A Worm's Perspectives ...

Why so difficult to learn Mandarin (II)?

2010-01-18T17:15:00.009+08:00

Happened to tune into blogTv on Channel News Asia entitled "Hooked on Huayu" shown on 8 Jan 2010. Having watched the programme, it set me thinking and thus my blog.

As usual, the discussions were rushed through due to time constraint. This, to me, is the greatest set back for this otherwise interesting program. The points brought up are summarised below:

1. the same Chinese character may have different pronunciations
2. pupils were criticised and "made to feel small" when they don't do well
3. as Singaporeans lack a cultural background, there is no passion in picking up the language
4. MOE should hold immersion programs for the student so that they will become interested in the language after realising its usefulness
5. make the teaching of language fun, so children will want to learn more

All the points brought up were relevant and probably true. My discussion today will take a different approach. In contrast to my previous blog where I try to explain for the difficulty in learning Mandarin, in this blog, I will approach it from the learning of English instead.

In the English language, we were taught to use phonetics to aid in our pronunciations. This is where a word is broken up into syllable to aid in the pronunciation. For example re-le-vant. Simple! But like all things there are exeptions.

Sometimes the same syllable is pronounced differently. Our is pronounced as owl-wer but four is pronounced as for and not fe-owl-wer despite the second syllable being exactly the same as our. And then we have hour which is pronounced exactly like our despite having a different spelling!

As if that is not complicated enough, pronunciations sometimes also depends on how the word is being used. Take the word produce. It can be pronounced in two ways depending on whether it is used as a noun or a verb. Hence it can be pronounced as pro-dus or pro-dyus.

Hence, the pronunciation of English words is not as easy as it seems. No doubt, English words are made up of alphabets which gives a hint on how to pronounce but sometimes one can be caught up.

I remember a time when I have to memorise spellings after spellings every week. On top of that I was made to learn the mysterious ways of the English grammar. Although, grammar is being left out in formal teaching of English, spellings is still the norm. Then, there are comprehensions, cloze passages, oral, etc. If all these make the learning of English fun, then there must be no sadist in this world!

Mandarin language teachers were made the scapegoat when it was said that their style of teaching is a contributing cause to the disinterest shown by the students. Sigh, poor teachers whose only 'crime' is to try their best to teach the language. It is true that some of the teachers are over-zealous, but I know for a fact that such 'tactics' are not only confine to Mandarin language teachers. I am sure there are an equal number (if not more) of Science teachers and Maths teachers, and not to 'alienate' the English teachers, who have done the same thing to their students. And what 'crime' am I talking about? Of course the scolding and the 'criticisms' that are leveled at our poor kids, who had tried their best and still have no clue as to what the fuss is all about when they had gotten that B instead of A or Band 2 instead of Band 1. Unfortunately, the criticism does not stop in school, but is continued back home. And yet, the child still continues to learn English, Science and Maths.

Immersion program was quoted as being useful as it rekindled the interest of one of the panelist in the learning of Mandarin. Another participant even said that MOE should let all students to have immersion program where they can study for a week in China's school. I am surprise that in the study of English, our children need not go to England for immersion programs and yet they can sit through hours of English classes and tuition at home. Furthermore, a one week program will just turn out to be just another tour. There are many opportunities to learn Mandarin here at home, if only one is interested. For a minimal fee, one can learn Mandarin through the many Mandarin dramas and game shows on offer by TCS8 and Channel U. If that is not enough, there are always the numerous radio stations out there. And this type of immersions and 'encouragement' can be carried out throughout the year, nearly free of charge!

Given the above scenarios, it seems that whatever difficulty faced by the child in learning Mandarin, is not much different from that encountered in the learning of English. The obstacles are the same, but the outcome is different. Why is this so?

It was said that Singaporeans lack a cultural identity and hence it is difficult to learn the language. This remark seemed rather strange to me as given the so called lack of culture why does one choose English and not Mandarin (in the case of Chinese) as the 'mother' tongue? Wouldn't Mandarin be more natural choice because even if one lacks the culture, there is the name and the skin colour to remind one of ones culture? What is there about us, Asians, that make us more culturally nearer to the Caucasians? So this argument does not hold.

I have no answer to this problem. However my perception of the problem can be summarised by the following questions.

Why is it that people will speak in broken English and yet will not do the same in Mandarin?
Why is it that a child's first book will be in English and not in Mandarin?

Maybe my previous blog will provide the answer.....

PSLE 2009

2009-10-15T11:01:00.003+08:00

The 2009 Primary School Leaving Examination (PSLE) has just concluded. And as with previous years there was much dissatisfaction about the examination papers - this year in Maths and Mandarin papers. There were complaints about the difficult maths paper even by top students. Now there was foul cry on the possible 'unfair advantage' by some students after one of the Chinese passage was similar to that of a passage found in one of the assessment books.

Of course in both instances, the reply from the Ministry of Education was as expected. For the Maths paper, the Education Ministry said that the paper was "comparable" to those of previous years with no change in syllabus, question types or number of questions.

As for the Mandarin paper, the Singapore Examinations and Assessment Board said that although the setter had drawn reference from an external source, the passage is not a reproduction and that the content and language in the passage had been substantially modified to be aligned to the assessment objective. The board also assured parents that pupils who had seen the other passage would not have been unfairly advantaged over those who did not.

But are the complaints justified?

First, the Maths paper. From the example quoted, the question was indeed difficult, even for myself. It is not difficult to see why parents and students cry foul over such a question. However on further evaluation, this question was not as difficult as it seems. It was just tedious to do because it involves an extra one or two steps to what was normally encountered by students. Since the principle behind the question was the same as what had been encountered by students, there should be no question of the question being too difficult; it is just plain tedious.

So if the basic principle was the same, why then are top students having difficulty answering them? My guess is the way they study. A lot of top students are very hard working. I am sure most of them had already completed at least 80% of all available assessment books in the market if not more. By doing more is good, but may not be very effective. This is because after doing the hundredth question, it practically becomes rote learning. The understanding part is lost. Hence when questions are rephrased, students are taken aback because it is different from the 'norm'; and they lost their confidence. But if they had been learning intelligently, their first reaction would not be one of awe but 'this is another ratio problem' - a very neutral feeling, which is less likely to shatter their confidence.

Such difficult questions should not even be viewed with fear. Students should be trained to looked at such questions as a chance to beat the next guy. Given that our students scores distinction as easily as drinking water, what is there to differentiate the ultra-smart from the very-smart? Hence, instead of trepidation, students should be taught to appreciate such question as a chance to be branded as the ultra-smart. Furthermore, if they are truely the top student, then they should be reassured that if they cannot do it, then nobody else can!

Then the Chinese paper. The similarity between the passage found in the test paper and the assessment book is indeed unfortunate. However, unless the passage and the questions were exactly the same, should the question of unfair advantage even arise?

Comprehension passage is about understanding and as long as the questions are different, then the advantage would be minimum if any. Furthermore, even in the event that there is a perception of unfair advantage, it does not mean that the student can answer the question gained from previous exercise. This is because language is about usage and correct grammatical answers come with practice. Hence it follows that it there is enough practice, there should be no problem answering them in the first place. Whatever perceived advantage will be nullified!

On top of that, if the passage and the questions were truely reproduced from the assessment book, the 'unfair' advantage, in my view is a fair one; as the student must have been working very hard by going through many assessments books. If he had worked so hard, wouldn't this 'unfortunate' incident be fair to him? Hence, in my opinion, the correct way is not to criticise the examination paper but to take the opportunity to teach the student the value of working hard. After all, when can there be a more tangible example than this one?

Whatever the controversies, this incident will recur, as had been happening many times before. So instead of crying foul, in my opinion, this is a good opportunity to teach the student about the many obstacles and setbacks they will encounter in their lifetime. If such a small obstacle and setback can draw such a big reaction, think what will happen when bigger setbacks and obstacles are encountered as they journey through their life. After all, education is not about scoring that distinction; but is about gearing up and be prepared for any eventual obstacles, both planned and unplanned, as one goes through life.

It is not about eating in MRT trains but ....

2009-07-16T09:32:00.005+08:00

The SMRT will be issuing fines for people caught eating in the MRT trains. This followed the rise in the number caught eating in the train where it is prohibited and comes with a fine of S$500. Eating in the train is a minor issue, but the problem is a larger one.

If one looks around today, it is hardly surprising to see people breaking the rules. It is not difficult to see people blatantly throwing rubbish, jaw-walking, indiscreminate parking, and the latest "fad", that of eating in the trains. All may be minor offences. All should not have made it to national news. But the implications are important.

Firstly, why do people nowadays seemed to break rules? It is a quirkiness of the times? I remember many years ago when people would think twice before throwing that piece of rubbish; or trying looking for that pedestrian crossing before attempting to jay-walk. What has changed since? Now it seemed that breaking the rules is something to be proud of, no longer needed to be carried out away from prying eyes.

Secondly, minor offence they may be but underlying all this is the issue of discipline. If one can easily breaks such simple rules, what about more serious offences? The temptation to eat in the train is small, the rewards are small. If a person has no discipline to control himself over such small temptation and rewards, does he stand a chance to deal with bigger temptations? As the saying goes, "Everyone has a price". If such small rewards can make one break the law, then there is nothing to stop him from committing more serious offences, is there?

Thirdly, the next generation. If such minor offence is tolerated and accepted by the current generation, wouldn't the next generation be worse? Once upon a time, holding hands between teenagers was a taboo. Then it became accepted, and so teenagers goes a step further - hugging in public. This was eventually 'tolerated', and so there was kissing in public. All this changes takes place in within two generations. Previously, the kissing couple felt embarassed when caught, now the onlookers are the ones feeling embarrassed! Similarly, now innocuous rules are blatantly broken, what is there to stop further slides?

Fourthly, if everyone were to break the law, how will it affect the society? Already our society is so cosmopolitan with so many differentiation - heartlanders, foreign talents, white collar, etc - hard as it is to keep calm and harmony. However if everyone choose to break the rules, even those of the minimum commonly accepted social grace, wouldn't everyone's life be affected? Everyone will suffer, not just those who choose to infringe the law.

I think it is good that SMRT is doing something to stem such menace. However I do not think that issuing fine will solve the problem. It is always easy to say that education is important but alas despite the rise in our educational level, more and more such problems had surfaced.

The answer lies with the person himself - having the courage to choose to do right, having the courage to choose not to hurt the next person beside him and having the courage to say that he does not need any rules because whatever he do, he do it for himself.

How can we cultivate such a person, is, unfortunately the question.

Ref:
The Strait Times, 15 Aug 2007:
Why don't S'poreans take 'no eating' sign seriously? [Archives]
The Strait Times, 6 Jul 2009:
Drink-and-eat MRT offenders on the rise [Archives]

The End of Marriage Institutions?

2009-02-23T12:27:00.005+08:00

It was with much amusement and sadness when I read an article about the rise of prenuptial agreements in the Sunday Times Feb 22, 2009. While the prenuptial agreement made a good fun read on a Sunday lazy morning, the context and implications of the agreement is worrisome.

Unlike the original reason of prenuptials, where the main purpose is to 'safe guard' ones fortune in case of divorce, the prenups reported by the newspaper is not about fortune or who to gets the children in case of marriage breakdowns. It was on things like cooking only once a week, cutting down on smokings, etc; things which I thought were things you would do out of understanding and love. In the printed newspaper, it was mentioned that the couple only got married after both agreed to the prenuptial agreement.

All this sounded so much like our business world - where meetings are held until some form of compromises can be reached with a contract drawn up and signed. Everything is strictly business; any emotions is discounted. However isn't this goes against the very idea of marriage?

Marriage, traditionally, is based on love between two people who chose to live and share their lives together; and love is based on emotions. One cannot draw up a contract to show ones love for one another. Love also means doing things that will make the partner happy like cutting down on alcohol if this meant making the partner happy. So if such things have to be spelt out in a contract, isn't there love lost?

The demise of the marriage institution started in the swinging sixties, with the start of the sex revolution where free sex was advocated. As society no longer frowned upon premarital sex and casual sex, marriage for sexual activity becomes unnecessary. Any couple is free to live as husband and wife without having to get married first. In the seventies, this was followed by the feminine movement where women are accepted into the workforce. Given the new financial freedom and new working role, the role of childbirth was relegated. Women for the first time have a real say as to when or whether they want to get pregnant. With the widespread availability of contraceptions, suddenly procreation became out of fashion. So, if having children becomes obsolete, why then get married at all?

Well it seems that the reasons for marriage is being repealed one at a time. I just wonder how long the marriage institution can withstand further assaults.

Just thinking aloud, what happens if the reported prenups was broken - sue the partner or divorce - like in the business world?

Has financial considerations got the better of moral considerations (II)?

2009-02-12T11:08:00.009+08:00

The Straits Times today published a report entitled ' JB Nursing homes draw some S'poreans' as a follow up on the suggestion made by the Health Minister. (See my entry here).

I am not sure if the article is supportive of the Minister's suggestion but there is one interesting point that was repeated by those interviewed. The main reason why these Singaporeans are staying in JB nursing home is that of cost - the all important affordability issue. I think this is hardly surprising and if cost is removed from the considerations, I am sure most of these old folks will be brought back home. This was echoed by a Mr Yong, whose mother is in one the nursing homes in JB when he said "I'm just unable to afford the rates here. But I do wish I was able to bring my mother back."

I do not usually like to quote from the Opposition because sometimes they just have to present their views for the sake of opposing. But in this issue I cannot but agree with both MPs from the Workers Party when they said that the Minister's suggested is "quite a bad indication of affordability of our own health care services here, and also a reflection of our national values" and "Singaporeans who cannot afford medical treatment or step-down care here should now consider such facilities in Johor?"

And it seems that this observation was not missed by Straits Times's Senior political correspondent Clarissa Oon in here writing entitled "Don't let the sun go down on S'pore's elderly" published in the Feb 12 copy of Straits Times. She wondered whether the elderly is valued as much as the young in Singapore. She based her observation on the slew of initiatives rolled out by various Ministries for the young; whereas the elderly's 'help' always comes with string attached. An example is the Maintainance of Parents Act which the MCYS Minister planned to enhanced to coerced their children to pay maintainance for their aged parents; only catch is that a growing number of children can no longer afford to do so for various reasons.

I hope the Health Minister will reconsider his suggestion and put more effort into looking for other ways of helping the elderly. Money is important in society but the family unit is definitely not less important. After all, graciousness in a society is not measured by dollars and cents. I am sure when the Minister of State Yu-Foo Yee Shoon said "the quality of life for these senior citizens should be measured not just by handouts but also by the amount of love and care they receive...." in a reply to request for more handouts, she unconsciously has highlight the most important aspect of a gracious society - the love and care to one another. And I sincerely hope that both the MCYS and the Health Ministers had heard and understood its meaning.

Has financial considerations got the better of moral considerations?

2009-02-11T08:35:00.011+08:00

The Today newspaper reported that during the Health Ministry Budget debate yesterday, the Health Minister suggested that Singaporeans could consider living in nursing homes in neighbouring Johor Baru. I find this both uncomfortable and surprise because of the Confucianist philosophy that had always been espoused by the government. Has the need of the government to always maintain a budget surplus, finally dent the moral consciousness of our Health Minister?

Already the society is lamenting about the lack of filial piety. This can be easily seen if one steps into the hospital. Here, one can easily come across those unfortunate elderly patients who had been conveniently left in hospital because no relatives or children step forward to bring them home on discharge. I had also personally come across elderly who sold their flats with the promise by the children that the proceed from the sale will be used to upgrade to a landed property; only to find out later that they were excluded in the upgrading plan. So has the Minister conveniently forgotten this aspect when he made the suggestion?

I am surprise that he was not the least concerned when one investor in this scheme told him that many people visited their relatives weekly, even in nursing home in Singapore. On the surface this is understandable given that most Singaporeans are very busy by nature; hence there is no time to visit the old folks. However dwelving deeper, isn't this just an excuse? How many times have you heard of parents resigning from their work to take care of their sick children with long term problem? Or how often have you heard of couples going back to their parents home to take dinner when their parents are able? Obviously, lack of time is just an excuse. I think the main reason is motivation, or the lack of.

Hence if within Singapore, these old folks in the nursing home are only visited once a week because of 'time constraint', what is there to 'encourage' the younger generations to visit them in JB even once a week? Wouldn't the time constraint even be greater? The jam at both Checkpoints to cross the border is already a deterrent in itself! In the end wouldn't this be a case of 'out of site, out of mind'?

The Minister also mentioned that if there are any medical problems faced, these old folks can be easily transported back to Singapore for treatment. But has the Minister forget to factor in the cost of the ambulance transport? Just a simple transfer of a patient from JB to Singapore without the presence of a doctor cost at least S$1000. Knowing that old folks can easily fall sick, would this cost more in the long run?

If one has spoken to the old folks, how many of these old folks choose to stay in a nursing home given a choice? Have the Minister even consider their feelings? Or maybe in the name of expenditure, their mental health can disregarded?

Instead of nursing home, the solution may lie with day care centres. These centres look after old folks during the day time while the children are at work and then fetched or ferried home by evening when the children are at home. This arrangement is possibly the best because it serves two purposes.

One, the old folks do not feel neglected or unwanted. They know that at the end of the day, they will go back home to their children. They even benefit from the company of other old folks. They will have somebody to talk to, someone from the same generations, who are generally more patient with more time. This will maintain their intellect and their general mental health.

Secondly, the children can feel at ease knowing that their elderly parents are being looked after while they work. They can also benefit from their parents presence which can only enriched the family unit.

Considering that the government is trying to cultivate a more gracious society, I find this suggestion by the Health Minister very odd. How can shipping the elderly to a neighbouring country promote a gracious society? Would this suggestion turn this government campaign upside down? Already with the passing of the Maintainance of Parents Act in 1995, the government had already legally defined the minimal duty children have towards their parents. In the eyes of the law, a child would have carried out his duty simply by providing financial support to their parents. Hopefully, the government will not 'sanction' another policy that will destroy the family unit further. After all like the saying goes - charity begins at home.

I strongly urge the Health Minister to seriously look into funding for the setting up of Day Care Centres and subsidies to help those financially-challenged to place their elderly in such Centres. This can only benefit the two government policies of strengthing the family unit and building a more gracious society.

What Barack Obama represents

2009-01-17T11:21:00.005+08:00

Barack Obama will be inaugurated as the 44th US President tomorrow. This will mark a historic event not only in the United States but also the world. He will be the first African-American President of the United States and will probably be the first democratically-elected leader from a minority group. Why is his Presidency such an important event to the rest of the world?

Obama was born to a mixed-marriage family. His father was Kenyan and his mother an American white. Unlike past presidents, his family background is a humble one, one that is not much different from that of the majority Ordinary folks - no silver spoon, no ivory tower, no hereditary titles. Yet, through education and hard work, he had worked himself progressively up the social ladder till, what would probably be the zenith, the Presidency itself. And all this despite having to reconcile with the fact that he was Black, a minority, with perceived glass ceilings and prejudices. This is made even more remarkable given that the Civil Rights Movement was still very much alive barely forty years ago and the Voting Acts Right was only enacted in 1965 to allow the Blacks equal rights in the democratic process.

He had ran his Presidential campaign on a platform of 'Change' and succeeded. And this he did as an American, without the distinction of skin colour as other minority candidates usually ran their own election campaigns. What is remarkable is that his main rival was Hillary Clinton, who is still wildly popular with the White voters. Despite the odds, Obama won the Democratic nominations. Of course, Sen Hillary Clinton should also be praised for her gracious acceptance of 'defeat', something the rest of the world can learn.

While 'Change' is the theme of Obama's campaign, I think his main legacy will be 'Hope'. He has given hope to the minority population around the world, that being a minority should not be seen as a disadvantage. He did has his dark moments when he had difficulty reconciling his mixed-blood lineage but he had overcome them and be stronger.

Because he had come from an middle-class family, he had no special privileged as most past Presidents had. So, he had to work hard to climb the social ladder. And all this is made possible through education. He had shown that education can flatten the social landscape, making it possible even for the under-privilege to fight on even ground.

However, the most important that Obama portrayed is daring to dream and never give up. He had shown that if one dares to dream with a never say die attitude, great things can be achieved. He failed in his bid for a seat in the House of Representatives in 2000, yet he did not give up. He tried again in 2004 and succeeded. Any lesser person would have given up; the odds were stacked too high. Yet he persevered. How many in the minority group dare to dream of becoming the President of the United States? He did and he succeeded.

Why is Obama's success important in our part of the world? Hope is the answer. He has shown that being a minority is no obstacle. He has shown that with education, climbing the social ladder becomes easier. He has shown that one must dare to dream and never give up. The hurdles are there, but it is not impossible to overcome them.

So to Barack Obama, I say thank you.

Wearing shorts sluttish, dress code hinders creativity?

2009-01-15T08:46:00.006+08:00

I read with much interest regarding an article in MyPaper dated 14 Jan 2009, reproduced above regarding the dress code and how it goes against the spirit of encouraging "creativity and critical thinking". Strangely after reading the article I was a tad supportive of her exertion. Freedom to choose what to wear, not being restrictive in clothing because one will "wear more solemn" clothing for the next forty years appeals to me. You see I also love to wear non-formal clothings. I go nearly everywhere in slippers - Orchard Road, market, shopping mall, beach, etc. It gives me the convenience and the freedom and saves time! Hence I can understand the writer's sentiment. Why restrict when the future is already restrictive with all the formal wear and neck tie. Furthermore, as a guy, I definitely will not mind girls wearing shorts and spaghatti - feast for the eyes!

But with a deeper understanding of what the university tried to do with its dress code, my feeling for such micro-wear (haven't reach nano-wear stage yet, sigh), and my sentiment change. No I do not agree that wearing tank-top equal prostitution. No doubt most if not all prostitute wear micro-wear; but to equal prostitution with micro-wear I think is unfair. Micro-wear can be elegant if it is worn at the appropriate occasions eg wedding dinner, annual D&D, or even a shopping trip down Orchard Road. But then again it depends on what accessories are used with such micro-wear.

My agreement with Joy Fang ends here. Freedom seems to be the catchword these days. Freedom of speech, freedom of choice, blah, blah, blah. But people forget that with freedom comes responsibility. Responsibility towards yourself, the people around you and in this context responsibility towards your lecturers. What do I mean by responsibility towards the lecturer? It simply means showing respect to your lecture and the University. And this is done by dressing appropriately for the occasion. Lectures and (especially) tutorials are formal occasions and hence deserve a certain dress code aka formal clothing. By not wearing formal clothing, this give the impression that there is no respect for the lecturer and what the lecturer stands for. I am sure Joy Fang will agree with me that micro-wear can hardly be anywhere near formal.

