The need for more confidence

The annual UMNO general assembly ended yesterday. It is a time when fiery communal speeches on Malay rights and privileges were made by UMNO leaders. The call for the 'ketuanan Melayu' were aired live over television and not made behind closed doors. The general assembly was concluded with a call by the Prime Minister to return to moderation and tolerance. He attempted to justify such racial rhetorics by saying that "... the other component parties – just like Umno too – had to serve their own communities which had their own set of demands."

I find this annual affair of fiery communal speeches followed by calls for reconciliation and tolerance rather absurd. No doubt, any leaders or aspiring leaders has to maintain some support and what better way than to play the race card. However, by doing so, this will only serve to destroy what had been done to try to bring the various races together. Why undo what had or seemed to have been achieved in the last 360 days, just for a 5-day session which will only serve the self-interest of the leaders? Why create an atmosphere of tension only to be reminded again that UMNO also serves a country with different ethnic background? Luckily, the 'rules' of the country does not allow the other ethnic component parties to use the same yardstick when it comes to make 'fiery' racial speeches. I cannot imagine what would happen if MCA, MIC or the PBS make the same-styled fiery communal speeches in their general assemblies.

Probably there is a better way than this. Instead of destroying a healthy racial climate, why not abstained from making such speeches that "is always hot but under control. It is hot but does not burn, angry but without coming to blows." After all, heat and anger are very subjective. Heat maybe intolerable to some but not to others. Some can contain anger better than the others. In short, no matter how controlled the heat or the anger is, there is always a risk that some in the community might not be able to handle them. The end result is that some will get burned or come to blows. I am sure nobody in Malaysia wants to see this tragic incident.

Next year we will be celebrating the 50th year of independence. Most of the people in the country has accepted that UMNO will always form the backbone of the governement and that Islam will be the official religion in the country. And in Malaysia, Islam is constitutionally synonymous with Malay and hence UMNO. The coalition of ethnic-based political party that is the Barisan Nasional, is the only way to maintain a stable government and any thoughts of an ethnic-based coalition without a Malay-based party being able to form a stable government is just wishful thinking. Given these facts it sometimes it surprises me how insecure UMNO is.

UMNO's insecurity is reflected by the speeches made. There are many instances but the few important ones are the followings:

1. The questioning by Johor UMNO on the creation of Bangsa Malaysia. I have blogged on this previously. By rejecting the notion of Bangsa Malaysia, he had essentially rejected the possibility where race becomes subservient to the country. The concept of Bangsa Malaysia can also provide the starting point where communal politics becomes irrelevant and the catch phrase shifts from racial tolerance to racial integration. This would surely reduce a potential flash point. To be sure, even without the communal component party, the true power will still be in the hands of the Malays, being the largest majority in the country with their interest protected by the constitution.

2. The call for extension of NEP beyond 2020. This was revealed by the Deputy Prime Minister in his speech when he said that there is no time limit to the Malay agenda. Unfortunately this will surely reinforce the 'crutch' mentality that UMNO leaders had been saying from time to time. It is surprising that after nearly 50 years of independence and 30 years of affirmative actions, the Malays are still not confident enough to fight shoulder-to-shoulder with the other ethnic groups. There are many entrepreneural Malays and multimillionaire Malays in Malaysia and I am sure they definitely would like to be perceived as equals among their peers; that their success is from their own ability and not from the perennial help that they get from the government. The NEP, if to be extended, should be tweaked so that the poor majority and not just the privileged few will benefit.

3. The refusal on the setting up of Inter-Faith Council. The call by non-Muslims to set up the IFC is not to question the status of Islam but create a channel where sensitive issues of religion can be discussed, something akin to the spirit of Barisan National. By having such a council, it removes the risk of confusions that may arise from negative reportings and rumours. This will reduce potential conflicts in the country. I am sure Islam is strong enough to withstand any perceived threat from the setting up of the IFC. After all Islam had been through worse times in its history and is currently experiencing a revival. With IFC, touchy issues like those controversy involving conversion to Islam among non-Muslim family can be addressed without any emotional rhethorics and help further reducing potential flashpoints. With Muslims leaders sitting together with leaders of other faiths, will not diminished the status of Islam, but on the contrary enhance its status as a modern tolerant religion. This is especiall pertinent in the current political climate when Islam is viewed in the negative light by most Western governments.

Malays and UMNO has come a long way since independence. They had proven that they can be as advanced as the other races. Given such impressive track record, they should be more confident in trying to remove the crutch mentality that had been directed at them because of the affirmative policy of the government. To truly achieve the status of Ketuanan Melayu, it is imperative that UMNO show more confidence and magnanimity and accept other races as equals. By so doing, the defensive postures the other races take will be reduced and the magnanimity reciprocated. This can only serve to enhance the status of the Malays and UMNO.

Whose fault is it?

SINGAPORE: Much had been said after 2 children were hurt by the escalator in 2 days. The first case happened after a 3-year old lost her toes and the second when a 2-year old had her foot caught between the escalator stairs. In both cases, the initial reaction was that the imitation croc shoes may be a cause for the accidents because both child were wearing them when the accident happened. Then the focus was shifted to the maintainance of the escalator by a reader who wrote to Today newspaper.

I find it strange that people should react and point fingers squarely at the croc shoes and the escalator as the possible cause of the accident. No doubt the croc shoes and the escalator played a role in the accident but can the human factor be excluded?

It is not too difficult to see children place their feet against the brush of the skirting panel when they used the escalator. Very few of them got reprimanded by their parents or guardians. This may be because escalator accidents are not highlighted and this makes parents complacent. They had forgotten the simple principle that shoes that give the most friction are more likely to make them get caught between the space of the stairs and the sides; unfortunately this is the type of shoes that provide the most fun for the child.

Like Mr Tan, the reader who wrote to Today said, adults should practice more diligence when using the escalator with their children. The statistic is telling, the majority of escalator accidents involved those under 10 years of age. If there is no human factor involved, then such accidents should not be skewed towards young children. The most likely cause is because such children, being more playful, tends to play while on escalators. And we as adult, has to supervise them. If we failed in this basic parenting, then no matter how safe the shoes or escalators are, accidents will still happen. This is because escalators, like all things, have inherent danger - dangers that are ever present no matter how much safety precautions used. Anything machine with a moving part is dangerous if not used properly. It is just like the car. Despite having all sorts of safety features, accident and death still occurs, not because of poor design but because of poor handling.

Of course, like Mr Tan suggested, escalators can be made safer. With better safety features, accidents are less likely to happen and even if it happens, the injury less severe. However, at the end of the day, the only more fullproof way of preventing such accidents from happening is more diligence and supervisions on the part of the parents.

Lastly, I once saw a child in the A&E department. He was accompanied by the father and a younger brother. After I saw the child, the father told me that the hospital glass door was "no good" because his younger son's hand was caught by the door. After a pause, I told the father that the door may not be the problem. After some thought, he said, "I think you are right" and he left.

A barometer of UMNO's thinking?

Two news report from Malaysia this week throw some light as to the future of race relations in Malaysia. These reports quash any hopes to anyone who had hope for a more Malaysian Malaysia where ethnicity is secondary to the country and every citizen is viewed as equal.

The first report originated from the state UMNO convention in Johor, the birthplace of Malay nationalism. Its leader, the Mentri Besar, Datuk Abdul Ghani Othman, questioned the concept of Bangsa Malaysia or the Malaysian race. His final message is simple, even if there should be a Malaysian race, "it should be limited to the definition of the people of Malaysia with the Malays as the main race." This comment can be seen as a barometer of the sentiment of the UMNO on the race relation in Malaysia. What is implied in his comment is that Malays will always have a special position in the country. Those non-Malay citizens will forever be lesser Malaysians.

The second report touches on the methodology used to calculate the equity distribution between the bumiputras and non-bumiputras. What is pertinent is that there don't seemed to be a standard way of calculating the equity distribution. Even the Deputy Finance Minister Datuk Dr Awang Adek Hussin, acknowledge this fact when he said: “You should avoid judging which methodology is the correct one. You should just say different bases of methodology produce different results." By making the statement, it suggests that there is no correct or agreed way of calculating the equity, and hence, the question of equity distribution will be opened ended.

Taking this slippery road of the concept of lesser Malaysian and the non-standardised way of calculating the equity distribution, raises many concerns. The most important of these is the ever present of a constant fractured point in the society. This can easily be exploited by anyone who wants to use the discontent to further their own ambitions; as seen with Khairy when he claimed that the Malays in Penang is marginalised under the leadership of a Chinese BN leader. Whether one is a bumiputra or otherwise, I am sure nobody wants a repeat of May 13, 1969. It will be sad if the current policy of affirmative action, a policy to address the cause of the racial riots and to prevent future strives, becomes the very reason for another racial conflict. No Malaysians should experience another racial conflict in their lives.

