Indian and Malaysian Society

Defer everything

2011-09-18T08:44:00.001+08:00

SEPT 18 — Transparency and integrity in government decision-making seems more distant an objective than ever before. Individual businesses or categories of businesses in favour with the powers that be seem to get tremendous concessions while the not so fortunate are at a competitive disadvantage.

The jury is still out on the Khazanah-Air Asia deal on MAS and as to whether it will actually benefit either the airline or the exchequer. Already there is a whiff of conflict of interest when mere weeks after the deal, MAS is forced to engage in a sponsorship deal worth RM18 million with a football club owned by its erstwhile rival, Tony Fernandes.

Bailouts of certain corporations are approved at a huge cost to the exchequer. After a RM200 million bailout of Indah Water in 2000, there are talks of another proposed deal for the entity with 1 MDB. The much talked about PKFZ scandal involves an alleged government bailout to the tune of a whopping RM4.6 billion.

On the other hand, the government flouts its own rules to meddle in the pricing policies of certain sectors at its whim and additional cost to the exchequer. Every time a toll operator is asked to defer a scheduled toll hike, it is compensated by the government. Every time MAHB has to defer a hike in airport taxes, it is compensated by the government. Now there is talk that in exchange for telcos deferring passing on service taxes to its prepaid customers, they will be given incentives by the government in exchange.

Complicating the scenario is the fact that in many instances, the beneficiaries of this ad hoc largesse are government linked companies (GLC’s). Patently mismanaged companies can rest secure in the knowledge that even if worst comes to worst they will be bailed out as the government cannot afford to let the market take its own course in the case of GLCs like MAS, for fear of a popular backlash.

So either through bailouts or through compensation, the government loses revenue. When the government forgoes tax revenue from one or multiple sectors, how does it balance its budget? Either by raising other taxes or by borrowing more. The net impact on the consumer who saves RM10 on his next international flight is likely to be more than offset by higher income taxes or higher interest rates on loans. Therefore the argument that as a caring government, it does not want to burden the common man holds no water.

In addition, it projects the government as fickle and inconsistent. If certain lobbies can extract tax waivers or compensation while others cannot, it creates the perception of an uneven playing field. This lack of transparency and consistency can give rise to an impression of Malaysian fiscal and economic policy being dominated by prescriptions based on who you know rather than what you know.

The role of government is to prescribe, implement and monitor macroeconomic policy, not meddle in individual business decisions. The more exceptions that are made, the lower the international standing of the government.

If disproportionate profits are the issue, especially in the case of utilities such as water, telecommunications and electricity, price controls by regulating authorities are a more practical solution than tax deferments that distort competitive mechanics.

In the ultimate analysis if there is a likelihood of the government negatively impacting individual corporate strategies, either to help companies owned by it or ostensibly to lessen the burden of the common man, Malaysia will continue to slide in its attractiveness as an investment destination.

And if deferments are here to stay, why not defer the service tax on everything?

Prepaid recipe for chaos

2011-09-18T08:43:00.000+08:00

SEPT 11 — Recent moves by telcos to pass on the government service tax to consumers have come in from heavy criticism from the government, including the prime minister, who says that the move will adversely impact a public already under pressure from the increase in food prices and overall inflation.

While it is undeniable that the move will have a disproportionate impact on lower income groups as they constitute the primary prepaid mobile user base, it might be worth the while to examine who really is at fault here.

The tax is imposed by the government on certain categories of service providers in Malaysia, from hotels, restaurants, private hospitals, golf courses, massage parlours, architects, lawyers and accountants to of course telecommunication service providers including Astro.

In 2007, the threshold of RM150,000 under which service providers were exempt from paying service tax was abolished and from 2008, irrespective of quantum of business, tax has to be paid if applicable.

It seems odd that a tax imposed by the government to raise revenue to the tune of approximately RM5 billion in 2011, which impacts a broad spectrum of service providers from small independent professionals to large corporations, is now being selectively opposed by the same government because of its negative impact on consumers.

It is not as if the government is waiving a tax it has imposed in order to alleviate the burden on the rakyat. It is expecting one particular category of service providers to voluntarily absorb the tax while still expecting them to give six per cent of their revenue to the government.

By what rationale are mobile prepaid users more vulnerable to those who eat in restaurants or those who watch pay TV or take golf lessons? Why is a tax imposed by the government itself now being opposed by the same government?

If the government is really serious about this, it should follow its own business friendly precedent of providing compensation to toll road operators in exchange for preventing their scheduled toll rate hikes.

The global world of business that Malaysia is actively courting to help it achieve developed nation status by 2020 is a world that thrives on certainty of operational rules.

When a patently unfair change of the rules is imposed on one business, it negatively impacts the perception of the country in the eyes of the international business community as a whole.

In this scenario, the recent statement by the Information minister that telcos should reconsider their decision to pass on the service tax to consumers as some of them had been reaping profits of RM800 million to RM1.2 billion a year is patently absurd.

If the government is going to say that excessive profits are bad, it should stop bashing communist ideology as vehemently as it has been doing recently. The goal of any business is to make money. By the minister’s logic, that is a bad thing. Is the government anti-capitalist now?

In any case there is a kind of self correction built into the capitalist revenue model. Rising prices can lead to erosion in demand. Specifically in the case of telcos where base services are commoditised and price driven, it is not inconceivable that one of the players may unilaterally absorb the service tax to gain competitive advantage and all others are forced to follow suit.

But this kind of ill considered, knee jerk response from the highest echelons of power bodes ill for the future of the Malaysian economy. If the government is really serious about limiting the impact of rising inflation and slowing consumption, there are a range of policy options available to it, including suspending the collection of service tax across the board for a limited period if it so desires.

In any case, if my Hotlink bill remains the same, can my Astro bill also go back to pre-service tax levels?

Communalism in a global age

2011-09-18T08:42:00.000+08:00

SEPT 8 — Contemporary wisdom has us believing that when the economy grows beyond a certain point and globalisation becomes the norm, there is a corresponding lowering of traditional barriers of ethnicity, religion, community and culture.

Economic development should lead to a more open, forward-looking society that is inclusive and egalitarian.

In actual fact, the shifts in mindset are more subtle and more continuous than discrete. Traditionally, communal identity was the primary determinant of a sense of self and the behaviour codes enjoined by the community or tribe were the default arbiters of most social interactions.

Social and faith affiliations at birth determined every aspect of life, whether it was where to live or work, who were counted as friends, what was eaten and drank, to who married who.

The current cacophony against the likes of Perkasa betrays a sense of indignation that just when Malaysia seemed to be on the brink of becoming a moderate, democratic, developed country, there are people who just don’t seem to get it and are hell bent on dragging the country back down into the quagmire of a race- and religion-based national discourse.

The problem with this approach is that it links economic change linearly with social change. If this was correct, we should be witnessing in tandem with economic growth a commensurate drop in conservatism of the extreme kind fuelled by communal tendencies.

We should be feeling the whiff of a more open, tolerant and flexible social structure, one that is shedding its inward-looking insularity.

But if anything, these voices are getting ever shriller, suspicion between communities and faiths in social settings is as strong as ever and there seem to be more pejorative terms for “other” Malaysian cultures than ever before.

Paradoxically though, people are more open and accepting than ever before of these “others” in certain situations, such as the workplace, in their interactions at the marketplace, in the entertainment arena, in the way they dress for the outside world, and in their schools and colleges.

What is happening is that contrary to popular discourse, we are actually raising higher and higher walls of communalism, but they are not between us and the world, they are between our private and public selves.

Today, the economic sphere and the opportunities that it has suddenly thrown open are forcing us to leave our prejudices at home if we are to partake of these opportunities. But we have not abandoned these attitudes entirely; we have just shifted them behind walls, where only like-minded people sharing the same communal attributes are welcome. The explosive growth of community-based television on Astro and that of global economic news media are two sides of the same coin.

The blink and you miss the rate of change in the economy has a very small relation to how traditional social structure changes. While economic change is often disruptive and discrete, social change is almost always cautious, continuous and slow. The real social change has come about in our ability to expand the arenas of both our private and public selves to accommodate changes imposed on us. Where earlier restraint characterised our social selves entirely, today we are more strident and confident in our private communal identity as well as in our public cosmopolitan identity.

While at one level the wall dividing these identities has become stronger, there are significant ways in which the secular nature of the economic discourse is wearing away at communal structures. It is precisely because of these inroads that the walls get built ever higher. If one person changes religion through proselytisation, the penalties for all the others multiply.

To conclude, if the current economic trajectory becomes a permanent feature, expect social change, but slowly and incrementally, rather than at the pace of economic change.

The other side of online news

2011-09-18T08:41:00.000+08:00

AUG 26 — The online news community can be termed as equally, if not more, partisan as the mainstream media. Bloggers, commentators, columnists and readers seem to take an unseemly delight in any missteps of the current administration and tend to gloss over any misdeameanours by the other side.

The PKR party elections fiasco and en masse defections, the waning of the Anwar Ibrahim star, the uncomfortable coalition of two avowedly multiracial parties with one Islamist one or the lack of a coherent alternative agenda to that of the government in Parliament are all serious issues that bear deeper discussion.

Which is why it seems strange that there is virtually no real discussion of these issues in cyberspace beyond some emotional, vitriolic attacks by pro-BN bloggers? Is the online community equally rigid in its beliefs and positions as the mainstream press and TV? Are there no fence sitters who want PR to answer some tough questions before they make up their minds?

If the mainstream media ignores threats to burn down The Malaysian Insider or moves to allegedly bail out Tajuddin Ramli, the alternative media equally has very little to say on the Home Ministry clearing its decades long backlog on PR and citizenship or the 1 Malaysia clinics initiative or even smaller successes like immigration getting its act together with regards to customer service.

In today’s times, media is ultimately a business where profitability is intimately linked to popularity. It tends to follow classic marketing principles of aligning content that is appealing to defined audience segments. It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out that the alternative media has to, well, provide an alternative. In recent years it has been able to create an audience mainly comprised of people dissatisfied with the current state of affairs in the country who have been yearning for a voice.

Even a cursory scroll down the comments to any pro-opposition story reveals the anti establishment stance of its followers. The like-dislike button for comments is even more revealing — any negative reaction to the story is immediately pulverized with a bombardment of dislikes. Therefore, maybe even unconsciously in the interest of pandering to their base, the proportion of news that tends to demonise the ruling coalition and glorify the opposition is disproportionately high.

But as the alternative news media evolves, it will need to move on to a more balanced view of events, even from a business perspective. In marketing terms, while there is a loyal, core base of alternative news consumers that has been achieved, the next task is to attract new consumers to the fold.

At the moment it seems that there are only two types of news consumers; the pro-BN MSM reader and the anti-BN online news reader. But the reality remains that like anywhere else in the world, the average news consumer likes to think of himself/herself as intelligent and therefore one who makes decisions based on facts and objective reporting of and access to news.

Apart from the rabid fringe at the extremes of the political divide, most ordinary people have an innate sense of fair play and are willing to give credit for good things accomplished by the other side. Just because one is a PR supporter does not preclude him from applauding the Innospace venture designed to raise the standards of Malaysian innovation.

Therefore they as they evolve from the “BN is always wrong” kind of view to the more universal “Both sides have their faults but I believe that that PR is doing a better job” position, they will demand that the news media evolve too, to providing them with both sides of the story.

Therefore the next phase of evolution of the big players of online news media will need to be a move to a more balanced, objective view of the nation’s political discourse, with a renewed emphasis on credibility and ethics underpinned by journalistic and editorial integrity.

After all, it’s only good for business.

The evaporation of fear

2011-09-18T08:40:00.000+08:00

JULY 28 — That feeling in the pit of the stomach or a dry throat and a quickening heartbeat; all of us have recognised and experienced fear. The expectation of bad things happening sometimes is worse than the actual experience.

Some fears are universal; fear of failure or a fear of making a fool of oneself, and then there are fears that certain societies face as a result of the peculiarities of historical, cultural and political factors interacting.

To a visitor to Malaysia even a decade ago, it might have seemed that here was a model society, with different races and communities living in perfect harmony and getting along without rancour or anger.

But scratch the surface and you find a populace for whom a wide range of subjects were off limits, or if discussed at all in public, would be in whispers with nervous looks over the shoulder.

The performance of the government, corruption and cronyism, racial stereotyping and affirmative action were a few such topics. The quintessential Malaysian fear was one of attracting too much attention. This fear was the result of two main influences; multiculturalism and the “big brother is watching you” syndrome.

Living in a multicultural society, it was and remains important to not offend the sensitivities of those with a different religion, dress code, eating habits or language. So while it was important to keep certain topics away from discussion out of respect or fear, it was equally important not to flaunt one’s personal beliefs in the face of others. Put another way, it was not cool to attract too much attention to oneself.

The big brother syndrome was a real threat, what with Ops Lalang, the Special Branch, the religious police, the Sedition Act, the PPPA, ISA, OSA and the Emergency Ordinance.

Honest debate was frowned upon on the back of a compliant media and opposing points of view were not tolerated. Oppositional politics was the preserve of the brave and the government knew best.

For ordinary people again the underlying fear was that of attracting too much attention for whatever reason because it could land one into serious trouble. There was room for only one personality cult.

But something has changed. It seems that almost no topic is taboo anymore. It seems that nobody is afraid anymore, either of offending others in society, or of the powers that be. Malaysia is still multicultural, and all the same laws are still in place, so why this sudden vociferousness?

It’s not as if the government has changed tack. When required, it still uses the same heavy-handed tactics evidenced by the EO 6, and some elements of the vernacular mainstream media still have a new demon every week to instil fear, whether it is the Jews, the Communists, the Christians or the Indonesians.

The single biggest defining change has come from the availability of information from the Internet. Not just the alternative local media, but also an awareness or global issues, other societies and economies, and alternative models of governance. The democratisation of information allows for the formation of a rainbow of opinions, each with its own logical and emotional underpinnings.

In Malaysia, this exposure to information in times of economic hardship led to an explosion of anger as to how much of what was wrong with local governance was hidden from so many for so long.

Simultaneously, the lack of censorship and action against anti-establishment commentators online, combined with the anonymity of the medium, led to a real evaporation of fear of consequences for those voicing their opinion.

As long as the mainstream media does not allow this anger an outlet, rising Internet penetration will make online news portals not only more popular, but will also tend to lead them to be dominated by opposition voices.

In fact it can be argued that the fear genie is truly out of the bottle and it is too late to turn back the clock. For the people who turned up for Bersih, it seemed to be as much about challenging their own fears as it was about free and fair elections .