It is strange that in these days and age, with people getting more educated, commonsense seems to be lacking. Previously, people generally know how to dress when they go for lectures, outings etc. But nowadays, there seemed to be no distinction between formal and informal wear. Now we have all-occasion wear - the same T-shirt or shorts can be used to go to market, shopping, movie, university, hospital, banks, etc. Some people just forget about the plain commonsense to wear appropriately. Hence this leave the university with little choice but to give a gentle reminder (which is such a commonsense thing, that is absolutely unnecessary).

The university is a place of moulding the young. If not wearing appropriately is not frowned upon, how is the younger generations to know that there is such a thing as appropriateness and courtesy. Already the current generations are deprived of such guidance because of changing social circumstances where 2-pay cheques, domestic helper and paper chase is the norm; all unfortunately did not prepare one for life's challenges. If the university do not remind the students about the dress code, then how are they to distinguish between formal and informal wear? To those who say that it is such commonsense that formal dress code is needed in the office, I will point out that once upon a time, going to lectures meant wearing shirt (not Ts), longpants and shoes for guys and blouse and skirt or pants with shoes for the girls. It was also commonsense then but somehow commonsense disappeared.

So you see, what the university is doing is not to restrict "creativity and critical thinking" to quote the author (although I still cannot figure out what critical thinking has anything to do with wearing micro-wear) but just to give a (gentle?) reminder on apropriate dress code.

In case you are wondering, I do not wear slippers or shots when I attend lectures or attend functions in my children's schools.

Happy New Year!

2009-01-01T00:01:00.003+08:00

It has been six months since I last posted. During the six months there had been many upheavals in the world - sub-prime crisis, major earthquake in China, the melamine-tainted milk scandal in China and the war between Palestinians and Israelis (again).

Southeast Asia has its own fair share of setbacks. In Myanmar there was the massive destruction by Cyclone Nargis. In Thailand, the upheaval, protests and downfall of "democratically-elected" Mr Samak Sundaravej and later the appointed Mr Somchai Wongsawat, both pro-Thaksin supporters and the on-going tit-for-tat protest by pro-Thaksin supporters against the newly-appointed anti-Thaksin coalition PM Abhisit Vejjajiva.

At home would be the escape of terrorist Mat Selamat from detention and the murder of Miss Lo Hwei Yen by terrorist who stormed the Oberoi Hotel in Mumbai on November 26 and the current economic slowdown, pay cuts and lay-offs.

The year 2008 would be very bleaked indeed if not for the successful Beijing Olympics with the phenomenal Michael Phelps and his record breaking 8 gold medals in swimming. And who can forget the inspiration and equally historic election victory by Mr Barrack Obama in the US presidential elections.

With the start of the new year, hopefully thing would be better. In Singapore context, the most important will be the improvement in the job markets and economic performance. So on this first day of year 2009, I wish everyone a good, prosperous and happy new year!

Mum, you could be paid only $23k a month

2008-05-11T09:34:00.002+08:00

The front page of The Sunday Times featured a Mother's Day special with a prominent "$23,000 a month". In case you are wondering, it is the estimate given by a HR expert on the "amount a stay-at-home mother would be paid if you consider all the jobs she performs."

Wow! I say. Incredulous, I read on. The article (archived here) even gave a breakdown and the market rate for the job. I will not dispute the market rate for the job simply because I do not know. However, I have misgivings about the number of hours a mum spent on the said chores and I have even more issues with the number of chores carried out by the stay-at-home mum. I should know best (I think) because I am one of those lucky guy whose wife had decided to be a stay-at-home mum. But that is another issue.

I am not sure if the article was written in the spirit of Mother's Day or it is just another sign of the materialistic society we are living in. If everything should be gauged by dollars-and-cents, then even if nearly half of Singapore citizen will be millionaires by 2017, the society will be so much poorer.

While it is true that money is important, sometimes the happiest times are not bought with money, but the intangible things that we share with family and friends. Call me a romantic. Call me impractical. Call me idealistic and naive. But think of the time when we celebrate our birthdays, our weddings or even that simple dinner we have with our family and friends. Will we be happy when no one celebrate our birthdays? Will we be happy when no one attended our wedding dinner despite having sent in their 'mandatory' ang-pows, no matter how fat they are?
The money spent on the occasions are just a facilitation. If your friends grace the occasions because it is held in a very posh hotel or because they provide the highest grade shark fins, then you better look for new friends!

However, how much does it cost when somebody give you a pat on the back just to say thank you? What is the market rate for someone to help a hepless old lady to cross the road? Or to your neighbour who help jump start your car? Having conveniently omitted such intangibles, the report had been rendered inaccurate. For, a mother did all those mentioned in the article and more.

Looking through the breakdown, I prayed hard that no maid had seen the article. Housekeeping ($280 per 5 hours) and chef ($170 per 3 hours) are also the work done by our ever-present maids. For an eight-hour work per day, the quoted market rate is $450. Mind you $450 per day, just for these 2 chores. Better pray, your maid do not read the newspapers!! Otherwise, they may go on strike if you are lucky. Riot would be worse. So may be we are really underpaying our maids. If anything, maybe this is a very good reason for us to treat our maids better.

The other interesting thing about the article is the great discrepancy between the 2 estimates given. The excecutive director of Singapore Human Resource Institute gave an estimate of $23K a month while Aon Consulting human capital consultant gave a figure of just over $8K. Either of the two had to be wrong. However my feeling is that the job of the stay-at-home mum is so varied with so much intangibles, that former estimates must had taken these into account. I may be wrong, but it just shows how difficult it is to monetarise the work carried out by a stay-at-home mum.

I hope the stay-at-home mum (my wife included ;)) will not demand a 'pay rise' after reading this article. Especially to match the estimate of $23K a month. This is because the 'salary' for the work done by the stay-in-mum is much more than just $23K a month. You are always there when the kids needed you. You always have to face the school teachers for feedbacks. You always have to tolerate the 'abuses' by your kids. And all these without a word of thanks from your spouse (yours truly included) or your kids. And yet, you continue to do the 'job' to the best of your ability. Most of us guys (aka husbands) would have quit long ago!

So, to conclude my lengthy blog, the newspaper article is 'inaccurate' and 'misleading'. $23K a month for stay-at-home mum? Try again.......

Happy Mother's Day

Tibet, Olympic and Hypocracy

2008-04-09T10:14:00.000+08:00

It is heartening to know that there are so many passionate people who are showing their solidarity with the Tibetan people. This was clearly shown by the fiasco created by pro-Tibetan groups inflicted on the Olympic Torch run.

The Tibetan issue started in 1949 when the Chinese army 'invaded' Tibet. Quotation marks are used to illustrate the contended event, depending on which side one supports. Before this date, Tibet was, by all intent and purposes, an 'independent' country. This was because, although there was never an official proclaimation, at the same time, it conducted its own diplomatic arrangement with neighbouring countries without the interference of China. Hence, that period provided the stage for the current controversy.

I will not dwelve into the politics of Tibet, although I do sympathise with their cause. Tibetan has a very rich culture and their culture is being threatened with the migration of the Chinese into Tibet. However, in this latest unrest, I find it very hard to support them.

Unlike in Burma, although monks took to the streets peacefully, their protests were replied with violence by the government. That was certaninly heavy-handed. In Tibet however, there was destruction of properties and violent protests. Any government in the world would have done what the Chinese government had done - to control the violence. Scenes of police beating protestors were no different from that during the WTO meet in the US - the bastion of human rights - after violence erupted with the protestors. Similar scenes were replayed during the riots in southern France. Why was it that there were no charges of abuses in both instances?

Unfortunately, once violence is used, the protesting Tibetans cannot expect any response other than violence. What do they expect the government to do - leave them alone to destroy more properties and lives or take action to stop the rampage? Surely any government would have taken the second course of action. However if the demonstrations had been peaceful, then the Chinese government would have more alternatives and even time to let things to cool down. The option to just wait out would have been more viable and not seen as being weak and not in control. Violence only begets violence.

The Palestinians must be very envious of the Tibetans. For Israel was not even a state before it was carved out from the Arab peninsula and declared its independence in 1948; despite protests from Britain and the Arab world. Since then they had been suppressed by the Israelis. The mere actions of stone-throwing by young Palestinians, was replied with bullets from the Israeli soldiers. Was there any demonstrations and protest from the West? No. Was there any disruptions to the Olympic torch relay? No. Such hypocracy!

Attempts to disrupt the Olympic torch relay run unfortunately is not the correct way to go. This is because the Olympic movement is not at fault. The root problem is China, this year's host. Why put the Olympics to ransom? The demonstrators and protestors talked about freedom of expressions but do they subscribed to it? No. They are just trying to force their beliefs onto the rest of us - those who are apolitical and who just want to enjoy the Olympics. Why should the torch-bearer be prevented from participating the torch relay? Why should people be prevented from enjoying the joy and aspirations symbolised by the torch? Why should atheletes who had trained very hard for the last four years be prevented from participating in an apolitical event meant to bring peace and understanding to the world?

The protestors had probably forgotten about the origins of the Olympics and its ideals. Olympics was a time when warring factions of ancient Greece channel their hostilities from killing each other to something more peaceful and that is the sporting events. War was suspended. Truce was proclaimed to ensure the safe travel of the atheletics to Olympia. If ancient Greek can understand and practiced such ideals, why can't our modern civilised world do the same?

Please leave the Olympics alone. The Olympic movement is a neutral non-political movement meant to bring out the best in mankind. Lets leave it that way, so that mankind has something to look forward to in our ever bleak future of the world.

Links:
- A Short History of Tibet
- Friends of Tibet
- Tibet and China - two distinct views
- The Ancient Olympics

Problem of Delinquents, a transcient problem?

2008-03-24T11:01:00.004+08:00

The article 'Girls behaving badly' published by The Straits Times on March 22 is indeed enlightening. It highlights one of the social ills that is taking in our society today. I am sure it did not come as a surprise for many of us. Possible reasons had been postulated for this phenomenon: bad influences from media and internet, increasing materialism, just want to have fun, weaking of family bond, etc. But what is the real underlying factor?

Previously, such badly behaved children were usually associated with broken families. Broken family is defined as those family where the parents are divorced or separated. In the old days where the mother is usually the home-maker, it follows that once divorced, the mother will have to work leaving the children to fend for themselves with minimum guidance. But reading the article clearly debunk this myth. Nowadays intact families are equally inflicted by this social ills.

To me, this is hardly surprising. Intact family nowadays is only intact as far as the marriage goes. What is not intact is the time spent between the parents and children. With the rise in cost of living, the better standard of living and the rising (unrealistic) expectations, a single income is no longer feasible in most households. Coupled with the fact that women are now better educated, with changes in mindsets and aspirations, being a home-maker is no longer expected. Hence, all these give rise to the double income family, where both the parents work, leaving the children to fend for themselves.

Therefore, on the surface a family is intact but in actuality, the family unit is as broken as that of a broken family. There is practically nobody to mind the children. I choose the word mind and not look for a reason. When one look after the children, one merely make sure that the children are fed and safe. They are not taught about what is right or what is proper. As a result the children do not know how to behave. How does a child know what a proper behaviour should be when he does not even know what is right or wrong?

Some parents tried to amend the situations by 'spending' time with them during the weekend and holidays. This is all well and good until the way how these parents 'spend' their time is examined. During weekends, this usually means going to shopping centres. The father will look at electronic stuff, the mother will look at clothings and the children, depending on the age, toys, stationery or handphones. The point is that the time spent is not fruitful. Each has his own agenda. This is no different as each going out to different shopping centres! How much minding can there be?

Then there are those parents who are indulgent. I have witness a 7-year old child who actually opened the wrapping of a toy to play with it. When he was politely told not to play with it, the father actually told the boy to leave the toy since 'people don't want you to play.' How would the boy learn from his mistakes? Would the boy even know that he was wrong?

The problem of delinquent children will get worse. The cost of living will not be any cheaper. Both parents will have to work. Children of such parents will grow up with no parenting skills. They will not know how to mind their own children even if they want to. The future certainly looks bleak.

I am not pointing fingers at those parents who working. How many of us have a choice? How are we going to solve this problem if the root cause is not tackled? I feel that the only way to tackle this is to do it as a society. Let the society set the standards. This means that if a child is seen to behave badly, let the society reprimand the child. And society means people like you and me. If our children misbehaved, we should not shield them. And if we cannot handle our children, then let the society do so.

Doctors unfairly targetted?

2008-03-21T14:17:00.016+08:00

The Singapore Health Ministry has decided to ban the practice of unsubstantiated aesthetic procedures carried out by doctors here. The official reason given was that "As professionals bound by ethical codes, they should know they are not doing the right thing if they are practising unsubstantiated procedures that have no scientific basis in terms of efficacy or safety." In addition, it was feared that "doctors who sell snake oil pose greater danger to the public than lay persons selling snake oil because the public tursts doctors more" because patients rarely question such procedure when carried out by doctors.

I agree with the Ministry that unsubstantiated procedure should not be carried out by doctors just as unsubstantiated medical treatment should not be practiced. This is because nowadays, the practice of medicine is evidence-based. This means that all treatments must be backed up by studies as to the efficacies. This is the accepted mode of practice and is used as the yardstick in the courts of law. Therefore to practice unproven procedures should strongly be discouraged.

However, is targetting the practice of these unproven methods on doctors logical? Are they being unfairly targetted? After all, many of such practices had been carried out by beauticians, and doctors are only jumping into this lucrative bandwagon. Are they being discriminated just because they have "Dr" in front of their names?

Although I agree with the Ministry, I feel that the ban is too drastic and too sudden. This is because by banning such practices among doctors, it created a vacuum which will be filled up by beauticians instead. And if the main aim of the Ministry is to prevent the practice of such questionable methods, then this problem had not been solved. It merely just shift the focus from one of ethics to one of safety. This is because if any untowards happen to the 'patient' in the course of the 'treatment', at least a doctor is better equiped to handle the complications. Furthermore, a doctor has a heavier responsibility towards his patient, merely because of licensing requirements. This is not so with beauticians.

What the Ministry should do is to regulate the whole aesthetic industry; for it does not matter whether the procedures were carried out by doctors or beauticians. Currently, doctors and beauticians have been using all manner of aesthetic treatments, ranging from the non-invasive methods of skin peelings, to the minimally-invasive methods of skin laser to the overtly-invasive method of mesotherapy and colonic washouts. There is no regulation as to who can do what. In the interest of "patient's" safety, guidelines should be drawn up with clear definition as to what procedures a beautician can do, what a general practitioner doctor can do and what a specialist can do with a breakdown of specialty. Just because one is a specialist does not mean that one can claim specialist right to do aesthetic medicine, because he can only be a specialist in his own specialty. His skill level in aesthetic medicine should only be expected to be on par with that of a general practitioner. In the same vein, the differentiation in criteria for beautician and doctors should not be based on medical background but should be based on the risk involved and the ability of managing any potential emergency complications by the practitioner. This will ensure that everyone is given a level playing field.

One of the defence often cited by doctors is that procedure such as mesotherapy had been widely practiced in France and South America. While mesotherapy had been practiced since it was first pioneered by French physician, Dr Michel Pistor in 1952, its use in aesthetic medicine had a shorter history. And the few studies on the effect of mesotherapy on fat cells had not been conclusive. If this method is so effective, I find it strange that drug companies do not fall over themselves to come up with studies that will prove conclusively once and for all the efficacy of this method and get the treatment mainstream. More likely, most of the studies funded did not show statistically significant positive results.

With the banning of doctors from practicing such unproven procedures, I wonder what will happen if doctors choose to close their clinics and convert it into a beauty saloon instead and do away with their official title; effectively be a beautician. After all, the practice of aesthetic medicine is so lucrative that I am sure these doctors do not need the run-of-the-mill practice of seeing cough and cold. Technically they are doctors but they do not run a clinic; in other words, a medically-trained beautician, just like a medically-trained Minister. What will be the Ministry's stand in such cases? Hence, instead of pushing such doctors 'underground', a full regulation of the industry seemed a better option.

I purposely steer clear from any ethical issues. If a patient finds that his doctor seemed to be more preoccupied with aesthetic medicine, then change your doctor. There are so many doctors in Singapore, and I am sure some of them will actually be appreciative for the chance to see you. However, if your choice is limited by the Managed Health Care scheme, then I can only sympathise with you. And that issue belongs to another blog!

Updates on 24 March 2008

The Health Minister yesterday reiterated that the Ministry will leave the professional bodies - College of Family Medicine and Academy of Medicine - to look into various mode of treatment. However the Ministry will draft guidelines on high-risk procedures. This seemed to be a change in stand by the Ministry and is in-line with what happened in the US where although the cocktail of medication for mesotherapy is not approved by the FDA, mesotherapy itself is not deemed illegal by the medical professional body.

P.S.: I am a practicing doctor not involved with aesthetic medicine.

Links:
College Pharmacy - Mesotherapy treatment
Caring Medical - Mesotherapy
Consumer Guide to Plastic Surgery - Lipo-Dissolve under Investigations
DermNet - Mesotherapy Suture for a Living - Mesotherapy/Lipodissolve
WebMD - Fat-busting Injections under Scrutiny

Malaysia's 12th GE - the aftermath 2

2008-03-15T11:21:00.002+08:00

Barely one week post election, Malaysians are thrown into a number of uncertainties.

In Penang, there was the UMNO-led street demonstration against DAP plan to stop the NEP. It was reported that there was about 500 UMNO members including the ex-Deputy Chief Minister of Penang. Strangely this comes barely 2 months after PM Badawi said that street demonstration was not in the Malaysian culture. He was commenting on the Hindraf demonstration then. What was more intriguing is the fact that nobody was arrested despite the fact that no permit was issued for the demonstration. Of course it can be said that it was a peaceful demonstration, and hence no reason to arrest anyone. But then again, the Hindraf demonstration was also peaceful until the police moved in to disperse them.

Another intriguing phenomenon is that even though PKR's Tan Sri Khalid, the newly-appointed Selangor MB also plan to scrap the NEP, the response from the BN was different. PM Badawi did not chastise him for stoking the racial sentiments. But similar proclaimation by DAP had stirred up entirely different response. Now I wonder who is stoking whose sentiments?

The role and power of the Sultan in forming state's government cannot be any clearer. Now we know that the Sultan has the ultimate power to choose the MB. The question now is since he has the authority to appoint MB, does he has the authority to fire him as well? This is pertinent especially in Perak, where the ruling DAP-PKR-PAS coalition seemed very fragile at the moment. It state progress had been stagnant either from the disruptive squabble of the coalition or from the witholding of funds from the federal government, does the Sultan have the power to replace the MB, even if this candidate is from the minority party? If this is so, what implication will it bring regarding the Sultan's status as being above politics? Will it change the whole equation of the party with the majority seats forming the government of the day? Already the Raja of Perlis had scuttled the BN's plan for a MB.

I am sure Malaysians are anxiously waiting to see how PM will name his Cabinet. How will the minority be represented in Cabinet? Will he 'punish' the Chinese and Indians for abandoning MCA and MIC? Or will he try to win back these minorities and behave as a national leader for all Malaysians? His actions will have great implications on how Malaysians will vote in five years' time.

The Great Malaysian Experiment

2008-03-12T20:03:00.008+08:00

Now that all the election dust had settled, one thing is clear - that the just concluded election outcome was a freak. This is because if the government, the people and even the opposition were caught unaware, then the result can only be described as freakish. From press reports, interviews and analysis, it is clear that this was more the results of protest votes against the ruling BN and not so much the support for the untested Opposition. Is this a bad omen for Malaysia? On the contrary, I think this is a golden opportunity and I call it the Great Malaysian Experiment.

This is because if such freakish outcome had not resulted, then the status quo of poor governance, non-accountability, corruption, nepotism, cronyism and wastage will continue. All this because nobody was willing to test the unknown. Until now every Malaysian is willing to tolerate the abuses and excesses of the government of the day; all this because of the lack of a credible and untested hodgepodge Opposition. All this changed unexpectedly after the last general election; and this presented Malaysia with an opportunity that may never happen again.

It will be interesting to see how the federal government deal with the state government held by the opposition. From previous experience, when Terengganu was under the control of PAS, the Federal government withhold the oil royalty to the state Government and was able to get away with it. This was partly because of the very poor representations of the Opposition in the Parliament. But this has changed since last Saturday. Not only are there now more Opposition MPs in Parliament, they now control five states. On top of that, the states government are under the control of different parties making up the Opposition. Hence, it will not be so easy nor practical now to just withhold state funds that are due to the states under Opposition control. Then there are other issues like foreign investments, and the megaprojects spanning across state lines. How the BN will handle these situations may be the precedents for future governments' dealings with states under the Opposition control. Because of the two-tier election where a voter gets to vote for the state and federal government, there may arise the possibility of the federal government and all or most of the state governments being governed by the opposing camps. This was unthinkable until last Saturday.

Then there is the problem of how the states relate to each other. Previously, because all the states were controlled by the same party which also made up the federal government, states relation was not much an issue. However now the states are essentially controlled by different parties. How are states controlled by the different party making up the loose coalition of Opposition going to deal with each other? Friendly and tolerant or mercenary and non-forgiving? This again will be something new to explore.

Previously, change of government was very smooth. The Sultan was merely mentioned in passing. Whoever was appointed the Mentri Besar by the respective party will just be sworn in. This also changed after last Saturday. The swearing-in of the Menteri Besar for Perlis, Terengganu, Perak and Selangor was delayed; apparently because the Sultan has not endorsed the appointee. What will happen if the compromised appointee of the loose Opposition grouping is not endorsed and further disagreement of the candidates cannot be resolved? What will be the role of the Sultan then? Never before has the role of the Sultan been scrutinised so closely. As of yesterday, we now know the Sultan has the ultimate authority to choose a Menteri Besar when the candidate from PAS was choosen as the Menteri Besar for Perak even though he was from the smallest victorious party and had the objection of the largest party making up the Opposition governing the state. How will this affect the working relationships of the parties making up the coalition of Opposition?

This also brings in the question the state constitution which stipulates that the Menteri Besar should be a Malay Muslim; and only the Sultan has the power to waive it. This is pertinent because of the situation in Perak where the DAP won 18 seats compared to PKR's 7 and PAS's 6. Under normal circumstances, the party with the largest assemblymen will be made the Menteri Besar or Chief Minister. But in this case, clearly it is not possible. Therefore question arise as to under what circumstances will the Sultan exempt the requirement, if at all?

Now that the Perak MB has been appointed, it will be interesting to see how effective a minority leader can be. Even if the two Malay-based party of PKR and PAS combined, it is still in the minority. Can the minority leader be effective in implementing policies that he may not really believe in but was 'forced' to accept due to concensus within the Opposition? Or will he just be happy to be a puppet leader whose action is being dictated by the majority party?

The Islamic party of PAS now has two states where it has the majority, that of Kelantan and Kedah. In Kelantan, PAS introduced strict Muslim laws despite the protest of the non-Muslim minority. However in Kedah, its newly appointed MB has promised that the same strict Islamic law will not be implemented in Kedah because of the differences in the ethnic demographics. This beg the question of how one can decide when to implement Muslim law and when not to; without being seen to have double standards and pretentious. And even if it is possible to have differential laws applied to different states, how can PAS justify itself as an Islamic party with Islamic ideals? A very interesting situation to see as it unfolds.

