . ... . . . . 
  I have young of my own.
Who need me to guide . . . . 
  And a secure happy home.
A man of Thirty . . . . . . . . .. 
  My young now grown fast,
Bound to each other . . . ... . . . 
  With ties that should last.

At Forty, my young sons .. . . . . 
  have grown and are gone,
But my woman is beside me . . . ... . . . 
  to see I don't mourn.
At Fifty, once more, . . ... . . . ..
  Babies play 'round my knee,
Again, we know children . . . . . . . 
  My loved one and me.

Dark days are upon me . . . . . . ... . 
  My wife is now dead.
I look at the future ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
  I shudder with dread.
For my young are all rearing . . . . . . 
  young of their own.
And I think of the years . . .. . ... . . 
  And the love that I've known.

I'm now an old man . . . . . . . . . 
  and nature is cruel.
It's jest to make old age . . . . . . . 
  look like a fool.
The body, it crumbles .. . . . ... . . . . . 
  grace and vigor, depart.
There is now a stone .. . . . . .. . 
  where I once had a heart.

But inside this old carcass . . . .. 
  A young man still dwells,
And now and again . . . .. . . . 
  my battered heart swells
I remember the joys . .. . . ... . . . . .. . 
  I remember the pain.
And I'm loving and living . . . . .. . . . . . . . . 
  life over again.

I think of the years,

  all too few . . . . . . 
   too fast.
And accept the stark fact . . . . . . . . 
  that nothing can last.
So open your eyes, people . . . . . . . . 
  open and see.
Not a cranky old man . 
Look closer . . . . see . . . . . .... . 
ME!!

IPPNW Response to the US Decision on Missile Defenses in Eastern Europe

IPPNW Response to the US Decision on Missile Defenses in Eastern Europe

President Barack Obama’s decision to cancel US missile defense deployments in the Czech Republic and Poland ends a controversial and wasteful program that never should have been started in the first place. As a remnant of the Reagan-era ballistic missile defense scheme that came to be known as Star Wars, the proposed array of radars and interceptors was technically unsound, had become an obstacle to negotiations on strategic arms reductions with Russia, and was an unfortunate symbol of a domineering attitude in foreign affairs that President Obama had pledged to correct. On all three counts, he has done the right thing.

IPPNW has long opposed the concept of a Star Wars-type missile shield as an inherently flawed technology that would merely provoke the development of larger and more dangerous nuclear arsenals, and as a cynical diversion from good faith diplomatic efforts to rid the world of nuclear weapons. It was President Reagan’s stubborn insistence on pursuing the original Strategic Defense Initiative, in fact, that resulted in the failure of the Reykjavik summit in 1986, after he and President Gorbachev had agreed in principle to eliminate nuclear weapons entirely.

We welcome the immediate positive response from President Medvedev, and see this bold decision as paving the way for the denuclearization of NATO (and, eventually, all of Europe), and for even deeper strategic reductions by the US and Russia than those already proposed for the new START agreement.

---

John Loretz

Program Director

International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War

66-70 Union Square, Suite 204

Somerville, MA 02143

Tel: +617 440 1733

Fax: 617-440-1734

www.ippnw.org

IPPNW Peace and Health Blog:

ippnweupdate.wordpress.com/

International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN)

www.icanw.org

52 years on, and still Mistrust and Communalism reigns...

This year, I greeted Merdeka amidst deep feelings of disquiet and uneasy anguish. It has become a recurrent theme of my melancholy.

31st August has come around again -- Hari Kemerdekaan, Independence Day.

Before I go on, I want to state that I am not politically-affiliated and do not belong to any political party. I consider myself a liberal Malaysian, and have always been advocating a kindlier, more sensible, more cohesive, more efficient and less corrupt Malaysia. I am passionately inclined to supporting a radical yet peaceful change for a better Malaysia.

I begin this way, knowing that in Malaysia these days, everyone is now a potentially vocal commentator with no holds barred to their freedom to express themselves!

Still, I continue to hope that more common sense and reason will prevail. I am an unabashed believer in more constructive if idealistic rational discourse and less rhetoric.

I was born two years before the Malayan liberation, too young to understand the significance of what 'Merdeka' meant. But later, my late father (one who was ever so apolitical) would remind me that it was one of those life-defining moments of epiphany, with the nationwide rousing shouts of pride of "Merdeka, Merdeka, Merdeka!..."

Now 52 years on, this shibboleth appears somewhat hollow, too meaningless, too unfelt. Was it truly freedom to decide our own fate, our own lives, our destinies? Have we really been liberated?

Or has this been replaced with an even more destructive social disintegration, political uncertainty and perhaps a growing sense of hopelessness? I wonder.

But as Malaysians, we seem to have forgotten that we did have some success, as many people around the world would gladly attest. We were among the better, more stable newly independent states, which had progressed with a decent clip of development, fairly good administration, a workable semblance of political freedom and democracy. But perhaps only just, as dictated by the reality of the times, then...

I am not sure if our history could have been much different given the circumstances, the ethnic composition, the political awareness, the communal tensions, the talents and the leaders that we have had. But then again, I am not sure if we had learnt anything at all from our unique history.

To be sure, we will all have our own passionate beliefs that our past leaders had led us down the garden path of corrupt destruction and wasted opportunities. As a whole, this would be a true reflection for many of us.