By rejecting the concept of Bangsa Malaysia, and perpetuating the communal politics, Malaysia runs the risk of having an unhealthy climate where the oppositions will be mainly of the minority group. This trend is unfortunately emerging. Although the National Front is a coalition of 14 component parties, representing nearly all ethnic and shades of political persuasions, the real power is in the hands of UMNO. The main opposition, the DAP, although claimed to be multiracial-based, is mainly a Chinese-based party. This created a situation where the government is perceived to be a Malay government and the opposition perceived to be of ethnic Chinese. Removing the political equations, it risks being perceived as the Malays against the Chinese and vice versa. This is certainly not true because although the government is pro-Malay, it still has to moderate its Malay policy to cater to the feedbacks from its non-Malay partners. This is because no communal party can form the government without the support of the others.

By perpetuating the concept of lesser Malaysians, the minorities in Malaysia run the risk of giving up their struggle for Malaysia. Since the is no place for them in Malaysia, why should they continue to struggle for Malaysia? When the world is getting flatter, with globalisation the reality, there is nothing to stop the more abled minorities to migrating to other countries. If the concept of lesser Malaysians is to continue, the push factor may tip the scale and work in concert with the pull-factors of globalisation, resulting in Malaysia losing out in the form of talent drain.

On the reverse, by knowing that they will always have special privilege and affirmative policy, the bumiputras's will to succeed and hence rise above negative perception of being a weak race will always be blunted. This make it difficult for them to withstand any competition that globalisation present to them. In the long run, the crutch mentality will perpetuate, making it difficult to free themselves from the very thing they fight for - standing as equals with the other minority races of the country. The former PM Tun Mahathir had foreseen such a problem and tried to rectify it when he announced in 2004 that he will reserve 10% of places in MARA so as to increase some competition to uplift the overall standards in the school.

Looks like after nearly 50 years of independence, Malaysia still do not have the will to create a real multiracial Malaysia where every citizen is equal and able to stand side-by-side as equal with pride and without prejudice. It is good that national leaders had come out in support of the concept of Bangsa Malaysia. It should be viewed as a starting common point on the long and arduous road towards a better Malaysia. It should served as the basis of closing the unfinished social contract that started when the British granted Malaysia its independance 49 years ago.

Johor giving up sovereignty to Singapore?

MALAYSIA: It seems that the size of Singapore may be getting bigger. No, not by way of more land reclaim but because Johor may be "giving" Singapore a piece of their land to be located in the Johor Baharu city centre and the Second Malaysia-Singapore Link. The plan is that these areas, termed Free Access Zones (FAZ) will enable foreigners to stay and work there without the need for travel documents. The aim was reported to increase tourism in Johor and to promote the South Johor Economic Region (SJER). The idea was mooted by Kazanah Nasional Bhd. Of course nothing is finalised, and I suspect it will never be.

Whoever comes up with this idea is probably too desperate to boost tourism in Johor, to the extend that he is willing to "surrender" a piece of Malaysia's sovereign to another country. By opening up Johor unilaterally to enable foreigners (in this case, for all intend and purposes, Singaporeans) to live and work without travel documents, is as good as giving up land to Singapore. Tun Mahathir will flip. He is already on a war path with Badawi because the current PM had cancelled the building of the Scenic Bridge, a bridge Tun Mahathir said will be build even without the need for Singapore's agreement. Furthermore, if the sale of sand to Singapore had been equated with selling Malaysia's sovereignty to Singapore, even when this was strictly a business transactions, allowing Singaporeans to live and work in Johor without the need for travel documents surely is tantamout to "surrendering" the sovereign.

Sovereignty aside, there is the problem of logistics. How is the Johor government going to delineate the FAZ? Currently there are numerous roads in and out of Johor Bahru city centre. If indeed the city centre is made FAZ, how to regulate the flow of Singaporeans beyond the FAZ? It is definitely not possible to build immigration point at all exit point. The most likely way is to revamp the traffic flow which will mean major redevelopment of Johor Bahru city itself. This is highly unlikely given that the building of the new administrative city of Nusa Jaya is underway as well as the cost involved.

Even if the exit points can be easily controlled, there is the question of inconvenience to the local populations. They will essentially be living in no-man's-land because they still have to show prove that they are Malaysians when they exit the FAZ and on entering Singapore! Surely this is highly unacceptable.

I find this idea of FAZ is ludicrious. How can any government even think of "surrounding" it land to another country? It only shows how incompetent our policy makers are. They usually tried to score points by saying anything that comes to their mind without giving it too much thought. They are not afraid of being penalised because Malaysia simply lack the culture of accountability. Just say anything you like, if it is not feasible then just forget about it, no harm done. Unfortunately, by coming up with such ludicrious ideas, Malaysia will become the laughing stock. Or may be Kazanah was thinking of a new icon for Malaysia - the Wall of Johor Bahru!

Datuk Zakaria, a scapegoat?

MALAYSIA: Datuk Zakaria had finally gave a press conference to explain his predicament today. It was reported in The Star under the headline "Zakaria: I made a mistake". However, the mistake Datuk Zakaria referred to was not because he had broken the law, but because "he designed a 'house (referring to the mansion) which might have been unsuitable for the low-cost housing estate' in Kampung Idaman." He further claimed that he did not break the law because he had tried to apply for a permit.

I think he had misread the public's unhappiness. No doubt, some in the public may be jealous of his mansion, but the majority is unhappy mainly because he was not penalised despite building his mansion without a proper permit. This is the main issue for the uproar and not the because he had build his mansion in a low-cost housing estate. The public is upset because there seems to be double-standards applied when it comes to the general public. Any illegally built structures will be torn down like the case involving the nasi padang seller; whose stall is only 50 meters away from Zakaria's satay stall which was not bulldozed despite being built without permit.

Further, making attempt to get a permit does not absolve him of the crime. If a permit is not granted that means something has to be rectified; and as long as it is not rectified, then he should not have assumed that a permit will be eventually given. This is especially true for a councillor, one who oversees the running of a municipality. If a councillor cannot understand the law, then how can the councillors expect the public to follow them?

Zakaria has hinted that he had been made a scapegoat in the whole process. I do sympathise with him because now we know that he is not the only councillor who had broken the law. He is a victim of the system; a system that had perpectuated for so long that Malaysians mocked it as "Malaysia boleh!", a slogan started by former PM Tun Mahathir. The system reeks of power abuse, corruption, non-accountability, non-transparency and gross inefficiencies. This state of affairs had been so accepted by the public that it comes as no surprise when another councillor, Faizal, who had also built his house without a proper permit was reported to have said that his architect "told me that he assumed he could start work first without the necessary approvals because I was a councillor and I could get the matter sorted out later”.

Questions abound in this saga. Who oversees the issuance of permit for the erecting of buildings and who ensure that a building has the proper permit? What is the role of the Council president Abd Bakir Zin? He had admitted that he had on few occasions advised Zakaria to submit his building plans which the latter had failed to do. Why then did he not take action by issuing a stop-work order? Why was the construction allowed to continue? So has the Council president himself flouted the law? Furthermore, is this only an isolated incident peculiar to the Klang Municipal Council or a disease that is endemic in all the Municipal councils? What about the fate of the other two councillors caught in the same situation?

The public is certain to follow this incident closely. This is because there are many structures being built without the proper permit in Malaysia. To a certain extent, this will be a test case and precedent setting. How the government resolve this incident will determine how the people and the Opposition will react when the next illegal structure is torn down. If different rules apply to the general public, then the government will be on the defensive, which may translate to loss of votes in local elections. If Zakaria's mansion is not demolished, then the government will have lost the right to demolish other illegal structures erected by the common people. Only the government's action can bring back its credibility.

Badawi's government was elected on the platform of accountability and transparency. This will be a good opportunity to prove to the people that he walks the talks. Having missed the chance with the IPCMC issue and 'close-one-eye' MP, this should provide a good opportunity as the Selangor Sultan had already intervened in the matter, making it easier for Badawi to discipline Zakaria.

Links:
The quality of our municipal councillors
The quality of our municipal councillors II

Should AMD be encouraged?

SINGAPORE: The call by Health Minister to encourage more people to sign for the Advanced Medical Directive (AMD) is timely and laudable. The law had been passed 10 years ago but to date only 4000 Singaporeans had signed up. But why would the government want to encourage individuals to "manage issue of death" - something very private?