In light of the recent battering of authoritarian regimes around the world at the hands of their people, any attempt now to circumscribe legitimate grievances and anger in an authoritarian manner may have drastic repercussions on the powers that be.

This movement will inevitably also change the way multiculturalism has been practised in Malaysia. Increasingly, perceived communal injustices will trump interracial respect every time for as long as the people identify politicians primarily by their race and not their performance.

The hope is that over time existing social ties, customs and history will restore cordiality between the various groups, while simultaneously holding politicians to account in creating a just, fair and transparent government that works for all citizens.

Of course, I will still continue to be afraid of my boss.

Dwindling competitive advantage

2011-09-18T08:39:00.000+08:00

ULY 18 — There is a country built on oil money with glitzy infrastructure where citizens are pampered and armies of menials imported from overseas do all the jobs that locals think are beneath their dignity.

But hidden underneath are simmering tensions between the haves and have not’s, a broken education system, a bloated civil service that essentially keeps unemployment in check, endemic corruption and mediocre governance.

As government expenditure rises and oil revenue cannot keep pace with the demands of the population and prices rise, the citizenry expresses their disenchantment more and more vocally. Hitherto dormant or suppressed opposition finds its voice and the establishment starts to crack.

Certain nations around the world bloated with generations of easy oil money are facing this problem to varying degrees, from outright revolt or civil war to fleeing FDI, rising unemployment and inflation, culminating in dropping living standards and an increasingly fractious and demanding populace.

Some countries like the UAE came to this realisation early and embarked on a path of aggressive globalisation centred on Dubai, to attract and retain the best the world has to offer, mimicking and surpassing Singapore as a tourism and knowledge economy hub. On the other hand, Saudi Arabia has not yet even started considering its future post-oil.

In Malaysia there is a vision of becoming a high-income developed economy by 2020. Acknowledging that the world is moving towards a post-manufacturing knowledge-based paradigm is critical for export-dependent countries with limited domestic consumption such as Malaysia. Its earlier competitive advantage of oil money, a low-cost skilled workforce, multicultural population that was therefore multilingual and adaptable to the demands of global business, a stable and popular government and excellent infrastructure as a facilitator of entrepot trade are slowly disappearing.

Today national competitive advantage based on natural resources is being replaced by innovation and knowledge. Progress in this area from a governmental standpoint essentially boils down to accelerated development of human capital that can adapt and lead the knowledge economy.

For this quality education and the provision of opportunities based on talent and merit are key. In addition prudent fiscal management, transparent and investor friendly governance, free media and minimising corruption are all important.

But in reality on all of these parameters, Malaysia is seriously lagging. No Malaysian university is in the top 100 universities in the world. The flip flops over PPSMI will have serious consequences down the road. Freedom House ranks Malaysia at 102 in terms of freedom of the press and Transparency International ranks Malaysia at 56 in terms of corruption perception. The budget deficit at 7 per cent in 2009 was the highest in 20 years. A March 2011 report by Bank of America Merrill Lynch ranked Malaysia the second least popular market after Colombia among global emerging market fund managers, evidenced by plummeting FDI.

Add to this the narrowing of space for debate and dissent as evidenced by Bersih 2.0 and the remarkably one-sided discourse in the mainstream media, strident racial rhetoric and brain drain, and Vision 2020 seems further away than ever.

But there is a Malaysian first that is a world-famous innovation now: the Obedient Wives Club.

From The Malaysian Insider

2011-09-18T08:37:00.000+08:00

Setting the bar too low
July 07, 2011

JULY 7 — The annual row over the award of government scholarships for high achievers in the SPM exams is hopefully over with the prime minister’s announcement that scholarships from next year would be based on STPM or A-Levels results.

While this is certainly the right way forward, it raises important issues as to the value of quality higher education in Malaysian society. Traditionally the debate has been on the demarcation of scholarship budgets by race and/or merit.

What seems to have been overlooked is the use to which the recipient puts the award, i.e. the course and the university selected, as well as the desired outcome expected of the recipient (GPA and the value of the education acquired).

Even the mechanism of ensuring that the taxpayers' money sees an adequate return on investment via the return of these students to serve the country by raising skills and standards are very poor. Simply put, there is no cohesive system that ensures the desired outcome materialises.

But even more worrying is the misplaced emphasis placed by parents on achievement in the local exams rather than focusing on international achievement. According to The Malaysian Insider, the government gives out 5,000 PSD grants and 500 special local scholarships. There are also 1,500 overseas scholarships. So where do these students go? In 2010, there was one Malaysian student who got admission in Harvard University out of a total of approximately 3,900 international students enrolled, as compared to 400 from China, 118 from Taiwan and 22 from Hong Kong.

Rather than bemoan the lack of overseas scholarships, perhaps the more pertinent question is how well is the local secondary school system equipping our students to compete against the best, if not globally at least in the region.

Proficiency in English, breadth of knowledge and a questioning attitude are some of the things tested by most Ivy League schools. Do Malaysian schools promote the acquisition of these skills over and above the curriculum? The ability to debate different points of view is increasingly important in the 21st century ideas economy. In a system which encourages rote learning and discourages alternative points of view, fresh and innovative thinkers are unlikely to emerge.

The fault does not only lie at the doorstep of the educational system and the quality of teachers, but equally with parents who abdicate their responsibility to mould young minds by simply demanding As from their children. The irony being that increasingly even straight As in the SPM is no guarantee of future success. Even the resurgent popularity of vernacular education is seen to be a function of greater discipline and a rigourous emphasis on the curriculum rather than preparing children for the ability to enter quality institutes of higher learning.

There seems to be a general lack of ambition to create world class scholastic achievers. While this may stem from a perceived sense of entitlement for a certain community, it is equally true for other communities who are perfectly content to preserve the stereotype by paying huge amounts of money to educate their children in nondescript universities and courses, as long as they are overseas.

But the times are changing. Any mediocre overseas diploma or degree is not enough for today’s generation to outpace their parents. As the requirements of the job market evolve, it would be best for parent’s aspirations for their children to evolve too.

From The Malaysian Insider

2011-07-04T08:51:00.002+08:00

Technology and protest
July 03, 2011

JULY 3 — To an observer of the increasingly charged political rhetoric in the country, the lack of political acumen on display by the ruling coalition vis- à-vis the Bersih 2.0 rally is truly astonishing.

If there is one thing to be learned from the Arab Spring, it is that draconian measures against protesters give more impetus and motivation to their cause. It is a different paradigm from the past where in the absence of alternative media, divide and rule was a very successful strategy.

The larger question, of course, is what the powers that be are so afraid of? The answer to a great extent has to do with the current power of technology. Yes, technology. For instance, consider the differences between, say, the online Curi Curi Wang Malaysia protest and the Bersih 2.0 rally.

Firstly, it seems odd that a street protest (Bersih 2.0) sounds like an online protest while an online protest (Curi Curi Wang Malaysia) sounds like a street demonstration. In the Malaysian contest, both forms of protest used to pressure authority structures to change current policy are somewhat new.

The former is a purely online protest leveraging social networking technology to register protest which goes viral very quickly and after achieving its immediate objective in terms of followers and then tends to lose steam equally quickly.

The latter though leverages the power of visual technology (cameras, news coverage, video clips for online dissemination) to create memorable imagery in order to garner longer lasting support.

While technology has played a crucial part in allowing both forms of protest to become viable, intuitively we understand that Bersih 2.0 poses a greater danger to the status quo than Curi Curi Wang Malaysia.

Online protests are by and large due to their nature less threatening as they offer a safe way to register protest without any of the risks of arrest or physical harm. The lack of effort required (clicking on a like button) creates the perception that it can be ignored.

But when people are willing to take much greater effort and risk to register their protest, as in the case of the Bersih 2.0 rally, we know that their courage and belief in their cause is also much greater.

Also, technology allows street rallies to make for compelling viewing instantaneously, whether on television or online. The power of street protests comes from the visual evidence of the protester’s commitment to a cause, Tahrir Square being a prime example.

Which is why the wholesale banning of anything associated with Bersih 2.0 comes as a surprise. (Ed's note: Bersih 2.0 as a movement was banned yesterday.) While raising the costs and risks associated with participation will hardly deter the committed, it will surely enhance the watchability of the event, and subsequently create a level of admiration and sympathy among bystanders and fence sitters.

Add to this the ostensibly non-partisan nature of the cause (free and fair elections) and the government’s heavy-handed approach runs the risk of actually worsening its popular standing.

A smarter strategy would be to use this understanding to minimise the impact on the voting population by turning the rally into as much of a non-event as possible. We all know that news cycles are limited and there is a preponderance of causes around the world.

An unopposed peaceful rally for a couple of hours has potentially much less play as a news story than one full of arrests, roadblocks, confiscated T-shirts and dire warnings of violence.

As it stands now though, Bersih 2.0 has the potential to actually become what the ruling coalition fears the most; a powerful show of anger by seemingly ordinary Malaysians which becomes a catalyst to convert the fence-sitting voter to an opposition supporter.

From The Malaysian Insider

2011-07-04T08:51:00.001+08:00

A nation divided?
June 19, 2011

JUNE 19 — On the one hand there are the Petronas Twin Towers, Malaysia Truly Asia, Vision 2020, the Economic Transformation Programme, the Government Transformation Programme, National Key Result Areas and the prime minister’s international call towards moderate Islam.

On the other hand is Malay First, Malaysia Second, Perkasa calling for jihad against Christians trying to take over Malaysia, the cow head and Allah controversies, the failure of the New Economic Model, legalised child marriage, female genital mutilation and the latest additions being the Obedient Wives Club and the Polygamists Club.

The former aims to project Malaysia as a responsible, progressive member of the community of nations committed to inclusive spiritual and material growth. The latter reflects the changing social realities on the ground, where there seems to be a regression of sorts towards a narrow backward looking society, distrustful of multiracialism, insecure about its own identity and religious practices, and hell bent on seeking comfort in extreme traditionalism.

At a deeper level, this points towards a fundamental shift away from the quintessential Malaysian belief in the middle way, where everyone understood the fragility of the peace between the races and instinctively stayed away from trampling on the sensitivities of others.

It can be argued that the real social contract post 1969 was not political in terms of an exchange of citizenship for special privileges, but one where the similarities between the races as humans took precedence over the differences.

And it had a lot to do with the generosity and welcome provided by the majority community in integrating the races at a people to people level. Like it or not, the way the majority community sees itself and the world determines the national discourse to a large degree.

At a time when the majority community was comfortable in its own skin, convent schools were popular for the quality of education they offered and open houses promoted true integration. The media played its part by highlighting the positives and suppressing the negatives.

For a period of time, coupled with steady economic growth this resulted in the emergence of the harmonious blend of tradition and modernity that came to be seen as distinctively Malaysian. The global success of Malaysia Truly Asia had less to do with the originality of the slogan and more to do with the fact that it was an accurate reflection of Malaysian social reality.

In retrospect, it was too good to last. With the advent of new media, the iniquities and injustices of the 90s were laid bare. As Malaysians were exposed to global best practices in the areas of politics and economics, this new generation of Internet savvy citizens were the first to be outraged. It led to the dramatic 2008 elections which forced the powers that be on both sides of the political divide to reassess their positions.

While both political coalitions jumped to take ownership of the progressive liberal agenda through slogans such as 1 Malaysia and Malaysian Malaysia, a justifiable fear that the erstwhile beneficiaries of the NEP would not take kindly to its reversal forced the ruling coalition to devise a two-pronged Jekyll and Hyde policy. A debate over competing policies of growth, welfare and distribution of resources, normal in any country was suddenly tinged with racial undertones.

More than anything else, this attempt to be everything to everybody at the same time, moderate and extremist, inclusive and separatist, traditional and modern, has led to the current situation. The majority community now feels under siege and is forced to adopt a defensive approach in the face of the negative portrayal of some of its erstwhile leaders and their policies.

Ordinary people are being forced now to choose rather than co-exist. Are you more proud of your race or your country? Will you go to your neighbour’s house for a meal even if she is not a co-religionist? How will you decide where to live, where to educate your children? What criteria will you use?

From a society that could effortlessly internalise, reconcile and even celebrate differences, symbolised most memorably by the sight of girls wearing the tudung on top of a pair of Levi’s, Yasmin Ahmad’s Petronas commercials, or the universal popularity of the baju, to today where Man U T-shirts are the work of the devil, religious belief is worn on the sleeve rather than in the heart and educational and housing patterns reveal progressive ethnic segregation.

The biggest clue as to which direction has more appeal to Malaysian society today will come in the next general election. In many ways by simply stating its commitment to a needs- and merit-based vision for Malaysia independent of race, the opposition has been able to actually appropriate the underlying meaning of 1 Malaysia to itself and to portray the ruling coalition as majoritarian and conservative, more 1 Bumi than 1 Malaysia.

This allows the opposition to ignore its own internal differences, or propose its own coherent, detailed vision for the country and rely on the rakyat merely deciding whether they want to be part of 1 Bumi or not.

Therefore the next GE should reveal the relative appeal of different worldviews, epitomised in a microcosm, by say the Sisters In Islam versus the Obedient Wives Club or Malaysia Inc. versus PKMM (Bumiputera Contractors Association). And it will determine the future social fabric of this country.

From The Malaysian Insider

2011-07-04T08:50:00.000+08:00

The proof is in the writing
May 29, 2011

MAY 29 — Consider the following advertising headlines, if you will.

“Does the car you’re considering have all the right criteria?”

“All it takes is just save RM500.”

“Now even more fresh prices lowered for the long term.”

“Others charge you, we save you.”

Advertising in the newspapers is a very expensive exercise. This is why there are professional advertising agencies that charge a lot of money from companies to help ensure that the right messages are communicated to the right people in a way that helps creates preference for one product over another.

What then can we make of advertising headlines such as the ones above; all taken from last week’s newspapers for Proton Persona, Maybank, Tesco and Firefly respectively? Carelessness, disrespect for the comprehension ability of the reader, or sheer ignorance of the craft of copywriting?

Possibly all of these, but at a more fundamental level, it points to the quality of an educational system that is already impacting the world of business negatively.

Communication is increasingly a business of nuance, given the magnitude of competition. In a world where everything is modern, innovative, stylish and value for money, the choice of words is critical to getting the right message across.

The differences between products are increasingly smaller, therefore the large role of communication in influencing consumer choice.

But if even simple headlines can be mangled so drastically to the point that the meaning of the ad is misunderstood, or the brand in question comes to be seen negatively, then the financial consequences for the affected companies can be dire.