Many have lamented the fact that the mainstream establishment had been guilty of glossing over the splintering jaggedness of our incompatible perhaps ineradicable differences. Deep-seated communal bigotry and irrational ethno-religious bullheadedness continue to jar our carefully crafted Vision 2020, and the more recent if much maligned facade of 1 Malaysia.

Sadly, these tensions just refuse to go away, only to be stoked incessantly by morally-bankrupt politicians...

We clearly could not all have hoped to be taking the singular path of breakaway Singapore in 1965... Like it or not, Singapore's political reality, resource-poor island status, and their ethnic composition then, made it a particular experience at nation building, which perhaps could only have happened once in a rare while, much like the serendipitous bountiful arrows of earth's evolution, and our magnificent diversity, to paraphrase the late paleo-zoologist Professor Stephen Jay Gould.

With our greater numbers and more diverse peoples, it was unlikely that Malaysia would have achieved that identical status that is Singapore today. Yes, it is true that Singapore's economic strides: GDP growth, living standards and appreciating dollar, appear to have left us quite far behind...

Yet again perhaps, (and with due apologies to my Singaporean friends!) many Malaysians would baulk at that idea of becoming another successful if somewhat soulless and straitjacketed nation, across the Causeway -- that "little red dot", bright and lustrous as it sometimes seems...

But, it is good to imagine what might have been, if we had chosen paths of greater ethnic, religious tolerance and acceptance, 'real' unity and accommodation, greater efficiency, lesser corruptibility, less political manipulation and even less seething if undisguised polarisation.

It is increasingly difficult to be jubilant, enthusiastic, yes, even nationalistically proud when we celebrate our National Day, our independence from our long history of colonial past. 52 years now from whence we were cobbled together, in a mishmash political entity called Persekutuan Tanah Melayu and then later in 1963, Malaysia.

From colonial expediencies where the colonial masters commanded all the "divide and rule" puissance, to deviously subdue local inhabitants, e.g. Malays, Ibans, Kadazans; indenture Indians into planting and then tapping the sprawling rubber plantations, and crudely importing chain gangs of Chinese coolies to mine tin and other minerals, we were expected to arrive at a semblance of an amalgamated whole. Perhaps, this was a tall order, too tall to succeed...

Despite more than half a century of this social experiment and so-called nation-building, it appears that socio-ethno-religious fracture lines have never been truly mended, much less fused. Latterly, this frangible social contract seems to have been sundered further apart with vengeance!

Political meekness and tongue-tied obeisance on the part of the secondary parties within Barisan National, were punished by increasingly loud and resurgent anti-establishment voices, which crescendoed in the March 8 electoral gains by oppositionists.

Yet, instead of greater democratic space and hoped for change, this last year and a half, have been fraught with political uncertainties, ridiculously crude and partisan chicanery, and a rising tempo of communal and religious tensions! Every day seems consumed in politicking and more politicking!

There is great social schism in our rakyat, mounting mistrust, and a seemingly unbridgeable chasm of non-accommodation on both sides. Anything espoused by either side is quickly dismissed as inherently self-serving, misleading, wrong, devious or inept.

Oppositionists have been labeled as disloyal crypto-racists, anti-royalty, and even more viciously anti-Malay, which must be furthest from reality. Unfortunately, events of late have made this feeling even more entrenched: selective prosecution/persecution of oppositionist supporters, peace or anti-ISA demonstrators including candle-light vigil participants; Machiavellian takeover of the Perak state government; custodial deaths and torture (with the latest Teoh Beng Hock's 'falling death' from the 14th floor of the MACC building); perceived and blatantly biased actions and arrogance of our much maligned Police force; widespread misgivings on the impartiality of our judiciary, etc.

In short, to many of the growing throngs of anti-establishment Malaysians, the current government cannot be trusted, period. And all its civic institutions appear rotten to the core... There's widespread anger, indeed even rousing hatred which fuels its own vicious cycle of anarchic anomie.

The rise of the blogosphere and alternative media though the world wide web, has opened up and exposed that untameable genie in the bottle, never again to be contained. While, this ungovernable cyberspace has fostered unimaginable information traffic, and unlocked many secrets, exposes, and countless exchanges for the better, there is another sinister side which has emerged.

This unleashed genie of free expression too is fraught with disturbing inexactitudes, irrational bigotry and unrestrained viciousness of its own. Personally declared but intolerant righteousness have been spewed behind the facade of perceived anonymity of the Internet. Can anyone believe anything at all in the web? Certainly not everything, but the dilemma is knowing which is which.

Belligerent ad hominem attacks have become the preferred mode of communication for greater share of internet audiences. From rambling disorganised blogs/commentaries to incoherently twittering 'haikus', rantings and ravings have replaced civic discourse or rational dialogue.

Rumours and innuendoes have been elevated to become unchallengeable "facts", aggravated by the overzealously self-censoring main stream media, whose alienating voices are diminishingly soft and perceptibly untrustworthy...

There appears to be very little patience for compromise, for sensible meeting of minds... How do we build a republic of virtue, if we cannot at least try to work together and are almost always bogged down in the quagmire of seething hatred and mutually destructive distrust?

Although some may disagree with the middle ground of academic Azly Rahman ( in Dream of a Sincere Merdeka), I think he represents that enlightened Malaysian intellectual who espouses more dialogue no matter how trenchant the tone: "We spend too much time politicising everything and less time educating. If all that energy is used to design a better system of participatory democracy and philanthropy, and to reach out to other ethnic groups to collaborate in solving the issue of poverty, we, as Malaysians, will become a miracle nation."