The Opposition has already declared that they will abolish the affirmative policy in the states they control. This was proclaimed in Penang and Selangor. It will be a new testing ground for such a proclamation. Firstly how will the Malays view such a move? Secondly, how will it affect race relations? It has to be remembered that the affirmative policy was introduced after the racial riot of 1969, blamed on the disparity in wealth distribution among the races. Will its abolition further threaten the already fragile and fractured race relation in Malaysia? Or will it be something positive, both for the bumis and non-bumis, alike? Only time will tell.

Because of all the above 'experiments', this last election presented itself as a golden opportunity where many unknowns exist that can be tried and tested simultaneously. And, as an added bonus, lessons learned from the situations in the states can be projected and applied to the federal level. Minority leader, role of the King, the abolition of the affirmative action and the very unlikely take over of the PAS as the ruling federal government may happen someday; although unlikely and unthinkable. But last Saturday all that changed. So whatever the outcome from this general election, it can only benefit Malaysians and not otherwise.

Malaysia is now at a crossroad. The people wanted change and change is what they get. Now it is left to the law makers to make good this change. Opportunities abound for the Opposition to make good their promise and to prove themselves. The ruling BN also has the opportunity to re-invent and to make itself relevent to current and future generations. The political landscape and mindset is given a chance to change and to adjust. This maybe the only opportunity Malaysia has to better herself and its people. Hopefully, the Great Experiment will be a success.

[Update 14 March: Since this post was published, the appointment of the Perak Menteri Besar had been postponed due to differences between DAP-PKR-PAS. There should be good lessons to be learned from this incident]

Malaysia's 12th GE - a new beginning?

2008-03-10T08:40:00.005+08:00

The election result has been finalised. The ruling Barisan will continue in the government having won 140 seats out 0f 222. They will face, for the first time, the Opposition which is represented across the board. Where previously the Opposition was largely the Chinese-based DAP in 2004 or the Islamic-based PAS in 1999, this time round, the DAP, PAS and PKR, a largely Malay-based party, all did equally well. This outcome has presented Malaysia with a new political opportunity.

Since Independence 50 years ago, the ruling Barisan coalition had always been the only realistic choice to govern the country given its representation of the various races through its component ethnic-based parties. This is because, the politics of Malaysia had always been race-based and it is an accepted fact that a non-Malay will never be the Prime Minister, at least in the foreseeable future. This couple with the realisation that the non-Muslim minority will never support an Islamic-based party to rule the country. Because of this, there is no real chance for the Chinese-based party of DAP or the Islamic-based party of PAS to form the government.

The success of DAP, PAS and PKR this time round having won themselves a combined seats of 82 have presented a viable alternative to this largely monolithic political system. Together this three parties represented all the three major ethnic groups in Malaysia. Although the DAP is largely Chinese-based, it has a sizeable Indian parliamentarian. The Malay electorate will be represented by PAS and PKR. What is different in this election with that in 1999 when these 3 parties formed a coalition called the Alternative Front is in the presence of a de facto leader in Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim. Hence for the first time the Opposition has a Malay leader with parliamentarians representing the major ethnic groups; akin to the Barisan coalition.

Now that the people has made their choice, the Opposition will have to prove themselves in Parliament. They will have to show that they can work together, creative and truely able to address the major issues at hand - the issues of religious conversions, the judiciary independence, the 'perceived' marginalisation of the ethnic minority, the 'perceived' Islamisation of the country among others. And they must do this without the rhethorics which was so common previously. This election has shown that Malaysians are now more educated and discerning, able to analyse issues and no longer just support parties based on ethnic lines. If the Opposition can oppose constructively or even elect to support the government when such is warranted, then I am sure the future of the Opposition will be bright.

UMNO, the backbone of the ruling Barisan, can also 'benefit' from this result. For years, UMNO can rely on the Malays support. This has probably made UMNO too confident and arrogant, loosing their direction along the way. This can be seen by the jostling for candidancy in the days leading up to the nomination days. There do not seemed to be any clear criteria for selections. Probably, the leadership had felt that it does not matter who was standing for the election as long as they belong to UMNO. Certainly this has proven to be wrong and showing that even the Malay voters are now more discerning. Issues and the ability to solve them becomes more important than just the party banner.

The fall of Gerakan in Penang is not unexpected given the poor track record under the leadership of Tan Sri Koh. He did not even have the full support of Penang UMNO. MCA's dismal showing, to me is a surprise, given that they had made more representations to UMNO under the leadership of Ong Ka Ting.

MIC's disastrous showing should be no surprise given the unpopularity of Samy Vellu. Maybe power has gone to his head to the extend that he was still so arrogant, aloof and defiant in the face of the hostility that he had received since the Hindruf street demonstration. It is probably appropriate that he be dumped unceremoniously by the electorate on his 72nd birthday. The insult can not be any worse when at the same time the leader of Hindraf was elected with a clear margin of victory; all these even while he was in political detention. Truely, MIC will need a more practical and dynamic leader.

All these changes give Malaysia a real opportunity to set things right. For the ruling coalition, not to take thing for granted and to try to solve long-standing and sensitive issues, like the question of religious conversions, rising crime rates and the judicial independence, and not just sweep under the carpet for the next leader to solve. For the Opposition, a chance to prove themselves a viable alternative to the long-entrenched ruling party; that they can present constructive views and criticism for the betterment of the country.

Malaysia is now at a crossroad. The electorate have shouted out loud. If this 'experiment' works, then the days ahead are bright because then no ruling party can be complacent, and misdeeds can be minimised if not eradicated due to the check-and-balances. However, if this experiment fails, then things can only get worse.

Malaysia's 12th GE - the aftermath

2008-03-09T14:21:00.005+08:00

The 12th Malaysian General Election was conducted yesterday and the results, dare I say, shocked many people. Yes, the ruling Barisan coalition was expected to lose some seats and may even stood a chance to hold on to the two-third majority in Parliament; long used as the yardstick of the people's support. However, eventually, this was not to be. Not only have Barisan failed to retain their two-third majority, but they were further slapped on the face with the lost of their major component party of MCA, Gerakan and MIC.

At the state level, things don't look any better. As expected, Kelantan remained in the hands of opposition PAS. Penang, although not expected to do as well as before, also fell to the opposition. Surprises came with the fall of Kedah, Selangor and Perak. All these loses were mainly at the expense of MCA, Gerakan and MIC.

In the run-up to the election, the Barisan coalition was not expected to do as well as in 2004 when they won 198 parliamentary seats out of 218. Many factors worked against the ruling government of Datuk Seri Abdullah Badawi.

Firstly there was the Mahathir factor. Unexplicably, after choosing Datuk Seri Abdullah Badawi as his successor, he suddenly turned against him. Dr Mahathir criticised his successor repeated and painting negative pictures of him at every turn. How Datuk Seri Abdullah can remain quiet with such personal attacks remained a mystery. To his supporters, you will say he has wisdom, respect and poise. To his critics, he is a lame duck, weak prime minister. How can a reigning prime minister fight an election when even an elder respected, still powerful stateman criticises him? Maybe Dr Mahathir is now smiling at poor showing of ruling coalition under the leadership of his chosen successor.

Then the is the Badawi factor. When Badawi ascended the premiership, he had vowed to eradicate corruption and clean up the running of the civil service. But at the end of four years, not much had changed. He was shown to be a weak leader time and again. Could this have contributed to the dismay results?

How much had the Anwar factor contributed? I think it is just a matter of timing - being at the right place at the right time. No doubt he had been the most prominent face of the Opposition. But his influence will most likely have the most effect with the Malay majority. Even then, if one listened to his speeches, there is not much difference between his and that of the Chinese-based DAP. His main groused was mainly with the previous administration of Dr Mahathir. In fact he had not criticised Badawi directly.

But the biggest issues of the day must be that of race and religion issues. Unfortunately after 50 years of independence, these issues had not been conclusively resolved. The people merely tolerated such issues and not openly discussed them publicly. However with the Badawi's administration, either through policy change or otherwise, such issues came to the open. The Hindruf street demonstration was the most telling. It seemed that the minority's fustration had reached its limit. Where previously, such unhappiness can only be inferred, with yesterday's results, it is only too clear to be seen.

With the above background, it is not difficult to predict the fall of Datuk Seri Samy Vellu, the president of MIC. However the fall of bigwick of the Chinese-based party is certainly a surprise especially that of MCA. Penang, under Gerakan had been getting from bad to worse. Even the outgoing Chief Minister Tan Sri Koh Tsu Koon did not get much support from UMNO and his political days were perhaps numbered starting with Khairy's speech and his being ignored by the Tanjong division UMNO chief during the opening of the Tanjung division headquarters back in 2006. However, at the national level, MCA had been fairly successful in fighting for its cause.

So what will this mean to the ruling coalition of Barisan? And how will it affect the government's policy towards race relations, one of the major issues in this general election. Will there be any backlash to the country's minority? What will be Anwar's next step? Will he contest in a by-election as planned? Will he keep his word on dismantling the affirmative policy? Only time will tell.

Will Samy Vellu fall from grace?

2008-02-29T19:27:00.003+08:00

The Indian community, led by Hindu Rights Action Force (Hindraf), staged street demonstration in the capital last month. This was to highlight the perception that the community are being marginalised, lack of a meaningful stake in the economy, opportunities to progress in education, employment and business and its disproportionate representation in crime statistics. This has put the MIC and especially its president Datuk Seri S Samy Vellu under tremendous pressure. This is because Samy Vellu had been the president of MIC for the last 30 years. Deputy presidents had come and gone, with each departure due to disagreement with the president himself. Now the Samy had been jeered and shackled by the Indian community each time he was on his campaign trail. He is currently defending his parliamentary seat and has said that this will be his last election.

This seat must definately be one of the most watched. Will the president supremo be shown the door and fizzled out of politics disgraced or will he win another term in defiant of the hostility shown by some of the Indian community? But how important has Samy Vellu been to the Indian community?

This question will be difficult to answer but his importance may be induced from an incident which occured a many years ago. During the time, there was protest against the Ministry of Education's decision regarding Chinese education. (Unfortunately I cannot recall what the issue was but it involved the then deputy president of MCA, Datuk Lee Kim Sai). This had lead to Dong Zhong Jiao (United Chinese School Teachers Association of Malaysia) and the Chinese community issuing protests against the Government decision. Tension was rather high. The Government contained the incident by arresting many Chinses Opposition political leaders under ISA. And interestingly, the President and Deputy President of MCA and Gerakan, both Chinese-based party within the governing National Front, left the country. This in effect had cause a void in the leadership of the Chinese community. Fast forward to last month, when the Hindraf demonstrated in the streets of KL. Samy Vellu was still in Malaysia then. There was no need for him to take leave out of the country. The real reason may never be known but the implications are there.

So will Samy Vellu make a graceful exit after 30 years at the helm of MIC? Will he shown the door unceremoniously? Sungai Siput constituents will have the power to decide. And only time will tell.

P.S: If anyone can remember the then incident, please elaborate

12th Malaysian General Election

2008-02-27T11:40:00.003+08:00

The nomination for the 12th Malaysian General Election was just completed 3 days ago. A few interesting points surfaced from the nominations.

Firstly, the nomination of candidates. This involves both the NF and the Oppositions. There seems to be a lot of unhappiness in the selection process. Incumbents seemed to be sidelined arbitrarily. New faces are selected, to run in constituencies held by the incumbents; not because incumbents are not serving their constituencies well but because they have to make way for national leaders. There is even a term coined for these candidates - parachute candidates! Then there are cases where party is held ransom because their chosen candidate was not selected initially. This is examplify by the case of Perlis MB who needed to 'consult' the PM and DPM repeated for the few days leading to the nomination. This was accompanied by the threat of his supporters to resign en mass if he was not fielded. The sad thing, of course, was that he was fielded eventually.

What these events implied is that the selection process seemed rather arbitrary. Of course I will never know what happened behind closed doors but the implication is that there is no clear and transparent way of choosing a candidate. Because if there is a transparent way, then I am sure those that are not selected will not feel cheated and resort to threats and blackmail to get back their seats.

Secondly, the integrity of some of the candidates. There are candidates who party-hopped so as to be a candidate, just because they are not chosen to stand in their previous party; and then there are those who just changed their mind about standing although they had vehemently proclaimed that they will not stand again because of differences with their party. All this makes one wonder where is their principles as far as politics is concerned. Do they really standby what they said or they just said what they said just to get votes?

Thirdly, PAS fielding a non-Muslim in Johor state seat under the PKR banner. I personally find it strange that PAS can field a non-Muslim when party constitution says that only Muslim can be a member of PAS. What is even more intriguing is that this non-Muslim candidate is a female. This is because from past speeches by PAS leaders, women had been portrayed rather negatively and was even dissuaded from working. Intriguing choice indeed. On top of that, this candidate runs under PKR but the seat if won will belong to PAS! Privately, this is possible but in practice, how can a candidate that run under PKR banner be counted under PAS banner? If this can be done then partyhopping should not even be an issue.

As of today, BN has already won ten parlimentary seats uncontested. There is no doubt that BN will win the election again, it is just the margin of victory that is in doubt. The Opposition looked more united this time round and most likely they will not do too badly given that there are few issues plaguing the Government eg inflation, Hindraf, etc. It will be interesting to see how MIC will do in this election.

Ashley Treatment, the key that will unlock the Pandora Box?

2007-01-10T11:26:00.000+08:00

The so-called Ashley treatment, published over the new year, has raised much hue and cry about the appropriateness of this 'drastic' treatment. For a full background to the report, please read the blog written by her parents here. I will not debate about the rights or wrongs of this case, but will discuss about the ethical issues involved and the consequences that may arise.

Three questions need to be answered when we view this ethical issue.

Firstly, the right of Ashley herself. Because of Ashley's medical condition, her mental age will remain "3 months old" for the rest of her life. Therefore, she has no ability to care for herself and hence her "rights" is at best virtual because there is no way to know how she will response towards any decision "imposed" on her. The first moral/ethical question is whether she has a right at all.

Secondly, what is the right of the parents to subject her to this treatment? Traditionally, parents has the ultimate rights to care for their children. It was accepted that parents will do what is best for their children even when it involves some form of physical punishments. However, all this change when someone thought that children should be given equal rights as adults, that they should be "counselled" like an adult. Society's rights overtake that of parents' right - hence the moral/ethical issue here. Should the parents' right be subordinate to that of society's? If the parents have the ultimate right to decide for the child, should the society impose a limit on them? After all, the society is not taking care of the child but the parents are. The government and ultimately the society is not going to provide direct support and care which the child needs. So does the society has the right to impose their belief and values on these unfortunate parents?

Thirdly, does the doctor and the ethics committee has the right to carry out the treatment of Ashley? Mankind is both blessed and cursed by medical advances. Blessed because for the first time, human can treat or change the course of disease. For the first time, human can influence the course of a disease, and not be subjected to the seemingly inexplicable random acts of a more superior power. However, with the advancement of medical science, the frontier where human can change the course of a disease is being pushed further and further, resulting in our ability to change the very basis of human life - the DNA. This is where the curse of medicine lies, we are potentially equiped with the technology to change Man himself. And I think this is the very ethical and moral issue that society is facing, with the unfortunate Ashley as an example. The society is not debating about the treatment of Ashley, but that of society itself! Let me illustrate.

Previously before the term plastic surgery was coined, skin grafting and bone reconstruction were only carried out for those suffering from severe burns or disfiguring accidents. These surgeries were carried out to help the patients reintegrate into society, to make them more acceptable and less of a freak. However with time, the society shifted its focus and doctors and society begin to redefine what a "freak" might look like. Suddenly a crooked nose or a slight asymmetry of the cheek bone which only the "patient" can see becomes a "problem" because the "patient" has less confidence to face the world (psychological disease). Any forms of pretentions were abandoned when the word "patient" was made irrelevant when surgery was carried out on that nose or chin to enable one to look like his or her favourite actor or actress. This is precisely the slippery road that society is afraid of. Can society accept that a severly autistic child's vocal cord be denervated, so that his life will be improved as he will no longer be a "nuisance" to his friend because of his uncontrolable shouting?

The curse of medicine had been present for a long time. Euthanasia, which was unofficially allowed in the Netherlands in 1985 and then officially legalised in 2000 is another ethical issue that had plaqued the medical fraternity for a long time. Locally, the Advanced Medical Directives (AMD) is arguably a variant of the spirit encompassing euthanasia. All this ethical issues arise because of the lag in ethical debates that follow medical advances. Until and unless, society as a whole - legal, medical, ethical and religious experts - can come to a common understanding and acceptance before it arises, such ethical issues will continue to haunt us.

Further reads:
http://ashleytreatment.spaces.live.com/
http://blogs.nature.com/news/blog/2007/01/big_issues_from_a_small_child.html
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/01/07/MNGVENCASN1.DTL&type=health
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1574851,00.html

The need for more confidence

2006-11-18T09:40:00.000+08:00

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?

2006-11-13T13:02:00.000+08:00

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?

2006-11-10T09:18:00.000+08:00

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?

2006-11-03T17:41:00.000+08:00

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?

2006-11-01T21:39:00.000+08:00

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?

2006-10-31T11:22:00.000+08:00

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

2006-10-28T18:44:00.000+08:00

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....?

2006-10-25T09:56:00.000+08:00

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

2006-10-23T18:28:00.000+08:00

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

2006-10-23T06:06:00.000+08:00

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?

2006-10-22T12:15:00.000+08:00

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?

2006-10-19T10:10:00.000+08:00

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?

2006-10-15T11:25:00.000+08:00

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

2006-10-12T17:46:00.000+08:00

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?

2006-10-11T21:51:00.000+08:00

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

2006-10-09T11:08:00.000+08:00

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?

2006-10-09T08:22:00.000+08:00

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

2006-10-07T07:20:00.000+08:00

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?

2006-10-06T08:32:00.000+08:00

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.

Thank you Mr Lee, but no thank you!

2006-09-26T10:13:00.000+08:00

Minister Mentor of Singapore and former Prime Minister Mr Lee Kuan Yuan recently caused a furore in Malaysia when he said that Chinese in the region are being marginalised. It is not hard how such a conclusion is reached. There are many recent examples in Malaysia.

1. When a Ministry is headed by an UMNO member with a non-UMNO member as his deputy, the latter is not the acting Minister when the former is away. Instead it is the Parliamentary Secretary, an UMNO member who acts the capacity. The reverse however is not true. When the only non-Malay Chief Minister, Tan Sri Koh is away, his deputy from UMNO will be the acting Chief Minister.

2. Prior to 1994, the KadazanDusun were in power under the Barisan National banner. This changed in 1994, when the then Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir proposed a power sharing scheme where the post of Chief Minister will be rotated among the Muslim Bumiputra (UMNO), the non-Muslim Bumiputra (KadazanDusun) and the Chinese. These was later slightly modified after the first 5-year term, to one where UMNO will have 2-term under the rotation system because "it is the biggest coalition partner in Sabah". Then in 2005, the take over of power from the largest ethnic group, the KadazanDusun, was complete when it was announced by the current Prime Minister Badawi that the rotation system will be aborted.

3. Recently in Penang, at the peak of the spat between Mahathir-Badawi-Khairy, the Chinese are again made the bogeyman. Khairy questioned about the marginalisation of the Malays in Penang. This was instantly followed up by calls for the rotation for the post of Chief Minister in Penang. Then come the demonstration and rebuff by UMNO members against the Chief Minister during an official opening of an UMNO division. This was followed by calls by both the PM and DPM for Tan Sri Koh to "be a leader for all Malaysians".

4. The New Economic Policy (NEP) and its subsequent replacements were drafted after the May 13 racial riot of 1969. This is an affirmative policy to help the Bumiputras to gain a 30% foothold on the economy. Recently, the Institute of Policy Research, an NGO, has published figures to show that the bumiputras had already own 45% of the economic pie. Calls for a review of the NEP was then made by the non-bumiputras as the aims of the NEP had been achieved. However, a pro-UMNO organisation, the Malay Research and Strategy Foundation, immediately denounced the findings and charged that "orang Melayu dan Bumiputera masih rakyat kelas kedua di Malaysia kerana belum menguasai ekonomi" (the Malays and Bumiputras are still second class citizens in Malaysia because they have not control the economy).

The above facts clearly shows that there is definitely marginalisation of the non-Malays in Malaysia. The perception of MM Lee is spot-on. However his observations has brought about some sad truth.

Why are the non-UMNO partners in the coalition government silent all these while? There is not much point in given a position of a deputy minister when the real power is even less than a parliamentary secretary. It is so sad that after 50 years of independence with the ruling coalition party running the show all this while, there is still no trust in the non-UMNO partners. This is despite the fact that a political crisis was averted when MCA "readmitted" the new UMNO when it was declared illegal in 1987. This is despite some of the non-UMNO members can speak better Bahasa Malaysia than their UMNO counterparts. It is as if the coalition is just a show, with the UMNO holding the true power running the country.

It is understandable that UMNO being the dominant party within the coalition has a bigger say in things. However, no matter how big a say UMNO has, there should be an equal playing field. Things that should not be said for fear racial sentiments should be applied to all - both within and without UMNO. Imagine what will happen to Tan Sri Koh if he says that the Menteri Besar of other states are marginalising the non-Malays. I am sure he will loose his deputy presidency post in Gerakan by the next general election.

The oppositions are also quite toothless. Granted that the coalition partners hands are tied. But what has the opposition done? It is sad that it takes a foreign leader to point out the marginalisation of the non-Malays. Then again, maybe the marginalisation is so obvious that the opposition will not gain any mileage by bring it up.

MM Lee may not mean to intrude into the Malaysian politics. His intention seemed to illustrated how the Malaysian government is trying to coerce Singapore government to be more compliant, like what was happening to non-Malays in Malaysia. The non-Malays maybe marginalised in Malaysia, but at the end of the day, this is a problem for Malaysians to rectify. MM Lee was unjustified to use Malaysians to illustrate his point. He should practice what he preached: you must be in a political establishment if you want to be involved in politics. Here he is not in Malaysian political arena, and hence he should know where to draw a line. I have much respect for MM Lee Kuan Yew but in this case, he does have something to answer for. Thank you Mr Lee, but no thank you!

Links:
Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew: Reflections on Good Governance

What drives the increase in traffic summons?

2006-09-23T09:38:00.000+08:00

With the recent outsourcing of the traffic warden, the scheme seemed largely successful in bringing in errant drivers, not to mention the huge fine accumulated in the process. What is interesting is not how a part of law enforcement can be outsourced but why the huge difference in the outcome compared to before outsourcing?

For years, the traffic wardens came under the preview of the Traffic Police, a governmental organisation. The Traffic Police had been largely successful with regards to maintain some discipline with drivers in Singapore. This is evident from the low accident and other small traffic violations eg indiscriminate parking figures. Just when traffic enforcement seemed almost perfect, the need to cut cost, like all governmental departments here, has presented a new problem. How to cut cost and still have at least similar level of traffic enforcement? Outsourcing seemed to be the answer, at least when it comes to issuing summons.