Being involved with the health industry, I have the (un)fortunate opportunity to experience what a person goes through in the last few days of their life. Sometimes it pains me to have to do procedure on the patient when I know that such procedures will not make any difference to the patient in terms of eventual outcome of treatment, not to mention the quality of life. Unfortunately most of the time such procedure had to be carried out because of the urging of the relatives; all because of good intentions. Maybe this is due to our Asian cultures of filial piety where the decision to let nature takes its course is equal to loss of filial piety. Such procedures will only cause more unnecessary pain to the patient, not to mention unnecessary cost. So AMD maybe make it easier for relatives to come to a decision without feeling guilty, or as the Minister puts it "not passing the buck".

At the national level, with the limited medical resources, unnecessary prolonging life will take up valuable resources for others who may benefit from such intensive treatment. Resources can be better channel to those who will recover or have an improved quality of life. Although this will raise ethical issues, this is a real concern that needs to be looked into. Between a person with terminal disease and another who only suffers from a reversible condition 'fighting' for that last bed in ICU, shouldn't that precious last bed be given to the patient with the reversible condition? This is precisely what the AMD aims to correct.

However currently it is not easy to sign up for AMD. The process needs two witness of which one must be a doctor. According to the directives, the doctor has to ascertain that the person is of sound mind and that he understands the whole AMD process. The other witness can be anybody but not a relatives or anyone who will benefit from the person's death. While this is done to protect from any abuse, the exclusion of the relative as a witness makes it difficult to get the second witness. In our society, not many people wants to get involved with another's business, especially about death. As such to get that second witness becomes difficult. Maybe the government should address this problem.

The AMD law also assumes that a person will only make an AMD after he is diagnosed with a terminal disease and hence the need for the first witness to be a doctor. However, is this practical? How would one expect a doctor who is treating him to bring up the issue of AMD? From experience, rightly or wrongly, most of the time, the terminal nature of a disease is not conveyed to the patient but to the relatives. A lot of time, the patient does not even know that his days are numbered or what disease he is dying from. If this is the case how best can the AMD be brought up?

Should the AMD be made just like a person making a will? This means that a person can just walk up to a lawyer and signed an AMD or he can signed the AMD in front of any witness as stipulated by the law covering the making of a will. This will certainly make AMD easier to sign up. If the government is worried about unsound mind, then this will only hold true for those healthy individual, not one with any diagnosed disease. The AMD law may be made to parallel the law governing the making of wills.

Some in the society may say that the making of AMD or having the doctor to decide the fate between two persons like the scenario above is amounting to playing God. I would counter such claim by saying that the day medicine was created is the day human beings played God. Like it or not, the act to save a life is as much playing God as the act to stop treatment to save life. If God can choose that a person suffer a sickness, by the same reasoning, God can also choose when a person will die. I have seen enough to know that whatever a doctor do, we are still answerable to God; if the time is up whatever measures taken will not change the outcome.

In conclusion, let me relate my own experience. My father died of terminal cancer. His decline was fast and hence spared the sufferings and agonies that many like him had gone through. Being a doctor, I decided that he should not be given a drip on his last day. It has been 7 years since he passed away. Till today, I sometimes still ask myself if I did the right thing. Deep inside, I know I probably did; but as a son, in a way I feel guilty for having made that decision and wondered whether the drip would have made the difference.

The hidden dangers of the world of blogs and forums

SINGAPORE: Two controversies involving Ms Wee Shu Min and Mr Perry Tong, while regrettable, serves to remind us of the other pitfalls associated with Internet that is not frequently mentioned. The notoriety of the Net is attributed to the risk of exposure to sexual contents, hate sites, terrorist sites and pedophiles site. However, avoiding such sites do not necessarily 'protect' a Net participant - one who not only reads but also contributes - from any potential harm or controversy.

Blogging had been the rage for the last few years. Where previously one will indulge in coffeeshop talk, now everybody seems to go high-tech. For blogging is simply high-tech coffeeshop talk. Just like the good old coffeeshop talk, what is said on a blog can create controversy. However the difference is that the controversy may come fast, furious and in large numbers because the audience is larger and largely faceless. This is exactly what had happened to Ms Wee. She has forgotten that whatever is written in her blog will read by anybody who chance on it. So although she is essentially writing to nobody, the problem is that everybody else is reading it. That is the hidden danger of blogging which many is not aware or has forgotten. Hence the degree of responsibility while blogging should be at the same level as in real life. Just because the blog is directed at nobody does not mean diminished responsibility. As long as it is accessible, there is the associated responsibility.

In the case of Perry Tong, his problem started after he discovered that his email address was being used by an imposter to register in Sammyboy forum, with some postings made. Perry Tong then made a police report on the matter. This created a controversy as to why a police report was made. Reasons against the police report range from no harm being done, a certain Bernard Soh as admitted and apologised, Perry Tong being petty, to Perry Tong trying to create news for himself. I do not know the real reason(s) for the police report but I think his intention is just to record an incident that somebody has impersonated him by using his email address. This is generally to safeguard himself against any liability at a future date if his email address had been associated with any illegal use. Any other reasons are probably secondary if at all. Likewise, the reverse is also ture, that what is seemingly true on the Net may not be the truth after all. This especially applies to forums and mailing lists.

Reading through the reactions generated by both cases, one will notice that there are a lot of personal attacks and innuendos. Again, most of these caustic attacks will probably not be repeated outside the domain of the Net in the real world. This is because the Net is cloaked with anonymity. Everybody is faceless or so it seems; for everyone is only faceless for as long as nobody wants to identify them. Everything can be traced to the source if there is a will. Everytime a person logs on to a network, he leaves behind his IP address, the calling card. Therefore anyone who thinks that he is protected by anonymity of the Net should think twice before shouting any obscenities.

Another danger lurking in the Net is a direct result of its make-belief or virtual nature. Anything that can be seen on the computer screen is essentially a result of an interaction between the user and the computer. Therefore although I have generated more than 800 visits to my blog in the last 2 days, it is only between the computer and the user. I have no idea who the other party is or what they do. It is simply the interaction between me and the computer. My experience is not any richer over the last 2 days despite the numerous hits to my blog. This is unlike my interactions with my friends, the taxi driver, the hawkers or my neighbours. These real life interactions help to enrich my life and my experiences. Real life experiences can never be replaced by the experience from the virtual world, no matter how 'real' they may seem. In Ms Wee's case, although she received so much brickbats for her comments, she can just run away from it by just avoiding the computer altogether and in the process avoiding any responsibility. In other words, spending too much time with the computer will make one forgets that there is a real world out there that cannot be simply switched off or reset; with no questions of responsibility. This was probably what happened with Ms Wee.

Ms Wee's and Mr Perry Tong's case will probably be talked about for the next few days if not weeks. Two unfortunate incidents had occured and it would be sad if nothing is learnt from these. For Ms Wee, hopefully she will learn that life is not a bed of roses, even if she is privileged; and that the Net can be very unforgiving if one is irresponsible. In Perry's case, that making a police report is not always for the purpose of criminalising or suing someone, but to safeguard oneself, as a form of disclaimer.

When the dusts finally settle, I hope that Ms Wee had learned from this unfortunate incident; that every level of society has something to offer that can only enrich our life experiences; and that life experiences can only be experienced in the real world.

Wee Shu Min: elitist, yes; intelligent....?

The current controversy surrounding the 18-year old daughter of a Singapore MP reflects on the harsh reality of Singapore society. This controversy started after a Derek Wee, who work in a multinational company, wrote about job insecurity for those over 40 years old and how the government should look into the matter. This triggered a response by Ms Wee (no relation to Derek), a GEP student from one of the top secondary schools who also topped the 2004 GDE 'O' level examination. In her blog, which had since been removed, she chastised Derek with some very strong derogatory terms. This in turn generated much 'debate' or rather reactions to her blog in local forums. The defence and apology given by her MP father did not help to abate the controversy either.

Derek Wee has made a very good observation that nowadays there is no longer any job security in Singapore, although I differ by saying that this job insecurity is across the board, not only for these over-40s. Where previously, the job availability is dependant on the performance of the company, in recent years, the main indicator is productivity. Although ultimately productivity and company performance is about the bottomline, productivity is not about viability of the company. Productivity means maximum output for minimum investment. This means that a company who is doing well may still retrench its staff because the cost of a new employee capable of doing the same job is cheaper. Being the same age group as Derek, I can understand his feelings. Nowadays it does not matter how hardworking, how loyal you are to the company; its all about dollars-and-cents. A hardworking and loyal employee has the same risk of being retrenched as one who skives. This is especially so if they are lumped together in the higher salary scale for their jobs. The employee is disadvantaged because hardwork and loyalty does not guarantee job security anymore.

The government has always urge the workers to train and retrain. However the advantage to the individual is diminished not matter how much retraining is taken. This is because if everyone retrains, the standards of the employees increase across the board, and everyone will be 'setback' to square one. Of course, this should not be used as an excuse not to retrain, because the increased employability of workers here will encourage more companies to invest in Singapore and hence more job opportunities, but not necessarily job security. Furthermore, no matter how much retraining, there is only so much one can learn, either due to the constraint of time, finance or one's ability.