A lot has been said and written on the abolition of PPSMI, but most of it has focused on the impact a lack of knowledge of English has on future employment in a globalised economy. But if the above examples are any indicator, then the problem is already here.

On the one hand there is a push to become a developed country by 2020, attract the best local and foreign talent and transition to a knowledge-based service economy, and on the other there is a growing inability to deliver to one of the basics of successful business today, i.e. communication.

In the examples quoted above, it is not just the respective advertising agencies which slipped up, but also the clients (including multinationals) who approved the ads. Clearly then the malaise extends across both sides of the business divide.

Because there is a dearth of talent proficient in English, it becomes a seller’s market. If the costs of recruiting this talent become unreasonable, how are these industries expected to survive?

According to Tony Savarimuthu, President of the Accredited Advertising Agents of Malaysia (4A’s), “If we have a net outflow of talent because remuneration structures aren’t good enough or intellectual capital is not respected, the creative service industry is not going to be sustainable in the long run. We’re losing people to Singapore and China.”

Equally importantly, the impact on foreign investors looking to participate in the local market is likely to be profound if they cannot find the right employees that can exercise proper control over their global intellectual property, which is their brand.

For global players, it is imperative that communication is delivered at a certain standard across the world, given the speed at which bad news travels in the digital age.

For Malaysian brands with regional or global ambitions too, lack of proficiency in English can have disastrous implications on their ability to compete. Foreign experts can be hired, but if the Malaysian decision makers are unable to comprehend the nuances of what is being proposed and take informed decisions, the eventual results may not be pleasant.

This is the situation currently with PPSMI and after its abolition it can only get drastically worse in the years to come. The debate should not be whether to teach English or not, but whether the 300 English teachers being imported are enough?

Or we can continue the decline towards becoming the laughing stock of the global business community with headline gems like this one for the A Famosa resort “Splash out your tense in the water, let go your pressure in the wind and sun.”

From The Malaysian Insider

2011-07-04T08:49:00.002+08:00

Truly the second sex
May 15, 2011

MAY 15 — A few weeks ago browsing through one of Marina Mahathir’s columns, I came across a reference to a fatwa enjoining Muslims in Malaysia to practise female circumcision. Incredulous, thinking in my ignorance that this was a barbaric custom practised primarily in sub-Saharan Africa, and that it had been outlawed everywhere else, I thought I would look it up on the e-fatwa website.

“Ruling On Female Genital Mutilation Decision: The 86th Muzakarah of the Fatwa Committee National Council of Islamic Religious Affairs Malaysia held on 21st-23rd April 2009 has discussed on rulings on female genital mutilation. The Committee has decided that female circumcision is part of Islamic teachings and it should be observed by Muslims. However, as Islam also pays attention to the safety of its people, the circumcision can be exempted if the practice brings harm to the person. As far as the majority of the jurists’ views are concerned, the Committee has decided that female circumcision is obligatory (wajib). However, if it is harmful, it must be avoided.”

It also goes on to state that female circumcision is different from Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) as defined by the World Health Organisation (WHO).

According to WHO though, “FGM is recognised internationally as a violation of the human rights of girls and women. It reflects deep-rooted inequality between the sexes, and constitutes an extreme form of discrimination against women. It is nearly always carried out on minors and is a violation of the rights of children. The practice also violates a person’s rights to health, security and physical integrity, the right to be free from torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, and the right to life when the procedure results in death.” Internationally, the term FGM is used rather than female circumcision because of the equivalence to male circumcision the latter seems to imply, which is clearly not the case in either socio-cultural or medical terms.

Even in purely medical terms, the risks seem huge. WHO states “FGM has no health benefits, and it harms girls and women in many ways. It involves removing and damaging healthy and normal female genital tissue, and interferes with the natural functions of girls’ and women’s bodies. Immediate complications can include severe pain, shock, haemorrhage (bleeding), tetanus or sepsis (bacterial infection), urine retention, open sores in the genital region and injury to nearby genital tissue. Long-term consequences can include recurrent bladder and urinary tract infections, cysts, infertility and an increased risk of childbirth complications and newborn deaths. WHO strongly urges health professionals not to perform such procedures.”

The types of FGM are varied and range from partial excision of the clitoris to wholesale mutilation of the genitilia. The concern of the international community can be gauged from the fact that the United Nations has declared February 6 as the International Day of Zero Tolerance to Female Genital Mutilation.

Even from a religious perspective then, since clearly FGM causes physical and emotional harm the local fatwa can be seen to mean that all Malaysian Muslim women are actually exempted from this practice.

At a broader level, the issue offers a window into gender discrimination and the role of women in society. In an earlier article I had referred to the fact of child marriages being allowed in Malaysia in certain circumstances and more relevantly that in 2009 according to the health ministry, out of 479 children waiting to tie the knot, only two were boys. Also, 32 of them were below 10 years of age.

What seems surprising is the absence of any outcry over this kind of treatment of women in the context of the much touted push to become a developed nation by 2020. Developed nations the world over do not countenance such treatment towards half their population.

If anything, the world over women are demonstrating that given the opportunity they are actually the first sex. Their success is also our success. Let’s give their minds and bodies the respect we give to our own.

From The Malaysian Insider

2011-07-04T08:49:00.001+08:00

1 Malaysia at the crossroads
May 01, 2011

MAY 1 — The 1 Malaysia juggernaut has taken a distinctly peculiar turn. The bureaucracy in particular is betraying a very strange understanding of the concept.

Arguably it all started in 2009 itself, when on October 15, The Star reported on a plan to build 1 Malaysia toilets in Terengganu in the following terms.

“The state government will introduce a '1 Toilet' policy in a move to liberalise education, where teachers – and even principals – will soon have to share toilets with their students. State Education, Higher Learning, Human Resource, Science and Technology Committee chairman Ahmad Razif Abd Rahman said the policy was mooted in line with the 1 Malaysia concept, and teachers and students could have a feeling of “oneness.”

“We want students to have a sense of belonging that we believe would inspire them to excel further in their education. When students share the toilets with the teacher, they (students) will believe that they are on par with academicians and this automatically invokes a sense of being important to an organisation, which, in this case, is the school,” he said here yesterday.

Ahmad Razif said the policy had initially been proposed by Mentri Besar Datuk Ahmad Said earlier this year but that it took some time for it to be properly drafted.”

Not even the 1 Malaysia e-mail project which is going to cost RM50 million comes remotely close to the 1 Malaysia toilet in its jubilant, breathtaking idiocy.

There seems to be a yawning chasm between the substantive intent of the policy and it’s sometimes shallow not to say expensive interpretation by the bureaucracy at all levels.

It’s almost as if the 1 Malaysia logo, when stamped on any programme whether sane or half witted magically magnifies the real value of the programme.

From 1 Malaysia Green Concerts to 1 Malaysia unit trusts to the 1 Malaysia theme song, the list is growing substantially. The consequence is that even well intentioned substantive applications of the concept such as the 1 Malaysia clinics tend to get tarred with the same brush.

More importantly though, in many ways 1 Malaysia is actually a critical objective for the nation to work towards. It is much bigger than any politician or political party.

It is axiomatic that a people united can achieve a lot more than a house divided. A level playing field where all citizens are acknowledged as equals in the eyes of the state and in the eyes of the law changes the way in which the same citizens see their relationship with the state.

It is only when people are not obsessed with which race or religion gets which crutches from the government can they take on the rest of the world. If Malaysia is to compete globally, it has to stop handicapping its own citizens.

But for it to be successful, it needs to be helmed by somebody who has transcended the divisions of race, ethnicity and religion in Malaysian society on the lines of what Gandhi tried to do for India.

Unfortunately possibly due to the lack of a personal electoral mandate, the prime minister has been unable to evolve a consensus within his own coalition as to the political value of 1 Malaysia.

When the Deputy PM openly declares himself a Malay first and Malaysian second, or when the Umno-owned Utusan Malaysia calls for a 1 Melayu or 1 Bumi campaign, what is the general public supposed to believe? Even small shifts towards a meritocracy as envisaged by the NEM are immediately washed away by the rage of Perkasa.

The simple way to counter this rhetoric is to retain government affirmative action, but shift it towards a needs and merit based model, and then demonstrate how it actually addresses the concerns of each race as well as or better than the current model.

The other key step is to move towards a system where the state stays out of religious affairs to the extent possible. It should be the business of spiritual leaders to promote their faith, not the government’s.

In this regard, many commentators have commended the much maligned Chief Minister of Sarawak Taib Mahmud as a role model. The state’s role should be confined to providing people with the freedom and space to profess their faith and encouraging interfaith understanding and dialogue.

Of course all of this requires tremendous leadership, the ability to brave short term unpopularity and a deep belief in what 1 Malaysia really represents.

If this vision of 1 Malaysia actually comes to pass, it may just see civil society start becoming civil. Otherwise, there is always 1 Toilet.

From The Malaysian Insider

2011-07-04T08:48:00.001+08:00

Question to win
April 21, 2011

APRIL 21 — There seems to be something fundamentally flawed in a system where child marriage is allowed but PPSMI is abolished, a system where porn videos are openly screened and discussed but Beyoncé concerts are frowned upon, where multimillion ringgit scams are commonplace but yoga and the Poco Poco dance are banned, where teenage motherhood is on the rise but cartoons are banned.

This state of affairs is suggestive of multiple centres of power operating independently without recourse to a singular policy framework resulting in situations like the recent bible fiasco.

When 1 Malaysia and Ketuanan Melayu are not acknowledged as antithetical, every little Napoleon has the opportunity to act in any manner he pleases, without fear of repercussion.

Is there a clear, objective governmental policy that is enforced without fear or favour on any of the above issues? Is PPSMI on or off? Is Poco Poco banned in Perak only or will it be banned nationwide depending on how the National Fatwa Council rules?

Why is Gwen Stefani more acceptable than Beyoncé? What is the line beyond which political satire in cartoons is unacceptable? Why are some allegations of corruption investigated by MACC with alacrity and others languish?

Is the PPPA going to cover online blogs or not? More foreigners or less? NEP or NEM? Menara Warisan, yes or no?

Of course, politics of expediency is not just a trait of the ruling coalition. Prominent members of PR who are one moment potential saviours of the nation are immediately branded traitors to the cause when they express legitimate dissent on internal elections.

Is a mere call for reform a policy statement? Is gambling allowed or not? How are Malaysian Malaysia and an Islamic state compatible?

Creative solutions to the problems listed above need an atmosphere where differing ideas can be publicly debated without fear. Unfortunately a majority of members of both sides of the political divide would rather trade personal allegations on the character traits of their respective leaders than debate public policy with each other.

Consequently the solutions to problems are equally shallow: throw money at it, keep quiet about it and hope it goes away or ban it.

But this propensity to act in haste to placate particular interest groups has deeper undesirable consequences.

Malaysia is committed to become a developed nation by 2020. This century is supposed to be the century of ideas. Creativity and innovation are the new drivers of growth.

Change or perish is the new mantra. In line with these new realities, citizens are exhorted daily to think out of the box, embrace change, be creative and innovate for the future.

But in the same breath, any activity or enquiry that threatens the status quo however inconsequentially is immediately prohibited.

While social change may lag economic or technological change, there is no question that they are inter-related. If freedom of social expression is severely boxed in, so is the ability to think out of that box.

If people cannot be trusted to even choose the medium of instruction for their children, or which music or dance to listen or jive to, how can they be expected to reinvent the world?

A questioning attitude is a prerequisite for newness. When there is no room to challenge the status quo, when more and more trivial things are banned, an atmosphere of stagnation sets in.

If opposing points of view are not allowed to compete, creative solutions never emerge. To compete in the ideas century differing ideas need to be celebrated, not proscribed.

Asking difficult questions needs to be encouraged, not punished. Whoever wins in a public debate between the leaders of BN and PR, the nation certainly will.

Are Malaysians capable of developing a questioning attitude that leads to creative solutions? Try Tony Fernandes.

From The Malaysian Insider

2011-07-04T08:47:00.000+08:00

Goldmember
April 03, 2011

APRIL 3 — The good doctor has done it again. In his new autobiography, according to The Malaysian Insider, Dr Mahathir Mohamad claims that Anwar Ibrahim arranged to have sex with four girls before he was sacked as deputy prime minister in 1998.

In addition, now there is a sex video which purports to show Anwar with a prostitute. The sexual appetites of the former finance minister seem to be of truly massive proportions.

Married, gay, bisexual, orgiastic — the man is alleged to be open to and a participant in every possible sexual orientation known to humans.

Of course, it may be a PR ploy by Dr M’s publishers to help sales of his new book. After all, political memoirs need controversy to help the public part with their hard-earned money. And what better than a mixture of politics and sleaze to titillate prospective readers?

But there is a more fundamental issue at stake here. The ruling establishment clearly believes that sexual misdemeanours have more traction with voters in ruining political reputations than almost any other kind, including corruption, nepotism, cronyism or plain incompetence.

As a society, behind our veneer of spiritualism and morality, Malaysia actually seems to regard sexual indiscretions as relatively light misconduct.

Even the authorities while raiding brothels and emerging with the mandatory China dolls or carrying out sporadic Valentine's Day khalwat raids, for the most part look half hearted, knowing that their actions are not backed by the public fully.

Otherwise there would be strident calls for heavier punishment or victimised wives picketing brothels, or demonstrations asking for stoning of adultery offenders.

There is a surfeit of openly available sexual services, at least in the Klang Valley. Offers of six-star full body massages by hot girls in the classifieds, dodgy karaoke parlours with mirrors on the ceiling and numerous GROs, gay bars or pick-up bars are all easily available.

Even when girls are openly prospecting for clients or being pimped in the Golden Triangle (aptly named) area, nobody seems to be batting an eyelid.

In fact our apparent conservatism seems to be restricted to disallowing open discussions on sexual topics. As long as the topic is not brought out for public consumption, in actual practice we have a much more liberal live and let live philosophy.

Galloping divorce rates are testimony to sexual peccadilloes being seen as an individual rather than social problem. The emerging discourse seems to be along the lines of "as long as no party is underage, and the sex is consensual, it really doesn’t need to be anybody else’s business."

Anwar’s ongoing Sodomy II trial far from establishing him as a filthy beast raises more eyebrows as to the sexually explicit content being splashed about in the media.

Do we really need to wake up in the morning to tales of rectal penetration and half a football team being found in the vicinity of somebody’s anus? Do we dare to tell our kids to read the papers to improve their grasp of the language anymore?

In fact at his ceramahs, Anwar himself is able to joke about the government’s obsession with his private parts to create empathy with his audience.