Why is then outsourcing is so effective when it comes to issuing summons? Singapore has been known for its efficiency government departments, and so it comes as a surprise that the Traffic Police has fallen short. Is it an isolated problem or is this part of a more inherent problem found in most governmental departments? Maybe there is something to be learned here from the private sector.

As outsourcing is about the bottomline, it is very difficult not to equate the sudden increase in summons issued with some form of monetary returns. Since the motorists are essentially the same, the only factor that has changed is the way summons are given. What are some of these factors?

I am not sure if a tender is called for the outsourcing exercise, but the idea is the same whatever methods used. A sum of money is given by the Traffic Police to the outsourcee to check on traffic offences. This means that the outsourcee will have to hire people to run the service. As no company will provide a service if there is no potential financial gain, one wonders where the source of monetary gain is for the outsourcee. Does the source of profit comes from the number of summons issued? Or do they get a cut from the amount of fine accumulated?

If there are no profits involved for the outsourcee, what is the other possible impetus for them to issue summons to motorists? Maybe it is performance. Anybody with MBA will tell you that if you want to improve something, it must be measured. Hence, if the outsourcee is hoping to renew their contract with the Traffic Police, then they have to prove their worth. How so other than to reflect this through summons issued. If this is the case, then there is no reason to outdo the Traffic Police by a very large margin, since as long as there is an increase from the Traffic Police summons, they have already proven their worth. As a result there is no need to hire many traffic wardens, as less traffic warden means less expenditure and higher profits. The fact that there are now more traffic warden on the streets make this reasoning less likely. More likely the outsourcee is profit-driven and hence the increase in summons issued.

Is this outsourcing necessarily bad? I don't think so. Although the outsourcee maybe profit driven, society has indirectly benefitted from it. Where traffic infringement were largely left undetected previously, now the culprits are taken to task. This has reduced the hassles and inconvenience to the other more law-abiding motorists. Errant motorists may cry foul but at the end of the day, all road users will benefit from such outsourcing.

Dark days ahead for Tan Sri Koh Tsu Koon

2006-09-20T09:20:00.000+08:00

With the current verbal assault on Malaysia's only Chinese Chief Minister in Penang, I wonder at the fate of Tan Sri Koh Tsu Koon. His sorry state of affairs more or less started with the criticism by Khairy, the deputy UMNO Youth leader who charged that the Malays in Penang had been marginalised. This was followed by the open demonstration against the Chief Minister by UMNO Tanjung division when it opened its premise and then ignored by the UMNO division chief.

I wonder if his battered state is only temporary, a by-product of the Mahathir-Badawi spat, or more correctly Mahathir-Khairy spat. With the UMNO general assembly scheduled to be held in November this year, as in previous general assemblies, when stakes are high, the UMNO protagonist will usually play the communal and religious tune. This, as to show that they are the champions of the Malays. This year the general assembly is particularly important because of the Mahathir-Badawi spat, although a potential embarrassment had been averted with the failure of Mahathir to be elected as a representative to the assembly, a position which would enable Tun to speak to the delegates.

Will the current offensive against Tan Sri Koh ceased with the conclusion of the up-coming UMNO general assembly? What will happen to Penangites if the Chief Minister is unable to govern the state properly because of interference from UMNO? Tan Sri Koh has already retreated to a cocoon when he said that he will avoid speaking to the press for fear of being misquoted and will only go through the proper channel within the framework of BN. One wonders why he should be seen to be cowed into such action when UMNO members does not need to go through the proper channels - the agreed mode of discussions within the ruling coalition - when they openly snubbed the Chief Minister, or having their communal views ever easily misquoted without much repercussions. Does this make him a lame duck Chief Minister until the next general election which must be held by next year?

On a bigger picture and in longer term, Tan Sri Koh has been picked to take over the helm of Gerakan. If he is not accepted by UMNO and UMNO Youth as an equal, how is he going to hold genuine discussions with UMNO. Hishamuddin and Khairy, the chief and deputy chief of UMNO Youth had already shown disrespect and accused Tan Sri of marginalising the Malays in the state; and Badawi and Najib has also directed Tan Sri to be a leader for all Malaysians. With assault from every corner, can Tan Sri really regain the respect he had when he lead the BN to retain the Penang state assembly in the previous election? If he cannot regain this respect, how is he going to lead the Gerakan at national level without being seen as ineffective. Already his ascension to the Deputy Presidency of Gerakan was marred with some controversies. Given the current situation he is in, can he gain the respect and cooperation of the Gerakan members?

Only Tan Sri Koh can rectify the situation himself. Of course it also depends on how well he handles the UMNO factors. He will have to use all his diplomatic skills to maneuvre himself out of this political quagmire. Gerakan has always been seen as bridge between the MCA and UMNO, and if his leadership is seen as impotent, then a moderating factor in UMNO will be removed and communal politics will sadly be more pronounced.

Ref: “The Marginal Man” - “Punch drunk” Chief Minister Koh Tsu Koon

Look back on my first year of blogging

2006-09-16T08:12:00.000+08:00

Categories: Wormie Says

Today marks the first year of my blogging. I posted my first post on a Friday, September 16 last year from my humble Dell x50v, more out of curiosity to see if I could blog from the Dell. Since then I had written over 170 blogs.

I am happy and proud to say that some of my blogs were highlighted either by the press or online blog watch. My articles on sportsmanship and why Malaysia should be proud of its sport achievements were featured on Global Voices. Another notable inclusion in Global Voices is the usage of Bahasa Rojak in Malaysia. My blog on the preservation of Fort Tanjong Katong was 'tomorrowed' by the Singapore online blog watcher, Tomorrow.sg. And recently, Newskini, a Malaysian blog watcher highlighted my blog on affirmative action in Malaysia.

On print, some of my blogs were also quoted. Among them, my thoughts on the infamous Tammy video and the Da Vinci controversies in Digital Life and the auditor's report on the NKF saga in Today newspaper.

Having unabashedly congratulated and blew my own horn, now for the more serious look back. Although my initial intention was to test the Dell handheld, the fun of writing has replaced my curiosity about the handheld. Couple with the highlights that I received, this had spurred me to write more. In the process, I actually manage to improve my vocabulary. Grammar however remains elusive to me. Because my blog is factual, in order to keep accuracy meant that I have to read more and wider, with the resultant improvement in my general knowledge.

The downside of blogging came when I added site counters. Site counter became a bane because when page views dropped, I felt pressurised to increase the page views. That had taken away the joy of writing. Thankfully after a period of reflections, I am happy to say that ratings no longer influence what and how often I write.

This first anniversary also gives me an excuse to change my template. Being not very creative, this template is still not quite my creation but an adaptation of a template by Douglas Bowman named the Harbour template available on the Blogger site. Hopefully by the next anniversary, I can create my own template.

Finally I would like to thank all those who had read, commented or linked to my blogs.

Fare hike by Public Transport Council justified?

2006-09-13T13:34:00.000+08:00

Categories: Singapore

As expected the Public Transport Council (PTC) has approved the fare increase for the bus and trains. This will take effect from October 1. This comes after the two public transport operator SMRT and SBS applied for the fare increase in August 2006. This fare revision represents an overall fare increase of 1.7%. Is the fare increase justified?

To answer this question, one has to understand the workings of the two public transport operator in Singapore. Unlike in many countries where public transports are managed by the government, here the two companies are public-listed companies. Therefore, bottom-line matters and they are answerable to the shareholders. How does one rationalise this seemingly conflicting interest between the shareholders and the public? The government has created a non-partisan council, the PTC, to oversees the public transport fare as well as to set benchmarks for the companies. The intention is that the PTC will balance the interest of the shareholders and the public, so that the will be a win-win solution to the fare structures. However does this ideal works?

Since the creation of the PTC in 1987, there has been at least 3 increases in fare structures. The oft mentioned justification is that to maintain a world class transport system, there should be some form of profits so that the public transport company can expand its scope and hence further improve its services. This sounds reasonable until one looked at the result of a survey carried out in 2005 by PTC on the satisfaction of service. Surprisingly, despite the fare increases in 2000, 2001 and 2002, the mean satisfaction rate was only 6.4! If this is maintainance or improvement on our world class transport system, then the justification seemed flawed; unless of course, the transport system had not been world class after all before the fare hikes. Even taken into account the sometimes unrealistic demands of Singaporeans, the satisfactory rates seemed rather low.

Looking at the financial reports of both companies, one finds that both companies are very well managed. They have been making handsome profits consistently through the years, even during the SARS crisis. From the financial reports of SMRT, the company has double digit growth every year. SBS, although making less profit, still has a healthy growth of around 5%. Even last year, when the price of petrol has gone up 2-fold, both companies manage to make a profit. Kudos to the management. Hence, despite annual growths, both companies still made submissions for fare increases.

The North-East MRT line (NEL), was awarded to the SBS, when it was opened in 2003. The fares were set higher than those of existing MRT lines of North-South Line and East-West Line. This was because of the lower ridership and hence relatively higher operating cost. This was despite the fact that the NEL was not build by SBS, but funded by tax-payers money. Again the higher fare structure for the NEL was set and approved by the PTC.

Who are the people making up the PTC? A look at the make up of the council members, and one will immediately appreciates that all of them are from the management sector. This is reassuring because of their competency. However, from statistics, the members - professionals, business persons, academia, union and grassroot leaders - all tended to own cars. As a result, one wonders whether they really know what is happening on the ground. No doubt they can get feedback from the public, but second experience is not a true experience. Being in the upper middle or even upper income class, apart from grassroot and union leaders, do they really know about the hardship experienced by the less fortunate?

In granting the fare increase this time, two reasons were cited. One was because of a rosier economic outlook and the other because of higher employment figures. Both reasons are welcome indeed. But just because of a rosier outlook, does not mean more money in our pockets. Higher employment figures means more people will hold a job. Those who are already drawing a salary will not be affected by both the reasons given. Hence, the justification given by PTC is flawed!

Of course like previous fare increases, measures were taken to help to placate the public. Both companies, being very responsible companies, help to defray the impact when they pledge to give out one-off $20 transport vouchers, totalling $1 million between them. This is against an expected earnings of $10 million from the fare hikes. And thanks to their generous $20 voucher, now the needy gets to make 10 free rides if they chalked the maximum fare trip, and still have left over for a $1 drink. In terms of days, they get to make free trips over five days out of total of 250 working days. Furthermore, this $1 million is just 'paper loss', because irrespective of whether the vouchers are used, the operating cost remains the same.

To be fair to the public transport company, it is indeed commendable that they have manage to cap the maximum fare from $1.20 in 1990 to just $1.90 in 2006. This is despite an inflation rate of 3% yearly and rising manpower costs.

So is the fare increase justified? I think it depends on what the priority is in the Singapore model of public transport. If its priority is to the public, then the increase is not justified. The public transport company had been making handsome profits consistently for the last few years. This is despite the SARS and the oil crises. With such profits, it is hard to see why further fare increase is necessary. The profit already made can be ploughed back to improve the service or to increase the scope of the company. Further more, profits can be made through other avenues like advertising panels or shop space. With a rosier economic outlook, one would not be surprised that the revenue from these channels will increase. Hence, there is little need for any fare restructuring unless it is for the benefits of the shareholders. And this is clearly seen in the financial reports which showed yearly increases in the dividend payout.

Reference:
Fare increase from October

9/11 Anniversary

2006-09-11T00:08:00.000+08:00

Categories: Wormie Says

Five years ago, to the day, two commercial planes flew into the Twin Tower of New York after they were hijacked by terrorists. Thus marked the begining of a very volatile world where wars are no longer fought between nations and when armies are the shooting targets. Now the enemy is invisible and not bound by borders and the targets includes the young, the old, male and female from all walks of life, religious background and racial groups.

The terrorists who hijacked the two commercial planes and crashed them into the Twin Tower claimed themselves to be Muslims. Muslims who are fighting against the oppressions and exploitations of Western governments. Muslims who are fighting against Zionist and governments that supported them. And nearly all of them were of Arab origins.

Western governments lead by the US may have played into the hands of these extremists in their quest to fight terrorism. Based on unconfirmed intelligence report, the US invaded Afghanistan and Iraq. The invasion of Iraq and its sequelae in the Guatanamo Bay and the recent admission by President Bush on the existence of covert interrogation prisons in countries of friendly governments may have confirmed what the extremists had said all along - that Western governments are oppressing the Arab world. Hence such tactics in war against terrorisms may be counter-productive in the long run, only to push more moderates into the extremists path.

However it is also surprising that how a few people can claim to represent the more than 1.2 billion Muslims in the world? How can such extremists even claim to profess Islam when the majority of Muslims follow peaceful co-existence and denounce violence? When the vast majority of Muslims in the world are practising peaceful rituals, surely they cannot be wrong; and if the vast majority is not wrong, then these few extremists must be wrong when they used violence to further their cause. Common sense will tell you that you don't kill innocent civilians. If you want to fight a war, fight with the people who can fight back, people who carry weapons or people who command those with weapons; not those who cannot fight back, those who may not even agree with their government's policies. How can killing innocent civilians make the extremists any different from the real or perceived oppressions by Western government on the Arabs? It is even worse when some of the terror attacks are carried out on Muslims themselves; the very people such extremists claim to be fighting for.

In this anniversary, it is important to let the extremists know that they cannot win using terror attacks. Hence it is important that everyone work closely towards this end. Stereotyping and prejudices should be avoided. There shouldn't be any backlash against the Muslims every time there is a terror attack. The Muslims are victims themselves just like the rest. Just because the terrorists claim to be Muslims and of Arab origin, this does not make every Arab or Muslims a terrorist. If we become xenophobics, this will only push more moderates into the extremists camp and hence further fuel terror attacks.

The heightened security measures implemented after the terror attacks are understandable. However it must not be too disruptive and restrictive until normal daily activity cannot be carried out. Profiling should also be minimised, otherwise it will be seen as a prejudice to a certain section of the society.

If we suspect all Muslims or Arabs or if security measures are so restrictive as to limit daily activities, then unfortunately, the extremists have won and those who had died five years ago from the terror attack would have died in vain.

It is not just about closing one eye

2006-09-08T11:08:00.000+08:00

Categories: Malaysia

The current spat between the MPs and the Custom officials brings some hope and disappointment at the same time. This saga went into hiatus when the Finance Ministry issued a gag order.

The spat started in May this year when the Custom Department revealed that MP for Jasin Datuk Mohd Said Yusof had asked the Custom Department to 'close one eye' on a consignment of timber illegally imported from Indonesia. This was followed by accusation by the MP that confiscated luxury cars by the Customs were only reserved by certain people when it should be done through open auction. Things re-ignited in August when Customs enforcement director Mohamed Adnan Ariffin alleged that the MP had sent a threatening SMS to him in May. This triggered a barage of criticisms leveled at the lavish spending of the Custom department in Parliament.

To the simple people like myself, there are three issues at hand. Firstly, the integrity of the MPs. Since 2000, the Customs Department had been allowed to auction off confiscated cars. Why had the MPs not revealed the close 'auction' used by the Customs previously when this had probably gone on for some time? Why was this only revealed after the Jasin MP felt slighted after he could not get the Merc he had wanted because 'it was reserved by somebody else'? Then there is the barage of attacks by the MPs alleging the exorbitant cost of the Custom uniform and the very expensive uniform accessories of the Custom's higher echelon. It is good for the MPs to question such costly practice, because this is of interest to the public and a matter of accountability. However, the ferocity and the vindictiveness of the way the issue was handled by the MPs smacks of arrogance and confrontations. This is because a few days before this incident, it was reported that the Custom Department had challenged the MPs as to their Parliamentary immunity to say whatever they wanted. Hence looking at the whole picture, it does seem that the MPs are self-serving and with an axe to grind.

Secondly, where can the Customs Department seek recourse when they had been victimised? This is important because any other governmental agencies could have faced the same pressure from MPs who tried to pull rank either for their constituents or themselves; the Customs Departments involvement was just coincidental. Of course the correct way is through the relevant Ministry, which in this case is the Finance Ministry; but if there is too much inertia to the investigations, what else can be done? Is it right to use the media? I do not have the answer and I hope the government will look into this. However the press do have a role to play because sometimes the government needs to be coaxed to look into any complaints. Otherwise, like many things in Malaysia, some complaints will just be lost within the bureaucratic machinery.

Thirdly, the conduct of the MPs themselves. When this saga first surfaced 4 months ago, despite the Jasin MP in admitting to his call to 'close one eye', calls for him to be referred to the Rights and Privileges Committee were rejected with Datuk Shahrir Samad, the leader of the Backbenchers Club, being the casualty. This was because he had gone against the Whip when he supported the Opposition's motion. However after this incident, the Prime Minister had agreed to a Select Committee to look into the matter. Four months since and the Committee is still looking. I would have thought that this is an opportunity for the government and the MPs themselves to outline a list of do's and don't so that they will not be wrongly accused, stay accountable and in the process maintain their moral authority. Unfortunately, so far the only decision made by the Parliamentary Select Committee on Integrity is to stop the practice of 'auctioning' of confiscated cars to politicians and senior civil servants. The one-eye case is still being looked at.

Has any good been brough about by this four-month saga? I think yes. Now the public know about the excesses in the Customs Department's budgetting and the abuse in the auctioning system for confiscated luxury cars by the Customs. But at the same time, this saga has shown the deficiencies of the MPs themselves. They maybe the lawmaker but they may not necessarily be guided by the laws they created themselves. They also show a weakness to correct any perceptions or wrongdoings if it involves their kind. This is a pity because a golden opportunity to redeem themselves and increase their moral authority had just been lost.

The cameo culture

2006-09-04T12:55:00.000+08:00

Categories: Singapore

The videoclips of NSmen clowning around report published by the September 3 edition of Sunday Times highlight the problems with irresponsible use of the ubiquitous camera phone. The camera phone which was first introduced few years back had created a new culture - the cameo culture. Suddenly there is a camera on-hand when one is needed. Coupled with that, the digital format meant that the pictures need not be printed to hardcopy for it to be viewed. The presence of photo-sharing and video-sharing site has make the sharing of such photos and videos more compelling. In short, now everyone can take photos/videos at anytime anywhere and share it with just about anyone.

In the clip which was uploaded to the YouTube.com, two NSmen in uniform were shown fight each other, one with a parang with the other shooting him with his rifle loaded with blanks. After a few shots, the parang-weilding compatriot fell, with both men laughing after that. I am not sure about the security implications from such a short video, but definitely safety rules had been broken. It is well-known that pointing a weapon at anyone is no-no because there is always a risk of injury to the other person. This covers all weapons as well as sports equipment. Even the safe sport of golf, golfers are not to hit the ball if they are people on the tee. Blanks had known to kill because blanks can still penetrate the body if the shot was near enough.

Some people may say that give the NSmen a break, after all they are young and out for some fun. Unfortunately, such irresponsible acts are not limited to youngsters alone. In the UK, an investigation is now being carried out by the Fire department after a video in which a firefighter was spurned in a tumbler dryer was shown.

The above two pranks were fortunately relatively harmless. In these days of where everyone is trying to be famous overnight, with photo/video hosting sites promoting there sites with prizes going to the most popular, people may just be taken away with their pranks. Hence, there is this video where a cat was burned deliberately, where bullying is glorified and putting a firecracker in a bottle which is up the behind! And all these in the name of fun and glory! How sick can a person be?

In vigilantism, there is always a risk of mob justice. The line between helping and victimising is very thin. Sometimes, a picture does not tell the whole truth. When this happens, the victim has no chance to defend himself because a verdict had already been made by society at large. This will embarass, hurt and sometimes harm the victim. Vigilante site had been sprouting up. Two examples are Rude Singaporeans and Parking Idiots in Singapore. A car which was seen parking into the next lot may not be the culprit but the victim. The driver may park that way because the first car which did not park properly had left, leaving the second car looking as the culprit. But the photo did not 'explain' the real incident which created this situation.

The people who took the photos that were posted on the Rude Singapore site are also vigilante in a sense. Here they are fighting against badly behaved people who has not regards for the next person. However in their quest to fight for the truth, they had themselves committed the very thing they profess to fight against. By taking the photo of another person without his knowledge, this is invading of privacy - especially if it is uploaded to the web for the world to see. Isn't such action rude in the first place. Imagine yourself appear on the website because your MP3 player was loud enough for the next person to hear your music.

Camera phones also means that anybody can capture video of themselves for rememberence. This brings to mind the Tammy video episode. She was probably not wrong to film herself in a sex act. However she was wrong in assuming that the simple action of taking herself can backfire so badly. With the digital age and internet, anything digital is fluid - it can be sent to anyone anywhere in the world. Coupled with the natural curiosity of human nature, any video of the intimate nature will surely finds its way to the Net. Hence if you want to take anything for posterity, make sure that they can stand any scrutiny and will not hurt yourself.

Cameo culture is here to stay and is not necessarily bad. With the always available camera phone, candid snapshots can be taken anytime. This can create a culture of creativity and discovery. Sometimes such photos can served as proof as when an accident had happened.

On the reverse, if not used properly, much harm can happened like that listed above. Therefore before you press the snap button on your camera phone the next time, ask yourself whether this simple action is responsible, not dangerous to yourself and others, acceptable manners and not snitching.

Remember, the action of taking is a simple process but the result may be a convoluted and drawn-out one.

Links:
Gruesome stunts, risky pranks mar video sites

The truth about affirmative action

2006-09-02T12:35:00.000+08:00

Categories: Malaysia

The rebuke by a local Malay on a speech by the Deputy Health Minister Datuk Dr Abdul Latiff Ahmad that “I understand they do not want to end up becoming like the Malays in Singapore” should wake up the government with regards to its affirmative actions.

The affirmative actions which was started after the racial riots in 1969, was started with a very good intention. Give the weaker a hand so that they can compete. Unfortunately the affirmative action was drafted with a racial slant and as a result the bumiputra and non-bumiputra division was created. Hence the affirmative action became a policy to try to uplift the bumiputras, almost always a Malay, from their poverty. I said almost always because by definition bumiputras included natives of Sarawak and Sabah like the Kadazans, Ibans, Minangkabaus and Bajaus - but are often being overlooked.

The affirmative policy had been accepted by Malaysians of all races. What is in dispute is the implementation. The spirit of the policy is good, but under the cloak of a good policy, the implementation had actually worsen the plight of the people the policy tried hard to improve. In the implementation, the bumiputras are given help but not the way help should be given. The help given to these bumiputras are more like handouts, with no effort needed on the part of the person receiving it. Hence there are alot of companies with a bumiputra partner who probably does not even know what business he is in because he was chosen only because his name was needed by a non-bumiputra company to be registered. His 'job' is just to have his name on the registration form and he gets a monthly pay. Hence after 49 years of independence, progress in the true sense did not materialised.