Derek, who has worked in many countries, has also noticed that other countries are catching up, if not better than ourselves. This is another accurate observation that is unfortunately not seen by our younger generations. At the risk of over-generalising, youths today are too proud of Singapore's achievements. They think that just because Singapore is prosperous over the last 10 years, it will be prosperous for the next 10 years. What they fail to understand is that Singapore is properous because, (and not in spite) of its neighbours. In previous years, neighbouring countries are agriculture-based economies. Singapore, being more established as a commercial centre, even before independence, becomes the natural choice for banking and commercial companies. There is no competition to talk about. However, with education and modernisation of neighbouring countries, and the shifting of agriculture-based to a technology-based economy, Singapore's advantage becomes less and less clear-cut. With limited land for expansion and increasing labour-cost, the advantage of setting up companies in neighbouring countries becomes more obvious. This is especially so when their population becomes more educated, further eroding the our competitiveness. Furthermore, Singapore's success can be easily copied - the setting up of airport hub, commercial hub, medical hub, shipping hub and education hub in neighbouring countries are plain examples. And there is always the potential for the building of a canal in South Thailand, connecting the Malacca Straits to the Gulf of Thailand, which has the effect of ships by-passing Singapore port altogether; luckily this will not materialise in the foreseeable future due to political and financial constraints.

Ms Wee has every right to rebut Derek's observations. However any rebuttal should be done without any prejudice or emotionally. Calling Derek a crackpot and a leech is overboard by any standard; especially if his observations are accurate and when Ms Wee herself had not been subjected to the harsh reality of working life. Her rebuttal smacks of arrogance. And when she received negative feedbacks, she conveniently choose to run away. As she is 'unfortunate' to have a MP father, she should have known better that the use such strong derogatory terms can invite costly lawsuits if used on the wrong people. Luckily, Derek is a forgiving person.

Her outburst also expose a social-ill in Singapore - that in our quest for paper qualification, children are not taught social grace. I am sure she is not an exception. Unfortunately, these seemed to be more obvious in the higher ranked school; maybe because such students tend to be more self-confident and vocal. The emphasis in most of the 'elite' schools is on examination results. Social grace and social etiquette takes a backseat. Maybe there is a feeling that as the majority of students from such schools have parents who are professionals, their upbringing should be fairly good. However in today's world of double-income, professional or not, as I mentioned in my previous blog, both parents have little time to guide their children. Hence, these children are as likely to lack social grace and etiquette as any other. Maybe it is time for the Education Ministry to include social etiquette and school disciplines standards into the ranking criteria.

Maybe Miss Wee is naive, maybe she is privilaged to have an MP father who shielded her from the real world. Being a GEP student, I assume that she is well read. And if she is well read, then she should understand that the job market is getting very tight. Not only there are more graduates entering the job market every year, the already tight market is further saturated with foreign talents. This is complicated by the need of companies to watch their bottomlines and the rise of competition from neighbouring countries which has cheaper workforce, comparable infrastructure and vast land for expansion. Everything is finite, and if you are approaching the maximum, how much further can you go?

I am not surprise if none of Miss Wee's friends are from the lower income group. Because if she has such friends, she will know that the world is not created equal. There are those from poor family who are intelligent and capable but cannot go far because of unequal opportunities. There are those who are less intelligent or capable but had a head start in life because they are from rich families. I find it hard to believe that being the top 1% of the cohort, she fails to see that different opportunities open to different segments of the society. This is precisely the stark reality that his MP father is trying to resolve together with the government. This is another reason why our education system has failed.

Anyway, Derek's observation and appeal to government is not new. MPs had voiced the same sentiment as Derek earlier in the year. So Derek is not a crackpot nor a leech, because if he is then the MPs who have spoken on the matter are also crackpots and leeches. Far from it, the MPs who have spoken out are good people who listen to the people and think of ways to help their fellow citizens. They are not like Ms Wee, who has a silver spoon, shielded from real life because of her elitist attitude. And unlike Ms Wee, they have the wisdom and privilege to mix and mingle with the other 99% of Singaporeans, and appreciate the truth about real life.

In an effort to defuse the situation, Ms Wee's MP father explained that Ms Wee's privacy was infringed because her blog is private. He further defended his daughter by saying that "her basic point is reasonable, that is, that a well-educated university graduate who works for a multinational company should not be bemoaning about the Government and get on with the challenges in life" and that "some people cannot take the brutal truth and that sort of language, so she ought to learn from it".

I say, chip of the old block. He is as arrogant as his daughter. Derek voiced a concern, not because he cannot take the brutal truth. If his daughter's English is as powerful as she claimed to be, she would agree that Derek has accepted that other countries are catching up. He has accepted that life is going to be more difficult and job security is no longer present. In fact, Derek has more vision because he can see a potential problem that will plaque the government of the day - a large jobless middle class. I am surprise, Mr Wee the MP, cannot see the potential problem!

There should be no disillusion that a blog is private. You write a blog because you want to be heard. If you want something private and not heard or seen, then use the good old diary!

I am also surprise that he agreed with her daughter who essentially ask Derek to stop bemoaning about Government and get on with challenges in life. As an MP, unfortunately his job include listening to the people's grouses, whether justified or not. How can he be a good MP when he agreed with his daughter that people should just shut up and continue their struggle? MPs work for the people and convey the people's grouses to the government. In the current climate when the government is trying to reach out and encourage feedback from the people, such MP will only hamper the process. His ability as MP is further suspect when the same sentiment was brought up in Parliament before.

Hopefully, these saga will get the attention of the government. There is something wrong with our education when top students show such arrogance and insensitivity. Education is not only about qualification but also about social etiquette. In addition, the government should also re-look their MP selection process, so that their MPs show more sensitivity and concerns to their constituents; MPs who will listen to the constituents. And more importantly, the plight of the potential jobless middle-aged middle class people.

At the end of the day, there is one thing I can agree with Ms Wee's MP father - that he has failed as a father in this aspect.


Updated: Ms Wee's MP father had issued an apology on October 26.

For those unfamiliar with Singapore education system, GEP or Gifted Education Program, is a program to nurture to top 1% of Singaporean students to their maximum potential. Screening is done when they are in Primary 3 at the age of 9. Their syllabus is different from the other 99% of Singaporean students. These students have virtually guaranteed places in the best schools of Singapore from the primary to Junior college levels although this will be discontinued from 2008.

The quality of our municipal councillors II

Just after I blog on the case of councillors breaking the very law they are entrusted to uphold, today's Berita Harian reported the extend of the double standard.

For those who are not versed in Bahasa Malaysia, the report was entitled "Trader loss RM20000 MPK pull down store". In summary the report says: A nasi campur (rice seller) and roti canai seller was upset because an extension to his stall was pulled down by the Klang Municipal Council (MPK) in August after given only 2 days' notice. His frustration increased because a satay stall owned by Port Klang State Assemblyman, Datuk Zakaria, which was not licenced, not far away was not penalised. The stall was only about 500 meters from the luxurious bangalow owned by Zakaria which gave rise to the controversy because it was build without the MPK's permission. Datuk Teh Kim Poh, MCA Klang division leader and MPK councillor at a fund-raising function for the stall owner, said that he was surprised as no action was taken against Satay House premise which was located near Mohamad Salim's stall. Satay House has no building plan nor a business license but MPK turned a blind eye."

This incident confirmed the double-standard yardstick used by the Municipal councillors. It also confirms the poor public perceptions of government department. No wonder politicians are jostling for political positions at branch, divisional, state and national level. Once you are in office, the world is yours for the taking.

The action of the MCA man although is commendable, smacks of political motives. The incident was occured in August, why is it that the fund-raising was only carried out last night, a good two months from the incident? The fund-raising was conveniently held after the controversy surrounding Datuk Zakaria arose. The timing is too coincidental.

Why was Satay House allowed to operate when it was not approved? When did the MCA man knew about the illegality of the stall and if he did know, did he inform the Council president? What action was taken, if any, by the Council president if he was told about it?

It seems that more and more questions arose from this saga. I hope PM Badawi or the 'acting' PM Najib will hold those responsible accountable and enforce some transparency in the government machinery. After all, this was their platform for the last general election. The Barisan National coalition owes the public some explanations.

The quality of our municipal councillors

MALAYSIA: When news first broke that a state assemblyman and municipal councillor Datuk Zakaria Md Deros had build a four-storey mansion on state land without proper approval, I just brushed it off. To me this is not unusual in Malaysia. People in power generally gets away with a lot of things. However, when The Star today reported another municipal councillor Mazlynoor Abdul Latiff building his mansion without obtaining proper permit, this article caught my attention - not so much of the fact that another municipal councillor broke the law but how he justified himself.