In this environment, the obsession with Anwar’s supposed sexual frolicking seems misguided. It seems to betray a certain fascination with the man which is not quite normal.

Good, bad or ugly, Dr M and Datuk T’s "expose" betrays an unhealthy fixation with the personality rather than the political acts of the man.

While homosexuality is still abhorrent to a large number of us, all round sexual indiscretions tend to caricaturise and trivialise the accusations.

If the intention was to ruin his political career, his ability to engineer the political tsunami of 2008 after 10 years of allegations of sexual misconduct should have given pause to the architects of this strategy.

Surely the man has made some political mistakes in his long career, some missteps that could be made political liabilities to him? At the moment, it just seems that the myth making is out of control, and it may do more damage to the instigators than to the defendant.

Will this ruin Anwar’s reputation beyond repair? Maybe, but it runs a serious risk of making him look like either like some kind of sexual superman, or the most maligned man in Malaysia.

Shagedelic, baby!

From The Malaysian Insider

2011-07-04T08:46:00.000+08:00

Mass Rapid Turmoil
March 30, 2011

MARCH 30 — On the face of it, any innovations to the Klang Valley public transport system should be embraced with open arms by the residents. The exploding population of cars, poor driving skills and lack of integration of the various means of public transport have made traffic gridlock and road rage a ubiquitous sight across the metropolis.

But the number of heated letters to the editors of newspapers seems to suggest otherwise. TTDI residents seem to be the most vocal in their opposition to the MRT, citing fears of increased pollution, traffic jams, loss of security and sliding property values.

On the other hand, political opposition has come in terms of fears of cost overruns and cronyism in the award of contracts.

Essentially, it is a no brainer that an integrated, comfortable and cost efficient mass transit transportation system would lead to a host of benefits.

It is just the speed at which it is being pushed down our throats that is causing suspicion and hostility. Especially when you take into account the current state of the LRT and feeder bus systems, where integration seems a lost cause.

What certainly does not help is that within one month of its announcement, the estimate of the cost of the entire project, including the Sungai Buloh-Kajang line has escalated from RM36 billion to possibly RM 50 billion, raising doubts on the financial feasibility of the entire project.

Ridership and ticket price projections are also being hotly contested. Fears of land acquisition and cynicism over project implementation, utility and delivery are being expressed daily.

There is also an emerging rich versus poor discourse, where TTDI protestors are being cast as affluent minority voices trying to override the legitimate needs of the masses.

Is there another way to look at this whole issue? The overarching aim of the exercise is to stimulate the economy through the injection of vast amounts of money into the system while at the same time improving our transport infrastructure.

In that case, should the cost of the project be an overriding consideration? Put another way, if the cost of taking the whole project underground was say RM80 billion, would it be worth it in order to allay the myriad fears being expressed?

If the entire line was underground, there would be no unsightly pillars, no noise pollution and no degradation of adjoining properties values after construction was over. The additional money required would still be coming from the government, and it would still help stimulate the economy.

Just as in the case of toll roads, the expected increase in population would ensure steady growth of ridership and eventual recovery of the investment, whether in the projected time frame or with an extension. The comfort levels of passengers would be the same.

Of course, the devil is still in the details. Rigorous quality and cost standards must still be adhered to and there should be ample time for the public to absorb all the specific implications and to record their objections.

Having a larger budget should not automatically translate into more “leakages” and hidden costs surfacing at a later date, like palaces which suddenly seem to cost double of what was initially estimated. The demand that the money be spent carefully, wisely and transparently is a just one.

A project with long-term benefits should be analysed with a long-term lens. In itself, a higher cost should be no barrier to delivering as perfect a solution as possible, because this kind of underground system will keep returning benefits for the foreseeable future.

Just because an artificial deadline of commencement in July exists, there is no reason why it cannot be pushed back to accommodate diverging points of view, allowing for competing tenders and allaying public scepticism.

Instead of using cost as the deciding criteria, the most state of the art system available should be our paramount yardstick for judging the project.

Minimal disruption to residents, maximum accessibility, great comfort and convenience for passengers and a fast and efficient service should be what we should expect from a MRT, because our children and grandchildren would expect nothing less.

The MRT in the final analysis is a legacy for future generations. Let’s choose the best possible option.

From The Malaysian Insider

2011-03-08T06:53:00.002+08:00

Who wants to be a millionaire?
March 04, 2011

MARCH 4 — What would you do if someone knocked on your door and gave you a million ringgit to spend on the welfare of the people? I know what I would do. I am also part of the people, so helping me would come first. If there was anything left after my welfare has been addressed, maybe some others would benefit.

Both Barisan Nasional (BN) and Pakatan Rakyat (PR) have given a million ringgit to their representatives, MPs in the case of BN and Aduns from Selangor in the case of PR, for “constituency projects.” While most of the debate has been about both coalitions using taxpayer’s money to play partisan politics, such as the DPM’s announcement that the flight costs of students (but only those from BN-controlled states) going back to Egypt would be paid by the government, it seems astonishing that nobody has questioned what exactly this money is meant for.

According to The Malaysian Insider, in 2008 BN assemblymen in almost all of the 54 constituencies, minus two seats held by DAP, were found to have used up their annual allocations in the two months prior to the general elections. This gave rise to allegations that allocations meant for small projects had been misused for political campaigning.

Not surprising in the least when you consider that the general public has no yardstick of accountability to judge what constitutes “public welfare” the funds are meant for. After all, what could be more in the public welfare than to re-elect their beloved public representative?

Another thing that seems strange is with 29 Federal ministries covering everything from unity to co-operatives to sports and a civil service of 1.2 million people, the Federal government feels that it needs to directly allocate a million ringgit annually to its MPs to help their constituents. In Selangor, PR have 35 representatives which translate to RM35 million being spent directly at the discretion of these representatives, bypassing all government welfare delivery mechanisms.

In both cases these representatives are from ruling coalitions at the Federal and state levels respectively. There should be no scope for complaints that projects are being deliberately held up because of partisan politics.

Either we have faith in our delivery mechanisms or we don’t. If we do, then where is the need for this allocation? The representative merely needs to identify the project and leave the execution and handling of the money to the relevant government department. After all, we have a civil service which constitutes nearly 10 per cent of the total workforce. They should surely have more expertise when it comes to calling for tenders, choosing contractors and ensuring that deadlines are met in time, at cost and at the desired quality.

If we don’t, then why is the money not being spent to strengthen these institutions rather than undermining them by giving development allocations directly to these representatives? Are our representatives lawmakers or are they bureaucrats? Are they elected to set policy or supervise the construction of park benches?

Even if we believe that our representatives are as pure as the driven snow, do they really have the time, the competence and the expertise to spend this money judiciously? And if they do, why is there not more transparency in the system for the rakyat to be able to judge whether this money is being spent wisely. Public cynicism with politicians being what it is, it is hard to imagine there being no suspicion of what we euphemistically call “leakages” in the system.

Whether it is BN or PR, the fundamental question remains one of transparency. There needs to be a clear explanation of why lawmakers need a million ringgit to execute welfare projects outside the ambit of the government. And if they do, there needs to be a transparent system of checks and balances to ensure that the money is put to its officially intended use. Otherwise it will just come to be seen as an officially sanctioned tool to play money politics with at best and to enrich oneself personally at taxpayer expense at worst.

After all, who doesn’t want to be a millionaire?

From The Malaysian Insider

2011-03-08T06:53:00.001+08:00

Corruption, repression and the economy
February 20, 2011

FEB 20 — The prime minister recently warned against an Egypt-style uprising in Malaysia. Is he just being paranoid or is there any reason for him to be so worried?

By all accounts, the major reasons for public anger and discontent in the Middle East have to do with repressive and corrupt governments unable to cope with deepening economic woes such as inflation and unemployment.

So do all these factors exist in Malaysia and how do we compare with, say, Egypt? Transparency International in its 2010 corruption perception index ranks Denmark, New Zealand and Singapore at number one in the world with the lowest corruption perception, Egypt at 91 and Malaysia at 56.

In terms of freedom of the press, Freedom House in a survey of 150 countries ranks Finland at number one in the world, Egypt at 91 and Malaysia at 102. In terms of democratic freedoms and civil liberties,

Freedom House ranks Egypt as “not free” and Malaysia as “partly free.”

In economic terms, according to Wikipedia, Egypt has 13 per cent annual inflation, 20 per cent unemployment and 14 per cent of the population lives below the poverty line. Comparable numbers for Malaysia are 0.4 per cent, 5 per cent and 3.5 per cent.

Therefore in essence while we are not a role model for the world on all these indicators, we are nowhere as corrupt, repressed and poor as the Egyptians.

That is not to say that the prime minister has no reason to be worried. In politics, perception is reality. There have been a number of allegations of corruption and cronyism in high places, the mainstream media is losing credibility by being used to disseminate more propaganda than news, repressive laws such as the ISA and PPPA are very much in use and ordinary people are seeing their incomes stagnate as the cost of living soars. It is little consolation to know that we are better off than some other countries when we are not feeling good about ourselves.

Add to this mix institutionalised race-based systems and increasingly fiery racist rhetoric from all sides of the political, social and religious divide, and there is a pretty potent mixture for public anger.

But that anger is not united in establishing a single person or political coalition to be held responsible. Perceptions about the performance of both BN and PR are mixed. The report cards of both have achievements and failures. Electorally, there seems to be an emerging rural-urban divide too with the former seen as a bastion for the ruling party and the latter gravitating towards the opposition.

But by and large for as long as we are divided as to who is to blame and as long as the electoral process itself is seen as relatively free and fair, the chances of a popular uprising are slim. The Prime Minister can relax.

But meeting the changing aspirations of the people in terms of equitable economic development, human rights, and personal freedoms remains a key challenge for the government to ensure an uninterrupted return to power.

There remain key litmus tests for the government to soothe popular discontent. Decisions on the future of race-based or needs-based affirmative action, on a more stringent crackdown on official corruption via the MACC, on the introduction of Internet censorship and licences, on attracting FDI by moving towards a more transparent merit-based system will all have a significant impact on shaping public perceptions and opinion.

Patience is a key Malaysian virtue and is far from being exhausted, but it has its limits.

From The Malaysian Insider

2011-03-08T06:52:00.000+08:00

The right to information
February 03, 2011

FEB 3 — We are united by our hunger for information. For at least the last 40 years, we were content with whatever the mainstream media could provide because there were other much more pressing matters to resolve. Maintaining racial harmony while focusing on improving the economic lot of the people was paramount. While it may be argued that even today, we are not capable of reasoned intellectual discourse in the face of the information onslaught, there is no denying that whatever our race or political affiliation, we want to know.

While the Internet has unleashed a wealth of easily accessible information, it is not value neutral. There is as much disinformation as there is information. Opinions and facts are muddled in our heads in many instances. When multiple authorities are quoted on any issue, definitive answers are hard to come by. But we are also learning to ask the right questions, which shed the maximum light on specific issues.

The fact of the matter is that the necessity of dealing with the challenges of the knowledge economy has made us realise that information is power. As we make the transition from an agricultural and manufacturing economy to a service economy, we realise that it is impossible to function in the absence of information. The customer demands that she be recognised for her spending power, for her identity and be treated accordingly. All marketers and service providers know this. We are told everyday that today the only constant is change, but the first step towards change is access to information. Even a dating service requires a CV. No wonder then that this desire is spreading into our social and political interactions.

There is no reason why we should be denied information on our MP’s conduct, the issues facing our community, or even Malaysia’s standing and interaction with the world at large. We have come to understand that the only way to change and improve is to use information that we can today have access to.

While we have recognised and understood the power of information, the powers that be are still intent on releasing as little information on the workings of the government as possible. When asked about the possibility of introducing a Right To Information (RTI) Act in Parliament last year, Deputy Minister of Information, Culture and Communications Senator Heng Seai Kee said “the 1 Malaysia concept is sufficient to ensure transparency. The execution of 1 Malaysia has given people room and access to obtain information as long as it does not go against the laws and acts that have been outlined. Therefore the government has not considered enacting this Act or making this a focus point of government transformation.”

How 1 Malaysia and the RTI are linked was not made clear. On the other hand, there is evidence that the RTI executed fairly leads to transparency which in turn leads to greater accountability and a cleaner government. In the experience of India, which enacted RTI legislation in 2005, it has allowed ordinary citizens to stop government high-handedness, ask for attendance records of civil servants and their income statements and highlight corruption in the award of contracts in order to force accountability and reduce corruption. In this regard the move by the Selangor state administration to move towards a RTI, albeit in a limited way, is a step in the right direction. But for it to work on a broad based scale, it needs federal implementation too.

When illicit financial flows from Malaysia reach US$68.2 billion in 2008 according to the US based Global Financial integrity (GFI) watchdog, and its report states that the increase was “at a scale seen in few Asian countries and the volume of illegal capital flight from Malaysia has come to dwarf legitimate capital inflows into the country in recent years,” isn’t it time to empower our citizens to ask some hard questions of our bureaucrats and politicians? Are we not entitled to get some answers?

What we do with the information is another thing entirely. We can use it to demand and ensure accountability or we can use it to sling mud at those we don’t like. We can be logical or emotional, the choice is ours. But one thing is for sure, we do believe that there is no going back and access to information should be a right for all.

From the Malaysian Insider

2011-03-08T06:50:00.001+08:00

A tale of two faiths
January 25, 2011

JAN 25 — On New Year’s Eve, a suicide bomber detonated a bomb at a church in Alexandria, Egypt, killing 23 people. On January 4, the governor of Pakistan’s Punjab province, Salmaan Taseer, was assassinated by one of his own bodyguards.

The bodyguard, Malik Mumtaz Qadri, confessed and said he killed the man he was assigned to protect due to the governor’s support for amending an anti-blasphemy law, targeted at non-Muslims.

Taseer’s “crime” was supporting Asiya Bibi, a Christian woman from a poor Punjabi village, who was sentenced to death for defaming the Prophet Mohammed. Her supporters, including Taseer, say the law was misused to settle a personal score — one of dozens of similar cases of abuse of a blasphemy law amended by then Pakistan dictator Gen Zia ul Haq to make prosecution easier and punishments heavier.

In Egypt, a week after the suicide attack when Coptic Christians were gathering to celebrate Christmas mass, they were joined by hundreds of their Muslim neighbours outside their church in a show of solidarity against terrorism. The incident sparked a show of unity with large numbers of Muslims attending Christian mass to offer protection and show support.