The writer, Mohd Jamil Abdullah, has rightly pointed out the problem with the affirmative policy. Because most bumiputra are served with handouts, humans being humans, complacency sets in. They lose the fighting spirit and the spirit to excel, unable escape the comfort zone. In the end, they are probably worse off than before the implementation of the Affirmative action. It is true that they are now richer, but such wealth is actually hollow because if the supporting structures are knocked off, such wealth will just disappeared. Previously, they had depended on themselves for their wealth, and hence their foundations were stable.

It is however not true to say that the affirmative policy had failed. Despite its poor implementation, some bright bumiputra emerged. Tun Mahathir, Tun Zaim and Datuk Seri Rafidah are good example of how the policy has helped the bumiputra - but at what cost? Pouring millions just to nurture a handful. Can the situation be improved? I think the situation can be improved if the bumiputra are given help to enable them to compete on a level playing field. From then on they have to prove their worth before they are given any further opportunity by the government under the affirmative policy. Which means that if you want to be a company director, you better prove that you are worth your salt. That way, the wealth of the bumis is built on a firmer foundations and at the same time earn the respect that is due.

I am indeed heartened that a bumiputra has come out and express his true feelings with regards to the implementation of the affirmative action. If the same words were uttered by a non-bumi, even if in the interest of the nation and not for any selfish, self-serving reasons, he would be shot down and branded a traitor. Hopefully, when the words were uttered by an 'insider', it will carry more weight and appeal to the intellect and common sense of the government. Maybe there is still hope for Malaysia.

National Day Wish

2006-08-31T17:19:00.000+08:00

Selamat Hari Kemerdekaan Malaysia ke 49

Harapan Perdana Menteri Malaysia supaya masyarakat Malaysia yang majmuk memelihara semangat permuafakatan dan kerjasama tepat pada masanya. Pemeliharan beliau bahawa pembangunan negara yang dinikmati sekarang adalah hasil perpaduan yang terjalin antara rakyat pelbagai kaum dan agama selama ini tepat sekali. Kalaulah berlaku apa-apa kekacauan, pembangunan pesat yang di nikmati selama ini tentu akan hilang begitu sahaja. Ucapan beliau tentang perlunya perpaduan kaum dan agama tepat pada masanya kerana kini telah berlaku beberapa perkara perkauman and agama yang tidak begitu memuaskan.

Baru-baru ini dalam ucapan naib presiden Pemuda UMNO, Khairy Jamaluddin, beliau mengingatkan ahli-ahli UMNO mengapa mereka perlu bersatu kerana jika tidak kaum bukan bumiputra akan mengambil kesempatan jika UMNO lemah. Mengapakah ingatan Khairy begitu lemah? Dalam krisis UMNO tahun 1998, bila UMNO digugurkan, bukankah MCA sebagai parti sah yang terbesar dalam kerajaan mengambil balik UMNO (Baru) ke dalam Barisan Nasional? Jika MCA hendak mengambil kesempatan untuk merebut kuasa, bukankah itu masa yang paling baik? Siapakah yang mengambil kesempatan bila ada krisis dalam UMNO? Tentu sekali bukan MCA.

Di Hari Kemerdekaan ke 49 tahun ini, harapan saya adalah supaya Malaysia boleh mengujudkan sebuah parti politik and masyarakat dimana kaum dan agama tidak memainkan peranan yang penting di dalam politik and ekonomi. Bangsa Malaysia telah lama disebut, tetapi tetap menjadi impian. Entah sampai bila baru impian ini akan menjadi kenyataan.

Happy National Day Malaysia!

Why I am still a PR

2006-08-30T13:26:00.000+08:00

Categories: Singapore, Wormie Says

With the recent talks on making Singapore more open to foreigners with the hope of some of them taking up citizenship, I would like to share my experience on why I stay a Permanent Resident.

I came to Singapore about 20 years ago to study in the Junior College after obtaining a scholaship. There was no bond attached but the natural progression was to continue my studies in National University of Singapore. Since my graduation, I had been working here full time and successfully applied for PR a year after graduation.

The reasons why I came here to study in Singapore was 2-fold. Firstly there was a fear that I may not make it into a local Malaysian university for the subject of my choice. Then there was still the quota system and hence the more popular subjects like medicine, law and engineering were more difficult to enrol. Secondly, I was lucky enough to get a scholarship to study my pre-university level here. Coming from a not-too-well-to-do family, studying overseas was not an option. Hence at the tender age of 17, I left my hometown.

Now in my middle-age, having spent more than half my life here, why am I still a permanent resident? The most obvious is that my family is in Malaysia. My parents, siblings, uncles and aunties are all in Malaysia. Having grew up with all these people, it is difficult just to cut ties and 'forget' about them. This should come as no surprise because even for the Singaporeans who came back here after a sting overseas, most of them give family ties as one of the primary reasons for returning here. Apart from family ties, the memories of growing up in Malaysia, the childhood days and the experiences that I had gone through back home is something that cannot be easily forgotten. Every time I went home, every little events, structures and people, will bring back fond memories of my growing up. I guess this is what is meant by our roots.

Then there are those factors that cannot be explained. Although there are a lot of dissatisfaction with the Malaysian government and its affirmative policies, somehow when these are put aside, Malaysia does bring some pride to my heart. For example, when Malaysia did well in the Commonwealth Games, I felt proud. This was especially so when all the medals were won by native-born Malaysians and not through imported talents. When the Petronas Twin Towers was named the tallest building in the world, I felt proud. When Malaysia beat Singapore in football, I felt proud. When I speak Bahasa Malaysia to Malays I feel proud. When other people say bad things about Malaysia especially when unjustified, I became angry. Again I think this is not much different from most Singaporeans.

So with my roots in Malaysia and the feelings I have for Malaysia, how can I just change my citizenship? If I renounced my Malaysian citizenship, would I be truthful to myself? Am I being fair to Singapore? No doubt, the situation in Singapore may be much better than Malaysia, but the truth is, with all the mess that she has, she still has some intangibles to offer; intangibles that cannot be explained. Maybe it is just the emotional ties that I have.

Sometimes I wonder why the Singapore government is so keen to make foreigners take up their citizenships. Is having the passport so important that it does not matter whether they have any feelings toward Singapore? I have a friend who is a medical specialist. He was born in Singapore but hold a Hong Kong citizenship, left for Hong Kong at the age of 3, studied his Medical degree in Australia and later worked there for about 10 years. He later came to Singapore to work. When he tried to apply for permanent residence here, he was told by the immigration department that because he was born in Singapore, he has no option to apply for PR; he's only options were work permit or citizenship. His query was how can one just take up citizenship just like that? My exact sentiments.

Recently in the forum page, a writer wrote that in times of war, how many of the 'imported' Singaporeans will stay and fight for the country. She wondered whether there is a way to test this. I think an indirect way to gauge is to see who the person supports when their ex-home country compete with Singapore in a sport event. If he does not support Singapore, then I think it is safe to say that having the Singapore passport is just another item in his possession.

I may sound like a sentimental freak. I may sound too idealistic. But I feel that I am just an average Joe, and hence my feeling should not be too different from the next average person. Call me what you like, for pride of citizenship is a matter of the heart. With matter of the heart there is no logic.

So, will I ever become a Singaporean? The answer is ..................

The way forward...

2006-08-27T00:38:00.000+08:00

Categories: Singapore

The recent suspension of 2 Chinese sinsehs by the Traditional Chinese Medicine Board sheds some lights on the practice of Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) in Singapore. In the cases reported by The Straits Times August 26 2006 edition, both were fined and suspended for "illegally dispensing prescription and banned drugs and the other for importing prescription drugs without a license."

The drugs in the case of illegal imports are antibiotics and contraceptives pills brought in from a neighbouring country. This may seem trivial until one consider the risk of getting counterfeit drugs or contaminated drugs from unlicensed sources. There were many cases of liver disease after taking slimming pills that was either tainted or contained fenfluramine. The most well-known must be that of Singapore actress Andrea De Cruz who developed liver failure in 2003 after taking Slim 10 which contained fenfluramine. Fenfluramine had been banned by the FDA since 1997. The drug was able to be imported legally because it was classified as a supplements and not a prescription drug and hence need not go through the mandatory testing. Little was known that it was "spiked" with the banned drug. Thankfully this sad story had a good ending when her fiance, fellow actor Pierre Png donated half his liver for her, enabling her to survive the crisis; and in the process probably redefined the definition of love!

The case involving the illegal dispensing is more dangerous. In this case, the TCM practitioner "prescribed the herbal product called BGT to control blood sugar and obesity." However it was found to contain glibenclamide and phenformin. Both these drugs are used in the treatment of diabetes in Western medicine. Hence these medication should only be prescribed to a diabetic and not just for the sake of controlling blood sugar, which has little to do with obesity. Improper use of the medications can lower a person's blood sugar so much so that the person may lose consciousness and going into coma and death! On top of that phenformin had been banned for at least the last 25 years. This followed the findings that the drug was found to cause the blood to be too acidic, resulting in fits and death.

These were the very reasons why the Ministry of Health (MOH) sets up the TCM Practitioner Board in 2000. Through the years TCM has gained popularity with the population and the practice was not regulated. Anyone can open a shop and claim to be TCM-trained. This may create a situation where unscrupulous and unsafe practice being carried out by fly-by-night self-proclaimed TCM practitioners. The result will be exposure of the population to potential mishaps from such practices with no recourse to any protection in the form of law suits. With the set up of the TCM board, only qualified practitioners are licenced; with the Board empowered to mete out any punishment for treatment that is unscrupulous, unethical or detrimental to the patient.

The punishments meted out by the TCM Board is indeed timely and the right way to go because now patients' rights are protected and at the same time the practice of TCM can be elevated to a higher level. As a practicing doctor, the rise of TCM is not seen as a threat but more as a complimentary practice to Western medicine. However this can only be achieved if TCM practice is regulated so that there is enough confidence in accepting their diagnosis and treatment. This is clearly proven by the overwhelming response by Western-trained doctors to the first TCM series of lectures leading to a diploma certification. With the interactions between TCM and Western medicine, the patients will stand to benefit.

With the practice of TCM regulated, maybe the next sector to look into is that of beauty salon. Beauty salons had been known to prescribed antibiotics for their patients with acne. Some beauty salons also proudly advertised their laser skin treatment. Unfortunately, antibiotics use and laser treatment can only be carried by a trained-doctor. Not all skin condition is treatable with laser; some condition may actually worsen with the use of laser. When such unfortunate incident happens, there is nothing much anyone can do short of plastic surgery. Hence, in the same vein as TCM practice, maybe the beauty industry should set up a board to regulate themselves so that a few bogus ones will not affect the image of the beauty industry sector.

Managed Health Care scheme - the sad truth

2006-08-18T10:08:00.000+08:00

Categories: Singapore

Today newspaper highlighted the Managed Health Care scheme in Singapore in today's edition. In the report, it highlighted the danger of unprofessional conduct by general practitioners under the scheme and the need to regulate the industry. The main concerned highlighted is that doctors may compromise on the medication prescribed for maximum profit.

To the uninitiated, Managed Health Care is a scheme akin to an insurance policy taken out by employers for their employees. Employees either do not have to pay for their consult and medication when they see their doctor or pay a minimum sum of usually S$5 in the co-pay scheme. In return the employees are restricted to see only a panel of doctors covered by the scheme in order to enjoy this privilege. For the doctors, they have a ready potential pool of patients from the scheme. The downside being a cap on the charges that the doctor can charged. Sometimes, certain scheme even place restrictions on the type of medication that can be prescribed for the purposes of reimbursement. In short the company that carry out the Managed Health Care (MHC) scheme acts a middleman between the employer and the doctor.

Do employees benefit from the scheme? Yes and no. If the employee is seeing the doctor for simple everyday cough and cold, then he does benefit from the scheme. This is because the medication prescribed are rather standard and the cost of such medications are manageable for the doctor. Hence his medical care is not compromised as similar medication would be prescribed whether a patient is under the scheme or not. The only downside in this instance is the trouble of having to seek out the doctor under the scheme.

If a problem is more complicated, then the problem may arise depending on the MHC scheme. Some MHC does not limit the type of medication that can be prescribed. Others restrict to a certain approved list, some give leeway but only if given prior approval. In practice, many MHC restrict the type of medication to an approved list. As a result a more prolonged sickness which may need for a change of medication maybe compromised by the restriction placed on the doctor; or a better medication but one not approved by the MHC scheme may not be able to be prescribed by the doctor without the patient paying it himself. In such instances medical care is necessarily compromised.

To the doctors, MHC schemes also presented with a double-edged sword. On one hand it gives a potential ready pool of patient. On the other hand, he does not have a free hand to manage the patient in the best possible ways because of the restriction imposed by the scheme.

To the companies, MHC is a boon for them. Where previously they have to bear the cost of medical care, now they can 'outsource' to another company. In this way they may be able to save on the healthcare cost as they can shop around for the cheapest MHC. In addition to that, estimates of running cost for the company becomes easier as healthcare cost is now fix yearly.

The employees unfortunately have no say in the MHC scheme. The doctors have a choice, and if the MHC scheme is so restrictive, why do they want to join the scheme in the first place? The choice is very limited, especially for those stand-alone practice. In this day where the big will eat the small, if they do not take up such scheme, how are they going to compete with the big players - company that runs a chain of clinics. Because their chain of clinics are dispersed around the island, they are at an advantage because employees do not have to travel far to see an approved doctor. However once they signed up the scheme, their hands are tied. They cannot practise the same way their are accustomed to. Medication given has to be limited in duration, the type of medication has to be limited to an approved list.

The call by the Singapore Medical Association for the Ministry of Health to regulate the MHC industry is therefore timely. A benchmark and guideline should be set up so that health care received by members of such scheme do not get short-changed; even as the MHC companies try to tweak the price they charge to employers and give the doctors unrealistic reimbursements in their quests to improve their business. The benchmark is the most important because it will serve as a guide for the minimum acceptable level of care expected by the patient. As the members of the scheme has no choice or say in these scheme, only the benchmark will be able to protect their interest. And as doctors, we should "vote with our feet" and shun those schemes that give unrealistics reimbursements, so that our conscience can be clear when we treat our patients and so that our patients can have the best treatment with the given restricted conditions.

I would like to share my own experience. I was running a high fever of 40 degrees. Unfortunately, the nearest clinic that covers my MHC scheme was in the next township. In order to save the trouble and time I decided to see a doctor in my neighbourhood whose fee have to be borne by myself. I was given a medical leave but unfortunately the medical leave was not accepted by my company because "it was not part of the panel doctors". In frustrations, I told the HR to convert the medical leave to my annual leave instead! To the cynical, that was my first medical leave in two years.

So who benefits from the MHC scheme? Of course the MHC companies themselves!

P/S: Read the novel Unmanaged Care by K E Schields which touch on this issue in the US. A movie by the same name was recently shown on HBO.

Who won the Israeli/Hizbollah war?

2006-08-15T16:53:00.000+08:00

Categories: Wormie Says

Finally the Israeli/Hizbollah cease fire had been put in place after a month of war. Now both sides is claiming victory in this unfortunate war. Who has actually won this war?

I usually have much sympathy for the Arabs in the Middle East when it comes with dealings with Israel. Israel, like its backer, the US, had been pretty much into bullying and intimidation. However in this instance, the blame should be shouldered by Hizbollah directly and the Lebanese government indirectly. It is no secret that the Israeli had been uneasy with the Hizbollah bases in south Lebanon. Hizbollah had been armed and possibly trained by its backers Syria and Iran. This has made the Israeli uncomfortable because Israeli's cities are within striking distance from these bases. However it has no excuse to attack these bases without incurring the wrath from the rest of the world with the possible exception of US. However the Hizbollah has nicely created just such an excuse for the Israelis when they kidnapped 2 Israeli soldiers. In normal circumstances, such innocuous actions would not have triggered off a full-blown war but in this instance the kidnapping had given the Israelis the very excuse they are seeking to invade Lebanon with the aim of destroying the Hizbollah bases. So the blame should be borne by the Hizbollah group.

However the Hizbollah should not be solely to blame. The Lebanese government had not been trying to disarm the Hizbollah group since the Syrians were expelled from Lebanon. How can a country have two groups of arm forces? Who will the arm forces answer to? Therefore this has created a state-within-a-state situation. Hence, although the war takes place in south Lebanon, it is actually a war between Israelis and Hizbollah forces. So far the Lebanese army had not even entered the fray. This is as if the Hizbollah-controlled is an autonomous one. However the people killed are Lebanese; people who voted the current Lebanese government. What has the government do for these civilians?

The war will not be so protracted if external powers do not come into play. If the US do not supply arms to the Israelis and the Syrians/Iranians did not do likewise, where are the two opposing sides going to get their ammunitions? Apart from that the US also had given their tacit approval for the attack against Hizbollah bases when there rejected the call for a simple cease fire citing cease fire is only temporary and will not solve the Hizbollah attack on the Israelis.

So why the 'sudden' change of heart? I think the civilians toll is getting too high for the US comfort level. This coupled with the apparent stalemate with the Israeli army incursion into Lebanon and the dogged resistance from the Hizbollah, means that if the war is to be prolonged, then both sides will suffer more casualties risking the loss of support from general public.

With the cease fire now in place, who won? Before this question is answered, lets see who has lost. Of course, civilians are the biggest losers. They have their lives messed up because of misjudment of a few. Next is the Hizbollah because they are driven further up north, away from their traditional power bases, away from striking distance to their sworn enemy. The Israelis also lost because of the destruction of their cities, their economy, their armies and their reputation as an invincible army in the Middle East.

So if both sides lost in this war, who won? The answer is the arm suppliers to both sides, who make millions from the sale, from the destruction of people's livelihood, and from the unnecessary death of civilians and the army personnel alike.

The irony of blogging

2006-08-09T09:18:00.000+08:00

Categories: Wormie Says

The Net is full of blogs. Most of them have two things in common. Firstly, most of them are by anonymous writers. This is especially so for personal blogs. Secondly, most blogs present a point of view, discussions on current events or just simply telling the world about encounters one has in his/her daily life. So what is so ironical about blogging?

To see the irony, one must understand why people blog in the first place. People blog because they want to share something with the world at large. This can be the everyday encounter as one goes through the passage of life, sharing of experiences, of opinions regarding politics, current affairs or just to rant about any frustrations one encounters. Bloggers may just want to keep a record of the life just like writing in a diary. No matter what the reasons for blogging, one thing is certain - the blogger wishes to share something with anyone who cares to read the blog. They wanted to be heard, to be counted and hopefully make a difference. They hope to change opinions if not move the world.

How is this different from the coffeeshop talk, so popular in our part of the world? In coffeeshop talk, generally the people involved are known to each other. The audience is therefore small. Opinions generally do not change with the few participants. In the world of blog however, the audience is potentially large, directed at nobody and anybody at the same time. With such a large potential audience, opinions are necessarily varied. Here is where the irony of blogging comes in.

The blogger wanted to be heard. He wanted to be counted. He wanted to make a difference. However he wanted to remain anonymous! If you wanted to be heard, why hide under the cloak of anonymity? Why spend hours preparing and writing the blogs and not recognised? Why tell the whole world your life story and yet not prepared to tell the world who you are? Does writing anonymously any different from writing your thoughts in a diary, the sacred and private personal space? Why feel anxious and frustrated when that site counter does not move? Why get disillusioned when nobody leave any comments to a blog which you think will create a controversy?

So how useful can a blog be? Despite its anonymity, blogs can still be useful if the contents do make a difference to someone's life. This is because the writer is not important, but the content is. This is especially true for those blogs which discusses current affairs, life experiences and those touching on special interest. If the content is relevent and useful, whether the writer is young or old, male or female is irrelevant. The exchange of ideas is what counts, and precisely because of such exchanges of ideas, the society progresses. Each builds on the others ideas. On the other hand, blogs that chronicles ones life story maybe lost its usefulness and relevance if it is anonymous. This is because if no face is attached to such life experiences, the impact and the authenticity may be lost, making such experiences akin to the work fiction.

The spread of blogs and discussion groups on the Net has been partly attributed to its anonymity. Hence should the lively discussions that blogs bring about be removed of such anonymity? I think not. Anonymity had been present for a long time under the guise of pen-name. Authors had been using pen names for their books. Nobody had question why authors do not use their given name. Some authors even have a few pen names for different genre of novels. If authors can remain anonymous, shouldn't bloggers be granted the same choice? After all, there is no such thing as true anonymity as there are always ways to find out the real identity of a blogger if one is committed enough. And just like novels, the true identity of the blogger is secondary to the ideas presented. The identity just act as an address so that the site can be identified and revisited.

So where does that leave me? I think I will remain Wormie for the time being. Hopefully people read my blogs because of the content and not because who I am. However, at the back of my mind, I wish to enjoy the recognition that my blogs may bring. What an irony!

New toy

2006-08-03T21:37:00.000+08:00

Categories: Others

Succumbed to temptation. Got myself a new toy. Will be very distracted for the next few days.

Free market and the common people

2006-07-31T11:21:00.000+08:00

Categories: Singapore

Starting a business has always been difficult. This is because one must have a sum of money before one can get started. In Singapore it is no different. Two of the most substantial recurrent cost are rental and staff salaries. Staff salary can be regulated but shop rental is different.

Housing and Development Board (HDB) used to set a fixed rental for the people. For new premise, anybody who wish to set up a business will subscribe to a balloting or 'lucky dip' system. In this way, there is a level playing field for the common people. In the older premise, such rented shop can transferred to another person who will then pay the same rental rate as set up by HDB. Of course the new tenant will have to 'compensate' the previous owner for the transfer.

However things change a few years ago when the HDB started the bidding system. In this system, those with deep pockets will have an advantage. To the common people, this add to an already big hurdle they have to clear. How are these people going to compete with the big players in bidding for a shop space? They can't compete for shops in the open private establishments. Unlike before, where the only avenue is the HDB shops, now this avenue is also closed to them. Starting a new business just got that much more difficult!

In fact now the big players can decide the fate of the common people. Whether the common people can open a business depends on the 'goodwill' of the big players. It is as if the big players are the hunter and the small common people the scavengers. Whatever is left behind by the big players, will be taken up by the small people. Luckily the large players has essentially shy away from the heartland. However when the turf gets smaller and smaller, there is nothing to stop these big players from squeezing out the small common people.

Free market is only good when the competing parties have similarly deep pockets. Once there is too much of discrepancy, the smaller player will be elbowed out of competition.

Should the government control the market again? Answer is no. The irony is that Singapore needs free market to compete internationally. On the other hand at the micro-level, such practice will put further pressure on the poorer segment of society. Starting a business becomes more and more difficult. Even those small businesses will be at the mercy of the larger controlling party. There is nothing to stop such party to increase the rental or even increase a bid for an already occupied shop space thereby displacing the original tenant.