He was reported to have claimed that other councillors had also built mansions within the area without building plans. “So, you visited the area. You took a lot of photographs. No reason for you to highlight the matter. Everyone is doing it, but my house is small,” he said.

Here, we have a councillor who run a municipality, whose job is to give approval to permits, now breaks the law and have the cheek to try to justify himself. And the most stupid thing about his justification is that "other councillors are also doing it (building without the proper permit)". The worst thing is that he felt that even if he is in the wrong, he offence is insignificant because his mansion is small! If this is the justification he is using, then I would be very worried. This smacks of abuse of power, irresponsibility and dishonesty. I may not expect people of his integrity to expose his fellow councillors, but to join the others in breaking the law is simply not acceptable.

The way these cases are handled also amazed me. Datuk Zakaria was only fine $5000. After that he gets to keep his mansion. Ordinarily, a common citizen would have had his house torn down because it will be deemed unsafe without the proper permit. In the both the cases involving the councillors, both mansions will not be torn down because according to council president Abdul Bakir Zin, “The bungalow will not be demolished as it is 80% completed". To me this is a case of you-scratch-my-back-and-I-scratch-yours.

The comment Prime Minister Badawi about the case is also very surprising. He was quoted as saying that "what Datuk Zakaria did was not good in the eyes of the public. We are from the ruling party and we are holding posts. So, definitely the people are not happy. It is all right if approval had been given. But, when there is no approval, naturally the people will be unhappy". If one look into the words used, one will get the feeling that he was not upset about the whole incident although the law was breached, but more a focus on the people not being happy because Datuk Zakaria have the means to build a mansion. I am so sad for the Prime Minister. How can he feel this way when representatives of the government had broken the very law they are entrusted to uphold? The actions of the government's representatives will only reflect badly on the government itself. No wonder the public has such low opinion of government servants and the government itself!

I hope the ACA will look into all these cases and investigate further as councillor Mazlynoor had already indicated that others are doing the same thing. I also wonder what "other same things" are being carried out by the councillors. The government owes the rakyat an explanation and a satisfactory solution to these. There should not be any double standards.

If we have municipal councillors like them, the crooks will be out of business!

How much is a homemaker worth?

Presently, it is not too difficult to see misbehaved children, children and teenagers with little respect for the elders and people who just cannot be bothered with how their actions can affect other people. It is equally easy to see people who are very impatient, who have no qualms to take up their camera phone and snap just because they think that somebody else is rude, people who create a scene so that the service personnel will attend to their demand no matter how ridiculous it may be. These come even when teachers are noticing the same trend among school-going children.

As I had mentioned in my previous blog, most of these problem stem from the fact that these children and later teens lack the guidance they needed at home. With the current double-income family the norm, children are mostly left unguided to the care of their maids. Hence, they have difficulty identifying what is or is not proper. This process is unfortunately complicated by imported US shows which has different cultural values and hence different acceptance levels. As a result, what may seemed cool and acceptable in US culture may not be acceptable or cool in our Asian society. This results in some confusion among the children.

The findings published by Singapore Children Society on a survey that sought to understand how parents here raised their children and what children think of how they are brought up, provide some pertinent points.

Firstly, both children and parents agreed that a misbehaved child should be disciplined. Thank goodness, children also understand the need for discipline. And discipline is exactly what is lacking in today's society. Teens question about the need of school uniform, the need for the curfew imposed on them by the Police and why they should not have long and dyed-hair when they go back to school to take their 'A' levels results. All this is simply a matter of discipline. If you belong to an organisation, then you should try to follow the rules of the organisation. And following rules take a lot of discipline.

Secondly, reasoning with children is a more effective form of disciplining as compared to physical means. This is one of the 'imported' culture which has done good for our society. Don't get me wrong. Actually I do not fully agree with the statement that physical punishment may cause a child to lose self-confidence and will perpetuate the use of physical punishment in future generations. I take a more middle approach - reasoning first but if all else fail, then some form of physical punishment. And physical punishment is not to inflict pain but to make them realise that their actions are wrong. Hence a token hit on the palm with a ruler maybe all that is needed. There is no one-size fits all solution. Some children can be reasoned with and some just need to have the physical punishment. Even the same child may need to be reminded with some physical punishments. The only caveat is not to mete physical punishment when you are angry. Only carry out physical punishment when you can control your emotion. That way there is less chance of unintented abuse and is probably more effective because the child knows that the punishment is for his misbehaviour rather than a way to let out the parents' frustrations. Although reasoning is good and more effective, it does take time. This may be more difficult given that today's family are always short of time for each other.

Thirdly, children who were cared for mainly by parents were happier with their childcare arrangements than those whose main caregivers were paid workers. Mothers remain the main and the preferred caregiver. This I feel is the most important finding. Parents have the means both discipline and share the moments of joy with their children. This gives the child a certain comfort level that is more difficult to reproduce with other caregiver. Human beings are social beings, hence the interactions, whether of joyous occasions or otherwise, can only promote the family ties. No other caregiver can give the same type of interactions. Because of such importance of the caregiver parent, it brings me to a very important question - what is the monetary value of a homemaker?

Since children taken care by parents are happier and from other observations, tend to be more disciplined, the role of the homemaker is very important. A full time homemaker has the time needed to reason with the child. The homemaker, having spent a lot of time with the child, can notice subtle changes in the child's behaviour, which if picked up early, can nip the problem in the bud, before it becomes too difficult to handle. The homemaker can spend time watching the TV with the children and in the process use the numerous opportunities presented by the TV characters, to guide the child on what is right and wrong and why. TV programs also provide the opportunity to bring up topics that our Asian parents find difficult to bring up, topics like premarital sex. As the discussions are not hovering around the child, the child may be more receptive to what is being said and discussed. All these are very important, not only to the family but to the nation itself, for today's children are tomorrow's leaders. Therefore the 'profession' of homemaker is very important.

Why is it then homemaker 'profession' has so little take up rate? Firstly, with today's level of education, who would want to do such mundace stuffs as childcaring? Childcaring is a thankless job. The kids will not thank you for bringing them to school or to their friends house for that all important party. The kids will not thank you when they get good marks as a result of your constant nagging to do their school work. And you are doing all these for 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year! Compare this to a working person. Good efforts get mentioned and rewarded. You only work a 5-day week. There is no need to look like the tyrant as seen through the eyes of the children. At the end of the day, there is always the paycheck and the prospect for promotion.

Secondly, in Singapore, everything is measured by dollars-and-cents. So if you don't bring in the money, then you are not contributing to the society. With this type of thinking, who wants to be a fulltime homemaker? Not only the homemaker has to work hard for nothing (not even peanuts), you are being told that you do not contribute to society! Bringing up good, law-abiding children does not count. Bringing up kids who can think for the next person does not matter. Bringing up kids who can differentiate between right from wrong is not important. If doing all these which results in a more caring and peaceful society is not considered as contributing to society, then I do not know what is!

Thirdly, the non-working spouse is only 'worth' S$2000 a year! That is how much deductions the spouse get for staying at home, working 24 hours a day, looking very much a tyrant with no paychecks or perks. With this kind of monetary 'rewards' no wonder not many people wants to be a homemaker.

At the end of the day, how much does a homemaker really worth in monetary terms? To me it is priceless. All I know is that, because my wife is a homemaker, I can concentrate on my work, knowing that my kids are in good hands. I know that whatever money that I shower on her cannot matched any of the sacrifices she had made since the day she gave up her job. I know that the joy I am having with my kids is due her guidance. Her sacrifices cannot be wrong because there are those high-flyers who are more than willing to forego their fat paychecks to look after the kids.

So how much is the homemaker really worth?

Link:
The Parenting Project, Disciplinary Practices, Child Care Arrangements and Parenting Practices by Singapore Children Society

NEP, a flawed policy?

MALAYSIA: It is noteworthy that PM Badawi has said that "Malaysians have the right to question the government or seek answers on issues". This come after the Gerakan leader asked the government to reveal how the Malay equity of 18.9% was arrived at.

The Malay equity controversy started when ASLI, a NGO, published a paper saying that the Malay equity may now stands as high as 45%. This report was later retracted after fierce rejections from the government. Although the NGO chief retracted and apologised for the report, the author stood by his report and resigned from the NGO.

Since then there had been calls for the government to show how it arrived at the equity of 18.9%, which was the same since 20 years ago. This is especially when the government claimed that the methodology used by the NGO was flawed. Till now the PM and DPM has said that the government has nothing to hide and they stood by the Economic Planning Unit (EPU) figures, but has fell short of revealing the methodology.