In contrast, in Pakistan the day Qadri was to be produced in court, a large number of lawyers showered him with rose petals, hailing him as a hero of Islam for murdering a blasphemer. TV channels were filled with commentators who justified the assassination as Islamic and demanded Qadri be set free. Death threats were made against other “liberal” Muslims who were warned to drop their pro-Western sensibilities or face a similar fate.

Both the stories are about religiously-inspired violence and the reaction of ordinary people in the mainstream of society to such violence. Both claim to be following the tenets of their religion in their reaction. So the question is not really about Islam, it is about the differences in different societies and cultures that allow such radically polarised versions of the same religion to predominate in their countries.

On one hand is a society that recognises and accepts the rights of others to co-exist, one that believes that social ties can sometimes be stronger than narrow religious mandates, one that offers protection to minorities and threatened neighbours irrespective of race and religion.

On the other is a deeply insecure society that is full of prejudice towards and mistrust of all “others” including other Muslim sects and denominations, one that preys on its weak, is intolerant of any view not their own, one that celebrates murder as long as it is in the name of religion and is ever more inward looking.

For a non-Muslim residing in Malaysia, one has to wonder; which one of these paths are we travelling on in this country? In a Muslim-majority country, are the minorities seen as neighbours or as intruders? Is the spirit of community living in this country still broad enough to accommodate our differences or are we increasingly closing our minds and doors towards those not exactly like us?

While certain parties advise Muslims against attending other religion’s celebrations for fear of threatening the supremacy of Islam, others like Dr Dzulkefly Ahmad of PAS are open in their opposition to such ideas.

While some groups believe interfaith dialogue is critical in the backdrop of the “Allah” controversy, some others will resort to the arson of churches. While some believe in an all-inclusive, overarching ummah, some will arrest Shias, just because they are not Sunnis.

In many ways our society seems to be at a crossroads, hostage to this competition between competing Islamic ideas which will decide the future for all of us.

Politicians are also desperate to figure out which way the wind is blowing, and are trying their luck on both sides of the argument. Witness the simultaneous rise in racial and religious supremacist rhetoric along with the media push behind 1 Malaysia.

But moderate or extremist, liberal or conservative, secure or insecure, peaceful or violent, exclusive or inclusive, these are not questions for politicians or religious leaders to answer; the answer lies in the hearts of ordinary people like you and me.

Those answers will probably become clear after the next election when our choice of representatives will show how we really feel about these issues.

Of course, one quick way for you, dear reader, to figure out which side of the divide you see yourself is that after reading this do you feel like throwing the author into ISA detention for daring to talk about Islam as a “pendatang” or fete him for a clear-headed exposition of the issues at stake.

For the sake of my head (literally), I hope you choose the latter.

From The Malaysian Insider

2011-01-24T11:42:00.001+08:00

Is Public memory really that short?
Kapil Sethi
January 12, 2011

JAN 12 — Is APCO Worldwide really worth the money? Good public relations is not just about highlighting achievements and running down the opposition, but also managing crises and negative perceptions. Yet somehow the prevalent PR strategy of the government seems very much like an ostrich in the sand.

Ignore it and it will go away. There is a superficially valid reason for this, of course, grounded in the belief that you and I have a thousand other things on our mind and our short memories and small brains can’t retain too much information.

In many respects, this analysis is correct — we do have a lot on our minds. But there are two critical exceptions: new media and residual memory.

For us to forget, news has to decay. Traditional media follows a news cycle. Simplistically put, when a story breaks, it gets the maximum coverage, which gets progressively smaller as other stories break. The same holds true for television news programming. But when it comes to the online media, one-touch retrievability expands the durability of news remarkably. So our memories can be refreshed instantly.

When combined with the power of social media to create powerful interest groups who can constantly highlight issues of interest to them to a wider community, we have real disruption of the existing media paradigm. Facebook and Twitter enable users to create their own news agenda and disseminate it quickly, and more importantly build on it with new content on the same topic over time.

The Warisan Merdeka issue may have died down, but not in the eyes of the 260,000 Facebook users, for many of whom it was the first time being part of a larger interest group and who will prolong their involvement with it, whether the mainstream media covers it anymore or not.

The other problem with this approach is the fact that long after an issue has died down, there is still a defining residual memory that remains. We may not remember Dolly Parton songs and movies, but we do remember two things about her.

The specifics of the PKR elections will be forgotten fairly quickly, but a year later we will probably still remember “Zaid” or “messy” or “hanky panky” when they are mentioned. When built, Warisan Merdeka will probably bring to mind words like “hubris” or “unnecessary.”

This is why both the ruling party and the opposition need to be on the ball in the area of crisis management. As an example, despite two near crashes recently, Qantas has come out of the crisis reinforcing rather than compromising its reputation for putting safety first. If they had not reacted at all, our residual memory would be of near misses and bad maintenance rather than responsible pilots, excellent training and it’s Rolls Royce’s fault.

The moral of the story is this: Good news builds reputations slowly; unanswered bad news has the power to ruin reputations instantly. The majority of people when faced with issues that they are not partisans for know that there are inevitably two sides to any story and are willing to be convinced.

A refusal to engage by maintaining silence in today’s new media landscape though, creates a perception of admission. The new media will ensure that we remember something, and that something will be one sided. A simple test — which coalition do you think is more corrupt, racist and has enriched its cronies?

Imagine this: An MP is accused of corruption in a telecoms deal, senior journalists are caught on tape allegedly acting as power brokers in getting the MP a ministerial berth, the mainstream media closes ranks to protect its own and kills the story, the online news media picks it up and the protest expands exponentially till the mainstream media is forced to cover the story, and the journalists in question come out looking guilty even though no impropriety has been proven.

If it sounds too far-fetched to be true, get this: This is a story out of India, a country with an Internet penetration rate of less than seven per cent. The lessons for our highly and ever increasingly wired nation are simple. Silence or mere denial is no longer an option, whether it’s politicians, bureaucrats or even journalists who are in the dock.

Remember John Edwards? The guy who denied having an affair while his wife had cancer and then had to admit to it. Yes? So do I. Do you also remember that he was John Kerry’s running mate in 2004 and a presidential candidate against Obama in the Democratic race in 2008?

I didn’t.

From The Malaysian Insider

2011-01-09T15:54:00.001+08:00

Lolita, Anyone?
Kapil Sethi
29 December, 2010

The recent case of a 14-year-girl schoolgirl getting married with the full approval of a Syariah court has raised more than a few eyebrows. While a lot of commentators have focused on the religious side of the matter, there are deeper social issues at stake here too.

In 2009 according to the health ministry quoted by the NST, out of 479 children waiting to tie the knot, only two were boys. Also, 32 of them were below 10 years of age.

Clearly only young girls seem to be interested in getting married at eight or 14. So in our society, traditional gender divisions are alive and well. Boys have to study and get a job and cannot be put under the pressure of managing a household at such a young age, but it is perfectly fine for girls who are children themselves, to take up all these responsibilities.

We are told that these girls are making these decisions on their own and are perfectly happy with their choices. Where are they getting these ideas from? Mass media certainly doesn’t glorify or even generally depict this kind of behaviour.

Shah Rukh Khan hasn’t been spotted romancing a nine-year-old in the cinema recently, unless I missed something. We are hopefully not teaching this in our education system. So it is clearly a cultural custom among some families that seem to find nothing wrong in this practice. Some parents also clearly seem to be in a hurry to transfer the responsibility of a girl child onto another family for economic reasons.

If we look at this for a minute from the perspective of the would-be husbands of these child brides, the picture becomes even starker. What possible reason could there be from their perspective, apart from wanting to have sex with a child, that cannot wait for the girl to achieve majority? Whether he is in love with her, or he wants a union between their families, or wants to help the girl or her family out of poverty, all of these can be achieved without immediate marriage. If the intention is noble, sex can be withheld till the girl is of age. So from the prospective groom’s perspective, we are left with the inescapable conclusion of wanting to take advantage of legalised paedophilia.

Even from a religious perspective then, there should be no justification to grant sanction to such a union in this day and age when we are all aware of the range of negative consequences of such marriages on the child concerned.

That is why our muted response is so shocking. The excuse that discussing this would tread on religious sensitivities has a hollow ring to it. Do we really believe that it is fine for girls of 11 to be sexualised legitimately and being allowed to make long-lasting life-changing decisions at such a young age, just because a loophole exists in the law? Is our regard for women so low that we don’t care about the multitude of mental, physical and emotional traumas we are condemning them to when we look the other way?

As a society, is it enough to say that since it is allowed by a particular religious segment, it is for them to resolve? Or that this is not just a Malaysian problem, it happens in other parts of the world too? Is the definition of a developed state purely economic? Should we not also be developed in the sense of protecting our children? Is our notion of criminal behaviour really this shallow?

It could very easily be argued that under the guise of religious freedom, Malaysia is actively promoting child exploitation, gender discrimination and sexual violence.

Of course, if we are really fine with this state of affairs, we can earn a few more tourism dollars by marketing ourselves as a legal paedophile haven. Lolita, anyone?

From The Malaysian Insider

2010-12-18T12:45:00.001+08:00

Of Supremacists
Kapil Sethi
13 December, 2010

Ketuanan Melayu or Ketuanan Rakyat? Purely in terms of electoral numbers, the two phrases try and demarcate the voting population into two roughly equal blocs.

According to the current political thinking, there are a large number of supporters of the status quo, of the way things have always been done and who are increasingly uncomfortable with what they see as attempts to take away their rights, indeed their country.

On the other hand is another large set of people fed on global notions of secularism and democracy where governments administer on the basis of economic needs and merit and are officially blind to the idea of creating or encouraging inequality on any other basis.

So the polemic of ketuanan rakyat tries to set up what seems to be a very direct bipolar choice for the voter. Politically this bipolarity has the potential to become the defining issue of the next general election as it pits two very distinct worldviews against each other in an easy-to-understand way for the electorate.

Interestingly, a lot of other bipolar alternative labels can be neatly subsumed under them — liberal/conservative, democrat/royalist, theocratic/secular, etc.

If both coalitions were happy with this starkness, the voters would have a very clear choice. In life, though, rarely are things ever so simple.

Modern political instinct militates against such sharp black-or-white distinctions because it carries the risk of permanent alienation of a part of the audience. Also, it is hard to be completely sure that the majority of voters truly believe in your position over the other. Therefore, they try and hedge their bets.

So ketuanan Melayu comes with a clarification that championing the rights of one race does not mean ignoring the rights of other races and ketuanan rakyat is at pains to stress that it does not imply challenging Article 153 of the Constitution or rejecting the institution of the Malay Rulers.

Everybody has tinkered with the phrase in question in an attempt to be inclusive but in actual fact the slogans tend to lose all the different nuances being superimposed on them altogether. This is where the problems begin. Once the waters are sufficiently muddied by endless justifications and recriminations, what we are left with are just the two phrases.

Given that this residual memory is all that most of us can retain on any issue given the information overload that we carry today, the choice of words used then becomes extremely important. The phrase runs the risk of becoming shorthand for everything that BN or PKR stands for.

Supremacy is a very unambiguous term. It admits of only one meaning, that of being above everyone else. When linked to Melayu, it retains its unambiguousness and single mindedness. But when linked to rakyat, it becomes very ambiguous.

Many different meanings can be attached to the supremacy of the people. Which people, which race, which gender, etc, are all open to debate. Purely from a politician’s viewpoint, the latter is infinitely preferable as it doesn’t force a particular position on the claimant.

In the West too, political slogans are reflecting this movement away from a definitive stance to motherhood statements. “Yes, we can” and “Change we can believe in” carried much more power than John McCain’s “Reform. Prosperity. Peace.” in the 2008 US presidential campaign.

Of course, the US and Malaysian electorate are concerned over very different issues and the example used is by no means definitive. But over a longer period of time as our society matures, divides on multiple lines and interests and complexity become a part of everyday life, black-or-white slogans are likely to prove to be counterproductive.

This is why political slogans are used today after a lot of thought. Purely from this standpoint, in the long term ketuanan Melayu seems to be a risky road to go down.

1 Malaysia, in contrast, takes the bite out of ketuanan rakyat easily and in fact from a communication viewpoint is by far the best of the three. Of course the problem is that it seems to be in direct opposition to ketuanan Melayu.

At some point a choice will have to be made by the ruling coalition, or the two to be proven not to be antithetical, otherwise all credibility could be lost.

And whatever happened to “People First. Performance Now.”? It seems to be almost an orphan child now.

Personally though, I have to say that I believe that Johnny Bravo reigns supreme.

From The Malaysian Insider

2010-11-29T12:25:00.000+08:00

100 storeys of doubt
Kapil Sethi
November 28, 2010

What a distance we have travelled. From a time when we were practically defined by our pride and obsession with having the tallest, longest and widest of anything to a point today when the mere proposition of another such project has created the biggest buzz of any Malaysian page on Facebook, with 200,000 people registering their opposition.
The 20 and 30 somethings today somehow seem to be a breed completely divorced from the rakyat of the 80’s. They do not think that the government knows best, they seem to have an opinion on everything, accountability is their mantra, and horror of horrors-they seem to always find a way of making themselves heard, home and overseas.
Why such a massive reaction to what is after all just another skyscraper? Is it because it was announced during the budget by the PM with a colossal price tag and the attendant fears of wastage of public funds, overruns and corruption? Or is it because we feel that we already have really tall buildings and believe that there are other, more worthy projects where this 5 billion ringgit could be spent?
The answer could be a combination of all of these but at a slightly deeper level it seems to be a rejection of the symbolism of the mega, the gargantuan. The comments on the anti Warisan Merdeka page on Facebook seem to define the protest as the final nail in the coffin of the era of chest thumping statements over substance, hammered in by a new generation of voters.
Defenders of the project are quick to point out our earlier pride in the symbolic, as epitomised by the Petronas twin towers, Putrajaya and the Penang Bridge. So why has our appetite for such things waned to this degree? It is not as if we have suddenly fallen out of love with the symbolic. Indeed what could be more symbolic than a Facebook protest? No real people are physically involved, no marches and no loud speeches-the real and the tangible are markedly absent. A Facebook protest is about youth, the anonymity and the freedom of the internet, about a virtual community revelling in self expression sans danger.
In fact, by the real measure of any protest which is its ability to extract change, the protest is a failure. It seems to have vanished as fast as it appeared. It could be argued that the symbolic act of protest was much more important to the online community than the result itself.
Why was the 100 storey building as the focus of online protest and not anything else like racist principals or the PKFZ scandal? Simply put, the incredibly ham handed communication techniques employed. At budget time, every Finance Minister wants to talk up the economy, show a clear path to prosperity and deliver that intangible feel good factor by promising some exciting new things worth investing in. Ideally, it should be wrapped in a symbolic, easy to understand project. At first glance, a 100 storey tower seems like just what the doctor ordered. The problem is that that the doctor prescribed it before already, it cost a bomb and the patient at best can’t really see any improvement.
At a time when the economy is wobbly, and mega corruption scandals are everyday, what was required was a new way to spend the money that resonated with the audience.
First, 5 billion is a lot of money for anyone. Taxpayers want to see some benefit in it for them, in a way they can understand rather than on purely emblematic acts. In today’s world, the need for KLIA and the Penang bridge are easily understood, Putrajaya and the new palace less so.
Secondly, the symbol chosen should communicate the intent of the presenter. If the highlight of the budget had been a billion ringgit for expanding tertiary education scholarship funding on a merit basis, the reaction would have been very different. The symbolism of investment in education as well as the deserving less fortunate is very compelling. The 5 billion building could still have come up if deemed essential by PNB, with none of the backlash. Presented the way it was, it seemed an insult to the memory and intelligence of the receiver.
Its unfortunate but true that today symbols are our shorthand for opinion making. This 100 story symbol that was chosen, showed spectacular lack of understanding of the mood of the audience and served to highlight the importance of message management in local politics.