In the attempt to narrow the widening gap between the rich and the poor, it is hoped that the government bring back the balloting system for its shop space and hawker centres. This at least will give the poor common people a chance to compete 'equally'. Otherwise, one day we may see a whole hawker centre being run by Kopitiam or Banquet. Already these once classy foodcourt establishments has slowly muscles into the heartland and there seems to be nothing the poor common people can do to stop them.

History in nation building

2006-07-26T16:31:00.000+08:00

Categories: Malaysia

The recent furore over the use of a textbook on ethnic relations by Universiti Putra Malaysia (UPM) have created a debate on the role of history in nation building.

In a move to promote racial harmony, public universities are required by the government to teach Ethnic Relations. Although guidelines have been issued by the government, each university is allowed to publish their own textbook. However, instead of promoting racial harmony, it caused a controversy to the extend that the de facto Law Minister Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz called it "seditious" even as Datuk Mustapa Mohamed, the Higher Education minister defended the book.

History is a record of past events. What has happened cannot be changed. Why the need for history then? History can explain how the current environment comes about, what previous leaders had done and gone through. However, the way it is reported can be coloured by one's bias, beliefs and political leanings. Hence, the interpretation of events may not be objective or unbiased. Therefore, when presenting the history of a country, it is important that the interpretation is accurate and generally acceptable to the academia. Otherwise, history is no different from a fictional work based on a true incident.

This fact is very important in nation building especially in Malaysia. Malaysia's politics and religions are unfortunately tied to racial group. Any wrong or inaccurate interpretation of history especially those based on race is a sure way to ignite an already simmering racial unease. Hence, in nation building, the interpretation of history should be as accurate as is possible without the need to find scapegoat. What is important is to learn from past mistakes so that true nation building can be achieved.

It is good that even the academia in Malaysia opposed the 'history' as interpreted by the two UPM lectures. Some felt that if the intention of history is to understand and to promote the creation of a true Malaysian, then "Any review must therefore be collective, consultative and knowledge-based, not based on emotion."

The accurate interpretation of Malaysian history as a way to create a true Malaysian identity cannot run away from the fact that Malays, Chinese and Indians had come together and agreed upon a social contract that brought about the creation of Malaya. If the three major racial group could not agree on a social contract, the British would not have granted Malaya its independence. Hence the understanding and acceptance of the sacrifices and goodwill of the leaders that brought about our independence - Tunku Abdul Rahman, Tun Tan Cheng Lock and Tun Sambanthan - is important for the creation of the Malaysian race. If their goodwill is hijacked by any racial zealots, then the social contract would be broken and chaos will ensue.

I hope that Ethnic Relations should emphasise more on how the social contract drawn up by the pioneers are achieved. Emphasis should also be given to the contribution of each racial groups in Malaysia towards nation building, no matter how big or small. Divisive events should be relegated to the experts where facts can be discussed, not to find scapegoats but with the intention to teach. By emphasising on the importance of each community towards nation building and the goodwill and sacrifices of our leaders to achieve independence, hopefully this will remind us of the importance of each and every individual regardless of race or religion and put us back on the right track towards nation building.

Related
Making sense of the Ethnic Relations course
We still have room to find solutions
Reinforcing the positives
Historic lies in university textbook - stop "brainwashing"

Cost cutting may cost more

2006-07-24T22:07:00.000+08:00

Categories: Singapore

This report by Today concerning how TB was spread from an in-patient of a nursing home to the nursing staff and later trying to forbid them to voice their concerns is a sad reminder of how bottom-lines can sometimes be counter-productive.

In the incident, "the use of masks and gloves was discouraged for activities like bathing, cleaning and changing patients' diapers" by the nursing staff. This was done to reduce wastage. I find this totally unacceptable.

Nursing is a dirty job. Nursing staff are required to bathe, clean up patients and changing diapers, among others. All this involve some degree of dirtiness. Wearing gloves is not only expected but a must for hygiene. How can the management refused such basic hygienic measures for its staff?

According to the senior executive officer, "it was a "no wastage project" where "we reduce as and where is necessary." Reducing wastage is certainly encouraged but it should be done with prudence and common sense. To reduce as and where necessary is certainly the right approach but it should be looked at from the point of the users. If management staff who works behind the desk wishes to use the glove to protect the the hands from getting rough or dirty; or if the nursing staff asked for more stapler so they don't have to spend time looking for one, then these should certainly be stopped. As far as using gloves and masks are concerned, this is a standard teaching as far as basic hygiene is concerned. Therefore to deny the nursing staff from using these protective gear is certainly wrong and improper.

The way the management is trying to cover up the incident is also wrong. I can understand why the management wanted to prevent the nursing staff from talking to the press. Obviously the management is afraid that the fallout from this episode will harm the image of the nursing home, if not reprimands from the Ministry. Anyone with some grey matter will tell you that goodwill is the best policy when dealing with mistakes. I am sure if the management has apologised or showed more concerned to their staff, this unfortunate incident would not have been reported and lessons that could be learned will be lost.

The nursing staffs were not upset about contracting TB from the patient. They are rightly upset about how they were not given the necessary protective gear even after the patient was diagnosed to have TB. Risk of exposure to disease comes with the job. However, if a risk is present, nursing staff should be given adequate protection to minimise the likelihood of disease spread. By so doing, the staff can give their best in their duty as they do not have to worry too much of their own safety.

This episode has reminded me of the contrasting ways SARS crisis was handled between Singapore/Hong Kong and Taiwan back in 2003. In Singapore and Hong Kong, hospital staffs were given adequate protection before they were deployed to the front line. This was in contrast with the Taiwanese, with many of the hospital staffs and relatives who were just quarantined within the hospital ground to fend for themselves without the provision of adequate personal protection. The results were clear for all to see - hospital staffs in Singapore/Hong Kong performed admirably, carried out their duty with commitment, dedication and pride; whereas those in Taiwan were seen trying to 'escape' and break the quarantine. I think the question here is not about personal integrity or commitment. It is a question of taking calculated risks.

Another lesson here is that bottom line should be achieved with common sense. It is true that everything costs money and to cut cost, use less of everything. This is too simplistic because every profession has its own peculiarities and priorities, hence sometimes administrators need to go to the ground to learn and discuss how best bottom lines can be achieved. Like this case, because of the wrong priorities and the lack of understanding of the nature of the profession, this has created health hazards, loss in work-hours and the extra cost of medical treatment and poor publicity.

Hopefully this incident would serve as a timely reminder to all medical facility administrators on the importance of common sense and priorities when trying to cut cost. This is especially pertinent with today's shadow of a possible bird flu pandemic.

Problem of lonely death

2006-07-21T22:30:00.000+08:00

Categories: Singapore

The Today Online's report on the finding of a human skeleton in an 'abandoned' house raises the question of care for the elderly in our society.

A background to the story. National Environment Agency officers found the skeleton lying on the toilet bowl in the kitchen toilet when they carried out an investigations into complaint about mosquitoes in the area. It was later revealed that this 'abandoned' house was the home of two sisters. Whereas the whereabout of one of them is not known, the deceased was probably last seen last year. According to an ex-neighbour, the sisters generally kept to themselves and seldom mixed around.

As Singapore is greying, the likelihood of such unfortunate occurence is only getting more likely. There are a few contributory factors.

Singlehood is getting more and more common nowadays. Hence as one gets older, there is no one to take care of them. The luckier ones have siblings and friends but this can not be relied upon. Some will go to old folks home but currently old folks home is still a taboo in our society. Hence a lot of singles will live out their lives alone creating a potential for lonely death.

Even those who got married are having less and less children. Some opted for only one child. When the child grows up, he may be working overseas leaving the old folks at home. If only one is around, there may not be anyone who can look after the remaining one. This effect can be lessen with the availability of maids.

As Singapore is getting more global, more and more are working in multi-national companies. Hence there is greater likelihood for Singaporeans to be transferred to other countries as part of their job options. This may leave the old folk alone at home. The situation is worsen if they have only one child.

Nuclear family is a norm nowadays with parents tending to stay on their own. Sometimes there is minimal communications between the child and the parent. As a result, if anything happens, the children may not know what happened until it is too late.

How can this problem be reduced? Certainly in Singapore context, there are always maids available. However this only applies to those who can afford it. For those who can't afford it, there must be other solutions.

In Henderson estate, the RC has installed an emergency panic button which will alert somebody so that help can be accessed. All the old folk have to do is to pull a cord and help will be available. This is a very good method for those who refuses to stay in old folks home. It is also cheaper than hiring a live-in maid. However using this system, there must be volunteers in the same area who will look into the old folks when an alarm is sounded.

Having more subsidised old folks home is another possible solution. However this alone may not solve the problems because of poor perception of such homes. Such perceptions have to be changed so that those without any next-of-kin may move to such homes where care and friendship is available.

Another hurdle to counter is the lack of information on old folks home for those who are not well-versed. Even if they wanted to, if they are ignorant of where to go and what to do, these old folks may be left in the lurch. The challenge here is how to reach out to such old folks so that help can be rendered. Thankfully, this may be less of a problem as society becomes more informed with the rising standards of education.

Neighbours are also important in this respect. Having good neighbourliness can be helpful in times of emergency. At least there is someone who can raised the alarm if he sense something is wrong. However neighbourliness nowadays is something that is seen less and less. This is partly blamed on the busy schedules we live our lives and is unfortunate. In the reported case, a neighbour actually called the police last year after he sensed that something was wrong when he had not seen the occupants for sometime; but unfortunately the case was followed up completely.

As the population is aging, there is a greater challenge for the society to look after itself. Decrease in family size and the trend towards globalisation means that more and more old folks will have to fend for themselves. Until and unless some solutions are found, this incident unfortunately will not be the last.

Compromised justice?

2006-07-18T04:03:00.000+08:00

Categories: Singapore

Today reported that the courts will no longer wait for big name litigation lawyers to fit a case into their packed schedules. This was stated by CJ Chan in an interview published by a magazine by Singapore Academy of Law. Chief among the reasons is to increase the efficiency of the Law Courts. An indirect effect of this ruling is the spreading out of litigation cases especially to the younger lawyers.

The CJ has a good reason for the change. Currently, cases got postponed because lawyers were too busy with a packed schedule, causing cases to be postponed sometimes up to 9 months. This make the court inefficient and cases got dragged on longer than it should reasonably be. However a 'fallout' of this ruling is that such big names lawyers are unable to take further cases, thus denying litigants a chance to hire what they deemed as the best lawyers. The CJ accepted this and was quick to add that "but it may very well be that others are just as good, if given the chance to demonstrate it."

But is the real need to increase efficiency of the Courts be made at the expense of justice? In our society, justice is based on facts and also to how well these facts are presented and how persuasive the lawyers are. Sometimes a case is won because of a very persuasive lawyers. Such lawyers are good because of years of training and experience. Therefore it is not surprising that big names lawyers get bigger with bigger and more serious cases fought. A younger lawyer maybe good academically but still lack the persuasive power or the sharpness of mind that is associated with years of experience. Hence it is not surprising that the outcome of a case maybe different if handled by different lawyers. Because of this, by implementing such measure, is justice served?

I was even more alarm when the CJ said that "What is also happening is that where counsel from a big firm appears against counsel from a small firm, the chances are that the former is better prepared than the latter, if only because he has more resources at his command." This is precisely the reason why litigants employ lawyers from big firms because of the resources available, not to mention the well-grind and experience lawyers. Because facts has to be presented in Court, the more facts one can present, the better the outcome for him. This should be ultimate standard the Court should base its verdict on and not on how persuasive a lawyer can be. If a litigant is even denied this basic right to hire a lawyer with large resources at his disposal, is this a denial of justice?

One of the positive outcome of this decision is the spreading out of cases to younger lawyers. I am not sure whether this was one of the intended outcome but the CJ certainly spoke positively about this. I find this as akin to an 'affirmative' action. Don't get me wrong. I am all for help for the 'small' people. However in this case, apart from financial might, this is as level a playing field as can be. If you are good, you excel. By having to fight tooth and nail also, makes one a better lawyer, able to sharpened the mind and grow with the experience. It is true that if most cases go to the big firms, these lawyers will not have the necessary clientele to improve. This argument is somewhat flawed because even the big firms employ young lawyers. Therefore the door is not entirely closed to young lawyers, just that much tougher.

Whatever the reasons for the change, the CJ certainly has a good reason - to increase the efficiency of the Courts. If a positive outcome is a more level playing field for younger lawyers, without any compromise in justice, then this change should be supported wholeheartedly. This process will enhance the renewal process so that when big names lawyers retire, there will not be any vacuum created resulting in a drop in the legal standings of the country.

PS: I am not a lawyer and receive no renumeration in voicing my concerns other than for upholding the standard of justice.

What next for Badawi-Mahathir's confrontations

2006-07-16T17:37:00.000+08:00

Categories: Malaysia

Now that the Badawi administration had declassified some official documents pertaining to the discussions of the scrapped Scenic Bridge, a full scale war with Tun Mahathir had been declared. Somebody is bound to be hurt whatever the outcome. Will the release of these documents placate Tun?

It depends on what the reasons behind Tun are. If his outburst is because he felt slighted that his legacy had been slowly dismantled then Tun is an angry man indeed. In his later years he had build many buildings, like the international airport (KLIA), the Twin Towers and the administrative capital of Putrajaya. Maybe it was an attempt to revitalise the economy; but maybe it is an attempt to immortalise his contribution to the country. When the Badawi administration took over, his emphasis had been towards the upgrading of the rural areas, and as a result he started to halt the building of such grand structures and channel the money to the rural areas. Because of the style by which Tun has governed, he see this as an attack on him. From a man who is not adversed to a challenged, this is the predicted results.

When Tun Mahathir announced the building of the crooked bridge, he proudly announced that Malaysia does not need the agreement of Singapore if it wants to demolish and replace the Causeway in its territorial waters. Therefore from day one, Tun has already stake his reputation and pride on the building of the bridge. As a result when the building of the bridge was called off, his pride has been dented. When a person's pride and reputation had been tarnish, it is more difficult for him to accept any explanation contrary to his belief. If this is the reason for the outburst, then I am sure the Mahathir-Badawi confrontation will linger until and unless one party has fallen.

There were rumours that Tun was upset because his son was by-passed in the last UMNO general election in favour of Badawi's son-in-law. How true the rumour is, is anybody's guess, but Tun did fire his salvo towards Badawi's son-in-law. If this is true, then probably Tun is only making things difficult for Badawi so that his administration will falter, resulting in his ouster as party leader. With Badawi out of the way, Tun's son can mount a challenge on a more equal footing. In this scenario, Tun will only be placated once Badawi's popularity and power base has been eroded.

If Tun really felt that Badawi has erred and truely has a case to answer, then once all Tun's queries had been successfully rebutted, he will accept the explanation and go back to his retirement. However, knowing Tun's personality, it may not be easy to satisfy him and the controversy will linger on for sometime more.

The controversy may be just a front created by Tun for Badawi to show some respect for Tun. After Badawi took office, he had cancelled some of Tun Mahathir's mega-projects. This, to Tun may be a sign of disrespect. Tun may have created this controversy with the hope that Badawi will answer to him, like before, just to show that Tun is still in 'power'. Badawi has thus far refuses to address Tun personally and this may have cause Tun's criticisms to be more harsh and personal. Maybe all this disputes will just end if Badawi made a personal visit to Tun to trash out the problems, like what many UMNO leaders had suggested.

Now with an open war being declared, what next? This will surely depends on who is the eventual winner.

If Badawi win, he will have the mandate of UMNO and the moral authority to govern Malaysia anyway he likes. His son-in-law Khairy's position will also be stronger within UMNO and his ascend within the ranks of UMNO will surely be smoother.

However if he loses, Badawi will have lost the strong mandate given to him in the last general election. Tun will have gained a higher moral authority and will be the guardian of sorts to the government, effectively making him governing Malaysia by proxy. With UMNO National Assembly coming soon, surely this will affect Badawi's position as the President of UMNO. Najib's supporters may be in a hurry to promote him to take over as he will be seen as the stronger leader especially after he was publicly named by Tun as the first choice candidate when he was to name his successor.

The stakes are bigger for Tun. If he loses, his whole premiership and policy-making will come into question. He will be seen as someone who is autocratic who bulldozed everything through so as to achieve his vision, regardless of legality. Already Tajudin has accused him and Zaim of 'coercion' when he bought into MAS, allegedly an effort to keep the central bank afloat after a disastrous investment outcome. Maybe Tun has already felt the heat when he claimed that Badawi's government will falsely accuse him as a way to get back at him in this ongoing controversy.

However if the is no winner, with the constant badgering of the Badawi's government. Tun may risk sounding like a broken record, always harping on the same old issues despite explanations by the government. In the event, he may lose the respect of UMNO and most Malaysians. He may even played into the hands of the Oppositions. Already Badawi has hinted that he is 'truer' UMNO than Tun because he had never spoken on an opposition platform. Tun apparently spoke on a PAS platform after he was expelled from UMNO by Tunku.

Whatever the outcome, both parties will come out bruised. ln the short term, only personal pride will be dented. In the long run, however, it is the country that will suffer. The government cannot run efficiently if it has to address Tun's charges at every turn. The open confrontations may also be worrisome to potential investors, who may place their money elsewhere. In the end it is the people's, especially that of UMNO's, acceptance of the explanation that is important. If the people decides that Badawi has won the case, then Tun's voice will get softer and softer.

Press Statement on Declassified Documents Pertaining to the Crooked Bridge

2006-07-16T15:03:00.000+08:00

Categories: Malaysia

PRESS STATEMENT ON DECLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS PERTAINING TO THE CROOKED BRIDGE

The Government has declassified several relevant confidential documents and extracts to allow Malaysians to understand why it has reached the decision to abort the bridge project to replace the Johor Causeway.

And in doing so, it has put the record straight on a string of allegations raised by the former Prime Minister, YABhg Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad, namely that:

- The Singapore government accepted Malaysia's proposal to build a crooked bridge.
- The bridge was not part of the package of outstanding bilateral issues.
- Malaysia is a“half past six country with no guts” by not going ahead with the crooked bridge project.
- Malaysia put the issue of selling sand and allowing the Republic of Singapore Airforce to use its air space on the negotiating table.

This is only the second time in recent history that information protected by the Official Secrets Act 1972 has been declassified and approved for public consumption – an indication of the Government's seriousness in wanting the people who voted it into power to have the full facts, so that they can appreciate why the Government decided to abort the bridge project.

In the package of documents released are correspondences between Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad and two of Singapore's former prime ministers, Mr. Lee Kuan Yew and Mr. Goh Chok Tong.

Also made public are extracts of the record of the meeting between Prime Minister Dato' Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi and Mr. Goh Chok Tong in Kuala Lumpur in March 2005.

The contents of these documents contain three key facts:
1. Discussions with Singapore on the airspace issue are not new and were not mooted by the current Government under Prime Minister Dato’ Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi.

Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad himself included this issue as a trade-off and as part of the package of issues to be resolved with Singapore during negotiations from 1998 to 2002. This is evident from Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad's letter to Senior Minister Mr. Lee Kuan Yew on March 4 2002.

This same issue was raised by Senior Minister Mr. Goh Chok Tong during a meeting with Abdullah on March 1 2005.

This fact nullifies the suggestion by Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad that it was the present administration that offered RSAF jets use of Malaysian airspace.

2. The sale of sand to Singapore was raised by the Republic during a meeting between Prime Minister Dato’ Seri Abdullah Badawi and Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong on March 1 2005.

This nullifies argument that the Government put the issue on sand on the negotiating table.

3. Comprehensive advice by the Attorney General’s Chambers showed that Malaysia should not proceed to build a bridge unilaterally without complying with our legal obligations.

In particular, Malaysia had obligations under the Johor-Singapore water agreements 1961 and 1962, the Wayleave Agreements and the Separation Agreement 1965.

The main obstacle was that the construction of the crooked bridge will involve the demolition of the Malaysian side of the Johor Causeway. The said demolition would directly affect the water pipeline located inside the Johor Causeway and water pipelines straddling the Johor Causeway in which the ownership thereof vests with the Public Utilities Board of Singapore.

The Attorney General’s Chambers also stated that under the 1961 and 1962 Johor-Singapore Water Agreements, “Malaysia is required to obtain approval of PUB in relation to the alteration of water pipelines as a result of the construction of a full straight bridge or a scenic half bridge.”

The 1961 and 1962 Johor-Singapore Water Agreements are guaranteed under the 1965 Separation Agreement. The water pipelines located inside the Johor Causeway is governed by the 1961 Johor Singapore Water Agreement.

Therefore, the provisions of the Wayleave Agreements which is applicable to the water pipelines straddling along the Johor Causeway is not applicable to the water pipeline located inside the Johor Causeway.

These facts nullify the allegation that the water pipeline located inside the Johor Causeway could be relocated unilaterally after giving six months notice to Singapore.

Taking into consideration these facts, the present Government had to make a firm decision to reject Singapore’s quid-pro-quo proposal on sand and airspace as it would have compromised Malaysia’s national sovereignty.

It had to make the political decision to abort the bridge project as this was consistent with the sentiment of Malaysians and the interest of Malaysia.

In conclusion, the issue boils down to one simple fact – Malaysia wanted the bridge, and Singapore did not want it.

The full straight bridge that was proposed by Malaysia would have been a symbol of friendship and would have benefited both countries. Nevertheless, the responsibility for achieving this aim does not lie with Malaysia only.

Note: Please refer to Appendix A for further information.

*****
APPENDIX A
Former Prime Minister, YABhg Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad has raised several allegations on the Government’s decision to abort building a bridge to replace the Johor Causeway.

Below, the Government sets out facts and sketches the historical backdrop in which this decision was reached:

The Allegation: That the Singapore Government accepted Malaysia’s proposal to build a crooked bridge to replace the Malaysian side of the Johor Causeway.

The Facts: On March 4 2002, Tun Dr. Mahathir wrote a letter to Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yew regarding Malaysia’s proposal on the package of outstanding bilateral issues.

Among other things, he proposed to build a new bridge on the Malaysian side at its own cost while Singapore would build the bridge on the Singapore side at its own cost. Once the bridge was completed, the Johor Causeway would be demolished.

Tun Dr. Mahathir further proposed that if Singapore did not build a bridge on its side, Malaysia intended to build a bridge on its side. Once this bridge was completed, the Johor Causeway on the Malaysian side would be demolished.

On April 11 2002, Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong replied and agreed, although his preference was for a full bridge.

However, that proposal was made in the context of the package approach for the outstanding bilateral issues which would be further discussed at ministerial and senior officials’ level.

On October 7 2002, Tun Dr. Mahathir informed Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong that Malaysia had decided to discontinue discussions on the outstanding bilateral issues as a package and to give the highest priority to resolving the long delayed water issue, particularly the price review of raw water supplied to Singapore.

This move came because there appeared to be no agreement in resolving the issues as a package.

On October 14 2002, Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong agreed to discontinue discussions on the outstanding bilateral issues as a package.
Singapore withdrew its agreement on the crooked-bridge in the context of the package and stated that its earlier agreement to the bridge project was now not applicable.

Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong wrote: “… I had been prepared to make concessions in varying the Points of Agreement (POA) with extra pieces of land, allowing early withdrawal of Central Provident Fund (CPF) deposits and building our part of the bridge to replace the Causeway at our expense, as trade offs, so that you give us airspace and future water at a fair price… Since you now want to deal with the water issue separately and discontinue the package approach, these trade offs are no longer possible.”

In effect, this letter signalled a return to a status quo position. Prime Minister Goh’s statement was not challenged by Tun Dr. Mahathir. In fact, there was no reply to Prime Minister Goh’s letter by Tun Dr. Mahathir.

Singapore reiterated its position in a diplomatic note on November 29, 2004 while the Customs, Immigration and Quarantine (CIQ) Complex in Bukit Chagar was being built.

It said: “ … These negotiations on a package basis were unilaterally terminated by the then Prime Minister of Malaysia Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad on 7 October 2002.”

With the termination of the negotiations on the package of issues, Singapore’s agreement for the construction of the crooked-bridge no longer exists.

Conclusion: It is incorrect to say that Singapore accepted Malaysia proposal to build a crooked bridge within its own territory. Singapore’s acceptance for Malaysia to build a crooked bridge was at most a reluctant acceptance based on the package approach.

*****
The Allegation: That the letter from Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong on April 11 2002 was the final commitment by the republic on the bridge proposal by Malaysia.

The Facts: During negotiations between the two countries, there was an understanding that any proposal would not become final unless it was concluded in an agreement signed by leaders of Malaysia and Singapore.

This was explained in a letter by Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yew to then Minister of Special Functions & Minister of Finance, Tun Daim Zainuddin on August 24 2000.

The letter read: “To make it easier for us to write to each other, to test various options, all notes or letters I send to you or Mahathir, or vice-versa, will be treated as Without Prejudice: that there is no agreement until all points are agreed and signed by the two PMs.”

Conclusion: It is incorrect to say that Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong had given a commitment on the bridge in his letter on April 11 2002. There was no signed agreement between the PMs of Malaysia and Singapore on building the bridge.

*****
The Allegation: That the bridge was not part of the package of bilateral issues.

The Facts: At first, the outstanding package of issues only covered four areas – water, Central Provident Fund, airspace and the relocation of KTM’s CIQ complex in Singapore. This was agreed to by both countries in Hanoi on December 27 1998.

But later, the bridge project was inserted into the package of issues. Tun Dr. Mahathir did so in a letter to Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yew on March 4 2002 and the bridge issue became one of five issues in the package titled “MALAYSIA-SINGAPORE PACKAGE OF FIVE ISSUES – MALAYSIA’S PROPOSALS”

Conclusion: The bridge became part of the package of unresolved bilateral issues as a result of Tun Dr. Mahathir’s letter.

*****
The Allegation: That the government’s decision to abort the bridge project will cause billions of ringgit in losses.

The Facts: The total cost of building the CIQ, the crooked bridge and the new KTM line across the Johor Straits was RM2.379 billion.

At this moment, the Government is still working out compensation payment to Gerbang Perdana Sdn Bhd. But the fact is that the decision to abort the bridge was not an economic decision.

Once it became clear that Malaysia could not build the bridge unilaterally or accede to Singapore’s requests, calling off the plan to build the bridge was the most financially responsible decision to make.

Conclusion: It would not have been advisable to spend RM1.13 billion on a structure and be stuck in limbo over its use.

*****
The Allegation: That Malaysia is a “half past six country with no guts” by calling off the bridge project.

The Facts: Simply put, the Government had to make the right decision, taking into account the interest of Malaysians. It revisited the unilateral proposal by Tun Dr. Mahathir to build the crooked bridge but came to a finding that this was not an ideal solution.

A crooked bridge is not a legacy to leave for future Malaysians. In coming to its decision to abort the bridge project, the Government studied not only the Wayleave Agreements but also the Johor-Singapore Water Agreements 1961 and 1962, the Separation Agreement 1965 and took into consideration advice by the Attorney General’s Chambers.

This is what the Attorney General’s Chambers said: “ … the construction of the scenic half bridge to replace the Malaysian side of the Johor Causeway must be studied in a holistic manner in view of the fact that the scenic half bridge would have international legal implications in particular environmental impact to Singapore in and around the Straits of Johor.

“Apart from the above, the construction of the scenic half bridge will involve the demolition of the Malaysian side of the Johor Causeway. The said demolition would directly affect the water pipeline located inside the Johor Causeway and water pipelines straddling the Johore Causeway. In this regard, legal implications thereof would have to be studied based on the 1961 and 1962, Johor-Singapore Water Agreements, Wayleave Agreements and Separation Agreement 1965.

“Malaysia as a sovereign and independent state has complete power and authority over its territory and in exercising the said power and authority, no other state may interfere with its affairs. Nevertheless Malaysia cannot take unilateral action without taking into consideration international law principles and requirements, amongst others, taking into account the rights and interests of its neighbouring states.”

Conclusion: With so much uncertainly, it made sense for the Government to take a step back and do the right thing.

Running the government is not about scoring points or engaging in brinkmanship. It is about weighing the pros and cons and reaching a decision that is good for Malaysia.

*****
The Allegation: That Malaysia offered its airspace and sand to Singapore.

The Facts: The issue of allowing use of Malaysian airspace has been on the negotiating table between 1998 and 2002.

Tun Dr. Mahathir himself inserted this issue in a letter to Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yew on March 4 2002.

He offered it as a trade-off during negotiations on the package of unresolved issues. With the de-packaging of the bilateral issues, the proposal made by Tun Dr. Mahathir is no longer relevant.

Singapore used to enjoy five flight privileges until 1998. It sought all those rights to be re-inserted but the Government of the day was only prepared to offer Search and Rescue and the Northern Transit Corridor rights on terms and conditions to be mutually agreed upon.

The rights of Search and Rescue was offered on the basis of reciprocity and is consistent with international practice. As for Northern Transit Corridor, it only allows RSAF jets to transit over the South China Sea. The jets will not be allowed to roam the Malaysian airspace.

Conclusion: The use of Malaysian airspace was raised by Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong during a meeting with Dato’ Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi on March 1 2005 in Putrajaya.

Singapore said that this issue was of importance to them and said that it would make selling the bridge idea to Singapore more palatable.

Remember, as far as the Republic was concerned, it did not see the need for a bridge to replace the Causeway. It wanted something in return for agreeing to the bridge deal and requested for sand and the use of airspace.

But once it became clear that the Malaysian public was strongly opposed to selling any sand or allowing RSAF jets to use its airspace, the government moved firmly and made the only acceptable decision – it aborted the plan to build the bridge.

Going ahead to satisfy the two conditions the Republic put forward would have meant going against the wishes of many Malaysians.

The Government has always stated that its decision is a political decision, based on the sentiments, sovereignty and integrity of the people of Malaysia.

PRIME MINISTER'S DEPARTMENT
PUTRAJAYA

Wealth does not equate happiness

2006-07-15T10:08:00.000+08:00

Categories: Singapore

A UK-based think-tank, New Economics Foundations had published the the Happy Planet Index (HPI) which attempts to log the progress of nations based on amount of resources used compared to the length and happiness of people's lives. Singapore was ranked 131 out of 178 countries. This is the worst within ASEAN. Vietnam, the best within ASEAN is ranked 12. Malaysia is ranked 40.

The HPI was created with the aim to "address the relative success or failure of countries in supporting good life for their citizens, whilst respecting the environmental resource limits upon which our lives depend." It shows the relative efficiency with which nations convert the planet's natural resources into long and happy lives for their citizens. The nations that top the Index aren't the happiest places in the world, but the nations that score well show that achieving, long, happy lives without over-stretching the planet's resources is possible. The HPI is calculated based on official figures on life expectancy, an index of people's happiness and the ecological footprint.

This HPI is timely because the world is facing a crunch on resources. Our way of live, with its excesses and mainly destructive in nature, cannot be maintained forever. While other indices measure success based on wealth and GDP, which unfortunately seemed unfriendly ecologically, this index attempts to show that success can also be measured in an ecologically-friendly way.

The results is quite revealing. The most developed country, US, only ranked a dismal 171. Japan, most advanced economy in Asia only ranked 153. In contrast, Vanuatu, a tiny island in the Pacific, ranked number 1. This is despite Vanuatu's per capita GDP of US$2900 as compared to US's US$41000. This show that although wealth is important, it is not the key to happiness. Wealth can bring you a lot of things but not quite the happiness we all aim for. Two of the richest man, Bill Gates and Warren Buffet, had aptly demonstrated that money is not everything when they pledge their money for charity.

Another conclusion is that the more you have the more you want to have and that means the less happy you tend to be. This may explain why Vanuatu's people are happy with their simple life. To borrow a word from the Buddha, craving does not necessarily bring more happiness, but distress and discontent. This is aptly seen in the modern world where people are materialistics. The more possession one has, the more one wants. However when what is craved for is in possession, then the next craving starts, a never ending circle.

Great infrastructure at the expense of the environment is not the only way to a fulfil happy life. Great pleasure and happiness can be had by just enjoying the natural beauty of the environment. Every tree has its beauty. Even the simply dragon fly has its place in beauty.

No matter how revealing and how much approval is given to the HPI, it is important to note about the deficiencies of this index. By using the life expectancy as an indicator, there is an assumption that longer life span is an indicator of good well-being. This may not necessarily be true. Life satisfaction also does not equate happiness, because "you maybe satisfied with your pay but you may not be happy with it."

Such 'minor' details aside, the HPI is a useful tool to highlight the fact that one can be happy or at least satisfied without the need of a lot of money or at the expense of natural resources. I hope that the HPI will be published at the same time other economic indices are published so that the people can be made to realise that there is another aspect to life's happiness.

Links:
The Independent
Happy Index Map
World Changing

Football World Cup - a look back

2006-07-12T08:54:00.000+08:00

Categories: Wormie Says

With World Cup football just concluded and the trophy being won by Italy, life should be back to normal. My own prediction was wrong and I am sure I am not the only one. While now is the time to catch up on sleep, be 're-united' with family and get re-acquainted with friends, here is a look back at this grand event.

For the first time, previous soccer greats, participated in the opening ceremony which was held on June 9. Amongst them were Pele of Brazil and Maradona of Argentina. Looking at them, reminded me of the very different paths each has taken since stardom. Pele, who lead the Brazilian team to 3 World Cup successes had kept to a clean and normal life, never letting his success goes to his head. He later was appointed the Sports Minister of Brazil. On the other hand, Maradona, who shot to fame in the 1982 Spain World Cup tournament, was consumed by his fame, leading him into alcoholism and drug addiction. Although both individual started their football career at age of 16, why has similar fame brought about such different end results? Could a person's temperament be a contributing factor? Maradona has short tempers as seen in the football field, with red cards for dangerous play not alien to him, whereas Pele was largely on the receiving end.

The South Korean-France match, brought back memories of the 2002 Korea/Japan World Cup. The reason why the South Korean reached the semifinal then was because of their motivation. No doubt their Dutch coach, Guus Hiddink should take some of the credit for their incredible run. However looking at the way they played, one realised that they were very motivated, chasing for every ball for the whole ninety minutes of play. Not many countries can pride themselves with such achievement. Of course, home ground advantage and nationalism plays a crucial part. In the game against France this time round, again the South Koreans displayed similar motivation. The South Koreans had shown that motivation and hard work can bring you far. Maybe sportmen from our countries can learn from them in their quest for sport excellence.
Although first-timer Togo fared poorly in this tournament, they can hold their heads high for their good and spirited performance on the field. However off field is a different matter. There were threats to boycott the game over unpaid bonuses. What distress me is not the unpaid bonus but rather the amount. In a country where the per capita income is less than US$1000, the demand for a bonus of US$199000 each to play and US$38,000 for each win and half for each draw is definitely too much. It is true that most of the players are playing in European clubs and hence earn a handsome sum, but they should not use these salaries as a benchmark for their own country. I think that the chance to play for the country is a good enough reward, for their names will be forever be recorded in their country's history. I cannot fathom what they were thinking when they were dribbling the ball towards the goal or when trying to stop opponent's attack. Is it money or national pride? How are they going to answer for those few fans who supported them and their country at their own expense? I am also curious as to who came up with such exorbitant prize money for a country which is ranked 137 in terms of world GDP.

The infamous game between US and Italy saw 3 red cards being shown - 2 to US and 1 to Italy. Here the differences in philosophy of both countries is clear. US glorified and rationalised their 'robust' play when goalkeeper Kasey Keller said: "These guys bled for our country and our team". Probably the events in Iraq was on his mind when he said those words. The coach, Bruce Arena, blamed the Uruguayan referee Jorge Lorrionda, as have lost control and "referees are not according the Americans the same respect that they gives to big soccer powers like Italy." This is in stark contrast to Italy who confessed to Daniele de Rossi's elbow strike against Brian McBride's left eye which literally drew blood, as in excusable. This sentiments were also echoed by Italian's newspaper. When will the Americans realised that sports is unlike war and there is such a thing as sportsmanship.

This tournament also saw many 'foreign born' players playing for their adopted country. The most prominent must surely be Birchall, the only white player for Trinidad and Tobago. Although he was born in England, he represented Trinidad and Tobago because his mother was born in Port of Spain, its capital. Before his inclusion, he had never set foot in the country he is now playing for. Other less dramatic examples are Petit of Portugal and Alessandro Santos of Japan. The traditional demarcation based on citizenship now seemed rather artificial. Players with certain skill were accepted. This is very different from being born into a country because then one will have to go through the same path as any other native. So for all intent and purposes, these 'migrant' are as native as can be. Christopher Birchall would never have represented Trinidad and Tobago had he been named to the English team. Santos migrated to Japan 4 years ago because he knew that he would not make the Brazilian team. Therefore it can be seen that the football prowess based on the traditional views of a nation no longer holds true. This 'foreign' effect is thankfully diluted because football is a team game of eleven players, otherwise we may have countries like Singapore holding the trophy overnight!

The game's unfortunate quarter-final encounter between Germany and Argentina needed the dreaded spot-kick to settle the tie. However this unfortunate event turn out to be display of fine sportmanship as shown by Oliver Kahn. He was the goalkeeper who played in the last World Cup and won the Yashin Award for top goalkeeper, a recognition for his splendid performance. In this tournament, however, Jens Lehmann was chosen over him. This had created a degree of displeasure from Kahn and some animosity towards Lehmann. Just 5 days before this quarter-final game, he again expressed his displeasure when he said he would never accept Klinsmann's decision to replace him with Arsenal's Jens Lehmann as the country's number one keeper and that Klinsmann owed him an explanation. However in a show of sportsmanship, Kahn hug Lehmann after Germany won the penalty shoot-out which saw Lehmann saved 2 penalty shots. He was also seen giving advice to Lehman before the shootout. Whatever misgivings Kahn had of Lehmann had obviously been put aside, only the admiration and appreciation of the skill displayed prevailed. This is sportsmanship at its best.

Following the loss of the Argentinians to the Germans, there was a fracas involving players from both sides. Although this took place after the official games, it was caught on camera. FIFA had decided to take actions on those involved. German Torsten Frings was suspended as a result. What is memorable about this incident is what was aptly said by FIFA President Blatter to the players: "You must not only know how to win but also how to loose."

The finals between Italy and France will probably be remembered because of the 'butt head' incident. Zidane, the French captain, seemed to have lost his cool and butt his head against the chest of Italian defender Materazzi after the later said something to him. We will never know the truth about the incident. However a player of his caliber and his maturity, Zidane should have shown more restraint. Yes he may have been provoked, but that did not give him the right to retaliate. If this incident happen with Wayne Rooney, it is probably more understandable. Because of this incident, Zidane unfortunately will be remembered more for the 'butt head' incident than for his illustrious past. What a way to end a carrier.

A saving grace was when he was voted the winner of, and to the dismay of FIFA, the Golden Ball, despite the red card he received for the head butt incident. This has make a mockery of the award. How can a person who lacks discipline be voted as the most outstanding player? How is he going to explain to the millions of children who will look up to him for their inspirations?

The team I like best in this tournament must surely be Germany. They have displayed commitment and professionalism in their play. They play cleanly and sportingly without the rough tackling and the diving theatrics of the other teams. Unfortunately they did not win the Fair Play which was won jointly by Brazil and Spain.

As usual the referees got the brunt of the blame for any outcome of a game. This unfortunately has always been part of the game and is to be expected. After all these officials are only human and human are not infallible. I guess what is important is the consistency on the part of the referees. Similar offences must be treated similarly, so that the players know exactly where the line is drawn. There had been calls to use video technology to resolve ambiguous fouls, but this had so far been turned down. I guess this is an European traits, where tradition is more important than change, even if there are faults in the traditions. Surely, the most uncalled for and inexcusible mistake must have been committed by Graham Poll of England, who showed Croatia's Josip Simunic three yellow cards during their final group game against Australia before flashing the red. This incident was later nicknamed 'the hattrick'!

The likelihood of a drawn game increases as the tournament progresses. Out of the 48 games in the group round, only 10 game ended in a draw (20%); whereas from the round of 16 till finals there were 5 drawn games out of 15 at end of regular time (33%). Is this because after the group rounds, the teams took less risks because of knock-out format? Or is this an indication that the teams were more evenly matched? It is sad to see good teams being knocked out based on penalty kicks which is very much based on luck.

This World Cup had been very interesting because the hot favourates were defeated leaving predictions wide open as to who the ultimate champions will be. In 4 years's time, a new chapter will be written in the history of FIFA for the game will be host by South Africa, the first time it will be held in Africa. Although hiccups are expected, nonetheless it should bring hope and pride to the people of Africa.

Can pei du mama problem be curtailed?

2006-07-09T13:16:00.000+08:00

Categories: Singapore

The PRC Chinese pei du mama (study mama) demonstration outside their Embassy two days ago demanding that they be allowed to work certainly raised eyebrows. Pei du mama, are mothers who accompanied their children to study in Singapore. The rules are clear - they are not allowed to work in their first year here, but after that they are allowed to work in any job except in massage parlours, bars and karaoke lounges, food stalls or as domestic maids. Despite this, it is not hard to see such study mamas working in shops fronting as massage parlour. Things changed after the police tightened the rules, coinciding with the murder of a study mama in a massage parlour here known to give 'extra' services. This was what had prompted the demonstration two days ago.

The rules were in placed since 2003, but why are there study mamas still working in massage parlour? Various reasons were cited. Often heard are claimes of unscrupulous study mamas agents. They either tricked them into believing that they can work in Singapore or never tell them the whole truth. The study mamas's poor comprehension in English did not help either as official documents are in English. Since they don't have much skill other than being a masseur, they cannot work in jobs allowed by government and only options left to them are the massage parlours. Some came here because of the 'promise' of a good life in Singapore from other study mamas. Often these are friends and relatives; of course the whole story wasn't told.

From news reports it seems strange that a lot of these study mamas said they were tricked into coming to Singapore. True some of them are duped by unscrupulous travel agent, but I find it strange that such bad experiences were not conveyed to their family members. Maybe by exposing their bad experiences, they may 'loose face'; but by not revealing the truth, they are only doing their compatriots a disservice. These false pretences and falsehoods must have elevated an already unsubstantiated high expectations about study mamas' life in Singapore. Hopefully the good that come out from this demonstration is to highlight the less than rosy study mamas' life in Singapore.

Whatever the reasons for their coming to Singapore, should they expected to be able to work here? I find this idea ludicrious because the main, if not the only reason, for their coming here is to take care of their children who is studying here. Any chance to work should be viewed as a privilege. I can understand the need to work because of boredom at home, just like any housewife in Singapore. And it is not as if there are no work for them to do. I have seen many working as cleaner in food courts, some giving tuitions. Why some of them demand to work in massage parlour fronting as a vice-den is beyond me.

Is there a solution to this study mamas' problem? Maybe there are.

If the problem is due to less-than-honest agents, why not accredit these agents working from China? The government has successfully protected the people from bird flu by only importing fowls from accredited farms in Malaysia. So similarly, this scheme probably can be implemented as well. As these Chinese agents work with counterparts in Singapore, the noose can be further tightened if the Singapore agents are regulated and held accountable for any proven mislead by their Chinese counterparts. This way potential study mamas and Singapore's own reputations can also be protected.

One of the ways to reduce the dependancy on study mamas agent is to enable potential study mamas to understand official documents. Hence, have official documents written in Mandarin for the benefits of this group of people. Further when a study visa is given to their children and their study mamas, these rules can be further re-inforced with further pamphlets in Mandarin highlighting the restrictions. This way, no study mamas can claim ignorance.

The government can also set up government-run hostels targeting these foreign students. Such hostels is regimented, with time to study, play and leisure. This way study mamas can be reassured that their children are in good hands. This may alleviate the need for real study mamas from accompanying their children to stay in a foreign land and suffer the prejudices brought about by a handful of their 'lesser' compatriots who are ever ready to provide special services in shops fronting as massage parlours, who give 'generously' to anyone able to pay the highest price, who are fast to disrobe just for a few bucks, and who have no qualms to be in a relationship as a third party.

To make such hostels even more attractive, the duration of stay for study mamas maybe curtailed to specific duration - longer visa for children of younger age group and short visa for the bigger kids. The durations can range from say, one to three years, so that ample time can be given for the child to adjust to the environment here and for the parent to make arrangements for their children's future stay.

I am not against the idea of study mamas and I do sympathise with the real study mamas who cannot find work of their choice. It is the demands by some so-called study mamas that irks me. When their male compatriots can toil away under the hot sun in the constructions industry, why do these 'study mamas' demand that they be allowed to work in vice dens fronting as massage parlours? Like a lady PRC Chinese friend of mine said: there are money to be made in Singapore as long as you work hard, there is no need for one to choose the easy way out and degrade herself! I can't agree more.

Non-Muslims have less risk of HIV/AIDS?

2006-07-06T11:21:00.000+08:00

Categories: Malaysia

Muslim couples in all States will soon have to undergo compulsory HIV/AIDS screening before they can marry. This was reported by the 5th July edition of New Straits Times. Although such ruling is welcome, it has however raised some questions.

Premarital sex is now common, given the ample opportunities for couples to be together. Therefore if anyone is inflicted with HIV/AIDS, he/she would have passed his/her disease to the partner even before marriage. Hence, a screening test before marriage maybe too late. Despite this, because of the counselling given as follow-up, there is some merit in this move although not the intended one.

The target population for the screening test and the reasons behind the move - part of measures being introduced to curb the spread of the disease - certainly raised eyebrows. The majority of Malaysians are Muslims and almost all are Malay. Is this target population chosen based on demographics or politics? If it is based on demographics, then screening test may not be the ideal way to curb the spread of disease. Education, inculcating some discipline, and strengthening religious beliefs would probably be more appropriate as the strength of character can better able to withstand temptations. If such measures succeed, then the screening test becomes irrelevant because the risk factors - intravenous drug use and promiscuity - would be minimised, hence the risk of spread.