I think many alter Malaysians are now so intoxicated by their own anger, hatred and righteousness that many are no longer listening, except to their own voices and other like-minded echoes they surround themselves with. We are no longer thinking about how some of these seemingly implacable problems can be resolved. We just want to see instant results, provoke instant reactions, we behave as if the politics of the land is a playground for the brave and loud. But, what about how to run, really run a government of our choice, of virtue?

An online editor has confided apologetically that: "many commentators basically rant and rave at any one who seems to be in authority... I do wonder if there is a place for genuine discourse. But I guess we live in a country where quite a lot is broken."

Conversely, pro-government politicians, administrators (police, judiciary, MACC, civil servants) and supporters are now all increasingly tainted with that huge tar brush as corrupt, venial, mercenary, totally reliant on political patronage, rent-seekers, and ineffective, without exception -- which again cannot be all the incontrovertible truth.

But the innocents are increasingly marginalised and are being pushed to smaller and smaller corners of despair, which may explain their entrenched attitudes towards some sort of subliminal retaliation. Anger and hatred breeds both ways, it is often forgotten...

Worse than that, we appear to be spiralling down that abyss of ever more provocative racist and religious extremism: the latest being that unforgivably brutish "cow head" protest against the building of a Hindu temple in Shah Alam. After initial outrage, this unspeakable bigotry seems to have receded into receiving no more than knuckle-rapping warnings and an inexplicable deafening silence from that raft of usually "legalistic" UMNO leaders.

Yet on the other side, can we not see that some Muslims and Malays fueled by politically-motivated siege behaviour, may have been 'engineered' and have banded together to fight back, to loudly proclaim their growing sense of 'loss', their perceived grievances? Never the twain shall meet, it seems...

Thus, can anyone be faulted for this sense of national despair, of hopelessness, of more of the same or worse?

But this disturbing sense of intellectual anarchy in our newfangled 'democratic' space keeps growing--our politics get murkier and murkier, with widespread and humongous allegations of bribery, corruption, counter charges of corruption; whispered vote buying of millions to reported billions of Ringgit of corporate mismanagement; shameless personal enrichment and rent-seeking cronyistic patronage and handouts; counter claims of inept, uncaring constantly politicking oppositionist state governments!

Every action appears to have been challenged by more reactions. We have now accumulated mountain piles of legal challenges and counter-challenges that appear to be the only by-product of our hard-fought democratic space.

Countless police reports, counter-reports, statutory declarations, counter-declarations, whether true or false, pointless point-scoring judicial challenges/reviews, spiralling defamation suits (100 to 500 million Ringgit! Is any Malaysian really worth that much?), accusations and counter-accusations now dot our political landscape and news, almost on a daily basis!

We are effectively stalling and stumbling at the starting block, as impasse spasms continue to paralyse our development and progress...

We trust no one, we blame and censure everyone, we continue to let our unleashed rage, our gut-instinctual righteousness, and our unyielding partisanship create this overpowering dark cloud atmosphere of gridlock and paralysis!

There appears to be no hope, the divide seems unbridgeable, the Malaysian schism further separates... So there appears to be one law for supporters and another for the others. So frustrating, so provocative, so hate-fulfilling...

A beleaguered government sensing their dismal disarray into possible irrelevance, corrals upon itself a "fight or flight" mentality, its back against the wall. It necessarily wants to fight back, and it does so with a vehemence that should surprise no one!

There appears to be no willingness to compromise, this is one fight to the 'death' so to speak! Winner takes all! But is this necessarily so?

Can we find a middle ground? Or is the only other way, a revolutionary disassembling, discharge or destruction of the other? Must this confrontational stance rise and rise to that unthinkable crescendo of social dehiscence, which can only threaten to destroy all of us, everyone of us, self-proclaimed 'true' Malaysian patriots?

We could tone down our justifiable outrage, our unforgiving tantrums, our frenzied rantings, because this would help make our arguments a tad more tolerable, even if less exciting to read. True dialogue rather than talking heatedly over each others' heads would be far more productive.

We must learn to think aloud and listen to ourselves, especially if we wish to impart and share our strongest views about others. Even if we believe that by doing so, we can hopefully help create a small glimmer of hope, to help bring about 'change' for the better.

This is not to say that we are climbing down from our precarious perch of righteousness or moral might. This is also not my 'apologist stance on behalf of the establishment'. It is a genuine call for more common sense, and less rhetoric, less posturing. Our strength of conviction will be that levelheaded perspicacity and moral persuasion that serve as the hallmark of modern democratic action.

Perhaps, I am naive, but I sense and fear the growing demise of our social respect for each other to the point of contempt and constant belittling of one another. Once we start thinking of those who disagree with us as less than human, we are really stepping down the slippery slope of dangerous no return.

We must therefore, learn to avoid these sparks of deadly rhetoric which can precipitate ethnic-religious tragedies such as has been experienced in the not too distant past, in former Yugoslavia and Rwanda.

I know we all think we are contributing to this concept of change which we must begin with each and every one person in Malaysia. I believe this too, passionately, but I too must be aware of the prevailing realities and maintain a step-back patience.

Sometimes, the loudest most strident voice is not necessarily that most listened to; some people would be very quick to switch off immediately, and we would not be listened to at all, except from the already converted. The more serious consequences would be the possible repercussions of retaliatory anger, hatred, vengeance...