From The Malaysian Insider

2010-11-29T12:22:00.001+08:00

Patriotism and Inclusiveness

Kapil Sethi
November 17, 2010

The age old question has surfaced again: which race is more patriotic? If we define patriotism in terms of being good citizens, then the majority of people will qualify, irrespective of race or occupation. But if it is defined in terms of being proud of the country to the point of laying down our lives in its defence, it becomes another question altogether.
The armed forces of any country are a peacetime luxury for the contingency of war. We are willing to pay for their upkeep with our taxes in perpetuity, because we recognise that one day they may be called upon to make the ultimate sacrifice to protect us. But to do that, they need to operate in unison and obey commands as a group not individuals. The uniforms, the haircuts, the drills and parades are designed to reduce individual differences like race and religion in order to raise the esprit de corps. There needs to be therefore no discrimination on the basis of ethnicity and religion in recruitment, promotion and life in general as a soldier. When this unity of purpose is achieved, troops can be expected to expend every breath of their being in the service of the cause.
For them to lay down their lives for us, they need to feel that they are as one, and so is the country. Otherwise, the armed forces will reflect the state of society in general with its divisions along racial fault lines, real or imaginary perceptions about the ‘other’ and consequent weakening of its morale and purpose.
Now, ask yourself this: if a section of the citizenry feels actively discriminated against by the country, is it realistic to expect them to lay down their lives in its defence? As an analogy, to expect this would be akin to not just turning the other cheek when slapped, but sacrificing your life to protect the one who slapped you.
Of course, equal opportunity does not exist anywhere in the world, and affirmative action is not unique to Malaysia. But the increasingly charged racial rhetoric and branding of the ‘other’ as pendatang is certainly not conducive to instilling broad based patriotism. It is only natural that the segment of society that feels it is getting a better deal will be more invested in protecting the status quo than the one that feels it is getting a raw deal.
What about the pride of a civilian in her country? This is increasingly becoming a two way street. To feel proud, we need to feel that the country is also invested in our well being as citizens, that it has allowed us to pursue opportunity, flourish, and generally lead happy, purposive lives in a spirit of equality and fairness. The days when JFK could say “ask not what your country can do for you-ask what you can do for your country” and rouse an entire nation are long gone.
In many ways, the very fact that a slogan like 1 Malaysia is needed is testimony to the fact that we are currently not 1 Malaysia. Some people are clearly more proud of their nationality than some others. After all, why is there a need for a Talent Corporation-why are citizens leaving in droves? Not just because of economic reasons, but also because of perceived discrimination.
Of course the cause of patriotism would be greatly helped if there was an external enemy perpetually at the gates. Nothing focuses the patriotic spirit more than the prospect of a foreign invader. But in the absence of that, genuine inclusiveness of all segments of society is the first step to a more patriotic country.
Finally, as JFK said in the same speech “United, there is little we cannot do in a host of cooperative ventures. Divided, there is little we can do - for we dare not meet a powerful challenge at odds and split asunder”. The choice is ours.

From the Malaysian Insider

2010-11-11T11:15:00.002+08:00

Beyond the economics of merit
Kapil Sethi
November 8, 2010

A new Talent Corporation is to be set up to reverse brain drain. Lots of glitzy new infrastructure projects will be implemented under the ETP. A slew of performance benchmarks will ensure that there are no goof ups at the implementation stage. All this and more is supposed to move us out of the middle income trap into a high growth, high income trajectory to become developed by 2020.
Are these pipe dreams or an achievable vision of the future? Economic models and projections are just that-models and projections based on hard data. Life on the other hand, has a peculiar habit of intervening at the most inopportune time to turn the so called future on its head. It’s called the human factor.
In all kinds of collective human endeavour, for any project to succeed, clear ambition and an even clearer unity of purpose are prerequisites. We have to want to put up a theatre production, and everyone has to play their appointed parts in synchronicity for it to be a success. A corporation has to be hungry for new business, and the sales team has to play their parts to perfection in a pitch to the prospective client for the company to be successful. Even for wars to be prosecuted successfully, a clear enemy and a committed military operating as one are essential.
In our case, the ambition to be a developed nation by 2020 is clear and has been for a while now. Where it breaks down is in the unity of purpose. We all want to be rich, but insist that other races in the country are impeding our path.
Is following the NEP for another 10 years the way to do it? Is emphasising merit also racist, as implied by a senior statesman recently? Does the current government know best and we should give them a chance? Is throwing money after it the solution? Or is using predictive economics the way to go?
It might be worthwhile to step back and understand why we are unable to derive a consensus on how to approach the issue.
In front of a global audience, we are able to forget race. We claim ownership of Lee Chong Wei, Shalin Zulkifli and Nicol David equally proudly. When we visit a Nasi Lemak stall in London, we introduce it to Mat Sallehs as a Malaysian, not Malay dish. In business especially in the private sector, we treat each other as colleagues in task accomplishment. Love increasingly has no boundaries.
It is actually only in situations that we are surrounded primarily by people of our race that we play up the perceived differences between us. It is after all a very fundamental social characteristic to protect the ones closest to us and repel all others who are identified as the other. But in the context of our economic ambitions, emphasis on race is a hindrance because it frames the definition of ‘us’ very narrowly, and the ‘other’ too widely. If we aggregate the strengths of all of us, Malaysia has to compete with the rest of the world. But if we emphasise the strengths of only a race, then we have to first compete with other races before competing with the rest of the world.
Whatever be their other shortcomings, the current crop of politicians have not been slow to recognise this. When it comes down to it, both coalitions before deciding which candidate to put up for elections look at ‘winnability’ a peculiar amalgam of the ethnic composition of the electorate, the loyalty of the candidate to the party, his personality and positions on issues, even her smile. The appeal of the prospective candidate has to generally go beyond race today. The wider the definition of ‘us’, the greater the winnability of the candidate. As we have witnessed in several bye-elections, once the decision is made and there is grassroots acceptance of the winnability of the candidate, there appears a unity of purpose in the ranks and momentum can be shifted, a no hoper made a serious contender and vice versa.
This is not to say that we should just bury our racial differences, but in a hyper competitive world we need to widen our definition of ‘us’ in our public lives to accommodate all Malaysians, so we can achieve our economic ambitions. This is why the call for a merit and needs based model for the future is more in consonance with our ambition than a race based model. Expansion of educational and workplace opportunities on the basis of merit and/or economic needs does not need to diminish our racial identity, it just aligns our skillsets to the economic realities of the world. In today’s world affirmative action needs to support every citizen’s right to opportunity, unhindered by a lack of means.
Race has its place in our private and social lives, but if we want to achieve our economic goals, it should not have any place in school, not in sport and certainly not in business. Race and merit need to co-exist not compete. Our ambitions need to be aided with an even clearer unity of purpose.
At home though, surrounded by people my own kind you can always find me with a bottle of whisky in my hand loudly denouncing all those who call us alcoholics.

From The Malaysian Insider

2010-10-25T10:18:00.000+08:00

Change for its own sake
Kapil Sethi
October 20, 2010

As reported recently, the UMNO general assembly is going to see a call for holistic change and an attempt to define a new political and economic model, moving away from the old developmental model. Change has long been the linguistic symbol of the opposition and its power is clearly being acknowledged by the ruling party in its attempt to appropriate the idea of change to itself.
On the face of it, it seems ironical that the establishment is rooting for change when it has had a long monopoly on setting the economic and political agenda by controlling the levers of government. But change in this context can be construed as a tacit admission that the status quo of ‘we know best’ does not have any appeal with the electorate today. Therefore, this may be the precursor to preparing the grassroots for a radical move towards a more nimble, flexible organisation that is not afraid to challenge received wisdom from the past.
While it remains to be seen whether this transition is meaningful or purely symbolic, what is intriguing is why the mantra of change has become so important in determining the fortunes of both coalitions. Why are we so enamoured of change in a way that we never were? Is nothing of our past worth keeping? After all, it is not even clear as to what this change really means in concrete terms, from either side beyond either changing the way the government works or changing the government period.
As a society we are as wedded to tradition as we are to modernity but the balance between the two is shifting. We spend increasing amounts of time interacting with the modern world compared to our relatives. Time is today the single most valuable commodity we possess and there are multiple, often conflicting demands on it. The rise of information technology not only provides us access to real time information, it demands we process it and act on it-fast. Instant access to news provides the illusion that great changes are afoot, and either we keep abreast or we get left behind, in every sense of the term.
Bombarded with an incessant barrage of information, our attention spans are getting shorter and shorter. Thanks to the compression epitomised by the sound byte, we are practically incapable of appreciating stasis, or taking the time to smell the roses. Depth of thought and reasoning are the first casualty of the technology invasion. Actions, reactions, change-all have to happen faster and faster for them to have any impact at all. Today, action delayed is akin to no action at all. What are we more offended by- the weakness of action against racist civil servants, or the delay in taking any visible action at all? It is entirely likely that if the person concerned was suspended immediately, and then reinstated after a suitable period, there would have been no crisis at all.
Change is such a powerful idea today precisely because it seems to be the basis on which the world operates. Actually, it does not matter in the least if the change is real-it just needs to be visible, and it needs to be quick. How much has really changed since Obama’s ‘yes we can’? But at that moment, it was the promise of real change that galvanised the electorate.
This paradox between demanding change and then actually being indifferent to the substance of it is the basis of modern public relations. Practitioners the world over understand the power of the ‘makeover’. Substantial change is not required, the illusion of change is. Indeed in this cynical view, you lose your audience when you show too much depth. Ideally change should appear radical but should actually be bite sized and easily demonstrated and consumed.
So, to both sides of the divide, look fresher than the other side, appear more decisive, more spontaneous and talk the language of change (notice the sudden barrage of fancy management acronyms in the current political discourse). Above all, be brief because nobody has the time- and you may have to change nothing much else at all.
What the heck changed after the last brouhaha over killer buses on expressways anyway?

From The Malaysian Insider

2010-10-25T10:16:00.001+08:00

Who wants to be a cabbie?
Kapil Sethi
October 13, 2010

Seriously, who does? Clunky vehicles, long irregular hours, traffic jams, rude customers, low variable pay, and no prospects of promotion can make Jack a very crabby boy indeed. I guess taking customers for a ride literally and figuratively is probably the only entertainment that pays a little extra as well as relieves the monotony of the job. Cabbies are usually quite chatty for perhaps the same reason; anything to relieve the tedium.
But if you are at the receiving end of their whims when you are hot, tired and just have to get home, it can be less than pleasant experience. You fly in to KLIA, take a train to Sentral and as you walk up to the prepaid taxi counter you come across a notice which says that there are no taxis between 5-7 pm. You walk out and see lots of taxis, it’s just that they don’t want to go anywhere as it is ‘all jammed lah’. Refusing to go buy the meter, taking long detours or flat out refusing to go anywhere that you want to go are a familiar litany of KL taxi users. And no amount of training, enforcement sweeps or complaints seem to be able to eradicate this menace. You may still learn to put up with it till you take one trip across the causeway and realise that not all cabbies are the same. In certain parts of the world, they are actually known to be paragons of exceptional customer service. Spotless uniforms, clean cars with GPS, they will actually take you where you want to go without the mandatory indifference to what the official meter may call the fare.
So what is the difference between their cabbies and ours? Is there something in the very nature of people who take up this job in our country that makes them resistant to change, however attractively it may be packaged, or however severe the penalties for breaking the rules may be?
There are actually some perks of being a taxi driver that have appeal to a certain kind of person. Are there people who could not or did not want to get higher education and who dislike physical labour and like office hours? Also those who like a nap now and then, who are not particularly ambitious, who’s only certified skills are that of a driver and who do not see the need to go rushing around pointlessly to make more and more money, are those who would find a cabbie’s life particularly interesting. Sound familiar?
This is why enforcement of the rules as applied to taxi drivers is somewhat lax. Compared to more serious, violent crime, prosecuting somebody for demanding a little bit more money from a person who is obviously better off since she can afford a taxi does not seem like such a big deal. Also, is there a possibility that the people entrusted with enforcement see a little bit of themselves in the cabbies and are therefore lenient? After all, low pay, long hours, tedium and low promotion prospects are not the preserve of taxi drivers alone.
As passengers too, many of us intuitively regard them the same way and tip them much in the manner of pizza delivery boys. This superficial empathy is born out of our understanding of how while their job is essential, it is not something we can imagine ourselves doing.
Is there any hope then for a solution that leads both cabbies and their customers to a mutually beneficent place? What if we removed the ‘perks’ of the job as it stands today and replaced them with more universal perks?
For instance what if we operate our taxi companies like corporations, with a small fixed wage plus variable pay, decent shifts, medical and retirement benefits for the front liners, i.e. the cabbies and give them promotion avenues? In general, if we treat them like colleagues rather than menials, things should work better. Technology can also play a critical role in monitoring driving and behaviour patterns of drivers today.
Basically we need to make the job more desirable to those who want a career, and less desirable for those who want a job. This would probably also entail eliminating small (one taxi) entrepreneurs from the trade to ensure a level of standardisation of customer service and encouraging more controllable competition.
40 ringgit from Ikea to Bangsar, did you say?