I feel that the only way to placate the general public and the politicians is to reveal the methodology used by EPU. Once this is reveal, let the people decide for themselves if the government is trying to hide anything. There is no use pressuring ASLI to retract their paper, criticising their methodology when EPU dare not reveal their own methods. This, unfortunately, suggests that there is something to hide. Once the 'true' equity is revealed, then the controversy will settle. If the methodology used is incorrect, for example using the par value as claimed by some politicians, then politicians - both from the government and the opposition - will have to sort out and agreed on a more amicable method. Until and unless the methodology is revealed, the controversy will lingers.

On the other hand, if everyone agreed that the Malay equity stands at 18.9%, the same as 20 years ago, then there is a cause for concern. Why is it that after 20 years, the bumiputra's equity had not increased?

Is it New Economic Policy (NEP) ineffective? Malaysia's economy had been hovering around 10% over the last 20 years. Malaysia has undergone much economic progress for the last 20 years. A lot of government's projects were awarded to bumiputra's companies. Why then the equity did not change in spite of all the support given by the authority to bumiputra's companies? The effectiveness of NEP has to be determined because it will be extended again in the 9th Malaysian Plan. If the policy had been ineffective, then extending an ineffective policy into the blueprint of Malaysia's development is certainly flawed. Not only will it not help achieve the wealth distribution among bumis, it will also created disquiet among the non-bumis. In the end, every Malaysian is disadvantaged, with the NEP helping neither the bumis nor the non-bumis and causing discontent instead.

However, if the NEP had been effective, why then poor equity stake of the bumis in the economic pie? Is it because those that where helped did not know how to help themselves? Maybe this was what the former PM, Tun Mahathir, said when he openly 'criticised' the Malays in one of the UMNO general assembly. He said then that the government had failed in helping the Malays not because of lack of policy but because of the Malays themselves. If this is so, then the NEP should be tweaked so that only those who has the potential, who is worthy of being helped should be helped. It should not just be given to anyone as long as he is a bumi. Studies had shown that handouts blunts the competitive spirit and self-reliance. Hence, this may be the reason why the equity had stayed stagnant over the last 20 years.

Or is the failure of the NEP attributed to poor distribution of wealth among the bumis themselves? This may explain why there are some bumis who are multimillionaires where as the majority of the bumis are generally poor. This is as important as the distribution of wealth among the races, because if the income gap between the rich and the poor becomes too big, this may compound the problem of wealth distribution. Already the road towards wealth distribution among the races is plaque with problems, the addition of a income gap within a racial group will pose a bigger problem. Marginalisation, today's catch word, will then take on a bigger dimension.

The equity of bumis, as I understand it, only takes into account the distribution of shareholdings of businesses in Malaysia. It did not take account into the salary drawn by the people. Hence, even if the equity of bumis stand at 18.9%, it does not mean that the bumis are generally poorer than the non-bumis. This is because the large majority of bumis who are working and drawing a salary are not considered. Hence the equity maybe 18.9% but the proportion of salaried bumis maybe much higher compared to the non-bumis. Hence, by just addressing the equity distribution may not be an ideal way in determining stakes each race has on the economy. What it meant is simply the proportion of shares held by each group and therefore the proportion of the super-rich among the racial groups.

Another pertinent point is how the equity is distributed among the bumis themselves. It is known fact that bumiputras does not equate to Malays, although generally accepted to be so. Bumiputras under the constitution includes the Bajaus, Kadasandusuns and other indigenous groups of Sabah and Sarawak. It will be interesting to see if the NEP has benefitted these bumis as well. It must be remembered that both Sabah and Sarawak were brought into the then Malaya by Tunku so as to maintain the bumis majority with the formation of Malaysia. Hence they are an integral and important component of the bumis population and it will sad that they are left out of the economic pie despite playing such an important role and their sacrifices towards the formation of Malaysia.

Whether the 'true' equity and its methodology will be revealed by the government remains to be seen. The government had been known to drag it feet on such matters. As a gauge, the proposed setting up of the police watchdog, IPCMC, had not materialised after nearly 10 months, despite the recommendations of a Royal Commission, approval of the PM and a change of the Police Chief. Therefore, do not be too surprise or upset when the bumis equity is still being debated in the years to come.

Links:
Why are we lagging still?

DeepaRaya greetings a blesphemy?

MALAYSIA: The internal e-mail circulated by Takaful Malaysia's religious department head, Fauzi Mustaffar, forbidding Muslim staff from extending Deepavali greetings is another reason why Muslims are oftened portrayed in the negative light by the West.

In the email, Fauzi said that because the Deepavali festival involved the worship of Hindu deities, issuing greetings was like practising polytheism and against the tenets of Islam. He claimed that this was blasphemous and was against Islamic teachings.

Earlier in the year, the Perak mufti, Datuk Seri Harussani, suggested that celebrating Gongxi Raya and having open house with the other religious groups should not be encouraged because it can erode the Muslim beliefs among the Muslims. I felt sorry for Muslims because of these remarks.

Firstly, Islam had been around for a few centuries. In its history, it has undergone several developments resulting in different sects. Lesser religion would have outlived its usefulness, but not Islam. Before 9/11 in 2001, Muslims over the world had been able to live a largely peaceful lives and accepted by their Christians host countries. This suggests that Islam does not discourage or forbid its followers from mixing with followers of other religions. It is only after 9/11 terror attack that Islam as a religion had been hijacked by a handful of so-called 'believers' that use the religion to further their political ideology. As a result, the majority of true Muslims are being held ransom. For Fauzi, an educated man, living in a Muslim country that professes the Islam Hadhari or 'Civilised Islam', to utter such word is indeed sad. It is precisely because of people like him that reinforced the West's poor and wrong perception of Islam.

Secondly, by saying that having open house and celebrating Gongxi Raya (joint celebration of Chinese New Year and Hari Raya) and Deepa Raya (joint celebration of Deepavali and Hari Raya), can erode the Muslims faith, shows how insecure he is about his own faith. If I am a Muslim, hearing this words is tantamout to insulting my faith! How can visiting friends and enjoying each others company be detrimental to the Muslims's belief? If a Muslim can so easily be swayed away from his faith, then Islam as a religion has failed. But we know that Islam did not fail as a religion, from the number of its followers worldwide. I think the only one that has failed Islam is Fauzi.

Thankfully, other Muslim leaders had since voiced their disagreements. In rejecting the email, Information Minister Datuk Zainuddin Maidin has called on Muslims to portray a positive picture of Islam to the other communities and said that such an act did not portray the spirit of brotherhood adopted by Muslims.

Perak mufti Datuk Seri Harussani Zakaria, while discouraging joint celebrations, said it was not blasphemous to extend wishes to someone celebrating a festival. He further added that: "As Malaysians, we must be respectful of each other's religions or festivals."

Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Datuk Dr Abdullah Md Zin, said that "forbidding Muslims to wish Hindu friends Happy Deepavali is a narrow interpretation of Islam. Just because you wish someone Happy Deepavali does not mean that you have embraced his beliefs and religion. It is not syirik (practising polytheism)."

Common sense will tell that extending festives greetings is nothing religious. Visiting friends and enjoying each others company is nothing religious. If these are not religious, how can one religious beliefs be eroded? Maybe Fauzi's faith in Islam is shaky to the extend that mere greetings can destroy whatever faith he had in Islam!

What has the company Fauzi works in said about the email? The company, Syarikat Takaful Malaysia Bhd, which is part of the Bank Islam group, has apologised for any confusion that has arisen from the misinterpretation of its recent e-mail. A spokesman for Takaful Malaysia reiterated that Mohd Fauzi's e-mail was meant for "internal circulation and as an advice or an opinion for our staff only." Internal circulation cannot and should not be used as an excuse. Internal circulation is also an expression of an opinion and is a reflection of how a person think. It is alright if he expressed his opinion to himself, but expressing the same opinion to his staff, whether internal or not, is dangerous. Being the head of department, he has a certain amount of authority and his words are usually followed. Given that his organisation is based on Islamic principles, people may misconstrued it as the 'true' teaching of Islam.

The world today is undergoing a period of turmoil between the Muslim and non-Muslim world. Although this situation is due to the extremist actions of a few, the larger peaceful Muslim community had been held ransom. We certainly do not need people like Fauzi to complicate matters. These are the very people who contribute to the antagonisms and did not do justice to the Islamic faith.

Encik Khairy, you have lost your moral right

The president of the independent Asian Strategy and Leadership Institute (ASLI) has retracted the recent study entitled "Corporate Equity Distribution: Past Trends and Future Policies," which estimated that Malays owned as much as 45 percent of the total equity of the stock market. Following the disclosure, there were much furore from the bumiputras, claiming that the bumiputra equity stake stands at 18.9% over the last 20 years. This was followed by calls for the paper to be retracted with various quarters calling the study as rubbish.