We can all help to lessen the tenor and the tempo of recriminations and deep-seated anger and try and temper down the growing ill will that is brewing and boiling over in our blogosphere and possibly also in our civil society!

We stand ready to lose and exclude another huge segment of our society, who are our fellow citizens too, albeit on the other side of the fence. Worse, we may be kindling something more unthinkable, more sinister and terrible! I do hope I am wrong and will be proven so!

Let's help reduce the political tension, while continuing to push our agenda with less animosity but with greater moral suasion!

God help us! Have a thoughtful Merdeka!

This article has been published in The Malaysian Insider, 06 September 2009
Also in Malaysian Mirror, 06 September 2009
Appears as a brief letter in malaysiakini Sinister side of the web, 08.09.09


--------------oooooooo00000000ooooooooo-------------------

Yasmin Ahmad, A Truer Malaysian Patriot...

Saturday 25 July 2009, 11.25pm. Yasmin Ahmad has died. Massive stroke. Brain haemorrhage. Abrupt. Mal apropos. Lethal.

Like many Malaysians, I am shocked and I mourn the untimely loss of filmmaker and creative director, Yasmin Ahmad.

Simply put, I mindfully ask why we are yet again losing so many great people, so young, so needlessly, so unforeseen—illustrious souls claimed too prematurely by the grim reaper, the proverbial 'thief in the night'.

I have never met Yasmin Ahmad. Yet, I feel a kindred spirit with this fellow Johorean, perhaps the quintessential Malaysian filmmaker within my generation.

Like many wishful and wistful Malaysians nowadays, we all continue to yearn for a lost time and era, where our ethnic diversity was our amalgamated strength and our unique sense of pride.

Yasmin, I believe, is a truer Malaysian than most of us dare to profess. She was more daring than most, to flesh out a more creative version of what it means to be a citizen of this blessed land, which we call Malaysia.

She dared to explore the darker expressions of racial bigotry within our society, which of late has been sundering our communities, in staggered if with unchecked certainty. Interracial relations have always been touchy nearly taboo subjects, which many Malaysians are at pains to sweep under the carpet of self-censored political correctness.

Publicly, we are at pains to project in most instances a tightly controlled sensitivity, and tongue-biting reservedness, which borders on impenetrable aloofness, but loudly declared if perfunctory camaraderie. However, over time, these less than robust facades get sandpapered away to expose the superficiality and the unburnished colder emotions—of barely submerged antagonism and crude stereotypic dehumanising racial slurs.

During political rhetoric and partisan outbursts, the uglier face of racism surfaces, latterly more often than not. Unleashed anger, hurt-pride, mob-instinct, explode more readily with utterances of irrational bigotry—which create vortices of vicious cycles of indignant recriminations, of plangent hurtful sectarian bombast...

Yet, in subtle contradistinction to these stereotypes, in many Petronas-funded commercials, Yasmin was able to inject a heady stream of poignancy and comic relief which showcase our unique connectedness, our inexplicable destiny, rather than spotlight our skin-deep dissimilarities. In other short films, she was able to finesse uncommonly discussed issues, considered by many to be too raw or too crude to be aired—“The Funeral” was one case in point.

Yet she was able to evoke bittersweet emotions which knew no racial or religious bounds, but which continues to showcase our human foibles and our oft-forgotten sensibilities, in a comically tender fashion, which warms the heart.

She married a Chinese (Tan Yew Leong), to wit, as if to announce to the world that she believed her destiny was meant to be—a Malaysian who was bold enough to live and practice without the oppressive constricts of social religious mores, racial taboos or unspoken frowns of politically-incorrect dissuasions...

Better than that she dared project those hypersensitive touchstones which help us all to question our irrational if misguided 'monkeys off our backs' which tether our better gentler spirit to our uglier crasser emotionalism. For many of us, this emotional stunting remains that deeply entrenched molten lava of illogical ethnocentric superciliousness, our ingrained if misguided belief in our own ethnic supremacy. "Aren't all of us racist in our own hearts?"

Yet, many of us are schizophrenic when it comes to being labelled Malaysians. While we may all look quite different, Malays, Chinese, Indians, Dusun-Kadazans, Ibans, etc., we have whenever we are in any international forum or discourse, declared our proud Malaysian origins. We sense ourselves as different, yet similar and unique in an inexplicable way, in spoken Manglish, "-lah"-accentuated speech patterns, so ingrained in our acculturated mindset that only a Malaysian can understand.

Like so well illustrated by another iconic Malaysian artist, Lat, our Malaysianness must stand us apart, if only because only we can fully appreciate the colourful nuances, the comical stereotypes which enhances rather than demeans our differences. Our uncouthness, our jagged crudities, our slapstick teeth-sucking, nose-sniffing mannerisms, our oddly juxtaposed spoken words are but cultural pearls which only our Malaysianness can decipher and find chuckling meaning and furtive humour...

Indeed, while we had been colonized serially for centuries, Malaysia had been blessed by her fecund land: first from our sequential abundance of natural resources—from tin and rubber, then palm oil, then crude oil and latterly expanding into small medium industries, led particularly by our insightful foray into the then explosive electronics industry.