From The Malaysian Insider

2010-10-25T10:15:00.001+08:00

Putting some English on the ball
October 6, 2010

My apologies for beginning this piece with an obscure phrase taken from the game of billiards, meaning to put some spin on the ball, but hopefully the reference (and pun) will be made clear shortly.
Education is a deeply emotive issue for all parents. The decision to abolish PPSMI and revert back to teaching maths and science in BM instead of English has resulted in impassioned debate on both sides of the divide, to the point of a set of parents setting up a pressure group called PAGE (Parent Action Group for Education Malaysia) to push for the option of having English as an optional medium of instruction for these two subjects.
A short time before this, it was announced that Malaysian parents could now send their wards to international schools if they so desired. The two announcements combined seem to suggest that the option of being schooled wholly or partly in the English medium is an option restricted to the affluent. The worst interpretation of this would be that we are trying to create two classes for the future; the children of the rich who would have access to learning in the language of the world, and the other who would learn in the languages of the country.
Whatever be the nature of our position on the above, one thing is a given; our parental instincts demand that we try and procure the best of everything for our progeny. Education is primarily an investment in the future of our children, and our choice of schools, the medium of instruction and the subjects we want our children to pay more emphasis on are largely the result of our outlook on what the future may hold for our children. To the best of our ability, we try and ensure that our children are equipped with the right educational tools to help them take advantage of the opportunities that may present themselves to them in the future.
In this context it seems self evident that in an increasingly globalised world English would be the natural choice, not just as a global language but as the language which allows our children to communicate specific skills in a way that makes them employable anywhere in the world. Concurrently, we need to find ways to improve the proficiency of the educators in the language too.
To a large degree, despite the almost whimsical way in which this issue has been treated by the powers that be over the decades, we have found a way to learn functional English to better our economic prospects. Not just professionals and specialists, almost all frontliners in the service industry despite their lack of higher education are capable of making themselves understood in English. Our taxi drivers, salespeople, waiters, delivery boys and security guards can all manage some Manglish at least. We almost intuitively recognise that in the private sector at least proficiency in English is directly correlated to better prospects. Of course this is not to make the case that mere functional grasp of the language is enough. Written and verbal proficiency is key to access a higher income trajectory. However, our youth are at the forefront of this realisation. Our most popular online media talks in English because young people learning to access and use internet based technology today know that English is the language of technology, now and in the future.
So why should something that should be a no brainer be so difficult to resolve? Maybe the place to look is how our notions of identity are linked to our race, culture, family and language. At a fundamental level, who we are is a function of where we come from. Identity development in children is primarily a function of what our parents teach us. What language we speak at home, which religion we follow, what values are transmitted to us, what groups and communities our families are part of are all the building blocks of a sense of self. As time passes, we layer it with our individual interactions with society as a whole to create an individual personality.
In our case, our feelings on language have come to be so closely bound up with our notions of racial, religious and political identity, that when we discuss language, we are actually discussing our views on government, race relations, religion as well as economics. Because we conflate these with language, the debate rapidly degenerates into a us vs. them slanging match.
This is why for a lot of people, promotion of one language has to be at the cost of the degradation of another. Even worse, it seems that our very identities are being degraded when that language is so tied to our sense of self. We need to come to the realisation that while we can link particular languages to particular races, languages per se are not the exclusive preserve of any one set of people. When we truly feel that the languages we speak are only a part of who we are as people, when we are comfortable enough in our skins to allow languages to coexist in our minds, when speaking English is not an affront to my Chineseness, my Muslimness or my Tamilness, can we objectively address this issue.
Okay I know, three of the words in the last sentence are not English words at all. Waddup?

From The Malaysian Insider

2010-10-25T10:13:00.000+08:00

Fact or Opinion? No going back
September 14, 2010

In the last couple of weeks, the word sedition has been flying around so much as if it’s going out of style. A cursory search on this website alone found 479 results for the word. Are we really in that much danger of destroying the country? What is at the bottom of these deep seated fears and insecurity about other people’s opinions and what they are doing to us? According to Wikipedia, sedition is encouraging one's fellow citizens to rebel against their state, whereas treason is actually betraying one's country by aiding and abetting another state.
None of the ordinary citizenry of Malaysia can be accused of either of the above, so what is going on? It seems in essence a battle between political parties for control of public opinion, and their use of different media channels in an increasingly hysterical way, watched with bemused wonder by a lot of us.
The battleground can be put into context by comparing the increasing popularity of online media contrasted with the falling circulation of the mainstream print media. According to the Audit Bureau of Circulations Malaysia, circulation of almost all major dailies in the peninsula has been on the decline since 2007. In fact the circulation of the NST fell 8% in just the six months between June and December 2009. The corresponding decline for the Star and Utusan are 3% and 6.5%. In contrast, according to Nielsen Malaysia, the country currently ranks fifth globally in terms of digital media consumption. Internet penetration is almost 39% of the population. Advertising expenditure on online media also expanded nearly 55%, albeit on a much smaller base, compared to 18% for the print media in the first half of 2010.
So it is no surprise that both sides are trying their utmost to push their media choices on us. Recently there has been political encouragement by some asking us to distinguish between the two as opinion based or fact based and to choose mainstream media which is ostensibly fact based.
The problem with that is that even if we agree that the mainstream media is fact driven, the idea that fact based reporting is somehow better than opinion based reporting is also a subjective opinion. If I like to hear differing points of view to help me make up my mind, why should that be anybody’s problem? Of course this is not to condone racism in speech or action, but to take the misguided action of a few and to equate our reactions to that with sedition seems a step too far. After all, mere expression of a point of view cannot be equated with incitement to rebellion; just as active incitement cannot be equated with merely expressing an opinion.
At a deeper level though, it is the fear of freedom that is underlying the current rhetoric. Racist comments and political adversaries bashing each other are not new. What is new is that it is now in the public eye, for all to see. What we could only think about, is being articulated openly, whichever side of the divide you may be. This is why opinions are more important now. The facts are really not in question, our reaction to them is.
It is almost a guilty pleasure to read or hear about what we have been secretly thinking ourselves, and herein lies the fascination with the alternative media today, especially the news and analysis portals. We still can’t quite believe that we can express all these opinions and marvel at those with the courage to do so by consuming ever increasing doses of news and political commentary and opinions online. To the point that online media has come to represent the voices of change and the mainstream media as advocates of the status quo. This may not be true, but in this world perception is reality.
Facts and opinions need not and indeed are not opposites, and most news media online or otherwise recognise that opinions are critical to the interpretation and digestion of facts. The only question is whether we have the maturity to accept that other people are entitled to opinions other than ours, even if they lead to political change and upheaval, as long as they are not an incitement to rebellion. And if we went to an even deeper level, you could argue that there are no facts, only opinions. And for those of you who will immediately point to scientific facts, here is some food for thought http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_holism
Frankly, the Pandora’s Box is open. There is no going back to the days of facts being interpreted according to only one opinion.
Of course, this is merely my opinion.

From The Malaysian Insider

2010-09-13T08:01:00.002+08:00

FAT AMERICANS
September 8- On a recent trip to the United States, I was struck, as a lot of people are by the signs of gross obesity all around me. It seemed as if food itself was about to go extinct, such was the frenzy of eating taking place. In cars, on the streets, in malls and in subways, practically everyone was chomping on a sandwich or a hot dog.

Fat Americans are everywhere and some are in genuinely eye popping shape. Of course obesity is a global problem, but it seems most on display in the US.
Sedentary lifestyles, bad eating habits and the ubiquity of junk food are all routinely blamed for this fat epidemic, and are the subject of much hand wringing in the media and the butt of jokes (bad pun intended) on late night television. But are the causes a little deeper than that?

Coming from Malaysia on a budget, the first thing that strikes one is that the cheapest food in America is also the unhealthiest. Fries, burgers, hot dogs, pizzas, wraps and sodas are everywhere. There is amazingly little choice beyond this if you want to eat cheaply. Historically speaking, American food should be a throwback to the England of its forefathers or of its African American and later other European immigrant heritage. But none of the subtlety of French cooking or the wide variety of African ingredients seem to be present. I would argue that the early settlers having to tame a vast and tough land by muscle alone, had to adapt their culinary heritage to this reality which meant making do with basic ingredients and large portions with an accent on energy and fat (meat and cheese) to power them.

Combine this with capitalism and industrial production and you have a set of people whose concerns are primarily material backed by a can do spirit and entrepreneurial vision. It’s the triumph of the hard working, hard drinking and essentially lonely work ethic exemplified in cowboy westerns. It is a time starved linear model with no room for sub texts. Therefore food must too be direct, in your face and provide immediate sensory gratification through overpowering textures and taste. It’s almost as if all other culinary traditions brought by immigrants from around the world have been elbowed out in favour of that great American invention, fast food. When there is no time or inclination to savour delicate aromas and flavours, quantity and sheer taste must suffice.

Today, though while there is no shortage of variety in the options available to Americans, healthy choices are surprisingly expensive. It’s not that surprising though when you think about the market forces and mass production that are required to lower prices. What people consume the most is what is cheapest, and what is cheapest is what people consume the most. While there is growing awareness of healthy eating, for it to be affordable it requires you to cook for yourself.
Contrast this with Malaysia, where we are surrounded by unending choices of culinary options, and which all of us are completely used to experimenting with and enjoying. Sure, some of these are unhealthy, but even discerning palates need a sensory overdose now and then. Cost is not a factor either, because of equal patronage of all culinary choices allows for pricing at all points on the spectrum.

Our history of multiculturalism is also one of culinary assimilation of which Nyonya food is just one by product. Our ambivalence towards material progress at any cost allows us to place enjoyment at par with achievement and spirituality, not as a reward for them. In our society, ideas are still competing, whether in politics or in leisure, at work or while eating. So no one ideology in any area dominates, allowing us to experience multiple options in every arena. Because we are not always in a rush to make a million dollars today, we can take the time to enjoy the small everyday pleasures of life like eating.

KFC, anyone?

From the Malaysian Insider

2010-09-03T17:21:00.001+08:00

Debate this
AUG 13 — We are united by our growing appetite for debate. Somehow, looking back it seems that a whole generation in between the heated kopitiam debates of yore and the incessant Internet chatter of today was somehow silent.

It is almost as if this ability to express ourselves is somehow virginal and miraculous, but now that it is there, there is nobody without an opinion. The mainstream media may not have reached the point of editorials and op-eds facing each other on a page, but the online news community is beginning to put opposing points of view on the same page and letting readers have a vigorous debate on the merits of any issue. From the NEM to Alex Ferguson’s worth as a coach, there is space for views across the spectrum.

How has this faculty developed so fast and so overwhelmingly? How did this generation, educated the same way as the one before, in a culture with one of the highest Hofstede’s PDI (Power Distance Index) of any society, get the ability to argue with their elders and “betters”?

While the information explosion, increased social mobility and loosening of official controls on the freedom of expression online have all played their part, I would argue that this willingness to debate is just a social safety valve which has been part of our social fabric all along. We have always found ways of releasing the stresses of living in a multi-racial country in non-violent ways.

Illustration by Chris Kwok.
The Wayang Kulit is testament to our love of shadow play, of knowing that all is not what it seems. Reading between the lines has always been somewhat of an art form for us. When we are termed a credulous lot of conspiracy theorists, it is actually a reflection of our capacity to allow for the possibility of greys between the black and white. We have never taken things at face value.

What is new is the ability to share our individual opinions in a collective space independent of social constructs and therefore compare and make up our minds. In an earlier era, I would have my suspicions, but there was no way to compare these with others to arrive at an answer that was definitive for me. Everything was debated in closed groups where the same point of view was echoed by all the members of the group.

The other new thing is the anonymity of new media. The fear factor and the social unease radicalism engenders in our culture is eliminated by the facelessness of the Internet, meaning there is no cost to listening, comparing or engaging in debate. This is why the comments section underneath columns on Malaysian news portals has more than its fair share of vituperative venom. These are new ways of blowing off steam, and they must be understood and tolerated as such.

The quality of our debating may still leave a lot to be desired, given the newness of the opportunity, but in an environment where there are so many opinions flying around, we have no choice but to delve a little deeper to make up our minds on any topic. As all of us get better informed, we need to separate the wheat from the chaff, to be more critical before accepting anything as the truth. The search is on for that elusive middle ground that allows us to maintain our most cherished beliefs while arguing the subtler, greyer shades of the issues of the day.

Due to this, I would suggest that in the near future, our ability to separate propaganda and rhetoric from analysis and facts will be better than ever before. If before getting swayed to a position we compare the content of the rhetoric rather than the volume, we will be well on our way to becoming a mature democracy.

From the Malaysian Insider

2010-08-03T12:02:00.001+08:00

Sports betting: Acceptable vice or deadly addiction?
July 29, 2010

The current controversy over the legalisation of sports betting has looked at the issue largely through the economic or the religious angle. The debate has been framed either as one of the quantum of revenue lost to illegal gambling or the moral impact on such activity in a largely Muslim nation. In fact, a more handy way to look at this might be to interrogate our society’s approach to the ideas of vice and addiction.

Vice is generally defined as a moral fault or failing which is habitual yet generally trivial, and addiction on the other hand is the compulsive need for something known to be harmful. Vices are tolerated as they are seen as necessary to the human condition though not necessarily desirable, addictions are deemed unhealthy and the cause of anti-social and criminal behaviour, and require rehabilitation.

In social terms, what is acceptable in general terms is a vice. So alcoholics, shopaholics, bookworms and smokers may be looked on as engaging in unhealthy pursuits, but not to the point that the state intervenes to prevent the majority of people from partaking of these activities. But drug addicts, serial rapists and pimps are simply not tolerated. Put another way, we see a middle-aged makcik having a flutter at the races or a glass of wine very differently from her dealing syabu or exchanging sex for cash.

What complicates the matter is that for some people, what starts out as a vice rapidly develops into an addiction, while for others it remains an occasional indulgence. In general, when the latter predominates, society is lenient towards these vices.

So we don’t lock up gamblers and smokers, but we set up mechanisms such as GRCs (gambling rehab centres) or Alcoholics Anonymous to protect the minority for whom vice develops into an addiction. But drug addiction, for example, is seen as a grave threat to the stability of our social structure.

We believe that left unchecked, these kinds of activities can cause the collapse of our families, our youth and indeed our future. So we try our best to prevent these by using the full might of the state by criminalising this behaviour, shaming those who partake of it, and rehabilitating those who succumb.

By pushing these acts outside the pale of decent society, we send a strong signal as to what will not be tolerated. By making it impossible to indulge in these acts openly, society ensures that the consequences for such behaviour are the harshest it can impose. If as a collective we feel threatened by the harm individual acts of addiction cause to us, we act decisively and with great force.