Khairy, the deputy president of UMNO youth, was quoted as having "urged Malaysian academics to be more careful while researching sensitive issues, especially those involving race." He further said that "We should not issue any reports that might trigger the people's anger".

Anyone one following the Malaysian politics will remember that not too long ago this same person Khairy has played the racial card when he accused the Penang Chief Minister of marginalising the Malays. Wouldn't this have triggered the Malays' anger? Coincidentally after these words were said, the Chief Minister was embarrassed and ignored during the official opening of the UMNO Tanjung division.

If the ASLI report can evoke anger in the population, would not the mention of Malay marginalisation cause the same anger? Of course the Malays will be angry if the equity stake is being questioned because if the equity is more than 30%, then the affirmative action policy would have to be ended. Similarly, if the Malays are told that they had been marginalised, wouldn't the same feeling be evoked? So where is the difference between the two incidents?

Come on Khairy. You are an educated person, from a prestigious overseas university. Where are your principles? You cannot follow the tide. If Dr Lim of ASLI cannot raised a finding that may anger the Malays, then the same principle should be applied to yourself. By raising a racial issue that may incite and anger the Malays, you Encik Khairy has lost you moral right to tell others not say things that may incite the people.

Maybe Khairy should learn from Dr Lim, the author of the paper. He stood by his paper and take full responsibility and resigns from ASLI. He distanced himself from the organisation "because of the need to defend the position and integrity of independent and non-partisan scholarship." This is what integrity means.

Sadly, integrity is what a lot of Malaysian politicians lack. Recent examples include Jasin MP with "close one eye incident", and many of the Cabinet ministers who can change their position depending on who the leader is. Sometimes I wonder how Malaysia can do so well, in spite of the government.

Links:
Lim stands by report, quits Asli
Asli report - thunderous silence by MCA, Gerakan, MIC, SUPP, Sarawak, Sabah Ministers

Why the trend?

I had always felt that kids nowadays are less disciplined and more self-centred. But I tried to brush it aside attributing it to my own peculiarity and idiosyncracy until I read a report published in the Today newspaper, October 11, entitled "A pocket-sized pint of good cheer - Six-year-old youngest winner ever of kindness award". The girl's form teacher was quoted as saying that she had noticed the trend of schoolchildren becoming more abrupt-mannered and self-centred. This report was cleverly published together with a letter from a reader who related an incident on how a child was not reprimanded for being rude to his grandmother and food wasting. Why has our society, one which pride itself with its high education level can fare so badly in bringing up our children?

The principal reason for this sad state of affairs is the lack of someone to point what is right or wrong and what is acceptable or not. Children nowadays are largely left to the maids to look after. The poor maid has to do all the housework, look after the kids, bring the kids to schools and tuition class - and she is expected to do all equally well. If one had done housework before, one will know that this is an impossibility. Something will have to give, and in this instance of course it is child-minding, as the main job for a maid is housework. Furthermore, most maids are not allow to discipline the child for obvious reasons.

The little time parents spend with the children also contributes to this problem. Having to work hard for the day, coming home is the time to rest. Most of us who has work for a full eight hours will appreciates how little energy there is left to guide the children. Furthermore, by the time the working parents come home, the child will probably still be study and doing their homework. That leaves very little time for guidance as well. Weekends is not different. The time spent is mainly for shopping and to play golf. How much time can there be to guide the child?

Parents are also more protective of their children nowadays probably because of fewer children. Hence the parents will try to provide the best to their children, sometimes to the extend of being over-indulgence. This poses a problem to schools because given the above reasons, schools become the last bastion in preventing the decline in discipline. Parents maybe too quick to jump to defend their children. Teachers are only human. Why bother to discipline when there are tons of letters of explanation to write? Why bother to punish when a letter of complaint will ensue? Luckily there are a lot of dedicated teachers who tried their best to guide the children in spite of all these adversities.

Nowadays there are a lot of books on how to bring up children. If you talk to child psychologist, one of the things they teach is not to scold the child especially in public. This is to avoid affecting the child's self-esteem, resulting in low self-confidence. Many parents will take this to mean minimal intervention, again resulting in lack of guidance. If previous methods of scolding the kids was suspect, why then are there so many great people in our mist?

The children themselves lack the opportunities to be guided. With school ranking, school are out to prove themselves, and pupils had been piled with homework. On top of this, there are enrichment classes and tuition classes. The emphasis here is on grades. Having to spend a lot of time on school homework, leaves very little time for those few parents who manage to squeeze the last ounce of energy to guide the child. With such precious little time, how many parents have the heart to discipline their children? Any minor misbehaviour will be tolerated. To the child, if an action is not pointed out as wrong, such behaviour is acceptable and correct. In the long run, cumulations of minor misbehaviours become a discipline problem.

With cable television, more of our kids are exposed to US shows. If you have watched some of these shows, you will realised that some of their behaviour are not totally acceptable in our society. If the parents did not watch the show together with the kids, this may be a missed opportunity to point out the flaw. Utilising TV shows to teach kids value is probably the most valuable opportunity. This is because when we discuss about the TV characters, the kids will not be in defensive mode and hence more receptive. TV shows can sometimes provide an opportunity to discuss difficult topics like those involving the bees and the birds, without feeling too awkward.

With all the above reasons, it is hardly surprising that kids nowadays are more self-centred and less disciplined. However the problem does not end with these kids. What will happen to the next generation of kids when today's kids become parents themselves? Without the basic foundation on courtesy and consideration for the next person, how are they going to teach their children on what courtesy and consideration is? I shudder at the thought!

North Korea carried out its first nuclear test

North Korea was reported to have carried out its first ever nuclear test about half an hour ago. This is despite the threat by US and calls against such a test by countries such as China and Japan.

It is hardly surprising to me that North Korea chose to carry out the test. No doubt North Korea is a rogue state but it had largely toe the line set up by the six party together with the US before Bush presidency. Since Bush had taken over, North Korea was pushed further and further into isolation until it has nothing to loose. To be sure North Korea has always tried to manipulate the talks with its rhethoric. Tired of such rhethoric, Bush probably felt that the best option is not to be held 'ransom' by North Korea and tried to put pressure by isolating the nation. Being pushed to a corner, and with nothing to loose, nuclear test becomes a viable option. China, the staunchest ally to the North Koreans, should shoulder some blame for not putting enough pressure on the North Koreans. However with the nuclear test carried out, looking for scapegoat is no longer important.

Iran is definitely following the events in North Korea closely. Iran is also having a confrontation with the US on its nuclear program. Sanctions are being planned on Iran if it refuses to give up its right for its nuclear program which it claimed is only for peaceful use. If the US and the world is unable to deal with the North Korea effectively, then Iran will see all the threats against it so far as empty threats.

Asians would probably have a quite sense of pride now that another Asian country has gone nuclear. Another Asian country standing up to the 'bullying' tactics of the US and Western world. The US must understand that Asians country has as much right as itself to have nuclear capabilities. Asian countries are independant countries with equal rights under the law of United Nations. If the countries are equal, why then can the West possess nuclear weapons and Asian countries cannot?

I can understand why the US and the West is worried about nuclear proliferation. Unlike the West, Asian countries tend to be more unstable. Hence there is always a risk that some terrorist can get hold of such nuclear weapons and threatened the world. This is a very real risk and is justified. However in order to contain nuclear proliferation, the West needs to understand and respect the Asians; Asians have their pride just like the West. If the West is threatened, wouldn't they want to stand up for themselves? Look at the Cuban crisis. The US was willing to risk a nuclear war at the expense of pressuring the Cubans and Russians to abandon its plan to place nuclear warheads on Cuban soil. This is precisely what North Korea and Iran is doing - standing up for itself. It is about national pride, although it is bordering on playing with fire.

Unlike showing off ones might with military hardware and such, having a nuclear arms has wide ranging implications. Nuclear weapon has short and long term implications. In the short term, it can destroy thousands or even millions of lives. Even those who survived a nuclear bomb will have to endure with cancers and other effects of radiation sickness. In the long run, the area bombed cannot be reinhabited for decades because of the effects of radiations.

Detonating a nuclear test has opened the Pandora's box. Once opened, it is very difficult to contain the after effects. It may even come back to haunt the very government that unleashed it. Take for example Pakistan. Part of the reason for the existence of the Taliban was because of the Afghan-Russian war. These people were known as 'freedom fighters' then but now they are variously called 'insurgents' and 'terrorists'. They are just victim of circumstance. For years the US has funded and armed them to fight the Russians, but when the Russians retreated, what is left for them is to fight the other 'aggressor' and that is the US. Hence for those who supported North Korea's right to carry out a nuclear test, be warned!