But perhaps most importantly of all, I strongly believe that Malaysia benefited singularly from her peoples: our unique blend of multi-ethnicity, so jingoistically announced to the world as "Malaysia, truly Asia." It was this sensitive portrayal of the eclectic Malaysian and his/her interracial tensions that marked the genius in Yasmin Ahmad.

She had variously been branded an ethnic traitor and frequently labelled as controversial, when all she ever did was to dare to expose the fallacies and the down-to-earth idiocies of racial/religious stereotyping and bigotry.

It appears that the Malay heartland was less impressed with Yasmin's talent and derring-do than other non-Malays, who have always embraced her more readily, sensing her passionate understanding and connectedness. Perhaps not wearing her religion on her sleeves, and having married a non-Malay spouse, might have helped shaped her sense of greater ethnic openness and tolerance.

But there was more than met the creative eye of Yasmin Ahmad. I believe Yasmin was a truer patriot, more in deeds and soul-searching honesty than most. She had that extra touch of creativity and sensitivity which transcended ethnic considerations and concentrated on what truly matters, the human spirit and experience, that singular penetrating understanding of interpersonal relationships, in the unique inescapable setting of multiracial Malaysia...

“Sepet” was perhaps Yasmin's best-known work, which won her acclaim and controversial notoriety. A thinly disguised critique of interracial love and emotional relationships heavily tinged with exploits of ethnic bigotry, touched many tender raw spots which were previously considered taboo in Malaysia.

"Sepet" released in 2004, won Malaysian Film Festival Best Film Award (2005), including too several international awards, viz. the Asian Film Award at the Tokyo International Film Festival 2005, the Grand Prix Award at the 2005 Creteil International Women’s Film Festival.

Since her first movie, “Rabun” in 2003, other films followed: “Sepet” (2004), “Gubra” (2006), “Mukhsin” (2006), “Muallaf” (2008) and Talentime (2009).

Such were her magic touches that almost every film made by Yasmin had won some prize or other in the international film scene, marking her as an extraordinary filmmaker whose eye for social analyses had come of age, in an era where serious quality was often trumped for trendiness and kitsch.

In fact her style and talent so captivated Singapore's Prime Minister, that he'd invited Yasmin Ahmad to direct a film for launch at the Youth Olympics in 2010 in Singapore. Alas, this project is now in limbo...

We'd probably lost forever, the opportunity to see yet another work of a genius, of a truly international class film master...

Sleep well, Yasmin. Your films, your influence, your touch, your Malaysianness will yet outlive your short sojourn on earth. May your unswerving efforts and boldness to deconstruct ethnic taboos, religious boundaries and racial bigotry help realise a better, more united Malaysia.

Rest in Peace.

Al-Fatihah.

Shocked, Outraged, Saddened (SOS): Royal Commission of Inquiry Now!!!...

It appears that Malaysians are perennially bombarded by shocks and shock waves, since the epic March 8, 2008 general elections.

One after torrential one, political shenanigans and Machiavellian trickery appear to jolt our sense of justice, equanimity and sense of belonging, of our shaky if aspired to patriotism.

It shatters the already nebulous myth of the jingoistic "1 Malaysia" which continues to belie the unvarnished disarray that consumes our politically-fractured citizens. Sadly, most if not all of these inane happenstances are self-inflicted by unthinking members of an administrative branch run amok, which appear increasingly aloof and out of touch with reality and changing times.

On many occasions too, politicians on either side have been trading body blows of razor-edge brinkmanship, which totters on mutual self-destruction. In its wake, these cheap point-scoring exercises continue to drag some of us, the more rabble-roused citizens deeper into the morasses of futility and despair! No, it's not our fault per se, but it most certainly underscores the pathetic state of justice and sense of fair play in the country.

Political aide, Teoh Beng Hock's untimely and truly unnecessary death has put yet another damper on the institution of justice and law enforcement in the country. This time the hurriedly cobbled together MACC must bear the brunt of this senseless and tragic exercise of unfettered power play and what appears increasingly as blatant one-sided prosecution, perhaps even shameless persecution!

Sadly, the officers in charge appear nonchalantly oblivious that what they have been doing, is anything but impartial or even neutral. Their blinkered attempts to push what must be undisguised probes into so-called complaints of misallocation of funds only of oppositionist lawmakers, surely must be from partisan directives! For fair-minded citizens, there appears not to be any modicum of decency to do the 'right' thing, even if only for show!

Instead, in one fell swoop, officers of the much maligned MACC have destroyed every thinking Malaysian's dream of civility, personal human rights, justice and modern democracy. Their arrogating of power to enforce their duties without regard to natural justice and proper rules of engagement, debases most thinking citizens.

It continues to disabuse us of our fanciful notions that perhaps some semblance of innovation and justice may indeed be the better modus operandi of the new leadership under Prime Minster Najib Razak. If for nothing else, this blatant misuse of the machinery of power, reinforces the need for a more enlightened, a more responsible and accountable system of justice and law. I continue to believe and hope that this new administration can do better and rise above such unnecessary if arrant negative publicity.

It is sad that in the process of trying to enforce the 'law', a young man with so much potential has been so ruthlessly cut down, his life truncated so prematurely, that he had now left behind a bride and his orphan child to be!

This cynical loss of life, so senseless and so unnecessary, points to perhaps another growing culture of arrogance when another's life was dehumanised and cheaply disposed of... Power of authority was all that mattered. This is indeed not something isolated, indeed it is now appearing to be a pattern of ingrained autocracy, unchallenged power among enforcement agencies such as the police and now the MACC, with no foreseeable oversight in place...