Of course, cultural mores also change over time. Remember the late ‘60s and early ‘70s when long hair and the hippie lifestyle were seen as such strong threats to our way of life that foreign visitors who looked the part were promptly given haircuts, warnings or simply deported? If not, here is a refresher from the Bangkok Post:

Malaysia to arrest hippies ‘on sight’

January 28, 1977

KUALA LUMPUR(AFP) — Immigration officers have been given orders to arrest all hippies on sight, it was announced here yesterday. The Director-General of Immigration, Hashim Naemat, said “we are now hot after these hippies to safe-guard Malaysian morals.” Immigration officers at various checkpoints have been told not to allow any person sporting long hair, wearing dirty clothes and looking shabby to enter the country. The government banned the entry of hippies into the country on September 1, 1972. A statement issued then by the Home Affairs Ministry said the identification of a hippie was left to the discretion of immigration officers.

So what about sports betting? From a social perspective, because various other types of gambling have been allowed for such a long time, it seems that it falls into the category of vice rather than addiction. If this was not the case, instead of looking at adding to the avenues available for gambling, we would have in fact been agitating for banning all types of gambling.

Clearly our culture and society are not as threatened by sports betting as is made out in some quarters. It is the politics associated with the decision which have made it such an emotive issue, and status quo the most likely outcome. Now what were the odds on an Argentina-Brazil final again?

From The Malaysian Insider

2010-07-21T09:36:00.001+08:00

Shopping malls and identity-Kapil Sethi
June 28, 2010

We are united by our love for shopping malls. After food and international football, malls seem to be a national obsession if you go by the teeming hordes in Mid Valley or 1U on any given day, and the press is nearly uncontrollable on weekends and public holidays. So what is going on here? It’s not as if money is being given away or some world famous celebrity is hanging around or even that the deals are too incredible to be missed. Parking is a nightmare, body odour is everywhere and the offerings are practically the same everywhere. Why are our ideas of leisure, recreation and relaxation so intertwined with the shopping mall? We would rather lepak there than take in an art exhibition or a play or even a walk in the park, fresh air and the possibilities of romance notwithstanding.
It could be because of the free air conditioning and the variety at the food courts, or the modern curse of crass consumerism but the answer goes a little deeper, in my view. If you stop to think about it, malls are the only places that allow us to feel the true nature of multiculturalism that we talk about so often. Festive displays in concourses allow us to understand and marvel at the customs and pageantry of other communities, relish their food, and almost be a tourist in our own country.
Increasingly, we lead separate lives, divided by race, religion, the schools we send our children to, the jobs we choose for ourselves and the clothes we wear. Our sensitivities to “others” are growing, and because we don’t interact enough with them to know where to draw the line, it’s safer and more comfortable to fraternise only with people like us.
In this context, shopping malls are the perfect place to observe “others” without the possibility of giving offence. In the anonymity of the crowds, it’s perfectly acceptable to gawk at the clothes, mannerisms, accents and shopping preferences of those you would normally never have a conversation with. This explains why the more crowded a mall is the better it is to visit. Who are these people that eat pancakes for lunch or foreign women who sample perfume from under a veil or even grown men holding hands as they saunter about?
But malls are not only places to observe, they are also sites for personal experimentation and exploration. This is where we present our cosmopolitan selves, where we are not bound by the expectations of custom and tradition. Holding hands with a boy from a different race, wearing a wig for laughs, that first illicit drink or simply trying out mannerisms and phrases that seem cool on TV attract no censure in the mall. They are the places where under cover of the crowd, we try out change and observe its impact on others. As we look at people, we know they are looking at us too, and we get a sense of who we would like to be, of all the choices on display.
In a country with a relatively low population density and relatively high levels of conservatism, crowded places are particularly attractive. Even the simple act of buying groceries invites the possibility of a memorable experience, of reflecting on all the possible personas we could be.
So the next time you are in a mall and catch sight of a gaggle of teenagers with piercings, torn jeans held together by a miracle of faith, I-pod in the pocket and a sneer on the face, remember that these are the places where we can express ourselves with a freedom of choice hard to come by otherwise .
In the mall, we are all just individuals.

From The Malaysian Insider

2010-06-14T16:53:00.000+08:00

Matters of faith
June 10, 2010

JUNE 10 — We are united by faith. By this I do not mean religion specifically, but the idea that we are a credulous people, who believe strongly that there is more to this world than meets the eye.

Whether it is to flock to a Malay man who claims that an old Chinese utensil he found can cure all types of illnesses, or the power of the Pontianak myth over us, Malaysians are ready to allow for the possibility.

Carrying huge kavadis up to Batu Caves with piercings and the willing acceptance of pain may seem unbelievable to the jaded western eye, but is a perfectly natural activity to us.

Mediums and Bomohs still exercise a huge fascination and, thus, power over us.

While the modern world exercises its rational pull on us, the multi-racial character of our culture and society have shown us that that the western way is not the only way. Whatever race you are, you have heard of Feng Shui, exorcisms and hungry ghosts. Banana trees are bad luck for gamblers, Casper-like tiny ghosts can be commanded to do our bidding, and rain can be kept away from the F1.

Success in business, marriage or the quality of offspring may or may not be due to hard work and discipline, but is impossible if we do not pay our dues to our faith. In the face of evil in the form of greed or corruption, we take solace in the surety of divine retribution, in this life or in the hereafter.

Miracles are a feature of every religion, and to the believer the power of prayer is limitless. In times of crises especially, we rely on faith and belief to see us through. This is because causality in faith is not logical, but a matter of belief.

Unlike modernity, faith allows us to hope, even when all looks hopeless. Modern medicine is a good example of this. Unlike faith healers and traditional medicine men, modern medicine makes definitive diagnoses and predicts the results of disease. Words like “terminal,” “last stage” and “four per cent survival rate” leave no room for hope.

But since no science is exact, there is always room for exceptions and experimental and alternative therapies. Even the power of prayer is recognised as at least a palliative remedy today. Alternative medicine may or may not cure us, but it allows us to retain that most important key to human endurance: hope.
Grab a Celcom Blue Bear(TM) and stand to walk away with RM10,000!

Our belief in the power of faith is so strong as to give it space even in the most modern of settings. So offices are blessed, launch timings of huge projects are at the mercy of geomancers, and skyscrapers omit certain numbers on their floor listings, driving westerners crazy.

This happens because while the origins of our major religions are ancient, we are a very young country, and an even younger modern economy. We are much more familiar with tradition than with modernity. Therefore, the traditional influences we grew up with are still more important than the ones we see in KL.

This mass migration called “balik kampong” we undertake irrespective of race is a sign of the importance all of us attach to the past, modernity be damned. The hold of our past is still stronger than that of the future, and will be for a long time yet.

On the surface, we are willing to live our lives as separate races, religions and entities, but deep down, we know we have more in common with each other in matters of faith than any outsider can fathom.

Having faith comes before the nature of that faith. Any kind of believer is preferable to the amorality associated with the atheist. We may not follow each other’s beliefs, but we understand where we are all coming from.

* The views expressed here are the personal opinion of the columnist.

From The Malaysian Insider

2010-06-09T12:02:00.000+08:00

Matters of symbolism-Kapil Sethi
June 01, 2010

JUNE 1 — We are united by our love of symbolism. Be it the red paint used by Ah Longs, a cow’s head or a Molotov cocktail, it is the idea rather than the act of destruction itself that resonates with us.

Due to the strains of living in a multi-racial society, all of us in some way or the other have been made to walk a narrow middle path of tolerance. We have learnt to eschew extreme symbols for a more acceptable middle ground. The burkha or purple hair is not for us. The tudung with jeans and blonde highlights in the hair are much more reflective of what is acceptable to us.

They communicate traditional values and a modern outlook at the same time in a way that all Malaysians can identify with. We have fashioned our very own distinctive symbolic apparatus, which is an acceptable amalgam of all that is rich in our multifaceted culture.

Being sensitive to the boundaries of what is acceptable between the communities makes us rely on symbols to express to the outside world who we really are. We would rather talk about our favourite celebrities and their beliefs to express our point of view on a topic than say it directly. So even when we are angry, really angry, we tend to use symbols to communicate that anger rather than resort to taking matters into our own hands in a more forceful way.

I would argue that all of us know what the line of acceptable social behaviour is, and if and when we do deviate from it, it is only in marginal ways. Inside the privacy of our communities and homes, we are free to rave and rant about perceived injustices against our race, religion or the boss, but we are very aware of what to say and do in public.

This restraint is the product of three forces; the exposure to extreme violence in the outside world, the absence of any comparable violence in Malaysia and the close proximity to each other of the different races and religions. This unique conflation makes us recognise the value of what we have and what we have to do to maintain it

We look at the world around us and realise that compared to a lot of other parts of the world, we are fortunate indeed to live in a society such as ours. We are literally a world away from the endemic gangland violence of Los Angeles as depicted in The Shield or the genocides of Africa or the communal riots in the Indian subcontinent.

This awareness of the world around us creates the desire to maintain the peaceful status quo we enjoy. However, we are not immune to the pressures of living in a society surrounded by people with different habits, faiths, customs and behaviour. Fireworks that are a celebration to some are noise pollution to others. Eating food that some think of as a delicacy is an act of sacrilege to others. What is affirmative action to some is discrimination to others. Over the years we have evolved mechanisms that allow us to compromise and still live together without recourse to systemic and pervasive violence. But that does not mean that the pressures have vanished. This is where the role of symbols comes into focus.

Symbols allow us to express ourselves without giving offence. A flowing beard or mini skirts in certain contexts are enough to ward off a potential conflict of views and beliefs. They are shorthand for what way of life we believe in which is not open for debate. Symbolic acts in this sense serve as safety valves to release the tensions and stresses of maintaining the peace.

* The views expressed here are the personal opinion of the columnist.

The Janus head of communal attitudes in India

2010-03-06T08:39:00.001+08:00

Contemporary wisdom has us believe that with the rise of our economy and the pressures of globalization and high growth, traditional barriers of caste, community and culture in India are breaking down.

In actual fact the shifts in mindset are more subtle and more continuous than discrete. Traditionally, our feudal identity was our primary self of self and the behaviour codes enjoined on us by the caste or tribe were the default arbiters of all our social interactions. Our caste and faith affiliations at birth determined every aspect of our life, whether it was where to live or work, who our friends were, what we ate and drank, to who we married. Now it appears that these things are a dusty dream, soon to be forgotten in the glorious vision of a progressive, shiny, united, inclusive and growing economy and society.

The problem with this approach is that it links economic change linearly with social change. If this was correct, we should be witnessing in tandem with economic growth, a commensurate drop in conservatism of the extreme kind fueled by feudal tendencies. We should be feeling the whiff of a more open, tolerant and flexible social structure, one that is shedding its inward looking insularity.

But if anything, these voices are getting ever shriller, community based marriages are still the norm, suspicion between communities and faiths in social settings is as strong as ever, and we seem to have more pejorative terms for “other” Indian cultures than ever before. Paradoxically, we are more open and accepting than ever before of these “others” in certain situations, such as the workplace, in our interactions at the marketplace, in the entertainment arena, in the way we dress for the outside world, and in our schools and colleges.

What is happening is that contrary to popular discourse, we are actually raising higher and higher walls of communalism, but they are not between us and the world, they are between our private and public selves. Today, the economic sphere and the opportunities that it has suddenly thrown open are forcing us to leave our prejudices at home if we are to partake of these opportunities. But we have not abandoned these attitudes entirely; we have just shifted them behind walls, where only like minded people sharing the same feudal attributes are welcome. The explosive growth of community based television and that of economic news media, are two sides of the same coin.

The blink and you miss rate of change in the economy has a very small relation to how traditional social structure changes. While economic change is often disruptive and discrete, social change is almost always cautious, continuous and slow. The real social change has come about in our ability to expand the arenas of both our private and public selves to accommodate changes imposed on us. Where earlier restraint characterized our social selves entirely, today we are more strident and confident in our private feudal identity as well as in our public cosmopolitan identity.

While at one level the wall dividing these identities has become stronger, there are significant ways in which the secular nature of the economic discourse is wearing away at feudal structures. It is precisely because of these inroads that the walls get built ever higher. If one inter faith couple elopes, the penalties for all the others multiply.

To conclude, if the current economic trajectory becomes a permanent feature, expect social change, but slowly and incrementally, rather than at the pace of economic change.

2010-03-03T10:53:00.000+08:00

The Typology of Facebook Posts

At the risk of losing all my so-called friends on FB, in another manifestation of the seven typology (everything comes in sevens) here are seven categories of FB Posts gleaned from my own account

1. Thought for the day- This variety of post is where a seemingly familar phrase/ quote is subtly altered to apparently evoke admiration in the audience as to the authors wit, intelligence and all round smarts. E.g "By a sudden and adroit movement I placed my left eye against his fist" or "Honesty is the best policy, but insanity is a better defense"

2. Inane minutaie of life- bathing the baby, grocery shopping, landed in london- you get the drift. Also known as the bore. "SH!T !!! I am still awake!!!" or " haiyah! so many things to do worr"

3. The picture fanatic- bathing the baby, grocery shopping, landed in london, but now with a hundred pictures. Nothing actually happens unless its photographed. The hidden Japanese in us. " My daughters 3rd Birthday" " Old school snaps". But the worst has to be " I just discovered a daily photo"

4. Farm Willies and Mafia Dicks- Where you take a farm, add some goons and all the horoscopes and crystal balls and psychics to the mix and end up in Cafe World

5. Completely incomprehensible- Examples-"In covalent bonding, the atoms that bond share two electrons, regardless of whether they are shaken or stirred!" or "Minnie mouse has a sore throat. So much for the entertainment today." or this one " had a blast in Bali with Corey Lolley, where we kicked it with much Bintang and Arak Attack, Black Stallion and Pink Pony, monologueing Lupus who put a ring on it, Babi Guling, and proved that human beings cannot resist the awesome power of the High Five." WTF??

6. Socio-Political sharers and do gooders-My politics is everybody's or should be, or how well read am I, asked the geek. #1-posts from TED, put up by me! Followed by the most esoteric crap I found on the web today "Making of-The world's biggest signpost" and finally I joined the group " Hope for Haiti-India cares"

7. Finally, the post-on-post- people who have to comment on everybody else's comments
"begum abida parveen at jahaan-e-khusro. mind blowing." followed by "i like this bcoz Shveta likes this... :)" what?

Enter your 8th here....