The ball is now with the US. Not only will its policy affect North Korea, it will also have wide implications for Iran. North Koreans had already proven that it can stand up to the US. Iran so far had not admit its nuclear ambitions, just nuclear for scientific research. If the North Koreans has 'won' this round against the US, Iran may just change its tune. Only time will tell whether Iran is true to its words.

Who has 'more' right of way?

I was on my way to work this morning when I witnessed this incident. This incident happened in a landed HDB carpark.

There was this lady walking towards the junction when the car reached the road hump. She took a look at the car but chose to cross the road anyway. After that look, she did not look at the car while crossing the road. In the meantime the car did not make an attempt to slow down more than necessary to cross the hump. The car moved forward till very near the lady but did not touch her. Not sure if the car slowed down for her to cross or not. Although the car was very near, the lady did not even attempt to walk faster to avoid the car or look at the car; she just walk at the same casual pace as if nothing has happened. To be fair to her she may not be able to hear the car approaching so near because she has a headphone (as oppose to earplugs) on. Luckily nothing untoward happened in this incident.

This is not the first incident I witnessed in my HDB estate. People generally just cross the road, some did not aware of approaching vehicle because sometimes they forget, some are just like this lady, although not so daring. I just wonder who has 'more' right of way.

From young, we were told to look out for traffic. Hence, when I cross the road, even at zebra crossings, I make sure that the vehicles noticed me before I cross. And as I cross, I tend to look for any approaching cars so that if any 'blind' drivers are approaching, I can stop to let the vehicle through - even though I have the right of way as I am crossing the pedestrian crossing. So my upbringing is that the vehicle always has right of way, legally or otherwise.

But nowadays, things seemed to have changed. Because of the conveniece accorded to pedestrians with the pedestrian crossing light and zebra crossing, vehicles are always expected to stop for pedestrian to cross. Sometimes pedestrian actually tried to cross the road when the green man is blinking with the counter at 3 seconds. It is fine that they tried to hurry up when crossing the road. Instead they just stroll across the road as if nothing is happening - because they know that the car will not move till they had crossed the road. Anyway no driver in their right mind will want to hit them even if they slowly walk across. I had even witness two secondary school student did a jive in front of a taxi when they reached the middle of the zebra crossing!

Sometimes I feel that even though a pedestrian has the right of way, is it so wrong to give way to vehicles? A vehicle is a vehicle, it can cause you harm or even death. What is the point of being legally right, when you have to prove it with your life? Worse, if you are left permanently disabled. As for me, I rather suffer the frustrations than to be injured just to prove that I have the right of way.

I am always curious as to who has the 'more' right of way - the pedestrian or the car?

Taufik's bad dream

SINGAPORE: The front page of today's Berita Harian, entitled 'I DREAM' JADI MIMPI BURUK? caught my eyes this morning. Translated it means 'I Dream' becoming a bad dream? Basically the article reveals that Taufik's 'original' song 'I Dream' may not be that original after all. The song was apparently sang by a LeAnn Rimes, a Grammy award winner in 2001. You can hear it for youself from Ridzwan.com, in his blog written on September 25 or from YouTube. Both clips are the same. So far MediaCorp and SonyBMG has been tight-lipped about the uncanny similarity of the two songs.

If the songs turns did not turn out to be an original song, I feel sorry for Taufik for he had been ripped. On the other hand I wonder if this will land him a windfall. Since a franchise was signed with the understanding that an original song will be sang and awarded to the winner, shouldn't this be a breach of contract? Anyway Taufik shouldn't feel too bad because for the last 2 years this had been his song, and he had made the most of out it - a double platinum. Since then he had gone on to win many awards in the region. He had already proven himself.

However in the bigger picture, I wonder how it will affect the Idol franchise. MediaCorp was contemplating whether to renew the Idol franchise in 2 years time, and I think after this episode, most likely Hady will be the last Idol. Now I wonder whether Hady's song 'You give me wings' is an original. In his case it is more critical because he had not produce his album yet. One wonders what will happen if his original song lost its originality. Will he get a replacement original song?

In response to this revealation, and if proven true, I feel that we should expose this incident as much as possible so that words will go back to the US. This is so that those who had supported the Idol series knows about the incident and put pressure on them to clarify the matter. Somehow our market is small, so we may not have much consumer power to make any impact. The franchise had make a handsome profit out of the finalists, and so it be fair that they stay true to the spirit.

I sincerely hope that Hady's song won't be renamed 'You give me broken wings'!

Post-65s, post-75s or post-85s?

SINGAPORE: During the last general elections, a new catch phrase was coined. No, it is not Gomez but post-65s. These are the people born after Singapore independence. The reasoning is that these group of people form the bulk of the populace and hence their problems should take precedence over the pre-65 population. Good reasoning but is it an over-generalisation?

The electing citizen born after 1965 would be in their 20's, 30's and early 40's now. Their age gap may seem close by only about 20-30 years, but given the rapid development of Singapore, this means that despite the short time differences, their live experiences are necessarily very different. These experiences started with the influence of their parents experiences to that of their own when they are old enough to mould their own. Hence, their experiences are influenced by the major events that had affected Singapore after independence - the fallout of the 1964 racial riot in Singapore and the 1969 racial riot of Malaysia, the period of robust growth in the 70s, the world recession of 1985 and the Asian financial crises of 1997. With such varied experience, I feel that the populace should be separated into three groups for the purpose of addressing potential aspirations and problems.

Those who just hit their 40's will be the first group. These included the current young MPs, the married couples with older children and teenagers, and the bulk of the working population. This group is different from the other post65s because of their parents' experience. Their parents just fresh from the racial riots of 1964 and having to re-live the same experience with the racial riots of 1969 in Malaysia, will impart a different value to their children. This group of people will grow very much aware of the dangers of racial conflicts and the need to promote racial understandings and cooperation. Because of their parents experiences, they are more sensitive to each others race and their culture. This is examplify by the ability of the non-Malays to understand Malay, the sensitivity about not exposing pork to a Muslim friend or trying to take halal food when going out with their Muslim friends. This is clearly lacking especially in the current group of primary school children.

On the economic front, this group is also more appreciative of the good life around them and tend to manage their finances better. Fresh out of independence and the racial riot, the economy of the day was not as robust as today's. Hence, the lower income group still made up the majority of the population. Because money was hard to come by, this group of people are more frugal and realistics in their expectations. They were brought up to appreciate the value of money and as a result tended to be less wasteful and have more moderate expectations. They should not be too different from the pre-65s.

The next group is the post-75s. This are the people who grew up with a silver spoon. Their parents were the ones who experienced the greatest pay rises, the influx US-consumer culture and rapid development in Singapore. Coupled with the good economy was the phenomenon of double-income family. Women were no longer frowned upon if they join the workforce. This together with the demand for labour by the booming economy and the government's policy to encourage women to join the workforce, money was no longer a main issue. Pay rises and bonuses were order of the day. Hence their children were more pampered. They have more toys, more pocket money and travel more. When money is aplenty, frugality is no longer necessary. Hence these groups are not so careful with their finances, does not know how to moderate their expectations and generally more carefree.

The double-income family presented with a new problem. Child-minding becomes a problem. This slack was however taken up by the grandparents because at the time, extended family was still very much alive. Hence, the influence of the grandparents were very much alive and these influences may have moderated on some the post-75s expectations.

The last group will be the group of post-85s. These are the group of people who grew up with maids. With 'progress', perceptions and lifestyles have changed. Nuclear family became more common. Women who chose not to work were seen in different light. Grandparents were replaced with the easy availability of maids. Hence the post-85s were largely left to the maids for their upbringing. There was little guidance given to their children by the parents. And the maids were not allow to discipline the children. Guidance were largely left to the schools. However the schools were unable to do a better job because of the constraints put on the teachers by the Ministry and the parents themselves.

These children grew up largely influenced by their peers as they spent more time with them. This was due to the extended school hours because of extensive school syllabus and the government's policy of helping parents who work. There was also no incentive to go home to an empty house. Hence their experience were largely shaped by their interactions with their friends. The majority of them unfortunately did not know how to carry themselves in society, being sensitive to the people around them. With consumerism at its height, and money in the pockets, they have the worse bargain among the post-65s. I foresee them to pose the biggest challenge for any future government. Already there tell-tale signs of things to come - teenage pregnancy, inconsiderate behaviour, unrealistics and extravagant lifestyles. The extend of the group's influence will only be fully appreciated when they have their own families.

Therefore instead of grouping the major electing populace into just the post-65s, they should be grouped into post-65s, post-75s and post-85s because their life experience necessitate that their expectations will be very different; and different means should be employed to engage them. Post-65s, post-75s and post-85s are a mouthful. I would just called them the 'Careful group', the 'Carefree group' and the 'Careless group' respectively.