Custodial 'torture', unregulated investigation methods, custodial injuries and deaths, now appear to be commonplace, and are occurring with a regularity that showcase our enforcement agencies' callous disregard for human lives and their imperious unconcern for human rights.

When will our helpless, disempowered citizens get justice? When will our Kugan Ananthan, Letchumanan Kathan, Ravindran Alagiry, S Henry, A. Gnanapragasam, and now Teoh Beng Hock, get their justice? When will their true stories be told? When will their loved ones find closure and meaning in such senseless premature loss?

What about the other 1535 custodial deaths that had occurred between 2003 and 2007? Surely these numbers are shockingly high by any standards; they are shameful and unacceptable, and point to a systemic failure of our custodial service, our law enforcement agencies.

Can there be any doubt that these should never have happened, nor must they be allowed to continue? How many more nameless and unnumbered detainees beyond 2007 were there, who have suffered, been injured and who might or might not have perished?

In the 2005 Royal Commission Report for Police Reform, 3 major concerns from the public were identified:

* High incidence of crime and widespread public concern regarding personal safety.
* Public perception of widespread corruption within the police force.
* Extensive and consistent abuse of human rights and non-compliance with prescribed laws.

The report acknowledges that because of the above challenges, there is a growing breakdown of public trust and confidence in the police force. Increasingly the police force is “generally viewed as inefficient, uncaring, unable to prevent or check crime.” Worse, the police is seen to condone widespread “infringements of human rights... and the PDRM is not seen as being transparent or accountable to the public.”

In the light of these weaknesses, a resounding recommendation was made that an Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commission (IPCMC) be set up urgently. This is the proposed external oversight body to be established through an Act of Parliament, and which must be vested with powers to receive and investigate complaints regarding alleged police misconduct and to impose sanctions against any found guilty of such misconduct.

That appears to be the crux of the matter. As of right now, the police force and now the MACC appears to be 'above the law', answerable only to the Home Minister, if that was at all, evident.

There appears to be no oversight body to determine if there have been abuse or misuse of their powers and worse, if they had engaged in criminal activities including custodial abuses of detainees, unlawful taking of lives, any life without justification! There have been instances where, the police had acted as judge, jury and executioners as well, e.g. shooting deaths of groups of so-called armed criminals.

Has there ever been any review of such extrajudicial shootings by any independent police or watchdog Internal Affairs Department, as exist elsewhere? From 2001 to 2003, there were just 6 coroner's inquests, out of 80 reported custoidal deaths—were the other 72 deserving of their untimely deaths?

SUHAKAM (Human Rights Commission of Malaysia) has on several occasions, been promoting the continuing education of human rights to the public—its purpported "work to nurture, develop and advance a human rights culture within Malaysia".

My belief is that the public does need some reminder of their human rights, every now and again. We often take this too much for granted. Sadly, most of us are now fully aware, when tragedies such as Teoh's shocking death, happen. It reminds us that perhaps, these can happen to us too, without rhyme or reason—too chancy, too unbelievably unjust, too unpredictably senseless and too iffy!

Of greater concern is to remind and educate the enforcement agencies such as the police, the military and now the MACC, to be not only mindful of their duties, but to demand their strict adherence to human rights dictates in each of their engagement with the public.

Detainees, witnesses, suspects, prisoners, whoever they are, must be accorded due respect and fairness, until all their legal rights have been exhausted. There should be greater move toward painstaking gathering of evidence, rather than resorting to coercing and extracting confessions, which have been identified as a faulty barbaric mandate preferred by some of our law enforcement officers.

A recent NST editorial "Death of a Witness" makes a logical if grudging apologia for some form of closure to this debacle:

"In the face of a sceptical public which is over-receptive to any and all allegations of bias and subterfuge, and unwilling to give the MACC the benefit of the doubt, while it must be bold and resolute in investigating and prosecuting cases without fear or favour, it must also not abandon due process.

"This makes respect for human rights as critical as the selection process for investigations and the impeccable credentials it must establish for itself if the MACC is to enjoy the wholehearted confidence and close cooperation of the public."

A Royal Commission Inquiry is now mandatory to appease the ghosts of all these custodial deaths, which must now include the MACC. In the interim, the MACC must suspend all its activities pending this full inquiry. Its due processes and rules of engagement must be reviewed and spelt out clearly, with no ambiguity as to which investigative techniques are illegal, and these should be fully subject to oversight sanction.

Legal representation, and continuous videotaping of all suspects and witnesses should be mandatory without exemption. Selection of officers must be entrenched with human rights education and inculcation, and those with wrongful attitudes or aptitudes must be removed or redeployed to other areas which do not interact with the public, lest they resort to actionable if delinquent activities. In other words, it must undergo a total revamp and complete overhaul, if it should ever wish to regain any semblance of credibility, at all...

Teoh's untimely demise must not be in vain! Our shock, our outrage and our sadness must be translated into a meaningful revamp of our enforcement agencies, and hopefully reignite some new belief and help reclaim some confidence in our badly bruised civic institutions...


----------------oooooooooooo000000000000oooooooooooo----------------------

Shame: The Negative Politicisation of Malaysian Society...

"All through history the way of truth and love has always won. There have been tyrants and murderers, and for a time they can seem invincible, but in the end they always fall, always." ~ Mahatma Gandhi

Long before the stunning outcome of last year's election shock, Malaysian civil society has been embroiled in and simmering in sleaze and negative vibes.