What about the other segment of the society? Are Christians, Buddhist and believer of other faiths less likely to get HIV/AIDS? I hope and believe that this is not true. If this is so, why aren't they included in the premarital screening test? Although religious teachers may frowned on inter-racial relationship, the truth is, it happens. Love and lust overcomes all barries. Pretending that such relationships do not happen is not going to help this issue. Hence, a non-Muslim is as likely as a Muslim in getting and transmitting the disease. No doubt that non-Muslim will have to convert to Islam prior to marriage, but by the same argument above, by then it may be too late.

Since HIV/AIDS inflicts all people - irregardless of faiths, religions or race - I cannot understand why it is only compulsory for Muslims to be screened. Is this an admission of the scale of this problems involving the targeted population or the lesser importance placed on the other segment of the society, all equally Malaysians? If this is the trend the government is taking in formulating its policy, then I fear for the future of Malaysia; as another artifical demarcation based on religion will complicate an already complicated race-based politics.

Illegal loans legalised?

2006-07-04T16:38:00.001+08:00

Categories: Wormie Says, Malaysia, Penang

Recently while in Penang and Ipoh, I noticed something that is very troubling. Pasted prominently on lamp posts, bus stops and walls are flyers advertising loans. What caught my eyes were the exorbitant interest charged.

One flyer advertised an interest of just RM30 for a loan of RM1000. This works out to be 3%. Trouble is the loan duration is not specified, and is highly unlikely that this represents a monthly interest. A hint at the actual monthly interest can be gathered if one read the small print which says the go-between gets a 2% commission. Further hints are provided by other flyers, with one having a monthly interest of 5%.

The most ridiculous must surely be this one (photo below). Here a 5% interest is chargable for a 3-day loan of RM5000. And this increases 3 times for a 10-day loan, or 45% per month or 540% per year! (As a contrast credit card company charges 24% interest per year.) Therefore, a RM5000 loan becomes RM5250 after 3 days; RM5750 after 10 days; RM7250 after 1 month and RM32000 after 1 year if the loan terms had not changed!! Only Bill Gates can afford this kind of interests. But then, if you are Bill Gates, there is no need to take such loan in the first place.

I cannot ascertain if such loans are legal or not. Friends and relatives give different answers. In a way, I hope these are flyers from loan sharks because at least an illegal activity is not being legalised. However, if these were illegal, why were such activities so blatantly advertised? Even their phone numbers can be prominently seen. There don't seem to be any attempt to be discrete; as if to torment the police.

If such loans are legal, then how can the authority allow such exorbitant interests to be charged? They are just legalised loan sharks! Their licences should be revoked and the people charged.
It is especially sad because the victims are usually people who are desparate for cash and has nowhere to turn to. Taking loans from these illegal or legalised loan sharks will only worsen their plight. They will just spiral deeper and deeper into poverty and become vulnerable to criminal activities. Hopefully the authorities will crack down on such activities soon, otherwise more and more lives will be ruined.

'License' to molest?

2006-07-01T11:17:00.000+08:00

Categories: Singapore

A High Court judge had on appeal reduced a sentence meted out to a cancer-stricken molester from jail term of 4 months and 3 stroke of the cane for touching the breast and S$6000 for touching the backside to that of a mere S$5000 fine. This was after it was revealed that he had terminally-ill advanced neck cancer. Is this fair?

This molestation occurred in August last year when the unmarried man asked his maid whether he could touch her breasts while flashing a 50000 rupiah note (S$10). However before the maid could give an answer, he molested her. On several occasions that month, he also touched her on the buttocks.

The reasons cited for the reduced sentence was reported to be compassion because the presiding judge felt that the molester had suffered enough and wanted him to spend more of his remaining time with the family. The judge is indeed compassionate and is laudable. However should having a terminal cancer be used as a mitigating factor? It is true that the man is already serving a "sentence", but the cancer had not affected his mental faculty. Therefore, removing the neck cancer as a mitigating factor, he is no different from the next molester. If this is so, why should the jail sentence and cane be commuted to just one of fine? I do agree that because of his health, he should be spared the cane, just like what is stipulated in the law. Even with compassion which I readily agree, the jail sentence should not be spared but only reduced. A message has to be sent out that molest is a serious crime and warrants a jail sentence.

It is unfortunate that the judge failed to consider the feelings of the maid when making a judgement. This poor maid came to Singapore to make an honest living. Instead of being rewarded she was molested and insulted. If the man needed to satisfy his lust, he should go to one of the many other foreign women who will readily let him has his day for a fee. Why pick on one who is trying to etch out an honest living? There may be no physical harm, but mentally, she was abused. This episode has cut short her stay here and she had since gone home. It was not reported if she was compensated for her ordeal. Think of how much she can earn (by their country's standard) if she continued to work here. I do not know or understand what it is liked to be molested but I can imagine it cost much more than any monetary terms.

It is not that I lack compassion. I totally agree that sentencing should be laced with compassion. However, I felt that this case may set a precedent for future cases. What is there to stop a defence lawyer to quote this case for his HIV-client charged with molest? I am not a lawyer and I have no answer.

Immunity for on-going graft?

2006-06-28T11:20:00.000+08:00

Categories: Malaysia

The proposal for a protection program to shield whistle-blowers in graft cases has won the support of Prime Minister Badawi. He said that there are some merits in such a program. This is because until now, despite the many letters of allegations received by the Anti-Corruption Agency (ACA), the agency cannot act on them because of the anonymity of the letters. With a protection program, it is hoped that witnesses can come forward to help in investigations.

Not surprisingly, the PM has said that there should be gatherings of views from various interested groups before any final decisions are being made. This is to prevent new problems later. This would mean that corruptions will continue because going by previous standards, the government takes unusually long time, often years before final decisions can be made. In the mean time those who conduct grafts will go scot-free.

The ACA is correct to say that investigating anonymous letters of allegation may amount to playing into the hands of poison letters. However given the seriousness of the issues which can erode the government's integrity, should some of these letters be at least looked into. What I have in mind is something akin to preliminary hearing in the law courts to determine where there is a case to be answered. This can be done discretely without much huh-hah. Once enough incriminating evidence is found, only then will a full-scale investigation be conducted. In this way, at least there is some form of deterrent to any would-be culprit.

Even if the protection program were to be passed eventually, it does not guarantee that the whistle-blowers will reveal their identities. This is hardly surprising because given the mistrust of the people to the government agencies and police, the climate of fear is enough to thwart anyone to boldly pen their names in the letter of allegations. Moreover, most of the alleged corruptions involve people with some form of power.

The PM has promised many things since he took power 3 years ago. Until now nothing much has materialised. This is maybe due to him being Mr Nice Guy, to the extend that subordination occurred, making the implementation to be difficult. The talk on setting up an ombudsman, a police watchdog and committee to look into an MP possible misconduct has remains just that - empty talk. Therefore if history is anything to go by, I fear that the only protection program 'implemented' will be that which protect the corrupt.

Missed Opportunity in Harmony

2006-06-26T14:58:00.000+08:00

Categories: Singapore

A 2.5 m diameter ball, dubbed the "Great Ball of Harmony" will kick off the North East Community Development Council's Racial Harmony Month next month. The ball will make the rounds of HDB estates under the North East CDC. Residents are encouraged to write down their goals for harmony.

This Harmony Ball idea is a good one because it makes people aware of Racial Harmony. However, I felt that this is something which is very superficial. People tend to have very short memory. Today they write some aspirations on the ball, tomorrow they are back to their old ways. Writing aspirations on the ball is not so much a pledge but more of a novelty. How often do you have a 2.5m-diameter ball making its round around the housing estates? What is more important is to make people understand each other's beliefs. With more understanding, there will be more tolerance. With time, tolerance will bring about acceptance.

Currently, there are many activities that promote racial harmony. In school, there is Racial Harmony Day where school children are encourage to dress in their traditional dress, and posters put up to explain each racial cultures. On the constituency level, there are visits to places of worship. However such activities only target a certain section of society, not to mention the carnival atmosphere may dilute the underlying message.

I feel a more lasting effects will be to have short clips introducing each racial cultures and beliefs. Such messages need not be in form of moving images but may just be in a slide show format. By doing so, nearly all segments of the society can benefit as anyone who tuned in to TV will get to appreciate each others beliefs and cultures. With the daily exposure to such messages, there is less likelihood of people forgetting such messages.

Currently, all the TV channels in Singapore is very vernacular; there is no overlap of programs shown by another vernacular channel. This will only serve to limit the exposure each racial group have to the already little interactions they have in their daily lives. As a result, if one watches say only the Chinese channels, he will not know what happens in the next channel and vice versa. This to a certain extend is unhealthy because one may go through everday life without knowing the going ons of the other racial groups. Considering that all the TV channels are under the same company, a good opportunity has been missed in the effort to promote racial harmony.

There is no getting away from the fact that we are of different racial groups and beliefs. To pretend that such differences did not exist is not practical. There can never be a homogeneous Singaporeans. It is better to admit that differences do exist and then work on common ground to reduce the differences. The Great Ball of Harmony is a good starting point, but the mass media is probably more effective in the long run.

Binge drinking discouraged by pub owners?!

2006-06-21T19:00:00.000+08:00

Categories: Singapore

Pubs discouraging their clients from binge drinking? Yes that is precisely what a group of pub owners are doing. They have come together and formed the Bars Against Binge Drinking Association. But if you think these pub owners are conscientious and responsible, think again. These pub owners are simply fed-up with the binge drinkers because they tend to be rowdy, mess up the place with their vomitus or simply just be a plain nuisance to the other clients from disinhibition that comes with too much alcohol. However don't belittle their efforts because by discouraging binge drinking, they have to suffer loss of income, because binge drinkers are big spenders.

Whatever their intentions, the Association's actions should be encouraged. According to a National Health Survey, binge drinking has nearly double that of 1998, with a rise from 5.1% in 2003 to 10% in 2004. Women binging nearly tripled during the same period. Hence the social impact binge drinking can bring.

The campaign initiated by the Association is a simple one. Put up posters that show how a person behaves when he had too much drink. By seeing themselves in the posters, it is hoped that they will be made to realise how silly they are when they are stone drunk. I feel that this is probably a very good move as drunks seldom remember what happened during the 'high' period. They should be made to realise how silly and 'low' class they looked like when they loose their disinhibition.

Having worked in the A&E department, I will relate just two of the more memorable incidents. There was this man who was dressed very smartly with tie and long-sleeve, obviously had a good time after work. The reason why he was brought to the A&E was because he was having severe gastric pain. While waiting to be seen by the doctor, he was seen hurling profanities to everyone who goes near him. Boy, what extensive vocabulary he had! The best must be this incident. This man was brought in by police for blood test for alcohol level. No.... I shall save this for later.

Drinking excessive alcohol in general should be discouraged. This is because not only will it harm the health, it will also expose one to vulnerability. It is well-known that women had been raped after binging session. Limbs have been broken because they fell into drains, or just walked into the path of on-coming cars. Such incidents if they occur is just their fault. However sometimes innocent by-standers got injured because of actions of binge drinkers. Most pertinent are drink drivers. These drivers are so drunk that their vision maybe affected, the reaction time slowed or just plain oblivious to their surroundings while driving! If you have watched some of the police videos on AXN, you will know exactly what I mean.

Coming back to the story. This man was brought in by the police for a blood alcohol level. He actually looked sober enough although his eyes were blood-shot. When asked why he was arrested, he said that he did not know. He said that he had parked his car and was sleeping in the car when the police arrested him. So when the police was asked the reason, lo and behold, they agreed that he was sleeping in his parked car! Only problem was his 'parked' car was actually in the right most lane of the expressway!!!

So now you know why binge drinking should be strongly discouraged......

Security features that are not

2006-06-18T09:08:00.000+08:00

Categories: Wormie Says

Much has been said about Credit Card and Debit Card security in the newpapers recently. I feel that there is no security at all. I am not talking about the security at the vendor side which I am sure have multiple layers of security to prevent breaches into the computer system. What I am saying is the security at point of sale (POS). This can be either physically present to sign on the receipt or anonymous online transactions.

When you first get your credit card, you are asked to signed on the back. Below the strip where you are supposed to signed has a caption which states "Not valid unless signed".

When payment is made with a Credit Card, an imprint will be made of the Credit Card. If the POS uses electronic printout, card information will be obtained from the magnetic strip data. Whichever method used, the receipt will provide the following informations - the card number, the expiry date and the name. When you signed on the receipt, this signature is checked against the signature found at the back of the card. Therefore the Credit card that you hold in you hand has all the necessary information to make a transaction. There is nothing cryptic nor private.

Anyone who had gotten hold of your card, could have learn how to forge your signature - a sample is available at the back of the card!. And when this is checked against the signature at the back of the card at POS, of course they match. The checking of the signature is at best done cursorily, generally minor discrepancy is ignored. The incident as related by The Credit Card Prank is also not unheard of.

Online transactions are even more prone to fraud. Here the card is not even needed. What is needed is a copy of receipt. Generally online transactions only asked for the credit card number and the expiry date. This can be clearly seen on the receipt. Some paysite require the use of the Card Verification Number found on the back of the card. The use of this 3-digit number give a slight security as this number is not found on the receipt. However there is nothing to stop unscrupulous cashier from copying the number for use at a later date.

The above illustrations show how easy it is to commit fraud just by using what is available on the receipt and the card. Therefore whatever 'security' mentioned by card company is clearly non-existent on the part of the cardholders.

Because of the ease to commit fraud, the onus of security lies squarely with the cardholders. This site gives a fairly comprehensive advice on credit card security.

What can issuing banks do to prevent fraud using the above methods? One is Photocard, as introduced by Citibank. This is a type of credit card with the customers photo embossed. This will largely prevent forge signature being used. The face and photo will be the key to authenticity. Photocard should be made standard issues. Secondly the use a PIN on top of the signature for authentication, as practised overseas. Although this two-tier security check is inconvenient, this does provide added security feature especially when use for online transactions.

When such simple means can be used to commit fraud, one wonders why there are so few fraud committed. So Singaporeans are still very honest after all.

Interesting links:
Anatomy of Credit Card: http://www.merriampark.com/anatomycc.htm
History of credit card: http://www.didyouknow.cd/creditcards.htm
The Credit Card Prank: http://www.zug.com/pranks/credit/
Credit Card security: http://www.whatprice.co.uk/financial/credit-card-security.html

Mr Prime Minister, are you there?

2006-06-13T02:46:00.000+08:00

Categories: Malaysia

Tun Mahathir had fired his most stinging attack against Datuk Seri Abdullah Badawi. Till now Prime Minister Badawi has not personally answer or rebut his criticism. His standard reply has been that Tun Mahathir is free to say what he wants as Malaysia is a democratic country.

In not replying to Tun Mahathir's outburst, Datuk Seri Badawi probably hope that he is on a high moral ground. Unfortunately, his mandate to govern is not based on moral authority but one of popular vote, and answerable to the people. As such by not rebutting any of Tun Mahathir's allegations, would seemed as being weak and indecisive. Granted that the premier, also known as Mr Nice Guy, is not one to be confrontational. However when Tun Mahathir's attacks has been more personal, should not it be time to defend himself? Anything that is less than a rebuttal would be seen being weak.

Observers have also defended PM Badawi's decision to remain silent because they felt that this would prevent in-fighting in UMNO. I beg to differ. By remaining silent, especially after the latest personal attack, he would be seen to be weak. Further, now there is an added dimension in Mahathir-Badawi squabble, in Datuk Seri Najib. Now, not only Badawi has to show Malaysians who is in charge, but also to convince his supporters why their support is not wasted. On top of that he has to convince other factions within UMNO why he is still relevant to the party leadership. Keeping mum certainly will not help his cause.

Tun Mahathir has maintained that he has nothing personal and is not against Badawi's government. All he wanted was answers. And I think he has a right to answers just any ordinary people. By choosing to keep quite, or delegating his ministers to address the issues, Badawi has unwittingly give the 'tidak apa' (can't be bother) impression. It even hints of having something to hide in the decision making. After all, being voted to power by the people, it is only right that the people be given an explanation. This is even more pertinent because contradictory decisions are being made by essentially the same cabinet sans the premier.

Datuk Seri Badawi has been known to be very loyal to Tun Mahathir when he was his deputy. Therefore it is not surprising if the only reason why he has kept quiet was because of his respect to Tun Mahathir. However I feel that there is a limit to what people can say even for a former Prime Minister. Whereas previously Tun Mahathir has attacked the cabinet as a whole, the lastest one has been rather personal. A normal person, no matter how respectful he is, would be expected to respond. I am sure given the long service as a Foreign Minister, PM Badawi is well verse with the nuance of nicety and diplomacy. He can rebut all the points highlighted by Tun Mahathir without the slightest hint of being disrespectful or confrontational. Hopefully PM Badawi will act soon before the rakyat and UMNO gets tired with the Mr Nice Guy tag.

Tun Mahathir gets personal

2006-06-11T07:28:00.000+08:00

Categories: Malaysia

Tun Mahathir, who had been criticising the government under Datuk Seri Abdullah Badawi, has got personal. This time he had directly criticised the man he had chosen to succeed him.

Since PM Badawi had taken over the rein in 2003, he had cancelled a few of the mega-project proposed by the former Prime Minister. Tun Mahathir had been rather silent, in keeping with his promise not to meddle with the government of the day. However he started his salvo when the Approved Permit (AP) controversy (involving imports of foreign cars) started. From then on it just deteriorated with the scrapping of the Scenic Bridge.

Are such outburst a result of PM Badawi himself? Since becoming the PM, Badawi had been rather low-key. Much of the 'important' job had been delegated to the DPM Najib - for example handling of the tsunami aftermath and the national service issue. He had also largely been silent regarding the AP controversy, the IPCMC, the Proton issues and the cancellation of the Scenic Bridge. Have all these contributed to his protrayal as being a weak leader? Since Mahathir had chosen him to be his successor, did he feel partly responsible and therefore have to speak up so as to jolt some sense into his successor or is this a wake-up call to UMNO for possible change in leadership? After all in his last salvo, he even went so much as to say that Badawi was not the first choice candidate for the premiership.

Another reason often cited by Tun Mahathir is that PM Badawi is making mistakes when he halted some of the mega-projects initiated by Tun. Tun Mahathir maintained that such mega-projects were necessary to drive the economy; whereas PM Badawi has felt that such mega-projects were eating up too much into the government's coffer. He felt that this is wrong as the future generations should not be made to pay for these excesses. According to Tun, if these projects were scrapped, then there will be slowdown and the economy will suffer. Whether this is true or not, the economic growth had truely showed a slight decline in the last 2 years. Is it a direct effect of the halting the mega-projects or just coincidental, being driven by the world economic climate?

With the dismantling of many of the proposed mega-projects by the Badawi administration, could this have been viewed by Tun Mahathir as a dismantling of his legacy? In the more than 20 years of Tun premiership, he has initiated many projects and thus bring Malaysia nearer to the developed world status. The Twin Tower of Petronas, once the tallest building in the world, has become an icon for Malaysia. Putrajaya and KLIA were proudly showcased during world meetings in Malaysia. All these were testaments to his great leadership. However less than 2 years, he finds that his other 'legacy' has been dismantled for example the Linear City of KL and a dual-track railway in the south of Malaysia. The greatest resentment he had must be the scrapping of the Scenic Bridge, as he had tied the building of the bridge to Malaysia's sovereignity and pride. Is he feeling bitter because of all these? This seem so for he was quoted to have said: “When I decided to step down, I planned not to interfere with the Government of the day. There were certain things that were promised by the incoming Government but it not only did not do things as promised but reversed many decisions made (by the former Government) when he (Abdullah) was still in the Government."

One thing that has come out of this episode is that such outburst actually reflects not too kindly on Tun Mahathir's own administration. As the current cabinet is largely the same as the previous cabinet under Mahathir's premiership, the inconsistency and discrepancy in the decision of the government raised eyebrows. How can both administration come to such different conclusions with just a change in the premier? It is hard to believe that all the Cabinet Ministers are so pliable and go with the tide. More likely is the style of leadership. Tun Mahathir is well known for his strong and forceful character. This is in contrast with that of Datuk Seri Badawi, aka Mr Nice Guy, who believes in collective agreement and concensus. The suggestion here is that Tun Mahathir is an authoritarian, brushing aside his Ministers' opinions or he was so feared that his Ministers dare not put forth their opinions or in his own words, "expect a reasonable degree of gratefulness." This seemed the more likely because Premier Badawi is such a nice guy to the extend that he even tolerated subordination from the Inspector-General of Police when the latter publicly rejected the setting up of IPCMC, which was recommended by a Royal Commission and agreed to by Badawi. I am sure such subordination would never have happened under Tun Mahathir.

Such outburst will also make Tun Mahathir look arrogant. No doubt Tun Mahathir is a proud man, and he probably has a right to be proud for what he has done for Malaysia. However, pride bordering on arrogance is another thing altogether. Like Tun Musa Hitam said in an interview: "Had it ever occurred to him that he had been wrong, rather the people wrong?" He was referring to the fact that Tun Mahathir had 4 DPM when he was the premier and each ended up opposing him.

In the lastest attack on PM Badawi, Tun Mahathir created a new dimension in his displeasure. He had publicly said that Badawi was not the first choice as the premier. The first choice should go to Najib, the current deputy premier. Whatever the reason for such disclosure is only best known to Tun Mahathir, but now the spotlight is on Datuk Seri Najib. Such disclosure will only serve to create a rift between Badawi and Najib. However Datuk Seri Najib had done the right thing when he quickly come out to defend and pledge his support for Badawi. However the Pandora box has been opened. The seed for discontent has been sowed. Whether Najib likes it or not, his supporters will start asking questions and stir up ideas. The true intention of Datuk Seri Najib will only come into the open when the next UMNO General Meeting is convened next year.

Of the five Prime Minister Malaysia has, Tun Mahathir has been one most worthy of respect. Under his leadership, he has transformed Malaysia from a agriculture-based economy to one of industrial-based. He has initiated a long-term goal for the country when he proclaimed Wawasan 2020 (Vision 2020), a date when Malaysia will be a developed country. He was also one of the few Asian leaders who dare to stand up to the Americans. In the process, he has made Malaysia known in world politics. Hopefully his achievements will not come to nought because of frustrations or arrogance. It will be a sad day when he is remembered other than as the 'Father of Modern Malaysia'.

World Cup Championship 2006 - 1st round predictions

2006-06-09T07:32:00.000+08:00

Categories: Others

The opening match of the FIFA World Cup will open on 9 June. As with previous tournament, there will be many predictions as to who will win the Cup. And here is my predictions.

Those making through the 1st round:

Group A: Germany, Poland
Group B: England, Sweden
Group C: Argentina, Holland
Group D: Mexico, Portugal
Group E: Italy, Czech Rep
Group F: Brazil, Japan
Group G: France, Korea
Group H: Spain, Tunisia