The 'feel-good' mood of the rakyat has long since evaporated. In its place there hangs a thick fog of resigned exasperation and seething anger increasingly directed at the current debilitating establishment.

Sadly, our pliant administration (yes, including our subservient civil servants and the ingratiating if arrogant police who should rightfully be serving the rakyat and not simply the misguided whims and demands of the politicians!) appears to remain stubbornly oblivious to the changing tide of popularity and the mounting legitimate demands of a politically-awakened rakyat.

As enlightened rakyat we refuse to kowtow anymore to more of the same—the crass corruption and senseless power play for wanton personal gain. Enough is enough, we seem to say—if only this cry for justice and fairplay can be heard more resoundingly...

Our previously self-assured confidence has since been punctured by despondent daily takes of political trickery and rising crime rates. Our streets are becoming more and more unsafe. In the space of 2 consecutive days, two pregnant women had been killed by the senseless thuggery of snatch-thieves more brazen than ever before, while the police dawdle on partisan political corralling of activists and oppositionists...

And this sorry state of affairs has shown no signs of abating. We are still mired in political gridlock and parochial inaction to the point of undermining our vaunted position as one of the fastest growing economies of the world.

Perhaps, this is the result of too long an incumbency of the previous leadership—22 years of stuttering sometimes staggering achievements, but also creeping and crumbling encrustations of ageing emasculated institutions. Followed by another 6 years of political and administrative indecisive meandering, Malaysians appear to have dug deeper into the bottomless chasm of uncertainty and despair.

Political manoeuvrings appear to have become the sole and blinkered attention of our one-dimensional politicians, with the old guards stubbornly and tenaciously clinging on to whatever Machiavellian manoeuvres to stay in power, worse they are adopting the much-maligned and perverse 'Mugabean' methods of usurping or grabbing power!

The police and the judiciary appear to have become instruments of the ruling elite, whose clinging to govern at all cost know no bounds.

To quote The Malaysian Insider editorial:

"Crime appears to be spiralling out of control in Malaysia, snatch theft victims are dying on the streets and the men in blue seem more interested in enforcing a dress code and arresting social activists and politicians on lame-duck sedition charges. Really, the reputation of the Royal Malaysian Police takes a beating every time they forget that their duty is to serve the Malaysian public. But still they persist in acting in a manner which alienates the same people who are paying their salaries."

As a Malaysian, I feel so let down, so ashamed that our political masters have blatantly forgotten their causes, their roles, their purported functions. They have let themselves be elevated to the exalted status of gods or royals, who have no other concern except their own survival and their own selfish interests! There is not even that show of modicum for respecting the rakyat and their wishes—its all about staying and clinging on to power at all costs!

I echo the articulate anguish expressed by renowned writer Beth Yahp when she says in malaysiakini:

"I’ve seen the Perak state assembly descending into chaos in a naked power grab that makes a mockery of every claim to fairness, justice and democracy that the new regime of our newly-minted prime minister, who apparently orchestrated the whole debacle, may make."

Can any one seriously respect the institutions and the current government any longer—seeing that it continues to do as it pleases, and abuses its rule by law and diktats according to its own whims and fancies, but not according to legitimate people's interests?

Charging and arresting anyone who opposes them with all sorts of bullying Acts and laws cannot be the way to legitimise its faltering stranglehold on power... If anything, it hardens and alienates the rakyat against them even more.

Aliran president's Ramakrishnan rightly points out that:

"The police have acted in a diabolical manner and did not act professionally and in an impartial manner as they are required to do so. They are seen to be acting pro-Barisan Nasional and in a high-handed fashion in arresting so many people who had not posed any serious threat to the security of the nation."

"Law and order has completely broken down in the Perak state assembly and in this state of lawlessness Umno has taken charge of the Perak. This is no honourable take over of the august body. It is a shameful way of acquiring power through brute force."

Perhaps this realisation is what's galling the ruling elite—that it appears to be losing the popular support of the people day by day, despite it trying so very hard to 'please' an ever-growing number of disgruntled people—every which way, the incumbent government appears to lose!

I sometimes wish we can turn back the clock, but we can't. So many of our Malaysians have awaken to the possibility of change so potent, that we cannot now go back to our slumber of timorous compliance and swallowed pride and tongue-biting conscience.

We have progressed too far along our democratic space and journey that we cannot allow our momentum to weaken, from backsliding. We have to collectively nudge this along even if we are hampered by such roadblocks of inconvenience, we must remain steadfast to defeat the ancien regime of tottering misrule!

To quote Beth Yahp again, we cannot allow bully tactics to recede back into our accustomed apathy, our fear; together we can make a difference, we must choose to be more daring, more vocal now:

"This darkness didn’t happen overnight. And it won't dissipate overnight. We have all contributed to it, by our silence, our apathy, our self-interest, and our fear. These qualities have been so indoctrinated in us that, like it or not, they are part of what makes us Truly Malaysian. We are so used to people telling us what we’re allowed to say and do. Why not also what to wear? What to think? What to be?"

I wish upon a new era for Malaysia, a new dawn of a democratic, progressive and fair Malaysia—one that every rakyat can be proud of. And not one where fair-minded citizens the world over would snigger in derision at its tainted leaders, its crumbling institutions, its wanton corruption, its power crazy machinations, its total lack of moral credibility for us, the rakyat to believe in...

Alas, would my country be reborn?.

To further quote from another blogging commentator aries:

"This is the dawn of a NEW MALAYSIA.

A Malaysia of equal respect, equal opportunities, equal partnership, equal standing, equal honour, equal responsibilities, equal citizenship, equal humanity.

Gone are the days of treachery, unfair quotas, prejudice, selective persecution, selective discrimination, unequal opportunities, unequal partnership, discriminative citizenship, supremacist positioning and posturing, racial and racist political stance and policies."


An abridged version appears in malaysiakini on 13 May 2009, as Negative Politicisation of Malaysian society.

Malaysian Anomie: Shenanigans and Sleaze rules...

"Malaysia’s addiction to conspiracy theories is quite incurable, fed as it is by dose after dose of bewildering episodes and partisan posturing. It is not only Perak that is suffering a constitutional crisis. The whole country is mired in a misguided democracy." ~ Ooi Kee Beng, in Today

After pausing and reflecting on the momentous year that was, the start of the year 2009 could not have been any more melodramatic.

Indeed, all the seedy goings-on crescendoed into what must rank as one of the most turbulent first 2 months of possibly any year for Malaysians! Unfortunately, these aren't happenings that anyone can be proud of.

These are more dispiriting than uplifting. Indeed they have dampened the ebullient mood of many Malaysians who had hoped for greater political change and democratic gain following the 2008 elections, just a mere 10 months ago...

What started as polemical jousting and rumblings turned into a farcical comedy of errors and cynical one-upmanship of the crassest! An earlier defection to Pakatan Rakyat (PR) by one dubious Barisan Nasional (BN) state assemblyman, U-turned into an abrupt all-out assault on the erstwhile PR-led government of Perak, with the cynical defections of 3 PR assemblymen to enable a highly controversial BN take-over of the state.

Somehow, the usually aloof royalty has also been drawn into this quagmire, when its decision to allow the change of government was made despite vociferous if futile calls for fresh state elections, to truly determine the rakyat's choice.

By refusing to bow to this unexpected debacle and sudden loss of power, PR's Menteri Besar Nizar Jamaluddin, suddenly became his (PAS) party's democratic stand-up hero, but also considered by his UMNO detractors as a stubborn ingrate of treachery most foul!

This then triggered a convenient round of recriminations and accusations of 'derhaka' or treason against those who had dared challenge the wisdom and decision of the royalty! Led by UMNO, BN now plangently proclaim its swinging new tune and melody of pro-royalist allegiance, with frenzied protestations of loyalty and avowed claims of protecting the institution of the Malay Royalty forever.

Ironically, this runs in sharp contrast to the earlier Trengganu Sultan's decision to install his own choice of Menteri Besar. Only then, UMNO-led politicians were loudly critical, if not also 'treasonous' in demanding that royalty acquiesce with the expectations of the rakyat.

Azly Rahman has once again nailed the issue when he discussed this antithetical mindset of our Malays in particular, in malaysiakini's article "From Daulat to Derhaka"

How quickly memory fades and tunes change when political occurrences favour one or the other. Such is the status of politics--expediency, erstwhile elastic memories and short-term gains almost always prevail, if only to be overturned or improved upon at a later more enlightened era...

Correctness of purpose and ethics are as flexible and malleable as plasticine, and depends only on who calls the shots, ultimately. No wonder that ordinary folks find politics and politicians so skeptical, so dirty, so self-serving...

In my mind, there are no two ways about this. Party hopping so soon after an election is a cynical betrayal of the public's trust. This practice should be totally banned and made impossible, even if necessary by new and better anti-hopping laws. This will forestall and eradicate the growing spectre of illegal enrichment and worse corrupt promises and practices which taints the politician and the parties concerned even more, making a mockery of our burgeoning democracy.

There can be no denying that during the recent elections and again during the hard-fought by-elections, that the people are the ones who had decided which party they wanted. Again and again it had shown that it does not matter who the actual candidate was; what matters is the party that represents the aspirations and the wishes of the rakyat.

To surreptitiously induce lesser-minded, morally-dubious politicians to switch party is to encourage the culture of mindless expediency and personal greed at its worst!

Such political shenanigans only show blatant disregard and disdain for the rakyat. Political manoeuvrings, machinations and victory at any cost, appear to condone dubious policies and practices which border on illegality or extremely skewed legal interpretations. They reflect a facile penchant for bendable rules and show utter disrespect for social acceptance and norms.

It even appears that the current bully pulpit of Malaysian politics can even get away with whatever it chooses, in the most cynical display of arrogance. Shameless primadonnas even parade themselves with the smugness that flusters one's sense of goodwill, fairness and equanimity.

Such exhibition of unabashed coldhearted contempt for the citizens, with the absolute goal of winning at all costs, can only create a sense of anomie and despair for our rakyat!

Is there no rule which matters any more?

Is political expediency the only law of the land left?

Is there no hope for change for the better?

Let common sense return and prevail once again!

Let the will of the rakyat remain supreme.

Let's not becloud the real issues of proper and moral governance with extraneous if contrived umbrages and baggages of royalty-baiting or shifty sycophancy for convenience and expedience's sake!

Let Malaysia have a New and Real People-empowered Beginning!

This has been published in malaysiakini on 26 Feb 2009.

................0000OOOOO0000......................